Then essentially any complaints are saying they don't like it because it doesn't suit their putting style?
I'm saying bounce outs (like the ones on the Chainstars at Ledgestone) and spit thoughs (that happen on any basket without linked or interwoven center chains) feel more fluky than unauthoritative putts being pushed out.
Absolutely, are you saying they aren't?
The Fluky argument, Thanks, Chuck, is baloney. It's a physical device with physical parameters. If you supersede it's physical ability to catch, the disc is going through. That isn't fluky, it's mechanics.
We've already revisited the cup, let's revisit basketball. If I take a shot, and I throw it hard as heck into the square, it isn't going to fall in. It's going to bounce way out. I can fix that by making the square concave or by making the basket five feet in diameter. Or I can tell players, you have to have a soft touch to get the ball to fall into the hole.
The balance between strength and skill is met in the size of the hoop, its height and the parameters of the backboard. You can make it easier all you want. The hoop set up is what it is to provide an adequate challenge to show player skill.
Throwing a disc straight for sixty feet isn't that hard. Getting it to stay in the basket is harder. What some want is, "if I thow that disc on a line at full strength for 60 feet, I should get a score." You can do that, but it takes less skill. That might be okay, but it should be acknowledged, that is what you're aiming for.
I've written this before too. If you got the pros together, all of them, and had them design a basket that fits their play, and we voted on it, and it was the Mach X. That is fine. Since they represent the best, we should see what fits what they do. But is is silly to not acknowledge what baskets are and how they work. What are you getting and why?