I didn't miss his point at all. In none of those examples is the net responsible for helping to score the point, whereas the chains are mostly responsible in disc golf.
-
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)
ALL Mach baskets should be outlawed in pro tournaments!
- Thread starter SD86
- Start date
I didn't miss his point at all. In none of those examples is the net responsible for helping to score the point, whereas the chains are mostly responsible in disc golf.
No one ever has any idea.
Ok picture this:
1) remove all chains from basket
2) install rigid pvc 90 degree tube fittings 16" in diameter, all mounted to the pole & under side of chain mount (highest point)
Throw into any of the the pvc tubes and the disc gets directed into the basket. 4 or more tubes needed (or as many as could fit).
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Chuck hat on. It's too expensive to throw out all baskets and start over. Chuck hat off.
You'd only remove the chains and use existing baskets.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
The putt, or archery vs subtlety. It took me longer than I care to admit to realize that when putting, your arm speed should be consistent. It's smooth and paced. You get distance, not with arm speed, but with the wrist flick. The longer the putt, the more powerful the flick. Whether spin putting, or lift putting, it's the same. Where most putts go wrong is in one of two areas. Too much arm speed, or inappropriate wrist flick. The art of the putt is learning the are of the wrist flick. How much for this distance and for this basket?
There should be no, this basket. Your wrist flick should only have to accommodate distance, and wind.
An exception is now developing. By my measure, it came to the fore about 10 years ago. It's the notion that if I use max distance flick, on a flat line, I can hit the basket dead center e every time. The putt goes from a sophisticated judgement, to a power move. Yes, there is sophistication there, but it's different and less IMO. This is the reason you see 15 foot spit outs. At that range, you're dropping the putt into the basket. You hardly need the chains at all. Yet the number of 15 foot and less putt outs I've seen is huuuge. As manufacturers have made baskets more rocket friendly, I've seen more drop in putts flop out too. That is, fro 10 feet, the player drops the soft putt into the basket and it catches enough chains that it gets pushed out. In other words, you've traced one problem for another.
You either need a radical basket redesign, or you recognize that the sport requires subtlety, based on physics, and you have a laugh at the rocket Joe who's bouncing out at 10 feet.
Hate spell checkers!
There should be no, this basket. Your wrist flick should only have to accommodate distance, and wind.
An exception is now developing. By my measure, it came to the fore about 10 years ago. It's the notion that if I use max distance flick, on a flat line, I can hit the basket dead center e every time. The putt goes from a sophisticated judgement, to a power move. Yes, there is sophistication there, but it's different and less IMO. This is the reason you see 15 foot spit outs. At that range, you're dropping the putt into the basket. You hardly need the chains at all. Yet the number of 15 foot and less putt outs I've seen is huuuge. As manufacturers have made baskets more rocket friendly, I've seen more drop in putts flop out too. That is, fro 10 feet, the player drops the soft putt into the basket and it catches enough chains that it gets pushed out. In other words, you've traced one problem for another.
You either need a radical basket redesign, or you recognize that the sport requires subtlety, based on physics, and you have a laugh at the rocket Joe who's bouncing out at 10 feet.
Hate spell checkers!
Last edited:
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Okay, so I did the read carefully enough.
Not that I'm advocating such a device, but it would generally eliminate basket inconsistencies.
Attachments
SonicGuy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2014
- Messages
- 1,827
You have made this claim repeatedly and I do not agree. The pole hole is a perfectly acceptable way to finish a hole, better than acceptable I would say. The single most marketable aspect of disc golf is the distinctive crash of chains when you putt out. Anything that removes this iconic sound diminishes from the mass appeal of disc golf.
I hardly think that casuals would decide against watching disc golf because they saw a spit out. If I am watching basketball, and I see a flukey roll off the rim, or if I see a flukey rim out in ball golf, I don't dismiss the scoring apparatus, I dismiss the shot/putt as poor. The reason people don't want to watch disc golf is the poor presentation and the overall slovenly state of the current player base.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
I know I'm speaking on behalf of Chuck, but I think his notion is to have a situation where scoring separation around the basket is higher. Closer to what they have in ball golf. I think the premise is correct. I'd prefer to do it with green development but that is harder to control and more costly. Chuck?
SonicGuy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2014
- Messages
- 1,827
Since we are speaking for Chuck let me outline his case specific to this thread:
The fact that a chain pattern is symmetrical but not uniform produces inconsistent catching ability as putts hitting at different radial degrees are encountering different chain patterns on the same basket. Chuck is saying that this inconsistency is holding back the sport in some way.
I am saying that the inconsistency described is minuscule in effect and certainly is not producing the basket aspects being complained about in this thread.
Response here from a person with nearly 40 years in the game.
An observation: I was watching the Valspar Golf Tournament on cable, and NO ONE complained about the holes there, especially not the top pros.
The regular golf world did an experiment with their holes at one point in their history. The upped the hole's diameter from 4.25" to 6.25" and do you know what they learned? Good putters made more putts.
Mach I baskets catch perfectly well. There was a SoCal player named Randy Amann whose putting style was a fore-runner of today's push-putt. When I saw him play, he was nearly automatic from 40' and he used old hard white 'DX' 86 molds. Having watched Randy play several times, I've no doubt he had the skill to putt in another way, but he developed that putt so the target would consistently catch it. This is the same thinking that led Ken Climo to develop his unique putting style. Both of these players can rightly be termed 'shot-makers' - they take responsibility for their own games, regardless of results.
What these facts mean is that it is an expression of supreme weakness to blame your equipment for your results - even if it's true, even if that expression helps shield one's fragile ego. You are an adult. You are responsible. You can adapt. Learning the correct approach to the situation, in this case, how to putt well on this tournament's baskets, is your responsibility. This game is not 'imbalanced' or 'unfair'.
I played a little match this weekend and twice members of my group said that my missed putts were 'spit-outs'. I immediately corrected them, with 'No, I missed the putt.' It didn't matter if that putt was the absolute best I could muster at that particular time. I missed it - this is case, with nearly EVERY 'called' spit-out that I have ever seen, which is probably more than most people have ever played. The point is that there is a big difference between being genuinely disappointed that you missed some shot and failing to take responsibility for your miss.
That being said, there is a lot of validity to the argument that that highest tour levels should require a certain level of consistency for targets (read: all 'identical' targets), especially if the aim is more overall involvement and attracting larger sponsors. The trade-off for enacting such a change would be the alienation of many manufacturers in the disc world, something the governing body would be hesitant at least to do...
An observation: I was watching the Valspar Golf Tournament on cable, and NO ONE complained about the holes there, especially not the top pros.
The regular golf world did an experiment with their holes at one point in their history. The upped the hole's diameter from 4.25" to 6.25" and do you know what they learned? Good putters made more putts.
Mach I baskets catch perfectly well. There was a SoCal player named Randy Amann whose putting style was a fore-runner of today's push-putt. When I saw him play, he was nearly automatic from 40' and he used old hard white 'DX' 86 molds. Having watched Randy play several times, I've no doubt he had the skill to putt in another way, but he developed that putt so the target would consistently catch it. This is the same thinking that led Ken Climo to develop his unique putting style. Both of these players can rightly be termed 'shot-makers' - they take responsibility for their own games, regardless of results.
What these facts mean is that it is an expression of supreme weakness to blame your equipment for your results - even if it's true, even if that expression helps shield one's fragile ego. You are an adult. You are responsible. You can adapt. Learning the correct approach to the situation, in this case, how to putt well on this tournament's baskets, is your responsibility. This game is not 'imbalanced' or 'unfair'.
I played a little match this weekend and twice members of my group said that my missed putts were 'spit-outs'. I immediately corrected them, with 'No, I missed the putt.' It didn't matter if that putt was the absolute best I could muster at that particular time. I missed it - this is case, with nearly EVERY 'called' spit-out that I have ever seen, which is probably more than most people have ever played. The point is that there is a big difference between being genuinely disappointed that you missed some shot and failing to take responsibility for your miss.
That being said, there is a lot of validity to the argument that that highest tour levels should require a certain level of consistency for targets (read: all 'identical' targets), especially if the aim is more overall involvement and attracting larger sponsors. The trade-off for enacting such a change would be the alienation of many manufacturers in the disc world, something the governing body would be hesitant at least to do...
Last edited:
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Not holding back the sport at all. That's a much bigger issue where putting, other than making long ones, is not as exciting as the various putting challenges, visibility and their inherent drama in ball golf. All I'm saying is "fixing" the basket with its current design elements, i.e., chains, will only go so far towards consistent performance, where thinking somewhat outside the box and not being trapped by tradition will likely produce a better basket solution, and surprisingly, may not require existing basket replacement.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
More people need to get this. Thanks! Add to it that we like to apply the notion that baskets are fluky. No, baskets are what they are. Winners figure out what they are and play within those physical parameters. It's that simple. We are trying to make baskets fit what players want, hence the Mach X, a basket that is so stiff that shots to the side skip off, and dead hits that aren't rocket-propelled can bounce out.
There's a term for 'fluky baskets' or a situation like where Eagle McMahon's drive went OB in a 2" crack between a curb and a chain link fence in this year's Memorial. It's called 'the rub of the green'...
Some might not agree, but I like the fact that sometimes 'luck' WILL determine a winner in golf. I just hope that luck doesn't frequently or consistently determine a winner.
Some might not agree, but I like the fact that sometimes 'luck' WILL determine a winner in golf. I just hope that luck doesn't frequently or consistently determine a winner.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
The difference is that flukiness can be reduced with better design versus actual uncontrollable fluky factors. Even ball golf is proposing new rules to reduce flukiness where casual objects like pine cones can even be removed from traps and greens repaired.
I won't argue with you because everyone on this site knows exactly how impressive your knowledge and experience are, but I think your comment was a bit tangential to mine, which was more about a person's attitude toward the results they experience in-game and less about cracking the whip on disc golf 'development'. Both directions are valid, although one is probably more helpful for those wishing to grow their own personal golf 'game'. Whatever.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
My point on flukiness is simply about the difference between that which can be reduced/controlled and that which is truly fluky/unpredictable. The more you can reduce flukiness within your control, the more skill determines the winner at any level. There's no question that casual fans generally like fluky happenings, regardless whether they are "natural" or "normal occasional" fluky stuff expected due to the game/sport design, such as basket spits.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Here I will challenge Chuck, on behalf of Curmudgeon, lets say. As an academic scientist, I saw, perhaps six scientists destroy their careers based on gut instinct. George Bush sent us to war in Iraq, based on gut instinct. Millions of people don't and do support global warming based on gut instinct. Chuck's notion that baskets give fluky outcomes is based on... gut instinct. Now I like and respect Chuck. But heck, you can't even tell what percentage of putts are impacted by fluke even if you know it happens. Yes, I know, it seems logical to Chuck, based on his experience. He's wrong. He can argue till the planet dies, but as I wrote above, I know plenty who've looked at things and based on very logical arguments made in a vacuum, were dead wrong.
Running with the theme that there are fluky outcomes, they have no import. Players don't whine because of fluky outcomes, they whine because they didn't get what they wanted. If you made the perfect God anointed basket, that every shot that should go in, did. And every shot that shouldn't, didn't, guess what. Whining galore. And of course, as long as there's fluke, there's something I can blame it on.
Until the voices with weight stop the fluky excuse, it will be the norm. Until those voices grow up and realize it isn't important, players will be blaming every disc in the grass as a fluke.
BTW - the notion of controlling flukiness is my new guide to life. I'm setting up a company, fraudulent of course, called Fluky Be Gone. We aim to eliminate the fluke that's been holding you back.
