Patent Law and Disc Golf
Cyber...@aol.com
In a message dated 8/30/98 8:43:47 PM, Kenneth Boucher wrote:
Why do the main promoters of the sport (the PDGA) recommend using a product
that is patented by a single individual? Is it ethical for them to do so?
...and...
I will not host a PDGA event.
Kenneth D. Boucher
PDGA # 13444
PDGA Offical who will no
longer serve as one.
Kenneth,
You may have a misunderstanding of the process of PDGA approval. PDGA
technical standards for Disc-catching targets are not as limited as you
suggest. Currently there are several devices that have been approved. Five
are made by DGA. However, the DISCatcher by Innova-Champion and the Stroke
Saver by Wilchek and Bertrand are also on the approval list.
Specifically in the Cabin Creek situation, PDGA was asked to evaluate the
baskets on that course and did in fact give them a technical approval for use
in competitive play prior to Worlds. As in the area of disc approval, the
PDGA evaluation of catching devices relates only to the technical
specifications of the device, not its legal history or status.
It is interesting to note that in our recent membership survey of 1100
players, more members voted for narrowing the standards for catching devices
(46%) versus broadening them (31%).
Stork
WynTastr
>It is interesting to note that in our recent membership survey of 1100
>players, more members voted for narrowing the standards for catching devices
>(46%) versus broadening them (31%).
>
>Stork
I have to agree with the effort to narrow the standards for catching devices.
In any other sport where the object is to throw, kick, shoot, place etc. an
object into, through, over, under, etc. a certain target (goal, basket, cup
etc.) the target in question are all the same. I don't think that the cups at
the Masters are any different in size or shape than they are at the British
Open. Do you think that the baskets in Orlando arena are bigger or smaller
than those at Madison Square Garden? Perhaps the goal posts at Texas Stadium
are round and those at 3com Park are square; I think not. So why shoul the
pole holes at one disc golf course be any different than at another. There is
no way that a Discatcher is the same as a Mach III when it comes to catching a
disc, never mind the appearance of the two. Throw in the old Mach I's and II's
that are still being used and you can see the discrepancy. If disc golf is to
be pushed to the forefront of athletic competition (which it should be,
someday), then some sort of standardization shoul be implemented here.
Just my 2 cents,
Jon Leal
pdga# 11996
Dr Fred C
>
>In any other sport where the object is to throw, kick, shoot, place etc. an
>object into, through, over, under, etc. a certain target (goal, basket, cup
>etc.) the target in question are all the same. I don't think that the cups
>at
>the Masters are any different in size or shape than they are at the British
>Open. Do you think that the baskets in Orlando arena are bigger or smaller
>than those at Madison Square Garden?
You are missing what is the defining point of disc pole targets -- the basket.
Yes, it should be standardized. However, the deflection device can and should
be opened up to the creativity of the marketplace. It is the shape of the
deflection device, not the basket that largely determines the shape of the
putting green in disc golf.
When you go to a golf course, how many of the putting greens are circles with
the pin in the middle? NONE! ZERO! ZIP! They all have the same size hole,
But each putting green is different and there are many pin locations that
change the challenge of the hole from day to day or week to week. This
variety creates lots of additional interest as well as challenge to the game of
golf. DG suffers because it doesn't offer similar options to its putting
greens.
Standardize the baskets, yes, Standardize the deflection devices --
emphatically NO!
Always, Fred Chittenden
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/homestead/sports/hiker.htm
Here in Minnesota
Stadium
are round and those at 3com Park are square; I think not. So why shoul the
pole holes at one disc golf course be any different than at another."
1. You forgot about baseball; the feet to the home run fence and height of
the fence varies at each field.
2. One of the thing I always liked about disc sports was that we were free
to be different. It doesn't matter what other sports do or not do.
3. Financially it's not practical to upgrade when the newest standard comes
around. The other choice would be is to keep the best we have now (if we
could ever agree on that) as the standard forever.
4. I think that variety is part of the game. At my local courses we have
different tee pads and different pin places for each hole. This is
considered good. If we have different baskets it is considered bad.
5. At the tourney this week end we played on 42 different baskets, about 80%
of them Mach IIIs. I noticed that every putt that was missed on a non-Mach
III basket they blamed the basket. I also noticed there was about the same
number of missed putts on each basket. I guess if all baskets were identical
we'll have to find a new excuse.
Just my 10¢ worth, I doubt if we all will ever agree.
Dr Fred C
around. The other choice would be is to keep the best we have now (if we could
ever agree on that) as the standard forever.>>
Bunk. Successful Golf courses reqularly tear up their fairways and greens to
upgrade to new challenges to keep golfers interest. Keeping the standard we
now have is as silly as the standard itself.
4. I think that variety is part of the game. At my local courses we have
different tee pads and different pin places for each hole. This is considered
good. If we have different baskets it is considered bad. >>
Is it bad because the baskets are different? Or is it because you haven't
developed the skills and techniques necessary to recognize and adapt to all
possible challenges of the deflection device attached to each basket?
5. At the tourney this week end we played on 42 different baskets, about 80% of
them Mach IIIs. I noticed that every putt that was missed on a non-Mach III
basket they blamed the basket. I also noticed there was about the same
number of missed putts on each basket. I guess if all baskets were identical
we'll have to find a new excuse. <<
Ball golfers are always commenting on the variability of putting greens and
pin placement. I suppose that if the PGA demanded that all ball golf courses
had to have flat circular greens with the pin in the middle to be PGA
certified, there would still be complaints about differences in greens.
However, you'd probably also find ball golf to be a much less popular game.
This would probably continue for a few weeks (or seconds) before some wise
soul at the PGA would come forward and say, "hey, let's open up the definition
of putting greens to allow for more variety and challenge for the golfers."
How long it will take someone at the PDGA leadership to come up with the same
wisdom for disc baskets and their deflection devices is anyone's guess. It is
well beyond ten years and counting...
The 'greedy Ed' fiasco at the recent Worlds will only continue until the PDGA
recognizes it can and should eliminate the problem by standardizing the basket
size and opening up the definition for deflection devices to a wide variety of
creative options.
Aaron C.
>the fence varies at each field.
I think a better analogy might be ball golf; they use different types of
grass on the greens in different parts of the country. Sure some golfers
like Bermuda and some like Bent, but it just adds to the quirkiness of the
sport. I certainly have no love for the Discatcher, but if I'm playing
such a course, I grin and bear it.
Aaron Craig
Retired from Ultimate, 8-30-98
--
JRHouck
>>>3. Financially it's not practical to upgrade when the newest standard comes
>around. The other choice would be is to keep the best we have now (if we
>could
>ever agree on that) as the standard forever.>>
>
drf...@aol.com (Dr Fred C) writes:
> Bunk. Successful Golf courses reqularly tear up their fairways and greens
>to
>upgrade to new challenges to keep golfers interest. Keeping the standard we
>now have is as silly as the standard itself.
Successful Golf courses bring in millions of dollars in annual greens fees and
sales.
John
Here in Minnesota
drf...@aol.com (Dr Fred C) writes:
Bunk. Successful Golf courses reqularly tear up their fairways and greens
to upgrade to new challenges to keep golfers interest.
I think what you meant to say was: Bunk. Successful ball golf courses
regularly charge high green fees to be able to tear up their fairways and
greens to upgrade to new challenges to keep ball golfers interest.
Rob
mind expanding on this please?
Dr Fred C wrote:
> In article <6t3fb9$qp6$1...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, ab...@morpheus.cis.yale.edu (Aaron
> C.) writes:
>
> > Sure some golfers like Bermuda and some like Bent <<
>
> True. I have bent grass on the greens at my house. Bermuda doesn't grow this
> far north. I can really change the nature of the green action with the
> directions I mow, how many cuts I make and how often I mow. One learns to
> adjust to the conditions of the day or your game fall apart...
Dr Fred C
Dr Fred C
<trump...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Successful ball golf courses
>regularly charge high green fees to be able to tear up their fairways and
>greens to upgrade to new challenges to keep ball golfers interest.
>
You are missing various points. Ball golf also have lots of people playing the
game (and willing to pay money to do so) because of the wide variety of
changing challenges ball golf courses offers. There are designs for disc
golf targets that would permit a wide variety of putting green challenges to be
offered at minimal cost and effort in DG. It merely requires changing the
rules for targets to allow for a wide variety of deflection devices to a
standardized basket. Then let the marketplace take the DG sport where it may
go instead of mandating that the sport stay stuck focused on a circular
putting green with the pin located in the middle of the green. Ball golf would
not have the interest or support if the PGA mandated the same for its putting
greens and pin placements.
WynTastr
>go instead of mandating that the sport stay stuck focused on a circular
>putting green with the pin located in the middle of the green.
I think you're missing the point when you compare standardizing pole holes with
standardizing ball golf greens. Ball golf greens are different shapes and
sizes with different types of grass, sure, but the TARGET (i.e. the cup) is the
same no matter where you go. Disc golf also has "greens" that vary in
topography and size and shape. Varying pin placements allow for diversity in
putting (stance, obstacles, etc.) Why should the TARGET (i.e. pole hole) be
different at varying courses?
I detect an underlying reason why the good doctor is vehemently defending the
practice of having differing deflection devices. Am I correct?
Jon Leal
WynTastr
>the fence varies at each field.
You forget that baseball differs from other sports involving a ball (or disc or
whatever is used in play) wherein the player scores rather than the ball. And
last time I checked the basepaths are of the same dimensions in all parks.
Don't even bring up the difference between natural grass and artificial turf,
either!
Jon Leal
Dr Fred C
writes:
>Whoa, whoa, hold on a second. You have bent grass greens at your house? Would
>you
>mind expanding on this please?
>
>
>
>Dr Fred C wrote:
>
>> In article <6t3fb9$qp6$1...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, ab...@morpheus.cis.yale.edu
>(Aaron
>> C.) writes:
>>
>> > Sure some golfers like Bermuda and some like Bent <<
>>
>> True. I have bent grass on the greens at my house. Bermuda doesn't grow
>this
>> far north. I can really change the nature of the green action with the
>> directions I mow, how many cuts I make and how often I mow. One learns to
>> adjust to the conditions of the day or your game fall apart...
>>
I live on 5 acres in WA on top of a ridge overlooking the Olympics to the west
and Cascades to the east in a semi-rural setting. I have both a 9 hole 18 tee
DG course (with directional baskets and up to a 80 ft vertical drop on some
fairways) and a 4 bent grass green ball golf course (with two sand traps and
about 18 different tee locations).
On the ball golf course, I typically use tennis balls instead of golf balls
because you can only hit a tennis ball about 130 ft with a 3 wood. My kids call
this 'fuzzy golf'. This makes for several par 5s and par 4s in a small area.
I can play 9 holes of 'fuzzy golf' in about 20 minutes before or after work. I
optionally use a regular golf ball for chipping and putting on the greens. The
greens have to be mowed with a greens mower two times a week (or more) during
the growing season (20 minutes of productive treadmill like exercise). The
fairways take about 30 minutes once a week on the rider. I change the pin
location about 4 times a year. Honey dew list permiting, I plan on digging in
another sand trap this fall (pick & shovel work).
The DG course takes about zip maintenance other than mowing with the rider as
part of mowing the fuzzy golf course. I spin the targets around once and a
while to change the challenge. Twice a year, I switch the targets between each
other. They are all a bit different from each other.
Dr Fred C
(WynTastr) writes:
>I detect an underlying reason why the good doctor is vehemently defending the
>practice of having differing deflection devices. Am I correct?
Correct, I would like to see DG expand beyond its constipated pole hole
target definitions and move beyond the problems related to 'Greedy Ed' to offer
the sport more versatility and challenge rather than rules that basically are
written to protect Ed's pole hole patents.
The target is composed of a deflection device and a basket. The shape of the
deflection device is really not as essential part of the entrapment device.
After all, DG could use garbage cans as baskets. It would be difficult without
some sort of deflection device, but it could be done. What the deflection
device does is define the 'terraine' of the air and pathway for the disc around
the entrapping basket into the basket. As such, the deflection device can
creates as much or more of the shape of the putting green in DG as the terraine
surrounding the pole. The only thing that limits this from happening at this
point is the very narrow and uncreative definition of the deflection device
that the PDGA uses.
As a final note, I have developed and used such a target and it works quite
well. I am working on getting such a target put in a local DG course. Who cares
if the PDGA won't put its seal on it. DGfers will like (or hate it) as they do
any course that provides additional or unusual challenge.
Beyond that, I'd like to see the PDGA evolve away from its narrow definition
of a basket target to allow for a wide variety of deflection devices to a
standardized basket. As such, DG would become quite a different and more
versatile sport.
Consider for a moment a DG tournament where the targets used (and therefore
the green shapes) are offered and selected by various players in the
tournament. Players who have more creativity than throwing skills could have
some satisfaction in creating and contributing their target(s) and putting
greens to the tournament play. Try that in ball golf...
Larry D. Hols
I believe that issue is simply one of whether we want to limit ourselves to
the pole hole-type target or expand the challenges in the game to include
other typres, of targets. This is a fundamental question.
Being a recreational golfer, I think a wider range of targets would be
beneficial to the growth of the sport.
Being interested in developing the sport, I can see that a standardization of
sorts may be necessary in marketing the idea of building a course to PARDs
(they want "real" courses, or course, and they should look like that nice
course the next town over.)
I would imagine that the folks building the pro tour would want standard
championship targets.
Why don't we decide on a style of target for championship use, and relax the
standards for everything else? I know that when I agitate to get a new course
put in--and I'm planning on that soon--I'm not concerned with it being a
suitable course for a pro tournament, so a mix of targets would be fine with
me. The place hosting World's, on the other hand, would probably want
straight pole holes.
Larry
Dr Fred C
<pcw...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu> writes:
> would imagine that the folks building the pro tour would want standard
>championship targets.
>
>Why don't we decide on a style of target for championship use, and relax the
>standards for everything else? I know that when I agitate to get a new
>course
>put in--and I'm planning on that soon--I'm not concerned with it being a
>suitable course for a pro tournament, so a mix of targets would be fine with
>me. The place hosting World's, on the other hand, would probably want
>straight pole holes.
There really is no crying need for the pros to have different standards for
targets than recreational players. What is needed to achieve your goal is a
standard basket size and leave the deflection design up to the creativity and
esthetical considerations of course developers, operators, players and the
marketplace.
BTW, I have experimented with varying tensions of deflection devices. Higher
tensions tend to be more difficult and could be considered roughly analogous to
how ball golf putting greens are cut close and rolled flat for the pros. Same
putting green, but much more difficult to hole out. Same disc golf deflection
target, but more difficult to hole out. I'm not sure DG is ready for such a
change but I've been there and done that -- it can be done.
Dennis Moore
Some of this thread talks about the 'green' being uniform with a pole
hole. At some courses this is not much of a problem. They place
the hole on sloping terrain, or use bushes or trees to limit or provide
challenging access to the target. In my mind it becomes a bit of a
puzzle to be solved for finding the best approach. And on some of
the best designed holes the best approach depends on your particular
game. On some holes a golfer with a long drive can use that distance
to approach the hole from a clear angle. Another golfer with less
distance may have to use a more challenging route, but with a fine
approach game be able to par out the hole consistently nonetheless.
Holes I don't much like, and it seems neither do most of my golfer
buddies, are wide open, long holes where the only challenge is
how far can you chunk plastic in more or less the right direction.
It seems to me that wide open course are those that might most
benefit from directional targets. Creatively done, such directional
targets could provide a 'positional' type of challenge that make
the game of more interest to many golfers.
I am apparently very much in the minority regarding mandos.
I think well considered mandatories can turn otherwise boring,
wide open holes into something of more challenge and interest.
But from what I can tell most golfers hate mandos. My own
feeling is that anything that de-emphasizes pure ability to throw
long and puts more challenge into approach and putting increase
the interest in the game. I have seen this over done. I am particularly
thinking of the Brahan Springs course in Brahan Springs park in
Huntsville, Alabama. It is nothing but trees with 10 to 15 feet being
the max distance between them. This seems impossible to play well.
I have only played it a couple of times, and maybe people who play
it often also manage the challenge of it and enjoy it. As a friend of
mine said about a similar course "it was described as tight and chall-
enging, but I would call it so tight that it was stupid." So obviously
there is a balance between how many obstacles and of what type
make a course an interesting challenge rather than a ridiculous one.
I do think directional targets are one more option to make courses
more interesting.
And interesting courses to play have got to be good for the game.
Just my 2 cents,
Dennis
Larry D. Hols
Dennis Moore wrote:
>
> Regarding directional targets I have a few thoughts.
>
> Holes I don't much like, and it seems neither do most of my golfer
> buddies, are wide open, long holes where the only challenge is
> how far can you chunk plastic in more or less the right direction.
> It seems to me that wide open course are those that might most
> benefit from directional targets. Creatively done, such directional
> targets could provide a 'positional' type of challenge that make
> the game of more interest to many golfers.
I've played several courses where directional targets would have made some
holes more interesting. I, too, decry holes wherein the difficulty arise only
in the distance the plastic is heaved.
> I am apparently very much in the minority regarding mandos.
> I think well considered mandatories can turn otherwise boring,
> wide open holes into something of more challenge and interest.
> But from what I can tell most golfers hate mandos. My own
I dislike mandos simply because they get abused so much. One course I've
thrown, if played with all of the mandos originally designed, would simply be
an exercise in stupidity. Without gross abuse, however, mandos are an
excellent tool for shaping fairways.
> feeling is that anything that de-emphasizes pure ability to throw
> long and puts more challenge into approach and putting increase
> the interest in the game. I have seen this over done. I am particularly
> thinking of the Brahan Springs course in Brahan Springs park in
> Huntsville, Alabama. It is nothing but trees with 10 to 15 feet being
> the max distance between them. This seems impossible to play well.
> I have only played it a couple of times, and maybe people who play
> it often also manage the challenge of it and enjoy it. As a friend of
> mine said about a similar course "it was described as tight and chall-
> enging, but I would call it so tight that it was stupid." So obviously
Lived in Huntsville. Played Brahan Springs. So tight it was stupid.
Redstone Arsenal's course the best in town.
Larry
Dr Fred C
<dennis...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Some of this thread talks about the 'green' being uniform with a pole
>hole. At some courses this is not much of a problem. They place
>the hole on sloping terrain, or use bushes or trees to limit or provide
>challenging access to the target. <<
Sloped DG greens are vaguely equivalent to a ball course putting green that is
on a constant slope. However, unlike a ball putting greens when the optimal
path is curved by the putting green, with the current uniform deflection
designs for pole holes there is always a good straightline approach to the
deflection part of the target.
Reasonable directional deflection designs exist that add additional complexity
to putting to the target. Under such targets, like ball golf, the optimal path
to the target involves a curved path which requires significant additional
skill. As with ball golf putting, with directional targets, there are
significant additional components and challenges to putting that include, but
are not limited to how heavy of a disc to fly to the target, how hard to throw
it, right or left handed, what angle, etc, etc.
Consider for a moment how many light discs you (or the average player) carry?
None? Can you fly any of your heavy discs around a corner at close range?
Probably not. Could you fly lighter plastic around such an obstacle? Probably
yes. Putting to directional targets would be an additional skill to DG, just as
putting and chipping around two or three tiered greens is a huge part of ball
golf. Directional targets would also open up other options in disc putting
technology, wieghting, shapes and sizes, etc.
>It seems to me that wide open course are those that might most
>benefit from directional targets. Creatively done, such directional
>targets could provide a 'positional' type of challenge that make
>the game of more interest to many golfers. <<
Bingo.
Dennis Moore
Interesting you should mention the lighter discs. To me something is
just inherently interesting about how lighter discs fly. They do more
than get heaved for max straight-line flight distance. I do keep some
less than 150 gram midranges for just this reason. And on some
holes with good obstacles to finishing the hole, these are what I
turn to for curving flight through tight places.
I even would like to see the PDGA outlaw discs heavier than 150
grams myself. I guess this would be too draconian a solution.
I wish more tourneys had 150 gram classes to play in myself.
But of course nothing prevents me from playing with the lighter
discs only. Just gets a little bothersome to limit yourself and
then get beaten by your buddies playing heavier discs. I doubt
the "distance" genie of big heavy discs can be put back in the
bottle.
Keep hittin' the chains,
Dennis
CK34
was Japan's insistence to create a lighter disc class to improve safety in
their crowded parks that was a key factor leading to the 150 class. In
retrospect, the minimum edge sharpness also should probably have been reduced
(to Cobra equivalent) at that time so this class would have had even more
unique flight characteristics compared to heavy plastic.
Chuck Kennedy
Here in Minnesota
Fred Chittenden
Good idea but you get alot less players. We tried 150 class tourneys and get
half the players or less than regular tourneys (200 class). There was a
tourney here in Minnesota which dated back to the 70's where there was one
game high performance, one game 150 class, and one game vintage. They had to
give it up; it's hard to get the new players to throw vintage even for one
game.
Dr Fred C
<dennis...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>I even would like to see the PDGA outlaw discs heavier than 150
>grams myself. I guess this would be too draconian a solution. <<
As long as there is no clear need for the flight characteristics of lighter
plastic to reach the target, there isn't likely to be much use as for light
plastic in DG. I guess the disc makers are happy selling heavy discs and don't
see any advantage to moving the PDGA to modify the sport slightly (by allowing
directional targets) to create a reasonable market for light plastic as well as
heavy plastic among players. IMO, it is a strange piece of business logic to
support rules that limit your product variety and sales but then DG is a
strange bird.
I recall a few years ago, when Doug Newland passed away (see Hall of Fame),
the local players in Seattle held a light plastic tournament in his honor. The
disc had to float. While most people used Whammos, I had a light Aviar that I
use for backpacking. It was fun. Perhaps there could be room for an alternate
event with light plastic? Perhaps the 'Masters' and up could have
progressively lighter wieght limits? Whatever...
One might also consider a limit on the wieght of discs carried. Disc and
disc weight selection (what goes in your bag) would then become very critical
and highly dependent upon wind and course conditions. It would be quite
interesting if there were a max wieght limit for total plastic carried of
something like 1000 gr. Players would have to opt for five 175s, or six mixed
heavy and middle wieghts discs. Or some multiple of this...
On directional targets, there are some putts and chips (such as over and
back) that can only be done with true light plastic, but this only really comes
into play with some (but not all) forms of directional targets. I have
designed targets with "traps" where one is blocked out from one quarter side,
but you can still get in with an 'over and back' putt or by other light wieght
around the corner techniques -- roughly equivalent to being in a sand trap
where the chances of sinking the putt are limited but a great thrill when it
happens. I have noted that it really takes some practice to be able to move
freely from heavy to light plastic upon situational demand.
Personally, while I can throw heavier discs just fine, I also like the discs
in the 150 -- 165 range. One small reality is that at age 48, my elbow doesn't
hurt with the lighter plastic after a long round or two.
In our silly society, I suppose the PDGA will only change the weight limit
after someone really gets hurt with a heavier disc and sues the PDGA for
allowing such bricks to be thrown. The reality is that DG discs are not only
thrown on DG courses. It is probably only a matter of time...
TBranch773
>I even would like to see the PDGA outlaw discs heavier than 150
>grams myself. I guess this would be too draconian a solution.
>I wish more tourneys had 150 gram classes to play in myself.
>But of course nothing prevents me from playing with the lighter
>discs only. Just gets a little bothersome to limit yourself and
>then get beaten by your buddies playing heavier discs. I doubt
>the "distance" genie of big heavy discs can be put back in the
>bottle.
I know of many people who claim that they can throw a lighter disc further than
it's heavier counterpart.... I always thought that the lure of heavy plastic
was to combat the wind more effectively.
-Tbran...@aol.com
PDGA - 11795
Ann Arbor, MI
Dr Fred C
(CK34) writes:
>Visit or move to Japan where 150gm class is the norm rather than exception.
>It was Japan's insistence to create a lighter disc class to improve safety in
>their crowded parks that was a key factor leading to the 150 class.
Are there DG courses in Japan that are in mixed use areas? (ie with other
people walking through the DG course or with the DG course wandering through a
public park?) It might be of value to post a similar weight limit on mixed
used DG courses in the US to allow for more DG courses.
CK34
pay4play and there are park supervisors who can enforce the disc weight/type
rules. It would be difficult to do it here unless course was pay4play. But, I'm
not sure course would be sufficiently popular to make it economically. I've
heard of some church camp courses, typically with object targets, that restrict
discs to Vintage class.
Chuck Kennedy
Patrick Paratore
circumstances of "regular" play. I always carry a 150 class whippet and
viper in my bag. The 150 whippet has excellent distance with a
tail/crosswind. I would NEVER attempt to throw a light disc into a
strong wind!
If you learn how to throw the lighter plastic properly, you can get
extra distance. You must be able to guage the wind and know the disc
well. How so? Since the disc is lighter, throwing hard may turn it over,
due to the high rotation overcoming the natural overstable tendency.
Ideally, you can snap it hard with alot of hyzer on the release. It will
fly out and turn over to fly flat. As the rotation slows, the disc will
return to the overstable condition and fall to the left. Done properly,
this makes an excellent helix shot for long distance with a tail/cross
wind. That is how, in the right wind condition, I can outdrive my 165g
whippet with my 150g whippet.
Did I say I was using a Whippet as a distance driver???? You bet! Almost
every time, unless I need a fade to the right. Then it's Cheetah all the
way ...
Patrick Paratore
High Five Disc Golf
Houston Flying Disc Society
Thomas F. Monroe
a 150 Worlds. Those weights are actually selling around the country.
Most D/G instructors know that the 150 class is the best for kids and
beginners. There is a prevailing macho school of thought that heavy is
better. Lots of these boys are "chunking" the disc, not "throwing"
Rhett Stroh
Um, Japan is _way_ overcrowded the whole country through. Open spaces
dedicated to disc golf only are too much to ask in a country that packed.
Oh, and a great way to regulate that 150g weight class there and here is
to rip out the baskets and take away the course if people disregard the
150g rule. Not exactly what us golfers want, but a politician will jump
at chance to bring up his/her "public safety record" come re-election time.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Rhett Stroh "Fight, Win, Prevail!" |
| rh...@inetworld.net |
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry D. Hols
This is the same attitude that leads to the "longer is better" mindset. That
leads to the sort of vandalism I just witnessed here in Lawrence. Guy wanted
to just heave as far as he could, and aiming would impeded that, so he just
trimmed those ole trees that could block a long, unaimed shot.
Larry
chip wells & jenny mcfarlane
> (WynTastr) writes:
>
> >I detect an underlying reason why the good doctor is vehemently defending the
> >practice of having differing deflection devices. Am I correct?
> Dr Fred C wrote:
> Correct, I would like to see DG expand beyond its constipated pole hole
> target definitions and move beyond the problems related to 'Greedy Ed' to offer
> the sport more versatility and challenge rather than rules that basically are
> written to protect Ed's pole hole patents.
<snip>
>As a final note, I have developed and used such a target and it works quite
> well. I am working on getting such a target put in a local DG course. Who cares
> if the PDGA won't put its seal on it. DGfers will like (or hate it) as they do
> any course that provides additional or unusual challenge.
Do you plan to, or have you already, secured a patent for your
innovation?
Dr Fred C
I have contacted a patent attorney on this matter. Which is about all I can
say about it at this point. It may or may not be patentable, or worth
patenting. Trademarks are another modest issue.
Regardless of whether the design and concept are patentable, the problem for
spreading the design through the DG community will remain so long as the PDGA
adheres to its highly limited and narrow symetical definition for deflection
devices to basket targets. The PDGA could change this rule tonight, and Ed,
Innova and others could quickly come out with assymtrical 'upgrades' to
existing DPHs.
Why Ed and Innova have not pushed for opening up the rules for their own
marketing and product endeavors is beyond me. If Ed has 200 odd courses that
he could offer an assymetrical upgrade kit and make .... Let's see, at $20 per
hole, that would be about 200 *18 * 20 = $72,000 (minus expenses). Ditto for
Innova and others. Some may say that Ed is greedy, from this perspective, one
might come to an different conclusion.
As an aside... In my industry of Dentistry, thankfully there are no such
silly rules about copying how I do a filling, crown or denture. If I have a
better idea for how to do a filling, I don't have to go to some silly rule
committee of the ADA to get approval for doing it. I just do it. There are no
silly rules in the ADA about how I must do fillings. If what I do is equal to
or of greater quality than the 'community' standards I can do it. I can
publish an article to share the technique with everyone else and get little
more that praise from fellow dentists for sharing the idea.
From this perspective, the problem in DG is not so much Ed, who I have met
and worked briefly with many years ago on testing disc designs. In fact, as I
recall it was me who noted to him that his soft discs would make good putters.
I also tested a curious early prototype design of his for a disc that I found
flew straight in heavy wind, in spite of its high profile. Ed said the mold
broke soon afterwards and dropped the design...
The problem in DG lies with the PDGA, which should get out of the way of the
DG marketplace by opening up the rules so that the PDGA doesn't impede the
natural progress of the sport. After all, the PDGA didn't sit down and come
up with rules that limited disc rim designs to Whammo type discs. Why should
the PDGA be so restrictive that it requires symetical deflection designs for DG
basket targets?
JRHouck
(Dr Fred C) writes:
>The problem in DG lies with the PDGA, which should get out of the way of the
>DG marketplace by opening up the rules so that the PDGA doesn't impede the
>natural progress of the sport.
Anyone who wants to put in a course, including a parks department, can put up
any kind of target they want. Some have put in Tube Tones. Some have put in
other "objects." The PDGA has no influence there.
The only reason the parks department would need to use a PDGA-approved basket
is if they want to host a major PDGA event, and normally that is not a parks
department's main concern. But even if that is their hope, they can host a
PDGA X-Tier event, which were specifically created to ENCOURAGE experimentation
in event formats, rules, and targets.
The bottom line is that the PDGA is
a) not as powerful as influential as you give them credit for
b) not as rigid or restrictive as you claim
c) not at all under the influence of the manufacturers in the way you believe
It seems to me that an asymmetrical target is worth looking at from a course
design standpoint, and ultimately it is the players who will decide if it is to
be successful.
As for getting a patent, I can only advise you what someone from Innova once
told me: "A patent just gives you the right to sue and be sued." Not a ringing
endorsement.
Good luck with it.
John
chip wells & jenny mcfarlane
I look forward to the day when what's regarded as "the true" world
championship of disc golf is a PDGA X-Tier event. Now that would be
progress.
Chip
Brian P. Canniff
> As for getting a patent, I can only advise you what someone from Innova once
> told me: "A patent just gives you the right to sue and be sued." Not a ringing
> endorsement.
Somewhat true, but they left out license agreements, royalties, keeping
your competition from making, using, selling, or importing your claimed
invention, etc.
Getting a patent isn't necessarily the road to becoming a millionaire,
but it doesn't hurt if you're trying to attract venture cap, etc.
Brian Canniff
Bill Burns
JRHouck <jrh...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199809150340...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
<SNIP>
The bottom line is that the PDGA is
>
> a) not as powerful as influential as you give them credit for
> b) not as rigid or restrictive as you claim
> c) not at all under the influence of the manufacturers in the way you
believe
>
<SNIP>
I am chiming in to back up what John has said. The PDGA is a PLAYER'S
organization, with a volunteer board. They are doing the best they can.
If one doesn't think the PDGA is doing enough, then jump in. I can hear
Jim Challas' worst problem now: "Hm, let's see...all these people who want
to help disc golf by helping us...how can I use them best?"
--
Bill "ex-Czar" Burns
Dr Fred C
(JRHouck) writes:
>It seems to me that an asymmetrical target is worth looking at from a course
>design standpoint, and ultimately it is the players who will decide if it is
>to be successful. <<
Yes the market will determine the success of most any product. However, in
the case of asymmetrical targets, the PDGA rules are directly in the way of
marketability of what could be a significant advance for the sport.
Where would high tech industry of discs of today be if they were limited to
the rim design of old Whammos? Answer -- no where. They could make them, but
no one would use them. That is basically what the rules for disc golf targets
have done to the development of a diverse marketplace for disc target designs.
There is absolutely no reason for the PDGA rules being so restrictive about the
deflection device used in basket targets.
As a matter of fact, some of the concern about disc golf courses are getting
longer and longer to keep big arms entertained is partially due to the
symmetrical design of the DPH, with heavy discs adding most of the rest. If
you play to targets where the primary object is to get 30 feet or so from the
target versus landing your disc in an area that might be a quarter or less of
that size in a specific orientation to the target to have a 'sweet' spot for
putting, one can tighten up courses to players of all skill levels,
particularly the long players who must balance their distance with touch to hit
the sweet spot of greens from distance.
BTW, I tossed a hole in one today on one of my targets from about 80 yards. I
was experimenting with a 155 gr Aviar for a back side over & back approach for
a target with a front side trap. Slapped itself right into the back side of
the basket. Kinda fun... Of course if it had missed, I'd probably be on the
trap side of the target -- which is the whole point of having directional
targets, IMO.
The remarkable thing was this approach really only occured to my while I was
playing with my CAD software this morning and sent a camera on a similar path
around a few trees and back into the target. After modeling it on the
computer, I kind of wondered if I could do it in real life. Guess the answer
is yes. Conclusion -- you never know till you try...
Dr Fred C
the sport. The cost of a disc (approved or not) is a mainstream consumer item
in the DG community. Even if the PDGA had rules that restricted the
development of today's low profile discs, the marketplace being flooded with $7
low profile discs would have likely caused the PDGA to alter the rules.
DG targets is not the same kind of animal. It costs much more to make and
sell and the marketplace is much more limited.
So in the infinite wisdom of the PDGA, it has a few basic rules on the design
of discs (they don't even have to be circular or symmetrical), but the PDGA has
very restrictive rules on the style of deflection to basket targets it finds
acceptable.
JRHouck
(Dr Fred C) writes:
> So in the infinite wisdom of the PDGA, it has a few basic rules on the
>design
>of discs (they don't even have to be circular or symmetrical), but the PDGA
>has
>very restrictive rules on the style of deflection to basket targets it finds
>acceptable.
Fred,
Again, I think you greatly overstate the influence of the PDGA on the basket
marketplace. As for disc rules, I'm afraid you're mistaken: PDGA rules are
very restrictive.
To be PDGA approved, a disc must have "a saucer like configuration" (round).
There are strict limits on outside diameter (size), inside rim depth (height),
rim configuation (sharpness), and even flexibility. There is every reason to
believe that there will be no major breakthroughs in speed and distance with
these rules in place.
Since all manufacturers adhere strictly to PDGA rules, it is fair to say that
the PDGA exerts a great influence on the disc marketplace. (To be fair, most
of the manufacturer compliance has to do with that fact that the manufacturers
helped make these guidelines. I can assure you that if the PDGA ever acted
unilaterally and rashly in making guidelines, the manufacturers would not
hesitate to ignore such rules. And that applies to baskets, too.)
In both cases, PDGA guidelines were basically intended to approve what was out
there (and to make sure discs stayed safe), not to restict innovation. If you
came up with a popular idea, they could easily change the guidelines to
accomodate your product.
Bottom line: go ahead with your ideas, and don't be afraid of the PDGA getting
in your way. Good luck.
John
Warpedabit
Mr Houck...
Just wanted to say how much I enjoy your posts... in any thread, for that
matter even in traditional print... always refreshing to hear sound logic,
common sense, and somebody who speaks with actual knowledge behind their
statements instead of just spouting off like most of us tend to in this forum.
I, for one, would be willing to pay higher dues if you would please run for
commish again. Did a great job. Thank you for it.
Now -- can I have some free plastic? : )
JRHouck
(Warpedabit) writes:
Thank you for the kind words. Please send your address and weight preferences.
John "I hope I can still just spout if I want to" Houck
Larry D. Hols
JRHouck wrote:
>
>
> John "I hope I can still just spout if I want to" Houck
You are certainly welcome to borrow my soapbox on occasion.
Larry
Dr Fred C
In article <35FA7C2A...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu>, "Larry D. Hols"
<pcw...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu> writes:
I agree. The PDGA should or could implement some sort of limits on discs
carried to promote throwing over "chunking" discs.
The logical options would seem to be to limit the number carried, or a wieght
limit of some sort. My preference would be a something like a combination of
both concepts. Perhaps the PDGA could have an Unlimited and a "Flier" level of
competition as an optional solution to the Open and Masters debate.
Flying Competition -- A player shall carry no more than 10 discs with a weight
limit of 100 grams of discs wieghing more than the 150 gms.
In other words, if a Flier wants to throw bricks of 170 grams, they can have
5 170 discs and the rest 150 grams or less. If a Flier wants want to throw 180
gram discs, they can have 3 180 discs with one 160 disc and the rest 150 or
less. Or a Flier might have 10 160s, or two 170s, 4 150s, 2 155s and two 150s.
It would make DG more challenging as Fliers would have to carefully pick their
disc according to the conditions of the day.
IMO, DG should be about flying discs, not chunking discs. There are a lot of
things that can be done with lighter discs that are being lost to the bricks
that are being chunked these days.
As a side note : this comes from someone who spend a couple hours this morning
tossing a 185 and 181 pair of discs as part of testing out various paths and
fairways of a new course that is heavy in bushes and BIG trees.
Always, Fred Chittenden
DG Course Analysis http://members.aol.com/dolfwyz/analysis.htm
A basket case http://members.aol.com/dolfwyz/dct_specs.htm