"BIG Arm"?

[biscoe]

Originally Posted by sidewinder22

I'll take that bet.

me too

[Mocheez]

Originally Posted by sidewinder22

I'll take that bet.

Originally Posted by biscoe

me too

Oops, I missed the word "half" in his post.

[SD86]

Originally Posted by JC17393

Seems like a reasonable analogy. Might even be able to bump that to 450'.

Last year on the PGA tour, 60 players averaged 300 yards or better on their drives (out of 193 qualified players). They measure that statistic by picking two holes per tournament and measuring distances on those holes. Typically they are holes where the player is trying to max out distance and is measured regardless of where the ball lands (fairway, rough, etc).

I imagine if we were to select two holes per big event, the two where the players are most apt to open up off the tee, it would probably be in the 30-35% range in terms of how many players average 400' or better.

When I was a marshal at an LPGA tournment, I was on a hole that did this measuring, and you are right about how they do it. They usually pick a par 5 hole where the golfers can rip it on the tee shot.

The PGA (mens tour) went to lasers to measure the distances accurately. I don't know if the LPGA has gone to that now; when I was volunteering, we measured off marks on the fairway.

[SD86]

Originally Posted by Twmccoy

Yeah, I've found course distance measurements to be dubious at best. One course around here has a flat, open hole that the sign at the teepad says is 406'. It isn't even close. I can get there with an average midrange throw. I google earthed it and it came out to 322'. How they mis-measured that badly I don't know. Not all tee signs are that badly off, but its still annoying when they are.

I know the courses around me, including my home course are accurate. That's because I watched Cody Britain (now sponsored by Discraft) using one of those wheels to measure the distances, and then DiscStalker (where he worked at the time) printed the tee signs. I also used a laser rangefinder to measure distances, as well as measure landmarks like trees so I'd know far I was throwing my discs.

And by my observations, most people playing courses in my area don't exceed 300-325 feet. There is one group I've seen that has guys that can get it into the high 300s and 400+, but there are not a lot of them. A few pros and future pros (school-age guys) can really rip it out there, but that's why they can be 'pros' and the rest of us are casual players...

[Twmccoy]

Originally Posted by SD86

I know the courses around me, including my home course are accurate. That's because I watched Cody Britain (now sponsored by Discraft) using one of those wheels to measure the distances, and then DiscStalker (where he worked at the time) printed the tee signs. I also used a laser rangefinder to measure distances, as well as measure landmarks like trees so I'd know far I was throwing my discs.

And by my observations, most people playing courses in my area don't exceed 300-325 feet. There is one group I've seen that has guys that can get it into the high 300s and 400+, but there are not a lot of them. A few pros and future pros (school-age guys) can really rip it out there, but that's why they can be 'pros' and the rest of us are casual players...

I have no clue how/why this particular course has such bad measurements on holes. There's only 1 pin position per hole and the course isn't that old. I could understand if certain courses had changed tee pad or hole positions, but this course hasn't.

I really don't go by the distance marked on tee signs anyway. I usually just eyeball it. Obviously that can be tricky on the rare hole where you can't see the basket from the tee. Once you've played a course a few times you get a pretty good idea of what disc will get you there.

If I want to measure how far I'm throwing in the field I'll generally pick a couple landmarks and then google earth it. Those measurements seem to (obviously) be accurate.

I also agree most people at the local courses don't throw over 300'. I do see some guys push 400' at times, but its seldom. Most people throw strictly sidearm when they'd be better off learning backhand.

[hugheshilton]

All this talk about drag coefficients and aerodynamics is hurting my head. What I think started this argument was a misapprehension that we can judge rim width ("speed") independently of stability when we're talking about how far a disc will go at a certain power level. This is simply not true. A player with "300 feet" of power (whatever that means) will be able to throw a Tern further than a PD2. Put another way, if you apply the same level of power to a Tern as a PD2, you will get different results in flight, even though the rim width might be the same. So simply picking 2 discs of different speeds (say a Teebird and a Destroyer) and saying the faster one will fly further than the slower one at a certain power level is an inaccurate simplification.

In my own experience, for a player with a very low power (my dad in this case, throwing around 200 feet max), giving them an understable distance driver that matched their power level DID result in longer average throws than an understable fairway driver. I've seen the same results watching other older players with low levels of power as well. They might not be able to throw Destroyers further than Teebirds, but they can certainly throw GStar Terns further than Teebirds. Matching the stability to the power level is just as important as matching the rim width.

I think we have too many people on here who take the term "getting the disc up to speed" and equate it literally with rim width (or the manufacturer's "speed" rating). This is why we get preached to all the time about how lower power players should stay away from fast drivers. Whatever "up to speed" means has just as much to do with stability as rim width. You can't put as much power into a GStar Tern as you do a Star Destroyer without burning it into the ground. "Up to speed" for a GStar Tern is slower than for a Star Destroyer despite them having the same rim widths. Put another way, handing a newer player a GStar Tern is not going to turn them into a torque monkey because excess torque will burn that disc into the ground just like it would a Leopard or Sidewinder.

[sidewinder22]

Originally Posted by hugheshilton

I think we have too many people on here who take the term "getting the disc up to speed" and equate it literally with rim width (or the manufacturer's "speed" rating). This is why we get preached to all the time about how lower power players should stay away from fast drivers. Whatever "up to speed" means has just as much to do with stability as rim width. You can't put as much power into a GStar Tern as you do a Star Destroyer without burning it into the ground. "Up to speed" for a GStar Tern is slower than for a Star Destroyer despite them having the same rim widths. Put another way, handing a newer player a GStar Tern is not going to turn them into a torque monkey because excess torque will burn that disc into the ground just like it would a Leopard or Sidewinder.

All of the 4 "Rating" numbers literally are relative rim width that require a certain speed to fly as those "rating" numbers suggest.

That doesn't mean someone can't throw a disc slower than its "required" or rather "intended" speed rating and still get decent results, but they are different results than someone throwing it at the speed rating that will get more turn and flight path like the "rating" suggests.

This is aka "Speed Stability" where Bosses are overstable for little arms, while Bosses are understable for big arms. All discs are technically understable, it's just all relative to airspeed which is why it's best practice to disc up into headwinds and disc down into tailwinds.

[hugheshilton]

Originally Posted by sidewinder22

All of the 4 "Rating" numbers literally are relative rim width that require a certain speed to fly as those "rating" numbers suggest.

Except they're not really. Maybe they are supposed to be, but the reality just doesn't work out with a lot of discs. Someone can throw a Star Destroyer at ~400 feet of power released flat and get the intended flight pattern out of the disc (yeah, yeah depending on the run of Destroyer of course). Now take a Wahoo (2.4cm rim, flight ratings 12 6 -2 2) and throw it flat with the same 400 feet of power and see what it does. You can give that disc all the height in the world and it will still turn into a roller at that power level. And 400 feet of flat power isn't even that much for a Star Destroyer; most Destroyers can handle way more power than that and still get a relatively true to the numbers flight with maybe a tiny adjustment to release angle or height. You might say it's because the Wahoo's turn and fade numbers are mislabeled, but I don't really think so. I think that just because a disc has a 2.4cm rim does not necessarily mean it must be thrown at 50+ mph in order to get it "up to speed". I think equating the optimal throwing speed (or band of useful speeds) with rim width is simply incorrect.

It's a gross simplification to say that all discs with 2.3 cm rims require the same level of power to get "up to speed" because the amount of power they can take varies quite a lot with the stability of the disc. And the sort of "band" of power levels in which a disc is usable also varies quite a lot by disc. I think a lot of the most popular discs get popular precisely because they have true flights (or at least useful flights) at a wide band of power levels. Teebirds are like that. They fly well at 250 and they fly well at 400. The flight might be slightly different at a higher power level, but not drastically so. Destroyers also have a pretty large useful power band in which they have pretty close to the same flight shape (roughly 350 - 500). Most Vulcans, on the other hand, do not. They are crappy drivers for most people because they have a very small useful power band. If you don't dial in the power and release angle just right they turn and turn or hyzer out early.

Anyway, yeah, I disagree with equating the speed a disc should be thrown at solely with rim width. I've seen way too many discs in which that formula simply doesn't work.

[Twmccoy]

I agree that a disc can't be gauged on how much arm it takes to get up to speed based solely on rim width. There are plenty of very wide rimmed drivers that will turn and burn easily. Nuke SS, Bolt, Unlace, Freedom, Daedalus, Vulcan, etc.

I also agree that none of the discs I just named have a very large "optimal power window". Thrown too lightly they'll all stall out uselessly. Thrown even a tick too fast and they'll turn and burn instantly. A fast, understable driver can basically be thrown for downwind shots or hyzerflips only..... by anyone with a decent arm.

The Destroyer is a pretty good driver to mark how hard/far someone throws. It does have a very wide optimum power window and will fly true up past 500'.

I'm not even really sure how this conversation wound up here. Any "big arms" won't bother with wide rimmed, flippy drivers. I've thrown all the discs I named above, but I find them useless on the course.

[sidewinder22]

Originally Posted by hugheshilton

Except they're not really. Maybe they are supposed to be, but the reality just doesn't work out with a lot of discs. Someone can throw a Star Destroyer at ~400 feet of power released flat and get the intended flight pattern out of the disc (yeah, yeah depending on the run of Destroyer of course). Now take a Wahoo (2.4cm rim, flight ratings 12 6 -2 2) and throw it flat with the same 400 feet of power and see what it does. You can give that disc all the height in the world and it will still turn into a roller at that power level. And 400 feet of flat power isn't even that much for a Star Destroyer; most Destroyers can handle way more power than that and still get a relatively true to the numbers flight with maybe a tiny adjustment to release angle or height. You might say it's because the Wahoo's turn and fade numbers are mislabeled, but I don't really think so. I think that just because a disc has a 2.4cm rim does not necessarily mean it must be thrown at 50+ mph in order to get it "up to speed". I think equating the optimal throwing speed (or band of useful speeds) with rim width is simply incorrect.

It's a gross simplification to say that all discs with 2.3 cm rims require the same level of power to get "up to speed" because the amount of power they can take varies quite a lot with the stability of the disc. And the sort of "band" of power levels in which a disc is usable also varies quite a lot by disc. I think a lot of the most popular discs get popular precisely because they have true flights (or at least useful flights) at a wide band of power levels. Teebirds are like that. They fly well at 250 and they fly well at 400. The flight might be slightly different at a higher power level, but not drastically so. Destroyers also have a pretty large useful power band in which they have pretty close to the same flight shape (roughly 350 - 500). Most Vulcans, on the other hand, do not. They are crappy drivers for most people because they have a very small useful power band. If you don't dial in the power and release angle just right they turn and turn or hyzer out early.

Anyway, yeah, I disagree with equating the speed a disc should be thrown at solely with rim width. I've seen way too many discs in which that formula simply doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Twmccoy

I agree that a disc can't be gauged on how much arm it takes to get up to speed based solely on rim width. There are plenty of very wide rimmed drivers that will turn and burn easily. Nuke SS, Bolt, Unlace, Freedom, Daedalus, Vulcan, etc.

I also agree that none of the discs I just named have a very large "optimal power window". Thrown too lightly they'll all stall out uselessly. Thrown even a tick too fast and they'll turn and burn instantly. A fast, understable driver can basically be thrown for downwind shots or hyzerflips only..... by anyone with a decent arm.

The Destroyer is a pretty good driver to mark how hard/far someone throws. It does have a very wide optimum power window and will fly true up past 500'.

I'm not even really sure how this conversation wound up here. Any "big arms" won't bother with wide rimmed, flippy drivers. I've thrown all the discs I named above, but I find them useless on the course.

Why do you think all discs with the same rim width have the same "speed rating? This allows for the stability and glide differences among those same speed rated discs thrown at a very specific mph and nose angle AoA (not a range of mph or nose angles) to be compared to each other. Anybody throwing at the speed rating or near it should not be throwing a disc with a negative turn rating flat, it needs to be thrown on upward trajectory. Again you can throw US high speed discs slower than their speed rating, and get them to fly ok, even nose up, but they are not flying as their rating suggests.

The faster the disc is rated/wider/sharper nose, the more sensitive it is to its own nose angle! This is why you get squirrelly results with them and pros don't typically throw them as they are willing to sacrifice potential distance for better consistency.