ALL Mach baskets should be outlawed in pro tournaments!

[Consult20]

Vista has Chainstars. They are sweet!!

I have noticed that galvanized baskets will oxidize on the slides, causing them to stick. If they are played on a lot they glaze up and slide really nice.
The Xs at fountain don't slide on the slides. They are rough from oxidation.

Sorry, but I have to respond to the idea that "Chainstars are sweet!".

Chainstars inarguably have some basic design flaws.

1) The chains get tangled very easily, it happens a lot

2) And too frequently the chains can get tangled around the top mount arms, causing the whole chain configuration to be lopsided

3) They have shallow 7" baskets

4) They are prone to pole hit bounce outs more than what would be considered the norm

They simply are poorly designed baskets -- ok Chainstar rant over.


As far as all the approved basket designs go, they all have moving parts -- by design. As long as targets have moving parts, there will be some inconsistencies -- even among the exact same designs. Inconsistencies could be greatly reduced with one standard design with moving parts (chains), but the only realistic way to have the most consistency for catching discs is to eliminate moving parts (chains) -- which I am NOT in favor of.

In fact, the PDGA should mandate that disc golf targets will have chain configurations until hell freezes over!

 

[azwelke]

I know about all this I just love them because I won one in a super ace race. They catch good for me They ring nice too.

Sorry, but I have to respond to the idea that "Chainstars are sweet!".

Chainstars inarguably have some basic design flaws.

1) The chains get tangled very easily, it happens a lot

2) And too frequently the chains can get tangled around the top mount arms, causing the whole chain configuration to be lopsided

3) They have shallow 7" baskets

4) They are prone to pole hit bounce outs more than what would be considered the norm

They simply are poorly designed baskets -- ok Chainstar rant over.


As far as all the approved basket designs go, they all have moving parts -- by design. As long as targets have moving parts, there will be some inconsistencies -- even among the exact same designs. Inconsistencies could be greatly reduced with one standard design with moving parts (chains), but the only realistic way to have the most consistency for catching discs is to eliminate moving parts (chains) -- which I am NOT in favor of.

In fact, the PDGA should mandate that disc golf targets will have chain configurations until hell freezes over!

 

[BrotherDave]

I've always wondered about the deepening of the tray. Why have it any deeper than just a shelf if we want to make putting more akin to ball golf in terms of two or three putts? I would think something like a shelf with a 2-3" lip would be interesting.

 

[Lazerface]

As an engineer the problem I'm having with this discussion is that I'm not seeing any definition of requirements.

How many spit outs per tournament is acceptable. Zero is not possible cause nothing is perfect, so how about 0.08 %. Thats one out of all the putts in one round of 72 players.

How big is the target area? If it touches a single chain should that be caught? I suggest that at least half the disc must be within the width of the target.

At what speeds must the disc be caught? Does it really need to be anything from zero to full drive speeds of 50-60mph?

If we can agree to some requirements then testing could be done with a disc throwing machine. Some may still be "random" but at least it would be based on testing not individual player preferences.

These are a few of very many factors that have to be considered. I conceded that I have not gave it much thought and realize there is a lot to consider.

Lyle seems to think that even if you do this, along with much more, and have a putting machine capable of testing all aspects there is still no such thing as "random". That is the part I don't get. Basketball analogies are not useful, and that should be obvious to all disc golfers. Our "spit out" is not different than other "spit outs" and I would say that disc golf targets are more random than almost all other sporting targets, but I'm sure most will disagree.

Basically, Lyle is saying that even in a perfect world where we have a perfect putting machine and account for all possible factors, including varying putting styles that it should not change what targets are used at a competitive level (or at least not Mach III or whatever models people complain about). I don't think random is a matter of "perception". Random could be scientifically accounted for. I never said it would be easy.

 

[Steve West]

These are a few of very many factors that have to be considered. I conceded that I have not gave it much thought and realize there is a lot to consider.

Lyle seems to think that even if you do this, along with much more, and have a putting machine capable of testing all aspects there is still no such thing as "random". That is the part I don't get. Basketball analogies are not useful, and that should be obvious to all disc golfers. Our "spit out" is not different than other "spit outs" and I would say that disc golf targets are more random than almost all other sporting targets, but I'm sure most will disagree.

Basically, Lyle is saying that even in a perfect world where we have a perfect putting machine and account for all possible factors, including varying putting styles that it should not change what targets are used at a competitive level (or at least not Mach III or whatever models people complain about). I don't think random is a matter of "perception". Random could be scientifically accounted for. I never said it would be easy.

The whole concept of "randomness" is a myth. It's just a way of saying something is beyond our ability to predict a single outcome. In hindsight (with slow-motion replay and a physics geek) we could figure out exactly what combination of spin, wind, lack of accuracy, coefficient of friction on the disc and chains and about a dozen other factors, was the cause of every putt that did not stick.

And, we would find that there are areas of the chains that are right in the middle where some putts don't stick.

 

[lyleoross]

These are a few of very many factors that have to be considered. I conceded that I have not gave it much thought and realize there is a lot to consider.

Lyle seems to think that even if you do this, along with much more, and have a putting machine capable of testing all aspects there is still no such thing as "random". That is the part I don't get. Basketball analogies are not useful, and that should be obvious to all disc golfers. Our "spit out" is not different than other "spit outs" and I would say that disc golf targets are more random than almost all other sporting targets, but I'm sure most will disagree.

Basically, Lyle is saying that even in a perfect world where we have a perfect putting machine and account for all possible factors, including varying putting styles that it should not change what targets are used at a competitive level (or at least not Mach III or whatever models people complain about). I don't think random is a matter of "perception". Random could be scientifically accounted for. I never said it would be easy.

You're close, but not quite. If, as a body we decided that the catching parameters of a Mach III weren't satisfactory, then we'd outlaw it's use in certain competitions. So, the curve for passthroughs indicates anything thrown over 15 miles per hour left of pole is going to go through, and the average putter putts at 14 miles per hour, we'll that's a pretty slim margin. Yep, the player can adjust their game and should, but we might decide we're taking too much away by doing that. I would support such a decision as long as it was based on a standard set by the PDGA and accepted by a majority of members.

 

[lyleoross]

BTW, that's why I say the PDGA would find value in such an analysis. You'd know and players could say, yeah that really does stink and we want to fix it.

 

[lyleoross]

The whole concept of "randomness" is a myth. It's just a way of saying something is beyond our ability to predict a single outcome. In hindsight (with slow-motion replay and a physics geek) we could figure out exactly what combination of spin, wind, lack of accuracy, coefficient of friction on the disc and chains and about a dozen other factors, was the cause of every putt that did not stick.

And, we would find that there are areas of the chains that are right in the middle where some putts don't stick.

I have to admit, I smile whenever an actuary writes something along the lines of, "randomness is a myth." It gives me faith in science.

 

[KniceZ]

Has anyone ever collected data on how many "random" spit outs occur in a tournament? We'd also need info on why it was considered random - i.e. did it hit wide on the outside of the chains, did it hit the pole and bounce back, did it slice through the chains, etc.

With out more info it seems like we're just complaining that it hit the basket but it didn't stay in.

Personally I'll admit that I've had more marginal putts that fell in than good ones that spit out.

 

[DanJon]

I've always wondered about the deepening of the tray. Why have it any deeper than just a shelf if we want to make putting more akin to ball golf in terms of two or three putts? I would think something like a shelf with a 2-3" lip would be interesting.

I think this would be a great idea to test.

We always talk about the chains but rarely is the bucket mentioned.

A shallow bucket imo would make putting more of a challenge.

At a local private course, they used to have homemade baskets.

Couple of them had decent chain set ups, but the buckets were super shallow.

Toughest baskets I've ever putted on.

 

[sonny]

Personally I'll admit that I've had more marginal putts that fell in than good ones that spit out.

I agree with this observation and I'm a little surprised no one has mentioned this earlier. No I don't have real data, but in my estimation 'bad' putts that baskets catch outnumber 'good' putts that are rejected by a lot. Like 4 or 5 to 1.

But then I'm in the 'putting is too easy' camp.

 

[lyleoross]

I agree with this observation and I'm a little surprised no one has mentioned this earlier. No I don't have real data, but in my estimation 'bad' putts that baskets catch outnumber 'good' putts that are rejected by a lot. Like 4 or 5 to 1.

But then I'm in the 'putting is too easy' camp.

But that sums it all up. Baskets are supposed to catch whatever I throw at them. And some of what I consider a bad putt, is considered a good putt by others. I've had several putts go straight in, hit the pole, and come straight out. They were bad putts. At the distance, nose down was easy, I didn't do it. Bad on me.

 

[armiller]

I agree with this observation and I'm a little surprised no one has mentioned this earlier. No I don't have real data, but in my estimation 'bad' putts that baskets catch outnumber 'good' putts that are rejected by a lot. Like 4 or 5 to 1.

But then I'm in the 'putting is too easy' camp.

I agree too, and I'm in the "putting isn't a problem" camp.

 

[Noill]

I'm in the putting is too easy for pros camp but not easy enough for me camp...

 

[Dr.Smooth]

How does that camp hold up in 10 plus mph variable winds? Certainly, not uncommon disc golf course conditions.

 

[BrotherDave]

I agree with this observation and I'm a little surprised no one has mentioned this earlier. No I don't have real data, but in my estimation 'bad' putts that baskets catch outnumber 'good' putts that are rejected by a lot. Like 4 or 5 to 1.

But then I'm in the 'putting is too easy' camp.

I can agree with this on about anything but the old school mach 2/3's they have at Asheboro, those definitely spit out more good putts than bad. Those are the ones with the fairly weak chains and big gaps between them so it's super easy to go dead center straight into the pole and bounce out. I've had countless tap-ins pole-bounce out w/o me putting hardly anything on the putt.*


*a lot of these were with Summits though, the rubber likes to bounce a bit more IMO.

 

[chevis]

Mach 3's Banned From PDGA Play Effective 4/24/2017

 

[puck'n'disc5]

I think it is time for someone to brush up on their grammar skills.

 

[DanJon]

If all mach baskets are outlawed, then only outlaws will play on mach baskets.

 

[ranger]

Brady hanna

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh