Dave Feldberg wants to "Fix" the basket's...

[Bruce]

[JMan]

Ah Jub, it's not about hate, or DF, it's about the thought process that insists baskets need to be improved because they don't accept a putt. Hey if they improve on the basket design it will change, as it has since the beginning. It's about not blaming the basket for a lapse of player ability, even on a shot by shot basis. Hey if the basket is to change for the betterment of the game...great. But, does it need to change just because DF, or any of the other hundreds of thousands of disc golfers miss a putt...hardly.

[Wes Hansen]

The only hate I've seen is Dave's hating to lose.
When someone disagrees with another person it's a pretty big jump to call it hate.
But then some folks only see things in black and white.

[Chuck Kennedy]

The fundamental flaw with the current basket design is that it is not radially symmetrical in the way the hole is in ball golf. Apologists for the current target design can't justify it and no modified chain pattern can likely resolve it.

[NextLevel]

Originally Posted by JMan

Hey if the basket is to change for the betterment of the game...great. But, does it need to change just because DF, or any of the other hundreds of thousands of disc golfers miss a putt...hardly.

I agree with Dave 100%. The basket or "target" does somehow need changed for the BETTERMENT of the game. And furthermore, it DOES need to change because DF and many other disc golfers miss putts, period. It is by no means the basket's fault when a putt is missed, because of course there has to be a perfect way for the disc to fall into the basket and stay; however, it seems like a very intelligent idea for those of us that love this sport, to see it improve in any way possible.

I'm sure that it is a little discouraging for a spectator that may be interested in trying disc golf to watch a pro miss a putt that looks like it was in but then falls out.

A target that "retains" the disc once struck is the ultimate goal here . . on our way to lifting up our sport to be the best and most inviting it can be. I've only heard of a golf ball bouncing out of the hole once, and I've never heard of a basketball bouncing out of its hoop after going completely through; we should strive for a target device that provides the same security.

Not trying to argue with anyone, just stating my opinion and ideals.

-Derek

[Rakoz]

I live at Lunchtime in Portland and thems some bad baskets (people are working on fixing those by the way)! You know when you go play at lunchtime you're going to miss 1-2 putts that would be in on most other courses... just like you know that your disc is going to roll down one of the hills if you don't lay it up just right, just like you know your disc is likely to go somewhere you don't want it to after you threw the PERFECT drive... straight into a tree. Everyone has to deal with the same basket, same hill, same tree.

I want to see better baskets at places like Lunchtime but most major courses have the proper baskets. If we're improving the baskets to the point that scores start dropping we're doing something a little wrong. Ball golf doesn't make bigger holes on the greens just to see better scores.

Interesting topic... sad it came up this way though.

[Ol' Bob]

In ball golf, when a long shot goes in, it's luck. Is that any different in disc golf? How many short putts with the right touch are robberies?

[NextLevel]

Originally Posted by Rakoz

You know when you go play at lunchtime you're going to miss 1-2 putts that would be in on most other courses... just like you know that your disc is going to roll down one of the hills if you don't lay it up just right, just like you know your disc is likely to go somewhere you don't want it to after you threw the PERFECT drive... straight into a tree. Everyone has to deal with the same basket, same hill, same tree.

Lower scores at a course with better catching targets are to be expected, which is why people are looking to improve the baskets at Lunchtime, as you pointed out. This is why a Mach V costs more than a Mach II, obviously.

Intelligent and experienced players choose their plastic for each shot concerning certain criteria, along with their intended flight path. As an example, discs with flatter, broader edges roll away easier with little to no momentum. If you hit a tree, then it wasn't a PERFECT drive, either because you missed your intended line or because you simply didn't plan your line beyond 100-200 feet in front of you. AND, you are right: everyone does have to deal with the same basket (target) . . why not reward "everyone" with better catching targets. "Everyone" includes the player that started playing today and the Pro that started playing before the noob was born.

Dave Feldberg is a very intelligent player, which is what sets him above most. In conversation, he is constantly talking about the future of the sport . . this is just another great example, in my personal opinion.

-Derek

[Wes Hansen]

There are two ways the thread topic here can be viewed.
In total- from DF, in response to a specific putt of his
or-
out of context, from DF, as if he had been randomly interviewed and asked about the state of DG baskets.

I see some responses here using one way, some another.
Mine was based on the video we were shown. I thought it sounded intelligent, but whiney.
Had I read it in an interview about DG, I would probably have lent it more credibility.
Baskets certainly aren't perfect. Tone poles are a more accurate gauge of putting ability, though they needed to be made slightly shorter.
And DF did express the need in an inclusive manner, which I liked.
I think Chuck came to the point. There are problems with the current target specs and design, but a better solution has yet to be offered. At least that's what I read.
I also bow to DF's accomplishments and contributions to the sport.
For me, it was all about context.

[Rakoz]

Yeah. Context probably did change my initial response to this topic. If the interview started with "Hey Dave, what do you think of current basket design" instead of with him missing a putt we'd probably look at this a little differently.

I'm still stuck with ball golf not making the hole bigger, basketball not making the hoop wider, and baseball not making the fields shorter. At some point we have to accept a standard and accept that luck sometimes frowns on you.

[NoLoPutts]

This is a funny thread. If you throw a perfect putt it is in. If it doesn't stay in it wasn't perfect. I don't see other way to look at it. You can hum and haw all you want but the proof is in the pudding.

[Sean Phillips]

I think the baskets need to be smaller and more dense. A smaller more dense basket would catch more consistently.

The current baskets catch really well 95% of the time. When that "questionable" putt spits it's unfortunate. The catch zone of our baskets has grown over the last few decades. The new Innova disc catchers, Discraft chainstars, and DGA mach 5's all have a larger catch zone than the original mach 2's.

[mine all mine]

Originally Posted by Rakoz

I'm still stuck with ball golf not making the hole bigger, basketball not making the hoop wider, and baseball not making the fields shorter. At some point we have to accept a standard and accept that luck sometimes frowns on you.

Well, you kinda make the point that Feldberg might be talking about. In ball golf, the hole is the same size on every course in every country. A basketball rim is the same diameter in every arena in every country. I have played on so many different types of baskets that have huge differences in catch zones, chain configuration, chain weight, basket depth, length of chains...need I go on? Maybe the real issue here is we don't have a standard target that we play in competition.

[Ol' Bob]

Basket sellers are in competition with each other. PDGA is the sanctioning body. Both manufacturers and the PDGA have financial interests they will be looking out for. We'll see where this goes. Selling baskets is good for both.

Just a few years ago, I read up on approved disc parameters. At that time, the leading edge of the disc could be no sharper than 1/8th inch radius (obviously, this was from the mold line up, as the lower radius was usually a sharp right angle). When I saw Bosses and Katanas, I thought, "WTF?" I looked it up again and the spec for that radius had changed to 1/16th inch. The manufacturers needed some level of obsolescence to multiply sales, and PDGA obviously set that up for them. "Conspiracy theory," you say? Occam's Razor might not.

[NoLoPutts]

Well maybe it's time the PDGA lives up to the name. Professional. In other professional sports, like the ones mentioned here, basketball, golf, ect. Maybe there should be a standard. I know this sport is evolving. But give me a break. If your sport wants validation in the professional world. It need to act that way. They need to have a target standard for professional play. No if,and,or buts about it. If the corse does not have the approved baskets for that tourney. Then it should not be sanctioned. There is a reason the PGA does not hold professional tournaments at every corse.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Just a few years ago, I read up on approved disc parameters. At that time, the leading edge of the disc could be no sharper than 1/8th inch radius (obviously, this was from the mold line up, as the lower radius was usually a sharp right angle). When I saw Bosses and Katanas, I thought, "WTF?" I looked it up again and the spec for that radius had changed to 1/16th inch. The manufacturers needed some level of obsolescence to multiply sales, and PDGA obviously set that up for them.

The Rim Configuration is the ultimate determinant of how "sharp" a disc's leading edge can be and it can't fall below 26. You might be surprised that value has not changed for over 22 years. Look up the Rim Configuration value of the Eclipse and the year it was approved (far right column). http://www.pdga.com/documents/pdga-approved-discs-pdf Then compare that value of 26 with the Rim Config values for the Nuke, Valk, Boss and Katana, for example.

[Chuck Kennedy]

They need to have a target standard for professional play. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. If the course does not have the approved baskets for that tourney, then it should not be sanctioned.

Fountain Hills, on display in the online TV coverage at the Memorial, didn't even have the same basket types for all 18 holes which is a requirement, at least on paper, for NT and higher events. Hard to not sanction an event where the purse is $50,000. But then the Memorial hasn't always been held to a few other professional guidelines for many years, presumably because it's big and popular.

[jshrack]

Originally Posted by Sean Phillips

I think the baskets need to be smaller and more dense. A smaller more dense basket would catch more consistently.

The current baskets catch really well 95% of the time. When that "questionable" putt spits it's unfortunate. The catch zone of our baskets has grown over the last few decades. The new Innova disc catchers, Discraft chainstars, and DGA mach 5's all have a larger catch zone than the original mach 2's.

I can't disagree with this point...

[Wes Hansen]

Too much variation in "regulation" baskets. Everyone without questionable baskets on their private/home course agree?
I don't know why the PDGA allows such basket variation. Perhaps they are in cahoots with the target manufacturers (ha ha), but I think it's just growing pains. They could have a very specific guideline for baskets, and there would still be several manufacturers.
PDGA just needs to tighten up the specs.
Whatever is decided.. I can miss or make a putt on any basket you can point me at.
beside... unless we all use the same spec putter no basket is going to treat each of our putts the same.
Solution; One type of basket and one type of putter.
And we all need to learn to use the same style putt.

[Bullseye Disc Golf.com]

The fundamental flaw with the current basket design is the metal ring at the base of the chains. The metal ring tends to "trampoline" the disc out of the basket. This is even more evident with baskets like we have at Pier Park that have added loose chains that aren't attached at all at the bottom.

The simple solution to this is to use a ring of chain at the base to secure the bottom of the basket chains. There are a couple of baskets with this setup at Dabney (hole 8 and 17?) and it is painfully obvious that those baskets catch significantly better. I have 2 baskets of my own, one with a ring at the base and one with a chain that I attached with S hooks myself. The basket with the chain at the base catches so much better that I don't even want to practice on it because it catches better than any basket on the courses, and I don't want to get used to it.

Using a ring to secure the chains at the base probably saves $2 in the overall cost of the basket. Probably $36 for an 18 hole course. Not really worth it when players in the open division are losing $100 or more in lost payouts for putts that spit out or spit through.

A chain ring placed at the base of the vertical chains in any basket significantly makes the basket catch way better than the standard design. It creates more of an irregular motion when impacted by a disc vs the springboard effect you get with a ring at the base. This is the easiest solution and the manufacturers should just suck it up and make this the industry standard.