Don't get me wrong, I respect the idea of mold minimalism. I've even applied the idea in other sports as a means of improving my overall game once I got to a certain plateau.
But it seems way oversold. I get whiffs of "direct marketing" from posts that push it.
"Just play with only 4 molds and ALL OF YOUR PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED. If it isn't working for you you are just doing it wrong. No one any good ever played with more than 6 molds."
Meanwhile Simon Lizotte talks about how he throws completely different molds based on the course. Danny Lindahl talks about two different approaches (he phrases it as "you do the work" vs. "let the disc do the work").
I'm not trying to start a flame war. And I actually look forward to when my Compass beats in to be turnover disc and I'll ditch what I have in that slot and I buy a second Compass. I imagine this may happen with other discs as well.
However, as a new player, I'd like to actually play the game, rather than spend all of my time frustrated, instead of only half of my time frustrated. If I need to throw a turnover shot, I don't see how I do that with a new Roc. I'm going to need an understable disc.
Maybe you would have me throw 3 100 foot putter shots, IDK. I'm not averse to laying up, but then what I am led to believe is that I'm somehow going to be able to throw that shot with a non-beat in Roc by "controlling the angle". I don't see how that turns into anything other than a flex shot. (Not picking on the Roc, it just seems like the go to example.)
Here is where I think people tell me to buy a beat in Roc. I don't see that as available out in the market. People don't seem to sell their seasoned Rocs, rather they seem to value them like gold or other precious metals.
Plus, the idea of having a seasoned Pro Roc doesn't seem really any different to me than just buying an understable disc to begin with. It stops being about "controlling the angle", doesn't it? You are using the right disc to get the flight you want.
So, what do you find valid about what I am saying? What am I getting wrong?
But it seems way oversold. I get whiffs of "direct marketing" from posts that push it.
"Just play with only 4 molds and ALL OF YOUR PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED. If it isn't working for you you are just doing it wrong. No one any good ever played with more than 6 molds."
Meanwhile Simon Lizotte talks about how he throws completely different molds based on the course. Danny Lindahl talks about two different approaches (he phrases it as "you do the work" vs. "let the disc do the work").
I'm not trying to start a flame war. And I actually look forward to when my Compass beats in to be turnover disc and I'll ditch what I have in that slot and I buy a second Compass. I imagine this may happen with other discs as well.
However, as a new player, I'd like to actually play the game, rather than spend all of my time frustrated, instead of only half of my time frustrated. If I need to throw a turnover shot, I don't see how I do that with a new Roc. I'm going to need an understable disc.
Maybe you would have me throw 3 100 foot putter shots, IDK. I'm not averse to laying up, but then what I am led to believe is that I'm somehow going to be able to throw that shot with a non-beat in Roc by "controlling the angle". I don't see how that turns into anything other than a flex shot. (Not picking on the Roc, it just seems like the go to example.)
Here is where I think people tell me to buy a beat in Roc. I don't see that as available out in the market. People don't seem to sell their seasoned Rocs, rather they seem to value them like gold or other precious metals.
Plus, the idea of having a seasoned Pro Roc doesn't seem really any different to me than just buying an understable disc to begin with. It stops being about "controlling the angle", doesn't it? You are using the right disc to get the flight you want.
So, what do you find valid about what I am saying? What am I getting wrong?
opcorn:
