"NAGS" Zone

[Frank Delicious]

What would you suggest the PDGA could do to change things other than encourage manufacturers to improve the baskets? The PDGA has no design engineers nor manufacturing capability. Yes, we could set specs for an official target. But what would those be without prototyping, testing over a long period and getting manufacturer buy-in?

Make it a contest where whichever manufacturer comes up with the best re-designed basket can put "official basket of the PDGA" on all their baskets.

That thought started out as a joke but now I'm half serious.

[garublador]

What would you suggest the PDGA could do to change things other than encourage manufacturers to improve the baskets? The PDGA has no design engineers nor manufacturing capability. Yes, we could set specs for an official target. But what would those be without prototyping, testing over a long period and getting manufacturer buy-in?

I know this is totally off the wall and outside the box, but what about working with a manufacturer, making some prototypes, doing some testing and then getting manufacturer buy in? How is that worse than just ignoring the problem and doing nothing? It can't take more time than infinity, which is how long it will take to fix the problems if you never do anything. The sooner you start the sooner you'll be done.

How about rather than actual dimensions, you make the specs in terms of how the basket works. Rather than giving actual dimensions of the target, which no one actually cares about, how about you make the specs in terms of how well it catches and what shot's it rejects, which is what's actually important. If you don't want DROT's, then they should be impossible. Same goes for wedgies. Leave it up to the manufacturers as to how to do it. If you want it to catch fewer putts, force it to reject anything that doesn't hit withing a certain range of the center of the device. "All" the PDGA has to do is come up with testing standards, but if you're working with manufacturers (which you should be doing) then you'll have plenty of expertise at your hands and should be able to come to a consensus. Why would the PDGA need design engineers for that?

The other option is to accept the flaws in the current basket and stop trying to "fix" them with silly work arounds. All these DROT's (disc resting on top) don't count and wegies only count if the happen from the inside are stupid rules that should only be in place if an actual fix to those "problems" is actively being implemented. If it's fully supported by the basket when you get your disc it's in, period. Any situation where it's fully supported by the basket and it's not counted as in needs to be impossible.

[Chuck Kennedy]

There's no such thing as "working with the manufacturers." Which one do you choose without lawsuit? And there are too many to create a team. It's a capitalistic environment in a relatively small market. There's more than enough flexibility in the current specs to improve the baskets. But that involves cost to all of the manufacturers with not a great payoff. The contest idea has been discussed a few times over the years but other issues have had higher priority. Manufacturers would not be too keen on losing their existing design features and tooling if forced into a specific future model.

Players have indicated their love for chains but I doubt the ideal basket that solves the current problems would necessarily include them. I believe if a better basket could be made, it would have been done by now. But any entrepreneur looking at the DG landscape and how difficult it has been to get the funds for current baskets would calculate that the potential market is not large enough to produce sufficient payoff for that level of innovation and financial commitment over maybe 10 years. It might take years to overturn the existing standards where there would be great resistence in changing them quickly if ever.

Don't think the idea hasn't crossed many minds in the manufacturer and DG mover and shaker world. But figuring out how to pull it off is the devil in the details.

[Dig It]

Some shit Chuck said about junk.

Congratulations on making it into the Hall of Fame in Minn. Chuck. Pretty sure that was you that I read got in in the latest magazine.

Sorry for the levity, back to the great discourse.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Thanks. You copied my original post so fast I couldn't finish the edits!

[Dig It]

Thanks. You copied my original post so fast I couldn't finish the edits!

I got you covered, brah.

[garublador]

There's no such thing as "working with the manufacturers." Which one do you choose without lawsuit? And there are too many to create a team. It's a capitalistic environment in a relatively small market. There's more than enough flexibility in the current specs to improve the baskets. But that involves cost to all of the manufacturers with not a great payoff. The contest idea has been discussed a few times over the years but other issues have had higher priority. Manufacturers would not be too keen on losing their existing design features and tooling if forced into a specific future model.

Players have indicated their love for chains but I doubt the ideal basket that solves the current problems would necessarily include them. I believe if a better basket could be made, it would have been done by now. But any entrepreneur looking at the DG landscape and how difficult it has been to get the funds for current baskets would calcualte that the potential market is not large enough to produce sufficient payoff for that level of innovation and financial commitment. It might take years to overturn the existing standards where there would be great resistence in changing them quickly if ever.

Don't think the idea hasn't crossed many minds in the manufacturer and DG mover and shaker world. But figuring out how to pull it off is the devil in the details.

The computer, music and movie industries have all had no problems coming up with new standards. USB was developed by seven different companies all working together. HDMI is the same way. Sony worked with two other companies to come up with Blu-Ray. There are dozens of other standards that came about from collaborations of various companies. Is it really hard to find one to use as a model for a tech standards group for disc golf? The industry is one of the most successful industries to come out of the 20th century so they must have been doing something right. Saying that you can't work with manufacturers just shows how bad of a job the PDGA is really doing. It's very obvious that it's possible. It's just that they aren't smart enough to do it.

Either way, all of the arguments you're making are pointing to the idea that the PDGA does not want to make new standards. If you actually read my posts and understand them you'd see that that's a perfectly intelligent option as long as you don't make up a bunch of stupid rules to make up for areas in which the tech standards lack. If it's a problem, fix the problem. If it's not then work arounds are unecessary. What's so hard to figure out about that?

"The devil in the details" is corporate speak for "we're too lazy or dumb to figure it out." The most successful companies of the last 50 years have all figured out the details. How many times do you think people told Steve Jobs that they couldn't do something because of "the devil in the details" and didn't end up cleaning out their desk within 5 minutes?

[Working Stiff]

Working Stiff - Are the courses just tight, or are they significantly shorter as well?

Definitely not shorter, at least the ones Open will play. But I think the pros are referring to the bends and doglegs on the wooded holes that don't allow them to throw longer and thus they are "old man" holes.

So basically some players like NAGS zones because they want to just "bomb's away" at stuff, and others want challenging placement over pure distance. So are you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, or do you think there is a balance that can make most happy (or everybody mad, which can be the same thing.)

[Chuck Kennedy]

@ garublador
The bottom line is that no one who could do something about it feels it's worth the effort apparently based on their analysis. Otherwise, someone would have done something already. It's not a failing of the PDGA or the manufacturers. In fact, they all see themselves as trying to prioritize and make the correct decisions by doing other activities primarily for financial reasons.
Example: Innova changing the format of the USDGC primarily for financial reasons.
Example: PDGA not eliminating payout for amateurs and going all player packs and trophy only - for financial reasons to keep members happy

Some couch-riding critics deride these choices as not good for the sport. But then they don't suffer the consequences of poor decisions. I'm one of the people who have thought about a design contest and could do something about it. But I've got other things to work on of greater interest. There's nothing magic about doing it. If you think the basket idea is worth pursuing, there are more fingers pointing at you when you point your finger at others.

[Kscustom]

There's no such thing as "working with the manufacturers." Which one do you choose without lawsuit? And there are too many to create a team. It's a capitalistic environment in a relatively small market. There's more than enough flexibility in the current specs to improve the baskets. But that involves cost to all of the manufacturers with not a great payoff. The contest idea has been discussed a few times over the years but other issues have had higher priority. Manufacturers would not be too keen on losing their existing design features and tooling if forced into a specific future model.

Players have indicated their love for chains but I doubt the ideal basket that solves the current problems would necessarily include them. I believe if a better basket could be made, it would have been done by now. But any entrepreneur looking at the DG landscape and how difficult it has been to get the funds for current baskets would calcualte that the potential market is not large enough to produce sufficient payoff for that level of innovation and financial commitment. It might take years to overturn the existing standards where there would be great resistence in changing them quickly if ever.

Don't think the idea hasn't crossed many minds in the manufacturer and DG mover and shaker world. But figuring out how to pull it off is the devil in the details.

The computer, music and movie industries have all had no problems coming up with new standards. USB was developed by seven different companies all working together. HDMI is the same way. Sony worked with two other companies to come up with Blu-Ray. There are dozens of other standards that came about from collaborations of various companies. Is it really hard to find one to use as a model for a tech standards group for disc golf? The industry is one of the most successful industries to come out of the 20th century so they must have been doing something right. Saying that you can't work with manufacturers just shows how bad of a job the PDGA is really doing. It's very obvious that it's possible. It's just that they aren't smart enough to do it.

Either way, all of the arguments you're making are pointing to the idea that the PDGA does not want to make new standards. If you actually read my posts and understand them you'd see that that's a perfectly intelligent option as long as you don't make up a bunch of stupid rules to make up for areas in which the tech standards lack. If it's a problem, fix the problem. If it's not then work arounds are unecessary. What's so hard to figure out about that?

"The devil in the details" is corporate speak for "we're too lazy or dumb to figure it out." The most successful companies of the last 50 years have all figured out the details. How many times do you think people told Steve Jobs that they couldn't do something because of "the devil in the details" and didn't end up cleaning out their desk within 5 minutes?

If you feel so negatively about the Pdga then run to be put on the board. Become a state coordinator get involved otherwise you are blowing smoke and not really trying to fix what you see as issues.
Chucks right if I spend 4-5 g's on a new course this summer and the baskets change in the fall it's going to be awhile till I could change them out, If ever. And I am talking about me myself spending the money to put in a course. We have homemade baskets becuase our town is quite small and a local company makes em for us. You complain about standard baskets you should come to norton KS and see how you like ours. They a little shorter from basket to top and our chains are 2x as heavy. The worst part is I want to run a sanctioned event and can't. So I might come with money to replace our baskets with new ones. Doing something for the sport at the local level.

Heavier chains create more soft putts to spit. That would be a cheaper alterintive to a new design entirely.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Do you know that your baskets would fail a PDGA spec if submitted? Otherwise, you can submit a basket for testing and approval for $350 and your baskets and course would become PDGA legal.

[Kscustom]

Ya I know I can do that. Just have not decied to do it yet I know it would be cheaper, but then I still won't like em any better

[Itchy]

Kscustom: Get the locals together and form a league, then go after grant money. Spend other people's money; not your own. I just put in 9 holes 3 weeks ago. The city loves it so much the mayor called me in for a meeting and wants to give me $8k for a back nine.

Cities collect development fees whenever somebody in town constructs a building... a store, restaurant, housing development, etc. A portion of that goes toward, "small park improvements." I read that to say, "put disc golf baskets on every other acre of park land you can find."

Work smartly, not hardly.

[Pwingles]

For things to look simple on the surface many times requires a lot of complications behind the scenes to make it look simple.

This doesnt really make any sense in the context of our conversation... I was arguing that it was a simple fix to a problem that you were making complicated by giving me stats and figures about how good people are X percent of the time. None of that matters.
If the hole is too easy, make it harder if you want scores higher.

If youre concerned about NAGS, change the hole.

If you want pros scores to not look like golf is too easy, change the pars. All these things seem easy to fix (although im not sure they all need "fixing")

As far as baskets go, id like to see specs that manufacturers have to operate within. Maybe the older models, previously made and installed baskets can be grandfathered in until they are replaced. Everything made moving forward would be made within the tolerances given to the people making targets if they want to be PDGA Approved targets. They dont have to be approved to be sold, but them knowing PDGA (assuming PDGA would take this stance) wont let a sanctioned event be run there may sway them into not making it, or a course designer from not buying it.

Is there really that much political BS and other crap going on in the PDGA inner workings that stuff like this cant be reasonably talked out and solved? We keep hearing about these more pressing issues that are getting these other things put on the back burner, care to share?

[Chuck Kennedy]

It's apparent you don't get it regarding making holes tougher so we'll just leave it at that.

Regarding baskets, it's simply priorities. Changing the basket has way more downside for little in return either for the PDGA or a manufacturer to spend time and money. We still can't get foot faults and falling putt issues resolved in the rules after many years. The only way I see a better basket forced into the market would be if a big time sponsor pumped a few $100K into an NT tour and dictated that this new basket had to be used. Likelihood of this happening... what do you think?