(I can't believe I'm chiming in on a Roc vs. Buzz thread)...
But I feel like Cfair needs a defense. Anyone quoting Blake mindlessly is or as gospel needs some help. But I thought Cfair did a good job citing how his own experience compared to Blake's assessment. In this case, agreeing because of independent assessment. And as someone who has been playing almost 14 years, and who's had at least one Buzz and one Roc in my bag almost every round I've played since the Buzz was released, I feel I can comment independently, based on my own experience.
And I think the problem in this is not that Blake is right or wrong in his assessment, it's that some people may not use his same criteria for an ideal midrange. Look back at the original criteria offered:
4 things you want from a midrange and driving putter:
1. high speed stable: it shouldn't turn.
2. predictable low speed fade without being overbearing: it should fade every time, but by a reasonable amount.
3. range control. it shouldn't be difficult to manipulate the disc's range.
4. carry. given the speed range of "midrange" discs how far do the discs carry. note: i separate this from glide because floaty understable discs often have the best glide but terrible "carry."
If you're criteria for what you want in a midrange is different from the criteria proposed here, then you end up arguing about apples and oranges. If I were going to define an ideal midrange, I'd probably use slightly different criteria. I'd say the four things that matter most to me on a midrange are: 1)ability to hold a line, 2)range control 3) wind performance 4) carry.
Those criteria are different than Blake's criteria, so I'd get different scoring and different results of which disc ranked higher in my criteria.
I'm guessing that most of the debate about Roc vs. Buzz is because people have their own criteria of what makes an ideal midrange disc. And if your criteria is different from someone else's criteria, then you can't really have a debate because you are both working from different premises. It's like saying: "Mayonnaise is better on sandwiches!" and someone arguing that "NO!, Mustard is better on sandwiches!" when in reality, the mayonnaise guy is talking about turkey sandwiches and the mustard guy is talking about roast beef sandwiches... maybe if they realized they were talking about different sandwiches -- different criteria for "better" -- they'd be able to have a better discussion.
So I advise people to preface their "Roc/Buzz is better" arguments with a little context on what your ideal midrange is... and why disc X fits that criteria better than disc Y.
But I feel like Cfair needs a defense. Anyone quoting Blake mindlessly is or as gospel needs some help. But I thought Cfair did a good job citing how his own experience compared to Blake's assessment. In this case, agreeing because of independent assessment. And as someone who has been playing almost 14 years, and who's had at least one Buzz and one Roc in my bag almost every round I've played since the Buzz was released, I feel I can comment independently, based on my own experience.
And I think the problem in this is not that Blake is right or wrong in his assessment, it's that some people may not use his same criteria for an ideal midrange. Look back at the original criteria offered:
4 things you want from a midrange and driving putter:
1. high speed stable: it shouldn't turn.
2. predictable low speed fade without being overbearing: it should fade every time, but by a reasonable amount.
3. range control. it shouldn't be difficult to manipulate the disc's range.
4. carry. given the speed range of "midrange" discs how far do the discs carry. note: i separate this from glide because floaty understable discs often have the best glide but terrible "carry."
If you're criteria for what you want in a midrange is different from the criteria proposed here, then you end up arguing about apples and oranges. If I were going to define an ideal midrange, I'd probably use slightly different criteria. I'd say the four things that matter most to me on a midrange are: 1)ability to hold a line, 2)range control 3) wind performance 4) carry.
Those criteria are different than Blake's criteria, so I'd get different scoring and different results of which disc ranked higher in my criteria.
I'm guessing that most of the debate about Roc vs. Buzz is because people have their own criteria of what makes an ideal midrange disc. And if your criteria is different from someone else's criteria, then you can't really have a debate because you are both working from different premises. It's like saying: "Mayonnaise is better on sandwiches!" and someone arguing that "NO!, Mustard is better on sandwiches!" when in reality, the mayonnaise guy is talking about turkey sandwiches and the mustard guy is talking about roast beef sandwiches... maybe if they realized they were talking about different sandwiches -- different criteria for "better" -- they'd be able to have a better discussion.
So I advise people to preface their "Roc/Buzz is better" arguments with a little context on what your ideal midrange is... and why disc X fits that criteria better than disc Y.