Dave D. noted on his thread with respect to the new Destroyer that he was reluctant to release it because of the wider rim. He noted that he felt that the PDGA should set some limitations with regard to wing length. Longer wings, like heavier weights, make a disc more torque resistant. As wings get wider, the only players reaping the benefits are those that throw many times harder than the average player. So in effect, at this point making the wings any longer on golf discs are simply going to allow the big guns to throw harder and farther. This is the exact same issue that originally caused the PDGA to set weight limits, so is it time for us to step up and set wing length restrictions?

I see longer wings as a problem. Disc golf should not be a power-first sport. To me, watching my fiance throw a 164g disc smoothly 275' is a beautiful thing. However, watching some athletic guy huk a chunk of plastic into orbit is not such a "smooth" image. Golf is about being smooth. Golf is about controlled power. Giving the big guns discs that they can be "less smooth" with and still get bigger results is not the direction this sport should be heading, and if the man making the discs and profit (Dave D.) is sounding an alarm, we should listen.

I believe this was being discussed during the last meeting along with the fate of the Turbo Putt. I doubt the minutes will be put up until after pro worlds though.

definitely an idea to consider.

I believe this was being discussed during the last meeting along with the fate of the Turbo Putt



What's wrong with throwing a disc "turbo" style?

The disc (http://www.marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/proddetail.asp?prod=turbo%2Dputt%5Fsrp&cat=120) , not the throwing style.

"As wings get wider, the only players reaping the benefits are those that throw many times harder than the average player"

this is a false premise. those wide rim discs can be used to great advantage by just about anyone for sharp hooks, skip shots and short 2-fingers - just to name a few shots any level/strength can throw.

by this reasoning, there should be height/strength restrictions on NBA players, and the basket should be lowered so that six foot white guys (me) can dunk.

this particular reason is fake science. if rim widths are to be limited, an objective justification needs to be much better established.

The disc (http://www.marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/proddetail.asp?prod=turbo%2Dputt%5Fsrp&cat=120) , not the throwing style.



Thanks for clearing that up.

i believe Dave Dunipace designed the modern golf disc partly out of similar concerns -- blunt frisbee-style discs were getting heavier and heavier to deal with wind, etc. and the biggest arms were being disproportionately favored.
(ironicly Mr. Dunipace was himself one of those favored, himself a former distance world record holder using a blunt-edged disc) Safety too is a concern (hence weight limits). while theoretically not having any design restrictions may be pleasing, we really need to seriously consider limiting wing width and also i believe we should outlaw designs like the Epic which are assymetrically weighted and therefore diverge too far from what a disc is imo (from what i gather they also open the slippery slope to designs which become decidedly un-frisbee like).

i am sure the golf ball has some serious design restrictions placed on it by the PGA, and manufacturers with creative bents funnel their creativity to fit within the established guidelines...

"As wings get wider, the only players reaping the benefits are those that throw many times harder than the average player"

this is a false premise. those wide rim discs can be used to great advantage by just about anyone for sharp hooks, skip shots and short 2-fingers - just to name a few shots any level/strength can throw.

--I was talking about the distance advantage, but even for the shots you are talking about, average players would NOT reap the benefits. Average players not will be able to throw longer winged discs any faster than they can throw a Wraith. There is a limit to how fast discs can become with respect to how fast humans can actually throw. Current disc speeds are at the upper reaches of what average throwers can achieve.--

by this reasoning, there should be height/strength restrictions on NBA players, and the basket should be lowered so that six foot white guys (me) can dunk.

--Wrong. There are set limits in every sport based on ideals of how the sport should play. As people are becoming more athletic, sometimes these limits change. Baskets are 10', not 12'. Why? The ball is of specific dimensions. Do you think that this is just random? The NBA administration has kept close restrictions on equipment to preserve the "essence" of the game. Other sports have all done likewise.--

this particular reason is fake science. if rim widths are to be limited, an objective justification needs to be much better established.

--I don't know how many scientists are doing empirical research on disc golf...I believe Mr. Dunipace is about the best we have. If he believes longer wings will primarily benefit big arms, I believe him. He is no doubt going to sell all the Destroyers he produces, so I don't see a covert interest on his part to limit the advancement of disc technology by taking this position.--


<font color="green"> </font> <font color="blue"> </font> <font color="red"> </font> <font color="red"> </font> <font color="red"> </font>

Is the premise of this argument that restrictive action should be taken because average players could not match the results of better players using the same equipment? That only big arms can achieve good distance with a wide rimmed disc?

This no-disc-golfer-left-behind philosophy is poppycock. A big arm on ocassion is going to throw a putter farther than I can throw a driver. Is this the fault of the disc? It seems like distance can be reached by raw power but also by expertise. A player who has maximized their throwing technique has an advantage over many other players, regardless of the disc. In all cases it is always the skills of the player that makes the difference more than the qualities of the disc. A wider rim is not an unfair advantage.

Are there options available for all players? Yes, there are hundreds of different types of discs to choose from. If one of them is unsuited to a player then they should try another.

Watching anyone throw for max distance is an impressive and inspiring thing. I think that seeing the champions of the sport or unknown locals huk a chunk of plastic into orbit *is* awesome. Yes, watching your fiance throw is nice too but it is a different kind of pleasant.

I do not have an opinion as to the technical specifications of golf discs. I am not the kind of engineer who can provide rationales for appropriate radiuses, weights, or rim widths. I do have an opinion when it comes to the idea that we should limit some characteristic because it is believed that only a few would benefit from it.

I throw sidearm. I have long arms and long fingers. I can easily throw a disc with a rim width of 1" greater than any golf disc I have held (most recently the Destroyer). I would argue that wide rim discs are favorable to sidearm throwers. Should we retrict the width of the rim for this reason too or just because a powerful and skilled player can throw it farther than I can?

Disc golf is a game of a thousand types of shots. An above average player, one who can reach max distance and one also who can throw with greater accuracy, will be able to throw a myriad of shots. For each throw, for each different lie, a different disc may be better suited. Why? Because the characteristics of that disc, and the knowledge and experience that the player has had with that disc, make it the best disc for the shot. Does rim width really affect this so much? Is it unfair? I do not believe so.

The main thing that I am talking about is torque resistance and off-axis torque. Hopefully Dave D. or someone else will provide a more technically accurate definition, but here's how I understand it. All discs will turn in the direction of the spin if given enough torque. The amount they resist this turn is called torque resistance. Discs also have a tendency to stable themselves out if thrown slightly off-axis and not too hard. Throwing off-axis is visible when the disc leaves your hand with any sort of wobble. It comes from an improper grip or a mistimed release. Some discs resist turn and iron out off-axis torque better than others. These discs tend to be fast, overstable, and have the majority of their mass distributed on the outside of the rim.

Adding mass to any disc design in proportion will make it more torque/off-axis torque resistant. As you increase the mass of any disc proportionally, it will become more torque resistant. What this means is that as discs get heavier they can be thrown harder and more off-axis and still fly stable. In the early stages of disc golf the manufacturers and players decided that if restrictions were not made on the mass of discs with respect to diameter then the game would suffer. It would become a game based more on POWER than SKILL. Golf by nature is a skill over power game. Power still has a place, but behind skill. Are PGA pros big athletes? No, because skill is still paramount and is less dependent on pure athleticism.

Dave Dunipace has suggested that wing length is related to torque resistance in much the same way as mass is related to torque resistance. So if we have mass restrictions based on their relationship to torque resistance, then why is wing length any different? Let SKILL rule!

then just give everyone a Magnet or Glide or whatever one mold you think if the least detrimental to the sport, and let skill rule, right? that would be the ultimate fairness, wouldnt it?

disc golf is about flying wings, gyroscopic and centrifugal forces, wind and lift. that flying wings can be constructed in many configurations is part of the beauty of the sport.

since the TP stuff, i've thought about this a good bit. one idea that came to mind is to have two tracks - one that restricts discs to certain parameters, and the other that allows a far wider range. this might appeal to both the "no golfer left behind" and "dont stop progress, we dont know everything yet" schools.

then just give everyone a Magnet or Glide or whatever one mold you think if the least detrimental to the sport, and let skill rule, right? that would be the ultimate fairness, wouldnt it?



<font color="blue"> Pat, there is a middle ground. Purists once said that if triangle shaped rims were allowed it would ruin the sport. ironicly Dave D. was a big guy with a big arm who could throw the super heavy blunt-edged discs a lot better than most (distance record holder, disc golf world champion) yet he saw that it became less about skill than it was about who could heave those big suckers. Dave came up with a new design but when Wham-O wouldn't build his design and most people said his idea was nuts, Dave started Innova and came up with a new design that revolutionized disc golf and created a market in which Innova, and later Discraft and Gateway, etc., have done pretty well (rather than ruining the sport). given that, i agree new designs can be good, but i also think there should be limitations. what rim size do you want to allow -- 3 inches? what weight? 500 grams? :o:eek: </font>


disc golf is about flying wings, gyroscopic and centrifugal forces, wind and lift. that flying wings can be constructed in many configurations is part of the beauty of the sport.

<font color="blue"> i agree, but i think that should occur within certain restrictions. are you in favor of aerobies being PDGA legal? </font>

since the TP stuff, i've thought about this a good bit. one idea that came to mind is to have two tracks - one that restricts discs to certain parameters, and the other that allows a far wider range. this might appeal to both the "no golfer left behind" and "dont stop progress, we dont know everything yet" schools.

[/QUOTE]

<font color="blue"> TP stuff? can you elaborate on how that would work? would only the restricted track be PDGA-legal and the other track be for non-sanctioned play? :p </font>

triangle shaped rims wouldnt fly so well, so why fear them? no sane mfg would do it.

i think both tracks would be PDGA legal, but one would be for purists and the other more experimental/progressive.

tv cameras are not complain if big strong men are chunking amazing shots.

heck you just gave me an idea... i'm gonna require shotouts to be a lot lighter. heck, i can barely get 10 feet out of that big ol ball. it just aint fair :( :)

It would become a game based more on POWER than SKILL. Golf by nature is a skill over power game. Power still has a place, but behind skill. Are PGA pros big athletes? No, because skill is still paramount and is less dependent on pure athleticism.



Above all disc limitations you need to look at course design. You can make a disc fly +500" all you want, but it's the skill part of the game that comes in when you make a hole that plays 250" tight anhyzer then through a 30" gap 250" hyzer with ob sand bunkers on both, short left and right landing areas before the green and ob water 40" behind the basket. Everyone can throw near 250" making the above hole reachable in 3. The players with skill and accuracy will make it around the bend and within birdie chance. Also a missplaced second shot by these upper atheletes would end up being a four. As courses begin to change they will aliviate the advantage of big arms and disc technology. Course design should be the focus over all else and will come in the future........hopefully.

Out of curiosity, have you played many courses in different regions of the US? On the front range of Colorado (i.e., the plains) we don't have much to work with for course design. The natural terrain is all flat, wide open desert grasslands. We do our best to put trees in when we can, but trees are expensive and watering is even more expensive. Two of the most frequent complaints that I hear about some of our courses are that "it's just hyzer after hyzer" and "it's just wide open bomb after wide open bomb". These types of courses, while designed for the terrain, still favor the players who can throw farther rather than those who can throw with more accuracy. It's only the putts that separate the "men from the boys."

With no limits on the wing, what's to keep disc manufacturers from taking us to a discus? I didn't see anything in the tech specs that disallows this. However, I'm not sure what "rim configuration rating" is and that's the only thing I thought might touch on it.

By the way, feet is a single quote, inches is a double quote. 5' = five feet, 5" = five inches.

Have you ever heard of a mando??
Grow a cactus and call it a mando.
Grow two and it'll be a double mando.
Pour some concrete paths around your fairways and make them on and over OB(subsitute concrete for gravel, mulch, duct tape, H3ll dig a ditch, or whatever is availale/affordable in Colorado). I'm just saying a well designed course can favor accuracy over distance, and the more courses to favor that will dictate the future of disc design. No I haven't played courses across the country, but there's multiple courses that play to different advantages in my area, and the big arms don't always win.

It would become a game based more on POWER than SKILL. Golf by nature is a skill over power game. Power still has a place, but behind skill. Are PGA pros big athletes? No, because skill is still paramount and is less dependent on pure athleticism.



Above all disc limitations you need to look at course design. You can make a disc fly +500" all you want, but it's the skill part of the game that comes in when you make a hole that plays 250" tight anhyzer then through a 30" gap 250" hyzer with ob sand bunkers on both, short left and right landing areas before the green and ob water 40" behind the basket. Everyone can throw near 250" making the above hole reachable in 3. The players with skill and accuracy will make it around the bend and within birdie chance. Also a missplaced second shot by these upper atheletes would end up being a four. As courses begin to change they will aliviate the advantage of big arms and disc technology. Course design should be the focus over all else and will come in the future........hopefully.



agree. And since when did throwing it 500ft get strokes taken off your score? You have to throw it accurately, throw an approach then putt. If a hole is 600ft, even a controlled player can throw 350ft then be left with a 250 upshot which shouldn't be a hard task for a control player. And have people forgotten that the world record was set with a basic dx valkyrie over 800ft? Valkyrie= speed 9//

I'm not sure there were any faster discs back when 250m won Big D in the Desert...but glide has to win out at 600'+ and downwind. :eek:

I throw sidearm. I have long arms and long fingers. I can easily throw a disc with a rim width of 1" greater than any golf disc I have held (most recently the Destroyer). I would argue that wide rim discs are favorable to sidearm throwers. Should we retrict the width of the rim for this reason too or just because a powerful and skilled player can throw it farther than I can?

IMO the wider rim drivers have more of a tendency to turn over when thrown sidearm but you can definitely get a lot more distance with them if they dont.

So, if you can't put enough torque on it, drop your weight class and it will zero out your equation. Therefore the big arms gain distance, and the little arms do - just in a different weight class.

I don't think there should be any restrictions on discs. So long as they are available to everyone what is the big deal. The turbo putt should have neveer been banned. Is saftey really an issue ? You aren't supposed to throw into the grounp ahead of you anyway. does this mean that the casual player won't still do this? No and will a disc at 180 grams do less damage that a disc at 220 grams I don't think so. Dave D. needs to stop complaining about poeple who are pushing the envelope of disc design if he is afraid then let him be .So long as we let the inmates run the assylum progress will be limited.

I don't think it is progress to make all of our courses obsolete. I think it is incredibly shortsighted to think that if they make a disc that flies farther somehow that gives you an advantage on the competition. All it does is make courses that were designed for existing disc standards obsolete.

Progress at what price? Standards in many sports are more about retaining the integrity of the game and records than safety although that's part of it. Why shouldn't we be able to also use round balls, footballs or pillows for specialty shots? If you draw a line anywhere then it's just a matter of deciding where the line gets drawn.

Most sports are more restrictive already than disc golf and it doesn't seem to be hurting their games. Some like golf where they didn't draw the lines tight enough is suffering major issues that involve major dollars for course redesign to keep the game somewhat like that originally intended.

Don't believe that Dave and Innova can't match or outdo any competitor in the design area if they want to. They have indicated that they have had several wayout designs in evaluations for many years that would bend the existing guidelines. However, as stewards of the sport as much as any other old timers, they also don't believe these designs are appropriate and warp the game in ways that change its nature as much as the wedge rim forever changed the "Frisbee" version of this sport of the 70s.

[..] if rim widths are to be limited, an objective justification needs to be much better established.



Also noted by Dave D was the fact that these wide rimmed, high speed discs fly far more dangerously missile-like, especially when thrown tommy or thumber.

If one's head is buried in sand there's little chance of it being struck by a disc flying at high speed, but not everyone is so fortunate to live in such a state :)

You think there would be a significant difference in damage from being hit by a Valk vs. a Destroyer? Maybe we should ban all drivers? If you want to impose a limit in the name of fairness, that's fine. But the safety argument is a joke.

Safety has not been the direct reason for the guidelines since they can't be proven directly nor would we want to touch that liability hornet's nest. General principles such as lighter, less sharp and jagged of a rim are safer intuitively and can still make sense for guidelines even if those combinations can't be precisely measured for their safety factor.

Progress at what price? Standards in many sports are more about retaining the integrity of the game and records than safety although that's part of it. Why shouldn't we be able to also use round balls, footballs or pillows for specialty shots? If you draw a line anywhere then it's just a matter of deciding where the line gets drawn.

Most sports are more restrictive already than disc golf and it doesn't seem to be hurting their games. Some like golf where they didn't draw the lines tight enough is suffering major issues that involve major dollars for course redesign to keep the game somewhat like that originally intended.

Don't believe that Dave and Innova can't match or outdo any competitor in the design area if they want to. They have indicated that they have had several wayout designs in evaluations for many years that would bend the existing guidelines. However, as stewards of the sport as much as any other old timers, they also don't believe these designs are appropriate and warp the game in ways that change its nature as much as the wedge rim forever changed the "Frisbee" version of this sport of the 70s.



Yawn!

I don't buy this argument either. There is already a flying object out there that makes all our current courses obsolete. It's called the flying ring. I'll tell you what, we can give a flying ring to you and I'll bet all the loose change in my pocket that any top rated Pro will still mop you up on any course.

Flying objects have certain characteristics. To get a disc to fly farther you have to give up something. In the case of the flying ring, you give up stability and the ability to throw down and stay on a given path. That is, you lose accuracy. Such things are easily compensated for even in today's courses, tighter fairways for example.

I do not deny that there are some things you can do with the ring to gain an advantage, especially on big open holes. But that would simply mean that the short game would come to the forefront of our sport since all players could throw longer. Hmmmm, not such a bad idea.

People talk about disc design obsoleting our courses. I'm pretty confident that you are a proponent of making our sport more attractive to viewers. Wouldn't a 700 foot drive be more attractive to a viewing audience? So the nature of the game changes a bit, but what really matters, upshots and putts, aren't going to change. Either you are accurate or you're not.

As for records, shirley you jest. What records we have are young records. We've just started this sport. Changing the parameters so that the records change is not going to hurt this sport. More so, when our top distance records are set throwing downwind in the desert I have to wonder how serious we are about really setting and holding records.

The fundamental question is at what particular point in time and technology evolution does a game become "stable" enough to be a sport where players can count on developing skills relevant to competing at the highest levels on venues that challenge those skills? At some point those in charge of the sport make the call so that in theory, the parameters of the game/sport essentially remain the same over time. I'd say that soccer is a good example where the fundamental parameters of the sport have been essentially the same for a long time.

The fundamental question is at what particular point in time and technology evolution does a game become "stable" enough to be a sport where players can count on developing skills relevant to competing at the highest levels on venues that challenge those skills? At some point those in charge of the sport make the call so that in theory, the parameters of the game/sport essentially remain the same over time. I'd say that soccer is a good example where the fundamental parameters of the sport have been essentially the same for a long time.



More HP. Soccer, haven't you heard about the new shoes that allow you to "Bend it Like Bec.?" They have a grippier (this aught to be a word) upper that grabs the ball putting more torque on it. Also, take golf. It's how old and yet still evolving.

People get caught up in the "tradition" of the game and thus try and limit it. I think only one limit matters, does the change make the game more boring? The new tennis rackets have ruined the game. They've killed the volley. Every shot is a kill shot. This makes the game boring.

Longer drives don't make the game boring unless you don't adjust your courses. They actually make the game more exciting. There is the added risk of things going astray and the added glory of huge shots off the Tee. How can a man who supports the leaping jump putt for it's excitement value not support this?

Let's not strive for no change, let's strive for better change.

Change is inevitable. We need to manage it wisely.

On balance, I have yet to hear a persuasive reason why the PDGA should NOT rewrite the standards to inhibit the evolution of longer flying drivers. It has been brought up multitudes of times: longer flying divers are making existing great courses obsolete.

Lyle, pointing out that an aerobie exists and wouldn't make present courses obsolete is irrelevant nonsense as it does nothing to rebut the actual fact that farther flying discs HAVE made many courses obsolete. This is the issue, it cannot be sidestepped by noting that an aerobie is hard to control.

The fact that we are losing good courses is persuasive enough for the governing body to act. It would be a responsible action.

better flying midranges cause "course obsolescense" too. should we outlaw everything except X plastic? those esp meteors sure make my upshots better! was the turbo putt obsoleting anything, except common sense? the Wheel did not obsolete anything at all, but after passing all physical tests, it got rejected on an interpretation. throw lengths are a convenient cover, but there has been no empirical evidence presented to back up these claims of obsolecense

On what interpretation did the Wheel get rejected?

You are confused about the topic of this thread, it is about limits on wing length (I love these technical terms I don't understand) and thus about how far drivers fly. The other crutches you mentioned are topics for other threads. I never claimed "making courses obsolete" as a reason to address those things.

btw. changes in midranges have not, in any way, made any courses obsolete. That's just another mistaken observation thrown in to derail the argument.

on the interpretation that the current tech specs require an "upper" flight plane and that to qualify as an upper flight plane, said plane must be at the top of the rim instead of sunk below the rim, and especially that it cannot be equidistant from the top and bottom of the rim.

james, you are probably correct about that. def. correct about the use of obsolescense being used even though it is devoid of any data. i didnt pioneer the that technique though :)

on the interpretation that the current tech specs require an "upper" flight plane and that to qualify as an upper flight plane, said plane must be at the top of the rim instead of sunk below the rim


How do Innova's Thumtrac &amp; Discraft's Groove Top (GT) conform with this interpretation?

one can only assume they conform to that interpretation, since they are still legal.

If one is to use that portion of the tech standards as the test, I think it would take some limber mental gymnastics to argue that the Wheel is non-conforming and that Thumtrac &amp; GT are conforming.

No gymnastics at all. The depressions on those discs start past the curve of the rim to the top of the disc and have a smooth transition. The TSC also has no problem with depressions below the top surface, only with restricting projections above the top surface. The difference between a raised ripple like say the reverse of the GT groove versus what a projection is was discussed and may come down to determining how fast the radius of the curve changes to differentiate between the two.

Frankly, I would be perfectly fine with having a specific disc design similar to the limits in Ultimate, as the only one used in our sport. It could be different weights, colors and plastics similar to events like one disc challenges. It would standardize the sport similar to those with the same ball specs no matter where you play.

No gymnastics at all.



may come down to determining how fast the radius of the curve changes to differentiate between the two.


Those two statements are obviously incompatible. Unless the acceptable rate of change of the curve is quantified (and if it is, show me where), it takes Olympic-level gymnastics to claim that Wheel, Thumtrac, &amp; GT are not identical designs &amp; should not be accepted or denied en masse.

If The Wheel center disc was not centered in the rim, it would come closer to the current definition of a flight plate which is a disc with a descending rim around the outside edge of it. Since The Wheel has no defined top, it automatically misses the mark. If it was shifted upward, then it would be a disc with a ring projecting above the flight plate and could be evaluated in light of that. The proposed guideline for projections is no more than 3mm (~1/8 inch) to allow things like gripper pads, rings of Headrick and lettering to be molded in the top of current and future models.

yes it does. the top flight plate is the side away from the ground. this is not rocket science. (or needn't be).

If The Wheel center disc was not centered in the rim, it would come closer to the current definition of a flight plate which is a disc with a descending rim around the outside edge of it. Since The Wheel has no defined top, it automatically misses the mark. If it was shifted upward, then it would be a disc with a ring projecting above the flight plate and could be evaluated in light of that. The proposed guideline for projections is no more than 3mm (~1/8 inch) to allow things like gripper pads, rings of Headrick and lettering to be molded in the top of current and future models.


The US judge gives that mental gymnastics routine a 2.5.

can't resist can you VR? probably been hitting the capsaicin again too. ;) /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

You are confused about the topic of this thread, it is about limits on wing length (I love these technical terms I don't understand) and thus about how far drivers fly. The other crutches you mentioned are topics for other threads. I never claimed "making courses obsolete" as a reason to address those things.

btw. changes in midranges have not, in any way, made any courses obsolete. That's just another mistaken observation thrown in to derail the argument.



I'm curious, can you show me the experimental results that show that longer wings result in longer flight?

The fact that courses - "good" as you define them - have become obsolete and could become obsolete with the introduction of further flying discs is irrelevant unless your argument is about the ability to address that issue. That is, the sport is static and no course can ever be adjusted and we have no ability to make better (i.e. longer) courses. You're avoiding the real question, does the change make the sport better or worse? I would argue that longer flying discs make the sport better.

I would argue that longer courses make the sport worse because the space required is greater. The sport is more about accuracy than power. The spectacle is more about power. I could argue that the existing sport was destroyed by the introduction of the wedge discs. Had they been disallowed, we could potentially have many more courses than we do now since less space would be required for challenging par 4s &amp; 5s with catch plastic. More courses and access for more players might mean that pros would be farther along than they are now in terms of money earned. It would also be easier and less expensive to video the competitions.

can't resist can you VR? probably been hitting the capsaicin again too. ;) /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


I really can't. It's the cyber-equivalent of being bored at the shore &amp; seeking out the 98-pound weakling for a little battering. Only in this case, the 98-pounder thinks he's the beefiest stud on the beach.

BTW - nice call on the cap, omniscient one. Chipotle veggie fajita with 3 datils added for lunch today. Yummmmmmm :o

I have already admitted that I don't know jack about what "wing length" really is. I have already said that I assume it is an important variable in how far a disc flies. If this is not true, then obviously, changing wing length has nothing to do with course obsolescence. Personally, I didn't realize that "wing length is related to distance" was ever in question, and no, I didn't come prepared with peer reviewed studies proving an assumption I took for granted.

Your second paragraph is odd. I don't view longer distances as better or worse for the sport. I think it is folly to try to assume what might might interest some non-existent spectator class. As for the present spectator class, like the past spectator class, consisting mainly of golfers, I bet the wow factor of Stokely bombing a 1995 vintage disc equals that of Sandstrom bombing a 2007 vintage disc.

Course obsolescence is a common sense concern. Maybe, some courses can be expanded, and then expanded, and then expanded yet again to keep up with disc changes, but most courses cannot. Furthermore, it is costly for disc golf as a whole to continually find bigger parks or properties, redesign holes, and modify the landscape to keep up with disc changes. I have no aesthetic preference between a well-designed 2007 course or a well-designed 1995 course, but every reasonable person can agree that the sport's investment costs incurred will be far less if fewer courses need to be lengthened.

On a grand scale, the technical standards have far reaching effects on the industry as a whole. Addressing the issue will drastically reduce overall costs for course construction. Doing nothing will either require costly upgrades or result in obsolete courses. Seems like the responsible decision is obvious.

I'm not sure that's relevant or true Chuck. Why in the world would there be more or less courses because of the wedge disc? Whether a course goes in or not is based more on the efforts of a handful of locals than on the shape of the discs involved. We've seen clearly that even today, players will put in short fairly bad - relative to the wedged disc - courses when given the opportunity. As for the more money argument, I'm not biting.

Then perhaps you haven't installed a course before? Check out the acreage guidelines on this PDGA site: www.pdga.com/documents/AcreageChart.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/AcreageChart.pdf)

Tell me that land doesn't amount to real dollars for a given level of course. This is based on existing discs. For catch discs, perhaps two courses could fit in the space of one today. More importantly, I've not been able to install a course in more places than I've installed them because they didn't have enough acreage even for a 9-hole course. With catch discs, not only could you have many more courses, but they could use more space efficiently from a safety standpoint since you wouldn't have to provide as much of a buffer from other areas in the layout.

I have already admitted that I don't know jack about what "wing length" really is. I have already said that I assume it is an important variable in how far a disc flies. If this is not true, then obviously, changing wing length has nothing to do with course obsolescence. Personally, I didn't realize that "wing length is related to distance" was ever in question, and no, I didn't come prepared with peer reviewed studies proving an assumption I took for granted.

Your second paragraph is odd. I don't view longer distances as better or worse for the sport. I think it is folly to try to assume what might might interest some non-existent spectator class. As for the present spectator class, like the past spectator class, consisting mainly of golfers, I bet the wow factor of Stokely bombing a 1995 vintage disc equals that of Sandstrom bombing a 2007 vintage disc.

Course obsolescence is a common sense concern. Maybe, some courses can be expanded, and then expanded, and then expanded yet again to keep up with disc changes, but most courses cannot. Furthermore, it is costly for disc golf as a whole to continually find bigger parks or properties, redesign holes, and modify the landscape to keep up with disc changes. I have no aesthetic preference between a well-designed 2007 course or a well-designed 1995 course, but every reasonable person can agree that the sport's investment costs incurred will be far less if fewer courses need to be lengthened.

On a grand scale, the technical standards have far reaching effects on the industry as a whole. Addressing the issue will drastically reduce overall costs for course construction. Doing nothing will either require costly upgrades or result in obsolete courses. Seems like the responsible decision is obvious.



What costs? I doubt sincerely that the cost, based on a park model, is significantly effected by length. Baskets and Tees cost the same unless you add holes. Most areas that get set aside for courses are minimal use areas. You can argue about mowing costs but if the park has the area they're mowing it anyway. On top of that, we've modified the courses at Tom Bass numerous times. The cost was minimal and I'd argue good for the local disc golf community. They were well within the limits of repair and rebuild operations that would have happened anyway.

The solution to longer flights and controlling the game is evident in the USDGC. Rope and boundaries will limit the disc use and how the game is played.

BTW - the bloom of technology that is so feared here is being experienced in Bolf too. I still notice small cruddy Bolf courses doing fine (outside of the fact that the sport overbuilt). You are thinking of an overnight revolution and our having to deal with it immediately, nothing could be farther from the truth. It appears you have some perception that there is a significant difference between a 1995 disc and a 2007 disc. I'm not convinced that is true. For my game, I find minor differences in the distances between discs from 10 years ago and those made now. I include the wider rimmed discs in general, although I've not thrown the vaunted Destroyer as of yet. If you are going to argue that there is a problem, then you should be able to prove it.

I'll read your doc later Chuck. I don't know what is happening elsewhere, but I know what happens here. A Course going in is more about local players hounding local park managers and getting them to commit. For them the cost structure in minimal compared to other things.

It's not the cost directly in the case of public land, but how much is available. And more importantly, since there are guidelines for what percentage of park acreage can be Active Use, Passive Use and Natural, the exact acreage for DG or other sports can be critical for approval. Of course, last I knew Houston didn't have much in terms of zoning laws and may not have those requirements. With private courses being the only way some areas can get more courses, the actual cost of land and the property taxes will be crucial to viable economics for disc golf in many places.

Hey, if you can't understand the difference between the 1995 disc and the 2007 disc, and if you don't understand that additional land costs money and must be fought for between other potential users, or if don't realize that many holes have already become obsolete, even at Bass, then discussion with you is pointless.

"Addressing the issue will drastically reduce overall costs for course construction. "

really? i think that claim is a)dubious, and b) misses the point that courses can be toughened up without increasing distance. a few well placed shrubs or trees can easily take away any distance advantage (real or perceived) the newer discs bring.

a few well placed shrubs or trees can easily take away any distance advantage (real or perceived) the newer discs bring.


Also costs money.

STOP the madness! Plant more trees!
More obstacles, tighter fairways, more OB - even if it looks strangely like yellow rope (in Texas anyway)




Diminishing
Imagination
Skill
Technique
Accuracy
Nerve
Creativity
Everywhere

a few well placed shrubs or trees can easily take away any distance advantage (real or perceived) the newer discs bring.


Also costs money.



And in my many years of experience, it is rarely ever done. That makes it a naive "solution" imo.

The only hole I can even think of is Round Rock 17, where the trees were planted for other reasons, and the original well-designed par five is now a pedestrian par 4, solely due to increased driver distances.

there has been no empirical evidence presented to back up these claims of obsolecense

I'll do a literature search and get back to you, [censored].

that makes it the path less chosen. who really knows about the naivete? in many ways i'd rather see us plant more trees and protect the courses we have than to build more courses.

i can throw my stratus 100 ft farther today than i could 2 years ago. same disc can shoot better with it. i still havent thrown a score of 18 at any course therfore no course becomes obsolete. the sport requires entry level courses for new consumers to play with the latest and greatest designs immaginable and old consumers to throw their expierienced designs at longer pro leval courses because they might get bored or at worst quit playing.

How does the Aerobie Arrow stay legal under the current rules ?

I would say, on average, my home courses play 3 to 6 strokes easier than they did many years ago due to the wider rim discs(wraiths, destroyers, even orcs and starfires). Numerous beginner or below average players are reaching holes they wouldn't have reached years ago right off the bat. I think this is a good thing but also agree it deminishes the quality of courses across the country. It's not practical to lengthen courses or "add" shrubs and trees where needed. There has to be a limit at some point. I would say destroyers are that limit.

Along with that, adding trees or shrubs on a heavily used course is a near effort in futility. The new plants can't take the abuse of constant disc hits, players breaking branches and the like when retreiving discs or 'making' their stance, youngsters hanging on the branches just for fun, general vandalism and so on.

I've always said that if you want to make a new fairway, put a tee pad on one end and a basket on the other. The disc golfers will do the rest for you within a couple of years.

Hey, if you can't understand the difference between the 1995 disc and the 2007 disc, and if you don't understand that additional land costs money and must be fought for between other potential users, or if don't realize that many holes have already become obsolete, even at Bass, then discussion with you is pointless.



LOL - Well who can argue with such logic? I mean since it's obvious, without doing any actual comparison or real examination, that there are huge flight differences between these discs...


This is the reason that we're in a war in Iraq. It doesn't matter that there are no WofMD, as long as I believe it's so it must be so. I'm glad you believe James, for myself, I'd like some actual proof. BTW - what increase in distance results in a true shift in the sport? 10 feet, 20 feet, 30 feet... Just curious.

As for land use. I completely understand that land has value and that land use is fought for. I'm also telling you that my observation, at least locally, that issue is rare. We've had two real cases of it here and those situations were: 1) a marginal course and 2) an incredibly popular but incredibly short course (you know, one of those ones made obsolete by the wedge). Of course the popularity of that course is based more on the drug culture that occurs there than on any real playing value.

As for Tom Bass, Tom Bass has more than enough room to expand into any number of better courses. I might argue that the main factor holding that development back is players not wanting a par 70 course. People like those short holes that they can deuce. After all, that's what shows they're good players.

Final point, I guarantee, when there are large numbers of players and a dedicated group of activists, parks will slate space for courses. Where there are bodies and money, so there will be all the land and resources you want...

Now, I'm on my way out to look at the trees that Jerry C. planted at Tom Bass last year...

About courses becoming obsolete:

The Disc Creek course here in Amarillo has been permanent since 1990 or so. I got much criticism early on about it being too long and difficult. Over time, people started to realize the direction our game is heading, and they began liking the challenge. It may also be due to the advances in disc technology, or maybe the fact that the newcomers have an established Pro player to gather knowledge and technique from. The course record was set in the mid 90's at 44 (13 under par). That record has withstood all of the new technology for years, and has only been matched twice (in 2001/2002). The course has undergone a couple of minor redesigns, but neither effort lengthend the overall distance.

Maybe we're lucky that in this area of the country, the consistently high wind speeds seem to equalize technology, I'm not sure? There is no shortage of rounds being played, in fact our daily numbers have sky-rocketed, with our Saturday Handicap rounds being more popular than ever before. Yet, with the new technology, the record still stands.

And to add to all of that, I set my personal record for distance in a Distance competition in Lubbock, TX in 1994 with a 180gram Scorpion. It was measured at 563 feet on flat ground. My last Distance competition was in Des Moines, IA at the 2004 Worlds. The best I could do there was 492ft. with a 175 Orc.
:(I should probably pull those Scorpions out of the collection box ;)

John - I challenge you to go out some time this week and play an entire round with 1990 plastic and see what your score is. Or better yet, find an old Midnight Flyer and play a round with it - I know your Amarillo winds will play havoc with one of those big, slow discs.

I still remember the day when Nick Hart showed up to play. It must have been in 87 or 88 and he played the whole course with just a Phenix. He and Tami Pellicane (later Hart) played the course here often when they were living in Lubbock, but that round won't soon be forgotten. We tried our best with all of our regular golf discs, but we just couldn't keep up. I may go to the collection box and dig out some of those old Phenixes and try them again. And they float in water!

I remember Nick and Tami from my early days of playing back in Florida (where we all grew up). They were great players, and I hope they still play, wherever they are.

You need to go farther back than the Phenix to get the best comparison (I have one glowing on my wall at night...) - it is considerably more overstable and wind-resistant than a 40-mold or a Puppy. Next time I come through I'll make sure to bring along a few Midnight Flyers so we can play a challenge match. Since I throw mostly 150-160g discs the adjustment will be less for me! :D

Designing disc golf courses where the ideal placement on a par 4/5 is 340-360 is preferred and 400 is a much worse lie than 300, is the real answer to all this.
Par 3's should all be less than 350 and should be designed with tighter fairways or laced with OB or water hazards.
Putting should only be 2/5ths to 1/2 of the game not 2/3rds as it is on most disc golf layouts.

Regardless of the shape we take disc technology ( rim config, wing length, dimples etc..) players who cannot throw as far as others will always say longer holes give an unfair advantage to the power players. Contrary to popular believe it DOES take a lot more skill to throw 400 foot accurately than it does to throw 300 accurately.
I really like the way the discussion has went from rim width to course layout as this is exactly where the problem lies.
I'm pretty sure one of the reason golf is played to the par of 68-72 is to allow for the balance between driving approaching and putting. This way the best all around players excel not just the ones who are parking holes or hitting all putts inside 50'!


Having just returned from the players cup and watching most of the top players perform, I would have to say that even though the course was a 9000 plus feet and played to a par 65, just about anyone that threw accurate shots and putted well could have won this event.
One player who finished in the top 8 never threw a drive over 350' and some of the big throwers found more trouble because of inaccurate drives.
This course was a perfect mix of what should be required to win $10,000.00!!!!!!!!!!

I would argue that longer courses make the sport worse because the space required is greater. The sport is more about accuracy than power. The spectacle is more about power. I could argue that the existing sport was destroyed by the introduction of the wedge discs. Had they been disallowed, we could potentially have many more courses than we do now since less space would be required for challenging par 4s &amp; 5s with catch plastic. More courses and access for more players might mean that pros would be farther along than they are now in terms of money earned. It would also be easier and less expensive to video the competitions.



this argument makes me wonder why we dont all just play mini golf. we could have 5-10 minigolf courses instead of one regular course. then we could have say 50+ minigolf courses per city. ( no mini drivers though, they go too far)

if i want to go for distance, ill go to a field not a course. all you need to do is make the holes more technical, this way its a challenge no matter how far you can throw. i havent heard of anyone producing a disc that makes it easier to miss trees and water, not yet at least.

so if you do think the destroyer is 'too fast' or flies 'too far' what is the answer and where is the line. do you outlaw the destroyer. ok then, we would have to outlaw the wraith, and the surge and crush and teerex and the list goes on. there is no way to draw a line on what is too fast or what goes too far. what if someone can throw a midrange 400 ft, is that outlawed too?

then we have to go back to catch discs. and ill tell you if you outlaw fast drivers, then youre going to see most people stop playing sanctioned tournaments, if not alltogether.

yea, its hard to make courses longer, and find the space, and make them more difficult... but id rather have 1 challenging course than two run-of-the-mill courses. i think most would agree with that statement.

What matters is establishing standards at whatever scale of game you play so that developing skill and not technology is the primary reason a person plays the game better. Minigolf should have guidelines for the discs that stabilize that game just like the regular game needs guidelines to stabilize that game.

From a practical standpoint, the Destroyer and discs in that category will not materially affect the game on most current courses. I have no hard data to prove this, but my observations of how the newer discs perform would indicate that players are no more accurate on a 285 ft hole now than 10 years ago and may be less accurate due to the skippier plastic versus what was mostly DX type that in general was less overstable 10 years ago. With probably 85% of holes being par 3s, throwing longer distance drivers won't affect the scores on that many holes and may not help at all on wooded holes.

If par 4s and 5s are designed well, it's likely that throwing longer will be a more risky proposition or not possible at all if the hole changes direction after the tee shot as in doglegs. So the tech guidelines are more about drawing the line for having stable parameters in whatever game you're playing regardless whether a technology change just incrementally changes the game versus completely disrupts it like the wedge disc design pretty much killed the game with catch discs at least for compeition.

i think it could be argued that the faster discs take skill improvement to throw well thus achieving said 'big d'. therefore its not simply technology improving.

im with you definitely on focusing on course design and not relying on the idea that distance = difficulty.

apparently some have an affinity for 'catch discs', i understand seeing how i was first an ultimate player, BUT i dont think that you can honestly say that the wedge disc has hurt the sport. if anything i think it may even have helped it grow. there are still people that play with big plastic and love it, thats great. others would rather use a driver.

the other thing that is irrefutable is the fact that there needs to be tech guidelines, BUT before things are being developed and people are pouring money into new disc prototypes and designs.

The wedge disc just caused what was "Frisbee" golf to truly become the game we call disc golf. If there were tech standards at the time, it's possible the wedge disc would never have been approved and it might have become a novelty like the Aerobie or just used for distance competitions in Overalls. Notice that when the Aerobie did come along, the sport of disc golf was more mature and did have tech standards that prevented it from changing the game at least for competitions.

Exactly.

Next time I come through I'll make sure to bring along a few Midnight Flyers so we can play a challenge match.

That sounds like fun. I've still got the first discs I used for playing golf hanging on my wall. It's 2 Wham-o Glow-in-the-Dark discs, a 110g. Moonlighter and a 133g. World Class Night Lighter. I had no clue about the 40 molds until much later, but I sure had lots of fun with those 2 old discs. I got my first beveled edge disc (Aviar)in 85/86, and I didn't like it much because it flew so different than the ones I was used to. Then one day I threw it the right way, and the Glow-in-the-dark discs went on the wall and have been there ever since.

Over the years I have been able to collect a few of the old numbered golf discs (Midnight Flyers), but I'm always looking to add more to the collection. If you've some to sell/trade, let me know ahead of time and maybe we can work something out.

does anyone have a picture to post of these discs? ("old numbered discs")

I have an old #1 driver (white w/ maroon stamp) from 1989 I think and wasnt sure if this is what you were talking about.

That may be one of the discs in the Lightning Discs line up. They made several discs that had numbers like "#1 Driver, #2 Driver, #1 Roller," etc... They used to have names of airplanes on them then they changed to the number method.

Before the beveled edge discs came out, Wham-O was making catch-like discs that were heavier and more dense than regular Frisbees, and they had big numbers on the hot stamp. They even made some minis in the same style.

If you look at the Steady Ed collection at the IDGC (there are some pictures on that thread), you'll see some of the old golf discs with the numbers.

I'm not sure if 1989 or shortly thereafter was when DGA was doing the factored stingrays which were numbered based on how much was shaved off the rim. The likely flight path was shown on the disc hotstamp also. If yours is one of those, then the #1 didn't have anything shaved off the rim.

I still have my 1978 Whammo Moonlighter with a number 6. I think I got it from one of the Windy City Frisbee players at the late great Gilsen Park course in Wilmette, IL back in the day. Its basically a putter with a slightly wider diameter. It didn't seem as understable back then. :D

Currently, the tech standards review says that wing width can be no longer than 2.6 cm. I got my trusty tape measure out and measured the Epic minimum width. It is exactly 2.6 cm. The Destroyer is 2.3 cm. This is a difference of 0.3 cm (1/8 inch for us Americans). Are there any other discs with a rim width in between the Destroyer and Epic? If not, the PDGA could have limited the rim width to the Destroyer's, but, in order to keep the Epic legal, a wider width is allowed.

I voted to not allow the Epic, because of varying rim width, but I think it is interesting that it may be the reason for the wider allowable minimum width as well.

nope... dont think its any of those...

its an innova mold (san marino)

says... DISC GOLF DISC (1989)
has a flight path on the left site
a big maroon/red 1 in the middle
a place for the player to write his name to the right of that
and below the 1 in the middle bottom shows the angle of release and says Driver below that.

Three discs are beyond 2.3cm. Officially, the Epic has a 2.5cm minimum and Destroyer at 2.2cm. The TSC is in final deliberations on a few issues based on additional feedback from the posted first draft. The final draft for the Board will soon be ready as planned for them to review following this weekend. I suspect that draft will be posted online next week for others to review also.

Innova made the numbered factored "Stingrays" for DGA. That's my guess it's the DGA version of the Stingray.

nope... dont think its any of those...

its an innova mold (san marino)

says... DISC GOLF DISC (1989)
has a flight path on the left site
a big maroon/red 1 in the middle
a place for the player to write his name to the right of that
and below the 1 in the middle bottom shows the angle of release and says Driver below that.



DGA Pro #1 through 3 was based on the San Marino Roc. DGA also had Stingrays factored 1 through 5.

Makes sense it might be a Roc mold. Seems like all of the factored Stingrays I ever saw were pink.

thanks guys (and sorry for continuing the thread drift)

Three discs are beyond 2.3cm. Officially, the Epic has a 2.5cm minimum and Destroyer at 2.2cm. The TSC is in final deliberations on a few issues based on additional feedback from the posted first draft. The final draft for the Board will soon be ready as planned for them to review following this weekend. I suspect that draft will be posted online next week for others to review also.



Thanks, I haven't had my tape measure calibrated in a while
;)

Do you know the other discs that are greater than 2.3 cm?

Quest's Double D and Low Speed Driver plus the Epic are more than 2.3.

Is there a way to find the specs on old discs, such as the Cruiser from Discraft? Seems like it had a very fat rim (wing), plus it floats in water!

Diameter and Weight Max is all that's shown on the PDGA site. Perhaps asking the manufacturer for the dimensions would work? It's an interesting idea for something that could be placed in the PDGA historical archives that's made available to everyone.

Three discs are beyond 2.3cm. Officially, the Epic has a 2.5cm minimum and Destroyer at 2.2cm. The TSC is in final deliberations on a few issues based on additional feedback from the posted first draft. The final draft for the Board will soon be ready as planned for them to review following this weekend. I suspect that draft will be posted online next week for others to review also.



Thanks, I haven't had my tape measure calibrated in a while
;)

Do you know the other discs that are greater than 2.3 cm?

whats the significance of 2.3? just curious, cuz the draft talks about 2.6 but not 2.3... so i'm wondering.

Someone else brought that number up on here and asked the question. It's not referenced in the current TSC draft proposal you have.

Someone else brought that number up on here and asked the question. It's not referenced in the current TSC draft proposal you have.



I was just curious about how many discs have a greater wing width than the Destroyer. The Destroyer is the disc that most people are complaining about when it comes to wing width, but it is still a long way (relatively) from the 2.6 limit. I was wondering why the PDGA chose the number 2.6. It seems that keeping the current approval of the Epic (or one of the other 2 discs listed above) caused the higher allowable width.

I was wondering why the PDGA chose the number 2.6.

me too. chuck, can you shed some light? just curious.

It was pretty simple - All current discs would meet that guideline with I think the Double D right at that number.

The language is really esoteric stuff, and I'm an engineer. Is the goal behind a wing length restriction to effectively cap distance? If so, capping it at a width equal to the wide part of the Epic seems to allow for continued evolution of Destroyer types, and thereby thwarts the goal of capping distance. Why not cap it at the Destroyer width and simply rewrite the rules to grandfather the Epic, or let the **** thing go.

Seems like a ridiculous compromise in that it really doesn't achieve the desired goal, but maybe that wasn't the goal in the first place.

Since the tweaked guidelines will be revealed for Board review soon (like this weekend), I'd suggest waiting to see the next draft which should be posted next week. It does have some tweaks from the draft posted before Thanksgiving based on additional feedback since then.

Is there a way to find the specs on old discs, such as the Cruiser from Discraft? Seems like it had a very fat rim (wing), plus it floats in water!


I misspoke. Here are several specs on currently approved discs:

http://www.pdga.com/documents/tech_standards/PDGA_approved_discs_and_targets.pdf

Wait! I don't think you addressed James' point Chuck. And don't give me they are going to tweak the rule. What is the reason for the rule? You ever try and grip an Epic on the wide side? Yao Ming could grab that baby but pretty much no one else could. No manufacturer would make such a disc, no real market. So, what is the goal of such a rule? What does limiting the wing size accomplish anyway and yes I've read what's posted here and I'm still not convinced.

If we're really interested in fairness and equality, we should limit wing length to something that any adult with reasonably normal fingers could grip comfortably. 2.3 doesn't fit that concept. I can barely get a good grip on a Wraith, little alone a dreadnought (the next hot disc with a 2.4 cm rim). How is it fair to me that Larry Kruse can use his four inch long fingers on a battle-station (rim 2.5 cm wide) and I with my 3.5 inch fingers am stuck with a Valk?

We need to make a reasonable rule that actually has some meaning and then grandfather those discs that don't fit the rule rather than trying to make a rule that keeps everything made to this point legal.

I'm not commenting for a few days while the latest draft docs are completed for the Board who should get them by tomorrow. Glad to discuss next week.

BTW - the paper you guys put together on the results was excellent. I only disagreed with the rim width issue, but that's democracy.

Thanks!

I just finished reading the TSC doc findings and proposed rule changes..
From what I can tell the only real rule of significance is the rim width rule, which will now limit a wings length to be 2.4 cm long and the minimum ID of a disc to be &gt;16.5cm.
It seems a few models may already be longer than 2.4cm, specifically the Illusion and Destroyer and the the Double-D which should be the longest.
From what read any previously approved disc will still be legal.

After all of this work I cant believe the only real rule of significance that is getting changed is the wing length.

Seeing the popularity of the destroyer I find it hard to believe this is something the players want.

At what point will the wider rims find a shrinking market because fewer players can effectively grip the discs ?

Then again, I had no problem throwing the Epic and I can't palm a basketball.

I will slap someone if i have to "Lose my Illusion" :D Just kidding(dont ban me bro) As long as the discs already made are grandfathered in its okish. granted I do have a healthy stack of my favorite driver, but will the further production of those discs have to stop?
For the record I am against placing such limits on design. but it is what it is and if I have to play with a fast back and a wizard for driving I will still play

The revised proposed guideline is 2.3cm not 2.4cm and only three discs exceed that currently: Double D, Low Speed Driver and Epic. They would be grandfathered. The Destroyer and Illusion are at 2.2 and 2.1 respectively and wouldn't be affected.