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

[scarpfish]

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.

I agree with your sentiments that the baskets don't need to be changed, but this whole argument about wasted baskets is silly hyperbole, as 99% of the play on most any permanent course doesn't involve tournaments. The people who constitute that 99% are the ones who create the demand to put those courses in the ground, not tournament players. Those folks want their long birdies and ace runs. The PDGA does not have the power to change that and they know it.

As I stated earlier, any effort to placate the small minority who think we need smaller targets could be more cost efficiently accomplished with a few traveling sets for events. And I think that camp would start to change their tune once they see the effect that such baskets likely would have on scoring spreads.

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.

And who pays for the courses again? Ah yes, that whole problem. No parks department is going to invest in new targets for a niche sport that they likely don't make any money off of when they have perfectly good ones to accommodate the overwhelming majority of folks who use them.

 

[Thumber]

smaller diameter baskets will only lead to more layups, as has been stated, but will also further the gap between the very top players and the rest of the world. Most of those guys hit exactly where they want to

 

[sugarnot]

I stand by my original post after the OP's madness (please see post #2 of this thread) and yall have already made this 9 pages long...smh.

 

[Deebo4Discs]

I think I'm kind of past the whole "grow the game" phase. Let's just keep throwing plastic at metal cages. Whatever happens will happen.

:clap:

 

[Deebo4Discs]

Beyond the costs of it, the parks will view it as unnecesary work.

I am really glad I never worry about what a park is going to do/think. Love me my p2p private courses!

 

[CaptainAnhyzer]

Must.....resist....

 

[sugarnot]

Must.....resist....

You can do it!!!!

 

[scarpfish]

yall have already made this 9 pages long...smh.

Edit options in your user CP is your friend. The cool kids don't do 10 posts per page. I prefer 20 myself.

And when certain people need to stoke the fires of impracticality about the state of our sport on here, and when they arrogantly proclaim ludicrous suggestions that only exist in their minds as popular or even majority sentiment, I see no harm in the rest of us dumping the proverbial Pacific Ocean of truth upon them. That way we have something documented for those not in the know.

 

[Cgkdisc]

(Even cooler is 18 per page. This is a disc golf course forum.)

 

[ZAMson]

This guy got you suckers good.

 

[BlueBells]

This is what atheists actually believe.

 

[DikkaD]

This guy got you suckers good.

....Real good.

 

[Sir Puttsalot]

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.

I'm not so concerned with the aesthetics (look at baskets), and I think there are more differences between an elevated basket and one on a hill/slope, but neither really was my point.

For me, it just seems like a nautral progression. Standardize game play, standardize equipment/baskets, maybe one day standardize positioning of said baskets?

Or not. As someone else mentioned, this only affects maybe 5% of play (talking sanctioned events) and additionally already 99% of baskets are in a 'traditional' position. I think most casual dgers already see elevated (or sunken) baskets as a novelty.

Regardless I too agree that any course changes will largely be driven by local clubs and local park depts. And seeing how its 'their' baskets, who's anyone else to say how they should be setup?

 

[Subicon]

Don't make the baskets smaller. Make the discs larger.

 

[Questatement]

In an example such as Fountain Hills in Arizona. I have lost over 7 discs in just one round...

If I ever design a course, I'm going to make it so the average players loses 7 discs per round.

Let's see... 300 players/rounds a day = 2100 discs, 20% of which have no contanct info = 42 free discs per day for me.:clap:

Should I also charge to play? LOL

 

[DikkaD]

If I ever design a course, I'm going to make it so the average players loses 7 discs per round.

Let's see... 300 players/rounds a day = 2100 discs, 20% of which have no contanct info = 42 free discs per day for me.:clap:

Should I also charge to play? LOL

Well its more like 80% without contact info.

 

[Kenny53691]

How did the "troll" thread get this long???

 

[Halcón]

^^ Are you new here?

 

[ru4por]

Change for the sake of change? Because different is better? I have a boss like this. The proposed changes would not make the game more visible, more watchable, more fun to play, more competitive, nor more marketable....wait what was the OP's point. Oh yeah, real sport...I have been playing for three decades under the assumption it was a real sport. I appreciate he has an opinion...well, somebody else's opinion, but advocating change should be presented with demonstrable benefits. And paragraphs.

 

[scarpfish]

wait what was the OP's point.

Getting our panties in a wad. I think he succeeded.