DiscLoser1
Birdie Member
What!? Wtf.
Then we should all just be putting at empty bowls. Or just dig a hole in the ground to make it more like 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)
DGPT: Approved Baskets for the Pro Tour
- Thread starter DGPT
- Start date
What!? Wtf.
Then we should all just be putting at empty bowls. Or just dig a hole in the ground to make it more like golf.
Oh wow, can you see changing Steady Ed's vision of basket design being changed to a simple cage mounted on a pole? I think he'd jump up from the ashes and start slapping people!
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
You invoke Steady Ed then you're supporting single chain sets where cut-thrus and bouncebacks are just part of the challenge.Oh wow, can you see changing Steady Ed's vision of basket design being changed to a simple cage mounted on a pole? I think he'd jump up from the ashes and start slapping people!
Dana
Double Eagle Member
Wait, what?
Not at all, just pointing out getting rid of the pole and chains would not be the same game he envisioned. But you're probably onto something, he would have likely preferred basket specs be a set standard so we wouldn't even need this discussion. Then Steady Ed AND this thread could RIP!
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
An open basket would be the most fair for touch putting. A post would be most fair for ballistic throws. Our target designs are a compromise not ideal for either type of throw/putt
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
Another thing I don't like about chainstars, is at least once a round I set up to putt then look up at the baskets and see a tangled chain. It completely throws me off every time, whether I walk over and untangle it or just putt...
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
You're correct that ideally our sport would have a single basket design that every manufacturer could make just like a basketball hoop. Steady Ed did that for our sport by default for quite awhile by holding the patent. If he had turned the patent over to the PDGA to maintain so that every manufacturer could duplicate it, we would have our version of a specific target, just like ball golf, even if flawed.Not at all, just pointing out getting rid of the pole and chains would not be the same game he envisioned. But you're probably onto something, he would have likely preferred basket specs be a set standard so we wouldn't even need this discussion. Then Steady Ed AND this thread could RIP!
Well said Chuck.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,873
The current targets are very near ideal for ballistic throws by Pros.
Ballistic putts only require accuracy in two dimensions (up/down right/left). As such, the percentage of putts made would go down with the square of the distance.
If baskets were not ideal for catching putts of every possible speed, putts would require accuracy in three dimensions (up/down right/left fast/slow). If that were the case the percentage of putts made would decrease with the cube of the distance to the target.
For pros, the best data available (or, the little data I have; take your pick) shows that the percentage of putts made goes down with the square of the distance. Therefore, for pros, the current baskets' ability to make that third dimension (the speed of the putt) irrelevant is immeasurably close to being ideal.
Immeasurably close, but not perfectly ideal, is the reason for the consternation. All baskets catch so many pro putts - regardless of speed - that a non-catch due to improper speed becomes unexpected. The more unexpected, the more irritating when it happens.
For Ams, the percentage of putts goes down with the distance raised to the 2.75 power, so the speed of the putt is still somewhat relevant.
I think a three-dimensional game would be more interesting than a two-dimensional game.
Back when we used to throw at poles with Frisbees, the speed of the putt was still relevant (and the game was still three dimensional) because there is an ideal speed at which one can most accurately throw a Frisbee to a two dimensional target. Try to putt at 70mph with a Frisbee and it will warp and bounce off the wall of air.
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
^ Do some of the new basket catch "too well"? IMO yes. Does everyone need to putt like its 1976... No...
biscoe
* Ace Member *
Unfounded assumption ignoring the ability of humans to adjust. I agree the percentage would decrease more rapidly but doubt it would be as quickly as you think.
Unfounded. Speed is only one attribute and is not the most likely one to be the main contributing factor in my opinion. Missing the sweet part of the target is.
There is an ideal speed at which a golf disc can be accurately thrown at a chain assembly as well. The game is still three dimensional whether you choose to admit it or not.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
To make sure we are clear, the notion here is that because the Chainstar doesn't catch my putts, it's a bad basket. That my isn't a general my, it represents a handful of pro players. Good enough.
What makes a good basket? By this measure, a good basket is one that catches "my" putts. This is a philosophy that players have been pushing on basket manufacturers for twenty years now.
In ball golf, if a player smacks the crap out of his ball from two feet out, such that it bounces off the rim of the cup, no one says " bad cup!" Everyone says that guy has crap for brains, he should have been more subtle. Only in our sport do we pass off our inadequacies as players on the equipment. That's not really true, but it was fun writing it.
Let's assume for a moment that putts of a certain nature bounce out of chainsstars, but that, let's call them more subtle, putts of a different nature don't. A putt that is softly lifted into the chains rides them in and stays in the basket. Now, let's take another basket, say the discatcher. Let's say that an aggressive putt can't get through the chains and stays in the basket. Our subtle putt doesn't have enough oomph, so the chains rebound, and push it out.
Which is the better basket? Which would do better in a real test? Of course it depends on the nature of the putter and the test.
If our goal is to make a basket that catches anything thrown at it, no matter how unsubtly, then honestly, we shouldn't be using chained baskets. We should get a hoop and mount a net on it. The hoop can be rotated to face the player and as long as you're through the hoop, you're good to go.
BTW, we have actually changed the sport over the past twenty years. Pros back then were more likely to loft putts, laying them into the basket. Now, Pros use a push putt style and anything that doesn't stay in is because the basket is flukey. I love hearing that comment. Man I hit that basket dead center and my disc popped out ten feet. Must be a flukey basket.
What makes a good basket? By this measure, a good basket is one that catches "my" putts. This is a philosophy that players have been pushing on basket manufacturers for twenty years now.
In ball golf, if a player smacks the crap out of his ball from two feet out, such that it bounces off the rim of the cup, no one says " bad cup!" Everyone says that guy has crap for brains, he should have been more subtle. Only in our sport do we pass off our inadequacies as players on the equipment. That's not really true, but it was fun writing it.
Let's assume for a moment that putts of a certain nature bounce out of chainsstars, but that, let's call them more subtle, putts of a different nature don't. A putt that is softly lifted into the chains rides them in and stays in the basket. Now, let's take another basket, say the discatcher. Let's say that an aggressive putt can't get through the chains and stays in the basket. Our subtle putt doesn't have enough oomph, so the chains rebound, and push it out.
Which is the better basket? Which would do better in a real test? Of course it depends on the nature of the putter and the test.
If our goal is to make a basket that catches anything thrown at it, no matter how unsubtly, then honestly, we shouldn't be using chained baskets. We should get a hoop and mount a net on it. The hoop can be rotated to face the player and as long as you're through the hoop, you're good to go.
BTW, we have actually changed the sport over the past twenty years. Pros back then were more likely to loft putts, laying them into the basket. Now, Pros use a push putt style and anything that doesn't stay in is because the basket is flukey. I love hearing that comment. Man I hit that basket dead center and my disc popped out ten feet. Must be a flukey basket.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Yes bisco, the sport is in all three dimensions. So why are we trying to make the baskets so good at catching that our Pros only have to play in two?
biscoe
* Ace Member *
well lile, i would say to reduce random outcomes primarily.
I remember reading somewhere years ago that Headrick was attempting to replicate throwing a disc to a person when he designed the polehole. Don't you want that guy to catch the darn thing?
I remember reading somewhere years ago that Headrick was attempting to replicate throwing a disc to a person when he designed the polehole. Don't you want that guy to catch the darn thing?
teemkey
* Ace Member *
Nah. Just go back to tone poles.
Headrick called his contraption a Polehole; that is, a combination of a pole and a hole. Did he mean any throw that hits the pole should go in the hole? Probably not, based on the product. More likely Ed wanted a balance between the pole and hole characteristics.
While players likely have differing ideals of that balance, DGPT is literally a pro tour, and a sampling of the participating pros would seem the best means to approximate the mean of those ideals (as exemplified by existing baskets).
Last edited:
That's true...chain assembly to top of the cage is supposed to roughly represent shoulders to waist at the width of an average person. Given that, should he (the target) be expected to be the greatest guts player in the world and catch anything within arms' reach when thrown at any rate of speed, or should expectations be that he'll catch reasonable throws that hit him "in the numbers" (to borrow a football term) and be iffy on the stuff that's high/low/wide of center?
I subscribe to the notion that there's no such thing as a universally perfect disc golf target. There are just a bunch of very subjective opinions on which one is ideal based on personal throwing style. Every target has its sweet spot and its weaknesses. The "problem" is that they are all different and few people have the patience or the memory to remember them all and adjust their throws accordingly. Hence the targets that catch their throwing style best are great and the ones that don't catch their throwing style as well "suck".
The flaw in the Chainstar, since that's the focus of discussions here, is the single ring holding all of the chains at the bottom. What happens with many putts that hit "center" (usually just above dead center) with significant velocity is the disc pushes the outer chains in, which lifts the ring and as a result slackens the inner chains so they're not absorbing the disc's energy. This allows the disc to get to the pole with velocity, which causes bounce outs. Additionally, when the ring drops back down, it pulls the inner chains taut rapidly, resulting in them springing the disc back out away from the pole.
In contrast, targets with two rings, one for the inner and one for the outer chains (such as on Discatchers, Veterans, Mach anything, etc) will receive the exact same putt and the inner chains are independent and are able to absorb (deaden) the energy of the disc more and let it drop into the tray without either getting to the pole or being sprung back.
Of course, there are ways to putt on a Chainstar such that spits and push outs like that never or rarely happen, but it requires hitting it a bit lower or slower than is necessarily controllable for pretty much any player from outside of, say, 15-18 feet. I mean, it's tough to adjust the speed of the disc by a couple mph or the height of the disc by a couple inches, at least not intentionally and consistently. Even for the very best putters in the world. But there are surely plenty of players who putt with just the right amount of speed, height, and angle that they never get the Chainstar bounce outs. Are they doing something wrong (and the target is rewarding poor putting) or are they doing something right for that target that might not be as effective on another style of target?
I think Chuck's on the right track that there would need to be objective testing to determine the truly "best" target. And before we can do that, we'd have to agree upon what is the ideal trajectory of a putt...ideal speed, angle, height, etc. Short of that, it's all opinion and personal preference.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,873
It's hard to imagine how the percentage made wouldn't go down by nearly the cube of the distance from the target if the target were just the tray with no pole or chains. Look at the pattern of misses around the target on a short hole. The misses long and short look a lot like the misses right and left. That indicates that people are just about as bad at near/far control as right/left control.
Geometrically, the chance of hitting the sweet spot must go down in proportion to the square of the distance. Perhaps speed control isn't what creates that other .75 dimension, but I really think it is something other than missing the sweet spot right/left or high/low.
I don't doubt there is an ideal speed. I'm just saying the current baskets aren't very sensitive to speed. Either all players always throw very near to the ideal speed, or the baskets can catch at a wide range of ideal speeds. Either way, it's target shooting, not a controlled landing.
DiscBaltimore
Par Member
It's has to catch an ace. Just saying.
