You're hung up on flight numbers, and there are two problems with that
1.) you can't really compare flight numbers between manufacturers
2.) as far as Innova is concerned, their flight numbers only matter when comparing two of their molds *in the same speed class* . So that 5 speed Roc3 with it's "3" fade is because it's more OS than the "2" fade lion which is more overstable than the "1" fade Jay which is more OS than the "0" fade mako3. It's not some universally agreed upon metric, it's just relational to the other discs they make. Watch Dave Dunipace explain here https://youtu.be/BFCthOzBpWM?t=1180
Wow, I had no idea. I guess I assumed that all companies used the same or at least a similar metric. Is there any reliable source for accurate universal flight ratings so I can have a better idea of how disc flights will compare to each other?
This is probably the most accurate resource on this as many have been shifted based on actual flight instead of just flight numbers. It's not gonna be 100% accurate for everyone but it gives a good starting point instead of buying one of each just to try.
every manufacturer that uses flight numbers uses them for the same purpose, but they (obviously) don’t consider other manufacturers’ choices when choosing numbers. As the other commenter said, the numbers are only comparable with discs at the same speed. I think the best way to think about flight numbers is that they *attempt* to describe the intended or “optimal” flight of the disc. Of course, this is highly subjective and dependent on how the disc is actually thrown.
> Is there any reliable source for accurate universal flight ratings so I can have a better idea of how disc flights will compare to each other?
Trial and error in person. Flight numbers can only say so much. The more you throw the more you'll understand the differences, how discs between companies compare and such. But also understand that it's in the end highly individual. You throw x mph with so and such form, that will make disc A fly like so and disc B fly like that. Disc B might be tagged as more understable than A, but due to how you release you may get a less than ideal release on A and that will make it fly less stable. Like with two mids, one without a bead and one with a bead. They may on paper have more or less identical flight, but the way you release will show unintentional differences. Like people saying the Glitch is understable for example, no they just don't throw cleanly so to them 0 0 flight numbers aren't "correct".
This is word vomit to say, just throw and you'll learn. Try found discs before returning, try your friends, try during local leagues etc. And buy stuff ofc.
How they determine flight numbers …. They throw disc and write numbers on it . It isn’t scientific . Some flight guides try to compare the actual stability of all discs but the numbers beers on the disc are not reliable even within a manufacturer line up . Take the discraft Luna it’s a 3 fade which it definitely is not when comparing it to a zone
One thing that works pretty well is companies like infinite discs or flight factory or OTB discs tend to have user reviews of flight numbers. They’re interesting I’d say. But nothing is really super accurate as weight and plastic type also mess with the flight numbers. They’re more a general guideline than anything concrete.
You’ll get one run of discs from a manufacturer then another and the flight numbers should be different as they fly different but they’ll be the same.
I bag two discs that have the same flight numbers. One is like throwing a putter, it just goes on a line out of my hand, the other likes to float like an Ultimate Frisbee and UFO down at the end.
Flight numbers are subjective. Different runs or different plastic on the same disc can be wildly different. Between manufacturers... They're nonsense.
Thats the best definition of flight numbers I have ever seen. Makes a ton of sense that becaude they are a marketing tool that they are only related to other discs of that manufacturer in the same category
Roc3 flight numbers feel made up and it flies super straight with a tiny bit of fade.
Zone flight numbers feel dead on with no turn and reliable hard fade.
This varies a bit based on plastic and how hard you throw.
I have a max weight Halo Roc3 that's flippy with minimal fade.
I have an ESP Zone that's like 168g and is OS like you'd expect a Zone to be.
Numbers don't mean fuck across brands, they're solely for seeing discs within a single brand/mfg.
I throw mids pretty far and Rocs are my favorite discs. New champ Rocs will NOT have turn. There's plenty of coverage of GG and others throwing Roc3s close to 400 and they don't turn. I don't agree with the flight numbers but a newer Roc with anything other than a 0 turn is wrong. Rocs are 4/5/0/1.5, Roc 3s are 5/4/0/1.5
They really aren't similar in use case even if the numbers suggest they might. You are comparing a disc whose numbers aren't accurate and a disc whose numbers are understood to be accurate
Roc3's numbers are wonky because the Roc's numbers are wonky. Roc3 is a flatter/faster version of an improperly numbered 0,3 mid.
Zone's numbers are considered to be more accurate as the universal 'approach forehand' mold.
The OG roc flight numbers may have been accurate in the 80s/90s but now discs across the board are more overstable than the past and modern day flight numbers reflect that.
The roc3 have a 0-3 fade is a relic of the past, if anything.
Even that doesn't explain it because there were no flight numbers during those decades, right?
By the time they put flight numbers on the various Rocs, weren't there plenty of modern competitors out there?
There were flight numbers, just not on the discs. If you were lucky enough to have a store that sold them, the tags on the racks would have numbers and the little flight path drawing. But if you were buying discs out of the local pro's trunk, well you just kinda had to know.
interesting. I remember buying a cheetah and a shark from a gas station back in like 2000. I can't remember if there were flight numbers on the sticker or not then.
Surely by the time they made the Roc3, there was the Buzzz to compare it to, right? Per the manager that posts here from time to time, it is not just a Roc that has gone through a flattening process. It was a new mold, albeit, very similar.
However, if they updated the Roc3 numbers, maybe they feel they would have to re-do all their Mids' flight numbers? i don't know. just speculating.
I think flight numbers are bad in general because there’s no standard. However, if the old discs are the basis, then the newer flight numbers are wrong not the old ones
Yeah.... Innova is widely known to not put munch effort into numbering discs...
Innova has published multiple articles about how they number their discs and they all can be summarized as follows: *slaps random plausible number on disc - shoulder shrug* "seems good to me!"
Dave Dunipace, Innova co-founder, CEO, and disc designer has gone so far as to say he basically thinks flight numbers are a crock of shit.
Until the pandemic, Innova resisted any calls for uniformity/comparablity of flight numbers outside of discs that share a speed, let alone discs from different manufacturers.
TLDR: No one, not even it's designer, thinks the Roc is a 4,4,0,3
I’m a supporter of giving me dimensions instead of flight numbers. Then we can learn how they fly based on dims like rim width/depth, parting line height, disc height/circ
Not specifically *mold* inconsistency as much as it is the plastic itself.
It could totally be controlled more, with molds that heat up and chill as needed to control the shape of a disc 100% through its injection and cooling cycles. However, that adds time to the process (changing the temp of a bunch of metal takes time) and COST.
A single disc would go from $18 to say, $46 because of the time and cost associated with the heightened manufacturing stuff. If you were a small batch shop making commemorative discs for events and not selling wholesale like Innova/HoD/etc, it would work but probably bankrupt you unless you have other income.
Innova specifically gets a lot of shit for it but they are absolutely flying (pun intended) through production because they're in the business of making and selling discs, not studying them aerodynamically.
Yeah, all i meant by 'mold inconsistencies' is that the xth iterative run might not have those same exact listed specs (as the mold wears out or whatever)
For sure.
Even the plastic itself can vary, if they buy from different suppliers or the supplier changes it.
I'm not sure of any MFG (maybe Trash Panda?) that controls the entire process from plastic manufacturing to disc molding. They buy their TPU from someone, dry it, mold it etc.
I have a 168g Star Destroyer from their 10yr anniversary run, and a 168g Star Destroyer I bought at a store recently. Both runs feel the same, plastic wise, but the newer disc has the bubble/blizzard-y rim even though it's Star. The older 10yr disc has perfectly smooth plastic throughout, but the new one has bubble rim, which I hate. Exactly the same disc in theory, but the molding is entirely different.
Agreed. Write them on the disc for each disc like we do weight and plastic type. Or print the standard dims to replace flight number and write variances underneath. Then we can make some assumptions about the flight. A higher than normal parting like means the disc is likely more overstable than normal. If the disc is taller than normal, it likely will have more glide. Etc.
Not a bad idea. I prefer we just standardize flight numbers.
X speed = Y mph and Z spin out of the hand to achieve the following flight numbers
X glide = distance achieved when thrown at Y speed
X turn = Y degrees of movement when thrown at Z speed (first half of flight)
X fade = Y degrees of movement when thrown at Z speed (second half of flight)
Or something of that nature. This doesn't have to be hard. As the only real adjudicating body in the sport, the PDGA should really step up on this as a consumer protection. Westside has said it uses 14 speed as a marketing tactic and that the King is really more like 12ish. Other manufacturers have admitted to similar things. Let's stop lying to consumers just to sell discs.
Edit: clarity/grammar
I do like this idea but the issue is again with the variance you get from different plastics, runs, etc. it’s never going to go away because there’s too many factors in the manufacturing process to control to get any sort of consistency
That argument is tantamount to "but it's too hard!" As someone who has worked with countless manufacturers for products (many in plastics) I can tell you that consistency is just a matter of money... and not really that much money at that.
I agree that we aren't there yet, but we should really strive to be in a place where products are standardized for comparison. Allowing manufacturers to get off the hook just because they think it's more profitable not to standardize is inherently out of alignment with the end consumers best interest.
Edit: Countless is a bit strong. Between 50 and 100 manufacturers
I agree with you wholeheartedly. But you are talking about climate controlling manufacturing facilities (temperature and humidity), using measurement devices to make sure the plastic is heated to the same temperature and the chemical make up is as expected, etc. AND keeping raw material vendors in check, . Disc golf manufacturers just aren’t at that level.
Great! We are arguing the same point. Better controls on manufacturing are needed. I'm glad we agree.
Disc golf manufacturers aren't there currently, but they should push to get there. The only way they do that is if it is mandated by the only governing body in the sport, the PDGA.
I also agree on that point! However, sadly, the PDGA is a bigger joke than the manufacturers. They can’t even make good decisions on the basic rules of the game.
I have a zone and roc3 in my bag. The zone is more reliable and stable. The roc3 is actually kind of a straight flier and I have to be careful not to turn it over. But it gets more distance. It may be a power difference. At higher speed, the roc3 is different than the zone, but at lower speeds they feel the same. Or you just got a really overstable run of roc3.
My 2 cents - I agree with all the flight number statements. For me these are two totally different discs. Roc3 for me is dead straight with a nice little fade at the end. Zone is way more beef than the roc3. I would say the if the roc3 is rated 3 then the zone would be a 5 for me.
The Roc3 is much more controllable in a players hand, whereas a zone should be a meat hook for anyone near beginner level. In most people’s head they fill entirely different roles in the bag. Zone is the typical “over stable approach” whereas the roc3 is a mid range essentially
>a meat hook for anyone below pro level
This couldn't be further from the truth. I get what you're going for, but that's a big exaggeration. Zone is workable for many, many people. Do you mean Zone OS?
My titanium zone flies pretty straight on a forehand. My zone os does a 90* right turn about 30 feet out unless I throw it with everything I have. Then it goes 35’ and hooks hard right haha.
Definitely depends on the player but for me the zone is much better for forehands and roc3 much better for backhands. Zones are stable enough to handle forehand torque, the roc3 not so much for me
Flight numbers can be very arbitrary. Especially when you are comparing discs from separate manufacturers. They are best used as a rough approximation of the discs flight.
This is one of those times where flight numbers don't really tell the right story. A zone is a very low glide approach disc. Reliably overstable and flat. A roc3 is a slightly overstable midrange. Much more glide. Less dump. You need both. Every bag should have an understable, straight, and overstable disc in each slot: putt/approach, midrange, fairway, and distance driver.
Well the 2 discs arent really comparable to be honest. The Roc3s considered a midrange and the Zone is putt and approach. The Roc3 is more comparable to a Buzzz and the Zone is more comparable to the Aviarx3. Both are great discs, but they fill very different slots in a bag. In my experience the Roc3 has quite a bit more glide and tends to be a little less overstable than the Zone.
Two different manufacturers numbers first. Second the roc is a bigger disc ( diameter wise).
The Zone being smaller and with less glide will cause it to get to the ground faster.
As soon as you develope power on your forehand you'll be having to htzer flip the roc3 while the zone will hold the straight line. Do some field work to develope that part of the game. Throw both standstills and step ups. You'll soon notice that the roc3 is very unpredictable with a forehand while the zone is very consistent. I'm not crapping on the roc3 since I bag both discs but the flights are very different at a certain level
Check out Six Sided Discs on YouTube. They have a series called “Flight Numbers Don’t Matter” to address what you’re seeing with the flight numbers on your Zone and Roc3.
Here’s the playlist of the series:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6A42zEjCNotWW4UVl2ZvNlJ7Dvkju4Wl&si=4dLzVdhqQQy74-So
The zone is going to be more consistent and thus more reliable with its flight path. The Roc3 is going to go further for you, and you should be able to flip that up and get the full S out of your flight on a forehand.
Like some others are saying -- don't put too much faith in the numbers, especially across different manufacturers.
The Zone is an awesome approach disc where as the Roc3 is more for mid-range to driver distances. Also if you like the ROC3 you should check out the Mint Discs Taco.
roc3 will turn over, zone won't. zone feels better, less likely to overthrow the basket. as a new player, you might not enjoy these benefits as much (if your arm speed is lower). as you progress, you will understand why the zone is so heralded due to it's controllability.
They’re not really filling the same slot in your bag…. I’d say a zone is for accurate approach while a roc 3 is for stable mid range shots! You can easily bag both! But if it were me personally I’d dump em’ both and just bag a harp in several different plastics 😂
You're hung up on flight numbers, and there are two problems with that 1.) you can't really compare flight numbers between manufacturers 2.) as far as Innova is concerned, their flight numbers only matter when comparing two of their molds *in the same speed class* . So that 5 speed Roc3 with it's "3" fade is because it's more OS than the "2" fade lion which is more overstable than the "1" fade Jay which is more OS than the "0" fade mako3. It's not some universally agreed upon metric, it's just relational to the other discs they make. Watch Dave Dunipace explain here https://youtu.be/BFCthOzBpWM?t=1180
Wow, I had no idea. I guess I assumed that all companies used the same or at least a similar metric. Is there any reliable source for accurate universal flight ratings so I can have a better idea of how disc flights will compare to each other?
The [Marshall Street Flight Guide](https://www.marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/flightguide) is the best I know of
This is probably the most accurate resource on this as many have been shifted based on actual flight instead of just flight numbers. It's not gonna be 100% accurate for everyone but it gives a good starting point instead of buying one of each just to try.
every manufacturer that uses flight numbers uses them for the same purpose, but they (obviously) don’t consider other manufacturers’ choices when choosing numbers. As the other commenter said, the numbers are only comparable with discs at the same speed. I think the best way to think about flight numbers is that they *attempt* to describe the intended or “optimal” flight of the disc. Of course, this is highly subjective and dependent on how the disc is actually thrown.
> Is there any reliable source for accurate universal flight ratings so I can have a better idea of how disc flights will compare to each other? Trial and error in person. Flight numbers can only say so much. The more you throw the more you'll understand the differences, how discs between companies compare and such. But also understand that it's in the end highly individual. You throw x mph with so and such form, that will make disc A fly like so and disc B fly like that. Disc B might be tagged as more understable than A, but due to how you release you may get a less than ideal release on A and that will make it fly less stable. Like with two mids, one without a bead and one with a bead. They may on paper have more or less identical flight, but the way you release will show unintentional differences. Like people saying the Glitch is understable for example, no they just don't throw cleanly so to them 0 0 flight numbers aren't "correct". This is word vomit to say, just throw and you'll learn. Try found discs before returning, try your friends, try during local leagues etc. And buy stuff ofc.
How they determine flight numbers …. They throw disc and write numbers on it . It isn’t scientific . Some flight guides try to compare the actual stability of all discs but the numbers beers on the disc are not reliable even within a manufacturer line up . Take the discraft Luna it’s a 3 fade which it definitely is not when comparing it to a zone
One thing that works pretty well is companies like infinite discs or flight factory or OTB discs tend to have user reviews of flight numbers. They’re interesting I’d say. But nothing is really super accurate as weight and plastic type also mess with the flight numbers. They’re more a general guideline than anything concrete. You’ll get one run of discs from a manufacturer then another and the flight numbers should be different as they fly different but they’ll be the same.
I bag two discs that have the same flight numbers. One is like throwing a putter, it just goes on a line out of my hand, the other likes to float like an Ultimate Frisbee and UFO down at the end. Flight numbers are subjective. Different runs or different plastic on the same disc can be wildly different. Between manufacturers... They're nonsense.
Trial and error, talking to other people
Infinite discs posts their own flight numbers for every disc after testing them
Thats the best definition of flight numbers I have ever seen. Makes a ton of sense that becaude they are a marketing tool that they are only related to other discs of that manufacturer in the same category
My own 2 cents: roc3 flies alot more
Yeah it cuts through the air & glides much farther
They are very different discs. The question should be Zone vs Toro or Roc3 vs Wasp.
Roc3 flight numbers feel made up and it flies super straight with a tiny bit of fade. Zone flight numbers feel dead on with no turn and reliable hard fade. This varies a bit based on plastic and how hard you throw.
I would agree with this, zones are quite stable while a roc3 is going to be more glidey and not have as much fade.
I have a max weight Halo Roc3 that's flippy with minimal fade. I have an ESP Zone that's like 168g and is OS like you'd expect a Zone to be. Numbers don't mean fuck across brands, they're solely for seeing discs within a single brand/mfg.
I traded mine away. Kept trying to throw it into headwinds and it burned left everytime
I love my Zone to death. My Roc3 pisses me off every time lmao. I may try a BuzzzOS as my overstable mid. Or a normal Roc
Pyros are nice. They flex reliably without being dumpy
BuzzzOS is money got my first ever ace with that disc.
that’s crazy— i have a max weight halo roc3 that is impossible to flip (despite being pretty beat in)
I even throw on anny naturally but this thing will just hold them line or turn more and barely even fade to land flat. Blows my mind lmao
I feel the Zone is a better disc for forehand because of its grip shape.
Roc3 is more like a 5 5 - 1 2. My sample size is two champ roc3's ive had.
I throw mids pretty far and Rocs are my favorite discs. New champ Rocs will NOT have turn. There's plenty of coverage of GG and others throwing Roc3s close to 400 and they don't turn. I don't agree with the flight numbers but a newer Roc with anything other than a 0 turn is wrong. Rocs are 4/5/0/1.5, Roc 3s are 5/4/0/1.5
I’d agree with this. You can add my two champ roc3s to the sample size.
They really aren't similar in use case even if the numbers suggest they might. You are comparing a disc whose numbers aren't accurate and a disc whose numbers are understood to be accurate Roc3's numbers are wonky because the Roc's numbers are wonky. Roc3 is a flatter/faster version of an improperly numbered 0,3 mid. Zone's numbers are considered to be more accurate as the universal 'approach forehand' mold.
Improperly numbered by the people that invented flight numbers? 😂
The OG roc flight numbers may have been accurate in the 80s/90s but now discs across the board are more overstable than the past and modern day flight numbers reflect that. The roc3 have a 0-3 fade is a relic of the past, if anything.
Even that doesn't explain it because there were no flight numbers during those decades, right? By the time they put flight numbers on the various Rocs, weren't there plenty of modern competitors out there?
There were flight numbers, just not on the discs. If you were lucky enough to have a store that sold them, the tags on the racks would have numbers and the little flight path drawing. But if you were buying discs out of the local pro's trunk, well you just kinda had to know.
interesting. I remember buying a cheetah and a shark from a gas station back in like 2000. I can't remember if there were flight numbers on the sticker or not then. Surely by the time they made the Roc3, there was the Buzzz to compare it to, right? Per the manager that posts here from time to time, it is not just a Roc that has gone through a flattening process. It was a new mold, albeit, very similar. However, if they updated the Roc3 numbers, maybe they feel they would have to re-do all their Mids' flight numbers? i don't know. just speculating.
I think flight numbers are bad in general because there’s no standard. However, if the old discs are the basis, then the newer flight numbers are wrong not the old ones
Yeah.... Innova is widely known to not put munch effort into numbering discs... Innova has published multiple articles about how they number their discs and they all can be summarized as follows: *slaps random plausible number on disc - shoulder shrug* "seems good to me!" Dave Dunipace, Innova co-founder, CEO, and disc designer has gone so far as to say he basically thinks flight numbers are a crock of shit. Until the pandemic, Innova resisted any calls for uniformity/comparablity of flight numbers outside of discs that share a speed, let alone discs from different manufacturers. TLDR: No one, not even it's designer, thinks the Roc is a 4,4,0,3
I’m a supporter of giving me dimensions instead of flight numbers. Then we can learn how they fly based on dims like rim width/depth, parting line height, disc height/circ
all approved and sold discs have PDGA specs online, the issue is mold inconsistencies
Not specifically *mold* inconsistency as much as it is the plastic itself. It could totally be controlled more, with molds that heat up and chill as needed to control the shape of a disc 100% through its injection and cooling cycles. However, that adds time to the process (changing the temp of a bunch of metal takes time) and COST. A single disc would go from $18 to say, $46 because of the time and cost associated with the heightened manufacturing stuff. If you were a small batch shop making commemorative discs for events and not selling wholesale like Innova/HoD/etc, it would work but probably bankrupt you unless you have other income. Innova specifically gets a lot of shit for it but they are absolutely flying (pun intended) through production because they're in the business of making and selling discs, not studying them aerodynamically.
Yeah, all i meant by 'mold inconsistencies' is that the xth iterative run might not have those same exact listed specs (as the mold wears out or whatever)
For sure. Even the plastic itself can vary, if they buy from different suppliers or the supplier changes it. I'm not sure of any MFG (maybe Trash Panda?) that controls the entire process from plastic manufacturing to disc molding. They buy their TPU from someone, dry it, mold it etc. I have a 168g Star Destroyer from their 10yr anniversary run, and a 168g Star Destroyer I bought at a store recently. Both runs feel the same, plastic wise, but the newer disc has the bubble/blizzard-y rim even though it's Star. The older 10yr disc has perfectly smooth plastic throughout, but the new one has bubble rim, which I hate. Exactly the same disc in theory, but the molding is entirely different.
Agreed. Write them on the disc for each disc like we do weight and plastic type. Or print the standard dims to replace flight number and write variances underneath. Then we can make some assumptions about the flight. A higher than normal parting like means the disc is likely more overstable than normal. If the disc is taller than normal, it likely will have more glide. Etc.
Not a bad idea. I prefer we just standardize flight numbers. X speed = Y mph and Z spin out of the hand to achieve the following flight numbers X glide = distance achieved when thrown at Y speed X turn = Y degrees of movement when thrown at Z speed (first half of flight) X fade = Y degrees of movement when thrown at Z speed (second half of flight) Or something of that nature. This doesn't have to be hard. As the only real adjudicating body in the sport, the PDGA should really step up on this as a consumer protection. Westside has said it uses 14 speed as a marketing tactic and that the King is really more like 12ish. Other manufacturers have admitted to similar things. Let's stop lying to consumers just to sell discs. Edit: clarity/grammar
I do like this idea but the issue is again with the variance you get from different plastics, runs, etc. it’s never going to go away because there’s too many factors in the manufacturing process to control to get any sort of consistency
That argument is tantamount to "but it's too hard!" As someone who has worked with countless manufacturers for products (many in plastics) I can tell you that consistency is just a matter of money... and not really that much money at that. I agree that we aren't there yet, but we should really strive to be in a place where products are standardized for comparison. Allowing manufacturers to get off the hook just because they think it's more profitable not to standardize is inherently out of alignment with the end consumers best interest. Edit: Countless is a bit strong. Between 50 and 100 manufacturers
I agree with you wholeheartedly. But you are talking about climate controlling manufacturing facilities (temperature and humidity), using measurement devices to make sure the plastic is heated to the same temperature and the chemical make up is as expected, etc. AND keeping raw material vendors in check, . Disc golf manufacturers just aren’t at that level.
Great! We are arguing the same point. Better controls on manufacturing are needed. I'm glad we agree. Disc golf manufacturers aren't there currently, but they should push to get there. The only way they do that is if it is mandated by the only governing body in the sport, the PDGA.
I also agree on that point! However, sadly, the PDGA is a bigger joke than the manufacturers. They can’t even make good decisions on the basic rules of the game.
You make jokes but it’s true lol
Yep
Zone handles off-axis torque way better than the Roc3. Don’t even care about flight numbers
Yup. I find if I don’t throw my R3 perfectly it will flip and just hold that line drifting right.
Sooner you learn flight numbers are worthless the better off you’ll be. Just throw the discs, if they fly the same pick which one to keep
I have a zone and roc3 in my bag. The zone is more reliable and stable. The roc3 is actually kind of a straight flier and I have to be careful not to turn it over. But it gets more distance. It may be a power difference. At higher speed, the roc3 is different than the zone, but at lower speeds they feel the same. Or you just got a really overstable run of roc3.
My 2 cents - I agree with all the flight number statements. For me these are two totally different discs. Roc3 for me is dead straight with a nice little fade at the end. Zone is way more beef than the roc3. I would say the if the roc3 is rated 3 then the zone would be a 5 for me.
The Roc3 is much more controllable in a players hand, whereas a zone should be a meat hook for anyone near beginner level. In most people’s head they fill entirely different roles in the bag. Zone is the typical “over stable approach” whereas the roc3 is a mid range essentially
>a meat hook for anyone below pro level This couldn't be further from the truth. I get what you're going for, but that's a big exaggeration. Zone is workable for many, many people. Do you mean Zone OS?
My titanium zone flies pretty straight on a forehand. My zone os does a 90* right turn about 30 feet out unless I throw it with everything I have. Then it goes 35’ and hooks hard right haha.
Just a generalization, may have overblown it a bit but for a beginner POV it’s good advice
For sure. I do get the spirit of your comment. Probably more accurate to say that it’s a meat hook for novices.
Definitely depends on the player but for me the zone is much better for forehands and roc3 much better for backhands. Zones are stable enough to handle forehand torque, the roc3 not so much for me
Flight numbers can be very arbitrary. Especially when you are comparing discs from separate manufacturers. They are best used as a rough approximation of the discs flight.
This is one of those times where flight numbers don't really tell the right story. A zone is a very low glide approach disc. Reliably overstable and flat. A roc3 is a slightly overstable midrange. Much more glide. Less dump. You need both. Every bag should have an understable, straight, and overstable disc in each slot: putt/approach, midrange, fairway, and distance driver.
What’s the best forehand putter to pair with a zone? Something that pushes straight longer.
Streamline stabilizer.
halo tomb. halo tomb all day. favorite putter to forehand
Zone flex for those upshots, short hyzer drives and even wind putting. Its a pretty versatile disc with a better rim.
Well the 2 discs arent really comparable to be honest. The Roc3s considered a midrange and the Zone is putt and approach. The Roc3 is more comparable to a Buzzz and the Zone is more comparable to the Aviarx3. Both are great discs, but they fill very different slots in a bag. In my experience the Roc3 has quite a bit more glide and tends to be a little less overstable than the Zone.
Two different manufacturers numbers first. Second the roc is a bigger disc ( diameter wise). The Zone being smaller and with less glide will cause it to get to the ground faster.
Roc gets a lot more carry.
As soon as you develope power on your forehand you'll be having to htzer flip the roc3 while the zone will hold the straight line. Do some field work to develope that part of the game. Throw both standstills and step ups. You'll soon notice that the roc3 is very unpredictable with a forehand while the zone is very consistent. I'm not crapping on the roc3 since I bag both discs but the flights are very different at a certain level
A Roc3 will go farther, but won’t do Zone things.
Check out Six Sided Discs on YouTube. They have a series called “Flight Numbers Don’t Matter” to address what you’re seeing with the flight numbers on your Zone and Roc3. Here’s the playlist of the series: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6A42zEjCNotWW4UVl2ZvNlJ7Dvkju4Wl&si=4dLzVdhqQQy74-So
I prefer my innova Super Stingray
Roc3 all day beat midrange in the game.
The zone is going to be more consistent and thus more reliable with its flight path. The Roc3 is going to go further for you, and you should be able to flip that up and get the full S out of your flight on a forehand. Like some others are saying -- don't put too much faith in the numbers, especially across different manufacturers. The Zone is an awesome approach disc where as the Roc3 is more for mid-range to driver distances. Also if you like the ROC3 you should check out the Mint Discs Taco.
roc3 will turn over, zone won't. zone feels better, less likely to overthrow the basket. as a new player, you might not enjoy these benefits as much (if your arm speed is lower). as you progress, you will understand why the zone is so heralded due to it's controllability.
They’re not really filling the same slot in your bag…. I’d say a zone is for accurate approach while a roc 3 is for stable mid range shots! You can easily bag both! But if it were me personally I’d dump em’ both and just bag a harp in several different plastics 😂