• Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
    It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)

[Discraft] P McB Proto- THE KONG...er, um...THE ZEUS!

Nice to hear this, i thought the PDGA had a least a few paid people to do the disc approval.

But i dont really like all the in the bags and disc test when you hear things like "this testflight/proto discs was way more OS than stock"

And i feel if a disc is approved at 1,9cm rim size. . the disc should be just that, not 1,75-1,8cm
In a perfect world i would like the PDGA to set the flight numbers as well
 
The PDGA approval process is bogus. It keeps us from having customized-to-fit discs like real golfers have with their clubs. Tech standards can still apply

It needs to be removed. At this point, I suspect it simply acts as a fundraiser.

Another reason I will not join the PDGA

Good to come across a disc golfer who is so positive. I'm curious, what have you done to push the sport to a higher level?
 
The PDGA approval process is bogus. It keeps us from having customized-to-fit discs like real golfers have with their clubs. Tech standards can still apply

It needs to be removed. At this point, I suspect it simply acts as a fundraiser.

Another reason I will not join the PDGA

Strongly disagree. I think it protects manufacturers designs. Clubs and discs are not comparable. Discs don't hit anything to make things fly
 
Nice to hear this, i thought the PDGA had a least a few paid people to do the disc approval.

But i dont really like all the in the bags and disc test when you hear things like "this testflight/proto discs was way more OS than stock"

And feel if a disc is approved at 1,9cm rim size. . the disc should be just that, not 1,75-1,8cm
In a perfect world i would like the PDGA to set the flight numbers as well

That is something that I have absolutely no interest in doing. I'm a scientist and I don't think any of the current classifications of flight numbers are backed by any science. It's just based on what people think about how the disc flies. There's something to it at an intuitive level, but it's way too ambiguous for my liking. Wind tunnel tests are needed to compare and that with a disc-tossing machine to better control the power and angle on the disc. There are only so many hours in a day and I choose to spend my time on more worthwhile projects that are more satisfying. Besides the lack of science in the flight numbers, I don't think the PDGA shoudl be in the business of doing this work at this point in the sport because the info serves mainly a marketing purpose to a large degree.
 
Last edited:
It seems that the disc rating system could and would be better off if based on science/measurements. Then the PDGA could require universal adherence. But, I imagine there is another thread for that.
 
how did this pass PDGA approval? thats what i want to know... thinking about using it as my putter

719dcnCnHfL._SY355_.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mistakes were made. Got cute with the title, and there is no edit option. Oh well.


I figured that your title was a quote from a King Kong movie.


I'm still looking for an opening in this thread to quip with, "Oh no, it wasn't the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast."
 

Latest posts

Top