Should the PDGA standardize flight ratings?

[Kenny53691]

Originally Posted by smyith

you know, I don't trust their flight charts (I used to until very recently). How do they have flight ratings up months in advance for discs that having come out yet (not even their limited first runs)? Look at Westside's upcoming molds, inbounds had flights up for them a month ago. It almost seems like they went the route of www.flightanalyzer.com and just applied a % amount to the suggested flight ratings by the manufacturer. I don't honestly think they throw and test every disc themselves.
But that being said it is a nice site to compare the different flights through another persons eyes.

I use to use FlightAnalyzer a lot as well, but the more I use inbounds, the more I like it. I copied this from their site. Brian Rogers was in DGTR once and it explained the process.

The values for the Relative Stability Scale come from a total of 19 different flight charts and/or rating systems with as many as six different sources being applied to any one disc. Using multiple data sources has a smoothing effect on a disc flight path and eliminates outlier values caused by unnecessary bias, flight testing extremes, and minor rating errors. The values for each of the various data sources are then normalized, aggregated, and averaged to provide a comprehensive, relative picture of a disc’s expected flight path.

[inbounds]

Originally Posted by smyith

you know, I don't trust their flight charts (I used to until very recently). How do they have flight ratings up months in advance for discs that having come out yet (not even their limited first runs)? Look at Westside's upcoming molds, inbounds had flights up for them a month ago. It almost seems like they went the route of www.flightanalyzer.com and just applied a % amount to the suggested flight ratings by the manufacturer. I don't honestly think they throw and test every disc themselves.
But that being said it is a nice site to compare the different flights through another persons eyes.

We don't throw and test every disc as it isn't anywhere close to be financially feasible. Our testing team throws discs whenever we have convenient (e.g. cost effective) access and the tester ratings get factored into the overall rating, but the testing team data is not the only data source we pull from.

The key to our flight charts is that our values are averaged from multiple sources of data and rating systems, which provides a better approximation than any single data source. See the link below, specifically the last paragraph:

http://www.inboundsdiscgolf.com/cont...age_id=569#RSS

That said, when a disc is first released, the only flight ratings available are those provided by the manufacturer. So those are the values that we run through our algorithm* to determine the initial flight path. As additional sources of flight data become available and if our testers have access to the discs, then our flight charts are updated accordingly.

*Just a note that we're revising our algorithm and expect to release revised values for all discs in the next few weeks.

[inbounds]

Beat us to it Kenny53691

[SteezeOG]

No to the question. I don't want the PDGA worrying about anything but approving molds for play and keeping track of tournaments and ratings. They do that and any extra work will probably overload them.


I like inbounds charts. At least the fact they give you a nice little flight picture. I don't really talk about how a disc flies until I toss it for myself and then get out with some others who throw different from me and then I get a good picture of what it's meant to do and will do for the average player.

[ZAMson]

I'd suggest some clear badging for predictive charts. I like inbounds, I don't like having to refute the incorrect pre-tested charts.

[sugarnot]

Again, I dont think the OP was meaning them actually regulating the numbers a disc is determined to be so much as the way in which it is conveyed to the customer thru a standardized system of:
speed
glide
turn
fade
or something of that nature instead of everyone just labeling however they want i.e. discraft's single number system, Innova and Lat/WS/DD 4 number system, Vibram's way, etc.

I agree there is no way that the PDGA would be able to or should verify the flight numbers a company puts on a disc, but the way the info is presented to the customer is doable.

[Kenny53691]

Originally Posted by inbounds

Beat us to it Kenny53691

Thanks for chiming in and backing me up.

[mashnut]

Originally Posted by sugarnot

Again, I dont think the OP was meaning them actually regulating the numbers a disc is determined to be so much as the way in which it is conveyed to the customer thru a standardized system of:
speed
glide
turn
fade
or something of that nature instead of everyone just labeling however they want i.e. discraft's single number system, Innova and Lat/WS/DD 4 number system, Vibram's way, etc.

I agree there is no way that the PDGA would be able to or should verify the flight numbers a company puts on a disc, but the way the info is presented to the customer is doable.

So they get to deal with the accusation that they're favoring which ever manufacturer's system it appears they've chosen as the standard (your example uses Innova's 4 number system) along with being the obvious scapegoat whenever anyone disagrees with a rating? Sounds like a lose lose for the PDGA.

[ThrowinGhost]

Originally Posted by mashnut

So they get to deal with the accusation that they're favoring which ever manufacturer's system it appears they've chosen as the standard (your example uses Innova's 4 number system) along with being the obvious scapegoat whenever anyone disagrees with a rating? Sounds like a lose lose for the PDGA.

Don't almost all of the major companies use Innova's four number system? (Besides discraft and DGA)

And to answer the original question, no. The PDGA has enough work to do as it is, dealing with flight ratings of discs would be too complicated and time consuming I think.

[mashnut]

If DGA is a major company, then so are vibram and MVP who use different flight rating systems completely.