Would you like to see the PDGA limit number of disc carried in tournaments?

[roggenb3]

I don't understand what's fun about this, just my opinion.

If a player can throw a Groove the same way they throw an Aviar, that would show some real skill.

The fun part is having to pick and choose which discs to bring based on the course and weather conditions. I'm sure there are people that would hate doing that. That's fine, those folks wouldnt play those events and if that was enough people everyone would stop settings limits. Itd be an experiment.

Idk what ur second sentence even means. I'm not saying that less discs = more skill, just that less discs = more strategy.

They can, and do. They just can't do it in sanctioned play.

My biggest issue with a TD allowance in sanctioned play is that it's another variable that could further deteriorate the quality of the rating system.

Yeah, I didnt really think about the effect on ratings, but then again idk how it would really matter. They would be calculated the same way, no? Why would ratings need to account for it at all?

 

[JC17393]

They can, and do. They just can't do it in sanctioned play.

My biggest issue with a TD allowance in sanctioned play is that it's another variable that could further deteriorate the quality of the rating system.

They can do it in sanctioned play, but it would likely require the event to be classified with an X designation. And that X designation would most likely serve to protect against the "deterioration of the quality of the ratings system".

 

[bradharris]

Yeah, I didnt really think about the effect on ratings, but then again idk how it would really matter. They would be calculated the same way, no? Why would ratings need to account for it at all?

It wouldn't impact the actual calculation at all. But players who are accustomed to using a lighter bag would likely see above average ratings while players with heavier bags would rate below average.

They can do it in sanctioned play, but it would likely require the event to be classified with an X designation. And that X designation would most likely serve to protect against the "deterioration of the quality of the ratings system".

Another reason not to make it a rule for all events.

 

[Jay Dub]

The fun part is having to pick and choose which discs to bring based on the course and weather conditions. I'm sure there are people that would hate doing that. That's fine, those folks wouldnt play those events and if that was enough people everyone would stop settings limits. Itd be an experiment.

Idk what ur second sentence even means. I'm not saying that less discs = more skill, just that less discs = more strategy.

My point was to the people saying less discs shows more skills. I disagree. A Groove and an Aviar are quite different, if a person can throw them both the same way, to me that shows more skill than throwing one disc different ways.

 

[ru4por]

My point was to the people saying less discs shows more skills. I disagree. A Groove and an Aviar are quite different, if a person can throw them both the same way, to me that shows more skill than throwing one disc different ways.

Lol, most newbs I have played with indeed do throw an Aviar and a Groove the same way. Noob hyzer.

 

[Steve West]

...
If a player can throw a Groove the same way they throw an Aviar, that would show some real skill.

Or total lack of skill. When I was starting out, any disc I threw would go 160 feet and could land anywhere along a 60 degree arc.

 

[shanker156]

I voted no. I don't think it is fair or necessary to force players to do something that ultimately has no positive effect on the sport as a whole. I played a one disc round today and it was fun because it was different, but I wouldn't want to do it all the time. I certainly would not force my friends to play with one disc, and I would not say it is unfair if they beat me with 100 discs in their bag because it was my choice to play with a putter. I also would not think of myself as more skilled if I beat them.

If you are a person that likes to carry less discs, good for you. If you are a person that likes to carry more discs, good for you as well. I do both depending on what I want to do that day. Don't tell me when I can or can't do it, though, because it doesn't matter and it's none of your business how many discs I carry. If the PDGA decided that it was their place to tell me how many discs I am required to carry in a tournament, I would not renew my membership out of principle. This is a stupid thread. I'm not going to post in it anymore...but I will continue to troll it

 

[lyleoross]

Cocoa for Cocoapuffs.

The kind of skills involved in playing significantly differently with five vs twenty-five discs, are not required on the majority of the courses in play at this time. Whether you believe five takes more skill or twenty-five. IMO, there are only a few players in the world to whom this would make a difference anyway. What's more, I suspect the adjustment would take little time to make, and where does that leave you? Have you really impacted the game in a noticeable way?

As someone posted above, speed would have a greater impact than disc selection.

Limiting throwing styles. That is best done via hole design. Honestly, so is disc selection. In tournament play the top guys use only a few discs. That's because hole design only requires a few discs be used. Paul - Destroyer, over and stable. Rarely an understable. Teebird and Thunderbird. Roc and Mako (I saw he picked up a Lepard). Nova and Aviar. Taint much there. Occasionally he uses a massively overstable disc like a Monster. In actual play, he uses the stable Destroyer, the Roc, the Nova and the Aviar 90% of the time. The Mako comes out for turnover shots, and the overstable Destroyer when he needs a fade. The birds come out on shorter fairways, 350 to 420. Sad, his short is my shoulder burn.

If the goal is to impact the game in some way to its betterment or to make it more appealing, I'm not sure this does it.

 

[Jay Dub]

Lol, most newbs I have played with indeed do throw an Aviar and a Groove the same way. Noob hyzer.

Or total lack of skill. When I was starting out, any disc I threw would go 160 feet and could land anywhere along a 60 degree arc.

Haha! I wasn't talking accidentally.

 

[iacas]

I'd argue that trying to implement a rule that imposes arbitrary limitations is effectively arguing that that having those limitations is superior to not having them.

Okay, sure. But I don't like the connotation of "superior." I think it improves the rules. I think it would push the needle back a little toward favoring skill, as I've said.

Obviously I think that a rules change I support is "better" or an "improvement."

You don't. Cool.

Why people get so personally invested in this I will never really know.

It's a matter of opinion that using 25 different discs to traverse a course is somehow less skillful than using 10 different discs

Broadly speaking, yeah, it's just an opinion. But I think it's one that has a little more meat to it. Does it require more skill to find a disc that does something different with the same throw, or does it require more skill to have to throw a disc differently for the given shot?

Is a player who can throw forehand and backhand more skilled than a backhand only player? I think it's probably a bit stronger than pure opinion.

In either case, imposing a rule that favors one over the other is implicitly decreeing that one opinion is superior to the other.

Still don't love the word "superior" here, but yeah, I think it would make the rules better, and thus the sport better.

You don't. That's fine.

There is skill is learning to throw new discs such that for certain shots you get better results.

I would maintain that making the same throw with a new disc takes less skill than learning an entirely new throw.

People get new discs and take them out and immediately have a different flight pattern. No real work, practice, etc. required. Just "buy a new disc." Yes, to become proficient with that disc requires a little work and practice, but more than learning a new throw?

Putting a limit of the number of Discs is saying the second skill is more valid, which I would disagree with.

And I disagree with you, which, again, is fine.

Another fun variation would be to not allow the same disc be thrown twice in a round. You would need a lot of discs for that, but more skilled players would certainly win.

And they'd need fewer discs, obviously.

Those decisions and conversations happen today. The limits are imposed by the capacity of the bag rather than a specific rule.

That's not the same thing.

I wasn't expressing an opinion, I was inquiring about the relevance of your own opinion that a person using 40 discs is ridiculous.

It's relevant because that's what we're discussing. We're discussing disc limits. You think disc limits are ridiculous. I think a dude dragging 40 discs around is ridiculous, particularly when he only ever throws five or six of them. It's my opinion.

You've routinely said that individual opinions are not valid arguments when they go against yours, yet you use your own opinion as justification for a rule change.

No, I haven't. This whole thing is opinion.

I don't think anyone is arguing with your assertion that a disc limit would require players to use more skill to score well.

I think if you read back you'll find several people have argued that.

It was fun to find ways to navigate a course using a wide set of discs each designed for different purposes.

I understand that's what you find fun. As I said before, the rules makers have to take "fun" into consideration, but they also have other things to consider.

The game you want to mandate is not one that many of us want to call the norm. The poll makes that very clear.

My opinions don't often follow polls.

And I've said it will probably not happen any time soon. But that doesn't change my opinion.

I know I said I was done, but this amuses me.

I support a disc limit because I think it would push the balance of the game more toward skill and less toward equipment, allowing the more skilled player to better separate himself or herself from the competition.

That's it. And that opinion generates multiple lengthy responses… when ultimately, I simply disagree with you (general you) and you (general) disagree with me.

We all still love the sport, and have that in common.

Cheers.

 

[tampabay]

My opinions don't often follow polls.

And I've said it will probably not happen any time soon. But that doesn't change my opinion.

I know I said I was done, but this amuses me.

I support a disc limit because I think it would push the balance of the game more toward skill and less toward equipment, allowing the more skilled player to better separate himself or herself from the competition.

That's it. And that opinion generates multiple lengthy responses… when ultimately, I simply disagree with you (general you) and you (general) disagree with me.

We all still love the sport, and have that in common.

Cheers.

I appreciate your thoroughness in answering without devolving into being catty, it is a rare occurrence on the internet. I think many hobbyist, like myself, love the idea of trying discs, and ultimately going to the course and thinking "I just threw the best disc possible for that shot". That moment when you crush a perfect drive and it seems like no other disc could have possibly hit the shot and everyone around you immediately asks "WHAT was that?!" and immediately makes internal plans to go buy that disc. That X factor of having all the tools in the world but knowing which one is the right one is a wonderful feeling in my opinion.

I see your point about separation. But in the same way that NFL wide receivers use gloves that are essentially glue, I think allowing as many discs as anyone would like produces more of those "ARE YOU kidding me" moments. Obviously there are Wide Receivers in the NFL that are good enough to play the game without using gloves, but man, I love watching catches like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxbz3DDQzHU . That in my opinion is a no disc limit catch.

It feels, to me, like you are arguing that the purist mentality is worth advocating for over those electric moments when everything comes together.

 

[joegraham]

With bag manufacturers making quality attractive and niche bags for us to carry a ton of discs, I don't think we are seen as slobs and unprofessional. I think we should be able to carry as many as we want.

 

[ru4por]

The idea that less discs require more skill seem kind of akin to saying it takes more skill to park a golf ball, near the pin, from 150 yds out, with a driver instead of a 8 iron.

 

[sidewinder22]

Everyone should be forced to play with only the discs that come in the tournament player pack.

 

[tampabay]

Everyone should be forced to play with only the discs that come in the tournament player pack.

I played in a tourney and someone got a 130 DX Skeeter....I got a 170 G* Boss. That would be a fun matchup

 

[JC17393]

Is a player who can throw forehand and backhand more skilled than a backhand only player? I think it's probably a bit stronger than pure opinion.

No, not really.

Objectively, the first player has more quantifiable skills, but quantity of skill does not necessarily equate to quality of skill. I can't really agree that being able to throw both forehands and backhands categorically makes that player more skilled than a backhand-only player.

Ken Climo used to routinely beat Scott Stokely back in the day. Kenny was primarily a backhand only guy while Scott held the forehand and backhand distance records simultaneously. Scott arguably had more skills, but Kenny was the more skilled player. And I'd wager neither guy was carrying/throwing more than 15 discs in a given round, so it probably wasn't a matter of Climo "relying on his equipment" more.

 

[Cgkdisc]

If you watch the 1999 Worlds video, the difference was Stokely's weaker putting. Starts at minute 55:00.

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

Yes, we keep score kind of like they do in ball golf, but the way we use our equipment differs vastly. A wide variety of aerodynamic properties in our projectiles is one of the things that distinguishes our sport in a better way, in my opinion.

I love how we have the multitudes of different molds, plastics, weights and amount of wear available for every creative shot we often need to make. Ball golf doesn't come close to us in this regard. Thus, the more the merrier in my opinion. So long as you can carry it yourself and make the shot in the required time, why not?

 

[Darkgreen]

A disc limit will never happen. Now everyone stop arguing about it and go practice your putting.

Stickin Putts!

 

[Moose33]

If you watch the 1999 Worlds video, the difference was Stokely's weaker putting. Starts at minute 55:00.

Very true, Climo won on being consistently above average in most facents and elite in a few. Stokley was all time great at a few skills, but only average at a few as well.