Go Back   Disc Golf Course Review > General Disc Golf Discussions > General Disc Golf Chat

Thread Tools
Old 04-02-2019, 11:50 AM
Three Putt's Avatar
Three Putt Three Putt is offline
*Super Moderator*
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rolla, MO.
Years Playing: 25.3
Courses Played: 136
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 9,470
Niced 3,053 Times in 1,098 Posts

Originally Posted by _MTL_ View Post
Fun is relative and opinionated. I'm of the strong opinion that fun factor shouldn't be considered on the games top level.
I mean the easy answer then is starting with the DGPT or NT and use a Bullseye/Marksman-type target that they haul around and make the putting harder for those guys at the top level, but then all of a sudden you have those guys playing a fundamentally different game than what the people watching on Jomez play on their home course.

So what happens then? IMO you will have local "battles" over switching courses to Bullseye/Marksman-type targets, lots of bad blood between the "serious" and "new players who want to join this new wave of disc golf vs. the "you can tear my Mach III's out of my cold, dead hands" old timers. These issues at the local levels will tear at the fabric of the club system that we have lived off of for the last 45ish years and derail those clubs ability to organize the big events we have depended on that system to produce.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Pro disc golf has come a long way, but it is still very much tethered to the support it gets from Joe Blow average disc golf club guy. Until it is big enough to thrive without them, I kinda think if you want all those club guys to keep doing what they do you might want to at least consider keeping them happy.
Sponsored Links

Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2019, 11:53 AM
in4d's Avatar
in4d in4d is offline
*Hiding in Mike C's Closet*
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Great North Woods
Years Playing: 16.7
Courses Played: 27
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,634
Niced 116 Times in 70 Posts

in my opinion the baskets are not the problem, looking at recent udisc putting data at NTs there is a clear separation in putting success between top 10 players and the rest of the field.. especially outside the circle

what i think needs to change is the style of courses. making them longer and require more multiples of drives/approaches to get to the basket, really make laying up drives for a better approach to the basket on a dogleg type of hole more common. MOST Pro/Open level people can throw bombs in wide open long fairways 650'+ (par 4), then lay it up in the circle and take a 3 for birdie, this is where there isnt as much of a separation in scores... but if the courses evolve and become more like European style disc golf where we see challenging long drives through narrow gaps to lay up and then assuming you had a good lay on the first one, another 250'+ drive in a different dogleg direction with a challenging approach angle or more wooded gap shots, etc.. there is so much more we can do course design-wise that i have not seen on the tour.

^^ This takes money and good large properties to work with which isn't common for disc golf.

Niced: (1)

Last edited by in4d; 04-02-2019 at 11:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2019, 12:04 PM
XC_Eddy's Avatar
XC_Eddy XC_Eddy is offline
Eagle Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Escanaba, MI
Years Playing: 12.7
Courses Played: 30
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 712
Niced 676 Times in 323 Posts

Originally Posted by _MTL_ View Post
What I find interesting in this discussion is the top pros are overwhelmingly against it it seems.

Make it harder to putt increases their chances of beating players with less skills than them. I don't understand why they wouldn't be in favor of it.
Currently what separates the Ams from the Pros is the ability to throw 450'+. Most Ams can't throw that far, and the ones that do can't do so with accuracy.

What separates the good pros from the great pros is circle 2 putting. When Paul dominated in 2015 (and during his last couple of tournaments) what stood out was his ability to make 45' putts consistently. Same thing for Ricky during 2016-2017. That takes skill, and they were/are beating players with less skill than them. We already have an aspect of putting that brings cream of the crop to the top.

Make the basket smaller, a lot of those 45' putts aren't going in. It ends up helping the less skilled players more than the very skilled players. It is possible that a smaller target would move that line up: players consistently making 35' putts on a small target might separate from those who don't. My fear is that tap-ins become entirely too valuable. Assuming a Marksman or something similar is used, the worst mistake you can make on a 35' putt is to give yourself a tough 25' comebacker. May as well just 2 putt safely.

Niced: (3)
Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2019, 12:04 PM
swed's Avatar
swed swed is offline
Par Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 207
Niced 9 Times in 8 Posts

Technology is all sports/hobbies has improved significantly over the years, making companies more money while making the game/sport easier. The basket has been improved but the design is basically the same. I happen to like basket the way it is. How about putting a smaller basket on top of the original. A marksman on top a disc catcher. The player then could then take a risk to gain say a half a stroke. Wait, why did I respond? I could care less about the top pros and how much better they are at putting, I watch locals miss putts from all over the place. Still love the game how it is!

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2019, 01:23 PM
Tripper's Avatar
Tripper Tripper is offline
Eagle Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Raleigh NC
Years Playing: 17.9
Courses Played: 159
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 954
Niced 466 Times in 203 Posts

Originally Posted by Emoney View Post
Whats the diff with a bullseye basket next to a cliff and a standard basket next to a cliff? Not much imo

Now, how bout a wide open standard basket or a wide open bullseye basket? Most disc golfers will have a tougher putt.

I think JH is thinking Future. Good land is going to be less and less available for disc golf.

I understand the cost isnt realistic for current courses, but new or future courses will have no extra cost and they wont need maple-hill-type property to make a challenging course.
Land for disc golf is not going to become less and less available. Ever wonder why so many courses are in low lying areas? It is because the building code puts complex and expensive requirements to build in flood prone areas.

With the increase in frequency and intensity of severe storms caused by climate change, the FIRM (flood insurance rate maps) created by FEMA in conjunction with insurance companies are being updated to identify more land as flood hazard areas. Land identified as flood hazard areas is not cost effective to develop.

So the truth is there will be more and more land suitable for disc golf courses (and other uses that don't require permanent structures).

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2019, 01:24 PM
Orioles_Lefty Orioles_Lefty is offline
Birdie Member
Join Date: Mar 2017
Years Playing: 4.8
Courses Played: 42
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 354
Niced 487 Times in 185 Posts

To argue for the Marksman or Bullseye is to assume much purposeful thought was given to their design, and I don’t think that’s the case. Their manufacturers set out to make a smaller basket and they did. Woohoo! Congrats.

If these manufacturers had true R&D offices and/or if the pro tour and/or PDGA had both surplus cash and a desire to study shrinking the baskets, then controlled studies could be made regarding circumstance of basket, number of chains, tension of chains, placement of chains, etc. that could likely get to a reasonable answer about the outcome and effectiveness of smaller baskets at any given size smaller than the current basket size. Total height of the catch window, basket to band, could be considered as well.

All of this could be researched. But to just say “smaller is better” is ridiculous. And while the current basket is not ideal for some, it is the current model so there are financial reasons to keep it as the standard.

Because we note that the current standard has its limits, a greater degree of purposeful thought and design should go into the idea of designing a different, new standard instead of offering an alternative based solely on the limitations of the current model. That’s the “party flipper” voting method. Taking the new on its own merits, what are it’s uses and limitations? No one has researched to answer that question.

Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2019, 01:41 PM
aphilso1's Avatar
aphilso1 aphilso1 is offline
Eagle Member
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Nebraska
Years Playing: 2.5
Courses Played: 30
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 847
Niced 512 Times in 317 Posts

Originally Posted by Hyzflip10 View Post
What is a figurative target??

Think:. Hoop in basketball, goal in hockey, hole in golf, actual target in archery, clay in shooting sports.
I thought that by target you meant objective, which is figuratively a target but not literally. If only talking about a literal target, then obviously there are much fewer sports to compare with since you're limited to target-based sports.

I was thinking more broadly in terms of sports that a) altered the physical tools of the game in such a way that the path to success (the objective/target/goal) was changed, and also b) that new change was implemented specifically at the highest level of that sport's competition but not at all levels of competition. That's why the first couple of examples that came to mind were physically changing the height of the mound in MLB (but not in the rest of baseball) which then shifted the balance of power away from pitching, and changing the physical limits of golf wedges for professional events but not for recreational play, leagues, handicapping, etc.

In both of those instances, there was a type of player that had become so dominant to change the balance of power in the game away from what the sports' legislative body wanted. In baseball, they wanted more scoring and thus wanted to neutralize great pitching. So they lowered the mound. In golf, they wanted players to have to actually play the course as designed rather than play a bomb-and-gouge style. So they made them use wedges that perform poorly in the rough but are still excellent from the fairway.

In hindsight, your initial post was clear enough that I should have inferred what you meant rather than starting this tangent. Mea Culpa.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2019, 01:50 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.9
Courses Played: 373
Posts: 5,130
Niced 1,820 Times in 898 Posts

Originally Posted by IHearChains View Post
...Like others have said, there is no real reason that disc golf numbers have to be like ball golf numbers. Who cares if they are -40 instead of -4, its about scoring separation. As long as there are not players tying for first at every tournament, it's working fine.
There is no reason they can't be like ball golf numbers, either. At least in relation to par.

But, it doesn't have anything to do with the size of the baskets or the ease of putting.

The main trouble is, most pars the pros play on were originally set for Ams. Set pars for pros, and the too-many-and-unpredictably-under par problems go away.

Make the baskets smaller and set pars according to how Ams play the smaller targets and you'll continue to see the too-many-under scores.

As for "Who cares" see all the Par Talk thread posters.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2019, 02:09 PM
DiscJunkie's Avatar
DiscJunkie DiscJunkie is offline
* Ace Member *
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Wilmington, NC
Years Playing: 11.8
Courses Played: 40
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 4,556
Niced 573 Times in 246 Posts

From a spectator's point of view (or YouTube watcher), I really enjoy watching a Pro throw a death putt from 45' and make it.
Just like I enjoy a nicely shot 3-pointer or a service-Ace or etc...

I have watched a DG Tourney with Marksman baskets and it was a snooze-fest for me.
"Oh he missed another putt inside the circle!!"
"He laid up again, smart move!!"
I get that it was supposed to be harder, but it was merely more boring.
I think, for me, it looked like there was just that much more pressure to get close to the basket for a good putt.
There was less risk-taking.
Drop-ins were the order of the day. Very few lengthy putts were attempted, less were made.
And it got ugly, often. Missed 15' and 20' putts. Botched approaches.
Close approaches became the determining factor in scores.
Me, I don't want to see a skilfull 200' approach. I can do that.
I want to see a guy go for a 500' hole off the tee and see him make a 40-footer for Eagle.
That is fun for me.
Whatever else you may say about the desirability of smaller baskets, my opinion is that the change will negatively impact the commercial appeal of spectating and viewing.

Reply With Quote

Old 04-02-2019, 02:19 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,586
Niced 552 Times in 272 Posts

Another approach would be to establish a 2-throw penalty to any putt made from inside the circle. That would fix the par issue as well.
Reply With Quote

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is putting too easy? too hard? Just right? BirdieMachine General Disc Golf Chat 363 01-29-2017 07:35 AM
To those of you without your own baskets, how do you practice putting? Jmorri67 General Disc Golf Chat 32 06-03-2013 11:25 PM
If only baskets were this big =D Bamm General Disc Golf Chat 18 04-24-2011 05:09 PM
Night Putting Is Just Too Easy! juanbond General Disc Golf Chat 12 06-13-2010 01:58 PM
Check out new article on better putting stevep Technique & Strategy 3 11-28-2009 09:14 PM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.