DGPT: Approved Baskets for the Pro Tour

[Cgkdisc]

Octopus Assist would suck'em in even better...

 

[Jimb]

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

Exactly. :thmbup: And as we all know, though... All PDGA Approved Baskets are not created equal. (And I don't think that you've ever disputed this in the thread. I just wanted to put it out there.)

I think that the addition of scientifically tested data would be cool to compare with the extensive "data" already collected just the player's opinions of the baskets. You never know, there might be some surprises.

 

[Consult20]

Octopus Assist would suck'em in even better...

And that's why brainstorming meetings and R&D departments were created.

 

[Jimb]

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.

Quoting from the original post: "Other baskets are under consideration and will be tested during the season. We look forward to an exciting season in 2017 and are proud that every course will have baskets that are PDGA tested and Player approved. "

So, yes, there are four currently. But there could be more. Maybe our friend the Chainstar will sneak its way in.

Oh, wait. It was one that was specifically called out, right?

 

[Improbably]

Octopus Assist would suck'em in even better...

That would lead to the squid assist for a greater factor of radial symmetry.

 

[biscoe]

banana scented discs are on the way

 

[Discette]

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.

Every single player will have a personal opinion on which target catches best for them.


Your first assumption is incorrect as Innova Discatchers are installed on more courses worldwide than any other brand: http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2933989&postcount=45

The next assumption is mistaken as more disc golf companies are producing targets with a solid band chain rack like the Discatcher for course installations. This includes Prodigy, Dynamic Discs, Discmania, Latittude 64 and MVP.





One of these things is not like the others:

 

[lyleoross]

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.

By my observations, it happened just the opposite. Players were pushing the discs harder at the baskets and complaining about how flukey they were. Indeed, the notion of flukey bounce outs is prevalent in the sport now, just go watch video of any tournament. So players and manufacturers began adding extra chains (local clubs in Texas retrofitted many single chain baskets to be double chain on their own).

Manufacturers didn't just randomly add chains. That is a cost structure that no producer will take on unless they have to. The sport, i.e. players, demanded it and responded when the baskets were made available.

 

[JC17393]

By my observations, it happened just the opposite. Players were pushing the discs harder at the baskets and complaining about how flukey they were. Indeed, the notion of flukey bounce outs is prevalent in the sport now, just go watch video of any tournament. So players and manufacturers began adding extra chains (local clubs in Texas retrofitted many single chain baskets to be double chain on their own).

Manufacturers didn't just randomly add chains. That is a cost structure that no producer will take on unless they have to. The sport, i.e. players, demanded it and responded when the baskets were made available.

Something else to keep in mind is that the original pole hole was designed to catch frisbees. It was inevitable with the invention of the beveled edge disc and the overall shrinking of the diameter of the disc that more chains needed to be added to the target, if only to better approximate the frisbee-to-chain ratio that originally existed. Once that happened, the trend was set...baskets don't catch well enough, add chains. Every advancement in chain assembly and design has been to fix flaws in the previous designs (perceived or real). And every fix of one flaw only creates another flaw elsewhere.

Doubtful it ever really ends in a "perfect" catching device.

 

[tankmlee]

Every single player will have a personal opinion on which target catches best for them.


Your first assumption is incorrect as Innova Discatchers are installed on more courses worldwide than any other brand: http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2933989&postcount=45

The next assumption is mistaken as more disc golf companies are producing targets with a solid band chain rack like the Discatcher for course installations. This includes Prodigy, Dynamic Discs, Discmania, Latittude 64 and MVP.





One of these things is not like the others:

Alright you got me on both those points, my anecdotal evidence was wrong.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Something to consider in those stats is I suspect the Chainstar was not counted as a DGA basket when it should be if you're looking at comparisons of basket design type (band / no band). Also, a quick review of the baskets installed on the top 25 courses on DGCR shows twice as many DGA made versus Discatchers. There are still significantly more Championship approved target models without the band than with one. But more targets with the band may be getting installed these days. I'm neutral on whether I like the bands from a player or design standpoint since the target zone size is still the same with either style.

 

[ejvogie]

The best part about the band is visibility from the tee.

 

[lyleoross]

Hate that band. It has a plastic magnet in it.

 

[lyleoross]

Something else to keep in mind is that the original pole hole was designed to catch frisbees. It was inevitable with the invention of the beveled edge disc and the overall shrinking of the diameter of the disc that more chains needed to be added to the target, if only to better approximate the frisbee-to-chain ratio that originally existed. Once that happened, the trend was set...baskets don't catch well enough, add chains. Every advancement in chain assembly and design has been to fix flaws in the previous designs (perceived or real). And every fix of one flaw only creates another flaw elsewhere.

Doubtful it ever really ends in a "perfect" catching device.

Interesting point. A couple of things, as pointed out, Ed's notion, right or wrong, was that the basket should catch like a person (monkey) would. If you're huffin' it full on, not many people can hang on.

Beveled edge putters are smaller, but not significantly structurally different from a lid in other ways. Not arguing a point, just want us to keep that in mind.

If more chains were added to accommodate smaller diameter discs, shouldn't the overall diameter of the basket have come down? Indeed, if we had done that, chain count could have remained the same.

While structural elements may have driven basket evolution, I suspect the larger impetus was, that thing needs to catch my discs better!

Up thread, someone wrote, ball golf might be a bad model. Chose any sport. BB, a three foot wide hoop would mean more three pointers and miracle game winning toss in shots. The NBA doesn't do this because it negates the skill involved in dropping the ball through the 18 inch hoop. If you made it three feet, and turned it to face the court, you'd get even more scoring.

Disc golf is a blend of strength, touch and accuracy. That should be reflected in basket design IMO. I write this in observation of the Mach X, an approved basket for this tour. At some point, we should set a limit on how good baskets catch. BTW, Chuck will correctly point out that there is no evidence that the MX catches better, but that is the intent.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The best part about the band is visibility from the tee.

That's why the orange band on the DGA pole is so useful. Consider that the LA Park Dept influenced the original target design and evolving versions from DGA over the years. They wanted a target that blended into the environment when Steady Ed consulted them about colors. Thus, the gun metal galvanized target materials were used initially and continue as a tradition.

At some point in the 80s, not sure if DGA started it or others added a red duck tape band around the pole as a focal point for putting but it also helped players see the targets better from a distance. Sometime in the 90s, DGA started supplying the focal tape and a 3M clear covering to protect it. Then, later 90s is when Innova introduced much more target color with the band which started the dialog whether significantly more visibility was a good thing or not for course equipment.

I think the sport has been tipping toward better visibility over the years. However, well done galvanizing has so far been shown to last longer than any paint process. So there is a trade-off.

 

[Discette]

Something to consider in those stats is I suspect the Chainstar was not counted as a DGA basket when it should be if you're looking at comparisons of basket design type (band / no band). Also, a quick review of the baskets installed on the top 25 courses on DGCR shows twice as many DGA made versus Discatchers. There are still significantly more Championship approved target models without the band than with one. But more targets with the band may be getting installed these days. I'm neutral on whether I like the bands from a player or design standpoint since the target zone size is still the same with either style.

FYI, the PDGA approved targets list states the Chainstar is manufactured by Discraft, so it really shouldn't be included as a DGA Target. However, even counting all 7 versions of the DGA target AND the Discraft Chainstar, the Innova DISCatcher is still installed on more courses around the world.


As of today 12-12-2016 on the DGCR database, the target count is

6929 Courses worldwide
2418 DISCatchers
1815 DGA
397 Chainstars



New Courses in 2016

113 Discatchers
86 DGA
17 Chainstars


And why on Earth are you calling them baskets instead of targets?

 

[Cgkdisc]

And why on Earth are you calling them baskets instead of targets?

I've tried to get the Tech group to agree to change the terminology from "target" to "basket" as a more widely used term and the "basket" would become the "tray". But to no avail.

 

[Consult20]

Something else to keep in mind is that the original pole hole was designed to catch frisbees. It was inevitable with the invention of the beveled edge disc and the overall shrinking of the diameter of the disc that more chains needed to be added to the target, if only to better approximate the frisbee-to-chain ratio that originally existed. Once that happened, the trend was set...baskets don't catch well enough, add chains. Every advancement in chain assembly and design has been to fix flaws in the previous designs (perceived or real). And every fix of one flaw only creates another flaw elsewhere.

Doubtful it ever really ends in a "perfect" catching device.

1983 Dave D. Invented the beveled edge disc.
1984 Dave D. Files patent for the Mach II (with the dual chain innovation).

Once agan JC is spot on! :thmbup:


The DGA Mach I Patent: The Invention of the First Disc Golf Basket – 1977
The DGA Mach II Patent: The Invention of Inner Chains – 1984
The DGA Mach III Patent: The Invention of Crossing Chain Links- 1988
The DGA Mach V Patent: The Invention of Sliding Link – 1999

 

[DGPT]

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

Come watch the Pro Tour. Please don't feed the monkeys.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Hail the Monkey Trap basket