I think we're saying the same thing, Jordan. Most specifically I'm talking about the WW basket upgrade to happen. That way it is an existing club course...... I think the green DISCatchers at WW would be beautiful. Or we could get them a dull grey to make them have a similar look to the current ones. I just don't think aesthetics should get in the way of having the best catching baskets at our most popular and heavily-played course.
So now though this should be your decision? Or are you just saying that if you had your way?
Yes, Jack, that is exactly what I'm saying. With your help of snipping my quote and moving things around it has become clear to me that what I actually want is for things to go my way all the time, regardless of reason or logic. *sarcasm over*
What, may I ask, is so offensive to having an opinion, asking others' opinion, and arguing for something that I believe? I think DISCatchers catch the best and I think a solid second choice is the Mach V. (Could be Titan, but having only used the portable, again, I will refrain from making a judgment.) The Mach III is a traditional decision based on some sort of loyalty to the past that I don't understand and that hasn't been clearly communicated. Yes, it is championship approved by the PDGA, but that doesn't mean that it is equal to all other choices. Making that argument is like saying a Discraft Ultrastar and Nuke go the same distance because they are both PDGA approved for golf.
As to the point of this being entirely a subjective issue, can we please put that to rest? I'll list some points to prove that it doesn't make any sense.
Arguments against Mach III:
1. It doesn't catch as well (subjective)
2. The inner chain assembly is too close to the pole (objective)
3. There are only inner and outer chains (objective)
4. The top of the chain assembly has large gaps allowing the disc to get to the pole more frequently (objective)
5. The nickel can knock high putts down but doesn't have an equal cross-section and thus can unfairly reward some bad putts (objective)
6. The nickel can severely damage a putter (objective)
Arguments for Mach III:
1. Tradition (objective)
2. They catch just as well (subjective)
3. They don't visually pollute (subjective)
I really can't think of any more. I've asked many times and no one seems to offer any more.
Arguments against DISCatcher:
1. The chastity belt is distracting (subjective)
2. They rust (subjective and anecdotal) *plus according most this issue has been resolved
3. Visual pollution (subjective)
Arguments for the DISCatcher:
1. The top band makes the top of the chain array more uniform and decreases risk of bad putts going in or good putts going out (objective)
2. They catch better (subjective)
3. Three sets of chains (objective)
4. More chains (objective)
5. Getting another color can add character and decrease visual pollution (subjective)
These are the most important arguments. Many are objective and should be weighed more heavily. Subjective, while not always quantifiable, can still be debated. We should try to keep the discussion substantive and to refrain from ad hominem