What type of data/numbers/ratings do you like to see to describe a disc?

I love the ratings Innova uses for TURN and FADE! The speed and glide are also very useful when doing comparisons to other discs. Gateway uses this four-number description as well. I know nothing about DGA disc ratings.

I love Discraft Plastic (Surge and Buzzz are all you need), but I have to say their disc stability rating system sucks! The one number thing is fairly useless and only provides a comparison against their other discs. They need to bite the bullet and upgrade to refelct the major components of a disc's flight. I do love that they publish a profile of the discs! That way I can see the flight plate, rim width, bead, and curvature. It is very useful for comparing discs with similar ratings and picking one that feels good.

Lastly, I like what Gotta Go Gotta Throw came up with for their power/skill rating. On a scale of 1-5, with higher numbers indicating the amount of power, speed, and skill the player has, they rate the disc according to the amount of power/speed/skill required by the player to make a disc perform to it's ratings (i.e. you need to be able to typically throw 350' to make a Crush turn slightly and fly as rated, or so on). It helps greatly to match the disc to the player. (I think this is much better than identifying discs as "beginner friendly" and whatnot)

So, my ideal rating would be a 5 number system (turn, fade, speed, glide, power level), along with a disc profile picture.

I find the Gotta Go Gotta Throw Universal Flight Chart
http://discgolf.gottagogottathrow.com/catalog/pdf/JoesFlightChart1.pdf

and the Marshall Street Flight Guide
http://marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/disc_golf_flightguide.html

FAR more informative and useful than the manufacturer's flight descriptions.

nanook

Tell us all (and the manufacturers) why those two are so much better. I know why ;)

Nanook, thanks for the links. Very helpful. I've been asking the Gateway guys for a flight chart of some kind. It's great that they have all these new discs coming out, but I have no idea how they fly.
I have to say that although it's not perfect, the flight charts from Innova work really well for me, and give me a pretty good idea of what I can expect a disc to do when it's broken in, or in some cases, new.
I stopped throwing discraft because I didn't like their system, too much guessword and trial and error (I have stacks of Discraft discs for sale because of this). And since I live way up in the freaking mountains (no DG shops up here!), I need as much info as possible to make purchasing decisions online. Innova's system works well for me.

PS. I forgot to ad, that Blakes chart has been a VERY useful reference. Blake ... you da'man! ;)

That's why I supplied the links ;), I figured people could reason it out for themselves! But to make it explicit: they contain all the info you mentioned AND their ratings seem to match my personal experience with discs I have thrown. Plus discs from ALL manufacturers can be compared directly using the same system.

Why do you like GGGT's chart?

These charts are ok, but I wish there was a chart that took into account more aspects... like what type of plastic the disc is. Some discs fly drastically different in different plastics. Also, I do not agree with the way some of the discs are rated such as an XD and classic roc being faster than a coyote. Overall, though, I do like the fact that people are starting to make universal flight charts and I can only see these getting more accurate.

That's why I supplied the links ;), I figured people could reason it out for themselves! But to make it explicit: they contain all the info you mentioned AND their ratings seem to match my personal experience with discs I have thrown. Plus discs from ALL manufacturers can be compared directly using the same system.

Why do you like GGGT's chart?



I like cartoons, ;)

The two charts that nanook refers too are "better" in our eyes (as players) because they are universal. They rate all discs of all manufacturers equally and across the board for a head to head comparison, using the same numbers.

I think what we need is a common rating system across manufacturers. The 5 number rating system along with a disc profile is what I suggest. I think it would greatly benefit those researching their purchases and new technologies. At the least, I hope Discraft steps up and identifies turn and fade at a minimum. They can simplify their mold by removing the number too.

Of course there are always differences that come into play, but you use general and commonly accepted rules of thumb.
For example...
Lighter, more understable
Flatter, more stable
More sleek and slick plastic, more stable
But, as far as variations in flight across plastic types, you know I really think a major contributor is the way the plastic settles in the mold and then cools afterwards, thus leaving more or less of a dome for a given mold.

Referring to "Joe's" flight chart... Anything that gives the Wraith and the Monster the same high speed stability is just plain straight wrong in my eyes.

I hope Discraft steps up and identifies turn and fade at a minimum. They can simplify their mold by removing the number too.


I'm not sure what you mean by this?

While I do agree that Discraft's rating system is not as detailed as Innova's, there are 2 things that they do which i greatly appreciate.
First, they put the rating on the disc. Do you carry around an updated version of Joe's flight chart with you?
Second, though unrelated to the current discussion, is they put the mold of the disc in the mold. This is extremely helpful if you dye discs or have anything that has lost it's hot stamp.

In order to have that number on the disc, they need to etch it into the mold. Thus if it wasn't on the disc, it would simplify their mold.

I don't see a need to have the number on the disc. I remember lots of little factoids though too, so maybe it's just me. Plus, after time, the disc gets beat in and you know how it flies - doesn't matter what the number says.

Put two numbers, turn and fade on the disc then if it really is a benefit to the players. The 1 number system doesn't mean anything. It is supposed to indicate an average across the flight, but an average of two numbers can vary greatly. Take a 1.5 disc (Flash, was originally 1.7 for those that remember). Does this mean that it turns -1 and fades 2 - for an average of 1.5? Or, does it fade 3 and turn 0 - again an average of 1.5. Do you see what I mean? How about the difference in an Avenger and a Crush, both 1.8? In my experience the Crush turns much less and they fly VERY different, but the rating is the same, so not knowing any better someone would pick them up and expect them to fly the same. It does make a lot of difference on the flight when you are trying to thread a disc through a narrow window or tunnel. Remember, I'm not bashing Discraft, I love their discs regardless of their system, but I think it could be made easier to use for the users.

-1 to 2 fade would be a .5, not a 1.5

-1 to 2 fade would be a .5, not a 1.5



No it wouldn't. The spread between 2 and -1 is 3, divided by 2 = 1.5

I see where you're going though, and this illustrates how the 1 number system falls short. I'd say by comparison, the flash is like a beast or sidewinder making turn -3, and fade about 1 or 2. The 1 number system only applies related to other discraft discs and cannot be compared to a turn and fade rating system.

-1 to 2 fade would be a .5, not a 1.5



No it wouldn't. The spread between 2 and -1 is 3, divided by 2 = 1.5




And then -1+1.5=.5

I'm wrong.

I would consider -1 turn and 1.5 fade to be a 0.5 disc (which would actually be 1.25 average the way I did it before). You're both right. I'm looking at in in a screwed up way, putting more emphasis on the amount of fade being kind of limited or set, but the amount of turn being the variable that is free to easily change. I was taking a shot at how the 1 number system is already set up, but didn't apply it well and only used it related to one disc that I had a predetermined conclusion about. I honestly don't know how it is supposed to apply to actual turn and fade numbers like Innova, other than slightly related to other discs - maybe it's a weighted average or something.

Consider a Flash at 1.5 and a Crush at 1.8 - what do those mean? Does the Flash turn more, fade less, or both?????

Consider a Flash at 1.5 and a Crush at 1.8 - what do those mean? Does the Flash turn more, fade less, or both?????



I don't know, all it tells me is that the Crush is .3 more "overstable" than a Flash. All I take from these numbers is that the crush requires a bigger arm to throw but nothing specific about the flight of either. I don't think disc flight is something that can be described with 1 number. Right now Discraft has 15 different drivers rated between 1.5 and 2.0. The z xs, z xl, and z cyclone are all rated 1.5 but I would imagine that there are flight differences between these 3 discs. The one thing I do like about discraft's rating system is that it takes stablity differences between plastics into account.

In order to have that number on the disc, they need to etch it into the mold. Thus if it wasn't on the disc, it would simplify their mold.



If the numbers are already etched into the mold, they would need to pay for their removal, which wouldnt make sense. If the numbers are on an inserted part of the mold, it wouldnt matter either way, aside from the cost of the shop's time to adjust the mold.

I'd like the idea of a universal flight characteristics board, to which manufacturers submit discs before giving them ratings. That way, manufacturers wouldn't feel the pressure to stick with their own antiquated ratings system just to avoid looking like copycats. I'd like to see one that includes all of the Innova ratings, plus something like the Range and power required stats from joe's list, plus some sort of way to differentiate discs according to weight and plastic. I think some disks behave very similarly accross weights and plastics, but some behave very differently. I think there should be a wind rating, too, for how well a disc keeps it's original characteristics in different types of winds. It sounds complicated, but I think players would like it and I think we could get used to it.

With that said, I'll accept free discs from manufacturers to come up with my own ratings system.

With that said, I'll accept free discs from manufacturers to come up with my own ratings system.



I second that! I volunteer to receive 3 of each type of disc, in each plastic, at 150 165 170 175g. I will develop a Universal Rating system. All trials will be videotaped, all data recorded and trednded electronically for ease of use. ALl end results will be published in a user friendly format providing equal comparison for all discs!