discspeed wrote:a disc like a FB would have a high resistance number and understable discs could be represented by integers based on how understable they are.
Discs that really lock onto a line (ahem, MVP) would have high stability ratings, and discs that like to turn and fade more would have a lower stability number. Also, discs that are so overstable they want to turn soon out of the hand would have low stability ratings(because once again they resist flying stable or balanced).
Potential Speed, Resistance, Stability, and Power. What do you guys think?
Requesting a couple clarifications.
Would an understable disc have a negative Resistance? Would an understable disc have a negative stability? Or, does 0 represent the "bottom" of one, or both, of these scales?
Give me a few hypothetical ratings for the following discs, if you would, please:
On that scale an understable disc would have negative resistance. For stability "0" would be the bottom of the scale (a disc that could not hold a line for anything perhaps like the Epic, Z extreme, some ridiculously understable disc). This is a flaw in my system, but any system that does not use actual measured numbers is going to struggle with this in some way or another. One of my goals with this would be to change the way we use the term "stability" in disc golf so that it makes more sense to new players/non-players.
Boss--Potential Speed: MAX (max rim width/sharp wing), Resistance: 3, Stability: 3, Power: 5
I'm just going to do that one as a rough example. I think I would kind of want to define certain numbers by well known discs, and I haven't thought enough about exactly where my parameters would be.
I think my scale is ambitious and well-intentioned, but in hind sight I think it probably has almost as many flaws as our current systems. I'm not giving up on this issue though...