I lost interest before I even entered the thread. All caps? Really?
I'm just here for the funsies
-
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)
specs and rules to move DG from kids game to pro sport
- Thread starter michael bacon
- Start date
I lost interest before I even entered the thread. All caps? Really?
I'm just here for the funsies
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Sorry Three Putt, it can be done but only at the point in development where a big time sponsor indicates it would like these smaller targets used for their series. No problem with a traveling set of 18. Play it out from there and newer Championship courses would eventually be getting the smaller targets. We never get that level of development but something like that is what it might take.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
there are no programs that benefit only pros- there are programs that only benefit a very select number of top pros.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Less than 100% payout at Pro Worlds with no PDGA staff, scoring, video coverage and marshals would be one effect. No cash from PDGA added to NTs nor staff support at those events. Probably no staff position for Events Manager. Bye, Michael. You say they do some of the similar things for big Am events like Nats and Worlds. But those mostly pay for themselves just like Am entry fees pay for their costs in regular events.
If TDs actually charged for the things they do for pros at regular weekend events, pros would be paying incrementally higher entry fees to get the same level of services and payouts as they do now and realize the true cost of what they receive from their higher cost for PDGA membership. Granted, more of the benefit goes to the better pros but then that's the idea in the pro arena that better players get more benefit.
If TDs actually charged for the things they do for pros at regular weekend events, pros would be paying incrementally higher entry fees to get the same level of services and payouts as they do now and realize the true cost of what they receive from their higher cost for PDGA membership. Granted, more of the benefit goes to the better pros but then that's the idea in the pro arena that better players get more benefit.
without reading a word other than the thread title.. ill go ahead and say--
Hell no.
Hell no.
The problem with that scenario would be the idea that the PDGA would sell out the sport for a change that the vast majority of players do no want to happen in order to kowtow to a sponsor. What price tag do you put on selling out the sport?
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Three Putt, I don't think it would be seen as a sellout because the sponsor would have to have gotten the idea from somewhere. They wouldn't be imposing this without some initiative from within the sport. Quite unlikely at this point, but Innova would be in position simply by introducing a new, smaller target for the USDGC. We know their penchant for introducing new challenges at the USDGC. Of course, this hypothetical target would have to be Approved at the Championship level. But certain dimensions in the specs are maximums not minimums so something like a slightly modified Bullseye could conceivably get approved.
turbosteve
Eagle Member
Are we even sure reducing the target size will help the sport grow? I personally think it will hurt the sport. It will obviously make it harder to make a putt which will make rounds longer. This will make people question if they want to play a tournament or not. It will also force putts outside the circle to have less chance of going in. This will take away one of the biggest entertainment values in the sport.
What I don't understand about the smaller targets argument is how it would actually improve the game. As I see it the best putters are going to out putt their competition regardless of the size of the target. What will change, however, is the range in which the risk / reward ratio for a given player decides to lay up vs. run the basket. As it is now this varies based on conditions such as wind, OB, hills, and of course - skill. I don't see how shrinking this range with a smaller target is going to make the game better to either play or to watch. What am I missing?
turbosteve
Eagle Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRyG7QXVqns
This does not happen if we make the targets smaller.
This does not happen if we make the targets smaller.
It will raise scores. That's the argument; you get rid of the -10 & -15 rounds and get scores that are more like ball golf. The philosophy is that fans who don't understand or appreciate the game need it to appear to be more like ball golf to accept disc golf as a legitimate sport.
The other idea is to accept the fact that putting in disc golf is easy so you can have par 2's. Par 2's would cut into the under par scores getting them closer in line with ball golf.
That's it. That's the bottom line; they think that disc golf leader boards have to look like ball golf leader boards. Somehow that is magically supposed to make people accept hippies throwing Frisbee's in the woods as a legitimate sport.
The other idea is to accept the fact that putting in disc golf is easy so you can have par 2's. Par 2's would cut into the under par scores getting them closer in line with ball golf.
That's it. That's the bottom line; they think that disc golf leader boards have to look like ball golf leader boards. Somehow that is magically supposed to make people accept hippies throwing Frisbee's in the woods as a legitimate sport.
:clap::hfive:
pretty sure that hit the pole dead center. get over it. We wouldn't worry about nova's sticky OM's clining to the last link hoping to drop into a fish bowl that's for sure' way too much room to make putts. I love the idea of a cone style basket area for putting I just hate actually putting ON the cones. Smaller target would be legit. At least most putts within the circle wouldn't be gimme's.
This is obviously a troll thread because only a troll would suggest something as completely stupid as making the baskets smaller since it's such an expensive proposition.
Like I said before, this comes around every couple of years. It's a really old idea. It gets suggested all the time. If not for the massive expense and logistic impossibilities of it, I'm sure it would have happened by now since it's a really popular idea within the top level of players.
Of course it's a hugely unpopular idea with the rest of us. Not that that really matters. :|
Allurex
* Ace Member *
If every hole in ball golf was a 200ish yard Par 3, most good golfers would have tons of Aces.
its not that big of a deal. all they would have to do is get serious with their course/tournament classifications and modify approved targets accordingly. current baskets wouldtn fly with the NT etc.. not that huge of a impact and slowly other courses change. will the current baskets be the cones of today sure but that doesn't mean they are bad either.
ReTread
Newbie
It's proportional. A golf ball is 1-5/8", the cup is roughly 3x the size of a ball 4-1/2". The average putter size is 8-3/8" the disc golf basket is roughly 3x the size of a putter 25-1/2". A putter is slightly less than 6x the size of a golf ball, so increase the putting distance by the same. Suddenly a 6' put bbecomes a 35' putt in disc golf, plus we have more dimentions to our putts (height). I'll also add, you won't find many PGA Pro's missing a 8' putt (48' comparativly).
Keep going, that means that a 50' putt becomes a 300' drive.
Keep going, that means that a 50' putt becomes a 300' drive.
no its not. you are talking about something that flies into a basket vs rolls into a hole in the ground.
You need to calculate the volume of the basket vs the disc. we have been over this before many many times. the REAL question is how much more SPACE is there for a disc to go in over a ball? Not to mention the increased probability of chance for the putt to drop in which is much greater in DG.
A ball going into the hole is not comparable and much harder than a disc going into the basket.
and that's leaving the typography out of it all.
You need to calculate the volume of the basket vs the disc. we have been over this before many many times. the REAL question is how much more SPACE is there for a disc to go in over a ball? Not to mention the increased probability of chance for the putt to drop in which is much greater in DG.
A ball going into the hole is not comparable and much harder than a disc going into the basket.
and that's leaving the typography out of it all.
Last edited:
Similar threads
