PDGA Board Establishes Game Development Team

[araytx]

The idea that's difficult for many existing courses, but that I've thought would be great would be to bring in is the idea of having a "rough" area like ball golf. And it would be the ultimate compromise. I've played on a few courses with high grass in certain places (Am Worlds this past year at Meyer Broadway is an example), and I think it would be neat to have a boundary for the high grass, or "rough". The rule could be you'd be forced to stand & deliver any time you're in the high grass "rough", but you still get all your run up options if you want when you're in the fairway.

This does a lot of the things being discussed. Allows designers options to place a premium on approach game. Well-designed holes can add another risk/reward element, without the actual stroke penalty being the risk. Allows upkeep of the courses because those with high grass sometimes eventually give up on maintenance of the high grass, as when people throw from the high grass they ultimately tear that grass up throwing out (because they are running up), and there'd be less of that. Incorporates S&D as a skill to practice without making it a mandatory thing -- stay in the fairways and you'll never have to -- kinda like using a sand wedge in the bunker in ball golf. and there may be others.

The downside is that the overwhelming majority of existing courses don't have this element designed already, so it'd be a future design thing going forward. But ever since I first played Jones East in Emporia (back when it had the tall grass OB), and on the few other courses I've seen where it's applicable/possible, I've thought it might be an interesting way to make S&D a skill you'd have to practice without making it an every time thing. I'm also a fan of elements around the greens to challenge. I am open to smaller baskets, but maybe not the Marksman/bullseye type for tourneys. Maybe something in between that and what we have now.

 

[youdidwell]

I'd be fine with Step and Deliver. I don't play competitive disc golf, nor am I very good, so I am just guessing here but wouldn't Stand and Deliver create almost the same situation with calls/non-calls of your front foot/toe coming off the ground or not? I don't see throwing flat footed as a viable choice if that's what people mean. Someone with actual knowledge set me straight.


Also, the smaller basket thing is kind of odd cause it seems to have always been about getting baskets to catch better. Is it even possible to make a bulls-eye baskets that also catches well?

 

[optidiscic]

The idea that's difficult for many existing courses, but that I've thought would be great would be to bring in is the idea of having a "rough" area like ball golf. And it would be the ultimate compromise. I've played on a few courses with high grass in certain places (Am Worlds this past year at Meyer Broadway is an example), and I think it would be neat to have a boundary for the high grass, or "rough". The rule could be you'd be forced to stand & deliver any time you're in the high grass "rough", but you still get all your run up options if you want when you're in the fairway.

This does a lot of the things being discussed. Allows designers options to place a premium on approach game. Well-designed holes can add another risk/reward element, without the actual stroke penalty being the risk. Allows upkeep of the courses because those with high grass sometimes eventually give up on maintenance of the high grass, as when people throw from the high grass they ultimately tear that grass up throwing out (because they are running up), and there'd be less of that. Incorporates S&D as a skill to practice without making it a mandatory thing -- stay in the fairways and you'll never have to -- kinda like using a sand wedge in the bunker in ball golf. and there may be others.

The downside is that the overwhelming majority of existing courses don't have this element designed already, so it'd be a future design thing going forward. But ever since I first played Jones East in Emporia (back when it had the tall grass OB), and on the few other courses I've seen where it's applicable/possible, I've thought it might be an interesting way to make S&D a skill you'd have to practice without making it an every time thing. I'm also a fan of elements around the greens to challenge. I am open to smaller baskets, but maybe not the Marksman/bullseye type for tourneys. Maybe something in between that and what we have now.

deer ticks

 

[geoloseth]

Speaking of changing some things, just saw a video on FB of a basket mounted to a rotating arm. That would be pure evil.

https://www.facebook.com/winkelhell/videos/746434948819115/

 

[geoloseth]

deer ticks

Snakes....all of the snakes!!!!

There was something like this at this last Am World Doubles. Hole 1 at Texas Twist had 3'+ rough to the right of the fairway. Made it almost impossible to take a run up. However that didn't stop at least one player from stomping the grass/ rolling around in the grass to flatten it so he could run up. Also didn't stop the TD's from seeing nothing wrong with doing that.

 

[Lewis]

God forbid we reward skill!

I know, right?

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

I disagree. To me, part of what's boring about watching disc golf is the putting. Making the putting more difficult will make it more suspenseful, and therefore more interesting.

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.

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.

Make players control both the direction and speed of their putts? God forbid that either!

Lob style putters would definitely have an advantage on smaller targets, since they're already used to controlling the speed of their putts, but I don't think that's a bad thing: I think controlling the speed of your putts should be a more important element in the game. Being a lob putter myself, I should confess that I'm biased, but I stand by my opinion. You'd also see fewer spin putters throw a putter too hard at the chains, watch it spit through, and then gripe about the design of the basket. opcorn:

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

You wouldn't need the sand for this, just the hedges. I do hope course designers would be careful to plant native, not invasive, hedge species.

 

[DiscJunkie]

Speaking of changing some things, just saw a video on FB of a basket mounted to a rotating arm. That would be pure evil.

https://www.facebook.com/winkelhell/videos/746434948819115/

I make a motion that the Development Committee recommend spinning windmills in front baskets and tees.
Furthermore, I also move that we have at least one concrete gorilla and one concrete giraffe per nine holes.
Better yet would be a pipe that we could throw discs in, and 100' later, the disc would drop into the basket.

Basket on a rotating arm?
Really????
Come on, guys and gals.
Is it Disc Golf or Disc Putt-Putt?

 

[araytx]

I make a motion that the Development Committee recommend spinning windmills in front baskets and tees.
Furthermore, I also move that we have at least one concrete gorilla and one concrete giraffe per nine holes.
Better yet would be a pipe that we could throw discs in, and 100' later, the disc would drop into the basket.

Basket on a rotating arm?
Really????
Come on, guys and gals.
Is it Disc Golf or Disc Putt-Putt?

I agree ... but many don't

 

[JC17393]

Oh yes, someone comes up with a rotating target...just ONE...and it is a signal that the game is doomed to follow the path to putt-putt golf with windmills and laughing clowns and the like. The "what is this, putt-putt?" argument is far and away the stupidest argument against innovation and experimentation I ever hear. God forbid our precious sport of throwing plastic frisbees through the woods at hanging chains and basket contraptions be viewed as goofy and gimmicky. Get a grip.

 

[dontBLAMEtheDISC]

The idea that's difficult for many existing courses, but that I've thought would be great would be to bring in is the idea of having a "rough" area like ball golf. And it would be the ultimate compromise. I've played on a few courses with high grass in certain places (Am Worlds this past year at Meyer Broadway is an example), and I think it would be neat to have a boundary for the high grass, or "rough". The rule could be you'd be forced to stand & deliver any time you're in the high grass "rough", but you still get all your run up options if you want when you're in the fairway.

This does a lot of the things being discussed. Allows designers options to place a premium on approach game. Well-designed holes can add another risk/reward element, without the actual stroke penalty being the risk. Allows upkeep of the courses because those with high grass sometimes eventually give up on maintenance of the high grass, as when people throw from the high grass they ultimately tear that grass up throwing out (because they are running up), and there'd be less of that. Incorporates S&D as a skill to practice without making it a mandatory thing -- stay in the fairways and you'll never have to -- kinda like using a sand wedge in the bunker in ball golf. and there may be others.

The downside is that the overwhelming majority of existing courses don't have this element designed already, so it'd be a future design thing going forward. But ever since I first played Jones East in Emporia (back when it had the tall grass OB), and on the few other courses I've seen where it's applicable/possible, I've thought it might be an interesting way to make S&D a skill you'd have to practice without making it an every time thing. I'm also a fan of elements around the greens to challenge. I am open to smaller baskets, but maybe not the Marksman/bullseye type for tourneys. Maybe something in between that and what we have now.

Personally i hate tall grass especially at courses like jones park because its also full of thorns. Another reason is lost discs i have no problem with ob or ponds etc. I would much rather have the tall grass as a couple feet wide boundary of ob so it still knocks down discs rather than walking and searching around tall grass because someone lost their favorite disc.

I would love to see fairways where you can do a run up, rough where you have to stand & deliver, and hazard areas that you have to have one knee touching the ground but no stroke penalty.

 

[DiscJunkie]

Oh yes, someone comes up with a rotating target...just ONE...and it is a signal that the game is doomed to follow the path to putt-putt golf with windmills and laughing clowns and the like. The "what is this, putt-putt?" argument is far and away the stupidest argument against innovation and experimentation I ever hear. God forbid our precious sport of throwing plastic frisbees through the woods at hanging chains and basket contraptions be viewed as goofy and gimmicky. Get a grip.

Seriously, how dare you ridicule my ridicule??
I don't have a problem with innovation, but I do disagree with some of the gimmicks that I have seen.
The spinning basket or the basket on a long arm is not the first "gimmick" on a disc golf course, not by a long shot.
It is part of a trend that I believe is not good for disc golf. It is a cheap and easy trick that course designers use to keep them from the tough work it takes to build quality courses that are difficult by design, not difficult by gimmick or artifice.
One man's opinion.

Personally, I look forward to seeing the work that this group comes up with, whether I agree or disagree.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Although there are ideas that will potentially be tested that no one in this forum has seen yet, they will only get tested if TDs out there are willing to test them. We will be openly seeking TD testers with everyone being able to see what ideas are available for testing. Even then, just simply raising the scoring average is only one of many criteria for some innovation to move forward as a future standard.

 

[JC17393]

Seriously, how dare you ridicule my ridicule??
I don't have a problem with innovation, but I do disagree with some of the gimmicks that I have seen.
The spinning basket or the basket on a long arm is not the first "gimmick" on a disc golf course, not by a long shot.
It is part of a trend that I believe is not good for disc golf. It is a cheap and easy trick that course designers use to keep them from the tough work it takes to build quality courses that are difficult by design, not difficult by gimmick or artifice.
One man's opinion.

Personally, I look forward to seeing the work that this group comes up with, whether I agree or disagree.

I fully understand not liking or seeing the utility of one innovation or another. I just find the "it's too gimmicky" argument to be lacking in substance. The whole game is one big gimmick. Baskets are gimmicks. The idea of throwing discs at them is a gimmick.

Course design in general is simply determining what gimmick or series of gimmicks are going to be thrown at the player on any given hole. The placement of the tee pad, the placement of the basket, every tree cut, every tree left standing, every road/sidewalk/stream/pond/etc designated as OB...all gimmicks to varying degrees.

I just don't see the point in drawing big fat lines between acceptable "gimmicks" and not acceptable "gimmicks" based on appearance. Does it achieve the objective it sets out to achieve? If so, who cares what it looks like.

 

[esdubya]

As long as something is consistent for all players I like it. That's why I can't get behind the swinging basket because it is moving differently for different players. Now, if you take that swinging basket and you can have tight control on both the speed and distance of the swing so that all players face the same challenge then I like it.

The thing I keep harping on even though I realize it is a clear technical hurdle at the moment is to have different sized baskets. I've been experimenting with different sized targets at our league since we shoot to trees marked with tape bands. I can change either the tree which affects the width of the target or the distance from the ground of the tape band, and the distance between the two bands. This yields some really cool combinations of challenge, and ultimately the ability for the designer to tweak the target size for optimal score spread, fun, or aesthetics.

Also @jc17393 I like where your head is at.

 

[DiscJunkie]

I fully understand not liking or seeing the utility of one innovation or another. I just find the "it's too gimmicky" argument to be lacking in substance. The whole game is one big gimmick. Baskets are gimmicks. The idea of throwing discs at them is a gimmick.

Course design in general is simply determining what gimmick or series of gimmicks are going to be thrown at the player on any given hole. The placement of the tee pad, the placement of the basket, every tree cut, every tree left standing, every road/sidewalk/stream/pond/etc designated as OB...all gimmicks to varying degrees.

I just don't see the point in drawing big fat lines between acceptable "gimmicks" and not acceptable "gimmicks" based on appearance. Does it achieve the objective it sets out to achieve? If so, who cares what it looks like.

Even if I disagree, I appreciate that your arguments are reasoned and thought-out.
You make a valid point that "gimmick" is in the eye of the beholder. One man's gimmick could be another man's design element. I can accept that.
However, I would like to see more courses designed using natural elements (trees, greenery, slope, elevation, water, rocks, etc) in a natural way to create a challenging course. I also think that calling every design decision a gimmick is stretching the limits of the definition.
Where "gimmick" sits on the design scale for me is different from you and I can respect that.
I don't think either of us has changed the other's standpoint.
We'll just agree to disagree.