specs and rules to move DG from kids game to pro sport

[scarpfish]

I'm just talking about standardizing the targets, not the entire playing field. Two different things. If you don't want targets to be standardized then we might as well have Bullseyes on some holes and larger than normal baskets on others while we're at it.

No, you were talking about standardizing the playing field around the target. Let me refresh your memory.

I'm all for standardized basket height. Basketball players don't have to adapt to a different height basket depending on the court, Football kickers don't have to adapt to randomly sized uprights, etc. Enough with this putting baskets up on poles crap.

No, it would be the same as having 4.25 inch diameter holes, instead of different sizes on every hole. If you want the basket higher or lower put it on a hill or in a valley.

Again.....

As long as the height between the the top of the basket and the tray are the same, I don't see what difference it makes if said basket is on a natural hill, a man made mound, an 6' high metal pole, or is suspended from a tree. Its the same target.

 

[mashnut]

To clarify, I want a standard pole height (base of basket to playing surface) and am not opposed to baskets on man made pyramids/mounds/hills.

But the other form of an elevated basket, say on a pole >5', I am somewhat opposed to. I dont think it fairly emulates any natural incline or elevation change.

You're probably fighting a losing battle on that. Disc golf installation is done on the cheap since most courses end up funded by the local club especially for any improvements. It's a lot cheaper to put in a tall pole than to build a structure or move earth.

I agree that the tall poles look silly, but I disagree that they don't present a realistic emulation of having to putt uphill, other than the fact that rollaways are reduced when there's not a nice slope underneath the basket to get the putter rolling.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Better, smaller baskets would slightly improve competitive play but are not an element holding back growth in the pro arena. You get sufficient spectators eventually followed by really big sponsor money and it will make sense for tournament promoters to temporarily bring in better baskets that eventually would get incorporated into permanent tournament venues. Starting to expend that money now, even if a design could be agreed upon (no small task), for massive basket changes before there's massive outside money, meaning that lots of people care to better standardize competition venues, makes little sense. There are other elements that could be improved to make the sport more spectator friendly that may have more impact than basket changes.

 

[thrembo]

To those that want to change our sport/game/activity, please stop, and try and to find some other sport/game/activity to change.

 

[discguy42]

I didn't realize that Disc Golf was broken? The OP should go out and start this new "PRO" league and see if he can make it happen.

To the non DG person this stuff looks easy...let them put a disc in their hand and watch them throw it horribly, that will be their first shot of shut-up-juice. Pros make any sport/game/activity look easy.

 

[Harrishabitat]

Still waiting for the OP to return and participate in this train wreck he instigated... he must still be out yelling at the clouds

 

[beereakfast]

The baskets are too big? We could always go back to putting on a 2X15" tone pole, or a regulation size tree with ribbons. Yeah. That fixes anything.
I do agree with a bag limit, that said, I also agree with the 'stand and deliver' argument. And the 2 meter rule for that matter. They still only penalize bad throws. (defined as throws that DIDN'T land in the basket)
Want to make the game harder? Keep the changes simple, enforceable, and enforce it!

 

[Subicon]

Randy Michael Signor and others before him think we need smaller baskets to move us into sports world. Currently disc golf is a game and not a sport. I think we could look at baskets like the Gateway Bullseye Basket. I also think baskets should be set at the height of the strike zone in baseball. Consistency. Which leads us to the human factor which exists in most sports but not in the game of DG. I stand 6 feet tall which is 2 yards not 2 meters. Measured from center of my chest to tip of fingers when arm is stretched out parallel to floor is one yard not one meter. It is one yard measured from my foot heal to my hip. And my foot is a foot long with shoes on. Metric measurements were institutionalized to attract world players who currently use United States Standard Measurement when playing ball golf. DG holes and courses are measured in feet and yards. Which is one reason I was always against the 2 meter rule (I have other reasons also). I believe if we have a disc bag limit and smaller baskets like the bullseye basket with consistent height measurements, as well as the elimination of the jump putt we could move in the direction of a respectable sport. 72 par courses not 54 par's with at least white and blue tee boxes. Also pros support their tournaments without siphoning money from amateurs. Jump putts were illegal with everyone I played with for at least a decade until the PDGA allowed it. Your feet should be on ground when disc is released.

 

[scarpfish]

I do agree with a bag limit

I don't. We are not ball golf. We don't fill our bags with the molds that we choose with quite the same philosophies that a ball golfer would choose clubs.

Ball golfers also don't run the risk of losing their clubs during a round (unless they do it on purpose).

Don't even get me started on what a logistical nightmare enforcement of such a rule would be.

 

[Harrishabitat]

I don't. We are not ball golf. We don't fill our bags with the molds that we choose with quite the same philosophies that a ball golfer would choose clubs.

Ball golfers also don't run the risk of losing their clubs during a round (unless they do it on purpose).

Don't even get me started on what a logistical nightmare enforcement of such a rule would be.

Now now now, don't go using logic and well thought out opinions in this situation

(by the way, I totally agree with you :hfive

 

[natedg1976]

To those that want to change our sport/game/activity, please stop, and try and to find some other sport/game/activity to change.

This x1,000,000,000. Leave disc golf alone. The overwhelming majority of people who play are just average everyday folks. As long as it is a basket, or hell even a tone pole, I could care less.

I throw publicly owned and funded courses, so for the most part, what we have is what we have. Unless a private donor is going to fork over some cash, the baskets are staying the same.

Even the pay to play in the cities i throw is taken care of by volunteers for the most part up to and including trash removal for crimminys sake. We pay to play, and still have to remove trash on our own. Meaning the bags in the garbage cans. If a pay to play course will not even remove trash, do you really think it is gonna replace baskets.

As I said, leave disc golf be. It is a fun, recreational sport for mostly amateurs and casual players. Making huge changes in my mind will do more to alienate the majority to try and make things better for the minority.

 

[beereakfast]

I don't. We are not ball golf. We don't fill our bags with the molds that we choose with quite the same philosophies that a ball golfer would choose clubs.

Ball golfers also don't run the risk of losing their clubs during a round (unless they do it on purpose).

Don't even get me started on what a logistical nightmare enforcement of such a rule would be.

I only say this from the standpoint that the number of discs folks carry has gotten ridiculous.
Truth be told, I don't play many water courses, and have yet to lose a disc although I have had to walk away, it was always found on the second look. I have backups for the stuff I like.
I consider A loss to be A hazard of the course that should make you think twice before attempting a shot, least you be hamstrung.
The idea was to make the game harder....Right?

 

[mashnut]

I only say this from the standpoint that the number of discs folks carry has gotten ridiculous.
Truth be told, I don't play many water courses, and have yet to lose a disc although I have had to walk away, it was always found on the second look. I have backups for the stuff I like.
I consider A loss to be A hazard of the course that should make you think twice before attempting a shot, least you be hamstrung.
The idea was to make the game harder....Right?

Why does it matter though if people carry a ridiculous (to you) number of discs? I generally carry about 15 and often play rounds with just 3-4, but I couldn't care less if someone else wants to haul around 50. It's not like they get any advantage, and they end up more tired and have to spend a lot of mental energy figuring out what disc to throw.

I also think that scarpfish's point is more valid than you're willing to admit. In golf, your balls are unlimited. It would seem really silly if every time Phil Mickelson hit into a hazard his number of clubs allowed was decreased by one for the rest of the round.

 

[Harrishabitat]

I only say this from the standpoint that the number of discs folks carry has gotten ridiculous.
Truth be told, I don't play many water courses, and have yet to lose a disc although I have had to walk away, it was always found on the second look. I have backups for the stuff I like.
I consider A loss to be A hazard of the course that should make you think twice before attempting a shot, least you be hamstrung.
The idea was to make the game harder....Right?

In an example such as Fountain Hills in Arizona. I have lost over 7 discs in just one round...especially if the weather is bad... this doesn't make the game harder IMO... Besides the game harder argument, what logical reason does anyone have for limiting the number of discs?

 

[beereakfast]

Why does it matter though if people carry a ridiculous (to you) number of discs? I generally carry about 15 and often play rounds with just 3-4, but I couldn't care less if someone else wants to haul around 50. It's not like they get any advantage, and they end up more tired and have to spend a lot of mental energy figuring out what disc to throw.

I also think that scarpfish's point is more valid than you're willing to admit. In golf, your balls are unlimited. It would seem really silly if every time Phil Mickelson hit into a hazard his number of clubs allowed was decreased by one for the rest of the round.

I do not disagree. I only carry about 14 discs myself.
I simply see a limit as just that. A limiting factor that influences the given shot. If there is a possibility of loss, that may matter later. It's an easy way to add difficulty without changing basket size or any other rules.
Some may take issue, likely folks who would be disadvantaged by this change. I'm merely thinking out loud through my fingers. I have no sway!

 

[teemkey]

I do not disagree. I only carry about 14 discs myself.
I simply see a limit as just that. A limiting factor that influences the given shot. If there is a possibility of loss, that may matter later. It's an easy way to add difficulty without changing basket size or any other rules.
Some may take issue, likely folks who would be disadvantaged by this change. I'm merely thinking out loud through my fingers. I have no sway!

Do players with more discs usually beat you?

 

[davetherocketguy]

This x1,000,000,000. Leave disc golf alone. The overwhelming majority of people who play are just average everyday folks. As long as it is a basket, or hell even a tone pole, I could care less.

And, I don't think anyone is afraid of change it's just the changes which have been suggested are not practical. As much as I hate to say it I think the most practical way to make courses harder during tournament play is to increase the amount of OB and a lot of people are already doing this.

Now I know I already covered this to death already but another cost no one is thinking about in the "just make the baskets smaller" camp. If PDGA demands smaller baskets then the majority of new courses are going to install those new baskets. What about all those older baskets that manufacturers and distributors have sitting in stock already? Demand for those older style will drop dramatically. That means these older baskets will have to be sold at or below cost. And it only get's worse from there. If you have an inventory of older baskets and they don't sell what to do with them? Scrap? Yeah, that'll net $0 or less after paying someone to take it to the local scrap yard plus the money you paid to buy/make the baskets in the first place cannot be recouped. Then there is all of the re-tooling that needs to be done. All of those jigs, forms, templates or whatever they use to make those baskets now have to be remade and re-engineered. Not cheap - just ask your friendly local CFO. Kiss that profit margin bye bye.

And where do you think all of that lost profit is going to come from?

YOU

Every plastic purchase, every bag, shirt, towel, etc. etc. etc. will have a price increase so that all of these distributors and manufacturers left holding the short straw try to make up lost profit margins from all those now illegal baskets. Not only that but what do you think is going to happen to all the nice sponsorships we get? Yeah, those will be reduced as well - probably significantly. McBeast might have to get a full time McJob.

This is largely why I am opposed to drastic equipment changes in this sport at this time. Now if some Daddy Warbucks comes along and wants to change the sport because he has $30 or $40 million burning a giant hole in his pocket we will have a VERY different discussion.

 

[bikinjack]

Dear Mr. Bacon,

Please learn to use the "enter" key.

Thank you,

Jack

 

[KniceZ]

Now I know I already covered this to death already but another cost no one is thinking about in the "just make the baskets smaller" camp. If PDGA demands smaller baskets then the majority of new courses are going to install those new baskets. What about all those older baskets that manufacturers and distributors have sitting in stock already? Demand for those older style will drop dramatically. That means these older baskets will have to be sold at or below cost. And it only get's worse from there. If you have an inventory of older baskets and they don't sell what to do with them? Scrap? Yeah, that'll net $0 or less after paying someone to take it to the local scrap yard plus the money you paid to buy/make the baskets in the first place cannot be recouped. Then there is all of the re-tooling that needs to be done. All of those jigs, forms, templates or whatever they use to make those baskets now have to be remade and re-engineered. Not cheap - just ask your friendly local CFO. Kiss that profit margin bye bye.

Really - wouldn't the companies love to have a new standard. Think of all the thousands of new baskets they would get to sell. The cost would be to the courses not the basket makers. Using your logic companies would never come out with new products because they have inventory setting in the warehouse.

Besides many of the parts could be reused - tray, pole, chains. Just change the top. I'd buy a bunch of old ones and mod them if they sold them at a discount just clear inventory. I'd love to have my own course.

I'm not saying I'm all for changing the baskets, I just wanted to have an open discussion of the idea.

 

[Cgkdisc]

If a fundamental target change for professional play were to be pursued, especially by the PDGA, it would involve a specific design that could be duplicated by any manufacturer with very little variance allowed other than perhaps color. It would be like basketball hoop or goal post models looking virtually the same.

Most manufacturers would not be particularly happy with that because they wouldn't have a unique look or the ability to patent specific features that make their target unique. Only the lowest cost producers could remain competitive. And which features would be incorporated into this hypothetical new universal design? Band or no band? Nubs, no nubs? What chain pattern or perhaps no chains at all?