Still weak side though, he could have thrown a better putt.
-
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
Still weak side though, he could have thrown a better putt.
CreemCheese
Double Eagle Member
I'm waiting for the day we get rid of chains and hang heavy blankets instead.
SonicGuy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2014
- Messages
- 1,827
This entire discussion is a heavy wet blanket.
CreemCheese
Double Eagle Member
Well played!
F. Howl
* Ace Member *
No debate there: Discatchers, Chainstars, Titan, etc style baskets catch better than a Mach III. That basket was designed in 1988. Can't use that in an argument against a Mach X, because a spit through like the one shown above wouldn't happen.
On a tangent....People who advocate making the target smaller (like McBeth) should like the Mach X for what it does: high putts or putts off center get pushed out. They're very unforgiving. But dead center puts no matter how hard (or soft, if it's in the sweet spot right at the tape) don't come out. If we shrank the target to Bullseye style baskets it would highlight the element of luck (bad luck) more than it would reward skill, with all the increased bounces and spit outs. The X seems to inadvertently solve that issue.
SonicGuy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2014
- Messages
- 1,827
Um, I debate that. I prefer Mach III over all else. I also debate your assertion that dead center always sticks no matter how hard. My most observed spit on Mach III's is a pole bounce straight back at me from a dead center hit, always when I putt too hard.
F. Howl
* Ace Member *
I'm saying Mach X's catch the hard center putts.
Is the Mach III, like a...sentimental thing?
SonicGuy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2014
- Messages
- 1,827
Gotcha, yeah mach X loves the middle, my bad.
It probably is a sentimental thing. Like when people putted with floppy putters soft as they could to make sure the disc stayed in. I liked that style of putting better than rifleman style. I have played on Mach's for years and years, they are what a disc golf basket should be to me.
Today's game is all boring power hyzers and boring power forehand. Boring power putting makes this sport perfectly boring.
F. Howl
* Ace Member *
I haven't tried a floppy putter on a Mach X...no bueno?
I'm with you on the boring power hyzers... Even with his distance, Eagle dislikes the big open ball golf style courses.
https://discgolf.ultiworld.com/livewire/mcmahon-disc-golfs-move-ball-golf-courses-not-fun/
I'm with you on the boring power hyzers... Even with his distance, Eagle dislikes the big open ball golf style courses.
https://discgolf.ultiworld.com/livewire/mcmahon-disc-golfs-move-ball-golf-courses-not-fun/
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
I might actually argue that hitting the pole was part of the cut through. The disc skimmed off the pole and pushed out of the basket.
That said, from 10 or 15 feet out, hitting the basket center high, on a trajectory that with no basket takes you right past the basket, is IMO a bad putt. Especially if you hit weak side. I think this exactly points to the issue at hand. At that distance, when the disc hits the outer chains, it should be right side and falling into the basket. Even an am should be able to do this at that distance. The job of the basket isn't to catch everything thrown at it. It's to act as a measure of a completed hole. You've completed the hole when your disc falls into the basket. At this time, our attitude seems to be, "my disc touched the chains, that should mean it's in the basket."
The skill set of delivering the disc center to right, on the basket, with the disc falling into the basket, is an important skill. It should be part of the game. We can see that you can create a basket that can catch rockets, but then you create a new problem. Shots center and left have less chance of staying in. You've traded one problem for another.
Last edited:
PMantle
* Ace Member *
I love Mach baskets.
Lazerface
Eagle Member
Can everyone agree that we should reduce random outcomes in competitive formats to the extent the result does not "ruin" game play. However "ruin" would be defined - more harm than good basically.
If there were a putting machine capable of tiny adjustments to all the putting dimensions (Up/Down/Left/Right/Speed/Spin/Nose Angle/Plate Angle) and we tested all basket models could the results change the Mach defenders opinion if the data was clear? If there was an objective calculation that said "We cannot expect a player to account for variance A, from distance B, therefore this basket creates a "random" outcome that is not good for competition - would that matter?
Obviously, there would need to be scientific justification to what one decides players/humans are not capable of, but that sounds like a reasonable possibility to me.
All other things aside, if we did that and it turned out some baskets created random outcomes, or a higher propensity of such, while others did not, would that change the opinion of those defending the Mach baskets? I'm honestly curious.
If there were a putting machine capable of tiny adjustments to all the putting dimensions (Up/Down/Left/Right/Speed/Spin/Nose Angle/Plate Angle) and we tested all basket models could the results change the Mach defenders opinion if the data was clear? If there was an objective calculation that said "We cannot expect a player to account for variance A, from distance B, therefore this basket creates a "random" outcome that is not good for competition - would that matter?
Obviously, there would need to be scientific justification to what one decides players/humans are not capable of, but that sounds like a reasonable possibility to me.
All other things aside, if we did that and it turned out some baskets created random outcomes, or a higher propensity of such, while others did not, would that change the opinion of those defending the Mach baskets? I'm honestly curious.
kerplunk
Double Eagle Member
I believe the original intent of DG baskets was to simulate the lines drawn on objects that was the traditional way of marking "holes." So in that case the skill of delivering the disc such that it lands in the basket actually has little to do with why the basket was introduced.
One could of course argue that while that was not the original intention, it is what the game has evolved into.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
My little brain isn't getting your nuance. Part of that might be that I have a different interpretation based on what a poster said Ed H. was thinking. He wanted a footprint that fit a player catching a disc.
If what you're saying is that in an object based course, my nation of falling into the basket has no relevance. I agree. My notion of delivering the disc into the basket is based on other similar sports. In basketball, throwing the ball as hard as possible at the red square is a no no. Part of the skill is delivering the ball such that it falls through the hoop. Ball golf similar. My feeling is this is the same.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,873
kerplunk
Double Eagle Member
Little brain-LOL. If anything your brain is probably too big.
Steady Ed didn't invent disc golf, just the basket. His interpretation of what a target should do is not the last word. After all, isn't the PDGA supposed to be an organization that represents it's members? So if the majority of members want baskets that are a closer simulation of object golf, isn't that something the PDGA should try to make happen?
FWIW, i actually agree with you and like the "touch" aspect of the current basket design. I just don't think it is something everyone necessarily agrees with, or should.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Sweet, thanks. I like your approach.
First, if you didn't, take a look at Steve's link. Don't think I like the model, but I can see the thinking. Second, I agree, the PDGA needs to take into account what membership wants. But you're stuck if the notion is that hitting the chains means you've scored. If you take archery, 3D or otherwise, as your model, hitting off the pole should count less. It isn't a bullseye. However, if you did something like that it does add complexity and scoring separation for sure. I'm guessing no one really wants that. But it is an interesting thought.
Again, making the basket an, if I hit it it's good, target has physical limitations. The Mach V vs Mach X comparison shows that one is "too soft" the other Iside "too hard." The Goldilocks solution seems to be out of reach.
I go back to my supposition, it feels like players think, if I hit the chains it should be in. Going back to the video where a player hits hard center and to the left. He wasn't pumping it in there, but it was a bad putt by the capacity of many baskets. If the case is that hitting the target means you've scored, as in object golf, then we need an object not a basket.
I do admit, I find the notion of a player acquiring a skill necessary to get the disc in the basket (as compared to archery) interesting and exciting. I'm willing to admit that many won't and that is the conundrum. I'll leave you with the archery comparison one last time. Archery doesn't think hitting the target is a perfect score. It thinks hitting the bullseye is.
Last edited:
I've been saying for years there should be a Lard Basket. Instead of chains, there's a cylinder of lard in the middle that catches your Disc, holding it in place right where it hits. It's good and greasy, too.
Ummmmmm, hog fat.....
