Uli's walking putt

[tylerc]

sweet sounds like a cool video

 

[mashnut]

You can break rules without gaining an advantage. You're comparing an objective rule with a subjective opinion.

Nope, I'm talking about both and you're not understanding where I'm making a distinction. I have two separate points:
1. (this is where I'm talking about the actual application of the rule) The example shown is almost impossible to determine the legality, even with video evidence. When a call is too close to make in real time, the benefit of the doubt goes to the player according to the rule book.
2. (this is where I'm giving my own opinion on what needs to be done about it) These edge cases aren't important enough to try to make a rule change about them because they aren't providing the player with an advantage.

Does that help clarify?

 

[Nasty Nate]

I was just thinking about this because I recently watched some tourney videos with Ulibarri and I definitely thought his putting was suspect. In several instances he appeared to just walk forward while putting, one time while being very close to the edge of the circle. I was surprised no one called him on it, honestly.

 

[dark_clark]

I've tried to replicate Paul's walking putt a number of times to no avail. However, for some sweet footy of a jump putt, check out the 4min15sec mark of this video....

http://youtu.be/2YoCz3H-N3o

Sick helix walk/jump putt from way,way out. BTW, I'm pretty sure this guy is hitting birdie on a 700'+ par 3 with this make.

 

[Flip Hyzerman]

Sick helix walk/jump putt from way,way out. .

Flex - a 'helix' is not a disc golf shot.

 

[Declarkus]

Nope, I'm talking about both and you're not understanding where I'm making a distinction.
[...]
Does that help clarify?

I understand the distinction between your subjective view of the rule, and the way the rule is written. You feel the rule is impossible to determine and inconsequential.

I feel that using a controversial technique bordering on illegal only invites the debate, whether on a forum or during competitive play.

I also found it interesting how personal views of Paul influenced people's viewpoint. I guess I'm wrong -- it is a subjective rule.

 

[Stardoggy]

Nope, I'm talking about both and you're not understanding where I'm making a distinction. I have two separate points:
1. (this is where I'm talking about the actual application of the rule) The example shown is almost impossible to determine the legality, even with video evidence. When a call is too close to make in real time, the benefit of the doubt goes to the player according to the rule book.
2. (this is where I'm giving my own opinion on what needs to be done about it) These edge cases aren't important enough to try to make a rule change about them because they aren't providing the player with an advantage.

Does that help clarify?

I get the argument on #2, but to me, every inch you get closer to the basket affords you an advantage on any shot.

If he does this 10 times a round, and it helps him once, then he has gained an advantage. Or once every ten rounds, for that matter.

 

[JC17393]

I get the argument on #2, but to me, every inch you get closer to the basket affords you an advantage on any shot.

If he does this 10 times a round, and it helps him once, then he has gained an advantage. Or once every ten rounds, for that matter.

So I guess the question is whether that 1 in 10 advantage gained within the confines of the rules (and even on the edge of those confines, it is still within the confines) is something worth addressing at all.

It's not a flaw in the rule that something on the edge of legality (and there's no question that it is) is difficult to call in real time. Changing the rule only changes where that edge is to be pushed, and someone will inevitably push it.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

...and what is stopping anyone else from practicing the same technique, if it truly is doing anything beneficial? No different then a dorky putt jump and looks WAY better.

 

[Pbmercil]

...and what is stopping anyone else from practicing the same technique, if it truly is doing anything beneficial? No different then a dorky putt jump and looks WAY better.

There is nothing stopping anyone, which to me shows just how mechanically useless his style is. It actually is a lot different from a traditional jump putt. A jump putt translates additional energy into the disc, Uli's does not, or maybe just very little energy. There are lots of jump putters who lead their follow through with the back leg. Wysocki, McCray, and Doss to name 3 off the top of my head. Those guys release much earlier, because thats when the energy generated by their body is translated into the throw.

If you dont believe me try Uli's style sometime. If your a push putter at all the lack of energy imparted will be immediately obvious. Its a little more subtle for spin putters but still noticeable.

The other big difference between Uli's walk and a jump putt is that jump putting is much more obviously legal. Ive never seen a jump putter and gone "hm that might have been a foot fault"

 

[BirdieMachine]

It just looks completely ridiculous first of all, second of all it's borderline illegal to flat out illegal but never gets called that I've seen.

 

[tbird888]

This has been discussed ad nauseam all over the place, including on Facebook where the pros are abundant. If this putt really were illegal don't you think calls would start happening, in abundance?

Give it a rest already.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

I am going to start doing this as much as possible. Messed with a little last season and its legit.

 

[BirdieMachine]

I am going to start doing this as much as possible. Messed with a little last season and its legit.

I already cash long putts putting like a normal person and don't look like a goofball jumping or running. It's called having snap and spin. They should make a rule where your feet can't cross in front of your disc/mark before the disc is released. That would stop this idiocy. I guess you could still hop around like a frog but not step putt.

 

[JC17393]

I already cash long putts putting like a normal person and don't look like a goofball jumping or running. It's called having snap and spin. They should make a rule where your feet can't cross in front of your disc/mark before the disc is released. That would stop this idiocy. I guess you could still hop around like a frog but not step putt.

Would it? Right now the only point of contention is whether the lead foot comes into contact with the ground before the disc is released. Not necessarily easy to get perfect in real time but at least the moment of foot to ground contact is a finite moment to watch for.

What you are proposing is that players determine, from any number of possible (and mostly impossible) angles, whether or not one's foot crosses an invisible vertical plane determined by the marker? Seems to me it might stop what you consider "idiocy" but it creates a whole new bucket of it in the process.

I think the burden of proof here is on the ones screaming that it's illegal to prove that it is so. Otherwise, it boils down to wanting to change the rule because someone's doing something that either you don't like or can't do yourself and you want to stop it. Simply put, that's a dumb reason to change a rule. It's like the people who campaigned and got the slam dunk banned in the NCAA back in the 60s/70s.

 

[Pbmercil]

Ive nevet understood the anti jump putt vitriol. Different stokes for different folks man.

 

[BirdieMachine]

Would it? Right now the only point of contention is whether the lead foot comes into contact with the ground before the disc is released. Not necessarily easy to get perfect in real time but at least the moment of foot to ground contact is a finite moment to watch for.

What you are proposing is that players determine, from any number of possible (and mostly impossible) angles, whether or not one's foot crosses an invisible vertical plane determined by the marker? Seems to me it might stop what you consider "idiocy" but it creates a whole new bucket of it in the process.

I think the burden of proof here is on the ones screaming that it's illegal to prove that it is so. Otherwise, it boils down to wanting to change the rule because someone's doing something that either you don't like or can't do yourself and you want to stop it. Simply put, that's a dumb reason to change a rule. It's like the people who campaigned and got the slam dunk banned in the NCAA back in the 60s/70s.

You can't cross in front of the mark with your feet before the disc is released, seems pretty simple to enforce actually to me. Stay behind your mark.

The problem is that step putting has proven by video evidence over and over to be illegal. Now do you want to continue to let something illegal be done or not?

 

[Pbmercil]

^^^ this argument has already been covered in this thread.

It's not a flaw in the rule that something on the edge of legality (and there's no question that it is) is difficult to call in real time. Changing the rule only changes where that edge is to be pushed, and someone will inevitably push it.

 

[Pbmercil]

The problem is that step putting has proven by video evidence over and over to be illegal. Now do you want to continue to let something illegal be done or not?

This has also been covered in this thread. Video evidence proves nothing. The rules state that benifit of the doubt goes to the thrower. If it isnt obvious in real time then its not a violation. The only evidence Ive seen proves that its borderline, not that its obviously a violation.

 

[Dan Ensor]

...and what is stopping anyone else from practicing the same technique, if it truly is doing anything beneficial? No different then a dorky putt jump and looks WAY better.

Pride ... honor ... respect for the game ... respect for fellow competitors ...

This has been discussed ad nauseam all over the place, including on Facebook where the pros are abundant. If this putt really were illegal don't you think calls would start happening, in abundance?

Give it a rest already.

It's too close to call. Even if they are illegal. Which is clearly stated in the rules.