- Jul 27, 2017
I like to lump things into five categories.
There are obviously discs that kind of overlap categories.
Back in the day I would say those 9 and 10 speed discs were definitely distance drivers but when they started coming out with the really wide rimmed stuff I think those became the new distance drivers effectively creating a control driver spot for all of the 9 and 10 speed stuff.
I think there is a need for consistency in describing it, but I don't think it's dumb. I see it kind of like disc speed For the most part, both flight numbers, and disc speed has been set as arbitrary numbers by the manufacturers.
In general, most manufacturers have agreed to make the flight numbers for speed based on rim width, and, in general, set putters, mids, fairways, and distance drivers at certain speed ranges (1-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9+ respectively). It's when the manufacturers go off of these numbers, or some stupid pro calls a 9 speed a fairway instead of a distance driver, that throws everyone off. New people to the sport might hear that pro call a 9 speed a fairway, and suddenly a new trend emerges, when said pro's own company still calls all 9 speeds distance drivers.
The problem is, much like with the confusion with 9 speeds, when a disc is in that neutral range, some manufacturers might consider that "stable", while some consider it "neutral". All the other sides are pretty well agreed on. We just need the manufacturers to clearly set the tone, like they for the most part did with speed. (except for the 1-2 manufacturers who have bucked the trend for speed and should be boycotted until they shape up).
Ray has it right here.
What we call a disc is absolutely silly sometimes. Cause some people call 4 speeds "putters."
And back in the day a 10 speed was a distance driver. when now days its more in the "control driver" category.
And as well, "distance" is relative to the disc design also. So even trying to describe it as a "distance driver" an be made in ignorance. (not calling you ignorant)
But, a Limit or an Energy are "not" distance drivers. But they are wide rimmed, so that makes them a distance driver?
See. Silly terms for silly things.
That's why the idea with "consistency for describing" becomes the argument, so were on the same page.
The problem comes from the atrocious language for almost everything disc golf. Listen to more and more modern teaching, and you'll notice the language changing. I've been pushing HARD on proper terms for coaching during the disc golf swing and its making huge differences. More and more people are picking up on it as well as more people start using more apt descriptors for the swing.
When we talk about disc flight, we should be using appropriate descriptors for them as well, which we technically do not.
This is exactly the issue. What does "stable" mean to the beholder. I Never hear people talk about "stable" as straight, but then you get that 1 guy who says Stable as meaning straight.FWIW.....If you asked me to hand you the most stable disc in my bag, I'm handing you my Stego, not my Hex.
When a descriptor leaves to much up to the beholder to figure it out, then its a bad descriptor.
A description of something should be obvious. To say "but stable is obvious" is unfortunately proven wrong time and time again. Because everyones definition of it is different.
But if we changed "stable" to "straight" there would be no error in what the descriptor meant. we know what straight is.
This is mainly because the "speed" descriptor is looked at like golf clubs. People think 14 speed, that means it will go far. That's not true. The speed descriptor, while being one of the only things we can tie to an actual measurement, is more or less a descriptor of "how fast the disc needs to fly to perform to the numbers described."Flight numbers are just an idea of how a disc might fly. It really just comes down to how it flies for you.
Thus why flight numbers are not very great compared to a "flight chart" which would give you a better idea of the disc performance over skill level vs arbitrary numbers made up by the manufacturer that can change run to run or sometimes plastic to plastic.
Another example of the confusion and feel.The same. I, like a lot of people, use more stable and more overstable to mean the same thing. Not saying it's correct, but that's the way I hear it the most. To me, something that flies straight is my most neutral, not most stable.
Not saying I'm right. But I'm pretty sure I represent a large section of discers.
Because we pick up on most of this stuff based on the language of the people we play with.
Y'all know that "what is stable?" is right up there with "what is par?", right?
haha. I hate "what is par"
Because par is irrelevant always. Your brain should never ever care what par is. Because it means NOTHING to the game. But everyone is focused on "birdies" not "how many strokes to get through the course"
Birdies and bogeys are irrelevant to your final "tally" of "all the shots."
Then we get to what Par means, and everyone wants to argue it in the dumbest ways. I digress.
100% agree.I will say, the MVP flight charts before they had flight numbers were generally very helpful before choosing a disc. Especially because they gave multiple flights based on power level. For the most part the charts were accurate with me falling kind of in the middle of the expected flights.
They made sense, they made it easy and they were accurate.
As well, most didn't notice, the old Axiom stamps actually had a flight chart on the stock stamp.
I'm really digging the rhythm, but its more in the flippy compared to the Relay.Anyone feel like discussing the rhythm?
I'm really taking a liking to that... I haven't run it against a relay but it's ability to go mostly straight and glide for days is making me feel like it's a longer uplink. I'm not gonna lie, I pooped it a few times but the results were still pleasing and to be expected lines.
It's closer to a Signal.
As for the choice between the 2, I'd take the Relay. But also, the relay is 16mm class, and the Rhythm is a 18mm class.
Then the argument comes to PP relay or newer relay.
Cause they sure screwed that mold up, though the more recent ones seem to have come out a bit better.
However I am throwing a newer Relay in neutron. And its not quite the old relays, but It's in the acceptable range. It will handle big power with less effort put in by me with my angles, which the older relays really were more fussy due to their likeness to turn over. But it was hard to beat the old PP Relays on hyzer flips.
I keep going back and forth on whether or not I want to try a Rhythm. I currently throw a Hokom Crave as my turnover disc and a Plasma Crave as my stable/neutral fairway. I like the control I have with the Hokom. From what I've heard, the Rhythm is a little less stable or similar to a Relay, depending on the run of Relay.
So on the one hand, I have a Crave that I like the control of and I'm used to.
But on the other hand, I'd get to try a new disc and Rhythm might just be the coolest name for a disc in all of disc golf.
I enjoy the crave, but the Rhythm has way more turn than the crave. Even lighter ones. Crave is generally straight. My Max weight gives me a fade, and my 150 class gives me straight or slight turnover.