[Question] Potential tech standards changes?

[atay87]

There is no way to make a safer driver unless you significantly round off the outer edge, thus making it a putter. But I would have to think that pedestrians getting hit in public parks is so rare that its not really an issue.

 

[grodney]

I agree with iacas -- safety is just one of the issues here -- and my guess would be it's only a fraction of Harold's overall view.

 

[oddjob]

http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=26183

http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=27347

https://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=24469&page=33

3. Lastly, where do you plan on going with your next generation of drivers? The rim on the destroyer is so wide I can't see any wider being widely usable. I have large hands and the destroyer is on the verge of being a little too big.Ilet a buddy try it and it was too wide for him and i would say he has normal size hands.

DD:
3. I agree with your assessment of the wide rim. One of the technical spec limitations we asked the PDGA for was a rim width limitation for the very reason you stated. Plus discs like the Destroyer make big arms bigger and do little if anything to help anyone else. I don't think that is a good thing for disc golf. I have resisted making this disc for a couple of years trying to get the PDGA to see this logic. So far, no go.

 

[Halcón]

Safety was mentioned in the OP, and is completely relevant to the thread. On that we should all be able to agree on.

 

[iacas]

Safety was mentioned in the OP, and is completely relevant to the thread. On that we should all be able to agree on.

Obviously I agree that the OP mentioned safety, but I don't really agree that it's relevant, no. There are plenty of threads on safety. Discussion on that topic can take place in those.

This thread raised the relatively new idea of sustainability. It seemed to me to be the main point of the thread. But because the OP mentioned something that doesn't seem to have been mentioned by Duvall (sp?), the thread has turned into the same old discussion about safety.

:\

 

[rakeyohn]

You don't think that destroyers, kraits, bosses, xcalibers, katanas, grooves, apes and vulcans make up a major part of Innova's revenue?

It would hurt DC and Prodigy far more than Innova. Minor setback for a company whose flight chart is almost completely full, major blow to a company that has no 10/11 drivers and a company that sells more nukes than almost every other mold combined not including the buzz.

 

[grodney]

Technology has also really dumbed down the amount of skill required to play, too -- even at the higher levels. Any hulk can just grab a high-speed overstable driver and be fairly successful. It used to be that you needed some skill. Call me a bitter old fart, but it's true.

 

[DiscJunkie]

I haven't read the entire thread, but enough to get the scope.
Just my .02, and here goes:

A LOT of our older courses were designed on fairly small parcels of land. These courses are being out-dated by wide-rimmed drivers. Great courses, now marginalized by disc technology.
In order to keep up with the new technology, we are forced to build bigger and bigger courses on bigger and bigger pieces of land. Is that sustainable? As land (especially in urban and suburban areas) rises in price and scarcity, long quality courses will be harder and harder to get built.

I shouldn't even need to cover the Safety angle. Those things are dangerous.

How could we go back?
Here are some options:
1. Give these discs a two-year window and then ban them from all competition.
2. Designate certain competitions as Speed-Restricted (whatever you want to call it). Specify a max rim width and enforce it just like the Japan Open does with weight. Call it "Vintage Class" or something like that, similar to Super-Class competitions.

I don't have a strong opinion on how far we go back, but Speed 9 (TeeBird, FireBird) seems like a good starting point for debate. Speed 11 is as high as I would feel comfortable with.

Personally, I agree with Harold, so far.
I'm interested to see how far this goes.

 

[sidewinder22]

people pay to go WATCH those events so they are there at their own risk and should be paying attention. Kids and families at parks aren't there to watch disc golf they have a rigt to the park just as much as disc golfers.... i guess you need to visit SoCal courses to understand.

I don't think you understand my post. There are designated playing fields in public parks for many sports and random people don't usually wander into them. Disc golf courses in public parks should be sectioned off so random people don't wander onto the course. And courses that play through non disc golf only areas are bad for safety reseasons.

 

[Cgkdisc]

If DG were officially classed an "active use" (controlled sport venue) versus "passive use" (other activities like walking allowed in the area) sport, then many courses may eventually be pulled and not get approved. We've (course designers) tried to walk the line with parks departments that DG is a tweener sport between active and passive use. That's been important because in many locations they have master plans and even legal requirements for what percentage of parkland is dedicated to active, passive and natural use.

 

[Discette]

....

I am going to paraphrase and summarize his presentation. He explained how disc golf has affected his life from being a world champion, disc company owner, course designer, TD and a few other items I don't remember. He pulled a hat out of a duffel bag for each aspect of the above items and set them on a stool. He said this stack of hats represents my life and career. He proceed to take a stack of max weight high speed drivers and threw the whole stack at the hats and knocked them off the stool. He then said heavy, sharp, and wide rim discs are ruining everything he has worked his entire life for and our sport can not sustain this model.

I was the only person who asked a question, which was do you have any data, evidence, or testing to backup your statements? He said "No and we don't want any". Then Bob Decker made a motion that is written above.

It is my understanding that the presentation was to consider the possibility of a new weight ratio that would apply ONLY the widest rim drivers.

The proposal was to open dialog on lowering the weight ratio to 8.0 grams per centimeter. The current ratio is 8.3 grams per centimeter. The new ratio of 8.0 gms/cm would only be applied to discs with a rim width exceeding 2.1 cm.

Therefore 169.60 grams would be the max weight for a 21.2 cm disc with a rim width exceeding 2.1 cm

2. What are the reasons for Innova making these recommendations?

Limiting weight does not limit distance potential as the current world record is held by a 136 gram disc. Lowering weights is not just about safety, but also about raising the skill level and reducing the strength necessary to throw. This tends to help level the playing field between large and small players.

3. Would our sport be the safer if all discs were 150 class and no sharper than a midrange? Would you want to get hit in the face with this disc by Ricky or Catrina?

There was no mention of 150 class in the proposal. As stated above, lowering weights is not just about safety.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Discette, no formal proposal with specific number changes was presented at the Summit meeting, just conceptual ideas. That doesn't mean Harold didn't have specifics available.

 

[atay87]

Does anyone have an example of a hole that has been made too easy or out of date by wide rim drivers?

 

[dx_roc]

Dropping a destroyers max weight by 5 grams seems immaterial to the stated concerns.

 

[grodney]

I realize Discette has a pathway to insider info, but what she's saying doesn't make sense in relation to what was described in the OP.

 

[DiscJunkie]

Dropping a destroyers max weight by 5 grams seems immaterial to the stated concerns.

This^^^^

 

[bradharris]

Technology has also really dumbed down the amount of skill required to play, too -- even at the higher levels. Any hulk can just grab a high-speed overstable driver and be fairly successful. It used to be that you needed some skill. Call me a bitter old fart, but it's true.

This seems to me to be the real point of the sustainability argument.

It's about reclaiming some of the competitive balance where you have to really learn how to throw well rather than just using brute strength to succeed.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Maybe someone else has made this point (I haven't read every post) but many other sports have gone through this very same technology driven problem. In Baseball, for example, biomedical technology including advances in strength training and PEDs have led to bans on PEDs and changes to equipment to keep existing ballparks from becoming obsolete. Aluminum bats are simply not allowed in MLB and have had to be restricted at the college level because they were allowing the college players to hit the ball too far. Now the baseballs have been "adjusted" to restrict flight as well (these changes can be reversed if pitchers become too dominant). Pitchers can't use cerain substances that makes their curve ball a little too effective. When I was still playing Softball, balls were restricted to COR 47 in most amateur leagues and maybe in others. In golf, there are restrictions on clubs and balls to restrict golfers from hitting the ball too far as well as a rule that limits the number of clubs that you can carry (which disc golf would do well to adopt IMO). A recent rule change will go into effect in golf at the end of the year to prevent a certain putting technique because it is too effective. Before that became an issue, the shaft length on putters had to be restricted due to a similar issue.

Some players have innate advantages that must be tamed as in basketball, where tall players are prevented from gaining too much of an advantage by the 3 second rule (and now the 3 point line) and good ball handlers are prevented from running out the clock by the 5 second rule (and now the shot clock).

I think it would do disc golf well as a sport for: 1) its players to acknowledge or at least understand that it involves many skills other than simply throwing far; and, 2) its governing bodies to prevent players who can throw 500' from gaining too much of an advantage over very good players who can't throw much past 350.

 

[grodney]

This seems to me to be the real point of the sustainability argument.

It's about reclaiming some of the competitive balance where you have to really learn how to throw well rather than just using brute strength to succeed.

Yeah, I mean it's obviously not THAT simple. But I think the technology has blurred the skill and bunched people up. Regressing the technology would emphasize skill. (Frisbee skill, anyway.)

 

[_MTL_]

What I don't understand is why is Harold of all people the one concerned about this? He caused the issue as Innova was the first company to start with these types of discs! I remember when the wraith came out the add was "These things go to 11" referring to it being faster than a Valkyrie and Orc.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with his idea, but I certainly disagree that throwing discs that you feel should no longer be used made by the company you own extremely strange.

This is just another example of a huge conflict of interest that our sport always seems to run into.