Actually yes. I would like you to answer the question of (which I've already asked but you've ignored) what realistic solution(s) do you propose to fix the alleged, "putting is too easy" issue?
-
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)
Two discs wide vs. two Frisbees wide
- Thread starter BogeyNoMore
- Start date
Actually yes. I would like you to answer the question of (which I've already asked but you've ignored) what realistic solution(s) do you propose to fix the alleged, "putting is too easy" issue?
I asked a long detailed question above that really needs to be answered before we could actually talk about any proposed fix. Because we'd need to understand what it is we are trying to fix. I really don't understand what is meant when various people say "putting is too easy".
Still waiting to see if that question gets acknowledged.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Once you recognize we don't have putting in disc golf, just shorter throws, the statement about 'putting being too easy' makes no sense. 
OMD has hacked Bogey's account, apparently. I haven't seen one new argument or twist here that wasn't said a thousand times in the flame war threads of this topic.
My two cents, rehashed from all the other OMD-dominated threads: there is no problem. I love putting the way it is. I'm very good at it for (a) an amateur and (b) an old guy. I'm around 70% from 30 feet and won last year's Kalamazoo Putting League against a bunch of 30-year-old friends of mine who play Am-1 and MPO. (They kick my ever-loving ass at driving, of course, and thus beat me at scores easily). You'd think for my own greedy purposes I'd want putting to be tougher for everybody so I'd have a bigger advantage. I DO NOT. It just means the distance from the basket from which I'll run a putt or not shrinks and for more holes I wouldn't gain an advantage over most players like I do now. We're all taking pars in that scenario more often. Boring!!
These are my opinions and I stand firmly by them. I miss this topic being dead. Let's send it back to that status!!
My two cents, rehashed from all the other OMD-dominated threads: there is no problem. I love putting the way it is. I'm very good at it for (a) an amateur and (b) an old guy. I'm around 70% from 30 feet and won last year's Kalamazoo Putting League against a bunch of 30-year-old friends of mine who play Am-1 and MPO. (They kick my ever-loving ass at driving, of course, and thus beat me at scores easily). You'd think for my own greedy purposes I'd want putting to be tougher for everybody so I'd have a bigger advantage. I DO NOT. It just means the distance from the basket from which I'll run a putt or not shrinks and for more holes I wouldn't gain an advantage over most players like I do now. We're all taking pars in that scenario more often. Boring!!
These are my opinions and I stand firmly by them. I miss this topic being dead. Let's send it back to that status!!
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Since the basket getting smaller arguments seemed to have stalled or failed, how about considering arguments for the other direction, i.e., making the basket tray bigger. Note that few of the main target mfgrs have yet taken advantage of making their tray diameter as large as the spec allows.
A few arguments in favor of just the tray diameter increasing, initially as an option, is the basket catching more chain hits and reducing "unfair" bounce-outs or cut-thrus for whatever reason. Sinking more putts would be popular with not only rec players but top players as well with the chance for more exciting throw-ins from distance.
In addition, the Ultimate crowd is underserved with existing targets not catching ultimate discs well. They are learning or have learned a variety of skills with their lids but the disc golf game has not embraced their equipment. There are roughly 30% women playing Ultimate versus perhaps 10% in disc golf so we know many women like to throw discs. However, ultimate players have no outlet for their skills with that disc once they've aged or injured out of organized ultimate and want to play a sport with the equipment they've learned. Of course, few disc courses or layouts are specifically designed with par 3 and par 4 hole lengths in the ranges suitable for Ultimate players of any gender throwing lids.
A few arguments in favor of just the tray diameter increasing, initially as an option, is the basket catching more chain hits and reducing "unfair" bounce-outs or cut-thrus for whatever reason. Sinking more putts would be popular with not only rec players but top players as well with the chance for more exciting throw-ins from distance.
In addition, the Ultimate crowd is underserved with existing targets not catching ultimate discs well. They are learning or have learned a variety of skills with their lids but the disc golf game has not embraced their equipment. There are roughly 30% women playing Ultimate versus perhaps 10% in disc golf so we know many women like to throw discs. However, ultimate players have no outlet for their skills with that disc once they've aged or injured out of organized ultimate and want to play a sport with the equipment they've learned. Of course, few disc courses or layouts are specifically designed with par 3 and par 4 hole lengths in the ranges suitable for Ultimate players of any gender throwing lids.
PMantle
* Ace Member *
Oh hell, I missed that. The totally impractical solution that would be a most terrible thing in unimaginable ways is, change the basket. I mean, that's what the OP is about! :lol:
PMantle
* Ace Member *
It's plain language and not complicated at all. What could it mean other than putting is too easy?
Above are examples of the specific kinds of things that would make it more clear what you mean. Given that you may agree or disagree with each of these, the "plain" language doesn't actually elucidate what you find objectionable. Again, these are just possiblities. I'm looking to understand what putting outcomes you find objectionable.
I think smaller baskets are fine as an option. I wouldn't mind if baskets varied in size from one hole to the next, and I think that could make for an interesting element of course design. I don't understand the desire for uniformity. It's a golf course not a bowling alley.
good luck trying to discuss this with a troll.
Hmmmm.....interesting. Hole 1- a tree. Hole 2- marksman basket. Hole three- in the trash can. Hole 4- eagle on top the flag pole. Hole 5- windmill Hole 6-under the picnic table. Hole 7- clown's mouth.
For the record, we do have a course that features 18 different sizes and brands of baskets.
https://www.discgolfscene.com/courses/Rolling_Hills_County_Park
A nearby disc golf course/shooting range made a "basket" out of an old satellite dish. It was the basket for the top-of-the-world hole on their course. It was amusing and fun to throw at. I'm not advocating for such an extreme option for professional tournament play, or that every hole should have a unique disc catching receptacle, but there are certainly times where a unique basket could enhance an otherwise dull or unchallenging hole.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,386
It's funny that the threads/topics we all (claim to?) hate seem to get the most traffic.
So you have no practical/realistic solution. Just whining. Got it.
Stetz
Bogey Member
Width of the basket has been discussed ad nauseam…and correct me if I'm wrong, as it's late, and some posts were a bit extensive, but did no one talk about lowering the height of the basket from the bottom edge of the band/top assembly to the bottom of the tray?
My sloppy measurements on a mvp precision basket are 1 disc +2 or so inches wide in the tray, and 3 discs high from the tray to the bottom of the top band.
Raising the tray 8 inches would decrease the target size, making putting "harder" while also being, probably, the most cost effective method without having to tear out installed baskets and replace them with a completely differently dimensioned target.
I am exhausted though, with a crying, eating, ****ting newborn, so I could be way off in my thinking.
My sloppy measurements on a mvp precision basket are 1 disc +2 or so inches wide in the tray, and 3 discs high from the tray to the bottom of the top band.
Raising the tray 8 inches would decrease the target size, making putting "harder" while also being, probably, the most cost effective method without having to tear out installed baskets and replace them with a completely differently dimensioned target.
I am exhausted though, with a crying, eating, ****ting newborn, so I could be way off in my thinking.
Awesome Chuck. Enlarging the basket is what I was trying to suggest IF the target area (chains) were to become smaller. In previous discussions, the idea of "better catching" has been brought up repeatedly.
IMO, chain design can't do that effectively in and of itself. But, whatever the chain design/size is, a larger basket Will catch more "good putts".
Technically, the target is not responsible for catching discs, it should deflect them to the catching device that validates hitting the target.
Good thing you said "unfair bounce outs ". Apparently "luck " is a naughty word. Don't say that.
Im not advocating a change, but IF someone wants to pursue an alternative, i think this is the way to go.
Nope. Try again.
I don't think anyone's advocated reducing the vertical dimension in this thread, but I've suggested it before, in others. With the additional thought that if you wanted to do it on the pro tour, you could temporarily retrofit baskets by putting a cap on them that would extend down and cover the upper chains. With the bonus that it would be a big advertising space.
My own sloppy measurements were that, because the chain assembly is tapered, the lower half of it is only about 2-discs wide, anyway, or less towards the bottom. So many or most successful putts are hitting a 2-disc-wide target, or even narrower on low putts.
