Cam Todd Pro Basket Prototype

[JasonVista]

I like the way things are as well... and I think ball golf scoring has been misrepresented here. Even par might be the winning score at the most difficult courses (tricked out) during the US OPEN! But on a week to week basis the best players are playing more typical courses and are often shooting in the -20 range for four rounds to win. I used to like watching ball golf whether they were shooting -20 or even par, and now I prefer watching disc golf all day, every day... and playing too.

 

[Steve West]

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.

Winning scores would be about 4-5 under per round. Last cash scores would be about 4-5 over par. Thus, players who are in contention only have to deal with small differences relative to par. Each birdie would actually improve their standing by about a throw, and each bogie would hurt by about a throw.

Experts do not need to get lucky to get par. They just need to get the score they would expect without an error.

Sometimes that's a two, because the teeing area was installed within close range for expert players. Close range is where an expert expects to get a two by throwing close enough to make one putt.

Winning scores should be under par somewhat, because players need to either get lucky (play better than their rating) or be better than the typical expert to win.

 

[ohtobediscing]

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.

Read it. So what? Sure its well-written, but it takes the lazy way out, not by making a good course, but by making a smaller target. And, as he's local to you both, I wonder what his investment in this amounts to. Kinda like tobacco farmers begging for government subsidies in the state of North Caro----hey, wait a minute....:|

 

[The Ox]

Read it. So what? Sure its well-written, but it takes the lazy way out, not by making a good course, but by making a smaller target. And, as he's local to you both, I wonder what his investment in this amounts to. Kinda like tobacco farmers begging for government subsidies in the state of North Caro----hey, wait a minute....:|

There is nothing lazy about Stan McDaniel. He has worked harder to grow this sport than most people could imagine. Hundreds if not thousands of hours running a chainsaw. Suggesting that he has a stake in this vestment is absolutely incorrect. Send him a PM, I'm sure he'd enjoy conversing.

 

[cam todd]

Appreciate all the feedback and opposing views, it will really help me enhance the accuracy of this design. I haven't been able to read all the comments, but allow me to address a few things.

1) This basket is designed to eliminate "cut-throughs" and prevent "spit-outs"; it will give players a better sense of accomplishment when they make putts.

2) Many course designers have attempted to increase difficulty by using geographical and artificial features, but have failed at truly making courses harder to par.

3) The height adjustment function is in place to allow players multiple levels of difficulty. Rec/Am players will enjoy the fully extended height, while Pro/Advanced players will enjoy the challenge of a vertically reduced putting area.

4) It also gives different difficulty levels and extra variables to existing courses such as easy fairways with harder targets, or longer more challenging fairways with a more achievable putt.

5) This target will make every throw more significant by increasing the importance of upshots and tee shots for everyone.

6) This design has been tested by top pros such as Dave Feldberg, Cale Leviska and endorsed by 3x World Champ and legendary course designer Stan McDaniel. Even one of the best disc golfers world wide Brian Schweeeeebbberrrrrrrrger "Schwebby" has requested 18 baskets for his course design in NC. So I figure this was a good inclination I was on the right track. Sorry that I didn't mention the rest of the great players that have given me inspiration to keep plugging away at making this a reality.

7) As far as the Bullseye references; I spoke with Dave from Gateway for a few hours at the 2010 Worlds about my design theories. Shortly after, his interpretation of the idea was produced. My design is much different, it catches discs better "not one cut through yet" and it has the potential to become a PDGA legal target.

 

[Star Shark]

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.

Ball golf is in big trouble. Costs of maintenance are going up and attendance is going down. Given the economy is still not great, few people willing to invest in clubs, balls and then silly high green fees. This is their problem, not how hard the game is. Ball golf started as the sport of the nobility and super-rich and seems to be falling back to that. It's becoming more niche by the day.

 

[Lewis]

How does a more difficult target make putting more interesting to watch? Real world result is likely to simply be more lay-ups and tap ins.

I figure when putting is an expected "one and done" from inside the putting circle, it becomes about as interesting as an extra point try in NFL games. But putting should be a much more important feature of disc golf than extra point kicks are in the NFL. It should at the very least be as challenging as a free throw in basketball, but for top rated disc golfers, who are the ones most likely to draw a gallery and the ones most likely to be filmed for our viewing pleasure, it's just not. Often I see putts get edited out on the youtube videos for the same reason the NFL broadcasts don't always show extra points: they just aren't worth watching. So if disc golf has any desire to become a better spectator sport, and I presume that's a desire for the people who try to make a living on the pro tour, putting has to become more challenging so it will become more interesting to the spectators.

For the amateur disc golfer, it really isn't important how easy or difficult putting is, as long as he's having fun. That, to me, is why the adjustable basket is a good design feature. Has anyone tried making the width of the catching area adjustable, instead of the height of the catching area?

And here's a crazy suggestion: would converting the chains to some kind of flexible metal curtain, such as the stuff that fireplace curtains are made of, make the "chains" a more consistent catching area?

 

[BENFTS]

Appreciate all the feedback and opposing views, it will really help me enhance the accuracy of this design. I haven't been able to read all the comments, but allow me to address a few things.

1) This basket is designed to eliminate "cut-throughs" and prevent "spit-outs"; it will give players a better sense of accomplishment when they make putts.

2) Many course designers have attempted to increase difficulty by using geographical and artificial features, but have failed at truly making courses harder to par.

3) The height adjustment function is in place to allow players multiple levels of difficulty. Rec/Am players will enjoy the fully extended height, while Pro/Advanced players will enjoy the challenge of a vertically reduced putting area.

4) It also gives different difficulty levels and extra variables to existing courses such as easy fairways with harder targets, or longer more challenging fairways with a more achievable putt.

5) This target will make every throw more significant by increasing the importance of upshots and tee shots for everyone.

6) This design has been tested by top pros such as Dave Feldberg, Cale Leviska and endorsed by 3x World Champ and legendary course designer Stan McDaniel. Even one of the best disc golfers world wide Brian Schweeeeebbberrrrrrrrger "Schwebby" has requested 18 baskets for his course design in NC. So I figure this was a good inclination I was on the right track. Sorry that I didn't mention the rest of the great players that have given me inspiration to keep plugging away at making this a reality.

7) As far as the Bullseye references; I spoke with Dave from Gateway for a few hours at the 2010 Worlds about my design theories. Shortly after, his interpretation of the idea was produced. My design is much different, it catches discs better "not one cut through yet" and it has the potential to become a PDGA legal target.

Personally I love the idea and support your efforts. Good luck bro.

 

[Mixed Bag Madness]

Appreciate all the feedback and opposing views, it will really help me enhance the accuracy of this design. I haven't been able to read all the comments, but allow me to address a few things.

1) This basket is designed to eliminate "cut-throughs" and prevent "spit-outs"; it will give players a better sense of accomplishment when they make putts.

2) Many course designers have attempted to increase difficulty by using geographical and artificial features, but have failed at truly making courses harder to par.

3) The height adjustment function is in place to allow players multiple levels of difficulty. Rec/Am players will enjoy the fully extended height, while Pro/Advanced players will enjoy the challenge of a vertically reduced putting area.

4) It also gives different difficulty levels and extra variables to existing courses such as easy fairways with harder targets, or longer more challenging fairways with a more achievable putt.

5) This target will make every throw more significant by increasing the importance of upshots and tee shots for everyone.

6) This design has been tested by top pros such as Dave Feldberg, Cale Leviska and endorsed by 3x World Champ and legendary course designer Stan McDaniel. Even one of the best disc golfers world wide Brian Schweeeeebbberrrrrrrrger "Schwebby" has requested 18 baskets for his course design in NC. So I figure this was a good inclination I was on the right track. Sorry that I didn't mention the rest of the great players that have given me inspiration to keep plugging away at making this a reality.

7) As far as the Bullseye references; I spoke with Dave from Gateway for a few hours at the 2010 Worlds about my design theories. Shortly after, his interpretation of the idea was produced. My design is much different, it catches discs better "not one cut through yet" and it has the potential to become a PDGA legal target.

Classic Dave mac there. PSA- If you have a great idea under fruition don't tell Dave because he'll try to steal it and market it as his own. This isn't the first time that this has happened either......

 

[scarpfish]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only way to find out whether this smaller basket theory has any real world practicality is to run a few X-tier events with both the smaller basket and a conventional basket being used on the same course in the same pin settings in different rounds. I'd have a top to bottom skill level field to see how players at each level perform.

Somehow, I think the intended audience for the smaller baskets are going to feel lukewarm about them once they get some real world experience with them, and as you go down the skill level ladder they're going to be less popular, even if the tourney stats suggest they don't make much difference scoring wise.

 

[Hyzer Ale]

I feel that adjusting the height of the basket is unnecessary, but I really like the idea of shrinking the width.

 

[Discette]

Appreciate all the feedback and opposing views, it will really help me enhance the accuracy of this design. I haven't been able to read all the comments, but allow me to address a few things.
......

7) As far as the Bullseye references; I spoke with Dave from Gateway for a few hours at the 2010 Worlds about my design theories. Shortly after, his interpretation of the idea was produced. My design is much different, it catches discs better "not one cut through yet" and it has the potential to become a PDGA legal target.

Classic Dave mac there. PSA- If you have a great idea under fruition don't tell Dave because he'll try to steal it and market it as his own. This isn't the first time that this has happened either......

I can't find out exactly when the Bullseye was introduced, but it was clearly on the market before Am or Pro Worlds 2010. Here is a thread started in April 2010 on DGCR asking about the Bullseye target:

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15033
.
.
.
.

 

[The Ox]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only way to find out whether this smaller basket theory has any real world practicality is to run a few X-tier events with both the smaller basket and a conventional basket being used on the same course in the same pin settings in different rounds. I'd have a top to bottom skill level field to see how players at each level perform.

Somehow, I think the intended audience for the smaller baskets are going to feel lukewarm about them once they get some real world experience with them, and as you go down the skill level ladder they're going to be less popular, even if the tourney stats suggest they don't make much difference scoring wise.

An XC-Tier like that would be a step in the right direction to generate some really good data and is something Cam has talked about.

The true target audience is Pros. It's understandable that casual/Rec players would not be overly welcome to the idea of having less of a basket area to hit.

 

[AndyJB]

If we could change the "par culture" of current disc golf and make players realize that par doesn't matter, only overall score, I think people wouldn't care one way or the other. I've played a few tourneys where people havr griped about baskets, but more often than not it was just a bad putt that happened to tickle chains. I honestly don't play at a high enough level to see too many spit outs and blow throughs...at the MA2 level we tend to not be that confident in our putts outside of 20 or so feet, so its a lot less likely for us to putt like a raped ape at the chains.

That is an idea I've slowly developed since this thread started. I think lower level Ams like myself will actually have less of a problem with these because, by and large, we aren't truly running long putts anyway. We tend to give it more of a "half go" from 20 feet and out then to confidently slam it in the heart of the chains.

 

[ohtobediscing]

There is nothing lazy about Stan McDaniel. He has worked harder to grow this sport than most people could imagine. Hundreds if not thousands of hours running a chainsaw. Suggesting that he has a stake in this vestment is absolutely incorrect. Send him a PM, I'm sure he'd enjoy conversing.

Try again. I said the IDEA is lazy, not Stan. You got a big ol' chip on your shoulder when someone isn't giving you props. :|

If you'd actually READ any of my posts, i said there's a # of poor, short munincipal courses that could use this basket to improve the challenge, and thus a bit of the quality, of these courses. If these courses are busy enough, I can see the city/disc club making this happen. And as these types of courses aren't likely to be used in PDGA sanctioned tourneys, there's no concern for legality of baskets.
However, financial constraints means the idea replacing 85,000 baskets in the US is absurd, not to mention the PDGA isn't going to change basket dimensions.

I've been a wildfire fighter for 20 years, and almost 30 years ago I was an arborist. Want me to show you both how to really use a chainsaw? Now THAT'S a chip, but unlike yours, its not built on internet thrust and parry.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Cam's target as currently designed looks like it might meet the Basic level standards to get PDGA approval. Basic targets can be used for C-tiers (or XC or XB tiers) and rounds would be rated.

 

[The Ox]

Try again. I said the IDEA is lazy, not Stan. You got a big ol' chip on your shoulder when someone isn't giving you props. :|

If you'd actually READ any of my posts, i said there's a # of poor, short munincipal courses that could use this basket to improve the challenge, and thus a bit of the quality, of these courses. If these courses are busy enough, I can see the city/disc club making this happen. And as these types of courses aren't likely to be used in PDGA sanctioned tourneys, there's no concern for legality of baskets.
However, financial constraints means the idea replacing 85,000 baskets in the US is absurd, not to mention the PDGA isn't going to change basket dimensions.

I've been a wildfire fighter for 20 years, and almost 30 years ago I was an arborist. Want me to show you both how to really use a chainsaw? Now THAT'S a chip, but unlike yours, its not built on internet thrust and parry.

Unfortunately I misread you, but I see where you're coming from now.

There never was and never will be an intention to replace 85,000 + baskets.

Just a few courses across the country with these baskets would give top level players new destinations to seek out.

 

[ohtobediscing]

I had missed scarp's post, but he's right: instead of hitting up DGCR, where many don't have extra cash to throw into an unknown quantity, why haven't 9 of these baskets been made and used as temp replacements on short uncomplex courses, to let discers get a feel for them? If you really think its viable, cycle them from one C-tier to another for a season. Then you'll have useful feedback instead of internet bs.

 

[The Ox]

Cam's target as currently designed looks like it might meet the Basic level standards to get PDGA approval. Basic targets can be used for C-tiers (or XC or XB tiers) and rounds would be rated.

Awesome ! Can't wait for Jeff to get one for proper inspection !

 

[IHearChains]

What's so bad about pros shooting -big numbers?

EXACTLY. It's not a problem.

It seems like this whole thread is built on insecurity, an inferiority complex versus ball golf. Someone winning with -1 instead of a -40 is NOT going to make ball golfers or the general public decide to take disc golf more seriously.

If there were really a problem to be solved here, we would see NT or A-tier tourneys with multiple players tied at the top, because if putting were really too easy for the top pros it would show up in poor score separation. Just not seeing that. Occasionally there's a playoff of 2 players, once in awhile 3, rarely more than that.