DGPT: Approved Baskets for the Pro Tour

[cjman]

Memorial 2013 - Vista XL hole 16. Nikko throws a gem of a putt. Hits dead center chains, the spot you have to miss on a Chainstar, bounces out, rolls 40' OB. Lines up the bogey putt, nails dead center again, spits out, rolls OB.

Player voting was never more clear than it was against the Chainstar.

 

[Dana]

Good talk.

 

[TAFL]

Meh. I'd rather watch them play on Mach I baskets.

 

[Consult20]

Memorial 2013 - Vista XL hole 16. Nikko throws a gem of a putt. Hits dead center chains, the spot you have to miss on a Chainstar, bounces out, rolls 40' OB. Lines up the bogey putt, nails dead center again, spits out, rolls OB.

Player voting was never more clear than it was against the Chainstar.

We call it "getting Chainstared" -- it's absolutely a thing.

So since DGA makes the Chainstar for Discraft, and DGA keeps coming out with new designs and improves on the old design, why hasn't Discraft offered something other than the dated Chainstar? It gives credence to AIM's thread about Discraft needing to step up their game.

 

[cjman]

Just saying I haven't seen any formal testing of any targets or even a proposed way to do it.

Do we need formal, scientific testing?
I do not believe players would put more stock in such results than they do their own experiences.

 

[biscoe]

You had at least five on the front course yesterday, right? Discatcher, Chainstar, Mach III, Mach X, DD, any more?

Mach V as well so 6 total.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Do we need formal, scientific testing?
I do not believe players would put more stock in such results than they do their own experiences.

Not saying we need it. But a player's credibility is suspect when they claim a particular target catches better or worse than another without actual proof. Anecdotal evidence is based on a specific player's putting style and experience watching players competing in their groups.

 

[biscoe]

Anecdotal evidence is based on a specific player's putting style and experience watching players competing in their groups.

Which do loosely represent actual data points- I don't need to be a meteorologist to know it is raining.

 

[biscoe]

Mach V as well so 6 total.

and proto Lightning basket too- so actually 7. No players appeared harmed by this diversity.

 

[mullethead326]

and proto Lightning basket too- so actually 7. No players appeared harmed by this diversity.

It worked me a little bit, having to think about what and where would catch on each, since the sweet spots are a little different. That was the first time I've putted on a DD basket and I didn't like it.

 

[Dana]

Not saying we need it. But a player's credibility is suspect when they claim a particular target catches better or worse than another without actual proof. Anecdotal evidence is based on a specific player's putting style and experience watching players competing in their groups.

Whatever, Chuck. My proof is 8+ years of using a Chainstar as my practice basket inside, outside, in the cold, in the heat, in the wind, in the rain and in everything between. 8+ years of push, pitch, sploosh, spin, fast, slow, hyzer, flat, anhyzer, nose up, nose down and every other kind of putt with hard putters, soft putters, medium putters and everything in between.

Outside of my extensive experiences using a Chainstar as a my practice basket, I've seen enough on the course to say with certainty that the Chainstar spits good putts. No matter what the putting style is, at a higher rate than some of the other top level targets such as the Discatcher.

You call it anecdotal evidence that the Chainstar spits a higher volume of "good putts", me and the rest of the world will call it fact.

 

[wproct]

Great thread!:clap:

 

[lyleoross]

Just saying I haven't seen any formal testing of any targets or even a proposed way to do it.

You need a putting machine.

Over ten years ago, George Bush got us into a shooting war in the Middle East based on his "gut" instinct that SH had WMD. Hillary got her donkey handed to her based on looking at only a subset of numbers, and those based on polls, which can be highly biased.

The number of people who've gone broke based on anecdotal evidence is substantial, whereas the number of people who've lost it all based on measured values that are statistically analyzed, is significantly lower and never based on the numbers.

I don't know if Chainstars catch worse than other baskets, but I wouldn't bet on it until someone actually measured the device.

BTB, the number of posts I've read where one poster says "disc Y is US" and another says, disc Y is OS" can't be counted on all my digits, or even all of the digits of every poster on this thread.

Chuck is cursed, he is a statistician. That means he's seen many cases where people were sure X=Y only to crunch the numbers and find out that X=C. Happens every day.

Happy Holidays.

 

[biscoe]

It worked me a little bit, having to think about what and where would catch on each, since the sweet spots are a little different. That was the first time I've putted on a DD basket and I didn't like it.

Interesting. I never really adjust my focus point on putts other than to go higher or lower to account for elevation. I wonder if your experience is typical of top level players (since I have no first hand experience being one) or if you are more "precise" than many of your peers.

 

[cjman]

Discs are inconsistent, and many here are new players who likely aren't able to properly analyze a discs characteristics.

We are talking about baskets being evaluated by players who put more quality putts on them than anyone else in the world. No need for scientific testing to determine which is the best, or even better than others.

 

[Consult20]

... I don't know if Chainstars catch worse than other baskets, but I wouldn't bet on it until someone actually measured the device...

I would, and I'd win -- easy money hands down.

Just like I can say with 100% certainty that the Mach 2 will spit out 100% of the time if you hit dead center at one of the every-other gaps in the dual chain setup. If you hit the staggered gap without the inner chain, you hit the pole directly and the disc bounces directly back out (also has a 7" cage which doesn't help). You absolutely need to take that into consideration when putting with that basket.

Some things are just the way it is, and these are two examples.

 

[biscoe]

You need a putting machine.

Over ten years ago, George Bush got us into a shooting war in the Middle East based on his "gut" instinct that SH had WMD. Hillary got her donkey handed to her based on looking at only a subset of numbers, and those based on polls, which can be highly biased.

The number of people who've gone broke based on anecdotal evidence is substantial, whereas the number of people who've lost it all based on measured values that are statistically analyzed, is significantly lower and never based on the numbers.

I don't know if Chainstars catch worse than other baskets, but I wouldn't bet on it until someone actually measured the device.

BTB, the number of posts I've read where one poster says "disc Y is US" and another says, disc Y is OS" can't be counted on all my digits, or even all of the digits of every poster on this thread.

Chuck is cursed, he is a statistician. That means he's seen many cases where people were sure X=Y only to crunch the numbers and find out that X=C. Happens every day.

Happy Holidays.

There is a big difference between purely anecdotal evidence and first hand experience based on what may (or may not) be a limited sample size. Dana undoubtedly has thousands of putts on a chainstar to judge by. I have thousands of putts each on mach 3's, chainstars and discatchers and am perfectly comfortable saying the discatchers do not have the same tendency to turn a perfectly good putt vertical and have it go through.

 

[Dana]

There is a big difference between purely anecdotal evidence and first hand experience based on what may (or may not) be a limited sample size. Dana undoubtedly has thousands of putts on a chainstar to judge by. I have thousands of putts each on mach 3's, chainstars and discatchers and am perfectly comfortable saying the discatchers do not have the same tendency to turn a perfectly good putt vertical and have it go through.

Thank you.

I was trying to get an idea on the number of putts I have on my Chainstar(s) I gave up. It has to be an absurd amount.

 

[Steve West]

...
You call it anecdotal evidence that the Chainstar spits a higher volume of "good putts", me and the rest of the world will call it fact.

A really good putt would carry just enough momentum to land in the tray without the need for some device to slow it down for you. If the chains and pole do anything to cause you to make more putts than you would without them, just be thankful that you can play a ballistic form of target-shooting rather than learning how to actually control the flight of a disc.

 

[biscoe]

whatever