peter started the topic, but rather than destroy his thread, lets move it here

The one thing that the survey didn't really address has to do with requalification. Why O Why if you change a mold you don't have to resubmit, but if you change the name you do? That makes no sense.

I posted this in Peter's thread but figure it bears repeating over here so we can try to move the discussion :)

I think it is important to note that we are discussing PDGA standards for discs approved for PDGA play. I believe that there is a place for discs such as the Aerobie Ring, the Quest Turbo Putt and Wheel, but not in sanctioned PDGA play. Most rec players have no idea what "PDGA approved" means when it's stamped on their discs, and really couldn't care less what the PDGA thinks about their discs if they fly fine for them.

This is my favorite quote thus far from this discussion. I believe that this distinction should be the focus of these discussions.


The intent of most of Peter's examples are to make it easier for people who can't (or won't) commit the time and effort needed to master the skills of disc golf. Does the sport really need this? Innovation should be the realm of the player learning to perform shots that other's haven't, with the same equipment.


A group of people can play ultimate with any disc they find that will fly, but in tournament play it must be a 175g disc, and I believe in several cases must be an ultrastar. Do we not have room for this kind of set up in disc golf?

I think the challenge players and TDs face is that unlike Ultimate where it's apparent whether the standard 175g disc is being used, plus both teams use the same disc, other players in DG can't quickly tell whether a disc that looks "normal" is approved or not. Thus, even having so-called recreational discs approved becomes relevant unless they are so different in design that you can see it immediately like the Aerobie ring.

As James likes to point out on competition issues, is this a sport or recreational activity in terms of the PDGA's place in the discussion regarding tech standards. The more tightly a game regulates equipment guidelines, the more it becomes a sport. Basketballs and golf balls have specific diameters and springiness factors. Within those realms, innovation can still occur such as a more grippy or durable coating. But none which affect the parameters of the game itself.

Ball golf sanctioning groups have fought to cap the length shots can be struck. If holes are designed for players of a certain skill to land in a certain area, allowing innovation for shots to be struck longer undermines billions of dollars in course development to maintain the integrity of the game. We don't have the same course investment, but we also don't have the resources to continue making courses longer and more challenging for the technology.

I believe the proposal for rim width maximums from Innova itself would not have allowed the Destroyer. They understand the potential for runaway technology to undermine the balance of course design with equipment let alone the impact of these wider rimmed discs on safety, even if we don't directly want to address that issue based on liability concerns and the cost of creating tests and then testing to meet whatever safety guidelines were developed. As an aside, if you're trying to dodge a Destroyer coming at you, it has a more predictable flight path for your avoidance moves than a barrel rolling Epic. That's no indication of my position on radial symmetry because I'm not sure yet, just a comment on the safety aspects which I haven't heard addressed in regard to that technology.

Has the definition of radial symmetry really changed that much since I was an engineering student ?

According to most of the references I can find on the web, the Turbo Putt was radially symmetric. It appears that we mean to say that disc must be essentially round with no protrusions along it's single rim.

Since the birdie putter, zephyr, and gumb putt all had essentially flat outer rims greater than 1/2 inch in height, that should be fine. The Aerobie Arrow has a flight plane lower than the height of the outer rim, so that must be OK as well. now if we have a flat outer rim with the flight plane pretty much centered on the width of the outer rim, wouldn't we have a roller without a clear "top" ?

Still a single rim, would that be off limits as well ?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disk

Quest brought by a box of Wheel discs to the IOS yesterday. It was fun watching it roll, and if you put a lot of backspin on it, bounce and stop. But will this thing obsolete courses? No way. It will not go 1000 feet, unless you roll it down a mountain. And if you do, there's no telling when it would stop. This disc works great for scoobies to get out of trouble. It works great as a grenade. It is not going to help someone reach an 800 foot hole. This is not a "The world is going to end" disc. It is a "I hope this gets me out of trouble" disc.

If the wheel isn't approved, then the Aerobie Arrow shouldn't be either.

The issue with the Wheel isn't necessarily whether it should be approved but whether the nature of a disc design with the flight plate more in the middle versus the top is appropriate regardless whether the Wheel itself will turn the sport on its edge. Maybe another design along these lines might, or it might never. That's the question.

But the Arrow already has the flight plate more in the middle, doesn't it?

Yes. But the tech standards review will address the overall issue of a "sunken" flight plate for the lack of a better word.

So we have a putter and a roller with sunken flight plates and we are worried about 1000 foot distances (to quote a BOD memeber). Give me a break.

Frankly, I'd be surprised if a sunken flight plate could ever have the aerodynamics to fly/roll farther than a top flight plate design. But that's why there are many people including general members providing input on these important issues.

Is flight plate durability ever brought into account?

The new CFR Destroyers and the Wheel both have very thin flight plates. These flight plates could, especially in the case of the wheel, easily be pierced by a stick or thorn. Rendering it illegal...

I think you could pierce either of these discs in a tournament round with a throw that, with any other "common" disc would have been rendered harmless.

:confused:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disk



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disc

http://tinyurl.com/2mzyx6---Support Tiny URL!!!

The site says "variation" of...

That implies that is is inherently "different from"...any of those definitions of "disk", which is not the term we use...

...Not to say that those definitions don't apply to us as well, but they should not be viewed as a "have to".

Quest brought by a box of Wheel discs to the IOS yesterday. It was fun watching it roll, and if you put a lot of backspin on it, bounce and stop. But will this thing obsolete courses? No way. It will not go 1000 feet, unless you roll it down a mountain. And if you do, there's no telling when it would stop. This disc works great for scoobies to get out of trouble. It works great as a grenade. It is not going to help someone reach an 800 foot hole. This is not a "The world is going to end" disc. It is a "I hope this gets me out of trouble" disc.

If the wheel isn't approved, then the Aerobie Arrow shouldn't be either.

The notion of debating the standards for approval after two manufacturers have made discs that meet the standards so that you can change the standards on them is outrageous.

Meanwhile, anything I could do with the Wheel I could do with a Challenger, and a whole lot less! The Wheel is good for two or three short range trick shots some of us throw better with discs we throw all the time and are more familiar with.

Peter wrote on another thread:


The potential cutting danger of non-round discs is only one of the safety issues that concerns me. Another big one is danger to eyes.

Most human eyes are set deeply enough in their sockets that the impact of today's discs is absorbed by the bony structures of the face before the soft structure of the eyball is seriously compromised. To my knowledge, no one has ever been blinded by a PDGA-approved disc.

That changes if you allow projections, teeth, or (for example) square discs. Projections could dig into the eyeball, as could the corner of a square disc.

As for teeth that were "flexible and arced away from the rotation", you'd need two versions (for righties and lefties, or for forehand and backhand). And you'd need a rule that no one could throw it the wrong way.



Anybody that knows me will attest that safety in course design and disc golf is my #1 priority. Perhaps because safety is just a big part of my job at the chemical company I work at, it's been ingrained into my psyche. As a hobby, I also evaluate and review courses for a web page I keep, and safety is usually one of the main things I note. I have been asked by other courage designers to come in and look at their courses from a safety standpoint. I've also played with many, many recreational golfers over the years and have seen what they are capable of. I really think that the sport of disc golf has been lucky that despite some really poor hole designs at various courses, there's never been a death or serious injury from disc golf discs or equipment.

In this case however, I think that any safety fears from projection-edged discs are a little far-fetched. For starters, the only current projection-edged disc is a putter which is used only from short range. The likelihood of anyone getting hurt from putting is infinitesimal, imo. Furthermore, because of their decided lack of aerodynamics, I don't think that projection-edged discs would ever be used as mid-ranges, drivers or from longer distances where the rim speed of these discs are high enough to cause damage.

Again, as someone who is truly concerned about safety in disc golf, I truly think that projection-edged discs gouging out the eyeballs of pedestrians and other disc golfers is very much far-fetched and should not be used as a legitimate reasoning towards stifling innovation in disc golf discs.

Discs can be used in ways that manufacturers (or standard setters) may not intend. You can't produce a disc and then say, "You can't throw this one hard".

Initially, I saw no danger in the Turbo-Putt. The safety nickel dropped later when I heard people excited about the possibility that it or a similar design might be able to cut through foliage more effectively than a smooth rimmed disc.

Indeed it might, and through people too.

Is there really any reason to change the tech standards over the Turbo Putt, the Wheel, the Epic, the Arrow, or any other Quest AT or Areobee disc? How many of these do you see in players bags at tournaments? Just my opinion but most of the Quest and Aerobee discs I have seen have been more of a cause for me to go,"Man that looks like something from outer space. What were they thinking?" than, "Wow that's cool! I've got to get one of those." Maybe I'm in the minority but I kind of doubt it. Why not just let Darwin's theory run its course here and let these discs die on their own instead of ruling them out of existance. It's not like any of these are some new super disc that everyone will throw. I also doubt that any of the larger companies are in a hurry to copycat their own version of these flying oddities.

Now on a more specific question. If the sunken flight plate (Arrow/Wheel) is outlawed, shouldn't the Innova thumbtrack, the Discraft groove top, and the Ching accelerator dimples also be outlawed for the same reason? They are basically the same thing, maybe not as pronounced as the sunken Arrow or Wheel flight plate.

while it seems unlikely for a disc to cause much damage I can attest to a disc thrown by a beginning junior causing 13 stitches in the back of a lady`s head.I actually have seen other injuries throughout the years but that one stands out(as it was my sister in law with a group of mentor kids that had never thrown before).range about 120-140 ft don`t remember but think it was a valk.Kid could throw maybe 220-250 ft total...just a fluke.BUT if it can happen like this, well MURPHY`S LAW will make it happen again.Projections just make it more likely.Throwing star anyone?

The rescinding of PDGA approval of a disc is not a good precedent. It would have been better to leave it approved,
change the tech specs, grandfather it in, and cap production. Pulling approval on a disc that was approved where the manufacturer had already had to make a large quantity for it to be tourney legal was a poor decision and bad precedent by the BOD.

.....and shows poor leadership and lack of conviction.

Of course. That is the only logical conclusion /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Sorry, but again I find that scenario a little far-fetched. Nobody is making a saw-toothed disc that cuts through the forest and people like a circular saw blade. These are not made of sharpened metal, these are plastic frisbees!

Well played.
<<golf clap>>
:D

Sorry, but again I find that scenario a little far-fetched. Nobody is making a saw-toothed disc that cuts through the forest and people like a circular saw blade. These are not made of sharpened metal, these are plastic frisbees!



I have to agree with Jeff on this Peter. First, someone in the shule is going to play out through the best hole period. If there's leaves, so be it. The notion that the nobbies on this disc were going to help is one that I hope every dork on my card would go for. Advantage me!

Projections just make it more likely.Throwing star anyone?


come on now, you cannot say that with any scientific certainty. throwing stars? cutting through torsos? is this unfounded fear-mongering or a discussion about reality? i find it hard to believe the BoD will make this decision based on fears that discs will slice off limbs of tree and human alike. this is not Xena, the Princess Warrior.

I tend to agree with Rodney's assertion that these designs will die of their own lack of utility, but I still see no reason to allow them. Removing a potential unknown, or potential liability, however small it may appear, still seems prudent, imo.

Besides, what is the most persuasive reason anyone has heard to allow these types of discs?

because they conform to the published technical standards.

(unlike many an overweight innova driver :) but thats a different story)

Of course. That is the only logical conclusion /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Actually, I'd have to agree with 28003 on this. It does suggest a lack of leadership. More likely, it shows a desire to play the game by my own vision, which doesn't include discs with nubbies.

It was a good word-play but it does miss the greater point, or rather tries to obscure it with a good comeback.

I've applied to the local parks system to outlaw baseball throwing. It turns out that they're very hard and very dangerous!

The argument that the edge of this disc somehow constitutes a greater threat than some other object thrown at full speed is weak at best. Boomerangs are harder and sharper than this disc as are numerous other items that get thrown in parks.

I'm still opting for the, this disc doesn't fit my notion of what disc golf is about choice.

Too bad Whamo wasn't on their toes when Dunipace came out with the beveled edge disc. We'd still be throwing Frisbees.

BTW - James is correct, Oops, sorry, I mean Rodney is correct. This disc would have died of it's own inefficiencies. It doesn't carve out a large enough slot. What it has done in shown a desire to micromanage the sport in a fairly silly fashion.

Did you hear about the golf ball that was disallowed that had a special coating with microhooks (like velcro) that would keep the ball from rolling away from the hole on sloped greens. You had to putt a little harder but the ball would essentially stop when it ran out of gas and not roll down a shallow slope typical near holes.

Did you hear about the golf ball that was disallowed that had a special coating with microhooks (like velcro) that would keep the ball from rolling away from the hole on sloped greens. You had to putt a little harder but the ball would essentially stop when it ran out of gas and not roll down a shallow slope typical near holes.



Did you hear that almost all the top Pros use illegal clubs and because the structure for testing for such things is so bad they get away with it.

A ball with velcro changes the very nature of the game. This disc which applies to one putting style and has limited uses is going to have almost no impact.

On the other hand, I do agree that standards are necessary and appropriate and eventually, you will miss something, but I doubt it would be as significant as some think. This item isn't it. If you are going to make an exception, it should be for something that really matters, like a ball with velcro on it.

.....a disc with hooks on it?

Let me be more clear. There are two separate issues being discussed here. The first is how to deal with discs created under a set of guidelines and apparently (I have no idea) meet the guidelines, even though many people are bothered by their nature.

The second question is broader. What guidelines do we want going forward. Sub questions would likely be: Do we tighten up the guidelines to prevent certain kinds of discs or relax them to allow more?

My question was unclear. You answered about the specific discs already created. I care little about those. My question was meant to be "regardless of whether the current discs are allowed, give me a persuasive reason to allow discs like those in the future"?

Did you hear that almost all the top Pros use illegal clubs and because the structure for testing for such things is so bad they get away with it.



Did you hear that almost all tournament disc golf players use illegal (overweight) discs and because the structure for testing for such things is so bad they get away with it?

.....a disc with hooks on it?



I had the same thought, no more bounce throughs!

Did you hear that almost all the top Pros use illegal clubs and because the structure for testing for such things is so bad they get away with it.



Did you hear that almost all tournament disc golf players use illegal (overweight) discs and because the structure for testing for such things is so bad they get away with it?



This issue is very unimportant to me. Primarily because of my belief, not founded on any rational or scientific data, that the few grams in extra weight make any difference.

As opposed to a Rules Nazi, I'm a rules selectively applied believer. Of course the rules that I apply the most fervently are the ones that most benefit me.

I have a fundamental belief that all discs are created equal. It is my hope that they will all be treated equally, and have the same opportunity to compete in events no matter what their basic shape or weight (as long as they don't weigh too much over the weight that they are supposed to weigh when they get weighed... which is never).

Any resemblance this post may have to any famous speeches is purely coincidental as it was typed by a million monkeys randomly hitting the keys on my computer key board.

Too bad Whamo wasn't on their toes when Dunipace came out with the beveled edge disc. We'd still be throwing Frisbees.



(Fuzzy recollections below...)

By that point in time Wham-O wasn't very active in the disc golf business. They had just been purchased by cost-cutting Kransco, and had severely decreased their disc sports promotion, so they weren't very active in innovation (no pun intended), or controlling the sport.

The Eagle/Aero came out at a time when the technical standards for golf discs were still pretty much up for debate, and concerns about the danger factor of the beveled edge was overwhelmed by players' infatuation with throwing farther. The only real technical standard that was around in the 1983-84 period was the weight limit, which I think was passed in 1983. And I would hardly say that the method used to come up with 8.3 grams/centimeter was based on any science.

Too bad Whamo wasn't on their toes when Dunipace came out with the beveled edge disc. We'd still be throwing Frisbees.



(Fuzzy recollections below...)

By that point in time Wham-O wasn't very active in the disc golf business. They had just been purchased by cost-cutting Kransco, and had severely decreased their disc sports promotion, so they weren't very active in innovation (no pun intended), or controlling the sport.

The Eagle/Aero came out at a time when the technical standards for golf discs were still pretty much up for debate, and concerns about the danger factor of the beveled edge was overwhelmed by players' infatuation with throwing farther. The only real technical standard that was around in the 1983-84 period was the weight limit, which I think was passed in 1983. And I would hardly say that the method used to come up with 8.3 grams/centimeter was based on any science.




Yes, but do you get the point? :D

Is your point: :confused:

a) Manufacturers, having a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of the disc market, exert undue influence on the technical review process (not to mention other processes).

b) No notch-toothed, sunken flight plate or grippy-toothed disc will be much (if any) more dangerous than the beveled-edge discs we are already throwing, or the baseballs, footballs, boomerangs, pelotas, jarts or balsa-wood gliders that other park users are already throwing.

c) Both a and b (Except for the jart reference...jarts *are* dangerous and have been banned, except in Saturday Night Live sketches about Appalachian Emergency Rooms)

d) None of the above.

Since we allow mold variations without name changes (gator/L, monster/L, ad nauseam), what prevents QAT from selling the Turbo Putt ( boo, hiss ) with an Odyssey Putter stamp on it?

nothing. altho that approach is apparently being looked at, judging from the nature of the survey questions.

Is your point: :confused:

a) Manufacturers, having a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of the disc market, exert undue influence on the technical review process (not to mention other processes).

b) No notch-toothed, sunken flight plate or grippy-toothed disc will be much (if any) more dangerous than the beveled-edge discs we are already throwing, or the baseballs, footballs, boomerangs, pelotas, jarts or balsa-wood gliders that other park users are already throwing.

c) Both a and b (Except for the jart reference...jarts *are* dangerous and have been banned, except in Saturday Night Live sketches about Appalachian Emergency Rooms)

d) None of the above.



No but you're getting closer!

On the other hand, if I was confusing, then what was your point? :confused:

some additional perspectives (http://www.nefa.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2890&start=30)

What's the plan for the wheel?
a) Hold off on approval until the tech standards review is done.
b) Approve it and then unapprove it when the tech standards review is done
c) Approve it and let the market decide whether or not it lives.
What is the typical time frame for a disc to be approved?

Edit: After reading the NEFA thread, has it been submitted yet?

What's the plan for the wheel?
a) Hold off on approval until the tech standards review is done.
b) Approve it and then unapprove it when the tech standards review is done
c) Approve it and let the market decide whether or not it lives.
What is the typical time frame for a disc to be approved?



Mike,

The PDGA Technical Standards committee will be hesitant to approve any discs during the current technical standards review period which represent a radical departure from the norm. We have already asked QuestAT to wait until this process is completed before submitting the Wheel for official approval. The TSC has 15 calendar days to respond to a manufacturer following submission of a disc for approval.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

i would hope that any disc that meets the technical standards that are in effect at the time it is submitted would be approved. heck, for all we know the standards will stay the same. mfgs should feel free to submit any discs they wish via the regular channels and the tech standards committee will review them per our established protocol.

After reading through the NEFA link that Pat so generously provided, one has to wonder at Jason's, Steve's and Quest's ability to work in a business environment.

The fact that Quest didn't or couldn't understand that it was in their best interests to wait on their submission until the set up was revamped simply implies a lack of patience and a misunderstanding of what was occurring. Even worse, their leveling of favoritism at Innova shows a complete lack of knowledge of Innova and Dave Dunipace. Don't get me wrong, Dave does try and influence, but he does so within the rules.

As for what appears to be Steve forwarding a private communication to Jason, and Jason posting it at the NEFA site, and Pat thinking that it should be brought here, one has to wonder.

In the past, I've liked Steve, but I'm beginning to wonder at his judgment. This little to-do, while fun, is a comment on how childish people can be. Brian Graham gives a company a piece of good advice and somehow that gets turned into a sinister plot that we all need to talk about. This is in fact more of a comment on Quest and their lack of professionalism than anything else. Pathetic at best.

i would hope that any disc that meets the technical standards that are in effect at the time it is submitted would be approved. heck, for all we know the standards will stay the same. mfgs should feel free to submit any discs they wish via the regular channels and the tech standards committee will review them per our established protocol.



Pat, I totally agree. My gut feeling is that should the PDGA be sued over something like this, they would surely lose. I suspect the PDGA must use the specs at the time of product submittal; after that, it is a cut and dried administrative review.

However, y'all's continued focus on what should happen to these recent discs baffles me. It's very small stuff in the grand scale. The debate should be focused on if, or how, the technical standards should be changed. Do you have actual opinions on this matter of importance?

james, honestly, i have yet to hear a convincing reason that the tech standards ought to be reviewed at all. if it was up to me, i'd approve discs that meet the current standards and tell the mfgs that started the complaints to nut it up and face the competition.

It makes perfect sense to me. You write standards. For a long time, the creations that arise under those standards fit your expectations. Suddenly, new creations don't fit your expectations. You question whether the standards needs tightening. Makes perfect sense to me.

A good reason is simply: we have seen what types of discs this current standard allows, these discs don't match our vision of what the sport should be, we need to change the standards to reflect that vision.

Alternatively, like I've asked twice on this thread, why does this sport need some of the discs that brought forth the review? Does the sport really need these things moving forward?

An appeal to let "innovation" run rampant or take it's course is a very unpersuasive response, mainly because it avoids the question. Even if I granted that the wheel is innovative, the question remains, why does disc golf as a sport need this type of equipment?

highly competitive disc golf probably does not. almost certainly does not. but am disc golf and rec disc golf could likely benefit. so in the absence of any revolutionary disc concept, the question becomes why does the sport need to limit these designs? saying "because we think someday something might come along and obsolete our courses" is unpersuasive.

I agree that arguments around safety and obsolescence are irrelevant and unpersuasive.

Personally, it's because the new things aren't discs. The Turboputt was a cog not a disc, the wheel isn't a disc, it's two discs glued together. I believe that the standards need to be updated to close some loopholes that allow non-disc configurations to slip through the net.

highly competitive disc golf probably does not. almost certainly does not. but am disc golf and rec disc golf could likely benefit. so in the absence of any revolutionary disc concept, the question becomes why does the sport need to limit these designs? saying "because we think someday something might come along and obsolete our courses" is unpersuasive.



Is it the job of the PDGA BOD to create equipment standards for casual players?

Right now, a casual disc golfer can use any equipment they want to play. They can use the kind of Frisbee given away at the dry cleaners, the disc their dog has been chewing on that is filled with holes, flying rings, boomerangs or even balls to play the "game" of disc golf. I think most here would agree that is is quite alright for these players to play with any equipment they want and to even make up their own rules.

actually, that is an outstanding question, discette, and one that should be seriously considered as part of this tech standards rewrite process.

I guess "nut it up" is a technical business term ?

But I agree with the basic premise of Pat's post. If the disc meets the technical standard at the time and is not shown to be a safety hazard, it should be allowed.

If there are concerns that similar discs could be safety hazards, then tighten the specs and grandfather already approved (no safety risk) disc.

neil, you come close to making a good point, but are using vocabulary that the tech standards simply does not use.

the wording is:

"have a saucer-like configuration..." check
"... with a flight plane unbroken by perforations..." check
".. and an inner rim depth which exceeds five percent of the outside disc diameter..." check
"... the flight plane is defined as the upper (or dorsal) section of the disc." check.

that last one is not a problem, because both sides meet the requirement. having a bottom that meets the same spec as the top is NEITHER illegal NOR grounds for non-approval. its just an interesting artifact of this particular disc.

highly competitive disc golf probably does not. almost certainly does not. but am disc golf and rec disc golf could likely benefit. so in the absence of any revolutionary disc concept, the question becomes why does the sport need to limit these designs? saying "because we think someday something might come along and obsolete our courses" is unpersuasive.



Just curious, why would rec or am disc golf competitive events need these discs, but "highly competitive" golf events do not?

Making courses obsolete may not be persuasive to you, but it is certainly a legit reason, one I would hope you would seriously consider. While I don't think the safety issues can be ignored, I wouldn't use those as a reason because changes aimed solely at safety might not acheive the results I desire.

I have no desire to couch my dislike of disc evolutions on anything other than aesthetics and nature of the game. That is plenty enough reason for tightening the standards in my book. I also have yet to hear a persuasive reason why disc golf needs a specialty discs for this that and the other. It's a chance for the organization to say, we want our sport to played with this type of object. Those who want to play a different game with different objects are free to do so.

Key paragraph from the Introduction for the ball golf equipment guidelines:

"The main objective of Rules 4 and 5 and Appendices II and III is to ensure that technological advances in the design and manufacture of golf equipment are in the best interests of the game of golf. While not wishing to stifle innovation, the purpose of the equipment Rules is to protect the traditions of the game, to prevent an over-reliance on technological advances rather than on practice and skill, and to preserve skill differentials throughout the game."

The above paragraph indicates where I'm coming from as a member of our Tech Standards Committee. For more info on the detailed specs for ball golf, check this link: http://www.usga.org/playing/clubs_and_balls/equipment_primer/equipment_primer.html

We certainly do not have the resources to match the ball golf effort and may never have them. On the other hand, I hope we have the sensibility to do what we can to define and retain what it means to play our sport and the appropraite equipment to be used. If done well, it doesnt have to be an expensive process, just done diligently and making sure standards are adjusted as new technologies emerge. If we knew what technologies were going to be available when the original standards were written, they could have been accounted for then. However, that's why they're called innovations when no one yet had figured them out.

"The main objective of Rules 4 and 5 and Appendices II and III is to ensure that technological advances in the design and manufacture of golf equipment are in the best interests of the game of golf. While not wishing to stifle innovation, the purpose of the equipment Rules is to protect the traditions of the game, to prevent an over-reliance on technological advances rather than on practice and skill, and to preserve skill differentials throughout the game."

"The main objective of Rules 4 and 5 and Appendices II and III is to ensure that technological advances in the design and manufacture of golf equipment are in the best interests of the game of golf. While not wishing to stifle innovation, the purpose of the equipment Rules is to protect the traditions of the game, to prevent an over-reliance on technological advances rather than on practice and skill, and to preserve skill differentials throughout the game."





The problem is: who decides. In theory, this is great. But, lets suppose that Chuck is deciding. Chuck, who in the past has supported the notion of the diving putt to add excitement to the game and hence more "sales." (that is fan participation)

I like two parts of this: 1) to ensure play is based on skill and not on technological advantages and 2) preserve skill differentials throughout the game.

However, the technological advantages thing is way overplayed. Trust me. If you gave me a turbo putt and Annie a turbo putt, she'd still kick my backside (Annie being a turbo putt specialist).

In the past years I've seen some real interesting "garbage" come out. Discs that flop like they're paper, funny grooves, off center rims, and honkin' wide rims. None of them has changed the way the game is basically played. Like many things we are doing, worrying about this is a waste of time.

BTW - just out of curiosity. How many of the top players are using the destroyer on a regular basis? How many players have won tournaments with one of these 21-22 mm rimmed discs? Anyone know?

When it is all said and done, I still hear more top guys talk about the T-bird than all these wide rimmed discs. I still see more guys using something they can hold comfortably in their hands.

Key part:

"The main objective of Rules 4 and 5 and Appendices II and III is to ensure that technological advances in the design and manufacture of golf equipment are in the best interests of the game of golf. While not wishing to stifle innovation, the purpose of the equipment Rules is to protect the traditions of the game, to prevent an <font color="red">over-reliance</font> on technological advances rather than on practice and skill, and to preserve skill differentials throughout the game."


This is where, in my mind, wide-rimmed drivers, dimple-technology, and cog-like protrusions come into play. Throwing a teebird 450ft comes from skill and practice, but throwing a destroyer 450ft comes from the disc, big hands, some luck, and brute force. But one thing to keep in mind.....before bevel-edged drivers were legal, some might have thought that they weren't in the "spirit of the game", but now they are. When the BoD or TRC talk about "vision", they need to understand that it is "their" vision and not necessarily everyone's.

indeed. one of the questions i have asked my fellow BoD mates is what is it about today that makes this BoD feel that we are the ones to decide. why are we the chosen ones who will ban specific shapes "in the interest of the game". why are we so special, today? obviously some manufacturers and some of the leadership think we are. the "why now" question should be clearly answereed before any substantial changes are made.

If the sport had been as mature as it is now when beveled edge discs were introduced, they might not have been approved. Either that or the game might have split into two subsets of the sport, sort of like Formula One and NASCAR. The beveled edge disc fundamentally tranformed the sport of Frisbee golf, changing it to disc golf, which was apparently the intent of the inventors.

The nature of the Tech Standards group in any sport as many see it is to at least protect the nature of the game that all of the rest of your rules support such as field sizes, officials, venues, equipment, scoring, etc. When innovations come along like the beveled edge which materially change the nature of the game, you either scrap what you've got or have the innovation produce a new game.

Notice how the Aerobie did not get approved for our sport. It would have changed the game with par 3s really being 700 feet long, but the Tech group held the line on that one. If the Aerobie folks wanted to push it, they could have developed a long range ring toss game that would be another disc game just like Ultimate and DDC.

So no one can predict when innovations come along that present a "crisis" of technology for a game that requires a reassessment like what is happening now. It seems like the technology knocking on the door is trying to create discs that are even more specialized for a certain type of shot that aren't necessarily what our specs have traditionally defined as a disc. Seems like that's the decision facing all of us during this standards review cycle in regard to what a disc should look like to be considered part of the competitive arsenal for the sport we call disc golf.

Key part:

"The main objective of Rules 4 and 5 and Appendices II and III is to ensure that technological advances in the design and manufacture of golf equipment are in the best interests of the game of golf. While not wishing to stifle innovation, the purpose of the equipment Rules is to protect the traditions of the game, to prevent an <font color="red">over-reliance</font> on technological advances rather than on practice and skill, and to preserve skill differentials throughout the game."


This is where, in my mind, wide-rimmed drivers, dimple-technology, and cog-like protrusions come into play. Throwing a teebird 450ft comes from skill and practice, but throwing a destroyer 450ft comes from the disc, big hands, some luck, and brute force. But one thing to keep in mind.....before bevel-edged drivers were legal, some might have thought that they weren't in the "spirit of the game", but now they are. When the BoD or TRC talk about "vision", they need to understand that it is "their" vision and not necessarily everyone's.



Is that really true? I ask not knowing. I got up to a Wraith and did O.K. with it but the rim size limited my accuracy (IMObservation). So I went back to a narrow rim. I throw just as far or further with an Valk or OLS than with a Wraith. My impression is that it's still about fundamentals but I admit I don't have a good enough feel.

indeed. one of the questions i have asked my fellow BoD mates is what is it about today that makes this BoD feel that we are the ones to decide. why are we the chosen ones who will ban specific shapes "in the interest of the game". why are we so special, today? obviously some manufacturers and some of the leadership think we are. the "why now" question should be clearly answereed before any substantial changes are made.



Jeez Pat, the answer is pretty **** simple: it's your elected duty. The time is apparently ripe and action is needed.

Besides, the survey is a way for y'all to get lots of input to help you make a decision, or cover for those having trouble making up their own mind.

i understand that james. my point is that innovation has occured before and no one freaked out like they are now. understanding why is valuable, altho even asking is prolly an exercise in futility. i'll ask it anyway tho.

sorry james, i missed an earlier question. i didnt say that Am/rec "need" these discs, i said that i thought they might benefit from them. and that the sport might also beneift by making these discs available to them. the tools a weekend warrior uses are often different from the tools a serious enthusiast or a pro use. if the market wants these particular tools, the PDGa would be wise to find a way to include them in the approved toolbox. after all, its the beginners that we see fueling the growth over the foreseeable future.

If the sport had been as mature as it is now when beveled edge discs were introduced, they might not have been approved. Either that or the game might have split into two subsets of the sport, sort of like Formula One and NASCAR. The beveled edge disc fundamentally tranformed the sport of Frisbee golf, changing it to disc golf, which was apparently the intent of the inventors.

The nature of the Tech Standards group in any sport as many see it is to at least protect the nature of the game that all of the rest of your rules support such as field sizes, officials, venues, equipment, scoring, etc. When innovations come along like the beveled edge which materially change the nature of the game, you either scrap what you've got or have the innovation produce a new game.

Notice how the Aerobie did not get approved for our sport. It would have changed the game with par 3s really being 700 feet long, but the Tech group held the line on that one. If the Aerobie folks wanted to push it, they could have developed a long range ring toss game that would be another disc game just like Ultimate and DDC.

So no one can predict when innovations come along that present a "crisis" of technology for a game that requires a reassessment like what is happening now. It seems like the technology knocking on the door is trying to create discs that are even more specialized for a certain type of shot that aren't necessarily what our specs have traditionally defined as a disc. Seems like that's the decision facing all of us during this standards review cycle in regard to what a disc should look like to be considered part of the competitive arsenal for the sport we call disc golf.



Yes, but couldn't you argue that a high tech driver is a specialized disc for specific situations? Why not make everyone play with a roc? You can putt, approach and drive relatively well with one disc.

On the other hand, of BG were to follow the same structure, why would they allow a sand wedge? or for that matter, a putter. Heck, make em putt with a 3 wood.

Does a turbo putt really make that small of a slice? What if all you do is turbo putt? Wouldn't this be the equivalent of having one of those putters with the horkin long shafts?

I think the real issue here is that it takes a putt that was nominally used and makes it potentially common place because you can now grip the disc reliably. You might see a significant increase in turbo putters. I doubt it. The turbo putt is only really good from about 15 feet. Outside that you're flying the disc and the turbo just doesn't work but I could be wrong. But that is the basic question, are you really going to change the game with this disc?

sorry james, i missed an earlier question. i didnt say that Am/rec "need" these discs, i said that i thought they might benefit from them. and that the sport might also beneift by making these discs available to them. the tools a weekend warrior uses are often different from the tools a serious enthusiast or a pro use. if the market wants these particular tools, the PDGa would be wise to find a way to include them in the approved toolbox. after all, its the beginners that we see fueling the growth over the foreseeable future.



Well, if you meant weekend warrior by am and rec class, then Discette already pointed out that their equipment choices are outside your control.

If you are talking about what we now call rec and am, there is absolutely no reason to have them playing a different game to what they aspire to. I suspect most am ball golf events require equipment similar to the pros; I bet they don't allow Rodney Dangerfield putters to be used in those events.

i understand that james. my point is that innovation has occured before and no one freaked out like they are now. understanding why is valuable, altho even asking is prolly an exercise in futility. i'll ask it anyway tho.



It is certainly understandable to me. I have seen a lot of change in disc technology over the years. Basically, the changes are that discs either go faster, or get more overstable. The changes are hard to notice because they are subtle improvements in an already changing quality.

These new changes are different. It's like looking at a different species. There are gripped differently, or they have different patterns of movement. More importantly, it is not a stretch to envision these species morphing even more and becoming a bigger threat to the traditional way of playing disc golf. Once again, I agree that the "threat" is more than likely overblown, but it just seems prudent to nip it in the bud while we can.

...If you are talking about what we now call rec and am, there is absolutely no reason to have them playing a different game to what they aspire to.

and that is the part of my side with which i am most uncomfrotable. one possible discussion point is whether or not these players, or some subset or superset of them, really "aspire to" higher levels of competition. if a sizable number do not, then i believe the pdga must represent them if it wishes to remain relevant to all levels of the game. otherwise you will see new rec-oriented groups begin to form. given our relatively strong hegemonist postion, the market is ours to lose. you will know this process is becoming real when you see tournaments oriented at these am and rec players simply disregard the pdga tech standards.

Is your point: :confused:

a) Manufacturers, having a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of the disc market, exert undue influence on the technical review process (not to mention other processes).

b) No notch-toothed, sunken flight plate or grippy-toothed disc will be much (if any) more dangerous than the beveled-edge discs we are already throwing, or the baseballs, footballs, boomerangs, pelotas, jarts or balsa-wood gliders that other park users are already throwing.

c) Both a and b (Except for the jart reference...jarts *are* dangerous and have been banned, except in Saturday Night Live sketches about Appalachian Emergency Rooms)

d) None of the above.



No but you're getting closer!

On the other hand, if I was confusing, then what was your point? :confused:


My points were: 1) that at the time that the first beveled-edged discs were introduced Wham-O's market share and interest in disc golf were on the wane, so it wouldn't matter if they were on their toes or not, or maybe they (figuratively) had no toes...; 2) at the time that the first beveled-edged discs were introduced the ink recording the PDGA technical standards was probably still wet, if they had been written at all; 3) most players at that time cared more about increased distance than safety or protecting the heritage of the sport (since there wasn't much heritage yet); and 4) the technical standards that were initially adopted (some of which are still used today) had little, if any, scientific research to back them up.

I would have gotten back to you sooner, but I had to run away from the fire...

neil, you come close to making a good point, but are using vocabulary that the tech standards simply does not use.



Which, shirley, is precisely my point? You wanted justification for a review/rewrite of the standards, and I gave you one; the vocabulary/terms are not tight enough to ensure only disc-like designs are approved, hence the TP and Wheel can slip through loopholes...

indeed. one of the questions i have asked my fellow BoD mates is what is it about today that makes this BoD feel that we are the ones to decide. why are we the chosen ones who will ban specific shapes "in the interest of the game". why are we so special, today? obviously some manufacturers and some of the leadership think we are. the "why now" question should be clearly answereed before any substantial changes are made.



Pat, it concerns me that you seem to spend an increasing amount of time here 'feeding the trolls'. I'd have thought that the answers are obvious:

Who decides: A committee of appointed representatives, with all the usual checks and balances that occur in such a situation. This results in a balanced middle ground being achieved, whilst allowing fringe and out-of-the-box ideas to be considered.

Why now: Because now is the time that the issue has been raised. Before now, there was no one attempting to exploit loopholes to produce non-disc-like configurations, so we were unaware that there were loopholes. This isn't a vendetta against Quest, it's simply that their designs have highlighted some deficiencies in the standards. A responsible organisation can do no less.

Is your point: :confused:

a) Manufacturers, having a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of the disc market, exert undue influence on the technical review process (not to mention other processes).

b) No notch-toothed, sunken flight plate or grippy-toothed disc will be much (if any) more dangerous than the beveled-edge discs we are already throwing, or the baseballs, footballs, boomerangs, pelotas, jarts or balsa-wood gliders that other park users are already throwing.

c) Both a and b (Except for the jart reference...jarts *are* dangerous and have been banned, except in Saturday Night Live sketches about Appalachian Emergency Rooms)

d) None of the above.



No but you're getting closer!

On the other hand, if I was confusing, then what was your point? :confused:


My points were: 1) that at the time that the first beveled-edged discs were introduced Wham-O's market share and interest in disc golf were on the wane, so it wouldn't matter if they were on their toes or not, or maybe they (figuratively) had no toes...; 2) at the time that the first beveled-edged discs were introduced the ink recording the PDGA technical standards was probably still wet, if they had been written at all; 3) most players at that time cared more about increased distance than safety or protecting the heritage of the sport (since there wasn't much heritage yet); and 4) the technical standards that were initially adopted (some of which are still used today) had little, if any, scientific research to back them up.

I would have gotten back to you sooner, but I had to run away from the fire...



Hope all is well and that your family is safe.

The points you make are interesting but still don't address the basic issue.

The point I was making is that a strong voice with an issue can get rules and change enacted in this venue, and others, some of which may or may not be relevant or important. I used the case of Wham-O, tongue in cheek, to illustrate that point and how it might have in fact had a negative impact on what our sport has become, if it had played out differently. One point you left out is that there was a voice at that time that claimed that Dave Dunipace was ruining the sport by changing it's basic nature with the introduction of the beveled edged disc (I'm semi-quoting Dave here). While unstated, the implication is that IMO this revamp might just be due to the feeling that this change doesn't fit what someone's opinion of the sport should be. [TIC on]Hardly a sound reason for outlawing two relatively unimportant discs.[TIC off]

If you're saying we should revamp the rules to bring them into alignment with scientific studies I'd have to ask, what studies and what is the goal? Safety? I think a quick read through this thread will show the shortcomings in that view with regards to this issue. Purity of sport? I don't need science to define that. Distance? well, I don't think that these discs are going to change the way we make courses any time in the near future.

The real problem is that we have no idea as to what is driving this revamp, thus allowing speculation on the part of Quest that it is driven by their competitors. This becomes pertinent because it seems obvious that neither of the discs driving this revamp are going to significantly change the game, aka as the beveled edge disc did.

Given that Dave Dunipace stands against these discs on the general "art" principal of what he defines as a disc (I'd have to search through past posts to find his essay on the Epic where his philosophy is defined) I wonder what is driving this revamp? I see no logic for it, based on these discs, and I wonder if the Board has acted in what appears to be a surreptitious and knee jerk fashion, based more on the notion of art than on any real issue.

Of course a clear communication on why this revamp is occurring might help. Peter's comments on safety notwithstanding, I'd want something better. We're playing with sharp objects (relatively speaking) that we throw at high speeds. Neither of these discs represents a significantly greater risk.

BTW - Brian has made it clear that none of this is being driven by Innova and I'd agree that such a position is illogical and beneath someone of Brian's stature. On the other hand, I'd be neglectful if I didn't point out that our subconscious actions are often driven by the world around us. No one, including the ED and the Board, is immune to such pressures.

i'm not feeding the trolls (who are the trolls are anyway?), i am stating an opiniong that differs from yours.

i do not believe that the discs being proposed represent any way, shape or form of threat to the association, the sport, players, or spectators.

deficiencies in the standards? lets start with testing weights at tournaments. or enforcing existing standards regarding flexibility. there is a substantial amount of data that shows some mfgs are either incapable or not interested in following existing standards.

At least one item "needs" to be changed in the specs so a general review that hadn't been done in a long time was considered worth pursuing by the TSC and at least some on the Board and Staff. That one item is the "diameter" measurement being made at two points exactly 90 degrees from each other. If the wording had always been at least two diameter measurements at random, it's possible this review might not have been considered because the Turbo either wouldn't have been made and/or wouldn't have gotten approved. That wording would have secured what it appears most support which is that discs in our sport be continuously circular around the outside edge.

I had already brought up several basket issues for the Board and TSC last Spring even before the Turbo issue came up which likely added to the consideration for a general standards review. Dealing with baskets is now slated for this coming Spring after the disc review is completed.

I believe review of guidelines every so often in light of ongoing technological advances is what the TSC in any sports org should pursue long run. However, all of the work relating to standards has essentially been done by our volunteers over the years. There's been more than enough other work to do by those volunteers and those steering the org that it shouldn't be surprising that messing around with and updating standards, which will likely always be contentious, is something that's been set aside for a long time until pressed.

If you mean circular, just say circular.

Two randomly equal distances means that occasionally testing on the TB would have passed. It could have been resubmitted until one random test passed, and then would not require additional testing unless the mold was changed.

Just saying "circular" would be insufficient since it doesn't say within what tolerances. I think the proposed wording may be along the lines of at least two random (or perhaps "selected" even better) diameter measurements all within 1mm of the same value to confirm it's sufficiently circular.

i'm not feeding the trolls (who are the trolls are anyway?), i am stating an opiniong that differs from yours.



Maybe not, but you recently seem to make a lot of odd statements that pander to them, like "what is it about today that makes this BoD feel that we are the ones to decide. why are we the chosen ones who will ban specific shapes "in the interest of the game". why are we so special, today?"
That just stokes the fires of those who like to rail against everything the board does, when the answers seem pretty clear to me; that it's your job!


i do not believe that the discs being proposed represent any way, shape or form of threat to the association, the sport, players, or spectators.



And neither do I. I do however feel that they are fundamentally not discs, and as such shouldn't be able to pass the approval process. I suspect a lot of other people agree with me on that, although I'm happy to await the outcome of the survey to see.


deficiencies in the standards? lets start with testing weights at tournaments. or enforcing existing standards regarding flexibility. there is a substantial amount of data that shows some mfgs are either incapable or not interested in following existing standards.



All of which could be addressed in standards review, for example requiring a periodic retest, separate submissions for new plastic varieties, bulk weight testing, etc

Then say circular within certain tolerances.

This will essentially say that any measurement from the center to the edge will be the same without specifying how many must be used and prevents rim protrusions voids in a simple statement.

i guess the difference is that i do not feel it is my job to institute a tech standard that restricts discs in the manner being discussed. i'll almost certainly end up on the losing side of this issue - the outcome was fairly clear two months ago. but it would be irresponsible for me to NOT try my hardest to prevent something that i feel detracts from the mission and interests of the organization.

indeed. one of the questions i have asked my fellow BoD mates is what is it about today that makes this BoD feel that we are the ones to decide. why are we the chosen ones who will ban specific shapes "in the interest of the game". why are we so special, today? obviously some manufacturers and some of the leadership think we are. the "why now" question should be clearly answereed before any substantial changes are made.



Pat, it concerns me that you seem to spend an increasing amount of time here 'feeding the trolls'. I'd have thought that the answers are obvious:

Who decides: A committee of appointed representatives, with all the usual checks and balances that occur in such a situation. This results in a balanced middle ground being achieved, whilst allowing fringe and out-of-the-box ideas to be considered.

Why now: Because now is the time that the issue has been raised. Before now, there was no one attempting to exploit loopholes to produce non-disc-like configurations, so we were unaware that there were loopholes. This isn't a vendetta against Quest, it's simply that their designs have highlighted some deficiencies in the standards. A responsible organisation can do no less.



Trolls, what trolls. Pat would never feed the trolls...

[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
Hope all is well and that your family is safe.

The points you make are interesting but still don't address the basic issue.

The point I was making is that a strong voice with an issue can get rules and change enacted in this venue, and others, some of which may or may not be relevant or important. I used the case of Wham-O, tongue in cheek, to illustrate that point and how it might have in fact had a negative impact on what our sport has become, if it had played out differently. One point you left out is that there was a voice at that time that claimed that Dave Dunipace was ruining the sport by changing it's basic nature with the introduction of the beveled edged disc (I'm semi-quoting Dave here). While unstated, the implication is that IMO this revamp might just be due to the feeling that this change doesn't fit what someone's opinion of the sport should be. [TIC on]Hardly a sound reason for outlawing two relatively unimportant discs.[TIC off]

If you're saying we should revamp the rules to bring them into alignment with scientific studies I'd have to ask, what studies and what is the goal? Safety? I think a quick read through this thread will show the shortcomings in that view with regards to this issue. Purity of sport? I don't need science to define that. Distance? well, I don't think that these discs are going to change the way we make courses any time in the near future.

The real problem is that we have no idea as to what is driving this revamp, thus allowing speculation on the part of Quest that it is driven by their competitors. This becomes pertinent because it seems obvious that neither of the discs driving this revamp are going to significantly change the game, aka as the beveled edge disc did.

Given that Dave Dunipace stands against these discs on the general "art" principal of what he defines as a disc (I'd have to search through past posts to find his essay on the Epic where his philosophy is defined) I wonder what is driving this revamp? I see no logic for it, based on these discs, and I wonder if the Board has acted in what appears to be a surreptitious and knee jerk fashion, based more on the notion of art than on any real issue.

Of course a clear communication on why this revamp is occurring might help. Peter's comments on safety notwithstanding, I'd want something better. We're playing with sharp objects (relatively speaking) that we throw at high speeds. Neither of these discs represents a significantly greater risk.

BTW - Brian has made it clear that none of this is being driven by Innova and I'd agree that such a position is illogical and beneath someone of Brian's stature. On the other hand, I'd be neglectful if I didn't point out that our subconscious actions are often driven by the world around us. No one, including the ED and the Board, is immune to such pressures.


Thanks for the reset, Lyle. My sarcasm and TiC interpretors must have been on the fritz. We safely evacuated from the fire, accompanied by Pluto Platters and Midnight Flyers. We were lucky and were able to return a few days later.

I don't know what is driving the re-vamp, and I agree that some better explanation for opening this can of worms would be in order. I don't know enough about how the board works to speculate on their actions, so I won't.

I guess I was trying to provide some historical perspective, based on what I observed many years ago. I could use the example of the weight limit because it was the technical standard that evoked the most debate when the rules were being established. At that time I wasn't necessarily against the introduction of beveled-edged discs. I did, however think it was silly to apply the same 8.3 grams per centimeter weight limit on flat vs. beveled discs. The weight limit was sold to players as being a safety issue (whether or not it was is surely worthy of speculation). I don't (and didn't then) know how to support my opinon scientifically, but it sure seemed to me that a sharper edge with the same mass and velocity would inflict more damage than a flat edge. Perhaps someone tested this hypothesis and found it to be lacking - I don't know.

I would like to see clearly-stated goals for the standards and a clear link between those goals and the tests used to meet the goals. I think we currently do the first (somewhat) but not so much the second. Where standards are used to address safety or performance, I'd like there to be some science behind the tests. I'm not qualified to tell you what the science is, but I'm sure we have enough folks around who could contribute to that discussion.

The weight limit was established by polling the membership, asking players to cite how many grams per centimeter they thought the limit should be. Those answers were then averaged. I don't think that was the best method to come up with a technical standard. I would hope we'd have better methods than that to come up with any standards that woud be revised.

Agreed! I especially like the notification of goals for the revamp, if for no other reason than it would provide great fodder for huge debates and arguments in this forum; i.e. a better way for posters to waste time than guessing whether or not the Board and ED are evil usurpers.

More importantly, It is good to hear that you and family and discs are safe, I heard some sad stories on the news.

BTW - even, consistent with Neil's post, if the goals were as simple as "the introduction of the TP and Wheel seem inconsistent with the basic philosophy of what the disc should be - artistically - and thus point out a failing in the rules structure," I'd be satisfied, and would enjoy debating that issue even while supporting that position. However, I would say that if we are going to define what a disc should be in terms "art" or "philosophy" then we really need to weigh in with the membership. It is time for a real questionnaire.

Should discs have a smooth edge? Should we allow dips in the plate? etc.

Of course if the answer is I don't want no stinkin' nubbies, then, what would you do about the discs out there? should be asked. As Dave Dunipace pointed out quite nicely, pass the rule, and grandfather, allowing time for those discs to fade away. That's pretty fair IMO.

On the other hand, if the issue is safety, then the Standards Committee in agreement with the Board should make the calls. But, you're going to be hard pressed to convince me that is a real issue.

BTW riz, thanks for the history!

I think if safety is overtly indicated as the reason for any standards, it's a risky position. Even the 200g max weight isn't per se a safety related value since the obvious differences in edge shapes negates that as some safety limit. I'm uncomfortable with the flex standard which appears to be safety related since it's not tied to the edge shape. Either we address safety directly with the guidelines being inter-related or don't touch it.

I think setting the original 150g guideline which has turned out to primarily be for the Japanese has little merit from a true safety standpoint which was the reason it came about in the first place. The committee had the chance to limit the edge sharpness for the 150 class at the shape of something like a Cobra but balked at differentiating the 150 class from full weight shapes. If that had been done then maybe the safer disc aspect could have been touted. From a practical standpoint, there is no "150 Class" just any approved disc that weighs 150 or less. There would have been no need for any standards set at the time since the Japanese PDGA could have just picked any weight maximum and said this is what it will be for competitions in our country.

BTW - even, consistent with Neil's post, if the goals were as simple as "the introduction of the TP and Wheel seem inconsistent with the basic philosophy of what the disc should be - artistically - and thus point out a failing in the rules structure," I'd be satisfied, and would enjoy debating that issue even while supporting that position. However, I would say that if we are going to define what a disc should be in terms "art" or "philosophy" then we really need to weigh in with the membership. It is time for a real questionnaire.

Should discs have a smooth edge? Should we allow dips in the plate? etc.

Of course if the answer is I don't want no stinkin' nubbies, then, what would you do about the discs out there? should be asked. As Dave Dunipace pointed out quite nicely, pass the rule, and grandfather, allowing time for those discs to fade away. That's pretty fair IMO.

On the other hand, if the issue is safety, then the Standards Committee in agreement with the Board should make the calls. But, you're going to be hard pressed to convince me that is a real issue.



Just in curiosity, did anyone actually fill out the PDGA survey or even look at it... I'm always surprised at these kinds of threads, where they go, and how I can type a post like the one above and no one says, well gee knucklehead, isn't that what they're doing?


Who, the PDGA be proactive and responsible about an issue like this and someone try and make it look like they aren't. Nah, that'd never happen.

There were three surveys with just slight differences in questions/wording for Manufacturers, State Coordinators and Members. Response rates were: 1290 Members, 20 SCs and 17 Manufacturers. We're deep into analyzing the results now. TSC recommendations should be sent to the Board about Dec 1st. There were over 50 pages of individual comments so there's much content to consider.

There were three surveys with just slight differences in questions/wording for Manufacturers, State Coordinators and Members. Response rates were: 1290 Members, 20 SCs and 17 Manufacturers. We're deep into analyzing the results now. TSC recommendations should be sent to the Board about Dec 1st. There were over 50 pages of individual comments so there's much content to consider.



Note to PDGA, marketing please, go and blow your horn!

I completed the survey, and I applaud those working on this initiative. I headed up the last effort to take a good look at the technical standards and, frankly, didn't do a very good job.

Regarding the approval process for new discs, I would like to see the technical report issued by the PDGA contain standardized information, including images of the disc, perhaps even of its cross-section - and be made available on the website. It would be nice to click on a link and see the details of every disc in this way. I know it would be satisfying and stimulating to some of the geekier folks in the PDGA.

There would be a cost to that, of course, and it should be covered by manufacturer fees. I think the manufacturers would recognize the value to them of all of us being able to go and geek at their latest, with full information and images.

Personally, I would like discs to be disc-shaped and for their performance to rely to a great extent on flying disc aerodynamics. It would take a bit out of the game to be throwing around hockey pucks if they were not embedded within a frisbee.

Regarding the approval process for new discs, I would like to see the technical report issued by the PDGA contain standardized information, including images of the disc, perhaps even of its cross-section - and be made available on the website. It would be nice to click on a link and see the details of every disc in this way. I know it would be satisfying and stimulating to some of the geekier folks in the PDGA.




Speaking for one geek (myself), I think that is a great recommendation.

I would also second the idea that golf discs should rely on aerodynamics to fly, rather than be mere projectiles. The farther away we get from using discs you can play catch with the worse off I think we will be in the long run.

Have either of you seen the Turbo Putt? Or the Wheel? Does either of them have aerodynamics?

I wonder if you could write some specs on aerodynamics that would define the flight of a disc, and incorporate them into the standard [BS on] discs must have a lift of 0.23lbs /square inch at a velocity of Y and torque of X [BS off]. That would eliminate the puck issue and ensure that we were dealing with a flying object.

I like Terry's idea also. I frequently go to the approved disc PDF and a more interactive format would be great, similar to what the resalers use. I know there are some freeware marketing packages out there that might be suitable for such.

BTW - think a bit about the response rate to this survey. In times past many have suggested that the membership is tuned out or that not enough input is solicited. If I recall my MBA days correctly, the response rate here is pretty good. That is a comment both on the responsiveness of our membership and on the PDGA doing it's job of serving their membership. Who'd a thunk it.

I have seen and thrown the Turbo Putt, have not seen the Wheel. I actually use an upside-down turbo putt quite often when I play. For me, the spiral was on the wrong side of the disc to have any effect, and I thought the nubs made it harder to turbo. I also didn't like the way it acted in the chains - the nubs caused the disc to be very side-reactive - the disc would dig in on one side of the chains or carom off the other side, depending on the direction of the spin. I didn't feel it gave a player an unfair competitive advantage. In fact, I thought the effect was quite the opposite. I don't think it was any more dangerous than any other disc in use, except to my score. But I don't think you were interested in finding out if I thought it was a good performer.

Intangibly, there was something that didn't quite feel right about playing with the disc. It was definitely clear to me that this disc was never intended to fly through the air, but was just a tool to try to stick to the chains from short distances. It felt like a caricature of a flying disc, kind of like the disc I have in my collection that resembles a cow pie. I felt silly using it and felt it mocked the game.

Unfortunately, I don't know how you would define a standard to keep silly discs from being approved, but I kind of wish we had one.

Out of sheer curiosity, why have the "purists" not made a stink about these two PDGA approved Quest AT discs?

http://www.questat.com/Backbone.html
http://www.questat.com/Wildfire.html

BTW, "purists" was not meant in a derogatory fashion!

They look alot like old school fastbacks which some might consider more "pure" than some other current tech discs. What's your concern?

Out of sheer curiosity, why have the "purists" not made a stink about these two PDGA approved Quest AT discs?

http://www.questat.com/Backbone.html
http://www.questat.com/Wildfire.html

BTW, "purists" was not meant in a derogatory fashion!




Same way the GT discs were.

They look alot like old school fastbacks which some might consider more "pure" than some other current tech discs. What's your concern?



I don't have a concern. In fact I was going to note in my post that perhaps it's because it is more of a "throwback" to the original Pluto Platter and such older flying discs. Just curious I guess why people are upset about something such as adding a spiral to the bottom of the disc, or a chunk of plastic in the middle of the flight plate, or vertically centered flight plates, but not this sort of protruding oddly shaped flight plate. They're all at base modifications to the flight plate.

Consider that the tech guidelines actually use the words "have a saucer-like configuration." Hard to argue that those discs don't come closer to the shape than some discs. :D

sorry these are fuzzy the wheel (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/wheelweb/)