Hey, whats the deal with Super Class Events (if thats what they are even called). I heard you get a seperate rating but can only use large diameter frisbees. Sounds like a blast and I will run one if there is sifficient info out there.

What are the rules (are they different from regular disc golf)?
What discs are available for play?
Do I set this event up just like any other PDGA event?

Sounds like fun, someone let me know what the deal is!
Dion

The unveiling article is in FDM issue 4 which is supposed to be mailed soon. Regardless, I talked with Brian Graham yesterday and we'll post a version of that article about the Super Class plans sometime next week. Yes, it's already been a blast at a couple test events and we're planning a sanctioned winter league in Minnesota if we can get the details worked out with the PDGA.

Brian now has my article on Super Class and plans to post it on the Home page early next week.

I can't seem to find that posting from Brian you mentioned a couple of weeks ago.
Did see it listed in the 2009 Tour Standards


Experimental Events X-Tier
� Created to accommodate alternate or experimental formats such as doubles, team events, nonbasket
courses, single division events, winner-take-all, skins, match play, vintage, overall
events and the new Super Class.

But not a posting.
And what is the difference between Vintage and Super Class?

Brian was going to post the Super Class article on the PDGA Home page but decided to wait until the Players Cup articles passed thru the site over the next several days. So, the full Super Class article will be posted next week right before Thanksgiving so it stays on the front page a little longer.

why are they cheaper to sanction and why is the non-member fee waived? it's almost like it's part of the endowment program but i don't see the value gained on the org's end (which for the endowment program is presumably being able to help charities and spreading the gospel in "underserved" areas.)

We'll be calculating Super Class ratings "offline" and not including them in a players stats for the first year until many more members have Super Class ratings. So, it's not as full service for members and requires less staff time in 2009. Super Class ratings will be available as a downloadable file with maybe just the top X number of players displayed wherever the Super Class section will be located on the site.

Since ultimate players are one of the primary groups we wish to attract into playing Super Class, we wanted to reduce any additional barriers from them playing right away such as a non-member fee. The $10 non-member fee has a new twist this year where someone gets a PDGA number, mini and rulebook. No reason why non-members at these events couldn't buy that deal as an option since it will be on the 2009 TD report. Note that the Super Class program is intended to be incremental income added to our already established programs and is not designed to replace any existing events. So minimal effort was required to launch this initiative, try it out and see the response.

by that reasoning we should get rid of the non-member fee across the board... since non-members are the primary group we wish to attract into playing pdga events. (please note this is NOT my opinion, imo it should be members only and a base membership should cost $10-15)

Just reporting the decison that was made. Not trying to have a referendum here on non-member fees. Note that the non-members who pay the $10 are already disc golfers who throw hi-tech plastic and haven't joined. Ultimate players typically do not play disc golf, and if they do, it's likely with Ultra-Stars and not golf discs. So there is a difference in those non-member groups.

I want to run a series of events in 2009 that will require all competitors to kick a soccerball around the course instead of throwing golf discs. Can I get a special provision in the PDGA tour standards and waive the $10 non-member fee? It's called football-golf.

I think we will attract many non-disc golfers to our sport by showing them how not to play disc golf! Awesome!!

funny- they already do punt pass and kick golf at the grange once a year- you use a football and are required to kick off of a tee to tee off on each hole but may punt, pass, or kick after that. i think bryan stableford wins every year.

i've seen a few guys playing my home course with oversized toy golf clubs. it looks fun. can this be a super class as well?

http://m2.sourcingmap.com/smap/images/item/n/08a/ux_a08011400ux0102_ux_n.jpg

Can Super Class events accomadate bachelor parties? I like the idea of scantly dressed and topless women caddying and drinking during the round....[censored] might bee a good way to get more women into the sport.

All I can say is that I appreciate the Board's willingness to experiment with new ideas, and their apparent willingness to indulge an occasional whim of an important volunteer, or two. I hope you both enjoy your Super Class tournament, whoever you might be. :D

They are lining up to try it based on emails I've gotten already and the full info isn't even out there yet. Our sanctioned Super Class league starts Jan 11th. Much easier to find them in the snow and sit in when sliding down hills... :eek:

Wait, I can say a little more. Will the rules and documents for Super Class ever be posted or will this be like the R-tier where only a few insiders could even consider running one because the rules and standards are not publicly available? I'm not being sarcastic here. Chuck, you know I'll run any division or class or whatever that exists to fill up a tournament. I'll even run stuff that doesn't exist!!! I could totally see offering Super Class Amateur on the Open-2-4 day, and Super Class Pro on the 1-3-Other day.

Here's another question, can I be a Super Class Pro but retain my standard class am status?

Not being snarky here. really want to know.

Yes, more detailed Super Class info will be posted starting with the articles next week. We are still completing the Tech Standards with the disc manufacturers which we hope to have approved in early December.

You bring up an interesting idea regarding Pro status for SC versus Am for regular discs. Since this first year is more of a pilot program without much data going into the PDGA database, I would say your status would have to be the same in either class. However, since ratings are involved, you might eventually end up in different Am classes in SC versus regular. I'll check with Dave and see about the Am/pro issue.

All I know is that so far, most of the Masters and GMs can hang with the Open players and will be playing Open in SC, making for much larger SC Open divisions at least as our league gets underway. Here are the results with unofficial ratings for the first SC event in Sept. Half of the players in Open are over 39 with five of them cashing out of eight cashers.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=8215#Open

i'm not at all opposed to the new class of events nor am i opposed to the charity aspects of the endowment program. what i question is the waiving of fees to yet another group of people. why should players from virginia have to pay a fee someone from alabama does not? why should someone who plays with golf discs have to pay more than someone playing with a lid?

If Bruce wants to add super class to the smorgasbord at his tournaments, would that be a separate sanctioning fee? Yes, we are impatient and we know that documents will be forth coming, but hey it's the message board and I'm tired of the conspiracy theory threads.

I think I could compete at a higher level in SuperClass than in disc golf, also. I play a lot of mid range Ultimate catch with my daughter and it is what Jon and I grew up throwing. I've been throwing the UltraStar at the range and I can throw it farther than I can throw a Banger.

If Bruce wants to add super class to the smorgasbord at his tournaments, would that be a separate sanctioning fee?


Yes, for the time being. We need to keep the scoring and results and fees separate during this initial year. The more popular it becomes, then it will make sense to do more complicated programming to potentially handle both formats within the same sanctioned event and report in the future.

what i question is the waiving of fees to yet another group of people. why should players from virginia have to pay a fee someone from alabama does not? why should someone who plays with golf discs have to pay more than someone playing with a lid?


If people in Virginia, couldn't sanction charity events or Super Class, then it would be unfair. However, all TDs everywhere have the various sanctioning options to use as they see fit for their market area in the same way you have been able to choose to offer a C, B or A tier over the past 10 years, all with different fee structures.

Here's another question, can I be a Super Class Pro but retain my standard class am status?




This is a really good question. The skill-set for using "lid" type discs for a golf game is very different than using "golf" discs.

I'm 941 rated with golf discs.....I can almost guarantee I'm about 50 ratings points higher if everyone were using a lid. :D

I checked with Dave and at least for 2009, Super Class will be handled same as regular plastic in terms of am/pro eligibility. If you accept cash in Super Class, you've turned pro. Of course, being a pro for Super Class but having a regular rating under 970 still allows you to play Advanced even though you give up Am Worlds & Nats. My base division is GM Pro with a 940 rating but I cashed in GM, Master, Open, Advanced and Super Class Open this year. My initial Super Class rating should work out to about 986 once Roger gets the time to officially calculate them from our September test event.

Issue #4 of FDM arrived in my mailbox this weekend, however, I could not find your article, Chuck. Do you know if said article will be published in issue #5?

wait for it... wait for it....

Thought he was going to come back with RIIIIIIGGGGGHHHHHTTTT!!! :D

Issue #4 of FDM arrived in my mailbox this weekend, however, I could not find your article, Chuck. Do you know if said article will be published in issue #5?



That article and my By The Numbers column apparently hit the cutting room floor for issue #4. However, that article will be available for download here hopefully in the next day or so. It's all tidied up in a nice PDF. Brian is going to show me how to set up and post articles now that the Players Cup article stream is over. I've also completed a Super Class FAQ which is ready for posting when Dave gets the chance.

how can you have a FAQ when we haven't seen anything to ask questions about?

: ) :

Just getting prepared. I've emailed the PDF to a few who have emailed me to request it. Hopefully, we'll get these posted this week.

The latest file of PDGA approved discs now has a column indicating which discs are legal for Super Class:

www.pdga.com/files/documents/PDGA_approved_discs_and_targets.xls (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PDGA_approved_discs_and_targets.xls)

The list is still tentative until the final specs are presented to the Board for their approval in December. The max weight standard for Super Class is the same as that shown in the table for that same golf disc.

so, not just any "lid" is approved?

Super Class discs are the biggest diameter, tallest height and bluntest rim discs that are currently legal but at least they can also be the heaviest discs weighing up to 200g (unlike the old Vintage discs) so they can handle wind and chains much better.

Issue #4 of FDM arrived in my mailbox this weekend, however, I could not find your article, Chuck. Do you know if said article will be published in issue #5?



That article and my By The Numbers column apparently hit the cutting room floor for issue #4.



Maybe if you double spaced it and made it not seem important, it would have gotten in. :eek:

:D

Issue #4 of FDM arrived in my mailbox this weekend, however, I could not find your article, Chuck. Do you know if said article will be published in issue #5?



That article and my By The Numbers column apparently hit the cutting room floor for issue #4.



Maybe if you double spaced it and made it not seem important, it would have gotten in. :eek:

:D



or been more creative with the name and called it "Kick-[censored] Super Class" :o

Might have been saving them for content in #5 & #6?

if they double space it in a 20 point typeface they could probably fill issue #5 & #6 with it :(

wait for it... wait for it....

Thought he was going to come back with RIIIIIIGGGGGHHHHHTTTT!!! :D



Amazingly this fits again. :D

Super Class article now on PDGA Home page
www.pdga.com/super-class (http://www.pdga.com/super-class)

Chuck,
I know you said that the board is reviewing the specs but I have a question about the discs specs and what is being allowed. If a Hero Type 235 is a SC disc, does that mean the Type 275 will be as well? We got both of those discs in our player pack in Japan and I have thrown the 275 at the course after Greenwell told me about SC. Hope it is.

Also, I thought that the Sonic was the same mold as a Type 235 but I was looking at the approved list and they have different specs. Any thoughts or should I ask Dave on his thread?

If a disc meets the Super Class specs it will make the list. I don't see the 275 on the Approved list and have no idea what it is. The only disc not on the list yet that we're looking at approving is the Junior Ultimate disc made by Discraft since it's approved for ultimate.

Maybe Brian Graham can give you more details on the 275. I don't have access to a camera to take a picture of it at work. Big yellow disc with the black Hero man on it. I compared it to an UltraStar (I think) and it was slightly smaller in diameter. Maybe 1/8th inch all the way around. I did a internet search and found a Japanese page that said it was a Pulsar. I can't read Japenese but that was the only english on the disc was Innova Ultimate Pulsar. I guess that's it.

http://www.herodisc.com/event/news/000227.html

So since you said all Fastbacks qualify does that mean the dog discs?

Also it was brought up today on our boards that a bunch of the discs on the list are out of production and difficult to find. Whats the word on the re- releasing some of those discs.

the Sonic is a smaller diameter than the 235. I think it is about 220.

My vote would be for the Horizons Classic to be a Superclass event this year. But only use the original course.

When Vintage Class came out, I advocated for mandating this format for "qualified" courses like Horizons.

The idea of having this format as another "option" for TD's to choose from won't garner a lot of interest IMO. If however, a TD wants to generate interest in a little used course due to its "pitch and putt" nature - and the only sanctioning available is "Super Class" - it may become a more readily accepted "default" level of sanctioning.

Courses with SSA below 45 or 46 are prime candidates.

Of course I'm well aware that mandating anything meets with resistance, so I'll just wish the concept well, and hope I'm wrong about it's popularity.

So since you said all Fastbacks qualify does that mean the dog discs?


Yes, if it meets the tech specs listed for that line in the standards. I'm guessing the flex rating isn't a problem.

Of course I'm well aware that mandating anything meets with resistance, so I'll just wish the concept well, and hope I'm wrong about it's popularity.


Considering your recent experiment, one thing about Super Class is that I and the other GMs and Masters who played in our test event do not need any protection and will gladly play against any Open player at full entry fee. Most of us shot about 40-60 points above our ratings in the test event we ran. It truly tests disc skills although power still counts. Putting stats are also more like ball golf where it's not as "easy" as it is for top players currently. You want bigger Open divisions, here's another way to do it.

Of course I'm well aware that mandating anything meets with resistance, so I'll just wish the concept well, and hope I'm wrong about it's popularity.


Considering your recent experiment, one thing about Super Class is that I and the other GMs and Masters who played in our test event do not need any protection and will gladly play against any Open player at full entry fee. Most of us shot about 40-60 points above our ratings in the test event we ran. It truly tests disc skills although power still counts. Putting stats are also more like ball golf where it's not as "easy" as it is for top players currently. You want bigger Open divisions, here's another way to do it.




Yeah make it more "equal" for everyone. The putting issue it what gets me as if you aren't within 15ft you probably won;t stick it.

IMO you interpretation of older players being more competitive shows that it is slightly dumbed down. Also I think the standards should be tweaked to allow a few more discs in. I mean of the midnight flyers only 2 or so are approved for SC.

I guess that is why it wasn't named Vintage class since many OLD discs still don't make the cut. I say all discs Pre-aero/eagle should be allowed.

Yeah make it more "equal" for everyone. The putting issue it what gets me as if you aren't within 15ft you probably won't stick it.


I'm not sure it will end up that way. It's only because the top players haven't practiced Super Class yet. Although Avery, Nate and Valerie did great with these discs in NorCal at some disc games earlier this year. Nikko is also an expert with these discs. You'd be surprised how many top players do have skills in this area (Randolph). I asked Greenwell if he would be a walkover when we have a National Championship and he said, "No way. Kenny will be right there along with several others who would be more than happy to win another title."

Skills will eventually win out. But that's the way it should be is skill, not just power, that determines titles and allows more people to potentially compete.

if it catches on and the young talents like scooter start to actually practice/play on a semi-regular basis with these discs the perceived "old guys advantage" will rapidly disappear.

Scooter - just because some older players fared well in a SuperClass tournament doesn't mean that the competition is being dumbed-down. It's just a different skill set. And it just happens that many older players actually used to play catch with discs like these, so they know how to throw them well. Just because it isn't *your* skill set doesn't mean it's dumbed-down. Wait until some young Ultimate players get out there - the old guys may lose their advantage.

Me - I'm gonna go look for a heavy 100-mold!

if it catches on and the young talents like scooter start to actually practice/play on a semi-regular basis with these discs the perceived "old guys advantage" will rapidly disappear.



I already play Ultimate and DDC. Just can't get the freestyle down. :D

I've read the whole thread with interest and would like to put a couple thoughts out here, for what they are worth, that have not been discussed on this thread at least.

1. Interesting idea - that's why I read the thread.

2. I think it is a diversion of the PDGA's limited resources and mission.

Perhaps those interested in this admittedly interesting endeavor should form a different organization as has been done by the mini-disc federation. I just don't see the existing sport of Disc Golf or the PDGA at a point in terms of membership, money, mainstream recognition, or organizational focus to be able to afford to siphon off time, energy and money into "Super Class".

I realize that the idea is to entice outsiders into the sport, but the risk is that (as evidenced here) that it will siphon off more interest of those already in the sport than those it will bring in. That means possibly siphoning tournament entries, etc, etc. from "regular" or "not super" disc golf

3. I don't think the idea that older guys like myself can compete more on the same level with young strong athletes will be a big selling point among young strong athletic ultimate players who have a genuine interest in being top level disc golfers, or make the sport seem more "real" among the general population. I think it will appeal more to the not so serious recreational crowd which will, again, make the sport seem less "athletic" to outsiders.

4. Having said that, it seems like a great idea and I'd probably like to play it myself. I just think it conflicts with the current mission of the PDGA not unlike mini-disc golf leagues. So I'd encourage it as another way to get folks into disc sports in general, but not risk diverting PDGA resources in a quite possibly counterproductive way.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just grumpy because I'm at work. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Happy Thanksgiving

PS I'm thankful for the opportunity the PDGA has given me to continue athletics myself, and to spend some of the best times of my life with my son.

Is it counterproductive when people play doubles (which can be sanctioned), wolf or match play? And if it does "siphon" away some existing players, the downside is what? They are still playing competitive disc golf and in fact more likely playing a game closer to "real" golf with par 4s and 5s. There are now new opportunities for Super Class distance records at all ages - something like that is counterproductive? :D

Is it counterproductive when people play doubles (which can be sanctioned), wolf or match play? And if it does "siphon" away some existing players, the downside is what? They are still playing competitive disc golf and in fact more likely playing a game closer to "real" golf with par 4s and 5s. There are now new opportunities for Super Class distance records at all ages - something like that is counterproductive? :D




Actually doubles is counterproductive. :eek:

Chuck,


Is it counterproductive when people play doubles (which can be sanctioned), wolf or match play?



I don't even know what wolf is, but as for the others, I'd give a qualified yes for doubles if it is a doubles only event, probably not for match play (well maybe a little) and I'd emphasize that there is a difference between these subsports which very importantly use the same discs, thus the same skills. Also, neither of these attempts in general to offer an alternative to "traditional" disc golf but exist generally as side events to the main traditional disc golf event

A more apt comparison for "Super" discs is again, I believe mini discs. Maybe Super discs could occupy the same niche as doubles, match play, wolf, etc, but even assuming it is no more of a diversion than these events are, it is one more thing to divide focus.


something like that is counterproductive



I could be wrong, but respectfully fear the answer is yes for the reasons above and in my previous post. For example, what sport is the WFDF about?

For us older guys, Super Class might be more 'traditional' disc golf than what we play now. Our view of traditional frisbee games goes back a bit farther, well beyond when triangle rimmed golf discs came out.

Where are my lids at? Anything that gets more people throwing discs is good, IMO.

For us older guys, Super Class might be more 'traditional' disc golf than what we play now. Our view of traditional frisbee games goes back a bit farther, well beyond when triangle rimmed golf discs came out.

Where are my lids at? Anything that gets more people throwing discs is good, IMO.



Yet most of those OLD discs aren't even approved for SC. WHy not just make it all pre-beveled discs?

I don't think I'm going out on a limb that GOLF is the game we aspire to play and GOLF as originally played with Frisbees and as played with clubs and balls for 400 years includes a nice mix of par 3s, 4s and 5s on a course. We got transfixed by beveled edge discs around 1982 and have been fighting to keep up with advancing disc technology since then to even have a few par 4s on courses let alone a par over say 64. That's a fact. What has occurred has been successful by all measures, but our best players do not consider it playing golf unless the true par is over maybe 60. Courses at that level are less than 5% of all courses.

Super Class combines the roots of our sport when GOLF was being played with Frisbees(R) and uses the newer design, plastics technology and weight limits to produce a hi-tech set of Super Class discs (like Zephyrs) that makes virtually every course in the world suitable for actually playing GOLF with a nice mix of par 3s, 4s, 5s and 6s. The reality is that bevel edge discs have become a long running, hopefully temporary, diversion from real golf with the hopes and valiant attempts being made to build new courses long enough to get back to a more golf-like challenge. However, for every new course able to do that, another 9 go in that do not. More new courses provide a better GOLF challenge for Super Class than bevel discs.

As someone that started playing with a 70 mold, I can safely say I don't miss it at all. I really don't know who this is supposed to appeal to. World Disc Games participants maybe? Why though? They don't want to learn to throw golf discs? Is this designed to even the playing field with golfers and DDC, Ultimate, MTA and acuracy players? Putter only golf makes more sense to me. At least it is a disc that you'd actually carry in your bag. I don't get this at all.

The reality is that bevel edge discs have become a long running, hopefully temporary, diversion from real golf with the hopes and valiant attempts being made to build new courses long enough to get back to a more golf-like challenge. However, for every new course able to do that, another 9 go in that do not. More new courses provide a better GOLF challenge for Super Class than bevel discs.




Yeah and this comes from the guy who says disc is boring to watch yet is on the side of S&D as well as superclass. I mean I can throw a Golf disc almost 500ft but an ultimate maybe 300ft so how will that make it cooler to watch? We can now hit long clutch putts from 80ft but now it will turn into a clutch upshot from 80ft.

I think the 1 good course to every 9 pitch and putts is pretty good since we are at about 1:18 here in Houston.

Super Class sounds really fun and I am planning on playing a few events but your resoning that it is true DG and it will take over the newer beveled discs is flawed. You don't see golfers hitting around rocks with sticks do you? Actually they are WAY worse than DG with every new type of driver hitting the market with plenty of hacks ready to buy one so it will help thier game.

BTW Chuck a course doesn't need to have a SSA of 60+ to be great. I mean there are two great courses I played this month up in Wimberley that do just fine with an SSA of around 56.

Chuck,

I definitely follow your points and am grateful for all your contributions to disc golf. Can't PM you but I just wanted you to know this. Nothing wrong with a good debate. It improves understanding all around.

IMHO disc golf is what it is (or perhaps I should say what it has evolved into) - not ball golf, but a full fledged related sport in its own right. There is something to be said for evolution. After all, it got us all where we are today. At any point in time, the evolutionary path could have gone toward a lid tossing golf game but it did not. Perhaps it was survival of the fittest/best option for disc golf?

Maybe I see it that way because I never played much ball golf. There should be restrictions on disc characteristics which there is, just as there should be restrictions on ball golf drivers or tennis raquets. I don't see things going backward though technologically. That's rare

We know there are more players who throw Frisbees(R) but have never thrown nor want to throw golf discs if they try them. You can try to force them to throw golf plastic. Or, provide the option to compete with the plastic they know and bring them into the fold that way. We already know there's a whole country successfully using a restricted subset of golf discs (150 Classs in Japan). Super Class is just another subset that could boost the sport even if was half as successful as Japan with their 150 version of disc golf. As far as carrying a Super Class disc in your bag, my Zephyr has turned out to be more accurate for shots from 60-125 feet than anything else I've used in 20 years, even in the wind. And it fits fine in my golf bag.

We know there are more players who throw Frisbees(R) but have never thrown nor want to throw golf discs if they try them. You can try to force them to throw golf plastic. Or, provide the option to compete with the plastic they know and bring them into the fold that way. We already know there's a whole country successfully using a restricted subset of golf discs (150 Classs in Japan). Super Class is just another subset that could boost the sport even if was half as successful as Japan with their 150 version of disc golf. As far as carrying a Super Class disc in your bag, my Zephyr has turned out to be more accurate for shots from 60-125 feet than anything else I've used in 20 years, even in the wind. And it fits fine in my golf bag.



Then again for SC to work I agree qwith what someone said earlier that you would need more molds approved or older disc molded again so you could get the plastic.

I really want to use my Super Puppy! :mad:

Why is it that the Aerobie was not approved if a sport just accepts every technological "evolution" that comes along? If it's because "it goes too far" you've already agreed that length is a parameter that should be restricted in the sport. Why not 500 ft max? Why not 300 ft? As a course designer, pick the length number and stick with it because that parameter more than anything else determines how many throws it will take on average on a hole and on a course.

That's such a fundamental thing that has been set aside as important in our sport that it undermines building any kind of statistical history and design professionalism. We've had this process of creeping evolution that outdates course design guidelines every five years and lessens the challenge quality of the courses people spend hundreds and even thousands of hours and dollars building.

The sport should ALWAYS be about the integrity of the game itself with technology being accepted or rejected based on how it impacts the dynamics of the game. Why no aluminum bats in MLB? Baseballs can certainly be made better than the rawhide style used. Even NBA reverted back from the synthetic basketballs to leather last year.

Despite all of the tech advances in golf, they haven't allowed them to undermine the overall par structure within the sport. Only the par 5s have been eroded by the very top level players. For the majority of golfers, the balance of par 3s, 4s and 5s has remained stable even with Big Berthas. Even Houck would say that playing his par 70ish course at the IDGC is more like GOLF than his Wimberly courses, as good as they may be for what we've come to accept as golf.

All it takes is playing Super Class once in competition to understand sweating out upshot after upshot to park them for the putt. Top pro Timmy Gill said he hadn't been so engaged in a competition round as he was playing Super Class because most of the time, the second shot is a routine throw less than 100 feet for players at his level using golf discs on most holes.

Look, talking about it isn't going to change opinions. You go out and try it in competition. You like it, you don't like it. That's fine. Just like you try a disc to see if it works for you. I think wolf sounds silly but I've never played it. But maybe if I tried it, I'd like it. But at least I'd try.

Why is it that the Aerobie was not approved if a sport just accepts every technological "evolution" that comes along?



I agree with you that every innovation will not be accepted. I never intended to claim that a sport should accept every innovation, in fact, I agreed with you that it should not and used ball golf drivers and tennis raquets as examples.

Regarding Aerobies, Did you ever throw one of those around trees? ;) Seriously though, I'd have to go back to my evolutionary argument for that. At the time and going forward at least thus far, the mass of opinion was such that aerobies were not "golf discs" by whoever defined what a golf disc was including players, rules people, etc (beside the fact that they usually end up stuck in tree tops)

There are already restrictions on discs and when disc golf is ready for them, there will be more or less restrictions or whatever the case may be. I guess I don't see the current situation as the wild west. I'm not an expert there. There is a good case to be made for limiting rim width I think. There are probably more.


The sport should ALWAYS be about the integrity of the game itself



I could not agree more. There will always be debate on the specifics of what constitutes that I guess. Being a relative newcomer "the sport" has always been different to me than it is to someone who played before bevel edged discs. That's where things become sticky

I can see an advantage of the old courses being too short. Beginning players start on these courses and move up to the newer courses which are generally harder as they get better. That means as time goes on, there are more courses for every skill level - little league and big league.


Look, talking about it isn't going to change opinions. You go out and try it in competition. You like it, you don't like it. That's fine. Just like you try a disc to see if it works for you. I think wolf sounds silly but I've never played it. But maybe if I tried it, I'd like it. But at least I'd try.



You got me there. Next chance I get I'm heading to Johnson Street with my Zephyr.

While I may be as old as a lot of the guys and gals who played with lids in the 70s and into the 80s, I never played until 1989. I have no nostalgia regarding lids nor a bunch sitting around I'm longing to throw again in competition. My first round was with a Master Frisbee(R) that I had in the closet for 15 years. Once I saw there were special discs others were using, a got myself a driver like the current World Distance Champ threw, a 195g Phenix. I've been a beveled edge disc golfer from the beginning.

The source of the Super Class concept comes from the frustration of many course designers like myself who want to build courses that challenge players with a golf-like experience. But in most cases, we're restricted by land, money and commitment from doing that, time and again. Super Class discs allow players to be challenged by all of those courses we've designed that couldn't live up to what we would like to have done for bevel edge technology. I live in the Twin Cities with more disc golf courses (30+) within a half hour from the interstate loop than anywhere. And yet I don't think the total number of par 4s and 5s would reach 18. And that's not due to lack of effort. I have to travel 3-4 hours to find a course where GOLF of par 64 or more can be played with beveled discs.

The Zephyr and the Te Moko are not lids, they are hi-tech upgrades designed for golf (although you can catch them). We wouldn't have developed Super Class if it was just a re-introduction of old style lids. Lids weren't designed to cut through wind nor compress the weight of double chain baskets like certain current and hopefully future Super Class discs can do. The opportunity is there for the manufacturers to innovate in this area and make a variety of discs for different types of shots just like bevel discs.

The only difference is that the Super Class specs are designed to hopefully freeze the max length the majority of players at a skill level can throw them so that holes can really become and remain par 3s, 4s and 5s and not become outdated by technology. It's as simple as that - designing a disc spec to match the existing course challenge. Imagine that.

So what SC discs are meant to penetrate the chains? The Zephyr? I think somwething (either the targets or discs) needs to change so they actually stay in the baskets.

At least most can make a Condor Stick but I cannot say the same for an Ultrastar or Apple,

Imagine all the people... throw-ing Zep-hyrs short ah ah ahhh ah. ;)

I see my father and 17 other grown men playing "slow pitch" in little league fields with gigantic softballs lofted high - It was a blast watching them. And they were good. I spent many a summers evening that way sneaking sips of beer and watching the older high school girls out of the corner of my eye. There were big tournaments and maybe even professional leagues I'd heard of.

But it wasn't the big leagues.

But who knows, maybe if they had invented that first, there never would have been a big leagues.

I think I said Timmy was sticking a 125g Sky Pro all day long in competition and it would be better in heavier weight if you can persuade Kenner to do it. Of course, I heard that Jim said if Timmy can do it with a 125g, who needs the extra weight?

I see my father and 17 other grown men playing "slow pitch" in little league fields with gigantic softballs lofted high - It was a blast watching them. And they were good.


I think softball/hardball is a reasonable analogy. Softball did make it to the Olympics and it's pretty well known that several big leaguers did not want to try and hit against Jenny Finch pitching in an exhibition.

The thing about softball is that everyone is able to play it at some level for picnic games just like everyone can throw a catch disc. That doesn't mean there aren't skills involved for playing softball at a higher level but the game is more accessible than hardball. Likewise, you will find that Super Class discs are much more newbie friendly than bevel discs but I'd say most players know that already. I've introduced a few players to the game this past year where we went out and threw Zephyrs the first time.

I think I said Timmy was sticking a 125g Sky Pro all day long in competition and it would be better in heavier weight if you can persuade Kenner to do it. Of course, I heard that Jim said if Timmy can do it with a 125g, who needs the extra weight?





Never thrown one but if it is similar to a DDC disc then yeah it will stick better than the other larger discs but nothing like a "REAL" disc. :D

I think the DDC discs are smaller diameter and still lighter. Like I said, it would be great to see how the Sky Pro does in heavy weights like 180g+. The one disc worth checking out is the J-Disc that is approved for Junior ultimate. It's the same diameter as the Zephyr and Sky Pro but comes in a heavier weight maybe near 150g?

Maybe I can add some perspective for this discussion. I was around for the evolution from the beginning. I played made up games in 1958 with Mars Platters and Pluto Platter. These were toys. It was fun. It lasted a while, but got old like a Hula Hoop, or a Yo YO, both of which I played with also.

Next came the era of Super Pros, (141g)50 molds, and (165g) 80 molds. (There were others, but these were the best.) These were much better to throw and play catch and invent games, but were not quite past the toy catagory, (as far as I was concerned). I played on my first real frisbee course at La Mirada with these discs in 1977. The 80 mold was the best disc at the time, if you had good technique and were strong enough to whip it. I was, and was able to throw it over 300 ft., but I didn't know anyone else who could.

Next came the era of pigment weighted discs starting with the (119g) 40 mold. The glow pigment added weight up to 175g if you were fortunate enough to get one. I wasn't, but I did get a 149g 40 mold which replaced my venerable 80 mold. The 40 mold was a much better putter than the 80 which barely fit in the basket. Neither disc was very effective in windy situations. Other companies started to make weighted frisbee type disc which began the weight escalation from the "Golf Disc" at over 170g (Victor Malafronte, Tom Schot, et al) to well over 220gms for a 9" or 9 1/4" Vector from Destiny Discs. The (97g) 71 mold eventually became the Wham-0 pinnacle at 200gms. In 1982 and 1983, you could get a Super Puppy at over 200gms. In 1982 the Super Puppy was the best disc in the game. It was a very good putter, approach disc, and driver, if you were strong enough to whip it. Only the biggest and strongest were able to whip it fast enough to make it an effective driver.

In 1983 the Eagle/Aero was introduced as the first throw only disc made for disc golf. This is the technology that ruined the game of frisbee golf, according to many at the time. What it actually did, was reinfranchise skill over strength. You no longer needed to throw 200g discs to compete. Now, you could be of average strength, with good technique, and compete on an even footing with the gorillas. (Like myself)

Around this time, weight limits began to be introduced by the DGA (PDGA). At first the weight limit was set at 6.7gm per cm, I believe, which made for a 50g drop in weight for some discs. Players rebelled and the weight limit was revised to 8.3g per cm, where it remains today.

As "technology" has improved, it has allowed average people to throw farther and easier. A good thing, in my opinion. It has also obsoleted, as Chuck points out, many existing courses for the high tech discs, but not for frisbees.

If I have a point here, it would be to say, that Super Class has already been done (basically) with 200 gm frisbee type discs. The PDGA still allows 200gm discs, high tech or not, but hardy anyone wants them. As it was before, and will be again, Super Class is for Super Men. Whoever can throw the 200g disc, will have a significant advantage.

I personally like to play true frisbee class golf (80 mold, 40 mold etc.) as well as disc golf with real golf discs. Both are fun. I would much rather see a putter only class, 130g class, frisbee class or something that does not give too great an advantage to strength over skill like Super Class will.

As it was before, and will be again, Super Class is for Super Men. Whoever can throw the 200g disc, will have a significant advantage.


That was my secret goal all along, to be considered a Super Man just once in my life... :p

Dave, you really believe that power will be more important in Super Class with Avery and others bombing shots twice as far as others with hi-tech drivers? Based on the World Records of the power throwers with Super Class discs like the Professional, it certainly doesn't look like it. That also didn't appear to be the case at our several Super Class events with the distance difference much narrower than with golf drivers considering I know what our players can throw with them.

O.K. I've read every post and I still haven't seen a reasonable argument in favor of a Super Class. What's next, a golf ball full of feathers and wooden shafts, four fingered baseball gloves without webbing, wooden tennis racquets, Stutz Bearcats, wooden skis, clay skateboard wheels. In some of these sports, the technology made the sport more popular not less popular. I believe disc golf is one of these sports. I think this is misplaced energy for the promotion of disc golf. Idiotic, pointless and really uninteresting.

but it held your intrest long enough to read 8 pages.
i think the duece or die courses with todays golf discs are under played as they are not challenging/or fun enough.
witha beach style frisbee i probaly wont play disc golf.
as it is now i play catch with my polcat.
i would find a round of golf witha beach frissbee somewhat boring as the flight of those style of discs just doesnt peak my intrest as does the flight of a golf disc.

As it was before, and will be again, Super Class is for Super Men. Whoever can throw the 200g disc, will have a significant advantage.


That was my secret goal all along, to be considered a Super Man just once in my life... :p

Dave, you really believe that power will be more important in Super Class with Avery and others bombing shots twice as far as others with hi-tech drivers? Based on the World Records of the power throwers with Super Class discs like the Professional, it certainly doesn't look like it. That also didn't appear to be the case at our several Super Class events with the distance difference much narrower than with golf drivers considering I know what our players can throw with them.



Yes, I really believe that power will be more important in Super Class than it is now. Right now Paul McBeth, David Wiggins Jr, and other mighty mites can bomb right along side of Avery. I don't think that would be the case with 200 g discs. That is the problem with Super Class over Vintage. And if, as you have indicated, you want the Ultimate player crossover, Vintage would be more intuitive. Vintage would be the perfect class to do what you want to do. Vintage is fun. Vintage is where I started. Vintage would be even more challenging than Super Class for the big boys, but would be about the same for everyone else who couldn't throw 200g anyway. It doesn't matter that Avery can throw farther than anyone at any class. Avery is not just a gorilla. He has technique too. It takes technique to throw the light stuff, not brute strength. That makes it accessible to everyone else too.

Vintage discs weren't designed for dealing with heavy chain baskets but Super Class specs provide for that. In addition, the Vintage weight spec prevents much use of the newer Star and Champ plastics. We have the facts of the World records when some Super Class models were used in the 70s and they are less than 120m. Were none of these records with heavy versions of the discs? Even if none were 200g, would it change that much? We already know that World distance records in the past 25 years have not been thrown with the heaviest version of the discs available.

1970 Victor Malafronte USA - 84.10m - Wham-O Professional Model
1970 Bob May USA - 85.04m Wham-O - Professional Model
1974 Kirkland, John USA - 83.23m - Wham-O Professional Model
1974 Dave Johnson USA - 88.67m - Wham-O Professional Model
1974 Victor Malafronte USA - 114.30m - CPI All Star
1975 Dave Johnson USA - 115.20m - CPI All Star

Most Advanced and Pro players we've seen throw heavy Zephyrs and ulty players throwing Ultra-Stars can get out past 80m so I doubt your perception regarding strength being more of a factor with Super Class than hi-tech, especially considering your arguments regarding current wing width making discs more like projectiles than wings with the bias toward powerful throwers. Let's say that distance ratios hold up such that player A outthrows player B by 50% with both hi-tech and SC discs. The absolute distance difference is closer with SC, reducing the potential competitive distance disadvantage. That's worst case, but the evidence so far doesn't indicate that would be the case.

I'll preface this by saying I would love to see this idea succeed. The benefits to peoples skill sets and general appreciation for all things that fly would be greatly enhanced if SC events were held all over the place.

That being said - Chuck have you ever played Ultimate? The reality of ultimate (just like DG) is that the players with good distance skills are the distinct minority of the players. On any ultimate team - how many "handlers" are there? And of those, how many are routinely the ones to throw off? If you answer all or most - that would clearly be a naive answer.

The same thing can be said for general disc skills (i.e. non beveled edge disc skills) among the current DG community. There are more players now that have DG as their first disc sport than ever before. 20 years ago, the majority of golfers had ultimate or SCF, or guts, or some other game as part of their skill set - that is plainly not the case any more.

So the advantage for SC events would a) be with the people who already have the skill set, and b) also have the power to go with it.

Good? Bad? Indifferent? Bottom line is that initially, the field would be evened out a bit as 80-90% of players would be flailing about with unfamiliar plastic. If the format lasted long enough, and as the most talented rose to the top - the other 80% would be crying and wailing for ever more divisions until we're right back where we are now. Would we be better off? You bet!! More people would know how to throw a REAL frisbee :)
As I said before - if the format becomes just another "option" for TD's to offer, I doubt it will succeed. If however the type of event is tied to the statistically identifiable quality of the course - it might work just fine.

Even though in theory most courses will provide a challenge for Super Class, certain combinations of factors will be more fun than others. That will be a winter project in consultation with our designers group to determine what elements make for a better SC course layout. So far, on courses with red and blue tees, it looks like playing four shorter holes from the red tees plus 14 from the blues makes for a well rounded mix of holes with legit pars from 3 to 5 and several ace runs for fun. One fun aspect with Super Class is that you can safely run at pins from 50-80 feet out because it floats and stops close by the pin when you miss. I've probably made more runs at pins in the past year testing out SC than I've done with putters in 10 years.

If I give them a normal run they normally end up father away with a SC disc than with a putter mainly because of the glide. If you get them chain high they just float on past.

Vintage discs weren't designed for dealing with heavy chain baskets but Super Class specs provide for that. In addition, the Vintage weight spec prevents much use of the newer Star and Champ plastics. We have the facts of the World records when some Super Class models were used in the 70s and they are less than 120m. Were none of these records with heavy versions of the discs? Even if none were 200g, would it change that much? We already know that World distance records in the past 25 years have not been thrown with the heaviest version of the discs available.

1970 Victor Malafronte USA - 84.10m - Wham-O Professional Model
1970 Bob May USA - 85.04m Wham-O - Professional Model
1974 Kirkland, John USA - 83.23m - Wham-O Professional Model
1974 Dave Johnson USA - 88.67m - Wham-O Professional Model
1974 Victor Malafronte USA - 114.30m - CPI All Star
1975 Dave Johnson USA - 115.20m - CPI All Star

Most Advanced and Pro players we've seen throw heavy Zephyrs and ulty players throwing Ultra-Stars can get out past 80m so I doubt your perception regarding strength being more of a factor with Super Class than hi-tech, especially considering your arguments regarding current wing width making discs more like projectiles than wings with the bias toward powerful throwers. Let's say that distance ratios hold up such that player A outthrows player B by 50% with both hi-tech and SC discs. The absolute distance difference is closer with SC, reducing the potential competitive distance disadvantage. That's worst case, but the evidence so far doesn't indicate that would be the case.



Disc golf is not just about distance, unless you are talking about upwind distance. Heavy discs have a significant advantage in the wind, blowing through course lettuce, rolling, putting, approaching. This is not theoretical. This is real. I have played with it and seen it first hand. Super Class is not new to me. Super Class spawned weight limits, for good reason. Still, I have no objections to SC, as I have no objections to Rec Disc Golf, putter disc golf, Vintage disc golf, or mini disc golf. More power to you with SC, but you are not learning from the past....

If in fact that was an issue, I would think the veterans in our SC group: Greenwell, Stork, Homburg and Doyle would have provided such advice. As a side note, you would expect that Greenwell was hoping the Condor would make Super Class but he recognized where we drew the line was appropriate. We have no problem with the fact that heavier discs fare better in the wind. That in fact is why the heavier weights are specified for SC so that they work better as golf discs in the wind and chains than Vintage. We want SC to be fun and not such a huge penalty that we all have experienced throwing light weight discs for golf where the wind and chains are not our friends (such as 150 in Japan).

I provided the World records from the time with Super Class and they don't look particularly scary. What distance facts of heavy weights from that era are you referring to that leads you to believe the weight will be an issue? So far, you are the only only one from that era with a concern. Even one of the former record holders Davis Johnson popped in and didn't appear to have an concern. Unless something was strange about Super Class, no world records since that time appear to have been thrown with the maximum weight allowed for the disc that has the record.

If in fact that was an issue, I would think the veterans in our SC group: Greenwell, Stork, Homburg and Doyle would have provided such advice. As a side note, you would expect that Greenwell was hoping the Condor would make Super Class but he recognized where we drew the line was appropriate. We have no problem with the fact that heavier discs fare better in the wind. That in fact is why the heavier weights are specified for SC so that they work better as golf discs in the wind and chains than Vintage. We want SC to be fun and not such a huge penalty that we all have experienced throwing light weight discs for golf where the wind and chains are not our friends (such as 150 in Japan).

I provided the World records from the time with Super Class and they don't look particularly scary. What distance facts of heavy weights from that era are you referring to that leads you to believe the weight will be an issue? So far, you are the only only one from that era with a concern. Even one of the former record holders Davis Johnson popped in and didn't appear to have an concern. Unless something was strange about Super Class, no world records since that time appear to have been thrown with the maximum weight allowed for the disc that has the record.



I have a hard time believing Stork doesn't remember what went on with the heavy discs. Dave Johnson predated the heavy class discs. The World records did start falling, starting with me beating Kirkland's 444ft. I threw a 141g 41 mold 458ft and was beat by a 170g Golf Disc of the same diameter.

I don't know why you think the chains or wind is that tough for 150 class any more. It is certainly much easier to play 150 class in the wind or not, than it was to play frisbee golf or even SC golf. Even putting has to be easier, wind or not, with the smaller diameter discs. I'll take a 150g Boss against anything in SC, and putt with a Rhyno. Every year 150 class golf gets more and more viable. By viable, I mean more and more acceptable by more and more people. People love to be able to throw far and have control in the wind. Control and distance used to mean heavy. In my day, it certainly did. Now, that is being challenged by technology allowing distance and control in lighter weights. 150 class control will never match the heavier, more ballistic discs, but 150 distance might.

As a relevant aside; there is nothing obsolete about the shorter courses per se. They are still fine for kids, beginners, old people, etc. They are just not for super tours.

And World records in your time period was the reason for excluding the 40 molds from Super Class despite pressure to include them. What you're implying is it was the lighter weight not the mold that held back the earlier records posted above? What's the ultimate disc distance record since those are 175g?

Since we're still finalizing the specs for SC, now's the chance to formally comment. I think Tim got your manufacturer letter regarding this latest round of spec review before going to the Board. I'm not wild about dropping the weight max but would be willing to consider raising raising the diameter and/or height specs to where you and others would feel the SC mission to limit/balance distance would be better met.

While we may have a few big SC events that could pull top players, on balance SC is not for that level of player where any disparity in distance might be seen. It's not going to be a competitive benefit on most 200 ft holes except straight uphill, nor on 400 ft holes where at least some foliage is involved. That's where SC is intended to be played. Even now, good designers do their best so distance beyond the intended landing area is either not possible (woods) or involves significant risk/reward aspects.

And World records in your time period was the reason for excluding the 40 molds from Super Class despite pressure to include them. What you're implying is it was the lighter weight not the mold that held back the earlier records posted above? What's the ultimate disc distance record since those are 175g?






So was the 40mold not included because of the distance record or because it did not meet the specs? If it is the former then once again it is a pretty weak move.

Why are the Midnight flyers not approved? Well two of them are but why not the rest?

Distance record had some influence but being smaller than the group wanted to go was the primary reason. We didn't really want to go as low as we did on diameter but thought including the Professional in particular was a good connection with the past.

Well the fact that had anything to do with it is still lame. Everything that seems to come from the PDGA these days is intended to make EVERYONE competitive by either adding new divisions (which kill AM1 attendance) or making new classes so everyone can be the best at some point.

I know this doesn't have too much to do with SC but how is it good for a c-tier to flield 15 different divisions for only 72 players? It seems to happen a lot around here and they think it is absolutely fine since the PDGA allows it.

On our local board many locals are freaking out TX states will not offer MA4 and they refuse to move up to Rec even though they have been playing for years. So wh is it the PDGA prides itself on rewarding mediocrity?

Considering the struggles the PDGA has had this past year, why would you do anything that would turn away members like "forcing" a division restriction, as if the PDGA could actually do that unless they were actually running or hosting the event like Worlds. The TDs and clubs have the ultimate power to restrict divisions as they see fit. The PDGA reflects what members want, as they should. Members elect the Board, who hires the Staff, who appoints Committee people. It all starts with the members.

And World records in your time period was the reason for excluding the 40 molds from Super Class despite pressure to include them. What you're implying is it was the lighter weight not the mold that held back the earlier records posted above? What's the ultimate disc distance record since those are 175g?



Yes, lighter weights for frisbee type discs did hold the distance record back. I don't know what the ultimate disc distance record was, but I could throw them about 350 ft. The weight a disc needs to go far depends on its lift and drag. Frisbees have more lift and drag than high tech discs, so they need more mass to keep them traveling forward through fluid drag. Physiologically, we lose the ability to sufficiently accelerate discs once they get much over 170g. So, even though a Pulsar, for instance, would travel more efficiently at 200g, than it would at 180g, most people would not benefit, distance wise, by the additional 20g. This is all no wind flat ground distance. Topography and wind bring a whole new set of variables.



Since we're still finalizing the specs for SC, now's the chance to formally comment. I think Tim got your manufacturer letter regarding this latest round of spec review before going to the Board. I'm not wild about dropping the weight max but would be willing to consider raising raising the diameter and/or height specs to where you and others would feel the SC mission to limit/balance distance would be better met.



I think Vintage Class does the best for limiting and balancing distance. If you want to limit distance, this is perfect. If you want to balance the field as much as you can for strength vs. technique, it works too.

Considering the struggles the PDGA has had this past year, why would you do anything that would turn away members like "forcing" a division restriction, as if the PDGA could actually do that unless they were actually running or hosting the event like Worlds. The TDs and clubs have the ultimate power to restrict divisions as they see fit. The PDGA reflects what members want, as they should. Members elect the Board, who hires the Staff, who appoints Committee people. It all starts with the members.



My question isn't why a TD may restrict divisions but why the PDGA seems to keep adding them? As seen in many events such as the Soiree players will play if they feel they get a good deal. Now by having numerous divisions that have players of similar skill all you are doing is creating a smaller field within each division.

In Houston this happens a lot recently at the local events. Now you ask why would you restrict or reduce the number of divisions? Well if they are all filling why should most people have to play in a field of 10 at most (rec) and the others average around 5-6 why shouldn't they reduce some of the divisions to Open, Adv, Int, Rec and womens? Now these events are trying to target newer players so MA4 works well but how much difference is there between most Novice and rec players?

I remember when the ratings started deciding the AM division cuts many ADV players who were pretty competitive moved back down to Int after the initial 925 cutoff. The ADV division numbers were reduced in many areas and especially at the more local events so the break was reduced to 915.

At 915 the division grew once again but after a few year smany thought another barrier needed to be set to protect the 915 guys from the bagger ADV players. So what happens is the PDGA shifts the ratings breaks again to form a "new" division (novice which was renamed Rec after people thought that name was demeaning) by making the new cut for ADV 935.

Now I know here in TX we have a pretty good number of AM players and by moving the break from 915 to 935 the ADV division was cut in half at many events. This is because there aren't a lot of 935+ AMs at some smaller events and all the 915-934 guys would rather try to win Int then move up alone and struggle to keep up. At least when the break was 915 those guys had a chance because they were one of many and not alone in thier swim up the competitive stream.

The TDs run events in the hopes they will get turnout. Why would they restrict the number of divisions if they have customers who would like to enter them? Why would a TD or club want to sanction an event if they couldn't offer the divisions their customers prefer? If the PDGA didn't allow some divisions, the TDs could still offer those divisions and just not sanction.

The TDs run events in the hopes they will get turnout. Why would they restrict the number of divisions if they have customers who would like to enter them? Why would a TD or club want to sanction an event if they couldn't offer the divisions their customers prefer? If the PDGA didn't allow some divisions, the TDs could still offer those divisions and just not sanction.



Why restrict them?

Because it would still fill and create larger divisions allowing more people to play with one another. I know I hate playing with the exact same guys at every event because there are only four of us and I'm sure most others do as well.

That id the one thing SC hopefully will do by making everyone have a better shot. I think Kevin McCoy gave his thoughts on how different the Open fields are in OK/TX compared to GA. He said it basically came down to the fact you need to throw farther here to keep up on most courses while in Georgia many courses are 18 holes of short tight holes where the disctance of Coda, Nolan, or Robbie didn't matter and everyone had the ability to do well.

Then again that sounds kind of like Municipal and Counrty Club courses in BG. Maybe then it is in our best interest to have many easier courses to bring in Rec players as the Municipals do and then we match them up with the high quality courses and those on better real estate.

I'll take a 150g Boss



Do you have those? If so, we need a few by next spring ;)

I'll take a 150g Boss



Do you have those? If so, we need a few by next spring ;)



I am hoping to have them by spring. I am not sure how stable they will be, but they will go far.

Great! they will probably be stable enough for downwind throws, especially at elevation.

I'd like a few 150g Bosses, too, especially if they can run in Champ plastic. Come to think of it, I'd really like to have a Champ 50 mold or 100 mold. Any chance of that?

I like the idea of SC, Vintage class and 150-class. Check out my bag today and you'll find 150-class and vintage discs already, but I don't think I carry any Super Class discs right now. I'm puzzled why the diameter limit didn't go down to include 40-molds, 70-molds, SkyStreaks or Whitlers. I think these discs still fly like catch discs and would be appropriate.

I'd like a few 150g Bosses, too, especially if they can run in Champ plastic. Come to think of it, I'd really like to have a Champ 50 mold or 100 mold. Any chance of that?

I agree with Rizbee that some of those discs including the Whittler should have been approved.

What discs will be Vintage Class?

I like the idea of SC, Vintage class and 150-class. Check out my bag today and you'll find 150-class and vintage discs already, but I don't think I carry any Super Class discs right now. I'm puzzled why the diameter limit didn't go down to include 40-molds, 70-molds, SkyStreaks or Whitlers. I think these discs still fly like catch discs and would be appropriate.

I'm puzzled why the diameter limit didn't go down to include 40-molds, 70-molds, SkyStreaks or Whitlers. I think these discs still fly like catch discs and would be appropriate.


It's not about specific discs but the specs they allow if included. We already know that a 140g "Vintage" Polecat flies farther than even a 185 Zephyr for most people and certainly farther than any disc that was truly from the Vintage era. The manufacturers will be able to innovate using whatever the final SC specs may be. SC only makes sense if the specs prevent manufacturers from producing SC discs that fly too far. The goal is for the max distance of most players throwing SC to not end up more than about 60-75% of what they can do with hi-tech drivers. Otherwise, the key rationale for Super Class disappears.

History has shown that the Vintage specs didn't prevent newer discs like the Polecat, Rattler, Gopher and Zephyr from being category killers. Likewise, 150 class as a competition category has failed its original premise to cap distance and increase safety, which was what the Japanese hoped to achieve with 150, and that hasn't happened. We're trying not to make the same mistake with SC specs if possible.

Gotta agree with a lot of the people on here... I think this seems like a step back and in the wrong direction. I also agree with Big Wigg that maybe something like this should be run/started by a new org and not the focus of the PDGA. (like mini disc golf did)

This is coming from the guy who ran a 'mystery monday' event in Charlotte where there was a different format weekly (everything from team triples to randomly swapping bags to putter only rounds) so i'm not against having fun and different formats.

I'd like a few 150g Bosses, too, especially if they can run in Champ plastic. Come to think of it, I'd really like to have a Champ 50 mold or 100 mold. Any chance of that?




No 150g Boss in Champion. The lightest are in the low 70s. No chance of a 50 or 100 mold from us, but I believe they both could be made in a Champion type plastic under 200g. It's possible our Zephyr could be too, but I am not sure.

the Sonic is a smaller diameter than the 235. I think it is about 220.





I was also wondering about the Sonic. Can it be used?

How about an old Innova Gumbputt? It has a large diameter and a classic shaped rim, and I used to putt with it back in the day. Wouldn't take much to get that one back in tune.

I can drag out a couple other old discs that may or may not qualify. It looks like compliance (making sure only 'approved discs' are thrown) will be a challenge for Super Class events and their TDs, more so when starting out. Especially if old people bring old stuff that was never in the spec consideration or scope.

Of course, we can all start our crusades here on what should or shouldn't be approved. "Free the Gumbputt!" (and remake it in Aviar X plastic)

Thanks Stack,

I just don't see the existing sport of Disc Golf or the PDGA at a point in terms of membership, money, or mainstream recognition where it should not devote all it's efforts into improving in these areas before dividing interest among alternative modes of play. While the WFDF is a great and necessary organization, it is more of an umbrella organization for several less prominent disc sports. Rather than following the WFDF example, I'd prefer the PDGA to devote its full energies to representing Professional Disc Golf and its "farm system" which is amateur disc golf.

All this is not to take away from Chuck's great work for the PDGA and the fact that Super Class is an interesting and fun idea.

Older courses might be too short for the pros, but that creates an opportunity to use them as dedicated courses for beginners, juniors and women where there is a great need to expand interest in the sport. In our area, there is a fantastic course just like this called Horizons Park as well as the short pads at Johnson Street. I'm aware of numerous women and young players and beginners (including me) who started playing on those courses, got "hooked," and now are playing the tougher ones. Without those shorter courses, I doubt the sport would have been nearly as much fun for them in the beginning. IMHO shorter courses are ESSENTIAL for the growth of the sport.

the Sonic is a smaller diameter than the 235. I think it is about 220.





I was also wondering about the Sonic. Can it be used?





The Sonic is too small at 21.2. I believe the cut off is 23/24cm I am a little confused here. If it is 23cm, a 40 Mold should be legal, but I heard it wasn't. None of the normal sized golf discs or smaller frisbee type golf discs would make SC. I believe the Super Pro and 141g 50 mold are the starting point for size. They were also the first discs I played frisbee golf with on baskets at La Mirada.

Correct me if I'm wrong:

No: 40-molds, 70-molds

Yes: 80-molds, 50-molds, 60-molds (SuperPro) 100-molds and Fastbacks. I think Pros and 22-molds (DDC/All-Americans) are good too.

Fastbacks are pretty close in size with 40-molds - can't be more than a millimeter or so different. Like you, Dave, my first rounds on baskets were with normal-run 40's, 50's, etc. That was good golf.

WHAT!? That's what I was planning on using for these events. 40 F Mold Midnight Flyers around 140g. Why no 40 molds? BOOO! :mad:

70 molds are too small.

I'm puzzled why the diameter limit didn't go down to include 40-molds, 70-molds, SkyStreaks or Whitlers. I think these discs still fly like catch discs and would be appropriate.


It's not about specific discs but the specs they allow if included. We already know that a 140g "Vintage" Polecat flies farther than even a 185 Zephyr for most people and certainly farther than any disc that was truly from the Vintage era. The manufacturers will be able to innovate using whatever the final SC specs may be. SC only makes sense if the specs prevent manufacturers from producing SC discs that fly too far. The goal is for the max distance of most players throwing SC to not end up more than about 60-75% of what they can do with hi-tech drivers. Otherwise, the key rationale for Super Class disappears.

History has shown that the Vintage specs didn't prevent newer discs like the Polecat, Rattler, Gopher and Zephyr from being category killers. Likewise, 150 class as a competition category has failed its original premise to cap distance and increase safety, which was what the Japanese hoped to achieve with 150, and that hasn't happened. We're trying not to make the same mistake with SC specs if possible.



You didn't mention the reasoning for restricting 40 molds. Based on the approved discs list, the measurements of a 40 mold could/should be on there.

And the SNAP Discsports Whitler needs to be there as well.

What's the deal-e-O?

PDGA as usual..............

It's a combination of diameter, disc height and rim bluntness. Any values lower than where we've already gone on those proposed specs allows a new disc design to potentially become a category killer. Some in our group would prefer even more conservative specs than we have but it was a compromise among the group to allow at least some old molds like the Professional, which held the distance titles for several years, to potentially be enhanced for SC with heavier versions. Originally, the plan was to not go lower than the Sky Pro and Zephyr at 24.1 cm but the proposal is currently 23.7 cm minimum.

Before the specs get set in stone I would recommend including discs that have a width of 22.5 cm or more. This would then include the Discraft Skystreak, Snap Whittler and Wham-O 40- and 70-molds into the Super Class. these discs are all blunt-rimmed and the Wham-O discs clearly were designed as catch discs. I don't see how any of these would be "category killers."

Before the specs get set in stone I would recommend including discs that have a width of 22.5 cm or more. This would then include the Discraft Skystreak, Snap Whittler and Wham-O 40- and 70-molds into the Super Class. these discs are all blunt-rimmed and the Wham-O discs clearly were designed as catch discs. I don't see how any of these would be "category killers."




Well because one owned the distance record everyone is skeered they will BOMB!

With that Logic why are all the AMs buying Bosses and not Valks?

Well, Skeeter, I mean Scooter, the Pro Model held the distance record for a long time, but it's still included. And this Am doesn't throw Bosses or Destroyers or XCals, 'cuz my arm speed is too slow. Valks, Beasts and Sidewinders for me, thank you.

I thought the whole point was to be able to have events restricted to "vintage" class discs.

So you're effectively saying that the 40 mold "normally" would be approved but because of its measurements, a company could come in and design and make a "new" 40 mold type disc out of different plastic and it would become a "killer"?

Just specifically approve the 40 Mold Midnight Flyers (maybe below a certiain weight). PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;)

I have no problem with that weight limit. How does it compare grams/cm with a 200g UltraStar?

On the list of approved discs, why is the Te Moko (bottom of list) have some spec in Red?

http://www.pdga.com/super-class

Well, Skeeter, I mean Scooter, the Pro Model held the distance record for a long time, but it's still included. And this Am doesn't throw Bosses or Destroyers or XCals, 'cuz my arm speed is too slow. Valks, Beasts and Sidewinders for me, thank you.




That's because you know what you need to be throwing and are not blinded by the new kid on the block. :D

I thought the whole point was to be able to have events restricted to "vintage" class discs.

So you're effectively saying that the 40 mold "normally" would be approved but because of its measurements, a company could come in and design and make a "new" 40 mold type disc out of different plastic and it would become a "killer"?


If the plan was to sanction Vintage, that's what we would have done. But the plan was to borrow just some selected vintage characteristics and upgrade both weight and use of better plastic to build discs more suitable for golf, primarily with heavier weights to handle wind and chains. If someone wishes to create an initiative to sanction vintage, that's fine. But Super Class is intentionally biased toward more golf oriented discs on purpose.

The challenge is to find specs that will minimize the chance that a killer disc can be produced that is too good and negates the fundamental purpose for Super Class which is to make older and easier courses challenging and potentially attractive for those throwing ultimate plastic. If ulty plastic does not remain competitive with existing or potentially new discs in the Super Class category, we've failed. Fortunately, they held up well as drivers in our first SC event compared with Zephyrs.

Both the Vintage and 150 specs failed to prevent obsolescence with new discs and we're trying to do better this time. There's no question that newer tech "vintage" discs even in light weights now kill original vintage discs. The Rattler, Birdie, Polecat, Gopher and Zephyr all out perform the true vintage models. In the case of the 150 spec which was intended to limit distance and be safer, well we know how successful that was. 150 Boss coming soon.

I find it strange that the same person who thinks that putting should be somehow tougher is choosing heavier weights in super class to make putting easier.

It doesn't make the accuracy any easier with a bigger diameter but at least the heavier weights are less likely to bounce off the chains.

It will be interesting to see if a majority is interested in this class.

Seems like a good way to sell more plastic now that the rim width restriction is in place.

I think it's hard to say how the plastic sales might break out. The new players who learn with Super Class and continue to play it regularly where it's available will likely have quite a bit fewer discs compared with bevel disc players. Although we all know many rec players only have one or two beat up discs and aren't disc consumers. The bevel disc players who try SC might only end up with one or two discs and that's it other than what might be part of player packs. Even for just warming up playing catch before a bevel event, SC discs will be more comfortable and easier to use than a putter. So that might happen but that won't impact sales.

Attention all Vendors:

Is there a vendor out their willing to set up a link dedicated to the sale of approved Super Class discs? For many of us the approved discs other than Ultrastar, Pulsar and Zephyrs are unknown. It would nice to have a place to go and just buy what you want without having to do the research on the discs and google searches to find them. We would like to start setting up local trial events but are looking for the easiest site to purchase a variety of these approved discs to experiment with.

That's a great idea but we should hold off another 10 days so the PDGA Board can officially approve the specs and discs that would initially be approved. Final comments from the manufacturers on the proposed specs are due to me by Friday. Then a packet will be sent to the Board for their review and hopefully approval sometime the following week.

I have spoke with Discovering the World (http://www.dtworld.com/), they have a large variety of these type disc (of those that are still in production) at reasonable rates, they also wholesale to clubs and TDs

DtW can custom stamp 100-molds, and I think they can still get glow 100-molds. I don't think these would be as heavy as the Midnight Flyer 100-molds, but they're still a very good stable, predictable disc.

http://www.discgolfcenter.com/main_displayProductList.php?s=4&pl=53&type=6


TE Moko is approved.

whitler?

Here are the currently approved discs proposed for Super Class (Whitler too small). The Board will be reviewing the proposed specs for potential approval next week:

<table> <tr> <td>Producer</td><td>DISC MODEL</td><td>Max. Wt. (g)</td><td>Diameter (cm)</td><td>Rim Depth (cm)</td><td>Rim Thickness (cm)</td><td>Rim Depth/ Diam. Ratio (%)</td><td>Rim Config. </td></tr> <tr> <td>Innova-Champion Discs</td><td>Super Nova</td><td>200.0</td><td>27.5</td><td>2.2</td><td>0.6</td><td>8.0</td><td>112.50 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Dynamic Discs</td><td>Floater</td><td>200.0</td><td>27.5</td><td>2.0</td><td>0.6</td><td>7.3</td><td>106.50 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Innova-Champion Discs</td><td>Pulsar</td><td>200.0</td><td>27.5</td><td>2.0</td><td>0.8</td><td>7.3</td><td>93.50 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Wham-O / DTW</td><td>Master</td><td>200.0</td><td>27.5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>Disc Golf Aotearoa</td><td>The New Zealand Ultimate Disc</td><td>200.0</td><td>27.3</td><td>1.9</td><td>0.7</td><td>7.0</td><td>94.25 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Discraft</td><td>Ultra-Star</td><td>200.0</td><td>27.3</td><td>2.0</td><td>0.7</td><td>7.3</td><td>88.25 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Wham-O / DTW</td><td>The Tool (T501 Mold) </td><td>200.0</td><td>27.1</td><td>2.1</td><td>0.7</td><td>7.7</td><td>96.75 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Daredevil Discs</td><td>Gamedisc</td><td>200.0</td><td>27.1</td><td>2.0</td><td>0.7</td><td>7.4</td><td>94.50 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Wham-O / DTW</td><td>90 Mold</td><td>200.0</td><td>27.0</td><td>1.8</td><td>0.5</td><td>6.7</td><td>94.75 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Wham-O / DTW</td><td>165g (80 Mold, High Rigidity)</td><td>200.0</td><td>26.9</td><td>1.9</td><td>0.6</td><td>7.1</td><td>94.75 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Wham-O / DTW</td><td>Midnight Flyer (80 mold series)</td><td>200.0</td><td>26.9</td><td>1.9</td><td>0.6</td><td>7.1</td><td>94.75 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Wham-O / DTW</td><td>Midnight Flyer (80 mold)</td><td>200.0</td><td>26.9</td><td>1.9</td><td>0.6</td><td>7.1</td><td>94.75 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Discraft</td><td>Sky-Styler</td><td>200.0</td><td>26.7</td><td>2.1</td><td>0.6</td><td>7.9</td><td>109.25 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Innova-Champion Discs</td><td>Apple</td><td>200.0</td><td>26.4</td><td>2.0</td><td>0.7</td><td>7.6</td><td>93.25 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Wham-O / DTW</td><td>141g (50 Mold)</td><td>200.0</td><td>25.9</td><td>1.8</td><td>0.6</td><td>6.9</td><td>101.50 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Wham-O / DTW</td><td>Midnight Flyer (50 Mold series)</td><td>200.0</td><td>25.9</td><td>1.8</td><td>0.6</td><td>6.9</td><td>101.50 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Wham-O / DTW</td><td>Super Pro (60 Mold)</td><td>200.0</td><td>25.5</td><td>1.8</td><td>0.6</td><td>7.1</td><td>86.00 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Wham-O / DTW</td><td>Midnight Flyer (100 mold)</td><td>200.0</td><td>24.9</td><td>1.8</td><td>0.6</td><td>7.2</td><td>97.25 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Wham-O / DTW</td><td>Olympic/Collegiate (100 Mold series)</td><td>200.0</td><td>24.9</td><td>1.8</td><td>0.6</td><td>7.2</td><td>97.25 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Discraft</td><td>Sky Pro</td><td>200.0</td><td>24.1</td><td>1.6</td><td>0.5</td><td>6.6</td><td>89.00 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Discraft</td><td>Skystar</td><td>200.0</td><td>24.1</td><td>1.6</td><td>0.5</td><td>6.6</td><td>89.00 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Innova-Champion Discs</td><td>Zephyr</td><td>200.0</td><td>24.1</td><td>1.7</td><td>0.7</td><td>7.1</td><td>83.00 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Wham-O / DTW</td><td>Professional (all molds)</td><td>198.4</td><td>23.9</td><td>1.7</td><td>0.6</td><td>7.1</td><td>89.00 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Wham-O / DTW</td><td>Fastback (all molds)</td><td>196.7</td><td>23.7</td><td>1.7</td><td>0.6</td><td>7.2</td><td>79.50 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Wham-O / DTW</td><td>Midnight Flyer (Fast Back)</td><td>196.7</td><td>23.7</td><td>1.7</td><td>0.6</td><td>7.2</td><td>79.50 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Innova-Champion Discs</td><td>Hero Disc Type 235</td><td>196.7</td><td>23.7</td><td>2.8</td><td>0.6</td><td>11.8</td><td>77.75 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Disc Golf Aotearoa</td><td>Te Moko</td><td>196.7</td><td>23.7</td><td>2.3</td><td>0.7</td><td>9.7</td><td>77.00 </td></tr> </table>

The Zephyr will be going into production next week. We will be making DX in heavier weights. It appears Champion will not be a possibility as the test did not go well.

Too bad. I was hoping to see some transparent, color tinted Super Class models out there. Star maybe?

Looks like the Te Moko will ruin superclass!!! I mean it is the only one I could find listed as a midrange so obviously everyone throwing them will have an unfair advantage.

Te Moko throws identical distances to the Zephyr but is slightly more stable. It's listed as a big putter on some literature I've seen.

Well I guess they need to scrap the Zephyr too! Then again I don't see that happening since it is Chuck's go-to disc.


Now the 40-Mold is out why again?

Too small. We never considered going that small.

Too small. We never considered going that small.



But you did consider going to 23.7???

Like Dave-Mac said why don't you guys have some better specs? I mean like some solid numbers instead of a bunch of decimals.

Decimals are for smart people...

The "round" number is 200 grams. We know that a 2 gram overweight tolerance is allowed for discs legal in 150 Class. If we allow a similar proportional overweight tolerance for Super Class at 3g, you can see that a 23.7 cm diameter is as small as we can go so that all discs in Super Class can be legal at 200g with that 3g overweight tolerance.

Why in the world do you think they should all have the same max weight? I thought it was still based off of the Diameter but that many would be allowed because of that to be made at 200g?

I can't wait to throw a 200g small diameter SC disc! i don't see why you got rid of the diameter/max weight ratio as that really can separate two discs from each other.

The ratio is still there but some of the bigger discs can't get to 8.3g/cm without being more than 200g. One thing we wanted to avoid was having discs of the same model that were legal for regular Hi-Tech bevel events at higher weights but not for Super Class (or vice versa). I believe that was a mistake with the Vintage spec because those involved with Accuracy, Discathon and other overall events have to make sure that someone isn't slipping in a heavier model Zephyr than the 161 max weight allowed, even if the player didn't know. With the Super Class specs, we know that all weights of Super Class discs will be legal for regular events and vice versa that are 200g or less so TDs and players won't necesarily need to check weights (except some ancient Super Class discs that might come out of hiding :D).

The ratio is still there but some of the bigger discs can't get to 8.3g/cm without being more than 200g. One thing we wanted to avoid was having discs of the same model that were legal for regular Hi-Tech bevel events at higher weights but not for Super Class (or vice versa). I believe that was a mistake with the Vintage spec because those involved with Accuracy, Discathon and other overall events have to make sure that someone isn't slipping in a heavier model Zephyr than the 161 max weight allowed, even if the player didn't know. With the Super Class specs, we know that all weights of Super Class discs will be legal for regular events and vice versa that are 200g or less so TDs and players won't necesarily need to check weights (except some ancient Super Class discs that might come out of hiding :D).



You've actually made it more difficult to tell if the disc is over 200g now. Vintage was easy. It had to be on the list of approved discs and had to float in water. No scale necessary. Just a bucket and water. Now, not only do you have to be a gorilla to compete. You need a scale to check. Vintage was way better, IMO, even if you want to limit it to the larger diameters.

I would decrease the weight limit - Dave's right, the big arms will be able to throw 200g lids much farther than regular humans. And I agree with Scooter somewhat on the diameter - I think 21 cm (like a Super Puppy) is too small, but 23.5 (40-mold) and 22.5 (Whitler and 70-mold) with a blunt edge still fit under the stated purpose - playing disc golf with catch-type discs.

I mean, seriously, you can use a 198g Pro (Guts or DDC disc) but not a 130g 40-mold?

I mean, seriously, you can use a 198g Pro (Guts or DDC disc) but not a 130g 40-mold?


One can be used in Super Class and one can be used in Vintage. Nothing stopping people from running Vintage events.

It had to be on the list of approved discs and had to float in water.


Are you saying that every vintage disc mold at a weight exactly at 6.7g/cm for their diameter is right on the float/no float edge? Seems like an impossible convergence of the vintage specs.

I would consider proposals to reduce the overall weight maximum to 190 or 185 for all approved disc models, not just for Super Class.

super class seems neat and interesting and all that, but how many events do you project to see run and what percent of members do you expect to play these events in order to make all of this preliminary classification and work and all of the prep worth it?

im not saying that the want isnt out there, i myself think it would be alot of fun, but i would never play a superclass event over a regular event, and during the season, there are pdga events every single weekend around here. so i wonder if adding another type of division or tournament is really that beneficial to the pdga that its volunteers spend the time to develop such things.

so seriously, how many events do you foresee and what percent of pdga members do you foresee partaking in these events? same questions for 'vintage class' events.

For Super Class to be successful, it just takes a small percentage of current members and promoters to enjoy and promote it. It makes no sense to introduce something that 100% of existing players want to play. We already have that with bevel discs. So the negativity from some is not surprising at all but the negativity should be about whether they personally would play it, not about the format itself, since it's for other players than them. The idea is to attract and retain new members that don't yet play such as ultimate players who have double the number of PDGA members. And they have many more women skilled at throwing a Super Class disc than we do.

In addition, there are people who don't want to have to learn bevel edge plastic to just go and play a few times per year. These players would be sort of like the people who can play softball at a picnic for fun even though they haven't played for 5 years. You don't play hardball at those picnics. In the same way, just about anyone can throw a Zephyr or Ultra-Star after not throwing for 5 years. Not true with a Wraith.

The potential thousands of spectators for our sport are going to come (if they show up) from casual players that are not hard core participants like most reading this post. By legitimating the Super Class format with sanctioning, it makes all of those part time and occasional players feel like they are actually playing an official version of the sport when they do come and play on shorter 9-hole courses or from the short tees.

Likewise, Super Class (and vintage) discs may be better and more appealing for the whole educational arena because some can be easier to throw than bevel discs and kids can also play golf-like skill games that can involve some catching. Whether this will become successful will rely more on our players and promoters to promote this format to those new potential new player groups than the format itself. After all, our sport had lots of casual players using mostly lighter weight versions of these same discs throwing at trees for many years before baskets and bevel discs.

Whether this becomes just a small niche game with only a few sanctioned events like match play, or more like sanctioned doubles or even more than that, it seems like an idea worth giving a shot. All of the existing infrastructure of baskets, discs, sanctioning, tiers and ratings are all in place so there was relatively minimal cost getting this launched. We can only hope that we get to the point where enough people play that are whining that the 200g discs give too much advantage to the big boys. They don't even whine much now with wide wing bomber discs. That would be an amazing "problem" to have. It means Super Class blew up as a format. And if that means enough people really like it, what's the problem?

It had to be on the list of approved discs and had to float in water.


Are you saying that every vintage disc mold at a weight exactly at 6.7g/cm for their diameter is right on the float/no float edge? Seems like an impossible convergence of the vintage specs.




I guessed at the 6.7g/cm, but I do believe it was done originally by Stork, so you can ask him. My recollection is that they had to float in water. Personally, I would call Super Class, Ultimate Class instead and make everything work around Ultimate discs including the weight per cm. The smaller discs allowed could be considered junior ultimate. This would tend to welcome ultimate crossover guys, I think.

Personally, I would call Super Class, Ultimate Class instead and make everything work around Ultimate discs including the weight per cm.


That was on the list of names considered but it seemed a little presumptuous to co-opt their sport's name. However, my hope is that organizers within ultimate might run sanctioned Super Class events where they limit the discs to those approved for ultimate. Their J*Star, approved for junior ultimate, is a smaller diameter same as the Zephyr and would likely be their best putter. So, ultimate class would be a subset of Super Class events, sort of like our one disc challenge events with bevel discs.

Out of curiosity, I tried to 'drown' a 160 Zephyr and a 187 Te Moko by turning them upside down and filling them with water. The Zephyr sank a bit and stayed about an inch below the surface, so it must be close to tap water density (65 deg). The Te Moko floated just below the surface with about 10% of the rim poking above the surface once it stabilized. The heavier disc was slightly more bouyant. So the 17% heavier disc of barely smaller diameter and similar design 'floated' slightly better at 7.9g/cm than the one at 6.7g/cm.

This sort of "kicks the water bucket" as an easy way to determine valid weight vintage discs. The only specs in the WFDF guide for vintage (and that word isn't used) are the 6.7g/cm value for the diameter, the rim config minimum value of 75 and a more flexible 20 lbs value than the 27 for Hi-tech discs. Nothing about floating in water. Is it possible that was used as a method before the vintage specs were set in the early 90s?

chuck, that begins to answer the questions i had, but do you have any expectations in numbers? im not looking for research data, just your opinion. how many events might we see running superclass in the next year?

I've already heard from a dozen TDs wanting to get more information to run a Super Class event and I think one has sent in sanctioning docs already. I'm running a Super Class league this winter starting in January. Seems like a better format for winter play in northern areas with shorter distances and it should be easier to find SC discs in the snow. We're playing a different 9 or 12 hole course each week that never gets used for events in the summer.

I'm thinking by the end of 2009, maybe the number of SC events and leagues could be 20-40 but more than 50 isn't out of the question if each state, province and country tries just one. In places where much of their 2009 schedule is set, it may be harder to find a date for an event. However, with Super Class, you can run events on the same day as regular ones with guidance from the state coordinator. That's especially helpful in places where regular events are already selling out and there's still more demand that might be satisfied with an alternative Super Class event at a shorter course. Blendon Woods might actually be challenging with Super Class. :D

The only specs in the WFDF guide for vintage (and that word isn't used) are the 6.7g/cm value for the diameter, the rim config minimum value of 75 and a more flexible 20 lbs value than the 27 for Hi-tech discs. Nothing about floating in water. Is it possible that was used as a method before the vintage specs were set in the early 90s?



I really don't know how they got the vintage specs, but as I said, Stork must know, and I believe it was a float in water thing. The only two discs we ever made specifically for WFDF were the 160 Zephyr and the 138 Lynx/Condor.

The Vintage specs were set at the same time as the 150 class was set in the early 90s. I was on that committee only a few years after getting in the sport and vaguely remember anything about vintage. The main discussion was whether the 150 class rim sharpness should be set higher than heavier discs more like 35 where the Cobra sits versus the current spec of 26+. The vintage specs apparently never made it into the PDGA docs at the time and the WFDF docs have the specs indicated but don't use the term "vintage." However, several of us remember doing Triple Class Challenge events with a player pack of discs from each of the three categories.

That was on the list of names considered but it seemed a little presumptuous to co-opt their sport's name.



Dont you play Disc GOLF?

: ) :

'Golf' and 'disc golf' games are more alike than 'ultimate' and 'ultimate class' would be. Now 'ultimate' and 'ultimate bevel' would be similar where you use a bevel disc to play an extreme form of ultimate...

we have enough injuries in ultimate without lots of broken fingers and bleeding forehead gashes.

I like the idea of the new super class and I would be willing to think that Blendon would be fun and perfect for this format. I know some of the guys in Cincinnati have talked about it as well. Courses like Winton Woods and Woodland Mound would be perfect candidates for it. They ran a fundraiser tournament last year (non sanctioned) at Winton that was Utrastar only and everyone had a blast.

They ran a fundraiser tournament last year (non sanctioned) at Winton that was Utrastar only and everyone had a blast.


With Super Class, we want to get the J*Star for junior ultimate approved so it could be a smaller diameter putter to go with the Ultra-Star for those events.

Chuck - I'm hoping that my continued recommendations for including slightly smaller diameter discs in Super Class isn't being characterized by you as "whining." I'm trying to give input based on my experience as a disc golfer who played competitively for several years using "catch discs." I don't see why a Whittler or 40-mold shouldn't be included, and I don't think you've yet responded with a reason or any evidence. These discs are some of my favorite catch discs, especially when I play catch with kids or other adults with smaller hands. These folks often don't like throwing the larger Ultimate discs.

Before I ever heard of "Super Class" I was planning a 1-disc event for my local park using Wham-O 100-molds, so I'm a possible proponent of this, but I'd like to hear some logic concerning the diameter limit.

Riz, not saying you are whining. You already have the Vintage class. Play an event with them. Super Class is taking a bigger set of these discs to another level more suited for golf with baskets, not trees, and including discs that Ultimate players use and are heavier for dealing with wind and chains. The line had to be drawn somewhere and it was based on the 200g max spec as already discussed, not with intent to include or exclude specific discs on purpose. That would have been perceived as less fair and potentially discriminatory to specific manufacturers.

The 200G rule is stupid if all the discs are of a wide variety of diameters. The smallest disc will likely be one of the better ones due to its density.


It should be based of diameter just like golf discs.

The "stupid" 200g max rule was there long before Super Class "Oh Young One." It was based on the diameter of discs at the time it was set such as the 24.1 cm Condor approved in 1991, a few years before the max weight spec was set. I'd have to ask Stork but it wouldn't surprise me that the Condor at 200g is what produced the 8.3g/cm factor that was chosen.

Sub 22cm diameter drivers are relatively new in the short history of our sport. I certainly could support an initiative that would reduce the max weight allowed for all discs to 185 or 190 but have little interest leading the charge.

The "stupid" 200g max rule was there long before Super Class "Oh Young One." It was based on the diameter of discs at the time it was set such as the 24.1 cm Condor approved in 1991, a few years before the max weight spec was set. I'd have to ask Stork but it wouldn't surprise me that the Condor at 200g is what produced the 8.3g/cm factor that was chosen.

Sub 22cm diameter drivers are relatively new in the short history of our sport. I certainly could support an initiative that would reduce the max weight allowed for all discs to 185 or 190 but have little interest leading the charge.




I didn't say the MAX 200g rule was dumb but that having every disc regardless of diameter up to 200g is dumb! A 23cm disc at 200g is a lot different than a 24.1cm disc at 200g.

The "stupid" 200g max rule was there long before Super Class "Oh Young One." It was based on the diameter of discs at the time it was set such as the 24.1 cm Condor approved in 1991, a few years before the max weight spec was set. I'd have to ask Stork but it wouldn't surprise me that the Condor at 200g is what produced the 8.3g/cm factor that was chosen.

Sub 22cm diameter drivers are relatively new in the short history of our sport. I certainly could support an initiative that would reduce the max weight allowed for all discs to 185 or 190 but have little interest leading the charge.



The Condor wasn't around when the 8.3g/cm factor was originally established. It was established in 1983 based on a vote of PDGA members. Members were sent a ballot that listed a handful of choices for g/cm and a blank where you could enter your own. A weighted average was then calculated using those responses. There was no scientific basis that supported the weight limit - it was just politics. All the details are described in an early PDGA newsletter put out by Ted Smethers in the Summer of 1983. The Eagle/Aero was the only beveled edge disc in production at that time. Most DGA Kitty Hawks and Soft Touches qualified as legal, as did most Destiny Discs Super Puppies. I don't think any Wham-O discs were too heavy - the plastic couldn't absorb enough weighted dye. That weight limit essentially pushed AMF Voit out of the golf disc market, as their 21 and 23 cm. golf discs were all produced at 185g and 200g respectively, which made them all overweight.

I believe the 200g limit was also part of that ballot - I'll have to look it up. There was no Condor at that time, so that reasoning doesn't fly.

What is the reasoning behind creating Super Class and making the discs all larger than 24.5cm? And why would that reasoning not allow for discs down to 23.5 or 24 cm? If the answer is "the line had to be drawn somewhere" why can't it be drawn a little smaller?

23 cm discs can't be 200g. Carrying a max weight 200g disc is an option, not a requirement for Super Class. I can throw a 160g Zephyr a little farther (~10 feet) than a 185g. I suspect most people will be able to throw lighter than max weight Super Class discs farther except maybe in stronger headwinds. But those optimum weights for most people could regularly be heavier than the current vintage 6.7g/cm factor, especially for putting. The heavier weights, not necessarily 200g, will help with putting and heavier wind. But I doubt they will be the "go to" disc for most shots on normal weather days.

23 cm discs can't be 200g. Carrying a max weight 200g disc is an option, not a requirement for Super Class. I can throw a 160g Zephyr a little farther (~10 feet) than a 185g. I suspect most people will be able to throw lighter than max weight Super Class discs farther except maybe in stronger headwinds. But those optimum weights for most people could regularly be heavier than the current vintage 6.7g/cm factor, especially for putting. The heavier weights, not necessarily 200g, will help with putting and heavier wind. But I doubt they will be the "go to" disc for most shots on normal weather days.



OK, so based on what you just wrote here it sounds like the logic was to include blunt-edge discs that could weigh up to 200g if the 8.3g/cm rule were followed? So if a disc wasn't wide enough to possibly go over the weight rule they couldn't be included? Unless it's a Fastback or Hero 235...they can be a little smaller?

I still haven't heard a reasonable basis for excluding 23.5 or 23cm discs.

I still haven't heard a reasonable basis for excluding 23.5 or 23cm discs.



How about you want to create a class where you could theoretically be competitive if all you have is an Ultrastar and maybe something a little smaller in diameter that will fit in a basket better.

Why can't I use a 2 5/8" diameter baseball bat to play softball?

Just because you have some older discs that don't quite fit the spec doesn't make the spec irrational. The inclusion of the Fastback and the 235 are a little odd, but if you are trying to limit distance, keeping the lids big makes sense.

We didn't want to go below 24.1 in the first place to reduce the chance a new design could be optimized to fly much farther for most players than the Ultra-Star and Zephyr. That's a lynchpin of the original concept to have a mostly capped distance spec so these discs would make existing courses more challenging and perform more like golf discs, not so much old timey catch discs like vintage. And just as important, be able to use the newer plastics that require much higher weight maximums than vintage due to 20% higher densities. The issue of a few gram weight tolerances and seeing "acceptable" distance records for discs like the Professional back in the 70s persuaded the group to go a little lower than 24.1 and that's it.

If we've learned anything, it's that once the disc manufacturers have a set of specs, they have learned how to optimize them to design discs that throw longer. If ultimate discs end up not being competitive as a result of innovative new Super Class discs, then a big portion of the marketing reason for Super Class disappears and the tent may fold.

I still haven't heard a reasonable basis for excluding 23.5 or 23cm discs.



How about you want to create a class where you could theoretically be competitive if all you have is an Ultrastar and maybe something a little smaller in diameter that will fit in a basket better.

Why can't I use a 2 5/8" diameter baseball bat to play softball?

Just because you have some older discs that don't quite fit the spec doesn't make the spec irrational. The inclusion of the Fastback and the 235 are a little odd, but if you are trying to limit distance, keeping the lids big makes sense.



You probably can't use that smaller bat because scientific testing has been conducted which shows that the smaller bat produces higher projectile velocities. I don't think that type of testing has been done here.

I'm not pressing for smaller diameters because I have old discs that are smaller - I want smaller diameters because I think blunt-edged discs of that size are still very good golf discs, especially for kids and people with smaller hands. Ever watched an 8-yr-old try to grip an Ultimate disc? Also, I don't think I'd want to use any of my old Midnight Flyers for golf - they'd probably crack and then be worthless.

Yes, based on Chuck's other reasoning the inclusion of the Fastback and 235 are odd. It would not be any more odd to make the minimum diameter just a little smaller. One disc I'd really like to see included is the Snap Whitler, which is a current production disc that anyone can purchase, and it's made by a disc golf-only manufacturer. It flies very much like a lid.

I agree about the kids thing and would like to see vintage discs used in education for all things disc related including junior disc golf. Many can throw a vintage 110-140 Polecat farther than a vintage 160 Zephyr. But that can be someone else's mission to take on. Ultimate has a junior disc for those smaller hands and it's still in the Super Class range of 24.1 cm.

Some of you keep getting hung up on specific discs, maybe because you threw them, and our group is more concerned about specs. I could really care less whether a specific disc model was in or out which seems a more professional approach for a standards group to avoid favoritism. As soon as we decided that a 3g weight tolerance was acceptable paralleling the 2g tolerance for 150 class, then 23.7 cm became the magic minimum number instead of 24.1 and a few more discs fell into Super Class.

It's not that we weren't sensitive to the discs involved since we certainly wanted a variety of currently produced models to be available so new players could find Super Class discs. But catering to specific discs was not a priority other than the goal to do our best so the whole group of approved ultimate discs would hopefully remain competitive after manufacturers started tinkering with new SC molds.

We didn't want to go below 24.1 in the first place to reduce the chance a new design could be optimized to fly much farther for most players than the Ultra-Star and Zephyr. That's a lynchpin of the original concept to have a mostly capped distance spec so these discs would make existing courses more challenging and perform more like golf discs, not so much old timey catch discs like vintage. And just as important, be able to use the newer plastics that require much higher weight maximums than vintage due to 20% higher densities. The issue of a few gram weight tolerances and seeing "acceptable" distance records for discs like the Professional back in the 70s persuaded the group to go a little lower than 24.1 and that's it.

If we've learned anything, it's that once the disc manufacturers have a set of specs, they have learned how to optimize them to design discs that throw longer. If ultimate discs end up not being competitive as a result of innovative new Super Class discs, then a big portion of the marketing reason for Super Class disappears and the tent may fold.



But you DID go below 24.1, and as far as I can tell the diameter selected was arbitrary. If you use the same g/cm weight spec as a 200g UltraStar (7.3g/cm) then the weight limit on a Whitler would be 165g, on a Hero 235 or Fastback would be 173g. That makes much more sense than allowing a 195g Fastback.

I don't understand your "lynchpin" sentence - do you want discs that fly like "golf discs" or not? How would a 200g Ultimate disc (which Wham-o already makes) fly differently or "more like a golf disc" than a 165g Whitler?

The distance records set with Professional models back in the 70's were done so with discs that weighed no more than 120g. How can you compare that with distance records set with 40- and 70-molds that were heavily weighted? The longest Pro model record I could find was Dave Johnson's 1975 record of 88.67 meters. Compare that to the longest record with a Fastback: 152.4 meters by Tetsuro Arita in 1980, which is also much farther than the 125.57 Dave Johnson threw a 23.6cm, 119g 40-mold in 1976. Sounds to me like you already have included discs (the Fastback) that are "optimized to throw longer." Why not include a disc that is one-tenth of a centimeter smaller that is less optimized for distance?

Your current reasons contradict one another. Why not make the spec be "blunt-edged discs weighing no more than 7.3 g/cm?" That's pretty consistent.

I found the August 1983 PDGA newsletter that reported the weight limit votes. 269 PDGA members voted. The ballot for the "top weight limit regardless of size" allowed members to chose between 175, 180, 185, 190, 195 and 200 grams, with an "Other" option where you could fill in your desired top weight. The results were:

175g - 21 votes
180g - 22 votes
185g - 26 votes
190g - 26 votes
195g - 13 votes
200g - 82 votes
Other - 52 votes
Abstain - 27 votes

A weighted average was calculated of these votes, which came out to 199.6157 grams. The weighted average of the 175g - 200g votes was 191.1579 grams, which meant that the average weight listed by the "Other" voters was 232 grams.

This is where the 200 gram weight limit came from. Completely arbitrary.

We didn't want to go below 24.1 in the first place to reduce the chance a new design could be optimized to fly much farther for most players than the Ultra-Star and Zephyr. That's a lynchpin of the original concept to have a mostly capped distance spec so these discs would make existing courses more challenging and perform more like golf discs, not so much old timey catch discs like vintage. And just as important, be able to use the newer plastics that require much higher weight maximums than vintage due to 20% higher densities. The issue of a few gram weight tolerances and seeing "acceptable" distance records for discs like the Professional back in the 70s persuaded the group to go a little lower than 24.1 and that's it.

If we've learned anything, it's that once the disc manufacturers have a set of specs, they have learned how to optimize them to design discs that throw longer. If ultimate discs end up not being competitive as a result of innovative new Super Class discs, then a big portion of the marketing reason for Super Class disappears and the tent may fold.

But you DID go below 24.1, and as far as I can tell the diameter selected was arbitrary. If you use the same g/cm weight spec as a 200g UltraStar (7.3g/cm) then the weight limit on a Whitler would be 165g, on a Hero 235 or Fastback would be 173g. That makes much more sense than allowing a 195g Fastback.

I don't understand your "lynchpin" sentence - do you want discs that fly like "golf discs" or not? How would a 200g Ultimate disc (which Wham-o already makes) fly differently or "more like a golf disc" than a 165g Whitler?

The distance records set with Professional models back in the 70's were done so with discs that weighed no more than 120g. How can you compare that with distance records set with 40- and 70-molds that were heavily weighted? The longest Pro model record I could find was Dave Johnson's 1975 record of 88.67 meters. Compare that to the longest record with a Fastback: 152.4 meters by Tetsuro Arita in 1980, which is also much farther than the 125.57 Dave Johnson threw a 23.6cm, 119g 40-mold in 1976. Sounds to me like you already have included discs (the Fastback) that are "optimized to throw longer." Why not include a disc that is one-tenth of a centimeter smaller that is less optimized for distance?

Your current reasons contradict one another. Why not make the spec be "blunt-edged discs weighing no more than 7.3 g/cm?" That's pretty consistent.


I think Chuck got out Chucked!



Of course the weight should be based on a solid g/cm number and as you stated the fastback is allowed and they aren't a very large disc! I can throw a Sonic just [censored] far as an Ultrastar with way less effort so I can't wait to use some of those heavy fastbacks.

152m is a LONG way Chuck! Probably farther than you have ever thrown a golf disc so why should these be allowed but not a few key others?


Also why would the Whittler not be allowed? does the PDGA just like not helping out DG companies? The more companies we have the better off we will be.

There's way too much to go into here and retread all of the meetings we've had on this and earlier posts. We were NEVER going to have discs that had a different weight factor than 8.3 like the vintage at 6.7. No 7.8, 7.3 or 7.0 other than when that happens because a bigger diameter can't go to 8.3 because it would exceed 200g. We didn't want a single disc model that was legal at one weight for bevel golf and not for Super Class the way that happens with vintage. With a 200g max weight and big diameter, that meant 24.1 as our initial minimum.

However, with a 3g weight tolerance, a 23.7 cm dia disc times 8.3 is 196.7 (197 rounded off) plus 3g equals 200. We can simply say that all Super Class molds can be manufactured up to 200 g. Not true for discs less than 23.7 cm diameter. We wanted to keep these specs simple and more easily managed for manufacturers and TDs. Any of your suggestions complicate the SC specs with no benefit especially since the vintage spec already includes those discs. If 23.7 turns out to be a mistake, then maybe we'll have to correct it down the road. For that to occur, it would mean SC has become way more popular than expected and a nice problem to have. At least those discs would remain legal in either vintage and/or bevel class.

When I refer to golf-like discs in this class, I'm primarily referring to heavier weight to deal with chains and wind, not the bevel shape. In that regard, ultimate discs ARE similar to the other discs proposed for SC.

This is where the 200 gram weight limit came from. Completely arbitrary.


I've already posted I would support a lower weight limit as long as it was applied to all discs, not just SC. Stork told me today that the 8.3g/cm came from a similar vote that ended up at that average. These numbers aren't exactly arbitrary any more than Obama is an arbitrary choice for President. Although none were chosen scientifically.

If anything your arguments would be to go back to 24.1 cm, not smaller to avoid the possibility of longer distances. I think you need to keep those distances in perspective. The golf driving distances for open players with bevel discs averages near 400 when they have an open field to drive on (stats hot off the press from the Majestic) and less the more restrictive the fairways. That's half the world distance record. If 150 meters is a fastback distance record then proportionally, 75 meters could be the average for those playing Open in SC events. I think it will be more like 85 meters in the air but certainly not scary.

We wanted to keep these specs simple and more easily managed for manufacturers and TDs. Any of your suggestions complicate the SC specs with no benefit especially since the vintage spec already includes those discs.


When I refer to golf-like discs in this class, I'm primarily referring to heavier weight to deal with chains and wind, not the bevel shape. In that regard, ultimate discs ARE similar to the other discs proposed for SC.

[/QUOTE]

What the Heck is vintage class??? You talk about it as if a lot of people have even heard of it and it would complicate things if the Specs were changed. For the record I don't think all the rim ratios and other ratios for the SC discs are easy to manage and I know at least one manufacturer things there are pretty confusing.

But he's confused about a lot of things like ratings also.

Vintage specs are here but they don't use the word "Vintage". I'm working with Stork to hopefully get that corrected: www.wfdf.org/index.php?page=rules/art6.htm#602.01 (http://www.wfdf.org/index.php?page=rules/art6.htm#602.01)

But he's confused about a lot of things like ratings also.

Vintage specs are here but they don't use the word "Vintage". I'm working with Stork to hopefully get that corrected: www.wfdf.org/index.php?page=rules/art6.htm#602.01 (http://www.wfdf.org/index.php?page=rules/art6.htm#602.01)




Yeah you mean why players who play low SSA courses often have ratings higher then that of players which rounds consists of mostly high SSA courses.

It's apparent you are confused also.

It's apparent you are confused also.




Ok how bout this! A 1100 rated round WILL NOT happen within 10 years on an course with an SSA higher than 64.

Maybe I should have said it this way the the higher the SSA the tighter the ratings range.

Thats correct but it has nothing to do with how high a player's overall rating can go. Fact is, players with the highest ratings play the highest SSA courses on average.

Thats correct but it has nothing to do with how high a player's overall rating can go. Fact is, players with the highest ratings play the highest SSA courses on average.



Yeah because all of the best layers in the world go to the events on those courses. They aren't higher rated due to the high SSA courses they are higher rated because they are better over a range of courses.

But he's confused about a lot of things like ratings also.

Vintage specs are here but they don't use the word "Vintage". I'm working with Stork to hopefully get that corrected: www.wfdf.org/index.php?page=rules/art6.htm#602.01 (http://www.wfdf.org/index.php?page=rules/art6.htm#602.01)



Those are the WFDF specs for discs used in Accuracy throwing, which have nothing to do with disc golf, other than they both use discs (I know a little bit about this - I was the Florida Accuracy Champion in 1984, but I digress...). BTW, no mention of Vintage class on that page.

Vintage Class is a heading on a table on this page on the WFDF site here: http://www.wfdf.org/index.php?sport_id=1&amp;page=rules/rules_approved_discs.htm but nowhere is there a description of what Vintage Class is or a connection between the term "Vintage Class" and the specifications, so I don't think Vintage Class is really a viable event type, if there is no documentation of what it is. Super Class is what the PDGA is currently supporting and promoting, so I'd like to make it be a good type of event. I think making the minimum diameter a little smaller would enhance the event.

And I still don't see what the reasoning is for defining the SC specifications to use 200g as a limit, other than it's a number we already use for regular disc golf play. I get your weight measurement tolerance point, but I don't see why it matters. It doesn't make anything easier for TDs. They'll still need to have a scale, won't they, since any of these discs could possibly go over a weight limit. I voted for 200g back in 1983, but I wouldn't vote that way today in this circumstance.

At some point, Vintage was defined for PDGA because we had the Triple Class Challenge events back in the early 90s. And I'm working with Stork to get the Vintage specs included again once the Super Class specs become official. The only persuasive argument you have would be to go back to 24.1, not smaller.

At some point, Vintage was defined for PDGA because we had the Triple Class Challenge events back in the early 90s. And I'm working with Stork to get the Vintage specs included again once the Super Class specs become official. The only persuasive argument you have would be to go back to 24.1, not smaller.




You mean its the only persuasive argument to be passed on by Lord Kennedy?

Also Chuck you should thank Mills and I for giving you the idea for double-weighting recent rounds.

The only persuasive argument you have would be to go back to 24.1, not smaller.



Why? I still don't think you have answered that question.

You said why you picked 24.1cm (200/8.3 = 24.1) and then why that was modified to 23.7cm (+/- 3g scale deviation), but I don't see what either of those points have to do with how discs fly or how easy they are to throw. You have alluded to the specs being related to how discs fly more or less golf-like, but you haven't presented any evidence to that effect.

Give me a good reason and I'll drop it.

Would you agree that smaller diameter discs have been shown to fly farther along with thinner height, sharper rim and wider wing? Every spec proposed for SC limits those elements. It's that simple. Where we drew the lines hasn't been scientifically connected to specific distances any more than the specs for other disc classes. But we drew them as best we could from what we think we know. They could be somewhat off but certainly not any more than the weaknesses of some specs in other disc classes in that regard.

I agree that thinner height, sharper rim and wider wing discs often fly farther, but I don't think you can say that any one of those characteristics by itself is predictive of distance. I definitely don't agree that smaller diameter discs, by definition, fly farther. The Phenix took the distance record away from the Stingray and Aviar, even though it has a *wider* diameter. Bosses, Destroyers, Wraiths and Valkyries are essentialy the same diameter as Cheetahs, Dragons, Firebirds and Skeeters, yet the former group typically fly farther than the latter for average players.

I think the spurious correlation between diameter and distance has come from other factors. I would argue that the distance records of the 40-mold and 70-mold came as much from the increased weight or increased grams/centimeter of those discs over the Professional than from any difference in diameter. And the 40-mold is smaller in diameter than the Fastback, yet the Fastback has been thrown farther. I'm not convinced that smaller diameter equals longer distance. BTW, how far can you throw a mini?

One disc on the approved Super Class list (Te Moku) doesn't even meet the specs for rim configuration (74.5 and the limit is 75.0), and the Master doesn't have measurements for several of the specs. Why can't similar variances be granted to discs which clearly fly slow and hover like the other Super Class discs, but are just slightly smaller in diameter?

Is it just because "that's the way it's going to be?"

No variances have been granted. The Te Moko has been remeasured and the PDGA Excel specs not updated yet. They are updated on the list of discs in the Super Class article. I'm not sure why the Master doesn't have specs. Again, you're arguing for discs, not specs.

When you compare how a factor changes distance, you need to keep the other factors constant and just change one. It's unlikely that a larger diameter Aviar or Stingray of the same weight, height, rim config and wing width would fly farther than the smaller one. Change just one of these factors at a time: the height taller, the wing width narrower or the rim config fatter and I doubt you'll see the disc be thrown farther.

No variances have been granted. The Te Moko has been remeasured and the PDGA Excel specs not updated yet. They are updated on the list of discs in the Super Class article. I'm not sure why the Master doesn't have specs. Again, you're arguing for discs, not specs.




By what you just typed it would seem the PDGA argued for the Te Moko be adjusting the Specs so that it was legal!

No variances have been granted. The Te Moko has been remeasured and the PDGA Excel specs not updated yet. They are updated on the list of discs in the Super Class article. I'm not sure why the Master doesn't have specs. Again, you're arguing for discs, not specs.

When you compare how a factor changes distance, you need to keep the other factors constant and just change one. It's unlikely that a larger diameter Aviar or Stingray of the same weight, height, rim config and wing width would fly farther than the smaller one. Change just one of these factors at a time: the height taller, the wing width narrower or the rim config fatter and I doubt you'll see the disc be thrown farther.



The Te Moku is listed with a rim config of 74.5 in your article, Chuck. It's even highlighted in red.

It might be possible that if you make a disc smaller in diameter with everything else held constant it might fly farther, probably because of less wind resistance. But that's a flawed comparison. If you decrease the diameter I would argue that the weight should be decreased proportionally, and in that case I don't think you can say conclusively that the smaller disc would fly farther. Also, if your argument is correct why did the Fastback, with a larger diameter, have a longer distance record than the 40-mold?

And in terms of specs, how about this:

Rim diameter no less than 22.5cm
Rim Config no less than 75.0
Weight no more than 7.3g/cm with an absolute limit of 200g
Rim thickness no less than .8cm
Rim depth/diameter ratio of 6.6% or greater

What's wrong with that?

There's no justification for the 22.5 cm spec and it seems you're simply trying to justify the 40 molds and some others. Second, the 7.3 would mean a variety of molds would have different weight maximums depending on whether they were used for Super Class or bevel play and I said we won't do that.

Here's the JPG table Super Class Discs (http://api.ning.com/files/s5nv4CKb9kOlXGZ5JXyXMfH1A-50TGz*OeO7Axfo3iB4H8SBXO7oisjeSLcGRVc2C*JzZO2iYZgh GNBYHEPMes88vMCpjF4P/ProposedSCDiscs1108.jpg) that was in the article but Brian must have substituted an older table.

Man I wish you had to run for election or get a vote on these things instead of being a PDGA Czar.

My proposals are much tougher to get going than if I were on staff or elected because no programs get implemented without their approval. Super Class has already passed more checkpoints than many programs.

First, veterans of the game, Tech standards and ultimate who willingly joined the development group. Second, PDGA staff had to be sold. Third, manufacturers are either fine with or actively support the idea. Fourth, two sets of PDGA Board members have reviewed it at the spring and fall summits and support the effort. Fifth, actual players. Besides local players, I've been sharing this with players from MN to GA and to and from Worlds on driving trips and all have had fun with it. Sixth, we ran a test event which went well. Several of these people along the way were just as tough as the grilling I'm getting on here.

If I actually were a czar, life might be much easier. But then you wouldn't know that the programs had been vetted by many more people both hired and elected to consider the merit of the proposals and the interests of members.

Chuck, do you expect the J-Star to be approved for SuperClass play and if so, when?

At this point, we're allowing it as a waiver but Discraft may decide to submit it for PDGA approval to make it official. The advantage if they do it is they can make it in heavier weights than allowed for ultimate and it could become an even better putter for SC events, especially in wind.

Is the Hero Type 235 the "Super Hero" and if it is not, does the Super Hero meet the specs and can we use it for play?

I'm sending for the answer right now. The Hero Type 235 is the only mold officially approved for Super Class. However, Hero may have that mold used with some other names without the 235 in it.

Got the answer. These discs are all made from the Hero Type 235 mold and would be legal for Super Class. None are heavier than 140g and they say they don't plan to make them heavier at this point. SUPERHERO, SUPERSTAR, SUPERSWIRL, HERO AIR, HERO XTRA.

However, the SUPERSONIC and SONIC XTRA 215 are made from the smaller Sonic mold and are not legal for SC.

Thanks!

Have you or the PDGA been in contact with any doggie-disc manufacturers that make Fastback-type discs? I remember reading about a doggie disc that came in heavier weights and durable plastic.

At this point, we've only focused on Approved discs other than the J*Star which we discovered. Wham-O indicated they had several molds that had never been submitted for approval or might be modified to make competitive Super Class discs, so that could be interesting. Once we have the fianl specs approved, we want to contact the manufacturers to find out what discs on the list are still being made, and for that matter, do it for all approved discs so players know what's currently out there and what's only around on eBay.

Have you or the PDGA been in contact with any doggie-disc manufacturers that make Fastback-type discs? I remember reading about a doggie disc that came in heavier weights and durable plastic.



the Super Hero from Innova is basicly a Fastback in champion plastic

: ) :

I got some today and they're really sharp looking and easy to throw. A little light at 140g. But for our Super Class league starting in January, they might be the best discs to putt with so the DX plastic in other models doesn't crack on the metal baskets.

I thought I was about done with debating on this topic, until i saw this quote from Chuck on the "Ask Dave D" thread:


I was talking with Harold last night and we were thinking it would be a good challenge (should he choose to accept it) to see if Dave could come up with a Super Class design that could be thrown well with a forehand release since these discs in general are harder to control when thrown with power that way.



So, it's OK to encourage engineering of discs designs for Super Class that are specifically geared for disc golf and that make golf-style shots easier? I thought one of the important guidelines in the specification logic was that it was important to make sure that Ultimate-style lids were still competitive in Super Class. What will the Ultimate players who show up for the Super Class event with their lids think when they see regular disc golfers using the "Forehandor" or whatever it might be called? Seems to be out of line with the spirit of the specifications.

Chuck, please enlighten me?

Just because there are discs that are somewhat specialized for Super Class, and it's not clear how well that can be done, doesn't marginalize the ultimate discs. I fully expect ulty players to decide it's worthwhile to bring a J*Star for putting because it's a smaller diameter ulty disc. Likewise, many ulty players can actually throw a power forehand with ulty discs unlike a lot of disc golfers who are pretty weak with their forehand, even with a forehand disc.

I was wondering about your post as well. I pretty much thought Ultimate players could already throw forehands and thumbers with Ultimate discs. Disc Golfers should be able to forehand with the same discs.

Kind of like 150 class for Japan. It is a challenge, but not impossible, to putt in the wind with 150 class discs. It is just far easier to do it with a max weight Pig.

Yeah Chuck, instead of designing a shot specific disc which IMO would ruin the point worse than if the PDGA were to allow the gamending 40-Mold.

Make DGers learn to throw a forehand with lids and like you said before the Ultimate players already do it and I know I throw them better forehand then a golf disc and it isn't too hard.

I'll bet a 40-mold, Gopher or Whitler throw and fly more like an Ultimate disc than the unnamed "Super Class design that could be thrown well with a forehand release."

Yes, I understand, you drew a line in the sand on diameter. But since we're talking Ultimate (discs) here, isn't "spirit of the game" also important?

You guys want to go backwards from ultimate discs into Vintage. Been there. Done that. It's still being done there and will hopefully continue. Super Class is about ultimate discs as a baseline and getting somewhat but not too much better than that if possible. Ultimate discs will sort of be like the Buzz or Roc of Super Class. And hopefully any optimized or specialized Super Class discs won't be much more than Cobras or Stratus in relation to those. I think Barry and several other top pros have demonstrated they could beat most of us with simply a Roc or Buzz even on the longer courses.

If most players only want or need a single disc for Super Class, obviously the specs were a little to narrow to allow the variety of options we all enjoy in bevel discs. And certainly it doesn't appeal to the manufacturers. If the specs are too liberal, then it's possible a game ender can be developed which also wouldn't be good. There's only so much science available to back up the choices the group made. So we go with experience, testing and what we think will work. Then see what happens and tweak it if necessary.

There's only so much science available to back up the choices the group made. So we go with experience, testing and what we think will work. Then see what happens and tweak it if necessary.


Sounds eerily like our "system" for generating ratings, with the nagging exception that there is 100% valid, applicable mathematics out there that could be used for a sound round rating system. Unfortunately, whoever it is that is responsible for that facet of the org (who could that be?) chooses to employ constantly-tweaked black-box voodoo mathematics instead.

If only you were capable of understanding the math, but it's beyond some I guess. You need to start learning how to measure CTPs first, then move on from there. Baby steps...

Yeah Chuck, instead of designing a shot specific disc which IMO would ruin the point worse than if the PDGA were to allow the gamending 40-Mold.

Make DGers learn to throw a forehand with lids and like you said before the Ultimate players already do it and I know I throw them better forehand then a golf disc and it isn't too hard.

I sort of agree with Scooter. Learning to throw an Ultimate disc forehand is just a matter of learning a different technique. You have to release closer to the body with a shorter throwing motion and more hyzer angle. You don't need a different disc. I think you need more exacting form to throw forehand with an Ultimate lid than with a beveled edge golf disc.

If only I were capable of convincing some bunch of schmucks pay me to sling bogus numbers AND have the consumers (victims?) of those bogus numbers lap them up like sweet cream and drool in anticipation of the next bimonthly helping, then I'd be in business!

That's certainly fine to learn that and many ultimate players do. But we don't force players with bevel discs to throw forehand with understable discs if there are better choices. Harold and I really didn't know if the Super Class specs will even allow much flexibilty for design in the overstable direction. But I hope some of the manufacturers try.

I was talking to a few peole this weekend about the Super Class events and I was suprised that I was one of the few who actually planned on playing one just for the fun of it.

About half the guys thought it was too early for us to branch of with a different "sport" or thought that it was just lame.

Now some of these guys were better players than me and I was suprised to hear some of thier reasoning but I guess I can see where they are coming from but I just like to play frisbee no matter how big it is.

I don't expect a lot of good players to really go for Super Class right away. They've spent a lot of time getting to where they are focusing on golf discs. The really good players of all ages that have played for 10+ years will try and have tried Super Class because they are competitors who want to beat you at anything. Some of our best players from the past like Stokely and currently Randolph have top level disc skills beyond disc golf. Avery, Nate and Val had fun and did great with Super Class/Vintage plastic at the skill Games near Santa Cruz last year. Everyone will be welcome to play. If there's a Super Class event close by you, can't tell who will try it until it happens.

I don't expect a lot of good players to really go for Super Class right away. They've spent a lot of time getting to where they are focusing on golf discs. The really good players of all ages that have played for 10+ years will try and have tried Super Class because they are competitors who want to beat you at anything. Some of our best players from the past like Stokely and currently Randolph have top level disc skills beyond disc golf. Avery, Nate and Val had fun and did great with Super Class/Vintage plastic at the skill Games near Santa Cruz last year. Everyone will be welcome to play. If there's a Super Class event close by you, can't tell who will try it until it happens.




Ok well that begs for another question. Who is going to run these events and will current TDs be sent a summary or something of super class so that they can run an event?

I will probably run a non-PDGA but I have yet to see why someone would want to sanction such a "fun" type of event.

We're getting inquiries from all over the country including Beaumont. It's right on the sanctioning form where you indicate your X-tier is Super Class. It's a lower sanctioning fee than a C-tier, there's no $10 non-member fee and players get a new Super Class rating. Should be decent reasons to sanction. There's a Q&amp;A written for Super Class that Gentry hasn't had the chance to post yet.

We're getting inquiries from all over the country including Beaumont. It's right on the sanctioning form where you indicate your X-tier is Super Class. It's a lower sanctioning fee than a C-tier, there's no $10 non-member fee and players get a new Super Class rating. Should be decent reasons to sanction. There's a Q&amp;A written for Super Class that Gentry hasn't had the chance to post yet.



Nice well that might be one of my 1st events to try to run since it should be a little easier to deal with.

I need a 175 J-Star

Do you really expect any 1000 rated SC players? What is the SC ratings based off of? Our current ratings or something?

I ask because our current ratings are all based off of 20 Pros from 98' right?

SC Ratings and SCA (SSA) will be based off of propagators' current PDGA ratings for now. But once someone has an SC rating based on at least 8 rounds, just like regular props, we'll use your SC rating instead of your regular PDGA one. Timmy Gill played in the first event and he's the highest rated to play sanctioned SC so far. I'm running an SC league all winter starting on Jan 4th. So by spring we'll have several SC props here in MN.

Everyone of the almost 300 who played in the Cincy Pro Worlds became props immediately since they played 8 rounds in the prelims. That's why the 8 rounds is what we still use to determine props today.

It's a lower sanctioning fee than a C-tier, there's no $10 non-member fee and players get a new Super Class rating.



So SC gets the benefits with none of the cost?

Think of it as a coupon.

If it is successful, they will probably have to pay in 2010.

As it stands right now there are 0 SC events on the Michigan schedule which covers over 150 events.

I am not counting on it being very successful.

is the ching big heavy a disc that fits in the parameters of the tech specs for the superclass discs?


i was unable to find it on the approval list. :confused: :confused:

Mark, set one of these up on a Sunday and I'll come out and play you.

Wow, quite the thread! I wish I'd seen it earlier...
Spec argument aside, I think the exclusion of the Whitler from super class comes as a kick to the groin of a small company who affectively inspired this class. Like it or not, we were the first to produce an "old-school" disc in a modern material that was more durable and better stuck in the chains. Super Class is a fabulous idea, but one that should seriously consider the inclusion of relevant models already in production for the sake of supporting the whole industry.
Besides, if the designated specs weren't derived scientifically, then what is the problem with making special exceptions based on actual flight characteristics?

is the ching big heavy a disc that fits in the parameters of the tech specs for the superclass discs?


I believe it does and I think Ching is considering submitting it for approval.

Spec argument aside, I think the exclusion of the Whitler from super class comes as a kick to the groin of a small company who affectively inspired this class. Like it or not, we were the first to produce an "old-school" disc in a modern material that was more durable and better stuck in the chains. Super Class is a fabulous idea, but one that should seriously consider the inclusion of relevant models already in production for the sake of supporting the whole industry. Besides, if the designated specs weren't derived scientifically, then what is the problem with making special exceptions based on actual flight characteristics?



The Whitler does meet the specs for WFDF Vintage class so it already has a special classification along with several other smaller diameter, lighter weight discs with blunter rims.
www.wfdf.org/index.php?page=rules/rules_approved_discs.htm (http://www.wfdf.org/index.php?page=rules/rules_approved_discs.htm)
If someone wishes to sanction a Vintage Class X-tier, they are welcome to do so.

The Whitler and other smaller vintage discs were not the inspiration for Super Class. The bigger ultimate discs were. In fact, we excluded smaller diameters on purpose to prevent too much future distance optimization by manufacturers using the specs to create a super Super Class disc that kills the category and especially marginalizes ultimate discs. If you wish to produce a bigger diameter, heavier disc for Super Class, the specs are there to give it a shot.

You won't give 1/2 an inch will ya? (pun intended)

1.2 CM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please answer this:

Was this spec written to specifically DISALLOW the 40 mold &amp; Whitler or do you really think there are mad scientists out there trying to figure out how they can design a "killer" disc out there to ruin SuperClass with a 22.5 cm dia.?

Because I think it's the former as hard as you argue against it.


If you want SuperClass to be viable and more popular....I really think you should re-consider this spec to allow these discs that were prolific (40 mold) and that are still in production (Whitler).

It's easy to say that now when this spec is in the early stages. But if it does take off, we can hopefully avoid backpedaling if a manufacturer designs a 22.6 cm lid that goes 500 feet. Vintage Class for the 40 and Whitler has been out there for years in WFDF and is still available for PDGA X-tier events. In fact the PDGA sanctioned the Triple Class Challenge in the early 90s with regular, Vintage and 150 played in the same event.

A spec group needs to be about the specs and not specific discs. That's all we need is a lawsuit due to perceived manufacturer favoritism. If anything, it's good I may have never thrown a 40 mold and maybe a Whitler once because I don't have any nostalgia (wipes a tear away) regarding these old discs even though I had much pressure in the group regarding the 40 mold in particular. The 40 mold and Whitler can dominate vintage if anyone wants to run those events.

I think the fundamental argument against the specs for super class here is that the very fine line between vintage class and super class is illogical.
If the principal purpose of super class is to make typical par 3 courses more challenging while making the game of disc golf more accessable for new players, then approval of appropriate discs should be made according to how they fly as apposed to very specific dimension requirements. Secondly, overstability of golf discs is generally what turns the mentioned target groups off of disc golf, so how would producing an overstable disc approved under super class standards be in keeping with the expressed purpose of the class?

Ultimate discs meet the criteria AND there are twice as many members of UPA as the PDGA throwing Super Class discs who have the potential to practice their throwing skills playing Super Class events. The 40 mold has had 30 years or so to attract throwers. But Ultimate discs are what more and more people are throwing over that same time period. Makes more sense to go that direction given the vintage track record in the last 20 years. Like I said, if someone wants to put in the energy to revitalize vintage then go for it.

Ultimate discs meet the criteria AND there are twice as many members of UPA as the PDGA throwing Super Class discs who have the potential to practice their throwing skills playing Super Class events. The 40 mold has had 30 years or so to attract throwers. But Ultimate discs are what more and more people are throwing over that same time period. Makes more sense to go that direction given the vintage track record in the last 20 years. Like I said, if someone wants to put in the energy to revitalize vintage then go for it.



I'm sorry but this argument makes no sense to me. The Whitler and Ultrastar are essentially the same disc regardless of what your ruler tells you. As is, super class teeters on the edge of being so exclusive that it's bound to turn off disc golfers for the sake of trying to attract more ultimate players, which may not be achieved anyway.
Why not accommodate Ulti players and old school DG enthusiasts equally to better ensure the division's success?

chuck is the ching "big heavy " a quallifying disc that is not on the list of currently approved throw and catch modles for super class? i spoke to the folks at gotto go gotttothrow and they explain the disc as a max weight of 200 grams and the exact appearance of a ultimate style of shape. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

It's not approved yet and doesn't have an official waiver. You can always ask for the waiver on the sanctioning form and that will be up to Gentry to grant that. It's an X-tier so I don't see a problem because we allowed it at our test event in September. I don't think Ching has sent it in yet but we won't get official approval on the Super Class disc specs from the Board until Jan 7th at the earliest. Not sure if he's waiting for that.

the disc is already manufactured and available at those weights witch makes it easy to get and start playing with to get practice.
there isnt a tourny scheduled in the tulsa area yet but i was hoping that the city championship could include a couple of the little courses by playing those at superclass only rounds.

Why not accommodate Ulti players and old school DG enthusiasts equally to better ensure the division's success?



Based on what we've seen, there's no shortage of discs in the category already. Innova has already produced a new batch of heavy Zephyrs to support this initiative that will be available just after the first of the year. The Superhero in Champion plastic is really sharp and works nicely for uphill shots since it's just 140g. Discraft has heard from several promoters about getting discs for events. Not bad considering we're going into winter and it's not even officially 2009 yet.

As far as old school enthusiasts, most seem to be excited about this initiative and are lining up to run events even if they can't use some of their old favorites. If this is successful, maybe vintage can gain new life down the road, especially for kids and learning. But that can be someone else's initiative.

there isnt a tourny scheduled in the tulsa area yet but i was hoping that the city championship could include a couple of the little courses by playing those at superclass only rounds.


Great idea. You've got time to lobby Ching then. I'm sure they'd like to hear from people interested in the format, especially considering their new target design.

Whether you're willing to admit so or not, the super class criteria is unneccessarily exclusive and your argument in defence of it comes across as stubborn.
That said, I've already received orders for Whitlers specifically for Super Class events, so it seems the will of the people may eventually outway what I believe to be misguided logic.

This is not "my" logic but that supported by SC group members, manufacturers, PDGA Staff and Board members who have been involved in this process since last spring. And your company has been included in all correspondence relating to specs with nary a peep from you over the past 6 months ([email protected]). If it's determined that non-Super Class discs are used in any events, it just means all players in those events will not get Super Class ratings. It will just default to a regular X-tier. As I said before, there's nothing stopping people from running vintage events if they wish.

I have no record of receiving any such e-mail. What address was it sent from?

Possibly PDGA.com and ck34 @ aol.com. I lost my Send file records from before September. The most recent mailing in November regarding the proposed final specs was sent only to manufacturers who had PDGA approved discs that would qualify for Super Class. However, it was sent the same day the Super Class article was posted on the Home page of PDGA.com a few days before Thanksgiving so everyone had knowledge at that point of the discs that would be included.

The last e-mail I received from the PDGA was on July 23rd regarding the target survey, which our company participated in.
I have never received an e-mail from ck34 @ aol.com
I noticed the article on super class a short time ago and responded here shortly after discussing it with my partners. I probably didn't tune in as soon as I could have, but I don't have a lot of time for surfing the web.
I strongly feel the SC group should have made a greater effort to contact us about this. As I said in my first post on this topic, the PDGA should feel a commitment to supporting, and in the least involving, the whole disc golf industry.

The most recent mailing in November regarding the proposed final specs was sent only to manufacturers who had PDGA approved discs that would qualify for Super Class.


That seems a bit anti-competitive (businesswise). Say the standards czar had written into the "proposed" Super Class spec that the manufacturer's name had to begin with the letter "I", then followed that notification protocol. We'd have this "I"-only spec with no non-"I" manufacturer having ever heard of nor having been able to comment upon it.

I apologize if for some reason emails possibly got trapped by spam filters. It wouldn't be the first time since I've dealt with it for the target specs correspondence. All disc manufacturers were contacted regarding the first phase of this which was presented at the Spring Summit in early May. I think you can see by this dialog that no manufacturer is being favored by grandfathering nor being denied access to producing Super Class discs.

And since the specs are awaiting final approval, I would think manufacturers are being prudent and waiting for that approval before moving forward with any plans to produce new molds. No discs under 24 cm were even in discussions from the very beginning, thus the name Super Class for the largest diameter, heaviest weight and tallest height discs approved for PDGA play. That was and remains the concept for Super Class from the get-go. We would invite you to participate should you think it's worthwhile. But it will be under the ground rules that fit the intended concept for Super Class, which is not just a warmed over version of vintage.

The Vintage class has been there for 25+ years of PDGA existence. My question would be why manufacturers of those discs and the old school promoters haven't lobbied the PDGA to sanction it long ago?

Snap was activley making SC type discs for disc golf play when other companies were distancing themselves from larger diameter discs.

It really sucks that they won't be able to sieze the marketshare (as the specs are currently written) of the demand for larger rimmed discs when it was their "forte" without spending more money on new tooling for new models.

I feel bad for them. This is exactly the type of boost a new small company needs!

Reconsider the spec!

Their discs already meet two specs with one market vastly larger than Super Class will ever get. No violins needed. I'm really astounded at the desire to squeeze this disc and that disc into the spec. Must at least indicate some level of interest in the new format.

Their discs already meet two specs with one market vastly larger than Super Class will ever get. No violins needed. I'm really astounded at the desire to squeeze this disc and that disc into the spec. Must at least indicate some level of interest in the new format.





It also reminds everyone of how stubborn you and most of the higher ups are when it comes to listening to new ideas.

Super Class was a new idea that went through more levels of review and modification than many ideas and has moved forward with mostly volunteer efforts. Any other PDGA member could do the same thing with their ideas and yet very few follow through. I think Craig demonstrated that spirit with his "G Tier" effort. More should do the same if they wish to see things changed or improved.

Ok them we should take $1 from each entry and put it towards worlds and see how it works!

They have to be good ideas first. Contribute the amount of money toward worlds this year that you would expect to raise by taxing every player $1 per event and show everyone how much difference it makes and maybe you'll persuade them to do it the following year.