Cam Todd Pro Basket Prototype

[trumbulldore]

Growing the sport doesn't come from professional baskets(though there should be a singular "pro" basket.) Grow the sport by being friendly to other park inhabitants and newbies to the sport. Giving a positive image of disc golf and helping others find the fun within it grows it. Also less judging, more teaching. My list of growing the sport goes on and on.

 

[rhatton1]

You know what makes putts difficult in golf? Uneven Greens!! You always need to "read" a green before your putt. The cup is a little bigger than 2X ball width, but if it was a PERFECTLY FLAT GREEN then putts from pros would be boring!

What makes putts in disc golf difficult? UNEVEN GREENS! But we're dealing with flight, so put some TREES in the way! YES TREES IN THE CIRCLE. Want to see an awesome 25' putt? Give a pro a chance to read the green and make a bending putt! Bending putts in golf are awesome to watch -
"nice read!" Same here. Wanna make putts harder? Don't put the basket in the middle of a field.



Exactly. You don't score higher at Pebble Beach than you do at your local CC because the cups are smaller, it's due to the difficulty of the course, not the catching device.

This^ all of this. Don't make the baskets smaller, all it will encourage is layups - whoop. I'm terribly excited by the prospect. (insert sarcasm emoticon here)

There are courses that play 1000 rated to par or even over par. Yes there are players that can shoot 1100 rated rounds. Good for them, they aren't that common an occurrence they should be treasured. The top player in the world would average -5 per round on a course playing 1000 rated to par - how is this so dissimilar to golf scoring? -15 after three rounds?

Stop making the greens so easy. Use trees, use bushes, use drop offs, use water, use elevation, use uneven ground, use close OB, use everything in the designers bag within or around the circle to produce difficulty/pressure on the putt and to encourage the more perfect drive/approach or ideally to encourage the riskier drive/approach in the attempt to get the line for a birdie, make players work for their scores. Don't give players a wide open approach to a wide open green. There seems to be a strange obsession with having a perfectly clear circle around the basket for players to putt from, why?

 

[Stan McDaniel]

Congrads on the birth of your target Cam. I am eager to get the chance to try it out. I have chased the game of ball golf since I was a youth riding a bicycle 3 miles to play 9 holes for fifty cents. I do realize that not everything in ball golf has a direct parallel in disc golf but there are many parallels in the two sports. The significance of shooting a round of even par on a tough course in ball golf is huge in some of the majors. Many times at Augusta, U.S. Opens or British Opens the winning score is right at even par. As a fan of ball golf I am most captivated by majors where the top players are grinding it out and the winner somehow manages to complete the tournament 1 or two strokes under par. This is something I have attempted to achieve as a course designer on a couple of courses. I have failed to achieve a course that can approach that standard. I have not been to a course that has achieved that standard. I am unsure whether or not this is necessary or not, but I would love to see a major where our top pros were battling for a win with the scores hovering around even par. From my perspective this has not been possible without making courses too long or too tight or too flukey. I know that I have pushed the limits of tightness and flukiness in an effort to create courses that keep great rounds near par. (crossed those lines a time or two perhaps? : ) Still, those designs did not keep top pros or even run of the mill pros from shooting well under par.
Anyway, I feel that having some courses that pushed our top players work hard to achieve par on is a desirable thing, especially for the spectators. I think that a smaller target is the dynamic that can produce this result. This is a discussion that I have had with so many people, so many times and the most common opinion that I have heard, including mine, is that a smaller target would drive the relevance of par.
I am eager to see this in action. My mind is open to the possibilities of a tougher target. When Cam gets these into production I will definitely initiate a fundraising drive to purchase 18 and get them out as alternate pins on an existing course here in Charlotte.

 

[Smigles]

Can we stop trying to make everything about this game exactly like golf?

Where do people come up with these arbitrary distances where putting goes from automatic, to easy to difficult, but not difficult enough?

You realize, even in golf, those distances exist. Making the target bigger or smaller will only change those distances, not eliminate them. In golf, a tap in is a foot or less (for arguments sake), in disc golf, its 10 feet. So what. For pro's in each sport, its a bit longer, for a novice, shorter. What do you accomplish by manipulating the target so putts from X distance are harder? All that does is make the previously bitched about distance a little shorter. So now the Am's will struggle at 20 and the pros struggle at 40, this progresses our game how?

This has not been quoted enugh lately.

 

[DavidSauls]

Stan, the reason our top pros aren't shooting close to par isn't that the baskets are too easy, it's that our definition of par is too easy. The quickest, cheapest solution is to take away in the inalienable right to birdie every hole.

But that's an entire other thread. Or 17,354 of them.

Which isn't to entirely dismiss the proposal for more challenging baskets. But among the questions I'd ask are

1 - Do they make it more exciting for spectators? Or more boring, with lots of layups? What spectators, anyway? Is it worth pursuing for the hopes of having spectators in the future?

2 - Do they make the game more fun, for everyone, or for the top pros?

3 - How much smaller are we talking about, anyway? I'd argue that Earlewood-sized baskets would be an improvement, everywhere. Perhaps even a little bit smaller, in either dimension. But not past the threshold that just encourages layups, or makes 10' putts risky.

 

[coupe]

Stop making the greens so easy. Use trees, use bushes, use drop offs, use water, use elevation, use uneven ground, use close OB, use everything in the designers bag within or around the circle to produce difficulty/pressure on the putt and to encourage the more perfect drive/approach or ideally to encourage the riskier drive/approach in the attempt to get the line for a birdie, make players work for their scores. Don't give players a wide open approach to a wide open green. There seems to be a strange obsession with having a perfectly clear circle around the basket for players to putt from, why?

Easy to SAY; a damn sight harder to DO when:

a) you don't own the land;
b) the land has limited elevation changes, water, and other features;
d) you're on a limited budget;
b) you have to route around other, existing amenities;
e) every aspect of your design, including tee, fairway, and basket placement, is subject to veto the land owner;
f) you can't plant, move, or remove trees, bushes, or other foliage without the land owner's approval.

And if smaller baskets are going to drive away casual and new players and stunt the growth of the sport, would someone please explain how leaving baskets the same but making getting from the tee into position to attempt to putt more challenging is going to "grow the sport"?

 

[1978]

Congrads on the birth of your target Cam. I am eager to get the chance to try it out. I have chased the game of ball golf since I was a youth riding a bicycle 3 miles to play 9 holes for fifty cents. I do realize that not everything in ball golf has a direct parallel in disc golf but there are many parallels in the two sports. The significance of shooting a round of even par on a tough course in ball golf is huge in some of the majors. Many times at Augusta, U.S. Opens or British Opens the winning score is right at even par. As a fan of ball golf I am most captivated by majors where the top players are grinding it out and the winner somehow manages to complete the tournament 1 or two strokes under par. This is something I have attempted to achieve as a course designer on a couple of courses. I have failed to achieve a course that can approach that standard. I have not been to a course that has achieved that standard. I am unsure whether or not this is necessary or not, but I would love to see a major where our top pros were battling for a win with the scores hovering around even par. From my perspective this has not been possible without making courses too long or too tight or too flukey. I know that I have pushed the limits of tightness and flukiness in an effort to create courses that keep great rounds near par. (crossed those lines a time or two perhaps? : ) Still, those designs did not keep top pros or even run of the mill pros from shooting well under par.
Anyway, I feel that having some courses that pushed our top players work hard to achieve par on is a desirable thing, especially for the spectators. I think that a smaller target is the dynamic that can produce this result. This is a discussion that I have had with so many people, so many times and the most common opinion that I have heard, including mine, is that a smaller target would drive the relevance of par.
I am eager to see this in action. My mind is open to the possibilities of a tougher target. When Cam gets these into production I will definitely initiate a fundraising drive to purchase 18 and get them out as alternate pins on an existing course here in Charlotte.

Could solidify the definition of Skillborne.

 

[Karl]

Stan, the reason our top pros aren't shooting close to par isn't that the baskets are too easy, it's that our definition of par is too easy. The quickest, cheapest solution is to take away in the inalienable right to birdie every hole.

But that's an entire other thread. Or 17,354 of them.

Which isn't to entirely dismiss the proposal for more challenging baskets. But among the questions I'd ask are

1 - Do they make it more exciting for spectators? Or more boring, with lots of layups? What spectators, anyway? Is it worth pursuing for the hopes of having spectators in the future?

2 - Do they make the game more fun, for everyone, or for the top pros?

3 - How much smaller are we talking about, anyway? I'd argue that Earlewood-sized baskets would be an improvement, everywhere. Perhaps even a little bit smaller, in either dimension. But not past the threshold that just encourages layups, or makes 10' putts risky.

David,
(I know YOU know what I'm saying...it's really just for discussion...)

Let me make a comment on your first / intro statement - the one about "par is too easy". I agree. Have since I first started playing (a long time ago). But we've grown accustomed to a certain type of hole where if you DO design something 'differently' people will call it tricked up. Just one example:

A 250' (tee to pin) hole where there is a wall (of trees?) about 220' from the tee that is directly in front of you. IFFFF you can throw a shot that gets really close to the pin (spike hyzer?), you'll have a birdie putt; if not, how far you over throw (to ensure you DO get past the trees) is how far a birdie putt (or layup putt) you have.
Think of the trees as a wide stream, run, river, creek, pond, etc. that in bg you MUST avoid...or get a penalty. Similarly the wall of trees would do this in our example. Skip one over the water = TRY to thread one through the trees. But probably ain't happen'n.

If we were to design such a dg hole, the average player would go ballistic...yet in bg it would be just "another hole with a water hazard in front".
The difference is that in dg, if there is a hole that is "reachable by my throwing ability", there must be a wide (fair is the word that the player would use) lane in which I can get my disc directly under the basket to. And usually with little impunity if they miss.

THIS is why bg par is easier than dg par. It's all about the "the number of shots it takes to get to the green plus 2". OUR greens are small. BG greens are huge (in comparison).

Just some numbers (that compare things...):

Average "make / miss" putt on the PGA Tour = 5.48 ft
Average "make / miss" putt on the PDGA Tour = ~30 ft (my guess, yours may vary)
Percentage "makes" of 25 ft putts on the PGA Tour = ~12%
Percentage "makes" of 70 ft putts on the PDGA Tour = ?

And the greens on the PGA are a lot bigger than that! See where I'm going with this?

Note: That my PGA numbers aren't Rory on a charge on Sun pm, they're for ALL PGA Pros all 4 days.

If we WANT to determine par in a way similar to bg (debatable) we'll have to reassess some definitions (as I think you're alluding to).

Karl
Ps: In general, people equate "fun" with "easy".
Pps: I've rarely ever heard people call bg "fun". They have fun playing it...but also threaten to give up the sport forever (every week they do this!), swear, throw clubs, etc. (you get the point). Even young kids, while bg'ing, say they have "fun", but do so while gritting their teeth. It's understood that it's a "I need to concentrate while doing so kind of fun". I see dg as being a lot more (for the masses - not for tournament players) "fun fun".

 

[DiscFifty]

The most cost effective and easy way to improve a course and make it more of a challenge, is to change the baskets.

100% Disagree. So many (inexpensive) ways to instantly make a hole more challenging. Mandos, creative obs, etc ,etc.

 

[bhadella]

I always thought that baskets that made putting from a specific direction harder would be the next/most logical step. A pitiful google image search came up with this:

I was thinking more along the lines of a "deflector" that could be attached to the upper of a standard basket that would "protect" a segment of the basket (may 25% of the chains) from being able to be entered. This would force either tougher putts from the "easy" side of the circle and/or push players to have to land on a specific side of basket for easier putts.

 

[DavidSauls]

Karl, I agree, and don't want to wander off into "what is par".

Just to say to look at our top scores compared to par, and (ball) golf top scores compared to par, the difference is caused more by our definition than the basket size. And that it would be easier, quicker, and cheaper to change our definition, if the -40 scores were the real problem. That's a big "if".

 

[DiscJunkie]

Stan, the reason our top pros aren't shooting close to par isn't that the baskets are too easy, it's that our definition of par is too easy. The quickest, cheapest solution is to take away in the inalienable right to birdie every hole.

Like Mr. Sauls, I don't want to start another discussion on "What is Par?" but I certainly agree that for our top Pros, par in DG is too easy.

Don't change the baskets, change the Par. When you see a top Pro park a Par 4, 500' hole and drop in for an Eagle, you got the Par wrong. Make it a 3. When you see 3 out of 4 Pros Eagle a Par 5, make it a Par 4.
If some noob or old hacker (me) steps up to the tee and struggles to even Bogey, either step up your (my) game or go to a shorter pad.
I'm not in favor of making DG like stick golf, but the easiest way to change a 100 under par at Worlds is to change the par, not the basket.

 

[AndyJB]

The par thing can be illustrated by how I did par for my Birdie Bash. It's on a short course, but there are four holes that are 320 plus feet. Since Birdie Bash scoring is based on being under par, I have made those four holes par 4s to allow everyone to score on them, including juniors and begginers. Experienced players will have no problem getting an eagle on these, but the goal is for the less experienced to score points.

Now take that to an A-Tier, where a 500 foot, open hole is a par 4 (as is common.) For pros, that's an automatic birdie and a likely eagle, regardless of basket size. For Advanced divisions, that's also pretty much an automatic birdie, even for those playing up. For Intermediate, which, at least around here, is the biggest division, that's nowhere near an automatic birdie. Maybe the top ten of the division will birdie that...maybe. The generous par allows the average or slightly below average player a chance to get that birdie. HOWEVER, the difference between my BB and a standard tournament is that being below par actually doesn't matter. What matters in the end is raw score. So there is literally no need to give players like me a chance at making a birdie on every hole. It's not going to change my placing if that 500 footer becomes a par 3. My ego, perhaps, but not my placing.

So adjusting par to put it more on track of Advanced and Pro players is the easiest solution to the "under par" debate.

/thread drift

The baskets are a novel idea. I wish success to anyone who wants to think outside the box in any endeavor, disc golf or otherwise. If people never did that, we'd still be stuck in the stone age. Cam Todd's design might not be the solution, but as this thread shows, it at least opened up the debate. More ideas are now flowing through, and maybe one of them will stick.

 

[AndyJB]

I typed mine before DiscJunkie posted his, but we both said pretty much the same thing.

 

[rhatton1]

Easy to SAY; a damn sight harder to DO when:

a) you don't own the land;
b) the land has limited elevation changes, water, and other features;
d) you're on a limited budget;
b) you have to route around other, existing amenities;
e) every aspect of your design, including tee, fairway, and basket placement, is subject to veto the land owner;
f) you can't plant, move, or remove trees, bushes, or other foliage without the land owner's approval.

And if smaller baskets are going to drive away casual and new players and stunt the growth of the sport, would someone please explain how leaving baskets the same but making getting from the tee into position to attempt to putt more challenging is going to "grow the sport"?

If a through f is a problem don't hold majors at the course. It's not day to day play the pros are saying is a problem it's that they're shooting 50 down after 4 rounds in a major tournament.

I don't believe new smaller baskets would put any new player off, but I am disinclined to believe that new smaller baskets make for a better game at any level of play. I would probably as a player benefit vs my peers from a smaller basket because of my already rather cautious style of play, this doesn't come from a "this would be worse for me personally" stand point

Generally if putting in a course I will be looking at multiple tees/basket positions or multiple holes, land/budget allowing, to suit all levels of ability, it's how the courses I have grown up on worked and it's how the courses I have put in have worked.

 

[DavidSauls]

The baskets are a novel idea. I wish success to anyone who wants to think outside the box in any endeavor, disc golf or otherwise. If people never did that, we'd still be stuck in the stone age. Cam Todd's design might not be the solution, but as this thread shows, it at least opened up the debate. More ideas are now flowing through, and maybe one of them will stick.

I like the concept of an adjustable basket. One that can be adjusted to reduce the vertical target area, but I'd also like some sort of mechanism to reduce the width of the chains. It would be even better if, at "full open", it would be the size of our current baskets. Probably with a padlockable feature to keep unauthorized players from tampering with them.

I wouldn't opt for lowering the bottom tray, though. A lower overall target means shorter comeback putts.

 

[ohtobediscing]

...there is little money involved in this sport..... Hopefully a big basket maker will start making these type of baskets and let you exchange old baskets for them.

Cam isn't coming at this from a philanthropic angle---he wants to make money. NO manufacturer is going to replace 85,000 U.S. baskets for free, especially after paying Cam's royalties. And NO course would want them if the PDGA doesn't certify them for tourney play.
Would they be good for improving short, treeless crappy courses, like Sam Lena? Sure. But the vast majority of US courses are well-treed, with elevation/water/distance adding even more complexity, without paying $10K for new, unnecessary baskets.
They're nice baskets, but no, they won't be replacing baskets on good, established [or better] courses.

 

[New013]

i agree with the sentiment going to more challenging baskets on the whole could damage the growth of the game. chuck can say there's no facts to back that up which is true but there's no facts to say it wouldn't hurt it either. bringing up how disc golf grew with tone poles back whenever they were throwing frisbees is terrible logic and he should know it. yeah im sure people who were already in love frisbees were drawn to throw at poles, whooped de doo. that has no bearing on society half a century later especially considering how different the sport is on the whole. the one fact we do know is the game has grown the most significantly with the current basket specs so why mess with a good thing.

furthermore i'd point out a lot of the pros saying putting needs to be harder are the ones who are really good at putting, what a coincidence right? yeah i'm sure Cam and McBeth and others do what putting to be harder because they're extremely good at it. go ask Will if the basket should of been smaller when he was missing those putts to win the USDGC.

 

[ericb45696]

after 25 years my putting game is finally starting to get decent and now this...bleh

 

[blackcatsmith]

after 25 years my putting game is finally starting to get decent and now this...bleh

I know right? Talk about moving the goal posts.. oh, we were..