What I think...challenging the "sticky"

[garublador1]

It's really an argument of whether discs should be grouped by speed or by use.

In what way is my method of listing the discs NOT "grouping" the discs by "use"?

Distance
right, straight, left

Control
right, straight, left

Mid
right, straight, left

Putter

Are these not "use" terms?

Use terms, but it's still categorized by speed. You could substitute rim widths (or speeds) for those headings and it would mean the exact same thing. It's also impying that it's OK to have three different distance drivers, three different control drivers and three different mids. That and the wording doesn't jive with the already existant, and IMO very good disc overlap article that is recommended reading for anyone putting together a bag.

I don't see any improvements over what we already have with that system. I don't see anything better about it except that it's the way you like it.

 

[garublador1]

If we're going to add anything to the format it should be max D with which disc and golf D with which disc.

Man, you are not kidding!!!

The problem is that most people would list incorrect distances. In my experience people have no idea how far they throw their discs, and they assume much greater gaps than they actually have.

Now I totally agree with that.

 

[rusch_bag]

Whenever I have been evaluating my own bag, I kind of have done what Bradley is saying. I look to make sure I have a disc that can go left, straight, and right at all distances. If I can cover a whole distance with one disc of various beatness, Great, but that is not my main concern.

 

[mark12b]

It's really an argument of whether discs should be grouped by speed or by use.

In what way is my method of listing the discs NOT "grouping" the discs by "use"?

Distance
right, straight, left

Control
right, straight, left

Mid
right, straight, left

Putter

Are these not "use" terms?

they are, but the first two are different than you proposed before (was: driver and fairway driver -- now you've switched them to basically match the first two slots in sticky).

the thing that's missing from the above categorization is the degree of stability. i have a newish gazelle that fits in the control-left slot, but i also have a predator that would fit into a control way-way-left slot, if there was one. it's an important role to fill and the sticky has slot #5 to make that clear.

i don't really care how someone lists their bag *but* if he's looking for a critique it's easiest on everyone if he's spent some time trying to fill the roles blake defined in the overlap article.

 

[Bradley Walker]

they are, but the first two are different than you proposed before (was: driver and fairway driver -- now you've switched them to basically match the first two slots in sticky).

Fairway driver/control driver same thing...

I think right, straight, left qualifies as a measure of stability. If you would like to use the terms understable, straight, and overstable it would be the same thing.

I do not think distinguishing between in a stack of the same disc beat to different levels is really important. We do not get into that with a stack of Rocs worn to different subtle levels of stability, why do it for a stack of Teebirds or even Wraiths/Destroyers or whatever?

 

[Dogma1]

I think Bradley's method is similar to the way many experienced players view their bags. But I think it's misleading to beginners.

This:
Distance (right, straight, left)
Control (right, straight, left)
Mid (right, straight, left)
Putter

Is not the same as this:
1. Stable Control Drivers
2. Distance Drivers
3. Understable Driver
4. Moderately Overstable Driver
5. Very Overstable Driver
Mids
Putters

Bradley's method leads a novice to think they need left, right, and straight disc in every speed tier, which isn't true. In fact it's the opposite of Blake's method. Blake is aiming at eliminating overlap. For example, you don't need an understable fairway driver AND an understable distance driver. And there's a difference between a moderately overstable driver and a very overstable driver, even though they both turn left.

Bradley's method gives the appearance of encouraging "a disc for every shot," which is the opposite of what Blake's goal is. If when I was learning about about discs I had seen Bradley's method instead of Blake's, I think all I would have thought about was which way a disc turns, and would have missed the subtleties of differing levels of stability and purpose (which are not always the same as speed and direction).

Again, if you already understand everything being discussed in this thread, it doesn't really matter how you present it to someone else who already understands it. But if part of the goal of this website is to continue to help new players develop, then I think Blake's method does a better job of teaching and reinforcing the basic concepts.

PS- I agree that disc speed is under-considered by most people, I just don't think that this is the way to address it.

 

[Bradley Walker]

Bradley's method gives the appearance of encouraging "a disc for every shot," which is the opposite of what Blake's goal is. If when I was learning about about discs I had seen Bradley's method instead of Blake's, I think all I would have thought about was which way a disc turns, and would have missed the subtleties of differing levels of stability and purpose (which are not always the same as speed and direction).

That is not true at all, but frankly, I am no longer interested in explaining any further than I already have.

A novice would not use distance discs at all.

 

[Jesse B 707]

It's really an argument of whether discs should be grouped by speed or by use. Knowing what a person is using a disc for gives much more information about whether or not that disc is a good choice than just the speed of the disc. We already know the speed of any given disc, that's not new information. For example this bag:

Z Pred
Valkyrie
Gazelle
Roc
Wizard

May look OK, and is categorized by speed, but if it's in this format

1. Stable Control Driver
Roc

2. Distance Driver
Wizard

3. Understable Driver
Predator

4. Moderately overstable driver
Wizard

5. Very overstable Driver
Valkyrie

Mids:
Valk

Putters:
Gazelle

It's obvious there might be some sort of issue going on. Now that's obviously a ridiculous example I'm using to illustrate a point (I did play in a tournament with a guy who used a Gazelle for a putter, though), but the act of categorizing your discs like that can many times point out holes and overlap without having to ask. If you're just listing by speed then there's no guarantee that the person has gone through that process or that they're using discs like we assume they would be.

:lol: :lol:

 

[Dogma1]

Bradley's method gives the appearance of encouraging "a disc for every shot," which is the opposite of what Blake's goal is. If when I was learning about about discs I had seen Bradley's method instead of Blake's, I think all I would have thought about was which way a disc turns, and would have missed the subtleties of differing levels of stability and purpose (which are not always the same as speed and direction).

That is not true at all, but frankly, I am no longer interested in explaining any further than I already have.

Notice I said "gives the appearance." I understand what you are explaining. The point of my post was how it looks to someone who is still learning, not someone who already understands.

A novice would not use distance discs at all.

I agree with you. It's what I meant when I said:

Speed is a factor in what (discs) do... it is important and often overlooked

and also:

PS- I agree that disc speed is under-considered by most people, I just don't think that this is the way to address it.

 

[waffles]

Forget all the charts, they vary anyways. Go to the field and figure out what works for you. If you need to classify your discs, do so by your range and achievable flight path.

 

[Fritz]

I agree with what Brad is saying. Very good points.

Another problem too, is if you live in a high elevation state, your stable disc might be straight, understable to others.

I like the idea of just listing out your bag, and putting a note on the side of each disc for what you use it for, broken down into the categories. DRiver, Fairway, Mid, Putter.

 

[Bradley Walker]

After spending the weekend with Blake and discussing discs, I am going to stand by my assertion.

Although, I never specifically addressed this thread with Blake, I do believe that we would agree that the DISTANCE DRIVER catagory has expanded greatly in the last few years, and is, by far the most abused.

True disc minimalism stresses the minimum number of molds, and throwing the discs that only fit your ability. Less is more.

Just look at what Dave Dunipace is talking about doing with his stabilization process. This would be true simplicity. One mold per catagory.

This could easily be my bag.

Distance (420 flat shot)
3 Wraiths

Fairway (380 flat shot)
3 Teebirds

Mid (340 flat shot)
3 Rocs

Putter
2 Warlocks

Add a crazy overstable trick shot/spike hyser disc, and you are done.

I simply do not see how this listing does not perfectly define the modern disc golf bag in an incremental fashion that builds on itself. This building on itself is something that is lacking in the other format. This listing makes the function of each disc clearly defined to the novice and advanced player alike.

As stated before, this is how most GREAT players' bags are structured. Why would you not teach everyone to mimic the really good players?

 

[Steezo]

I understand completely. I'ved gone back to this bag.
dx bb aviars-3
dx/kc pro rocs-3
star leopard-1
dx teebirds-3
star starfire-1
champ destroyers-2
star max-1
14 discs

 

[cmlasley]

You almost described my bag: 1 Pred, 3 OLFs, 3 Teebirds, 3 Rocs, 4 Wizards.

 

[garublador1]

Although, I never specifically addressed this thread with Blake, I do believe that we would agree that the DISTANCE DRIVER catagory has expanded greatly in the last few years, and is, by far the most abused.

First, that has nothing to do with why either format is better or worse. You're just making obvious points that have nothing to do with changing the sticky and then claiming they support your format. They don't.

If you think you're so superior, get him to change the article. If he does that I'll agree that format is a better choice. Otherwise you have given zero reasons why your method is better. You just prefer it.

Here is an example of some actual reasons why the format in the sticky is superior. Notice how they actually address why the format is better:

The reason for the sticky is to have a quick way of showing whether or not the person has read and understood the overlap article. If they haven't, the best advice will always either be "Read the overlap article," or will contain information from the overlap article. It also gets rid of all of the descriptions of what each disc is used for. Rather than having to read that, you can easily tell by the category each disc is listed under whether or not it's seeing the best use. It's much more efficient. Your way just shows that they've browsed the Innova website, which also claims that there are speed 10 discs that are good first drivers.

 

[cmlasley]

The reason for the sticky is to have a quick way of showing whether or not the person has read and understood the overlap article.

This is a good reason. I just hate that the preferred format is not in what I consider a logical arrangement.

 

[Bradley Walker]

The reason for the sticky is to have a quick way of showing whether or not the person has read and understood the overlap article.

Well, for some reason you seem to think the sole reason for this forum is to compare everyone's bag to this one single article.

I don't.

I am not even sure Blake thinks that either.

The forum is to discuss bags and help people's games, not compare everyone's bag to one article.

 

[cojsmith08]

As stated before, this is how most GREAT players' bags are structured. Why would you not teach everyone to mimic the really good players?

I think Blake's overlap idea focuses on players learning the game. Players that need to learn the fundamentals.

A noob just isnt gonna benefit from your idea, many players would though, but the idealogy of this site is to help improve other players' games, and I think thats what Blake's idea tries to do.