[quote="Blake_T"][quote]Would it be possible to rate disc into 5 different required nose down angle and 5 different required height for the reached and already existing range final range classification? [/quote]
no. you can do it if you want and share the results though
Janne: I vote myself out of this for now at least because I've only thrown a little less than half of the discs featured on the JFC. The availability of the discs sucks here so that's another no no. The biggest problem is that I'd classify myself under the heading of an unreliable source. As you know from trying to learn snap... thread I'm an expert on throwing technically incorrectly like me. Not like anyone else. Perfect technique or not. Im representative of only a portion of throwers and have no clue how large a part. I'd be able to give only some sort of info. Plus not having trained nose down driving more than twice it would be preposterously stupid of me to try assigning values to discs until I got a lot of practice with different heights and nose down angles.
AMybe at a later point in development I maybe able to make a very incomplete list but to me it makes more sense to just review each disc in the review area. After all an incomplete list may not be that useful. Whatever happens my reviews won't be oming in in a hurry because there's a lot of work to bo done to achieve even relatively reliable data for the reviews.
I think that with a huge amount of throws this sort of data could be achieved. I'm not talkin brain surgery type of accuracy here though. For the sake of informativeness for people getting into the sport and learning about different discs for different throws and required levels of technique something like this wouldn't be bad info at all. I've heard from several people that there's a real push for disc golf to become a mainstream sport. My thinking is to keep the learning curve as low as possible but quick. Readily available complete info seems to be a good way to achieve this in my opinion. As an alternative to the readable and compact JFC.
Actually on the nose down part I think that only two categories would probably suffice for most people. Zero to little required nose down angle and significant need of nose down angle. This is so generic though that maybe a rule of thumb would be able cover this category. Putters, mids and some/all thin rimmed old school drivers fall into the little category and the rest into a lot of required nose down category. If there aren't any major exceptions then this sort of data wouldn't be needed in the tables. Just as a sidenote somewhere.
[quote]Maybe an asterisk or some other symbol would be appropriate for beginner friendly discs? [/quote]
there's 2 kinds of beginner friendly discs.
1) a disc that will give success on the first day and hinder their development the more they play.
2) a disc that will teach someone how most discs fly but give less success on day 1, for greater success down the road.
i push 2. most people want 1.[/quote]
Janne: I am in between here but closer to your thinking. For the first times of playing I understand the need of getting people hooked. Making things as easy and enjoyable for the first times of playing helps. I don't think that buying two discs in the beginning of the hobby is a bad thing. As long as at least one of them is of type 2 for growing skills beyond what type 1 allows. And the type 2s get used more as time goes by. On most courses there are places where it is easier to throw with a disc that you're not as accustomed to throw. If it makes throwing more accurate for the type of shot you're trying to accomplish it is beneficial in the long run to throw withmore than one disc IMO.
At some point of the learning curve it is good to try to also learn the differences discs have and how to utilize them to your advantage. Naturally this should be secondary to learning to throw a wide array of shots for being able to negotiate every kind of situation.
There just might be enough room in the JFC for inputting data to the names of the discs field or somewhere else about which type of beginner friendliness a disc belongs to. Unfortunately the textual explanations of what either category means would probably make the chart larger. On the other hand at some point in time the number of new discs will eventually lengthen the chart anyway.
Adamschneider might be onto something here in his post after Blakes post. I haven't cross checked the Marshall street guide to JFC and my results extensively enough yet so I can't really say for sure how accurate they are for players of less than stellar skills such as I. I've heard that Marshall Street's data is good for the average Joe though. I'll have to dig into this and the work of Adam after some ZZZs.
No not BuZZZes and Zs as in revolutions multiplied by 3
Adding more dimensions for required height for max D on a golf line and nose angle requirements is probably gonna be messy to display. Even if discs were grouped into similar discs with limited amounts of discs per view. So for the sake of not exploding the heads of the readers too much information might only be harmful. More data is likely to serve the needs of intermediate and advanced players. And with more experience the need for such tables decreases. Conflicting needs indeed.