If we followed this then craps would not be a game of chance because we can perceive the cause. Perception of a cause and the ability to change an outcome are two different things.
Wait a sec. What are we talking about?
-
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)
Spit-outs. Flaw, or part of the game?
- Thread starter The Hammer
- Start date
- Status
Wait a sec. What are we talking about?
MNcyclone
Double Eagle Member
So you are for the continued evolution of pole holes to accept "good" putts huh? Think about this...
Back when it was a single set of chains wide putters were the norm. The Aero was a mainstay putter. Whenever I run into older sets of chains I still pull out my patent pending Aero because they stick better. Then the small diameter putter was invented.
Small diameter putters just didn't stick in those loose chains. So they added more chains. Problem was that the old putters didn't stick as well in the new chains. Magnets and Aviars became the standard putters because of this.
Fast forward to now. We have even more putters on the market and putt speeds have increased every year. Newer putters are designed to handle more speed. Players have shifted towards heavier putters. So now these new disc, preferences, and styles have made people think the pole holes need more modifications. At this point my Aero is terrible at grabbing chains, it will be useless with one more modification.
I want a pole hole that will accept my #1 midnight flyer better. Its already been designed. Its called a cone hole. Lets standardize it, I'm tired of my perfect lid putts being rejected by chains.
Back when it was a single set of chains wide putters were the norm. The Aero was a mainstay putter. Whenever I run into older sets of chains I still pull out my patent pending Aero because they stick better. Then the small diameter putter was invented.
Small diameter putters just didn't stick in those loose chains. So they added more chains. Problem was that the old putters didn't stick as well in the new chains. Magnets and Aviars became the standard putters because of this.
Fast forward to now. We have even more putters on the market and putt speeds have increased every year. Newer putters are designed to handle more speed. Players have shifted towards heavier putters. So now these new disc, preferences, and styles have made people think the pole holes need more modifications. At this point my Aero is terrible at grabbing chains, it will be useless with one more modification.
I want a pole hole that will accept my #1 midnight flyer better. Its already been designed. Its called a cone hole. Lets standardize it, I'm tired of my perfect lid putts being rejected by chains.
gcr_russell
* Ace Member *
Wanted to repost at the top of a page because I feel not enough people had the opportunity to read it.
Do target manufacturers build baskets with the intention of their baskets having certain types of spit-outs? If the answer is no then it stands to reason that an improvement that minimizes spit-outs is really a good thing and is at the heart of what all basket manufacturers are attempting in the first place. It is also the reason why all baskets are not identical to the first basket, as they felt things like spit-outs could reasonably be reduced by better design. Is there a reason that their attempt to improve baskets needs to have stopped at a certain point? It stands to reason that their quest to improve baskets can continue, and the reason people in the industry have set forth for that improvement is because they (the professionals in DG technology not just the players) recognize progress can continue to be made for Positive reasons.
Do target manufacturers build baskets with the intention of their baskets having certain types of spit-outs? If the answer is no then it stands to reason that an improvement that minimizes spit-outs is really a good thing and is at the heart of what all basket manufacturers are attempting in the first place. It is also the reason why all baskets are not identical to the first basket, as they felt things like spit-outs could reasonably be reduced by better design. Is there a reason that their attempt to improve baskets needs to have stopped at a certain point? It stands to reason that their quest to improve baskets can continue, and the reason people in the industry have set forth for that improvement is because they (the professionals in DG technology not just the players) recognize progress can continue to be made for Positive reasons.
You "just a part of the game" crowd are silly. Briers and killer plants are "part of the game" should we just let them run amok all over the course?
Is it just me or will all this be solved with just heavier chains?
Is it just me or will all this be solved with just heavier chains?
MNcyclone
Double Eagle Member
No, read my post. People in the "spit outs suck because I putt perfectly" camp just want baskets that will catch their specific style of putting better. What about the lid thrower? What about the guy that putts 150 class putters? Heavier chains would ruin them.
You're heavier chains.
The Hammer
* Ace Member *
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 4,862
Nice burn!
*makes "raising the roof" gesture*
No, you write too much. :|
They don't have to be dramatically heavier, just heavier. I've had 4' putts hit dead center at low power (I don't even spin putt or laser them in at all) and they've pushed past the chains enough to hit the pole and bounce out. If that's not a flaw, I don't know what is.
foo_g
Birdie Member
This whole argument is similar to pocketing balls in pool.
Every table is different.
They all have limits as to how hard you can hit a ball and how much you can miss the center of ("cheat") the pocket before the ball will be rejected.
However, I've also had times when I've hammered a shot home dead center, had the ball sink into the pocket, out of sight, and have so much topspin left that it came shooting back onto the table.
That counts as a miss, even though the shot was clearly made.
There are several ball pocketing designs implemented in pool tables all across the world.
These spit-outs may only happen with certain types.
Others may have different issues.
The same thing is true with DG baskets.
It's really hard to set a standard with goals like this when there are so many "random" variables that factor into whether a good shot is rejected.
These false misses also probably affect some players more than others simply because their technique is more conducive to being rejected by the equipment.
Every table is different.
They all have limits as to how hard you can hit a ball and how much you can miss the center of ("cheat") the pocket before the ball will be rejected.
However, I've also had times when I've hammered a shot home dead center, had the ball sink into the pocket, out of sight, and have so much topspin left that it came shooting back onto the table.
That counts as a miss, even though the shot was clearly made.
There are several ball pocketing designs implemented in pool tables all across the world.
These spit-outs may only happen with certain types.
Others may have different issues.
The same thing is true with DG baskets.
It's really hard to set a standard with goals like this when there are so many "random" variables that factor into whether a good shot is rejected.
These false misses also probably affect some players more than others simply because their technique is more conducive to being rejected by the equipment.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,525
It is an excellent analogy if you think about it correctly (and you are not): You have got to consider the surface of the putting green to be a part of the target since it is a physical part of the "holing out apparatus" that the course owners control and every player has to navigate.
If the ground (and its "invisible" randomness) is part of the target, then it is not "before" the target. And this is exactly the same as the effect of the invisible randomness of the weak spots in the chain pattern.
Ball golf is a game played in the air AND the ground. By in large what happens in the air is NOT largely random, but what happens to the ball when it hits the ground IS largely random. The fairway is less random than the second cut which is less random than the rough. Ball golfers accept this.
Disc golf is a game played almost completely in the air. And, disc golfers have a very hard time accepting randomness......randomness that can be hugely minimized (almost to the point of elimination) by skillfulness.
MNcyclone
Double Eagle Member
You are correct, I write too much, its time to go play a round :thmbup:
As my final thought, let me say this. If someone came up to me and said "hey, would you rather have a basket that catches discs well or a basket that sucks?" I would say I wanted the nice basket. If someone says to me "we need better baskets because I putt perfectly and I'm tired of my perfect putts spitting out" I would tell them to become a better putter. This argument has been framed in weird way which has created more drama then it deserves.
As my final thought, let me say this. If someone came up to me and said "hey, would you rather have a basket that catches discs well or a basket that sucks?" I would say I wanted the nice basket. If someone says to me "we need better baskets because I putt perfectly and I'm tired of my perfect putts spitting out" I would tell them to become a better putter. This argument has been framed in weird way which has created more drama then it deserves.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,525
Not true. There are plenty of examples of would-be chip-ins (and some of aces) that bounced out.
So your saying you putt perfect? Just want to know
No, I'm not saying I'm a perfect putter or even that putt was perfect. I'm just saying that a basket that is designed to stop a disc's momentum enough to corral it into the basket shouldn't have a low power, dead center putt from 4' or less bounce off the pole and out of the basket. For perspective, I'd aced on these same baskets on the course from 250'+ out, twice. Doesn't it seem preposterous that a basket can catch a driver on an ace run but reject a 4' putt?
Golf Analogy
I've heard the ball golf analogy enough to put a different spin on it. What if the cup originally had a small nub (maybe rubber) that caused a small percentage of putts to bounce out. It seems that a lot of people here would argue that the putter should have done "something" different to compensate for this possibility. Any putt that bounced out COULD have been struck faster, or slower or a tad to the right or left. Sure you could argue this but I'm pretty sure that a cup that retained the most putts would win out in the long run.
Sure, in the long run these spit-outs are a part of the game but we shouldn't stop trying to minimize them.
I've heard the ball golf analogy enough to put a different spin on it. What if the cup originally had a small nub (maybe rubber) that caused a small percentage of putts to bounce out. It seems that a lot of people here would argue that the putter should have done "something" different to compensate for this possibility. Any putt that bounced out COULD have been struck faster, or slower or a tad to the right or left. Sure you could argue this but I'm pretty sure that a cup that retained the most putts would win out in the long run.
Sure, in the long run these spit-outs are a part of the game but we shouldn't stop trying to minimize them.
Problem solved, you guys.
Thanks, Ching!
Thanks, Ching!
The Hammer
* Ace Member *
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 4,862
Problem solved, you guys.
Thanks, Ching!
They need to change their name to "Swish"
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,525
In essence you already have this with the uneven greens leading up to the hole. They could design the greens to make them perfectly flat (or at least uniform) and they could use an artificial surface to guarantee uniformity. But they don't.
And I never hear complaining about that. Do you?
Maybe if you didn't aim dead center it would've stayed in, What happens when a basketball player misses a FT so close and hit's dead center on the back of the rim it bounces out!
But I've seen plenty of times when they shoot half-court even full court shot's that stay in
opcorn:Everyone just sounds like they are making excuse's about the basket when it's either their putter,wind,confidence etc.
Next time your 4ft away remember don't aim dead center lesson learned:thmbup:
- Status
Similar threads
