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)
.....but, heck, assume for the sake of argument that a shorter target would favor hard putts, and that hard putts are a bad thing. For the sake of argument.
If there are benefits to it, in lowering putting percentages as various differences, emphasizing the approach game, and all of the other things smaller-target advocates swear by---if, for the sake of argument, those benefits are true, then would favoring hard putts be a compelling enough negative to outweigh the positives?
.....but, heck, assume for the sake of argument that a shorter target would favor hard putts, and that hard putts are a bad thing. For the sake of argument.
If there are benefits to it, in lowering putting percentages as various differences, emphasizing the approach game, and all of the other things smaller-target advocates swear by---if, for the sake of argument, those benefits are true, then would favoring hard putts be a compelling enough negative to outweigh the positives?
Initially, I'm thinking not. There should be other ways to put into effect 'harder putting (statistically)' and also (re)introduce the 'touch aspect' into the game.
Of course. It also affects the zone from 100 to 180' out, as Houck says, which results in basically 2.0 throws for top players. That zone would shrink, and likely move closer to the basket, because rather than putting a disc to 20' or whatever, they'd have to put it to maybe 10' (or whatever the "gimme" range was).
That 80' range is pretty wide. It's boring, a foregone conclusion that they're basically gonna get 2.
Again, except for the long putts, putting is not exciting at all. You'd still have long putts made, but instead of them being 85 footers, they'd be 60 footers.
And in weighing that, we have to ask what the goal is---spectator disc golf, or participation disc golf. Would it really be more fun for everyday players?
There's more to it than that: about what's ultimately the best version of the sport, with the right emphasis and the right amount of emphasis on the various parts of the game.
Now, there's no one right answer. Different people are going to feel differently.
I'm not in favor of Bullseyes, but I do think something smaller would be good. The current baskets are too easy (IMO). If I get to within 20' I feel like I'm virtually automatic from there. That feels too easy to me.
My wish is that the advocates would run more test events, and see how it affects scoring, scoring spread, strategy, and player enjoyment. The trick is that it's easier to do this with smaller events---in fact, I think the PDGA would love it if people did---than for events with top players.
While I do not agree that baskets need to be harder (I too play on a lot of challenging greens and I too believe the result is just more laying up) I do agree that making them smaller vertically is likely the way to go. For one thing it would be easy to do with nothing but a drill.
As a new guy who has played a little and watched a lot, my initial impression of DG putting is that it is way too easy for MPO/FPO players.
I would lean towards really difficult greens if you want to level the field and add variability. If two out of every three putts from inside of 50' would be a death putt, then the mental/strategic game might become much more important.
Since I miss more than I hit from outside 20', take this comment for what it is worth.
I feel disc golf needs people that want to watch it that are not disc golfers. Make it more difficult and really showcase the pros skills and more ppl will hopefully watch. I feel like the way disc golf is set up is limiting the pros skills set.
Narrow baskets, and no more par 4s. Everything is a 3. I don't care how long the hole is.
Discs are the only thing that makes money in disc golf. That's sad.
If someone has better ideas feel free to help. It's easy to downplay someone's solution. Especially if u don't have one to contribute.
If we get more money from sponsors we get more courses, more pros, and better competition and exposure. I'm sick of seeing drone racing and robot fighting and ping pong get more play on tv.
If we want good chunks of land we have to have more money in the sport. Some of the best courses are privately funded and maintained. What makes ppl think the next generation to own that land will use it for disc golf?
Drone racing and robot fighting are the wave of the future; when humans are enslaved to machines; of course they get more airtime. Are you not paying attention to the world? Now ping pong, that's just an indication that "the east" as your rulers and masters is on the horizon...
I believe the PDGA will sanction events on smaller baskets, at least as X-tiers.
In fact, my understanding the is that the new committee (can't recall it's name, and am too lazy to look it up) wants people to test out some of these ideas, and produce some better data than mere conjecture.
Now, the hard part is to do it at an event drawing top pros. Otherwise, it's a demonstration event with attendance like a local C-tier, perhaps B-tier. Which may not provide the exact data that you want.
The disc golf chart will not increase at nearly the rate that the golf chart does, though. It may never get as high as the golf chart, because from 8' golf is 1.5 strokes for pros, while from 8' disc golf is nearly 1.0 strokes. The disc golf chart should start off very very flat, and then rise from there.
They may cross at some point, but in golf I limited the putting to 100 footers, and that's 2.45 for golf. I don't think that even in disc golf you'd see 2.45 from 100 feet.
I think you are misunderstanding me in the same way as your previous reply to my first graph. Again, it's not the scale of the graphs that matter at all in my argument. Obviously, the ball golf curve is going to be using a different scale and must be shrunk/enlarged to overlap nicely on the curve of a different sport such as disc golf. If you are familiar the statistics term, it is simply a form of normalization.
I'm saying it's the shape of the curve that should be adjusted to our goals for putting, whatever they may be.
I think you are misunderstanding me in the same way as your previous reply to my first graph. Again, it's not the scale of the graphs that matter at all in my argument. Obviously, the ball golf curve is going to be using a different scale and must be shrunk/enlarged to overlap nicely on the curve of a different sport such as disc golf. If you are familiar the statistics term, it is simply a form of normalization.
I'm saying it's the shape of the curve that should be adjusted to our goals for putting, whatever they may be.
I would not say the sinking ship part of the metaphor holds but all the talk of changing baskets has a ring of desperation similar to "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic".
The quest for spectation is beating a dead unicorn. Go play the game, and try not leave ALL your Lite cans out there!
If the problem is that disc golf isn't a major mainstream spectator sport, I'll offer a solution: Relax and live with it.
It's a double-folly: that disc golf could and should be a significant spectator sport, and that narrower baskets would be a significant factor in making this happen.
As a participation sport, disc golf continues to grow remarkably. If making putting more difficult by marking the target narrower, or shorter, makes the game better for participants, let's have that discussion.
The poll appears to be a question. But the limited answer options provided depend on the actual question you're answering in your head which can range widely depending on the player. The narrower basket may be one answer to the question to make putting more difficult. But how much is enough and for what reasons are missing pieces.
"How much is enough" is where I get stuck. I'd like to see somewhat narrower baskets, like Earlewood's or slightly tighter, but not some of the products on the market.
