Nasty Spits...bad luck or bad putt?

[Cgkdisc]

No one has mentioned yet that I recall the issue that often happens to me where I putt dead center at a medium speed and somehow the disc catches the chains perfectly in a way the the chains swing in and and swing out together and the disc gets pushed over the edge of the basket and onto the ground. I get disappointed and upset when that happens, but always realize that that is my fault for hitting dead center where I know this sort of spit out is a risk.

The thing is, that swinging chain repsonse only happens when the chains are in a certain pattern that you're facing. You almost need to be squared up with a mirrored outer chain pattern for the disc to go straight in and be grabbed on both sides to be rocked and then snapped back out.

 

[Dave242]

Imagine if there were a reject spring in the bottom of the cup in golf where certain putts that drop in from certain points uniformly spaced around the circle would be rejected back out of the cup. The players couldn't tell what those angles were and a reject only occurs once in every 30 putts from those angles. Would golf consider that a fair addition to the game to add a little more excitement or is there enough excitement in putting already?

Golf already has this sort randomness built in. You have got to consider the surface of the putting greens to be a part of the target as it is a physical part of the "holing out apparatus" (lame term, but you get the point) that the course owners control and every player has to navigate.

It is often random in ways that are imperceptible. I cannot count the times imperceptible randomness in the putting surfaces cause the path of the putt to flummox even the TV commentators who are sitting at the same green all day long and see tons of puts from the same area. When faced with this, players shake their heads and move on.

 

[Karl]

Dave242,

Sometime ago (a year or deux), there was interesting discussion about what could actually "pass" for a PDGA target. Turns out (this has, I think, been changed...or at least has been for certain tiers of tournaments) that if the "basic" numbers were adhered to, both a birdbath and a top-loader (washer) would be OK as a dg target.

What we all have to remember is that a deflection assembly is NOT required (again, I have to preface this with I haven't read the "new" tech standards, etc...maybe it's changed).

All the deflection device really does is STOP (from missing) putts and POSSIBLY "make them count" (by deflecting them down into the basket or catching them).

Personally, I'm all for eliminating deflection devices altogether...and making us throw "lob shots" into a hole (maybe a large hole than the diameter of the present basket). This would "add" a facet to the game - Touch - which is presently being dominated by Power.
But I'm also a realist and HIGHLY doubt that such would EVER be accepted (it's just very hard to go back to roll-up-by-hand windows in your car once you have push-buttons...even though BOTH do the job).

Karl

Ps: And I'd contend that Felberg's putt was NOT EASY enough (otherwise it wouldn't have had the momentum to move chains and exit the back)! If he floated the putt EVEN MORE (than he did), yes, he'd have brought into the equation 'more windage', 'more arc', etc., BUT would've assurred that the putt would've gone ONLY as far as the basket.
I'm not saying that he SHOULD have done such...it's always a trade-off (softer, more wind-affected putts vs. harder, less wind-affected putts) but the latter of these 2 WILL have more cut-outs.

 

[Scoot_er]

Dave242,

Karl

Ps: And I'd contend that Felberg's putt was NOT EASY enough (otherwise it wouldn't have had the momentum to move chains and exit the back)! If he floated the putt EVEN MORE (than he did), yes, he'd have brought into the equation 'more windage', 'more arc', etc., BUT would've assurred that the putt would've gone ONLY as far as the basket.
I'm not saying that he SHOULD have done such...it's always a trade-off (softer, more wind-affected putts vs. harder, less wind-affected putts) but the latter of these 2 WILL have more cut-outs.

If you look at it after initially hitting the outer set it is sent vertical and doesn't really even contact any other chains on the way out. Basically the disc didn't have to work hard to fall out.

 

[Karl]

Matt,

I'm not questioning THAT, but IF Felberg threw the disc JUST hard enough to get over the front rim (but not hard enough to proceed to the back rim) the disc would HAVE to fall into the basket! SOOOOOOOOO, obviously, it was TOO hard. Yes, unlucky AND too hard!

Remember, on earth we have gravity; use it to your advantage (read: really hard putts fail to do this)!

Karl

 

[Scoot_er]

Matt,

I'm not questioning THAT, but IF Felberg threw the disc JUST hard enough to get over the front rim (but not hard enough to proceed to the back rim) the disc would HAVE to fall into the basket! SOOOOOOOOO, obviously, it was TOO hard. Yes, unlucky AND too hard!

Remember, on earth we have gravity; use it to your advantage (read: really hard putts fail to do this)!

Karl

If everyone tried to putt like that there would be just as many discs bouncing out of the bottom of the basket which IMO is "less unlucky" than the spit Dave had. It should also be know Borg will "whine" about pretty much any missed putt whether it should have stuck or not.

With that said he did hit the dead spot on a Mach III and usually when I see my putt going for that area I tense up until the disc comes to rest. Dave has also brought up the idea of throwing into a pit like area instead of a basket so maybe he is on the same level as you.

I am real good at putting into trashcans if that means anything and would like to play on a different type of "hole" just for fun.

 

[Omega SuperSloth]

the problem with his putt was it was too high , when you hit higher up you get a wider target but your hitting less chains (less resistence) , and when you aim lower you hit alot more chains .

anytime you hit that high up and it stays in you lucked out because that wasnt a good putt. One way to eliminate those blowouts would be to make the chains straight up and down , sure you would lose some inches to the right or left on the top but those couple inches rarely nock down putts mor than 40-50% , probally less.

 

[DGtourist]

Golf already has this sort randomness built in. You have got to consider the surface of the putting greens to be a part of the target as it is a physical part of the "holing out apparatus" (lame term, but you get the point) that the course owners control and every player has to navigate.

It is often random in ways that are imperceptible. I cannot count the times imperceptible randomness in the putting surfaces cause the path of the putt to flummox even the TV commentators who are sitting at the same green all day long and see tons of puts from the same area. When faced with this, players shake their heads and move on.

This is a great thread/discussion. I agree with almost all of the insights you have brought to the table dave.

Nothing to add (we need a dead horse smiley), just wanted to give props.

 

[ERicJ]

Nothing to add (we need a dead horse smiley), just wanted to give props.

Re-post away.