Pro Vs. Avg Joe- Skill Gap

[smyith]

Originally Posted by Three Putt

frolfing

[sidewinder22]

Originally Posted by jeverett

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.

Iron Hill is par 72 and SSA 72:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2737

[Cgkdisc]

Originally Posted by Widdershins

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?

He's talking about physically detaching and sliding just the basket part of the target up the pole and not moving the pole itself any higher so the putting window height is 4-5 inches smaller. Less chain links needed per strand.

[mj20300]

Originally Posted by Widdershins

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.

i'm just talking about making the space between the cage and top of basket smaller, not raising the height of the whole thing.


i like elevated baskets though. Let me eat dinner and i'll finish my thought on this

[mj20300]

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

He's talking about physically detaching and sliding just the basket part of the target up the pole and not moving the pole itself any higher so the putting window height is 4-5 inches smaller. Less chain links needed per strand.

yep!

[mashnut]

Originally Posted by smyith

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.

I don't think that adding in casual and practice rounds would increase the accuracy of the system, nor would having subjective opinions on the weather conditions that day be a good way to increase the consistency and accuracy.

[DGstatistician]

Originally Posted by smyith

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.

An established SSA should exist for each course, that way during practice you could figure out how well you are playing. This could easily be calculated using previous rounds played on a course. In order to judge the conditions, a second SSA based on how everyone played on a day could be factored in on a tournament day. A pretty straight forward and easy way to have ratings be more accurate... Obviously ratings should be ranges not numbers but that is neither here nor there.

As for making disc golf putting harder because of some constant Chuck keeps saying is nonsense. Longer courses would make the spread between players of different skills larger... Stop trying to fix what isn't broken by trying to change the sport into bg.

[Cgkdisc]

Scoring spread isn't broken, it's the relationship between par and scoring that could be improved.

[jeverett]

Originally Posted by smyith

This is exactly why I think that par should equal SSA.

This typically is the case already for gold-level courses. For a properly calibrated course, the target skill level group *should* come out even. The problem is that for the vast majority of courses out there used for events aren't gold-level courses. Instead, we have a lot of blue (SSA950) and even white (SSA900) level courses used for events.

[smyith]

Originally Posted by Scoot_er

Skillshot anyone? Does Ching even make those anymore?

They were/are about 25% smaller....with a shorter.squat-tier area to hit.

Skillshot is great but I have found that it consistently catches the side of the chains barely touch junk putts. but thats the way the chains are designed. however when i got that thing though my putting got way better fast.

Originally Posted by PMcBeth

I say a bullseye type basket but bigsky and others keep calling me dumb... Whats your opinion?

haha funny Paul. bullseye...imo...needs the width of the basket reduced to the minimum and the height of the basket portion raised significantly. Then I think it would be more "professional".
when I first started playing, the course near me had the chain appartatus missing on hole 9. It wasn't that hard to throw lofty flat putts in there. which always kind of bothered me as lame....
I think the goal needs to be, hitting center is the only gurantee you will make it. the basket portion should be deep and only wide enough to gurantee that when you hit center it always goes in.

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

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.

do the outer chains have a set width?
Make basket height can be 34.5 inches?
Minimum target zone 18.9 inches? <-- This should be reduced...imo
With an overall minimum height of 53.4 inches?
Chain apparatus width of 20.9"? <-- This should be reduced...imo
And a rim width of 24.4"? <-- This should be reduced...imo