Is it time for a change? Disc numbering and the flawed system.

[throwfromthewoods]

I'm pretty sure this is OK in the Equipment threads, but feel free to move it to General if it would belong there. I wanted to open a thread discussing something discspeed touched on in the Vibram Lace thread:

I do wish we would let the "long range driver" nomenclature die with the old Innova/DC drivers that have become fairway drivers now.

The new term for something less than max speed but faster than fairways should be "control driver" imo, that sounds much more modern. I think the new companies like Lat/MVP/Vibram should take advantage of their current position and market themselves as more modern, new, hip, relevant than the old dogs. Furthermore, the term long range driver suggests a disc that is not as long as a "distance driver", but it does not in name show any advantage it may have over a distance driver for someone that doesn't throw as far as they'd like to (mmm, everyone). Control driver points to the fact that the disc will be easier to control than those labeled "distance drivers".

This is just my opinion and Steve/Vibram certainly don't need my help, but it is food for thought.

It is true, the equipment has changed. Longer mids, approach/driving putters, speed 14. It's no longer as easy as A/B/C in your bag. Not to mention new disc manufacturers are popping up on the scene all the time. It's tough for new players when they can't look at, say, a Vibram disc and use their numbering system to infer how it's going to throw based on their experience with Innova discs, or Discraft. Or MVP, which doesn't even assign any numbering system to their discs (as far as I know).

I mean, I get it. You get it. Most everyone here will get it. A disc flies how it flies. It doesn't matter if Innova calls a Valk a speed 8 or an 11. It's still a Valk. But point of reference is an important thing for new players and experienced players looking at new releases. ZAM had a discussion about the new MVP Volt being between a speed 7 and 10:

I wanted to show a range of similarities because it's such a versatile and responsive disc. For lower power it can fly like a 7 while higher power can throw it like a 10. It can fly similar to a 7, but so can the FX at 9. Calling it 7 flat just doesn't represent the disc, imo. Saying it's similar to those three 7, 9, & 10 indicates more of its unique characteristics.

Now, his assessment may be 100% accurate and valid. But it's still a bit of a slippery slope when we now create hybrid disc speed assignments. Anything flies differently when powered down or overpowered. Now, believe me, this isn't a knock against ZAM or DN at all. I love those guys. What I feel it IS, however, is a perfect example of how we've become reliant on an outdated and non-universal system. Who's speed 7 are we talking about? Innova's? Latitude's? Discgolfcenter.com?

Think of it like Europe's old currency system. We have the nation of Discraft with a single number and an arrow on their discs. We have Vibram, MVP and Innova also all using different systems. Some other companies model other established systems, but they're still arbitrary.

Is it about time we're given something akin to the Euro? I'm talking about a system of universal categorization. We do have a "governing body" in the PDGA. If they can impose requirements on equipment for legal use within sanctioned tournaments, it shouldn't be out of their realm for something like this. All discs must go to the PDGA for approval already, so they could simply determine the discs' place within the system at that time. It would take minimal work once it's in place, and the manufacturers would only have to honor the categorization on their website and in their marketing for the disc.

Yes, we have Joe's Flight Chart and Marshall Street's spreadsheet and now Inbounds' flight guide. These are, however, third party creations. And information is not even universal between them. It's like three different credit bureaus that all serve the same purpose but all end up with slightly differing information. To top it off; you have to go to these references, find the disc you're looking for and also comparison discs. I'm not one to shirk a little legwork, but I'm more talking about an existing, constantly applied system.

This is all just theoretical mental exercise anyways. I don't expect the PDGA and every disc manufacturer in the world to suddenly jump on board with creating a highly involved system and maintaining it. For any number of reasons, it's not likely to change any time soon.

For what it's worth, if I were to create a system for all discs, the bare-bones of it would be a relative hybrid of Discraft's and Innova's model. Speed rating would be eliminated, since it's a misleading and much more involved concept than slapping a 7 or a 13 onto a disc. I also believe "glide rating" is a mostly unnecessary figure. Only a few discs in any category (putt/approach/driver/etc.) have glide characteristics that visibly differentiate themselves from the rest. In fact, all disc groups have such a range of traits within themselves that trying to organize them would be foolish. "This disc is more L-shape overstable than C-shape overstable." "This disc is a better skip disc than that one." "Disc A has more forward penetrating glide than Disc B." And so on. These distinctions are better left to forums and player interactions to share.

Instead of the speed rating, it would be category-based…kind of like what discspeed had touched on. Putt/Mid-range/Fairway/Control/Distance. Added on to the discs' category would be the LSS/HSS figure. Because I do feel those are crucial aspects to a disc's flight and knowing what to expect when you buy a disc. Personally, I like Innova calling it turn/fade as opposed to LSS/HSS. But that is from a new-player standpoint. It took some time for me to learn the intricacies of LSS and HSS, whereas turn and fade were easier concepts to grasp. This is where the most work would need to be done. The PDGA would need to be in charge of assigning these. Yes, it would still be "arbitrary" in that it would be based on a tester's judgment. But at least it would be assigned by a single party instead of a dozen. So even if you disagree slightly with the assigned figure, it's still a mostly constant point of reference for other discs.

Yes, there would be a range of "speeds" within categories, but not too drastic. If we consider that almost all discs currently fall into a range of speed 2 through speed 13, that's 12 ratings split between 5 groups. I don't think that is too extreme. Especially considering the differences between a speed 7 and speed 10 are not that big *cough* VOLT *cough*

So, for example, a Stalker would be something like "Fairway Driver: 0/2" And a Roadrunner would be "Control Driver: -4/1"

What do you think? Would you create a different system? Or do you think everything is fine the way it is? Keep in mind, I'm not (theoritcally) suggesting the manufacturers STOP doing their own thing and switch over to this. They would be free to keep attributing their own system if they want. This would be an "official" system for universal purposes. Would it help the sport as more and more releases are coming out every year? Would it help new players looking to try different manufacturers?

Sorry for the drawn out post. I'm all hopped up on Monster at work and just kept typing.

 

[scarpfish]

It would never work. Each manufacturer's rating system is part of their marketing. They would never want to hand this over to a third party, even a fair and impartial one, and possibly have the results convey that their product comes out looking inferior to their competitors.

A better answer would be for disc golf consumers to stop treating flight ratings and descriptions like they're gospel, and realize that a lot of variables go into the manufacturing of a disc that can affect its flight ratings that aren't explicitly marked.

 

[rocthecourse]

The only thing I would like to see is a universal standard for determining speed(rim width should equal speed.)

I don't mind Innova's flight numbers they give you an idea of how the disc will fly, at least in comparison to other Innova discs. I don't like flight charts, they don't really tell the whole story, and they only work for people throwing the distance the chart is set at.

There will never be a perfect system. But I think most people with a few years of play and some experience with different discs should have an idea of how disc will fly based on their flight numbers.

 

[throwfromthewoods]

It would never work. Each manufacturer's rating system is part of their marketing. They would never want to hand this over to a third party, even a fair and impartial one, and possibly have the results convey that their product comes out looking inferior to their competitors.

A better answer would be for disc golf consumers to stop treating flight ratings and descriptions like they're gospel, and realize that a lot of variables go into the manufacturing of a disc that can affect its flight ratings that aren't explicitly marked.

Ha, yes, ideally the correct answer to almost anything that needs fixing is "people need to stop being dumb and/or lazy." Unfortunately, I don't think changing the majority mindset is an option we have. I wish it was.

I think my reliance on the PDGA in this concept is that every manufacturer already hands their discs over to the PDGA for approval. If the PDGA adopted this, what would Innova say? "Screw you, we're not dealing with you anymore."? Then not a single Innova disc is approved for PDGA play. Yes, they'd kick up a fuss and throw a fit. But if it was deemed a necessary change, or even a change for the greater good of the sport...why not?

 

[Mason65]

The only thing I would like to see is a universal standard for determining speed(rim width should equal speed.)

This. I realize there are exceptions based on aerodynamics, but I think this simplifies the situation.

Ideally, I would love to see a sliding scale based on effort given for distance potential. Think Joe's Flight chart, except every disc is rated at every speed. Rate power levels 1-5 (for 100-500 feet of power,) in half numbered increments. This could be great in showing discs that can be "powered down" (i.e. Volts and PD's,) as well as "powered up" (i.e. Rocs and Teebirds.)

I realize this is a massive undertaking, and ultimately subjective because a "baseline" of power rating hasn't been established (i.e. what is REALLY 300' of power?.)

That being said I think it could be really useful especially for newer players to see that yes, a Boss has great distance potential, but not if you have 200' of power. Different plastics rate differently as well.

An example of what I'm talking about, realize this is purely an estimate for the sake of illustration. All throws from a flat, level release.

Innova Pro Katana

Power(*100 ft) - Glide (0-6)/Turn (-5-1)/Fade (0-5)

1.0 - 1/0/5
1.5 - 1/0/5
2.0 - 2/0/4
2.5 - 2/-.5/3
3.0 - 3/-1/3
3.5 - 4/-2/3
4.0 - 5/-2.5/3
4.5 - 5/-3.5/3
5.0 - 4/-4/2

It would be sweet if there was a database on the website where users could report how discs fly for them, given a flat release.

 

[Qikly]

Just to play devil's advocate here, I think that having ratings from multiple, independent sources can have its upsides. Namely, observing variations and consistencies from one rating to another can cue one in to what aspects of a disc are most consistent, and what may change between plastics/weights/throwing power/etc. Take the River, for example, which is -.5/3 on Joe's, -2/1 on discgolfcenter.com, and -32%/30% on the inFlight Guide. Each of these ratings characterizes a pretty different disc, which to me suggests that plastic and weight play a much larger role in determining flight characteristics for the River than for a disc with a much more consistent rating (like, say, a Comet). This leads me to be more select in the weight/plastic I purchase a River in than for other discs, based on the role I want the disc to play in my bag and my knowledge of how these other factors influence flight pattern.

Obviously all this requires some research on the buyer's end, and is not beginner friendly. But as a newbie myself, I'd argue that all systems are going to be equally obtuse at the start, and I'm not sure that a rating from one source would be any more helpful than ratings from multiple sources. If anything, my awareness of rating variance has taught me to be more skeptical of disc ratings in general than if there was complete consistency in ratings generated from an official, governing body.

Just some off-the-cuff thoughts here.

 

[discspeed]

Any universal rating system is going to have to be far removed from any disc golf company or the PDGA. The DG companies job is to make money(very simplified, I know), the PDGA's job is to protect the integrity of competition. Neither of those has much to do with objective flight ratings, which is something that is purely useful to the consumer.

The other problem with ratings systems is that most the companies cannot make a run of identical discs with the same flight characteristics...In some cases you can have two discs of the same mold, in the same plastic, that fly COMPLETELY different from one another. And then there the issue of molds flying different in different plastics. And then there is the fact that no 2 people throw the exact same disc quite the same...

Also, the terms "turn" and "fade" don't even mean the same to most golfers. All of the guys around here that started playing in the 80s and 90s call an anhyzer "a fade". So when you talk a hard fading disc to them, they thing you are speaking about something really understable. So turn and fade still are not good terms, neither intuitive or scientific.

I've got some ideas, but I'm going to post again so I don't give everyone any bigger text block to have to read.

 

[discspeed]

You are right, the terms HSS and LSS fall short of making sense in either a scientific way or an intuitive way as well. High speed stability makes some sense, but it's weird using a word like stable, which means balanced, to talk about how much a disc resists becoming unbalanced in the direction of the spin of the disc. It's also weird that very high speed stable discs have ratings like "0" or "+1". Low speed stability makes no sense, because we're actually talking about a disc becoming unstable or unbalanced and giving it a higher number the more the disc has a tendency to be unbalanced in the opposite direction of the spin. How would you deal with discs that both resist turning with the spin of the disc as well as resisting turning opposite of the spin? Read on...

I like the term "resistance" in place of both HSS. Resistance could be the tendency of a disc to resist turning with the direction of it's spin. So a disc like a FB would have a high resistance number and understable discs could be represented by integers based on how understable they are. This would eliminate the issue of speed stability and how some discs don't turn for some people, but will for more powerful throwers. No longer would the highest degree of resistance be represented by a "0".

I think the term "stability" should be used to describe the disc's tendency to remain balanced in flight, aka how well/how long the disc holds it's line. Discs that really lock onto a line (ahem, MVP) would have high stability ratings, and discs that like to turn and fade more would have a lower stability number. Also, discs that are so overstable they want to turn soon out of the hand would have low stability ratings(because once again they resist flying stable or balanced). This would make SO MUCH more sense, however it would confuse the hell out of everyone for a time, but what change wouldn't?

Speed cannot be simply left out of the equation, even if we divided disc into classes based on range. How would we rate fast overstable discs that have a fairly short range, but still move fast? I do think that we to use something like "potential speed" which connotes the fact that every thrower won't necessarily get the disc to it's potential.

Finally we need some sort of power requirement rating like Joe's has, which would be defined as the power it takes to make the disc behave according to it's other ratings.

Potential Speed, Resistance, Stability, and Power. What do you guys think?

 

[sloppydisc]

I think that all the disc golfers and disc manufacturers will never agree on anything for many reasons. And if the disc golf Utopians do come up with some sort of system it will be flawed and anger people. Get over it. There are enough opinions and sources now for people to get a pretty good idea what a disc can and cannot do.

 

[money 21]

I honestly think that joes chart is a very good tool. And i think that if it were layed out a little different it could be even more useful. I like range rather then speed and gilde but i would make it a 1-10 but use letters scale. i would then use a stblity rating like discraft 0 being stable -3 being super under stable and 3 being super over stable. then have a power rating to acheive discribed flight. 1-5 denoted by color. so like a buzz would get a rating of ( E 0 Green).

 

[throwfromthewoods]

This is for discspeed, since I don't want to quote his entire reply:

So do you think that something akin to Discraft's numbering could be tailored to fit a "Stability Resistance" figure, and erase the LSS/HSS figures? I'm down for that.

I honestly gave up on the speed rating because I couldn't think of a workable way to create figures that would actually MEAN something. (Not that I tried very hard, mind you.) I honestly appreciate what Vibram does for their speed ratings, but I'm not so in tune with my body that I know what throwing at 55mph feels like. 2-13 is a point of reference, sure. But we're getting into discs like the River and the Volt, where what people have associated with a speed 7 or 8 or 9 are now not indicative of these discs. So the point of reference starts to break down. It's definitely the trickiest of the disc traits to pin down universally.

Power is another tricky one, because I think it goes hand in hand with speed. I would imagine one could brainstorm a way to factor both of those into a single point of reference. Power without speed would cause the disc to act outside of its design, likewise speed without power. Some kind of ideal power figure to reach intended speed, maybe?

 

[mzuleger]

We just need some reliable review sources that people can grow to trust... just like every other product.

 

[Titanic_Sinks]

Personally (like anyone cares), I think that the charts that show an actual flight path are the way of the future. Really all we are lacking is an impartial panel of throwing judges or (god this is gonna sound dorky) a throwing machine. We could track the flight path of a disc thrown 5 times by 5 different people and just get the average of all the flight patterns and draw it out. Yeah, I know it wouldn't make for a small nifty guide you could send out with disc orders, but it would make a nice visual chart that would be easy to understand. Plus, we disc golfers are visual creatures, hence our love of sweet dyes and plastics and the beauty of a good disc flight. Just my goofy idea.

 

[throwfromthewoods]

Really all we are lacking is an impartial panel of throwing judges or (god this is gonna sound dorky) a throwing machine.

Woah, settle down there Isaac Asimov. Next thing you know, robots will want to play in PDGA events.

 

[discspeed]

Dave D. from Innova explained to me once on PDGA.com how Innova tried using disc byrons (throwing machines) and that at that time they did an incredibly poor job of predicting what would happen when a human threw the disc.

 

[Titanic_Sinks]

Woah, settle down there Isaac Asimov. Next thing you know, robots will want to play in PDGA events.

I told you it was gonna sound dorky! I don't mean to be the Ben Bova of disc golf over here, but that was just off the top of my head. We are lacking SOME way of getting a consistent way of testing...robot or otherwise.


"I am not a speed reader, I am a speed understander"
- Asimov

"We are living in a tremendous era of exploration"
- Bova

See? Could be construed as disc golf related (why not).

 

[rocthecourse]

Personally (like anyone cares), I think that the charts that show an actual flight path are the way of the future. Really all we are lacking is an impartial panel of throwing judges or (god this is gonna sound dorky) a throwing machine. We could track the flight path of a disc thrown 5 times by 5 different people and just get the average of all the flight patterns and draw it out. Yeah, I know it wouldn't make for a small nifty guide you could send out with disc orders, but it would make a nice visual chart that would be easy to understand. Plus, we disc golfers are visual creatures, hence our love of sweet dyes and plastics and the beauty of a good disc flight. Just my goofy idea.

The problem I have with the flight charts is that they are only for one distance, and if you don't throw that distance the chart doesn't help. Now if someone could come up with a flight chart that you could enter in your throwing distances(like how far can you throw a Teebird) and the chart would change accordingly, that I would be into.

 

[McFer]

I think there's little incentive for manufacturers especially to put out accurate, understandable flight ratings. The rampant misunderstanding of disc speed is a manufacturers' dream, beginners buying wrong discs from the get-go and then having to re-stock once they learn a little. For every potential DG addict that gives up after not being able to throw a Destroyer on day 1, there's some other guy that develops a plastic habit that knows no bounds.

I certainly do prefer the term "power requirement" to "speed." When it's couched in those terms, it's much more honest and useful. Turn and Fade or HSS/LSS are both such subjective and variable-laden numbers that it might be hard to improve on them.

 

[onemilemore]

The problem I have with the flight charts is that they are only for one distance, and if you don't throw that distance the chart doesn't help. Now if someone could come up with a flight chart that you could enter in your throwing distances(like how far can you throw a Teebird) and the chart would change accordingly, that I would be into.

This would be tremendous. I would like to see a company take this route and market their discs to different power levels. Give me 3 drawn flight paths - 200 feet, 300 feet and 400+ - and it will be helpful for a range of skill levels.

 

[discspeed]

The only thing I would like to see is a universal standard for determining speed(rim width should equal speed.)

The problem is rim width does not equal speed. The shape of the nose and the wing has a lot to do with the speed. The Max has a fairly wide rim, yet is way slower than other discs of the same rim width. I also think that before long disc makers will try making wide rimmed/blunt nose discs that will fly like mids or fairway drivers only a lot more OAT friendly for casuals. Or who knows, maybe we will all like them.

I think my reliance on the PDGA in this concept is that every manufacturer already hands their discs over to the PDGA for approval. If the PDGA adopted this, what would Innova say? "Screw you, we're not dealing with you anymore."? Then not a single Innova disc is approved for PDGA play. Yes, they'd kick up a fuss and throw a fit. But if it was deemed a necessary change, or even a change for the greater good of the sport...why not?

I hate to say it, but "Screw You" is exactly what Innova would say if the PDGA did anything to affect their bottom line. Innova could break away from the PDGA, start their own organization, and probably have as many or more people playing in a couple years than the PDGA currently has. This is why the PDGA has never really gotten strong with Innova about anything. Innova is just way richer and more powerful.