So you want to make the basket smaller for Pros? (No, we don't.) Here's how we do it.

[DanJon]

Originally Posted by oldmandiscer

The pro's disagree. They want the basket smaller.

"The pros".

Like 6 of them!

And yet, all they do is talk about it.

Weird how we haven't seen them do literally anything beyond talking.

I wonder why Discraft hasn't made McBeth a small basket yet, since he wants them so much?

Weird.

[curmudgeonDwindle]

Originally Posted by DanJon

I wonder why Discraft hasn't made McBeth a small basket yet, since he wants them so much?

It might seem weird to someone who hasn't really dug into what's involved too much and apparently enjoys talking about things just as much as those 'do-nothing' pros...

if nothing else, 'talking about things', especially a relatively high-risk, high-cost (and not just $) endeavor would provide some needed market intel to determine receptivity. might help one ID the key gate-keepers and best attack path for a new product - i mean we're not exactly talking about the latest aviaR or tee-bird rip-off here...

i suggest SpamJon thinks about it a bit longer and harder, or as my old man used to say, 'be still, boy.' but hey - we sincerely appreciate everyone's well-considered, thoughtful opinions on the subject, because 'your opinion matters to us'...

[rocthecourse]

Originally Posted by DanJon

"The pros".

Like 6 of them!

And yet, all they do is talk about it.

Weird how we haven't seen them do literally anything beyond talking.

I wonder why Discraft hasn't made McBeth a small basket yet, since he wants them so much?

Weird.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were working on prototypes.

[curmudgeonDwindle]

'so you want to make the basket smaller', as a thread, invites bull*hit, to say the least.

maybe the next thread might be 'how to make the putting part of disc golf better' or something similar, would invite more earnest brainstorming/replies and discourage pettiness/infighting.

naturally, modifications to the target would be 'under this heading'...one thing everyone LOVES to oversee is the potential for emergent properties in this area of the game. read that article from Stork on the subject; he seems to know what he's talking about - it just might spark something positive...

[oldmandiscer]

Originally Posted by DanJon

"The pros".

Like 6 of them!

And yet, all they do is talk about it.

Weird how we haven't seen them do literally anything beyond talking.

I wonder why Discraft hasn't made McBeth a small basket yet, since he wants them so much?

Weird.

That's just the ones we heard talk about it! We haven't heard from the rest.

McBeth is just a player for the most part. He's not in charge of technical standards at the PDGA.

[Cgkdisc]

PDGA Tech Standards wouldn't need to be involved in this issue for quite a while. Narrow basket designs can be approved under current specs, even at a Championship level if designed a certain way. Current smaller baskets can be used with X-tier status, especially in B-tier DGPT events. If the tours want to experiment, they can. Ratings could still be produced because the smaller baskets would simply raise the SSA on the course a little bit, just like adding OB areas increases it.

[oldmandiscer]

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

PDGA Tech Standards wouldn't need to be involved in this issue for quite a while. Narrow basket designs can be approved under current specs, even at a Championship level if designed a certain way. Current smaller baskets can be used with X-tier status, especially in B-tier DGPT events. If the tours want to experiment, they can. Ratings could still be produced because the smaller baskets would simply raise the SSA on the course a little bit, just like adding OB areas increases it.

I'm not so sure about B-Tier. C-Tier and X-Tier sure.

https://www.pdga.com/technical-stand...cation-request

[Cgkdisc]

Originally Posted by oldmandiscer

I'm not so sure about B-Tier. C-Tier and X-Tier sure.

https://www.pdga.com/technical-stand...cation-request

XB-tier. X has to be connected with a letter tier with default as XC-tier. However, regular non-X B-tier allows Standard baskets. Several currently approved Champ baskets can be configured to a narrow basket by removing the outer chains and having an inner chain envelope with at least 12 chains to meet the Standard spec page 9. Point being that Tech Standards is not a factor in TDs experimenting with narrower baskets. It's a competition decision for those hosting events.

[oldmandiscer]

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

XB-tier. X has to be connected with a letter tier with default as XC-tier. However, regular non-X B-tier allows Standard baskets. Several currently approved Champ baskets can be configured to a narrow basket by removing the outer chains and having an inner chain envelope with at least 12 chains to meet the Standard spec page 9. Point being that Tech Standards is not a factor in TDs experimenting with narrower baskets. It's a competition decision for those hosting events.

Still no A Tier or Major/NT. Nobody can make a smaller "out of technical spec" basket, send it to the PDGA for approval and run a top tier event since it doesn't fit the requirements.

I guess that is my main point about the technical specs.

[Cgkdisc]

Originally Posted by oldmandiscer

Still no A Tier or Major/NT. Nobody can make a smaller "out of technical spec" basket, send it to the PDGA for approval and run a top tier event since it doesn't fit the requirements.

I guess that is my main point about the technical specs.

Tech specs have nothing to do with it. Majors can be X-tier. USDGC has been X-tier. If hosts want to use special baskets, they can apply for X-tier. The only events unlikely to experiment are PDGA owned/hosted events like NTs and Worlds.