Starting Monday, members with email addresses on file will receive a link to our survey on target specs. I believe this is the first time they have been reviewed since they were originally established last century. Disc golf product manufacturers have already been sent their emails today to respond to a slightly different set of questions. This ought to be an interesting experience not unlike the process we went through last year regarding disc specs. Contact the PDGA office after next Wednesday if you are a member or manufacturer that hasn't gotten your email with the link.

The current target specs are written on pages 5 & 6 of this document:
www.pdga.com/documents/tech_standards/PDGATechStandards_08.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/tech_standards/PDGATechStandards_08.pdf)

this should be interesting

this should be interesting




Just put Titans everywhere.

this should be interesting




Just put Titans everywhere.


Id LOVE too, as long as YOU pay the shipping..... :D

this should be interesting




Just put Titans everywhere.


Id LOVE too, as long as YOU pay the shipping..... :D




Just use the money you saved from not buying an inadequate Mach III. :D

this should be interesting




Just put Titans everywhere.


Id LOVE too, as long as YOU pay the shipping..... :D




Just use the money you saved from not buying an inadequate Mach III. :D



I have Mach III's older than YOU are... :p

this should be interesting




Just put Titans everywhere.


Id LOVE too, as long as YOU pay the shipping..... :D




Just use the money you saved from not buying an inadequate Mach III. :D



I have Mach III's older than YOU are... :p




Thanks for proving my point. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

this should be interesting




Just put Titans everywhere.


Id LOVE too, as long as YOU pay the shipping..... :D




Just use the money you saved from not buying an inadequate Mach III. :D



I have Mach III's older than YOU are... :p




Thanks for proving my point. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



From where I'm sitting, you just proved his point, too :D

this should be interesting




Just put Titans everywhere.


Id LOVE too, as long as YOU pay the shipping..... :D




Just use the money you saved from not buying an inadequate Mach III. :D



I have Mach III's older than YOU are... :p




Thanks for proving my point. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



From where I'm sitting, you just proved his point, too :D




The old rusty Mach catch best but the fact they haven't done many modifications in 30 years is disappointing. I'm pretty sure there was a contest Dave Mac ran a few years back where people could take a swing at a Titan with a bat for a buck and if you broke it you won a new one. Oh and nobody came close.

but I bet their hands were numb afterward....

The member survey email was sent about a half hour ago and we already have 70 respondents. It should take less than 20 minutes to fill it out. Let Karolyn know at PDGA HQ if you don't get an email with the survey link. Makes sure to check your spam filter first just in case it got trapped there.

Some have asked why a few target models like the Titan or Mach I weren't included in the preference question near the end of the survey. Only targets currently being produced for permanent course installations and are on this PDGA approved list were included.
www.pdga.com/documents/tech_standards/PDGA_approved_discs_and_targets.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/tech_standards/PDGA_approved_discs_and_targets.pdf)

Why is the Titan not approved?

I only know when something gets approved. Have to ask McCormack. I know there were problems with at least one dimension being too big last year that he was planning to address. But I really don't know the status.

Wow, I didn't realize I played an A-tier on unapproved baskets.

Why is the Titan not approved?



It is or it should be and there are a few permanent courses with them as well.

So basically I would say it is PDGA half arseing it once again

Not currently a mando requirement for PDGA approved baskets at any level except Championships that have a contract with the PDGA. Note on page 4 that only the word "recommended" is used:
www.pdga.com/documents/2008/08TourStandards.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2008/08TourStandards.pdf)

This is one reason for the Target survey to potentially shore up some of our competition standards with guidance on that from member responses.

After a half day, 325 and counting out of 8705 emails sent. Thanks for your comments. We read every one.

I only know when something gets approved. Have to ask McCormack. I know there were problems with at least one dimension being too big last year that he was planning to address. But I really don't know the status.



Heres the scoop as far as I know or was told.

When we were drawing up the plans for the basket with the engineers at the fabricators I asked Justin ( on the phone) to check the pdga rules for the dimension of the basket portion. He said it was 76CM with a 2 cm tolerance. Knowing we could hold a 2 cm tolerance we made the basket exactly 76cm ID. The one thing we didn't account for was they wrote the rule using OD instead of ID.
To me this doesn't make since, if you are trying to catch something inside of something shouldn't the rule by ID?

Because our basket is made of 1/2" steel, by the time you add the top ring and nub from the upright support our basket is 2" bigger than 76CM making it too large.
If we made them out of 3/16ths" steel they would pass!

This just doesnt seem right.
I was told the rule would be addressed so now I wait to see the results of the poll.
Jeff H has had a Titan since last winter and in my opinion a ruling could have been made to allow for it to be approved.
its obvious to me the rule should be ID and I'm pretty sure 1/2" steel is more professional grade than 5/16ths", yet we are penalized for making it out of the larger diameter steel.

oh well, I'm pretty sure it will get approved after this poll and like chuck said its really not a rule just a recommendation.

Ive putted on a lot of baskets and never looked at a Titan and thought it had a larger catching area.
Maybe because its 13" deep!

AO,
My guess is the Titan Proto's ( Allen Pier knockoffs) at Endicott and Ozark Mountain are about the same size, maybe a bit smaller, but because they are made with 3/8ths steel they could still pass.

Chuck,, why no private messages?

I can save and track email responses much easier with no file limits and also handle attachments.

Bring back the Mach 1!!!! Make everyone learn that putting requires touch, it is not just about how hard you can throw it. Make putting a challenge. I think all you young buckaroos think a basket should catch anything you throw at it no matter how hard. That is not the case in ball golf, you have to roll the ball in the cup.

Speed and distance are what makes putts, not slammin' and jammin'.......

My vote is bring back the Mach 1 and make all baskets fit that standard, few chains and shallow baskets. :cool::cool::cool:

some of the most entertaining golf to date is on the old worn out mach 1's here in tulsa.

If you really believe that less is more, then there really shouldn't be any deflection device so the target is symmetrical from all sides and you don't rely on the less symmetrical Mach I deflection device. Take all the rusty chains off the Mach Is and simply replace those old baskets with the newer, deeper models and you've got yourself a challenging and updated target. Weave a few chains into the basket wires so you get a little chain sound on holing out and the woven chain prevents wedgies if done right.

So have all the survey e-mails been sent out Chuck? Or are we still waiting til Wednesday to receive them?

It's my understanding that 8705 went out yesterday and we're at 600 responses already. Check your email spam filter closely to make sure you didn't get it. It's a service called Survey Monkey which the PDGA has been using for all surveys. Contact Karolyn if you can't find it.

re: less is more (chains)...

I personally would like to see less chains w/ deeper baskets to add more of a need for 'touch' as someone said... but... thinking about the growth of the sport and what might be better from a newbie/spectator side I think more chains is good because its exciting to see someone crashing chains from 75' out. If there are less chains its might not be as exciting w/ less fly-by's and hole outs from a ways out.

so yeah... im torn between what I personally like for the sport and what I think would be better for the sport

JIm Palmeri Makes the Tru-putt. is that on the list? I will wait till Wednesday to contact the HQ re. the survey.

I agree on the putting / touch points. But I also think there is skill in adjusting to the differing styles of baskets.
That putt on a pole hole (mach 1) might shear off the heavier chain assemblies, and a hard put that a Titan will take can easily bounce right off the pole of an earlier discatcher.

Doesn't look like Palmeri ever submitted that basket for approval but I think it meets the current specs as long as it was mounted on a higher pole perhaps.

Here's an interesting perspective from a newspaper writer: "The object of the game is to fling discs into baskets, which resemble chain-link teacups and saucers." Not sure I've ever heard that analogy before.

I was just laughing about that one.
So what does that make the disc? A tea bag?

Maybe more like a crumpet, whatever that is... :cool:

Aaahhh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crumpet

Deja vu :confused:

looks like an egg mc muffin

One question that is interesting has to do with nubs. I wonder how many players have ever played baskets without them? While it seems like more than half the respondents so far could do without them, there's really a tradeoff if you've ever played on "nubless" baskets.

We still have the saucer cone baskets with no nubs on them on a few courses. Putts slightly off line "skeeball" off the basket rim and fly much farther past the basket than if there were nubs. Closest parallel might be when you've seen a disc skeeball off the top of the Innova chain support. Of course, that putt was already too high versus one that was just slightly off of making it on a nubless basket.

Now maybe nubs aren't the best design or most rotationally symmetrical device to prevent the skeeball problem, that is if you see it as a problem. But maybe some alternate way to make the basket rim not so slick could be developed? I'm personally neutral on the topic since the tradeoffs with and without them are about balanced in my experience. I just find it interesting the level of distaste expressed against nubs so far versus what I thought might be the case.

One question that is interesting has to do with nubs.



Offline Putts would react similar to a "lip out" in Ball Golf and end up further away..... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

:D

So have all the survey e-mails been sent out Chuck? Or are we still waiting til Wednesday to receive them?



They only care about the opinions of the PDGA #'s under 28002. :D

Any one over that number hasn't played long enough to have valid opinions. :eek:

Well played. Don't be fooled into thinking my PDGA # is a reflection of how long I've been playing. That's just what the PDGA propaganda machine wants you to believe.

So far, 33 of the 550 who responded to the question regarding how long they've played said, "Since before pole holes" so there are several object veterans in the mix.

Well played. Don't be fooled into thinking my PDGA # is a reflection of how long I've been playing. That's just what the PDGA propaganda machine wants you to believe.



Same here, as I've been throwing discs since I was 11,(47 now) throwing them at baskets since 1985 in Miami, and didn't join until late 1995.

The Instep Portable is a nubless design. It's one of my two beefs with the Instep. Putts that land on the lip get slingshotted away. Shots that are slightly off are penalized more than shots that completely miss the basket. I prefer baskets with nubs.

I just took that survey. I hoped that the current survey results would pop up when I finished, but that was not the case.

How can I see the results of that survey?

Chuck, are you manipulating the poll results by giving "reported so far" comments?

We'll publish as much as possible without exposing names once the survey is done along with stats that are being compiled. I don't want to tip too much info at this point since we're only about a third of the way in terms of the number who responded in the disc survey last year. It's only fair to let those who haven't responded yet a chance to do so without being influenced by what they've heard before doing the survey. The official date the survey ends is July 21.

We'll try to keep everything in this process as open as possible and provide proposals we're making based on the responses at appropriate times along the way.

Roughly half of the respondents have provided some sort of text comment which is great. My comments in response to them so far: (1) Several have expressed concerns that the process might outdate existing baskets and courses. This survey is about the future, not the past other than the fact it will be with us for quite while. No plans are underway to obsolete existing baskets, just hopefully make newer models better or more appropriate. Whatever changes are approved for future baskets, the presumption should be that existing models will be grandfathered in some way.

(2) We get the strong message that whatever is done with guidelines shouldn't snuff out creativity for producing something better. We agree. The irony is that even with fewer guidelines that have been in place for quite a while and minimal patent barriers, we really haven't seen too much innovation in either deflection assemblies or basket designs for permanent targets. New manufacturers seem to be doing more convergence toward some unwritten standards in their designs versus diverging.

(3) Several have felt the questions tried to guide the responses in a certain direction. Most questions are a statement like, "The sky is turquoise" which you can agree or disagree with. If it was, "The sky is not turquoise" would the responses be different? There are several questions that are asked the opposite way to mix it up and make sure people actually thought through their responses and didn't just reflexively fly down the page.

Most of the topics presented were compiled from a variety of sources including the Competition Committee, Course Committee, Summit Meetings and D-Board. They certainly aren't slanted toward an agenda of any person on the Tech Standards Committee and definitely not the committee as a group. We're not even sure we're all on the same page for several issues and are looking for player and manufacturer guidance. The only agenda is making the target specs and approval process better defined with some guidance for the future. The survey responses will truly help set the directions for where that goes.

Chuck, are you manipulating the poll results by giving "reported so far" comments?


What I just posted above is more clarification of things that maybe weren't clear in the text we wrote prior to doing the survey or didn't discuss at all. I'm guessing some may not have looked too closely at the intro info. It's tricky providing background or supporting document info without it appearing to be our committee's opinion on something. But several respondents indicated they wished they knew more or played more types of baskets to make better informed responses.

Since there are many more who haven't reponded than have so far, I expect those who have done it will have more influence on their buddies who haven't than anything discussed here. It's not like a test where someone can find the "right" answers here or copy from their buddy. Maybe I should continue posting every day how amazing it is that every question is currently split evenly between those who agree and disagree such that YOUR response matters and will flip the majority one way or the other on each one. :)

That would be a novel approach to reporting. Spin it so everyone feels that their vote might be the one to sway something.

I'm not saying you are spinning anything Chuck. I like the play by play. It is keeping interest up. I hope my survey email comes Wed.

I only know when something gets approved. Have to ask McCormack. I know there were problems with at least one dimension being too big last year that he was planning to address. But I really don't know the status.



Heres the scoop as far as I know or was told.

When we were drawing up the plans for the basket with the engineers at the fabricators I asked Justin ( on the phone) to check the pdga rules for the dimension of the basket portion. He said it was 76CM with a 2 cm tolerance. Knowing we could hold a 2 cm tolerance we made the basket exactly 76cm ID. The one thing we didn't account for was they wrote the rule using OD instead of ID.
To me this doesn't make since, if you are trying to catch something inside of something shouldn't the rule by ID?

Because our basket is made of 1/2" steel, by the time you add the top ring and nub from the upright support our basket is 2" bigger than 76CM making it too large.
If we made them out of 3/16ths" steel they would pass!

This just doesnt seem right.
I was told the rule would be addressed so now I wait to see the results of the poll.
Jeff H has had a Titan since last winter and in my opinion a ruling could have been made to allow for it to be approved.
its obvious to me the rule should be ID and I'm pretty sure 1/2" steel is more professional grade than 5/16ths", yet we are penalized for making it out of the larger diameter steel.

oh well, I'm pretty sure it will get approved after this poll and like chuck said its really not a rule just a recommendation.

Ive putted on a lot of baskets and never looked at a Titan and thought it had a larger catching area.
Maybe because its 13" deep!

AO,
My guess is the Titan Proto's ( Allen Pier knockoffs) at Endicott and Ozark Mountain are about the same size, maybe a bit smaller, but because they are made with 3/8ths steel they could still pass.



I was hoping Jeff H from the TSC would chime in by now, my information could be off.

Jeff H does this sound accurate in terms of measurements on the Titan? We did make a few different degrees of pitch on the upright basket supports, maybe you have one of the older ones??? :confused:

Jeff doesn't monitor this board. If you have questions, contact him directly.

It's my understanding that 8705 went out yesterday and we're at 600 responses already. Check your email spam filter closely to make sure you didn't get it. It's a service called Survey Monkey which the PDGA has been using for all surveys. Contact Karolyn if you can't find it.


I never received it. How do I contact Karolyn?

Karolyn is the Office Manager on the PDGA Contact page: www.pdga.com/contact.php (http://www.pdga.com/contact.php)

Karolyn is the Office Manager on the PDGA Contact page: www.pdga.com/contact.php (http://www.pdga.com/contact.php)


I contacted her, she replied and said I was on the next list. When does the next round get sent?

Not sure, she hasn't told me. However, I believe there's a PDGA News member emailing coming up within the next week, so I'm guessing that's when she'll upload the next set of emails for the survey that were missed before.

its funny we actually asked what members think about including an electronic chip to make a chain sound on chainless baskets. WTF?!?!?! :) its good to look to the future... but hopefully fake chain audio is near the bottom of the list of stuff we are concerned about regarding baskets.

I think that came from the dynamic duo of Lyle and Chuck a year ago.

I'd comment on why it was relevant but that would give away how the survey responses were going.

its funny we actually asked what members think about including an electronic chip to make a chain sound on chainless baskets. WTF?!?!?! :) its good to look to the future... but hopefully fake chain audio is near the bottom of the list of stuff we are concerned about regarding baskets.



Ask all the casinos in Vegas why they have chips that make the coins hitting the metal tray sound while the machine prints out a voucher that can only be used at THAT CASINO.
1) because people expect SOME NOISE when cashing out
2) because they want you to not feel bad about getting a piece of paper instead of a cup of coins to walk out the door with
3) because they are still hanging on to the OLD, while transitioning to the NEW.


Things have changed DRAMATICALLY since I threw my first Frisbees in 1971, and even more so since I joined the PDGA in 1995.

Hell PAT, You are even on the board, when 10 years ago you would have had PROBABLY 1-2 votes to be on the BOD. :D

Things may change, but people still like some of the old things to remind them of why they play.

Lets just see what the survey says, and go from there.

I'm still waiting for some of the changes that hurt me from the 95/96 survey to help me, when 2010 comes around. :D

Keith

Not sure, she hasn't told me. However, I believe there's a PDGA News member emailing coming up within the next week, so I'm guessing that's when she'll upload the next set of emails for the survey that were missed before.


Still haven't seen it. Unless you cleverly disguised it as a Viagra, or Credit Score Ad.

"Hell PAT, You are even on the board, when 10 years ago you would have had PROBABLY 1-2 votes to be on the BOD. "

:D:D

or probably not :D

no worries, i'm not rejecting the idea. i only get one survey response anyway, and who knows if i'll even be around when we take action on this. i dont really care what they do in vegas with slot machines. maybe we could just have a laser sensor system and if the disc breaks the light then bells and whistles and chain sounds fill the hills with glorious disc golf sounds. we could even add GALLERY NOISE and really pretend :)

And pretend coin sounds, too...

Still haven't seen it. Unless you cleverly disguised it as a Viagra, or Credit Score Ad.


I asked her today about it but didn't hear back. With Brian in Sweden and Gentry back today, probably had to complete the content for the mailing before launch.

Not sure, she hasn't told me. However, I believe there's a PDGA News member emailing coming up within the next week, so I'm guessing that's when she'll upload the next set of emails for the survey that were missed before.


Still haven't seen it. Unless you cleverly disguised it as a Viagra, or Credit Score Ad.


Me neither.

i havnt seen the questionaire either

If you haven't received the email to respond, it likely means one of two things - either the email address the PDGA has on file for you is not correct or your spam filter trapped the email from Survey Monkey which is the service the PDGA uses. Contact Karolyn to get in the next emailing this week.

i recieve other pertanant e mail regurly

See answer two regarding spam. Remember the survey email comes from Survey Monkey not from the PDGA. It could have been trapped in spam or you deleted it not knowing it was the survey. The survey email was sent on Monday, June 30th.

Survey Monkey e-mail invites regularly get caught in spam filters, which is one of the reasons the university I work at stopped using it for conducting on-line surveys. The blocking might even occur at the mailserver level, well before your individual spam filter does it's work.

Monday is the deadline for responding to the Target Survey for members. If you wish to respond and didn't get an invite, send your email to Karolyn at the PDGA office and she'll get out a survey invite to you on Monday when she's back. We've gotten a little over 800 responses so far with lots of useful commentary.

Still haven't gotten one

I know Karolyn sent out another set of email invites yesterday to everyone who had sent in and requested a resend during the past two weeks. If you were in that group you should have gotten the email yesterday. I don't know how to break thru your email filtering of Survey Monkey emails if that's what happening like Rizbee mentioned above.

I know Karolyn sent out another set of email invites yesterday to everyone who had sent in and requested a resend during the past two weeks. If you were in that group you should have gotten the email yesterday.


According to her, I was on that list.

I don't know how to break thru your email filtering of Survey Monkey emails if that's what happening like Rizbee mentioned above.


I have no filter.

Check your email.

I didn't get a survey either, I thought my email would have been up to date as I got the voting ballot for elections...

The email I have for you is at KSU. It bounced. Send me your email (ck34 at aol.com) and I'll send the Survey link.

Today is the deadline for Members to respond to the Target Survey and have their responses included. If you haven't received the Survey link or can't find it, contact me today at the email in the above post with your email address and I'll get it sent to you.

Any results yet? When will they be posted?

I have the results done. I'm waiting on the PDGA office to let me know about posting them.

Compiled results for both Members and Manufacturers are posted here:
www.pdga.com/documents/2008/TargetSurveySummary8-1-08.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2008/TargetSurveySummary8-1-08.pdf)
We also broke out averaged responses for 34 PDGA Leaders and 17 Sponsored pros (Championship category only) as self identified in the survey. Our Tech group comments on the results are indicated in the far right column. What we propose for specification additions or changes based on these results will be prepared for presentation at the Summit meeting in September.

Here are the categorized comments offered by about 1 in 3 respondents, but their names and PDGA numbers have been removed.
www.pdga.com/documents/2008/TargetSurveyComments8-1-08.xls (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2008/TargetSurveyComments8-1-08.xls)

At some point, the large Excel file used to compile these results will be made available for those who wish to dig into the details of these consolidations.

Scott's New Basket Design

I've spent some time thinking about this and have come up with some changes to the basket designs. If you are a manufacture please contact me for a working model and don't infinge on my patent pending idea :)

The first change is to change the chains. The chains have cross hatching on them, similar to what is used on the handle of a steel rachet tool. The cross hatching will provide more grip and catch the disc better. This should prvent the dreaded spit through :D.

The second change is to allow a disc that comes to rest on the top of a basket to slide through the top and into the basket. See the drawings below, the design creates a space or gap between the inner and outer chain connections. Instead of using a rod that goes across the entire top, this design creates a gap and allows the dics to fall into the basket. Thoughts?

http://www.sanantoniodiscclub.com/images/DiscGolfBasketDesignSide.JPG

http://www.sanantoniodiscclub.com/images/DiscGolfBasketDesignTop.JPG

What is holding up the outer band?

Interesting concept, but as drawn, your green band has nothing apparent holding it up. Due to gravity, that band - and the connecting chains - fall down. No?

Karl

Ps: Maybe the drawing just needs to be revamped

A minute late....

Obviously (to use the term as LaGrassa would), the <font color="green">green</font> band is made of antimatter, suspended by ordinary gravitons, &amp; tethered from zooming away from the earth by the outer chains. :D

Good Catch ... the green band needs 4 connection points to the pole. Those bars will run the width of top of the basket but not prevent the disc from falling through. I missed that while draftingthis in my advanced dfrafting program (paint) :D

Nice! As with the Innova "chastity belt", your top band will reject all putts when hit. Please, please, please angle the band down so (my) putts will have a chance of going in. If this means that this is part of the effective target, you may have to shrink down the dimension a little. This is my only beef with the Innova Discatcher, and a little angle (and slider chains support on top) will help! Good luck with this!

looks too "thumber-friendly" to me. :D

looks too "thumber-friendly" to me. :D



ANY basket that allows a shot to enter from the top is LAME.

It rewards a BAD SHOT by increasing the target area.
If you want to drop it in from the top then play Ball Golf and hit little balls into little holes.
:p

Thats your opinion. Personally I don't think that is a bad idea. But then again that is just my opinion. I think expanding the target area is a good idea to allow for more long putts to be made. It will make the sport more TV friendly.

It will make the sport more TV friendly.



I dont see how making it easier makes it more "TV friendly"

The fact that MOST of our courses are not even spectator friendly makes them NON-TV friendly. It takes FAR too many cameras (= $$) to get proper coverage, unlike "Ping-Pong", Darts" &amp; other "sports" that we see on TV.

IMO.. :D

Nice! As with the Innova "chastity belt", your top band will reject all putts when hit. Please, please, please angle the band down so (my) putts will have a chance of going in. If this means that this is part of the effective target, you may have to shrink down the dimension a little. This is my only beef with the Innova Discatcher, and a little angle (and slider chains support on top) will help! Good luck with this!



You mean like this?
http://shutter02.pictures.aol.com/data/pictures/16/004/27/9D/F5/B2/iaPV9uOw87s2L1u1oGWNRaguQwx-verq0192.jpg

I sent this to Dave Dunipace, I think he believes baskets catch too well already.

It will make the sport more TV friendly.



I dont see how making it easier makes it more "TV friendly"



One of the best aspects of ball golf is the anticipation of watching a putt to see if it will go in. The further out you can make putts, the longer the anticipation. Did you see Harrington draining those long putts yesterday? It was great.

Take out the top of the basket design ... what about having chains that are made from a better textured material to grip and prevent splash throughs.

How about the new improved catching system....

http://api.ning.com/files/I-avv2gXWywLcMo9kMOEFsccnJGZxFQdy2uTeDcD3USUNVJmUP8r ZRADgK-Q903QZ-hZnI4v--FKTJVtDoiev6-Tcf1DG93*/basket.GIF

That's an ultimate basket.

THAT'S IT! MAKE AND PEOPLE WILL COME!!

All we have to do now is contact the "Thing" from the Adams family.... If it can provide us with DNA for "thing" clones, we can mass produce this baby.....

I sent this to Dave Dunipace, I think he believes baskets catch too well already.



They do catch too well already...42 aces at world's last week &amp; y'all want to make the target easier! :p

Good grief.

I would be interested in stats of other sports and How big the goal/hole etc is compared to the ball, object etc.

For easy example:
Basketball hoop: whats thedifference in ball size to hoop
Golf: cup diameter to the ball

I really think our targets are to big compared to the disc size, But that was easly left out of this survey...

To many people wnat to make it easier, when for the difficulty of putting out we need to actualy make it fair and harder. IMHO

In both of those sports, as you know, the goal is twice the size of the ball.
The target in disc golf is meant to represent the upper torso of a person. Like playing catch.
Mind you the size of a disc at the time the target was designed...

One thing about current baskets that does bother me, is how often a disc that is 100% in the basket somehow manages to bounce out. I wouldn't mind a smaller chain area and deeper basket.

A basketball hoop is not 2x the size of a basketball.

Regulation size 7 (men's) basketball diameter = 9.39 inches
Regulation basketball hoop diameter = 18 inches

you also arent trying to throw a basketball into a hoop from 300 feet. its not simply the size of object to goal, but object to goal to distance traveled.

as far as that many aces at worlds, how many drives were thrown during worlds? i think after you calculate the number of teeshots, the aces probably dont seem that high of a percentage, and the only thing you would do by making baskets catch less well, would be that teeshots that are dead on, would be punished by falling out.

are the survey results up somewhere? or finished?

Survey results were posted but haven't been re-established on the site yet. Contact me by email for a copy.

My father played golf avidly for 60 years or so and was a good player. He had a single digit handicap most of his life. He shot his age several times on regulation courses in his 70s. In all those years he had one hole-in-one. He had a few fairway aces on par 4 and par 5 holes. Nothing like the two or three holes in one I get every year playing 100 rounds of disc golf a year.

Our target is so easy to hit it's ridiculous.

its still not a one to one, im sure if he played 60 years on very old short courses, he may have had a few more. what do you think the maximum distance is that people should be able to put the disc in the basket? what is reasonable? im not arguing, just wondering about perspectives other than my own. if the basket were say the size of a 5 gallon bucket, or perhaps only as wide as an ultimate disc at its widest point, would that be better? in that situation, you would expect few putts to go in outside 40 and many misses even inside 25 from pros.

i think one main reason and justification for our targets being larger is that even when your disc hits the target, it is no guarantee that it goes in and stays in. there are alot of other variables involved. many good putts still can go out on some targets, its not as simple as a hole in the ground, where if it goes in, it never falls back out. object targets were similar to ball golf targets because you just had to contact it and it was good, many of these were just small trees or the size of a signpost. you didnt have to worry about it cutting through or falling out or kicking back, which are all reasons that people think targets are NOT to large. i think if there were a smaller target that caught 100% of good putts, people would be fine with the target being smaller.

what do you think the maximum distance is that people should be able to put the disc in the basket?

It's not the distance; it's the frequency. Everyone wants a disc that goes farther and a basket that catches better. Why not just hit golf balls off the rim of the Grand Canyon and call them all holes in one?

what do you think the maximum distance is that people should be able to put the disc in the basket?

It's not the distance; it's the frequency. Everyone wants a disc that goes farther and a basket that catches better. Why not just hit golf balls off the rim of the Grand Canyon and call them all holes in one?



so what is a or 'the' solution in your opinion.

My father played golf avidly for 60 years or so and was a good player. He had a single digit handicap most of his life. He shot his age several times on regulation courses in his 70s. In all those years he had one hole-in-one. He had a few fairway aces on par 4 and par 5 holes. Nothing like the two or three holes in one I get every year playing 100 rounds of disc golf a year.

Our target is so easy to hit it's ridiculous.



Of course, if golf courses had holes golfers could reach with a putter, they'd probably have more hole-in-ones.

If all disc golf holes were 400 feet or more, we'd have considerably less.

If we changed the disc golf target to make putting as difficult and on scale as ball golf---if our fairways are 20% as long, then our 2-foot putts should be made about as often as a 10-foot putt in ball-golf, how much fun would it be?

If we decided that disc golf is a different sport than ball golf, how much would this matter? We could choose which aspects of ball golf we want to emulate, and which ones we'd prefer to differ on (such as how often we get aces, or our putting range).

The ball golf 50% range is about 5 feet for pros. For disc golf it's probably about 35-40 feet. The bigger issue related to putting difficulty is setting par. If we agree we're different than ball golf for putting difficulty then we also need to be different in our parameters for setting par. If we wish to emulate the balance of putting to driving in ball golf, then we need to make putting more difficult if we wish to also use their "shots to the green plus two" for setting par.

I start in firm agreement that "we're different than ball golf". I'm also not a ball golfer---tried it 2 or 3 times---so I'm hesistant to quote ball golf rules or distances.

As I've stated before, I consider the setting of "par" to be a minor issue. However, when some disc golfers use "shots to the green plus 2", and define the green as the 10-meter no-falling-putt zone, it results in some rather high "par" settings. If our green were defined proportionate to the ball golf green---that is, the point from which a similar percentage of players will hole out in 2 more strokes---it would make more sense to me. I guess 150' from the basket on relatively open holes? Roughly equivalent to the edge of the green in ball golf?

Anyway, my wish for targets would be a little harder to hit, and a little truer when hit. Regardless of how they compare to any other sport.

The last clause here drives me nuts Chuck:


The ball golf 50% range is about 5 feet for pros. For disc golf it's probably about 35-40 feet. The bigger issue related to putting difficulty is setting par. If we agree we're different than ball golf for putting difficulty then we also need to be different in our parameters for setting par. If we wish to emulate the balance of putting to driving in ball golf, then we need to make putting more difficult if we wish to also use their "shots to the green plus two" for setting par.



You can't "set" par... it IS shots to the green plus two. That's just what it is - you can't just say it's something else! And it's too easy in our version of this game. 100 under!

This doesn't mean replacing the hardware on every basket in the world either... there was no need to add double chains and deeper trays when we went through that transition was there? Make the baskets smaller for majors as a start. Not much smaller. Just a little would do nicely. How cool would it be to see a 50 footer nestle into a smaller basket?

Who would be the best putter then? Would Ron Russell ever have won Worlds? Would Mike Sullivan have a world title? Would Feldberg have averaged only 5 under per round in Kzoo? Would Greenwell have been top 10 at USDGC at age 62 or whatever he's up to now?

These are compelling questions, no?

This needs to happen. It's too easy, and distance is rewarded too much. Can you make me a convincing argument against it? (if anyone can it's you)...

edit: For those who don't know, Hosfeld made three putts outside of 60 feet on the last three holes of the 87 worlds to take the title...

You are preaching to the choir. I would be pleased if an easy way to make the target more difficult could be found. Reducing the basket size by 3 cm isn't realistic. But making only pros use Super Class discs, which are 3cm larger, for shots within 10m-15m would potentially do the same thing with no cost. Barring doing this or some other creative, low cost idea, we need to agree par for disc golf is not the ball golf definition.

[QUOTE]
You can't "set" par... it IS shots to the green plus two. That's just what it is - you can't just say it's something else! And it's too easy in our version of this game. 100 under!


Why can't we set par? It's our game.

And what's the definition of the "green" you're using? Try "within 150 feet of basket", and see what you get for par.