What I think...challenging the "sticky"

Post your Bag Critique Requests, Talk about your Bag set up etc...

Moderators: Timko, Solty, Frank Delicious, Blake_T, Fritz, Booter

Re: What I think...challenging the "sticky"

Postby Eric O » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:04 pm

I can see both sides of the argument. Lists of what's in the bag do read better and make more sense to me when they are grouped along the spectrum of speed, since speed is probably the defining category to me of how a disc will generally fly (followed by stability). Having said that, if you're looking just to try and find overlap as it's been defined on DGR the recommended format in the sticky makes things very easy IF you have a firm grasp on how speed affects disc flight.

If it comes down to a matter or preference or style (which I think it does), I prefer the listing by speed primarily since that is how I tend to think about it when contemplating a complete disc bag. You can look at concepts of minimalism and overlap regardless of which way you organize a list, and it's good to understand the classes designated in the sticky, but it doesn't change the fact that you are going to want to have access to a putter, a mid, a fairway driver and a distance driver then go from there with the stability depending on technique and personal preferences.

Edit: One more thing. Blake has clearly done an unparalleled job of gathering information and putting it out there in a form people can understand. Just because we acknowledge that doesn't mean we can't build on that information and evolve it though. In fact the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of sticking with speed classifications primarily, then going back through and just making sure there are discs there to execute all the shots one would want to throw with a given bag.
Eric O
1000 Rated Poster
User avatar
 
Posts: 1848
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:22 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: What I think...challenging the "sticky"

Postby cmlasley » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:38 pm

I like list by speed, but I don't care how you list it. "I am so smart, S-M-R-T," that I can spot overlap from a mile out.

If we're going to add anything to the format it should be max D with which disc and golf D with which disc. That will help us suggest discs for people based on their current ability.
Morgan Lasley
When life gives you lemons, stick them in the freezer for a few hours, then throw them back, 'cause they're like rocks, man.
cmlasley
1000 Rated Poster
User avatar
 
Posts: 1537
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:54 am
Location: Waterloo, Iowa
Favorite Disc: OK Computer

Re: What I think...challenging the "sticky"

Postby garublador » Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:49 am

It's really an argument of whether discs should be grouped by speed or by use. Knowing what a person is using a disc for gives much more information about whether or not that disc is a good choice than just the speed of the disc. We already know the speed of any given disc, that's not new information. For example this bag:

Z Pred
Valkyrie
Gazelle
Roc
Wizard

May look OK, and is categorized by speed, but if it's in this format

1. Stable Control Driver
Roc

2. Distance Driver
Wizard

3. Understable Driver
Predator

4. Moderately overstable driver
Wizard

5. Very overstable Driver
Valkyrie

Mids:
Valk

Putters:
Gazelle

It's obvious there might be some sort of issue going on. Now that's obviously a ridiculous example I'm using to illustrate a point (I did play in a tournament with a guy who used a Gazelle for a putter, though), but the act of categorizing your discs like that can many times point out holes and overlap without having to ask. If you're just listing by speed then there's no guarantee that the person has gone through that process or that they're using discs like we assume they would be.
garublador
Disc Whore
 
Posts: 3459
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:37 am
Location: Urbandale, IA

Re: What I think...challenging the "sticky"

Postby Bradley Walker » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:05 pm

garublador wrote:It's really an argument of whether discs should be grouped by speed or by use.


In what way is my method of listing the discs NOT "grouping" the discs by "use"?

Distance
right, straight, left

Control
right, straight, left

Mid
right, straight, left

Putter

Are these not "use" terms?
"The reasonable man adapts himself to his environment. The unreasonable man adapts his environment to himself, therefore all progress is made by unreasonable men."
-George Bernard Shaw
Bradley Walker
Disc Whore
User avatar
 
Posts: 3702
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:46 pm
Favorite Disc: Roc

Re: What I think...challenging the "sticky"

Postby Bradley Walker » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:11 pm

cmlasley wrote:If we're going to add anything to the format it should be max D with which disc and golf D with which disc.


Man, you are not kidding!!!

The problem is that most people would list incorrect distances. In my experience people have no idea how far they throw their discs, and they assume much greater gaps than they actually have.

I know that distance drivers have little gain over fairway drivers. I have done the tests. I also know that "best" throws have no real place in discussions about what discs a person should be using.

I guess the marketing of distance drivers is my pet peeve (like Blake). Very few people can even make enough discs speed to gain any real distance from modern high speed discs. In fact, most people have not even thrown slower plastic at all, so they have no idea that slower plastic is easier and more forgiving to throw (and will lower their scores).

In fact, they are marketed quite the opposite by retailers.

Many newbs would be best to not carry anything faster than a Cyclone, and many of the GOOD players I know should top out with a Teebird/Eagle.

Heck, I am starting to think I used to throw DX Teebirds further than a Wraith now. I can throw a Star Teebird within 20 feet of a Wraith now. I have to throw AT LEAST a Wraith to see any real gains over a good Teebird.

Many of the big arms do not need fast drivers at all, especially to play the typical DG course. Heck, I am not a big arm and many courses I play do not require any fast disc drives at all.

I guess I like to just chop off the entire catagory of "distance driver" when warranted by ability, that is why I like the grouping I use.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to his environment. The unreasonable man adapts his environment to himself, therefore all progress is made by unreasonable men."
-George Bernard Shaw
Bradley Walker
Disc Whore
User avatar
 
Posts: 3702
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:46 pm
Favorite Disc: Roc

Re: What I think...challenging the "sticky"

Postby garublador » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:29 pm

Bradley Walker wrote:
garublador wrote:It's really an argument of whether discs should be grouped by speed or by use.


In what way is my method of listing the discs NOT "grouping" the discs by "use"?

Distance
right, straight, left

Control
right, straight, left

Mid
right, straight, left

Putter

Are these not "use" terms?
Use terms, but it's still categorized by speed. You could substitute rim widths (or speeds) for those headings and it would mean the exact same thing. It's also impying that it's OK to have three different distance drivers, three different control drivers and three different mids. That and the wording doesn't jive with the already existant, and IMO very good disc overlap article that is recommended reading for anyone putting together a bag.

I don't see any improvements over what we already have with that system. I don't see anything better about it except that it's the way you like it.
garublador
Disc Whore
 
Posts: 3459
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:37 am
Location: Urbandale, IA

Re: What I think...challenging the "sticky"

Postby garublador » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Bradley Walker wrote:
cmlasley wrote:If we're going to add anything to the format it should be max D with which disc and golf D with which disc.


Man, you are not kidding!!!

The problem is that most people would list incorrect distances. In my experience people have no idea how far they throw their discs, and they assume much greater gaps than they actually have.
Now I totally agree with that.
garublador
Disc Whore
 
Posts: 3459
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:37 am
Location: Urbandale, IA

Re: What I think...challenging the "sticky"

Postby rusch_bag » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:32 pm

Whenever I have been evaluating my own bag, I kind of have done what Bradley is saying. I look to make sure I have a disc that can go left, straight, and right at all distances. If I can cover a whole distance with one disc of various beatness, Great, but that is not my main concern.
rusch_bag
Plastic Fondler
User avatar
 
Posts: 2397
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:50 pm
Location: Land of the Cheese
Favorite Disc: ROC

Re: What I think...challenging the "sticky"

Postby mark12b » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:42 pm

Bradley Walker wrote:
garublador wrote:It's really an argument of whether discs should be grouped by speed or by use.


In what way is my method of listing the discs NOT "grouping" the discs by "use"?

Distance
right, straight, left

Control
right, straight, left

Mid
right, straight, left

Putter

Are these not "use" terms?


:o they are, but the first two are different than you proposed before (was: driver and fairway driver -- now you've switched them to basically match the first two slots in sticky).

the thing that's missing from the above categorization is the degree of stability. i have a newish gazelle that fits in the control-left slot, but i also have a predator that would fit into a control way-way-left slot, if there was one. it's an important role to fill and the sticky has slot #5 to make that clear.

i don't really care how someone lists their bag *but* if he's looking for a critique it's easiest on everyone if he's spent some time trying to fill the roles blake defined in the overlap article.
mark12b
1000 Rated Poster
User avatar
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: What I think...challenging the "sticky"

Postby Bradley Walker » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:22 pm

mark12b wrote::o they are, but the first two are different than you proposed before (was: driver and fairway driver -- now you've switched them to basically match the first two slots in sticky).


Fairway driver/control driver same thing...

I think right, straight, left qualifies as a measure of stability. If you would like to use the terms understable, straight, and overstable it would be the same thing.

I do not think distinguishing between in a stack of the same disc beat to different levels is really important. We do not get into that with a stack of Rocs worn to different subtle levels of stability, why do it for a stack of Teebirds or even Wraiths/Destroyers or whatever?
"The reasonable man adapts himself to his environment. The unreasonable man adapts his environment to himself, therefore all progress is made by unreasonable men."
-George Bernard Shaw
Bradley Walker
Disc Whore
User avatar
 
Posts: 3702
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:46 pm
Favorite Disc: Roc

Re: What I think...challenging the "sticky"

Postby Dogma » Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:36 pm

I think Bradley's method is similar to the way many experienced players view their bags. But I think it's misleading to beginners.

This:
Distance (right, straight, left)
Control (right, straight, left)
Mid (right, straight, left)
Putter

Is not the same as this:
1. Stable Control Drivers
2. Distance Drivers
3. Understable Driver
4. Moderately Overstable Driver
5. Very Overstable Driver
Mids
Putters

Bradley's method leads a novice to think they need left, right, and straight disc in every speed tier, which isn't true. In fact it's the opposite of Blake's method. Blake is aiming at eliminating overlap. For example, you don't need an understable fairway driver AND an understable distance driver. And there's a difference between a moderately overstable driver and a very overstable driver, even though they both turn left.

Bradley's method gives the appearance of encouraging "a disc for every shot," which is the opposite of what Blake's goal is. If when I was learning about about discs I had seen Bradley's method instead of Blake's, I think all I would have thought about was which way a disc turns, and would have missed the subtleties of differing levels of stability and purpose (which are not always the same as speed and direction).

Again, if you already understand everything being discussed in this thread, it doesn't really matter how you present it to someone else who already understands it. But if part of the goal of this website is to continue to help new players develop, then I think Blake's method does a better job of teaching and reinforcing the basic concepts.

PS- I agree that disc speed is under-considered by most people, I just don't think that this is the way to address it.
Dogma
2009 DGR Donator
User avatar
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:27 pm

Re: What I think...challenging the "sticky"

Postby Bradley Walker » Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:05 pm

Dogma wrote:

Bradley's method gives the appearance of encouraging "a disc for every shot," which is the opposite of what Blake's goal is. If when I was learning about about discs I had seen Bradley's method instead of Blake's, I think all I would have thought about was which way a disc turns, and would have missed the subtleties of differing levels of stability and purpose (which are not always the same as speed and direction).


That is not true at all, but frankly, I am no longer interested in explaining any further than I already have.

A novice would not use distance discs at all.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to his environment. The unreasonable man adapts his environment to himself, therefore all progress is made by unreasonable men."
-George Bernard Shaw
Bradley Walker
Disc Whore
User avatar
 
Posts: 3702
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:46 pm
Favorite Disc: Roc

Re: What I think...challenging the "sticky"

Postby Jesse B 707 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:16 pm

garublador wrote:It's really an argument of whether discs should be grouped by speed or by use. Knowing what a person is using a disc for gives much more information about whether or not that disc is a good choice than just the speed of the disc. We already know the speed of any given disc, that's not new information. For example this bag:

Z Pred
Valkyrie
Gazelle
Roc
Wizard

May look OK, and is categorized by speed, but if it's in this format

1. Stable Control Driver
Roc

2. Distance Driver
Wizard

3. Understable Driver
Predator

4. Moderately overstable driver
Wizard

5. Very overstable Driver
Valkyrie

Mids:
Valk

Putters:
Gazelle

It's obvious there might be some sort of issue going on. Now that's obviously a ridiculous example I'm using to illustrate a point (I did play in a tournament with a guy who used a Gazelle for a putter, though), but the act of categorizing your discs like that can many times point out holes and overlap without having to ask. If you're just listing by speed then there's no guarantee that the person has gone through that process or that they're using discs like we assume they would be.
:lol: :lol:
http://ufosdg.org/
XXX,PD2,BOSS,KATANA,PD,ROC,VP,RATTLER,MAGNET
Jesse B 707
Rocstar
User avatar
 
Posts: 8225
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:29 am
Location: *NorCal*
Favorite Disc: ROC

Re: What I think...challenging the "sticky"

Postby Dogma » Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:47 pm

Bradley Walker wrote:
Dogma wrote:

Bradley's method gives the appearance of encouraging "a disc for every shot," which is the opposite of what Blake's goal is. If when I was learning about about discs I had seen Bradley's method instead of Blake's, I think all I would have thought about was which way a disc turns, and would have missed the subtleties of differing levels of stability and purpose (which are not always the same as speed and direction).


That is not true at all, but frankly, I am no longer interested in explaining any further than I already have.


Notice I said "gives the appearance." I understand what you are explaining. The point of my post was how it looks to someone who is still learning, not someone who already understands.



Bradley Walker wrote:A novice would not use distance discs at all.

I agree with you. It's what I meant when I said:
Dogma wrote: Speed is a factor in what (discs) do... it is important and often overlooked

and also:
Dogma wrote:PS- I agree that disc speed is under-considered by most people, I just don't think that this is the way to address it.
Dogma
2009 DGR Donator
User avatar
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:27 pm

Re: What I think...challenging the "sticky"

Postby jytwhite » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:58 pm

Forget all the charts, they vary anyways. Go to the field and figure out what works for you. If you need to classify your discs, do so by your range and achievable flight path.
YT

EATME
Engineering and Architectural Tulsa Metro Employees Disc Golf Club

Trade List
jytwhite
Noob
User avatar
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:56 am
Favorite Disc: Soft Magnet

PreviousNext

Return to Bag Critique / Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests