All discussions about baskets inevitably lead to one conclusion:
Boy, the straight throwing spin putters will hate that. Plus Steady Ed make make on out-of-grave appearance!
Yes, seriously. I've yet to see a target design that catches 100% of "good" putts. Seems as though every time there's an advancement or adjustment in design that "fixes" one flaw, it ends up creating another. The only way there will ever be consistency across the board is if the sport settles on one design and every target used on every course is exactly the same (never going to happen).
At least if that's the case, whatever flaws/holes it may have will be known and accepted. For example, if the official target spits any putt thrown at a 35 degree hyzer angle hitting a spot two inches above and one inch to the right of dead center at a velocity of greater than 35mph, then a putt that meets all those characteristics is by definition not a good putt.
The problem we currently have is that such a putt might stick in basket models A, B, C, D, E, H, and K but spit out of models F, G, I, and J. But because of how many different basket models exist and the preference of some over others depending on where you are, it's incredibly difficult to keep straight which ones are which.
So I look at it this way...there's nothing objectively wrong with any target that meets PDGA "Championship" standards (the nonsense about DGPT approved targets aside). So long as every target on the course is the same model, the playing field for the players is level. It's then up to the players to adjust their putting stroke (speed/angle/spin/etc) to fit the course and target they're playing on a given weekend. No different than PGA Tour players having to account for the speed, slope, firmness, etc of the greens of whatever course they're playing in a given weekend...one week might be firm and fast, the next soft and slow, etc.
Players would have two choices, really. Adjust their style week to week depending on targets or find a consistent putting stroke that is as universal as they can get so that it works effectively on any target. I've seen Ricky in particular struggle with spits on a couple different target models, so I'm going to go ahead and say he hasn't found that universal stroke yet, even as good as he is. McBeth, on the other hand, never seems to get have chronic spit-outs on any particular style of target. He might be closer to having that universal fit.
The notion of the perfect target is a worthy goal and should continue to be sought, but I also think it's a pipedream that will never be fully attained.
JC, I get everything you stated before the last short paragraph, both the facts and the opinions. But the "no target catches all the good putts" and the "there's nothing much better anyone can do" is the part that I have so much disagreement with. I am certain it can be done; the issue in reality is stepping on the toes of major manufacturers. And no one in disc golf is ready to broach that issue. I'd bet a lot of money that a university graduate class in architectural or engineering design of non-discgolfers, could take on this project at little cost, get educated enough about disc golf, and (because they aren't influenced by any disc golf allegiances or pasts) could develop one that AT THE VERY LEAST would catch ALL putts that hit the center sweet spot. The "it's a pipedream" thing is just people who don't want to take it on.
What seems to be everyone's problem anyway with wanting to find or develop a basket that catches everything in the dead center sweet spot? I'd bet that those grad students wouldn't be locked-in to steel, they might consider have two or three different materials on baskets (overmold - ha!ha!). Maybe they'd consider an equally strong center pole material that is maybe not as thick or maybe a strong metal pole covered with a softer material. They may come up with ideas I'm not thinking of. And etc. and etc. I think an idea is out there. And yes, it may be cost-prohibitive at first, but you've got to find a model that works and then continually improve on it. I mean, it's been a while, but I still do remember playing on StrokeSavers.
Uhhh, you chose to respond without even addressing a single point I made in my statement. You might as well have said, "your mama!" It wouldn't have been any different. I thought forums like these were for spirited discussion, opinions, and discourse back-and-forth.
What is the weak spot on Prodigy baskets then, or for that matter, any that has some cross-chain setup to make cut throughs basically impossible? IIRC from the previous time this flared up when Ricky got spitbacks, it is high soft putts and side putts or some such. But IMO those are non-ideal hits. I would much rather make the dead center area as 100% reliable as possible, and to hell with all the rest (high, side, noseup nosedown). Then you would only need to worry about hitting it where it matters.
In any case, cant really replace every basket everywhere with those. And anything PDGA legal for appropriate tournament level, pros should be prepared to handle. But again, dont say certain type will be the minimum and then run an event that uses other basket types. Yeah, they are all the same for all players still, but poor form.
Good point. The people who are saying that every current basket has is specific weaknesses are the ones who are truly seeing it and addressing it accurately, whether or not they believe it can be improved. Those who are saying the baskets have no weaknesses and it's ALL and ONLY on the players are a bit misguided imho. So I agree with much of what you said.
But two of the three Rick misses were not those high soft putts or side putts you mention. They were dead center nuts chains and still "bounced" out (as one person put it -- more on that below). I for one, just don't think that
should happen. The third one was middle, too, but it was hard ... the first two were not hard as I saw them, so I'm not buying the "player needs to adjust" issue. This was a case of the player did adjust and still got burned.
If you thought the baskets were an issue, you aren't alone. This was issued by the DGPT yesterday. It's a good read and I'm glad they addressed the issue. In this day and age, far to many people are just not willing to admit when they were wrong.
https://www.dgpt.com/news/pro-tour-basket-standard
Clearly, I am not alone. Including the disc manufacturers. When Dynamic Discs was considering making our own baskets, several of us players on the team got to use the different protos for at least year ahead of time, giving input, seeing the changes, giving more input and so on and so on, until the Recruit came out, then the Veteran, then the Patriot. I'll admit, the Veteran has a design characteristic that pretty much eliminates the bounce straight back out if a putt hits the center pole. It's in the "zig-zag" of the frame. It may have other things people don't like, but that's not one of them.
I can't unsee that photo and every time I read a post by jvphobic, I see that guy!
