Wrong analogs. Curling, bowling, shuffleboard and - oh yeah - golf cups don't allow a shot to be good unless it hits dead center and at the correct speed.
You're missing my analogy. I don't disagree with what you said at all. (Well slightly and I'll explain.) I'm not talking about bad shots -- only good ones that hit dead center nuts target. Those shots/kicks in those sports are good and are not ever "bounce outs". My point is that when the b-golfer DOES do his job correctly, his target is perfect. Putting the ball at the right speed and hitting dead center cup, it will stay in. Ditto for curling, and shuffleboard-- right speed and right placement and you're 100% perfectly to your target. Whenever you are bowling (except for aiming for a single pin) you are really aiming at multiple targets -- 10 for example on the first ball of a frame. There is no way to hit all ten with the ball, so you depend upon other things like pin-action, ball deflection angle, etc., of which the bowler does not have COMPLETE control. Therefore, bowling, to me is an outlier, with the exception of the single pin spare pickup.
Basketball goals allow some terrible misses to go in, while some slight misses are rejected. Soccer, football and hockey goals are huge directional targets unless you are off angle to it. DG baskets are omni-directional targets unless something else is in the way. I think the only way to make DG targets still omni-directional and not reject dead center is to make them larger so the center pole is further away. Making smaller targets will only increase spit outs and airballs. I suppose you would rather play on a directional target like on the left:
['YOUTUBE]X1cXaxnN2Xk[/YOUTUBE]
['YOUTUBE]D_yI8mUOHCI[/YOUTUBE]
['YOUTUBE]8y5oJlQ_eOQ[/YOUTUBE]
['YOUTUBE]ldV50I_sYBc[/YOUTUBE]
['YOUTUBE]t1WzFfq0qSM[/YOUTUBE]
WOW!. I respect your opinion on these forums a lot sidewinder, but here you decided to discuss a different (but related) topic than the one I addressed.
#1 -- Those are bad examples to support your position. The basketball one was not about dead center nuts shots; the bowling one was a fluke slide and re-stand, but not one in which the ball hit all ten pins; in the darts one the slo-mo clearly shows the dart was not straight but tilted upward, and there exists no dead center nuts in ball golf when the flag is on the hole.
I made no assertion that it was horrible to have some "bad shots" actually go in the target. I didn't address bad shots ("X-in's", if you will) at all. When that happens in basketball it typically involves the backboard, which yes does happen. But even the perfect shot off the backboard that hits dead center nuts (aka "nothin'-but-net) stays in. After watching the first few e.g.'s in the vid you posted about "in-and-outs",
NONE of the "in-and-outs" were dead center nuts to that net -- except LeBron's dunk which actually hit the defender in the head after it had gone through the nets and just happened to ricochet back up through the nets. And if you'll check what happened in that game, they ended up counting LeBron's shot (dunk) good because it went through the net.
#2 -- The bowling example, while fluky, I've already addressed in my answer to Steve above. Yes, fluky that the 3-pin would hit a wall and bounce around and stand up in the 10-pin's spot. But a bowler in the situation has ten targets.
#3 -- Before I go on to my contention, you must know that unless people think it's worthwhile to have target improvements, anything I say won't matter to you or anyone in dg. If we don't want a target that's perfect to the dead center nuts (DCN) putt, it won't ever happen. I think it's worth it to have a target which, at the very least, would be like a basketball net so that if you hit "nothing but center" it would ALWAYS stay in. And yes Steve, at the right speed, which 'what that is' is a different discussion.
Possible solution -- We can maintain the omni-directional targets and same dimensions and address dead center nuts putts. And I'll contend that perhaps the first step in that direction would be experimenting with a center pole of multiple materials (2), so that the dimensions (total width) remain the same, but perhaps it's a thinner metal of equal strength, wrapped or covered with a softer or more malleable material. Soft enough that DCN putts
ALWAYS stay in, but perhaps (I don't know until experiments take place) still allowing the "too hard" shots to not stay. I'd be willing to do experimental research personally given a charge on resources. Not sure if that's the answer, but it's a thought if target improvement is something dg'ers might someday value.
