Would you like to see the PDGA limit number of disc carried in tournaments?

[gdub58]

No, not really.

Objectively, the first player has more quantifiable skills, but quantity of skill does not necessarily equate to quality of skill. I can't really agree that being able to throw both forehands and backhands categorically makes that player more skilled than a backhand-only player.

C'mon, isn't the point that two people with equally good backhands would not be equal if one of them also had a good forehand? And of course, any advantage depends on the course and the positions one finds themselves in during a round.



Let's all be realistic here. Many of the people I play ball golf with carry more than 14 clubs. They also don't always play the ball where it lies, concede short putts, and so on. I've also played in a number of tournaments, and the vibe is much different. If there was a disc limit, nobody would kick you off the course in a casual round if you carried more than the limit, so I think the "it would make the game less fun" type arguments are a bit weak - the OP's question was about tournaments. And the people who say "if a limit was imposed I'd cancel my PDGA membership!" sound like they need to find a safe space.

I voted yes, but I certainly don't think it is something that needs to be done immediately to improve the game or anything like that - I, like iacas, believe that it would create a bit more separation for the best players, and I also like the idea of seeing an interview with McBeth before a round where he briefly explains why he has decided to carry four Destroyers for today's round. ITB videos are popular, so IMO having a "what's ITB today?" would be cool as well...

 

[DG_Before_Breakfast]

C'mon, isn't the point that two people with equally good backhands would not be equal if one of them also had a good forehand? And of course, any advantage depends on the course and the positions one finds themselves in during a round.

If their backhands were equally good, sure, but if one guy could turn Comets and Mantis on understable lines that were the equivalent shots with his backhand to the other guy's forehand?

 

[BogeyNoMore]

A limit on speed of discs would be much more interesting than a limit on number of discs.

While I agree with your statement conceptually...

Doesn't the PDGA already limit rim width?
And isn't the rim width/sharpness what we basically use to group them into Putters, Mids, Fairways, and Distance?

Are you saying that limiting discs to putters thru fairways would be more interesting?
If so, where does fairway end and distance begin?
And aren't speed #'s basically a relative (if not arbitrary) scale rather than absolute... hence an enforcement nightmare?




That said, you'll have to pry my Lace from cold, dead, backhand.

 

[StevenSeagal]

:sigh:


Here's how this works… you get to have an opinion, and I do too.


What metric is that? Skill? Skill may be difficult to directly measure, but it's not "arbitrary."


That's your opinion. I disagree. I think a reasonable disc limit would separate the players a bit more and those with more skill would rise to the top.

It's an arbitrary metric because it doesn't matter whatsoever how flexible you are with a single or smaller number of discs the great equalizer is your ability to put the disc in the basket . You're advancing a nature vs nurture argument were skills can be looked at as nurture and discs can be looked at as nature. From there you're basically saying everything is constant or static and you only have to add one plus the other to determine ultimate competency.

I'm saying the relationship between skill and disc selection is dynamic and interlaced to the degree that you cannot separate the two the way you're trying. The perks of being able to throw a smaller selection of discs is only over expressed when it is advantageous to throw a smaller number of discs. Any situation where it is not in your interests to rely on a smaller set of discs means that skill you're coveting so much is of less value.

 

[PWaggoner]

Let people carry as many as they want. It's usually a disadvantage. More weight if you carry your bag and more choices.

But it's a advantage to have backups. Everybody has that time you lost your only stable fairway etc and it especially sucks if it happens in a tournament.

 

[DirtyMeathook]

If you need a certain disc to throw a particular shot, you are not versatile.

Your words.

I'm pretty sure everytime Ricky throws a FH it's either a Felon or a Harp.

So you're saying that Ricky NEEDS those discs to throw a forehand shot? If he was playing a one disc round with a disc that wasn't a Harp or a Felon, he would not be able to throw forehand? He CHOOSES to lean on a Felon/Harp for FH, but if he had just one disc, and he needed to hit a FH line, he'd still be able to throw FH just fine.

Also, he forehands more than just those 2 molds, not that it has anything to do with what I was stating.

A rule like this would give an unfair advantage to players who exclusively throw one way. A lot of people who have put in the work to develop a different throwing style have discs specific for that form and no matter how you slice it such a rule would naturally impede their ability to utilize those skills. I don't see an advantage to the players or the sport by limiting the versatility of the game.

No dude that's not what I said at all. What I said was the natural, inherent differences between BH and FH mean that a competent BH/FH player will probably not throw the same disc even when throwing the same line whether BH or FH.

Actually, that is exactly what you said. Look at your initial comment. You are arguing that a disc limit is advantageous to to a player that throws just one shot type. I'm saying that a player who can throw a variety of different styles would be at an advantage if a disc limit was imposed, NOT the one trick pony. Good luck finding anybody that shares your opinion.

 

[DirtyMeathook]

I'm not advocating a disc limit BTW. It is much more enjoyable having a large variety of discs to throw. Just stating the obvious, that the more versatile a player you are, the less a disc limit would hinder you.

 

[StevenSeagal]

Actually, that is exactly what you said. Look at your initial comment. You are arguing that a disc limit is advantageous to to a player that throws just one shot type. I'm saying that a player who can throw a variety of different styles would be at an advantage if a disc limit was imposed, NOT the one trick pony. Good luck finding anybody that shares your opinion.

Sweet baby Jesus....

This is the comment I responded to

"This guy said that limiting how many discs you can carry would be a bigger disadvantage for someone who can only throw one shot."

again this is what you just said

"You are arguing that a disc limit is advantageous to to a player that throws just one shot type."

:doh::wall::doh::wall::doh::wall::doh::wall:

 

[DirtyMeathook]

Sweet baby Jesus....

This is the comment I responded to

"This guy said that limiting how many discs you can carry would be a bigger disadvantage for someone who can only throw one shot."

again this is what you just said

"You are arguing that a disc limit is advantageous to to a player that throws just one shot type."

:doh::wall::doh::wall::doh::wall::doh::wall:

Uh, yea, and immediately below that I corrected my post because I missed the edit window. Clearly you read that since you have quoted every single comment directed at you in this entire thread. You tried to turn this into a FH v BH stability requirement, which is not what I was looking to argue, but you are wrong on that account as well.

Here is the bottom line. You think playing with one disc would be an advantage for a one trick pony. I think it would be an advantage for someone who throws a variety of shots, as does everyone else. Your position is totally illogical. We can just agree to disagree.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Admittedly I cherry picked these, thus removing them from total context of their posts, but I agree completely with both of these statements.

...the relationship between skill and disc selection is dynamic and interlaced to the degree that you cannot separate the two...

... the more versatile a player you are, the less a disc limit would hinder you.

 

[iacas]

I appreciate your thoroughness in answering without devolving into being catty, it is a rare occurrence on the internet. I think many hobbyist, like myself, love the idea of trying discs, and ultimately going to the course and thinking "I just threw the best disc possible for that shot".

As someone else pointed out, you'd be welcome to do that in your casual rounds, or rounds where you just choose the right disc.

For me, I find it more rewarding to pull off a great shot that requires a little more than just making my standard throw with a new disc. I like to express my creativity. I like to be pushed out of my comfort zone and succeed. It means I've grown.

I don't get the same satisfaction if I just buy a new piece of plastic that flies differently.

It feels, to me, like you are arguing that the purist mentality is worth advocating for over those electric moments when everything comes together.

In my experience, "purist" is seen as the days of going back when the sport first began, and no, I'm not advocating that.

As I've said, I'm advocating for a little more display of skill and a little bit less a display of equipment. That's all. And I'm not really advocating, I guess, I'm just stating my opinion in a forum thread about this topic.

The idea that less discs require more skill seem kind of akin to saying it takes more skill to park a golf ball, near the pin, from 150 yds out, with a driver instead of a 8 iron.

I think that's a bad analogy. If you want to make a golf analogy, then the equivalent to that would be arguing that it takes more skill to park a 220-foot hole with a speed 13 disc over a putter.

The better analogy, IMO, is that the more skillful player can hit more types of shots with his 8-iron (or whatever club you're talking about). He can hit it high, medium, or low. He can hit it straight, fade it, or draw it. He can chip with it. He can hit 3/4 knockdowns with it. Etc.

Your analogy is just using the entirely wrong club for the shot. My analogy is more about making the same club do more things.

If you want to make a golf analogy, that is…

C'mon, isn't the point that two people with equally good backhands would not be equal if one of them also had a good forehand? And of course, any advantage depends on the course and the positions one finds themselves in during a round.

Let's all be realistic here. Many of the people I play ball golf with carry more than 14 clubs. They also don't always play the ball where it lies, concede short putts, and so on. I've also played in a number of tournaments, and the vibe is much different. If there was a disc limit, nobody would kick you off the course in a casual round if you carried more than the limit, so I think the "it would make the game less fun" type arguments are a bit weak - the OP's question was about tournaments. And the people who say "if a limit was imposed I'd cancel my PDGA membership!" sound like they need to find a safe space.

I voted yes, but I certainly don't think it is something that needs to be done immediately to improve the game or anything like that - I, like iacas, believe that it would create a bit more separation for the best players, and I also like the idea of seeing an interview with McBeth before a round where he briefly explains why he has decided to carry four Destroyers for today's round. ITB videos are popular, so IMO having a "what's ITB today?" would be cool as well...

I agree with almost all of that.

You're advancing a nature vs nurture argument were skills can be looked at as nurture and discs can be looked at as nature. From there you're basically saying everything is constant or static and you only have to add one plus the other to determine ultimate competency.

I'll be honest… I don't really know what you're saying most of the time, and I don't seem to be alone in that… I'll blame myself. Clearly I'm missing something.

I'm saying the relationship between skill and disc selection is dynamic and interlaced to the degree that you cannot separate the two the way you're trying.

I'm not asking to separate them. I'm saying that a disc limit would push the balance a little bit more toward skill.

I think you've said that more discs require more skill, and if you believe that, we disagree on a fundamental level, so there's little point (IMO) in continuing with higher level concepts since we disagree at a level far simpler than that.

I'm not advocating a disc limit BTW. It is much more enjoyable having a large variety of discs to throw. Just stating the obvious, that the more versatile a player you are, the less a disc limit would hinder you.

There are many - including Jack Nicklaus and Tiger himself - who have pointed out that Tiger would have been even more dominant than he was in the modern era had he played back in the 60s or 70s or even 80s simply due to the equipment available today. When pros had tiny headed drivers, muscleback irons, and super spinny balata balls, you had to nut every shot or it went sideways in a hurry.

Today, you can mi**** a ball slightly every time and shoot 64, and you can get a hybrid so you don't have to play with a 1-iron or 2-iron (or a 3-iron, 4-iron…). Clubs are more forgiving and more helpful than ever, and so it's narrowed the separation between the "A" players and the "B" players on the PGA Tour.

It's tougher for the better players to separate themselves based solely on their skill, because the equipment narrows the playing field a little bit.

 

[scarpfish]

Has anyone here perhaps considered that no matter how much we discuss this and engage in word splitting, that the parties that are actually in charge of the ruleset have perhaps looked at this issue a few times, and perhaps arrived at the finding that it was in the best interest of the game to keep the status quo?

Kind of a little something we often forget when we treat our opinions like they're gospel.

 

[Cgkdisc]

This is not even a rules issue. It would fall to the PDGA Competition Committee. This means any restriction would not make it into the rulebook and only apply to sanctioned events.

 

[StevenSeagal]

Uh, yea, and immediately below that I corrected my post because I missed the edit window. Clearly you read that since you have quoted every single comment directed at you in this entire thread. You tried to turn this into a FH v BH stability requirement, which is not what I was looking to argue, but you are wrong on that account as well.

Here is the bottom line. You think playing with one disc would be an advantage for a one trick pony. I think it would be an advantage for someone who throws a variety of shots, as does everyone else. Your position is totally illogical. We can just agree to disagree.

I really don't see how you can have a constructive debate about anything if you refuse to acknowledge or even refute a portion of said claim. My comments about the differences with BH and FH are 100% relevant to the discussion by evidence of the fact that everyone on your side seems to be parroting the same opinion whether they know it or not.

My experience throwing FH is best expressed when throwing my disc of choice FH, and while that same experience will help me to FH any disc that experience has a greater effect on my score when I pair it with the right equipment. Experience coupled with proper disc selection produces results greater than the sum of either added together. In other words because I have more experience throwing FH I can throw discs better suited for FH and as a result I can perform even better feats throwing FH with that disc. You're implying everything is a constant no matter the disc selection and so more experience with FH produces more favorable throws at either the same or near the same rate or magnitude as if I threw a disc not as well suited for FH.

That's an unsupported logical fallacy that no one in this thread has properly addressed. My argument ultimately flows from that observation. Someone with a larger set of skills will be unfairly impacted by a bag limit because the reasoning behind the rule is flawed and they will be forced to use less discs to compliment a wider variety of experience at a loss to the effectiveness of that experience.

 

[Dr.Smooth]

Well, at this point since most touring players carry their bag most of the time they are already have a limited choice on discs.

If the sport ever gets huge and you have caddies, sure you are going to have people with like 40 discs.

And really it doesn't matter that as long as you don't go below 7-10 discs limits because really they only throw about five ish any way.

Paul Mcbeth-aviar, roc, bird, destroyer seems all he throws most of the time.

 

[StevenSeagal]

I'll be honest… I don't really know what you're saying most of the time, and I don't seem to be alone in that… I'll blame myself. Clearly I'm missing something.


I'm not asking to separate them. I'm saying that a disc limit would push the balance a little bit more toward skill.

I think you've said that more discs require more skill, and if you believe that, we disagree on a fundamental level, so there's little point (IMO) in continuing with higher level concepts since we disagree at a level far simpler than that.

You're not getting your head around the problem and are grasping at inconsequential differences.

I'm trying to use one of the oldest debates as an analogy. Some people will argue you are a product of how you were raised(nurture, or with respects to this debate skill) and others will argue you are the product of your genes(discs). Then there are people who argue a third option. Their argument is you are the product of your genes(discs) expressing themselves within the actual context of your upbringing.

So you might have a gene that is associated with being brave, but the degree to which that gene affects your behavior is linked to the degree at which it is advantageous or necessary to be brave. If you live a pampered life with not much to fear you'll be a little braver than your counterparts who lack said gene but only really to the degree that it makes sense to act that way. On the other hand if you live the life of a solider that gene is much, much more relevant to your life and will have an increased effect on your behavior relative to not only those who have the gene but also to the version of yourself that lived a pampered life.

Skill in other words is not a single number or set of values like a bag of discs. Skill is dynamic and either magnifies statistics or outcomes or leads to a point of diminished returns based on a whole host of stuff that is ignored when you focus solely on how many discs you have in your bag.

This isn't a hard concept to grasp for a disc golfer. What do you think "drive for show put for dough," means?

 

[StevenSeagal]

Well, at this point since most touring players carry their bag most of the time they are already have a limited choice on discs.

If the sport ever gets huge and you have caddies, sure you are going to have people with like 40 discs.

And really it doesn't matter that as long as you don't go below 7-10 discs limits because really they only throw about five ish any way.

Paul Mcbeth-aviar, roc, bird, destroyer seems all he throws most of the time.

He bags seven destroyers by itself. At least 2 mcpro avairs, an s-line p2 and nova. At least two thunderbirds and teebird3's. You can't forget about his PDx either or monster.

 

[DanJon]

If there was a 15-20 disc limit, you could be sure that Ricky would have a Felon and a Harp.

Pros would still rely on certain discs, they would just carry less backups and throw more of the same types of shots.

I would argue that there would be less diversity in shot selection on the course.

They're always going to take the high percentage shot.

You would see guys carrying 5 Destroyers, 2 Firebirds, 2 Teebirds, 2 Rocs and 4-5 putters.

As Lyle mentioned before, most course design allows them to only throw the same 3-4 shots.

 

[BrotherDave]

A disc limit would only last as long as the first major tournament where inclement weather happens and a bunch of pros can't keep their limited number of discs from slipping out of their hands from starting the round with premium plastic. Or the round lasts longer b/c the pros spend more time toweling off discs than throwing.

 

[iacas]

Has anyone here perhaps considered that no matter how much we discuss this and engage in word splitting, that the parties that are actually in charge of the ruleset have perhaps looked at this issue a few times, and perhaps arrived at the finding that it was in the best interest of the game to keep the status quo?

Kind of a little something we often forget when we treat our opinions like they're gospel.

I've pointed out multiple times that it's probably not going to happen any time soon. So in your mind that means we can't discuss it?

Of course we can.

Opinions also change over time. Golf allowed anchored putting strokes until they decided to roll it back. For over a century it was legal, until it wasn't anymore.

Rules changes happen in all sports. They come about because people change their minds, or new situations occur.

You're not getting your head around the problem and are grasping at inconsequential differences.

I mean no offense by this, but no… that's not what's happening. I've stated my opinion pretty clearly. Your disagreement has nothing to do with me not getting my head around something.

I'm trying to use one of the oldest debates as an analogy. Some people will argue you are a product of how you were raised(nurture, or with respects to this debate skill) and others will argue you are the product of your genes(discs). Then there are people who argue a third option. Their argument is you are the product of your genes(discs) expressing themselves within the actual context of your upbringing.

No, that's not my argument, and you're doing yourself no favors by trying to force this bizarre nature/nurture thing in there.

So you might have a gene that is associated with being brave

This isn't a hard concept to grasp for a disc golfer. What do you think "drive for show put for dough," means?

Well… I know it's wrong. Almost completely backward. Hell, I wrote a book about it. Sold over 12,000 copies now, too…

Steven, sorry, but no… I don't think you're making any sense TO ME. Blame me for that if you want in your mind, but please don't tell me I can't wrap my head around something. I feel I've expressed my opinion pretty clearly, and pretty simply. I feel that a disc limit of 10-15 or so would increase strategy and shift the balance more toward skill - making a smaller set of discs hit the lines and shapes needed - over just pulling out a different disc.

You disagree with me. Cool. Let's just leave it at that - we don't have an opinion in common. It's fairly obvious that you're not going to convince me - and that's not because I can't "get my head around it."

As I said before, we have more in common than not - we both care about and enjoy disc golf. Let's leave it at that, shall we?