Hmmm. A solo sport needlessly turned into a team sport. I like it! Just look at what it did for curling!
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Is putting too easy? too hard? Just right?
- Thread starter BirdieMachine
- Start date
Hmmm. A solo sport needlessly turned into a team sport. I like it! Just look at what it did for curling!
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Only counts if it's a permanent basket. Otherwise you're just a whimp who can't face up to the fact that you can't hit your putts.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
I've never thought watching someone blink was exciting -- now a yawn, that's some fun stuff!
So, if you blink, yawn and sneeze at the same time, what's it called? And should you be given a courtesy warning?
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
I'm for a basket standard. As many have pointed out, players all play the same baskets, but a standard means you have the same expectations course to course. Then, you can ask the greater question being addressed here: what is a gimmy? And what do we want it to be?
I'll argue all day long that putting should be harder, but that should be accomplished by green design, not by basket design. That is easy to say, but it would take serious effort. You can start with NTs and or majors.
I'll argue all day long that putting should be harder, but that should be accomplished by green design, not by basket design. That is easy to say, but it would take serious effort. You can start with NTs and or majors.
I happen to agree with you Stardoggy. For the guys/gals who are pros and the others who can play constantly year-round and have been playing 20+ years, I can imagine putting might be too easy for them. For us regular peeps who play maybe 1 time a week, weather permitting, for about half the year that isn't frozen, snow covered, pouring rain, etc. putting is already hard enough as it is outside of 25 feet. If pros want harder putting courses (smaller baskets, etc) then let them be built and hold the tournaments on those harder courses, but leave the recreational courses just the way they are. Just my humble opinion.
You have nothing to worry about there. Parks will not spend money on new baskets because some pros or the PDGA or anyone else thinks putting isn't hard enough.
filobedo
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2008
- Messages
- 1,205
Putting is way too easy compared to golf. I have three aces in golf in the past 41 years of playing and had 21 aces and numerous 50' + throw ins in disc golf in the first 10 years of playing because the dg target is so large. If the PDGA decided to mandate a smaller target for specific tournament play (majors, NT's and A tiers) vs standard targets for B, C and X tiers tournaments, the ratings system actuaries and gurus would possibly have to amend the ratings formula (currently, you have a better chance of unlocking the Coca-cola or KFC recipes than understanding the formula) to be fair and consistent which is never happening.
"Compared to golf" is a terrible standard. Imagine disc golf putting with the same percentages, from the same distances, as golf. Put those 3-footers in doubt for most of us. Imagine if those distances were scaled to the lengths of the fairways---so the 1-footers were now in doubt.
ThunderEagle
Par Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2016
- Messages
- 241
I'll just throw this out here for consideration. I've been involved in target archery for the last 6 or 7 years, just started with disc golf in the last few months.
There are several different games in target archery, there are indoor "spot" rounds (shooing at paper targets), outdoor 3D rounds (shooting at foam animals) and outdoor spot rounds. Of the outdoor, there are many different games, one is referred to as Field Round. The NFAA is the organization that is the keeper of this round and also runs several tournaments a year, as well as sanctioning others, as well as state level clubs that do the same on the state level.
The Field round is currently 14 targets at distances from 20 feet out to 80 yards, and are 4 different sizes depending on how far the shot is. These targets have a black center that scores 5, a white ring that scores 4 and a black ring that scored 3. From what I have read, at one point in time in the 70's the face and scoring was changed, the black center 5 was bigger and the rest of the target scored a 4. The NFAA felt the game had to be made more difficult due to the improving technology of compound bows and mechanical release aids, as well as improvement in sights. After this change was put into place, the NFAA lost members in droves, shoots began to loose participants, and now Field Archery that used to be a huge, barely hangs on, with very few field courses available anymore.
Now, archery isn't gone, and may be more popular than ever. The big game now is 3D archery, and that may or may not have still happened if that rule change never occurred. The argument was that it was the same rules for everyone, there was just a new "normal" score for people. The reality is that those that were used to shooting in the 540's out of 560, just couldn't stand that now their scores were 520 or worse.
So before anyone decides that Pros shooting -30 or a tournament is bad, or that average players shouldn't be shooting "par" or under par, just remember there may be a lot of people that will just quit when the hole they usually take a 2 on, now becomes 3's and 4's.
Don't change the whole game for EVERYONE, just because there are some people that want to make the numbers for the top players in the world look a little better on a leader-board.
There are several different games in target archery, there are indoor "spot" rounds (shooing at paper targets), outdoor 3D rounds (shooting at foam animals) and outdoor spot rounds. Of the outdoor, there are many different games, one is referred to as Field Round. The NFAA is the organization that is the keeper of this round and also runs several tournaments a year, as well as sanctioning others, as well as state level clubs that do the same on the state level.
The Field round is currently 14 targets at distances from 20 feet out to 80 yards, and are 4 different sizes depending on how far the shot is. These targets have a black center that scores 5, a white ring that scores 4 and a black ring that scored 3. From what I have read, at one point in time in the 70's the face and scoring was changed, the black center 5 was bigger and the rest of the target scored a 4. The NFAA felt the game had to be made more difficult due to the improving technology of compound bows and mechanical release aids, as well as improvement in sights. After this change was put into place, the NFAA lost members in droves, shoots began to loose participants, and now Field Archery that used to be a huge, barely hangs on, with very few field courses available anymore.
Now, archery isn't gone, and may be more popular than ever. The big game now is 3D archery, and that may or may not have still happened if that rule change never occurred. The argument was that it was the same rules for everyone, there was just a new "normal" score for people. The reality is that those that were used to shooting in the 540's out of 560, just couldn't stand that now their scores were 520 or worse.
So before anyone decides that Pros shooting -30 or a tournament is bad, or that average players shouldn't be shooting "par" or under par, just remember there may be a lot of people that will just quit when the hole they usually take a 2 on, now becomes 3's and 4's.
Don't change the whole game for EVERYONE, just because there are some people that want to make the numbers for the top players in the world look a little better on a leader-board.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Rather than messing around with more difficult baskets, I'm thinking you first decide what you want putting to look like and its related stats, then redesign the equipment and rules to achieve that goal. And note, this issue is primarily relevant to play at the top pro level. There's no apparent reason to change the target for all other levels of play unless maybe it's improved to further reduce fluky results with cut-thrus and bounce backs.
The first goal is not really making putting tougher but to increase scoring spread for top pros in the putting process. The implication is that currently, our top players are putting too well that the process doesn't produce scoring separation. In ball golf, putting is so difficult that the threat of 3-putting exists even at the highest levels, even when they are expert at leaving their longer range lags or misses within 5 feet of the cup.
Simply making our putting a little bit tougher will not increase scoring spread but more likely reduce it as has been shown in some narrow chain basket tests in the field. Players that used to go for 40 footers have been laying up instead resulting in more players two-putting whether they are good or just average putters. So to gain more scoring separation, I would say we need to really make putting more difficult from 5 feet, where even the best putters miss 25-33%, so 3-putting is more common. Adding this close putting drama isn't the savior for getting more spectators but may increase the interest a bit more among player viewers.
Some ways to achieve this would be a much longer post. But narrow chain targets do not appear to be enough. And second, is increasing scoring separation enough reason to make a change or are there other goals that should also come into play to make it worthwhile? And reiterating, any of these changes would ONLY BE FOR TOP PRO PLAY. No changes for everyone else.
The first goal is not really making putting tougher but to increase scoring spread for top pros in the putting process. The implication is that currently, our top players are putting too well that the process doesn't produce scoring separation. In ball golf, putting is so difficult that the threat of 3-putting exists even at the highest levels, even when they are expert at leaving their longer range lags or misses within 5 feet of the cup.
Simply making our putting a little bit tougher will not increase scoring spread but more likely reduce it as has been shown in some narrow chain basket tests in the field. Players that used to go for 40 footers have been laying up instead resulting in more players two-putting whether they are good or just average putters. So to gain more scoring separation, I would say we need to really make putting more difficult from 5 feet, where even the best putters miss 25-33%, so 3-putting is more common. Adding this close putting drama isn't the savior for getting more spectators but may increase the interest a bit more among player viewers.
Some ways to achieve this would be a much longer post. But narrow chain targets do not appear to be enough. And second, is increasing scoring separation enough reason to make a change or are there other goals that should also come into play to make it worthwhile? And reiterating, any of these changes would ONLY BE FOR TOP PRO PLAY. No changes for everyone else.
Last edited:
Inside of 50' only allow a specific size disc to be used -- an Ultimate disc at 150g max weight.
opcorn:
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Several options in our GDT idea bin with alternate discs as a possible part of any solution but maybe not necessary.
Inside of 50' only allow a specific size disc to be used -- an Ultimate disc at 150g max weight.
If this was to happen the chain design would need to change. Mach Is were designed to catch a Frisbee. The current chain design would be more like putting into a wall if lids were used. They would bounce right off those set ups.
I know this is the 2nd time I mentioned Mach Is. I am not suggesting going back to them just using them as an example.
On the up side the baskets wouldn't have to change.
The down side is the pros would absolutely hate it.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Not suggesting the newer chain pattern baskets like Mach X and Prodigy would work well, but the Mach III and Discatchers worked just fine for Super Class when we were doing those events. In fact, a couple players switched to using them as their regular putter it worked so well.
Right, but that's the idea, 10' putts would not be automatic. You'd have to try to throw into the cage area and just glance off the chains. I hate the idea, but it beats changing basket design.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
If it's decided various changes should be tested, not necessarily by the PDGA but by higher tier TDs or various Pro Tours, it's unlikely the pros are going to "like" any option because it will be a change. So their opinion isn't as critical when it's others putting up the money. Case in point are the changes made at USDGC over the years. Not all of them were liked in the beginning and some even now. But the pros still come for the payout.
A 10 3/4" 150g Ultimate size disc might have a hard time flexing the chains enough on any basket. The 10" deep cage baskets would help though.
Of coutse there would be the issue of the pros all going bald from pulling their hair out.
Fair point, but there examples of pros skipping events no matter the payout. (Eagle skipped Ledgestone last year, for example)
I'm not sure changes that make the sport "less fun" for the pros is going to get the desired results in the long run.
I gather that one reason, perhaps the first reason, advocates give isn't scoring separation, but reducing the number of boring "automatic".
I'm not convinced it's a compelling enough reason.
Nor that it would work. If we shrink the "automatic" range from 20' to 10', we might just see more lay-ups into that 10' circle, and just as many automatic shots as we do now.
But at least the sentiment is understandable. Automatic putts and tap-ins, at whatever distance for whatever skill level, are neither much fun for the player, nor exciting for hypothetical spectators.
Another intriguing reason is to reward precision on drives (short holes) and upshots (long holes). Right now, if one player parks within 5' of the basket, and the other within 20', it's a yawner. It putting were significantly more difficult, there'd be a bigger distinction between those two shots. Much like---God, I hate saying this---shots to the green in golf.
Similar threads
