PDGA Board Establishes Game Development Team

[VictorB]

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

It's not called because 99.9% of the time being just outside of the intended plant area offers no advantage whatsoever. I'm sure it gets called when it's offering a distinct advantage over not being in the plant area box. This is the biggest reason why I'm a proponent of expanding the plant area instead of making everyone put their foot right behind the damn marker.

As far as using smaller targets, that should be something opted into by the open players. Amateur players will very likely be more and more discouraged to actually go for putts since their (read: my/our) consistency and range isn't nearly as good. Having more challenging baskets for pros at certain tournaments engineers difficulty, which I'm not a fan of, but at the same time the logistics of using different type baskets than what exists in basically every single course in the world isn't something to take lightly either.

 

[optidiscic]

So how does a bullseye improve anything

 

[fasteddie]

I've always thought that S&D would be a great addition to competitive disc golf.

I just liked the idea of making is easier to manage/call rules infractions while still (arguably escalating) maintaining the skill of the game. There is too much guess work even in the highest tiers.

I'm not feverishly working to see this happen, it's just a thought that I've had from time to time (usually after watching someone FF..)

 

[krupicka]

So how does a bullseye improve anything

If putting is more difficult at longer ranges, it puts a bigger premium on landing closer to the pin. If a hole is such players' green hit percentage is high, it will not have much of an effect. But if a hole is such that it is hard to hit the green, it will have a greater effect.

Again this comes down to designing holes appropriate for the skill level.
Let's say you have a hole that is at a distance where 80% of the field can land in the 80% putting range. If you shrink that 80% putting range area by using a smaller target where only 30% are hitting that area, then you have bettered the scoring spread.

But if you have a hole where most of the field are already hitting the smaller 80% putting range area, then it won't make much of a difference.

So if you have a hole for MPO which is a 65% birdie, it might make it a 40% birdie, but if MA3 is playing the same hole, it still may end up being a 75% par as with the larger basket because they are hitting the smaller green area consistently on their upshot.

 

[Cgkdisc]

All of the speculation and opinions on here are helpful to direct inquiry for the GDT. The bottom line is actual testing will at least provide evidence to help direct future actions that make sense.

 

[optidiscic]

A basket on a sloped green ir near water or obstacles does the exact same thing but is better on film and is way more aesthetically and strategically pleasing

 

[JC17393]

So how does a bullseye improve anything

By putting more skill into the approach and putting game.

The trend with target design and "improvement" over the last 10-15 years has been more chains and wider, denser configurations. All that has done is take some of the subtlety and finesse out of the short game, and increase the probability of players getting up and down from greater distances.

Shrinking the target could change course design dramatically. The need for more distance, more space would be reduced.

Bear in mind, I'd really only advocate using smaller targets for the elite events to begin with. Challenge the best players to actually be the best at what they do, and that includes accurate putting rather than throw it at the target and let it get swallowed up as long as it's within a couple feet of "on target".

 

[grodney]

It's not called because 99.9% of the time being just outside of the intended plant area offers no advantage whatsoever.

This is categorically false, as has been argued successfully many times over on this board.

 

[New013]

HEY LETS MAKE DISC GOLF BIGGER!!!

YEA!!!!

HEY WERE ON ESPN TOP 10!!!

WOOHOOOO!!!!!

ok now let's completely ruin any chance of that happening again because were just not happy with how many strokes under par pros shoot

...woo!?...?

 

[grodney]

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.

Interesting.

However:
1. It's only one data point.

2. I'm not sure the score difference between different levels of player is important. Perhaps more important is the separation of skill it provides for players of nearly the same skill level.

3. As Chuck points out, this is *exactly* what the GDT will hope to ferret out with much more data and analysis.

All good.

 

[optidiscic]

so why not just go back to original steady ed baskets

every point u make can be remedied by making more interesting greens with unique putting scenarios

slopes
elevated
water
treess
obstacles

all of these are much better spectating than reducing the target size and lessening cool long shots

 

[Pbmercil]

every point u make can be remedied by making more interesting greens with unique putting scenarios

slopes
elevated
water
treess
obstacles

I agree, and I think that is strictly true. However, you can't make every green on every course hard enough to keep things interesting. There are SOME courses that challenge the short game well, there are many more that don't, and landscaping and redesigning 18 green areas is a tall order. I'm thinking something like Fountain Hills at the Memorial is a good example of an event that would be made better with smaller baskets, wheras something like Masters Cup at DeLa has hard enough greens already.

 

[optidiscic]

ok then set some standards for courses that hold a tiers NTs

 

[Meulen]

Why not just remove the upper chain-stay and the chains themselves? Make the tray section of the basket deeper to help prevent spit-outs, and require the player to be able to control both the speed of the disc AND distance while putting.

It will also make the baskets easier to use as grills for park goers that have no idea what a disc golf basket is...

 

[New013]

The problem is most of the people arguing for smaller baskets have a very narrow understanding of everything that goes in to scores being closer to par in golf than in disc golf.

It's not just the putt, it's getting the putt. On most championship style golf courses being able to consistently get to a place on the green where you have a even the real possibility of a birdie/eagle putt is the bulk of the challenge. If golf putting is 5 times harder than disc golf putting, getting the putt is 10 times harder than disc golf.

Golf courses are constructed from the ground up by incredibly knowledgeable designers with years of golf course design and play to base their designs on. Disc golf courses use whatever is there and are mostly built by people who've done it a few times with not as many resources to build upon; and when whatever is there for those guys is mostly open that's a problem.

Ask yourself this question, do disc golf baskets as is completely hold the sport back from ever getting on a bigger stage and getting serious sponsorship money from being pumped in?

If it doesn't then leave them be; let the sport grow naturally as it has, will and should. Then when the time comes for it to be on a bigger stage and money starts coming in use that money to build disc golf courses from the ground up. Build them so getting within the circle will be more difficult. Build them to where a player knows landing in one quadrant of the green gives them a better look at the basket with less risk if they miss. Build them not for what the disc golf course looks like today but how it will look 10, 20, 30 years from now.

 

[Darkgreen]

Why not just remove the upper chain-stay and the chains themselves? Make the tray section of the basket deeper to help prevent spit-outs, and require the player to be able to control both the speed of the disc AND distance while putting.

It will also make the baskets easier to use as grills for park goers that have no idea what a disc golf basket is...

As more of a lob style putter I would love this, but I don't think the spin style putters would like this very much.

 

[BionicRib]

The problem is most of the people arguing for smaller baskets have a very narrow understanding of everything that goes in to scores being closer to par in golf than in disc golf.

It's not just the putt, it's getting the putt. On most championship style golf courses being able to consistently get to a place on the green where you have a even the real possibility of a birdie/eagle putt is the bulk of the challenge. If golf putting is 5 times harder than disc golf putting, getting the putt is 10 times harder than disc golf.

Golf courses are constructed from the ground up by incredibly knowledgeable designers with years of golf course design and play to base their designs on. Disc golf courses use whatever is there and are mostly built by people who've done it a few times with not as many resources to build upon; and when whatever is there for those guys is mostly open that's a problem.

Ask yourself this question, do disc golf baskets as is completely hold the sport back from ever getting on a bigger stage and getting serious sponsorship money from being pumped in?

If it doesn't then leave them be; let the sport grow naturally as it has, will and should. Then when the time comes for it to be on a bigger stage and money starts coming in use that money to build disc golf courses from the ground up. Build them so getting within the circle will be more difficult. Build them to where a player knows landing in one quadrant of the green gives them a better look at the basket with less risk if they miss. Build them not for what the disc golf course looks like today but how it will look 10, 20, 30 years from now.

I agree with some of what you're saying and disagree with some.

I would ask why would anyone disagree with trying some new things and gathering data to find out if some things work better than existing things?

At the very least it would put the what if arguments to rest.

 

[Didn'tSeeThatTree]

First off I like that the PDGA is formally pursuing enhancing the game!! Very interested to see any data on how some of these proposals might affect the game.

My two (maybe 1/2) cents on the S&D and modified baskets.

To me there three approach options.
1) Stand and deliver
2) Current "honor" system
3) Better defined landing zone

I think 1) stand and deliver is non-sense. Just my personal opinion. Wanting to take away excitement in order to make it easier to call violations...I just don't get it. It kills some of the WOW factor...this eagle by McBeth is one of those moments that really stuck with me from all the footage I've seen. I really doubt the approach shot would have been the same with stand and deliver.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW9ZoLYj9SU

Personally I'd vote for 2) the current system. No extra marking system needed, and allows for more excitement. Why wouldn't you want more excitement?!? Also a little controversy isn't always a bad thing.

There could be some interesting proposals for 3)...just thinking (typing?) out loud maybe players would mark their lie with a rubber disc that their foot (any part) had to land on. Obviously there would be a safety concern, but if it were manufactured properly this could clear up a lot of confusion. Probably not the best idea, but there have to be other ways of safely and clearly defining the landing zone that would still allow for a run-up. I don't prefer this over the current because it just adds one more thing to regulate. I like keeping it simple and having an honor system, which the current approach does.


As for the smaller baskets (awesome for practice) to me the excitement level drops if the basket gets smaller. However, I'm guessing the skill separation would stay the same.

So if the excitement drops, and the skill separation stays the same (yet to be proven)...why is this good?

Scores will go up if the basket is smaller, and I don't know why that's a good thing. Take the NBA for example. Why would they want to make the basket smaller, and have lower scoring games? The precedent has been set, Disc golf is not ball golf...so what if it's easier to score under par in disc golf? Par is a made up concept anyway.

 

[geoloseth]

The problem is most of the people arguing for smaller baskets have a very narrow understanding of everything that goes in to scores being closer to par in golf than in disc golf.

It's not just the putt, it's getting the putt. On most championship style golf courses being able to consistently get to a place on the green where you have a even the real possibility of a birdie/eagle putt is the bulk of the challenge. If golf putting is 5 times harder than disc golf putting, getting the putt is 10 times harder than disc golf.

Golf courses are constructed from the ground up by incredibly knowledgeable designers with years of golf course design and play to base their designs on. Disc golf courses use whatever is there and are mostly built by people who've done it a few times with not as many resources to build upon; and when whatever is there for those guys is mostly open that's a problem.

Ask yourself this question, do disc golf baskets as is completely hold the sport back from ever getting on a bigger stage and getting serious sponsorship money from being pumped in?

If it doesn't then leave them be; let the sport grow naturally as it has, will and should. Then when the time comes for it to be on a bigger stage and money starts coming in use that money to build disc golf courses from the ground up. Build them so getting within the circle will be more difficult. Build them to where a player knows landing in one quadrant of the green gives them a better look at the basket with less risk if they miss. Build them not for what the disc golf course looks like today but how it will look 10, 20, 30 years from now.

I don't think the current baskets hold the sport back, but they do make the sport a little harder to relate to for people that aren't familiar with disc golf. Ex. In most cases the majors in ball golf are won by a score very close to even par for 4 rounds. The PDGA Majors is typically won by a score of -20 to -40 for 4-5 rounds. There will be a big difference in scores for players that putt to put the disc in the chains/basket versus those that putt to have the chains catch their disc.

The smaller targets will initially bring the scoring spread closer. In the same respect as does speeding up the greens in ball golf. It will place the emphasis on approach shots. How many pro interviews have mentioned that they only need to get withing 30'. Meaning there's an effective 60' circle around the basket where they expect to make a putt. Pros that actively practice for putts on smaller baskets will end up scoring better. This also means that we need to toughen up the greens in disc golf. I like to think of Hole 15 from the USDGC where the basket is nestled in a bunch of Crape Myrtles. I don't think every hole should be that extreme but it's a design element worth exploring.

Smaller baskets, hazard areas (USDGC), stroke and distance OB (Ledgestone) will also force players to put in the practice on shot selection. There will be less thought of "If I throw over those trees and go far to the right/left then it's open and an easy up shot". Ball golf majors take the normal rough cut grass from being 1-1.5" to 2-4". I've played on a tour level course where you might not find your ball if it's off the fairway and in the grass, or at least no be able to hit any shot you want. Our sport takes that out of play, but hazards bring it back in.

Here's the ideas that keep coming to mind:

Smaller baskets

Tougher greens (obstacles, lower ceilings, raised baskets, etc.)

Hazard areas - maybe not a penalty but 10m rules apply making a big shot harder to do

Stroke and Distance for certain OB (water, park boundaries, etc)

Lateral Hazards - straight line relief from original throw location to target, not where it crossed OB.

True bunkers - I imagine a sand bunker with a hedgerow on the target side forcing a player to throw over the hedge

Depending on the type of course the event is on, some of these could be used and others wouldn't be necessary.

 

[Darkgreen]

I don't think the current baskets hold the sport back, but they do make the sport a little harder to relate to for people that aren't familiar with disc golf. Ex. In most cases the majors in ball golf are won by a score very close to even par for 4 rounds. The PDGA Majors is typically won by a score of -20 to -40 for 4-5 rounds. There will be a big difference in scores for players that putt to put the disc in the chains/basket versus those that putt to have the chains catch their disc.

I've heard this argument before and I don't agree with it. The two sports are still plenty relatable, much more than enough for someone unfamiliar with disc golf to understand disc golf. When this argument is made I think it is underestimating newcomers or new observers to our sport. Either a person will find themselves drawn to our sport for the same reasons that we were all drawn to disc golf or they won't be. Basket size and its effect on the game isn't going to factor into their decision.