Disc Review: MVP Resistor

I love the way we provide three distinctly different perspectives when we review discs over at Rattling Chains as it allows me to provide not only the ‘expert’ player assessment but also subjective opinions as well. It frees me up from having to consider what players of other skill levels might think of a disc as PJ and Steve cover the recreational and amateur angles quite well.

At the end of my review from the perspective of a more experienced and advanced player, you can follow the link to read the recreational as well as amateur-level points-of-view as well.

The Resistor possesses two qualities that I value quite highly: It is stubbornly overstable, and has a completely flat top. The result, for me, is a disc that fits my power grip perfectly, giving me full confidence in being able to throw on the line required to get it to hold straight for the desired length of it’s flight. I’m not positive that the flat top is responsible, but I do know that such discs have always felt great in my hand- and experience has also taught me that the most overstable discs tend to have a mind of their own in terms of wanting to immediately fade. So comfort and control are paramount.

On its website MVP describes the Resistor as being ‘slower’ than it’s other fairway drivers, and lists it on it’s performance charts as not being capable of as much distance. But I tested it side-by-side with the Volt and time and again found the two had landed close to each other. The difference was that I gave the Resistor more anhyzer angle and the same amount of power. I also tried hard to put so much angle on some throws that the disc would land on an edge, like a wannabe roller. The Resistor would have none of it, flattening and then starting a fade every time before touching down on the ground. Hmmmm . . . maybe that’s how they came up with the name.

Whether your preference is to throw most shots on a hyzer angle, anhyzer angle, of flat, the most important quality of any disc is predictability. And when it matters most – when you need to avoid  OB or hazards where a disc can get lost – players tend to rely on overstable discs most often. I would trust the Resistor on an aggressive anhyzer line with a flight line that took it directly over a slimy OB pond, knowing it has the stuff to fade back to fairway when I want it to. Of course, hitting the right line is still up to me- but I know I can count on the Resistor to do it’s part. I wouldn’t expect to get max distance out of this disc, but that isn’t what it’s designed to do.

So that is my quick assessment after putting the Resistor through its paces and watching how it handles serious velocity and anhyzer angle (admirably). To read the evaluation of my comrades at Rattling Chains, who represent other points on the disc golfer spectrum, click here.

inbounds Disc Golf inFlight Guide review

My input in reviewing the inFlight Guide is intended to provide the perspective of a veteran and well-informed disc golfer- as opposed to PJ, who is a squeaky-clean newbie by comparison. However, it occurs to me that for that very reason I’m likely not a poster child for someone who would use the tool on the company’s website much less purchase the printed guide. So I’ve also solicited the input of someone who serves as a human ‘disc performance guide’ on a daily basis, the guy who runs the very busy pro shop at DeLaveaga Disc Golf Course here in Santa Cruz, CA. His name is Mark Karleskind, and as a side-note he’s also the step-dad of 3-time world champ Nate Doss.

But before I go to Mark’s assessment, let me explain why I don’t really pay attention to any disc rating systems. I appreciate inbounds’ efforts to come up with a universal rating system that solves the issue of disparity between those provided by disc manufacturers like Innova, Discraft and Vibram, but that’s only one of the issues that I see limiting the usefulness of any type of system.

First of all – addressed in sections in the inFlight Guide titled ‘Assumptions’ and ‘Factors Affecting Disc Flight’ – there are many external factors to consider that will force a user to make mental adjustments to what is on the page (or screen). The endless combinations of those factors make any predictions of performance based on a system that takes only qualities of the disc into account iffy at best.

Next is the reality of any player plugged into her or his disc golf community typically makes disc purchasing decisions. Sure, we might read about a new disc in the magazine or see an ad online, but we’re much more likely to see it in action on the course. Either we see the guy we usually out-drive sail one past our disc off the tee and ask ‘what the (heck)?’, or the guy who likes to show off his latest and greatest will point it out before he even throws it. In either case, we’ll get the opportunity to ask detailed questions and probably even test it out for ourselves. No guide can compare that kind of customized, tactile information gathering experience.

My final reason is admittedly very subjective, but I’m sure I’m not alone in feeling this way. At this advanced point in my disc golf journey, I’m more set in my ways than newer players. Through much trial-and-error I’ve built a disc lineup that I know and trust, and additions to the ‘team’ are now somewhat rare. I added the ESP Nuke after hearing enough about it’s distance that I had to give it a try, and my intrigue with the idea of rubber discs led to the addition of several Vibram models in my bag. But in each of those cases a guide wouldn’t have affected my decision one way or the other. I wanted to see how those discs worked for me.

But enough about me. Keep in mind that my input is subjective and based on my perspective as a crotchety old guy that uses the same Aviar DX model he’s used for 15 years and still carries a roller he bought from Steady Ed in the mid-90’s. Yeah, that Steady Ed. Now let’s hear from Mark at the pro shop, a guy who is older and even more crotchety than me but is still more qualified to give an expert opinion on the inFlight Guide because he answers the same questions on disc performance again and again, sometimes dozens of times a day.

I visited Mark at his disc warehouse, and thought it was rather fitting that as he thumbed through the pages the setting behind him was a mural made of shelves of neatly stacked discs.

The first thing he noticed was that the entire guide was in alphabetical order, with all discs lumped into one group. “I’d list it by disc type, so people looking for a midrange could go to a section with only those discs” he said, after noticing that the Latitude 64 was surrounded by distance drivers. When I pointed out that the online tool lets users compare any three discs side-by-side, he said that was ideal.

Karleskind also noted that in today’s era of specialized discs, categories should go beyond just putt-and-approach, midrange, fairway driver and distance driver. He suggested adding a category for ‘super-long’ drivers as well. He then gave me his assessment of the overall usefulness of the inFlight Guide:

“I think it’s a good guide,” he said. “Whether players will spend money on it is another question, but I can see the online version getting lots of use. It’s free, and the ability to compare any three discs is something that has never been available. Plus, they can keep updating it with all the new discs that keep coming out.”

I asked him if he thought the printed guide would be a useful tool to have onsite at brick-and-mortar stores like his that sell disc golf discs. Oh yeah,” he replied. I’d use it myself just to illustrate the answers I give to people’s questions on which discs to buy. And when I’m real busy, customers can use it themselves.” A little later he came back to the subject again to add that the guide will be a great help to stores that have employees selling discs who aren’t experts on the game- like general sporting goods stores and corner markets. “They can easily look up a disc to help answer a question, and the book will help educate them over time.”

So there you have it. My resident disc-seller expert gives the combination of the printed and online inFlight Guides two ‘thumbers’ up.

How do YOU rate a disc golf course?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right?

It is true of most things to which the words “subjective” and “opinion” may be applied. And so it is with disc golf courses, as well. When I read user-submitted course reviews on dgcoursereview.com, it’s clear that different people value different features in a disc golf course.

Disc golf courses can be quite unassuming.

Some of the most popular — and most famous — are almost invisible to the uninformed eye when not populated with clusters of people flinging bright colored flying discs. That is because one of the elements of disc golf of which its practitioners and proponents are most proud is its ability to conform to nearly any hikeable environment — with minimal or no alteration. In fact, for a large part of the disc golfing population, the more rugged, the better.

And then there are those — no less ardent in their love of the sport — who highly value open, flat fairways where their discs can soar unimpeded by the “thwack!” of a tree and have no chance of plummeting into a deep, dark brambly chasm.

It’s all a personal preference.

Some players like a remote course that is so removed from the hustle and bustle of civilization (and, they might say, the watchful eyes of Big Brother) that having to hike half a mile on foot just to reach it is a bonus. For others, that would be a deal-killer. They want convenience, safety, and even supervision, and couldn’t care less if the park is shared with other users and bordered by streets with cars constantly zipping by.

For some folks it’s all about the equipment.

If a course doesn’t have some type of permanent teepads and baskets (as opposed to posts or other objects), they have zero interest in playing it. On the other end of the spectrum, I know people who still regularly play courses like Old Sawmill in Pebble Beach, Calif., or Little Africa in Carmichael, Calif., even though neither has regular targets or teepads. They do so because the courses are set in amazing places, convenient to them, and/or consist of great hole designs. But they obviously don’t mind the lack of official equipment.

So what makes a course great in your eyes?

Personally, I break it down into two broad categories: courses that I can play on a regular or semi-regular basis (home courses), and courses I may only get to play once or twice (road courses).

Home Courses

For a home course, I’m looking first and foremost for variety and challenge.

If it has those elements I’ll come back again and again, despite it possibly having some other drawbacks. I want some long holes, and some that are short and technical. It’s fun to be able to throw big, booming shots in wide open space, but if that’s all there is, it gets boring. Give me some where I have to be very accurate in navigating obstacles, as well. If the terrain is varied and allows the course to include uphill, downhill and side-hill holes, that’s also a big plus.

Hole No. 3 at Ryan Ranch in Monterey, Calif., is a good
example of a hole with elevation change and a well-graded,
well-marked teepad.

I want a great course design that enables me to figure out how to score better over the course of many rounds and many months or even years — like a really tough brainteasing puzzle. To me the mental aspect of golf is the best part of the game, and course management is a big part of that. It’s pretty cool to have an “a-ha!” moment on a hole after already playing it 100 times.

And a little characteristic that few courses have but one that I prize highly is the technical green.

I think it’s great when you’re forced to really think about the ramifications of a missed putt, like whether it’s gonna roll or skip away, or even fly down a drop-off behind the basket. DeLaveaga is famous for it’s tough greens, and it’s a major reason why scoring averages in major events there played by top pros remains among the highest — despite the course being more than 30 years old.

Road Courses

Now let’s use the other category to discuss some other aspects of what makes a disc golf course great or merely good (I’m pretty biased in that, to me, there is no such thing as a bad disc golf course). The factors I listed above are important to me whether home or away, but here are some others that are especially important when I don’t know the course yet.

As far as equipment goes, I’ve become spoiled by Mach III or Mach V baskets and concrete teepads, but I’m flexible — to a point. I want some form of catching device that definitely lets the player know if the hole is complete or not. And as far as teepads, I want a good, flat, hard surface from which to throw my drives. And having uniform tees and baskets isn’t just about performance.

a private course 5,000 feet up Mt. Haleakala on Maui, HI.
To him, baskets – whether manufactured or improvised –
make a big difference on a disc golf course.

So those are my major criteria. As you can see, with me it’s almost all about the game itself. Facilities (partly due to being a guy) don’t matter to me. I can pack my water in, and easily find a place in the woods to dispense with the excess. I don’t usually have much need for a place to buy snacks or discs — although I certainly appreciate it when one is available.

But now it’s your turn.

I ask again — how do you rate a disc golf course? We want to know what the most important criteria are to you (like equipment, design, amenities, price and convenience) as well as what you value within those criteria (like challenging courses or must have bathrooms).

I’m hoping to get a big response in the comments section on this one, so even if your response is short, please post something. Ideally, one day nearly every community will have numerous courses, with each catering to a different type of preference. We’re already starting to see that in disc golf hotbeds like Santa Cruz, Calif., Austin, Texas, and Charlotte, North Carolina. Players in those areas have their choice of nearly all the differences listed above. But to help the future planners and designers of courses in future disc golf hotbeds, tell us what you want to see in courses.

Jack Trageser is the founder of School of Disc Golf and the instructional writer at RattlingChains.com. You can reach him at jack@schoolofdiscgolf.com.

Triumph of a ‘Younger’ Gun

Another new wave of young talent has made its mark on the disc golf scene, with the legitimacy of a major championship to make it official. Nikko Locastro, at age 19 (or maybe 20- I’m too lazy to look it up), charged from four strokes back of former champ Dave Feldberg and three behind reigning champ Nate Doss to win the 2009 USDGC.

Nate was the first to cut into Dave’s lead early, cutting the three-stroke lead to one before succumbing to Winthrop Gold’s OB rope again and again. Then, after a slow start, Nikko began racking up birdies on hole 4 and never seemed to take his foot off the pedal. On hole 10, a par 4 bunkr hole that makes players choose between trying to carry 430-plus feet to the green with a chance for eagle or laying up short left in the narrow fairway, he missed his first attempt to drive the green, but succeeded the second time, then made the putt for a birdie. Under bunkr rules, he didn’t get charged a penalty stroke for the miss, and his resolve and confidence on the tee paid off. Nate, in contrast, missed in his attempt to drive the green, then opted to play safe with the short layup. And it seemed to continue like that the rest of the round. Other tidbits:

  • Josh Anton came from the third card to take third place by shooting a course record 53 (15 under par). He was 15 under par after hole 16, but only managed par on 17 (the potentially round-killing island hole) and 18.
  • I heard tales about the way Harold Duvall tweaks the course each year, and I can’t help but wonder what will be in store next year after the top players really carved up Winthrop Gold. There were quite a few rounds where players were double-digits under par and bogey-free or had only one or two flaws
  • I can’t help but think of Nikko as the Shaun White of disc golf. His big white man ‘fro and goofy attire (unmatched knee-high socks) could end up being a draw as sponsors aim for the 15-25 market.

Quick hits on Day Three

  • Nate closed the gap to one between him and Feldberg, then lost two strokes on 17 and 18 (one each hole, by going par-bogey (OB). So he’s trailing by three going into the last day, tied for second with Nikko Locastro. I’ll be following them the whole round , happy to be nothing but a spectator tomorrow.
  • After my round today, I went back to my room to change and watched some of the live coverage on my computer. The simulation of a professional ball golf event that the USDGC strives for was eerily apparent in the coverage. You see the manicured grass fairways, the numerous tournament volunteers spotting, with the rd and green flags, and galleries just big enough to call them galleries. My only mixed mixed feeling about this is the fact that I’m proud of the fact that most good disc golf course, in my opinion, don’t resemble ball golf courses at all. They wind they their way through woods and over mountainous terrain, not through genteel grassy parks. But still, the coverage was pretty cool, albeit noticeably a nit amateurish. But the people involved did their best, and I was impressed.
  • I almost thought I was watching a telethon, they pitched the viewers for donations so often. I think it almost became a crutch when they couldn’t think of anything original to say.
  • On 13, the famous ‘888’ par 5, I can proudly say that I parred it yesterday and might have today, if the clouds hadn’t opened up and started pouring on us before I could putt out. When I began to address my 23-foot par putt there wasn’t a drop, and by the time I had a chance to putt, it was pouring. Still, my total of bogey, par, bogey on that hole, without ever throwing outside of the ridiculously narrow fairway and island green, was one of the few things I can look to with a modicum of pride.
  • One of the others is the 30-foot, steep uphill par putt on 18 to end my tournament. End on a good note.
  • I got to play with two Finnish players, Kai and Janne, and guys from NC, WV, Georgia (Pete May, a very cool 68-year old with a $600 Stetson hat made from 2o percent beaver, and no one I knew before we started.
  • The two things that make the USDGC special, in my opinion, are the course design that makes great use of OB/Bunkr rope, and the abundance and coordination of volunteers.
  • Although it strikes a blow to my ego, I’m happy to see our sport having grown to the point that probably 50 players have the skills to compete at the top level. The blow to my ego part is the fact that I’m no longer in the same area code as these guys. But I’ll get over it. The cool part, though, is that at its core this is still golf, and having the raw skills to win an event like the USDGC and actually doing it are two very different things. I watched plenty of guys throw as far as Nate, and routinely can 35-footers like they were 20-footers. But to win the USDGC, they need to pull off these feats with a level of consistency that just amazes me.
  • I don’t think I’ve seen one tye-die shirt all week
  • Watch the live webcast tomorrow if you can. It should be epic.

The Fan Experience

So far, my USDGC experience has been from the player experience, although I’m stretching that definition a little bit. With rounds of 85 and 86, I’ve felt much more like the guy that got to play by helping run the Masters Cup than the guy who missed qualifying by a stroke three years in a row.

But after finishing my 8:00 AM round by Noon, then grabbing some good Carolina BBQ (actually, it’s OK but nothing special, in my opinion), I headed back to to the course to follow Nate around during his round.

I sheepishly admit to feeling a little bit of shame, thinking that everyone knew I was either a spectator and nothing else, or a player that sucked enough (relatively speaking, of course- this is the USDGC) to have a tee-time early enough to be done already. But I really enjoyed the spectator experience at this event, and the difference between the USDGC and any other event I’ve ever experienced is quite noticeable. Volunteers are everywhere, including a very impressive number of grey-haired, non-playing disc golf aficionados. It got me wondering- what is it about other part of the country I’ve been in where older generations seem to get it about the benefits of disc golf, even though they don’t play themselves? Are they simply more supportive of their younger relatives? Do they possess wisdom that their counterparts in California do not? Maybe tomorrow I’ll ask a few questions and get to the bottom of it.

Since I happened to be in South Carolina during the USDGC, with time on my hands, I decided to follow Nate’s group and support ol’ Bobby Hill (along with his Mom and Stepdad Mark K.) in his effort to defend his USDGC title. And being the narcissist that I am, my thoughts of these top-ranked players kept coming back to what a gap now exists between me and they world’s best. At first the thought is kind of a bummer, but then it sort of justifies spending three hours walking the same course I just played to watch someone else play. I mean, why would someone do that if not to see things done I can’t do myself?

Nate is in third place right now, 15 under par and five behind the lead. Some of the shots I saw him execute (and the others in the group) were simply amazing to me. The arm speed they generate makes it clear they are dealing with a whole different deck of cards. And that makes it quite fulfilling to be nothing more than a fan- for a while,anyway.

I was tied for the lead, and then the tournament started

The warm fuzzy feeling I got from being part of this event – the USDGC – was actually potent enough that it still hasn’t completely worn off, even after a first round where I nearly averaged a bogey per hole. As a matter of fact, I wasn’t really keeping track, and was shocked when I added it all up. It didn’t seem that bad! Feldberg and Schwebbee both shot -9 fifty-nines to grab the first round lead, but players are lined up behind them, including Nate at -5.

I got to play with a good mix of guys today- Kai from Finland, US Am champ this year Blayne, and Al ‘Sugar’ Shack, an acquaintance from my days hanging with Michigan dg-ers a decade ago. Everyone was upbeat and mellow, which made things more enjoyable for certain.

I wish I could blame my hideous +17 on the fact that the course is designed in such a way that it’s more difficult for people that can’t throw 400-plus feet. While this is true (as it is for any course with reasonably long holes), Winthrop Gold provides ample opportunity for a player to shoot par, as long as he/she can throw 300 feet. The design is great in that regard, and even somewhat friendlier to left-handers. So no excuse there.

I also wish that I could say that my injured shoulder is the cause of my high score, but that really isn’t true either. Only on the par 5 hole five, where I made the ill-fated decision to try unsuccessfully three times to throw over a large expanse of water in a way that my arm can’t handle right now, was it much of an issue. Every other time my feeble arm came into play, I had another option that I opted not to opt for. So no excuse there, either.

But tomorrow at 8 AM presents another opportunity, so we’ll see. But I’m running out of excuses.