The Straightest driver on the market

[DiscChucker]

My friends and I have rented a stadium football field multiple times, and done a lot of statistical analysis of our throws. We throw a wide variety of plastic, multiple times each, and over a series of weeks collected a fair bit of data. We've also thrown in a variety of wind-conditions. Then we go spreadsheet crazy on it (we're all programmers).

End result of this was a lot of really interesting data. Most of us throw about the same length, with 360' being at the very top end, 300' being the average. 360' is the back of the other end zone. There is a fence that runs around the field, and that's around 390' from our throwing points. I hit the fence on the fly, once, with a 150g Beast. That particular throw would have gone 400, not including skip. It is (and continues to be) the longest throw of my 4 year career.

I can now say that I throw about 300', with hours and hours of data, and that a great throw is 360', and I topped out at 400'. I can also say that I have been slowly replacing my entire bag with different discs (slower) because of this data.

As a gross generalization:

- In a tailwind or crosswind, low-speed discs did MUCH better. I believe that the disc production companies like Innova are laughing all the way to the bank as they sell more and more Bosses and Grooves to amateurs like us. Light-weight discs also did MUCH better. Low-speed light-weight discs dominated the longest throws by far. That's to be expected perhaps, but to realize that nearly everone threw a 150g Archangel further than any Boss or Groove or Destroyer just goes to show that new technology does not equal distance. All the evidence shows exactly the opposite. My single suggestion to new players is don't buy anything fast. You simply won't have the spin on the disc to be successful (I believe needed spin is directly proportional to disc weight).

- However, higher speed discs did help into a headwind.

- In a tailwind, the order of importance was: weight, lower speed, and stability.

- In a headwind, the order of importance was: higher speed, stability, and weight.


My straightest flying disc is my Dart, but for a driver I would throw a TL on a narrow flat fairway.

My hats off to you and your friends! There's nothing I get into more than seeing statistical data showing real world numbers. I'm especially impressed that you gathered this data over the course of several weeks rather than a single one day session. I would love to see your spreadsheets on this.

That's great to see that the results are driving your disc selection. I have a feeling that I would come to some of the same conclusions if I did an intense study on my discs/distances. In a very basic way, I've recently discovered that the "newer" technology discs aren't doing squat for improving my distances.

After about a ten year hiatus, I just started playing disc golf again. Obviously my bag is loaded with a bunch of old plastic (DX was the only thing available back then). My main go to discs are a 181 gram Scorpion (I've had since '95) and a 180 gram Python. After reading all of the big arm testimonials on the Internet and especially the marketing hype from the disc manufacturers, the overwhelming impression that I got was that the old school plastic was my biggest handicap. It seems that the marketing folks are pushing speed as the most important driving mechanic for greater distance.

With some league points, I recently picked up a Beast. Now this is by no means the fastest disc on the market but in comparison to my Scorpion and Python, its speed rating is much, much higher. By today's standards, I'm sure my old distance drivers are classified as mid range discs today.

I headed out to the soccer field and threw my discs for about two hours. Honestly, I was expecting a minimum of at least a 30' improvement with the Beast. This was anything but the case. I was consistently throwing farther with the Scorpion and Python. Talk about a disappointment. But I've always been of the mindset that newer is not always better. There was one bright side to this experience. With the Beast I can now use an overhand and a forehand throw. This was something I could never do with any of my old discs.

So, for now, this able bodied male is still only able to consistently throw 250'-275' and occasionally 300'+. But that's okay, because honestly, I've only ever played one course that was open enough to allow you to just grip and rip and that's Old Settlers Park in Round Rock, Texas. I've yet to see anyone who can throw a 350' drive that can maneuver through the maze of trees I've seen on most courses; especially here in Charlotte.

Now I know a lot of it has to do with proper technique when it comes to long drives. That's something I need to focus on. It's difficult to undo years of self taught bad habits. In fact, the grip I use isn't even on the DGR website. Maybe that's an indication of my poor technique or lack there of.

I also thought it was interesting that your data showed light weight discs did much better. It just so happens that I was talking to a guy last night that works in the disc golf industry, and he said the heavier discs were highly over rated. He said he felt that the ideal disc weight is in the low 160's. I think his view has some validity to it as he can throw 400' and he is by no means a big guy (more proof that proper technique is critical).

Anyway, I appreciate you sharing your findings. I felt your final summation to be invaluable. Not just for noobies but for old schoolers like myself.

 

[A.Mutt]

My friends and I have rented a stadium football field multiple times, and done a lot of statistical analysis of our throws. We throw a wide variety of plastic, multiple times each, and over a series of weeks collected a fair bit of data. We've also thrown in a variety of wind-conditions. Then we go spreadsheet crazy on it (we're all programmers).

End result of this was a lot of really interesting data. Most of us throw about the same length, with 360' being at the very top end, 300' being the average. 360' is the back of the other end zone. There is a fence that runs around the field, and that's around 390' from our throwing points. I hit the fence on the fly, once, with a 150g Beast. That particular throw would have gone 400, not including skip. It is (and continues to be) the longest throw of my 4 year career.

I can now say that I throw about 300', with hours and hours of data, and that a great throw is 360', and I topped out at 400'. I can also say that I have been slowly replacing my entire bag with different discs (slower) because of this data.

As a gross generalization:

- In a tailwind or crosswind, low-speed discs did MUCH better. I believe that the disc production companies like Innova are laughing all the way to the bank as they sell more and more Bosses and Grooves to amateurs like us. Light-weight discs also did MUCH better. Low-speed light-weight discs dominated the longest throws by far. That's to be expected perhaps, but to realize that nearly everone threw a 150g Archangel further than any Boss or Groove or Destroyer just goes to show that new technology does not equal distance. All the evidence shows exactly the opposite. My single suggestion to new players is don't buy anything fast. You simply won't have the spin on the disc to be successful (I believe needed spin is directly proportional to disc weight).

- However, higher speed discs did help into a headwind.

- In a tailwind, the order of importance was: weight, lower speed, and stability.

- In a headwind, the order of importance was: higher speed, stability, and weight.


My straightest flying disc is my Dart, but for a driver I would throw a TL on a narrow flat fairway.

My hats off as well. I do have a question though. Am I correct in assuming that all the data was from backhand throws?

 

[Tiggertooth]

Anyway, I appreciate you sharing your findings. I felt your final summation to be invaluable. Not just for noobies but for old schoolers like myself.

Thanks for the positive feedback. We had a blast doing it. I think we all learned a lot of surprising things out there. If anyone else wants to try something like this, here are my suggestions:

1) Find a nearby community that holds football leagues. We went with Carrollton, TX, here in Dallas. They have a great community stadium, that is very well marked and kept, and they rent it out for very cheap. It was like $80 for 2 hours.

2) Take the time to write up some sort of document with the names of all the discs, their color and weight, before hand. Photocopy these and bring a clipboard.

3) Ask the parks department if you can use the football cones and markers. Put those at the 50yd marker and then every 10yds going into the opposing end-zone. If you can't get these, no worries, you just have to be more diligent.

4) Bring a duffel bag. And ideally at least 4 friends. But you can do it with 2.

5) Collect all the discs at one end, and choose a thrower and a writer. Any remaining people go out into the field with the duffel bag.

6) The thrower picks up a disc, calls out name and color, and throws.

7) Writer marks quality of throw however you want to measure it. We had a single letter abbreviation for NoseUp, Flat, NoseDown, and likewise for Hyzer, Flat, and Anhyzer. We also captured where it ended up on the field OBLeft, Far Left, Left, Middle, Right, Far Right, OBRight. I'm not getting our notation correct here, but just know ahead of time what you want to capture. We had a spreadsheet with all the columns marked for every possibility. So the writer just had to put a check mark or X in the column for each category. So the Nose Angle section had 3 columns (Up, Flat, and Down) and then you'd put the X in the right one. Sounds bleeding obvious I know, but we actually didn't do this the first time out and it was a mess.

8) People in the field move to the disc as fast as possible, and then step off the distance. No distance is measured for left to right. So if your disc went diagonally, we only measured straight distance. But we did capture that it ended up diagonal in where it landed (see #7). Once the distance is known, call it out at the very top of your lungs. This was, by far, the hardest part of the whole thing. Might be better to have those people have some sort of pencil and paper and then reconcile the distances later.

9) We also took notes on each line, like "Terrible throw, bad footwork" or whatever. That ended up having some surprising results, because there were certainly trends.

10) Find someone who likes to do spreadsheets and plug it all in. If you don't have access to a spreadsheet (there are free ones online), or are uncomfortable with them, then you'll just have to sort of scan the data and figure out the trends yourself. But it isn't too hard, just a little scary if you've not done that sort of thing.

11) Make sure you lock up and treat the equipment, park, and the parks people really nice. We found that once they got to know us, they'd let us stay in the stadium all day long. I think they appreciated it was getting used, and we were very good about everything.

12) Throw all the discs (I'd suggest a max of 20; we did 25 and the last few drives each round really hurt.) and then writer and thrower swap. Then these two swap with those in field. You could do all this by yourself, just more disjointed.

13) Try to throw consistently hard. You're really trying to measure distance. But if you try to bomb every one, you might have inaccuracy that does more damage to the results than its worth. You're really trying to get valid data.

14) Throw backhand against the wind, forehand against the wind, backhand with the wind, forehand with the wind.

15) Consider not throwing discs that are very similar. It might be interesting to see the difference between a DX and Champion version of something, but you'd probably be better off comparing two different discs with different weights, speeds, behaviors, etc. We argued about this--so who knows.

16) The writer should estimate and note the wind conditions for each thrower (North, Headwind, 5-10mph).

That all sounds obvious probably, but we definitely had to stumble into each one of those steps. The duffel bag saves a lot of time. The pre-made sheet saves a ton of time. Don't "throw" the discs back to the thrower; they'll just go all over the places and you'll spend more time getting them. When a disc is thrown, whomever is closes goes to get it and call out the distance and the other person moves to the duffel bag (which is in the center of the field). Then you can throw the disc to the person near the duffel who puts it in.

The writer will be the slowest person in the group. Part of the problem is that we didn't throw the discs in order, so most of the writer's precious seconds were trying to find the 167 Orange Monarch or whatever. Then they watch the throw, and the writer and thrower agree on the results (that was good, slightly nose up, left). Then the writer tries to notate that as fast as possible, being done when they here "85!" or whatever.

We called out the distance in yards. This was easiest for the people in the field (since it was marked as such). So if you threw the disc to the 90 yard line, we'd call out 90! And that's what we would write down. If you threw it to the other end zone, we'd call out 110!

But when entering the data into the spreadsheet, we'd convert the yardage to feet, then add 30 feet for the end zone we started behind. So that 110 turns into 330 + 30 or 360.





And welcome back to Disc Golf =)

 

[Tiggertooth]

"here" should have been "hear" late in that post.

 

[Tiggertooth]

My hats off as well. I do have a question though. Am I correct in assuming that all the data was from backhand throws?

No, we collected forehand and backhand throws. However, I only throw LHBH, so for me in particular the data was very limited. But the other guys can throw both.

Ken

 

[A.Mutt]

Good to know. Did you find a significant difference in data from BH to FH? I've started to figure out my FH and finding success with discs I couldn't handle backhand.

 

[DiscChucker]

Now that's what I call documentation. It looks like you captured every possible variable. Very, very impressive. The process you've outlined is very consistent so it seems that there is little chance of error during the recording process. You bring up a good point about having to yell out the numbers. I think I would take some two way radios for the communication factor.

If you hadn't said you were a programmer I would have guessed either that or an engineer. Very analytical stuff.

What a great post!

 

[Tiggertooth]

Good to know. Did you find a significant difference in data from BH to FH? I've started to figure out my FH and finding success with discs I couldn't handle backhand.

Well, I didn't actually pay too much attention to the Forehand data, as I'm so bad at it (I mean, really bad.) However, I do remember that the variance on Forehand drives was greater than the variance on Backhand.

So the variance was interesting. It boiled down to the fact that if he wanted to throw his farthest, then he should throw forehand. But that in doing so he add a huge risk that it wouldn't even go 200ft. So he was better off going backhand. (I think distance variance and center variance are two of the most important factors to capture.)

But, take my comments on forehand with a grain of salt. It wasn't something I participated in, we didn't do as much of it, and I didn't pay a lot of attention.

 

[Rbuzz9]

wow that's pretty awesome stuff - Well done and DAMMIT i want to go out and buy some 160g pro d & dx drivers

 

[BrotherDave]

That is interesting stuff, I've never thrown on a football field but my practice field is actually a hay field that my dad uses for a firing range. Throwing from his bench to the berm is exactly 300' he says and I take his word for it because he's pretty much the go to guy in our area for sighting in rifles, he's a serious bullet velocity nut. Anyway, it takes all I've got to throw it to the berm because it is slightly uphill, back down I can hit 325' fairly consistently. But yeah, actual distances can be ego crushing.

 

[trashmonster1985]

My friends and I have rented a stadium football field multiple times, and done a lot of statistical analysis of our throws. We throw a wide variety of plastic, multiple times each, and over a series of weeks collected a fair bit of data. We've also thrown in a variety of wind-conditions. Then we go spreadsheet crazy on it (we're all programmers).

End result of this was a lot of really interesting data. Most of us throw about the same length, with 360' being at the very top end, 300' being the average. 360' is the back of the other end zone. There is a fence that runs around the field, and that's around 390' from our throwing points. I hit the fence on the fly, once, with a 150g Beast. That particular throw would have gone 400, not including skip. It is (and continues to be) the longest throw of my 4 year career.

I can now say that I throw about 300', with hours and hours of data, and that a great throw is 360', and I topped out at 400'. I can also say that I have been slowly replacing my entire bag with different discs (slower) because of this data.

As a gross generalization:

- In a tailwind or crosswind, low-speed discs did MUCH better. I believe that the disc production companies like Innova are laughing all the way to the bank as they sell more and more Bosses and Grooves to amateurs like us. Light-weight discs also did MUCH better. Low-speed light-weight discs dominated the longest throws by far. That's to be expected perhaps, but to realize that nearly everone threw a 150g Archangel further than any Boss or Groove or Destroyer just goes to show that new technology does not equal distance. All the evidence shows exactly the opposite. My single suggestion to new players is don't buy anything fast. You simply won't have the spin on the disc to be successful (I believe needed spin is directly proportional to disc weight).

- However, higher speed discs did help into a headwind.

- In a tailwind, the order of importance was: weight, lower speed, and stability.

- In a headwind, the order of importance was: higher speed, stability, and weight.


My straightest flying disc is my Dart, but for a driver I would throw a TL on a narrow flat fairway.

well... all the data, and documentation is great but at the same time, individual throwing style, size, and technique make the whole thing kind of unnecessary. the only way to take out those variables would be a machine, or 100 golfers, all ranging in abilities, and days upon days of data gathering. but that would be frivoulous as well. so needless to say i commend you on the research, but when it comes down to it, we are still just flinging frisbees at metal so the variables are way too many to contain.

good research though, fun idea.

 

[bongripper0420]

Try a viking. Holds a real nice straight line.

 

[DiscChucker]

well... all the data, and documentation is great but at the same time, individual throwing style, size, and technique make the whole thing kind of unnecessary. the only way to take out those variables would be a machine, or 100 golfers, all ranging in abilities, and days upon days of data gathering. but that would be frivoulous as well. so needless to say i commend you on the research, but when it comes down to it, we are still just flinging frisbees at metal so the variables are way too many to contain.

good research though, fun idea.

I would beg to differ. Each participant in his study would be evaluated solely on his performance. The data that is recorded for each person is going to reflect that individuals results for his given style, size and technique for each disc thrown. The object is to calculate the percentage difference between distances of all discs thrown by each subject. Based on the results, it may show a consistent trend among all participants that a disc(s) achieves a greater or less than average distance compared to other discs.

A machine is certainly going to narrow down the variables and allow you to study the flight of a disc throw after throw. I can see this being important to the design engineer who who is creating a new mold. However, that's not at all what is being captured in this scenario. Here, you have a broader picture of real world performance of a disc based on actual human mechanics. I don't know of anyone who can throw any two throws identically like you can expect with a machine. That should illustrate a clear comparison of apples to oranges. And honestly, you want those variables of the human mechanics. You say "the variables are way too many" yet you didn't mention a single one. I would have to hear what those variables actually are to be able to say whether or not they bear any significance.

You say days and days are needed. Well, I give the man credit in that he conducted the study over the course of weeks and not just a one day session. Naturally more sessions are going to give you better granularity with the final data set. Tiggertooth never said specifically how many sessions he conducted but I'm sure he took into account that he would need more than a couple of sessions to produce a meaningful standard deviation and mean.

And lastly, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment that "we are still just flinging frisbees at metal." That may be the case for some people that play disc golf but I don't think it reflects at all the vast majority of the people that post on this site. I doubt those people that are playing competitively see it that way. That's just too aloof of an attitude to have when playing in a league or tourney. Also, just looking at these forums alone indicates that people are continually looking for that "special" disc. A disc that consistently performs and stays true to a line. I believe most people here strive to improve their game otherwise we wouldn't see posts about aces, straight flying discs, disc that are best for a particular type of throw, the best putter, the best mid range, the best driver, etc. Too many of us here are addicted to the game to just nonchalantly fling our frisbees at metal.

Statistics are a key element in studying behaviors, processes, and mechanics. You would be amazed, no, shocked to know the extent statistics are used in the world around us. Very rarely is there ever such a thing as too many variables to formulate a statistical analysis and calculation. Tiggertooth is the first person I've ever heard of, outside of the disc golf industry, that has gone to such great lengths to measure and compare discs. That is true dedication, desire, and I'm sure a healthy amount of addiction.

Statistics are the foundation in all sports. Look at it in this simplest of terms. Were it not for statistics, fantasy sports leagues would be boring, if not totally nonexistent.

Vegas wouldn't exist.

Google wouldn't be what it is today. On and on and on.

And finally, off the topic of disc golf, may I suggest a really good read, "Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-by-Numbers Is the New Way to Be Smart." A real eye opener and surprisingly not boring. It touches on several real world uses of statistical analysis that affects all of us.

 

[Cradical]

I fully agree with you discchucker. I myself have gone somewhere and thrown every disc I own as hard as I can to see which one will go the furthest and the straightest or the best hyzer or anhyzer or the lowest shot that still had a lot of distance.
In terms of variables, being a super nerd, I would probably try to add in humidity as well as temperature. When it gets really humid, it seems to flip all my discs right over into rollers. Same thing happens when it's cold. I guess my question would be do you get better distance if it's humid or if it's not humid, if you have perfect throws for each? Same for being cold and warm?

 

[trashmonster1985]

I would beg to differ. Each participant in his study would be evaluated solely on his performance. The data that is recorded for each person is going to reflect that individuals results for his given style, size and technique for each disc thrown. The object is to calculate the percentage difference between distances of all discs thrown by each subject. Based on the results, it may show a consistent trend among all participants that a disc(s) achieves a greater or less than average distance compared to other discs.

A machine is certainly going to narrow down the variables and allow you to study the flight of a disc throw after throw. I can see this being important to the design engineer who who is creating a new mold. However, that's not at all what is being captured in this scenario. Here, you have a broader picture of real world performance of a disc based on actual human mechanics. I don't know of anyone who can throw any two throws identically like you can expect with a machine. That should illustrate a clear comparison of apples to oranges. And honestly, you want those variables of the human mechanics. You say "the variables are way too many" yet you didn't mention a single one. I would have to hear what those variables actually are to be able to say whether or not they bear any significance.

You say days and days are needed. Well, I give the man credit in that he conducted the study over the course of weeks and not just a one day session. Naturally more sessions are going to give you better granularity with the final data set. Tiggertooth never said specifically how many sessions he conducted but I'm sure he took into account that he would need more than a couple of sessions to produce a meaningful standard deviation and mean.

And lastly, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment that "we are still just flinging frisbees at metal." That may be the case for some people that play disc golf but I don't think it reflects at all the vast majority of the people that post on this site. I doubt those people that are playing competitively see it that way. That's just too aloof of an attitude to have when playing in a league or tourney. Also, just looking at these forums alone indicates that people are continually looking for that "special" disc. A disc that consistently performs and stays true to a line. I believe most people here strive to improve their game otherwise we wouldn't see posts about aces, straight flying discs, disc that are best for a particular type of throw, the best putter, the best mid range, the best driver, etc. Too many of us here are addicted to the game to just nonchalantly fling our frisbees at metal.

Statistics are a key element in studying behaviors, processes, and mechanics. You would be amazed, no, shocked to know the extent statistics are used in the world around us. Very rarely is there ever such a thing as too many variables to formulate a statistical analysis and calculation. Tiggertooth is the first person I've ever heard of, outside of the disc golf industry, that has gone to such great lengths to measure and compare discs. That is true dedication, desire, and I'm sure a healthy amount of addiction.

Statistics are the foundation in all sports. Look at it in this simplest of terms. Were it not for statistics, fantasy sports leagues would be boring, if not totally nonexistent.

Vegas wouldn't exist.

Google wouldn't be what it is today. On and on and on.

And finally, off the topic of disc golf, may I suggest a really good read, "Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-by-Numbers Is the New Way to Be Smart." A real eye opener and surprisingly not boring. It touches on several real world uses of statistical analysis that affects all of us.

wow... i guess you win that one, i personally am not a robot so i don't use a numbering system for everything in my life. and just because i "just fling frisbees at metal" don't confuse that with a lack of respect for the game, or experience. i love this sport and play it no end, but in your own statements you made my point. "I don't know of anyone who can throw any two throws identically like you can expect with a machine." that's what i mean by variables. you want another one? every disc is different, if a disc has been used a couples days it starts to wear in and change. so each individuals style would alter how far each individual disc will fly. i realize there is a lot of physics to a disc that i don't understand, but even the most well researched "statistic" is only as good as the individual taking it. that is all i am saying the process was probably fun but in reality not really useful to myself. (or most of the people i know) while we are on the subject though, it's all of this "real world" statistical crap that has turned us into a bunch of brain-dead, asses as it is, so as far as i am concerned keep that crap away from my frolf!

 

[mashnut]

My friends and I have rented a stadium football field multiple times, and done a lot of statistical analysis of our throws. We throw a wide variety of plastic, multiple times each, and over a series of weeks collected a fair bit of data. We've also thrown in a variety of wind-conditions. Then we go spreadsheet crazy on it (we're all programmers).

End result of this was a lot of really interesting data. Most of us throw about the same length, with 360' being at the very top end, 300' being the average. 360' is the back of the other end zone. There is a fence that runs around the field, and that's around 390' from our throwing points. I hit the fence on the fly, once, with a 150g Beast. That particular throw would have gone 400, not including skip. It is (and continues to be) the longest throw of my 4 year career.

I can now say that I throw about 300', with hours and hours of data, and that a great throw is 360', and I topped out at 400'. I can also say that I have been slowly replacing my entire bag with different discs (slower) because of this data.

As a gross generalization:

- In a tailwind or crosswind, low-speed discs did MUCH better. I believe that the disc production companies like Innova are laughing all the way to the bank as they sell more and more Bosses and Grooves to amateurs like us. Light-weight discs also did MUCH better. Low-speed light-weight discs dominated the longest throws by far. That's to be expected perhaps, but to realize that nearly everone threw a 150g Archangel further than any Boss or Groove or Destroyer just goes to show that new technology does not equal distance. All the evidence shows exactly the opposite. My single suggestion to new players is don't buy anything fast. You simply won't have the spin on the disc to be successful (I believe needed spin is directly proportional to disc weight).

- However, higher speed discs did help into a headwind.

- In a tailwind, the order of importance was: weight, lower speed, and stability.

- In a headwind, the order of importance was: higher speed, stability, and weight.


My straightest flying disc is my Dart, but for a driver I would throw a TL on a narrow flat fairway.

Cool stuff, I think it's great to see real data to support what a lot of the better players here and on dgr have been saying all along, stick to the slower discs in lower weights for most players. Sounds like you put real thought into your methodology and data collection, thanks for sharing!

 

[trashmonster1985]

alright, i really shouldn't be on here anyway, i need to be out there playing, not talking about it!

 

[mambrose]

a beat in X-clone im telling ya

 

[DiscChucker]

wow... i guess you win that one, i personally am not a robot so i don't use a numbering system for everything in my life. and just because i "just fling frisbees at metal" don't confuse that with a lack of respect for the game, or experience. i love this sport and play it no end, but in your own statements you made my point. "I don't know of anyone who can throw any two throws identically like you can expect with a machine." that's what i mean by variables. you want another one? every disc is different, if a disc has been used a couples days it starts to wear in and change. so each individuals style would alter how far each individual disc will fly. i realize there is a lot of physics to a disc that i don't understand, but even the most well researched "statistic" is only as good as the individual taking it. that is all i am saying the process was probably fun but in reality not really useful to myself. (or most of the people i know) while we are on the subject though, it's all of this "real world" statistical crap that has turned us into a bunch of brain-dead, asses as it is, so as far as i am concerned keep that crap away from my frolf!

Hmmm, I don't recall saying anything about me using a numbering system in everything in my life. No, I've just read it again I don't see that at all. How odd. Maybe you read another thread. I do know that my every purchase (online and off), my every Internet querry, my cell phone usage, my bill paying habits and many other things are statistically tracked. I know that the general actions and habits of others are statistically tracked and that too affects me (home and car insurance is a good example). But no, I can't say that I've personally ever used a numbering system for everything in my life.

Believe me I know all to well that a disc goes through a break in period. A couple of days seems dramatic to me though. I've been playing along time and with DX plastic no less and I've never seen a disc change over the course of two days. I don't know, maybe if I went on a "hit every tree on the fairway round" my disc would change over the course of two days. I don't really care to find out so I guess that will have to remain an unknown for me. That makes me wonder what the break in period would be for Champion plastic based on your experience. A week? Or maybe you were talking about Champion plastic (or its equivilant plastic from other manufacturers). I certainly hope not!

Yep, you're right. I concede. Every disc is different. Thank you for the enlightenment. I never would have possibly imagined that. And here I've always thought that every Roc was identical down to the atom. You know that argument for that variable is weak. That's like saying the estimated MPG on the sticker for a new Camry should be discounted because every single Camry of the same specification is different. Obviously they're all different but the minute differences in fuel efficiency between "identical" Camry's are statistically insignificant.

Now, I'm no Innova fan boy. I not a fan boy of any disc manufacturer. My take is, if it flies good for me, I don't give a rats ass who makes it, I'm throwing it. If you're trying to suggest that Innova can't produce consistency among their discs; that every disc is so uniquely different that you can't rely on getting any two same model discs to fly the same then I also find that hard to believe. If their Quality Control is that bad, it seems Innova would have went out of business a long time ago.

You state, "so each individuals style would alter how far each individual disc will fly." I made that abundantly clear. And if you read again his study, you'll see he was measuring the distance of each disc by a given thrower and then analyzing and comparing the distances of all discs by that thrower. So, all discs have been thrown by the same player using the same technique on the same field, on the same given day (looking at one session mind you). In essence, statisticaly relevant variables have been applied to all the discs in that study. By that measure you can determine what disc is suitable for that given players' technique and power. I would be absolutely stoked if I knew statistically which particular molds were incompatible with my technique and which were a good match. It would save me wasting money on discs that I would never throw. But that's just me. I like scientific results.

You've peaked my curiosity though. What "real world" statistical crap has turned you, or us, into brain-dead asses? I don't want to imply that there aren't any completely useless statistical studies out there. Our government sure has funded some wasteful studies. That goes without question. However, everyone's idea of useless is subjective. Just like yours was of Tiggertooth's. I just want to know what's out there that we should be watching out for so we can enlighten the masses.

 

[DiscChucker]

a beat in X-clone im telling ya

Dude, you and your X-Clone... That just makes me laugh because that X-Clone I have could almost be considered a boomerang. I know you said yours is beat in really good. If I didn't like mine for the few fairways I play around here, I would beat that biotch up against a brick wall for awhile just so I could see it fly straight for once.