bwgort
Birdie Member
I thought they created this a while ago and called it the USDGC?
-
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)
PDGA Board Establishes Game Development Team
- Thread starter oddjob
- Start date
I thought they created this a while ago and called it the USDGC?
BionicRib
* Ace Member *
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,617
That analogy must of took a lot of deep thought on your part. Are you feeling OK?
I had never ever heard of this. That's no bueno. Just confirming that's actually not a rule right? Just something they were talking about doing? Or a rumor that they were thinking about implementing? Reading the PDGA discussion on it, looks like it wasn't put in play at the time, but that was a few years back.
The USDGC is not a PDGA creation.
krupicka
Double Eagle Member
There are some of us who look at stand and deliver or it's cousin deliver and stay as a potential point of improving the game. There are many threads on it already where arguments are passionate. So I'll leave it there.
I think the formation of this committee is a good idea and hopefully will result in some positive changes.
grodney
* Ace Member *
This is true and excellent.
I know the subject has been beaten to death but
IMO smaller targets will be disasterous for the sport
players will lay up more and not go for it
3 putts
less incentive to make long runs at the basket
fewer amazing shots from distance
All of this will make for awful filming and make our sport appear boring
laying up from 60 ft away? zzzzzzzz
I think the answer is sloped greens or more dangerous or interesting greens that wiill film well
Sure the top players might think its a better solution but I think a
better means to an end would be to toughen up the greens instead of limiting the size of the baskets
IMO smaller targets will be disasterous for the sport
players will lay up more and not go for it
3 putts
less incentive to make long runs at the basket
fewer amazing shots from distance
All of this will make for awful filming and make our sport appear boring
laying up from 60 ft away? zzzzzzzz
I think the answer is sloped greens or more dangerous or interesting greens that wiill film well
Sure the top players might think its a better solution but I think a
better means to an end would be to toughen up the greens instead of limiting the size of the baskets
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Testing and comparing ideas like these was the primary catalyst for the GDT Coordinators, who hatched this R&D team concept at Pro Worlds, to lobby the PDGA Board at the September Summit meeting to approve creation of this group.
Nobody wants S&D except maybe two guys who are very noisy on this forum.
I agree with making the plant area bigger. It actually takes a ton of coordination and skill to hit the plant area behind the mini.
I like the idea of it and hope it makes the sport better for everyone. Solid group of people listed i look forward to seeing what comes from it.
I just hope it doesnt become a popularity contest and since this very popular player says its best everyone decides to fall in line
I truly think how the sport films is important and small targets imo will dull the youtube experience
a basket near a slope, water, or with some interesting obstacle is far more dramatic and tests the mental confidence putt game just as much
imagine a windy day at the glass blown open and watching players either 3 putting or laying up on bullseye baskets...not exactly spectator friendly
I think as far as Stand n Deliver goes.....either u make the plant area larger or u do not allow run ups......as it stands now in the am ranks over half the throws in tourney play are illegal but never called
In the pro ranks a high percentage of throws are not called a penalty because nobody wants to be that guy
either tighten the rule up and force no run ups or loosen the rule and allow a bigger plant area BEHIND the marker.....as it stands now its wildly inconsistent and unfair to many players who strive to not break the current rules vs those who bully their way through tourneys and recklessly break rules that few will call them on
In the pro ranks a high percentage of throws are not called a penalty because nobody wants to be that guy
either tighten the rule up and force no run ups or loosen the rule and allow a bigger plant area BEHIND the marker.....as it stands now its wildly inconsistent and unfair to many players who strive to not break the current rules vs those who bully their way through tourneys and recklessly break rules that few will call them on
So much truth in this.
Meulen
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 507
Back to the topic at hand... GDT
My initial thoughts was that this was a brand new board created with the members yet to be added based on some yet to be decided qualifications, however, it looks like the members of the board are already added.
The article makes it sound like they are going to potentially entertain changes, yet the "Projected Coordinators" are golfers that have been around for a long time (conclusion based on PDGA numbers). Maybe a little bit of fresh thinking from golfers who haven't been on the scene for decades is what is needed. If nothing major has been changed within the last decade, what can be expected to change now? I have nothing against anyone on the board, but it would be nice to see a more diverse group of board members.
My initial thoughts was that this was a brand new board created with the members yet to be added based on some yet to be decided qualifications, however, it looks like the members of the board are already added.
The article makes it sound like they are going to potentially entertain changes, yet the "Projected Coordinators" are golfers that have been around for a long time (conclusion based on PDGA numbers). Maybe a little bit of fresh thinking from golfers who haven't been on the scene for decades is what is needed. If nothing major has been changed within the last decade, what can be expected to change now? I have nothing against anyone on the board, but it would be nice to see a more diverse group of board members.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Several of the GDT members have been some of the most innovative in the sport over a long period. Take a look at their resumes on the Hall of Fame site. We are not decision makers but idea conduits, testers and evaluators to provide better information for the decision makers. It's the decision makers where one would hope any new thinking might be able to move forward when shown to be viable and appropriate with this new vetting process.
Meulen
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 507
Understandable, and I am in no way trying to discredit all the work that has gotten the sport/game where it is today. My point is that it can be beneficial to introduce a new view point once in a while. I'm not saying that the GDT is ever going to run out of ideas, but a fresh perspective is always nice.
While you're here and we're on the topic, I have several questions for you regarding the current set of standards.
1. Why the minimum disc diameter of 21cm and the max diameter of 30cm?
2. How was it arrived upon the max weight should be 200g?
3. Why not allow perforations and depressions?
4. How was it arrived upon that the flexibility rating should be no greater than 27lb?
As these are all explicitly stated in the manufacturers guidelines, there must be some rational as to how or why these specific figures were chosen.
Also, while the guidelines have a written explanation as to how the testing is conducted, pictures or videos of the process may prove to be beneficial to those looking to enter as a new equipment manufacturer. What measurement devices are used, and are they calibrated?
:thmbup::clap: that's all I need to add.
There has already been an x-tier event held this past year where the first round was played with current baskets and the second round was played with the smaller, inner chain only baskets. The scoring differential from your best players to your worst players actually shrunk because your best players were not making the longer putts and the not as good players were still just laying up. In my opinion we should be looking to do things that increase the scoring differential, not making it smaller.
I don't think a one round sample is large enough to conclude that shrinking the target (using Bullseye/Marksman style targets) would shrink scoring differentials. There is a learning/adjustment curve for putting on the smaller targets that applies to all players from rec to elite. Doing it for one round, when there was probably little to no practicing for those targets, probably does compress the skill spread as well as the scoring spread.
But if those players put in the practice time putting on smaller targets that they already do for our current targets, I have to think the skill spread would go back to what we might consider normal and the scoring spread would follow. The elite players would remain elite, the rec players would remain rec, and everyone in between would remain in between.
I've had a Marksman target for about two months now, and have been practicing with it almost exclusively. I've gotten to the point now where I feel as confident putting at it from 30-35 feet as I do putting at normal targets. To the point where I'd run longer putts on it just as often as I'd run putts on regular targets. Maybe I don't hit quite as many of those on the Marksman as I do on, say, a Discatcher, but that won't stop me from making the effort. And maybe the overall effect if I'm playing a course entirely comprised of Marksman-style targets is an extra throw or two on my score. I don't see why my experience couldn't be universal...enough practice and anyone can become as proficient on the smaller targets as they are on the larger ones.
Similar threads
