Hampstead
* Ace Member *
My D3.14 consistently lands inside the circle.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
What is different about Prodigy to vendors?
- Thread starter seedlings
- Start date
F.Luke
Double Eagle Member
Pie are squared not circled
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Messages
- 6,443
- Joined
- May 17, 2020
- Messages
- 1,707
Then I guess we are back to guessing whether pigs are floatier than bulldogs and if stalkers turn more than predators.
Streets
* Ace Member *
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2012
- Messages
- 10,583
From what I can tell/remember...
The Roc3 was the first "3" disc and it was named because it was the "third" variation of the Rancho Roc (OG is 1 and Roc+ is 2). The "3" then became synonymous with the top/process that Innova used to get a flatter/faster version of the disc.
I'm going to post this on a non disc golf page on Facebook just for reactions.
Read this knowing nothing about golf discs, it reads completely different.
Emoney
* Ace Member *
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 2,889
I think Prodigy has great plastic and some good molds BUT
"H3V2 in 400g plastic? "
You are stupid...stop it.....
The naming scheme was dumb from jump street and has only got worse. I get prodigy and discmania molds confused all the time. I blame Prodigy...
"H3V2 in 400g plastic? "
You are stupid...stop it.....
The naming scheme was dumb from jump street and has only got worse. I get prodigy and discmania molds confused all the time. I blame Prodigy...
dehaas
* Ace Member *
I don't think the mold naming convention was necessarily a bad idea...I'm just not sure it was completely thought out in the beginning stages. Think about golf clubs, they're numbered based off of distance and nobody complains.
Numbering based off of stability just has its limitations...originally the current M2 was the M3 and came out beefier than anticipated so they bumped it up a number. From what I remember the proto M1's weren't flippy by any means but they were nowhere near gator beefy either. It was retooled, and I honestly haven't messed with one since the protos but have seen reports of them now being beefier.
As a manufacturer long term you want to have a full lineup of molds, so what happens when you want to have a new mold somewhere between stability of existing molds? D1.5? Discmania sort of does this also...FD, FD2, FD3 but kinda not really...CD, CD2, CD3...CD3 is longer than the CD2 but I don't think necessarily beefier like their convention with the mids and fairways. You could easily argue DM's naming is worse than Prodigy because the various families (FD, PD, and DD) are different speed discs, and the best way to distinguish is to actually look at flight numbers.
I think the Prodigy plastic naming is a bigger offender than the mold names themselves. It makes sense...higher the number the more "premium" the plastic, but when you tack the number of the plastic along with the mold name it's just a bit much. I think the combo of the two is really what turns most people off. In theory it's all designed to be systematic and easy, but you could argue how effective that really is from a practical standpoint. I don't think it's necessarily terrible and wouldn't keep me away from Prodigy, but at the same time I don't know if it's simplifying things for newer players like they originally intended.
I think we all agree that names are arbitrary, but names like Cloud Breaker, Destroyer, Firebird, Buzzz, and even Wizard will generate a lot more excitement with newer players.
Prodigy has some awesome plastic blends and some nice molds, but they also have some really unique designs too. On one hand it's nice to see a company putting out molds that look and feel a bit different than others, but on the other some of them just feel extremely awkward to n the hand. Discraft had a few molds like this also, in my opinion at least.
Numbering based off of stability just has its limitations...originally the current M2 was the M3 and came out beefier than anticipated so they bumped it up a number. From what I remember the proto M1's weren't flippy by any means but they were nowhere near gator beefy either. It was retooled, and I honestly haven't messed with one since the protos but have seen reports of them now being beefier.
As a manufacturer long term you want to have a full lineup of molds, so what happens when you want to have a new mold somewhere between stability of existing molds? D1.5? Discmania sort of does this also...FD, FD2, FD3 but kinda not really...CD, CD2, CD3...CD3 is longer than the CD2 but I don't think necessarily beefier like their convention with the mids and fairways. You could easily argue DM's naming is worse than Prodigy because the various families (FD, PD, and DD) are different speed discs, and the best way to distinguish is to actually look at flight numbers.
I think the Prodigy plastic naming is a bigger offender than the mold names themselves. It makes sense...higher the number the more "premium" the plastic, but when you tack the number of the plastic along with the mold name it's just a bit much. I think the combo of the two is really what turns most people off. In theory it's all designed to be systematic and easy, but you could argue how effective that really is from a practical standpoint. I don't think it's necessarily terrible and wouldn't keep me away from Prodigy, but at the same time I don't know if it's simplifying things for newer players like they originally intended.
I think we all agree that names are arbitrary, but names like Cloud Breaker, Destroyer, Firebird, Buzzz, and even Wizard will generate a lot more excitement with newer players.
Prodigy has some awesome plastic blends and some nice molds, but they also have some really unique designs too. On one hand it's nice to see a company putting out molds that look and feel a bit different than others, but on the other some of them just feel extremely awkward to n the hand. Discraft had a few molds like this also, in my opinion at least.
Last edited:
I'll play devil's advocate here and say once I figured out what was going on with prodigy's plastic types I grew to like the convention. For those unaware - similar to the numbering relating to stability in the disc name, the numbering in the plastic refers to how stiff/durable the plastic is -> higher number = stiffer more durable plastic. Confusingly, higher plastic number ~ higher stability, higher disc number ~ lower stability...
While not quite as sexy as say "lucid", "opto", "Z", "ESP", "Pro", "star" or "Champion" - at least the number naming convention seems somewhat based on something scientific. After watching Trash Panda I have come to wonder if the 200 vs 400 vs 750 are related to the pressure used to inject the disc.
Looking back I would have been better off purchasing discs as a beginner knowing what the plastic meant for me, rather than stupidly buying all those champion plastic discs because thats obviously what the champions throw. Sadly it took me a while to grasp all that though and thats where the prodigy marketing falls short once again.
jakebake91
* Ace Member *
It's a shame that no company had an idea to somehow describe a discs flight characteristics using a set of numbers..it'd be even more convenient if they stamped them onto the discs....
Oh wait.....
BillFleming
* Ace Member *
I don't mind Prodigy's naming/numbering system. It's just a pain to get familiar with and can be very confusing for new players. One thing I would have preferred they do differently is the stability numbering. 0 for stable, positive numbers for overstability, and negative numbers for understability. Numbering the plastics works for me as I can tell 400 is better plastic than 200. But Lucid, Champion, DX, Star, whatever, really doesn't let me know the plastic quality unless I know that brand and their plastic names.
As I said previously....my first Prodigy disc was F5 400. I had no clue what that was, except that I figured F meant Fairway. But then I made the mistake of thinking the 5 meant it was overstable.
Now that I know how to 'read' their numbers/names...I don't have that issue.
As I said previously....my first Prodigy disc was F5 400. I had no clue what that was, except that I figured F meant Fairway. But then I made the mistake of thinking the 5 meant it was overstable.
Now that I know how to 'read' their numbers/names...I don't have that issue.
Prodigy's atleast makes sense. F is fairway, M is a mid, and so on. 1 is most stable, and 7 is least.
Discmania is all over the place with their Original molds. Putters, mids, and fairways go from US to OS. Pretty simple. However, their drivers are confusing. TDs, PDs, and CDs follow suit with their stabilities for the most part. But what's up with the DDs? DD is a beefier Wraith. DD2 is the flippy DD slot, kinda like a Shryke. DDx is.... I actually don't know that mold. DD3 is a Destroyer clone. DDs are all over the place in speed and stability.
Prodigy atleast has a system in place. Discmania has a disconnected feel to their Original lineup with three different styles of stabilities.
I do bag some Prodigy cause I really like certain plastic/mold combos. Discmania would have a couple drivers in my bag. The P-FD and S-CD2 (especially this disc as I loved the feel of it) would have made my bag but it was almost near impossible to find backups before the pandemic.
If Prodigy's best discs were made by Innova, it would be a different convo. If you're a small company trying to grow, you need cool names that grab people. Would Nike be where it is if they named their sneakers with abbreviations? Marketing 101
uncle pennybags
Double Eagle Member
I started a couple of years before prodigy came out. At that time I was trying just about anything new, especially if it wasn't innova or discraft like everyone I knew threw. So I was throwing stuff by Latitude, Vibram, Discmania, MVP, and maybe some others. They would drop a disc or two and it would be fun to get all the new stuff. Prodigy drops a full line as I remember....I just noped out. Part of it was the full line, and part was I didn't have any interest at the time at learning their naming convention (nothing wrong with it, I just didn't want to do it).
Similar threads
- Tournament
