Nasty Spits...bad luck or bad putt?

[John Rock]

Top players can skirt some of the rules if they intimidate the others in their group...

 

[Vegan Ray]

Possibly technically illegal for that reason (Rules 803.05B, depending on the interpretation of the word "obstacle"), plus it is "Destruction, abuse or vandalism of property, including animals, and plant life", making it technically a DQ-able offense (Comp Manual 3.3).

 

[biscoe]

kinda OT, but just noticed:

in that video, he puts his marker down, gets in a stance, then checks the wind with 2 clumps of grass pulled from in front of his lie.

Isn't this technically illegal? I tried this once and got yelled at (nicely) because it's technically moving something in front of your lie between the marker and basket, even though it's obviously not affecting the shot.

technically it's illegal because it's A) in front of the lie and B) willful destruction of plant life. fortunately common sense often prevails in these situations.

 

[biscoe]

oops... too slow.

 

[chiggins]

First, there's no way to prove that. That's just something you made up to try to prove a point that has no good reasoning behind it. Second, there's no way it's true. I can't imagine why they wouldn't change the net design if it rejected good shots.

I may not have been clear. What I was saying was that if a flaw in the design of a basketball hoop caused it to spit balls back out at random, thus introducing a "luck" factor due only to the equipment's design, then it would be universally acknowledged as being detrimental to the sport. I continued to point out that if said hypothetically badly designed hoop decided a playoff game, that there would be an outcry to change it.

Of course there's no way to prove my example, though I think the evolution of basket and backboard design actually supports my position. I'm not sure what you mean by "no good reasoning behind it", though I'm happy to have you point out the flaw in my analogy. But it sounds like you're agreeing with me?

 

[Beable]

For a basketball analogy to work, it seems to me that the chains are more like the backboard and the basket is more like the hoop. Throwing into the chains is not the goal, although it often leads to a successful putt. Getting your disc caught in the basket is the goal.

 

[chiggins]

Going with the basketball analogy: a ball coming in at a certain trajectory and bouncing off the rim in EXACTLY the same angle (and rotation) will behave differently depending on the speed of the ball. A layup will not bounce hard enough to be unusual. I foul shot with rattle around then drop through. A 3-pointer will rattle and spit out. And, a half court shot will also bounce out.

This is all true, if you hit the rim. But a swish should never do anything but go straight through the hoop, that's what I'm talking about.

How about this instead, and again it's just a hypothetical and I don't want to get into the minutiae of the imaginary design. Let's say there were 3 sets of chains, and instead of hanging straight down, they hung down with a twist, and the sets alternated direction of the twist, such that anything that hit them dead center, even if the disc got turned, would not spit. Whether or not it would actually work, if you think that's a desirable outcome, then it seems to me that arguing in favor of the randomness introduced by spit-zones doesn't make sense?

(side note: in hockey they have that little light on the goal at the pro level to make sure no one gets robbed of their goal.)

 

[Dave242]

If you were trying to create a target that was was fluky on purpose and not suitable for a sport versus a game, then our current basket situtation fills the bill.

What HAS been created is a target that is very mildly fluky in a way that is consistent with many existing mainstream sports.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Hard to think of any sport's target that's not designed to be 360 degrees radially symmetrical on purpose as disc golf targets from the get-go. The saucer cones made early in the sport were close. Their design could be updated to account for some of its problems (opening too small, no nubs, exposed bolt) but no chain sound:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3772/748/320/cone.jpg

 

[Janbobbo]

What HAS been created is a target that is very mildly fluky in a way that is consistent with many existing mainstream sports.

That's just not true. Sports such as hockey or soccer have a target in where you hit between the goal posts and under the crossbar it's a goal. There is no single spot or coordinate between the posts and under the crossbar that a fast shot, a weak shot, a curved shot, a lob shot or any shot you can think of will have a smaller chance of being a goal than any other spot. On a disc golf basket however there are however such effects, and these are very hard to map except for on a very basic level. And even if you could map them it would probably be completely useless since the good spots and bad spots on the basket are tiny and spread out and nobody in the world can hit that specific coordinate or link on a consistent basis. Now on the basic level ofcourse there's things you can do to adjust your putting to targets that spit or have discs going through the chains and out on the other side. You might for example putt lower than usual on some baskets.

 

[Steve West]

Baskets were designed to emulate throwing a disc to someones chest and when you hit dead center on the pole just to have it come out it seems contrary to the designs intent.

Yeah, but weren't they made to catch a Frisbee when thrown with the speed and accuracy you would use to toss a disc to a person? I'm not sure the intent was ever to stop everything thrown at it at any speed.

Who wants to volunteer to try catch a few hundred of the longer putts of the top pros? I'll count what percent you drop. Then we'll know what the targets need to do to emulate someone's chest. Perhaps the chains are catching too well already.

 

[cc0049]

Guys, it's simple. One of us needs to win the lottery and open up our basket business with them being made in China for cheap.

You don't need to win the lottery to do that.

 

[mashnut]

Yeah, but weren't they made to catch a Frisbee when thrown with the speed and accuracy you would use to toss a disc to a person? I'm not sure the intent was ever to stop everything thrown at it at any speed.

Who wants to volunteer to try catch a few hundred of the longer putts of the top pros? I'll count what percent you drop. Then we'll know what the targets need to do to emulate someone's chest. Perhaps the chains are catching too well already.

I have an idea, lets replace the baskets with volunteers to catch discs at the major tournaments. Even better if you let players pay the volunteers to heckle other players while they're putting.

 

[cc0049]

Maybe but I am saying that 3% of "GOOD" putts will spit meaning if you throw 100 putts into the heart of the chains 3 of them will find a way to sneak out.

I really don't think this is overestimating since it discounts mediocre putts.

I would say that is a very reasonable estimation.

 

[cc0049]

You're defining a "good putt" as one that stays in the basket. We're satying a "good putt" is one that hit the chains squarely. The only reason we have to worry about catching is for proof that you hit the target. So if the catching isn't perfect, you can still hit your target (the goal of the game) and not have it count. I don't see how that isn't considered a problem.

I don't think the issue upper level players have isn't that it's unfair when it happens because it does happen to everyone. The issue is that there's an element of luck that doesn't need to be there. It would be like if, in a game of basketball, the hoops randomly closed up for a second every once in a while. It would still be fair because it can happen to any given shot, but the sport would seem less legitamate because there's a greater element of luck.

EXACTLY. Well said.

 

[Scoot_er]

EXACTLY. Well said.

Yeah I liked garublador's post too! This one from the Swede was nice as well

"That's just not true. Sports such as hockey or soccer have a target in where you hit between the goal posts and under the crossbar it's a goal. There is no single spot or coordinate between the posts and under the crossbar that a fast shot, a weak shot, a curved shot, a lob shot or any shot you can think of will have a smaller chance of being a goal than any other spot. On a disc golf basket however there are however such effects, and these are very hard to map except for on a very basic level. And even if you could map them it would probably be completely useless since the good spots and bad spots on the basket are tiny and spread out and nobody in the world can hit that specific coordinate or link on a consistent basis. Now on the basic level ofcourse there's things you can do to adjust your putting to targets that spit or have discs going through the chains and out on the other side. You might for example putt lower than usual on some baskets.
Reply With Quote"

 

[John Rock]

I have an idea, lets replace the baskets with volunteers to catch discs at the major tournaments. Even better if you let players pay the volunteers to heckle other players while they're putting.

We used to do something similar when we were getting our course started. On the second hole there were no trees or other objects to mark like the rest of the holes, but it was situated on a cool little peninsula. So to "officially" play the hole, whoever was farthest out would have to go stand at "THE SPOT". A good putt was between the chin and the belt line. Covering sensitve areas was allowed. You do what you gotta do to play. Thank goodness they let us put a post back there for a target:hfive:

 

[Dave242]

That's just not true. Sports such as hockey or soccer have a target in where you hit between the goal posts and under the crossbar it's a goal. There is no single spot or coordinate between the posts and under the crossbar that a fast shot, a weak shot, a curved shot, a lob shot or any shot you can think of will have a smaller chance of being a goal than any other spot.

Good to here Sweden weighing in! I was joking in my post about the Chuck's insistence on non-radially symmetric targets being unfair. If the joke was not clear, I was wrong.

The serious part of my post was on the accepted and embraced mentality in American football (and Rugby too) that an oblong ball bounces in wildly random ways and that randomness often determines the outcome of competitions.

Why is that accepted and embraced in their equipment and not in ours? Who says that the purpose/goal of targets is to catch 100% rather than 97% (I am fine with Scooter's estimate on this)? Why is it necessary for the fairness or the legitimacy of our sport?

On a disc golf basket however there are however such effects, and these are very hard to map except for on a very basic level. And even if you could map them it would probably be completely useless since the good spots and bad spots on the basket are tiny and spread out and nobody in the world can hit that specific coordinate or link on a consistent basis. Now on the basic level ofcourse there's things you can do to adjust your putting to targets that spit or have discs going through the chains and out on the other side. You might for example putt lower than usual on some baskets.

Good points and well stated. I'm glad you recognise that there are things players can do to lower the percentage of spits. You forgot the obvious one of getting your upshot closer to the target to allow you to putt more softly.

 

[Dave242]

You're defining a "good putt" as one that stays in the basket. We're satying a "good putt" is one that hit the chains squarely. The only reason we have to worry about catching is for proof that you hit the target. So if the catching isn't perfect, you can still hit your target (the goal of the game) and not have it count. I don't see how that isn't considered a problem.

Not saying we automatically want to be like golf, but I have seen plenty of times when golfers have "hit the target" and bounced off the pin or rolled right over the top of the hole. In the rare occasion on aces or chip-ins the ball goes all the way in and bounces out of the bottom.

They have hit the target, but not ended the hole with that. In the case of bounces off the pin or out of the bottom of the cup, we are faced with almost the exact problem we are discussing in this thread. Is this issue a topic of debate or conversation in golf?

 

[Scoot_er]

Good to here Sweden weighing in! I was joking in my post about the Chuck's insistence on non-radially symmetric targets being unfair. If the joke was not clear, I was wrong.

The serious part of my post was on the accepted and embraced mentality in American football (and Rugby too) that an oblong ball bounces in wildly random ways and that randomness often determines the outcome of competitions.

Why is that accepted and embraced in their equipment and not in ours? Who says that the purpose/goal of targets is to catch 100% rather than 97% (I am fine with Scooter's estimate on this)? Why is it necessary for the fairness or the legitimacy of our sport?



Good points and well stated. I'm glad you recognise that there are things players can do to lower the percentage of spits. You forgot the obvious one of getting your upshot closer to the target to allow you to putt more softly.

If you were bouncing the Football that would make sense but since the ball only bounces and remains in play on putts that are let drop and fumbles I don't see how that analogy has anything to do with a DG basket allowing a put to fall out which had hit dead center and at a reasonable speed.

That was an awesome run-on but anyway a football is meant for throwing and if the used a basketball instead Farve wouldn't throw it 40 yards accurately.