As all of us know, each disc fly's different in each others hands. However the discs each have their own particular stability and flight characteristics.

(I do not throw Gateway or Lightning so I will leave them out, but include them in my overall point.)

Innova does a fairly well detailed definition of the flight characteristics of their discs, breaking them down into 4 parts. And once you learned one Innova disc you can check the ratings and be sure that you can follow the numbers to get what you want out of another disc.

Discraft, although they make great discs and there is almost no differentation between runs of discs, has a vauge stability rating. For those of you who have thrown both a ZWasp and a ZMRV know that the Wasp is very overstable and the MRV is fairly straight and will turn over once broken in. Discraft labels these discs as having the same stability rating.

The major flaw I have with these ratings is that each company has a person who goes out and throws the disc and almost arbitariliy calls a discs stability on how they threw it that day. Now I am sure that these testers throw a lot of discs and are most likely professional players, but there is alot of room for human error.

I know that most discs are designed and wind tunnel tested, unless the companies are running huge simulation computers. But I suggest a universal testing device. Kinda like a pitching machine that can throw the discs at different speeds but with the same angle of release. There are buildings large enough for this type of testing, and the machines can throw the discs at speeds relative to a Professional, MA1, MA2, Womens, and Recreational players.

I have a rather fast throw for a MA1 player, and unless someone can throw as fast as I do, they will not know the difference between a Beast and a Orc. A universal stability ratings system done by a universal machine would lessen the guess work between discs stability.

Unless of course Innova, Discraft, Gateway, Lightning, and Ching do not care about what the others are doing, but their driver releases prove other wise.

Innova - Beast matched by Discraft - Crush
Innova - Orc matched by Discraft - Flash
Innova - Monster matched by Discraft - Flick

The competitive comparisons show that these companies watch what eachother is doing, don't you think there should be a universal stability rating?

Are you kidding me? Do people actually use those stupid things? The only way to know what a disc will do is to throw it. Innova and Discraft ratings are total BS.

Also, if there is a universal rating system, who is going to make it? Everyone out there is biased in some sort of way. Who is to say which disc is best. You can't explain how a disc flies with numbers. Just try the friggin' disc!



Down with rating systems. What we really should have is a disc rental service. You pay $1 and leave your ID and you can play a round with any disc. I would gladly pay a dollar to play a round with Innova or Discraft's latest before I lay down $15 on a disc that might be crap for me. You can read the numbers all you want, but it all comes down to the throw. How it flies for you. There is no possible way to rate discs with numbers.

I agree...but something linking Discraft and Innova and Gateway and Lightning and Millenium and Discwing and Whamo and Ching and DGA and ______...would help a little. :)

www.discgolfreview.com (http://www.discgolfreview.com)

Innova - Beast matched by Discraft - Crush
Innova - Orc matched by Discraft - Flash
Innova - Monster matched by Discraft - Flick



I am sorry to burst your buble but the Beast and Crush fly nothing alike and the Orc is Overstable where the Flash is more Straight to Understable and if you think your MONSTER is even CLOSE to as OVERSTABLE as a 174 Z Flick then you must be CRAZY.

I do agree though that its doesnt matter what a disc is rated.

Go out to a field throw the disc then rate it for yourself.

Thats the only way i rate my discs because something could be way overstable for someone i know and then i throw it and its flippy so just throw the disc and whatever it does is what it does no matter what the rating says :)

Also, if there is a universal rating system, who is going to make it?



yeah good point. maybe there should be some kind of disc golf officiating body.... awe...........ahhh......

: ) :

Just go here! And buy from this guy! Ive had nothin but screamin deals and great service!http://www.teepad.bigstep.com/DiscCharacteristicSpreadsheet.htm

Universal Ratings! Pretty accurate/interesting ratings (look at the Dragon (best beginner driver!) (http://www.teepad.bigstep.com/DiscCharacteristicSpreadsheet.htm)

As for who would test them? How about the PDGA? They already approve each disc. Why not put it on a throwing machine.

Orc - overstable, only if you are throwing something that is too heavy for you. I throw 175 Orcs and if I do not put hyzer on them they will flip over. Although they do stable out once they slow down but at top speed they like to turn.

Beast - Crush, see below.

Monster overstable as a Flick - No, but see below. Flick is the only disc I have seen lose distance if it is too high in the air (40+ft) when it starts the fade. Also I have seen it stick in the ground, on end, more often then any other disc.

My pairings of the discraft and innova discs are really from a marketing standpoint, your competitor comes out with a disc so you try to best it. Sometimes it works sometimes not.

Of course, if you would have read my posting at the top I said that each persons throw has a different effect for the disc. It also has alot to do with WEIGHT. I know too many people that will argue over and over that the Flash is overstable; I will look at their Flash and it is 174g, then the rest of their drivers, Valks Teebirds, etc are all mid 160's. Duh it would be overstable its too heavy.

Overall at least innova is fairly consistent in their ratings, but Discraft calling a MRV and WASP the same is just plain nuts.

Just go here! And buy from this guy! Ive had nothin but screamin deals and great service!http://www.teepad.bigstep.com/DiscCharacteristicSpreadsheet.htm



Yeah I know the guy that operates that online store, lives near Birmingham where I am at. I have seen his spreadsheet when he posted it at our course. Of course and he admits that it is biased to human error, but at least he did those stats over an extended period of time.

He is a great guy, donated alot of Merchandise for the Summer League I run here. I would definately reccomend teepad.com if your looking to buy discs individually.

Overall at least innova is fairly consistent in their ratings, but Discraft calling a MRV and WASP the same is just plain nuts.



I would throw more Innova if it wasn't so confusing as to which run of each disc does what. I can't keep up with 10x vs. 11x and then find out that some 10x are like 11x or whatever the deal with that is. It would be so wonderful if they just stayed with the same thing with each run and then if they wanted to tweak it, they could make a different disc or at least call it something different. I know what I am getting when I buy a Wasp from Discraft, but it's like playing the lottery when I go for a Roc from Innova...I could win or I could lose.

When I saw a Flick at Worlds, I thought it looked similar to an Illusion rather than a Monster. Both have pretty shallow rims.

But I do agree that every disc acts different for different people. For some, Orcs are longer TeeBirds...yet I read a lot of you saying they are flippy. I wouldn't know, so if someone asked me what it does, I'd have no clue b/c I've never thrown one and EVERYONE says something different.

I have never come close to flipping an ORC or Beast, but I throw Teebirds and Eagles over 400'. Now what do you say?

By the way, according to the Innova site, ALL THESE DISCS HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME FADE:

Beast
Orc
Starfire
Valkyrie
Viking
Firebird
Dragon
Eagle
Banshee
Cheetah
Gazelle
Viper
Cobra
Gator
ROC
Rhyno



You be the judge.

According to Discraft, ALL THESE DISCS HAVE THE SAME FADE:

Cyclone
XL
XS
Wildcat
Flash
Cyclone2
MRV
WASP

Plus, they say the MRX and the Flick have the same fade...that's just nutty.



Like I said, you be the judge.

Like I said, you be the judge.



EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go out and throw the disc then judge what it does for you :D

Like I said, you be the judge.



EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go out and throw the disc then judge what it does for you :D



Word.

[QUOTE]
I have never come close to flipping an ORC or Beast, but I throw Teebirds and Eagles over 400'. Now what do you say?[QUOTE]


I say throw what works best for you.

I throw my champ Orc and Beast about 20% farther then my teebirds. Dx Beast I throw about 25% farther. Just because they are faster discs. I never pull out a Beast or an Orc unless I am looking at a hole over 400ft.

Most of the time I drive with teebirds, TL's or a Wasp/Roc.

Throw what you know, know what you throw.

Throw what you know, know what you throw.




DING DING DING we have a winner folks.

Who cares what everyone else is throwing. Throw the discs YOU know :D

Are you kidding me? Do people actually use those stupid things? The only way to know what a disc will do is to throw it. Innova and Discraft ratings are total BS.
Also, if there is a universal rating system, who is going to make it? Everyone out there is biased in some sort of way. Who is to say which disc is best. You can't explain how a disc flies with numbers. Just try the friggin' disc!

Down with rating systems. What we really should have is a disc rental service. You pay $1 and leave your ID and you can play a round with any disc. I would gladly pay a dollar to play a round with Innova or Discraft's latest before I lay down $15 on a disc that might be crap for me. You can read the numbers all you want, but it all comes down to the throw. How it flies for you. There is no possible way to rate discs with numbers.



Wow I totally agree, a discs "rating" is going to be subjective depending on who throws it. The only way to have a truely objective way of rating discs is to have a DiscGolf Testing Institute that has gotten $10000000 grant to build a disc throwing robot that throws discs the exact same way every time in a vaccum THUS resulting in a perfect throw every time. Unfortunally this would cause the costs of discs to go up probably 300% because they would have to be verifyed by the robot, and there would be massive "one upping" for companies who the robot can throw the best /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

BUT if you bent on "system"
check this

http://www.marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/proddetail.asp?prod=msfg

OR just order somthing from them and get the poster for free. It has a ton of discs, but I do find it flawed, but good none the less. I like it better than the Teepad one (once again, even with charts, SUBJECTIVE)

[The only way to have a truely objective way of rating discs is to have a DiscGolf Testing Institute that has gotten $10000000 grant to build a disc throwing robot that throws discs the exact same way every time in a vaccum THUS resulting in a perfect throw every time.



If you did it in a vacuum every disc would have the same rating, "perfectly straight." ;)

[The only way to have a truely objective way of rating discs is to have a DiscGolf Testing Institute that has gotten $10000000 grant to build a disc throwing robot that throws discs the exact same way every time in a vaccum THUS resulting in a perfect throw every time.




I am aware of this, I was showing the folly of the idea.
If you did it in a vacuum every disc would have the same rating, "perfectly straight." ;)

Coming into this thread late I may be repeating somethings already mentioned, but here goes;
This is a very good post and one worth elaborating on.
I for one feel the PDGA should develop a universal system.
A lot of players all over the country complain that the pdga doesnt do much for the players (rec and pro's alike).
This is not my opinion but that of a lot of players we deal with each and every day.
This type of project is EXACTLY what the pdga should be spending money on.
As to your comment on human error in testing:
Not only human error but styles of throw from velocity to revolutions and trajectory vary immensely A real big factor is whether a player has turbulance in his release or is smooth as silk.
Not to cut you down or anything, but the head to head conmparison of the disc you chose is not the same way I would compare.
Innova - Beast matched by Discraft - closer to elite wildcat, Z-XL or Z-XS
Innova - Orc matched by Discraft - Crush, flash is too flippy
Innova - Monster matched by Discraft Extra or X2 flick is waaaaay fastre than a monster.
Innova eagle - discraft Talon
These comparisons are based on stability, speed, penetration and glide.

On a different note I doubt any of the companies use wind tunnel testing or computer generated analysis.
Most if not all of it are just adjustments made to previous discs, nose radious,wing shapes( height, length and radious), flight plate thickness and transitions from edge to center ( or dome).
It is really hard to predict shrinkage from design to part especially when 3 or 4 different plastics may be used in the same mold as well as combinations of polymers.

Yes I know my comparisons were proably not the best, but it was meant to illustrate the competitve nature of the two companies, and how consumers would benefit from a system that directly compared the products of each company.

In any competitve comparision where loyalty is on the line, you are bound to recieve resistance to any type of neutral comparison. Relate this to the automotive industry. The big competition between Chevrolet and Ford, owners of these vehicles swear by the brand regardless of performance testing and historical analysis. Same thing with disc manufacturers, I have seen the same ignorance in people say, "I never throw _______, everything they make is crap" fill in manufacturers name in the blank.

I agree that the PDGA would be the best offical factor in determining the ratings of discs, they are already inpartial to all manufacturers. The problem would be the appropriation of funds to do something of this magnitude. Perhaps this idea is ahead of the financial realities of the PDGA, but I do feel that is a worth while inititive to pursue. It would benefit primarily the beginner players who are new to the game. Old time players may have already developed brand loyalty or already "know what they throw" and will not change.

I think this is the last thing the PDGA should spend their/our money on.
First they should spend money on new courses and second on promoting the sport.

But back to discs: a golf disc only costs between $7-13 and should be available at your course where someone can recommend good a beginner disc or at least know what it supposed to do. The problem starts when a beginner tries to throw Beasts, Orcs, and Crushes. I have been playing for 3 years now and I just realized that skill is more important then any disc out there. You give the top pros any putter, any midrange and any driver and they will be able to play, and learn that disc.

However, I think Innova has the best system out of all the companies. Sure it isn't perfect but for me it works and makes sense; at least they acknowledge that there are different parts of a discs flight. And the rating are relative to other discs, so if you know one you can kind of imagine what another one will do. But here in lies the problem; they are rated for a professional thrower, not different stages of development. That is the problem with every rating system out there, when I first starting playing I could throw a Comet and Wizard pretty straight, so I thought I should try some drivers. I bought a Valkyrie, Archangle, Eagle, and XL, and guess what they all did the same thing...they faded hard left. I didn't know how to throw fast enough or with enough snap. Now that I have played I see that in fact they are different and the Ratings make sense. So even if there was a universal rating, it wouldn't matter to a beginner.

I think it all comes down to the Marketing of the Disc manufacturer and I think Innova is the only company to really have enough capital to keep up with it, and that is just because they are the oldest, compare their website to the others. But they still didn�t realize that all you need are different levels of players to test the discs, and to give different ratings for ability.

But anyway, this is the last thing the PDGA should be worried about; the only disc related thing they should be concerned with is if it is a LEGAL disc. It is part of the player�s development to pick his discs based on his style and information provided from Disc Companies not the PDGA.

-Matt

I really dont feel that it would be that expensive to develop the system or rate the discs.
If it could be done for less than a grand, would it be worth it for the pdga to spend?
I'm sure that once the categories and base #'s were developed that there would be some volunteers to do the testing. I would surely donate the discs!!! :)
I would love to have our discs tested head to head by an unbiased group, but would any of the other manufacturers?

Here at Gateway we are getting ready to develop some marketing materials for our discs, baskets and Amateur tour( gdstour.com).
We have been working on a flight chart for the discs which will be quite similiar to innova's (the discraft one seemed to vague).
When we looked at Innovas closely it seemed confusing that they were not using a base of 10 for each area of the discs performance. Ours will have pretty much the same catagories but we will use 10 as the base for each.(Speed, Glide, turn and fade)
I agree that there should be a ratings for players with 200 power, 250 power, 300 power and 350 power.
You could base ones power on how far they can cleanly throw their putter. This is something that most players should know.
.
The problem is if you are trying to fit your flight info all on one page for Point of Sale, you run out of room.
While we are on this subject there is one aspect of a players throw that almost never gets mentioned. The height or trajectory of a disc when thrown. This has EVERYHING to do with stability and it's ability to penetrate and glide.
.
To succesfully complete a flight chart that would include everything needed, you would end up with a Paperback novel
(Well Ok at least one 4 pages long).

I
To succesfully complete a flight chart that would include everything needed, you would end up with a Paperback novel
(Well Ok at least one 4 pages long).



OR..... A disc throwing robot ;)

I wonder if you could modify one of those clay pigeon throwers?
The trick would be the spin, I'm not sure that trap or skeet targets are spinning.
Does anyone have any experience with them?

Of course they spin, they are discs, you know what happens when you throw a disc without spin...
The Clay Pigeon gets put into a tight flexible clamp that is attached to a whip like shaft then to a handle. Then you throw it like you would throw a disc forehand and the whip like force throws it out of the clamp creating speed and spin. They dont really go that far with the hand held ones but the machines toss them very far, problaby more speed and spin.
It would be tough to do that with golf discs, the grip would have to be much more complex.
-Matt

There has got to be some terrific inventors who could modify one of those clay piegon throwers to throw a disc.

That is a terrific idea.

Yeah they do spin em. Thing is, they spin them the opposite way. RHBH thrower spins them counter clockwise. Picture laying the disk in a trackball racket (remember those?) And flicking it sidearm. Best thing would be to attatch a springy wrist on the end of em. Realease would be tricky but i have an idea....Discraft! Innova! Gateway! Somebody! Give me some money! (Its ok Lightning, just hang in there!) I used to build test fixtures for automotive testing. If i can make an 8 station fixture that will open a cupholder, place Big Gulp inside, lift it out and close it with different degrees of slam, this is cake! Cake with sprinkles on it even!

Yeah they do spin em. Thing is, they spin them the opposite way.



Yeah I was looking at our thrower the other day. You would basically have to make a custom arm that held the disc in the other way. You could make the clamp emulate the grip between the thumb and index finger, but beyond that it would be a trail and error ordeal.

Also, Clay throwers toss them UP (ie nose up) so you would have to make a platforum that would station the thrower up around 5'6" (avg height of person? ) so it would be throw realistically.

Ours will have pretty much the same catagories but we will use 10 as the base for each.(Speed, Glide, turn and fade)
I agree that there should be a ratings for players with 200 power, 250 power, 300 power and 350 power.
You could base ones power on how far they can cleanly throw their putter



I really like this Idea... I've always thought that a table of "power levels" With 4 ratings (ie, speed, glide, turn, fade out of 10) across the top and then power ratings (based on putter distances is great, but maybe an ulti disc would be a better gauge... I mean which putter do we choose??? wizard, aviar, apx, upshot etc.) down the side would be great.

OK if I throw my "gauge disc" (ulti disc etc. it could even be a standardized disc given out with your PDGA membership fees ???) X # of feet at Y% power* then this new disc will have this flight characteristic for me... I think this might work... what do you all think?

This should eliminate most "stylistic" variables that could be encountered... assuming they throw their gauge disc the same as they would the disc they want to analyze from the chart.


[ * with whatever power you feel is necessary b/c if Pro A throws a putter w/ 50% and it goes 250' and then Novice player B throws the same disc 250' at 100% power. the amount of momentum imparted on the disc should be consistent to get the same distances]

Sorry, it won't work. Ever.

I will never use a rating to tell me how a disc flies.
I will never let any sheet of paper tell me which disc is best for me.

Sorry, it won't work. Ever.

I will never use a rating to tell me how a disc flies.
I will never let any sheet of paper tell me which disc is best for me.



Ok, that's Graham's opinion. Glad we got that out of the way.

I will never use a rating to tell me how a disc flies.
I will never let any sheet of paper tell me which disc is best for me.



I will. Actually, I have in the past, and I will continue to do so in the future. DG's ratings, are pretty vague, Innova's are pretty helpful, but the best I've seen are the ratings at discgolfreview.com. They don't tell you "this disc is right for you", they attempt to objectively rate several flight characteristics on a scale of 1 to 10 that should be useful to a beginner or a pro. For example, the X Comet:.


Maximum Flight Speed 3.5

Ok. So now I know it's a bit slower than average.

Resistance To High Speed Turn 4.0

Ok, since I'm a beginner I don't need to worry about turning over discs, but I know I can't handle discs that are especially resistant to high speed turn, so I want them to be on the understable side. Bingo.

Amount Of Low Speed Fade 2.5

Doesn't fade much at the end. Good it'll be easier for me to throw it straight and have it stay straight.

Propensity To Fade 2.5

Oh. The little amount of fade it has is unlikely to happen, but at least I can throw it with some anhyzer (or a turnover when I get better) and expect it to come back a bit.

Glide 10.0

Wow. This amazing glide, combined with very little fade means I can eek out a few extra feet, especially on downhill shots. Great, because my D sucks.

Relative Distance 4.0

Well, this is doesn't tell me much more that the other stats didn't already show.

So anyway. True, you'll never know a disc, until you throw it, but why ignore information that could possibly be very helpful? I've gotten a lot of good advice from helpful members on this board (and some really bad advice too :p), and other resources on the internet. Before I found these resources, though, I was relying on advice from store clerks (175g Teebird for a rank beginner, hmmm..), experienced players on the course ("dude, this orc is seoh gnaR!") , and inexperienced players on the course ("dude, this orc is se-oh gnaR!" [shank!]). Then I found Innova's handy little sheet in a store and determined that I needed a Cheetah. Soon I was playing better and I wanted to find more courses around my house so I did a search and wound up here and found a wealth of information (almost too much at times). With so many subjective opinions out there it's nice to have something objective, if imperfect, as a counterbalance.

I think an ultimate disc is to far off base in speed and glide,( not apples with apples you know)
Most regular putters and approach discs ( Wizard, Aviar, Challenger) have somewhat similiar stability,speed and glide.
Most players also have at least one of these discs as well.
I dont think the Universal rating system is for telling you which disc to use, but more for a comparison of discs between manufacturers.
Since each company has their own way of rating the discs, It gets confusing for new players who want to try a different brand.
With that said, you can see why there is not much reason for the big boys to have a universal rating system.
This is as good a reason as any for the PDGA to establish one.
I send 3 discs to the PDGA everytime for physical testing, why not throw them too.
It would be so easy for those discs to be tested for flight as well as the physical standards.
Actually, with a universal system, the manufacturers could send in their ratings in the 4 catagories with the measurements. If the ratings were found to be too far off after testing, Some suggestions could be given for the changes.

Problem 1) who would test the discs?
Answer; a panel of 5 with the high and low #'s thrown out, using an average of the other 3.
Problem 2) What if the manufacturer doesnt like the final rating.
Answer; too Bad
Problem 3) who covers the costs?
answer; Raise the cost of having your discs approved by the pdga from $200 - $400. ( do you think the added $200 per disc will slow down the disc race)?
It would cost less than $50 to ship the 3 discs to each tester. 3 discs 5 times at around $8-$10
Pay the testers the extra $30 each for testing and reshipping)

Anybody have any other problems with this or answers?

Look if you guys want to rate a disc, numbers is the absolute worst way to do it. We already have the perfect rating system in place thanks to Blake T. and his site. Reviews are very valuable while number ratings are not. I would much rather hear how a disc flies from a familiar average disc golfer than a company that is only concerned with selling as many discs as possible (you know who you are, Innova and Discraft). Just go to Blake's site, www.discgolfreview.com (http://www.discgolfreview.com)

BTW, Dave, I like the idea of a disc reviewing panel, sorta like the olympics.

I send 3 discs to the PDGA everytime for physical testing, why not throw them too.
It would be so easy for those discs to be tested for flight as well as the physical standards.
Actually, with a universal system, the manufacturers could send in their ratings in the 4 catagories with the measurements. If the ratings were found to be too far off after testing, Some suggestions could be given for the changes.

Problem 1) who would test the discs?
Answer; a panel of 5 with the high and low #'s thrown out, using an average of the other 3.
Problem 2) What if the manufacturer doesnt like the final rating.
Answer; too Bad
Problem 3) who covers the costs?
answer; Raise the cost of having your discs approved by the pdga from $200 - $400. ( do you think the added $200 per disc will slow down the disc race)?
It would cost less than $50 to ship the 3 discs to each tester. 3 discs 5 times at around $8-$10
Pay the testers the extra $30 each for testing and reshipping)

Anybody have any other problems with this or answers?



Not bad, but I think that a larger population of throwers, a better way of measuring physical aspects of throwing styles (speed, rate of rotation, etc.), and some statistical analysis would help your system beat the robot for accuracy.

You could probably use one of the devices the PGA uses to measure speed, spin and whatnot on their pro's drives. Record a large number of throws from a large population and crunch the numbers. :p

Reviews are very valuable while number ratings are not.



While it is useful to see how the disc flies for other people, the numbers give you a clue as to how the disc will fly relative to other discs from the same manufacturer. It will be easier to understand how a disc flies for you that way. In fact, the most useful reviews are the ones that describe how the disc flies compared to other discs (i.e. "This disc flies like a a Teebird but more overstable"). Looking at flight ratings as absolute ratings describing the flight rather than relative ratings describing how the discs are different is a mistake. Once you know how one disc in a category flies for you you can look at the ratings and see how the other discs compare.

Look if you guys want to rate a disc, numbers is the absolute worst way to do it. We already have the perfect rating system in place thanks to Blake T. and his site. Reviews are very valuable while number ratings are not.



Did you just contradict yourself? Twice?

Another problem with ratings is that discs aren't consistant.
If I want to look at the published rating for a Valkyrie it tells me some numbers. But were those done with a DX, KC, or CE? 1st run, or 3rd? Red, Yellow or Blue? Domey or Flat top? Stock stamp or custom full color? What weight? What eleveation was it thrown at? What was the temperature? Wind? Humidity?

Look if you guys want to rate a disc, numbers is the absolute worst way to do it. We already have the perfect rating system in place thanks to Blake T. and his site. Reviews are very valuable while number ratings are not.



Did you just contradict yourself? Twice?

Another problem with ratings is that discs aren't consistant.
If I want to look at the published rating for a Valkyrie it tells me some numbers. But were those done with a DX, KC, or CE? 1st run, or 3rd? Red, Yellow or Blue? Domey or Flat top? Stock stamp or custom full color? What weight? What eleveation was it thrown at? What was the temperature? Wind? Humidity?



And something that David pointed out, that you never see mentioned....trajectory height. That is a MAJOR factor in a discs "Stability" and its distance potential.

Look if you guys want to rate a disc, numbers is the absolute worst way to do it. We already have the perfect rating system in place thanks to Blake T. and his site. Reviews are very valuable while number ratings are not.



Did you just contradict yourself? Twice?

Another problem with ratings is that discs aren't consistant.
If I want to look at the published rating for a Valkyrie it tells me some numbers. But were those done with a DX, KC, or CE? 1st run, or 3rd? Red, Yellow or Blue? Domey or Flat top? Stock stamp or custom full color? What weight? What eleveation was it thrown at? What was the temperature? Wind? Humidity?



And something that David pointed out, that you never see mentioned....trajectory height. That is a MAJOR factor in a discs "Stability" and its distance potential.



If you guys keep bringing up new factors of how to throw the disc the "ratings" info would be a volume of information about EVERY throw possible with the disc. I mean I don't think we need a chart to tell me where my Sabre is going to end up if I throw it with 'x' degrees of hyzer with an angle of elevation measuring 'y' degrees and with initial velocity of 'v' meters per second and with nose angle of 'z' degrees and also spin rate of 'w' rpm. I am quite sure that a computer could do this for any given disc on any topographical terrain, but doesn't that sort of take the fun of THROWING the dics just a LITTLE????

I think that the height a disc is thrown is a very legit factor many overlook. Some discs NEED more height to reach distances. Others fly better closer to the ground. But I do agree that all this can take the fun out of it. Ultimatly, get out in a field and see what it does for YOU.

I think that the height a disc is thrown is a very legit factor many overlook. Some discs NEED more height to reach distances. Others fly better closer to the ground. But I do agree that all this can take the fun out of it. Ultimatly, get out in a field and see what it does for YOU.



No offense DiscinDeadHead, but saying that how high a disc flys will affect is overall D is like saying that there fire is hot. It also reminds me of the movie Major League "Its too high." "What does that mean, too high?" "I don't know it was really high." "It doesn't matter how high it was, its gone." (loose quote but should hit the high points)

I don't take any offense, but I feel that its worth mentioning. Rocs are midranges, but many use them for CRAZY distances b/c they are thrown higher. Seems obvious, but then again, so do most things if you test the disc out for yourself.

While it is useful to see how the disc flies for other people, the numbers give you a clue as to how the disc will fly relative to other discs from the same manufacturer. It will be easier to understand how a disc flies for you that way. In fact, the most useful reviews are the ones that describe how the disc flies compared to other discs (i.e. "This disc flies like a a Teebird but more overstable"). Looking at flight ratings as absolute ratings describing the flight rather than relative ratings describing how the discs are different is a mistake. Once you know how one disc in a category flies for you you can look at the ratings and see how the other discs compare.



Exactly. No one is saying numbers have to be given more credit than any other review. Numbers are just an efficient way for people to compare discs in their reviews of discs. The entire point of having this information for the discs is so you can understand the flight properties of a certain disc by means of comparison. Opposed to understanding the disc by means of stuff like that crazy disc flight thesis people have posted in the past.

1) Decide if the person is credible at all who has made a review. To me Blake is very credible. Not without bias, just credible. If a board of 5 people were to be set up chances are, they'd be chosen due to their crediblity and ability to eliminate as much bias as they could.

2) Look at that person's comparisons. Numbers WILL be the easiest way to compare a large amount of different molds. I think the Factors of flight Blake has at his site are very helpful. Maybe a reviewer could also list the optimal disc height or angle of release, or whatever.

3) Knowing the knowledge someone credible has given to you, you can now be informed when buying discs. You can then personally compare and understand them.

Also it'd be cool like if wherever the place where the universal stability ratings were posted, that there also be personal reviews available to look at for each mold. (like at discgolfreview) Here, people could write if they agree or disagree with the official testers opinions.

Reviews are the best way to publically rate a disc, the only problem is some smuck who is totally bias, or have no idea what they are talking about could post a crap review. This thread is about, ideas to publically provide CREDIBLE reviews. Credible does not mean flawless and perfect.

The height necessary varies greatly by disc. At the Widdershins last month I pulled out my Dragon w/ a nice little tailwind. I thought I really shanked the drive because I didn't throw it over 4 feet high. 150 feet later it lowered to about 6 inches off the ground. The dragon floated like this for another 200 feet! I thought the "floats" description only applied to water. I guess it can float on grass too. :D

The height necessary varies greatly by disc. At the Widdershins last month I pulled out my Dragon w/ a nice little tailwind. I thought I really shanked the drive because I didn't throw it over 4 feet high. 150 feet later it lowered to about 6 inches off the ground. The dragon floated like this for another 200 feet! I thought the "floats" description only applied to water. I guess it can float on grass too. :D

:D:D:D