PDGA announces World Championships to split. Open / Age Protected

[DavidSauls]

How 'bout we play disc golf, a unique game, and make our decisions based on what makes it a better game, regardless of what other sports do?

If that's a slightly tougher target, or an extremely tougher target, do it---but only because disc golf is better that way, not because it emulates other sports, even golf.

 

[Jay Dub]

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.

Mach I baskets were convex in the middle, that is why most of the spit-outs happened. Use single chains with the newer concave baskets and spit-outs would be minimized.

 

[JC17393]

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.

I've come around to the line of thinking that cut-throughs and spit-outs are not basket flaws, but putting flaws. If the target doesn't catch your putt, your throw, while accurate, wasn't accurate enough (not unlike a ball golf putt that lips out of the cup...either the speed or the line was just inaccurate enough to not fall in). That holds true for the patent-pending Mach1 all the way through the Mach X and similar.

The problem is that with every target model, the weak points (where the cut-throughs and spit-outs are generated) are different. Different enough that someone who plays primarily on one type of target develops putting technique to master that target and opens himself up to being "victimized" by the weak points in other models. But rather than recognize that a putt on a particular trajectory will stay in target A 100% of the time but not 100% of the time on target B and adjusting the trajectory accordingly, we assign blame to the target design or sheer dumb luck instead of the thrower.

If we had a uniform target...one set of specifications that all manufacturers had to follow to the letter...things would be different. Whatever weak points it had in its design could be accounted for with putting technique...speed, pitch, angle, etc. So I think we either embrace the variable targets in our sport AND their supposed flaws/weaknesses, or we get rid of them entirely and go with one universal design. Since the paste is out of the tube on varying design and choosing the universal design is likely to be impossible due to the various options already out there, I'm in the embrace and even expand the variability camp.

 

[wolfmandragon]

I've come around to the line of thinking that cut-throughs and spit-outs are not basket flaws, but putting flaws. If the target doesn't catch your putt, your throw, while accurate, wasn't accurate enough
...
If we had a uniform target...one set of specifications that all manufacturers had to follow to the letter...things would be different. Whatever weak points it had in its design could be accounted for with putting technique...speed, pitch, angle, etc. So I think we either embrace the variable targets in our sport AND their supposed flaws/weaknesses, or we get rid of them entirely and go with one universal design
...

My thoughts as well, but you articulated this much better than I.

 

[wolfmandragon]

How 'bout we play disc golf, a unique game, and make our decisions based on what makes it a better game, regardless of what other sports do?

If that's a slightly tougher target, or an extremely tougher target, do it---but only because disc golf is better that way, not because it emulates other sports, even golf.

Looking at what works and does not work in other sports allows us to skip years, nay even decades, of trial and error that these older sports have went though. This does not mean that we don't do our own thing when it works, but when it doesn't, we need to be flexible enough to change it.
....that and we use, for the most part, ball golf rules to play our game.

Every thing I have advocated would be for majors and/or national events, not local or even tier A events. The reason being that, for the most part, we are a financially poor sport and I see no reason to burden local courses with extra expenses. I think that is a point both of us can agree on, right?

 

[DavidSauls]

I've come around to the line of thinking that cut-throughs and spit-outs are not basket flaws, but putting flaws. If the target doesn't catch your putt, your throw, while accurate, wasn't accurate enough (not unlike a ball golf putt that lips out of the cup...either the speed or the line was just inaccurate enough to not fall in). That holds true for the patent-pending Mach1 all the way through the Mach X and similar.

The problem is that with every target model, the weak points (where the cut-throughs and spit-outs are generated) are different. Different enough that someone who plays primarily on one type of target develops putting technique to master that target and opens himself up to being "victimized" by the weak points in other models. But rather than recognize that a putt on a particular trajectory will stay in target A 100% of the time but not 100% of the time on target B and adjusting the trajectory accordingly, we assign blame to the target design or sheer dumb luck instead of the thrower.

If we had a uniform target...one set of specifications that all manufacturers had to follow to the letter...things would be different. Whatever weak points it had in its design could be accounted for with putting technique...speed, pitch, angle, etc. So I think we either embrace the variable targets in our sport AND their supposed flaws/weaknesses, or we get rid of them entirely and go with one universal design. Since the paste is out of the tube on varying design and choosing the universal design is likely to be impossible due to the various options already out there, I'm in the embrace and even expand the variability camp.

I agree, in regards to all the double-chained baskets. I think they all catch consistently enough. I neither care for the complaints about the rare drops, nor feel strongly about the differences between models.

My experience with the single chains is that they miss far too many putts that should be caught. Even when thrown soft and flat and however else you can finesse them. In my eyes, they're not so much like golf balls rimming out, as bouncing off the bottom of the cup.

 

[DavidSauls]

If I were Disc Golf Czar---an offer still not tendered, in case you were worried---baskets would be a little bit smaller---narrower, and smaller vertically. The trick is, how do you put doubt into 15 or 20 foot putts, while keeping enough possibility in 50 foot putts to keep players going for them instead of laying out, and occasionally hitting the exciting long ones.

 

[asjzn6]

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?

:thmbup:

 

[BrotherDave]

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.

Seems to me that the only way to easily do that would be elevated baskets that increase the potential for rollaways. They just couldn't be so elevated that pros automatically layup. But a lot people think elevated baskets are gimmicky :\ (I'm personally fine with them).

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.

Yeah, I agree here. Basket type heterogeneity would really help spice up bland courses. The problem is practicality in terms of installing multiple manufacturers' baskets on a single course. Probably not too difficult with the biggest tourneys. But without messing around with the height of the baskets (or something else), again, I don't think you'd achieve that mix of 1 to 3 putts that Chuck is looking for.

 

[Karl]

I agree, in regards to all the double-chained baskets. I think they all catch consistently enough. I neither care for the complaints about the rare drops, nor feel strongly about the differences between models.

My experience with the single chains is that they miss far too many putts that should be caught. Even when thrown soft and flat and however else you can finesse them. In my eyes, they're not so much like golf balls rimming out, as bouncing off the bottom of the cup.

We're so used to the chains "catching" the disc that we forget that its original purpose was a 'disc deflector' (downward) and that the aim was to "...get the disc into the basket...". Eight or so years ago (pre- target specs changing) a top-loader sans lid was a 'legal PDGA target'! ANY putt that cuts through or bounces out / off the chain's sides does so by going on a path that we have consciously put it on...and on a path that wouldn't have gone in anyway (if there were no chains). I have no sympathy / empathy for such 'missed putts'...and goes for myself too! I'm as guilty as the rest of you. Throw hard and putt harder makes the sport too 1-dimensional. The vast majority of sports test both 'hard and soft', 'short and long', etc.

Varying the targets (and their "catching abilities") intra-course should be 'good' for the sport.

 

[DavidSauls]

Regardless of original intent, the chains are established as part of the target now. When I refer to "catching", a successful deflection is what I really mean, since that's how the majority of made putts occur. Though an actual "catch", hung in the chains, also counts, and thus shouldn't be discounted.

My plea is for consistency. For shots that are basically the same to have the same result, to the degree reasonably possible. I recognize that absolute consistency is not obtainable. But I don't see striving for less consistency, either, which is what I find on single-chain baskets.

 

[freestateflyer]

I'm stickin with the off center pole. Imagine the possibilities if both the top and basket could slide to off center and rotate around to pole. The sweet spot remains the same. But now I have to hit a more specific area within the sweet spot to give myself the best chance to hole out.

 

[Jenga54]

I'm stickin with the off center pole. Imagine the possibilities if both the top and basket could slide to off center and rotate around to pole. The sweet spot remains the same. But now I have to hit a more specific area within the sweet spot to give myself the best chance to hole out.

I just might be able to try this with my home made basket........................
Accepting PayPal donations for a scientific study

 

[Cgkdisc]

This had been written a few weeks ago but I couldn't reference it until now for this discussion:
http://www.pdga.com/better-granularity-better-sports

 

[Cgkdisc]

Started a thread on Granularity over in the Course Design section to move discussions from PDGA Worlds split.

 

[wolfmandragon]

Great article, I will follow this over.