Just checking. I didn't see it in the list (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PDGA_approved_discs_and_targets.pdf) and was going to replace my Blowfly with a Blowfly II but not if it is not an approved disc.

Blowfly is the Blunt mold in that sweet Blowfly plastic. Blowfly II is the PowerDrive mold in that same plastic. PowerDrive is approved, so I guess Blowfly II is approved.

From an e-mail where I asked the question of the PDGA:


Hi Ken,

Technically, discs need to be listed to be PDGA approved. I know that a number of DGA discs were never submitted by Ed Headrick for PDGA approval, so they remain unapproved. If you like, you can contact the DGA to see if they would like their unlisted discs to be approved for PDGA competition. We can only test and approve discs that are submitted for approval.

Jeff Homburg (#1025)
PDGA Technical Standards Chair



So not listed means they are not approved. It is not a mistake, it was never submitted. Thought everyone would like to know. Guess I'll try out a Gumputt instead :cool:

Are you joking...the Blowfly II is the powerdrive mold (as Vegan stated) which molds are approved not the blend of plastic that are used with them. IT IS APPROVED

Nope. Different name, not approaved. Its like the SL shenanigans last year.

same mold = is approved. no matter the name. SL is a different mold than starfire.

This is direct from the Tech Standards. Based on this, the BlowFly II is NOT approved:

There are several circumstances under which a disc that has been previously approved is required to be submitted for a retesting procedure:
(1) Mold, Material or Production Technique Changes - If there are changes to a mold that has been producing an approved disc, the discs produced by the changed mold may have to be retested for approval. Not all such changes require approval. Retesting is only required if a mold includes the addition or removal of a new structural feature such as a bead, or results in a measurement that may violate any of the technical standards.
<font color="red"> (2) Name Changes - If a disc that has previously been approved for PDGA competition is to be marketed under a different name, retesting is required. </font> This process, which requires a retesting fee, will result in the disc being separately listed on the PDGA approved-disc list.

They can change the mold and not have to get it re approved if the name that's the same (Beast or Teerex for example). If the name changes, they have to get it re-approved. That's why there is a Teebird and a Thunderbird on the approval list even though its the same disc/mold. Name change= needs approval, mold change= all good in the hood.

silly

very silly

Just as silly as having to get a new drivers license when you change your name such as getting married?

being able to change the mold without re-approval is the equvalent of a fake i.d.

No, being able to change the mold, but not get reapproval because the name is the same is STOOPID! It's a technicality loophole in the rules that should be fixed.

I'll second that! It seems like the mold changes the disc not the name.

Just like weight control, we rely on the good graces of the manufacturers to let the Tech Standards group know when changes are made whether molds or names. It's not like all production goe thru the PDGA for checking before shipping. From TDs standpoint, it's much easier to look at the disc name and see it's not on the approved list than it is for them or a player to recognize a mold change. How is a TD supposed to know that the maufacturer decided rename a T-bird a V-bird and it's the same mold?

i feel all mold changes should be submitted for re-approval, regardless if the name is changed or not. eg: the beast should have needed to be re-approved when they changed the mold. this would be very confusing if they only changed the mold and not the name. i can just see TD's asking "is that an old mold beast or new mold beast". if a disc is changed in name only, the manufacturers should just be able to have the new name added to the approved list w/o having to submit the disc for testing again. Something that the PDGA should request/require of the disc companies is to not change the mold of a previously approved disc, or at least resubmit the same-named disc that has been produced from a new or modified mold. i think the consumers would appreciate this as well. if they are going to modify a mold, [element for example] then re-name it as well and have it be a seperate disc, like the fl, tl, and sl. they should have called the beast the bl and re-submitted it as a different disc.

Might be logical in some universe but the standards went thru a major overhaul last year for the first time which included extensive feeedback from members. Those involved on all sides agreed to the wording as it is so it's unlikely to change any time soon. Sort of like why all of the rules use metric units and yet most if not all U.S. courses use feet instead of meters for hole length.

No, being able to change the mold, but not get reapproval because the name is the same is STOOPID! It's a technicality loophole in the rules that should be fixed.


i guess this is the point i was trying to make.
Not having to resubmit when you change the mold but not the name seems backwards, vs. having to resubmit when you change the name but not the mold. I do understand your point about TD's not being able to know of mold changes when the name stays the same. This is why I still say that the PDGA should require/request manufacturers to notify them of name changes, and re-submit mold changes. My other point was that this whole situation would be much easier if companies re-named AND re-submitted when there is a change to a previously-approved mold. the only times this has not happened that i know of [i am sure there are more] would be in the case of the element [recently], beast, teerex, monster. I also understand that you guys just went through a process to address this and are not likely to make any changes soon. Still, even in THIS universe, it seems logical, to me at least, although i am a week out of shoulder surgery and my logic could be affected by the pain-pills.
Lastly--other than goodwill, what would stop a company from changing [unintentionally or not] the force mold [for example] to something that would not pass standards, and to continue to call it the force? TD's would then just assume that because the "force" is approved, then the disc is legal. This is the loophole that the 2 other posts above were addressing i believe.

While it's true that manufacturers could make changes without informing PDGA Tech, the changes would never go unnoticed by the player birddogs who hawk those things and post about them here. Those posting here and elsewhere question changes that aren't even changes. More obvious changes would be noticed immediately. Plus many of those working at the companies are players making it difficult to keep secrets. Now, maybe we shouldn't be relying primarily on player ombudsmen. But it's sort of like the way we rely on self calling the rules. You notice that we do at least ask the manufacturers in writing to notify us when they make changes. That's pretty much what can be done considering the cost to do much more.

cool- i apprecite your [and the pdga's] efforts.

I think I'm just going to have to get a different putter.

I looked at the approved disc list and it has the Blunt "Blowfly" as the one approved. I've never seen a 'Blunt' Blowfly advertised, I've only seen it as "Blowfly". But doing some research I find that 'Blunt' is the mold that the Blowfly was made from and indeed the Blowfly II is made from the Powerdrive mold, but as discussed is not approved

So I think, OK, no worries, I'm going to get a Gumbputt anyway.

I check the list and sure enough, Gumbputt is approved. Awesome! Then I look online and I find two different Gumbputts! A 'Blunt' version and a 'Powerdrive' version, both with very different flight characteristics. It seems they did the same thing with Gumbputt that they did with the Blowfly, but instead of calling it Gumbputt II, they left the name the same.

Crap. So which Gumbputt is approved, or are BOTH approved since the name didn't change but the mold did? I lean toward the latter but I wanted to get some other opinions. I *think* that is the way the rules read anyway, since the list just says 'Gumbputt' with no distinct designation as to which mold was approved.

If it has the same name, then according to the rules, either would be approved. As originally posted by Jeff Homburg, the guy who measures the discs for approval, DGA specifically chose not to submit some disc models, possibly because they weren't going to make them any more or to save on the approval fees.

Sorry Mr. done, I can't help you with the ill-managed pdga standarsd list of approved and unapproved discs. My statement to you would be to just use the disc. No one should call you on it, it's just a technicality in the manufacturer naming and approval.

But, seeing as how I am an avid advocate of the blowfly/blunt, I can help you out with disc selection. I prefer the rounded lower rim of the classic blowfly, not the sharp and straight rim of the blowfly II. SO I use the blunt gumbputt which has a rounded rim like the blowfly, and you can get the blunt in orange or white too, not just the blue/purple like the blowfly. The powerdrive gumbputt will have a straight rim like the blowfly II, and they come in white, bright blue, or yellow. But be careful because there is both a hard and a floppy version of the powerdrive. Make sure you get that floppiness you crave!

Also, on a blowfly sidenote, I am VERY disappointed that the Glowfly is not floppy plastic like the blowfly! With the way these things glow (THE BEST GLOW PLATSIC EVER!) it would be awesome in a floppy plastic!!!!!!!!!!!

I went with the Powerdrive Gumputt. Not a bad disc, performs much like the Blowfly but not as "floaty". BTW, a friend of mine got a Blowfly II and I told him it wasn't approved... then he showed me the stamp on the disc that says "PDGA Approved" :o

False advertising?