overloaded terms: more stable

[tmahan]

That is much more confusing to say to other golfers who will be like " How did your Firebird become more stable when it got beat it, it should have gotten less stable when it got beat in". I think saying less stable works better in this instance.

I think that when you are comparing one disc to another saying one disc is "more stable" than the other makes sense no matter the stability of the comparing discs. When talking about a certain disc saying that it's "stable" means fairly straight.

So you guys are trying to say that an overstable disc is not stable. That's pretty silly.

Are we? Or is that noise in the background everyone laughing at you?

 

[craftsman]

In my neck of the woods stable means overstable-one would never call a buzzz, comet or valk stable unless it was freak overstable for the mold.
Here I adhere to over, true stable, and under.

 

[tmahan]

I'd say that is not correct at all because when someone says "more stable" or "less stable" the "over" and "under" are implied and easily deduced from the context. The way you're saying it goes against that and I've never heard it used that way.

See the second post in this thread (apdrvya's post);

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=550358#post550358

I've seen this done before. I agree it's generally pretty easy to divine the inferred 'under' or over' when using the term 'stable' but not always. Be easier if people said what they really mean.

 

[teebob]

Who cares. All discs will go striaght if you throw them a certain way.

 

[garublador]

See the second post in this thread (apdrvya's post);

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=550358#post550358

I've seen this done before. I agree it's generally pretty easy to divine the inferred 'under' or over' when using the term 'stable' but not always. Be easier if people said what they really mean.

Check out later in the thread when it was pointed out by someone else, and then apdrvya admitted he had it wrong. So it wasn't that he used "more stable" to mean less overstable, he just misspoke. I'd argue that if it's not used like that it's incorrect, not a different interpretation of how to use the words.

 

[tmahan]

Check out later in the thread when it was pointed out by someone else, and then apdrvya admitted he had it wrong. So it wasn't that he used "more stable" to mean less overstable, he just misspoke. I'd argue that if it's not used like that it's incorrect, not a different interpretation of how to use the words.

Can we agree that the use of 'stable' is somewhat ambiguous? If you asked 10 people what was their most stable disc 7 or 8 would say a meathook like a Monster or an XXX but 2 or 3 would say a Roc or a Buzz (or equivalent).

Just stirring up a little Monday morning discussion.

 

[drickanderson]

If stability is rated from -3 (understable) to +3 (overstable), then to say that a disc is more stable, is to imply that it has more of this quantity, correct? 3 is more than 2. A disc with a stability rating of 3 is more stable than a disc rated 2. A disc rated -1 is more stable than a disc rated -3.

 

[jtencer]

Here's how I look at it. It's a scale. The quantity being measured is called stability. The extremes are overstable (lots of stability) and understable (very little stability).

Using convention, let's put overstable on the left and understable on the right. Moving from left to right is decreasing stability and becoming "less stable" or "more understable." Moving from right to left is increasing stability and becoming "more stable" or "more overstable."

The ambiguity here comes from defining a "middle" to your scale and calling it the same thing as your quantity. It's a 1D scale. There's no need to define 3 points (especially when the middle is so poorly specified).

There is no disc that defines the overstable extreme. There is no disc that defines the understable extreme. Similiarly, there is no disc that defines the "stable" point that seems to be causing so much trouble.

The scale is defined relatively, so it should be used that way. A disc is either more or less stable than another disc (or than itself at a different time). There is no need for confusion.

 

[DiscChucker]

Can we agree that the use of 'stable' is somewhat ambiguous? If you asked 10 people what was their most stable disc 7 or 8 would say a meathook like a Monster or an XXX but 2 or 3 would say a Roc or a Buzz (or equivalent).

Just stirring up a little Monday morning discussion.

I would be in your minority group. I would never call the Monster, or any meat hook disc for that matter, stable. I have a Firebird in my bag and I have never referred to it as stable. To me, that disc is clearly overstable.

 

[art_vandelay]

Wouldn't it be like this:

If stable = zero on a scale, than adding stability makes it more stable or "over" the stability point of zero. Or if you take a away stability, you are "under" the point of zero or under-stable relative to the neutral point of zero.

 

[cydisc]

Here's how I look at it. It's a scale. The quantity being measured is called stability. The extremes are overstable (lots of stability) and understable (very little stability).

Stop confusing everyone.

 

[Midnightbiker]

This is how I word it if: I'm talking to a noobie. Or: I'm talking to Simpleton.

I say : OVERSTABLE-----------NEUTRAL----------UNDERSTABLE
"Boss / ------------------- Coyote----------- Roadrunner

 

[tmahan]

Here's how I look at it. It's a scale. The quantity being measured is called stability. The extremes are overstable (lots of stability) and understable (very little stability).

Using convention, let's put overstable on the left and understable on the right. Moving from left to right is decreasing stability and becoming "less stable" or "more understable." Moving from right to left is increasing stability and becoming "more stable" or "more overstable."

The ambiguity here comes from defining a "middle" to your scale and calling it the same thing as your quantity. It's a 1D scale. There's no need to define 3 points (especially when the middle is so poorly specified).

There is no disc that defines the overstable extreme. There is no disc that defines the understable extreme. Similiarly, there is no disc that defines the "stable" point that seems to be causing so much trouble.

The scale is defined relatively, so it should be used that way. A disc is either more or less stable than another disc (or than itself at a different time). There is no need for confusion.

Admirable attempt. Using this, then no one should call a disc stable.

 

[sillybizz]

If stability is rated from -3 (understable) to +3 (overstable), then to say that a disc is more stable, is to imply that it has more of this quantity, correct? 3 is more than 2. A disc with a stability rating of 3 is more stable than a disc rated 2. A disc rated -1 is more stable than a disc rated -3.

Using the Discraft scale sure but using Innova or Joe's Flight Chart, no.

 

[craftsman]

Here's how I look at it. It's a scale. The quantity being measured is called stability. The extremes are overstable (lots of stability) and understable (very little stability).

Using convention, let's put overstable on the left and understable on the right. Moving from left to right is decreasing stability and becoming "less stable" or "more understable." Moving from right to left is increasing stability and becoming "more stable" or "more overstable."

The ambiguity here comes from defining a "middle" to your scale and calling it the same thing as your quantity. It's a 1D scale. There's no need to define 3 points (especially when the middle is so poorly specified).

There is no disc that defines the overstable extreme. There is no disc that defines the understable extreme. Similiarly, there is no disc that defines the "stable" point that seems to be causing so much trouble.

The scale is defined relatively, so it should be used that way. A disc is either more or less stable than another disc (or than itself at a different time). There is no need for confusion.

I agree for the most part. This is all newb confusion. Any competitive player in my area knows what is ment when stable or flippy is used. We only really use stable and flippy as descriptive terms. Seems to work well. You will hear about flippy bosses- it's only in comparison to the boss itself, not to the entire range of discs. It works well cause everyone already knows how most fly. For new discs like latitude strikers or rivers, we just say they're flippy tb's and stable leos. For something like an ion, we wouldn't bother to say it's true stable, we would just say it's like a voodoo.

 

[sidewinding]

Can we agree that the use of 'stable' is somewhat ambiguous? If you asked 10 people what was their most stable disc 7 or 8 would say a meathook like a Monster or an XXX but 2 or 3 would say a Roc or a Buzz (or equivalent).

Just stirring up a little Monday morning discussion.

Probably more like, if you asked 1000 people what their most stable disc was, 997 or 998 of them would say a meathook but 2 or 3 would say a more neutral disc. We could always do a poll to find out.

 

[Apothecary]

thats because 995/1000 people are ignorant, idiots or both (i dont agree with your assessment, btw. i think the verbiage is regional).:\

 

[sidewinding]

Poll Created!

 

[great white buffalo]

WHAT

 

[great white buffalo]

Wrong. A stable disc resists turnover but does not necesarrily have little fade. The more stable a disc is the more fade it will have.

WRONG!!!!!!!