Is it in?

The original pole target at Oak Grove was the complete pole when first installed as confirmed by those who played it. That's because skip shots were considered a skillful way to throw the Frisbee. In Minnesota, there were complete unmarked-target-area objects used for holing out in the Kenwood Classic events.

But actually, history doesn't matter. The sport, especially one that borrows from other sports, can define scoring for each related or derivative game within its universe (doubles, match play, mulligans) in a way that makes sense and ideally rewards skillful play. As sports learn more and conditions change, they can revise scoring just like basketball, football and other sports have done for a hundred years.

As long as every player knows what the scoring rules are for a competition game, it can work. Game revisions should determine the new rules, not the current rules restrain evolving to a more skillful game. Putting won't be any easier, just less randomly punitive.
I was with you until that last sentence. How will hitting the basket NOT be easier than getting the disc to stick?
 
I was with you until that last sentence. How will hitting the basket NOT be easier than getting the disc to stick?
Just hitting the basket still costs you exactly one more stroke than landing in it. It just eliminates some of the fluky outcomes that cost you more than one stroke. It's like scoring a 9 instead of a bullseye 10 on an archery target.
 
Just hitting the basket still costs you exactly one more stroke than landing in it. It just eliminates some of the fluky outcomes that cost you more than one stroke. It's like scoring a 9 instead of a bullseye 10 on an archery target.
So, hitting the target would not complete the hole. It would just create a gimmee for the next throw, even if the disc is at the bottom of the hill in OB. Correct?

Still fewer putts, but not 1/7th as many.

I prefer to address the fluky situations (all of them, not just post-basket hits) by removing the penalty from abandoned throw. Each throw that is counted in the score would be a physical throw, each throw would be made from a lie created by a previous throw, and every hole would be completed with an actual throw.

By the way, can you show a picture of the device you are going to need to add to the basket to indicate whether it was hit or not? When someone suggests hitting THAT device should create a double-gimmee situation, will you be in support of that idea?
 
Hitting the target would complete the hole by the new definition and cost an additional stroke. As I stated above, the game should determine the rules, not the current rules constrain a revision of the game. Although it would be nice to have a confirmation device, it wouldn't be necessary any more than video is allowed/required for calling stance violations. At least in this case, players in the group would be incentivized to actually look at the target to make the disc contact call just like they do from even 300 feet away when playing 51 (Ace pays $5, metal hit pays $1) or counting a metal hit in ace race events.

Note that there's no mythical golf game format authority overseeing the evolution of our game or foot golf. For example, the 2-meter rule, compound penalties in the 80s (now limited to just one), popularizing internal OB and mandos would not be considered golf-like in nature. They just showed up in the game as unrecognized scoring changes and in many cases produced more random and less skillful measurement of a player's scoring performance. At least it was finally recognized that the 2-meter rule produced too fluky penalties in most cases.

On the other hand, recognizing the target as an actual target and scoring it like one with nuanced values increases skill measurement and reduces randomness.
 
On the other hand, recognizing the target as an actual target and scoring it like one with nuanced values increases skill measurement and reduces randomness.
True, and that's how the game started. It turns out to be impractical to simply watch to determine whether the disc has hit something or not, so the entrapment devices were invented. But the target is still the pole. The rest of the basket is for "detecting as a certainty whether or not a disc has actually struck the post for any particular throw, especially when the disc has been thrown in the direction of the post from a considerable distance." [From the patent, bold added.]

Taking us way back to the "did it hit?" days (but with a big, expensive, weirdly shaped combination of metal parts instead of a post) is the opposite of evolution.
 
I don't think it's the opposite of evolution. Among other things, there's a lot of satisfaction in throwing a disc that the basket catches -- more than the satisfaction of hitting a pole.
 
You're claiming it's the pole but the actual rule is contacting the "object". No confirmation gadget is truly needed when you evaluate the impact of calling false negatives and false positives. With a false negative, the player may stay close enough to convert the next putt even when they really did hit the target. With a false positive, the player in most cases would have made the followup putt even if they actually missed. Most disc contacts that don't remain on the target will be obvious and prevent fluky roll-aways and penalties. Again, note the calls players are supposed to make that aren't made. At least this one they have incentive to make.

When this concept is tested, ideally in X-tiers, I'd suggest only allowing it when the thrower and players in the group can see the basket. A future gadget would allow scoring this way on blind shots, but not for now.
 
Anything where you are evaluating "false negatives" and "false positives" is a step backwards from an actual catching device no matter how rules for the catching device are defined. Also- does anyone really want to have to watch everyone's shot to that degree (which is way closer than simply seeing where it went)?
 
I don't think it's the opposite of evolution. Among other things, there's a lot of satisfaction in throwing a disc that the basket catches -- more than the satisfaction of hitting a pole.
While that's true, the literal missing link is that actually hitting the target/chains was not considered "scoring". So, the flaw was either not suggesting scoring like I've suggested or fixing the target design so hitting the target results in the target capturing the disc like a goal in other sports. Changing the scoring as proposed can literally happen instantly at no cost and every PDGA Approved target still works. Changing the basket, not so much.
 
Anything where you are evaluating "false negatives" and "false positives" is a step backwards from an actual catching device no matter how rules for the catching device are defined. Also- does anyone really want to have to watch everyone's shot to that degree (which is way closer than simply seeing where it went)?
As pointed out, it's a trade-off where doing what you suggest has not been done and likely can't be done with chains and at this point will cost millions to correct whereas the downside of not doing it has resulted in a game that looks and is fluky costing players thousands of dollars who actually hit the target they are supposed to hit.

BTW, the concept has been successfully tested for a few years now in local putting leagues that draw over 80 players even thru winter. Score 1 point for getting metal and 2 points for landing supported by the basket including on top. Of course, hitting metal has been counted in ace races and 51 for years so the false positive/false negative concerns even in money games is a red herring.

New viewers watching a player hit the target intuitively think that's a good thing and at least shouldn't result in a penalty and who wants to watch layups because hitting the target is risky or putts under 10 feet, after a player hits the target, on live coverage or in person? That costs video labor and airtime when our game does not really emulate golf putting in the first place.

Target contact speeds up the game, produces fairer results in competition, happier players and likely more people who want to continue competing and playing the game. Manufacturers still have an incentive to improve their targets.
 
If we want target hits to count let's just go back to tone poles and lines painted on trees. The idea of metal hit counts on disc golf baskets is a seriously obnoxious concept and putting leagues and ace races that use those rules are covering for situations they put themselves in like target too far not enough score separation ect.
 
As pointed out, it's a trade-off where doing what you suggest has not been done and likely can't be done with chains and at this point will cost millions to correct whereas the downside of not doing it has resulted in a game that looks and is fluky costing players thousands of dollars who actually hit the target they are supposed to hit.
I have not suggested anything to this point. I will step out on a limb and say that even the flukiest catching basket on earth is an improvement over the judgement call whether something hit a pole or not. There is no target you are "supposed to hit" in disc golf. Even arrows in archery or darts need to stay in the target to be considered good. Is there any sport you can cite where bounce offs are good? Everything I can come up with involves either passing through or remaining in the goal/target.
New viewers watching a player land on top of the target intuitively think that's a good thing and at least shouldn't result in a penalty and who wants to watch layups because hitting the target is risky or putts under 10 feet, after a player hits the target, on live coverage or in person? That costs video labor and airtime when our game does not really emulate golf putting in the first place.

Target contact might speed up the game, produces more uncertain results in competition, more arguments between players and likely more people who consider the game an annoying triviality. Manufacturers still have an incentive to improve their targets.
At least partially FTFY.
 
I have not suggested anything to this point. I will step out on a limb and say that even the flukiest catching basket on earth is an improvement over the judgement call whether something hit a pole or not. There is no target you are "supposed to hit" in disc golf.
I'd say the target is designed so you have to hit the chains to score other than drop-ins. Even landing in chains still counts. Why don't you have to land in the basket tray and only come into it from the chain deflector? If you're going to be constantly changing how to hole out and currently hitting the basket is more bad and not good, I and many others have been happy taking the more sensible route of contact being done plus 1 and landing supported by the target anywhere as completing the hole despite the demonstrated very minor worries of missed contact calls which still result in game play (throwing again) as it is today. Shouldn't an important design goal be rewarding skill where possible versus introducing scoring elements which are fluky and punitive?
Even arrows in archery or darts need to stay in the target to be considered good. Is there any sport you can cite where bounce offs are good? Everything I can come up with involves either passing through or remaining in the goal/target.
You just gave examples where hitting different parts of a target result in different point values. Making contact has been a proven concept not only for game play but competitive play that involves money and prizes.
 
I have not suggested anything to this point. I will step out on a limb and say that even the flukiest catching basket on earth is an improvement over the judgement call whether something hit a pole or not. There is no target you are "supposed to hit" in disc golf. Even arrows in archery or darts need to stay in the target to be considered good. Is there any sport you can cite where bounce offs are good? Everything I can come up with involves either passing through or remaining in the goal/target.

At least partially FTFY.
Horseshoes and hand grenades.

Provided they don't bounce too far.
 
As pointed out, it's a trade-off where doing what you suggest has not been done and likely can't be done with chains and at this point will cost millions to correct whereas the downside of not doing it has resulted in a game that looks and is fluky costing players thousands of dollars who actually hit the target they are supposed to hit.

BTW, the concept has been successfully tested for a few years now in local putting leagues that draw over 80 players even thru winter. Score 1 point for getting metal and 2 points for landing supported by the basket including on top. Of course, hitting metal has been counted in ace races and 51 for years so the false positive/false negative concerns even in money games is a red herring.

New viewers watching a player hit the target intuitively think that's a good thing and at least shouldn't result in a penalty and who wants to watch layups because hitting the target is risky or putts under 10 feet, after a player hits the target, on live coverage or in person? That costs video labor and airtime when our game does not really emulate golf putting in the first place.

Target contact speeds up the game, produces fairer results in competition, happier players and likely more people who want to continue competing and playing the game. Manufacturers still have an incentive to improve their targets.
To the bolded section, they might intuitively think that until they see their first putt that actually sticks in basket or chains. Once you see and hear a make, the clang of hitting the band or cage is forever after the sound of failure.
 
Last edited:
I'd say the target is designed so you have to hit the chains to score other than drop-ins. Even landing in chains still counts. Why don't you have to land in the basket tray and only come into it from the chain deflector? If you're going to be constantly changing how to hole out and currently hitting the basket is more bad and not good, I and many others have been happy taking the more sensible route of contact being done plus 1 and landing supported by the target anywhere as completing the hole despite the demonstrated very minor worries of missed contact calls which still result in game play (throwing again) as it is today. Shouldn't an important design goal be rewarding skill where possible versus introducing scoring elements which are fluky and punitive?

You just gave examples where hitting different parts of a target result in different point values. Making contact has been a proven concept not only for game play but competitive play that involves money and prizes.
I would be all for landing supported by the target being good. I can think of nothing more subject to variance however than trying to judge contact. Players can't make any other action based calls in the game with any consistency why would they be able to judge that? What happens in the woods when views can be obscured? It all reminds me of playing object golf and having to send a "root judge" up to the tree to monitor. (which slows things to glacial pace btw)

I did not give examples where "hitting " the target scores anything. Other than horseshoes as noted above you have to hit the target and remain there. Arrows that wind up on the ground do not score, same as darts. Even with horseshoes there is a 6 inch ring defining the target area and nothing outside of it scores.
 
I would be all for landing supported by the target being good. I can think of nothing more subject to variance however than trying to judge contact. Players can't make any other action based calls in the game with any consistency why would they be able to judge that? What happens in the woods when views can be obscured? It all reminds me of playing object golf and having to send a "root judge" up to the tree to monitor. (which slows things to glacial pace btw)

I did not give examples where "hitting " the target scores anything. Other than horseshoes as noted above you have to hit the target and remain there. Arrows that wind up on the ground do not score, same as darts. Even with horseshoes there is a 6 inch ring defining the target area and nothing outside of it scores.
Here are timing-based rule calls tolerated in our sport where the group not seeing or not making the call, when it's actually violated, saving the player at least a stroke and thereby "hurts" the field:
- Not being able to see or call missed mandos
- Not seeing/calling a fault when player's plat foot not on lie/tee
- Not seeing/calling likely jump/step putt violations (See latest James Proctor scenario at Maple Hill which looked iffy but was confirmed ok by video)
- Did player call provisional?

Determining the actual last point IB is sometimes unseen or tricky resulting in significant errors in the player's new lie.

In the case of the proposed "making contact" completing the hole, not seeing or missing the call, when contact was barely made, will only sometimes penalize the thrower more than one stroke since play continues as it's currently played. However, even when contact is seen, the player is still penalized one more stroke than if their disc landed suspended in/on the target.
 
The things you cite are pretty much all of the most problematic rules we have- why add another to that list? Do you actually think the number of random spit outs is greater than the number of blown contact calls will be? Encourage thoughtful less punitive course design, don't try to cover over a problem with something even more problematic.
 
Here are timing-based rule calls tolerated in our sport where the group not seeing or not making the call, when it's actually violated, saving the player at least a stroke and thereby "hurts" the field:
- Not being able to see or call missed mandos
- Not seeing/calling a fault when player's plat foot not on lie/tee
- Not seeing/calling likely jump/step putt violations (See latest James Proctor scenario at Maple Hill which looked iffy but was confirmed ok by video)
- Did player call provisional?

Determining the actual last point IB is sometimes unseen or tricky resulting in significant errors in the player's new lie.

In the case of the proposed "making contact" completing the hole, not seeing or missing the call, when contact was barely made, will only sometimes penalize the thrower more than one stroke since play continues as it's currently played. However, even when contact is seen, the player is still penalized one more stroke than if their disc landed suspended in/on the target.
You forgot last point in-bounds.

However, the trend is toward less reliance on witnessing things as they happen. The fact that not all remnants of this kind of rule have - yet - been eliminated is NOT a reason to go back before the time the pole hole was invented to drag an old one back into existence.
 

Latest posts

Top