Pro Vs. Avg Joe- Skill Gap

[mj20300]

Originally Posted by sidewinder22

I thought threeputt's suggestion of the zip tie would be the easiest adjustment. Just bring in the chains some to be more like a bullseye.

yea, but do you really wabt zipties over the chains at NTs and majors?

[Scoot_er]

Bungie cord worked.....and took about 4 seconds to install.

Looks super professional....lol

I am going to leave my practice basket like this for a while.

[sidewinder22]

Originally Posted by mj20300

yea, but do you really wabt zipties over the chains at NTs and majors?

Well, I really want moats with fire breathing alligators and lasers on their heads.

[DSCJNKY]

Anyone ever putted on one of these?


That would do it.

I have played on one of these (Ching Strategy Target) and it is awesome!

The hoop changes angles, forcing players to strategize about their positioning and incoming putt direction... much more like ball golf.

Putts also have to fall in to the hoop... so the way you have to putt changes slightly. It's not just the same line drive putt each time. You really need to time when you want the disc to break and fall into it.

I know there is no way it would ever happen... but, if disc golf really wanted to make the sport harder (ie. putting harder), using a Ching Strategy Target-like design might be the best option.

DSCJNKY

[Cgkdisc]

Originally Posted by dscmn

I believe the easiest solution would be for the PDGA to expand the list of allowable disc-catching devices for competitive play. Legalize Cam's basket and the Bullseye. Then, it becomes a design feature for the course designer, increasing variety and difficulty on the course.

I just checked and I believe the Bullseye would meet the Standard category of PDGA target specs. I haven't seen Cam's basket but it may also meet those specs. Neither has contacted the PDGA about getting approved that I've heard. There's a tricky way to meet even Championship target specs as long as you have a top chain support with a diameter equal to the current targets but hang the "outer" 12 chains halfway in and at least 6 more close to the pole.

[mj20300]

Originally Posted by DSCJNKY

Anyone ever putted on one of these?


That would do it.

I have played on one of these (Ching Strategy Target) and it is awesome!

The hoop changes angles, forcing players to strategize about their positioning and incoming putt direction... much more like ball golf.

Putts also have to fall in to the hoop... so the way you have to putt changes slightly. It's not just the same line drive putt each time. You really need to time when you want the disc to break and fall into it.

I know there is no way it would ever happen... but, if disc golf really wanted to make the sport harder (ie. putting harder), using a Ching Strategy Target-like design might be the best option.

DSCJNKY

i have, well some of his prototypes of them atleast. They make the ability to change a green pretty easy and are an interesting idea

[smyith]

Originally Posted by DGstatistician

There are two major flaws in the rating system.
1) This was so kindly pointed out by Chuck, the weighting system of rounds is off. The fact that a full calendar year in the past can create ratings lags of possibly 80+ points is troubling. A player of 1000 rated caliber who has rounds from 11 and a half months ago dragging them down has an effect on every single person in a tournament (will go into this in #2). So essentially, playing against someone who has improved their game in the last 12 months will hurt your rating, which skews ratings.
2) A lack of constant element in course ratings is also troubling. The current rating system punishes players based on competition. For instance, if myself (800 rated) and 4 others play in a tournament (950 rated) (only 1 round). In the round, I play extremely well, let's say I shoot 57, and all the 950's play well and shoot an average of 46. I just shot a round rated 840. If I play the same course the next week in near identical conditions and shoot the exact same round, (800 rated) 57 but play against 4 800 rated players, who shoot an average of 58, I just shot an 808... Wow 32 point differential for the same round.
This problem is further complicated by part 1... If for some reason those ratings were lower than they truly should be, my rating will be more drastically impacted.

This is exactly why I think that par should equal SSA. Get yourself together a gaggle of pros that have over the years remained at a very consistent near 1000 rated and average their scores based on conditions for each course to come up with a variable constant for SSA par. the variable constant would depend on conditions.
Example:
Course: Blah-de-blah
0-5mph Clear Skies: 48
5-15mph Clear Skies:49
0-5mph Rain:51
5-15mph Rain:54
Etc...
There are hurdles such as course changes, different layouts, and etc. over the years. But you could also ask the touring pros to start reporting conditions and practice round scores.
You can also build a team to do it. And it wouldn't hurt if you got some people who have consistently been 900 rated to do it as well to get an accurate gauge to base the stroke:rating points ratio.

[onemilemore]

Originally Posted by DSCJNKY

Anyone ever putted on one of these?


That would do it.

I have played on one of these (Ching Strategy Target) and it is awesome!

The hoop changes angles, forcing players to strategize about their positioning and incoming putt direction... much more like ball golf.

Putts also have to fall in to the hoop... so the way you have to putt changes slightly. It's not just the same line drive putt each time. You really need to time when you want the disc to break and fall into it.

I know there is no way it would ever happen... but, if disc golf really wanted to make the sport harder (ie. putting harder), using a Ching Strategy Target-like design might be the best option.

DSCJNKY

This would be pretty cool. Definitely would put disc golf putting more along the lines of ball golf, where slope and other angles are involved. This would be a way to even the playing field on some of the more open courses.

[Widdershins]

Originally Posted by mj20300

the easiest way and what i think we should do, is to make it where you can move the the basket higher up the pole making the space from the basket to the top smaller by 4-6 inches, maybe less. That way you have a smaller target to hit and if you get into the chains it will stick. I have done this to an old discatcher sport by dilling new mounting holes on the pole and it works pretty damn well.

MJ, Why do you think an elevated basket catches better? How much higher does it have to go before benefits are realized? At what height are disadvantages too great?

I can see that blow throughs might diminish but aren't bounce backs more common?

I play at a private course with a basket elevated to about 12 feet (a rope and pulley system raises and lowers it to retrieve discs). Anything close almost requires an overhead putt due to the angle. From a somewhat close putt (around 10 feet in or so) you can hit solid center chains and be pushed out unless you are turbo putting.

Wouldn't it be easier just to build a better basket? The Spinderweb basket (triple chains made by Indiana's Alan Pier) proved a basket can be made which reliably catches solid putts to the center of the chains.

The Innova Traveller basket proves that blow throughs can be eliminated.

It appears that baskets suck due to indifference by the manufacturers (and inexplicable tolerance from disc golfers) not technological inadequacy.

[jeverett]

Originally Posted by bholy08

The whole point is that this huge gap is sometimes unnoticeable due to easy courses, easy "pars" and makes does not do justice to the elite talent at the top end of the spectrum. I don't think anyone wants to minimize, or narrow, that gap. Rather, the discussion is about what can be done to help further illustrate how far above us they actually are.

Isn't the ultimate answer there just to not use "easy courses" then? Even at the NT level, we don't have par 72 courses. Yes, it's a *much* more expensive answer than changing the baskets (70+ acres of prime land for a course is on its own not cheap), but as I tried to say earlier in my opinion the answer has more to do with making the sport more expensive overall (i.e. increasing the overall financial value of the sport itself) than it does with increasing the technicality of the sport.