We could replicate the original idea in the patent for the pole hole. It was designed verify that the disc hit the pole. So an edge of the disc would have to be on a line that would intersect the pole.
Which means a smaller catch area when the disc is near vertical. Would targets with bigger poles be required to catch more discs? Would manufacturers be allowed to choose the test disc? I imagine a large diameter gummy putter might be caught more on some baskets, while another basket might be designed to let a small diameter slippery disc slip into its internal trap.
Don't forget to add specs for wind speed. What's maximum wind speed at which it needs to catch that percent of putts? So, the testing will need to be done in a wind tunnel. And, of course, we'll need to set a maximum slope so we can measure the catch percentage when the wind is going up the slope or down the slope.
How many styles of putts would be tested? Cale's hyzer putts that slant into the basket, Ricky's blasts, loft putts from outside the circle?
After we have the standards, would designers be allowed to place obstacles where they interfere with the lines that the machine tested?
I'm replying to Steve's post because I want to comment on a couple of his ideas. For the most part, it shouldn't matter what disc you use. If the argument is that some baskets are going to catch some kinds of discs better than others, that's some interesting engineering. The physical characteristics of the disc should give the same changes for each basket design. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do the experiment, just that I'd be surprised if you saw a statistically significant result.
Wind - again, and even more so. Wind outcomes should affect each basket the same.
Styles of putting - the best way to get at this is to look at angles of approach, and spin on the disc. No matter what style you use, the disc leaves your hand approaching the basket on a trajectory with a certain amount of spin. You'd want to get a measure of trajectories and spin that includes all types seen in play and then experiment through that full range.
Of course, your throwing machine has to be on a stand (preferably one that can be rotated side to side) and has to have a rheostat so you can adjust speed and spin. I've thought a modified pitching machine might work. It has two wheels, and you can adjust the speed of each allowing different release speeds, and different torque. You'd have to build a release plate that the disc can be loaded on.
To random outcomes. First experiment. Let's go to a Mach V because it offers the most complaints about fluky outcomes. Typically, what I see called random or fluky is a left center put that cuts through the chains. The experiment starts at 15 feet. Set your release speed at 10 miles per hour. Put on a rotation that is somewhere around the middle of what you see in real play. Throw disc. What happens? If, the basket is "random," you're going to expect to get different outcomes with each throw. Some fall in, some pass through, some fall inwards, some fall outwards. Remember, the chains will move some throw to throw. I'm guessing that if the basket is in good shape, for the most part, that will be small.
You can adjust your delivery speed up and down. I'm gonna guess (this is for fun, see below) there's a break point. That is, my hypothesis is that there will be a speed breakpoint. Putts delivered at speeds below X will stay in, putts above speed X will pass through. That point may be fairly discreet. That is, above X, you might see 90% or 80% pass through, and below it 10% pass through. More likely, what your going to see is, say it Steve, a curve. With pass throughs increasing with speed.
Back to random. That isn't random. The basket has physical parameters. At a certain speed, you begin to challenge the physical ability of the basket to catch. The more speed, the more pass throughs. If it is random, you're not going to have the curve I just described. You're going to have a random distribution of pass throughs that is not speed dependent.
Now we roll out a Veteran. I have a Veteran in mind because I just watched the Waco Charity. Set up the same experiment. Aim for the same spot, Center, just left off the pole (you'd want to actually have a ruler to make sure distances are accurate). Repeat. Now you can compare the two baskets.
Now I could write different experiments until your sicker of reading this than you already are. But I'm not going to do that.
What I'm going to hypothesize is that the notion of random outcomes will be gone. You're going to find that baskets have catching areas, sweet spots, and they vary from basket to basket. Said sweet spots will vary in their sweetness. You're going to find that forward speed and spin impact sweet spots and the ability of baskets to catch discs.
I'd argue that the PDGA should define what a basket is by the range of speed and spin used by the most successful pros. Not Nikko! Ricky and Paul, and of course others, rarely have spit outs. That's because they've learned the physical abilities of baskets to catch discs, and adjusted to them. Nikko doesn't seem to want to do this. Don't ask me why. Once you've defined that, then you define what a "good" basket is. Then producers have to meet that standard. You're going to find out that there are already a number of baskets that do this, and maybe some that don't.
