#51  
Old 03-05-2014, 07:01 PM
sisyphus's Avatar
sisyphus sisyphus is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Porkopolis
Years Playing: 2.9
Courses Played: 155
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by KniceZ View Post
I am interested in peoples thoughts on how smaller baskets would change the "game". Would it be more interesting because it's harder or reduce the excitement because the chance of making a 20m (65.6ft) putt would be much less?

I understand that it could cost alot but it could be slowly phased in. And there's not reason you couldn't allow something like removing a layer of chains or moving the chains on existing baskets to a smaller diameter. You'd just have to be sensible about how to change a "standard" to maximize backward compatability.

And it's not like cost always prevents change - Remember changing the TV standards to digital. Should we not have done that because replacing all the millions of TVs and station transmitters will be too expensive and people won't do it?
Something went wrong. Please make sure you added the video correctly. Click here to see how YouTube videos should be embedded. There could also be a technical issue that's not your fault. Click here to view the video on YouTube's site. If this link doesn't work, you did something wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 03-05-2014, 07:05 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 19.1
Courses Played: 115
Posts: 7,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by KniceZ View Post
I am interested in peoples thoughts on how smaller baskets would change the "game". Would it be more interesting because it's harder or reduce the excitement because the chance of making a 20m (65.6ft) putt would be much less?

I understand that it could cost alot but it could be slowly phased in. And there's not reason you couldn't allow something like removing a layer of chains or moving the chains on existing baskets to a smaller diameter. You'd just have to be sensible about how to change a "standard" to maximize backward compatability.

And it's not like cost always prevents change - Remember changing the TV standards to digital. Should we not have done that because replacing all the millions of TVs and station transmitters will be too expensive and people won't do it?
That's somewhat dependent on how much smaller....and which dimension is reduced.

The answer might be the point at which putting is more difficult, but not so difficult that players are simply laying up from anywhere but point-blank.

I play a lot of disc golf at Earlewood, where the antique baskets are noticeably narrower than today's standards, and I like them.

One proposal that I've seen is that the targets shouldn't have a reduced width, but a reduced height.

Food for thought, in the hypothetical realm because, as others have pointed out, it's not practical to replace the existing stock, nor is there a compelling reason to do so, or to build newer courses to a different standard.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 03-05-2014, 07:13 PM
davetherocketguy's Avatar
davetherocketguy davetherocketguy is online now
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southwest Michigan
Years Playing: 10
Courses Played: 35
Throwing Style: RHFH
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by KniceZ View Post
I am interested in peoples thoughts on how smaller baskets would change the "game". Would it be more interesting because it's harder or reduce the excitement because the chance of making a 20m (65.6ft) putt would be much less?
Yes it would. A LOT less exciting for me to watch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KniceZ View Post
I understand that it could cost alot but it could be slowly phased in. And there's not reason you couldn't allow something like removing a layer of chains or moving the chains on existing baskets to a smaller diameter. You'd just have to be sensible about how to change a "standard" to maximize backward compatability.
How are you going to implement this? Seriously, there are what, eight different manufacturers that make baskets and each with several different models? Not all chain configurations are the same. And no matter how you do it there is going to be an insurmountable amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth over it.

Besides, phasing in slowly does not reduce the cost - it only increases it when you consider inflation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KniceZ View Post
And it's not like cost always prevents change - Remember changing the TV standards to digital. Should we not have done that because replacing all the millions of TVs and station transmitters will be too expensive and people won't do it?
Very poor comparison here. Apples to oranges. There are billions to be made in that industry. Changing to digital TV's means selling many millions of new digital TV's and loads of new digital subscriptions for HDTV. Making that switch as soon as the technology was available was a no brainer.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 03-05-2014, 07:23 PM
Timeetyo Timeetyo is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Albion, NY
Years Playing: 0.3
Courses Played: 20
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerplunk View Post
I am interested in this too. I personally think that smaller baskets would lead to more layups and more boring golf, but I am open to contrary opinions. I also think that the make/miss ratio is pretty good right now, when watching top pros play a round you will usually see a few made 40+ footers and a few missed 20- footers, which I think is about right.
This is exactly my thought. The smaller the basket - the lower the % of making the shot from a given range - and the increased chance of someone deciding to just lay it up. All this would do is effectively shrink the circle that a given player is running the basket from. The end result - good putters will still run it from longer than weaker putters - but the overall # of layups will increase.

For an idea of seeing this in action - watch the memorial videos where the weather went crazy. The wind was reducing the chance to sink the putt from X distance so you see the top pros now laying up a putt from the same place they ran it the day prior due to the risk / reward.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03-05-2014, 07:51 PM
Sir Puttsalot Sir Puttsalot is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Years Playing: 2.2
Courses Played: 22
Throwing Style: RHFH
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by disc qualified View Post
i guess i was going for the character angle

different stadiums have their own character just as courses have theirs and sometimes that happens to include an elevated basket

home runs all count the same no matter how far or how high they are hit.
I appreciate unique venue characteristics, but for me unusual basket placements is not something that should strongly considered, if at all, a course characteristic.

Elevation changes, tree densities and ceilings, wind changes, water hazards, I feel like are more meaningful when defining a memorable course.

But regardless of differences in opinion, I agree with you. A birdie putt beats a layup par on any hole.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 03-05-2014, 09:10 PM
Sir Puttsalot Sir Puttsalot is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Years Playing: 2.2
Courses Played: 22
Throwing Style: RHFH
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by mashnut View Post
Are you also opposed to baskets on slopes? On those you have to putt up or down at them, how is that any different than somebody creating the same effect when they can't use natural terrain to do so?
To clarify, I want a standard pole height (base of basket to playing surface) and am not opposed to baskets on man made pyramids/mounds/hills.

But the other form of an elevated basket, say on a pole >5', I am somewhat opposed to. I dont think it fairly emulates any natural incline or elevation change.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-05-2014, 09:17 PM
Harrishabitat Harrishabitat is offline
PDGA Numbers 60630 AND 34207
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Years Playing: 8.2
Courses Played: 134
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by LukeF View Post
I'm just talking about standardizing the targets, not the entire playing field. Two different things. If you don't want targets to be standardized then we might as well have Bullseyes on some holes and larger than normal baskets on others while we're at it.
Oh I see your argument...use basketball as an example why we have to have standardized baskets, but when you carry that logic to the next step, you say, NO those are two different things.

You are right...THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT SPORTS!!!!

And for the most part baskets are standardized, I don't see how the mounting heights change anything about the sport at all. This is simply one of the most inane arguments I have ever heard
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03-05-2014, 09:21 PM
Harrishabitat Harrishabitat is offline
PDGA Numbers 60630 AND 34207
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Years Playing: 8.2
Courses Played: 134
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Puttsalot View Post
To clarify, I want a standard pole height (base of basket to playing surface) and am not opposed to baskets on man made pyramids/mounds/hills.

But the other form of an elevated basket, say on a pole >5', I am somewhat opposed to. I dont think it fairly emulates any natural incline or elevation change.
So? The reason that some events use elevated baskets is to increase the difficulty, that's the reason. If the whole argument here is to make the sport more interesting by making it harder, wouldn't you want things such as elevated baskets to increase the difficulty?
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03-05-2014, 09:29 PM
scarpfish's Avatar
scarpfish scarpfish is offline
Resident Grouch
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brownbackistan
Years Playing: 11.1
Courses Played: 315
Posts: 6,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Puttsalot View Post
To clarify, I want a standard pole height (base of basket to playing surface) and am not opposed to baskets on man made pyramids/mounds/hills.
As long as the height between the the top of the basket and the tray are the same, I don't see what difference it makes if said basket is on a natural hill, a man made mound, an 6' high metal pole, or is suspended from a tree. Its the same target.

Food for thought. I don't know how many disc golf rounds were played in the world in the last week, but I can assure you better than 95% of them didn't involve competitive play, and I'm sure amongst the 5% that were, I'm pretty sure most who partook find the existing targets satisfactory.

So I don't see the practicality of replacing thousands of existing baskets that would have to be used by everyone, everyday, when it would be a lot more cost effective to simply bring in small diameter targets for events that would require them to placate the competitive crowd who thinks that our existing baskets are what's "holding us back".
Reply With Quote
 

  #60  
Old 03-05-2014, 09:31 PM
BrotherDave's Avatar
BrotherDave BrotherDave is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NC
Years Playing: 7
Courses Played: 99
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 11,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by michael bacon View Post
Randy Michael Signor and others before him think we need smaller baskets to move us into sports world. Currently disc golf is a game and not a sport. I think we could look at baskets like the Gateway Bullseye Basket. I also think baskets should be set at the height of the strike zone in baseball. Consistency. Which leads us to the human factor which exists in most sports but not in the game of DG. I stand 6 feet tall which is 2 yards not 2 meters. Measured from center of my chest to tip of fingers when arm is stretched out parallel to floor is one yard not one meter. It is one yard measured from my foot heal to my hip. And my foot is a foot long with shoes on. Metric measurements were institutionalized to attract world players who currently use United States Standard Measurement when playing ball golf. DG holes and courses are measured in feet and yards. Which is one reason I was always against the 2 meter rule (I have other reasons also). I believe if we have a disc bag limit and smaller baskets like the bullseye basket with consistent height measurements, as well as the elimination of the jump putt we could move in the direction of a respectable sport. 72 par courses not 54 par's with at least white and blue tee boxes. Also pros support their tournaments without siphoning money from amateurs. Jump putts were illegal with everyone I played with for at least a decade until the PDGA allowed it. Your feet should be on ground when disc is released.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.