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.
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.
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.
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!
opcorn:
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.
