At some point, I'd rather just see a set of rigid specs for championship level baskets, so no matter who makes the basket the physical specifications would be the same across the board. I don't think the wheel needs to be re-invented, a combination of the best attributes of the Discatcher and the Mach X could produce a basket everyone could live with.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
DGPT: Approved Baskets for the Pro Tour
- Thread starter DGPT
- Start date
At some point, I'd rather just see a set of rigid specs for championship level baskets, so no matter who makes the basket the physical specifications would be the same across the board. I don't think the wheel needs to be re-invented, a combination of the best attributes of the Discatcher and the Mach X could produce a basket everyone could live with.
why does it matter when ever player uses the same set of baskets for an event? It is an non-issue really and basket makers are going to continue to create new products just like we have seen with discs. Some of those will last an others likely wont.
Ive never decided not to play a course bc of the baskets and live very close to one which has a homemade some cones and older/newer some form of chain baskets that you see all over. Makes zero difference IMO. Bad baskets do suck but they suck for everyone lol.
Ive never decided not to play a course bc of the baskets and live very close to one which has a homemade some cones and older/newer some form of chain baskets that you see all over. Makes zero difference IMO. Bad baskets do suck but they suck for everyone lol.
Just comparing to other professional sports:
Hockey goals -- all the same specs -- if they weren't players and fans would understandably revolt
Football goal posts -- same
Lines on a tennis court -- same
Soccer goals -- same
Basketball hoops -- same
Cup size in golf -- same
And on and on. It's just logical to go in that direction at some point, and I'll bet it absolutely happens in disc golf too.
What the DGPT (and the World Tour) are doing is a step in that direction.
Last edited:
The baskets all have the same specs too within a set standard i see no reason yo require them to be identical and restrict any new ideas or makers etc.
There's too much leeway in the current spec guidelines, which is why this thread even exists.
GoldeyeGolf
Birdie Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2016
- Messages
- 283
Really don't agree with your last point. Being able to relate as directly as possible to the game the best players are playing adds a connection that enhances interest.
I see no reason why there "is too much leeway" id argue there might not be enough to design a even better target if you really want to go there.
I can see you wouldn't support me as the new PDGA Executive Director, because I'd make this a top priority.
It is bad DG biz. Disc specs have grown for this same reason. We dont need uber regulation even at a so called "pro" level.
It's already starting down that road, just a matter of time before it happens.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
I think the track record shows our sport is wildly popular for participation but not to watch. I believe continuing to pursue minor equipment and presentation tweaks are good moves to improve game play but will not produce sufficiently more spectators.
A more watchable version of the game could be discovered that would still be relatable but may involve formats less common for daily play by combining some or all of these elements like team play, match play, speed play, more athletic moves being legal and more challenging targets. If our elite pros wish to truly make a living at the sport because enough people watch or pay to watch them, they will need to become entertainers in a version of the sport that's actually entertaining to watch because we can recreationally play a few but not all elements of this more elaborate or "extreme" pro version.
Once again, everyone has to play on the same baskets, regardless of what type they are.
So you have to adjust your putt, big whoop.
Don't tell me it's unfair to have to do so.
I could make the argument that certain courses are then unfair.
If someone doesn't have a strong FH, they probably won't do as well as someone who does on certain courses.
Does that mean we should homogenize every course, so it's the same shot everytime?
Or perhaps our top pros should have a well rounded game and be able to adjust accordingly.
So you have to adjust your putt, big whoop.
Don't tell me it's unfair to have to do so.
I could make the argument that certain courses are then unfair.
If someone doesn't have a strong FH, they probably won't do as well as someone who does on certain courses.
Does that mean we should homogenize every course, so it's the same shot everytime?
Or perhaps our top pros should have a well rounded game and be able to adjust accordingly.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
I suppose the same argument can be made for tee pads. Why not "allow" different types on the same course for extra challenge including aiming some offline and some slightly sloping different directions. That's pretty much what you have for footing where you land in the fairways anyway so it's not like players can't make throws from those spots.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,852
I think so. Especially if we went all the way to having a target that is just the tray. Imagine the tension when trying to land a disc in the tray from 25 feet for the win without the help of chains or a pole.
To me, that type of throw feels like the type of throw we had to make to hit a pole with a Frisbee. I think we've focused on the wrong end of the throw by trying to keep the ballistic nature of the end point rather than trying to keep the touch feel of the disc leaving the hand.
GoldeyeGolf
Birdie Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2016
- Messages
- 283
I'm all for the less common formats. There are many competitive possibilities that could provide a more interesting viewing experience. The standard tournament format is too slow and will never appeal to any but the hardcores. I just don't want to see a basic piece of equipment change. Then it's not a sport that I'm playing anymore. The popular spectator sports have not done this.
As for making the targets more difficult, a lot of the pros whine like crazy anytime the chains don't give them the benefit of the doubt right now, it would be even more pathetic with a tougher target. It's not a good look for the sport, and I don't see how making things like aces and long throw ins more rare improves the viewing experience. When was the last time a beautiful upshot made sportscenter?
esdubya
Double Eagle Member
Look, no matter how much we try to inject "extreme" elements into our game it will still be golf. Golf by nature appeals to those who play it, not to those who don't. Ball golf on TV appeals only to those that play it. The fact that so many play it is what makes for good TV ratings (although that seems to be on the decline).
For disc golf, I find that I actually LIKE to watch it, if it is produced well. We (the 'royal' we) need to just be patient here, and I really think the watching of disc golf live or on the web or on TV will be a very slow, deliberate growth that follows the growth of participation overall.
Trying to add extreme elements to that would make the sport disingenuous (IMO) and I feel this is a time in our growth where we need to be true to ourselves. We haven't come this far based on gimmicks.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
At one time softball promoters probably said what you did where if we just grow the sport, we'll eventually get the spectators we need to financially sustain a pro tour. How did that work out? It's not your money at stake here. It's the time and money of our TDs and promoters being drained before there's sustainable spectatorship let alone paying spectators for them to even break even.
Last edited:
hummer1025
PDGA Tech. Standards Chair Jeff Homburg
I've scanned through many but not all of the comments in this interesting thread. As chair of the PDGA Tech Standards Committee since 1988 I've seen all of the targets submitted for testing/approval/certification over that span. Consequently, I have a unique perspective on many of the issues discussed here.
As many have noted, a certain level of variability is permitted in approved targets, with some finding that to be a good thing (or at least not such a bad thing) and others not. I think it is important to debate whether absolute uniformity should be a requirement or not for approval. This is true both in general as well as for different PDGA tiers, and for outside tours such as the DGPT. Believe me, the TSC spends countless hours debating issues like this, often reaching a consensus but in some cases not. In the end we opted for a middle ground in the target standards, whereby there is some flexibility in design parameters so as to encourage/allow possible innovations/tweaks. And there are more rigorous requirements for the Championship level. Of course, our philosophy on this approach could be change in the future but there would need to be a compelling need to do so.
As the TSC Chair it is not my role to endorse particular targets, and I am not doing so here. But I think there are some targets not on the DGPT approval list that are equally as effective if not more so than the four they list. Those targets are commonly made by smaller companies, sometimes ones outside the US, that touring pros are less likely to have been exposed to. I'm sure the touring pros have done a good job of picking the best ones they know of, but that excludes others that are exceptional. It's not surprising/coincidental that the four selected are made by companies who sponsored many of the touring pro who voted. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just an interesting observation.
It is noteworthy that many who play in the 27-hole Lemmon Drop B-tier near Tucson, which is played with 27 different Championship targets, find the variability in the targets is one of the appealing aspects of the tournament. For your viewing pleasure, attached are photos that show a number of the approved targets in my backyard.
As many have noted, a certain level of variability is permitted in approved targets, with some finding that to be a good thing (or at least not such a bad thing) and others not. I think it is important to debate whether absolute uniformity should be a requirement or not for approval. This is true both in general as well as for different PDGA tiers, and for outside tours such as the DGPT. Believe me, the TSC spends countless hours debating issues like this, often reaching a consensus but in some cases not. In the end we opted for a middle ground in the target standards, whereby there is some flexibility in design parameters so as to encourage/allow possible innovations/tweaks. And there are more rigorous requirements for the Championship level. Of course, our philosophy on this approach could be change in the future but there would need to be a compelling need to do so.
As the TSC Chair it is not my role to endorse particular targets, and I am not doing so here. But I think there are some targets not on the DGPT approval list that are equally as effective if not more so than the four they list. Those targets are commonly made by smaller companies, sometimes ones outside the US, that touring pros are less likely to have been exposed to. I'm sure the touring pros have done a good job of picking the best ones they know of, but that excludes others that are exceptional. It's not surprising/coincidental that the four selected are made by companies who sponsored many of the touring pro who voted. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just an interesting observation.
It is noteworthy that many who play in the 27-hole Lemmon Drop B-tier near Tucson, which is played with 27 different Championship targets, find the variability in the targets is one of the appealing aspects of the tournament. For your viewing pleasure, attached are photos that show a number of the approved targets in my backyard.
Attachments
Actually, I have to somewhat disagree with this observation. I have never had the inclination to play ball golf, but I do enjoy watching it on tv. At the age of 71, I didn't take up disc golf until about 4 years ago, but if I would have had an opportunity to watch a disc golf tournament on tv earlier on, I think I would have taken up the sport sooner.
Personally, the improvements of the disc golf baskets is intriguing to me and adds to my interest in the sport. I've always had an interest in the changing technologies of sporting equipment.
