Large Change[edit]

I recently made a significant change to this article. A number of things were not clear, and there were no external links to necessary organizations such as the PDGA. I've included links to many driving and putting clinics that are very helpful. I also made mention of 11x World Champ Ken Climo. It seems logical to include him. I also answered a number of questions the average beginner has: What discs should I throw? How much does it cost? Where do I go to play? I also clearly defined some essential terminology, rather then embeding it in certain paragraphs. Itemized lists are often easier to follow than piecing together info from place to place.

I also changed a key heading to "Difference and Similarities to Ball Golf". Explaining the similarities helps to define the sport as well. Ball golf is an easy reference that almost everyone is familiar width. That should be taken advantage of.

Types of Shots: I limited this to the most commonly used shots. Players should be worried about these shots first and foremost. Other shots are grouped into 'Trick Shots' because they are so very rarely used. I also included places to SEE the grips and there was no mention of the X-Step in the old article, so I provided a link that will explain it. I also included tips about changing discs based on throwing styles. I feel this site should explain the basics and offer a place for advanced players to learn a thing or two as well. I also included an explination of various putting styles.

I have added a section about manufacturers and types of plastics from Innova and Discraft. These are what people play with. They are more in demand than the other manufacturors, and most likely to be found at a local sporting good stores. People should know about what they are most easily going to find. I also answer the question of how much does it cost. That is so very important.

I've also added comments about safety I felt were important.

Equipment: I added a much more detailed explination of discs and what they do. I made things more organized. Again, itemized lists are easier to understand.

I also added a section about what comprises a 'complete bag'. This seems important as well, as people often get caught up in the vast magnitude of discs that are available.

24.93.116.94 23:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Q[reply]

The large changes you have made violate wikipedia's policies; recently, the article has been receiving some much-needed attention in concerns to being less of a "how-to" article and becoming truly encyclopedic. The changes you have introduced are inhibiting progress. Discgolfrules 23:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm alright with most of what was taken out. I didn't realize what the 'rules' were. There are some things I think we should re-consider though. For example, flight ratings of the discs. Speed, Glide, Fade and Turn. That's pretty standard stuff in the disc golf world. I also think we need to include the PDGA. No article on football would disclude the NFL and an article on ball golf would mention the PGA. I also don't think discussing why discs do what they do is out of bounds. Why shouldn't we discuss that a disc is too understable or overstable for certain throwing styles? That's no different than discussing the 3-4 vs the 4-3 defense. Links to gripping and footwork styles should also be included. Different styles are prevelant in this sport, and should be discussed.

24.93.116.94Q —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flight ratings of discs is not standardized, and are likely terms copyrighted by Innova. They are only numbers which are subject to different situations, and as such have little place in an informative article about the sport. You could put them in an Innova article, but it would be speedily deleted for blatant promotion of a business...

The PDGA has been mentioned in the article in the past, and it does deserve to be mentioned, but it has its own page. All you can do is say "the PDGA (link to its own page) is the governing body of disc golf."

We shouldn't discuss anything about a discs characteristics. Wikipedia can only gain credibility if it is about facts, not common beliefs, and unsourced entries. We've been struggling with the page being considered "how-to" information, so I've attempted to remove most of it, and I hope to source most of the remaining information so the "how-to" tag can eventually be removed. Thank you for your time and contributions. Discgolfrules 21:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we define discuss differently...by discuss I mean present...and to an extent, through editing this article, we are discussing the sport. Different people are making their contribution to the article and then discussing it on this page, which anyone can access.

I'm not entirely convinced those terms are copyright to Innova, and even if they are, they are the standard that vendors and players tend to use. Regardless, I think we should make some reference to disc characteristics other than over and understable. We should discuss the speed and glide of the disc and the difference in how the disc will behave at high speeds and low speeds. Even if we don't have specific number charts, we should cite things like some discs are faster than others, which is why they produce more distance. No, they aren't standardized, but manufactures identify which of their discs are faster than others. We can't provide a standard for comparing specific disc ratings from manufactorer to manufactorer and we should cite that as well. Identifying that the sport is attempting to create a standard is informative in my opinion. By being a 'golf' sport, disc golf is compared strongly to ball golf by the average person. Explaining the characteristics of discs helps to break that stereotype and establish disc golf as unique sport.

All vendors make reference to their discs speed, glide and stability. These are simply the terms used to identify in general terms what the disc will do. I strongly disagree that they do not have a place in an informative article. Disc characteristics are a major part of disc golf. Every time I tell someone who isn't familiar with disc golf that I play disc golf, they always ask why I have 18 different discs in my bag. And I have to give a brief explination of how different discs are for different shots. That's something that people want to know about. To the average person, a disc golf disc is no different than a freestyle frisbee or ultimate disc.

Disc golf is a young sport, and as a result most of it's characteristics are undefined. Anything we discuss about disc characteristics and techniques are common beliefs. And a lot of these terms, such as speed and glide, are used at every tournament I've attended. And I've played in tournaments across the country. They are as close to universals as disc golf has. Aside from the PDGA, there isn't an authority on disc golf, and they only cover the rules and organized play. Everything related to throwing technique and disc characteristics comes from other sources, such as manufacterers and top pros. There is nothing relating to disc characteristics of discs or throwing techniques anywhere on the PDGA website. We should be discussing what is generally universal in the disc golf community.

By discussing the PDGA, I simply meant to identify it as the governing body and identify that the rules presented in this entry are those set by the PDGA. The PDGA provides what little standard disc golf has.


24.93.116.9410/15/07 - Q —Preceding comment was added at 06:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to mentioning terms such as speed, glide, turn, and fade, but I do not believe a numerical value should be attached to these terms, especially considering they change as new equipment is manufactured (Speed 12 discs, for example.) The PDGA should be identified as the governing body, with a link, and yes, a mention of the rules is a good idea.

I would love to see a section about disc charecteristics and throwing styles, if it could all be cited and sourced. I am unsure as to how much verifiable material exists on the subject. Discgolfrules 21:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We appreciate your effort 24.93 but I think we should leave an in-depth discussion of disc flight characteristics to the Flying Disc article, once we get some good sources on the actual science behind their flight. Sure this article should mention over/understable terminology but anything beyond that (speed, glide, fade, etc.) is probably too much. The ratings that inova advertises are arbitrary and may or may not be based on real science. There is plenty of how-to style stuff that goes into great depth elsewhere out there on the internet. I agree with DGR that this article needs to go on a diet. -- Diletante 23:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing still reads like an informal chat to me. I hadn't checked in a while and came back to what I feel is a worse article in violation of many of the wiki rules. I made a few minor changes today and held my fingers on the rest. At the very least, we could take a lesson from the other sport wikis that include a brief intro, then history, then more info on the game. Several formatting issues, and as usual the citation issues. I disagree with many of the "common knowledge" things in the article. Also, there really shouldn't be a place for "tips" in the wiki. Pull out the old World Books or Encyclopedia Britannica and use those as a guide for what this article should look like.--FisherME (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand why there is resistance to listing the numerical values as long as this is linked directly to the standard used by the maker. These discs are designed to be controllable with predictable flight patterns. If a specific Innova disc is mentioned as having Speed of 10, Glide 4, Turn -1 and Fade 3 then you have an accurate guide to differentiate that discs flight characteristics to that of other Innova discs. There are even sites that will compare the Innova made-discs to Discraft made-discs. While that isn't 100% scientific it isn't 100% opinion either. Where does it say that an encyclopedia has to be completely scientific? Merely mentioning that the comparisons aren't completely accurate but rather a fair enough way to compare different discs made by different makers should be good enough. For instance, you can list this site, http://marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/disc_golf_flightguide.html, and its comparison and also suggest to the reader that they view the descriptions at the Innova site and Discraft site respectively. I put it forward that an encyclopedia is a knowledge base and not a merely something like a chemistry manual...by that I mean a chemistry book will provide precise measurements derived through pure fact and empirical discovery whereas the knowledge base of humanity isn't always so precise. I believe that by not including this information with the appropriate caveats Wikipedia has done a disservice to those who come here seeking knowledge. Must everything be so nailed-down and precise to make it past the constant editing at Wikipedia? Seems a fruitless pursuit to me if a commonly used and commonly edited online encyclopedia is constantly showing its schizophrenia everytime one over-zealous individual gets on here and edits out useful info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.233.169 (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be appropriate to at least list the various flight characteristics (e.g. Speed, Glide, Turn, Fade) with brief descriptions used by each manufacturer as long as references are made to the respective manufacturers (possibly with links to their websites). A numerical range could be provided for each characteristic as well. Additionally, one disc from each manufacturer could be mentioned as an example to provide some context. I think that by providing references to each manufacturer, the objectivity of this information is maintained with additional information being provided to the reader of the article. Error9900 (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disc Golf not a trademark[edit]

"Ed Headrick coined and trademarked the term "Disc Golf" when formalizing the sport and invented the Disc Pole Hole" There is no record of "Disc Golf" being a trademark. Many trademarks (some dead, some still live) inlude the phrase "disc golf", but the simple two-word phrase has not been registered as a trademark. I will delete the statement unless someone can provide evidence that it was a trademark.

Disc Golf trademark[edit]

The term Disc Golf was coined and used extensively by the Disc Golf Association up into the early 1980's on Disc Golf Association Equipment and Disc Golf Association Promotional material. A person or entity develops ownership rights simply through trademark use. Registration makes protecting trademarks against trademark infringement easier.

Here are two samples of the use of the trademark. Please note on page 2 Notes. "Disc Golf, Disc Pole Hole, Around Nine are trademarks of Disc Golf Association." [1]1978 Disc Golf Association catalog [2]Disc Golf Association Kitty Hawk Driver from the early 1980's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.234.96.194 (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of "Frisbees" and golf discs[edit]

This part is innacurate. A Frisbee is a brand of disc (a registered trademark of Wham-O, Inc.) It's not a type or style of disc. There are beveled-edge golf discs, clearly recognizable to disc golfers as golf discs, and designed for the sport, which ARE "Frisbee" discs (i.e. they are from Wham-O, and are marketed with Wham-O's trademark). They are not merely "like" Frisbees, they ARE Frisbees. Maybe they should be compared to popular general purpose discs, or toy discs, or discs used in Ultimate. But the comparison to Frisbees is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 19:45, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Hyzer[edit]

The section on "Hyzer" is inappropriate. Calling it the "most famous" term is unsupportable. The description is clumsy and inaccurate, and not encyclopedic. The term was not "made famous" by one specific player (unless you have a valid citation). It was first used, in print (ca 1975), by Stancil Johnson, and has long been applied to ANY flying disc sport, or even recreational throwing. The term is used in disc golf, but it's not specific to disc golf.

"Hyzer" was Stancil Johnson's term for the measurement of the side-to-side angle of release for a disc with respect to the horizon. "Mung" was his term for the front-to-back angle of release. In personal conversations with him he stated that he invented several terms in his 1975 book A Frisbee Player's Handbook and definitive treatise. He was surprised that “hyzer” was adopted. And while “a hyzer shot” has come to mean any disc thrown with a downward edge opposite the gripping hand, to remain true to Johnson’s definition, one should say “a disc thrown with hyzer.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.219.14 (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For more information on hyzer and anhyzer see Ching's website at http://www.chingdiscgolf.com/downloads/index.php?dir=Universal%20Stability%20Guide/&file=Universal_Stability_Guide.pdf This visually explains the effect on the disc. I also added Ching to the list of disc manufacturers as they were instrumental in creating the new plastics and multicolor discs used by most companies as their high-end material. It should be noted that they produced the high-end Innova discs before producing their own line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.198.91.191 (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a follow-up: The "Hyzer" reference is from Frisbee: A practitioner's manual and definitive treatise, Dr. Stancil E. D. Johnson Workman Publishing Company, New York (c) 1975. Johnson refers to the "angle of Hyzer" on page 57 of the book, and notes that it was named for H.R. "Fling" Hyzer. In the cronological history section of the book, Johnson notes that in June, 1967, H.R."Fling" Hyzer leaves his North Central Team for a new Wisconsin team. These are likely Guts teams, and the term likely is derived from the Guts rule for the angle the disc must be under when crossing from one team's field area to the other's. Hyzer has come to mean something entirely different to disc golfers. This origin of the word is citable, regardless of Johnson's intentions or invented lexicon. The origin appears to have nothing to do with disc golf. Its use today does. Burjwahzeh (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removed manufacturers and disc golf clubs, courses and disc golfers[edit]

I've removed the sections for disc golf manufacturers and disc golf clubs. These two sections contributed very little to the article and were turning into link respositories (which wikipedia is not). The other wikipedia articles on sports don't seem to have this kind of thing (the article on regular golf has no listing of golf club makers or country clubs). This is not the kind of information people would be interested in when they look up disc golf.--Daveswagon 18:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of information do you think people would be interested in when they look up disc golf? It strikes me that a lot of the editing to this article results in making it less informative. That may fit some interpretations of the rules, but would not seem to be a key strategic result for an informative article. Splendid (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I've now removed the courses and disc golfers sections as well. Both of these sections contributed little or nothing towards explaining what disc golf itself is and they have the potential to become huge lists (since there are hundreds of courses and players). I think one link to a directory of courses (if such a site exists) and a similar one for notable disc golfers would be much better.--Daveswagon 21:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A ball golf article would be lacking not to mention Arnold Palmer and Tiger Woods; so should a disc golf article mention the most famed players such as Ken Climo and Barry Schultz. This article is currently lacking for mention of Barry. I beleive Course guides are equally worthwhile to include, and I attribute ball golf's lack of such to a situation of private selling of that information over a public repository. Including only the PDGA's course guide is unneccessarily restrictive. Though they are definetly the authorative site, there are sections it is lacking which other sites fill, both in information and user-interface. Though I agree, individual course links would be excessive, linking the equivalents to ball golf's Pebble Beach or Augusta would seem reasonable. Certainly more useable and appropriate to any reader than the pop-culture references section. evilmousse 9/26/6

--The PDGA course directory can be found at: <http://www.pdga.com/course/index.php> It contains a listing of all worldwide courses known to the PDGA, searchable by zip code, city/state, or even a Google Maps option. It is the most complete available resource for disc golf courses (but it's not perfect!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.179.31 (talk • contribs)

-Removed more club links from the external links, perhaps someone could start a wiki for club links only? 65.7.226.217 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

number of holes[edit]

I've read both 18 and 19 holes as standard for a disc golf course; my understanding is that 19 is more common.User:justfred

Justfred, in fact (at least in the USA) 18 hole courses are overwhelmingly the most common, with 9 hole courses following. Furthermore, more and more 27 hole courses are popping up. The conventions pertaining to course layout and number of holes is typically much looser than in conventional ball golf.

Oak Grove in Pasadena, CA, the first course and the one I visit the most, has 19 holes. http://www.ogdgc.org/map.htm Morley Field in San Diego is 19 holes. http://www.morleyfield.com/course/art007.gif - User:justfred

The truth is that there is no "standard" number of holes for disc golf. THe PDGA (who is the governing body for disc golf and writes all of the rules) lists no standard or required number of holes, as far as I'm aware. In tournament play, 18 holes per round is the most common (and is the number used at Winthrop, where the USDGC is held every year), and the most I have played in a tournament round is 24. I have question to the PDGA rules committee about any set range of acceptable number of holes for sanctioned tournament play.

18 holes is by far the most common, at least in the States. Some courses have alternate pin or tee placements. This can give the appearance of more than 18 holes. Disc golf historically has mirrored the Professional Golf Association as much as possible.

This discussion is illustrative of how difficult it can be for someone who is not a disc golfer to consider themselves an authority on what is appropriate in an article about disc golf. Where I live in Michigan, I am at this moment within 30 minutes drive of 5 9-hole courses, 3 18-hole courses, and 3 24-hole courses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splendid (talk • contribs) 16:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

throwing[edit]

Is the disc thrown with the hand, or by using some sort of club as in standard golf? Jorge Stolfi 08:22, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jorge, the disc is thrown with the hand. Unlike ball golfers, where the club is generally gripped one way per golfer (with some occassionally having an alternate grip for putting), disc golfers employ a *wide* variety of grips and throwing styles for different shots and situations. Describing and illustrating these myriad styles could be a whole contribution unto themselves. Backhand (what is viewed as "traditional"), forehand, tomahawk, rollers (yes, players roll them on edge purposefully vast distances in the right conditions) and more.

__________________________________________

PDGA rules prohibit use of any extensions to the arm or hand in throwing the disc. Aids to improve grip, such as a glove or drying agent on the hand are permissible as long as they do not change the disc or the mechanics of the throwing arm. --JoelBSmith 14:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

14 percent of players primarily throw forehand. 86 percent primarily throw backhand.

Beginner Disc Selection[edit]

I removed the "Beginner Disc Selection" part of the article as it seems to go beyond the scope of what an encyclopedic article is (and it's written in first person). Below is text I removed. If anyone wants to revise it to be more relevant and reinsert it--be my guest. --Daveswagon 21:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above there are several different manufacturers of disc golf discs. If you are new to the sport, then you probably need some advice on what discs to start out with. One of the biggest mistakes I see out on the course is beginners are throwing discs that are too overstable for them.

Here is a good list of discs you can pick up that won't be too overstable for a beginner's arm.

the leoperd, roadrunner, mids,roc breez,stingray.

Putter -Anything that feels comfortable to you. Different putters do different things. Try to find someone playing on the closest course near you and see if he/she will let you check out their putters before you go out and buy one. The best players usually buy several of the same putter in the same weight.

Disc golf clubs[edit]

I was looking in Category:Frisbee and was very confused when I saw the title of disc golf clubs, thinking it a little oxymoronic. All the same, it's just a page of external links. Wikipedia is not a link farm, and that page is pretty much just a lot of links without wiki articles. This is not to say that these numerous disc golf clubs are deserving or not deserving of articles on their own. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:External links outline the policies and guidelines about this.heres the That being said, what is probably better is a single link to a web directory (DMOZ seems to be the preferred one) category of disc golf clubs. --Christopherlin 04:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who moved it to its own page. I apologize if this went against Wikipedia rules, but I wanted to get the list out of the main article as it was causing what I perceived to be ridiculous bloat. And yes, I did note the subtle irony of the title.--Daveswagon 05:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that there are way way too many external links on this page. Also, I think the second half of the History section reads like a sales pitch, hardly NPOV. I would suggest somebody with information about the subject clean this page up a bit. Guardian 00:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read if you have heard of Suzy Sticks or Durango Boot[edit]

Someone recently created an article on Suzy Sticks, one of those weird games that disc sport people play. It was recently deleted out of process, which is why it is at deletion review. Currently it redirects to Disc golf. I think that we should have an article for spin-off games associated with Ultimate and other disc sports. Obviously Goaltimate, Disc golf and Ultimate should have separate articles, but there should be a Disc games article for well known games as there is for Scrabble variants. There are many others out there like Hot Box, which probably aren't deserving of their own article, but should be included. This has been cross-posted at Talk:Ultimate (sport), Talk:Disc golf, and Talk:Goaltimate. I would like to know if others tink that there should be a combined article. Please leave comments at User talk:WAvegetarian/Disc games. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 16:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Kill SPAM[edit]

Folks, if you're one of the people who has been adding link spam to external links section, please stop. If you're not one of these people, please help keep this section spam-free. It makes this page and this sport look like a joke when there's a massive list of external links. The article for regular golf, despite its "popularity", has only five external links.

Hopefully you can all agree that the external links section should not contain:


In light of the above comments, it seems the following should be removed: -WV (regional website) -SNDG (again, regional website) -PDGA sanctioned tournaments (can be accessed from the main PDGA link) -World Disc Games (is not specifically about disc golf) -Mini Disc Golf Fed (is a form of disc golf) -Women's Disc Golf Association (promotes the sport, isn't very informative) FisherME 18:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to remove links to: PDGA course directory (as it is accessible through PDGA link); Guardians of Recreation (promotion of the sport, not informative); Women's Disc Golf Association (per above - promotion, not informative) --FisherME 19:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest removing "worlds biggest" reference (promotion of the sport and commercial enterprise which aims to sell disc golf items).Burjwahzeh (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add FrolfCaddy?[edit]

FrolfCaddy - I found this resource a few months back. It is a very neat disc golf site. Not only does it provide a course listing but also allows players to enter their scores. From these scores, players are awarded trophy discs and can view stats - both overall and per course. Overall stats include shot percentages and other interesting (but perhaps useless) stats like total number of games played, total shots thrown. Course stats look like http://www.frolfcaddy.com/users/vandergus/scorebook/Old_Farm_Park/46 Players are also able to create friends lists. When you enter a game, if a friend has a game at the same course around the same time, you can link the two games. This allows you to compare your shots and stats with your friends. The site also keeps track of weather information for each game. This works even if you don't enter the game right when you play it as long as you select the correct time when adding the game.

The best part about this site is that it is user driven. Users add the courses, course schemes and par schemes. Other users can modify them leaving versions similar to a wiki. I'm sure I forgot about some features. Can always keep an eye on the community with http://www.frolfcaddy.com/stats Personally I find this site more useful than several of the sites currently listed for External Links. However, I've added it a couple of times and it keeps getting removed. Today I received a message to add this to the discussion page. I will not add this site again, but let the wiki community decide.

Oh yeah, and it doesn't violate any of the rules above - region specific, not a blog, and it doesn't sell any products - free registration—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.121.153 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for discussing this here first. To clarify, what I wrote about SPAM links are not "rules"; they're general suggestions I made for this page. Sorry if it came off in that way. The complete guidelines for external links can be found here. FrolfCaddy seems like a good site, but it's very non-notable at the moment. Alexa gives it a ranking of 5,536,673. As I said above, this is far, far behind sites like Disc Golf Review and DiscGolf.com. Furthermore, it doesn't really add anything more to the explanation of what disc golf is, which is the purpose of this article and its links.--Daveswagon 00:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Alexa has finally updated their rankings. FrolfCaddy is now ranked significantly better than most of the other external links at 560,355. As I find this resource more helpful than the others, I am going to add it back on the external links page. If you feel it should be removed, please discuss it here and let the group decide.

Chicken Wing[edit]

I think the rumor that the Chicken Wing has been thrown over 800 feet is totally bogus. I've never heard anyone claiming to be able to throw this shot more than 150 feet, and it seems like it is very unlikely to go any farther. I think this shot should be removed, as it is not common at all, and the 800 feet is totally unverified. Fmalcangi 01:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current WFDF distance records (http://www.wfdf.org/index.php?page=records/index.htm) indicate the longest open air throw is 250m (just over 800ft). Competitors throwing distance at USDGC and Worlds that I've watched all throw backhand shots. You really just can't generate as much power with a chicken wing. FisherME 17:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read much discussion with knowledgable disc golfers, and I believe that the Chicken Wing distance theory is a myth. I am going to clean up that part of this article. Fmalcangi 06:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard of players able to throw a Chicken Wing 300 feet, but not farther than that.


Answer: There are some players; one in particular, who make absurd claims about the "chicken wing" throw. It's a load of nonsense, and has no place in the article without a proper citation.

Overhand wrist flip is the "classic" name for this throw. In the late 1970's Hugh Lowery of Mary Washington College and one of the founders of the Virginia State Frisbee Tournament was using the overhand wrist flip for distance and approached 300'. In the early 1980's Rich Reilly was using this throw for distance and exeeded 300'. I witnessed these throws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.219.14 (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

discgolftv.com[edit]

I removed the link to discgolftv.com, even though I believe it explains the sport in a way that this Wiki cannot. The site contains many videos of disc golfers and related videos. Although I originally included the site in the Wiki, I have taken it down to aviod breaking any rules.

-000 Jeez I really miss the kill spam notice on the top of the disc golf page.

Tournament Section[edit]

There needs to be a section on tournaments which explains the various tiers, divisions, PDGA rankings and all that stuff. My knowlege of that topic is a few years out of date. Diletante 02:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

registered trademark[edit]

Do we have to write "Frisbee®" all the time? Is Frisbee not good enough? --Aleph-4 17:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Use[edit]

Drug use is illegal in Disc Golf, at least in the tournament rules provided by the PDGA (Professional Disc Golf Association). I have the 2006 rulebook that I'm referencing.

Section 804.05 Disqualification and Suspension which lists conditions that can disqualify a player. Section 4 reads: Activities which are in violation of the law or park regulation or disc golf course rule, including the illegal consumption of drugs or alcohol.

Nodosaurus 23:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodosaurus (talk • contribs)

Drug use (marijuana) by disc golf players is so prevailing - I don't know of any other sport where it is so prevalent - I think it merits a mention in the article. 134.134.136.5 22:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

skateboarding maybe? golf does not mention alcohol, Baseball does not mention tobacco. If we had a culture section and a reliable source for this then it might be worth a mention though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diletante (talk • contribs) 22:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Funny, because I just played for the first time with a Young Life leader who is completely straight-edge... What a waste of 4-20.... Well, at least in my oppinion. Still had fun.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by an anonymous non-subscriber • contribs) 22:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

This is exactly the stigma that professional disc golf is moving away from and feels is holding the sport back from larger sponsorship. It is, in fact, even written in the rules of disc golf (804.05 A) that "Activities which are in violation of the law or park regulation or disc golf course rule, including the illegal consumption of drugs or alcohol" are grounds for tournament disqualification and possibly PDGA suspension. Drug use is distinctly not part of the sport itself, especially not at the competitive level. --FisherME 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Drug use has nothing to do with disc golf itself, no more than doping has to do with cycling. It could be argued that it's a part of the culture more so than other sports, but you'd need an authoritative reference to put this in the article. Hemidemisemiquaver 23:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences with ball golf[edit]

Is this section necessary? Also, I removed the comment about player score cards rather than group score cards in tournament play as this is not ubiquitous in the disc golf community. --FisherME 03:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local Clubs[edit]

The links to the local clubs at the bottom should be removed. We can't add every local club to that list or it would be pages and pages long. They do not really add much to teach the reader about the sport.

Removed American Football reference[edit]

No numbers or links cited on this oddly off-topic criticism of American Football. There are several professional American Football leagues where woman can compete as well as many flag leagues (i.e. http://www.womensfootballcentral.com/). If you want to compare percent of disc golf players who are female versus percent of American Football player who are female that would be fine by me with appropreate sources. But the existing comment was uncited and incorrect.

Champion list[edit]

where is the official website listing of champions and you do not mention scott stokley who is a reputed champion during some of the listed years but you never mention him ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.110.2 (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Disc Golf[edit]

Alright, I'm all for it because I am a female disc golfer, but the current statement that disc golf is known for its "large female population" is very misleading. In fact, the PDGA 2006 disc golf demographics[3] state that only 8% of 11302 PDGA members (about 900) are females. I wouldn't consider that outstanding female participation for a sport... --FisherME 22:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "large" to describe approximately 8% of the players, would "modest" be a more appropriate term? Discgolfrules 16:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a better term, but still I don't feel conveys reality. Perhaps just a link to the PDGA demographic report would help, such that someone can find the actual number. --FisherME 17:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informal Tone[edit]

"Understanding the difference between different disc types is crucial to improving. Each type of disc is designed for certain situations. However, it is interesting to note that if thrown correctly, most discs will perform as desired, often mimicking other types of discs. For instance, some putters can be thrown near the distance of a driver, or an understable disc can be thrown at a very sharp angle to achieve the same effect as an overstable disc. The flight patterns of both very under and overstable discs can be manipulated to take very different paths to the same location. In other words, it is important to consider the wind, obstacles, and pin placements when choosing a disc. Also, when learning to play disc golf, focus on learning with two or three discs only. Get comfortable with all types of throws and situations using only those two or three discs. That way it will be easier to identify differences in disc types." While the information presented here is good, I would like to reword it so as to sound less like unverified advice. I would greatly appreciate if the original author could do this Discgolfrules 16:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality[edit]

A lot of the information in the article is common knowledge, but I would like to add citations and verification to the information to meet wikipedia's standards. Also, if anyone understands how to use free-use imagery, could they work on getting a picture of just a disc golf disc on the page? Discgolfrules 14:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't know where to add this to, but i wanted to say something about the scoring section. I have been playing Disc Golf for 4 year, and there is no such thin as an albatross (double eagle, -3 par) nor is -2 par on a hole called an eagle. the PDGA tournaments have a standard Par 3 rating for each hole. some courses have longer holes than others, but the average course length justifies a par 3 total rating. On a par 3 course, a -2 par is called an ace, or a hole in one. i wanted it known that this is how the scoring is actually done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.129.58 (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The PDGA does NOT give par 3 across the board for tournaments. It is up to the TD to correctly enter the par in the TD reports, but that's another discussion for another day. Look at the bigger tournaments such as USDGC, and you will see a course par for 18 holes around 65. There are several par 4 and 5 holes on some longer courses. "Eagle" is the correct term for a -2, but as we have yet to see a -3 on a hole, the "albatross" carryover from ball golf really isn't necessary. --FisherME (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of "Par 3" tournaments that are played on courses with par 4 and par 5 holes. I'm not sure of the reasoning behind this, but I suspect it's because they are rather "easy" par 4 & 5's. On one such course, I aced the 10th hole (par 3) then got a double-eagle on the 18th (par 5). The 18th was downhill, but it isn't that hard to get a close tee shot if can control your disc. OTOH, most people playing the course aren't that experienced and need the additional shots since their drive goes waayy off course :-). I didn't play in any tournaments but I know at least one was par 3 all the way (despite being labled par 4 or par 5) and the other (a much more difficult course) used par 3, 4, and two par 5's. So I guess it boils down to course difficulty and level of competitive play. Lime in the Coconut 14:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ads[edit]

Does one company hold such a dominant position in the manufacture of these "disks" as to make it reasonable for every (?) disc mentioned to be made by the same one? This looks a *lot* like advertising. swyves190.21.185.89 (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can safely say that in 8 years of recreational play I've never seen anything but Innova discs. I found an abandoned one that was much smaller in diameter, but I couldn't find the manufacturer. Maybe it's a regional thing? There aren't a lot of places that sell the discs in stores where I live and they are all Innova. People are just writing about what they know. Lime in the Coconut 14:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frolf and/or Folf[edit]

I just reverted someone changing 'Frolf', the longer resident term here, to 'Folf'. Checking the page above I didn't see any discussion on this. Checking the 50th older revision I saw that at one point both 'Frolf' and 'Folf' were mentioned. Which one or both of these is acceptable and why? I've stupidly put this page on my watchlist from some long ago era of vandalism and just want to know what's legit. ;-) Shenme (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some quick research. There are more hits on google for "frolf" but the only thing that appears citable is a news article for "folf."

So then would the general concensus be to mention both? I'd prefer to use a cite for whatever we do use, seeing as the article has issues with uncited information. Discgolfrules (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Disc Golf Course Components[edit]

I feel that this section is important to the article, but I would much prefer if we could find cites and sources to verify it. If there is any website with such information, please link to it within this section Discgolfrules (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Discs to Bag[edit]

I reverted this to the original saying it is leagal to add discs to your bag during play. I can find no rule that says you can't. If you have a source saying you can please post it. Phattd (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC). Nowhere in the current PDGA Disc golf rules book (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PDGA2007rulebook.pdf) can find a rule prohibits the addition of a legal disc to ones bag during play, ergo it is legal to add discs to ones bag during play as long as they are legal discs for play in PDGA sanctioned events. Last warrior 1981 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

WOW! The stuff here in this section is way off base on almost everything! Especially the Ed Headrick and Spud Melin stuff. Neither of them created or started disc golf. But Ed Hedrick was very instrumental in promoting and popularizing the sport of disc golf after he finally listened to George Sappenfield, who as a paid consultant of Wham-O, tried for a number of years to convince Ed and Wham-O that disc golf would be a great way to promote the Frisbee! And when Headrick finally did come around to that idea, he resigned From Wham-O and started his own disc golf business, and invented the Chain Pole hole target that is the de-facto standard for putting. Stancil Jo0hnson's book was a great overall book in many ways, but it sure does lack in historical accuracy! Anyone who is really interested in an accurate factual history of Frisbee and Disc Golf can go to Amazon.com and search for history of disc golf. You will find what you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimpalmeri (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sappenfield is being credited with providing a larger contribution to the sport origins than he likely did.

From Frisbee: A practitioner's manual and definitive treatise, Dr. Stancil E. D. Johnson, Workman Publishing Company New York 1975: Page 97:

At Wham-O in the early days of flying saucers, [Arthur] "Spud" Melin first adapted Frisbee to golf and George Sappenfield, the park and recreation supervisor at Thousand Oaks, California, laid out the first permanent [disc golf] course.

Regarding Sappenfield,

He teaches a Frisbee course at Fresno State College, and started the first Frisbee Youth Camp in the summer of 1972 at Bass Lake, California.

While Sappenfied's contributions can likely be credited with bringing a degree of legitimacy to the game, credit as an "inventor" of the sport seems over-blown. Arthur Melin, co-founder of Wham-O would have been in an excellent position to formulate and formalize the game, having been an associate of Morrison in 1955(Johnson, page 20), and involved in the production of discs, which dates to 1957 (Johnson, page 20). Headrick is on record as envisioning Frisbee as sport in the early 1960's, and this could not have been done without a degree of formalization of the many facets of the sport, including Guts and disc golf. Arthur Melin was standing beside Headrick during the working hours of the day in the early 60's, and would have had ample opportunity to discuss the sport with Headrick. Sappenfield, on the other hand, did everything that a parks and recreation supervisor would have been expected to do, especially one gripped by golf mania. He embraced the game, and implemented it where he could. He taught the game at the local college. His may have been the initial implementation of a formal and dedicated course, but claims to be an inventor of the game appear far-fetched. He appears to be the earliest adopter of the game from a parks and rec point of view. In view of the Johnson citation, a revisitation of the history section of this article appears appropriate. Burjwahzeh (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


High school students in Maplewood, New Jersey, invented Ultimate Frisbee, a cross between football, soccer and basketball, in 1967.In the 1970s, Headrick himself invented Frisbee Golf [Disc golf], in which discs are tossed into metal baskets; there are now hundreds of courses in the U.S., with millions of devotees. There is also Freestyle Frisbee, with choreographed routines set to music and multiple discs in play, and various Frisbee competitions for both humans and dogs--the best natural Frisbee players. to read full article please see http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/toy-company-wham-o-produces-first-frisbees [1]

References

  1. ^ http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/toy-company-wham-o-produces-first-frisbees

I just edited this section and came across a lot of confusion between Kevin Donnelly and George Sappenfield, as well as Ed Headrick and Dan Dunipace. There is a lot of conflicting facts from PDGA and DGA about who is the "creator" of the sport, and conflicting facts between who created the current disc models between Ed Headrick and Dan Dunipace. I changed the section to address the issue and reworded it so that no one receives true credit, but I couldn't find a source that was able to clearly indicate who was the true inventor and creator. Obviously it is not going to be black and white, but if anyone has any further information on the issue, I welcome you to edit my work and let me know because I think it's really interesting that everyone is claiming something different. Rayleelin (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rule Differences Between Ball Golf[edit]

This section needs to be re-written under the title, Rules of Disc Golf, with the comparison to ball golf being subducted into the opening paragraph. The rules of the game are published and stand alone from the game of ball golf. The PDGA rulebook could be paraphrased and referenced in a much more concise manner. As it stands, the title of this section does not accurately reflect the content and, in the context of the rules of the game, could be considered as tendentious (falling putts, 2-meter rule). The offical rules of the game have been spread thoughout the article, without proper citiation, along with much undocumented colloquial rule variations and slang.

No, I'm not just criticizing, I'm gearing-up for a big revision. Stay tuned... Hyzerflip (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Frolf and Frisbee Golf[edit]

To refer to the game of Disc Golf as "Frolf" or "Frisbee Golf" is to suggest that the game is played with a Frisbee-type disc, which it is not. It is also to imply that the game was started by and/or possibly is associated with Wham-O, which it is not. While the inception of the game did involve early Frisbee style discs, it was not a venture of, nor was it ever directly associated to, the Wham-O corporation. I had been playing for four years before I ever heard the term, and since there are no manufacturers, especially Wham-o, that make "Frolf" discs, I would hardly consider the term widely used. If someone still feels it absolutely necessary to include a mention of this alternate term, they need to include a reference to a credible publication.Hyzerflip (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term frolf is so foreign to most disc golfers, not sure it belongs in the heading. Objectiveap (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle link[edit]

Changed "Freestyle" to "Flying disc freestyle" just to link to another Wiki article Audra454 (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technique[edit]

Would someone please create redirect pages for the following terms, redirected at throwing styles? RHFH, Right-hand forehand, RHBH, Right-hand backhand, LHFH, Left-hand forehand, LHBH, Left-hand backhand? Thanks! 70.250.189.44 (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your intent? Creating redirect pages is easy. but unless the target pages are created it seems a bit pointless.

Extent of DG content[edit]

How far should we go with dg content? There used to be a DG wiki, but seems to have vanished. We could grab a lot of its content for import to Wikipedia. I was one of its contributors, I believe I can get my hands on the data. It may also be available on Wayback.

Nodosaurus (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rules[edit]

not sure how wiki works, but find the rules as listed here to be complete gobbledy gook. Write for beginners! --Barjobo (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it does seem to immediately leap into the technical aspects of the rules. I've put a template on the section for now. --McGeddon (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments: How-to, POV and OR[edit]

Jojalozzo 20:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Disc golf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Large Change in 2017[edit]

This article has languished at C quality for a long time, and needs MAJOR revision and rewriting. I have finally created a wikipedia username primarily so that I can support improving this article. There are several indications that participation in disc golf is growing very rapidly, so it becomes even more important to have a high quality article as more people are exposed to the sport. I am new at this, so I very much appreciate the support of experienced Wikipedians! I have begun by deleting the chatty, irrelevant and un-encyclopedic first two paragraphs, replacing them with a simple description of what disc golf actually is.Sharper Pencil (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have continued by deleting the Basic Rules section which had a warning box for being too technical and which seemed to be aimed at players rather than people wishing to discover what the sport actually is. I replaced it with a basic description of play. The text I added needs a great deal more in the way of citations, but I have been enjoined to be bold and to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, so I did it anyway. I will also delete the "safety" section, which seems to be un-encyclopedic advice or instructions and is anyway redundant to other similar text in the article.Sharper Pencil (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been starting to work on this article as well, and I agree with a lot of what you changed. I just changed your edit to the initial description with the intention to add your original growth facts to a new section entirely. I think that the section you added on play of the game focuses too much on the course, making a separate section on courses irrelevant. I think it would be good to reword the play of the game section to separate it from all others. I will also help you find research for what you've added and am currently working on rewording and checking the validity of the history section. I also want to add to the women section as well as look into worldwide research, in order to take the focus off of play in the US. Rayleelin (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits Rayleelin, I am very glad I am not the only one working on this. I think we need information about the recent rapid growth of the sport somewhere in the article, but I also agree with you that it doesn't necessarily make sense in the intro section and that maybe it is important enough to have its own section. Now that you have shortened the history section and made it more sensible, maybe the content about growth would fit naturally at the end of that section, as it is the most recent chapter of the history of the sport? I also think we should consider adding a two more completely new sections: One about the professional scene, and another about the PDGA and WFDF, but I haven't marshalled the resources to try writing either one yet. I also think we should completely delete the disc golf hall of fame list and link to it instead.Sharper Pencil (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that you agree! I just added a growth section with the title of Popularity for the same reason. I currently have it added to the Women section because I don't think that the Women section should stand alone. I think we could definitely move it under the History section, but personally, I think it warrants its own section. I also wanted to add a professional section, but I'm not quite sure what should go into the section that would be relevant to the overall page. I don't think that we need to create sections for the organizations because they don't seem relevant to the sport overall. It would probably be better if they had their own page and we just had links to them. Rayleelin (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental concerns[edit]

Hi! I am quite surprised when I came to read this article that environmental concerns have not been addressed at all. I know for a fact that at least in my country one course was shut down due the negative impact it had on its surroundings (soil erosion mainly), and there have been quite heated discussions about other courses as well and what damage do flying discs do to trees and more importantly to very young trees and fragile plants, also players stepping on everything in the heat of the game. The disc golf differs from regular golf that the players don't want to play disc golf only in open environment specifically designed for the play, but in the forest or other areas where there are obstacles and it is interesting. But this could do harm to this area. But this is probably a topic that has not been that thoroughly researched at a scientific level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.74.18 (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "Disc Golf Hall of Fame" section?[edit]

I don't see it as a necessary section and I don't think it's that relevant to the article. I'm not perfect but I'm almost (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need for a Disc Golf WikiProject[edit]

Hello editors, I believe we need a WikiProject for Disc Golf, which would allow us to better manage the sport. I am willing to help create it, but I would need 5+ other editors to get on board with the idea. Feel free to propose it now, or wait until I get around to doing it. Please discuss it here or on my talk page. Thanks. JackFromReedsburg (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories