Is putting too easy? too hard? Just right?

[Nemmers]

what is funny to me is that I am constantly amazed by how BAD professional disc golfers are at putting. They miss a surprising amount of putts for people that make their living off disc golf. In my head they are putting God's but when the tape rolls it is closer to a league night putting. Thus probably has more to do with the C level athletes that make up our elite players right now. Maybe when actually talented athletes start to play the game a basket change will actually be necessary.

Nobody -- not even the best disc golfers in the world -- can make a living off of disc golf.

 

[JLudlam]

Bet he didn't think basket was too big @ last years USDGC playoff on #1.

 

[filobedo]

Putting is what correlates dg most to traditional golf in my opinion in terms of amatuers vs professional. Many players are on not on the LPGA or PGA tours and play the mini tours because putting holds them back from competing with the best Pros in the world. I once asked Jay Reading what distance he expected to make the majority of his putts and he answered something like 80' and within.

 

[Chainsgoching]

Putting is what correlates dg most to traditional golf in my opinion in terms of amatuers vs professional. Many players are on not on the LPGA or PGA tours and play the mini tours because putting holds them back from competing with the best Pros in the world. I once asked Jay Reading what distance he expected to make the majority of his putts and he answered something like 80' and within.

I wonder what percentage Yeti is making at 80'? Putting is definitely his strength, as he doesn't drive as far as some the kids these days and his putting prowess definitely keeps him competitive. I like Jay and Des...great ambassadors of the sport

 

[woolymarmot]

This would emulate ball golf too much in player development. The best equipment would only be available to kids coming from families willing to buy a pro-sized practice basket. The rest would be stuck at the park playing on normal sized baskets (one could argue that this would actually be an advantage the average kid would have over the spoiled, sheltered rich kids). As someone else stated, this would also give current touring pros a huge advantage in tournaments. At least once they saved up enough money to buy a new basket to practice on.

A change would make it more challenging for the pro-tour, but I don't think it's a good idea if the tournament side of the sport wants to continue to grow.

 

[Guurn]

The answer is a move back to cones!

 

[Cgkdisc]

Based on the growth of the game, it's clear the current basket size is not slowing the number of new players. With regard to the sport as played by amateurs, the basket target zone is a bit too big. A smaller target zone would bring the putting challenge more in balance with the throwing challenges of distance and accuracy (and also help resolve one of our favorite DGCR topics on par).

With regard to the pro side of the sport, a smaller target zone would also provide better balance. However, that change alone would not solve the bigger issue with our sport for pros, and that is lack of interest in people wanting to watch, let alone pay to watch the sport played at the highest levels. The idea that just getting more courses and players will eventually generate enough paying spectators makes assumptions that this is how other sports larger than DG eventually generated spectators.

My thought is that the sport at the pro level needs more radical changes in ways where people would willingly pay to watch. That's another topic where smaller baskets may or may not matter. And those changes would not have to change the game/sport as we know it today for amateurs.

 

[rhatton1]

Nobody -- not even the best disc golfers in the world -- can make a living off of disc golf.

Umm?

What about those that do? Unless you're referring to just tournament winnings?

 

[scarpfish]

What about those that do? Unless you're referring to just tournament winnings?

Thing is, I think you can count those people on your fingers and still have fingers left, and even for them, its not exactly a comfortable living.

 

[SonicGuy]

Thing is, I think you can count those people on your fingers and still have fingers left, and even for them, its not exactly a comfortable living.

Which is all the more reason to become super amazing at putting because every tournament makes a huge difference to your lifestyle.

 

[DavidSauls]

With regard to the pro side of the sport, a smaller target zone would also provide better balance. However, that change alone would not solve the bigger issue with our sport for pros, and that is lack of interest in people wanting to watch, let alone pay to watch the sport played at the highest levels. The idea that just getting more courses and players will eventually generate enough paying spectators makes assumptions that this is how other sports larger than DG eventually generated spectators.

Would smaller baskets make disc golf more watchable, or less?

On the one hand, they might add suspense when competitors are all inside 20'.

On the other hand, short putts are pretty boring to watch, even with doubt as to whether they'll make them. It's much more impressive, perhaps almost exciting, to see long putts go in. The frequency of which would presumably be reduced with smaller targets.

At any rate, my hard-to-quantify standard is I'd like to see targets somewhat smaller, to require greater accuracy, but not to the point that long made putts become rare and players are laying up instead of running at the basket more often. Laying up isn't great sport, for the competitor or the spectator.

 

[Dan Ensor]

Smaller baskets would make amazing drives/approaches less likely to be nixed by low percentage long putts (luck).

 

[DiscFifty]

If anything....the path TO the basket is too easy for the pros. If getting to the basket was harder no one would be wanting smaller baskets.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Here are three ways to make the basket tougher for pros but not change it for amateurs. The first example could be done right away by mounting the identical basket on top of the current target on the course. It would work for many target models out there. It would be easier to lug around 18 extra baskets nested together for temporary tournament setups versus a set of scaled down baskets. The other two examples would also be relatively easy to retrofit existing targets but some new manufacturing would need to be done.

You can see the third one has a scaled down smaller basket with a shorter Bullseye style chain setup to provide some deflection help. I like the middle design best to provide a cleaner look and providing just a bit of deflection help and a taller overall target for visibility without needing a flag in many cases. These styles would test putting speed and angle control for just half of the rounds (see below) unlike our newest target designs like Mach X and Prodigy. They would also be tougher in the wind making even short throws after missing not automatic. That's the problem with scaling down the current basket design - if you miss, the close ones would still be drop-ins for the pros.

The way I see it working in competition is amateurs can land the disc anywhere supported by the target and it's in including the top section. Pros must land only in the bottom main target section just like current rules to hole out. The last half of the rounds/holes being played in the event and Final 9, the pros can only land in the top basket section to hole out. I'm thinking players and casual observers might find final rounds with these baskets more interesting to watch. Casual players and amateurs could play to the top section in their fun rounds to see what it's like without being subjected to it during competition until turning pro.

The top section only could be mounted on poles and installed as alternate pin placements on some holes for use in the second half rounds/holes.

 

[cc0049]

Putting should be harder. Narrower and elevated would improve our game. However, good putts should ALWAYS stay in the basket.

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

I have been in love with the game of Disc Golf since I first played on a basket course in 1989. There are few things as gratifying as the resounding CHING from nailing a 50-footer for deuce when the putter does exactly what you envision it to do. Our equipment is AWESOME. Few other sports' participants have such a special place that in their hearts that baskets and Discs do in ours...plus we have the edge in super affordability, and I would argue too that the game itself is very intriguing.

No, don't change the basket to make it more difficult. It (together with our awesome projectiles) is what makes this game special. Where Disc Golf needs to improve is in the quality and difficulty of courses. If the top players need more challenge and their scores need to be closer to even par, that is where I'd like to see change, not in a fundamental change of the one piece of equipment that essentially defines the game.

 

[BrotherDave]

Wouldn't it just be easier to make pros putt with Superclass sized discs? opcorn:

 

[curveball4]

I've seen me putt, it's not too easy!

 

[scarpfish]

Smaller baskets would make amazing drives/approaches less likely to be nixed by low percentage long putts (luck).

Not really. The amazing drives/approaches still have to be executed just like they do now. There will just be a greater emphasis on sticking them in a much tighter circle.

Thing is, the awesome long save putts you see now will be replaced by not so awesome misses and intentional and boring layups when the former isn't practical.

In a world with smaller baskets, would this famous DG moment still have happened?

 

[knettles]

Yes, familiar with Dr Fred and his baskets. This 3-bar idea came about as a result of lively discussions on the rec.sport.disc discussions in the 90s where having a completely blocked side of the basket was perceived to be unfair versus 360 access but more challenging throws. It's similar to a basket wedged into three evenly spaced tree trunks but with much better access.

This is interesting to hear. I was thinking about making a basket for a home course that simply attached to the side of a tree. It would basically only be half/two thirds of a basket that the tree would limit access to. My idea was purely for ease of installation and not having to permanently put baskets in the ground.