apparently they are going to stop making them because they are too firm and don't pass the stiffness test.
Cgkdisc *Ace Member*
Speaking only from the Tech Standards standpoint (not Rules), we get discs reported to us to check out and Jason at the IDGC randomly tests production discs sold there which I believe covers most of the manufacturer models when available. Dave at Gateway was concerned he was being called out unfairly but agreed with test results on those discs. He and others have claimed discs from other manufacturers would probably not pass the flex test. We agreed that could be true and offered him the opportunity to specify models we should check. He has not yet indicated any models.
While it's easy to be more black & white whether a disc meets tech specs or not in the lab, it's a whole different issue to handle it in the field from a rules standpoint. I'm concerned about the change in the 2013 rules and the likelihood there may be more confrontations on disc legality. We'll see.
From a practical standpoint, I understand why it doesn't make as much sense to worry about flex on a putter versus a driver. We faced the same question when the blanket 150g weight limit for all discs was being considered in the early 90s for discs in Japan. At the time, I think it was considered a gnarly mess to develop some sort of damage force test for discs that would set some sort of magic standard for the maximum impact of the combination of weight, edge and flex that would be allowed. It would still be gnarly today. And, I suspect the idea was/is not to raise the specter that some discs might be less safe than others from a legal perspective.
Cgkdisc *Ace Member*
Speaking only from the Tech Standards standpoint (not Rules), we get discs reported to us to check out and Jason at the IDGC randomly tests production discs sold there which I believe covers most of the manufacturer models when available. Dave at Gateway was concerned he was being called out unfairly but agreed with test results on those discs. He and others have claimed discs from other manufacturers would probably not pass the flex test. We agreed that could be true and offered him the opportunity to specify models we should check. He has not yet indicated any models.
While it's easy to be more black & white whether a disc meets tech specs or not in the lab, it's a whole different issue to handle it in the field from a rules standpoint. I'm concerned about the change in the 2013 rules and the likelihood there may be more confrontations on disc legality. We'll see.
From a practical standpoint, I understand why it doesn't make as much sense to worry about flex on a putter versus a driver. We faced the same question when the blanket 150g weight limit for all discs was being considered in the early 90s for discs in Japan. At the time, I think it was considered a gnarly mess to develop some sort of damage force test for discs that would set some sort of magic standard for the maximum impact of the combination of weight, edge and flex that would be allowed. It would still be gnarly today. And, I suspect the idea was/is not to raise the specter that some discs might be less safe than others from a legal perspective.
First time I saw a disc labeled Super Stupid Soft I was expecting the most ridiculous thing ever, and then realized it was almost more firm than most of the other putters on the market... Picked up a medium and was shocked. I now have put 2 and 2 together and wonder why I didn't buy that Medium when I picked it up the first time...
