DGPT: Approved Baskets for the Pro Tour

[tankmlee]

i think the DGA baskets are the most numerous in parks, so most players develop a putting style that a DGA basket can catch, and they found that they can slam it in pretty hard from a distance, so they practiced putting that way, a basket that doesnt catch those putts is indeed out of the norm, and most baskets are similar to the DGA style basket, so they behave in a similar way, pros putting super hard seems to touch a nerve and it is completely different from ball golf, because the pro players do actually know how much power they need in a putt to make it land in a DGA style basket if the DGA basket behaved like a Chainstar then the pros would have probably developed a different putting form and would still be better than 99% of us. its just the evolution of the basket and putting style, i would be less likely to compare it to ball golf and overshooting the hole and compare it to if the MLB suddenly decided to use balls that exploded if they were hit too hard, of course they have an actual standard but that is what the DGPT is trying to do, they are trying to create a standard and if the chainstar behaves outside of the standard then it is logical that it would be excluded.

that is just my opinion, and i am a push putter so every basket works for me.

 

[lyleoross]

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?

Sorry about the e biscoe.



How is it that throwing the disc harder reduces random outcomes, or for that matter, making baskets more rigid with more chains?

Going to the beginning argument, bounces that come off the pole or a "weak position" in the middle of the basket, that when hit too hard causes a bounce out. Since we're going with anecdotal evidence, for every pole bounce out, or cut through, I've seen three or four discs hit the chains and bounce out because the player didn't slam the disc in hard enough.

For funs, I've yet to see a pole bounce out or cut through by the top putters in the world, Ricky, Paul, and Yeti, to name a few. I'm sure it happens, and I'm sure that with in 24 hours I'm gonna see video evidence. What I have seen plenty of is "Pros" who do these things, but they seem to go away with skills acquisition. Someone mentioned Nikko. I've seen Nikko bounce out than any other 1000 rated player. Perhaps it isn't the baskets, perhaps it's Nikko?

Restating, I don't see any correlation between making baskets capable of catching harder throws and the elimination of random events. In fact, I'd argue you will see more. But then, until we pull Chuck in, and actually set up an experiment, you can't really know.

Your supposition is that some percentage of discs that come out of the basket, do so because of "random" events. There aren't any random events. Every time a player has a bounce out, there are physical reasons why it occurs. The basket is what it is, chains, bars and tubing. When a disc bounces out, it's because the location it hit, or the speed it was traveling, or the angle of the disc, was such that it bounces out. It isn't the basket's fault, it's the thrower's. Either the thrower was too far from the basket to get a good putt, or they threw too hard, or they hit weak side, etc.

If someone wants to change the argument to, the Chainstar doesn't allow me to hoof my disc at it full tilt, and still hold on to the disc, as compared to other baskets, well yeah. My reply, adjust your putt for that basket.

 

[lyleoross]

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.

I hate it when I write four posts and JC comes up and says something really smart that encompasses everything I said, and more, and does it better. Nice post.

 

[lyleoross]

I think Steve says it best. What we've been aiming at for the last twenty years is target shooting and not a controlled landing. Now, you might argue that we want to be target shooting, but then, as I already posted, baskets aren't what we want, we want a target. We have baskets because we want a certain level of subtlety. A skill that goes beyond target shooting. I admit, that is my perception and desire for the sport. It might be that a lot of players want target shooting. If so, that isn't where we started, and it wasn't the intent of Ed. On the other hand, if it is the case that we want target shooting, then we should develop a sport that involves hitting a target with a disc, not disc golf.

 

[Dana]

Some of you guys don't get it, and maybe thats ok. I'm not some crybaby (pro) that whines cause my putts spit out. I like Chainstars, except that they have a tendency to reject dead center putts AT ALL SPEEDS. I'm just being real here, not pushing an agenda, not being pissy cause I putt hard. Go watch my putting video on YouTube to hear my thoughts on various targets.

 

[DGPT]

It's interesting that this could be the issue for which they would decline a tournament's affiliation over. I mean, if an event has the funding, venue, and interest in joining the tour, and fits in the tour routing, but uses older courses that have good baskets, just not DGPT-approved, they're going to be told to replace all their baskets, or "Thanks, but no thanks"?

We hope (and plan) to have a set of baskets available for courses.

 

[Consult20]

I think Steve says it best. What we've been aiming at for the last twenty years is target shooting and not a controlled landing. Now, you might argue that we want to be target shooting, but then, as I already posted, baskets aren't what we want, we want a target. We have baskets because we want a certain level of subtlety. A skill that goes beyond target shooting. I admit, that is my perception and desire for the sport. It might be that a lot of players want target shooting. If so, that isn't where we started, and it wasn't the intent of Ed. On the other hand, if it is the case that we want target shooting, then we should develop a sport that involves hitting a target with a disc, not disc golf.

This is an excerpt from Ed's patent submission for his disc golf basket invention:

In playing each hole, the flying disc is first thrown from the tee in the direction of the post, and around predetermined obstacles, such as trees. The disc is then picked up by the player at the point at which it landed, and is again thrown in the direction of the post. This process is repeated until the post is struck by the disc, and the number of throws required to attain this objective are tabulated. Obviously, the object of the game is to strike the post for each hole with the least number of throws.

A problem has arisen in the prior art flying disc golf courses in detecting as a certainty whether or not a disc has actually struck the post for any particular throw, especially when the disc has been thrown in the direction of the post from a considerable distance.

The aforesaid problem is solved by the device of the present invention, which provides an energy absorbing means on the post which serves to arrest the forward motion of the disc, and which also provides an entrapment means in which the disc is deposited. By use of the device of the present invention, any disc properly thrown against the post is caught, and all prior ambiguities are obviated.


https://www.google.com/patents/US4039189

 

[onemilemore]

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).

Man, QFT. I feel like this discussion has gone so far off the rails that we are forgetting that this impacts like 10 events a year. And it's not like DGPT said "Discatcher or gtfoh." There are four options and the aim is to keep the pros happy.

 

[DavidSauls]

We hope (and plan) to have a set of baskets available for courses.

Nice.

 

[lyleoross]

Some of you guys don't get it, and maybe thats ok. I'm not some crybaby (pro) that whines cause my putts spit out. I like Chainstars, except that they have a tendency to reject dead center putts AT ALL SPEEDS. I'm just being real here, not pushing an agenda, not being pissy cause I putt hard. Go watch my putting video on YouTube to hear my thoughts on various targets.

I think JC covered your issue and even gives the structural issues for why it happens.

One Mile is correct, we are all over on the topic of baskets. But it is all good fun.

 

[iacas]

The aforesaid problem is solved by the device of the present invention, which provides an energy absorbing means on the post which serves to arrest the forward motion of the disc, and which also provides an entrapment means in which the disc is deposited. By use of the device of the present invention, any disc properly thrown against the post is caught, and all prior ambiguities are obviated.

The way I read that… any disc that would have touched the pole at the proper height should count as "in" and in Ed's mind, the chains should catch the disc every time.

No?

I suppose you could argue over "properly thrown" but he follows it up with "against the post" and says "any disc."

 

[Consult20]

The way I read that… any disc that would have touched the pole at the proper height should count as "in" and in Ed's mind, the chains should catch the disc every time.

No?

I suppose you could argue over "properly thrown" but he follows it up with "against the post" and says "any disc."

You're reading too much into it, go to the link and read the entire thing. He's just saying his new basket invention is designed to eliminate any question as to whether the player has completed the hole -- from any distance. From say 300' or more, it wasn't always possible to tell if the disc hit the pole. This eliminates trying to determine that since the disc must come to rest in the basket itself.

 

[Dr.Smooth]

this defunct tour obviously has a bias towards innova.. the chainstar by discraft is superior only to dga.

 

[Cgkdisc]

You're reading too much into it, go to the link and read the entire thing. He's just saying his new basket invention is designed to eliminate any question as to whether the player has completed the hole -- from any distance. From say 300' or more, it wasn't always possible to tell if the disc hit the pole. This eliminates trying to determine that since the disc must come to rest in the basket itself.

Make the basket tray much bigger diameter, and it could eliminate the fluky aspects of any pole and chain pattern to do the equivalent confirmation of hitting a post. Or go to a solid deflection device like the cone baskets but with a vertical opening equal to the current Championship opening.

 

[Jimb]

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

Consumer Reports.
Unpaid and unbiased... But most assuredly, uninterested.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Consumer Reports.
Unpaid and unbiased... But most assuredly, uninterested.

PDGA Tech Standards. Partly paid and unbiased. All approved baskets meet the specs. But there are no direct performance specs.

 

[Consult20]

this defunct tour obviously has a bias towards innova.. the chainstar by discraft is superior only to dga.

I sure hope you're not driving tonight!

Make the basket tray much bigger diameter, and it could eliminate the fluky aspects of any pole and chain pattern to do the equivalent confirmation of hitting a post. Or go to a solid deflection device like the cone baskets but with a vertical opening equal to the current Championship opening.

Or just put a monkey in each basket and instruct them to grab any discs they can reach. opcorn:

 

[Dana]

And there it is.

 

[tankmlee]

I sure hope you're not driving tonight!



Or just put a monkey in each basket and instruct them to grab any discs they can reach. opcorn:

You win

 

[Consult20]

You win

The new and improved Discraft Chainstar with Monkey Assist (patent pending).

(And I'm one of the few sober ones tonight!)