Chuck Kennedy wrote: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?