Is THIS what we want?

[Hampstead]

Still waiting on that data, old man. Just saying you watch coverage isn't enough.

 

[oldmandiscer]

Still waiting on that data, old man. Just saying you watch coverage isn't enough.

Give it up dude. Baskets are not changing anytime soon for the pro's. They are too busy rolling in money to do anything about it. It'll be a couple years I think before anything could happen. No need to worry about seeing a pro miss a 20 footer yet.

 

[Hampstead]

Just as I thought. All hot air and no balloon.

 

[oldmandiscer]

Just as I thought. All hot air and no balloon.

Give it up dude, it's not happening.

 

[biscoe]

OK... couple of quotes from the Houck article since your reading comprehension seems somewhat unpredictable:

As passionate as proponents are, and as often as people have this discussion, you would think someone would be organizing tournaments using smaller baskets to test the theory and meet the demand for change. But there have been shockingly few such events it seems. (Wait, could it be that online intensity is not a true indicator of how much people really care?)...No facts? No problem!

He closes with (emphasis mine)

Do we really have a problem? I'm not convinced that we do.

Color me shocked that what you spew as a ringing endorsement of your diatribe is not so much.

As for other course designers I can only speak for myself- I am certainly among the top ten thousand or so designers world wide. I do believe there will be an eventual "basket revolution" but not in the way you think. Eventually someone will simply invent a better mouse (disc) trap whether it is smaller or not. Those targets will enter the market at the top end rather than as a half assed attempt to trick players into thinking missing in practice makes them a better putter (all narrow baskets). I do not believe that making putting more difficult lends any more legitimacy or entertainment value to the game. (IMO it actually guts entertainment value). If you want to place more emphasis on the approach game and are stuck with bad property then I believe that limiting access to one side of a target or another is a more promising concept than shrinking baskets. (Again- much like Houck just because I am willing to entertain an idea does not make me support it so don't go blathering away about my testimonials for basket changes)

I am such a freaking sucker for taking the bait...

 

[Three Putt]

new signature McBeth basket is just a rebadged DGA something.

Link? I'm not aware of McBeth endorsing a basket.

 

[txmxer]

OK... couple of quotes from the Houck article since your reading comprehension seems somewhat unpredictable:


He closes with (emphasis mine)

Color me shocked that what you spew as a ringing endorsement of your diatribe is not so much.

As for other course designers I can only speak for myself- I am certainly among the top ten thousand or so designers world wide. I do believe there will be an eventual "basket revolution" but not in the way you think. Eventually someone will simply invent a better mouse (disc) trap whether it is smaller or not. Those targets will enter the market at the top end rather than as a half assed attempt to trick players into thinking missing in practice makes them a better putter (all narrow baskets). I do not believe that making putting more difficult lends any more legitimacy or entertainment value to the game. (IMO it actually guts entertainment value). If you want to place more emphasis on the approach game and are stuck with bad property then I believe that limiting access to one side of a target or another is a more promising concept than shrinking baskets. (Again- much like Houck just because I am willing to entertain an idea does not make me support it so don't go blathering away about my testimonials for basket changes)

I am such a freaking sucker for taking the bait...

I was going to see if that was the same article linked previously. Houck seems to give a pretty even look at the issue.

And now we have half of the top ten thousand designers explicitly saying "these are not the baskets you are looking for".

Unfortunately your Jedi mind tricks don't work on a Hutt.

 

[johnrhouck]

https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133799

There it is again.

OK, I hate to be a naysayer here, but that post is referencing an article that I wrote in the PDGA magazine. If anyone read that article and thinks I was advocating for smaller baskets, that person should probably read it again. I have never come out in favor of smaller baskets. Sorry, OMD.

For that matter, anyone who thinks I was taking a position against smaller baskets should probably re-read, too. I was just trying to present the problems with both sides and to look at what the unintended consequences might be. And to inject some levity into a topic that can engender passionate disagreements.

And while we're at, what I have spoken in favor of is design improvements and creating holes where C2 is a good shot and C1 a great shot.

Also in favor of advocates setting up opportunities to test their theories, so we can all see whether it works or not. Now back to the fun...

 

[johnrhouck]

I was going to see if that was the same article linked previously. Houck seems to give a pretty even look at the issue.

Well, there you go. I guess I should have read Mr. Mxer and Mr. Biscoe before posting myself. They both got my non-advocacy. Thank you, both.

 

[rhatton1]

Manufacturers and the PDGA are really the ones who haven't been on board. PDGA with their outdated 70's basket specs and manufacturers who could be sitting on plenty of stock to sell. As much as they'd love to sell new baskets, they want to sell out of the baskets they currently have.

Then are customers from 3 months ago going to call them out and say, hey give me the new spec basket and I'll send you these others back. Why didn't you tell me you were switching to a new design?

It's not that easy to switch to a new design and not face issues.

Then they have enough issues just making enough plastic which they can't currently. Why change something that works? Even if the change would be beneficial for the long term? Players salaries are going up, they mostly care about the money.

We'll likely be stuck with poop sticks, miles of ropes and 8 foot high baskets till disc golf levels off more. Then it could be prioritized I think into addressing the target itself.

Manufacturer here. And course designer. And Retailer. And Wholesaler. And Tournament and series organiser, plus PDGA country coordinator for a number of years and sat on the National board.

To answer a few of the above from a position of some knowledge driven by data and real world experience.

It is easy to switch to a new basket design. The problems you are stating are scenarios that are unlikely in the extreme.

No one in the industry currently is sitting on any stock. They are sitting on forward orders they can't fulfil.

As you yourself say why would they change something that is clearly working? Can you not see the fallacy in your argument? To you the game is broken (your words somewhere in this thread). Wuh? What? I just can't see how you can rationalise the two thought processes in your mind. 1. Manufacturers won't do it because they are doing too well as it is. 2. The game is broken and can only be fixed by changes to the target. Surely 2 is contradicted by 1, no?

We're witnessing the most incredible growth because it's not broken, it might not be perfect (what sport is?) but small baskets are most definitely not the answer. It's finding a circle and trying to ram it in to a square hole.

The one solution to too easy courses at the pro level (if that is even a real problem which is a debate in itself) is the one that is already coming because of the success of the game you say is broken.

In the next five years we will see more and more courses where the land and topography and course layout challenges the best.

We won't need rope or OB or Hazards or any other such arbitrary extra stroke mechanism. I hope to never see a road or path used as OB on coverage again, slopes will be used, elevated baskets will be used, so will sunken ones, as long as they are used in moderation they challenge a skillset.

We will have courses that challenge the best using the land on offer. Water will be in play more as the natural OB, trees and foliage will be planted to create the fairways and the challenge.

Designers will be recommending planting of certain species in certain areas to create challenge.

I'm already doing this. On open courses Silver Birch as one example are great to line fairways as they space out nicely, and can be mowed under for a pleasing aesthetic whilst creating elements that affect hole difficulty to a small degree, poplars are great for fast growing tall obstacles as long as planted sensibly with hardwoods which will take their place in 20 years when the Poplars start to fall. Courses are being designed with a long term 25 - 30 year view.

Laurel as another example makes a superb bunker, you can't throw through it, it bushes out well and to a good height and grows quickly in woodland creating a fantastic natural obstacle, that can be used around greens and fairways in tactical areas, forcing thought on the tee. Dogwood is another one that is great in low light areas. Bamboo can be used as a fast grower in the short term, etc. etc. You can create courses with natural obstacles that do the job of OB better. There is a chance to the top players to scramble so strokes are not arbitrary 1 shot extra, scoring is smoothed out and the top players who manage the obstacles well come out on top. Chucks Granularity of scoring comes in. OB becomes unnecessary as natural features and budget replaces it.

As for smaller baskets. The market doesn't want it. Categorically, it doesn't.

The Market actually wants the other way, bigger chains, bigger catching area. Why? Because the market is the 99.99% of Disc golfers who like to hole out and feel special about it. Not the tiny percentage who want to increase their chances of winning titles.

We as a company made baskets to maximum PDGA specs which are being universally liked as it feels you can't miss on them. When a basket is universally liked what do you think happens the next time someone is putting a course in and a choice for baskets comes along? By the end of this year they will be the most common basket in this country by some way.

The growth of this sport has been it's fun and accessible nature. Whilst the pro game and Youtube has had some influence in it's growth it's still a very small part of it. The vast majority of people who play disc golf have not watched a tournament. The vast majority of people that play disc golf wouldn't even call themselves disc golfers, it's just another activity they get to do on a summers evening.

You have a number of the top designers and innovators in Disc Golf in this thread and many others politely explaining why you're incorrect and again and again you have failed to provide proof to the contrary.

You're at the stage now where the only way to prove your theory is to build the basket, build the course and run the tournament.

The people you are arguing with have done just that multiple times and have been doing it for years, there's a good chance that without a few of the names posting in this thread that you wouldn't even be playing the sport. Their arguments are as a result more valid until you can categorically prove otherwise.

Your opinion does not do that. You're entitled to it but it does not bear the same weight in the argument. If you want to go further forget your opinion and find some data with well researched citations to back you up.

 

[oldmandiscer]

Manufacturer here. And course designer. And Retailer. And Wholesaler. And Tournament and series organiser, plus PDGA country coordinator for a number of years and sat on the National board.

To answer a few of the above from a position of some knowledge driven by data and real world experience.

It is easy to switch to a new basket design. The problems you are stating are scenarios that are unlikely in the extreme.

No one in the industry currently is sitting on any stock. They are sitting on forward orders they can't fulfil.

As you yourself say why would they change something that is clearly working? Can you not see the fallacy in your argument? To you the game is broken (your words somewhere in this thread). Wuh? What? I just can't see how you can rationalise the two thought processes in your mind. 1. Manufacturers won't do it because they are doing too well as it is. 2. The game is broken and can only be fixed by changes to the target. Surely 2 is contradicted by 1, no?

We're witnessing the most incredible growth because it's not broken, it might not be perfect (what sport is?) but small baskets are most definitely not the answer. It's finding a circle and trying to ram it in to a square hole.

The one solution to too easy courses at the pro level (if that is even a real problem which is a debate in itself) is the one that is already coming because of the success of the game you say is broken.

In the next five years we will see more and more courses where the land and topography and course layout challenges the best.

We won't need rope or OB or Hazards or any other such arbitrary extra stroke mechanism. I hope to never see a road or path used as OB on coverage again, slopes will be used, elevated baskets will be used, so will sunken ones, as long as they are used in moderation they challenge a skillset.

We will have courses that challenge the best using the land on offer. Water will be in play more as the natural OB, trees and foliage will be planted to create the fairways and the challenge.

Designers will be recommending planting of certain species in certain areas to create challenge.

I'm already doing this. On open courses Silver Birch as one example are great to line fairways as they space out nicely, and can be mowed under for a pleasing aesthetic whilst creating elements that affect hole difficulty to a small degree, poplars are great for fast growing tall obstacles as long as planted sensibly with hardwoods which will take their place in 20 years when the Poplars start to fall. Courses are being designed with a long term 25 - 30 year view.

Laurel as another example makes a superb bunker, you can't throw through it, it bushes out well and to a good height and grows quickly in woodland creating a fantastic natural obstacle, that can be used around greens and fairways in tactical areas, forcing thought on the tee. Dogwood is another one that is great in low light areas. Bamboo can be used as a fast grower in the short term, etc. etc. You can create courses with natural obstacles that do the job of OB better. There is a chance to the top players to scramble so strokes are not arbitrary 1 shot extra, scoring is smoothed out and the top players who manage the obstacles well come out on top. Chucks Granularity of scoring comes in. OB becomes unnecessary as natural features and budget replaces it.

As for smaller baskets. The market doesn't want it. Categorically, it doesn't.

The Market actually wants the other way, bigger chains, bigger catching area. Why? Because the market is the 99.99% of Disc golfers who like to hole out and feel special about it. Not the tiny percentage who want to increase their chances of winning titles.

We as a company made baskets to maximum PDGA specs which are being universally liked as it feels you can't miss on them. When a basket is universally liked what do you think happens the next time someone is putting a course in and a choice for baskets comes along? By the end of this year they will be the most common basket in this country by some way.

The growth of this sport has been it's fun and accessible nature. Whilst the pro game and Youtube has had some influence in it's growth it's still a very small part of it. The vast majority of people who play disc golf have not watched a tournament. The vast majority of people that play disc golf wouldn't even call themselves disc golfers, it's just another activity they get to do on a summers evening.

You have a number of the top designers and innovators in Disc Golf in this thread and many others politely explaining why you're incorrect and again and again you have failed to provide proof to the contrary.

You're at the stage now where the only way to prove your theory is to build the basket, build the course and run the tournament.

The people you are arguing with have done just that multiple times and have been doing it for years, there's a good chance that without a few of the names posting in this thread that you wouldn't even be playing the sport. Their arguments are as a result more valid until you can categorically prove otherwise.

Your opinion does not do that. You're entitled to it but it does not bear the same weight in the argument. If you want to go further forget your opinion and find some data with well researched citations to back you up.

I read through the first half and you just reiterated what I already wrote. Of course they are not changing baskets now or in the near future. They are a in business to sell product and it's selling with the end result to make money.

I already stated that any basket change isn't happening anytime soon. What can you guys not understand about that statement?

 

[oldmandiscer]

OK I scanned the second half as well. You are misunderstanding or fearing what a new catching device catches like and you are making a large assumption that that's what 99.99% want. Putting wouldn't all of a sudden be very difficult from extremely easy unless the target was drastically reduced. That's IMO not wise because first of all we are throwing/putting the discs so it's fair to see a putt or throw go 15 feet by. You can't have that 15 footer too difficult that it forces players to layup longer putts.

But also we are not even wanting to change baskets for any recreational park in the first place. If it happened that would be cool with me over several decades, but at the same time if it doesn't that's cool too. I don't watch Pro Disc Golf and care what the local park has. This entire debate is about the PRO game.

 

[oldmandiscer]

OK, I hate to be a naysayer here, but that post is referencing an article that I wrote in the PDGA magazine. If anyone read that article and thinks I was advocating for smaller baskets, that person should probably read it again. I have never come out in favor of smaller baskets. Sorry, OMD.

For that matter, anyone who thinks I was taking a position against smaller baskets should probably re-read, too. I was just trying to present the problems with both sides and to look at what the unintended consequences might be. And to inject some levity into a topic that can engender passionate disagreements.

And while we're at, what I have spoken in favor of is design improvements and creating holes where C2 is a good shot and C1 a great shot.

Also in favor of advocates setting up opportunities to test their theories, so we can all see whether it works or not. Now back to the fun...

Sorry for misunderstanding. I read it through my small glasses.

 

[ru4por]

Well.....will the addition of two well respected, eloquent responses drive home any points? Lol....OMD is dishonest and has no integrity. He is here for the purpose of attention only....so, no. He will escalate, make up more lies to reference later as truths, and continue to troll. Thanks to Hatton and Houck for the posts. Both nicely reinforced the points made here and in the several other threads OMD has started on this dead horse.

Anyway, the real reason for the post is to comment on the artificial bunker in use at Goat Hill. It was a row of large potted bushes/plants, held in place by some kind of larger landscaping bricks. I thought it was a nice take on the mozzarella sticks. Obviously, not a part of course design, but a nice way to spruce up a course for the pros. Trying to stay on topic in this thread. What thinks some of the golfers here?

 

[rhatton1]

Anyway, the real reason for the post is to comment on the artificial bunker in use at Goat Hill. It was a row of large potted bushes/plants, held in place by some kind of larger landscaping bricks. I thought it was a nice take on the mozzarella sticks. Obviously, not a part of course design, but a nice way to spruce up a course for the pros. Trying to stay on topic in this thread. What thinks some of the golfers here?

I'd prefer to see trees but am not against the mozzarella sticks in the short term or at places where tree growth will be a problem (desert courses etc)

It adds a thought process on the upshot and adds a difficulty to the putt, both are IMO good things, I would suspect they have made the hole a fraction harder than usual whilst still allowing a player behind them to have a chance which is all good. I prefer to see it done with natural features but that is a longer term solution.

 

[DoWork]

Did you miss the poll up top or miss the articles and videos with said top pro's mentioning the need to change equipment? Yes you did.

LOL no, but I definitely missed the part where you substantiated your hard mathematical claims with *any* actual data sets, which is hilarious because that's how those things work. The videos were cute and all, but y'know... You keep using these words and values and I don't think you're grasping that we're telling you that they don't mean what you think they mean.

Edit to add: I GUARANTEE that the master himself clarifying his position does NOTHING to deflect OM from his course haha ran out of butter popcorn, considering kettle corn to get me by the next page or two

 

[rhatton1]

I already stated that any basket change isn't happening anytime soon. What can you guys not understand about that statement?

No one is arguing that statement. What we fail to understand is how you can not see the fallacy of all your other arguments having taken that statement into account.

A basic tenet of capitalism is demand driving innovation. If the manufacturers, of which I'm one, don't feel the need for the innovation, chances are there isn't the demand. You can of course prove me/us wrong by incorporating the Skinny Perfect for Pro's Disc Golf Basket company and test the market demand.

I wouldn't personally invest in it but there is at least one other in this thread that might.

 

[DoWork]

Well.....will the addition of two well respected, eloquent responses drive home any points? Lol....OMD is dishonest and has no integrity. He is here for the purpose of attention only....so, no. He will escalate, make up more lies to reference later as truths, and continue to troll. Thanks to Hatton and Houck for the posts. Both nicely reinforced the points made here and in the several other threads OMD has started on this dead horse.

Anyway, the real reason for the post is to comment on the artificial bunker in use at Goat Hill. It was a row of large potted bushes/plants, held in place by some kind of larger landscaping bricks. I thought it was a nice take on the mozzarella sticks. Obviously, not a part of course design, but a nice way to spruce up a course for the pros. Trying to stay on topic in this thread. What thinks some of the golfers here?

I personally would love to see integration of a more presentable element in place of the mozzies. We used our excavators to move some really huge rocks around to create challenging elements on greens, but I realize that isn't an option for everyone- that said, I am a stickler for going the extra mile to integrate natural feeling elements rather than obviously manmade stuff (which we also have but in very limited quantity) whenever possible.

 

[rhatton1]

But also we are not even wanting to change baskets for any recreational park in the first place. If it happened that would be cool with me over several decades, but at the same time if it doesn't that's cool too. I don't watch Pro Disc Golf and care what the local park has. This entire debate is about the PRO game.

For those that care about the pro game (which is a small subsection of those using the courses and buying the equipment) one of the biggest draws is that the pros are using exactly the same equipment from discs to bags to shoes to baskets. This is why the ratings system was such a stroke of genius that creates such buy in to the lower level players. On any given day in competition you can see how you would have fared against the best. Change one bit of that formula and you change all.

 

[Rastnav]

Anyway, the real reason for the post is to comment on the artificial bunker in use at Goat Hill. It was a row of large potted bushes/plants, held in place by some kind of larger landscaping bricks. I thought it was a nice take on the mozzarella sticks. Obviously, not a part of course design, but a nice way to spruce up a course for the pros. Trying to stay on topic in this thread. What thinks some of the golfers here?

I was pleased to see that feature. I'm surprised that this is the first time I've seen it, as it seems like some sort of potted shrubbery would be the first temp feature that would come to mind when attempting to add a guardian to a basket. Perhaps keeping them watered is too much of a challenge on most courses.

The issue that I have with "mozzarella sticks" is they frequently seem to be installed in such a way as they provide almost no impact on play. The round treated posts that are sometimes used look nice enough, but unless they are combined together, or not much more than a disc width apart, they simply aren't wide enough. I recall USDGC combined 5+ of them to replace a dead guardian tree on one hole in 2019, and that seems to work well. The other hole where they had scattered single posts, they just didn't provide enough of an obstacle. Same with the obstacle from the OP of this thread, but also butt ugly.

An aside: Based on commentary, I think it might have been Philo, I don't think the Goat Hill feature was added for putting, but rather to close off an easier line to the basket from the tee, blocking some ground play.