DGPT: Approved Baskets for the Pro Tour

[Consult20]

I've scanned through many but not all of the comments in this interesting thread. As chair of the PDGA Tech Standards Committee since 1988 I've seen all of the targets submitted for testing/approval/certification over that span. Consequently, I have a unique perspective on many of the issues discussed here.

As many have noted, a certain level of variability is permitted in approved targets, with some finding that to be a good thing (or at least not such a bad thing) and others not. I think it is important to debate whether absolute uniformity should be a requirement or not for approval. This is true both in general as well as for different PDGA tiers, and for outside tours such as the DGPT. Believe me, the TSC spends countless hours debating issues like this, often reaching a consensus but in some cases not. In the end we opted for a middle ground in the target standards, whereby there is some flexibility in design parameters so as to encourage/allow possible innovations/tweaks. And there are more rigorous requirements for the Championship level. Of course, our philosophy on this approach could be change in the future but there would need to be a compelling need to do so.

As the TSC Chair it is not my role to endorse particular targets, and I am not doing so here. But I think there are some targets not on the DGPT approval list that are equally as effective if not more so than the four they list. Those targets are commonly made by smaller companies, sometimes ones outside the US, that touring pros are less likely to have been exposed to. I'm sure the touring pros have done a good job of picking the best ones they know of, but that excludes others that are exceptional. It's not surprising/coincidental that the four selected are made by companies who sponsored many of the touring pro who voted. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just an interesting observation.

It is noteworthy that many who play in the 27-hole Lemmon Drop B-tier near Tucson, which is played with 27 different Championship targets, find the variability in the targets is one of the appealing aspects of the tournament. For your viewing pleasure, attached are photos that show a number of the approved targets in my backyard.

Thanks for your perspective, feel free to post more.

Also, amazing basket collection, I'd like to stop by and steal one lol.

 

[gdub58]

I think the track record shows our sport is wildly popular for participation but not to watch. I believe continuing to pursue minor equipment and presentation tweaks are good moves to improve game play but will not produce sufficiently more spectators.

Individual sports like golf and tennis that evolved so broadly did so largely because they were aspirational - rich people, presidents, and movie stars played, so everyone wanted to. Disc golf is not now nor will it ever be that.

A large percentage of the spectators in niche sports are also participants at some level, and historically disc golf has done a lousy job of cultivating them. If we want more spectators, participation in pro tour events should be more exclusive, well-marketed events that motivate the rest of us to attend and spend money. Disc golf has been more inclusive, and while I don't thing there's anything at all wrong with that, why would I pay $10 to watch people play when I can pay $50, get stuff from a player's pack and play too, or even play in the same division as the top guys if I'm willing to put up the money?

IMO the 2017 DGPT is a step in the right direction. One of the stops is local to me, and I will attend and hope there are opportunities to be exposed to the pros, whether that be at a clinic or even a practice round with them - I would pay decent money to do the latter.

Further, perhaps the PDGA could consider not sanctioning any other events within xxx miles of a tour event, make exclusive live online coverage available for a fee, and increase the efforts to draw as many casual players as possible from the area with posters about the upcoming tour event next to the first tee of every course in the region. I'm just spitballing and I know there are efforts already in place, but I'm pretty sure there's room to do more if increasing the number of spectators is the goal.

A more watchable version of the game could be discovered that would still be relatable but may involve formats less common for daily play by combining some or all of these elements like team play, match play, speed play, more athletic moves being legal and more challenging targets. If our elite pros wish to truly make a living at the sport because enough people watch or pay to watch them, they will need to become entertainers in a version of the sport that's actually entertaining to watch because we can recreationally play a few but not all elements of this more elaborate or "extreme" pro version.

Wheel and ski sports have extreme versions that are entertaining to a broader audience because it is obvious that what the participants are doing is extreme and no "normal" person could possibly do it, and there is an element of danger that makes people want to watch "just in case". With something like disc golf, unless you have the players BASE jump after they throw nobody will realize it's not the same game everybody plays and it will just look silly - only people who play the "normal" game will even understand that it is extreme, and we're right back to having an audience largely composed of participants.

Beyond that, disc golf would need its best players to have outsized personalities to attract more attention among the public at large and the current numbers 1 and 1a certainly don't have much going on there...

 

[DGPT]

I think so. Especially if we went all the way to having a target that is just the tray. Imagine the tension when trying to land a disc in the tray from 25 feet for the win without the help of chains or a pole.

To me, that type of throw feels like the type of throw we had to make to hit a pole with a Frisbee. I think we've focused on the wrong end of the throw by trying to keep the ballistic nature of the end point rather than trying to keep the touch feel of the disc leaving the hand.

Not that it matters, but I cannot imagine lob putting an Ultrastar or midnight flyer.

 

[DGPT]

This is a case where thinking about other sports helps. No one thinks BG is boring because a golfer can't drill a putt from 10 feet and have it stay in.

As ev aludes to. Thirty footers are almost mundane now. Adding some challenge and making these putts interesting would benefit the spectator.

I agree entirely!

Puttruss!

https://www.dgpt.com/news/in-paragon-we-truss

 

[DGPT]

As the TSC Chair it is not my role to endorse particular targets, and I am not doing so here. But I think there are some targets not on the DGPT approval list that are equally as effective if not more so than the four they list. Those targets are commonly made by smaller companies, sometimes ones outside the US, that touring pros are less likely to have been exposed to. I'm sure the touring pros have done a good job of picking the best ones they know of, but that excludes others that are exceptional. It's not surprising/coincidental that the four selected are made by companies who sponsored many of the touring pro who voted. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just an interesting observation.

Hi Jeff,

Thank you for chiming in. Just a note of clarification, we only asked the touring pros about baskets that were potentials to be on the tour, so they did not have an ability to vote on many of the smaller company baskets that they may not know of. We will have at least three and probably more baskets that will travel with the tour for at least several events so that they can have an opportunity to be on this list for 2018.

Steve.

 

[Consult20]

I agree entirely!

Puttruss!

https://www.dgpt.com/news/in-paragon-we-truss

How about the Putter-Pillar?

I like 'em.

 

[hummer1025]

Hi Jeff,

Thank you for chiming in. Just a note of clarification, we only asked the touring pros about baskets that were potentials to be on the tour, so they did not have an ability to vote on many of the smaller company baskets that they may not know of. We will have at least three and probably more baskets that will travel with the tour for at least several events so that they can have an opportunity to be on this list for 2018.

Steve.

Hi Steve,

That's what I figured, something like that. It's amazing how many choices are now available. In any event good luck to you.

Jeff

 

[Vonbeezy1]

Individual sports like golf and tennis that evolved so broadly did so largely because they were aspirational - rich people, presidents, and movie stars played, so everyone wanted to. Disc golf is not now nor will it ever be that.

A large percentage of the spectators in niche sports are also participants at some level, and historically disc golf has done a lousy job of cultivating them. If we want more spectators, participation in pro tour events should be more exclusive, well-marketed events that motivate the rest of us to attend and spend money. Disc golf has been more inclusive, and while I don't thing there's anything at all wrong with that, why would I pay $10 to watch people play when I can pay $50, get stuff from a player's pack and play too, or even play in the same division as the top guys if I'm willing to put up the money?

IMO the 2017 DGPT is a step in the right direction. One of the stops is local to me, and I will attend and hope there are opportunities to be exposed to the pros, whether that be at a clinic or even a practice round with them - I would pay decent money to do the latter.

Further, perhaps the PDGA could consider not sanctioning any other events within xxx miles of a tour event, make exclusive live online coverage available for a fee, and increase the efforts to draw as many casual players as possible from the area with posters about the upcoming tour event next to the first tee of every course in the region. I'm just spitballing and I know there are efforts already in place, but I'm pretty sure there's room to do more if increasing the number of spectators is the goal.




Wheel and ski sports have extreme versions that are entertaining to a broader audience because it is obvious that what the participants are doing is extreme and no "normal" person could possibly do it, and there is an element of danger that makes people want to watch "just in case". With something like disc golf, unless you have the players BASE jump after they throw nobody will realize it's not the same game everybody plays and it will just look silly - only people who play the "normal" game will even understand that it is extreme, and we're right back to having an audience largely composed of participants.

Beyond that, disc golf would need its best players to have outsized personalities to attract more attention among the public at large and the current numbers 1 and 1a certainly don't have much going on there...

:thmbup::thmbup:
Response of the year

 

[lyleoross]

I think the track record shows our sport is wildly popular for participation but not to watch. I believe continuing to pursue minor equipment and presentation tweaks are good moves to improve game play but will not produce sufficiently more spectators.

A more watchable version of the game could be discovered that would still be relatable but may involve formats less common for daily play by combining some or all of these elements like team play, match play, speed play, more athletic moves being legal and more challenging targets. If our elite pros wish to truly make a living at the sport because enough people watch or pay to watch them, they will need to become entertainers in a version of the sport that's actually entertaining to watch because we can recreationally play a few but not all elements of this more elaborate or "extreme" pro version.

Oh oh, disc golf X. You get scored on making throws while on a BMX and huffing paint! Cheerleaders run around with propane touches randomly igniting said huffers.

Not buying Chuck. It's almost like people don't read the numbers on growth for the sport. Americans are no longer patient. I need to be rich, famous, beautiful... last week.

I feel like I'm listening to the Democratic party. "No no, we don't have to worry about the working stiffs who enjoy playing the game, focus on rich guys with the money."

I would dearly love to see a little more money, some more exposure and a substantial pro tour. But not if the cost is some weird version that is different from the game the rest of us are playing.

 

[lyleoross]

On standardization - I agree. Many have pointed out, all players have to play the same baskets, and they are correct. My position isn't based on that, but on the other issue here, spectators. If I turn on the tube and pick up a round and there are three different styles of basket, I'm gonna wonder why. That standardization brings professionalism or a professional demeanor. There's a reason Presidents wear suits. It isn't because it makes them look nappy; it's because it makes people think they're professional, no matter how stupid they are.

 

[gdub58]

On standardization - I agree. Many have pointed out, all players have to play the same baskets, and they are correct. My position isn't based on that, but on the other issue here, spectators. If I turn on the tube and pick up a round and there are three different styles of basket, I'm gonna wonder why. That standardization brings professionalism or a professional demeanor. There's a reason Presidents wear suits. It isn't because it makes them look nappy; it's because it makes people think they're professional, no matter how stupid they are.

I would hope those who suggest multiple basket types at a single event on the pro tour are kidding - as you suggest, it's going to look dumb. In a local tournament such as the one described in Arizona, it would be fun to experience the variety.

That said, I don't think it matters one bit if one tournament stop has Discatchers and the next event has Prodigy baskets. As long as they are all similar in terms of target area and basket depth, using different chain configurations and other details can be useful towards developing better options down the road.

Even if one of the approved designs gives a slight advantage to those who throw a certain type of putt, why is that so bad? If we were that concerned about leveling the playing field as much as possible we should just ban forehands, thumbers, rollers, and other abhorrent throws since some holes/courses are designed such that those who can throw these types of shots well have a slight advantage...

 

[Steve West]

Not that it matters, but I cannot imagine lob putting an Ultrastar or midnight flyer.

No, because Ultrastars glide, golf discs don't. The force and control of speed I would use to glide an Ultrastar to hit a pole is very much like the force I would use to ballistically lob putt an Aviar into an open-topped basket.

 

[lyleoross]

I would hope those who suggest multiple basket types at a single event on the pro tour are kidding - as you suggest, it's going to look dumb. In a local tournament such as the one described in Arizona, it would be fun to experience the variety.

That said, I don't think it matters one bit if one tournament stop has Discatchers and the next event has Prodigy baskets. As long as they are all similar in terms of target area and basket depth, using different chain configurations and other details can be useful towards developing better options down the road.

Even if one of the approved designs gives a slight advantage to those who throw a certain type of putt, why is that so bad? If we were that concerned about leveling the playing field as much as possible we should just ban forehands, thumbers, rollers, and other abhorrent throws since some holes/courses are designed such that those who can throw these types of shots well have a slight advantage...

That's a good point. I guess it feels right to say there should be a standard for basket design that is deeper than what we currently have, similar to most sports, but given other issues it isn't that important.

For those who've seen the bicycle wheel throwing device, I'd argue that a standard could be set. Disc thrown with this device at a wheel speed of X, from distance Y, at position W (where W is a range in the middle of the basket, dead on the pole) should stay in the basket z% of the time. You'd have to set attitude also, probably 5 or 10 degrees. You'd quickly know if there were a difference between the baskets.

 

[Consult20]

I think the track record shows our sport is wildly popular for participation but not to watch. I believe continuing to pursue minor equipment and presentation tweaks are good moves to improve game play but will not produce sufficiently more spectators.

A more watchable version of the game could be discovered that would still be relatable but may involve formats less common for daily play by combining some or all of these elements like team play, match play, speed play, more athletic moves being legal and more challenging targets. If our elite pros wish to truly make a living at the sport because enough people watch or pay to watch them, they will need to become entertainers in a version of the sport that's actually entertaining to watch because we can recreationally play a few but not all elements of this more elaborate or "extreme" pro version.

Oh oh, disc golf X. You get scored on making throws while on a BMX and huffing paint! Cheerleaders run around with propane touches randomly igniting said huffers.

Not buying Chuck. It's almost like people don't read the numbers on growth for the sport. Americans are no longer patient. I need to be rich, famous, beautiful... last week.

I feel like I'm listening to the Democratic party. "No no, we don't have to worry about the working stiffs who enjoy playing the game, focus on rich guys with the money."

I would dearly love to see a little more money, some more exposure and a substantial pro tour. But not if the cost is some weird version that is different from the game the rest of us are playing.

Golf

Among Las Vegas gamblers, golf is considered one of the two fastest-growing sports to bet on (auto racing is the other).

The most basic form of golf betting involves picking the winner of a tournament. Typically a sports book will list 30 or more individual golfers along with a field (all others) option, at various odds.


What do you think it would take for Vegas to start setting lines for Disc Golf? opcorn:

 

[lyleoross]

Golf

Among Las Vegas gamblers, golf is considered one of the two fastest-growing sports to bet on (auto racing is the other).

The most basic form of golf betting involves picking the winner of a tournament. Typically a sports book will list 30 or more individual golfers along with a field (all others) option, at various odds.


What do you think it would take for Vegas to start setting lines for Disc Golf? opcorn:

Get out stick, thrust into hornet's nest. Knowing that Paul didn't throw the season for Ricky last year would be a start. opcorn:

 

[Consult20]

Get out stick, thrust into hornet's nest. Knowing that Paul didn't throw the season for Ricky last year would be a start. opcorn:

Vegas doesn't list lines on rigged sporting events (like fake wrestling) -- we should be fine from that standpoint!

 

[onemilemore]

Golf

Among Las Vegas gamblers, golf is considered one of the two fastest-growing sports to bet on (auto racing is the other).

The most basic form of golf betting involves picking the winner of a tournament. Typically a sports book will list 30 or more individual golfers along with a field (all others) option, at various odds.


What do you think it would take for Vegas to start setting lines for Disc Golf? opcorn:

Hopefully the fantasy disc golf the Pro Tour is rolling out this season will create some more spectator engagement.

 

[BrotherDave]

We should scrap the basket entirely and use sugar glass targets. Sugar glass is the movie prop glass used in fights b/c it breaks on contact.

Pros: Break the glass and you hole out, simple. Cool visual of a disc smashing through glass in slo mo will increase watchability. Can be made in a variety of target shapes.

Cons: You'll need a buttload of sugar glass for a tourney. Will require someone to constantly replace target on every hole. Ants.

:|

 

[Martin Dewgarita]

We should scrap the basket entirely and use sugar glass targets. Sugar glass is the movie prop glass used in fights b/c it breaks on contact.

Pros: Break the glass and you hole out, simple. Cool visual of a disc smashing through glass in slo mo will increase watchability. Can be made in a variety of target shapes.

Cons: You'll need a buttload of sugar glass for a tourney. Will require someone to constantly replace target on every hole. Ants.

:|

I dig it. I can envision how this would work for a tourney with volunteers, or at least coordinating with cardmates, ie BoB is in charge of resetting the target or whatever. But I struggle to see how this will work for casual rounds...

 

[Steve West]

We should scrap the basket entirely and use sugar glass targets. Sugar glass is the movie prop glass used in fights b/c it breaks on contact.

Pros: Break the glass and you hole out, simple. Cool visual of a disc smashing through glass in slo mo will increase watchability. Can be made in a variety of target shapes.

Cons: You'll need a buttload of sugar glass for a tourney. Will require someone to constantly replace target on every hole. Ants.

:|

What if it just chips? Does a spider web of cracks count if no pieces fall off? What about a soft putt that bounces off? I heard if the sugar glass is tinted it doesn't break as easily. What if the wind, or an object driven by the wind, breaks the glass? Are all rounds played in the rain scored as 18 for everyone?