Moderators: Timko, Solty, Frank Delicious, Blake_T, Fritz, Booter
keltik wrote:I think ZAM had the right idea.
dgdave wrote:Listen to ZAM.
i post things at facebook.com/PostIDjsun3thousand wrote:zam is already in your pants.
keltik wrote:I think ZAM had the right idea.
dgdave wrote:Listen to ZAM.
i post things at facebook.com/PostIDjsun3thousand wrote:zam is already in your pants.

...i bumped the power up to 5.
1.2's seem better suited for headwind/overstable drives.
1.1's seem better suited for distance and shaped drives.
Aaron_D wrote:...i bumped the power up to 5.
I always thought they should both be 5....more like 4.8
1.2's seem better suited for headwind/overstable drives.
1.1's seem better suited for distance and shaped drives.
I agree completely with that. Also, the 1.2 MOLF behaves EXACTLY like a 1.1 SOLF except it breaks in quicker and is a little longer. I love a broken in 1.1 and was really sad about them becoming rare, but the 1.2 MOLF fills that role exceedingly well.
Aaron_D wrote:I was out yesterday and I almost lost my precious beat 1.2 SOLF which has prompted me to write this. I love the OLF. To me it is vastly more consistent than a fast disc and nearly as long. I love the stability of the 1.2 and the workability of the MOLF. However, I NEVER see other players using it. Pros always seem to have a teebird or eagle in their bag...but no OLF...is this because of their familiarity with the older discs? If you have tried the OLF and have opted to throw another disc (of which I can only really think of like 2 that can even come close to competing) why did you pass on the OLF?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], jtowneagle, Simeon and 2 guests