#451  
Old 08-14-2017, 05:30 PM
F. Howl's Avatar
F. Howl F. Howl is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Years Playing: 9.1
Courses Played: 31
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,275
Niced 502 Times in 334 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyleoross View Post
The Fluky argument, Thanks, Chuck, is baloney. It's a physical device with physical parameters. If you supersede it's physical ability to catch, the disc is going through. That isn't fluky, it's mechanics.
Dice rolling isn't fluky, it's mechanics: We just don't know the velocity, angle, etc. needed to obtain a certain result and even if we did, humans are too sloppy to control said parameters.

Of course there are many ways to get a disc to stay in a basket, and a certain variation of putt that has the largest margin of "error". The problem is that within that ideal target area there are ways a nearly identical putt can turn sideways and slide through the other side or hit the pole and bounce out, and it would be impossible for any human to understand the exact parameters that differentiate the perfect putt and that apparently near perfect putt that spit through, and that, as I said, "feels" fluky. I'm not advocating to make the game easier. Just to feel less....like this:

https://youtu.be/xXiHDORLjq0?t=7m56s

And it's not just Chainstars:

https://youtu.be/Ur_3_1Md8rg?t=6m51s
https://youtu.be/0gxm_1riKnk
https://youtu.be/VTD8iVOkJpI?t=17m15s


At any rate, in response, Discraft has said it would release a championship level basket in time for next year.
Sponsored Links

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 08-15-2017, 10:07 AM
Aim For The Chains's Avatar
Aim For The Chains Aim For The Chains is offline
FROLF OFF!
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: MINNESOTA
Years Playing: 10.1
Courses Played: 134
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 16,844
Niced 859 Times in 601 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JTacoma03 View Post
Respectfully, I disagree. I've heard this argument before, but the truth is if you build them correctly, maintenance is quite easy and minimal. I can't speak to all turf solutions that exist out there, but this is true for DiscGolfPark at least.

Our TeePads require infill, so all you need to do is brush additional sand in occasionally, or when you see it getting bare. It's minimal maintenance, and the turf survives winters covered in ice (Finland), or being flooded (Louisiana) with no problem.

I think use of turf that doesn't require infill has the issues you're describing, because while it seems logical that infill-less turf is less work, it actually wears much quicker. What the sand infill does for ours is allows the player to rotate their heel or toe on the sand itself, not on top of the blades of turf, so as long as that infill is present it keeps the friction consistent and doesn't wear the mat out as quickly.

Where the workload is more difficult than concrete is during the installation. Properly installed TeePads take more time and careful attention to get right. No arguments from me there...concrete is easier and quicker to install.
Id be more curious to see what the turf pads look like 20+ years down the road.

The concrete will still be there.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 08-15-2017, 12:10 PM
davetherocketguy's Avatar
davetherocketguy davetherocketguy is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southwest Michigan
Years Playing: 13.9
Courses Played: 71
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,827
Niced 501 Times in 233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aim For The Chains View Post
Id be more curious to see what the turf pads look like 20+ years down the road.

The concrete will still be there.
Very true but a lot of the 20+ year old courses I've seen either have gone through or need to go through a redesign.
Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 08-15-2017, 12:22 PM
discvalet's Avatar
discvalet discvalet is offline
Bogey Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 71
Niced 8 Times in 4 Posts
Default Eliminate chains and pole

I have read most of this thread. If this has already been mentioned then I missed it.

The goal in disc golf is to get a disc to “come to rest in the basket”. The chains and pole are there to make this easier. This design is a tremendous scoring aid, helping a vast majority of putted discs to “come to rest in the basket”. Perhaps disc golfers should appreciate this reality because in no other sport that I can think of are the scoring areas designed to aid a player in scoring. In soccer, there’s the net, kick it in. There’s no intricate deflection device setup to help a ball get into the net. Same with the goalposts in football, the cup in ball golf and so on. In basketball there's a backboard but that's a lot simpler and more predictable than the suspended chains and pole of a target.

I say remove the chains and center pole. Then it’s up to the disc golfer, not the chains and pole, to get the disc to “come to rest in the basket”.

Yes, putting would be harder and it should be. "Deuce or die" holes would be largely eliminated and they should be. Aces would be much less frequent and they should be. In ball golf an ace is almost always a perfect shot but in disc golf an ace is almost always an imperfect shot that would not be very close to the basket were it not for the chains and pole.

Elimination of chain and pole would make targets a lot cheaper and current courses could be changed pretty easily. New targets could have colored bands around the basket with a number on them.
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 08-15-2017, 12:27 PM
onemilemore's Avatar
onemilemore onemilemore is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Golden State
Years Playing: 7.3
Courses Played: 43
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 6,353
Niced 131 Times in 65 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by discvalet View Post
I have read most of this thread. If this has already been mentioned then I missed it.

The goal in disc golf is to get a disc to “come to rest in the basket”. The chains and pole are there to make this easier. This design is a tremendous scoring aid, helping a vast majority of putted discs to “come to rest in the basket”. Perhaps disc golfers should appreciate this reality because in no other sport that I can think of are the scoring areas designed to aid a player in scoring. In soccer, there’s the net, kick it in. There’s no intricate deflection device setup to help a ball get into the net. Same with the goalposts in football, the cup in ball golf and so on. In basketball there's a backboard but that's a lot simpler and more predictable than the suspended chains and pole of a target.

I say remove the chains and center pole. Then it’s up to the disc golfer, not the chains and pole, to get the disc to “come to rest in the basket”.

Yes, putting would be harder and it should be. "Deuce or die" holes would be largely eliminated and they should be. Aces would be much less frequent and they should be. In ball golf an ace is almost always a perfect shot but in disc golf an ace is almost always an imperfect shot that would not be very close to the basket were it not for the chains and pole.

Elimination of chain and pole would make targets a lot cheaper and current courses could be changed pretty easily. New targets could have colored bands around the basket with a number on them.
I feel like this would take away from the excitement of the game. Eventually you'd just have a bunch of lay-ups and tap-ins instead of the possibility of those huge 80-footers.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 08-15-2017, 01:13 PM
lyleoross's Avatar
lyleoross lyleoross is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Years Playing: 22.5
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 3,953
Niced 781 Times in 479 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Howl View Post
Dice rolling isn't fluky, it's mechanics: We just don't know the velocity, angle, etc. needed to obtain a certain result and even if we did, humans are too sloppy to control said parameters.

Of course there are many ways to get a disc to stay in a basket, and a certain variation of putt that has the largest margin of "error". The problem is that within that ideal target area there are ways a nearly identical putt can turn sideways and slide through the other side or hit the pole and bounce out, and it would be impossible for any human to understand the exact parameters that differentiate the perfect putt and that apparently near perfect putt that spit through, and that, as I said, "feels" fluky. I'm not advocating to make the game easier. Just to feel less....like this:

https://youtu.be/xXiHDORLjq0?t=7m56s

And it's not just Chainstars:

https://youtu.be/Ur_3_1Md8rg?t=6m51s
https://youtu.be/0gxm_1riKnk
https://youtu.be/VTD8iVOkJpI?t=17m15s


At any rate, in response, Discraft has said it would release a championship level basket in time for next year.
As I've written before, until you actually test you don't know where you are. I can post four or five vids of discs bouncing out of, or off the sides of Mac X's too. And I can call them fluky. Or I can say, the extra chains added to Mach X baskets make the assembly heavier. It takes more kinetic energy to push the chains in far enough for the disc to stay in the basket. However, that also means that shots to the left and right are more likely to skip off the heavier assembly. You say fluky, I say physics.

Discraft isn't putting out a better basket. They are responding to a market niche and market demand. The basket might be better, but I suspect that like the Mach X, it will trade one set of problems for another. For players like you, that trade works, for others, it won't.

Innova has over 100 discs in six or so plastics. That's cause it pays, not because there are giant holes in their lineup.
Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 08-15-2017, 01:13 PM
Flick Maniac's Avatar
Flick Maniac Flick Maniac is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Jokela, Southern Finland
Posts: 1,154
Niced 167 Times in 107 Posts
Default

Exactly. Like those advocating for a narrower chain setup or some other way to make putting more difficult, that would also greatly reduce aces and other throw ins that offer exciting moments on the course whether throwing or watching the throw.
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 08-15-2017, 01:17 PM
lyleoross's Avatar
lyleoross lyleoross is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Years Playing: 22.5
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 3,953
Niced 781 Times in 479 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onemilemore View Post
I feel like this would take away from the excitement of the game. Eventually you'd just have a bunch of lay-ups and tap-ins instead of the possibility of those huge 80-footers.
I agree. The object should be to get a design that balances skill and power. It isn't hard. Build a putting machine and test baskets. Decide on what is acceptable based on the results. "Shots thrown at x velocity in this area should stay in.". Put that standard in and let manufacturers meet it with any design they choose.
Reply With Quote
  #459  
Old 08-15-2017, 02:53 PM
F. Howl's Avatar
F. Howl F. Howl is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Years Playing: 9.1
Courses Played: 31
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,275
Niced 502 Times in 334 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyleoross View Post
....However, that also means that shots to the left and right are more likely to skip off the heavier assembly. You say fluky, I say physics.

.....
No, I say both. I clarified what I meant with "fluky". Two nearly identical shots, indistinguishable to the human eye, where one stays in and one spits through isn't random/fluky in a literal sense, but it will always feel as such because we could never understand what parameter, which was x-number of degrees off, caused the disc to spit through rather than stick. Nothing is truly random, yet "randomness" does exist as a human perception. The target area (not the entire chain assembly, but dead center) shouldn't allow a disc to slip through when it "randomly" gets turned sideways.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
 

  #460  
Old 08-15-2017, 03:53 PM
JTacoma03's Avatar
JTacoma03 JTacoma03 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Baton Rouge, LA and SF, CA
Years Playing: 9.3
Courses Played: 128
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 3,987
Niced 560 Times in 205 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyleoross View Post
Wait, did you just tell a school administrator who has artificial turf fields, that he's wrong? Even you gave some caveats, necessary to decrease wear and tear.
No...I didn't...I gave my experience based on a product that I've sold, installed, and stand behind. There's many different types of turf.

Let's not create drama where there is none. I was having an insightful discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherDave View Post
The turf tees don't have the crushed rubber in them that might be linked to cancer, do they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alobar View Post
No, I'm pretty sure the sand is in place of "crumb" rubber. Not to say the turf tees don't contain rubber or other harmful stuff, of course.

But crumb rubber is ground up tires, and a cursory look into tire compounds will tell you that the stuff is toxic. Not saying that proves a link between those fields and cancer, either. But tire dust/particles are not healthy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arti...cer_hypothesis
Correct, we use sand. If I'm not mistaken, that crushed rubber was used in NFL stadiums because if they used finer grain filler (like sand), players would get it into their eyes, nose, mouth, etc. due to the violent nature of being tackled.

Also those types of synthetic infill are much more expensive and harder to source. The goal with DiscGolfPark is to add minimal work/maintenance while maximizing the benefit of the equipment.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.