Beaver State Fling '18

[@iDiscGolf]

It's called a basket after all. People want to treat it like darts when it's really more like basketball.

Huh?! This made me scratch my head and say you're right, kinda...

 

[DanJon]

I don't think it's a matter of they can't practice them. I think it's a matter of they don't. In no small part because targets just keep adding chains and becoming more receptive to the high speed putt, and in part because putting everything hard like they do works 98% of the time even at close range.

I can agree with this.

I'm by no means a pro level player, but the main course I play at is private and features an assortment of baskets.

I know how to adjust my putt on each basket because of it.

When I'm on, I make the majority of my putts, regardless of which style basket I'm putting on.

Clearly the pro dudes and gals play practice rounds on the specific event's course.

How is it that they don't know what style putt will work best?

 

[SD86]

It's called a basket after all. People want to treat it like darts when it's really more like basketball.

For Sarah Hokom, no doubt about it. For Eagle, he must've forgotten to call the bank shot.

 

[Taylor]

Do any locals know how long the BSF layout will be up?

 

[@iDiscGolf]

Do any locals know how long the BSF layout will be up?

Not long enough imo. It's not like people are going out there for a easy game of frolf anywho.

 

[billyjacko]

For Sarah Hokom, no doubt about it. For Eagle, he must've forgotten to call the bank shot.

He has a floaty nose up putt. He doesn't rip the ball into the backboard like Ricky on those 10 ft spit backs.

 

[Matt B.]

Do any locals know how long the BSF layout will be up?

Been down since the day after.

 

[hugheshilton]

However, what you're proposing has been done. It's called the Mach X. It has a cross chain structure that allows players to go at it harder than, say, the Discatcher. So, from 40 to 20 feet, a player can huck their discs hard as heck at the basket, and it won't skim through. But when you get those longer putts that slow down as they approach the basket, they are more likely to hit that more rigid chain structure and bounce out. That is, you have to have more force to get the disc to stay in the basket. Yep, shorter putts won't pass through cause of the structure. But softer putts have a greater tendency to bounce out. In other words, Ricky and Eagle's final putt stay in, but several putts by other players delivered center chains will get pushed back out. Also, side chain hits that stay in on other baskets tend to bounce out.

First you tell me that Mach X's are what I'm proposing (when I clearly proposed a non-basket, non-chain type of target), and then you tell me that Mach X's have just as many spit out problems just not the same ones. I'd like a target that catches perfectly no matter the speed on the disc as long as it hits in the target area. And as you just said, Mach X's have problems just like any other current target design. And personally speaking, I tend to hit right-side chains pretty frequently which have a tendency to splash out whenever I play a local course with Mach X's. I'm not all that fond of them tbh.

I don't think that Mach X's are the answer, but honestly I'm not an inventor so I have no idea what would make an ideal target. I know what I'd like it to DO, not how I'd like it to work. Armchair quarterback extraordinaire here.

 

[hugheshilton]

I suppose you could say I'm proposing we go back to tone poles. I'm not opposed to tone poles, and I've played courses with them a few times which were fine. There's something nice about your disc being caught by a target though, as opposed to just touching and then having to be retrieved from the ground or bushes. On longer or blind holes, it's also hard to be sure of a tone pole ace.

 

[Streets]

Hot take:

I think baskets are fine the way they are...

 

[robdeforge]

I'd like a target that catches perfectly no matter the speed on the disc as long as it hits in the target area.

nooooo thank you! speed control is important in every other aspect of disc golf, it would be silly to remove it as a variable from putting

 

[lyleoross]

First you tell me that Mach X's are what I'm proposing (when I clearly proposed a non-basket, non-chain type of target), and then you tell me that Mach X's have just as many spit out problems just not the same ones. I'd like a target that catches perfectly no matter the speed on the disc as long as it hits in the target area. And as you just said, Mach X's have problems just like any other current target design. And personally speaking, I tend to hit right-side chains pretty frequently which have a tendency to splash out whenever I play a local course with Mach X's. I'm not all that fond of them tbh.

I don't think that Mach X's are the answer, but honestly I'm not an inventor so I have no idea what would make an ideal target. I know what I'd like it to DO, not how I'd like it to work. Armchair quarterback extraordinaire here.

It seemed to me that you're calling for a solution or something that does it differently than what is current. What I'm telling you is that, IMO, any solution will involve compromises. The Mach X is a demonstration of that. IIRC, you proposed something that catches those fast close putts or allows them to happen such that they can't go through or are scored (maybe I'm incorrect) that solution creates other catch issues, by what I've seen.

There is a solution that fits. There was a basket a few years ago. It had a hood. You pointed the hood at the putter. If you got the putt in the hood, it stayed. Looked ugly, and you had to change basket directions.

What some of us are saying is that it isn't on the PDGA or the manufacturers to make a basket that catches or scores differently, as per what you are suggesting, it's on the players to adjust to the baskets. That's what happens in basketball, golf and other sports.

A few guys have proposed uniformity. I agree, a set of standards that make baskets, course to course, event to event, that catch in a range of power and position, would be good for the sport.

BTW - you're playing very nice, given I've gone after your posts pretty hard, thank you!

 

[Halcón]

If we're playing Disc Golf, the target should reject some putts for having the wrong speed.

This is an excellent point.

 

[hugheshilton]

A few guys have proposed uniformity. I agree, a set of standards that make baskets, course to course, event to event, that catch in a range of power and position, would be good for the sport.

BTW - you're playing very nice, given I've gone after your posts pretty hard, thank you!

Ah, it's all good, I try to be a good sport. I knew what I was proposing wouldn't be popular. I'm only sort of half serious anyway because I'm not completely positive that I'd like what I'm proposing any better than what we have now. I mean, without chains, you wouldn't get that lovely *ching* sound which is so iconic to our sport after all...

Just today I was playing a round (up at Buxton Woods) on brand new DD Veterans. I had a 10 foot putt which I threw with my usual force (honestly not all that hard). It hit dead center on the pole right in the middle (not high or low) and kicked straight back out. I said, "Huh, that's weird, it wasn't a very hard putt." So I did it again, making sure I wasn't cramming it or anything, and got the EXACT same result. Any other basket I've ever played on would have caught both those putts, given that I wasn't putting particularly hard or high or putting up at the basket or anything. I can only imagine what Ricky goes through when he plays on Veterans. These might be some of my least favorite baskets, for a recent basket design at least.

ANYWAY, all that is definitely an argument in favor of what you're proposing: technical standards for how well a basket catches putts coming in at different heights, speeds, and angles.