Cam Todd Pro Basket Prototype

[jeffmonty]

Windmills, waterfalls, maybe some of those giant inflatable arm-waving dudes around the basket will bring scores up.

 

[The Ox]

Cam isn't coming at this from a philanthropic angle---he wants to make money.

You are absolutely incorrect. Cam doesn't care if he makes 1 cent on these baskets. He said he will sell them at cost if that's what it takes to get them produced.

And these baskets are not meant to replace all the equipment across the country, but a select number of courses will provide the greater challenge of putting on a Cam Todd Pro Basket.

Cam's fundraising campaign will give anyone who donates equal credit towards the purchase of his baskets, so donate today !

 

[Gdingy]

A whole thread dedicated to raising money for someone's product doesn't seem like it should be here? Feels like a giant advertisement. Any mods want to comment in this?

 

[Smigles]

You are absolutely incorrect. Cam doesn't care if he makes 1 cent on these baskets. He said he will sell them at cost if that's what it takes to get them produced.

Yeah right.

 

[The Ox]

Yeah right.

No, seriously. This is a fact, Cam doesn't care if he makes 1 cent on these baskets. He's telling me this again, as I type, sitting on his couch.

This campaign is not about making money. It's about change.

Read Stan McDaniel's opinion on page 17, it's very well written.

 

[cubeofsoup]

If putting is so easy for everyone on here why don't we have more 1000+ rated players here then? The next time any of you play a tourney watch how many putts are missed inside the circle on the pro cards. It's a lot. Mcbeth and Simon are just freaks of nature. Make the greens/approaches harder=problem fixed....until everyone finds something else to complain about........

Amen. There are less than 200 1000 rated players...

 

[Slider]

From FB, even if you do take 2 inches off each side, it isn't too much, not as dramatic as a bullseye. Walk up to a basket and see what 2 inches looks like. The top pros will still hit center for the most part and you will see that 2 inches is not too extreme. And if there are new baskets that are PDGA approved, you aren't talking about changing all courses around the country. Make them available to some course designers as Stan McDaniel or other new designers. The PDGA rules can say that you have to have all the same size baskets to host a PDGA sanctioned tourney and if you choose the smaller baskets they all have to be smaller. Remember the 2 inches isn't that extreme as a bullseye.

 

[Smigles]

No, seriously. This is a fact, Cam doesn't care if he makes 1 cent on these baskets. He's telling me this again, as I type, sitting on his couch.

The idealist in me wants to believe you, but the cynic in me sais "yeah, i'd say that too".

I guess only time will tell witch is right.



edit : another thing i just remembered and which makes me doubt that smaller circumference chain hanger are the solution: (thats with an even narrower chains than what Cam has designed, and Beast just hangs em from 30 feet like there is no difference... )

 

[BuzzzChief]

Ball golf is already 100X our size, and there is a big movement there to make the hole bigger for casual players. The idea is to make it easier for kids and casual players, and increase participation. It's funny to me that our sport would go in the opposite direction right now.

What we need more than anything is exposure and legitimacy. Most people probably still have no idea what "those basket things in the park" are.

I get that this is mostly for the elite disc golfers. But in that case, I really think we need to elevate the level of our championship courses as a whole. They don't hold golf majors on easy courses with tiny holes. They lengthen the courses, tighten the fairways, grow the rough, and make the greens super fast.

I like the idea for practice. I just dont like the idea that the target would be radically different for different tiers of competition.

 

[Slider]

It could be the evolution of the sport. 2 inches isn't that much and it wouldn't make the sport less "friendly" and less fun for kids either. If you watch a lot of videos, the kids and pros when them make it they do a lot of the times it is within 2 inches. Go to a basket and see for yourself, 2 inches. It isn't going to deter beginners. Also, 42 down vs 15 to 20 down seems to make the sport a little more legitimate.

 

[Slider]

you can say lets make more longer courses and more championship courses which reward the longer and more accurate throwers for tee shots or upshots but don't change the basket which would benefit the better putter...I am not talking about making bullseye baskets either, taking 2 inches off the sides. The basket would still be huge, it would still be at least 3 putters wide.

 

[Horsman]

$140 raised in 4 days by 5 people. Looks like it is off to the blazing start that I thought it would.

 

[JedV]

$140 raised in 4 days by 5 people. Looks like it is off to the blazing start that I thought it would.

And the goal is set at $12,800.

I like the idea of a hard basket for training, but wouldn't use one unless the tray/basket was at a standard height relative to the existing targets. The short pole would have me aiming low, and that's already a problem that I have :\

 

[Nohvah]

hell ya, Walter's/Bellamy! If anyone can make it to Dover, NH, you really need to play Bellamy Park! As for the basket, I think that's exactly what the NT needs.

 

[Pbmercil]

From FB, even if you do take 2 inches off each side, it isn't too much, not as dramatic as a bullseye. Walk up to a basket and see what 2 inches looks like. The top pros will still hit center for the most part and you will see that 2 inches is not too extreme

I'm actually totally on board with the "take a couple inches off the chain profile" idea. Not because it will actually change putting % dramatically, because I don't think it will either, but because it will eliminate much of the whining and complaining about basket catching quality. Off center putts will be significantly less likely to stick, so players will stop complaining about "bad spits" that were really off the aim point anyway.

 

[Steve West]

...I know that I have pushed the limits of tightness and flukiness in an effort to create courses that keep great rounds near par. (crossed those lines a time or two perhaps? : ) Still, those designs did not keep top pros or even run of the mill pros from shooting well under par.

Simply apply the actual definition of par correctly. There is nothing wrong with the current definition: ("...the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions...".

The problem is hardly anyone sets par according to that definition. Say a 1000-rated player is the expert. Par is the score they expect if they don't make an error. Since there are more errors than lucky shots, total par for the course will be lower than the average score for 1000-rated players (SSA). Are your pars that low? If not, they're higher than the actual definition. Fix them.

 

[biscoe]

Winning scores for a 4 round tournament on a long course with the touring players in attendance will be in the neighborhood of 30 under by that definition.

 

[Smigles]

Winning scores for a 4 round tournament on a long course with the touring players in attendance will be in the neighborhood of 30 under by that definition.

More like 30 over.

"if you dont make a mistake" means (for example) that anything under 300 is a par 2. To push a hole to par 3 it has to be big drive, then approach, then make the put.

To get under par in such a scenario you need a lucky throw in approach (on long holes) or an ace on one of the par 2's. That's how it is in ball golf and that's why you see somebody who is absolutely on fire, does not miss a thing and even takes a few extra special shots with him with a final score of at best -5. In most ball golf tournaments there is not a single player even close to par, not even thinking about under par.

And forget about getting back to par if you ever make a mistake...

But would that be more fun? What's so bad about pros shooting -big numbers? Par does not matter anyway in disc golf! Its just a number.

 

[DavidSauls]

Simply apply the actual definition of par correctly. There is nothing wrong with the current definition: ("...the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions...".

It's the part after the "..." that causes so much trouble.

 

[biscoe]

But would that be more fun? What's so bad about pros shooting -big numbers? Par does not matter anyway in disc golf! Its just a number.

I agree 100% that there is no problem as things are... solving non-existant problems is what we do here though.