Heard the PDGA was going to stop the 10m rule and let anyone jump putt from any distance they want. The logic behind this was why 10 meters. Sorry if this was brought up before, but does anyone know if it's true or simply rumor and thats it?

So no more falling putts? No more "showing" balance? Hmm I'll have to think on that one. First impression, it seems to be a good idea. I don't think the problem is that people want to jump putt at 14 feet though.

I wonder where this rumor started.

On a side note, I also heard that thumbers, tomahawks, and any form of rolling will be a penatly, because I suck at all of them.

On a side note, I also heard that thumbers, tomahawks, and any form of rolling will be a penatly, because I suck at all of them.



they already are a penalty... for people like you that can't throw them! ;P

no jump putts could be fun on some of the elevated baskets... someone has to videotape the first 360 dunk/putt!!

No more 10 meter rule is a terrible idea b/c putting is already easy enough. Imagine every 15 footer being a tap in! This would eliminate the challenge of shorter windy putts also.

I would say I am 99% confident this will never happen as the 10 M rule is the only way can truly define a putt and / or a green in our sport.

Also the 2009 NT Standards for events wanting to be NT's included that every basket has to have a 10M circle around it. I doubt this would have been included if the PDGA was thinking about eliminating it.

I wonder where this rumor started.


Probably in the post directly above yours.

"No more 10 meter rule is a terrible idea b/c putting is already easy enough."

then your view of putting is outdated.

"I would say I am 99% confident this will never happen as the 10 M rule is the only way can truly define a putt and / or a green in our sport."

a) the only way to define a putt??? you've gotta be kidding.
b) tell us again why we need to "define" a putt

"Also the 2009 NT Standards for events wanting to be NT's included that every basket has to have a 10M circle around it."

well, if we have the rule we oughta enforce it. even if we're thinking of getting rid of it later.

How is my view of putting outdated? B/c I don't think someone should be able to lunge forward and drop the disc in the basket from 15 feet?

It is important to define a putt simply b/c the rules change for foot faults (i.e. retreival of the disc) when a person is defined as putting.

Let's hope note. No need to dumb down the sport to make it easier. As MTL rightly notes, putting is too easy as it is. A logical response to that fact would be to make putting more difficult, not easier. Eliminating jump putts from all distances would at least make sense as it would make puting more difficult.

Eliminating jump putts from all distances would at least make sense as it would make puting more difficult.



It would also eliminate the need to try and figure out if the player released the disc before leaving the ground. And while I realize that a lot of players dig the jump putt, I personally think it looks goofy.

I haven't heard any rumors along these lines. Someone has tossed out the idea that a 5m circle be added and disallow any putts from inside it. If you land under the basket, you would move out to the 5m line without penalty and have to make it from there. I suppose for simplicity you would then just allow jump putts all the way to the 5m line. That would cut down the amount of paint needed in half to mark the lines and might get our putting stats closer to ball golf where very few putts are really gimmes.

MTL....your forgetting that you can't release the disc in the air. It must be released with 1 foot on the ground behind the mini, so it won't make them tap-ins. When Jump putting, the disc CANNOT be released while in the air or it is a blatant foot fault. Same goes for trying a Dr. J skyhook over some trees. YOu can't jump straight up and release the disc while in the air.

And the 30 foot circle is almost impossible to paint when you have trees all around the greens :)

And the 30 foot circle is almost impossible to paint when you have trees all around the greens :)



and would be the wrong distance. 10m, not 30 ft.

yes yes yes. Just saying

MTL....your forgetting that you can't release the disc in the air. It must be released with 1 foot on the ground behind the mini, so it won't make them tap-ins. When Jump putting, the disc CANNOT be released while in the air or it is a blatant foot fault. Same goes for trying a Dr. J skyhook over some trees. YOu can't jump straight up and release the disc while in the air.



i heard a rumor that you'll be allowed to "jump straight up and release the disc while in the air" LOL :D

you'll be allowed to "jump straight up and release the disc while in the air"


The new "verticality" rule...

Sweet. Should work great on the elevated green at Orange Crush in Fairmont, WV. Now I can just slam dunk the disc instead of putting up at it. ;)

You should spell check your signature bagger. ;)

its outdated because you think the 10M circle has ANYTHING to do with putting. it does not. it does currently have something to do with permitted forms.

what other sports require that yu look at when you left the ground. basketball for example looks at when you land. its cognitively easier to compare the release to when you land than it is to when you leave the ground.

the best reason i've heard to keep jump putts illegal is that in headwinds the shorter players will be at a disadvantage.

An interesting idea, it could make for a more interesting game amoung better players, but for poor putters in a wind, it could increase the time it takes to play and the frustration level amoung starting players.


Someone has tossed out the idea that a 5m circle be added and disallow any putts from inside it. If you land under the basket, you would move out to the 5m line without penalty and have to make it from there.

Someone has tossed out the idea that a 5m circle be added and disallow any putts from inside it. If you land under the basket, you would move out to the 5m line without penalty and have to make it from there.



I hope this never happens. That is a pretty terrible idea as it penalizes a player for putting a shot under the basket.

Why should a player whose shot lands directly under the basket be forced to putt at the same distance as someone who is 5M away?

I thought the reward for putting the disc under the basket was not having to putt.

I do not like the Buncr's but these are WORSE that those b/c this is basically a buncr's around the basket. At least most buncr's are tpyically outside of the 10M area.

I'm not sure if 5m is the right number. Maybe 3m or 4m is more reasonable. It could also be a situation where maybe it's a criteria that's only used once you enter an Intermediate or higher division. It's just an idea I heard about that caught my attention. Basically, it could be done right now to test the concept by calling the 4m or 5m radius around a pin a buncr. That's essentially the idea.

Another angle would be to have the circle offset from the pin so it's only 2m on one side and 8m on the other. Even better, allow the designer to shape the 'no putt' zone however they wanted as long as one side came within 2-3m and no other side was ever more than maybe 7m away. That would increase putting challenge and where people would lay-up inexpensively without making smaller baskets or needing as much fancy landscaping around the pins. Again, the 'no putt' zone might only apply for higher divisions.

Frankly, I find this to be a very regressive, uncreative idea. As MTL says, it penalizes someone for putting a disc under the basket for a drop in. It would be much better to make it harder to get to the basket through course design innovations.

.

what other sports require that yu look at when you left the ground. basketball for example looks at when you land. its cognitively easier to compare the release to when you land than it is to when you leave the ground.







In Basketball it does matter where and when you take off. Was it behind the 3 point line or not?

I'm not sure if 5m is the right number. Maybe 3m or 4m is more reasonable. It could also be a situation where maybe it's a criteria that's only used once you enter an Intermediate or higher division. It's just an idea I heard about that caught my attention. Basically, it could be done right now to test the concept by calling the 4m or 5m radius around a pin a buncr. That's essentially the idea.

Another angle would be to have the circle offset from the pin so it's only 2m on one side and 8m on the other. Even better, allow the designer to shape the 'no putt' zone however they wanted as long as one side came within 2-3m and no other side was ever more than maybe 7m away. That would increase putting challenge and where people would lay-up inexpensively without making smaller baskets or needing as much fancy landscaping around the pins. Again, the 'no putt' zone might only apply for higher divisions.

why trick the game up like this? come'on, lets just play golf the way it was intended. we dont need all this arbitrary stuff.

thats a very different thing.

why trick the game up like this? come'on, lets just play golf the way it was intended.


You mean like why we have an arbitrary 10m circle where you can't jump putt? I can't say I've checked but I dare say that most if not all professional sports have had rules and/or equipment changes within the past 20 years to make the sport better in some way.

In what way would turning every drop-in into a 16.4-footer make the sport better? :confused:

I can't say I've checked but I dare say that most if not all professional sports have had rules and/or equipment changes within the past 20 years to make the sport better in some way.



You are absolutely correct, most if not all sports have made changes for the better.

Things I can think of all the top of my head

Golf - "Tiger Proofing" - many courses, mainly Augusta National, legthened courses in a phenomonon called "Tiger Proofing." It was done, according to the speculation, b/c Tiger would hit the ball so far and accurate, the game was too easy and he would win all the time.

Baseball - The mounds have been raised and lowered to increase / decrease pitchers advantages.

Football - creation of instant replay and allowing NFL teams to go for 2 points

Basketball - the 3 point line pushed back and forth and at one time, did not even exist. Also, the creation of the "no charge" circle within the paint, defensive 3 seconds, and the NBA allowing zone defense.

Hockey - No more 2 line pass, no more line changes after icing the puck, "delayed" offsides, a goalie no tough zone, making the crease smaller, penality for shooting the puck over the glass, shootouts.

However, all these made the sport better, not worse. Disc golf has done some of these things as well such as the re-ruling on OB top prevent people from hitting insides of fences and claiming they were at one point in bounds b/c the fence was the line and the 2M Rule changes.

However, the fact that disc golf thinks that MOVING someones lie is pretty sad. Allowing for moving of the lie is a great rule when played near OB, but for someone parking a hole? Sounds like this is not a change for the better.

why trick the game up like this? come'on, lets just play golf the way it was intended.


You mean like why we have an arbitrary 10m circle where you can't jump putt? I can't say I've checked but I dare say that most if not all professional sports have had rules and/or equipment changes within the past 20 years to make the sport better in some way.



All the more reason not to make changes for the worse. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

However, the fact that disc golf thinks that MOVING someones lie is pretty sad. Allowing for moving of the lie is a great rule when played near OB, but for someone parking a hole?


Your team gets to the 1-yard line instead of the 11-yard line, the field goal isn't 11 times closer. It's maybe 18 instead of 28 yards. If a player passes the basketball to another player who is under the basket, the player still has to jump and/or shoot a certain distance to sink a shot to score. Think of a 'no putt' zone as if our basket were actually 12 feet in the air but we were sensible and only mounted them a few feet off the ground to reduce cost. :D

chuck I'm sure you can pretty much out discuss me on disc golf, ratings and things like that.

By overall sports, not a chance and it was proved by my post and yours :D

I'm guessing I've participated in more organized sports than you over the years but I could be wrong. But then you said you could 'talk' about them better and that may be true...

<font color="blue"> [personal attack &amp; profanity removed] </font>

How many times have you or anybody else made a great drive or approach and left yourself with a drop in birdie or par save. Of those times, how often did you say in your mind, "poor suckers I bet they wish they parked this thing up like me." Penalizing somebody for making a great shot is bad for this sport. We are already stagnant in our growth, why take a step back?

The greatest joy in this game (with the exception of an ace), is busting out a great drive or approach and walking to the basket knowing that you are parked. You are rewarded for a great shot, that's how it should be.

The best example I have is this. Your playing ball golf. You approach this monster Par 5. You are on the green in 2, but you are on the edge a good 100 ft away. You make this sensational lag putt and are left with a 1ft. tap in for birdie. Instead of being rewarded with a birdie for playing a sensational hole your stuck with a 5m chicken snack putt that you may or may not make. What if you miss that? Do you have to go back to your previous lie and try again?

Absolutely stupid IMHO and I would stop playing sanctioned tournaments if this ever happens.

its only a benefit to people who want to tinker with things. chuck is awesome and has tons of great ideas. this is not one of them. this one goes into the same bucket as requiring audio chips to simulate chain bangs when using stealthy chains.

lets focus on removing the overly punitive stroke PLUS distance on lost discs. we all know that is too far... lets get that changed instead of turning our sport further into tiddlywinks.

Furthermore, lets make sure players release their disc on the so called drop in. You don't see professional ball golfers sweeping or pushing in their very short putts in with the club never losing contact with the ball. It is not allowed. On the contrary, I see many players in disc golf reaching into the basket with their disc and never releasing it with their hand in the cookie jar so to speak. It is like they didn't throw the disc. Don't you actually have to release the disc (out side of the line of the baskets edge) and allow it to fall in to the entrapment area/chains etc unassisted....??

You have to release it, but there is nothing about the line of the basket edge. But when dropping the disc in, make sure you don't grab the basket in that motion. Foot fault.

wouldn't break my heart to see the falling putt rule change but a no-putt zone is inane.

The no putt rule sounds like it could be fun for certain events on pitch and putt courses. It would be like playing putt-putt.

There is no goal tending rule in disc golf. You can place the disc in the bottom of the basket, but you must release it and let it come to rest before removing it from the basket.

You have to release it, but there is nothing about the line of the basket edge. But when dropping the disc in, make sure you don't grab the basket in that motion. Foot fault.



Question: How many times has anyone seen someone, in a tournament reach into the basket touch the bottom and barely let go then lift the disc right back out. It is essentially not releasing the disc. It seems to me the idea of not breaking the plane of the basket rim would eliminate the doubt in this case. A putt is a putt so to speak

You make this sensational lag putt and are left with a 1ft. tap in for birdie. Instead of being rewarded with a birdie for playing a sensational hole your stuck with a 5m chicken snack putt that you may or may not make.


Unfortunately, we have inconsistency in what happens when a disc hits the basket and misses. The disc can end up anywhere from under the basket to 10s of feet away. Arguably, the disc that hits the basket was a "better" throw that had more of a chance to hole out than a wimpy upshot under the basket. Having a 3, 4 or 5m line would add more consistency in the lies that result from missed upshots/putts and remove at least some of the fluky luckiness of basket hits.

And Jay, if you're going to take me on in the arena of ideas here, feel free to call any of the ideas <font color="blue"> [deleted] </font> But personal attacks only indicate you have nothing else to counter with.

I didn't start this thread and added some other ideas I heard that I may or may not agree with. As the late Buckley once said, you can take either side of the issue you want and I'll take you on from the other side. :p

how would penalizing all shots within 5 meters help anyone whose disc hits the bucket, catches an edge and rolls 10 meters away? those shots would not be re-located to the 5 meter line.

heres another scenario...

fast downhill fairway with lake 35 feet behind the bucket.
drive takes a sweet line down the tube...
its either in or wet...
wait! it hit the basket and dropped at the pole!
HUH??? i've gotta move 15 fet uphill and putt with the water behind the basket??????

because i put my disc at the pole?

its great try to improve things, but how does this accomplish that objective?

the new rule book coming out in 2009 will not have a 10M or 5M or any other M line. enough of this nonsense. (not a pdga publication)

lets focus on removing the overly punitive stroke PLUS distance on lost discs. we all know that is too far... lets get that changed instead of turning our sport further into tiddlywinks.



Why is this overly punitive? You threw the disc so badly that you and your fellow competitors couldn't even find it.

Ball golf has the same rule. And O.B. shots are stroke and distance too...

I say make O.B. shots stroke and distance... but define a "hazard" where you get to go to where it entered the hazard and drop with a stroke. (make it like ball golf, the really bad places to go, like the road next to the course are OB and really punitive. The undesirable places like the lake are hazards and less severe.)

Actually, the one rule change from ball golf I really think would make sense would be this: On a disc that goes OB (in a BG hazard) allow the option to go backwards from where it entered the hazard anywhere along the line of play. If there are 10 meters of schule at the edge of the water that you fly over as you go OB, let the player take their drop 15 meters back (keeping where it went in directly between you and the basket) with only the 1 stroke penalty. Currently it is often a choice of re-teeing way back, or standing in junk or on an uneven bank.

I'm not sure if 5m is the right number. Maybe 3m or 4m is more reasonable. It could also be a situation where maybe it's a criteria that's only used once you enter an Intermediate or higher division. It's just an idea I heard about that caught my attention. Basically, it could be done right now to test the concept by calling the 4m or 5m radius around a pin a buncr. That's essentially the idea.

Another angle would be to have the circle offset from the pin so it's only 2m on one side and 8m on the other. Even better, allow the designer to shape the 'no putt' zone however they wanted as long as one side came within 2-3m and no other side was ever more than maybe 7m away. That would increase putting challenge and where people would lay-up inexpensively without making smaller baskets or needing as much fancy landscaping around the pins. Again, the 'no putt' zone might only apply for higher divisions.



Using baskets with reduced chain assemblies seems to be the only logical and natural way to further increase the challenge of putting. The utilization of sloped and guarded greens are thankfully becoming more common, but it appears there is still some concern that holing out should require more skill. Adding artificial no-putt zones and bunCRs around the basket areas are completely outside the spirit of the game.

I don't understand how the USDGC is constantly willing to reconfigure the course with OB ropes, bunCRs, and whatever else is next, but hasn't yet addressed the ONE thing that would make an immediate and fair impact on scores, the basket size.

I'm curious how much just the top/chain assembly would cost to replace if they were produced with only inner chains? Existing baskets (as has been mentioned before) could have their existing outer chains removed or just have the top part replaced.

how would penalizing all shots within 5 meters help anyone whose disc hits the bucket, catches an edge and rolls 10 meters away?


It wouldn't help them other than making them feel better that everyone else that hit the basket was shooting from 3, 4, or 5m away. Still it produces a more consistent placement for all doinks.

If the goal is to make putting easier, remove the 10 meter rule.

If the goal is to make putting more difficult, remove the chains entirely and eliminate jump putting. Deepen the basket so the discs don't bounce out.

i'm going to pull the outer chains off of at least one basket at hawk hollow because this idea intrigues me- won't be on the regular course however. my feeling is that for the most part HH has enough difficult greens that putting isn't really that easy there. it would be nice if it could all be reconciled through topography and course design but obviously this isn't really an option in some places where you have less to work with in terms of limited park space, flat ground, and lack of trees.

You make this sensational lag putt and are left with a 1ft. tap in for birdie. Instead of being rewarded with a birdie for playing a sensational hole your stuck with a 5m chicken snack putt that you may or may not make.


Unfortunately, we have inconsistency in what happens when a disc hits the basket and misses. The disc can end up anywhere from under the basket to 10s of feet away. Arguably, the disc that hits the basket was a "better" throw that had more of a chance to hole out than a wimpy upshot under the basket. Having a 3, 4 or 5m line would add more consistency in the lies that result from missed upshots/putts and remove at least some of the fluky luckiness of basket hits.


This is called risk-reward. If you hit the basket on a rough green from 50 out and roll downhill, you took a risk. You have to know a roll away is possible. The person doing a "wussy" (I'd prefer the term SMART) lay up under the basket will get a 3. The person that risked going for a 2, winds up with a tough putt for 3. Its all about risk-reward.

You threw the disc so badly that you and your fellow competitors couldn't even find it.

thats not the only reason a disc can get lost.

The person doing a "wussy" (I'd prefer the term SMART) lay up under the basket will get a 3.


If only that were always the case. There are many, many "greens" where the ground is rough enough by the pin that a lay up is almost as risky as going for the putt so you might as well go for it.

You threw the disc so badly that you and your fellow competitors couldn't even find it.

thats not the only reason a disc can get lost.

Yeah, I had a disc land under the pin this weekend and the spotter almost lost it after it rolled down the steep left-to-right slope into thick schule. That sucked :(

Moving the disc back has got to be the worst idea ever. Give me one example in any sport where you get close to your objective without making it and have to move back. A running back making it to the 1 yard line.....oops go back to the five yard line. A basketball player missing a layup then getting a rebound..... sorry go back to the freethrow line and try there. A golfer with his ball next to the hole..... too bad, move it back 5 meters.
Plus could you imagine trying to figure out where to place a disc leaning against a pole. There would be a ton of difference in interpreting where to put the lie based on how people were eying it. Finally you would have to paint this line on every hole for every tourney. It wouldn't surprise me if the idea has been tossed around but it is horrible in every sense of the word.

Ridiculous...Moving the disc from under the basket? Jump putting at 10M? Get a running start. Would be like me takin' a chainsaw to the course...

You threw the disc so badly that you and your fellow competitors couldn't even find it.

thats not the only reason a disc can get lost.

Yeah, I had a disc land under the pin this weekend and the spotter almost lost it after it rolled down the steep left-to-right slope into thick schule. That sucked :(



I've lost discs in tall grass ten feet off the fairway on flat ground.

I just don't get this whole 'putting is too easy' argument. You take a straw poll of players across the skill spectrum and ask them what the weakest part of their game is, it'll be putting in the vast majority of responses.

In terms of target-to-object ratio, I think we have it about right. The sweet spot of a basket is about twice the width of a disc, the only argument I would accept on size is that the sweet height is the same as the width, but the disc is obviously much shallower, but that said, the disc can enter in any orientation, so about 12-18 inches square seems perfectly okay for the catching area. Compare that to a ball golf hole, which is approx twice the width of the ball, and there is very little difference.

The main reason people think of it as too easy is the perception of 10m for the green. I'm an ok golfer (960), and a worse putter, and I know I'm putting (green permitting) from much further out than 10m. For me, the definition of putting is the act of trying to get it in the basket, whilst taking into account the consequences if I miss. On that basis, I'm probably putting from anything up to 30m, depending on the contours/wind conditions of the green.

I would support changing the 10m rule to the 30m rule, except that it is conceptually harder to know if you're outside 30m, there is much more margin for error and it would take longer to pace off to find out.

"I just don't get this whole 'putting is too easy' argument...
...The main reason people think of it as too easy is the perception of 10m for the green."

Neil sums it up perfectly

Perception, schmeption. It's actual stats on professionals in DG vs BG that tells the tale of easier putting. Smaller basket, bigger diameter putters or pins in buncrs seem to be the three options available to increase challenge. And that's if it really needs to be increased. Based on the target survey, it's only a minority that think we need to make putting tougher. Doesn't matter to me either way.

this buncr idea 5m around the basket is a terrible idea. whoever came up with it needs to bee yanked from their position of power. as for the above comparison to ball golf, this is not ball golf. so statistical comparisons are simply egotistical masturbation, trying to show us all how smart you think you are. when it is clear that the vast majority of respondents think this is a bad idea, it is. deal with it.
as for the people thinking you could dunk a putt, no, the disc must leave your hand before you leave the ground. relax.

The idea came from a discussion that included a former World Champion. Stats only have no value to those who have none to support their emotion driven position.

"It's actual stats on professionals in DG vs BG that tells the tale of easier putting. "

this canot be true because you have no real definition of a putt in DG. what the definition of a green in DG. or more to the point, the definition of a DG putt used in your stats?

this buncr idea 5m around the basket is a terrible idea. whoever came up with it needs to bee yanked from their position of power. as for the above comparison to ball golf, this is not ball golf. so statistical comparisons are simply egotistical masturbation, trying to show us all how smart you think you are. when it is clear that the vast majority of respondents think this is a bad idea, it is. deal with it.
as for the people thinking you could dunk a putt, no, the disc must leave your hand before you leave the ground. relax.



He said masturbation. haha

"as for the people thinking you could dunk a putt, no, the disc must leave your hand before you leave the ground. relax."

in a jump-putt-ok world, dunking would still be dumb. the first broken wrist would prove it to most. the second one would prove it to the rest (of the educable).

what about a 2 M circle around the basket that you cold not land inside of? go ahead and jumpputt all ya want. just dont land inside of the circle. keep the circle small enough and we can have the best of all worlds - close in jumpputts, release before you land, and no broken wrists

One of the ideas is to eliminate drop-ins altogether. If a disc lands inside maybe 1m radius or within the basket "cylinder" projected to the ground it would count as automatically holed out for the next throw.


this canot be true because you have no real definition of a putt in DG. what the definition of a green in DG. or more to the point, the definition of a DG putt used in your stats?



No definition required. The shots around the green, which includes putts, for DG is a constant of 30 and for BG is 42. Only a significant change in one of the three possibilities mentioned before or some new one not yet conceived can budge that 30 constant higher. Tougher terrain and landscaping around pins only appears to have a marginal effect to increase putting challenge but it definitely looks cooler.

The idea came from a discussion that included a former World Champion. Stats only have no value to those who have none to support their emotion driven position.



Does that give the idea credibility? No.

I do not have endless time to statistically analyze all the aspects of this game as I have a job. That does not mean that my position is "emotionally driven". It simply means that I disagree with you and apparently so do a lot of other people and you sit in your ivory tower telling us all how wrong we are because, well the ssa increased by .5268 on this course when we implemented the 5m buncr, so therefore i am god.

Most former World Champs aren't in a position of power as you projected. No problem with emotion based positions on here since it's a discussion board. You have no idea what my actual position is on these topics nor do I really care until concepts ever get to a committee vote. But I'm not on the Rules Committee, so no vote.

I do know I'm not afraid of change nor playing alternative formats because DG is a game and not about life decisions. Some get so upset about even the possibility of change or alternatives like their world will end. I just present counter points and stats where available to flush out what people think. This D-Board seems to operate like a high stress non-random opinion survey on several topics.

Being against a non-nonsensical rule change is not fear of change. I think the idea of fairway, non ob hazards are a great idea. This one is silly. What I was saying about power was not directed at you (shocker) it was directed at the very people you mention.
If you read stress into these replies then you are mistaken. I have bigger issues to bee stressed about. If I read arrogance and self-importance into your posts I am most likely incorrect as well.
Thanks for beeing devils advocate.

Has anyone ever tried to putt on those really cool mini baskets, the MDGF makes? They can actually catch a putter!

They are just slightly too small so if the putter is in it cannot quite lay flat. The point? Well it seems to me you could have our targets reduced in size and the game would still work, or you could putt from some pre-defined distance and the game would still work. But what does it really accomplish? Nothing because it is all relative and each person has to play the same course no matter and that test of skill, so to speak, is what we already have today.

If I read arrogance and self-importance into your posts I am most likely incorrect as well.


I think what it is is that I try to be more of a foil in certain discussions as a means to flush out what people think. So, when I'm regularly counterpointing people, they might get the perspective I'm attacking versus flushing out information. Those who know me in person see the difference. Good ideas and perspective that come from this D-Board do influence my communications back to the committees and have influenced policies over the years.

like i said i am incorrect, thanks for the correction!

One of the ideas is to eliminate drop-ins altogether. If a disc lands inside maybe 1m radius or within the basket "cylinder" projected to the ground it would count as automatically holed out for the next throw.


this canot be true because you have no real definition of a putt in DG. what the definition of a green in DG. or more to the point, the definition of a DG putt used in your stats?



No definition required. The shots around the green, which includes putts, for DG is a constant of 30 and for BG is 42. Only a significant change in one of the three possibilities mentioned before or some new one not yet conceived can budge that 30 constant higher. Tougher terrain and landscaping around pins only appears to have a marginal effect to increase putting challenge but it definitely looks cooler.



I feel slightly dirty, because it seems I agree with Pat ;)

What definition of either a green or a putt are you using to generate the figure 30, and what does it represent? I'm guessing it's shots per 18 holes? Is it approach into the green + putts?

As others have said, I'm not particularly concerned even if you can satisfactorily prove that it is easier. The main thing is that the way we currently play golf generates sufficient scoring spread within skill pools to allow effective and representative competition.

I'm far more concerned about the USDGC-generated trend for massively over OB'd courses. Seems this disease is spreading, and IMO it ruins representative competition.

I'm far more concerned about the USDGC-generated trend for massively over OB'd courses. Seems this disease is spreading, and IMO it ruins representative competition.



That's getting de-buncr-ed this year. I believe we need to move toward less punitive style hazards in the fairways where possible and have OB where the higher level of penalty is justified such as leaving course boundaries.

I'm far more concerned about the USDGC-generated trend for massively over OB'd courses. Seems this disease is spreading, and IMO it ruins representative competition.



That's getting de-buncr-ed this year. I believe we need to move toward less punitive style hazards in the fairways where possible and have OB where the higher level of penalty is justified such as leaving course boundaries.



I completely agree, many high level competitions in Europe have gone the 'yellow rope' route, and it's ruining it for me and others. I'll be sure to get the opinions of anyone I know who attends.

What definition of either a green or a putt are you using to generate the figure 30, and what does it represent? I'm guessing it's shots per 18 holes? Is it approach into the green + putts?


The 30 value comes right from 100s of thousands of rounds for 18 holes and it represents shots around the green for a 1000 rated player. Putts can't be separated from that however at least the final shot by 1000 rated players on each hole is usually a putt.

Agreed that holes can be well designed for scoring spread despite the easier putting. Where the regular diagreements continue to recur on this D-Board pertains to how this affects the setting of par. It's much more intuitive in ball golf because their putting stats are closer to two putts per hole than DG. So we have a much tougher time getting an acceptable par value on many holes with a tweener putting value more like 1.5 per hole.

That alone is no justification for making putting tougher in DG. We're just discussing how it might be done if at some point in time, the masses start the drumbeat to make it tougher for the pros they are watching on TV. Very little drumbeat currently as can be seen by the non-random sample of poster remarks here.

What definition of either a green or a putt are you using to generate the figure 30, and what does it represent? I'm guessing it's shots per 18 holes? Is it approach into the green + putts?


The 30 value comes right from 100s of thousands of rounds for 18 holes and it represents shots around the green for a 1000 rated player. Putts can't be separated from that however at least the final shot by 1000 rated players on each hole is usually a putt.

Agreed that holes can be well designed for scoring spread despite the easier putting. Where the regular diagreements continue to recur on this D-Board pertains to how this affects the setting of par. It's much more intuitive in ball golf because their putting stats are closer to two putts per hole than DG. So we have a much tougher time getting an acceptable par value on many holes with a tweener putting value more like 1.5 per hole.

That alone is no justification for making putting tougher in DG. We're just discussing how it might be done if at some point in time, the masses start the drumbeat to make it tougher for the pros they are watching on TV. Very little drumbeat currently as can be seen by the non-random sample of poster remarks here.



I don't think par definition is a good reason for changing it either.

I still don't understand what 'shots around the green' means. Obviously not approach + holing out, otherwise you'd need 6 fairway aces. So I'm assuming it means something like 12 two-putts and 6 single putts. Whereas ball golf has 12 two-putts and 6 three-putts.

Funnily enough, 42 and 30 equate to exactly the same variance from the magic 2-per-hole, just in opposite directions. But ball golf par seems to be accepted.

Both 30 and 42 include putts plus other shots. So the fact they vary from 36 the same amount isn't comparable. Both of these numbers are mathematical abstractions in the sense that neither are directly measured by counting shots in the field of one type or another. Both are derived from data although I don't know the true origin of the 42 value in ball golf.

The 30 value in DG comes from the best fit function for explaining the thousands of course SSA data points which is: SSA = 30 + (course length/CF) where CF is the challenge factor, primarily foliage on the course. CF of 285 is defined as average foliage. So, the length of the course determines so many throws per 18-hole round and shots around the green which occur as fixed value of 30 occurs on average every 18-hole round. I do know that the last throw of each hole is part of the 30 value but I can't say for certain which other shots during a round comprise the other 12.

We have validated the function many times now by being able to predict the SSA before throws were made on a course. That's not to say other functions might also be viable. But this one is about as simple as possible and seems to work.

seems to work for creating esoteric numbers that make obscure contributions.

your answer about the definition proves the problem:

"The 30 value comes right from 100s of thousands of rounds for 18 holes and it represents shots around the green for a 1000 rated player. Putts can't be separated from that however at least the final shot by 1000 rated players on each hole is usually a putt."

the reason putts cannot be seperated is cuz the course design stinks for 1000 rated players! if what you just said was true (and it may well be) then it means we should simly have putting contests cuz the drives dont count.

this is a brilliant justification for more par 4-5s, and for getting serious about course design and difficulty requirements for the high end events.

further, i would submit that we likely deo not have "100s of thousands" of rounds on the types of courses that deserve this kind of analysis, and most definitely do not have the quantity if you're only using data from the 1000 rated players.

PB: the reason putts cannot be separated is cuz the course design stinks for 1000 rated players! if what you just said was true (and it may well be) then it means we should simply have putting contests cuz the drives dont count.

CK: Not sure I understand your logic there. If anything, the reverse is true since the legnth and foliage provide the variance in the formula. If all 1000 rated players make 30 throws around the green, bad luck on a cut-through or roll away becomes highly significant versus skill.

PB: this is a brilliant justification for more par 4-5s, and for getting serious about course design and difficulty requirements for the high end events.

CK: Preaching to the choir. But we still have huge events where it seems acceptable to play courses like Cold Brook with low SSAs.

PB: further, i would submit that we likely do not have "100s of thousands" of rounds on the types of courses that deserve this kind of analysis, and most definitely do not have the quantity if you're only using data from the 1000 rated players.

CK: The data includes propagators of all ratings who produced the scores that determined the SSAs which are 1000 rated equivalents. Yes, it took several years before we had much data on courses with SSAs over 60, but that's steadily getting remedied. If anything, the formula is better confirmed on higher SSA courses since more shots are thrown and all players on average shoot closer to their ratings on them (less variance).

SSA = 30 + (course length/CF)

so higher CF yields lower SSA?

I think that higher CF = easier course.

The formula indicates that is roughly equal to the average length of a throw.

This does make the term Challenge Factor rather counter intuitive.

We could probably turn the CF into a decimal multiplier so the bigger the CF the higher the SSA. But this way avoids decimal factors.

if 285 is average CF, what a reallly fantastically tough CF and whats a really ridiculously easy CF?

Here is the Challenge Factor table. The first column numbers are being used by DGU as an element in their course directory and gets used for their handicap calculations:
<table> <tr> <td>Number</td><td>Foliage</td><td>Low</td><td>High </td></tr> <tr> <td>9</td><td>Pinball</td><td>218</td><td>234 </td></tr> <tr> <td>8</td><td>Tighter</td><td>235</td><td>251 </td></tr> <tr> <td>7</td><td>Corridor</td><td>252</td><td>264 </td></tr> <tr> <td>6</td><td>Woodsy</td><td>265</td><td>277 </td></tr> <tr> <td>5</td><td>Average</td><td>278</td><td>292 </td></tr> <tr> <td>4</td><td>Stands</td><td>293</td><td>307 </td></tr> <tr> <td>3</td><td>Scattered</td><td>308</td><td>324 </td></tr> <tr> <td>2</td><td>Isolated</td><td>325</td><td>354 </td></tr> <tr> <td>1</td><td>None</td><td>355</td><td>385 </td></tr> </table>

Here are some notable courses that fall in the Pinball range. This data is from 2003 and before. Some of these courses have been cleared a little better since then:
Coldbrook
Seneca
Sandy Point
Tyler
Pyramids

At the other end, with virtually no foliage challenge:
Chili
Tradewinds
Will Rogers
Brandywine

Courses with Average foliage:
McNaughton
Waterworks (KC)
Veterans (TX)
Delaveaga shorts
Earlwood

seneca???? no woods at all on the old course- but it was SUPER homey-friendly as it was all rollers through interspersed cedars.

A Pinball course may not fully look like you're shooting thru rows of tree trunks. But whatever challenges and penalties were involved at Seneca then, including 2m, it produced scores like a Pinball course. That's why we use the term Challenge Factor rather than just Foliage factor because it's the overall challenge provided by the hazards plus foliage that impacts scoring.

I want to hurt whoever started this rumor.

[Topic Closed]

..............
the new rule book coming out in 2009 will not have a 10M or 5M or any other M line. ..........


So you are saying this is a done deal? What other changes are you certain are forthcoming?

its a done deal, but its the pdga version of the rulebook.

is there another version?

A Pinball course may not fully look like you're shooting thru rows of tree trunks. But whatever challenges and penalties were involved at Seneca then, including 2m, it produced scores like a Pinball course. That's why we use the term Challenge Factor rather than just Foliage factor because it's the overall challenge provided by the hazards plus foliage that impacts scoring.


so, does this mean that if elevation were a factor, you would just increase the difficulty by 1 or something? it's not foliage, but it will add strokes.

And i want to add that the 5m rule idea sounds really bad. it would make putting unfair on courses with lots of elevation. plus, on those extremely windy days (30+ mph winds), laying up is sometimes necessary. you shouldn't be forced to make a 5m putt with a hard cross wind or headwind after safely nestling your putter by the basket. you might as well knock down the rating of every player living in a generally windy state. you're adding more strokes to their scores than to those in areas with less wind. maybe the idea could be revised, but it doesn't sound like we need this rule.

so, does this mean that if elevation were a factor, you would just increase the difficulty by 1 or something? it's not foliage, but it will add strokes.



Elevation is not part of the foliage factor but it changes the effective length of a hole. The factor we use is to add/subtract 3 feet for every vertical foot up/down respectively. So, a 10 ft elevation upwards adds 30 feet of length and 30 feet adds about 0.1 to the scoring average.

its a done deal, but its the pdga version of the rulebook.



I sincerely doubt this statement. If it was a done deal, the RC would be aware of it. We aren't. Misinformation quashed. At this point, the RC is NOT working on a rules update for 2009, so there won't be one....too late in the year to start one now.

Chap

thanks john.

ooops, i meant to say its NOT the pdga version. my bad.

So I have a quick question.

According to the rules, the 10M circle is to be measured "from the base of the target."

I assume this means the edge of the pole closest to the disc? Or to the center of the Pole?

Using baskets with reduced chain assemblies seems to be the only logical and natural way to further increase the challenge of putting. The utilization of sloped and guarded greens are thankfully becoming more common, but it appears there is still some concern that holing out should require more skill. Adding artificial no-putt zones and bunCRs around the basket areas are completely outside the spirit of the game.

I don't understand how the USDGC is constantly willing to reconfigure the course with OB ropes, bunCRs, and whatever else is next, but hasn't yet addressed the ONE thing that would make an immediate and fair impact on scores, the basket size.

I'm curious how much just the top/chain assembly would cost to replace if they were produced with only inner chains? Existing baskets (as has been mentioned before) could have their existing outer chains removed or just have the top part replaced.
something like this??

I don't think I've ever seen a jump putt that really fits the requirements of a supporting point. I also can't grasp the physics of the throw. I can't see where there's a lot of help given to the shot, for distance, and I can only see where accuracy is compromise.
And, no, I'm not just whining because I can't do it. There are PLENTY of things I'd prefer to be able to do, and either can't or don't do well. Forehand drives, f'rinstance.

Just sayin'...

after talking with a dozen tour players during the last year, it was a 100% concensus that the baskets are too big and should be about half the size (chains and bucket)!

this of course would be too expensive to replace, but maybe something to change in the future, come out with mini baskets, plant them, and see what happens?

oh yeah, 10 meter thread. i think it's funny when people walk it off and say, "yeah, it's over 10 meters,you're good" (i for the life of me can't find a 10 meter tape measure, but think all players should carry one).

not only my opinion, but the buncr's are silly, sorry harold & jonathan.

not only my opinion, but the buncr's are silly, sorry harold & jonathan.
Almost as silly as sand traps in golf?

Talked with The Champ at Majestic about jump putts and possible solutions to making the call. He suggested something that could reduce the number of close calls is to move the 10m line to 15m which is right about 50 ft. Most players can use their normal putting stances out to around 50 feet anyway before they have to switch styles for more power. Few are going to worry as much about whether a player jump putts from 51 feet vs 34 feet now. And, moving it out to 15m increases the size of the green more than double its current size. So many more putts would become stand & deliver which is easier to call for foot faults.

after talking with a dozen tour players during the last year, it was a 100% concensus that the baskets are too big and should be about half the size (chains and bucket)!

this of course would be too expensive to replace, but maybe something to change in the future, come out with mini baskets, plant them, and see what happens?

oh yeah, 10 meter thread. i think it's funny when people walk it off and say, "yeah, it's over 10 meters,you're good" (i for the life of me can't find a 10 meter tape measure, but think all players should carry one).

not only my opinion, but the buncr's are silly, sorry harold & jonathan.

100% seems a little far fetched! I would assume that they would like to see the current designs improved.

I wouldn't mind a smaller basket(or narrower chain assembly) as long as the device caught putts more consistently than our current targets.

Some baskets are just plain bad and it is a shame we play for any sort of money and claom to be a Professional sport when we can't even play on decent equipment.

i know some people like the buncr's, maybe i would if they WERE sandtraps instead of rope.
rope is aesthetically unpleasing to my eye, we play in parks, lets keep it as natural as possible.

Use 'real' hazards.

and yes, out of the dozen or players i talked with in taiwan, oregon, so cal and vermont, it was 100% that baskets are too big. They said it makes our game look TOO easy.

One guy was putting blindfolded from ~30 feet and drilling it

I like them as is myself, maybe even a little BIGGER...

and that 15 meters sounds cool chuck

Of course using rope for miles of OB at USDGC had already been happening for years so roped buncrs aren't any worse than the artificial OB from an aesthetic standpoint.

Much easier to require bigger discs (i.e. Super Class) once a player is inside the proposed farther out 15m line than make smaller baskets as a way to increase putting challenge. The larger diameter putters could be required only for pros as an added way to step up to a higher level rather than just the difference between playing for cash versus merch.

and kid, fly to hawaii and putt your little heart out on these bunkajin, bamboo targets.
they sound like windchimes. I LOVE them... PDGA XC tier every january.

funny story, years ago while living on maui i rolled up to the first tee with my buddy (a solid 990 player) the day before the tourney. We approach the tee and i see 2 guys about to launch. I ask if we can join........"sure"...i continue to press and say (cockily I might add, i was a local) "hey, wanna play us in doubles for a few bucks?"

sure, sounds good. "This is our first time playing this course," the tall one says...

bamba tees off first, followed by stevie.
They LOVED these bunkajins and shot 20 down on the 27 hole layout!!!

who were those guys???

Increasing the distance would be a prudent step, imo. I realize some will say that it justs moves the controversy out 5 meters; but the farther out the controversy is, the less controversial it is.

Can we please disregard the "disc golf is natural" argument. Is "the road" in "the road is OB" natural? Basically, people complain about anything that makes the game more interesting and difficult. We need to weed that attitude out of the sport, imo.

Increasing the circle to 15m radius increases the amount of paint and time needed to make circles by 50%. However, I've never been a fan of the circles because they weren't official. Now, if the RC made it so that the painted line was official even if it was not exactly 10m (15m), then it might make sense. I could even see allowing somewhat non-circular greens based on terrain issues such as when there's a drop off or lots of bushes/greenery that would be hard to paint thru. Note that if the official green is extended, more trees and brush are likely going to be in the green with the concern about whether to trim, remove or leave them for fairness.

Increasing the distance would be a prudent step, imo. I realize some will say that it justs moves the controversy out 5 meters; but the farther out the controversy is, the less controversial it is.

Can we please disregard the "disc golf is natural" argument. Is "the road" in "the road is OB" natural? Basically, people complain about anything that makes the game more interesting and difficult. We need to weed that attitude out of the sport, imo.

I actually strive to make the courses I build as natural as possible because I think they are more aesthetically pleasing that way. I don't want to see yellow rope or orange paint on the ground when I play golf. If you dig that kind of thing, more power to you, but it's not a philosophy that needs to be "weeded out" of the sport any more than my approach to building courses.

So I have a quick question.

According to the rules, the 10M circle is to be measured "from the base of the target."

I assume this means the edge of the pole closest to the disc? Or to the center of the Pole?

This is why I dragged this thread up, I just didn't want to post a new thread.

So where does the 10M start?

This is why I dragged this thread up, I just didn't want to post a new thread.

So where does the 10M start?

The center of the pole cannot be accessed to make the required measurement. The default would then be to begin measuring on the outside surface of the pole at ground level and measure our radially from there a distance of 10 meters.

I can putt with my eyes closed and hit 30ft putts ni problem in practice but when it comes down to tournament golf even the best putters have rounds where they just can't get the disc in. I haven't met too many people that putted so great I thought they needed a smaller basket(well Eric maybe).

I will say I wouldn't mind something like The Bullseye if we did use a smaller basket.

Changing the size of the basket has been discussed before, because there were concerns that we might become the PDGPA, with the second P standing for "Putting".

I actually strive to make the courses I build as natural as possible because I think they are more aesthetically pleasing that way. I don't want to see yellow rope or orange paint on the ground when I play golf. If you dig that kind of thing, more power to you, but it's not a philosophy that needs to be "weeded out" of the sport any more than my approach to building courses.

Sure, everyone thinks natural boundaries are better looking than rope, but that is not my point. My point is that if a course designer wants to challenge players, by whatever their imagination can create, they shouldn't have to answer to arguments like "but that is not natural." It is a completely specious argument. What the hell is "natural" anyway? That street? That sidealk? The pavillion? If you bring in fill and build a retaining wall, is that natural? Is there anything "natural" about Bethpage Black?

Sure, if a designer had a couple of million to shape and create land, with non-rope boundaries for OB and "natural" hazards, they could design a "natural" course that befits what the sport should aspire to. Until then, all low cost ideas needed to challenge the player should be embraced rather than pass some artificial test for "naturalness."

Changing the size of the basket has been discussed before, because there were concerns that we might become the PDGPA, with the second P standing for "Putting".Putting is at least half the game on half the courses.

does jumping really make putting easier at shorter distances? seems like it's just one more thing to go wrong if you don't need the power. i'm not one who feels putting is too easy. simple, but not easy. ever see someone 360 drive a 185ft hole? let 'em jump from wherever. further, if we erase the need for a supporting point @ release (jump putts become similar to jump shot in basketball) we make spotting foot faults way easier--no watching the foot and the hand @ the same time. with the player getting the benefit of the doubt, the NBA would never stop and replay whether a shot was a 3 or a 2. think of all the judgment calls we could eliminate from the game.
maybe someone can help me with why these restrictions (10m rule and supporting point on release) came to be. to remove athleticism?
if the 10m rule was put in place to "artificially" make putting harder then the 5m rule would be right in keeping. if putting needs to be harder, smaller targets seem to be a much cleaner solution than any of the meter rules--the onus is on the equipment instead of TD's and players which eliminates all the gray areas.

brandon

If we eliminate Rule 803.04A(1), then we would open the door for potentially comic behavior on some throws.

Let's say that the rule was amended to state that the last point of contact before release had to be on the 30cm, line of play line behind the marker disc.

I could have a lie behind something large and nasty, and my only option is to pitch out, say, to the left. But, if the large, nasty obstacle only went a few feet to the left, I could go over several feet to the right, start running, make sure my last contact point was legal, leap to the left, and throw around the large object before I touched down.

I don't think that seeing that would add any professionalism to our sport.

It only increases the odds that foot faults will never be called.

I could have a lie behind something large and nasty, and my only option is to pitch out, say, to the left. But, if the large, nasty obstacle only went a few feet to the left, I could go over several feet to the right, start running, make sure my last contact point was legal, leap to the left, and throw around the large object before I touched down.

Exczar, this is legal right now as long as you land behind your lie...

Throwing while in the air is not legal right now (despite the prevalence of jump putters who do so.)

I agree. But jump putts inside 10m can be done if the player jumps sideways and releases before leaving the ground. That's not widely known. I see it being used more when a player has to really stretch out and sort of lunge to the left or right to propel the shot and potentially lose their balance in the process while not moving ahead of their lie.

sounds great. i'll head out right now to practice this.

Ya never know when learning the rules might prod you to try a throw that might work better.

If we eliminate Rule 803.04A(1), then we would open the door for potentially comic behavior on some throws.
. . .
I don't think that seeing that would add any professionalism to our sport.

i'm sure the first forehand roller offended the delicate sensibilities of some die hards who felt the pure backhand was what the sport was about. sure seems a funny line to draw. professionalism? there would be an added element of athleticism. did dunking a basketball reduce professionalism. i'm sure some thought it would.

brandon

does your job allow that you can drink before noon?

It only increases the odds that foot faults will never be called.

how? i could see an argument that the odds of a foot fault being called would not change. but what makes you think they would 'never be called'?

One of the original issues with jump putts was the deadfall toward the basket that would be less safe and unfair to shorter players. Stork (PDGA#003) at 6' 6" back in the 1970s was able to fall forward like a horizontal dunk providing a definite advantage for height. If you went to an even more liberal putting option where players simply had to release before hitting the ground, long jumpers could get over halfway to the basket from the 10m line before releasing.

One of the original issues with jump putts was the deadfall toward the basket that would be less safe and unfair to shorter players. Stork (PDGA#003) at 6' 6" back in the 1970s was able to fall forward like a horizontal dunk providing a definite advantage for height. If you went to an even more liberal putting option where players simply had to release before hitting the ground, long jumpers could get over halfway to the basket from the 10m line before releasing.

Man slam dunking discs could add some style points to the game. :)

how? i could see an argument that the odds of a foot fault being called would not change. but what makes you think they would 'never be called'?

I guess my point is that foot faults would be more likely to occur (players missing their mark), but it would become more difficult to be sure that a player did indeed foot fault (thus less called). The percentage of foot faults that are called and seconded would then approach zero.

Note that in the early 70s, the basket hadn't been invented yet. Many of the early targets were on the ground using chicken wire to create a 12-18" high fence in a circle. So, the deadfall worked even better than with current baskets.

One of the original issues with jump putts was the deadfall toward the basket that would be less safe and unfair to shorter players. Stork (PDGA#003) at 6' 6" back in the 1970s was able to fall forward like a horizontal dunk providing a definite advantage for height. If you went to an even more liberal putting option where players simply had to release before hitting the ground, long jumpers could get over halfway to the basket from the 10m line before releasing.

but they still have to release it--accurately with a soft touch while @ high speed and in the air.

tall players have an advantage in many sports. longer arms probably aid in distance driving. some people can jump farther, some throw farther. others throw more accurately and consistently. it is a sport, a competition. it seems like the abundance of divisions is handicap enough without curbing natural physical proficiencies.

i can't imagine that sprinting and long jumping towards the basket is going to yield significantly better putting statistics but if it did, so what? the hordes of track and field stars flooding the pdga tournaments would still have to learn to throw a disc.

i get beat regularly by guys who take a miniature run up on the tee-pad and virtually never jump putt.

as to the safety issue, are we not able to govern for ourselves what would be too dangerous? risk/reward is central to the sport. designers strive to provide the conflict and players must navigate it with each throw. if we are not intelligent enough to avoid harming ourselves by jumping into fixed metal objects, even the most eloquent and thorough rules will not protect us.

brandon

Sorry Brandon, but this issue was already hashed over extensively on this discussion board in the past. I was suggesting things along your lines where we would sometimes have a more athletic looking putting process. But it became clear the negatives outweighed the positives in this case, or at least a better alternative wasn't determined. Part of the issue is that those types of putts would look "undignified" for a sport hoping to emulate the successful progression of ball golf and its financial success.

There is minimal athleticism in deadfalling, just the height advantage.

Sorry Brandon, but this issue was already hashed over extensively on this discussion board in the past. I was suggesting things along your lines where we would sometimes have a more athletic looking putting process. But it became clear the negatives outweighed the positives in this case, or at least a better alternative wasn't determined. Part of the issue is that those types of putts would look "undignified" for a sport hoping to emulate the successful progression of ball golf and its financial success.

There is minimal athleticism in deadfalling, just the height advantage.

i'm new to all this so i appreciate you indulging me even though others have discussed it in the past. my original question is why do we have these rules? and though i know you've provided some reasons, stating that the negatives outweigh the positives doesn't help me understand any better.

i played 4 years before ever hearing of the pdga and 5 before playing a tournament. no one i played with in those 5 years jump putted inside of the imaginary 10m line because intuitively they knew it wouldn't help their cause. point being, why not eliminate rules that only create controversy and work? especially when the reasons for keeping them are as flimsy as those i've heard. professionalism, dignity and safety: they are all great things but they are not achieved by limiting someones jumping ability.

height is an advantage, yes. long arms, great core strength, superior eyesight, large bank account, long legs, being ambidextrous, being sponsored, not experiencing searing pain while executing a tomahawk or side arm, great balance, good judgment, knowledge of the course and having a caddy are a few other advantages i don't care to see nullified.

ball golf doesn't mandate a shorter club length on drivers to prevent tall golfers from generating excessive centrifugal force. all sports have a body type considered ideally suited to the game.

simple is beautiful and effective--whether it be a putting stroke or the rules.

brandon

FWIW, my jump putt is well below average and is only used outside of 13 or so meters

Something as simple as having a rule of some sort that differentiates what is a disc golf "green" and what is not (to better emulate ball golf) is potentially reason enough for having the jump putt rule or any other rule at 10m. I think requiring Super Class discs be used inside 10m (pros only) would be an easy way to improve the putting challenge without the major problem and expense of installing smaller baskets.

Something as simple as having a rule of some sort that differentiates what is a disc golf "green" and what is not (to better emulate ball golf) is potentially reason enough for having the jump putt rule or any other rule at 10m. I think requiring Super Class discs be used inside 10m (pros only) would be an easy way to improve the putting challenge without the major problem and expense of installing smaller baskets.

quite the logic here. having a 10m rule is simpler than not? you used the word simple but your thinking is tangled.

why emulate ball golf? we throw discs. ball golf has been a symbol of upper and leisure class. our sport has a chance to be fun for everyone.

adding another class of discs for putting is adding red tape inside of an unnecessary distinction.

i'm sensing a desire to fix arbitrary rules by making more rules.

IF putting is too easy, we should look at solutions. but someone needs to make the case that this is the reason for the 10m rule before ease of putting is relevant to this thread.

are you espousing honest opinions or just churning out arguments to make sure that i am?

brandon

Just simply pointing out factors that may have contributed to development of the 10m rule. I wasn't there when it was developed. But I do know that it was apparent to those involved in its development that following thru past your lie all the way up to the basket was not perceived as fair, safe or appropriate for the game. So some sort of demarcation was needed and 10m was chosen. Remember that the original targets were objects like trees. So, jumping then tossing or even tapping while you fly by the target wouldn't be that difficult and favor taller players.

Future of Disc Golf without the 10m rule.

http://austindiscgolf.org/other/images/futuredg.jpg

http://www.tripledisc.com/preview/msdgc/dunk.jpg

Future of Disc Golf without the 10m rule.
Looks like an ultimate player recruit using that Super Class Ultra-Star...:D

Looks like an ultimate player recruit using that Super Class Ultra-Star...:D

LOL, hey he is new to this sport but look at the air he can get.

If you want to photoshop one, this would be even better.
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/384/edb4a5e9_m.jpg

i stand corrected. that doesn't look professional or dignified.

super class. that is funny. you would have more success requiring players to kick the disc into the basket.

If players feel like they are gaining an advantage by jump putting, then eliminate it and putting becomes harder. Make a rule that says you have to stay on the ground. Jump putts look goofy anyway.

If players feel like they are gaining an advantage by jump putting, then eliminate it and putting becomes harder. Make a rule that says you have to stay on the ground. Jump putts look goofy anyway.

There is a rule already:
Any throw from within 10 meters or less, as measured from the rear of the marker disc to the base of the hole, is considered a putt. A follow-through after a putt that causes the thrower to make any supporting point contact closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is considered a stance violation . The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.

A jump would be considered a follow-though and would cause your supporting point to contact the ground closer to the hole.

The sport is much more dynamic than ball golf. We spin, kneel, lean etc... The jump putt is just one more aspect of this game.

Additionally, a well executed jump putt looks very cool. Especially when it goes in.

It is hard to call the fouls/infractions. If you change the rule to prohibit jump putting completely, what do you do about a second shot that needs to cover another 300 ft and you follow through?

If players feel like they are gaining an advantage by jump putting, then eliminate it and putting becomes harder. Make a rule that says you have to stay on the ground. Jump putts look goofy anyway.

You can't make rules against things that give an advantage to players. Practicing more gives you an advantage.

"Rule 80X.2 No player shall be allowed to practice."

If you mean that jump putting is gaining an "unfair advantage" that would be another thing. But it isn't an unfair advantage, since any player who chooses can jump putt whenever they are outside 10M.

Very interesting topic, just wanted to make sure i could post in here im new! But i love the debate

The sport is much more dynamic than ball golf. We spin, kneel, lean etc... The jump putt is just one more aspect of this game.

Additionally, a well executed jump putt looks very cool. Especially when it goes in.

It is hard to call the fouls/infractions. If you change the rule to prohibit jump putting completely, what do you do about a second shot that needs to cover another 300 ft and you follow through?

You think they look cool. I think they look goofy. Chalk that up to a simple difference of opinion. However, you also hit the nail on the head when you say they make calling infractions difficult because it is hard to determine if the disc was released prior to the supporting point leaving the ground. If we leave it the way it is, the difficulty continues and the problem gets worse. In my opinion, the rule needs to be revised to either eliminate the jumping or allow a release without supporting point contact with the playing surface to reduce the amount of scrutiny required to call infractions.

On follow throughs, I don't recall ever seeing players jumping during follow throughs on drives, but I suppose if there is someone who does, then that would be a problem if there is a no jumping rule. How prevalent is jumping during a follow through on drives?

[QUOTE=RhynoBoy;1384278]You can't make rules against things that give an advantage to players.[QUOTE]

Actually, such rules are already in place. The rule against range finders and GPS devices for example. The rule against having a supporting point closer to the pin than your lie is another. The rules also prohibit using a grenade launcher or catapult to propel your disc towards the pin. There is also a rule against practicing during a round.

All of these are rules against things that give an advantage to players.

On follow throughs, I don't recall ever seeing players jumping during follow throughs on drives, but I suppose if there is someone who does, then that would be a problem if there is a no jumping rule. How prevalent is jumping during a follow through on drives?

Technically all a jump putt is is follow through. Most jump putters dont have both feet in the air, they simply step forward using the momentum of their body to carry the disc further with less effort from their arms thus minimizing the amount of wrist/shoulder/elbow action needed to achieve the desired length. Ideally allowing them to use the same form at 60 ft they use at 30 ft. I believe most anybody could benefit from a properly executed jump/falling/step putt.


I also see infractions during upshots/long putts...specifically when standing still...during the throw the thrower pivots out away from the mini before releasing the disc. I would be willing to bet this is more prevalent than jump putt infractions.

This is a mostly solitary game (as is ball golf) we will have to continue to depend on the character of the participants to adhere to the rules set in place.

I have to say that I would like to discourage most rules that take away from the dynamic nature of the game.

this is a mostly solitary game

huh. i find it quite sociable.

I should clarify...solitary in that most people play for themselves...there is no team, no referee (not many fans). I too find it social and enjoy the relationships I have on the course. But the fact is that its easy to cheat. Easy to move your lie to one side while no one is looking...easy to argue away a jump putt call, easy to convince yourself that you "deserve" a little leanancy on this "lie". I don't see this a lot and I can say that as i moved up from Intermediate to Advanced to Open I see less and less of the "cheating" mentality. In this respect we must rely on the character of the players to make the correct call (of course they must know AND understand the rules as well).

Technically all a jump putt is is follow through. Most jump putters dont have both feet in the air, they simply step forward using the momentum of their body

Time to get out the dictionary Mr. Jones. What you have described here is not a jump. In order to be defined as a jump, a person needs to leave the ground. If you are stepping forward leaving one foot on the ground, that is not defined as a jump.

Time to get out the dictionary Mr. Jones. What you have described here is not a jump. In order to be defined as a jump, a person needs to leave the ground. If you are stepping forward leaving one foot on the ground, that is not defined as a jump.

Falling Putt = Jump Putt in terms of player definitions. PDGA does not use the both feet leaving the groud as the definition only within 10m if a suporting contact comes closer to the hole than the back edge of the marker before gaining control of balance. I believe we can question the balance portion of the rule though. :)

A follow-through after a putt that causes the thrower to make any supporting point contact closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is considered a stance violation .

Falling Putt = Jump Putt in terms of player definitions. PDGA does not use the both feet leaving the groud as the definition only within 10m if a suporting contact comes closer to the hole than the back edge of the marker before gaining control of balance. I believe we can question the balance portion of the rule though. :)

A follow-through after a putt that causes the thrower to make any supporting point contact closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is considered a stance violation .

Incorrect. Only "putt" and "falling putt" are defined by the PDGA in the rules. Falling putts are as you describe and are not allowed within 10 meters of the pin. And while the PDGA rules do not mention "both feet leaving the ground", the rules clearly state that you must have at least one supporting point in contact with the ground when the disc is released. A legal jump putt is one where the disc is released prior to both feet leaving the ground. If you release the disc while you are in the air, that is not a legal jump putt.

A jump putt and a falling putt are, by definition, not the same thing.

learning better technique would eliminate the need for a jump putt/follow-thru putt. It can be learned or taught.

A legal jump putt is one where the disc is released prior to both feet leaving the ground. If you release the disc while you are in the air, that is not a legal jump putt.

goodgrief. your definition is a mess. the word jump does not appear in the "rules".

:) Symantics...I love'em

You have made a good point...falling putt and jump putt are indeed different. I like them both and can easily name instances in which I feel they help my game. Both can be difficult to call violations on. Both are already addressed in the rules. Both have evolved into the game and become great assets for those who care to use them.

I liked Chuck's quip earlier regarding how knowing the rules may force you to come up with a new shot/technique which may give you an edge. (paraphrasing) Lets not stifle innovation/shotmaking with unneeded rules which take away fromt the excitement and drama of the game. I think we have a fair ruling now...the only way we can get the exact right call all the time is to get HD camera's on people and review in slowmo.

Chris, I like the current world champions lesser technique.

A jump putt and a falling putt are, by definition, not the same thing.

Very true, jump putting would make one think that the player left the ground. Matt Orum "jump putts."

If you look at Borg or Ulibarri, their style of putt is more like a falling putt. They step past there mark with the left foot and leave the right foot at their mark. The disc leaves their hands right before the left foot hits the ground. It really looks like an illegal putt at first glance.

I agree that sometimes it is hard to make a call if a player foot-faulted or not. Just pay attention. I'd hate to have the game adopt some sort of "stand-and-deliver" rule. I'm not going to learn to rethrow, I would just quit playing PDGA events.

I agree "jump" isn't in the rules. It was used as an example of how to violate the rule requiring that one supporting point be in contact with the playing surface when the disc is released.

I agree requiring stand and deliver would not be cool. But I don't want to see falling putts allowed "on the green" (10m circle).

...In my opinion, the rule needs to be revised to either eliminate the jumping or allow a release without supporting point contact with the playing surface to reduce the amount of scrutiny required to call infractions...

exactly

Very true, jump putting would make one think that the player left the ground. Matt Orum "jump putts."

If you look at Borg or Ulibarri, their style of putt is more like a falling putt. They step past there mark with the left foot and leave the right foot at their mark. The disc leaves their hands right before the left foot hits the ground. It really looks like an illegal putt at first glance.

I've watched video of feldberg's jump putt - in at least the footage I looked at - his putt is illegal - as his supporting point at his mark is off the ground at release. His argument of course - is that it's to close to call - which is the very reason why pushing the 10m rule back would have some legitimacy.

Craig - What exactly do you mean by push the 10m rule back? Increase the circle size? If so, how does that address the illegal jump putt problem?

Following up on what August said, if his supporting point at his mark is off of the ground at release, it doesn't matter how far he is from the basket, it is a foot fault.

I guess what Craig is saying is that the jump putt would not be legal inside whatever distance is decided to be a putt, and if that distance was changed from 10m to, say, 20m, then that would decrease the number of those type of putts attempted.

But, no matter what the distance, if it is a foot fault, it needs to be called. Perhaps the standard needs to be changed, such that if it is not clear that the jump putt was executed in comformance with the Rules, then it is a stance violation, but that would be an extreme measure to take.

Bill's got it.

My point is.........is that people don't call the foot fault.

Violators hide behind that fact, and then argue down those that would call the foot fault - thus gaining an advantage when jumping from 33 feet - essentially snubbing their nose at the 10m rule (I've actually seen feldberg measure and jump putt from literally just outside 10m)

If the circle were extended - at least that advantage would be diminished - even if people continued to not call the foot fault.

Personally I don't see any reason to jump putt until you get to 50-60 feet or more (and this is just from a technique standpoint). People that jump from 33 feet are seeking an advantage - usually by their own admission.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNNP2FIVV3Y&NR=1

What do you think? Foot fault or awesome putt? I've watched it and just can't tell. Well, it is still an awesome putt regardless :) But it does show the difficulty in calling a foot fault on a jump putt, much less getting a second to the call. You need one eye on the disc and one eye on the feet.

No foot fault but an Awesome putt, just took an extra 10 seconds or so. Right?
Isnt there a 30 second rule as well?

:) Symantics...I love'em.

I prefer semantics.

its outdated because you think the 10M circle has ANYTHING to do with putting. it does not. it does currently have something to do with permitted forms.

what other sports require that yu look at when you left the ground. basketball for example looks at when you land. its cognitively easier to compare the release to when you land than it is to when you leave the ground.

the best reason i've heard to keep jump putts illegal is that in headwinds the shorter players will be at a disadvantage.


Thats like saying short Basket ball players are at a disadvantage whats height have to do with it. If anything the shorter players would benifit in a head wind cuz they start lower to the ground. Many times in a field or strong headwind I have putted from my knees.

Outlawing jump putts is rediclous. I think some would like to see this cuz they can't do it. If anything we should make smaller but better catching baskets. That would make the target smaller but catch em better. It would make 50ftrs seem real tough

No foot fault but an Awesome putt, just took an extra 10 seconds or so. Right?
Isnt there a 30 second rule as well?


No foot faul but deff. 30 sec vialotion in the Vibarm open Dubz video Steve Dodge points out Dave Feldbergs obvious foot foul, they even go back and show it in slow mo his mark foot comes up before releasing the disc no one calls him for it.

Since he walked off the basket to verify the distance was legal for a jump putt, I would rule no 30 second violation.

No foot faul but deff. 30 sec vialotion in the Vibarm open Dubz video Steve Dodge points out Dave Feldbergs obvious foot foul, they even go back and show it in slow mo his mark foot comes up before releasing the disc no one calls him for it.Feldberg and Climo both get a lot of premature air on their leaping putts.

As to the 30 seconds, not knowing whether you are outside 10 meters is a distraction! Seriously, the distraction language in the 30 second rule is a gorilla clause. The rules don't apply to gorillas unless you got a gorilla to enforce them.

And changing the rule to require that you release before you land won't solve anything. Then we won't be calling the leap and land putt because it happens too quickly to be sure whether they threw before they landed.

Feldberg and Climo both get a lot of premature air on their leaping putts.

As to the 30 seconds, not knowing whether you are outside 10 meters is a distraction! Seriously, the distraction language in the 30 second rule is a gorilla clause. The rules don't apply to gorillas unless you got a gorilla to enforce them.

And changing the rule to require that you release before you land won't solve anything. Then we won't be calling the leap and land putt because it happens too quickly to be sure whether they threw before they landed.

really? you don't think a jarring landing would be enough incentive to release the disc first? to putt on your way down be a lot more difficult, no? seems like if there's no advantage in it, we won't be doing it. there is, however, an advantage to timing your release to about the same time as a jump/propulsion which is why there are so many close calls with the current rules.

Since he walked off the basket to verify the distance was legal for a jump putt, I would rule no 30 second violation.


I agree with Bruce. This is not a distraction. If you need to know where the 10m line is, that's just part of what you need to do within 30 seconds. There is no relief from the 30 second rule to measure the 10m circle or its radius.

Sometimes when I putt within 10m, I lean forward slightly and have a tendency to fall forward. Rather than fall forward though, I turn 90 degrees to the left, perpendicular to my lie and walk outwards insuring not to cross a point in front of my marker. Some players have warned me this a violation of a stance rule, and that I have to show balance within 10 meters. Would this be considered a violation and under what rule would it fall under?

I agree with Bruce. This is not a distraction. If you need to know where the 10m line is, that's just part of what you need to do within 30 seconds. There is no relief from the 30 second rule to measure the 10m circle or its radius.

True, he violated the 30 second rule, but only by 7 seconds. I think it would be worth losing 7 seconds than more than a minute to argue the case to an official. Longer if one wasn't there at the moment.

Now if a player did that every hole or shot, then yeah, start calling.

i would say that is clumsy but legitimate. no different than propelling yourself backwards after you let go.

Sometimes when I putt within 10m, I lean forward slightly and have a tendency to fall forward. Rather than fall forward though, I turn 90 degrees to the left, perpendicular to my lie and walk outwards insuring not to cross a point in front of my marker. Some players have warned me this a violation of a stance rule, and that I have to show balance within 10 meters. Would this be considered a violation and under what rule would it fall under?

The way I read it, no, it is not a stance violation.


Any throw from within 10 meters or less, as measured from the rear of the marker disc
to the base of the hole, is considered a putt. A follow-through after a putt that causes the
thrower to make any supporting point contact closer to the hole than the rear edge of the
marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is considered a stance violation . The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.

So as long as you do not move past your marker until you've regained your balance, then you're good. But remember, it's not the front of your marker but the back of it that you can't cross.

Symantec...I'm a NetBackup guy...its amazing i can spell anything at all.

What about this for a change?

15 - meter putting circle (about 50 ft)
Must release the disc before touching the ground past your marker.

Of course this opens the door for all kinds of mayhem...jump shots, sideways jumping, leaving the ground off of the wrong foot (happens already). Maybe folks would come up with some amazing new shots?

I would almost agree with this proposal as the default. However, if TDs decide to add painted lines, they become the official mark for jumping AND that TDs get to be creative with shaping some greens where the line can come no closer to the pin than 10m nor farther than 20m (with the exception where structures or OB are closer to the pin than 10m. This would help where the terrain may be funky for marking, separate from any creative shape option.

I like that chuck. Ball golf does the same thing by how high the grass is cut and the contours of the land.

Solution = Red flag for all players + Multiple cameras at every hole + Review machine + Referee

How many challenges do i get?

How many challenges do i get?

Well if you challange and the call is not verified you will get 2 strokes or you must carry all other players on your card bags.

hmmm...hefty penalties...people will be slow to challenge. Sadly i think that puts us right back at square one.

"No more 10 meter rule is a terrible idea b/c putting is already easy enough."

then your view of putting is outdated.

"I would say I am 99% confident this will never happen as the 10 M rule is the only way can truly define a putt and / or a green in our sport."

a) the only way to define a putt??? you've gotta be kidding.
b) tell us again why we need to "define" a putt

"Also the 2009 NT Standards for events wanting to be NT's included that every basket has to have a 10M circle around it."

well, if we have the rule we oughta enforce it. even if we're thinking of getting rid of it later.

Hey Sandalman - Inappropriate is one word. You might want to consider proper grammar before you bash another person's mere opinion.

goodgrief. your definition is a mess. the word jump does not appear in the "rules".

Thanks Charlie Brown. It's not really a definition, but an explanation based on knowledge of the applicable rules.

Following up on what August said, if his supporting point at his mark is off of the ground at release, it doesn't matter how far he is from the basket, it is a foot fault.

I guess what Craig is saying is that the jump putt would not be legal inside whatever distance is decided to be a putt, and if that distance was changed from 10m to, say, 20m, then that would decrease the number of those type of putts attempted.

But, no matter what the distance, if it is a foot fault, it needs to be called. Perhaps the standard needs to be changed, such that if it is not clear that the jump putt was executed in comformance with the Rules, then it is a stance violation, but that would be an extreme measure to take.

I see that this might very well reduce the number of jump putt attempts, but it wouldn't eliminate them. Nonetheless, it may just reduce them enough that they would become an insignificant part of the game, i.e, not worth making a more specific rule to address it.

I think it's a good idea to increase the 10m circle to reduce jump putts as well as increase putting difficulty without going to smaller baskets.

How about changing the rules such that it is permissable from any distance to follow through after a throw, but, if the shot is not thrown from the tee box, if said shot goes in, one stroke is added to the score.

Putting for a two from 25m - no advancing closer to the hole until showing balance - shot goes in - you got a two.

Same thing as above but you jump putt, that is, your followthrough places you closer to the hole than your lie - putt goes in - you got a three.

It could be considered a fair tradeoff - if a player is using a putting style with dubious legality, the advantage gained by greater accuracy is balanced by the addition of a stroke if the throw is successful.

I know this is far fetched, but it would make jump putters think twice before using that style, which, it seems, is hard to immediately determine if it is a foot fault or not.

I just heard at worlds that a push is being made to move the distance out to 15 meters due to stevie rico and david feldberg.

:D

Climo suggested that maybe moving the putting circle to 15m would be at a distance which significantly reduces the number of jump putts that were possibly borderline such that they needed to be watched closely. Beyond 15m also wouldn't necessarily be such an advantage for top pros as from the 10m-15m range.

[snip] TDs get to be creative with shaping some greens where the line can come no closer to the pin than 10m nor farther than 20m (with the exception where structures or OB are closer to the pin than 10m. This would help where the terrain may be funky for marking, separate from any creative shape option.

this is one of the best ideas I've read or heard.

like building a 6 - 12 inch shelf for the 10m green.

I would just rather see it moved out to 15m myself. I putt a normal putt for anything inside 50 feet anyway. Im pretty sure from watching climo play that he is the same way unless the putt happens to be uphill.