specs and rules to move DG from kids game to pro sport

[Cgkdisc]

Not so much an ego issue but a way to differentiate between pools of players whose average rating may only be slightly different but one pool is playing Master Pro or even Open in some markets and the other playing Advanced.

 

[John Hansen]

The continued effort to make disc golf more like ball golf is a fools paradise. Disc golf, with only basic corporate support and a lot of grass roots effort, has grown incredibly during the last 15 years. Right through the "Great Recession". Ball golf, is losing courses and players all the time. The total number of ball golf courses in the US is decreasing. The cost to build and operate a bg course has skyrocketed. Disc golf is all the things that bg is NOT, easy to build and play, inexpensive, quick to play, doesn't require as much land or upkeep.... 364 new courses went in the ground last year, one per day! Why do we want to be ball golf?

:thmbup:

 

[Jaxully]

I like the idea of seperate tournaments with smaller baskets.. But the regulation should not be changed that is too much work for too many volunteers and requires so much money.

 

[Jaxully]

The continued effort to make disc golf more like ball golf is a fools paradise. Disc golf, with only basic corporate support and a lot of grass roots effort, has grown incredibly during the last 15 years. Right through the "Great Recession". Ball golf, is losing courses and players all the time. The total number of ball golf courses in the US is decreasing. The cost to build and operate a bg course has skyrocketed. Disc golf is all the things that bg is NOT, easy to build and play, inexpensive, quick to play, doesn't require as much land or upkeep.... 364 new courses went in the ground last year, one per day! Why do we want to be ball golf?

A course a day! That is awesome to hear. I agree we shouldn't try to be like ball golf. Two completely different cultures and groups of people for the most part.

 

[beereakfast]

@ Scarp
Totally agree. As most of us here have absolutely no clout when it comes to changing things in the real world. Thank goodness! I just love the discussion. Haven't come up with anything better anyway.

 

[Improbably]

Is a harder basket or alternatively a "better basket" a solution to any problems that actually exist?

What I would like to see is a more affordable basket approved for standard level play. Not to change any course that currently exists but to get more courses in the ground affordably.

I do not like putting on the Nomad but I think its a great innovation and its recognition by the PDGA as an object target is a plus. I would like to see more design with similar intentions toward affordable functionality, instead of a focus on targets to make top pros happy and justifying higher costs.

 

[mashnut]

Is a harder basket or alternatively a "better basket" a solution to any problems that actually exist?

What I would like to see is a more affordable basket approved for standard level play. Not to change any course that currently exists but to get more courses in the ground affordably.

I do not like putting on the Nomad but I think its a great innovation and its recognition by the PDGA as an object target is a plus. I would like to see more design with similar intentions toward affordable functionality, instead of a focus on targets to make top pros happy and justifying higher costs.

The cost of baskets is very low compared to the costs of installing equipment for any other sport. The cheapest outdoor basketball course still costs more than baskets and concrete tees for an 18 hole course.

 

[biscoe]

i disagree that baskets need to be cheaper- dg is already one of the least expensive activities to add to a park. i don't think "object targets" should be recognized at all by the ORG- too close to a strip of tape on a tree.

more on topic: have there been any tournaments held on bullseyes only? even small stuff in st louis?

 

[JC17393]

Is a harder basket or alternatively a "better basket" a solution to any problems that actually exist?

I think it arguably could be a solution to one problem, and that is the issue of space and how it relates to the challenge of a course. As disc technology has advanced, courses have had to get longer to challenge the better players, primarily because the bigger challenge for most players is in getting close enough to the target rather than in putting the disc in the target. If you shrink the effective range in which most players can get into the hole in no more than two shots (which right now, depending on terrain, could be as big as 150 feet from the target), you can save on how much length is needed to make challenging holes.

It could theoretically rejuvenate some older, shorter courses that have by and large been rendered obsolete (or unacceptable for high level competitive play) by advanced disc technologies. Sure they're still short and the holes are "reachable" by many players, but if it requires getting within 10-20 feet to have a reasonable chance to hit the putt rather than 30, 40, or even 50 feet, you get more chance for scoring spread on each hole.

In short, it could give us a better chance to make "par" more meaningful without having to create bigger, longer courses.


But it's beyond a pipe dream at this point. The economical reasons alone are going to prevent a mass conversion of existing targets. But I can see this as an alternative version of the sport (note I didn't say replacement) years down the line, when the sport's popularity and financial situation is more conducive to having alternatives.

 

[Slider]

I think it arguably could be a solution to one problem, and that is the issue of space and how it relates to the challenge of a course. As disc technology has advanced, courses have had to get longer to challenge the better players, primarily because the bigger challenge for most players is in getting close enough to the target rather than in putting the disc in the target. If you shrink the effective range in which most players can get into the hole in no more than two shots (which right now, depending on terrain, could be as big as 150 feet from the target), you can save on how much length is needed to make challenging holes.

It could theoretically rejuvenate some older, shorter courses that have by and large been rendered obsolete (or unacceptable for high level competitive play) by advanced disc technologies. Sure they're still short and the holes are "reachable" by many players, but if it requires getting within 10-20 feet to have a reasonable chance to hit the putt rather than 30, 40, or even 50 feet, you get more chance for scoring spread on each hole.

In short, it could give us a better chance to make "par" more meaningful without having to create bigger, longer courses.


But it's beyond a pipe dream at this point. The economical reasons alone are going to prevent a mass conversion of existing targets. But I can see this as an alternative version of the sport (note I didn't say replacement) years down the line, when the sport's popularity and financial situation is more conducive to having alternatives.

Just a thought on the econimical side of it. It might be a pipe dream but it seems to make sense to me. Maybe the basket manufacturers can have a yearly program that allows a course to send in their baskets and they can offer a discount on the new baskets and the manufacturer can potentially recycle the old ones. The program can be offered for the first 100 baskets or whatever they come up with annually and a higher priority for the higher tiered events.

 

[Improbably]

Just a thought on the econimical side of it. It might be a pipe dream but it seems to make sense to me. Maybe the basket manufacturers can have a yearly program that allows a course to send in their baskets and they can offer a discount on the new baskets and the manufacturer can potentially recycle the old ones. The program can be offered for the first 100 baskets or whatever they come up with annually and a higher priority for the higher tiered events.

Maybe

I doubt that would ever be economically feasible for the basket manufacturers. The big ones seem to be selling enough baskets and the old baskets seem to be finding good homes donated to new courses or as second positions.

 

[Harrishabitat]

I think it arguably could be a solution to one problem, and that is the issue of space and how it relates to the challenge of a course. As disc technology has advanced, courses have had to get longer to challenge the better players, primarily because the bigger challenge for most players is in getting close enough to the target rather than in putting the disc in the target. If you shrink the effective range in which most players can get into the hole in no more than two shots (which right now, depending on terrain, could be as big as 150 feet from the target), you can save on how much length is needed to make challenging holes.

It could theoretically rejuvenate some older, shorter courses that have by and large been rendered obsolete (or unacceptable for high level competitive play) by advanced disc technologies. Sure they're still short and the holes are "reachable" by many players, but if it requires getting within 10-20 feet to have a reasonable chance to hit the putt rather than 30, 40, or even 50 feet, you get more chance for scoring spread on each hole.

In short, it could give us a better chance to make "par" more meaningful without having to create bigger, longer courses.


But it's beyond a pipe dream at this point. The economical reasons alone are going to prevent a mass conversion of existing targets. But I can see this as an alternative version of the sport (note I didn't say replacement) years down the line, when the sport's popularity and financial situation is more conducive to having alternatives.

100% completely disagree...first of all who out there (short of the top pros are regularly (over 75%) hitting over 30' putts? Also, to be able to hit a 30' putt on a regular basis, you basically need to hit the center of the basket anyways. The momentum of the disc to be able to hit that long of a putt usually result in spits if you hit the outside of the chains anyways.

This who argument of reducing the basket size, in my opinion, is a solution to a problem that doesn't even exist.

 

[Cgkdisc]

What would lead you to believe the ratio of disc size to the various target size parameters initially set in the 70s would turn out to be the best ratio for the sport as equipment continued to evolve, and more importantly, we developed a sufficient statistical base of data to eventually make the determination for what might be better or best? Did Steady Ed's SWAG method hit it on the nose in the beginning or is it possible tweaking those parameters could be better?

 

[davetherocketguy]

Just a thought on the econimical side of it. It might be a pipe dream but it seems to make sense to me. Maybe the basket manufacturers can have a yearly program that allows a course to send in their baskets and they can offer a discount on the new baskets and the manufacturer can potentially recycle the old ones. The program can be offered for the first 100 baskets or whatever they come up with annually and a higher priority for the higher tiered events.

Holy labor and shipping costs Batman.

Not economical AT ALL. I swear some of you need a class in economics or go work at a factory trying to price stuff like this out for a few years.

1. Baskets get pulled from course

2. Baskets are disassembled into small enough pieces to ship reasonably

3. Someone pays a trucking company a small fortune to ship roughly 5 skids of basket parts weighing in around 400 pounds total (which seems ridiculously light) for an 18 hole course. Go call UPS, FedEx or ConWay or another company like that to see what their LTL rates are for something like that. Innova is a loooong way away for most of the country. I've been out of the shipping business for about 17 years but I am going to guess $1k...

4. Basket manufacturer has to sort out shipment upon receipt. Catalog, further disassemble, wharehouse parts, etc.

5. Basket manufacturer screws around with baskets attempting to reuse as many parts as possible.

6. Basket manufacturer then return ships new-ish product back to customer but has to come up with the additional cost for shipping the basket TWICE and all the extra labor - cause you know, employees like to eat. Then proceeds to charge 2x what they sell a new basket for.

 

[scarpfish]

Just a thought on the econimical side of it. It might be a pipe dream but it seems to make sense to me. Maybe the basket manufacturers can have a yearly program that allows a course to send in their baskets and they can offer a discount on the new baskets and the manufacturer can potentially recycle the old ones. The program can be offered for the first 100 baskets or whatever they come up with annually and a higher priority for the higher tiered events.

If we want to be economical, and we're simply adding baskets primarily for tournament play, why not just have a traveling set for the event that could be rented?

Not sure why so many here want to rip out the entire chassis of a course to accommodate this when you just need to change a few nuts and bolts.

 

[JC17393]

100% completely disagree...first of all who out there (short of the top pros are regularly (over 75%) hitting over 30' putts? Also, to be able to hit a 30' putt on a regular basis, you basically need to hit the center of the basket anyways. The momentum of the disc to be able to hit that long of a putt usually result in spits if you hit the outside of the chains anyways.

This who argument of reducing the basket size, in my opinion, is a solution to a problem that doesn't even exist.

Who said I was talking about anyone but pros? Someone asked for a reason to shrink the target, and I gave one which was rooted in the concept of par and course size. Par, borrowed from ball golf, is considered the score at which an expert will navigate a hole/course. So, my point was that reducing the target size could be a way to make par a more meaningful number in our game, particularly for the top levels of play, without having to continue to make courses bigger and longer.

The PDGA defines average pros as being able to hit 6-8 out of 10 putts from the 25-30 foot range, and top pros as being able to hit 7-9 out of 10 putts from the same range. So pros in general can be expected to make anywhere from 60-90% of shots from 25-30 feet, or to find a good mid-point, 75%.

To further my point, the formula for par in ball golf is defined as the number of shots required to reach the green, plus two putts. We can't really make that kind of translation one for one in disc golf because our definition of a green is different (10m circle) and arguably too small for these purposes. Realistically, the range at which a pro can be expected to hole out in no more than two throws represents a far greater percentage of the total distance of a given hole than an average green does in ball golf. That is largely due to the greater range at which a putt can be reasonably expected to be made.

If we reduce that range by reducing the size of the target, then we can also reduce the range at which no more than two throws should be necessary for a pro player to hole out. By doing that, we can reduce the minimum distance required to make an effective hole, whether it's par 3, 4, or 5. And it would also reduce the instances of holes that should truly be considered par 2s, at least for elite level players.

Now I'm sure someone will swoop in with the "why do we have to be like ball golf" blah blah blah. Not advocating that at all. But the concept of reducing target size really is best utilized in discussions about how to define or "fix" par in our sport. If we don't care about par (and frankly I find it meaningless and we don't need it to flourish as a sport), then it's a moot point.

 

[scarpfish]

To further my point, the formula for par in ball golf is defined as the number of shots required to reach the green, plus two putts. We can't really make that kind of translation one for one in disc golf because our definition of a green is different (10m circle) and arguably too small for these purposes. Realistically, the range at which a pro can be expected to hole out in no more than two throws represents a far greater percentage of the total distance of a given hole than an average green does in ball golf. That is largely due to the greater range at which a putt can be reasonably expected to be made.

The real reason we can't make that translation is because we really don't have a green to hit. We functionally do the same thing at 20' that we do at 200'. We throw a disc in the air. Moving the 10m circle to 20m or 30m would have marginal effect on that. A ball golfer conversely has to use a set of clubs to reach the green, then switch to a different piece of equipment (which is useless outside of the green) to put it in the hole once he's there. We on the other hand can do the whole banana with the same disc if we so choose.

 

[Harrishabitat]

Who said I was talking about anyone but pros? Someone asked for a reason to shrink the target, and I gave one which was rooted in the concept of par and course size. Par, borrowed from ball golf, is considered the score at which an expert will navigate a hole/course. So, my point was that reducing the target size could be a way to make par a more meaningful number in our game, particularly for the top levels of play, without having to continue to make courses bigger and longer.

The PDGA defines average pros as being able to hit 6-8 out of 10 putts from the 25-30 foot range, and top pros as being able to hit 7-9 out of 10 putts from the same range. So pros in general can be expected to make anywhere from 60-90% of shots from 25-30 feet, or to find a good mid-point, 75%.

To further my point, the formula for par in ball golf is defined as the number of shots required to reach the green, plus two putts. We can't really make that kind of translation one for one in disc golf because our definition of a green is different (10m circle) and arguably too small for these purposes. Realistically, the range at which a pro can be expected to hole out in no more than two throws represents a far greater percentage of the total distance of a given hole than an average green does in ball golf. That is largely due to the greater range at which a putt can be reasonably expected to be made.

If we reduce that range by reducing the size of the target, then we can also reduce the range at which no more than two throws should be necessary for a pro player to hole out. By doing that, we can reduce the minimum distance required to make an effective hole, whether it's par 3, 4, or 5. And it would also reduce the instances of holes that should truly be considered par 2s, at least for elite level players.

Now I'm sure someone will swoop in with the "why do we have to be like ball golf" blah blah blah. Not advocating that at all. But the concept of reducing target size really is best utilized in discussions about how to define or "fix" par in our sport. If we don't care about par (and frankly I find it meaningless and we don't need it to flourish as a sport), then it's a moot point.

I think we do need to make the sport a little harder, to achieve something closer to par in some events, but I completely disagree smaller baskets are the answer. I think there are many other things we can do that doesn't crush the sport economically (new baskets). Increased out of bounds areas is one idea. Create fairways that penalize you for being outside (lose a stroke but throw from the lie, I believe the USDGC does this) & stroke and distance would greatly raise the difficulties.

As for reducing the basket size, first of all I think the economics have been fully covered as being impracticable. But I think everyone is thinking of the size issue as being side to side... but there is also going to be fewer chains between you and the pole which is going to greatly increase spit out/bounce back putts. Is that really what we want??? To penalize a good putt to have it randomly spit back out? Then it becomes more of a luck game and not a skill game.

 

[JC17393]

The real reason we can't make that translation is because we really don't have a green to hit. We functionally do the same thing at 20' that we do at 200'. We throw a disc in the air. Moving the 10m circle to 20m or 30m would have marginal effect on that. A ball golfer conversely has to use a set of clubs to reach the green, then switch to a different piece of equipment (which is useless outside of the green) to put it in the hole once he's there. We on the other hand can do the whole banana with the same disc if we so choose.

Isn't that essentially what I said when I wrote that our green is defined differently and is too small to be used for the same purposes? Which is why for the purposes of par, I was very loosely defining our "green" as a general range at which a top level player would be expected to hole out in no more than two throws.

As it stands now, that range arguably extends far enough to include the tee on many holes...hence the whole par 2 argument. Reducing the size of our target *might* reduce that 2-throw range enough to push some of those tees outside of that area and create more effective par 3 holes. And by the same token, reduce the distances required to make an effective par 4 or par 5.

But again, this is really only a solution if we want to make the concept of par more meaningful and useful within the realm of our game. If that's not the case, then there's really no purpose to shrinking targets. Personally, I'm fine with the game the way it is. But I also would object to playing a tournament or tour using bullseye size targets either.

 

[bradharris]

Isn't that essentially what I said when I wrote that our green is defined differently and is too small to be used for the same purposes? Which is why for the purposes of par, I was very loosely defining our "green" as a general range at which a top level player would be expected to hole out in no more than two throws.

As it stands now, that range arguably extends far enough to include the tee on many holes...hence the whole par 2 argument. Reducing the size of our target *might* reduce that 2-throw range enough to push some of those tees outside of that area and create more effective par 3 holes. And by the same token, reduce the distances required to make an effective par 4 or par 5.

But again, this is really only a solution if we want to make the concept of par more meaningful and useful within the realm of our game. If that's not the case, then there's really no purpose to shrinking targets. Personally, I'm fine with the game the way it is. But I also would object to playing a tournament or tour using bullseye size targets either.

As it stands now, par is more accurately defined as the number of throws it takes an average player to reach the "green" plus 1 putt.

And as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with that. Yes, it means the top pros are going to be well under par a lot. But it also means that the average player has a chance to feel that sense of accomplishment in chasing par for a round.

If you restrict par to be more meaningful for top players, you accomplish two things, both of which I think are detrimental to the game:
1. You take any chance of reaching par away from the average player leading to more frustration and more player turnover.
2. You virtually eliminate birdies for most holes under 300' as they would likely become par 2s.

Yes, par is just a number, but it still has meaning. Those who argue that the game needs to be harder, seem to be the ones most hung up on par and the massively under-par numbers of the top pros. But for the majority of the player base, the game is hard enough to be fun without being so hard that it's a turn off. Those par numbers are a good way to keep the average player interested by giving them something to strive for.