Cam Todd Pro Basket Prototype

[sprintermatt]

I dunno. a course par wouldn't change, but the under par score WOULD change with harder baskets. Imagine if balfers only had to hit a 1 foot circle, not a 4 inch one? that would make everyone a good putter, and a "great putt" would be a 90 footer, not a 12 footer.

Smaller targets make putting harder, making players focus on their putting skills equally to their driving skills. Very few players feel as confident in their driving as they do putting, and a smaller (not gimmicky, but smaller) target would increase the challenge ratio much more.

 

[SonicGuy]

I dunno. a course par wouldn't change, but the under par score WOULD change with harder baskets. Imagine if balfers only had to hit a 1 foot circle, not a 4 inch one? that would make everyone a good putter, and a "great putt" would be a 90 footer, not a 12 footer.

Smaller targets make putting harder, making players focus on their putting skills equally to their driving skills. Very few players feel as confident in their driving as they do putting, and a smaller (not gimmicky, but smaller) target would increase the challenge ratio much more.

Let's imagine the 12" bolf target. What would happen?

Those that get on the green at all are hugely rewarded for their efforts. Those that are accurate approaching the green are penalized because their accuracy is no longer rewarded.

Those that are weak putters will still miss 30' putts. Those that are strong putters will make 90' putts. Those that miss putts will have infinitely easier second putts.

So what will happen is that the top golfers will be those that hit the longest shots onto any part of the green, and the ones that can lazer in putts from 90'. Weak putters will be at the bottom of the pile because they will lose all kinds of strokes missing from 30'. Kinda sounds familiar...

 

[1978]

Smaller targets bring the best players to the rest of the pack, reduce scoring separation, and risks taken by the better putters, putting at areas of risk. If you have a cam Todd basket next to a hazard, less people will attempt birdie unless parked; that's boring. The "luck" of driving becomes more important. Random skips and flairs. Things that you can't control from the tee. Being close to basket, layups, more important because confidence of a come back putt decreases. Will end up making the sport boring and routine around the basket. Almost as bad an idea as directional targets. Best scoring separator that's interesting is good accredited course design.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The success of the ball golf hole to separate scores is that short putts after longer misses are also tougher producing 3-putts more often. Whatever changes are considered with making putting more challenging for MPO, it should also make shorter putts after missing sufficiently tougher, too, so 3-putts are more common (and not due to producing more fluky rollaways).

 

[MurderMike41370]

I'm still waiting for the day when someone will design a basket with smoother tops and not the same sharp cuts that damage plastic on drives and upshots when they hit the top.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm still waiting for the day when someone will design a basket with smoother tops and not the same sharp cuts that damage plastic on drives and upshots when they hit the top.

The return of saucer cones?

 

[SonicGuy]

The success of the ball golf hole to separate scores is that short putts after longer misses are also tougher producing 3-putts more often. Whatever changes are considered with making putting more challenging for MPO, it should also make shorter putts after missing sufficiently tougher, too, so 3-putts are more common (and not due to producing more fluky rollaways).

What about a slimmer profile to increase the chance of missing the target completely? Right now a significant # of putts miss but hit metal and are drop-ins.

 

[Reniger]

I'm still waiting for the day when someone will design a basket with smoother tops and not the same sharp cuts that damage plastic on drives and upshots when they hit the top.

Arroyo Vortex Basket

Guy here in Michigan designed exactly that. Mach X style chains mean they don't like soft putts and you've gotta get some stank on it, but for my style they catch phenomenally and I've never seen a single cut through. Plus, because of the design, they catch ace runs like nobody's business! They are at several parks here around West Michigan and I firmly believe they are the best baskets on the market. Hands down.

Concerning the reduced damage;

We spent countless hours breaking it down and eliminating all the sharp edges as well as the jagged look that all of the other baskets have. By removing the nubs on the cage we have created a more fair putting platform. This goes with the theme of the Vortex "if it was meant to go in it will every time". This basket doesn't lie. The sleekness also saves your putters from common damage and increases it's lifespan. Removing those disc damaging points from the basket was a huge motivation when designing the Vortex. This is not just an adaptation of what has been it's the creation of the next generation. We have also created and introduced the recessed cage sleeve and cage supports that guard the bolts. Simple and sleek this guarantees that when your putter comes crashing in there will be no damage done. We have also taken the time to create costume connectors for our inner chain assembly. These are no off the shelf item and are designed to act as part of the chain itself. Eliminating any chance of nicks to your putter as it is completely stopped by the Vortex. Right up to our chain rack and its flat top design with now sharp edges exposed. No more band and disc ramp like those other guys. "If it was meant to go in it will every time" and with no damage done either way. The Vortex also introduces the first completely threaded basket. We have a 2 bolt system that is taped and thread to make the Vortex the most solid basket out there.

No nubs on the top of the cage or the top of the umbrella, no sharp points anywhere on the target.

 

[Cgkdisc]

No nubs is probably a mistake in the design based on long time comparison of nubs versus no nubs on the basket. No players really like the springy "skeeball" aspect of putts skipping off the rim far from the basket. Nubs tend to stop that problem.

 

[Cgkdisc]

What about a slimmer profile to increase the chance of missing the target completely? Right now a significant # of putts miss but hit metal and are drop-ins.

Only one official test so far comparing regular baskets with the slim inner chain target indicated no statistical difference in scores.

 

[sidewinder22]

No nubs is probably a mistake in the design based on long time comparison of nubs versus no nubs on the basket. No players really like the springy "skeeball" aspect of putts skipping off the rim far from the basket. Nubs tend to stop that problem.

Wouldn't nubs create some randomness?

 

[SonicGuy]

Only one official test so far comparing regular baskets with the slim inner chain target indicated no statistical difference in scores.

I don't mean slim chains, and seriously?!? No difference in score between bulls-eyes and machs? If that is the case I doubt your methodology but I am prepared to be amazed.

What I meant was a slimmer cage profile so low shots go past the basket. But hell if the small diameter chain spread doesn't effect score the cage profile certainly won't.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Wouldn't nubs create some randomness?

Not saying nubs are ideal, just seem to be better than none at all, i.e. players around here over 25 years with no nub baskets on some courses seem to prefer the nub flukiness to the no nub flukiness.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I don't mean slim chains, and seriously?!? No difference in score between bulls-eyes and machs? If that is the case I doubt your methodology but I am prepared to be amazed.

What I meant was a slimmer cage profile so low shots go past the basket. But hell if the small diameter chain spread doesn't effect score the cage profile certainly won't.

Here's the one small test so far. First round standard baskets. Second round "inner chain" baskets like the Marksman replaced every basket from R1 in the same location.
http://www.pdga.com/tour/event/21935
One possibility is players played more conservatively in R2 and their misses were closer to the smaller basket for drop-ins. Making the comebacks more difficult should be a key characteristic for any proposed putting solution.

 

[SonicGuy]

One possibility is players played more conservatively in R2 and their misses were closer to the smaller basket for drop-ins. Making the comebacks more difficult should be a key characteristic for any proposed putting solution.

If you are relating the comeback percentage to the conservative play I'm not sure how you would design a basket that would change things. Ball golfers lag putt specifically because of the comeback difficulty, and that is effectively what people will do if baskets are made more challenging. There is no way to fairly make the second putt harder without encouraging lag putts.

 

[SonicGuy]

As for the claim that smaller strike zone baskets will not increase scores, I think you need to have a putts made analysis not simply a round with and a round without.

 

[Cgkdisc]

As for the claim that smaller strike zone baskets will not increase scores, I think you need to have a putts made analysis not simply a round with and a round without.

Not really necessary because it's the overall score comparison that matters. How players approach the basket and think about their first putt and comebacks may be different with the skinnier baskets. But if the overall scores don't change, there's no difference in net performance justifying changing the baskets.

 

[Cgkdisc]

If you are relating the comeback percentage to the conservative play I'm not sure how you would design a basket that would change things. Ball golfers lag putt specifically because of the comeback difficulty, and that is effectively what people will do if baskets are made more challenging. There is no way to fairly make the second putt harder without encouraging lag putts.

There are ways being looked at that could better emulate the putting stats from ball golf. So there's work to be done. Smaller baskets may have a lower probability of success compared to some of the other options.

 

[SonicGuy]

Not really necessary because it's the overall score comparison that matters. How players approach the basket and think about their first putt and comebacks may be different with the skinnier baskets. But if the overall scores don't change, there's no difference in net performance justifying changing the baskets.

That is fine to say but when analyzing the data you have no idea what caused the scores to be the same or different. If you are going to do this on a massive scale for multiple years sure you could see an accurate trend. But counting actual putting stats would allow you to use a much smaller sample size.

 

[SonicGuy]

There are ways being looked at that could better emulate the putting stats from ball golf. So there's work to be done. Smaller baskets may have a lower probability of success compared to some of the other options.

Mind sharing?