Right now over on the PDGA forum (in the Cheetah thread) there is a discussion about whether 150-class discs are good or bad for technique development. Some say they mask technique flaws, others say they expose them.
Apparently there is no established conventional wisdom on this. My sense is that this forum is more objective than that one; over there, people seem to be trying to validate their choices rather than participate in honest debate, so I thought I'd ask this one here...
My feeling is that light discs fly more like flying discs and less like projectiles, thus exposing flaws in technique, while also being easier to accelerate and easier on the body. I'm told that heavier discs are more consistent/predictable, which I think probably means more forgiving -- meaning they mask variation in technique. The only real downside I've come up with for light discs is that disc selection is limited -- many discs are not available in lighter weights, and others are hard to find.
I always recommend light drivers to newer players, and find that people generally get better faster with light discs, at least early on. I think that's partially because they get more D, and are therefore happier, which compels them to stick with it... I can't prove that their technique improves quicker because of the light discs, though.
If you agree that light discs are good learning tools, at what point should a player "graduate" to heavier plastic? How does one tell that it's time, and what further improvements should one see?
Disclaimer: My usual bag has four 150g drivers/mids (Sidewinder, Teebird, Leopard, Panther, all Champion) and a 165g mid/putter (XD), so I'm definitely coming at this as a fan of light discs. I do have others, but these are the five I regularly throw. My local course is shortish and very heavily wooded with narrow fairways and low ceilings, and there is almost never any wind.
Thanks for sharing your insight.