The 5 Most Important Discs of the Decade

[Mason65]

i'm tired of refreshing this thread hoping for compliments and seeing all this geek geek goose.

Nice article, why didn't the Leopard make the list? I thought it was timeless?

 

[DiscGolfTeeSigns.com]

i'm tired of refreshing this thread hoping for compliments and seeing all this geek geek goose.

Nice article, why didn't the Leopard make the list? I thought it was timeless?

It's the brains... the silent partner... the better half... the bag man... the drummer... the Rothschild... the ringleader... the pace car... the albert king... the uncredited big black mama from c+c music factory...

LEOPARD IS THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT BEHIND THE VALKYRIE
valks ain't shit without my technology

but Leo's timelessness started before 2000 amirite?

 

[discspeed]

Great article. I really appreciate what you guys did here. I hope I don't seem like a dick for bringing this up, but Discspeed wrote: "Prior to its release, there was not a single midrange on the market that flew straight and held any line out of the box, let alone stayed that way for years." I would assert the QMS fits that description, and pre-dates the Buzzzz by a few years.

First of all, we were only considering molds produced after 2000. The Aurora was approved in '95, so it did not qualify. Secondly, QMSs were basically made in '02, using the ass end of the CE plastic. Not many were produced, and of the ones they sold, most were blems that should have been X-outs. That run of QMSs was horrible. Most were overweight, and the ones that weren't had dimples in the wing or inner rim. They also had the sharpest flashing of any disc ever made. I'm pretty sure they didn't do another run in modern Champ plastic until Buzzzes were all over the place. The QMS also is not as good in the wind, gets flippy faster than the Buzzz, and overall just is not as good of a disc. Although it has a small yet loyal following, it made nowhere near the impact that the Buzzz has.

I'm with Leopard (BTW, great graphics!), you guys should leave our thread alone. :wink:

 

[Widdershins]

Guys, Nice job on the article. The graphics are really good and very useful to the discussion. I liked that you had several authors and viewpoints.

While Quest and Aerobie are unique and innovative, they have done little to break into the bags of tournament players. If the best players find little benefit to their products then their "importance" is open to question (by best players I am not referring to the top few hundred but the top 25,000-50,000, eg., tournament/league players). I wondered if these discs were added to be "politically correct" and spread the accolades around.

It seems to me the most important discs of the last decade are the ultra wide rimmed drivers (Boss, Katana, Force, Nuke). These discs are increasing the distances good players are reaching while retaining a workable degree of control.

As a member of both the PDGA Tech Standards and Course Committees, I will be biased toward blocking any advances in speed that can be prevented, via modification of tech standards, as detrimental to the game. Faster discs have already undermined the quality of the game balance in relation to what designers are able to do with updating course designs.

The battle here is whether the game is intended to simply be 18 holes of various varieties of reachable par 3 holes (basically disc darts) or evolving more toward a golf model with a healthy mix of bona fide par 4s & 5s. I would hope we could strive for the latter but technology, the need for speed/something new, and what seems to be more popular with rec players may force the sport to remain mostly in the par 3 world. The majority of existing courses can't be extended since they are landlocked either physically or by dictate from the parks department for the amount of land available.

Ball golf has been locked in this technological battle for many years to retain their balance in the game. Our sport wasn't smart enough to do the same thing as fast. Our "technology horse" is already too far out of the barn but maybe can be kept in the corral if you also believe our game should include par 4s & 5s.

I share Chuck's bias. It should be the skill of players which determine the winners and losers, not the newest technology. Improved technology will always be a goal of manufacturers but unrestrained technology could have us playing with remote controlled discs in an outdoor video game. So Chuck, keep those horses as close to the barn as you can.

The ball golf model of par 4's and 5's (or even 6's or 7's) is vastly superior than the deuce or die version that some of our courses have been reduced to.

The article concludes: "Anyone who plays the game seriously, knows that the game is won and lost inside of 200 feet. So it would make sense that companies use the advancement in driver technology to make more accurate fairway, midrange, approach, and putting discs. One thing is for certain—established and new manufacturers alike will be finding new ways to conquer the controllable distance plateaus well into the future."

A good putter or midrange, thrown well, will fly on the line it is put on. I would be surprised if technology made Magnets or Aviars or Buzzz's or Rocs obsolete. Through the ages, knives, forks and spoons still work well and have not been replaced. Many basic implements remain as useful and popular as ever.

One area in which improvement is theoretically possible for putters and mids is the ability to fight adverse wind without resorting to extreme overstability. Maybe something can invented/designed in this area.

As for distance plateaus, I hope those get expanded by better athletes, not better discs.

 

[Timko]

Guys, Nice job on the article. The graphics are really good and very useful to the discussion. I liked that you had several authors and viewpoints.

While Quest and Aerobie are unique and innovative, they have done little to break into the bags of tournament players. If the best players find little benefit to their products then their "importance" is open to question (by best players I am not referring to the top few hundred but the top 25,000-50,000, eg., tournament/league players). I wondered if these discs were added to be "politically correct" and spread the accolades around.

Mark,

This was one of the reasons I chose to use the word "Important" in the title. It gave me some creative leeway to find some unique angles to include some discs people wouldn't think of. I wasn't trying to be politically correct, but I did want to spread the wealth around. I had no interference with what I chose from the PDGA. Rick gave me a lot of free reign (which I really appreciate; it allowed me to consider writing other articles in the future.)

think one of the biggest things in terms of manufacturing that occurred over the past 10 years was the introduction of the technical standards defining what a disc should be. While there was a big fuss about the Turbo Putt (which ultimately may have pushed the PDGA over the edge), the Epic was the first approved disc that really went against the grain in terms of it's shape. I think if the PDGA could figure out a way to un-approve the Epic, the would (and should, much like the PGA tour getting rid of the Ping Eye2 from their approved clubs). So it's impact on tournament players is "by osmosis."

The Quest disc was a toss up for me, actually. I was either going to use that or the Wraith. I think of this past decade has a B.W. (before Wraith) and A.W. (after Wraith) periods. In terms of tournament players, it had a significant impact on how far all skill levels can throw. However, having already chosen a driver and written something similar about the Valkyrie, I opted for the Odyssey.. How can a manufacturer put more mass on the rim without increasing the rim size past the legal limit? Use a different density plastic. I that this disc's legacy has yet to be defined; it will all depend on what the technology can do for our game in the coming decade.

Some other runners up:
Wraith
Firebird
Monarch
Flash
Avenger
Edge (aka Spirit)
Diablo

Of course, I'll be interested to see if the article draws more people to the site (since I did mention it in the credits).

 

[zj10021]

Of course, I'll be interested to see if the article draws more people to the site (since I did mention it in the credits).

I am sure the Jersey Shore Avatar will bring in more than enough

 

[Timko]

Of course, I'll be interested to see if the article draws more people to the site (since I did mention it in the credits).

I am sure the Jersey Shore Avatar will bring in more than enough

I actually had no idea who that was in my avatar. Another board I used to mod, http://lucky.to/boards, just came back up, and someone posted that pic.

 

[DiscGolfTeeSigns.com]

The graphics are really good

glad we're back on topic here

 

[dgdave]

Edge (aka Spirit)

The Edge is a Speed Demon proto.

 

[Timko]

Oh, sorry. I meant that disc. It was the 1st seriously wide rimmed disc.

 

[mzuleger]

Seriously great article guys, thanks!

Because of the 2008 revision to the PDGA technical standard, we now know there will be a limit to how wide a rim can be. Every manufacturer I talked to told me that they felt discs would continue to get faster. Will overmolded discs be the trend over the next ten years, or will there be a new technological breakthrough? Only time will tell.

As a member of both the PDGA Tech Standards and Course Committees, I will be biased toward blocking any advances in speed that can be prevented, via modification of tech standards, as detrimental to the game. Faster discs have already undermined the quality of the game balance in relation to what designers are able to do with updating course designs.

The battle here is whether the game is intended to simply be 18 holes of various varieties of reachable par 3 holes (basically disc darts) or evolving more toward a golf model with a healthy mix of bona fide par 4s & 5s. I would hope we could strive for the latter but technology, the need for speed/something new, and what seems to be more popular with rec players may force the sport to remain mostly in the par 3 world. The majority of existing courses can't be extended since they are landlocked either physically or by dictate from the parks department for the amount of land available.

Ball golf has been locked in this technological battle for many years to retain their balance in the game. Our sport wasn't smart enough to do the same thing as fast. Our "technology horse" is already too far out of the barn but maybe can be kept in the corral if you also believe our game should include par 4s & 5s.

I don't know how realistic it is to put in par 4/5 DG courses. They would probably need to be longer than most ball courses when you consider how much easier putting is in DG compared to ball golf. That would mean most courses would need to be private, but since there is very little money in pay to play courses the whole idea is not very realistic IMO.

 

[DiscGolfTeeSigns.com]

I don't know how realistic it is to put in par 4/5 DG courses. They would probably need to be longer than most ball courses when you consider how much easier putting is in DG compared to ball golf. That would mean most courses would need to be private, but since there is very little money in pay to play courses the whole idea is not very realistic IMO.

it's totally realistic, almost every modern course in Austin has legitimate 4s and 5s. It might be less realistic if the designer suuuucks and only uses distance to increase difficulty.

 

[mzuleger]

I don't know how realistic it is to put in par 4/5 DG courses. They would probably need to be longer than most ball courses when you consider how much easier putting is in DG compared to ball golf. That would mean most courses would need to be private, but since there is very little money in pay to play courses the whole idea is not very realistic IMO.

it's totally realistic, almost every modern course in Austin has legitimate 4s and 5s. It might be less realistic if the designer suuuucks and only uses distance to increase difficulty.

I think you have to use distance (obviously not exclusively though). I always get bummed at the holes where you have to throw a putter 5 times because you're basically throwing your way through a forest.... that gets really frustrating.

 

[Timko]

I got my copy of the magazine today. The article looks nice.

 

[Mason65]

Seriously great article guys, thanks!

Because of the 2008 revision to the PDGA technical standard, we now know there will be a limit to how wide a rim can be. Every manufacturer I talked to told me that they felt discs would continue to get faster. Will overmolded discs be the trend over the next ten years, or will there be a new technological breakthrough? Only time will tell.

As a member of both the PDGA Tech Standards and Course Committees, I will be biased toward blocking any advances in speed that can be prevented, via modification of tech standards, as detrimental to the game. Faster discs have already undermined the quality of the game balance in relation to what designers are able to do with updating course designs.

The battle here is whether the game is intended to simply be 18 holes of various varieties of reachable par 3 holes (basically disc darts) or evolving more toward a golf model with a healthy mix of bona fide par 4s & 5s. I would hope we could strive for the latter but technology, the need for speed/something new, and what seems to be more popular with rec players may force the sport to remain mostly in the par 3 world. The majority of existing courses can't be extended since they are landlocked either physically or by dictate from the parks department for the amount of land available.

Ball golf has been locked in this technological battle for many years to retain their balance in the game. Our sport wasn't smart enough to do the same thing as fast. Our "technology horse" is already too far out of the barn but maybe can be kept in the corral if you also believe our game should include par 4s & 5s.

I don't know how realistic it is to put in par 4/5 DG courses. They would probably need to be longer than most ball courses when you consider how much easier putting is in DG compared to ball golf. That would mean most courses would need to be private, but since there is very little money in pay to play courses the whole idea is not very realistic IMO.

There is no way a DG course would be longer than a ball golf course. a 1000' disc golf hole would be a short par 4 by ball golf standards. To use the space of a ball golf course you would need multiple wide open holes 1000-1500'+ long...

 

[Yehosha]

So the Epic is still legal to throw in a tourney. For some reason I thought it wasn't. Glad I read this and cleared that up.

 

[elnino]

learned alot about the wizard...do they make any drivers/mids that are thinner in the middle and thicker on the outside of the flight plate?

 

[tito]

you guys wrote that article? props! I enjoyed reading it.

 

[Trashthrasher]

learned alot about the wizard...do they make any drivers/mids that are thinner in the middle and thicker on the outside of the flight plate?

I believe the new Discraft Nuke & Innova's Katana are like this.

 

[Mike C]

There is no way a DG course would be longer than a ball golf course. a 1000' disc golf hole would be a short par 4 by ball golf standards. To use the space of a ball golf course you would need multiple wide open holes 1000-1500'+ long...

Aren't 1000 foot disc golf holes par 4's too?

I'd like to see more long holes. One of the reasons Deis Hill in Dover, Ohio is so cool is that they have 900+ foot holes, plus plenty of shorter ones, and tons of ace runs if you shoot from reds.