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

[thirtydirtybirds]

Why does putting need to be harder? I think I’m probably an average player, I think pro players are a small fraction of the total number of players, and their skill set is leaps and bounds above mine. They drive what I can do in 2 throws on an open course, they thread the needle a significantly higher number of times than I do, on a wooded course, they sink a 35’ putt a lot more often than I do, and I practice and think I’m probably above average at putting.

So if I am pretty average, and I really like playing, and feeling really good about my game when I have a great round, why would I want to make that feeling more difficult to achieve? Most of us have jobs, families, obligations, and lives that aren’t disc golf all the time. When I get the time to go out and play, I want to just enjoy myself. Smaller baskets seems less enjoyable, not so much so that I wouldn’t play, but I’d probably play less. If I wanted to practice to the point I’d get my putting back to where it is now on standard baskets, I’d have to buy new practice baskets, and I can’t afford that.

This whole idea seems born from the minds of the well above average player. That is a small portion of the player base, and those that would be filmed for people to watch is even smaller. So when people say there is a push for smaller baskets, I just don’t see it. Not one person I play with has ever thought that would be a good idea.

[oldmandiscer]

Originally Posted by rocthecourse

It's actually some pretty solid trolling, he's got you all riled up and posting.

It's not trolling if it's true. You do know that the pro's want a smaller basket right?

[oldmandiscer]

Originally Posted by thirtydirtybirds

Why does putting need to be harder? I think I’m probably an average player, I think pro players are a small fraction of the total number of players, and their skill set is leaps and bounds above mine. They drive what I can do in 2 throws on an open course, they thread the needle a significantly higher number of times than I do, on a wooded course, they sink a 35’ putt a lot more often than I do, and I practice and think I’m probably above average at putting.

So if I am pretty average, and I really like playing, and feeling really good about my game when I have a great round, why would I want to make that feeling more difficult to achieve? Most of us have jobs, families, obligations, and lives that aren’t disc golf all the time. When I get the time to go out and play, I want to just enjoy myself. Smaller baskets seems less enjoyable, not so much so that I wouldn’t play, but I’d probably play less. If I wanted to practice to the point I’d get my putting back to where it is now on standard baskets, I’d have to buy new practice baskets, and I can’t afford that.

This whole idea seems born from the minds of the well above average player. That is a small portion of the player base, and those that would be filmed for people to watch is even smaller. So when people say there is a push for smaller baskets, I just don’t see it. Not one person I play with has ever thought that would be a good idea.

It's all relative and smaller baskets wouldn't happen for the majority for most courses for decades.

Do you play different courses? Maybe even par at one course is a good score and 5 over at another is a good score. It's the same thing. Putting percentages wouldn't change that much either. Good putts will go in. Let's say you make 50% of putts from 25 feet. New baskets would still be 37-38%. So is there a difference? Sure. Is it that big a deal? Nope. Making the putt is even now more rewarding.

But as I pointed out earlier. Not every course is going to change perfectly fine baskets anyways. That would be a complete waste of money. The idea is for the Pro Tour to adapt to a new design so putting isn't so irrelevant and easy and then maybe 20-30 years from now most courses would transition as the baskets NEED replacing.

So you have nothing to "worry" about as nothing will change for you. Even if it did it's not a big deal.

[oldmandiscer]

Originally Posted by ru4por

No, you have presented nothing. No problem, no solution and no pragmatic way to solve no problem. I am not in an argument, that is a troll's confusion. Nobody wants smaller baskets, it is not even a thing.

I am afraid nobody will play my tournaments in your imaginary world? Do you take drugs? I am the the voice and face of what is good for disc golf long term. Out in the real world, making new courses, introducing new players to the game. Tell us what you are doing for the game?

Don't worry, be happy.

[oldmandiscer]

Originally Posted by ru4por

Yes, it means putting is difficult.

We've seen players make 100% of their entire circle 1 putts for a 3 day tournament last season.

Is 100% a high percentage?

[thirtydirtybirds]

Again, why? What is the problem right now? Disc golf is growing faster than ever, as is the professional level. Competition is more intense and diverse than ever, what is the need here? Seriously answer this question:

What is wrong with the basket dimensions that currently exist?

And yeah a drop from 50% to 37-38% is 12% less fun. I do play several courses and the score differentiation has nothing at all to do with baskets, and everything to do with design. So if the idea is to make the game harder for the 1-2% of players that are filmed on YouTube, the focus should be on design. I can still play shorts at champion level courses, and that’s challenging to me. Better players play longs, the best play championship tees. Heck you could even have alternate fairways, pin positions, you don’t even need to add distance. Moving a tee 60’ laterally can completely change a hole and increase the challenge a LOT.

[ru4por]

Originally Posted by oldmandiscer

Don't worry, be happy.

Ok. I am happy. I have just "proven", with "evidence", that nobody wants smaller baskets and putting is already too difficult. I am going to take the exact same action as you. Nothing. I shall go forth and promote this great game.

[oldmandiscer]

Originally Posted by thirtydirtybirds

Again, why? What is the problem right now? Disc golf is growing faster than ever, as is the professional level. Competition is more intense and diverse than ever, what is the need here? Seriously answer this question:

What is wrong with the basket dimensions that currently exist?

And yeah a drop from 50% to 37-38% is 12% less fun. I do play several courses and the score differentiation has nothing at all to do with baskets, and everything to do with design. So if the idea is to make the game harder for the 1-2% of players that are filmed on YouTube, the focus should be on design. I can still play shorts at champion level courses, and that’s challenging to me. Better players play longs, the best play championship tees. Heck you could even have alternate fairways, pin positions, you don’t even need to add distance. Moving a tee 60’ laterally can completely change a hole and increase the challenge a LOT.

The problem is that putting has little to no difficulty for the pro players. So that creates a myriad of problems.

-18 under round scores. Makes the sport look silly. You can't be a legitimate sport without any challenge to it.

-In order to make challenge the course designers or TD's have to trick up the courses most of the time so 18 under scores don't happen. This includes-

-Raised baskets. Gimmicky and silly looking. Incongruent with the rest of the course. Baskets don't catch as well when raised. It's not designed that way. Creates more layups. Boring.

-Baskets placed right next to water or artificial OB. Creates layups, Boring. Having a basket 3 feet from a pond is just silly. Where is the green?

-Artificial OB itself. Looks gimmicky. Not equitable to how a throw was performed. Players throw from one area then go drop another area all the time. Play from where it lies. Why are we throwing 50 feet left and now dropping it next to the basket? When we could have just played from 50 feet left? Non sensical.

-Baskets placed on mounds, creates random rollaways and luck.

-Fairways are not even fairways anymore on some courses. Zero pro players have been able to birdie easily reachable holes. Every single player hits trees. That's not fun to watch. Creates a very high degree of luck into the game. Player throws a perfect shot, crosses fingers and hopes. Game should be about skill, not luck.

[oldmandiscer]

Originally Posted by ru4por

Ok. I am happy. I have just "proven", with "evidence", that nobody wants smaller baskets and putting is already too difficult. I am going to take the exact same action as you. Nothing. I shall go forth and promote this great game.

Good have a nice time. Please leave this thread now. Thanks.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by thirtydirtybirds

Again, why? What is the problem right now? Disc golf is growing faster than ever, as is the professional level. Competition is more intense and diverse than ever, what is the need here? Seriously answer this question:

What is wrong with the basket dimensions that currently exist?

OMD has stated he wants more drama in the putting aspect of the game for elites. He has said missing 1 of 3 from 25 feet is his end goal for players such as Paul McBeth, the best in the world. And he doesn't seem to care what that would do for the millions of others who currently enjoy and fund the sport in the first place, like you and me.

The argument I keep making is that you'd have to seriously shrink the size of the target to achieve this. To boot, it would make our sport look silly, people hunching over these tiny baskets for "drama" from such short distances. I don't think they'd be as small as the baskets designed to catch minis, but somewhere between a vintage Mach 3 and that seems reasonable to me for this debate.

And once you make the standard target for competition this small so that elite players miss an extra 1 or 2 putts from the outside reaches of C1, almost all of us here believe the ripple effect would ruin the sport. You're absolutely right. Those of us who aren't as good as Paul McBeth would be frustrated with such a target. We're the ones who fund the growth of the sport in the first place.

A lot of us don't even buy the argument that it would improve the short game much if at all for the elites anyway. If Paul McBeth is missing 1 of 3 from just 25 feet, what will this do to the make percentage from 40 and 50 feet? There's already good drama from that distance. Now he wants to shift that drama to the 20-foot area around the basket. Wouldn't the make percentages of 40 and 50-footers be ruined and we'd see a bunch more pitch-ups under the basket?

Another argument I make and many others have made is that we're just a different sport and we should be okay with the make percentage we currently have from C1 distances for the elites. We release our projectile with our bare hands, and it simply sails through the air in the putting sequence. We don't strike our projectiles with a secondary object and have them roll on the ground like ball golf does. If you wanted to recreate the same drama ball golf has in the short game, you'd have to fundamentally alter the very essence of our sport in the first place to the point where it would look stupid.

All of this doesn't even yet address the cost to replace our sport's infrastructure in order to "gain" such a petty difference for the elite players, but yet it would ruin the game for most of the rest of us. It's another factor of absurd proportions. Ru4por has laid out the numbers and his $28 million figure seems to be a reasonable estimate. The whole thing is so dumb.

It's okay. We're not ball golf. The drama for elites should and does occur in the first half of the hole. The millions of others who enjoy the game the way it is are right, and they're voting with their hard-earned dollars. There indeed is no problem.

I feel pretty strongly that I don't want the sport to go in OMD's direction. That's why I keep chiming in. Many of us here have encouraged him to go ahead and try out his ideas himself because we know it will flop. Design the basket and run some experimental tournaments with all these pros who he says want this change. They ought to flock to them and reward him with fame and fortune if he's such a sage, right? I'll be the first to tip my hat and congratulate him, but it seems to be a safe bet from our point of view. It's so dumb it can't work. Just ask Fred Chittenden.

He recently revealed that he himself, without specifically identifying who he is, is one of these pros in favor of changing our baskets so that Paul McBeth will miss 1 of 3 from 25 feet. If he would identify himself as one of our sport's household names, it would probably help his cause. If not, I think a lot of us will continue to assume he's full of it in this regard too.