PDGA announces World Championships to split. Open / Age Protected

[Mr. Butlertron]

I think most of you are missing the point. Putting is too easy, pros and am's alike. I still think the best option is to remove the chains. Make the then it becomes an accuracy sport, but that's just my opinion .

This seems like a hasty proposition. Big fan of cornhole?

 

[Jenga54]

This seems like a hasty proposition. Big fan of cornhole?

VisionQuest has both...

Sans Chains reminds me of going back about 40 years, not forward...

 

[DavidSauls]

I think most of you are missing the point. Putting is too easy, pros and am's alike. I still think the best option is to remove the chains. Make the then it becomes an accuracy sport, but that's just my opinion .

No, it's not. But that's just my opinion.

Actually, your statement makes me wonder: By what measure is it too easy?

Has anyone done a study of the effect putting has on tournament outcomes, and found it has less effect than driving or approaches? That would seem to validate the proposition.

Otherwise, the question would be: Too easy to whom?

Do players find it too easy? Would most prefer a tougher putt? Or is it spectators---or hypothetical spectators---who, we presume, would watch more if putting were harder?

I guess the accompanying question for all of this would be: How are we defining "putting" here?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Putting needs to be more interesting, probably with bigger scoring spread, to hopefully provide more reason to watch elite players. It's only one of the elements that may make watching pro play more interesting. I'm not as hopeful about making putting more interesting to watch as I am about ways to increase scoring spread. Earl indications are that simply removing chains is unlikely to be one of those ways. All of this is speculation, of course, but at least the testing phase in the next few years will provide fodder for the commentators on DGCR.

 

[wolfmandragon]

I guess my obsession with putting comes from ball golf, carry on.

Just to widen the scoring gap, a lot of that can be done with course design. However, most courses are on public grounds and are free to play. Getting the elements needed for a great course costs money and where does this come from?
Landscaping with sand, water and boulders can go a long way.

One idea that may help is to make height mandos on certain holes. Place a Shinto arch 10 ft in front of the box and make this the mando. I only use the Shinto arch as example, and I do not mean for every hole to be this way. Of course, this would be better with natural elements. This would reduce players throwing over obstacles.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Increasing the scoring spread via some yet unknown different putting scenario has a few ramifications. That would mean putts are less certain which means it might be more interesting to watch. The scoring average would go up which would likely eliminate true par 2s which we call par 3s right now. It would also presumably be possible to duplicate this new putting scenario on temp courses with less foliage which is already one of the downfalls of elite courses in terms of spectator interest but easier to video.

 

[BrotherDave]

How much putting challenge is too much? Where is the threshold where pros just start laying up and how do we avoid that scenario?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Like I said, it's about scoring spread, not simply increasing the average putting score. If everyone moves from 1 putt to 2 putting, not good enough. However, if you get a good mix of 1 and 3 putts with the 2 putts, then you've got something more interesting. That's what BG has. A long putt is not guaranteed to get down in 2 and it might be sunk. If it slides just 2-3 feet past, it's not a gimme. If we can find a clever way to emulate that type of putting scoring distribution, we might have something better.

 

[DiscLoser1]

Putting needs to be more interesting, probably with bigger scoring spread, to hopefully provide more reason to watch elite players. It's only one of the elements that may make watching pro play more interesting. I'm not as hopeful about making putting more interesting to watch as I am about ways to increase scoring spread. Earl indications are that simply removing chains is unlikely to be one of those ways. All of this is speculation, of course, but at least the testing phase in the next few years will provide fodder for the commentators on DGCR.

At least Earl and I agree on that point.

I just don't see how making the target more gimmicky is going to increase spectatorship. I suppose as the technology of the discs and skill of the players increases, the baskets should be adjusted as well. But then instead of adding heavier chains and cross patterns to improve catching (at least in the 'sweet spot') why not just use Discatcher Sports (remove chains) and make it a test of luck. Equally as gimmicky.

I think course design has lagged behind on the development of challenging greens and basket placement much more than the rest of the course. Shot-shaping lines, OB, hazard areas can all be well-thought out and executed, and then the pin is placed in a nice flat open area at the end of the challenging fairway. Makes no sense. So I guess I'm siding with the 'just design better courses' argument.

Isn't the MPO scoring spread already spaced out enough? Or are you looking to establish putting as THE scoring separator?

 

[Jenga54]

My first home course (Lum Park) had baskets made by the high school welding class and had 12 very unevenly spaced chains. We played a weekly league and you better believe that we knew the bad spots to land that had 6" gaps with no chains.

Putts that missed by 15' were by no means a gimme comeback putt. High lobbed putts that came in low, just landing in the basket were best because the chains were unreliable. A putt that was too low hitting the basket rim was known as a "Lummed" putt.

Should be an easy enough fix to remove all that inner chain garbage and watch the finesse putters do their thing.

Even better, remove 1 strand of outers as well to ensure a good and bad side to land.

 

[freestateflyer]

VisionQuest has both...

Sans Chains reminds me of going back about 40 years, not forward...

Steady Ed had it right in the beginning! I can tell you first hand. Putting is easier now than it was on those original baskets. The first double chain basket I putted on changed my putting style. No longer do I ever think about going thru just pound the putt from 10 feet the same as 25 or 30 even on some designs.

 

[freestateflyer]

:thmbup:

VisionQuest has both...

Sans Chains reminds me of going back about 40 years, not forward...

My first home course (Lum Park) had baskets made by the high school welding class and had 12 very unevenly spaced chains. We played a weekly league and you better believe that we knew the bad spots to land that had 6" gaps with no chains.

Putts that missed by 15' were by no means a gimme comeback putt. High lobbed putts that came in low, just landing in the basket were best because the chains were unreliable. A putt that was too low hitting the basket rim was known as a "Lummed" putt.

Should be an easy enough fix to remove all that inner chain garbage and watch the finesse putters do their thing.

Even better, remove 1 strand of outers as well to ensure a good and bad side to land.

:thmbup: beat me to it.

 

[Jenga54]

Actually lighter weight putters would probably be better for those single chain baskets, less chance of the thing steamrolling to the post and back out.

Can you imagine a world where we pay a couple bucks more searching for MIN WEIGHT putters!

 

[Jay Dub]

Steady Ed had it right in the beginning! I can tell you first hand. Putting is easier now than it was on those original baskets. The first double chain basket I putted on changed my putting style. No longer do I ever think about going thru just pound the putt from 10 feet the same as 25 or 30 even on some designs.

This is true, my putting got more aggressive and easier once another set of chains were added.

 

[DiscJunkie]

It seems to me that scoring separation should be a function of course design and difficulty, not how many chains are on the basket.
What am I missing?

 

[Jay Dub]

It seems to me that scoring separation should be a function of course design and difficulty, not how many chains are on the basket.
What am I missing?

Maybe the fact that single chains would be just a part of course design and difficulty.

 

[Mr. Butlertron]

Actually lighter weight putters would probably be better for those single chain baskets, less chance of the thing steamrolling to the post and back out.

Can you imagine a world where we pay a couple bucks more searching for MIN WEIGHT putters!

Lightweight putters are working out great in Japan, just ask the JPDGA about the 2016 Japan Open.....

 

[JC17393]

It seems to me that scoring separation should be a function of course design and difficulty, not how many chains are on the basket.
What am I missing?

Why can't it be both? Why can't basket design (including how many chains and how they're arranged) be a part of course design and difficulty? Sometimes you can only do so much with the terrain you have to design a hole. Why can't choosing to plant an original Mach I style single chain basket on a short hole be a way of slightly increasing the difficulty of what otherwise would be a nondescript must-deuce hole with a Discatcher or MachX catching machine on it.

To me, the notion that a course has to have uniform targets on every hole is a hindrance to design in some cases. I'm not advocating some of the deflection type stuff mentioned above, but varying chain quantity, width, and style of arrangement solely by using various basket models already available (from sparse single chain targets to the wall-of-chains models) could make some existing courses more interesting without changing anything else.

 

[DavidSauls]

I, for one, don't see an improvement in baskets that catch less well, or less consistently. Not as a player, and not for potential spectators. I know, the argument is that they encourage players to putt softer---which is true---but I go back to the single-chain era, and still play on some single-chain baskets, and am a pretty soft putter. For me, the attraction of spit-outs and spit-throughs of my occasionally-accurate putts wears off after a while.

If one of the goals here is to make disc golf more spectator-friendly, I don't see how this helps.

 

[wolfmandragon]

Here is what confuses me, are we playing golf or soccer? If we are playing golf, then it should be hard for the disc to stay inside the basket. If we are playing soccer, then let's put netting in between the chains like a certain pro has bitterly suggested.
How about a compromise between the two schools of thought. Place the netting between the chains and put the deflection bars up... But more than three, maybe five.