Can we do what Merion did?

[mashnut]

I think it would be interesting to see the reaction at a larger tournament if something like that was used for par. You might also need to change the "green" size for different levels to get the kinds of scoring spreads people want across the board. A novice level player isn't going to consistently get up and down from 80' but the top pros will consistently do it at say 175'.

 

[bradharris]

I think more true multi-shot holes would help as well. And I'm not talking about just making longer holes. But if you can use the terrain effectively to make the pin essentially unreachable off the tee and instead force play towards well designed landing zones.

If nothing else, a par 72 layout gives players 18 more opportunities to make mistakes (over a par 54 layout).

 

[scarpfish]

To do that, you'd have to either go with strokes to get within 30'ish plus 1

Which makes sense because its derived on a concept of how disc golfers complete a hole, as opposed to ball golfers who have an actual green, and have to switch to a different piece of equipment once they reach it.

Either way you'd get a bunch of griping from people who don't like old courses suddenly becoming par 2 and 500' holes being marked par 3.

Which saddened to say, the statistics show those holes actually are.

We're a half stroke off from a reasonable definition of par in a lot of cases, which makes it tough to find the right balance.

The operative word there being "half". If we could manage to get past the concept that the par on each and every hole has to be set to a whole number, which ball golf actually did experiment with at one point, perhaps we'd stop seeing such ridiculous under par scores.

 

[esdubya]

DG putting parameters need to be changed so the Gold level putting average is closer to 2 putts probably with smaller targets.

Coming from someone who actually develops the standards - this is pretty radical, eh?!

I think I like it.

Is there a thread on here discussing smaller targets in more detail?

I've always dreamed of a different sized target to suit the given hole - or to give good score spread for different levels of players. A basket that could range anywhere from a 2:1 scale to a 1:2 scale size. Yes I know you would need to find a manufacturer to make it possible, but I'm assuming that will not be a barrier sometime in the near future.

Could this be a new progression of our game? It gives the ultimate ability for a designer to tweak a hole and get ideal scoring spread. I can also see it making the gameplay more interesting, from a players perspective.

 

[DavidSauls]

I think more true multi-shot holes would help as well. And I'm not talking about just making longer holes. But if you can use the terrain effectively to make the pin essentially unreachable off the tee and instead force play towards well designed landing zones.

If nothing else, a par 72 layout gives players 18 more opportunities to make mistakes (over a par 54 layout).

It works if the fairway widths and turns are tough enough that top-level players aren't reaching the basket, enough to boost the scoring averages on those holes. If you have a par-4 that, say, 1000-rated players are averaging 4.3 on.

Not the most popular holes, but they balance out the ones that those players are average 3.7 on.

 

[Lewis]

Is there a thread on here discussing smaller targets in more detail?

Yes, and unless my memory fails me, Paul McBeth chimed in with his opinion of the idea.

 

[jobwilson]

Adopting the stroke and distance rule across the board would incrementally add to scores.
The idea of throwing from where the disc goes out of bounds is beyond me.

 

[esdubya]

Yes, and unless my memory fails me, Paul McBeth chimed in with his opinion of the idea.

Thanks, but I think he was talking about disc size, not basket size.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2037380#post2037380

 

[Cgkdisc]

Usually, when the discussion about targets comes up it involves making the diameter smaller and/or removing the outer chains like the Bullseye basket. That requires new equipment including basket replacement. However, I'm thinking that reducing the vertical opening on existing baskets could raise scores enough, could be done without new baskets or chain assemblies and it could be tested pretty easily to get the right height.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Coming from someone who actually develops the standards - this is pretty radical, eh?!

I think I like it.

Is there a thread on here discussing smaller targets in more detail?

I've always dreamed of a different sized target to suit the given hole - or to give good score spread for different levels of players. A basket that could range anywhere from a 2:1 scale to a 1:2 scale size. Yes I know you would need to find a manufacturer to make it possible, but I'm assuming that will not be a barrier sometime in the near future.

Could this be a new progression of our game? It gives the ultimate ability for a designer to tweak a hole and get ideal scoring spread. I can also see it making the gameplay more interesting, from a players perspective.

While I think the idea of smaller targets (to essentially make "two putting" part of parring a hole) would be good to help create scoring separation, it would essentially make all the existing courses obsolete. As cash strapped as most communities, states, etc. are, retrofitting courses with new baskets simply isn't gonna happen. And will cometitive players really want to hone their skills on courses with large baskets when tournaments will be held on courses with small baskets? Plus a bunch of other issues I can't even begin to list.

I have a feeling the basket as we know it is here to stay, at least for quite a while. Sure, there may be a course here or there that features Bullseye baskets or something like that, but the vast majority of courses will still have the same type of targets we've already become accustomed to.

 

[DikkaD]

I think more true multi-shot holes would help as well. And I'm not talking about just making longer holes. But if you can use the terrain effectively to make the pin essentially unreachable off the tee and instead force play towards well designed landing zones.

If nothing else, a par 72 layout gives players 18 more opportunities to make mistakes (over a par 54 layout).

This is a great idea.

I think making the green elevated so that approach shots will have the tendency to roll off if not placed right will raise scores as well. This along with hazards around some greens (as previously mentioned) could increase the difficulty of even the most wide open courses.

Anyone want to try this at Macgregor park in Houston

BTW surprised no one has mentioned the stand still shot from the rough.

 

[mashnut]

Usually, when the discussion about targets comes up it involves making the diameter smaller and/or removing the outer chains like the Bullseye basket. That requires new equipment including basket replacement. However, I'm thinking that reducing the vertical opening on existing baskets could raise scores enough, could be done without new baskets or chain assemblies and it could be tested pretty easily to get the right height.

The bullseye modification can be done with a long zip tie for tournaments, that's a much more cost effective option that would allow for increasing putting difficulty for events without changing the overall equipment.

If it was a general tech standards change, removing inner chains (or moving outer chains inward on single chain baskets) is a whole lot cheaper and easier than installing new baskets.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Ah, but part of the idea with smaller baskets is that the new design would catch better when shots are on target. Bullseyes have even more cut-thrus and bounce outs than current baskets. I think cut thrus and bounce backs would be minimized with a lower vertical target zone height down to say 14" from the current 21-22" opening. The basket and chain assembly would remain the same and there would be shorter chains making the target lighter.

 

[mashnut]

Ah, but part of the idea with smaller baskets is that the new design would catch better when shots are on target. Bullseyes have even more cut-thrus and bounce outs than current baskets. I think cut thrus and bounce backs would be minimized with a lower vertical target zone height down to say 14" from the current 21-22" opening. The basket and chain assembly would remain the same and there would be shorter chains making the target lighter.

I disagree on the cut throughs. I've never had a shot that hit solidly on the chains on a bullseye go through. The bounce backs I could see, but that would be less of an issue with regular baskets that had the outer chains tied up so there was a double layer of chain to slow down a putt.

I think that decreasing the height would make putting even more of a ballistic thing than it already is, with players firing in really fast putts then complaining about spit throughs. The bullseye style makes you use a little more finesse IMO.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Yes, it would make putts more ballistic and reduce loft putt style. Most would likely switch to spin putting making left-right accuracy more difficult along with straddle putts. Essentially, players would be throwing the disc as "intended."

 

[mj20300]

DG putting parameters need to be changed so the Gold level putting average is closer to 2 putts probably with smaller targets. The rest of our game is fine including our par definition.

Usually, when the discussion about targets comes up it involves making the diameter smaller and/or removing the outer chains like the Bullseye basket. That requires new equipment including basket replacement. However, I'm thinking that reducing the vertical opening on existing baskets could raise scores enough, could be done without new baskets or chain assemblies and it could be tested pretty easily to get the right height.

I have been talking about this for years

 

[grodney]

Yeah, I don't see an issue with bounce-backs on a bulls-eye. Try putting more softly. If you want to throw your putts 50mph, play object golf.

 

[NOStheBOSS]

I thought about it too, and the only way I could figure to do it would be to thicken the rough and the fairway lines. While this would probably raise scores, it wouldn't be seen as "challenging" but more likely "stupid" by most tour pros and top players.

 

[grodney]

By the way, I've been in favor of smaller targets for years -- not to make scoring closer to "par", but just to make the game better.

p.s. I don't think it would help my game, personally. In other words, I think it would further separate me from good players. But I'm still for it, again, to better the game.

 

[mashnut]

Yes, it would make putts more ballistic and reduce loft putt style. Most would likely switch to spin putting making left-right accuracy more difficult along with straddle putts. Essentially, players would be throwing the disc as "intended."

How so? In the early days of the sport, or even in the early days of basket targets, were players firing their discs hard into the basket? My understanding is that older players tended to do more of a lob putt and newer targets with more chains have made it more possible to throw those hard spin putts.

Making putting more of a finesse shot rather than a power shot brings wind and elevation into play a lot more, adding more difficulty to putts than a target that encourages hard spin putting IMO.