#321  
Old 03-15-2017, 10:06 AM
jeremyhilss's Avatar
jeremyhilss jeremyhilss is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Hurley, WI
Years Playing: 8.1
Courses Played: 50
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 864
Niced 230 Times in 105 Posts
Default

I haven't played Mach X's yet, but I have played many V's and III's. They are great baskets, and IMO catch fairly but require a hint of touch - not always accepting the bazooka rocket launch bullet train putt.

I really think this is getting a bit overblown and I think we collectively as a community may be taking the great baskets we have at our disposal for granted.
Sponsored Links

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 03-15-2017, 10:36 AM
Consult20's Avatar
Consult20 Consult20 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Wisconsin
Years Playing: 6.6
Courses Played: 29
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,530
Niced 421 Times in 248 Posts
Default

Disc golf needs a target that unequivocally determines whether or not a thrown disc has resulted in a hole out -- from a blind throw from more than 500' away. Any of the current basket designs accomplish that even in howling wind conditions where you can't hear anything from 200' away. The idea of going to a non-catching device, such as a pole target, is just not realistic for a number of pretty obvious reasons (spotters are not always available, human error if relying on spotters, can't hear a tone pole, technology glitches if relying on electronics, etc.).

"Basket bitching" is a thing, no question (ok I know "Target bitching" is more accurate but it's not as "catchy" -- pun intended), but I'd argue it's part of what makes disc golf fun, exciting, suspenseful, and challenging. One way to reduce BB would be to have the PDGA precisely define basket specs for one professional level design that any manufacturer could build (probably a combination of the best current designs).

In the mean time, let the BB continue!

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 03-15-2017, 10:50 AM
armiller's Avatar
armiller armiller is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: West Virginia
Years Playing: 5.5
Courses Played: 199
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 3,608
Niced 973 Times in 611 Posts
Default

I played 3 rounds yesterday on Innova Discatchers. I experienced 3 rollaways (one from the belt, two from the basket/cage) that turned 25' putts into 35' putts. Let's not even mention the difficult come-back putts I had after missing the basket altogether!

In short... all Innova baskets should be banned from any competition!

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 03-15-2017, 10:51 AM
lyleoross's Avatar
lyleoross lyleoross is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Years Playing: 24.8
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 4,982
Niced 1,658 Times in 936 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Central Scrutinizer View Post
I've been saying for years there should be a Lard Basket. Instead of chains, there's a cylinder of lard in the middle that catches your Disc, holding it in place right where it hits. It's good and greasy, too.
Fly paper. Not greasy, but definitely catchy.
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 03-15-2017, 11:32 AM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 14.2
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,618
Niced 611 Times in 363 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyleoross View Post
You use this word conjecture. I don't think you know what it means. Inego "The Princes Bride."

Having played for twenty years, get how I one-upped you, if there's one universal axiom, it's that players whine. And they whine when they don't get the outcome they want. One only has to watch, oh let's see, any player miss a putt and do the angry disc slap on the thigh, or the two foot toddler stomp on the ground or the, throw the hands up in the air and look to the heavens, or the, "that basket -insert four letter expletive-" verbal tribute etc. to realize that it's not conjecture. Of course maybe every time the disc doesn't stay in the basket it's because of randomness and all of the above are justified? In that case, are all those actions attempted worshipful gestures to the Greek goddess of random outcomes?

Central thesis, you can't by any real means, distinguish between a "real" spit out, caused by lack of player skill, or one caused by the Greek goddess of random outcomes. How would you even define that? You can test basket configurations for desired outcomes, but you wouldn't really know what caused them. I think I'll stand my ground on this one.

Oh wait, maybe someone coats the baskets with toxic chemicals that the discs are allergic to, and that causes the spit outs?
You know me. Conjecture -- n. "forming an opinion based upon incomplete information."
Example: "If the perfect basket is ever made, players would still bitch and complain about the basket" is a conjecture.
And of course it is. There are no data to base that opinion on yet, so it's clearly incomplete information. I get that it's your opinion, but you've based it on players bitching and complaining about current baskets that your statement implicitly asserts are imperfect (unless you think there's a perfect one out there). And let's be honest. Sometimes when a player makes the angry slap or burst of emotion upon a missed putt, he/she is made at him/herself and not the basket. Sometimes.


I understand you standing your ground, and I respect it. You've got your mind made up. However, I would argue that I DO have a definition of a "real" spit-out caused by the randomness of a basket. And I know I'm opening myself to another set of issues here, but I believe a "real" spit-out can be clearly determined. I'll admit no one has tested that yet (finding someone who'd want to do the experimental analysis is likely a major chore), but clearly the definition can be asserted. Mine is "a real spit-out is a throw at slow/medium/med-hi speed that hits chains at least 1 inch above the cage, 1 inch below the top rim, and within the range excluding the outermost chain when looking from the direction that throw is coming from, and ultimately does not meet the hole-out requirements." In other words, if you're looking at the basket, take the outermost chain left and outermost chain right out of the equation, and any putt that hits below the rim and above the cage INSIDE of the next-to-outermost chains should stay in (unless it's coming in high speed like a driver). If it doesn't stay in it's a spit-out, a "real" spit-out.

To me, what caused the spits, whether it be configuration of chains, material of pole, amount/angle of the frame, etc., doesn't matter. If the basket can kick out a good putt, even if only on occasion, then I struggle with saying, "that's just part of the game." I heard about a situation one year at the VPO A-tier in Arlington, and I think it was Paul Ulibarri who, during a playoff parked his shot under the basket. Then he witnessed his opponent "miss" a putt from about 25 feet that was putted at even speed and hit dead center pole, dead center height. Paul then intentionally missed his tap-in to let the playoff continue because, as he later said, "he just didn't want to win that way." Obviously pros recognize the randomness of the baskets EVEN when it works in their favor as this situation would have, not just bitching that their own putts don't stay in.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lyleoross View Post
I might actually argue that hitting the pole was part of the cut through. The disc skimmed off the pole and pushed out of the basket.

That said, from 10 or 15 feet out, hitting the basket center high, on a trajectory that with no basket takes you right past the basket, is IMO a bad putt. Especially if you hit weak side. I think this exactly points to the issue at hand. At that distance, when the disc hits the outer chains, it should be right side and falling into the basket. Even an am should be able to do this at that distance. The job of the basket isn't to catch everything thrown at it. It's to act as a measure of a completed hole. You've completed the hole when your disc falls into the basket. At this time, our attitude seems to be, "my disc touched the chains, that should mean it's in the basket."

The skill set of delivering the disc center to right, on the basket, with the disc falling into the basket, is an important skill. It should be part of the game. We can see that you can create a basket that can catch rockets, but then you create a new problem. Shots center and left have less chance of staying in. You've traded one problem for another.
This is one of the issues. It is why players seem to always respond to the basket concern from their own perspective as players. The highlighted statement is true of right-handed spin putters. For them "pro side" is center to right of pole. Not true of RH push putters. Not at all. We want center most of the time, and center to slightly left of pole. You will see many push putters's putt hit the chains and fall down and slightly to the right. Also this will be an issue as new designs come into play for baskets, and whether or not the person designing the baskets took these thoughts into mind when designing. I still firmly believe that the Arroyo Vortex and DGA Mach X are wonderful for spin putters, and require more adjustments for push putters. Anyone who's played on them knows the "interlocking X"-shaped" chains of the inner cage move together as a unit regardless of where a putt hits it, unlike other baskets where the inner chains move differently depending upon where/how much they are hit. Those were clearly designed to stop firm spin putts from cutting through from my purview. No thoughts were given about push putting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazerface View Post
Can everyone agree that we should reduce random outcomes in competitive formats to the extent the result does not "ruin" game play. However "ruin" would be defined - more harm than good basically.

If there were a putting machine capable of tiny adjustments to all the putting dimensions (Up/Down/Left/Right/Speed/Spin/Nose Angle/Plate Angle) and we tested all basket models could the results change the Mach defenders opinion if the data was clear? If there was an objective calculation that said "We cannot expect a player to account for variance A, from distance B, therefore this basket creates a "random" outcome that is not good for competition - would that matter?

Obviously, there would need to be scientific justification to what one decides players/humans are not capable of, but that sounds like a reasonable possibility to me.

All other things aside, if we did that and it turned out some baskets created random outcomes, or a higher propensity of such, while others did not, would that change the opinion of those defending the Mach baskets? I'm honestly curious.
YES. And the scientific justification is not something we're not capable of, it's just something very tedious with little reward. Maybe someday soon there will be another PhD candidate in like Justin Menickelli who'll take on the task as his/her dissertation research, just as Justin gave us other valid and reliable disc golf research.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Consult20 View Post
Disc golf needs a target that unequivocally determines whether or not a thrown disc has resulted in a hole out -- from a blind throw from more than 500' away. Any of the current basket designs accomplish that even in howling wind conditions where you can't hear anything from 200' away. The idea of going to a non-catching device, such as a pole target, is just not realistic for a number of pretty obvious reasons (spotters are not always available, human error if relying on spotters, can't hear a tone pole, technology glitches if relying on electronics, etc.).

"Basket bitching" is a thing, no question (ok I know "Target bitching" is more accurate but it's not as "catchy" -- pun intended), but I'd argue it's part of what makes disc golf fun, exciting, suspenseful, and challenging. One way to reduce BB would be to have the PDGA precisely define basket specs for one professional level design that any manufacturer could build (probably a combination of the best current designs).

In the mean time, let the BB continue!
Which leads me to a thought question. How many people, if a "perfect basket" were invented, would rather stay with the current level of randomness/that's-just-the-game baskets (depending on your personal perspective)? Maybe I should start a new thread on that topic.
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 03-15-2017, 12:24 PM
Consult20's Avatar
Consult20 Consult20 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Wisconsin
Years Playing: 6.6
Courses Played: 29
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,530
Niced 421 Times in 248 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
Which leads me to a thought question. How many people, if a "perfect basket" were invented, would rather stay with the current level of randomness/that's-just-the-game baskets (depending on your personal perspective)? Maybe I should start a new thread on that topic.
I'd be fine with it since, in theory, players could adapt to a standardized design.

If the utopian goal is to develop a target that 1) never has "spit outs", 2) holing out from 500' away would not require spotters or technology, 3) is a standard, uniform design, and 4) eliminates randomness and controversy -- then a chain catching device would probably not be the solution.

I proposed a design earlier in the thread that would accomplish all of those things, but it would be a significant change from traditional chain catching devices. It would be a series of plastic 90 degree elbows attached to each other in a circle around a pole, which would direct discs thrown into any of the elbow openings down into a basket. I could possibly mock up the design using pvc plumbing elbows, but hopefully you get the idea. If I were adept at CAD design software it would be easy to show.
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 03-15-2017, 12:24 PM
F. Howl's Avatar
F. Howl F. Howl is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Years Playing: 11.4
Courses Played: 31
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,267
Niced 1,483 Times in 782 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
.......I heard about a situation one year at the VPO A-tier in Arlington, and I think it was Paul Ulibarri who, during a playoff parked his shot under the basket. Then he witnessed his opponent "miss" a putt from about 25 feet that was putted at even speed and hit dead center pole, dead center height. Paul then intentionally missed his tap-in to let the playoff continue because, as he later said, "he just didn't want to win that way."
That's a cool move.
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 03-15-2017, 01:20 PM
lyleoross's Avatar
lyleoross lyleoross is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Years Playing: 24.8
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 4,982
Niced 1,658 Times in 936 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
You know me. Conjecture -- n. "forming an opinion based upon incomplete information."
Example: "If the perfect basket is ever made, players would still bitch and complain about the basket" is a conjecture.
And of course it is. There are no data to base that opinion on yet, so it's clearly incomplete information. I get that it's your opinion, but you've based it on players bitching and complaining about current baskets that your statement implicitly asserts are imperfect (unless you think there's a perfect one out there). And let's be honest. Sometimes when a player makes the angry slap or burst of emotion upon a missed putt, he/she is made at him/herself and not the basket. Sometimes.


I understand you standing your ground, and I respect it. You've got your mind made up. However, I would argue that I DO have a definition of a "real" spit-out caused by the randomness of a basket. And I know I'm opening myself to another set of issues here, but I believe a "real" spit-out can be clearly determined. I'll admit no one has tested that yet (finding someone who'd want to do the experimental analysis is likely a major chore), but clearly the definition can be asserted. Mine is "a real spit-out is a throw at slow/medium/med-hi speed that hits chains at least 1 inch above the cage, 1 inch below the top rim, and within the range excluding the outermost chain when looking from the direction that throw is coming from, and ultimately does not meet the hole-out requirements." In other words, if you're looking at the basket, take the outermost chain left and outermost chain right out of the equation, and any putt that hits below the rim and above the cage INSIDE of the next-to-outermost chains should stay in (unless it's coming in high speed like a driver). If it doesn't stay in it's a spit-out, a "real" spit-out.

To me, what caused the spits, whether it be configuration of chains, material of pole, amount/angle of the frame, etc., doesn't matter. If the basket can kick out a good putt, even if only on occasion, then I struggle with saying, "that's just part of the game." I heard about a situation one year at the VPO A-tier in Arlington, and I think it was Paul Ulibarri who, during a playoff parked his shot under the basket. Then he witnessed his opponent "miss" a putt from about 25 feet that was putted at even speed and hit dead center pole, dead center height. Paul then intentionally missed his tap-in to let the playoff continue because, as he later said, "he just didn't want to win that way." Obviously pros recognize the randomness of the baskets EVEN when it works in their favor as this situation would have, not just bitching that their own putts don't stay in.




This is one of the issues. It is why players seem to always respond to the basket concern from their own perspective as players. The highlighted statement is true of right-handed spin putters. For them "pro side" is center to right of pole. Not true of RH push putters. Not at all. We want center most of the time, and center to slightly left of pole. You will see many push putters's putt hit the chains and fall down and slightly to the right. Also this will be an issue as new designs come into play for baskets, and whether or not the person designing the baskets took these thoughts into mind when designing. I still firmly believe that the Arroyo Vortex and DGA Mach X are wonderful for spin putters, and require more adjustments for push putters. Anyone who's played on them knows the "interlocking X"-shaped" chains of the inner cage move together as a unit regardless of where a putt hits it, unlike other baskets where the inner chains move differently depending upon where/how much they are hit. Those were clearly designed to stop firm spin putts from cutting through from my purview. No thoughts were given about push putting.



YES. And the scientific justification is not something we're not capable of, it's just something very tedious with little reward. Maybe someday soon there will be another PhD candidate in like Justin Menickelli who'll take on the task as his/her dissertation research, just as Justin gave us other valid and reliable disc golf research.



Which leads me to a thought question. How many people, if a "perfect basket" were invented, would rather stay with the current level of randomness/that's-just-the-game baskets (depending on your personal perspective)? Maybe I should start a new thread on that topic.
Come on ARay, you're indirectly suggesting that somehow fixing the basket will eliminate complaining. I call BS. You're ignoring basic human nature based on a technical debate point. Sounds like you're a politician. You're correct, I can't know that if you make a perfect basket no one will ever complain again, but then I need you to admit, unicorns might exist. Just because no one has ever seen one doesn't mean they aren't out there. I'll stick with my argument, people will whine. You can call conjecture on me, but I'll stand my ground.

So tell me ARay, how do you determine a random event in the basket from a non-random event? Give me the physical changes that allow you to conclude. No conjecture. Give me the tools and methodology. Remember the tools can't impact chain dynamics or the outcome because then your analysis has no validity. Tell me how you determine randomness and distinguish random from, "I got screwed by that 'random' bounce out. I only putted at 50 miles per hour.". Who gets to define and determine what's random? Is random fixed or dynamic depending on player and opinion?

Physically speaking. Discs spin or they don't. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize that discs spinning or falling in certain directions are going to get better outcomes when hitting chains than others. It doesn't take much studying to know that discs have flight mechanics. Good players should be able to use that knowledge to deliver the disc on paths and at speeds that will optimize outcomes. Yep sometimes they'll get hosed by a random event. Distinguishing between player error and random event, given technological limitations is going to be impossible. I went to OSU. They have labs that spend millions testing break points on lumber. In the end, some breaks are just random. You just can't get to the bottom of random. Fractal math is getting close, but still isn't there.

In the end some things are going to be random. The best you can do is decide what you think a good putt should be and design a basket, via testing, to catch that. Right now we're debating. Should it be soft or hard? By my assessment, you're going to be hard pressed getting both.
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 03-15-2017, 01:34 PM
lyleoross's Avatar
lyleoross lyleoross is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Years Playing: 24.8
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 4,982
Niced 1,658 Times in 936 Posts
Default

A couple of thoughts. If push putts don't work as well as lift putts, why would you use them? Oh yeah, cause if I whine enough maybe someone will design a basket that will catch it. Keep in mind, there's no evidence, real evidence, that baskets catch push putts less well.

Can someone load video of Paul's generous move? I'd like to see a similar video of someone in ball golf doing the same. "Wow, your ball hit that random tuft of grass and didn't go in. I'll miss my putt so we can have a playoff."

I'll stick with Curmudgeon's notion. Take responsibility for your game. Understand you can't control everything and realize eliminating mistakes and delivering your disc in the most optimal way to accommodate the physical parameters of the basket, will likely give you the win.

Last edited by lyleoross; 03-15-2017 at 01:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
 

  #330  
Old 03-15-2017, 01:38 PM
SonicGuy SonicGuy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,915
Niced 614 Times in 324 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyleoross View Post

Can someone load video of Paul's generous move? I'd like to see a similar video of someone in ball golf doing the same. "Wow, your ball hit that random tuft of grass and didn't go in. I'll miss my putt so we can have a playoff."
Or "Oh wow, my ball bounced off a sprinkler head and onto the green, I will take a penalty stroke because of my insane luck".
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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best Prices for Mach X or Discatcher Pro 28 baskets Mr. Butlertron Other Gear 8 01-28-2019 01:39 PM
Mach baskets enragedmullet Other Gear 22 12-07-2017 07:58 PM
Hanging baskets at tournaments... Appropriate or not? j_mardis Course Design 28 08-12-2015 09:29 PM
Mach X Baskets Nemmers Other Gear 42 04-06-2014 01:33 PM
Chainstar and dga Mach 3 baskets local MI only boostfreek The Marketplace 7 08-08-2012 09:31 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:17 PM.


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