Should all baskets be the same height off the ground?

There is a discussion on making courses and putting more challenging.

This is not Putt-Putt/Minature Golf. No trick shots - one standard height! After you change the heights are we going to have to throw through a windmill?

<font color="blue">I play at a course called Highland Springs In Lake County, CA and there is an alternate basket for hole #13 that is on a 5 foot tall stump (approx.) This hole is rediculously hard cause the blow-by factor on the putts is insane.:mad:I am undecided on wether it is a good idea or not...the par would have to be adjusted accordingly. I think that a standard heigth is best but i know that there are always variables like hillsides and eroded tee bases that will make it so they are never exactly the same heigth. </font>

Jeff,
I couldnt agree more,
Yellow ropes, bales of hay, clowns noses, why would the pdga want to this for our sport ( WHO WOULLD WANT THIS)?.
Taking what we have done so far to make disc golf a sport and turning it into some kind of canival game, seems lack a big step backwards.

Comparing a basket being at a different height with a windmill or a clowns nose is a bit overboard don't you think?

I have no problem with a basket being in a tree trunk or something but they should all be the same height when on flat ground.

Here are pix of holes designed by Stan McDaniel at Renny:
http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/renaissance/renny_2gb.jpg

and Harold at USDGC:
http://gallery.usdgc.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&amp;g2_itemId=1707&amp; g2_serialNumber

Dan Doyle has the famous hole #5 on the edge of the rock ledge (couldn't find the pic online)

If the issue is manmade versus "natural" elements being relevant, than baskets and cement tee pads should eliminated along with yellow rope, fences and shelters. If natural elements can set up a shot from a certain height or angle, why shouldn't designers be allowed to create the same effect with any cobination of natural and manmade elements. Wh y is the fact something happens "naturally" be the relevant deciding factor? Of course, the basket in my picture is perched in three natural trees as opposed to being on a dirt mound surrounded by manmade bricks. Aesthetics is only one aspect of hole design and not every course is blessed with an abundance of natural elements.

(I forgot that for some reason links can't be posted on this thread.)

Matt, is the eleveted basket at USDGC something you have a problem with?

I assume it is okay with you.

The only difference is decoration around the pole. I agree it would be kinda funny looking to me to see a basket just raised 2-3 feet higher by using a lengthened pole and nothing else but the only reason i can think of why is becasue i am used to seeing poles shorter. If someone did that I would tell them it was kinda ungly and they should put something around it to make it look better, but that doesnt take away from the fact that it is a good thing to do things like this to increase the challenge on an otherwise not-so-challenging hole and/or to spice up a boring looking hole.

I am ok with that one but I would like to see the basket up on an elevated green instead. BTW we are putting in some elevated greens for TX states this year. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

(I forgot that for some reason links can't be posted on this thread.)





hmmm, why were you able to post the pic in the other thread in this topic and not here?

Like chuck said I like Natural better than manmade but if it is the only option (wide open short hole) There should be something put in to increase the difficulty.

disc golf is not a fashion sport. i wasnt aware that we needed to decorate, elevate. or do anything special to baskets to make them aesthetically pleasing, if you have a boring hole, or one that doesnt challenge your skills enough, you should have your course designer redesign the hole or go play a course more to your level. if its pretty courses you desire, maybe you SHOULD be playing putt putt instead.

i wasnt aware that we needed to decorate, elevate. or do anything special to baskets to make them aesthetically pleasing, if you have a boring hole, or one that doesnt challenge your skills enough, you should have your course designer redesign the hole or go play a course more to your level.



I am the course designer.

I see you have been promoting Lake Lewisville in another thread. You think those elevated baskets/greens out there weren't made by someone (Oldman and crew I beleive) to make the course look and play better???

There are two holes that I know of that are getting a facelift this year at TSDGC #2 on the tourny will have a Tx shaped island around it to make it a little more interesting than a 220ft up hill shot that is wide open and the old #5 (new #4) is getting an elevated green since Rita took down all the holes trees. In reality the tourny course is getting 3 new holes and two holes will be changed. The course should play about 1 stroke tougher than last year and 3 tougher than 02 worlds.

Ok, let me refraise my statement.

I think elevation changes are acceptable. I thought Dave meant that the basket would be 6 feet off the ground on one hole (Longer base pole) and 2 feet off the ground on the next. Along with that Hay Bails emulate a water hole the same way that ball Golf has them.

Being that this sport has the same principles as ball golf, why shouldn't it have holes that emulate ball Golf?

I think elevation changes are acceptable. I thought Dave meant that the basket would be 6 feet off the ground on one hole (Longer base pole) and 2 feet off the ground on the next. Along with that Hay Bails emulate a water hole the same way that ball Golf has them.




That is what Dave was saying.

So if a hole is on raised ground, a mound 25 feet in diameter and 10 feet higher than the normal elevation - that is ok (According to Dave)

follow this link and go towards the end of the thread to see where this discussion began .... http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=PDGACE&Number=485377&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=7&fpart=5

Chuck and I were talking about raising baskets up to add difficulty etc and Dave was completly against it and decided to make this poll thread.

At Renny, #9 on the original course is on a couple of boulders. It is the required height from where it is cemented into the rocks, but if you are 3ft from the front of the basket, the bottom of the basket is over your head.

It makes the hole a very tough duece, if it was on the ground next to the rocks, there would be a lot of 2's from the advanced and pro players. The boulders turn it into a 3 and sometimes a 4 for the too-aggressive players.

I think that the acceptable range for basket height should be narrowed to maybe only an inch or two. Too often I have gone to courses where there are baskets on each end of the extreme for acceptable heights. This height requirement should be the maximum height from where the basket is placed so that on a sloped ground a player is not putting over 50 inches. However this would still allow for baskets such as Renny's and Winthorps since the ground where the basket is placed is elevated.

elevated landing areas are quite ok, elevated baskets that are 6 feet off the ground is not. so, you have to basically putt up hill. the holes you referenced at the lake course are landing areas only, not the baskets, all the baskets at the lake are the same height off the ground except hole 9 which shold be raised due to erosion. if disc golf should emulate ball golf, have you ever seen tiger woods have to putt out by chipping upwards. i dont think so.

I am a little torn on this topic. The problem to me that arises when a basket is elevated (for example) 6' in the air on a pole is that every putt and comeback (missed) putt is effectively an uphill putt.

A basket on a steep slope or near a drop-off gives one the opportunity to place your approach shot in a location that gives you a desireable putt, but also often raises the risk/reward for those "go for" putts.

The reality is that many courses do not have the terrain and natural obstacles to make for an interesting course. Making things seem natural can cost a lot more money than DG designers have at their disposal. Ball golf has a ton of gimmicky and unnatural elements that seem natural they disguise them and make them seem natural (elevation/terrain, streams, ponds, trees, bunkers, grass/rough length).

For me, the bottom line is that DG designers should be allowed the latitude to incorporate artifical elements....BUT discussion as to what is good/acceptable and what is tacky/gimmicky is great and even required. The nice thing is, is that if something is designed in that is tacky and not too much expense is involved, it should be easy to change.

So as long as there is something hiding the pole up to about 24 inches from the basket then a taller basket is ok? But it is not okay if the pole below 24ish inches is visible?

Actually, the work at the lake was mainly done by BSA Eagle scouts. The baskets were all the same height off the ground. The raised landing areas brought the surrounding area up to the height of the ground under the basket.

Currently, there's no design guideline specifying basket height in either the DGCD or PDGA guidelines. The tech standards specify that baskets 'as manufactured' should be produced so the basket lip height will end up 30-35 inches above the ground if installed per their instructions. There's no height standard for the target zone itself, which to me is the largest failing of the standards. The dimensions of our target cylinder should be as exact as a hole in ball golf independent of any other design aspects of baskets.

The top of the chain support ranges from 15 inches (Skillshot) to 22 inches (DB-5) on approved PDGA baskets. So, even current baskets, if installed per guidelines could have the bottom edge of the target vary from 30-35 inches and the top of the target zone could range from 45-57 inches (1 foot).

I've seen baskets installed essentially in pits that were installed per guidelines where my feet were at basket height only 5 feet from the basket. It was odd but seemed like a reasonable design choice that shouldn't be taken away. I think there's a reasonable range for basket heights, but unless the course is located in Watusi land, only a few should be installed artificially higher than the normal range. In fact, no particular design element should be overdone. It's about variety and balance to the best you can do it on a course.

I think the poll should include a few more options.

The main point is that the basket should installed the same height from the surface below it, and that a player should be able to easily reach and stand on that surface. This is required for retreival of discs from the basket.

How much inventiveness is used to make the target locations interesting and challenging should be left up to the course designer. I know that when installing baskets, I look for the most interesting and challenging terrain available for both tee and pin locations. Why should a designer be limited to natural terrain when options are available ?

i wasnt aware that we needed to decorate, elevate. or do anything special to baskets to make them aesthetically pleasing



My response was to that comment. I was pointing out that even at his home course things are done to decorate, elevate to make things more aesthically pleasing. Those wooden walls didnt just grow there like that.

I was thinking Tom and crew did that stuff but now that you say it I remember hearing that the scouts did it.

The main point is that the basket should installed the same height from the surface below it



What should be acceptable as a surface below it? A couple of boulders that just basically hide the pole up to a certain point, a planter box at X inches diameter, the actual earth itself?

Maybe it should qualify as a 'playing surface'... oh, right, the RC still hasn't figured out how to define that :)

I would be happy with any stable surface that is large enough to stand beside the basket without endangering the player.

The surface should also be easily reached by those without climbing experience and average athletic abilities. At least no more ability than the course in general requires.

Why is most everyone here afraid of change??? Hell I think that having different basket heights is a great idea. The hole at Renny with the boulders is an AWESOME hold BECAUSE of the boulders and where the basket is. The baskets at USDGC are awesome as well. They take a wide open flat putting green and turn it into a difficult green just by raising the basket. Ball golf has man made lakes and sand traps and elevated greens and tees. Heck the whole **** course is man made. EVERYTHING. Sure the end result has grass and trees and water and sand but all that was excavated and planted and dug out or filled in. For the most part NONE of our courses are man made other then some tree cutting basket and tee pad installation. So why shouldnt we raise or lower the baskets??? Heck you could even have a locking system on the poles so one day your putting on a basket that is 2 feet off the ground and the next its 5. Thats changes the putt and the hole completely and can make pitch and putt courses more difficult or atleast more mentally challenging because depending on basket height you man not be able to run all the putts you did when the baskets were normal height. I love the hay bail idea and I love the bamboo at USDGC. That turns a 270 foot wide open hole into a tough 2 if you dont make it inside the bamboo. and the hay bails on 17 are great as well because if they werent there it would be an easy putter shot for the 2 but instead its a really tough putter shot and if you dont make it you could take a 4 5 or hell even a 6 on it but if the bails arent there almost EVERY single pro there is going to get a 2 when they play it. I say if you dont have the best land to work with then why not use some man made obstacles and things of that nature to make the course more difficult then it would be if the designer used the normal terrain.

So I leave you with this question??? If you guys are so afraid of change why do you buy every new driver that comes out on the market???

I think the course designer should do whatever the hell he/she wants.

check this out
http://www.tadga.com/board/album_pic.php?pic_id=28
Willow Metropark, MI

Maybe it should qualify as a 'playing surface'... oh, right, the RC still hasn't figured out how to define that :)



Actually they have. See glossary.

I forgot. They did put the incomplete definition in there this time. At least it's a start. I'll try and remember to have players mark down in the dry trench under a bridge if they land on a foot bridge that the TD didn't define as a playing surface.

I forgot. They did put the incomplete definition in there this time. At least it's a start. I'll try and remember to have players mark down in the dry trench under a bridge if they land on a foot bridge that the TD didn't define as a playing surface.



LoL, sorry, I had to laugh. Where does common sense kick in? When the rules dont define it any other way?!? Great example Chuck.

I have to admit, I too think its up to the course designers on where to place not only the tee pads but the baskets as well. As long as your disc can be retreved safely and easily.....bring it on!

I think the course designer should do whatever the hell he/she wants.



I think this philosophy is counter productive to establishing course design standards. When you play a ball golf course, the cups are all the same size and at grade. This is one area where we should parallel the BG approach.

Apples and oranges. The holes all being the same size would be like having our target zone/cylinder be the same on all of our approved baskets (which I already posted needs to be addressed). The ball rolls to the cup and the shape of the contour can be modified as needed for ball golf designers to create uphill and downhill shots of different slopes. Having baskets at different heights would be doing the same thing.

Hi Nick,

I've found the Excel files for the course evaluation itself, but when I click on them all I get is "File not found." I was able to download a practice evaluation so I saw the questions, but wasn't able to find the empty evaluation spreadsheet. Is there another place to look besides the Files link?

Apples and oranges. The holes all being the same size would be like having our target zone/cylinder be the same on all of our approved baskets (which I already posted needs to be addressed). The ball rolls to the cup and the shape of the contour can be modified as needed for ball golf designers to create uphill and downhill shots of different slopes. Having baskets at different heights would be doing the same thing.



I agree with all but the last sentence. Having the baskets at different heights above grade is not the same as having contours on a BG green. If that's what you want to accomplish, then the basket should be located so that there are differing elevations on the ground surrounding it.

Having baskets that are different heights above grade is an inconsistency much greater and much worse than the differentiations in target zone/cylinder size, in my opinion.

Not all places have the luxery of the elevation change. Having a basket at a different height then the majority of holes on a flat course simulates the elevation where there is none. Yes, the best way to go about doing this would be to construct the elevation change but some places cant afford to. Not like anyone is saying each and every hole should be different pole lengths, that would be overkill.

Not every place is blessed with grade changes. Ball golf courses get bulldozed. Very few DG courses do. If a basket is 1 foot higher on a pole, it's a lot cheaper and easier than dozing a 1 foot mound of dirt to place a regular height basket on.

Same thing, same shot, whether dirt or not. (Put it to music :))

Fair enough, I concede that. It's just not a concept that I personally would incorporate into a design. Golf was originally a game that consisted of hitting a stone into rabbitt holes. It was an all natural thing - no land manipulation involved. I think the closer a course design sticks to that, the more enjoyable and beautiful it is.

I forgot. They did put the incomplete definition in there this time. At least it's a start. I'll try and remember to have players mark down in the dry trench under a bridge if they land on a foot bridge that the TD didn't define as a playing surface.



I like the definition: concise and comprehensive.

How would you have worded it with anywhere near as much elegance? I couldn't find a way, but I am linguistically challenged...

Why doesnt anyone ever respond to what I post.........Did anyone read what I wrote up there??? Does anyone have a response to waht I wrote or no???

So I leave you with this question??? If you guys are so afraid of change why do you buy every new driver that comes out on the market???




I love change...I love elevated baskets....I would love to play the USDGC Championship layout as well as baskets hanging from trees and that hole at Renny.

I dont buy every new driver on the market. The majority of my bag is made up of older model discs, CE FireBird, CE Valk, DX Aviar, DX Roc as well as a Q-sentinal, a 2002 Wizard and a Proline Gremlin. I do however use the CFR Wraith alot and have a Champion Sidewinder in my bag but hardly ever throw it.

Probably not the response you were looking for but atleast I acknowledged your existence. :D

Some times it is better if people ignore you (not you specifically), cause sometimes people just don't communicate online well (more specifically me). Okay I agree with you. Sometimes people just ignore long posts because they are too lazy to read the whole thing, maybe that is what happened. Maybe there are lots of disc golfers looking at their computers nodding or shaking their heads. Maybe there just is not a good argument for being against subtle change. Maybe they just don't want to respond or are intimidated by all that is Millz.

Steve,
hows the weather in your area?
Is there snow on the ground?
Still want to test fly some discs?
We are trying to put together a team event for march 18-19yh in centralia Illinois.
* players no restrictions!
Could you get a team together or know someone who can?

Steve,
hows the weather in your area?
Is there snow on the ground?
Still want to test fly some discs?
We are trying to put together a team event for march 18-19yh in centralia Illinois.
* players no restrictions!
Could you get a team together or know someone who can?



I wanna test fly some stuff. :D

Pimp,

I read your post, most of your points had already been discussed, and I thought the last question was a rhetorical one.

What would you like a response to ?

I already gave my point of view. The baskets should be at a standard height. The playing surface beneath the basket shoudl be raised or lowered. Not the easiest thing to do. but if you look at how it was done at the USDGC, It's nothing that could not be done with a little money and effort. Heavy equipment is not required.

I read your post. I just don't think that raising the baskets by increasing pole length is a good direction in which to go. I feel that raising the playing surface is the way to go to add that element to the game. Add 2 or 3 dump truck loads of dirt to your putting area and you can create a nice raised area upon which to locate your basket. I think that looks and works much better than a basket on an elongated pole.

So what you saying is....you know someone with a dump truck that has all this time and fuel to spend helping you.

Then your saying you know someone that has about 30 yards of material laying around for you to come get.

And your also saying that your buddy with the dump truck has a way to load that material......getting the picture here......its simple to say, but to pull it off is something else.

Of course parks departments have these things but getting them to work for you/us/me is something else entirely.........set the basket on a taller pole and start playing in 20 mins.

There is nothing in my post about a buddy with a dump truck and 30 yards of dirt. However, working for a government utilities division that installs miles and miles of sewer each year, I know this is something that can be done. It's not that daunting to me.

If you want to install a basket on a taller pole and be playing in 20 minutes, then have at it. I don't fault you for that. My personal preference would be to take the time to try and find a way to get the dirt. If I couldn't, then I would probably drop the elevated basket idea because a basket on an elongated pole is not part of my design philosophy.

Steve,
hows the weather in your area?
Is there snow on the ground?
Still want to test fly some discs?
We are trying to put together a team event for march 18-19yh in centralia Illinois.
* players no restrictions!
Could you get a team together or know someone who can?



I would love to test fly some stuff.........Theres not snow on the ground right now and it has been around 40 or more but I also live in MI so who knows whats coming in the next couple or hours days or weeks.

I got some guys up here that might be interested in a team event. How many guys per team are we talking about here???

Hit me up with a PM and we can discuss it further and in more detail.

Comparing a basket being at a different height with a windmill or a clowns nose is a bit overboard don't you think?



Like this ?
http://members.cox.net/geospr619/01-07-06_1521.jpg :eek:

Basket is underneath it.

Hear are my thoughts.

In Ball golf , ALL the holes are the exact same size and depth.

In Disc Golf , shouldn't each basket at a regulation tournament , be of regulation size, height , and identical shape , per each course ?

Sure there are exceptions like the Raised base , on a hill , mound , on a slope or even hanging from a tree branch , but not 10 feet higher than normal or 4 inches off the ground , unless part of the course design.
We all have to play the same course anyway.

My opinion is that basket height from the ground should be consistent and pretty close to how it is now. Baskets that are really low or really tall just look completely retarded. You might as well change the whole design of the baskets if this is what we want to do to create difficulty on a hole.

You might say that a course that has no trees and no elevation and no OB needs some way to increase the scoring range. I'd say, why was this course installed at this horrible location and what can be done to prevent this from happening in the future? If they want to further insult their course by using non-regulation basket height, it would just more easily identify the course as sub-standard. You can't always make adjustments to force a bad course into a good one. If you try with methods such as changing the pole length, it's going to make a bad course worse.

On the other hand..... I've played courses with some "specialized" baskets. The hanging baskets I've played on hung at normal height. In Kirkwood, CA, they have a basket that is on top of a huge fallen tree. The hole is very cool, so I can't say that having an unusual basket couldn't be worth it in special situations.

But adjusting the pole height as a regular design factor in establishing difficulty would be rediculous and ugly. Also, this type of basket doesn't encourage safe play. In golf, you want to reward shots that get closer to the hole. Using greens with some elevation to consider is a very good idea though. They need to be more difficult.

If ugliness was actually the standard for determining whether a design element was suitable or not, then Winthrop Gold would be unsuitable for hosting the USDGC all these years. Once you get past hole 1, there are manmade hazards and backdrops the rest of the way including elevated baskets.

The height of the basket should not be so tall as to not alolow Brad Hammock to retrieve his disc.

(He may be short, but he can surely whoop me up and down the course).

Agreed. Challenging course, but not very pretty.

If ugliness was actually the standard for determining whether a design element was suitable or not, then Winthrop Gold would be unsuitable for hosting the USDGC all these years. Once you get past hole 1, there are manmade hazards and backdrops the rest of the way including elevated baskets.


You said It I didnt, but I agree ;)
Course designers should use the natural terrain and work the land to its fullest potential.
this often requires a redesign of an existing course as the disc technology has changed many of the older courses.
Holes where i used to have to roll I can now reach with a high speed driver like an Illsuion or spirit.

I guess I'm just too conservative when it comes to yellow ropes, bales of hay and quintuple mandatories :confused: for disc golf courses.
these items seem more suited for rodeos :D

Notice I wasn't saying that the Winthrop design features weren't unsuitable, just less than desireable aesthetically. My point is that designers who don't have naturally beautiful terrain to work with nor a budget to fix it, shouldn't be prevented from boosting the challenge on the course layout in ways that might not be pretty such as rope or elevated baskets.

However, the uglier the course, the less useful it is in attracting people to the sport. I'd agree that designers shouldn't be prevented from using rope and elevated baskets, but use of those items should be discouraged . I am not in favour of making a course ugly just to increase the challenge. That's the deal at Winthrop, but I don't fault them for it. They are using the facilities made available to them for a specific event. It's convenient to them as well, due to its proximity to their business and the hotel facilities for the specific event. But overall, I have to say it is not a desireable balance between challenging golf and asthetic beauty.

IMO, designers should be highly encouraged to do anything that creates a fair, but difficult course with a wide scoring average. Rope, mandos, elevated baskets, obstacles near baskets, whatever. As long as it's fair.

I feel like since we aren't going to have the resources to build aesthetically pleasing, but difficult courses in the near future, why hold it as an ideal of the present? Embrace any concepts that demand more from the players. It the future of all sports.

I feel like since we aren't going to have the resources to build aesthetically pleasing, but difficult courses in the near future, why hold it as an ideal of the present?



I have recently been blessed with the resources to build an aesthetically pleasing and difficult course. I waited a long time for it and it was worth the wait. I also turned down an offer once to build a course on a parcel that just didn't lend itself to disc golf.

I think at this point in the development of disc golf, we should not be so desperate for new courses that we build courses on junk land. If the land can't support a good course without adding ugly elements to it, then better not to build a course there.

I feel like since we aren't going to have the resources to build aesthetically pleasing, but difficult courses in the near future, why hold it as an ideal of the present?



I have recently been blessed with the resources to build an aesthetically pleasing and difficult course. I waited a long time for it and it was worth the wait. I also turned down an offer once to build a course on a parcel that just didn't lend itself to disc golf.

I think at this point in the development of disc golf, we should not be so desperate for new courses that we build courses on junk land. If the land can't support a good course without adding ugly elements to it, then better not to build a course there.



Five years ago I would have disagreed with you, but now I agree that the sport is at the point where we need better courses, not more courses just for the sake of it. I have seen too many crappy Boy Scout projects over the past several years - these now decrepit courses are utilized by virtually no one and are more black eye than boon to the sport.

hey scott, if your p & d cant afford some type of ground manipulation, how about planting some trees to increase difficulty, this approach has positive impacts two fold.

thats all fine and dandy, i think what some have in mind would be to put the basket half way up the windmill, maybe there could be a ladder for disc retrieval.

Five years ago, I might have disagreed with me too. Today, I have higher aspirations.

Ah just kidding. Steve reviewed Barre Falls, a course I once had something to do with, and after bemusedly noticing that I took every low grade personally, I found the survey useful for anyone interested in improving their course.

We got a couple questions: How close is close with convenience stores? Is three miles if you have directions close?

And do you rate a course from a specific perspective? Like, specifically for really good players, or for everyone? Okay I'm behind the curve. It's still cool, though. And I still can't upload the blank Excel worksheet. Bunch a goofballs.

You evaluate the course based on the player skill level the long tees were designed for. If not specified, then the default is to evaluate based on the Blue level 950 rating range players. (Top Advanced)

Dan Doyle has the famous hole #5 on the edge of the rock ledge (couldn't find the pic online)




http://photos.imageevent.com/skylandsdiscgolf/2005/animaldoubles/websize/DSC00605a.jpg

here's that picture you speak of..you can see the basket slightly off center to the left on the top of the cliff.

When you're right below that rock face, throwing over your head with an upside down putt seems to work best.

SECOND!
http://www.tripledisc.com/preview/MSDGC/nododge.jpg

The base of the pole hole to the baskets base should be identical , even if the basket is hanging from a tree , on a slope or on a hill !!!

...or at least w/in a very tight range...how about 10cm which is basically 4" (3.93")?

:D I have played on some ( In a Major / National tournament ) where some were 2 feet higher on a flat base than others , close to sitting on the ground.

My thoughs on this : Should be a Basket Standard in a Standard tournament , Basket uniformity , per each course played. Any basket Deviations , should be Specifically noted during players meeting if any !!!!!!

I have recently been blessed with the resources to build an aesthetically pleasing and difficult course. I waited a long time for it and it was worth the wait. I also turned down an offer once to build a course on a parcel that just didn't lend itself to disc golf.

I think at this point in the development of disc golf, we should not be so desperate for new courses that we build courses on junk land. If the land can't support a good course without adding ugly elements to it, then better not to build a course there.

[/QUOTE]

This statement should be on the cover of the DGWN and the home page of the PDGA! I also think a certified letter of it should be sent out to ALL basket manufactures by the pdga!!!!!!!!!!

Hey Mike, send me your address, I will send you some free discs just for making such a good ( no wait GREAT) post :D:cool:

When you can build a basket higher up, and do it aesthetically, that is the best option. And buy the way, the first 2006 MSDGC fund raiser discs are now available:

http://www.marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/proddetail.asp?prod=challenger_06msdgcmh10

http://www.marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/prodimages/challenger_06msdgcmh10_big.jpg

And after playing over 150 courses during a two month disc golf odyssey, I learned that there is basically no reason to install anymore low quality disc golf courses. There are plenty of 8 acre city parks with 18 hole courses that traverse walking paths and picnic areas. 100% agreement here. We have reached the point where we need to concentrate on building quality disc golf courses, and not concentrate on the quantity of disc golf courses. And this is a good thing.

I can't put my finger on it, but there is something deeply ungrateful and elitist in the last couple posts here.

Really is no need to belittle others efforts is there? Just do what you do and be thankful that all those that came before you did their thing to give you the player base that make your courses and our sport possible. Good though you guys may be, you didn't do it alone, right?

Neon, you are absolutely right. And this was the reason I put "And this is a good thing." at the end of my post. I realize now that I was indeed not thankful enough in that previous post.

It did take a lot of effort by a lot of folks to just get to the point that many (most?) people have some idea as to what disc golf is. This was a good couple decades of often unappreciated work, and the fact that we (imo) are now at a point where the quality of the course should be a primary factor in determining whether or not it goes in (unless, perhaps, there isn't a course in the area) is a good place to be.

Got it.

I'd still prefer 10 public disc golf courses to go into a new area, than 1 private pay to play super course at this stage in our sports history.

Of course if both can happen, all the better! Let's just not make it an us vs them type of unproductive/nasty scenario, right?

And I prefer no course over a dangerous course installed on too little land that has shots crossing over trails and bike paths. It will just generate complaints and make dsicussions with the parks department about other more suitable areas that much harder.

No one is being elitist. Just trying to follow the natural progression of the sport and the discipline of course design. Putting in 10 junk courses instead of one nice one is bad for the disc golf image. Raise your standards and support quality over quantity.

Actually Nick, I would prefer to see no poorly designed unsafe courses go in anywhere, but would prefer a free well designed course over a pay to play course of equal caliber.

Not that I have anything against private courses, but the things that should set pay to play courses apart are either amazing courses or the disc golfer specific amenities that are not found on public courses.

And buy the way, the first 2006 MSDGC fund raiser discs are now available:



Steve,

Extremely clever use of subliminal spelling there.

You are a marketing genius!

--Mike

Token Creek in Wisconsin is one of the best pay to play courses in the US.

I agree that a pay to play course should be better than free play courses out there but some of the pay to play are new and some cities and/or counties require it to be pay to play. They have to make there $ too I guess.

Sorry, speaking from local experience.

Lots of park land, very few pay to play courses.

Our new course in York County will be pay to play ($3 per day and $20 for an annual pass) but it will be worth it. The land being used for disc golf is going to be disc golf only; no picnickers or kite flyers in the fairways. It will also be a great, challenging and beautiful course on a cool, historic piece of land. Great views, quiet serenity. It is also hoped that the fees will discourage players who like to break twigs and climb small trees and break them.

I too would rather have free courses, but it seems as though the places I like to play lately are either private or pay to play. Course quality seems to be higher in those instances. It's still cheaper than ball golf.

Nice : "It is also hoped that the fees will discourage players who like to break twigs and climb small trees and break them".

If a player is caught or witnessed, breaking branches , he/she should be fined or made to replace with new trees/folage.

the 1,000 cops that were tasked with writing twig breaking citations have now been re-assigned to building a wall on the Mexican border. ;)

True, but it's difficult to witness and enforce that. What I meant was that it is hoped that players who are willing to pay money to play golf will not be the type that damages the course. There will be greens fee enforcement once construction is complete.

Maybe we should start another thread on pay to play or not to pay, that is the question I ask of thee!

How about a poll? I havent stirred it up with a poll in along time :D

We have 15 courses in the St Louis area and only one is played to play.( it cost a $1 ans is our most popular) It is the worst course by far but since it is also very easy for players to go "NEG 7" it gets 300-500 rounds a day.
Between the 15 courses we are getting close to 2000 rounds a day on a good day and at least a 1000 on a bad day.


If the very first course was pay to play and every course since was also pay to play, there would be 20,000 courses today instead of 2000. Revenue generating courses are the future of golf, hopefully they will have the proper amenities needed for the player who doesnt mind paying the $3-$5 per round fee to have a cart girl with cold beer and a place to watch a game afterwards.

Miniature golf in the mall costs $8.50 and theres always a line to get on the course.

Maybe we should start another thread on pay to play or not to pay, that is the question I ask of thee!

How about a poll? I havent stirred it up with a poll in along time :D

We have 15 courses in the St Louis area and only one is played to play.( it cost a $1 ans is our most popular) It is the worst course by far but since it is also very easy for players to go "NEG 7" it gets 300-500 rounds a day.
Between the 15 courses we are getting close to 2000 rounds a day on a good day and at least a 1000 on a bad day.


If the very first course was pay to play and every course since was also pay to play, there would be 20,000 courses today instead of 2000. Revenue generating courses are the future of golf, hopefully they will have the proper amenities needed for the player who doesnt mind paying the $3-$5 per round fee to have a cart girl with cold beer and a place to watch a game afterwards.

Miniature golf in the mall costs $8.50 and theres always a line to get on the course.



Wow! Really, Ya think... 20,000 courses. Even if we take the PDGAs estimate of 500,000 players, that's one course per every 25 players, who'd a thunk it; twenty-five players could support a pay to play course. That's amazin'

Charlotte rocks!

Hole 6 at Sugaw Creek
http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/sugaw/sugaw_6b.jpg

Hole 13 at Sugaw Creek
http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/sugaw/sugaw_13b.jpg

Hole 14 at Sugaw Creek
http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/sugaw/sugaw_14aa.jpg

What's that other basket behind hole 14, is that a long pin or another hole? If the latter, these holes seem to run too close together.



Hole 14 at Sugaw Creek
http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/sugaw/sugaw_14aa.jpg

That is the basket from 12. With the way hole 12 (hooker alley) plays through a long tunnel, basically nothing gets up close to 14's basket. No real conflict.

http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/sugaw/sugaw_18.jpg

How tall is this ?
http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/sugaw/sugaw_6b.jpg

my guess is around 6' to the basket. :eek: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D

I know some guys who would need a ladder to get their disc out of the basket. Almost looks like 2 meters high !!!!
http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/sugaw/sugaw_6b.jpg

my guess is around 6' to the basket. :eek: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D



:eek: That's almost 2 meters.................... :D
I know some guy's who would need a ladder to get their disc out of the basket !!!!
http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/sugaw/sugaw_6b.jpg

It is actually taller than 6 feet. I had to push my putter from underneath to get it out of the basket.

It is a fun hole. I birdied it(I think) when I played that hole.

And hole 12's fairway won't let a disc get close to 14s basket.

My question is how are you supposed to get the disc out of the basket? I know of holes that are on mounds 8' high at least you can climb up them to get your disc out there its harder........ Also what if you get it stuck in the cage how are u supposed to grab it?

Oh, No - DROT....

That's probably F'ROT...if ya know what I'm sayin'...! :eek:

It is actually taller than 6 feet.



Do you get a stroke for 2 meters once you end up in the basket? :p

Thyat'll turn an Ace into a circle 2... :eek:

the 1,000 cops that were tasked with writing twig breaking citations have now been re-assigned to building a wall on the Mexican border. ;)



How many Millions of Dollars ?

]http://static.flickr.com/113/307318862_8c9bbe61ae.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/307318862/)

Here it is: Montezuma's Revenge!

The little girl with the green disc and green shirt almost fell off that !!!!!!!!

As the little boy to the left of the basket is getting hit in the head with a orange disc !!!!!

]http://static.flickr.com/120/307319062_b591b92d29.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/307319062/)
Professional Disc Golfer Don Olow demonstrates his putting form on hole #5 (Montezuma's Revenge) at Morley Field. Said Olow after retreiving his disc: "I made the putt OK, but started to get a little light-headed having to retreive my disc from such a high elevation."

http://static.flickr.com/118/307319130_39ba107113.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/307319130/)
As you can see from this second picture, he almost bought the farm pulling his Aviar from the basket..

The top of the Rim of the basket is over 2 meters !!!!!!!

Maybe we'll see a glimpse of that structure in Apocalypto!

I predict it will be added to the "Island of Misfit Toys" from "Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer"

]http://static.flickr.com/120/307319062_b591b92d29.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/307319062/)
Professional Disc Golfer Don Olow demonstrates his putting form on hole #5 (Montezuma's Revenge) at Morley Field. Said Olow after retreiving his disc: "I made the putt OK, but started to get a little light-headed having to retreive my disc from such a high elevation."

http://static.flickr.com/118/307319130_39ba107113.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/307319130/)
As you can see from this second picture, he almost bought the farm pulling his Aviar from the basket..

The top of the Rim of the basket is over 2 meters !!!!!!!



Donny - you should note that this post is exactly the same as what I posted on the Morley thread - pictures, text, lame jokes, everything. If you were a student in my statistics class I'd have to flunk you for plaigerism...

]http://static.flickr.com/120/307319062_b591b92d29.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/307319062/)
Professional Disc Golfer Don Olow demonstrates his putting form on hole #5 (Montezuma's Revenge) at Morley Field. Said Olow after retreiving his disc: "I made the putt OK, but started to get a little light-headed having to retreive my disc from such a high elevation."

http://static.flickr.com/118/307319130_39ba107113.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/307319130/)
As you can see from this second picture, he almost bought the farm pulling his Aviar from the basket..

The top of the Rim of the basket is over 2 meters !!!!!!!



Donny - you should note that this post is exactly the same as what I posted on the Morley thread - pictures, text, lame jokes, everything. If you were a student in my statistics class I'd have to flunk you for plaigerism...



I have my Permission to use the likeness of me in my posts !!!! :D

There are varying circumstances that would allow for slight height variations, hanging basket, in a tree stump, on a hillside, etc. but for the most part I believe that a "standard" height would be beneficial to the sport.

Having a variety of basket heights is the closest thing we have to green contour that requires reading a break. We need a lot more of it.

Having a variety of basket heights is the closest thing we have to green contour that requires reading a break. We need a lot more of it.



Within reason. An entire 18 hole course with elevated terraced baskets like the one pictured above would be gimmicky. Typically, these structures are best on holes that lack contour or challenge, and these elevated terraces give the hole some personality and challenge. This harkens back to ball golf course design concepts, where typically the holes with significant length or challenge have easier greens, and short holes or ones with less challenge typically have the harder greens.

Maybe it's the area I live in and the plots of land we are fortunate to have available for disc golf courses, but rarely is there a great need for a variety of basket heights, imo. I could certainly understand how in the south or midwest where the land is typically flat how having up to 6 of these elevated terraced baskets on a 18-hole course would make an average course that much more interesting. :cool:

An entire 18 hole course with elevated terraced baskets like the one pictured above would be gimmicky.

jeff, with all due respect, i must differ. even a 72 hole disc golf utopia would be rendered gimmicky in the presence of a SINGLE elevated terraced baskets like the one pictured above. :)

An entire 18 hole course with elevated terraced baskets like the one pictured above would be gimmicky.

jeff, with all due respect, i must differ. even a 72 hole disc golf utopia would be rendered gimmicky in the presence of a SINGLE elevated terraced baskets like the one pictured above. :)



I have to agree, while its a quick and cheap way to create elevated baskets, it does look cheesy. In future course design, it would be great to see natural looking elevated baskets....by moving dirt to create mounds or small hills.

An entire 18 hole course with elevated terraced baskets like the one pictured above would be gimmicky.

jeff, with all due respect, i must differ. even a 72 hole disc golf utopia would be rendered gimmicky in the presence of a SINGLE elevated terraced baskets like the one pictured above. :)



I have to agree, while its a quick and cheap way to create elevated baskets, it does look cheesy. In future course design, it would be great to see natural looking elevated baskets....by moving dirt to create mounds or small hills.



Like this... http://www.quarrypark.co.uk/hole16.htm

An entire 18 hole course with elevated terraced baskets like the one pictured above would be gimmicky.

jeff, with all due respect, i must differ. even a 72 hole disc golf utopia would be rendered gimmicky in the presence of a SINGLE elevated terraced baskets like the one pictured above. :)



I have to agree, while its a quick and cheap way to create elevated baskets, it does look cheesy. In future course design, it would be great to see natural looking elevated baskets....by moving dirt to create mounds or small hills.



Like this... http://www.quarrypark.co.uk/hole16.htm



Indeed.....takes out all the cheesyness! :)

An entire 18 hole course with elevated terraced baskets like the one pictured above would be gimmicky.

jeff, with all due respect, i must differ. even a 72 hole disc golf utopia would be rendered gimmicky in the presence of a SINGLE elevated terraced baskets like the one pictured above. :)



I have to agree, while its a quick and cheap way to create elevated baskets, it does look cheesy. In future course design, it would be great to see natural looking elevated baskets....by moving dirt to create mounds or small hills.



MO City has 9 of those and it does give the course some challenge.

MO City has 9 of those and it does give the course some challenge.



Yeah....MO City is actually what I was imagining in my head when making the suggestion.....Now if the park's dept could buy the field on the other side of the fence and put in the rest of the course!!!!

MO City has 9 of those and it does give the course some challenge.



Yeah....MO City is actually what I was imagining in my head when making the suggestion.....Now if the park's dept could buy the field on the other side of the fence and put in the rest of the course!!!!



Ummm, I'm not sure anyone would call Mo City challenging... :D

I much prefer the man made humps on the Willy. Hole 8 and Hole 15 can brutally punish a misplay. On 8 they piled the hill in the corner of two perpendicularly intersecting ditches. If you're over you're in the water. On hole 15 you play up the steep hill into the prevailing wind. If you're long the wind carries you deep down the other side with no opportunity for a come back putt. Of course that artificial hill is huge (200 feet long by 30 feet high).

Ummm, I'm not sure anyone would call Mo City challenging... :D




LOL....definitely not challenging, but a good example of natural looking elevation for baskets......I also like hole 8 on Willie..Makes you think twice about running the chains.

Would you consider holes 15 and 16 a good range of elevation? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Ummm, I'm not sure anyone would call Mo City challenging... :D




I disagree. If you play to get a 2 on every hole, it is a real challenge. The hills cause enough discomfort on putting to make it interesting on the longer putts.

(I've gotten 6 of the 9 in one loop...and only not 2'd hole 9.)

Ummm, I'm not sure anyone would call Mo City challenging... :D




I disagree. If you play to get a 2 on every hole, it is a real challenge. The hills cause enough discomfort on putting to make it interesting on the longer putts.

(I've gotten 6 of the 9 in one loop...and only not 2'd hole 9.)



You are a fellow southpaw with a righty forehand....so, how the heck do you duce 5? I can only duce it by cheating (teeing from the left of the sign... Well, I have duced it throwing a perfect thumber over the tree's.

Ah Grasshopper, you must learn the size of the teebox -- 2m across by 3 m deep.

Throw from the back of the box... :)

Ummm, I'm not sure anyone would call Mo City challenging... :D




LOL....definitely not challenging, but a good example of natural looking elevation for baskets......I also like hole 8 on Willie..Makes you think twice about running the chains.

Would you consider holes 15 and 16 a good range of elevation? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Given that we live in Houston... yes. I've played a lot of courses around the country and with the exception of places like Colorado, i,e. ski courses, the elevation changes aren't much more than what you see on 15 and 16. I will grant that some of them make you throw up a hill while standing on the hill and that is much harder than the layout on 15 and 16, but as a said before, we do live in Houston. On the other hand, some day when you have some time, I will show you some guerrilla holes in Terry Hershey park that play on real hills that are as good as anything I've seen anywhere.

Ummm, I'm not sure anyone would call Mo City challenging... :D




I disagree. If you play to get a 2 on every hole, it is a real challenge. The hills cause enough discomfort on putting to make it interesting on the longer putts.

(I've gotten 6 of the 9 in one loop...and only not 2'd hole 9.)

Agreed, people way underestimate the effort and mental concentration it takes to play a birdy course playing for 2s the whole way. I like playing Rice that way and even more so, Mason (not quite a birdy course but still).

Just a slight interjection here.....if the PDGA wont require baskets all built within the same standards, size, number of chains, etc....how would they require a standard for height off the ground?

I think the real question should be:
Is a basket hanging from a tree or other structure fair?

After seeing Des four putt the hanging basket on the Woodland Bear, I think that all baskets should level and probably supported from the bottom. I think that hieght can still vary within reason. The only hanging basket I have played was at Marshall Street. I remember it being fairly level, but even a little lean of the basket can cause alot of bounce outs.

It's not a hanging basket but an elevated basket that was level before the event. If it got tilted, which took a fair amount of effort, it could easily be releveled if necessary before putting, just like players readjust the chains if they get caught up from a previous putt being removed.

you made me think of a good question with your statement.... ok... we've established that its ok to 'fix the chains' before you putt/etc. since thats they way they are supposed to be.

ok... so how about 'leveling' portable baskets if you are in a tourney that is using them? Extreme example would be a basket is leaning 6" or more to one side and is obvious it got moved or budged.

lesser example would be a temp basket setup on an uneven surface (yes i know thats "the TDs fault" ;) ) ... are you allowed to try and level that before you putt or approach?

If you site a rule please be specific.

Level basket with the chains hanging as intended is what players should expect and they should be able to adjust the basket if it tips over or gets tilted during the round. The one thing that hasn't really been addressed is the scenario where a disc knocks a basket over or causes the basket to slide down to the bottom of the pipe (actually happened when a bolt wiggled out with no nut). If the disc remains in the basket, it should be considered good. But what if the disc is partly in the basket and partly touching the ground, or maybe lying in the chains but also supported by grass? Should the player have the option to get another throw if they choose?

what if a player just seems to be being finicky (sp?) by trying to level the basket? (ie.... it really only slight seems tilted, maybe 1" too low on one side, and they go up to it and want to 'straighten it out')

and is this your opinion or can the rules back this one up?

The rules, including the Q&amp;A, do not provide the player an option to level the basket during the round unless it's clear that the basket position shifted since the start of the round. I would say any marshal would operate from the position that all baskets are level, the chains untangled and nothing in them (like branches) at the start of the round, even if that's not the case. Now maybe your TD had something else in mind at maybe an X-tier which should be stated beforehand. Otherwise, I can't see any official claiming that a basket can't be adjusted to level conditions assuming we're not talking about a crow bar to bend a pipe on a permanent basket.

Ah Grasshopper, you must learn the size of the teebox -- 2m across by 3 m deep.

Throw from the back of the box... :)



That's only if there is no tee pad/box provided. Having never played MO City, i'm assuming there is only a line based on Tony's grasshopper rule. ;)


803.02 Teeing Off
A. Play shall begin on each hole with the player throwing from within the teeing area. When the disc is released, at least one of the player�s supporting points must be in contact with the surface of the teeing area, and all the player�s supporting points must be within the teeing area. If a tee pad is provided, all supporting points must be on the pad at the time of release, unless the director has specified a modified teeing area for safety reasons. <font color="red"> If no tee pad is provided, all supporting points at the time of release must be within an area encompassed by the front line of the teeing area and two lines perpendicular to and extending back three meters from each end of the front line. </font> The front line of the teeing area includes the outside edges of the two tee markers. Running up from behind the teeing area before the disc is released is permitted. Following through in front of the teeing area is permitted provided there is no supporting point contact outside the teeing area when the disc is released

YES.

"all baskets should be the same height off the ground"

give or take an inch of two from bottom of basket, but i dont think baskets should be too high, too low than the norm.

I think the real question should be:
Is a basket hanging from a tree or other structure fair?

After seeing Des four putt the hanging basket on the Woodland Bear, I think that all baskets should level and probably supported from the bottom. I think that hieght can still vary within reason. The only hanging basket I have played was at Marshall Street. I remember it being fairly level, but even a little lean of the basket can cause alot of bounce outs.



i think theyre fair, ive played one and its equal distance from the ground as all the other baskets and same size, there is no problems putting unless a previous person slams the chains and makes it move without clearing and stopping it from moving/swinging.

IMO, baskets should definitely be the same height. A basket should not be leaning. A small amount of leeway is ok, like ball golf holes that get smaller as a day goes on because of players putting there hands in there, etc. I am surprised there is no rule about this. Is there? If not, then there would technically be no limit and that makes absolutely no sense to me.

I think height isn't as important as being level. I personally like baskets at varied heights. It shouldn't matter as long as everyone is playing that basket at the same height. being level, however, is part of the basket's disc-catching design. Purposely putting the basket in an unlevel position is modifying its intended design and should be illegal.

YES.

"all baskets should be the same height off the ground"

give or take an inch of two from bottom of basket, but i dont think baskets should be too high, too low than the norm.


BORING - SNOOZE

I've thought about and I think it is OK for baskets to be at different heights, to a certain degree of course.

A great example of this is some of the pin locations at the Winthrop gold course. While the ground that they are near is relatively flat, the basket itself is perched on a man-made pin location composed of bricks that is several feet 2-4 feet off the ground. Please see the latest (last) DGWN for photos. This to me is an acceptable difference in basket height. Conversely however, I would not find a basket that is two-three feet lower than basket standards to be aesthetically pleasing or fair.

IMO if it is in good course design to do so, than basket heights can vary depending on terrain and/or improvements for green difficulty.

The actual basket (cage) should always be perfectly level.

http://static.flickr.com/113/307318862_8c9bbe61ae.jpg

Yea I can see how this pin placement may not be acceptable for everday play, but for tournament play, I think it is fair.

http://static.flickr.com/113/307318862_8c9bbe61ae.jpg

Yea I can see how this pin placement may not be acceptable for everday play, but for tournament play, I think it is fair.



the only thing that basket could use would be a bit more surface area on the top tier for layups. If the top tier looked like the third tier down, it'd be sweeter.

http://static.flickr.com/113/307318862_8c9bbe61ae.jpg

Yea I can see how this pin placement may not be acceptable for everday play, but for tournament play, I think it is fair.



the only thing that basket could use would be a bit more surface area on the top tier for layups. If the top tier looked like the third tier down, it'd be sweeter.



Actually, this basket could use a relocation to a disc golf course. It appears it is currently in the middle of a playground. :eek:

That's Morely Field for you, a playground with 19 baskets in the middle of it. :eek: :D

Chuck, I have been having a discussion with a friend, he feels that no event that is sanctioned by the PDGA should have a hanging basket. I feel that the PDGA does not rule either way on this subject.

What do you think?

We asked that exact question on the recent Target Survey. Members were OK with hanging baskets for C-tiers but would prefer that they be secured in some manner for higher level competitions. The horse is sort of out of the barn with the hanging basket at the Gran Canyon A-tier events and the hanging basket at PW2005 on Nockamixon. I would say that the future recommendation would be to have the basket secured for competition but I doubt there would be any consequences if it wasn't done. Certainly, players can stop the basket if it happens to be moving before they putt (using an interpretation of 803.05B).

At the recently completed Brandywine Battlefield A tier ....

http://www.sharkysshots.com/albums/userpics/10002/normal_IMG_7057.jpg

BTW I like it.

i really dislike the idea of hanging baskets for sanctioned play- theoretically we're trying to level the playing field and it adds an element of chaos.

differing heights on secured baskets i'm ok with.

Having played the Grand Canyon in several tournaments I really like the hanging basket. But I do feel it should be roughly the same height off the ground as a in ground model.

Also I feel only one or two baskets should be played that way in an event. I feel the same way about elevated baskets like USDGC. Any more than two per round it starts to get a bit putt-puttish.....

Although I am new to the sport and enjoy any type of challange on a disc golf course, this subject is one that I feel should be left to PDGA Rules and Standards.

According to the Basket Standards, a basket's rim must be between 76 &amp; 89 cm's from the ground. This rule can be interepreted that hanging baskets are legal as long as the rim of the basket is within this 76 to 89 cm range.

Any basket that doesn't meet these requirements should be determined as not-legal. Now with this being said, what happens to PDGA sanctioned events that have baskets like this? There hasn't been any presidence set as far as I can find.

In my opinion....Although fun and challenging, from the interpretion of the rules, baskets that fall outside of the standards should not be allowed in any PDGA Santioned events.

According to the Basket Standards, a basket's rim must be between 76 &amp; 89 cm's from the ground. This rule can be interepreted that hanging baskets are legal as long as the rim of the basket is within this 76 to 89 cm range.



The spec technically (should) pertains to how targets are manufactured, not necessarily how they are installed. In fact, responsibility for establishing the installation specifications is being transferred to the PDGA Course Design group. The basket height issue is one of our primary topics that has been in discussion.

I am very eager to hear what the Course Design Group decides on this issue.

Here are some examples of what's legal under the current installation advice in the spec:
http://api.ning.com/files/WGP5*zqC9vAAslDGy79U2LdC7GNKJSlm535*heyBVwzEwM2r1F utNXsIy4K7AXMxfp7U*B1aXcs4HJ8IZ2i*-wlxDNYznATS/BasketPlacementsAllowed.jpg

Here's what would not be legal.
http://api.ning.com/files/WGP5*zqC9vCk0an9QKAnUodRYo5E*Nsq7dYyogjDOnlBpFYLLT Q6nLKeiiHMhax5RQ6EVA27qvDLZODPJTTLy0p7qh9fRhgb/BasketPlacementsNOTAllowed.jpg

The point of those diagrams is that even though the current specs attempt to control the height of target installations, our natural terrain factors and clever designers will defeat that goal from the standpoint that players can end up in lies where they'll be shooting from all heights both above and below baskets anyway. We all need to learn how to putt from our knees sometimes when faced with a low ceiling. Baskets are mounted on hills, humps, pits, hillsides and in rock piles in many places where they still meet the average height requirement at four points around the basket. The elevated pins at USDGC meet the requirements because Harold had wide enough bases built that went just beyond the basket diameter to meet the specs.

Chuck, thanks for the diagrams... They depict exactly how I feel about interpretation of the rules.

I feel any tournaments that use baskets that are not within the limits in your diagrams only detract from the professional appearance from the sport. Kind of like if the PGA decided to install miniature golf like obstacles on putting greens for their tournaments.

I look forwad to the PDGA's ruling.

So this brings me to a question... What is the ruling on PDGA sanctioned events that use baskets that are not legal?

Thanks!

The tour document each year indicates which targets are suitable for each tier. (It's not back online yet.) The only place where those standards have been enforced has primarily been Worlds where the hosts actually sign a contract that the targets used will be PDGA approved double chain baskets.

Thanks for the info... so pretty much nothing. I know our sport is pretty much self governed. However, I feel we as disc golfers need to do a better job of self governing. Not only regarding non-legal targets, but also witnessing unsportsmanlike conduct and other violations which might jeopardize the legitimacy of our sport.

Unfortunately, this is a catch 22 situation... as we try to build our PDGA, we must overlook the smaller infractions for the better good of the sport. We don't want to lose tournaments nor do we want our tournaments minimized because of a lack of professionalism. Granted, AM tournaments don't get the notarity of Major Tour events. However, without these AM events some of the National and Major tour events might suffer.

I guess where my issues lie in this are I am held to the PDGA rule book when participating in events and I can be penalized for breaking any of those rules. Yet the TD can alter a course to include non-legal baskets and yet there are no penalties for this???

The problem for all of these rules is what can you do to not only enforce them, but do it fairly so just specific events aren't being called out, but all of them with that infraction? The PDGA developed the marshal program to provide better rules enforcement at high level events but now a portion of the pro membership doesn't feel it's worth it compared to other things they feel pros would prefer such as larger purses. Any violations related to how a TD runs an event can be reported. The PDGA does track TD infractions. While usually no one thing will disqualify a TD, a series of missteps can result in downgrading the tier of an event or preventing that TD from hosting it the following year in lieu of another club person.

Agreed! Thanks again for all your input. As for the Pros wanting larger purses... well... I couldn't agree more. As an AM, I would like to see more Pro Volunteers at AM tournaments.

The Am's at our home course went out and gathered sponsors last year to add $3800 cash to the PRO purse in a C Tier event. That's unheard of... and rumor has it, that will be increased this year. Why do we do it? We do it to grow our great sport!

With that being said, all we ask in return is a help with clinics and running AM events. Somehow though... this to falls on deaf ears..... Just because a Golfer designates himself as a PRO when he/she registers with the PDGA, doesn't mean they automatically receive any sort of entitlement.

I for one would like to see our sport gain the recognition it deserves and to lose that stereotypical persona it has carried for years. We need to work harder with "professionalizing" our sport. That is the only way we can accomplish this change of perception.

I know I have gone way off topic here, but this is something I'm very passionate about. I was one of those assumed Disc Golf was a game and that anyone could do it and be good at it... I was mistaken. Disc Golf is a sport that takes skill and practice to be good. It uses some of the same physical and mental aspects of Ball Golf.

Here are some examples of what's legal under the current installation advice in the spec:
http://api.ning.com/files/WGP5*zqC9vAAslDGy79U2LdC7GNKJSlm535*heyBVwzEwM2r1F utNXsIy4K7AXMxfp7U*B1aXcs4HJ8IZ2i*-wlxDNYznATS/BasketPlacementsAllowed.jpg

Thanks! This is a very clear diagram.

I am only wondering one thing still. You are saying in this picture that height can vary +- 40% (1,4 X H and 0,6 x H). But PDGA Tech Standards (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PDGATechStandards_09.pdf) says the official height is 82cm (+-6cm). That 6cm is only 7%?

Those diagrams were drawn in reference to the basket tech standards in effect at that time which was before the new ones went into effect Feb 1 of this year. The average height in the diagram with the basket on the slope ranges from 1.4H to 0.6H but their average is within that 7% range. The old specs had you make measurements at four points every 90 degrees moving around in a circle under the basket and average them.

The new specs only specify the height range as produced by the manufacturer. There's now a key distinction between "as produced" versus "as installed." The Course Committees has not yet written the guidelines for targets "as installed." So theoretically, anything goes even though most install targets "as produced" by the manufacturers.

I know I commented this same way elsewhere, but will do so again. No, the targets all being the same height off the ground is a mute point. We don't putt on a level horizontal surface. The player putting will rarely be at the same elevation as the base of the target, chain ring, or other measurable point. So, it doesn't matter what height the base/basket is at. I saw above some discussions about the hanging basket at Grand Canyon. It's also up on a hill right (if I remember correctly). So, what's the difference? If you're putting from 10' below (or 10' above in the case of a sunken green), the height of the basket off the ground is irrelevant. If one basket (pole) is 2" shorter than another, it's the exact same thing as standing at a 2" lower elevation for your put (which may happen to be just 2" next to your current lie). As long as the distance between the yellow band (that's right, DISCATCHERS!) and the top of the basket is the same on all targets (which is a standard), we're all good.

"mute" point (rhymes with cute) - a point that makes no sound (no such thing)
"moot" point (rhymes with boot) - an issue which has been rendered irrelevant

If you install the baskets with locking collars, they will all be the same height of the ground immediately beneath them within an inch or so. You will still get the fluctuation described above from the "lay of the land", but I feel that part of the challenge at hand is adjusting for those minor differences.

Im loving all this discussion going on here about this.

One of the older local courses sports some mix and match baskets ranging from DGA mach poleholes of all kinds to 2 Innova DisCatchers each with a different style basket (squarish and one angled bottom).

With these different baskets, the age of when they were put in, and some of them having settled into the ground more so than others, they all end up being off by about a 6 inch variance from the ground to the bottom of the basket. This makes for some exciting putts because a low putt on an Innova basket will go in on an older DGA mach basket.

I know that people like a uniform course with the same type/setup of baskets but this course can get tricky when your trying to make a death putt on an old basket that may or may not catch as well as the one on the next hole. It also may or may not be higher or lower than the last bucket you putted on.

If varity is the spice of life, then I get plenty of it on this course.

I'm thinking let's have all the courses be identical, too. Technical change ideas:
All trees over 23.45 feet but under 23.47 feet,
NO METRIC measurements - ever!
No bushes over 38.7412 centimeters,
All vegetation must be green ( this one is waaaay out there!)
All water must be flowing and no deeper than 4,897,904, 234.13 x wavelength of krypton atoms excited by argon lasers at 476 megawatts.

NO METRIC measurements - ever!
No bushes over 38.7412 centimeters,


:).

I'm thinking let's have all the courses be identical, too. Technical change ideas:
All trees over 23.45 feet but under 23.47 feet,
NO METRIC measurements - ever!
No bushes over 38.7412 centimeters,
All vegetation must be green ( this one is waaaay out there!)
All water must be flowing and no deeper than 4,897,904, 234.13 x wavelength of krypton atoms excited by argon lasers at 476 megawatts.


I totally agree.

The answer to the thread title question, in my not-so-humble opinion, is NO.

As long as anyone from a >10 junior to a Legend can safely retrieve a disc.

The baskets you see sitting 6' of the ground due to a longer pole are fun, but seem real gimmicky. Kind of like the ball golf version of "putt-putt".

The baskets you see sitting 6' of the ground due to a longer pole are fun, but seem real gimmicky. Kind of like the ball golf version of "putt-putt".

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3046/2910145175_e690d12fe7.jpg

I think that when used properly, elevated baskets can really make a hole and a course.

If you've got a wide open 200'-250' hole with a basket at standard height, it should be a deuce for practically every single skilled blue or gold-rated player, and a 3 at worse. Add in the elevated basket, and now you've got a golf hole on your hands. Players that make runs at ace likely leave themselves very long comebackers. Does one then try to sink the putt or just lay up at the base? You see a lot more 3-putts on these elevated baskets, and rollaways as well, resulting in bogeys or worse. It brings the scoring average up from below 2.5 and closer to 3 and makes it a better hole. More decisions + more scoring variation = adding more "golf" to the sport.

A pro par four hole can also benefit from an elevated basket. For gold level players, a 600' pro par four is a gimme 3 for most of them. Add in the elevated baskets and it's a different story. Hole#9 and hole#10 at the USDGC as pictured above do this well, and bring the scoring average closer to 4. (although OB around the fairway helps a lot in that regard)

The only thing that gets gimmicky is when it's overdone. There's a course in my region with multiple pin positions on each hole, of which about 5 or 6 holes sport elevated pins. The course is heavily wooded and the challenge of many of these holes is simply negotiating the tight fairways. When you add the elevated basket location, it artificially skews the scoring average too high. And although the course maintainers insist that these elevated positions are never all used at the same time, I've personally encountered such, and after the 3rd or 4th one, it got annoying.

Here's something interesting: the 18th hole at the European Open. It's only 65 meters (213 feet) long, but the Open players averaged 2.46 on it yesterday and 2.36 today. Kind of looks like it slopes downward past the pin to an OB lake, so players are smartly not trying to get aggressive on it.

http://www.pdga.com/files/u5252/IMG_1001.jpg

While the intent is noble, it doesn't look like it's having much of an effect. Imo I think they need to do something else like an island green here. My $.02 is that I don't think a hole should average 2.41 in a PDGA Major.

The Winthrop one isnt so much the issue, as the Basket is still fairly low, and the brick platform built up.


http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/176/35cb69d7.jpg


If I was 2 inches shorter I wouldnt be able to get my disc back from this one, and it also has a downhill which makes the basket 10' off the ground. This hole is basically a easy toss up and then a free throw shot.

Here's a raised basket on the Picnic Course in Whitmore Lake, MI.

http://www.discgolfscene.com/media/23889_g.jpg

Is the course restricted to Super Class discs for safety and for dinner plates? ;)

Ha! good question though.. It's a seasonal course that plays through picnic areas. This the the 2nd year of play and the course is typically in from October - April.