INNOVA DISCATCHERS! Without a doubt they are the best - the new ones that is.

I have played over 150 courses, but just three main basket types (not counting homemade or portables). The Chainstars and Machs cannot even compare to the catching ability of the DISCatchers. Of course the "yellow band" can be a psychological magnet, magically pulling your disc toward it such that you can hear that un-harmonious CLUNK! And the deep basket makes you think there is less veritcal opening (but they're all the same).

I putt RHBH and these things are like MAGIC if you hit high and slighly right of pole, not a chance to miss. Hit dead center and you'll also never question the disc grabbing ability - EVER. I have never had a bounceback off the pole due to the new 3-tier stagered layers of chains. And as long as the disc is not vertical, you'll never have one squeeze through the chains if you hit on either side. The deep baskets and bent inward nubs hold all sorts of discs that would otherwise bounce, bend, or tumble out of the shallow Mach baskets that also have nubs bent up along the rim. And low putts over the basket rim NEVER skip out like a Mach, because the chains all hang so deeply into the basket. All I've seen is that if you have a light putt, the curve of the outer hanging chains will push your disc out if you hit either side, but again I think that is due to the fact that the chains hang so deeply into the basket.

Here in WI we mainly have Machs. After religiously playing on the discatchers at my home course, I cannot stand the Machs. Yet, due to the predominant supply of DGA baskets, I get plenty of mouth from the non-believers because all they ever throw is the DGA junk.

I did not include Gateway baskets because I've never thrown them, and believe they are veru limited in that 90% of all players would have to travel over 8 hours to get to a course with them.

What are YOUR favorite baskets and why? (and hopefully you make an informed statement because you HAVE played on each of the different types more than just a round or two)

Here's the member survey with 800 responses:

www.pdga.com/documents/2008/TargetSurveySummary8-1-08.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2008/TargetSurveySummary8-1-08.pdf)

Pretty even split between Discatchers and Mach IIIs. If you add the counts for Chainstars with Mach Vs, it's no contest even though they are slightly different with the rings.

The Titan is hands down the greatest catching device out there. If you ever get a chance play Endicott Park in St. Louis & you'll feel the same way.

To bad this is even being discussed. IMO definately the worst part of disc golf. And frustrates me even more when I hear people say "You have to accept it. Spit outs are part of the game." It happens on all makes of baskets just less on others.

I've even heard from some top Discraft pros that they prefer the catching ability of a DISCatcher.

Well, it's not like a sponsered player is loyal to a basket; the want to putt on the thing that catches the best.

I used to be a die hard chainstar person, even after I got sponsored by Gateway. Now that I have had a chance to put on a Titan from Gateway, the rest now pale in comparison.

To bad this is even being discussed. IMO definately the worst part of disc golf. And frustrates me even more when I hear people say "You have to accept it. Spit outs are part of the game." It happens on all makes of baskets just less on others.



I could not agree more!!! Spit outs are rediculous and cost players LOTS and LOTS of money. I come from ball golf where if you make a dead center putt at a reasonable speed it goes in EVERY SINGLE TIME!!! There is no question whether its going to kick off the bottom of the cup and come out and roll 100ft or if its going to slide threw some magical worm hole and come out the back of the cup. If your entire ball is inside the cup at a reasonable speed the putt falls. And its is completely rediculous that people say you just need to accept it its part of the game. Thats the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. Can someone please tell me with all the science these days and the money in the sport why no one can design a basket that doesnt SPIT!!! In my opinion we need SMALLER baskets that catch better so that putting is actually hard. I mean its seriously the easiest part of our game when its the HARDEST part of our FATHER sport ball golf. I think its pretty rediculous people can make putts that are a third the length of a hole and is some cases HALF the length of a hole. Oh and baskets in order from best to worst catching ability...........Spider Webs, New Discatchers, Chainstars, Mach 5s, New Mach 2s, Mach 3s (worst EVER in my opinion) and Im not even going to mention Mach Is cuz thats what we started with and its acceptable that they catch poorly by todays standards.

Just my 2 cent

Here's the member survey with 800 responses:

www.pdga.com/documents/2008/TargetSurveySummary8-1-08.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2008/TargetSurveySummary8-1-08.pdf)

Pretty even split between Discatchers and Mach IIIs. If you add the counts for Chainstars with Mach Vs, it's no contest even though they are slightly different with the rings.



Chuck,
So I participated in the poll, IMO it seemed to be a guided tour. Not as bad as the disc poll but similar choices with the results being what I expected.


Are there any rule changes coming?

BTW,,,,,
Whats the status on changing the existing rule to read 76 CM ID instead of OD on the basket catching area so the Titan will be approved?

I suspect a different outcome if and when the Titan Pro-24 gets approved. Never mind the 1/2" steel construction, I'm fairly certain they are the best catching baskets I have played on,,,, but of course I'm a little partial.
The heavier inside chains on the Titans eliminate cut throughs and bounce outs and the 13" deep basket wont let many discs out of the basket once it hits the bottom.

We're preparing the recommendations now for discussion at the Summit meeting Sep 15-16.

I still think Chainstars catch the best. Maybe I haven't played a "new" Discatcher yet, I didn't know there was one. As for ridiculous spit outs Mullet, I believe that putting too hard from short range causes a lot of these. I putt softly compared to most pros I watch and get fewer spit outs simply because the disc doesn't have the speed to bust thru the chains. I get robbed on putts of course but I think it evens out because we get alot more hole outs/fairway aces and tee-shot aces than ball golf because our targety is so much bigger.

I agree that we need fundamental change in our catching devices. As I am hearing from others, our targets catch too much lucky crap yet make mastery of short putts impossible. I practice putting quite a bit on my portable discatcher, mach 3's, and chainstars. Chainstars catch the best out of these, but I often throw identical putts and watch my putter do different things once it gets in the chains. Spit throughs and bounce backs off the pole are amoung the examples of common basket failures. Mach 3's are absolutely horrible and it blows my mind that people voted for those...You shouldn't vote for the baskets on your home course just b/c you haven't played much on others...I mean how could you vote for a mach 3 instead of a mach 5?

Anyway, I'll toot Dave's horn for him b/c Titans rule. When your putter gets in that cage it hits and falls. No drama. I am also for making the target a bit smaller--It would make it harder and also represent a modernization of our sport b/c I guarantee steady Ed had lids in mind when he first came up with the size of the basket. No one throws discs that large anymore, and it looks a bit silly to see how little space a putter takes up inside that basket.

We're preparing the recommendations now for discussion at the Summit meeting Sep 15-16.


Can you make sure to specifically address this oversight in the wording of the rule?

If you making a rule that calls for something to be trapped inside OD just seems to be way off base.
I'm sure ( and hope) most would agree the rule needs to be measured for ID.
The only thing the rule of OD does it make it harder for a basket to be made full size out of heavier gauge steel.

Heres a link to some pics of the Titan:
We are not currently in production of the portable ( the one in red) as we are trying to develop the Bulls Eye, which has a much better price point at $125- $150 which is alot more in demand than a $350 practice basket.
http://www.gdstour.com/gateway_titan_portable_disc_golf_basket.php

ID is being considered for the new specs but note that many were in favor of smaller baskets. However, remember that the original intent of the basket was to emulate an object target like a post which would only have an OD spec such as our deflector assembly has. Conceptually, our target is really the deflector, with the basket just being the receptacle the disc drops into. So using ID vs OD for the basket spec apparently not originally considered as critical when the specs were set.

dont' forget about Disc King/Rudy Rack. they showcased their basket at the 08 Worlds and it looks sweet! One of the cool improvements is the nub is bent 90 degrees and welded onto the top rung of the basket so it doesn't catch/rip/damage clothing or discs. Plus they can install 3 levels of chain and powdercoat it to meet your club's scheme.
I'll look for the website unless someone knows and can post.

chainstars hands down

ID is being considered for the new specs but note that many were in favor of smaller baskets.



Smaller baskets is a HUGE can of worms the PDGA should NOT open up! Not that I am not for it, I think it would do a great job of separating the truly great players from the consistently lucky. But what about the 2720 courses in the directory?! (i.e. nearly 49000 baskets! assuming 18 hole courses) Will all those baskets be obsolete, or unoffical?? Does par change for different baskets? I know SSA will, but how do you identify it (pre-smaller basket layout and post-smaller basket layout)?

It's not like cutting a smaller hole in a golf green, going to a smaller basket would be HUGE and a STOOOOOOOOOOOOOPID move IMO!!!!!!!!!!

Didn't mean to imply they would be 'required' but 'allowed' as they are now. There is no minimum basket diameter requirement today and we have baskets approved that are more than 5 inches different in diameter than others (SkillShot).

ID is being considered for the new specs but note that many were in favor of smaller baskets. However, <font color="blue">remember that the original intent of the basket was to emulate an object target like a post </font> which would only have an OD spec such as our deflector assembly has. Conceptually, our target is really the deflector, with the basket just being the receptacle the disc drops into. So using ID vs OD for the basket spec apparently not originally considered as critical when the specs were set.



I think I remember hearing Ed or reading something he wrote that described the chains and basket as an emulation of the torso of a person, i.e., if you were playing catch with someone a throw that would hit them in the pit of the stomach (so they didn't have to move to catch it) would also hit the chains and fall into the basket. This makes sense, because Frisbee throwing was always much more about playing catch with a friend than throwing the disc to hit an object.

If this assumption was the basis for the design, "spit-throughs" that are the result of throwing the disc too hard *should* go through the basket. If you throw it too hard it shouldn't stay in.

#1 Titan. I don't get to play courses with these often enough. Catches well, easy to find and see on a course if they are RED.
#2 Chainstar. Have one at home, and I love playing them. Wish a lot of them were easier to see though. They should ALL be painted bright orange from here on out.
#3 DISCatcher. Catch good, easy to see.
#4 Mach 5. As good as anything else, classic basket, still ... not easy to see on a course that is wooded.

IMO (and I'm not sponsored) Gateway has made huge improvements in basket design, and I'm sure it'll only get better as we see more products developed by them. I think they should get the highest Kudos for their work in basket design.

ID is being considered for the new specs but note that many were in favor of smaller baskets.



Smaller baskets is a HUGE can of worms the PDGA should NOT open up! Not that I am not for it, I think it would do a great job of separating the truly great players from the consistently lucky. But what about the 2720 courses in the directory?! (i.e. nearly 49000 baskets! assuming 18 hole courses) Will all those baskets be obsolete, or unoffical?? Does par change for different baskets? I know SSA will, but how do you identify it (pre-smaller basket layout and post-smaller basket layout)?

It's not like cutting a smaller hole in a golf green, going to a smaller basket would be HUGE and a STOOOOOOOOOOOOOPID move IMO!!!!!!!!!!



It wouldn't have to be that dramatic. Start using them at majors and give the rest of tournament courses something like 10 years to update. Pars and SSAs are already changing all the time as the sport grows. Also, the number of courses we have now will double before too long if the sport keeps growing, so it wouldn't take long b4 most courses had the smaller baskets.

Here are the current basket specs. A basket designed for minis could pass the current specifications and be approved for regular disc play since no minimum diameter is specified. I'm surprised a manufacturer hasn't pressed the issue long before we decied to update the specs this year. All they needed to do is mount a mini basket on a taller pole and make the basket at least 15 cm deep and we would have no grounds to reject it, although I'm sure it would have triggered a review of the guidelines like we're doing now. I'd say a minimum ID will need to be added to avoid that issue.

(II) DISC-CATCHING TARGETS &lt;To be updated in 2008&gt;
(A) General Configuration
All disc-catching targets shall be composed of a basket and may have a deflection or entrapment
apparatus above the basket.
(B) Basket
The basket shall have a circular rim of no greater than 67 cm in diameter as measured on the
outside edge of the rim, with a minimal basket depth of 15 cm. The basket rim shall have an
average height of between 76 and 89 cm above the ground. Over slope, height compliance is
determined by averaging the distance to the ground directly below the top edge of the rim at four
equidistant points around the basket. Baskets may be placed at a lower height on courses
designed primarily for junior play.
(C) Deflection or Entrapment Apparatus
(1) A disc-catching device may incorporate some sort of deflection device in its design. This
apparatus may be flexible or solid.
(2) The maximum width of a deflection apparatus shall be 71 cm.
(D) Other Acceptable Targets
PDGA reserves the right to declare reasonable and prudent standards for certification of object
and other target formats, as it deems appropriate.

CHAINSTAR
hate innova baskets, love their discs
bounce outs are my own fault

Here are some pic's of the Titan. IMHO, the best basket on the market. Notice the staggered inner sets of chains.

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/9325/titan4ju1.th.jpg (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=titan4ju1.jpg)http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/1545/titan3vq6.th.jpg (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=titan3vq6.jpg)http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/6500/titan2ww6.th.jpg (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=titan2ww6.jpg)http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/4827/titan1az7.th.jpg (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=titan1az7.jpg)

It wouldn't have to be that dramatic. Start using them at majors and give the rest of tournament courses something like 10 years to update. Pars and SSAs are already changing all the time as the sport grows. Also, the number of courses we have now will double before too long if the sport keeps growing, so it wouldn't take long b4 most courses had the smaller baskets.



You gotta be CRAZY! It's completely drastic, even given 10 years to upgrade! I'd like to host tournaments on my course, it's definitely worthy, but there would be no way I'd toss away $350x27 (almost $10,000!!!!) worth of old baskets, AND buy an additional 27 new baskets at the same cost just because of a rule change. The smaller baskets would just have to be acceptable alternatives. And because I like statistics as much as chuck, the course layout would have to be identified as using such for descriptive SSA.

In 20 years, people will role back around to good ol' Winter Park and pay big bucks to play on classic, vintage 'big' baskets!

the staggered inner chains have been around for at least 10 years. anyone who's played pieradise in peru, in. or cabin creek outside cincinnati has played on spiderwebs. these things catch everything. the gateway titan is pretty much a copy of it.

I ran into Alan Pier in Burger King at Worlds and encouraged him to submit his baskets for PDGA approval. We'll see if that happens.

And because I like statistics as much as chuck, the course layout would have to be identified as using such for descriptive SSA


What we don't really know is how much difference the baskets make to the SSA on a course. We assume that Mach New IIs, Discatchers, Titans and Spiderwebs all catch the same. We changed the Gold course at Worlds last year from Mach IIIs to Discatchers and if there was any difference, it got swallowed up in simple statistical variance and weather factors. It would be interesting to see how much the SSA is impacted from say posts versus good chain baskets on a course. I'll bet it's less than you might think and posts might be easier (no bounce outs :D).

By my own admission, I am a poor putter. But, when spending a weekend at Highbridge, we played all courses. Started on Blueberry and shot 60, played Granite next at 63, and then got to Gold and the Discatchers were gobbling up my putts for a 67 - pretty good if you ask me, and it was the first time I ever played GOLD.

I suppose you're right that the SSA wouldn't vary much especially between basket brands when compared to round by round variances, but say the basketets reduce the basket and chain assemblies by 10" in diameter - then I think SSA will go up by almost a half stroke per hole.

Here are some pic's of the Titan. IMHO, the best basket on the market. Notice the staggered inner sets of chains.

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/9325/titan4ju1.th.jpg (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=titan4ju1.jpg)http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/1545/titan3vq6.th.jpg (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=titan3vq6.jpg)http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/6500/titan2ww6.th.jpg (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=titan2ww6.jpg)http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/4827/titan1az7.th.jpg (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=titan1az7.jpg)



I saw that Dave also made up some crazy practice baskets. Single chain device, much like the inner chain, made of like a pvc type material. I'm guessing anyone practicing to those would become a better putter. Any pics on those or info? :cool:

then got to Gold and the Discatchers were gobbling up my putts for a 67 - pretty good if you ask me, and it was the first time I ever played GOLD.



Depending on the level of player, your average putt length on a gold course could be less than on a blue course. I remember hardly putting at all on Pickard at PAW2004 because many of the holes were out of my range so I had lots of easy upshots and drop-ins compared with say Walnut Ridge or Ewing where the holes were in my wheelhouse and resulted in longer putts than Pickard on average after a pretty good drive or two.

the staggered inner chains have been around for at least 10 years. anyone who's played pieradise in peru, in. or cabin creek outside cincinnati has played on spiderwebs. these things catch everything. The Gateway titan is pretty much a copy of it.


I completely agree I copied some of his design and mention it in our specs for the basket.
Immolation is one of the highest forms of a compliment.
*
There are still a few important differences in the Titan Pro-24 over the Spider-3 though, as we have heavier gauge chain on the 2 sets of chain on the inside and they connect differently to the top assembly that allows the chain to slide upon impact and then back down into place. ( I beleive Mark Taylor from NORCAL actually came up with this idea)
We also have different shaped rings that are polymer coated and have a different "pole and sleeve" system:

The beauty of inventions and innovations throughout history is to take something and improve on it which we have done.
Its called good ole American ingenuity and without it who knows where this country would be today.





Alan Pier and I used to talk about basket designs all the time back in the day and his basket is truly the inspiration for the Titan Pro-24 as was Eds for his!

Ed Headrick used to tell me ANY and ALL basket made infringed his patent and made claims for trade dress shape, or something similar. The facts are Ed himself got the Idea for his basket from someone else's idea.
I'm thinking it was a Whiskey Barrel buried in the ground with a post coming up the middle.
The point is most products are spin-offs of other products and hopefully they just keep getting better, which is the case with the Titan Pro-24.
While I feel the US patenting system for inventions is important, its also important to improve existing products as the demand arises. This is Why design patents are issued.


Here is what we ( Gateway) say about our baskets:

The Titan Pro-24 is made from 1/2" cold rolled steel (compared to 5/16ths� and 3/8�) and mig welded at each section. They are also deeper dished like Ozark baskets/spider 3 (13" deep). The metal and chains are all Hot-Dipped Galvanized, not electro plated of powder coated. The chain configuration is also similar to the Ozark mountain/Spider-3 baskets, with 2 sets of 6 inside chains that alternate lengths. There are 3 sets of chains altogether with each hanging independently on their own rings. The rings are not made from cold rolled and are 3"x 1/2"x 1/4" shaped like the Armstrong bracelets. Cut sections of 3" tubing, dipped in a red copolymer that is guaranteed against cracking and chipping. The rings are tighter to the poll &amp; heavier causing way less action when struck. To top it off the inside "CHAINS" are heavier in weight but similar in gauge. The outside chains are the normal size and weight of the traditional baskets. The heavier inside chain really deadens the shots without causing deflection. Physically this basket is superior in strength as anyone could see that just by looking and I would put their catching ability up against anything ever made. The Titan Pro-24 is guaranteed against bending and breaking!

Our locking system for the basket and sleeve involves a pole that is swaged (crimped) to fit inside the sleeve. 7/16�ths through holes drilled in each part line up and a 3/8th� thick X 2� wide by 2� long style Master lock is used for security. (cost of locks are $14.00 each)
We use 10 gauge galvanized mechanical tubing for both the pool and sleeve that has 5 layers of coating for protection over the galvanizing.
Our sleeves (for pin placements) cost 50% less than traditional sleeves ($12 compared to $25) and are also much less expensive to cover. The need to cover extra pin placements is extremely important and can be done on our sleeves for less than $6.00 each with products that can be purchased at Home depot or Lowe�s (compared to) The need for multiple pins is necessary to reduce erosion, as the baskets can and should be moved each week or so to allow the ground to recover form usage. Pin placement covers allow a player to recognize the addition pin locations when they are not in use and prevent mowers from damaging the sleeve of mowing equipment.

BTW, votes and polls through the discussion board are like going into Wrigley and asking what team is better over history, the Cardinals or the CUBS.
Even though this is a no brainer, I'm pretty sure the cubs would win the vote!

Personally I really enjoy putting on Discatchers as I like the band on the top, it gives the target definition, but by no means is it, or the Chainstar, a hands down better catching basket than the Titan, regardless of the vote!
We can all agree the Mach III and mach V are bringing up the rear.

Here are some pic's of the Titan. IMHO, the best basket on the market. Notice the staggered inner sets of chains.

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/9325/titan4ju1.th.jpg (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=titan4ju1.jpg)http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/1545/titan3vq6.th.jpg (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=titan3vq6.jpg)http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/6500/titan2ww6.th.jpg (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=titan2ww6.jpg)http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/4827/titan1az7.th.jpg (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=titan1az7.jpg)



I saw that Dave also made up some crazy practice baskets. Single chain device, much like the inner chain, made of like a pvc type material. I'm guessing anyone practicing to those would become a better putter. Any pics on those or info? :cool:


here are some pictures of the Bulls EYE!
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.ph...e=3&amp;fpart=1 (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=Equipment&amp;Number=801643&amp;p age=3&amp;fpart=1)

Immolation is one of the highest forms of a compliment.


But you can only do it once... (better Google "immolation" :D)

separating the truly great players from the consistently lucky



Is there such a thing as consistently lucky? Isn't that just good.

I guess I'm talking more about the intangibles than making putts. I know people that have the sunshine of luck beaming down on them all the time. Every tree they hit gives them a good kick into the fairway. Every skip is closer to the basket. Every time they miss a putt, the disc does not roll 30' away but plops under the basket. Lots of these same people can throw a prayer at the basket and seem to hit it mush more often than not. Now, if the basket was smaller, maybe they wouldn't be as lucky, but then again, they are lucky so they'd probably make all those prayers too.

Once again I had a great day putting on the DISCatchers last night. No spit outs, just gobbling up my putts for a 41 at Winter. Of course, hitting no trees, and thus subsequent bogeys helped too.

Immolation is one of the highest forms of a compliment.



http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/images/2007/08/14/monkburning.jpg

Immolation is one of the highest forms of a compliment.



http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/images/2007/08/14/monkburning.jpg



(in my best Magic Johnson voice)"Aw Ray, that was bad. Why you want to go say that. That was bad....." :D:D:D:D

Regarding the survey, I was surprised about the number of people that think chains should be required for basket construction. If something catches better than chains, then why not allow it?

Barbed wire might catch better than chains... I don't think it would go well with disc golfers though if it was put in baskets.

Immolation is hot!

-Dave

Regarding the survey, I was surprised about the number of people that think chains should be required for basket construction. If something catches better than chains, then why not allow it?



I agree. That's why the question asking whether a sound chip that would make the sound of chains would be acceptable in the event a better catching assembly was designed, not made from chains. But that idea was "soundly" defeated and even ridiculed by some.

Respondents were in favor of both radial symmetry AND chains which will be hard if not impossible to design.

Each basket should have a radially symmetric constantly inflated bladder (using a pump, similar to the cushions firefighters use when people need to jump from buildings). When a disc hits it, the cushion deflates just enough for a soft landing in the basket.

OK, definitely not practical, but not allowed?. . .

Why not some type of mesh fabric then, similar to a Traveler basket, but without chains?

These ideas are all legal at least thru the end of 2008. Make it and try it.

Immolation is one of the highest forms of a compliment.


But you can only do it once... (better Google "immolation" :D)



OOOP's,

I guess I meant "emulate: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emulate" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emulate) just haven't seen it spelled before, but I'm sure you got the point:

Chuck are you familiar with the 67 cm OD rule for the contraption below the chains and do you think it should be changed to ID?

no fence straddling"!!!

We plan to propose an ID spec vs OD in the revised specs subject to Board approval. No specifics on what that ID number will be though.

Smaller baskets is a HUGE can of worms the PDGA should NOT open up! Not that I am not for it, I think it would do a great job of separating the truly great players from the consistently lucky. But what about the 2720 courses in the directory?! (i.e. nearly 49000 baskets! assuming 18 hole courses) Will all those baskets be obsolete, or unoffical?? Does par change for different baskets? I know SSA will, but how do you identify it (pre-smaller basket layout and post-smaller basket layout)?

It's not like cutting a smaller hole in a golf green, going to a smaller basket would be HUGE and a STOOOOOOOOOOOOOPID move IMO!!!!!!!!!!



Actually, there are more like 35,000 baskets out there (and a couple thousand objects, tonepoles, etc.). However, at least 93% of baskets have yet to be installed.

Assume growth in disc golf continues at half its current rate, by the time the sport is just twice as old as it is now, the whole United States would have as many courses per person as Iowa and South Dakota do now. Under those quite reasonable assumptions, there will be 400,000 to 500,000 baskets in the world.

Also, baskets don't last forever. You'll need to replace them with something, someday.

If a smaller basket is better for the sport, someday we will look back and wonder about how we could have been so stupid as to NOT change the standards 'back when it would have been so easy'.

[QUOTE]




Also, baskets don't last forever. You'll need to replace them with something, someday.




Yeah,,, with Titan Pro-24's :D:D

1/2" cold rolled steel is a good place to start, maybe we will make a prototype of the bulls eye out of 1/2" steel!

Has anyone ever considered something besides chains ie cables or nets.

I have seen a netted practice basket and it seemed to do a admirable job.

Just wondering aloud.

ce

Has anyone ever considered something besides chains ie cables or nets.

I have seen a netted practice basket and it seemed to do a admirable job.

Just wondering aloud.

ce




Cone baskets used to be around.

I'm sure chains are used in part because of their ability to withstand the test of time &amp; all that mother nature can dish out at em. Any kind of netting that's not a carbon fiber weave or ballistic grade would get destroyed in a year's time or less. I do wonder though about how square stock chain links would catch vs. the typical round link chains we see everywhere. Gateway is on to something with their 3 rows &amp; heavier inner chains to create less action from the chains when your disc hits them.

I take the spit outs with a grain of salt but when you have a nice solid putt some how sneak all the way through and it happens twice in a round that you lose by one stroke...

ID is being considered for the new specs but note that many were in favor of smaller baskets. However, remember that the original intent of the basket was to emulate an object target like a post which would only have an OD spec such as our deflector assembly has. Conceptually, our target is really the deflector, with the basket just being the receptacle the disc drops into. So using ID vs OD for the basket spec apparently not originally considered as critical when the specs were set.



I personally have always favored the interpretation that the basket is also supposed to be able to represent targets of the general nature of a barrel into which one has to get the disc to drop (in a manner of speaking, the "other kind" of object target).

I personally would much rather play on baskets without deflection assemblies than on tone poles, would both prefer that baskets be made to allow a disc falling toward it from above to be caught as often as possible (fall-through, essentially), and would favor counting DROT as good considerably over making it easier for discs to fall off the top of the basket (and for clarification, I would rather DROTs count than wedgies if it were up to me...although watching people run to get out a wedgie is hilarious). I strongly favor directional targets (partly because--as should already be partly clear--I think the deflector assembly should be kept optional in the first place and consider it, in its current incarnation, to be an obstacle, even if it is usually one people use in their favor).

I also happen to be one of those who voted for the Mach 3.

Every once in a while I encounter someone who agrees with one or two of my opinions about targets...

how about chainmail? that might be interesting.

3/16ths lastic coated cable is probably the next best thing to chain,,,maybe even better and certainly less expensive!
We are working on ways to terminate it at the ring and will have some prototypes out soon on the bulls eye!!

Smaller baskets is a HUGE can of worms the PDGA should NOT open up! Not that I am not for it, I think it would do a great job of separating the truly great players from the consistently lucky. But what about the 2720 courses in the directory?! (i.e. nearly 49000 baskets! assuming 18 hole courses) Will all those baskets be obsolete, or unoffical?? Does par change for different baskets? I know SSA will, but how do you identify it (pre-smaller basket layout and post-smaller basket layout)?

It's not like cutting a smaller hole in a golf green, going to a smaller basket would be HUGE and a STOOOOOOOOOOOOOPID move IMO!!!!!!!!!!



Actually, there are more like 35,000 baskets out there (and a couple thousand objects, tonepoles, etc.). However, at least 93% of baskets have yet to be installed.

Assume growth in disc golf continues at half its current rate, by the time the sport is just twice as old as it is now, the whole United States would have as many courses per person as Iowa and South Dakota do now. Under those quite reasonable assumptions, there will be 400,000 to 500,000 baskets in the world.

Also, baskets don't last forever. You'll need to replace them with something, someday.

If a smaller basket is better for the sport, someday we will look back and wonder about how we could have been so stupid as to NOT change the standards 'back when it would have been so easy'.



Exactly.

You wont find a poll where members will say its good idea to make them worse putters. Of course they dont want that. But putting with current style baskets provides a different problem as well for course designers, Since putting for the top-pros is so easy, or their make-range is almost 12-15meters, it presents course designers with two problems.
1) Greens have to be absolutely huge.
2) Upshots are worthless and dont demand a premium on super accuracy. What course designers at the moment have done to increase the need for accuracy is ob-lines. A very good example of this was the just played European Championships 2008. On a lot of the holes on the Brenzpark Course, if you made the upshot, your putt was basically a gimme because the ob was tight. So in effect accuracy towards the basket became very important, but putting was basically nullified because you only had a short putt left. And on the big basket the short putt is meaningless.
With smaller baskets you would get a bigger emphasis on placing your shots near the basket, so you would have an easier putt. And shorter putts wouldnt be so easy either and require greater mental resolve.

And as stated above, it is much better to do it now, then 10-20 years from now. Just make the rule that all future basket must be some size which is significantly smaller. And give the old targets 10-15 years before they are no longer valid for competition play. Who cares what people throw at for recreational play. This is for themselves to decide.

But making the move to smaller basket is a move that wont give fans among the playerbase, but still needs to be done imho.

Exactly.

You wont find a poll where members will say its good idea to make them worse putters. Of course they dont want that. But putting with current style baskets provides a different problem as well for course designers, Since putting for the top-pros is so easy, or their make-range is almost 12-15meters, it presents course designers with two problems.
1) Greens have to be absolutely huge.
2) Upshots are worthless and dont demand a premium on super accuracy. What course designers at the moment have done to increase the need for accuracy is ob-lines. A very good example of this was the just played European Championships 2008. On a lot of the holes on the Brenzpark Course, if you made the upshot, your putt was basically a gimme because the ob was tight. So in effect accuracy towards the basket became very important, but putting was basically nullified because you only had a short putt left. And on the big basket the short putt is meaningless.
With smaller baskets you would get a bigger emphasis on placing your shots near the basket, so you would have an easier putt. And shorter putts wouldnt be so easy either and require greater mental resolve.

And as stated above, it is much better to do it now, then 10-20 years from now. Just make the rule that all future basket must be some size which is significantly smaller. And give the old targets 10-15 years before they are no longer valid for competition play. Who cares what people throw at for recreational play. This is for themselves to decide.

But making the move to smaller basket is a move that wont give fans among the playerbase, but still needs to be done imho.



This is garbage and the sign of a simple minded designer. Risky greens is the solution to this problem. Greens do NOT need to be bigger to allow someone to putt straight from 100' away or more!! Greens, IMO, NEED to be tight and risky (either wooded, near a dense brush area, or on a tricky spot of elevation). That way, either the upshot, or the drive on a shorter hole is of utter importance. You need that upshot to not be long, short, left, right, whatever. Since putting on these huge baskets is so easy, make that upshot much more important. That way it will reward a good upshot with a fairly easy putt (but the risky green will still leave fear of a miss), and it will punish a bad upshot with a difficult, and DIFFERENT putt. The ideal shoudln't be to allow all players to throw their signature putt from everywhere within 100', but to challenge players to hit a shot from varying elevation, or try a different stance to putt around trees, or make a player think harder about laying up to avoid a miss on a horribly risky green.

This is another topic, but I wonder what TRUE player ratings would be of some of those in the sport if we forced them to play "on tour" on a wide variety of courses that offered many different aspects of design that I'm sure many player schoose to avoid. I'd bet many play only courses they are familiar with, and avoid difficult courses or events. You're probably more likely to find this with your local 950-990 rated players than the 1025+ rated pros, but I bet it's extremely prevalent.

Maybe I'll "ask Chuck" if data is readily available just for player ratings of the A-tiers or maybe the NT events. Such that, given a standard set of tournaments on a range of course types, what are player rating averages across that specific set of events?

There are baskets at the Duncan Lake course that have the heavy cables. They are quite. I also think they beat discs up easier than the standard chain style baskets.

Maybe I'll "ask Chuck" if data is readily available just for player ratings of the A-tiers or maybe the NT events. Such that, given a standard set of tournaments on a range of course types, what are player rating averages across that specific set of events?



That would be nice data but until we code our courses in some meaningful way as to how wooded they are with elevation and hazards, then we can't cross reference and tabulate by course type. So far, there's no indication that anything but changing the basket diameter or increasing the putter diameter will do much to budge the putting difficulty to a higher level.

No chuck, I was getting at - what are player ratings as calculated ONLY given a specific set of events? I don't think there is enough data, but all in all it'd be like having 1000 touring players all play the same 25 tournaments so that rating meant more in relation to one another. Not just players choosing to play easier courses with more score compression and thus higher ratings, or only play courses they are familiar with.

There are 8 rounds at Worlds and 4 rounds at USDGC for quite few of the top players and the correlation coefficient is 95% at Worlds and about 82% at USDGC. That means that 95% and 82% of the final finish position is determined by a player's initial rating.

I guess Latitude64 has not marketed their baskets in US that much, but I would say their "Pro" basket that can be found on many courses in Scandinavia is the one I feel most comfortable with. It also has that band on the upper part as Innova Discatcher has, and can be delivered in a variety of colors.

The basket has double or triple chains, and they do not rattle so noisy as others do. It is also easy to spot and aim for the basket with all parts being painted.

For portable baskets, my vote goes to Innova Discatcher Sport, very good despite its light weight and simpler construction!

For Latitude baskets, check out http://www.latitude64.se/course_equipment.asp

Exactly.

You wont find a poll where members will say its good idea to make them worse putters. Of course they dont want that. But putting with current style baskets provides a different problem as well for course designers, Since putting for the top-pros is so easy, or their make-range is almost 12-15meters, it presents course designers with two problems.
1) Greens have to be absolutely huge.
2) Upshots are worthless and dont demand a premium on super accuracy. What course designers at the moment have done to increase the need for accuracy is ob-lines. A very good example of this was the just played European Championships 2008. On a lot of the holes on the Brenzpark Course, if you made the upshot, your putt was basically a gimme because the ob was tight. So in effect accuracy towards the basket became very important, but putting was basically nullified because you only had a short putt left. And on the big basket the short putt is meaningless.
With smaller baskets you would get a bigger emphasis on placing your shots near the basket, so you would have an easier putt. And shorter putts wouldnt be so easy either and require greater mental resolve.

And as stated above, it is much better to do it now, then 10-20 years from now. Just make the rule that all future basket must be some size which is significantly smaller. And give the old targets 10-15 years before they are no longer valid for competition play. Who cares what people throw at for recreational play. This is for themselves to decide.

But making the move to smaller basket is a move that wont give fans among the playerbase, but still needs to be done imho.



This is garbage and the sign of a simple minded designer. Risky greens is the solution to this problem. Greens do NOT need to be bigger to allow someone to putt straight from 100' away or more!! Greens, IMO, NEED to be tight and risky (either wooded, near a dense brush area, or on a tricky spot of elevation). That way, either the upshot, or the drive on a shorter hole is of utter importance. You need that upshot to not be long, short, left, right, whatever. Since putting on these huge baskets is so easy, make that upshot much more important. That way it will reward a good upshot with a fairly easy putt (but the risky green will still leave fear of a miss), and it will punish a bad upshot with a difficult, and DIFFERENT putt. The ideal shoudln't be to allow all players to throw their signature putt from everywhere within 100', but to challenge players to hit a shot from varying elevation, or try a different stance to putt around trees, or make a player think harder about laying up to avoid a miss on a horribly risky green.

This is another topic, but I wonder what TRUE player ratings would be of some of those in the sport if we forced them to play "on tour" on a wide variety of courses that offered many different aspects of design that I'm sure many player schoose to avoid. I'd bet many play only courses they are familiar with, and avoid difficult courses or events. You're probably more likely to find this with your local 950-990 rated players than the 1025+ rated pros, but I bet it's extremely prevalent.

Maybe I'll "ask Chuck" if data is readily available just for player ratings of the A-tiers or maybe the NT events. Such that, given a standard set of tournaments on a range of course types, what are player rating averages across that specific set of events?



Well Im glad that you know so much better. Btw thank you for confirming why we need smaller baskets. So there wont be any easy putts unless you land it really close to the pin. Your plan is to reward luck, which obviously is a much better solution.

not at all dude, my plan is to reward a great upshot, in which case, you shouldn't have to make a great putt. I want to make someone work to make a different putt if they miss the upshot, some type of penalty albeit not too severe. The recovery putt from a missed upshot should be out of their comfort zone of the practice basket warmup type of putting, if they miss the upshot. not to let them rock one in from 100' away, on flat wide open ground.

If you're so obviously delusional that you think mandating smaller baskets and making all current baskets obsolete or unapproved, you indeed have no real life experience and can go ahead and sit under your rock for all I care.

It is a STOOOOOPID idea to make current baskets 'unapproved', not a stupid idea to also allow smaller baskets. TWO SEPARATE IDEAS!!! I'm not about to watch all the hard work I did to put in our current baskets just go to hell due to some narrow minded rule change. I hope we're arguing about the same thing here.

I support smaller baskets, but only if they are an approved option and the originals all over this great world are also still approved.

We have a set of Discatcher Pros and a set of Chainstars at Pyramids. My favorite basket at the moment is, strangely, the Mach III. I know this because it's invariably the one we set up out back to practice on.

I find the Mach V, Mach III, Chainstar and Discatcher Pro to all be at the same high level. If forced to distinguish the catching abilities of the Chainstar vs. the Discatcher, I'd have to say the Chainstar has both more weird bounce-outs and pass-throughs, but it also makes the more spectacular catches of some pretty questionable putts. Specifically, a Chainstar has the ability to grab a high, off-center putt with a single chain, provided the disc is spinning in the right direction (i.e., high and right for the right-handed-putter).

On the other hand, while the Discatcher Pro is not immune to the weird "I just got ripped off" misses -- no basket is -- it seems to have fewer bounce-outs and pass-throughs. It also does not make as many spectacular catches as the Chainstar, but it does seem to be a little more consistent. Do I hate the sound of a disc hitting the yellow band? Depends who's putting, but in general yes.

So why do I love the Mach III so much? Hard to say. Something about it speaks to my inner disc golfer. Plus the sign on top stops a lot of putts from sailing out of my putting range (12 feet or closer).

Or maybe it's the big ring on the bottom, or the fact that it's the most expensive basket. Or maybe people are just weird and have their preferences buried deep in their psyche and then try to rationalize their likes and dislikes but logic is a weak tool for explaining why we think the way we do.

If all this makes perfect sense to you, it could mean you're just plain weird.

I have to say my favorite is the Mach III. Love the way they sound when you hit chains.....and I think they catch a lot less "questionable" putts!!! I personally don't think "poor" putts should be rewarded!!

I don't know about the best but has anyone else experienced baskets that lose their disc-catching ability?

I play a course (Hudson Mills Original in MI) that has old baskets (Mach 3) and I have noticed an increasing amount of unjustified spits especially in the last year. It just seems like discs are working their way right through the chains and coming out the back or even pole-bouncing straight back at you. I play a number of different courses and get the spits on this course considerably more than others. I do have a brisk spin putt but it generally stays in when on target with most baskets.

Just curious if there is a known effect of aging baskets losing their disc-catching ability.

i have an innova discatcher. it has a single chain.

is there a better target to get?

Depends on how much money you want to spend. There is always something better.

i have an innova discatcher. it has a single chain.

is there a better target to get?

Anything with double chains would be a good start.

Anything with double chains would be a good start.


or add a second set of chains to YOUR basket and spend a hell of alot less.

I don't know about the best but has anyone else experienced baskets that lose their disc-catching ability?

I play a course (Hudson Mills Original in MI) that has old baskets (Mach 3) and I have noticed an increasing amount of unjustified spits especially in the last year. It just seems like discs are working their way right through the chains and coming out the back or even pole-bouncing straight back at you. I play a number of different courses and get the spits on this course considerably more than others. I do have a brisk spin putt but it generally stays in when on target with most baskets.

Just curious if there is a known effect of aging baskets losing their disc-catching ability.

The Mach style baskets are the worst at catching, I know that much. They just don't suit my eye. I preferr the ones with the yellow band.

I don't know about the best but has anyone else experienced baskets that lose their disc-catching ability?

I play a course (Hudson Mills Original in MI) that has old baskets (Mach 3) and I have noticed an increasing amount of unjustified spits especially in the last year. It just seems like discs are working their way right through the chains and coming out the back or even pole-bouncing straight back at you. I play a number of different courses and get the spits on this course considerably more than others. I do have a brisk spin putt but it generally stays in when on target with most baskets.

Just curious if there is a known effect of aging baskets losing their disc-catching ability.

its more likely that your putt has changed in the last year.

i find that a mach 3 with a little rust on it is the best basket ever. give it a little age and a little time to get a few burrs on the zinc, and itll catch like a dream,

and above all that...

i see mach 3s that are 20 years old and they look better than discatchers that are 5 years old. if you want a basket and a course that will stand the test of time, mach 3's or nothing. i fear that in 10-15 years we will have hundreds of discatcher courses that all need replaced beacause the chains are all completely rusted and all the welds are popping off the baskets. i never worry about the m3

They will replace rusted chains free of charge.

discatchers!

Disccatchers are not that great. They just don't stand the test of time. We put in three courses of discatchers in 06. They fit so badly from the factory that we had to weld tops and bottoms to the poles. Then some of the chains started to rust. I know they will replace the rusted chains, but why should we have to even deal with it.

DGA's are the bomb! They catch well and they will last for a life time. I had the opportunity to help with another course here and convinced them on the galvanized mach V's with the number plate upgrade. Couldn't be happier and I know they will be there long after I'm out of the sport.

Disccatchers are not that great. They just don't stand the test of time. We put in three courses of discatchers in 06. They fit so badly from the factory that we had to weld tops and bottoms to the poles. Then some of the chains started to rust. I know they will replace the rusted chains, but why should we have to even deal with it.

DGA's are the bomb! They catch well and they will last for a life time. I had the opportunity to help with another course here and convinced them on the galvanized mach V's with the number plate upgrade. Couldn't be happier and I know they will be there long after I'm out of the sport.

Aren't Mach V's and Chainstars the same basket with a different chain configuration? They certainly look the same.

TITAN hands down!!! Chainstar a close second. I hate all the Innova baskets...The DGA's are OK. The Instep sucks!!!!!

McCormack still hasn't submitted the Titan for PDGA approval.

McCormack still hasn't submitted the Titan for PDGA approval.


Maybe it is because the PDGA uses Oustide diameter in their measurement meaning any basket made with thicker metal that meets the guidelines will actually have a smaller inside diameter than the other models.

This is so dumb it is laughable and means to create a longer lasting basket you also have to make one with a smaller catching area.

I prefer to putt on Discatchers and Titans since they are not as bad as Machs and Chainstars when it comes to kicking good putts out.

Chainstars are the best.

don't like the band on the Innova Discatcher.

less expensive baskets


Innova Sports are great in this class
(don't like the newer Cromed chain model) several of mine are showing rust on the chains. The Powder coated metal is top notch. Can't complain about the basket it's self.


DB5 - Chains are a bit heavy for my putting but a lot of people love them.

Chainstars are the best.

don't like the band on the Innova Discatcher.

less expensive baskets


Innova Sports are great in this class
(don't like the newer Cromed chain model) several of mine are showing rust on the chains. The Powder coated metal is top notch. Can't complain about the basket it's self.


DB5 - Chains are a bit heavy for my putting but a lot of people love them.


So why does the band make it a bad basket? I never get it when people say this and I would rather hit the band on a high putt than crack a putter on a numberplate or hit a knuckle and roll away on a Mach.

I guess it is the sound of denial but I would rather hear the occasional sound when I threw a bad putt than hear CHING!!!!!!! just for my disc to pop out the back.

Now when I comes to the Discatcher sports I am not a fan and we had to play 20 holes on them this weekend and I saw many many bad rejections. I never spit but that was because they got so into my head on short putts that I didn't give to many a shot and tossed some airballs. I don't really think these should be allowed at anything other than a C-tier. The other 40 holes weren't much better with the 18 Chained Mach to with more gaps than ole' Billy Bob's Grill.

So why does the band make it a bad basket? I never get it when people say this and I would rather hit the band on a high putt than crack a putter on a numberplate or hit a knuckle and roll away on a Mach.

I guess it is the sound of denial but I would rather hear the occasional sound when I threw a bad putt than hear CHING!!!!!!! just for my disc to pop out the back.

Now when I comes to the Discatcher sports I am not a fan and we had to play 20 holes on them this weekend and I saw many many bad rejections. I never spit but that was because they got so into my head on short putts that I didn't give to many a shot and tossed some airballs. I don't really think these should be allowed at anything other than a C-tier. The other 40 holes weren't much better with the 18 Chained Mach to with more gaps than ole' Billy Bob's Grill.

yes mostly the sound. I know the distance from the top of the basket to the bottom of the band is the same as non banded baskets. I think for me it's a vision thing, the band is all I see.

on the Sports it could be the opposite. since I know the basket appears to be bigger and the basket has no inner chains i my just be more careful when putting on a sport. I just seem to have less rejected putts.

I only putt on Mach I's.

Maybe it is because the PDGA uses Oustide diameter in their measurement meaning any basket made with thicker metal that meets the guidelines will actually have a smaller inside diameter than the other models. This is so dumb it is laughable and means to create a longer lasting basket you also have to make one with a smaller catching area.

Hey Matt. Check the specs. Page 6, spec L.
http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PDGATechStandards_09.pdf

It hasn't been OD since early this year.

burned

Hey Matt. Check the specs. Page 6, spec L.
http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PDGATechStandards_09.pdf

It hasn't been OD since early this year.



Sorry I don't open up every PDF you throw around on here!

I took the survey and think it was pretty freakin horrible if you ask me. Some of the choices warranted a "none of the above".

So is all this stuff like being made of chains set in stone forever? I sure hope not because many people aren't happy about a vote that was taken in the early 90's by PDGA members who probably aren't around anymore and I would hope that in the future the specs could be adjusted again.