I got you covered, brah.Chuck Kennedy said:Thanks. You copied my original post so fast I couldn't finish the edits!
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)
I got you covered, brah.Chuck Kennedy said:Thanks. You copied my original post so fast I couldn't finish the edits!
The computer, music and movie industries have all had no problems coming up with new standards. USB was developed by seven different companies all working together. HDMI is the same way. Sony worked with two other companies to come up with Blu-Ray. There are dozens of other standards that came about from collaborations of various companies. Is it really hard to find one to use as a model for a tech standards group for disc golf? The industry is one of the most successful industries to come out of the 20th century so they must have been doing something right. Saying that you can't work with manufacturers just shows how bad of a job the PDGA is really doing. It's very obvious that it's possible. It's just that they aren't smart enough to do it.Chuck Kennedy said:There's no such thing as "working with the manufacturers." Which one do you choose without lawsuit? And there are too many to create a team. It's a capitalistic environment in a relatively small market. There's more than enough flexibility in the current specs to improve the baskets. But that involves cost to all of the manufacturers with not a great payoff. The contest idea has been discussed a few times over the years but other issues have had higher priority. Manufacturers would not be too keen on losing their existing design features and tooling if forced into a specific future model.
Players have indicated their love for chains but I doubt the ideal basket that solves the current problems would necessarily include them. I believe if a better basket could be made, it would have been done by now. But any entrepreneur looking at the DG landscape and how difficult it has been to get the funds for current baskets would calcualte that the potential market is not large enough to produce sufficient payoff for that level of innovation and financial commitment. It might take years to overturn the existing standards where there would be great resistence in changing them quickly if ever.
Don't think the idea hasn't crossed many minds in the manufacturer and DG mover and shaker world. But figuring out how to pull it off is the devil in the details.
So basically some players like NAGS zones because they want to just "bomb's away" at stuff, and others want challenging placement over pure distance. So are you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, or do you think there is a balance that can make most happy (or everybody mad, which can be the same thing.)Chuck Kennedy said:Definitely not shorter, at least the ones Open will play. But I think the pros are referring to the bends and doglegs on the wooded holes that don't allow them to throw longer and thus they are "old man" holes.Working Stiff - Are the courses just tight, or are they significantly shorter as well?
garublador said:The computer, music and movie industries have all had no problems coming up with new standards. USB was developed by seven different companies all working together. HDMI is the same way. Sony worked with two other companies to come up with Blu-Ray. There are dozens of other standards that came about from collaborations of various companies. Is it really hard to find one to use as a model for a tech standards group for disc golf? The industry is one of the most successful industries to come out of the 20th century so they must have been doing something right. Saying that you can't work with manufacturers just shows how bad of a job the PDGA is really doing. It's very obvious that it's possible. It's just that they aren't smart enough to do it.Chuck Kennedy said:There's no such thing as "working with the manufacturers." Which one do you choose without lawsuit? And there are too many to create a team. It's a capitalistic environment in a relatively small market. There's more than enough flexibility in the current specs to improve the baskets. But that involves cost to all of the manufacturers with not a great payoff. The contest idea has been discussed a few times over the years but other issues have had higher priority. Manufacturers would not be too keen on losing their existing design features and tooling if forced into a specific future model.
Players have indicated their love for chains but I doubt the ideal basket that solves the current problems would necessarily include them. I believe if a better basket could be made, it would have been done by now. But any entrepreneur looking at the DG landscape and how difficult it has been to get the funds for current baskets would calcualte that the potential market is not large enough to produce sufficient payoff for that level of innovation and financial commitment. It might take years to overturn the existing standards where there would be great resistence in changing them quickly if ever.
Don't think the idea hasn't crossed many minds in the manufacturer and DG mover and shaker world. But figuring out how to pull it off is the devil in the details.
Either way, all of the arguments you're making are pointing to the idea that the PDGA does not want to make new standards. If you actually read my posts and understand them you'd see that that's a perfectly intelligent option as long as you don't make up a bunch of stupid rules to make up for areas in which the tech standards lack. If it's a problem, fix the problem. If it's not then work arounds are unecessary. What's so hard to figure out about that?
"The devil in the details" is corporate speak for "we're too lazy or dumb to figure it out." The most successful companies of the last 50 years have all figured out the details. How many times do you think people told Steve Jobs that they couldn't do something because of "the devil in the details" and didn't end up cleaning out their desk within 5 minutes?
This doesnt really make any sense in the context of our conversation... :?: I was arguing that it was a simple fix to a problem that you were making complicated by giving me stats and figures about how good people are X percent of the time. None of that matters.Chuck Kennedy said:For things to look simple on the surface many times requires a lot of complications behind the scenes to make it look simple.
Frank Delicious said:I will be excited to see how a lot of the Pros handle some of the tight courses at Charlotte. I do expect to hear some bitching about unfair holes because some of the holes at Nevin, HN and Renny really punish you if you miss the fairway.
I hope you dont "think" thats what he said, because that is almost verbatim what he did say.Kscustom said:I think he is saying if we as consumers basically boycotted them because of design they would then change it. But as long as they can sell 1000's a year they will not change anything. But if they only sold 10 and the community feed back was poor they would be forced to comply. The other basket making companies use dga designs except innova. A chainstar is a Mach 5 or II new with a single ring at the bottom where the chains hook. Lightning db5 is a Mach 3. Some smaller companies may differ a bit more but the main mfg make the same exact products. Give or take minute details.
But I beleive he is saying we would have to act forcing their hand not them making the first move