My KC Pro Roc flies like a brick

[NWcityguy2]

I bought a KC Pro Roc to compliment my Comet and replace my old and beat up DX Shark. What I was hoping for was a general purpose mid-range that finishes to the left, what I got was a disc that hyzers and falls to the ground the second it runs out it's initial burst of stream from my throw. My comet will float seemingly forever, and my shark ain't to shabby either. I can put a lot more power behind the Roc then I can my Comet/Shark, but I don't pick up any more distance because of it. Doing a full X step I can throw my Shark around 250 feet and about 200 feet from just standing. What I was hoping to get out of the Roc was something similar but a little more fade, and something a bit longer lasting then DX.

Right now the most logical route seems to be get another Shark but just in a higher quality plastic. But first I'd like to see if anyone else has another recommendation.

 

[Frank Delicious]

what weight is the roc?

 

[NWcityguy2]

176

 

[Frank Delicious]

Well you should be in the low 170s at your distance and more importantly, KC rocs start out quite overstable and take a while to break in to the sweet spot. Keep the roc in the bag as your overstable mid and let it beat in, eventually it will get there.

 

[love2dg]

KC Pros will take take time to get prefect beaten to flow a slow motion of straight line.

You could use DX Roc to beat it up quite faster and you'd have same one. I already aced with my DX Roc also a machine of deuces.

You got to work on those Rocs because they will step up to your level.

 

[NWcityguy2]

So is a beat version of my disc going to have more glide and distance, or is it just going to be less stable?

Also the reason I selected 176 as a weight is because that is what my Shark is. The Shark I have no problem throwing but the Roc with the same power looks like it is pulled to the ground while the shark gently falls.

 

[rehder]

The reason Frank recommends a lower weight is because you could gain more distance from your midrange. Say around 270-300 should be a reachable distance for most amateurs with their midrange discs. Pros and good ams will typically have a midrange game that extends out to about 360. (They can throw them further, but typically dont use them for throws longer than that.)

 

[discspeed]

Dude, just get another Shark. Disc golf is more fun with discs that actually fly.

 

[millsbury]

Just keep the roc for more overstable shots OR get a newer shark for those shots. New/heavy or premium plastic sharks are about as stable as rocs anyway. I assume the shark you currently use is DX and somewhat broken in?

 

[Trey1331]

Send me your roc, and i'll send you a buzz.

 

[Frank Delicious]

Dude, just get another Shark. Disc golf is more fun with discs that actually fly.

this is also true, if it ain't broke don't fix it

 

[NWcityguy2]

Yeah I'm going to probably go with another shark. I'll throw the Roc in the practice bucket and break it out down the road when I've developed my game a bit more. Thanks for the advice guys.

 

[Crimson75]

So is a beat version of my disc going to have more glide and distance, or is it just going to be less stable?

Also the reason I selected 176 as a weight is because that is what my Shark is. The Shark I have no problem throwing but the Roc with the same power looks like it is pulled to the ground while the shark gently falls.

The flight ratings "formula" rarely takes the plastic type into account....

First, there is nothing wrong with a shark although 1000 people will tell you there is....

Second, buy your mids in DX as a general rule to incorporate the break-in factor

Third, listen to discspeed...have fun or don't throw!

Keep us all updated as to your choice and let us know how you are progressing..

 

[NWcityguy2]

Yeah I'll be around. I bought my first disc back in 2002 and have been playing casually off and on since then, but lately it has become my main hobby. This site and discraft's videos have been great on teaching me things I never would of figured out on my own.