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.
Lyle, you're so missing my point. And you keep coming back to you just call bogus and the extensive focus on the word "random" (a la the 2-meter rule). Two things -- #1 -- a basket that usually will catch a "bad putt, is just as random (in outcome, not cause) as one that spits a good putt; and #2 -- it DOES NOT MATTER to me if you call it randomness or bad spin or the hokey-pokey for that matter -- What I am saying is that any putt of reasonable speed inside the 2nd most-exterior chain and below top/above cage without touching SHOULD stay in. Whether you call those spits randomness or something else, my contention is that the the different models of baskets currently in use when they spit they SPIT DIFFERENTLY from model to model depending upon their specific design. That is not an issue in basketball, soccer and the like, because the GOAL has the exact same dimensions and design, regardless of which manufacturer makes it. And even so ... bb shots that hit "nothing but net" never spit out. When the soccer ball hits the inside net it's a goal, regardless of how it bounces. No one seems to be arguing a contradiction to this point in disc golf. You KNOW you've seen putts on championship baskets that SHOULD stay in (based upon spin speed angle etc.) that didn't. Sometimes you can say a so-called spit was "too high left side" or whatever -- I'm not talking about those "spits". I'm talking about the ones like Uli's opponent had in that tournament. Everyone on here KNOWS they've seen some.
Now your first point that I'm not indirectly saying that fixing the target will end complaining. NO, I am
directly postulating that if the target is fixed to where all good putts stay in, yes it will eliminate complaints about the target. It wont stop the OB Bitching, island hole Bitching, TD bitchin, registration process bitchin, and on down the line -- but it could eliminate your new favorite BB, at least the legitimate BB.
On your issue about not being able to determine whether it's random or not, again, that shouldn't matter. If a target can be designed which meets the basic criteria of perfectly keeping all "good putts" (however YOU define it) in, then shouldn't that be pursued?
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.
Again (& I'm making a supposition here), Uli didn't care if that spit was random or too much spin or too this or too that. HIS OWN EYES said "no way that putt should have been kicked out", and therefore in his mind it was an unfair outcome. THAT WOULD BE WHY he'd choose to risk losing rather than taking the tourney right then and there. [and btw,this was apparently before the advent of everyone had a cell phone to take video with. Page someone from the Arlington (TX) Disc Golf Association for testimony or ask Uli himself.]
No evidence? You mean no empirical evidence. Because it hasn't been tested. It's only common sense from any player who's successfully used both types of putts to find the answer. Ask Dave Feldberg, Matt Bell, Cale Leiviska. Those guys might have a perspective none of us have in that they've spent extensive portions of their pro disc golf careers as a spin putter and a different extensive part of their pro career as a push putter. And btw, the reason certain players use the push putt is because it works. Of the current top players in the world, Wysocki, Leiviska, Sexton, Feldberg, Schultz, Locastro, Colglazier, Koling, McCray are all push putters. And don't forget the Champ. So there must be a good reason. Now I will also say that there are also certain models of baskets that catch push putts better than spin putts. I certainly think that the Mach II New and Mach V's catch a lot of push putts on the last chain on the edge, and wow, I've looked and thought, I got lucky that time.
It's a difference in perspective. Some view the lesser ability of Mach V to catch as random. It isn't. It's simply the physical parameters of the basket. The fact that a disc more readily passed through the chains isn't random. It simply means the player putted too hard for the basket.
When a player hits the red square on a backboard, and the ball bounces out and hits the far side of the rim and bounces off, it's not because the backboard is random, or even too hard. I mean, you could add a pad so that overshot balls will still fall in but it's generally acknowledged that players need to learn a soft touch so the ball falls in. This is similar in my mind. Only the expectation of some players isn't "I need to adjust to the equipment.". It's, "they need to add a pad to the backboard so it catches my shot."
The basketball analogies of the ball hitting rim and bouncing up, or hitting the backboard, etc... ARE NOT the analogy I am speaking of. I'm talking analogously of the one that hits the bottom of the net -- regardless of lots of spin, no spin, funky angle, hit speed, soft touch, etc. The basketball shot that hits all net stays in no matter what, it's a goal. In disc golf, not so much.
opcorn:
