Nasty Spits...bad luck or bad putt?

[Cgkdisc]

Who says that the purpose/goal of targets is to catch 100% rather than 97% (I am fine with Scooter's estimate on this)? Why is it necessary for the fairness or the legitimacy of our sport?

No problem if a basket doesn't catch 0.1%, 1% or 5% of "good" putts as long as that performance occurs from all radial angles. It's the inconsistency of catching percentage from each chain pattern angle that's the problem and the inability to even know what those differences are.

 

[Janbobbo]

Good to here Sweden weighing in! I was joking in my post about the Chuck's insistence on non-radially symmetric targets being unfair. If the joke was not clear, I was wrong.

The serious part of my post was on the accepted and embraced mentality in American football (and Rugby too) that an oblong ball bounces in wildly random ways and that randomness often determines the outcome of competitions.

Why is that accepted and embraced in their equipment and not in ours? Who says that the purpose/goal of targets is to catch 100% rather than 97% (I am fine with Scooter's estimate on this)? Why is it necessary for the fairness or the legitimacy of our sport? .

Well I wouldn't argue that this issue has alot much to do with the legitimacy of our sport, there are more important things to increase the legitimacy as I see it. I basically am just saying that I prefer targets that are as consistent as possible in catching discs, and there are some good targets out there aswell as some bad ones. I think that some more consistent targets would be beneficial to our sport and I think there are some rather simple things that could be done to improve their design. However, I'm not expecting the targets to be 100% perfect of the discs although I think that should be the goal, or rather the vision! I'm at most hoping that this discussion will lead some further and quicker improvement in our target designs if some manufacturer will pick up on it!

Good points and well stated. I'm glad you recognise that there are things players can do to lower the percentage of spits. You forgot the obvious one of getting your upshot closer to the target to allow you to putt more softly.

Well, there are some good strategies to scoring as well as possible and reducing the amount of spits and so on, but regardless of what you do the basic question will be there! This target discussion is a seperate discussion from the "strategy" discussion. So I'm sure guys like Dave Feldberg have a rather good understanding of what to do to avoid spits, or rather, what to do in order to score as low as possible given all circumstances, and that's after all the objective of our game

 

[optidiscic]

I think the evergreens that gobble up my discs are the best disc catching targets of all time!

 

[mashnut]

I think the evergreens that gobble up my discs are the best disc catching targets of all time!

Especially cedars, those love to catch my disc for me.

 

[optidiscic]

Especially cedars, those love to catch my disc for me.

yep I just lost a pro wraith at high speeds to one....so I'm sure Feldberg would have zero spitouts on a regulation cedar target!

 

[bikinjack]

No problem if a basket doesn't catch 0.1%, 1% or 5% of "good" putts as long as that performance occurs from all radial angles. It's the inconsistency of catching percentage from each chain pattern angle that's the problem and the inability to even know what those differences are.

Bad logic. Remember everyone throws from the same tee, therefore not inconsistent. No luck or randomness or "fluky"ness is involved. There is no competitive advantage for anyone.

Better baskets need to be made and installed, however. This random, fluky. or lucky argument just doesn't work. Just say they don't catch well enough. Baskets need to catch better. There needs to be a higher standard.

 

[Scoot_er]

Bad logic. Remember everyone throws from the same tee, therefore not inconsistent. No luck or randomness or "fluky"ness is involved. There is no competitive advantage for anyone.

Better baskets need to be made and installed, however. This random, fluky. or lucky argument just doesn't work. Just say they don't catch well enough. Baskets need to catch better. There needs to be a higher standard.

I agree with this! Chuck has gone a little too far with it if you ask me and as long as they catch better I would be happy.

Now if that design happened to be radial like a Discratcher sport with innners or something that is fin but catching better is what I think many are looking for.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Bad logic. Tee has no bearing on the basket inconsistency as it rotates. You presume the player can actually see the chain pattern from the tee. They can barely see it from 10 ft away. If the cone basket (as pictured earlier) had been the dominant model from the beginning, the current chain design would have been laughed out of the sport if it had been introduced a few years later, at least for competition.

 

[Beable]

No problem if a basket doesn't catch 0.1%, 1% or 5% of "good" putts as long as that performance occurs from all radial angles. It's the inconsistency of catching percentage from each chain pattern angle that's the problem and the inability to even know what those differences are.

Hmm, this I kind of agree with. To continue with the backboard/hoop analogy, players can learn what angles off the backboard will result in baskets. Not so much with the chains.

I still think this is mostly QQ though. Would these players who want to equate throwing into the heart of the chains with a successful putt be ok with it not being a "good" putt if it drops into the basket without touching the chains?

 

[bikinjack]

Bad logic. Tee has no bearing on the basket inconsistency as it rotates. You presume the player can actually see the chain pattern from the tee. They can barely see it from 10 ft away. If the cone basket (as pictured earlier) had been the dominant model from the beginning, the current chain design would have been laughed out of the sport if it had been introduced a few years later, at least for competition.

No, I presume the basket doesn't rotate at all, even while players are teeing off, or while putting. There can logically be no competitive advantage if everyone throws from the same tee to the same basket oriented in the same orientation. The basket doesn't rotate. Ever.

Define luck, fluke, or random, please. The putt in question does not fit any reasonable definition of any of these three words.

Better baskets can and should be made. But your logic doesn't work, at least for me. Baskets should catch better. There are too many angles from where a putt can go through the chains, and "spit out". That is all that needs said. No luck is involved.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Uhless you're Cubby, an ace from the tee is rare, so shots from the tee are irrelevant compared to throws/putts from every orientation closer to the basket. Every orientation of the basket has changing weak spots where the wrong angle throw may spit with some angles more likely than others. However, we don't even know what those are for a pro to be able to adjust accordingly. Even if we gathered a vast amount of data and were able to precisely map out what the "spit pattern" was for each particular angle, players can't easily see what those angles are from outside 10 feet. The foolish thing would be to actually try to gather all of that data rather than just make the basket rotationally consistent in the first place. Then at least any remaining spit problems would be consistent around the basket and players could adjust to those probablilities.

 

[John Rock]

Or players could walk the course prior to competition (or have their caddy perform this task), visually inspect each basket as it corresponds to the fairway, and make notes as to the best location for a tee shot, lay-up, etc...

But that would once again put the issue on the player, therefore unacceptable.

 

[bikinjack]

Uhless you're Cubby, an ace from the tee is rare, so shots from the tee are irrelevant compared to throws/putts from every orientation closer to the basket. Every orientation of the basket has changing weak spots where the wrong angle throw may spit with some angles more likely than others. However, we don't even know what those are for a pro to be able to adjust accordingly. Even if we gathered a vast amount of data and were able to precisely map out what the "spit pattern" was for each particular angle, players can't easily see what those angles are from outside 10 feet. The foolish thing would be to actually try to gather all of that data rather than just make the basket rotationally consistent in the first place. Then at least any remaining spit problems would be consistent around the basket and players could adjust to those probablilities.

My point is that any player can make the same throw, and could end up with the same lie. There is no luck involved. It's simple physics. Not luck, or a fluke, or random. There is no advantage to any player due to the basket design, or orientation. Things that would be luck, or random, or a fluke would include a sudden gust of wind, or hitting a bird, something truly random.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Sorry, but your analysis is misdirected. True, no player has an advantage from the tee. But that's not what we're talking about. The place a player lands for their shot at the basket results in a different chain pattern with different risks for spits. That's the unlucky part that's non-resolvable with the current basket designs. If the spit patterns were determinant, then the luck aspect would shrink. But that's not the case.

 

[Karl]

All,

First, I'm glad everyone got away from comparing our targets to soccer (et al) goal posts. Bad comparison. Their's are "definitive" (a resolution happens) via a vertical plane - cross it and GGGOOOOOAAAALLLL. Ours is NOT vertical, it's (more) horizontal than anything else.
Much more akin to curling! Throw the stone too fast - you lose! Throw the putter too fast - potential cut through!


Chuck said,
"...just make the basket rotationally consistent in the first place."
Correct! Everything else CAN be done BUT is really just a waste of time.
And this coming from a player who STILL believes (after 6 years of playing) that we have the oddest "end point" of any sport I know of. So I'm all for REALLY changing the target!!!


But understanding that THAT will never happen...
In our ever-increasing verve of "FASTER, MORE POWERFUL" we forget that the original basket was just that - a basket. Get it "in the basket" and win a prize! We now think that the CHAINS are the "finish"...wrong. It's still the challenge of "getting the disc into the basket"...and if the "deflection device" just HAPPENS to grasp the disc, well, that'll count too!

We have tee shots to "sate our need for power", why do we have to have "perfect chains"? To also "sate our need for power"? Too much power / too lop-sided of a game IMO.

Karl

 

[bikinjack]

I agree that current basket designs are flawed. Please just don't call it "unlucky". Any player can potentially throw to any lie. That is all I'm saying. Arguing for better baskets based on luck is not a good argument. That's all I'm saying.

"Luck or fortuity is a belief in good or bad fortune in life caused by accident or chance which happens beyond a person's control." This is taken from wikipedia. This is why I say luck is a bad argument. If you have a definition of luck that is different from this, that involves things which are under an individual's control, then for you, the "luck" argument works. It does not work for me.

 

[nrohtlaw]

I think alot of it has to do with strategy on how you putt.If you putt the same way at every basket you are going to get spit out.Lighten em up on some of the baskets and crash full force into others.Depends on what kind of basket,temperature,elevation,and amount of chains in the basket.

 

[chiggins]

We have tee shots to "sate our need for power", why do we have to have "perfect chains"? To also "sate our need for power"? Too much power / too lop-sided of a game IMO.

While I hear what you're saying, I don't think that applies in the instance cited in the video. I realize that where the line is drawn between "putt that was fired in too hard" and "putt that got freakishly spit" varies by person, but to me that putt fell into the "freakishly spit" category. It came in easy, hit the sweet spot of the chains mostly flat, got turned vertical by the initial impact, and took what looked like a left turn when it got slung around the pole.

But that's the thing right? Is there a right answer to this, or is there only a possible consensus of opinions about when a chain system doesn't catch well enough, and when it catches too well? I mean, should the standard be that someone with 600' of power should be able to fire a Boss from point blank into the heart of the chains and have it stick 100% of the time? Probably not, at least I wouldn't require that. But I'd at least be in favor of a target where solid putts that have made it into the heart of the target don't spit, and I certainly don't think that that's an impossible or unreasonable goal to have for top-quality equipment.

 

[Dave242]

In our ever-increasing verve of "FASTER, MORE POWERFUL" we forget that the original basket was just that - a basket. Get it "in the basket" and win a prize! We now think that the CHAINS are the "finish"...wrong. It's still the challenge of "getting the disc into the basket"...and if the "deflection device" just HAPPENS to grasp the disc, well, that'll count too!

Interesting vocabulary that "deflection device" language you bring up.

The PDGA rules call the chains the "upper entrapment" area
The PDGA Technical Standards document call the chains a "deflection assembly"

So, even with the PDGA there is disagreement with the stated intent: "entrap" would suggest an expectation of 100% catching where as "deflect" suggests bouncing off.....either into the basket or not. I think the differing expectations of what the chains are intended to accomplish are at the root of the discussion here.

We have tee shots to "sate our need for power", why do we have to have "perfect chains"? To also "sate our need for power"? Too much power / too lop-sided of a game IMO.
Karl

This is an excellent point!

Not saying we need to be exactly like golf, but in golf there is a HUGE and beautiful juxtaposition between the power needed on the drives and the touchy finesse needed on putts (some so ridiculously touchy that all the player has to do is touch the ball to start it rolling with the hopes it does not roll too far).

We do not have that to that level, but those wanting to have the basket catch everything thrown at it no matter what angle or speed want to remove the little we have.

Like I have stated several times before, if you want minimize the risk of spit-outs, get your upshot closer to the basket so you can putt more softly and hit the best catching areas more accurately.

An aside here: 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.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Please just don't call it "unlucky". Any player can potentially throw to any lie. That is all I'm saying. Arguing for better baskets based on luck is not a good argument. That's all I'm saying.

If the potential result cannot be compensated for or controlled such as the rotational position of the chain pattern facing the player, then that means luck becomes more of a factor in the outcome. If the pattern is not discernable to know how to control for higher success, then that's an unnecessary luck factor introduced. If the deflector presented the same surface to putters from all directions, at least the probabilities of bad luck could be determined and would essentially be the same from all directions.

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?