I'm not sure how old Ken Climo and Barry Schultz are, but I'm sure when they are over 40, they won't need protected divisions. Kevin and Chuck have been.....debating.....about what new division should be added to increase the Open division. I have a better solution: Do away with Pro Masters! Leave Pro GM.
So I'll put it to a vote.....

Why do I suspect the poll will be unanimous?

Because that's the way it should be and it's the one thing that can unite all PDGA members!

I'm pretty sure that Kenny is 38, so maybe all the 40 year olds do need protection...

Pro Masters will be screwed in 2 years!

This is Michigan's Pro Top Ten:

Al Schack 3407 MI USA 1017 M Pro
Scott Martin 5560 MI USA 1015 M Pro
Geoff Bennett 24962 MI USA 1005 M Pro
Larry LaBond 6903 MI USA 1003 M Pro
Michael Raley 7846 MI USA 1002 M Pro
Jim Schultz 11741 MI USA 997 M Pro
Matthew Toy 18265 MI USA 994 M Pro
Todd Branch 11795 MI USA 991 M Pro
David Bihl 12771 MI USA 990 M Pro
Javier Kowalski 3178 MI USA 990 M Pro

Six of them are pro masters. :eek: Actually, I think four are pro masters and two are grand masters!

This is Michigan's Pro Top Ten:

Al Schack 3407 MI USA 1017 M Pro
Scott Martin 5560 MI USA 1015 M Pro
Geoff Bennett 24962 MI USA 1005 M Pro
Larry LaBond 6903 MI USA 1003 M Pro
Michael Raley 7846 MI USA 1002 M Pro
Jim Schultz 11741 MI USA 997 M Pro
Matthew Toy 18265 MI USA 994 M Pro
Todd Branch 11795 MI USA 991 M Pro
David Bihl 12771 MI USA 990 M Pro
Javier Kowalski 3178 MI USA 990 M Pro

Six of them are pro masters. :eek: Actually, I think four are pro masters and two are grand masters!



and how many of those cited above do you expect to be in the final 9 of Open this year at Pro Worlds or the USDGC? :p

None. Why?

just wondering aloud how that plays into 28003's poll ;)

Me too. :D

How many of those guys have ever been on the top card at Worlds or USDGC on the final day?

And how many different active players have been on the top card at Worlds or USDGC on the final day? Your criteria is a bit weak and pointless. Hmmm. Kind of like this poll.

And how many different active players have been on the top card at Worlds or USDGC on the final day?


Exactly. Pro Masters don't need protection from Open players, only from the "Super-Pros". Many of the guys from MI top 10 have cashed at both Worlds and USDGC.

at least one of them. That's pretty good. Wasn't Ron Russell from Michigan? He's 40+ too. Michigan has put out some good older players, then, ehh?

protection from "Super-Pros" should be called 15th place.

I'll let you in on a secret. Many of the Masters players aren't looking for protection for Ken or Barry. We just don't want to take time away from other priorities just to play with insolent kids like you.

To quote the man in black: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."

I'll let you in on a secret. Many of the Masters players aren't looking for protection for Ken or Barry. We just don't want to take time away from other priorities just to play with insolent kids like you.


Boy that hurts my feelings! And that's no secret. Wow, I haven't been called a kid in a long time. The poll really isn't talking about or to you because you don't make any money in Master's anyway, so you'd be donating in any division. The transition to Open would be easy for you.

No, the transition to just playing rec or forming a local or state wide 'old guys' tour would be easy. It would also be easy to stop any volunteer work for anything PDGA.

Believe it.

So, if I have this correct, the Top Masters compete in a protected division at big events to have an easier chance at the Added Cash and they play Open at smaller events. Everyone else views the master's division as the "Elk's Lodge" of Disc Golf and they are playing for the "Bingo" money.

No, the transition to just playing rec or forming a local or state wide 'old guys' tour would be easy. It would also be easy to stop any volunteer work for anything PDGA.

Believe it.


I applaud you for admitting that you are not a real professional and you would boycott the PDGA if it emulated ball golf. It takes guts to say that.

The top Masters (those over 975) are a smaller percentage of the overall division than you realize. You may convince or strong arm some of this small percentage to move into the Pro division. But you'll lose a majority of the rest. The ones with houses, families, careers, kids activites, scouts, PTA, and so on who will never have time to practice 5 times a week, let alone play more than a couple of times per week.

Yes, to those 'Masters' the competition is not a professional endeavor, it is a leisure activity choice. We've made a choice a long time ago as to what our true 'profession' is.

Bring the Age up to 45, where it should be...and dont compare it to the PGA, because their numbers dwarf ours. Ever have a private conversation with a top masters player?...2/3 that i spoke with about playing masters and why, said " I can play like butt and still probably win the event"... These are also two players that have won majors before. Its a protected division thats being abused...I think if you play masters, well, thats it,,,u play masters....Dont step up and play Open when the field is weak, or the money in masters isnt suffecient. Once you go into the protected division and BAG..well...laaaaaaater.
BTW, that poll is stupid.

But you're too good (skill or pride) to play Adv. Master?

BTW, that poll is stupid.


All polls are stupid.

How many other "sports" have multiple codger divisions? We have pro master, pro GM and pro SGM. Is that it? And I agree with ZZ, move the masters age up.

Bring the Age up to 45, where it should be...and dont compare it to the PGA, because their numbers dwarf ours. Ever have a private conversation with a top masters player?...2/3 that i spoke with about playing masters and why, said " I can play like butt and still probably win the event"... These are also two players that have won majors before. Its a protected division thats being abused...I think if you play masters, well, thats it,,,u play masters....Dont step up and play Open when the field is weak, or the money in masters isnt suffecient. Once you go into the protected division and BAG..well...laaaaaaater.
BTW, that poll is stupid.



Which is the reason that all ADDED cash at ALL PDGA events should be added to the OPEN divison only. Until the sports grows it should be doing everything it can to keep the best players traveling and not giving it away to microdivisions.

Which is the reason that all ADDED cash at ALL PDGA events should be added to the OPEN divison only.


And there it is. The top master's will follow the money.

Bring the Age up to 45, where it should be...and dont compare it to the PGA, because their numbers dwarf ours. Ever have a private conversation with a top masters player?...2/3 that i spoke with about playing masters and why, said " I can play like butt and still probably win the event"... These are also two players that have won majors before. Its a protected division thats being abused...I think if you play masters, well, thats it,,,u play masters....Dont step up and play Open when the field is weak, or the money in masters isnt suffecient. Once you go into the protected division and BAG..well...laaaaaaater.
BTW, that poll is stupid.



Which is the reason that all ADDED cash at ALL PDGA events should be added to the OPEN divison only. Until the sports grows it should be doing everything it can to keep the best players traveling and not giving it away to microdivisions.



EXACTLY>

Its realism, you acquire that with age. Until the 'added cash fairy' comes, there are only 5 to 10 true professionals in this sport. Maybe up to 50 if you include those who supplement their 'winnings' with clinics or pushing merch and are willing to live at a level that many would consider impoverished.

I would not boycott the PDGA if it emulated ball golf. Ball golf has plenty of opportunities for people of all makes and ages. But I would not be a member of an association that stopped its efforts to accomodate its members.

Its realism, you acquire that with age. Until the 'added cash fairy' comes, there are only 5 to 10 true professionals in this sport. Maybe up to 50 if you include those who supplement their 'winnings' with clinics or pushing merch and are willing to live at a level that many would consider impoverished.

I would not boycott the PDGA if it emulated ball golf. Ball golf has plenty of opportunities for people of all makes and ages. But I would not be a member of an association that stopped its efforts to accomodate its members.


So you are too good (pride) for Adv. Masters.

Whatever the age threshold is, most honest people agree there should be one.

Most masters cannot play like crap and still win: it pays out at the same rate as open, and suffers from many of the same issues as open, where marginal guys, playing their best, cannot hang and refuse to place the hefty bets very often, or play down in advanced where their returns are higher.

I would agree that added money should go to open, and I love the irony that a guy that never plays against the quality of players most masters do, and probably get a greater ruturn, can post about the inequity and no one seems to notice.

But you're too good (skill or pride) to play Adv. Master?



No, but in our area the Pro Masters are a larger group and offer better and more diverse competition because of it. And I really don't need plastic if I do place well.

How many other "sports" have multiple codger divisions? We have pro master, pro GM and pro SGM. Is that it? And I agree with ZZ, move the masters age up.



No, we also have Legends.

Many other sports have age based divisions. Look at pretty much any sport that is am based. Swimming, skiing, track, and so on. If it fits the model of an Olympic type sport, it probably has age based divisions.

IF I am ever good enough to play with and compete with the best, I would love to do it. And if I want the big money, I will play against the best for it. I will NEVER run and hide in a protected division just to make some easy cash. I have ALWAYS played in divisions above my rating until the last ratings update and now I am at the bottom of the appropriate division. If I ever make it to Open, (which is the only pro division I am eligible for the next 14 years), that will be the only division I play until I am SGM age.

Yes, i agree, most can not...However, the two i spoke with can...The third is a great friend and has had muliple operations and problems with his body...Also, he is old enough to play PGM...the other two are clearly to young for a legit masters division, and domiate every time they play. I am not sayin do away with the masters division, but instead bring the age up to 45...Also, this amnesty garbage, where a player can play masters at 39 because his birthday is in the calender year..boooooo on that..I also know a top world ranked plyer who said he would be taking advantage of this...Yes he said advantage....increase the age, or lower the entry fee and dont add cash...just saying how i feel at this particular moment. Dont hate me for it.

Since its not my livelihiood, I have no problem with lower fees, and really don't expect any added cash. If we ever do get the sponsorship level that allows for true pros, I have no problem with NTs being Open Pro only as they would fill without the age divisions. Even better, a separate Seniors tour would be a wonderful develoment some day.

But when people say we don't need age based divisions, well, that I take issue with. Ratings alone doesn't solve everything, unless you are comfortable with situations such as all of your Senior Grands being forced into the rec division.

IF I am ever good enough to play with and compete with the best, I would love to do it.


You're good enough right now. Nothing is stopping you. In fact, your chance against the big guys is relatively the same as a lot of masters players against the top masters, or most masters against the top open players.

[/QUOTE]..all ADDED cash at ALL PDGA events should be added to the OPEN divison only

[/QUOTE]agreed.

well, sort of. why worry about how the cash is divvied up at B,C,D,X tiers. those events are more local and not really part of a "tour" in any kind of a "pro" sense. A and M tiers though ought to be about real competition. so far only the USDGC has it right.

But do these sports have an am, adv and pro division for each age bracket?

A and M tiers though ought to be about real competition. so far only the USDGC has it right.



So, are you going to propose that all A and M events only have one division?

IF I am ever good enough to play with and compete with the best, I would love to do it.


You're good enough right now. Nothing is stopping you. In fact, your chance against the big guys is relatively the same as a lot of masters players against the top masters, or most masters against the top open players.


True, but I'm not playing against the best Adv. 20-30 year olds, I'm competing against the best Adv. 13-50 year olds and that's fine with me. I love seeing older guys and younger guys in Adv. Diversity makes us learn and develop and see other points of view AT ANY AGE! I play for the competition and love of playing because this is the PDGA. If you want to play with your buddies for bingo money, that's what local mini's and unsanctioned tournaments are for. I know we aren't professionals, but we can at least act like them and strive to be like them.

Really, they don't have advanced master divisions?

More likey just am and pro, or am only. Here's a sign-up for a cycling event. Bob Cook Memorial Mt. Evan Climb (http://www.bicyclerace.com/prizes.htm)

Really, they don't have advanced master divisions?


They have it, but the ones I compete against are obviously not playing it and I think that's great. I would rather play with the 45 year old guys because they are willing to step out of the "comfort zone" and take a risk to play with "us kids" for whatever reason and those are the guys that I learn the most from. If I am carded with a 40+ year old guy based on the scores we are shooting, I can learn what he has that I don't and what he is doing that separates us skill-wise. Plus, old guys who are willing to hang out with "us kids" usually have the best stories and don't throw tantums.

A and M tiers though ought to be about real competition. so far only the USDGC has it right.



So, are you going to propose that all A and M events only have one division?

i might support it for the NT events, but probably not for A tiers. from the diversity of opinions and needs expressed on alll these threads i'm not sure if going one division is practical for A tiers. it should be the "ideal" for the top competitive events, which is what the NTs are [supposed to be].

this sport was founded in the counter-culture and traditionally played by people with non-conformist tendencies. rigidity and centrally-planning is the blight that many of us play disc golf to escape.

..all ADDED cash at ALL PDGA events should be added to the OPEN divison only

[/QUOTE]agreed.

well, sort of. why worry about how the cash is divvied up at B,C,D,X tiers. those events are more local and not really part of a "tour" in any kind of a "pro" sense. A and M tiers though ought to be about real competition. so far only the USDGC has it right.

[/QUOTE]

Agree with this, with the addition of that I think it would be good for the sport to have a separate womens' division as opposed to just one single division (or a separate womens' tour). But the thing that makes it possible for the USDGC in my mind is the large purse. Once sponsorship gets to a level that makes attractive purses available at all NT (or whatever we call it by then) stops, people will be fighting over the chance to participate. You won't have to offer anything but Open, and will probably have to implement a qualifying process as the number of players trying to enter will exceed the available tournament spots.

Several sports have multiple levels for different age breaks such as racquetball. From their rules:

(e) Age + Skill Divisions. Player eligibility is determined by the player's age on the first day of the tournament, plus AmPRO skill level certification, or verification by a state association official, at the entered level. Such combinations may be offered as additional competition to players who do not fall into the "open" or designated skill levels of play. For example:
24 A/B
30+ B
35+ C/D
40+ A
65 + A/B
etc.

The "etc." means that where the skill level breaks are for A-B-C can be determined by the state association and can be different from the National standards for state level events.

very true sandalman...
I am not ranting, as much as it sounds like i am...I called out both of the mastrs i was speaking with and told them to their faces how i felt about what they were doing...The responded, " you would do the same"....i wouldnt...feels like cheating, i said..

Best two tantrums I've ever seen during a PDGA round were Masters guys. By tantrums, I mean something totally rediculous, funny and sad but controlled enough it wasn't a courtesy violation or anything. Young guys generally just kick a bag and get out of line. It's the "controlled", vein-popping fury of a 40+ man who just doined another putt that can be really amusing. :D

Kenny will be Masters eligible in about 9 months, as a matter of fact, I believe he turns 39 anyday now. He was born in 1968...just like me. The similarities end there.

I don't think you're going to see Kenny playing in any Masters divisions anytime soon, unless it's a tournament like the U.S. Masters (where there's no Open division) or perhaps the masters side bet in Japan.

Chap

Re: Should 40 years olds be protected from 38 year olds?

No, not in a pro division. I'm 44, rated 965 and I started playing at age 39. I play in the Pro Masters division because it is currently allowed and I can compete there. If they had a "semi-pro" division for players rated <990, I'd play there. I don't expect to win, just to be able to compete. As I improve (hopefully) I would move to Open around 975-980. I understand that alot of people really just want to play with their friends (of the same age) and I think that's fine- in the AMs. I truely feel we should go to ratings based divisions for AMs, Open for men and women Pros, and have age protection for over 50. My .02

Some might argue that disc golf isn't as physically demanding as some sports like racquetball and age doesn't drop skill levels as fast. I would agree and our data now shows that players do not, on average, lose any rating points until starting at age 40. For every 5 years older after 40, the average loss is one throw or about 10 rating points. This was measured by the 5-year progression of exactly the same players from 2001 to 2006 so the analysis could be as valid as possible.

cmon RKELLY, you play well above your rating....

So should a 50 year old be protected form a 48 year old? A 60 year old from a 58?

Anytime you look at two groups right next to but on the other sides of a line, its going to look unfair. But the lines have to be drawn somewhere. Great debate went on when Masters age was raised from 35 to 40. In the end, research supported that skills were noticeably declining 'on average' around the age of 40. On average, not for everyone. There will be exceptions.

cmon RKELLY, you play well above your rating....



Not often enough!
Hey, I'm all for changing the age for protection. I'm also for providing a division for lower rated "pros". I really think anyone rated >1000 that's playing in Masters or Grandmasters is beyond "bagging",(except for Worlds/ US Masters) and should not be allowed. What's their defense? "I'm 1000 rated, but I want to play against all my friends that all old/ have families/ jobs... and much lower ratings, because it's easier to win!"

Kenny will be Masters eligible in about 9 months, as a matter of fact, I believe he turns 39 anyday now. He was born in 1968...just like me. The similarities end there.




Next Tuesday for KC and Barry's Wednesday but two years younger. Something about Aries guys born in March maybe? :eek: Felberg and Schweb also Aries, coming up in early April.

But the lines have to be drawn somewhere. Great debate went on when Masters age was raised from 35 to 40. In the end, research supported that skills were noticeably declining 'on average' around the age of 40. On average, not for everyone. There will be exceptions.

That's the rub: Lines have to be drawn somewhere, if they are to be drawn at all. At some point, divisions based on populations (averages and standard deviations) have lines that may or may not seem fair or to pertinent to individuals within the populations. That's life.

Note earlier posts on other threads by Chuck that show a 50-foot driving distance (on average) between top Advanced players and top Advanced Masters players.

Note on the "turning 40 during the year" observation earlier: The PDGA used to draw the age line at a person's actual birth date. I am pretty sure the change to "anytime during the year of" was done to avoid logistical issues and communications between TDs and the PDGA. With this method, it does give some people a leg up before they turn, say, 40, but it means that everyone knows at once, without special communications or knowing actual birth dates, who is eligible during the entire year.

Many am players, certainly in NC, throw as far if not farther than pros...I just think its silly that 1000+ rated sponsored players need to play in protected divisions....so an easy fix is, stop adding cash to a baggers division.

I don't think 40 year-olds need protection from 38 year-olds. But I can think of a few times where mouthy 20-somethings needed protection from an annoyed old man.

How well do those NC Am guys putt and get out of trouble? I throw as far as a lot of guys better than me but I'm not as consistent as they are in any aspect of the game. When I achieve that level of consistancy, I'll be good too.

An argument to add cash to all age-protected divisions is this:
Many older players are the foundation on which disc golf, as we know it, is based. They are deserving of our thanks and respect and one way to show that is to add cash to their divisions. Maybe not as much as to MPO, but something.

I do love watching great shots, no matter what age the thrower is.

Some might argue that disc golf isn't as physically demanding as some sports like racquetball and age doesn't drop skill levels as fast. I would agree and our data now shows that players do not, on average, lose any rating points until starting at age 40. For every 5 years older after 40, the average loss is one throw or about 10 rating points. This was measured by the 5-year progression of exactly the same players from 2001 to 2006 so the analysis could be as valid as possible.



My quick and non-scientific look at this earlier today concurred. I averaged the ratings of all Cashing MPO's in 2007 A-Tiers and NT's and then did the same with MPM's. The average was almost exactly 10 points lower. Excel crashed on me, so I do not have the exact numbers but I think it was close to 995 and 985.

he didnt say anything about scrambling, he said throwing disctance....
And i know we owe them a lot...but the guys on the thin line that play there for an easy cash is bunk. Maybe its a moral question.

Several sports have multiple levels for different age breaks such as racquetball. From their rules:

(e) Age + Skill Divisions. Player eligibility is determined by the player's age on the first day of the tournament, plus AmPRO skill level certification, or verification by a state association official, at the entered level. Such combinations may be offered as additional competition to players who do not fall into the "open" or designated skill levels of play. For example:
24 A/B
30+ B
35+ C/D
40+ A
65 + A/B
etc.

The "etc." means that where the skill level breaks are for A-B-C can be determined by the state association and can be different from the National standards for state level events.



In sports such as raquetball, squash, tennis, etc. I can totally understand why there are age divisions because it is basically one vs. one competition. You're only as good as the people you beat, or the people whom you lose to. Based on who is at the competition, you could be the best player there or the worst. With the physical activity demanded, and the very obvious trend of decreasing ability vs. increasing age, without any objective measurables to fall back on, age is probably the best guideline for divisional structure in these sports.

With golf and disc golf, you have the measurable - score, from which ratings can be calculated, and divisional structure set accordingly. And because golf and disc golf require far less physical activity than the sports previously listed, although there are some trends of decreasing ability vs. increasing age, we end up with wide swings in ability among players of the same age. Most importantly, there are quite a few Masters-aged and older players who can compete with the best in the world in disc golf. Clearly, the measureable - score, and ratings, are the best method to divisional structure in our sport, and age is a poor guideline for such.

Too bad age-based divisions are what we're stuck with forever.

I agree that these older guys/gals have done a lot for the PDGA, but shirley there is another way to show gratitude/appreciation.

But the lines have to be drawn somewhere. Great debate went on when Masters age was raised from 35 to 40. In the end, research supported that skills were noticeably declining 'on average' around the age of 40. On average, not for everyone. There will be exceptions.



That's the rub: Lines have to be drawn somewhere, if they are to be drawn at all. At some point, divisions based on populations (averages and standard deviations) have lines that may or may not seem fair or to pertinent to individuals within the populations. That's life.



I was going to post exactly the same thing in regards to the idea of moving the line up to 45. Doing that will fix absolutley nothing.

If this happens (or moves to 50) "That's Life"....the story of my life!

I was legal drinking age at 18 - from April until December 1 when NY raised the age to 21. They had no grandfather clause. I made up for it and got back at the world by going and getting my free bottle of champagne at the local bar (Maxfields in Potsdam NY) at closing on the morning of my 21st birthday and again the next night. It was horrible champagne!

The MPM age went from 35 to 40 right when I was considering joining the PDGA....as a Pro. If it goes up again, at 41 I will be a victim of this all over again. Have not devised my plan yet as to how I will get back at the world for this one! :D

I have noticed that in the last year or two, my back tightens up like it never used to between rounds as do my achilles. Ten days ago I got bursitis in my knee that made it extremely painful to even walk. Did this by doing a little flooring refinishing - with knee pads on. I have done a ton of flooring in my past and never had this happen. For those of you under 40.......just wait!

I hear a lot of <40 year old players pointing out that it is wrong for the top MPM players to take the easy cash in MPM.

Where are the lower rated MPM players whining that these same MPMs are taking their cash unfairly???!!

Sounds to me like envy speaking. And maybe a little greed speaking too - force those top MPMs to play MPO and you will automatically get all the lower rated MPMs to pad my MPO purse! Yum! ;)

Which is the reason that all ADDED cash at ALL PDGA events should be added to the OPEN divison only. Until the sports grows it should be doing everything it can to keep the best players traveling and not giving it away to microdivisions.



I disagree with this. Added cash for the WOMEN's Open division should also be a priority.

heck lets just say if you are a 1000 or higher rated player you have to play OPEN and than the rest can play where they WANT. What happened to people being able to make their own choices. :confused:

That's one fuked up poll :mad:

That works for me.

I have posted this before.....

Why should we punish someone for being the best? I mean who cares of Brad and Dean are some of the worlds best golfers regardless of age. Why whould we punish them for being that good at an older age?

I guess if we do that we need to put a ratings cap in the open division. Dave, Avery, Rico, Anthon, Barry and Kenny, bad news for ya, you are 1030 or higher and are now disqualified from playing.

I agree that these older guys/gals have done a lot for the PDGA, but shirley there is another way to show gratitude/appreciation.



Yes there probably is. But who the heck is Shirley?

Huh?
Punish?

????....ok

Just seems that players at age 40 - 45 dont need to be protected in this sport.....and yes...all added cash should go to OPEN and FPO divisions.

Huh?
Punish?



I'm just talking in terms of saying no one over the rating of X can player masters.

When one is 26, 14 years sounds like an eternity...cuz this same one was 12 years old - 14 years ago.

Go ahead and raise it to 45 now, cuz 'I' won't get screwed...'this' time. :D

I agree that these older guys/gals have done a lot for the PDGA, but shirley there is another way to show gratitude/appreciation.


There is....we have it....it's called Grandmasters, Senior Grandmasters, and Legends.

Roger Murdock: Flight 2-0-9'er, you are cleared for take-off.
Captain Oveur: Roger!
Roger Murdock: Huh?
Tower voice: L.A. departure frequency, 123 point 9'er.
Captain Oveur: Roger!
Roger Murdock: Huh?
Victor Basta: Request vector, over.
Captain Oveur: What?
Tower voice: Flight 2-0-9'er cleared for vector 324.
Roger Murdock: We have clearance, Clarence.
Captain Oveur: Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?
Tower voice: Tower's radio clearance, over!
Captain Oveur: That's Clarence Oveur. Over.
Tower voice: Over.
Captain Oveur: Roger.
Roger Murdock: Huh?
Tower voice: Roger, over!
Roger Murdock: What?
Captain Oveur: Huh?
Victor Basta: Who?

Excuse me, I speak jive.


(We were just discussing this movie at work.)

28003 wrote: IF I am ever good enough to play with and compete with the best, I would love to do it.


James replied: You're good enough right now. Nothing is stopping you. In fact, your chance against the big guys is relatively the same as a lot of masters players against the top masters, or most masters against the top open players.



there it is in simple math. will he do it? will 28003 walk the walk and play Open from here on out? he isn't so old as to claim by the last round his age places him at a disadvantage against younger competitors...

..all ADDED cash at ALL PDGA events should be added to the OPEN divison only

[/QUOTE]agreed.

well, sort of. why worry about how the cash is divvied up at B,C,D,X tiers. those events are more local and not really part of a "tour" in any kind of a "pro" sense. A and M tiers though ought to be about real competition. so far only the USDGC has it right.

[/QUOTE]

the PDGA should also require that Pro Master entry fees be at least 40% less than Open. That way, with added cash all going to Open, and Masters entry fees being low, noone can keep arguing that too many good Masters are taking the easy money (even though it isn't easy -- i can vouch for that) /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

will 28003 walk the walk and play Open from here on out

NO /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

You obviously have never seen my play if you think I can compete with the best Open players. Maybe a better way of saying what I meant was.....

IF I am ever good enough to play with and challenge the best, I would love to do it.

I discovered this game last summer 4 months after turning 40 years old. I have been in 2 tournaments and play as an Intermediate AM. I'm-a scared of everyone.

:)

What I have a problem with is the argument many Masters (such someone on this board I forget the name of) saying that Masters devote alot of time to family/career/whatever... rather than practice. Therefore, Masters is a nice alternative. Well, I am 28, and spend 1/3 of each day at a money-earning day job to survive, and then at least 1/4 of each day working on my actual career (which is unrelated). This summer, I will be spending most every night working on a huge professional project. I play on average twice a month, usually in tournament play, always open (rated 963), and rarely competitively. So because I happen to be young, I get shafted for my dedication to my career when someone who's older gets leniency?

Then take the argument that older people's bodies break down. True, they do. However, I've been diagnosed with a herniated disc (for which I received injections), plus degenerative conditions in both my neck and back (diagnosed when I was 25 - my doctor said he's never seen it in some one so you), as well as bursitis in my hip (mainly stemming from an accident). Surely I should get leniency for THAT! Nope, not for 12 years.

The MSDGC I think has showed that the serious age differential doesn't really occur at 40. LL has competed very well each year he's been in the tournament, and there are others (I'm too tired to research.) As for the one person on this thread who deduced that the average MPO rating was 10 points higher than MPM, don't forget that you're factoring in MPM players who are playing 1000+ rated golf IN OPEN (and there are many). That skews that figure right there.

I have no problem with the Masters division. I think I only have problems with the justifications I've been given. I think all people who are hurt and choose other life choices instead of practicing or casual rounds deserves their own division. I'd sign up for the Fats division! Anyone else?

a majority of Pro Masters cannot compete with Open players either in terms of hoping to cash -- so if you insist Pro Masters like myself should play Open -- you need to do so yourself or just admit you're tripping. I have improved every year of the 4 i have been playing PDGA events and if that continues i may play Open by the time i am 48. don't bet on it though unless you like to gamble /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Go ahead and TD all the events you like in the format you wish. you could even make Pro Master entry fees $10 to dissuade what you seem to think is "easy" money grabbing. Do not make the mistake of using the exception(s) in Pro Masters as an example since they are simply the exceptions. instead, incentivize their playing Open but don't penalize the average Pro Master.

One last thing -- my experience says that disproportionately TD's of PDGA events are Masters-aged or older. Maybe if younger guys TD'ed more often they would have more clout with their "do-away-with age-protected divisions" argument(s) /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I'm not sure that Master or other older division validity has to be defended by rational argument. The reason we have older divisions and will continue to do so has to do with tradition and the fact that most other sports have them. Kind of like teenagers explaining why they do things, "Because everyone else is doing it." The rational reasons being presented aren't the reasons for them but the nice face presented to justify their existence. That doesn't mean they have to be treated equal to Open. On the other hand, the older divisions are fully capable of picking up the stakes and doing things themselves if they aren't treated reasonably well and leave the youngsters in the dust to fight over the scraps.

At golf courses all over the country, there are foursomes of pretty good recreational golfers in their 20s playing $1 skins and on the next tee are older duffers playing $10 skins. Is it fair that the winning duffer might bank $100 and the winning 25 year old gets $10? They're at the same venue with separate entry fee pools. Should the older guys give $200 to the youngsters' purse.

You know, we get some silly threads on this board and this one ranks up near the top. It starts with a laughable "poll" created by a 920-ish rated player who (I guess) is hoping that the Pro Masters division will be erased so the "added cash" will be available to him once he grows up to be an Open Pro. *Chuckle*

Leave the Masters alone - the amount of added cash that they siphon from the Open division is comparatively minimal, especially when compared to the organizational and promotional contributions that many of them make to the sport. If they were forced to play Open many of them would cease to play - been there. When I turned 30 the Masters age was increased to 35 and I didn't feel like donating to the Open players, so I stopped playing (that and job, wife, kids, mortgage, etc.). Look at AviarX as an example. As a Pro Master he is somewhat competitive. He cashed in about a third of hs events last year as a MPM. As an Open player he would not have cashed once, and would usually have been near the bottom of the division. Why keep playing in tournaments if you have no chance of competing?

Move down to Advanced? That's an awful tough shot to the ego (I know, I have done it). Also, most 40+ players who have played at the Pro level probably wouldn't enjoy playing with up-and-comers (or baggers), they play to compete with their age-based peers.

Why do we have the age-protected divisions that we do? Ask some of the old-timer player/TD's like drdisc (Monroe). Mostly I think it was that the first generation of competitive golfers wanted to still be able to win something, even after they started to get older, slower, fatter, creakier, balder, etc. At the time (I was in my early 20's) I saw no problem with that - they just wanted to be competitive.

28003, come back in 20 years and see what you say. I think your opinion will be different. Of course, once you get to be 40+, supporting age-based divisions will be in your best interest, so my guess is it will be the kind of selfish position you will cotton too.

28003, come back in 20 years and see what you say. I think your opinion will be different. Of course, once you get to be 40+, supporting age-based divisions will be in your best interest, so my guess is it will be the kind of selfish position you will cotton too.


First of all, the poll is a joke in case that wasn't obvious to everyone.
Second, like I said, if I am ever rated over 980, I will move up to Open and never play Masters! People act like it's a miracle that a 40 year old is still able to throw a disc. I'm sorry but I believe that age protected divisions should start at 50 years of age.
Third, I started this thread as joke in honor of Kevin McCoy. For as long as I have been reading the message board, he has been trying to get more money......I mean more players in Open. When I check the scores for A tiers and NTs, I can't help but notice that the masters scores are right up there with Open. What I also notice is that the winner of Masters makes an extra $100-600 than he would have in Open. I'm not talking about most of the guys who have responded on this thread, I'm talking about all the 1000+ rated players that finish 1st or 2nd in Masters every event....ahem....Brad Hammock.....ahem. There are quite a few 1000+ rated Masters that only play Open at USDGC and the Player's Cup.
I know I haven't made any friends with this thread. And now I realize that most Masters don't care, in a 4-7 person field, (as it is in most smaller events) if the winner is rated 990+ and everyone else is 940ish. If you guys do it just to compete with older guys for Bingo money, then I guess I will never understand, and I will accept it and will never understand what it means to be a professional in our sport.

I know I haven't made any friends with this thread. And now I realize that most Masters don't care, in a 4-7 person field, (as it is in most smaller events) if the winner is rated 990+ and everyone else is 940ish. If you guys do it just to compete with older guys for Bingo money, then I guess I will never understand, and I will accept it and will never understand what it means to be a professional in our sport.



Interesting juxtaposition of comments there. I think that might just give you the clue you need. There are more motivations to play and compete than to be a professional.

Look at AviarX as an example. As a Pro Master he is somewhat competitive. He cashed in about a third of hs events last year as a MPM. As an Open player he would not have cashed once, and would usually have been near the bottom of the division. Why keep playing in tournaments if you have no chance of competing?



Basically what is being pointed out here is that MPM fills the void in the competitive structure for 950-990 players. Only catch is that you have to be 39+ to play in it.

I'm in the same boat as AviarX. I'm a 950-ish golfer (went up miraculously to 962 in the last update). I would feel like a big bagger in MA1 and a total bagger in MM1. I would be a total donator in MPO (my wife andkids cannot afford that).

Instead, I have the MPM option that I basically broke even in last year (and my wife was happy) including a win and a shoulda/coulda win (3rd place). Cashed in a few C-Tiers and then had a horrible A-Tier where I stunk it up on a windy weekend and almost DFL'ed.

Kevin will like this: Since we intermingled all the Pro divisions for the 1st round, I happened to be on a card with Barry Schultz, Chris Sprague and Mike Hofmann. I saw that I could play with them in the woods and learned that my wind game sucked (well, I actually already knew that). After our first 6 holes in the woods I was tied or ahead of them (and I learned that mentally top Pros can get as frustrated as I get).......Then I fell way behind on the open long and windy holes.

See - MPM is already basically the Semi-Pro division!

I believe more of the ranting on this forum was against 1010+ rated players who make a decent amount of pocket change playing in the masters division...And the skins example, I dont see your point...I would play skins for whatever was available...We are talking tournies here...

The reason we have older divisions and will continue to do so has to do with tradition and the fact that most other sports have them. Kind of like teenagers explaining why they do things, "Because everyone else is doing it."



See, Chuck, I will accept THAT answer much more readily than the others listed.

But I'm still not against the Fats division, btw.

One of the recurring themes that comes up in all of these threads is that players don't want to be donators and they don't want to play with the newbies. Both issues are addressed simply by using the ratings and letting each division play for money on a sliding entry fee scale. Sure you lose the slush fund of merch to move around to divisions, but maybe this would eventually motivate players to go get sponsors. Everyone talks about it, but as I've observed with Rich's tourney no one does it. If players want added money to make the game more than gambling they need to have the initiative to make it happen, and stop sucking off discs for added ca$h.

At some point, for respectability sake, players with diminishing skills have to accept the fact they move down the food chain. If your rating sinks to the next division you can always still play up if your pride won't let you go to far down the ladder. This is more legit than creating 29 divisions so everyone's in the top group. Is this sport or welfare?

One of the recurring themes that comes up in all of these threads is that players don't want to be donators and they don't want to play with the newbies. Both issues are addressed simply by using the ratings and letting each division play for money on a sliding entry fee scale. Sure you lose the slush fund of merch to move around to divisions, but maybe this would eventually motivate players to go get sponsors. Everyone talks about it, but as I've observed with Rich's tourney no one does it. If players want added money to make the game more than gambling they need to have the initiative to make it happen, and stop sucking off discs for added ca$h.

At some point, for respectability sake, players with diminishing skills have to accept the fact they move down the food chain. If your rating sinks to the next division you can always still play up if your pride won't let you go to far down the ladder. This is more legit than creating 29 divisions so everyone's in the top group. Is this sport or welfare?



Hawk, you keep supporting this model and you have my vote! Chuck proposed this model, or a version of it a year ago and since then doesn't even mention it. But it is very sweet!

Kenny will be Masters eligible in about 9 months, as a matter of fact, I believe he turns 39 anyday now. He was born in 1968...just like me. The similarities end there.




Next Tuesday for KC and Barry's Wednesday but two years younger. Something about Aries guys born in March maybe? :eek: Felberg and Schweb also Aries, coming up in early April.

Yeah Aries, we are the Dominata's

Since its not my livelihiood, I have no problem with lower fees, and really don't expect any added cash. If we ever do get the sponsorship level that allows for true pros, I have no problem with NTs being Open Pro only as they would fill without the age divisions. Even better, a separate Seniors tour would be a wonderful develoment some day.

But when people say we don't need age based divisions, well, that I take issue with. Ratings alone doesn't solve everything, unless you are comfortable with situations such as all of your Senior Grands being forced into the rec division.



Does 45 sound like a reasonable age? How about 50?

No.

Since its not my livelihiood, I have no problem with lower fees, and really don't expect any added cash. If we ever do get the sponsorship level that allows for true pros, I have no problem with NTs being Open Pro only as they would fill without the age divisions. Even better, a separate Seniors tour would be a wonderful develoment some day.

But when people say we don't need age based divisions, well, that I take issue with. Ratings alone doesn't solve everything, unless you are comfortable with situations such as all of your Senior Grands being forced into the rec division.



Does 45 sound like a reasonable age? How about 50?



as someone who just turned 45, i am more willing to compromise and might now support raising the Master age to 45 :eek: :D

You have to decide why we have an old guy division and then the age requirement will be more obvious. If it is a bone we throw to the old guy volunteers who just want to play with other old guys, at what age are we socially out of touch with the 20-something dudes who dominate in advanced? 35? 40?

If it is because old guys' skills decline, I'm 48 and the ratings say I have not peaked yet. Terry is 60ish and is as good as he has ever been. Terry and I are both busy people with wives[one each], kids, jobs. If this is the reason for an old guy division, maybe 50 or 55 makes sense.

Oh, Bruce, we are busy. (And between us we do average fewer wives each during the course of our lives than the current average Republican presidential candidate does.)

Yes, we are getting a little better. But neither of us is really going to get another 50-75 feet on our drives, and unless we do, our ratings and other skills mean little when we play competitively against young guys on long courses like the Toboggan, Monster, Fountain Hills, and the like.

If you pump up your rating playing short courses, you're going to be shot down on the long courses.

I'm pretty sure I can shoot 942 at the Tobbogan. That's a 65. If I qualify at Lombard, I'll give it a shot.

Heck, Masters used to be 35, which was crazy. It seems as though it keeps getting bumped up so people who grew up in the 60's don't have to play with those that didn't. There's no reason to do that. Just keep it at 40. Our society seems to recognize that age as a milestone, so it should rightly be so that one gets to play in an age-protected division at that time.

It was the age when the recovery time for a 2 day event equalled the length of the event.

Does 45 sound like a reasonable age? How about 50?



I think the current 40 is fine as is. Perhaps digging up the old minutes when the age was moved from 35 can shed some light as to why 40 was chosen.

I honestly cant believe it was ever 35....

It still is 35 for the World (WFDF).

Does 45 sound like a reasonable age? How about 50?



I think the current 40 is fine as is. <font color="blue"> </font> when the age was moved from 35 can shed some light as to why 40 was chosen.


ROTFL

Minutes? We don't need no stinkin' minutes! Actually, I doubt there were any minutes taken at that time. Many of you have no idea how simply things were handled back at the beginning. Ed dictated something, or (once he handed the org over) Ted or Ted with a small group of others made decisions in what we would see today as a very informal manner. Ask Monroe or Lavonne why the age was what it was - they'll have the best info.

I honestly cant believe it was ever 35....



It's 33 for Ultimate....

(two more years for me :))

the only similarity between ultimate and disc golf is that they both use discs. most 40+ disc golfers would last about 10 seconds playing ultimate.

I'd get winded watching others warm up.

I say we get rid of ALL the age protected divisions,and go to
Pro only like it use to be loooong ago!

How would a 19 year old feel like playing with a 72 yr old in the first round?

Like someone said earlier,wait until you get older. You'll understand someday.

Listen,most top masters use the rules to their advantage. I did not create the age divisions,the PDGA did. If the PDGA continues to have age divisions,then they need to keep supporting them. Plain and simple....

Not sure which part you're serious about Deano - getting rid of age based divisions, or supporting them.
I'm definitely in the camp of limiting them much more than we do now. MarshallStreet is a good example of a quality event that's as much about competition as anything. Men, and over 50 men. Ratingsbedamned. Play or don't play - and there's a waiting list 6 months in advance, hmmmmm - exactly what is wrong with this picture? Nothing.
No offense Deano - but guys like you and me and Myers, and Oates, and Hammock, and Mela, and, and, and, shouldn't have even the choice to play in a protected division. Not unless we're the only ones there (ie US Masters).

I say we get rid of ALL the age protected divisions,and go to
Pro only like it use to be loooong ago!

How would a 19 year old feel like playing with a 72 yr old in the first round?

Like someone said earlier,wait until you get older. You'll understand someday.

Listen,most top masters use the rules to their advantage. I did not create the age divisions,the PDGA did. If the PDGA continues to have age divisions,then they need to keep supporting them. Plain and simple....



I would agree that sticking with the current setup is a good idea. The divisions have come to mean something to the people who compete in them. We all have the choice of playing adv. open or pro open if we want to. But most of the guys I know and compete with in the adv. masters division are grooming themselves to one day move to open masters or even pro. The exception would be that some people just don't want to go open, ever. Am for ever they say(baggers)! I really appreciate the protected divisions as it allows me to compete against people my own age and ability. If I continue to improve with my tournament ability, I will bump myself to open masters. I don't even care that there are players with 1000+ ratings. I just know that I will never improve to the point I know can reach without the progression.

I get your point Craig,I will continue to have the choice as long as they allow.

Some of us Masters are not liked in ANY division. When I play Open,some tell me I should be in Masters (when I take their money),and Masters are mad because I am not playing Open!

:confused:

When I play Open,some tell me I should be in Masters (when I take their money),



You should NEVER call anyone out for playing at the highest level of competition offered.

Like Tiger calling out Nicklaus for 'slumming' at the Masters /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I get your point Craig,I will continue to have the choice as long as they allow.

Some of us Masters are not liked in ANY division. When I play Open,some tell me I should be in Masters (when I take their money),and Masters are mad because I am not playing Open!

:confused:



I like it when the young guys tell me to go play Masters :) It's very satisfying! Not gonna happen though.

I understand that you have the choice - so do I. But why would you/do you choose the protected division when you're as good as you are? Simply because you have the choice?

I honestly cant believe it was ever 35....



I remember at 23 and 24 y/o saying.....only 10 more years until Masters.

Now at 34.5....i'm still saying...only 5 more years.

Bring back 35 y/o MASTERS! :D

I think most of the 1000+ rated masters would beat about 80% of todays open players at any event! But I don't care if they are still there when I decide to go open. I look forward to the challenge when the time comes, because I'm not a whimp! Game On! Remember, the one who has the most fun wins! You are only a bagger if you feel guilty after beating everyone in your division by 20 strokes, right? Or is it 15 strokes. Everyone always points that stuff out. "He would have won open". Or "He would have got 2nd". "That other guy should have been 1st".

If you have no guilt, then move on and get the next trophy. If you do, why play?

Usually a few things I look at,cost of trip,size of field,purse size. I usually play Open in B,C and D tiers,A tier on up,Masters.

I commend the level of play the top rated masters have achieved! I hope they never bow to pressure to play in a division they aren't required to play in or don't want to play in. They can compete with the open division and that is saying a bunch! I wish had as many years into this sport as they did.... I think we should respect each players decision to play in whatever division they are allowed to compete in. I think guys like Dean, Jim Oates and Joe Mela ect.. have earned that. I think things are good as they are. Don't change a thing :cool:There is no such thing as a bagger in the pro division....

Mark,
No one is saying that the level of play is not commendable. The point (for me) is whether the divisional system supports the true spirit of competition. If an over 40 player has a rating of 1000+, they are obviously capable of competing at the highest levels, at the biggest tournaments. The fact that we offer them the choice to be in a protected division, diluting the talent pool of the most competitive division, and then reward their scores in an incommensurate fashion, is what I find unpalatable, and inappropriate.

Deano, tell me more - I'm not raggin on you, just curious what motivates you. Are the big events just a better pay day? I could understand a 40yo guy who shows up at a B Tier and there's 20 guys signed up for Masters, and 6 for Open, jumping in the Masters Division just because the prize pool is bigger. But at ATiers - the opposite is true - the Open Division usually trumps the Masters by at least a few players, if not significantly. So are you playing Masters to play against a smaller field? A thinner field (skill wise)? or what?

Well now that your Innova and have read the contract,Innova pays bonuses for A tier on up. Basically first place money + bonus pays for trips. I usually arrive one day before tournament starts,if say I am in Florida playing,I would have a better chance finishing top three in Masters than finishing top five or six in Open,due to Ken,Johnny,double G plus touring guys showing up. They have ALL those courses wired.

The point (for me) is whether the divisional system supports the true spirit of competition. If an over 40 player has a rating of 1000+, they are obviously capable of competing at the highest levels, at the biggest tournaments. The fact that we offer them the choice to be in a protected division, diluting the talent pool of the most competitive division, and then reward their scores in an incommensurate fashion, is what I find unpalatable, and inappropriate.





Craig, if you believe the current divisional system does not support the "true spirit of competition," you could not be more wrong. The true competitive spirit is something shared amongst competitors in every single division, regardless of age, gender or skill.

I believe I understand the point you were making, however. What I do not understand is the popular criticism of our current divisional structure and the opinion quoted above. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the PDGA allow a TD the option on what type of event to sanction? My understanding is that a club can host a non-traditional style tournament such as a ratings-based event or an Open-only division. If these options are available, why do we not see more of these events in opposition to the current divisional formats? Resistance to change? Fear of change?

No one can deny the fact that Masters-age players like Tannock, Mela, Myers, etc. can competitively compete in the Open division. These 1000+ rated Masters are exceptions to the norm, however.

Look at the ratings distribution chart here. (http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/2003RatingsCharts.pdf)

Granted, the data is outdated, but the chart provides a good comparison for discussion. Wow! Look at all those 1000+ rated Masters! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif I'm sure the number of competitors and their respective player ratings have increased since this report was published, but I would suspect the overall ratios are still quite similar. Maybe Chuck has a more updated chart?

Disc golf is a drop in the bucket compared to the other professional sports offering similar divisional structures. The exponential growth and popularity of disc golf will happen over time. Eventually, our sport will probably need to develop separate tours to accommodate the increasing field of competitors. There will always be attrition within the ranks, however, the overall growth will easily counter those losses. The key to successful growth is not only the installment of additional courses, but the continued promotion of our sport within our local schools and communities. The E.D.G.E. Program is a perfect example of said promotional efforts and the International Disc Golf Center will prove to be an important part in moving our sport toward mainstream recognition.

Requiring the few 1000+ rated forty-somethings to play Open is not going to increase the Open field by a significant margin. Growing the recreational/amateur player base eventually will.

The relative percentages of players in each category are about the same, but we have many more players. Since the field size on an 18-hole course hasn't changed beyond 72 or 90, we are now seeing more higher rated players in the top events since there are more of them. So, the highest rated Masters are more noticeable since there are more of them since 2003.

If the trend continues, we'll see more higher rated Masters along with more highly rated Open players. The highly rated Masters will continue to gain higher profile but at the same time there will be more highly rated Open players making the Masters want to stay Master at the big events. At some point, when there are enough highly rated Open players to fill fields with decent payouts, I'm not sure Craig will care that the Masters are playing in their own division. In the long run, any problem that some perceive with the top rated Masters "bagging" in Master at the big events will go away. And, some Masters will be seeking invites or exemptions to play in the bigger money Open fields since you'll have to qualify to get in.

Chuck, is there and updated rating distribution chart? It would be interesting to see the current spread.....

Also, I was talking Jim Oates about the current trend in size of the masters field while I was at St. Patty's, and he was saying it has been very well attended in the past, had a slump and then is picking up again. I have been looking at current attendance, and have been seeing many Am-masters registering and attending Pro Master events. It is apparent to me that I guy who is say a 920 rated player who plays golf in the pro divisions usually sees a rating bump just by being compared to that field. He did not necessarily play alot better than he usully does. I think that means a players rating is bound to go up faster if they play pro. If you stay Am it's a much slower process. So if things keep going like that, the fields and ratings levels are bound to go up....

I'll see about making another colorful chart for 2006 yearend ratings like I did for 2003. We're doing analysis in the Competition Committee anyway so we'll need it.

Yeah, present the data for each division in a curve format (y-axis total number, x axis rating). Then add together the number of events played by all players at that rating plot a similar graph (number of events played by all players with that rating on the y-axis vs. rating on the x axis).

Then make the peaks at the same height and overlay the second graph over the first.

I want this on my desk by friday. :p

Here are some 2006 stats for North American members based on what I have in the ratings file based on age. Recognize that some players will enter higher level or younger divisions:

<table border="1"><tr><td>.</td><td>Pro</td><td>Pro</td><td>Am</td><td>Am</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>M</td><td>F</td><td>M</td><td>F</td><td>Total
</td></tr><tr><td>Junior</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>181</td><td>23</td><td>204
</td></tr><tr><td>Open</td><td>1485</td><td>111</td><td>5755</td><td>387</td><td>7738
</td></tr><tr><td>Master</td><td>1089</td><td>53</td><td>1780</td><td>121</td><td>3043
</td></tr><tr><td>G-Master</td><td>402</td><td>16</td><td>481</td><td>42</td><td>941
</td></tr><tr><td>S-Master</td><td>47</td><td>2</td><td>51</td><td>1</td><td>101
</td></tr><tr><td>Legend</td><td>12</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>14
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>Total</td><td>12041
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>


Here are the ratings breakouts:

<table border="1"><tr><td>.</td><td>Pro</td><td>Pro</td><td>Am</td><td>Am</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Rating</td><td>M</td><td>F</td><td>M</td><td>F</td><td>Total
</td></tr><tr><td>1020+</td><td>22</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>22
</td></tr><tr><td>1010+</td><td>50</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>50
</td></tr><tr><td>1000+</td><td>64</td><td>.</td><td>0</td><td>.</td><td>64
</td></tr><tr><td>990+</td><td>150</td><td>.</td><td>5</td><td>.</td><td>155
</td></tr><tr><td>980+</td><td>238</td><td>.</td><td>17</td><td>.</td><td>255
</td></tr><tr><td>970+</td><td>311</td><td>0</td><td>54</td><td>.</td><td>365
</td></tr><tr><td>960+</td><td>397</td><td>1</td><td>138</td><td>.</td><td>536
</td></tr><tr><td>950+</td><td>436</td><td>4</td><td>281</td><td>.</td><td>721
</td></tr><tr><td>940+</td><td>353</td><td>3</td><td>464</td><td>.</td><td>820
</td></tr><tr><td>930+</td><td>272</td><td>6</td><td>612</td><td>.</td><td>890
</td></tr><tr><td>920+</td><td>221</td><td>3</td><td>709</td><td>.</td><td>933
</td></tr><tr><td>910+</td><td>146</td><td>10</td><td>834</td><td>0</td><td>990
</td></tr><tr><td>900+</td><td>116</td><td>7</td><td>734</td><td>1</td><td>858
</td></tr><tr><td>890+</td><td>70</td><td>13</td><td>758</td><td>2</td><td>843
</td></tr><tr><td>880+</td><td>60</td><td>18</td><td>620</td><td>1</td><td>699
</td></tr><tr><td>870+</td><td>42</td><td>12</td><td>576</td><td>9</td><td>639
</td></tr><tr><td>860+</td><td>20</td><td>17</td><td>480</td><td>11</td><td>528
</td></tr><tr><td>850+</td><td>20</td><td>12</td><td>404</td><td>12</td><td>448
</td></tr><tr><td>840+</td><td>12</td><td>15</td><td>304</td><td>10</td><td>341
</td></tr><tr><td>830+</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>254</td><td>21</td><td>299
</td></tr><tr><td>820+</td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>193</td><td>32</td><td>236
</td></tr><tr><td>810+</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>155</td><td>20</td><td>181
</td></tr><tr><td>800+</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>125</td><td>42</td><td>176
</td></tr><tr><td>775+</td><td>8</td><td>16</td><td>219</td><td>91</td><td>334
</td></tr><tr><td>750+</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>118</td><td>64</td><td>190
</td></tr><tr><td>725+</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>68</td><td>69</td><td>145
</td></tr><tr><td>700+</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>41</td><td>51</td><td>94
</td></tr><tr><td>650+</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>50</td><td>64</td><td>117
</td></tr><tr><td>600+</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>14</td><td>29</td><td>45
</td></tr><tr><td>600></td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>21</td><td>46</td><td>68
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Here are some 2006 stats for North American members based on what I have in the ratings file based on age. Recognize that some players will enter higher level or younger divisions:

<table border="1"><tr><td>.</td><td>Pro</td><td>Pro</td><td>Am</td><td>Am</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>M</td><td>F</td><td>M</td><td>F</td><td>Total
</td></tr><tr><td>Junior</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>181</td><td>23</td><td>204
</td></tr><tr><td>Open</td><td>1485</td><td>111</td><td>5755</td><td>387</td><td>7738
</td></tr><tr><td>Master</td><td>1089</td><td>53</td><td>1780</td><td>121</td><td>3043
</td></tr><tr><td>G-Master</td><td>402</td><td>16</td><td>481</td><td>42</td><td>941
</td></tr><tr><td>S-Master</td><td>47</td><td>2</td><td>51</td><td>1</td><td>101
</td></tr><tr><td>Legend</td><td>12</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>14
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>Total</td><td>12041
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>


Here are the ratings breakouts:

<table border="1"><tr><td>.</td><td>Pro</td><td>Pro</td><td>Am</td><td>Am</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Rating</td><td>M</td><td>F</td><td>M</td><td>F</td><td>Total
</td></tr><tr><td>1020+</td><td>22</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>22
</td></tr><tr><td>1010+</td><td>50</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>50
</td></tr><tr><td>1000+</td><td>64</td><td>.</td><td>0</td><td>.</td><td>64
</td></tr><tr><td>990+</td><td>150</td><td>.</td><td>5</td><td>.</td><td>155
</td></tr><tr><td>980+</td><td>238</td><td>.</td><td>17</td><td>.</td><td>255
</td></tr><tr><td>970+</td><td>311</td><td>0</td><td>54</td><td>.</td><td>365
</td></tr><tr><td>960+</td><td>397</td><td>1</td><td>138</td><td>.</td><td>536
</td></tr><tr><td>950+</td><td>436</td><td>4</td><td>281</td><td>.</td><td>721
</td></tr><tr><td>940+</td><td>353</td><td>3</td><td>464</td><td>.</td><td>820
</td></tr><tr><td>930+</td><td>272</td><td>6</td><td>612</td><td>.</td><td>890
</td></tr><tr><td>920+</td><td>221</td><td>3</td><td>709</td><td>.</td><td>933
</td></tr><tr><td>910+</td><td>146</td><td>10</td><td>834</td><td>0</td><td>990
</td></tr><tr><td>900+</td><td>116</td><td>7</td><td>734</td><td>1</td><td>858
</td></tr><tr><td>890+</td><td>70</td><td>13</td><td>758</td><td>2</td><td>843
</td></tr><tr><td>880+</td><td>60</td><td>18</td><td>620</td><td>1</td><td>699
</td></tr><tr><td>870+</td><td>42</td><td>12</td><td>576</td><td>9</td><td>639
</td></tr><tr><td>860+</td><td>20</td><td>17</td><td>480</td><td>11</td><td>528
</td></tr><tr><td>850+</td><td>20</td><td>12</td><td>404</td><td>12</td><td>448
</td></tr><tr><td>840+</td><td>12</td><td>15</td><td>304</td><td>10</td><td>341
</td></tr><tr><td>830+</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>254</td><td>21</td><td>299
</td></tr><tr><td>820+</td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>193</td><td>32</td><td>236
</td></tr><tr><td>810+</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>155</td><td>20</td><td>181
</td></tr><tr><td>800+</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>125</td><td>42</td><td>176
</td></tr><tr><td>775+</td><td>8</td><td>16</td><td>219</td><td>91</td><td>334
</td></tr><tr><td>750+</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>118</td><td>64</td><td>190
</td></tr><tr><td>725+</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>68</td><td>69</td><td>145
</td></tr><tr><td>700+</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>41</td><td>51</td><td>94
</td></tr><tr><td>650+</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>50</td><td>64</td><td>117
</td></tr><tr><td>600+</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>14</td><td>29</td><td>45
</td></tr><tr><td>600></td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>21</td><td>46</td><td>68
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>




Kinda hard to have Pro Jr's eh? There are probably 35 Pros currently <19

There are 13 MPO with birthdates in 1988 or later.

My understanding is that a club can host a non-traditional style tournament such as a ratings-based event or an Open-only division. If these options are available, why do we not see more of these events in opposition to the current divisional formats? Resistance to change?



I would say it is probably due to a "stick with the default divisions" mentality. It takes thought and action to use a different divisional format. Perhaps a better way to see if this is truly wanted would be to make the decision a check box on the sanctioning form (Will your tournament be "Ratings based / Divisions based"). Then we would have a system that encouraged TDs to think about this decision.


No one can deny the fact that Masters-age players like Tannock, Mela, Myers, etc. can competitively compete in the Open division. These 1000+ rated Masters are exceptions to the norm, however.

Look at the ratings distribution chart here. (http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/2003RatingsCharts.pdf)

Granted, the data is outdated, but the chart provides a good comparison for discussion. Wow! Look at all those 1000+ rated Masters! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



The MPO and MPM divisions seem to have similar bell curves with the highest distribution at 940 to 950. The MPMs taper off a bit quicker at the higher ratings and a bit slower at the lower ratings, but they seem to be in the same ball park ratings-wise.

There are 13 MPO with birthdates in 1988 or later.



Wow there are less than I thought. Two years ago there were more when Myles, Gregg, Matto, and Coda were in that bracket but I guess they are OLD. :D:D

I know that at least 4 of the 13 are sponsored by G-way. Hopefully more soon.

You can add Linus to the list since the 13 didn't include players outside North America.

Craig, if you believe the current divisional system does not support the "true spirit of competition," you could not be more wrong. The true competitive spirit is something shared amongst competitors in every single division, regardless of age, gender or skill.


Sorry Jerry - just can't agree with that at all. Competition is about pitting yourself against all others when you're playing the same course - at the same time. What is it that every division compares their scores to when they come in? (Hint - it's the open division). My comments are not about the players, but about the system. A system based on true competition would pit a wide range of skills against one another - ours does not - and is even striving to narrow the skill margin even more. By allowing the highly rated Master the choice to not compete against similarly rated players is plain and simple supporting something other than true competition. While I agree that all players of all skill levels have an inherent competitive drive, and the game we all love has an inherent competitive spirit - the divisional system we operate under does not support either.

Nothing against Deano - he is a fine man - and a skilled disc golfer - but he has said plainly here, that his choice is based on financial motivations. That's fine - that's what the system allows - there is nothing negative about the choices he makes when choosing a division. I just happen to believe that the system should not allow such a choice. This is why I choose to play Open regardless of the venue - I'll take my lumps (or rewards) as they come - with no worry about field size - or number of highly rated players. When I play to my ability - I have as good a chance as anyone anywhere.
With an increasing number of players - age obviously has nothing to do with skill - and when offering a competitive venue as a sanctioning body, we should do so based on skill - period.


Requiring the few 1000+ rated forty-somethings to play Open is not going to increase the Open field by a significant margin. Growing the recreational/amateur player base eventually will.


For me - it's not an issue of the actual numbers - only the base principle. Masters are not the only group who are given a competitive "out". Look at the charts these guys have provided. The number of 1000+ rated players is around 200 out of 8-10000 players - yet we want to segregate them into a separate division (2 even). And we complain that the several 1000 950+ rated players need protection from the couple % of players who have raised their game to another level. None of it makes any sense when you're talking about true competition. Your statement that building the lower divisions will eventually build the Open would only be true if we establish criteria and realistic divisional structures for competition. Currently we have not. This is why I have not played Worlds since 1996 - I do not support the PDGA divisional structure.
MARSHALL STREET!! Open Men, Over 50 Men - play or don't play - $150 entry fee, ratingsbedamned, and there's a waiting list 6 months in advance - what's wrong with this picture? NOTHING!!!!!!

Me on the same course with 1000+ golfers is not competition by any definition. :cool:

There is nothing wrong with the MSDGC or USDGC and they both fill.

There is no reason to believe that just because these events are popular that they represent the only correct answer.

I guess every tournament in the country should drop the pro division altogether and follow the format of the Bowling Green Am event. Wasn't it the largest tournament outside of worlds last year ?

Me on the same course with 1000+ golfers is not competition by any definition. :cool:

There is nothing wrong with the MSDGC or USDGC and they both fill.

There is no reason to believe that just because these events are popular that they represent the only correct answer.

I guess every tournament in the country should drop the pro division altogether and follow the format of the Bowling Green Am event. Wasn't it the largest tournament outside of worlds last year ?



and will probably have more players than both worlds COMBINED this year with 743 players :eek:

even if they don't....that's more players than ANY event except the combined 2004 worlds... and they're doing all of that in 2 days...

alot of players are going there for all of different reasons, but they have 1 thing in common... disc golf!

good luck to all the adgo and georgia disc golfers!!

keith

Competition is about pitting yourself against all others when you're playing the same course - at the same time...
This is why I have not played Worlds since 1996



No other division is playing on a course with Open at the same time. No other division is playing the same set of three courses as Open at Worlds this year. Sounds like that meets your criteria of competition. You've been invited and can enter Open to lead the way for other older players to play up. Join Harold and Selinske and a few other players that are 40+ in Open now that you're on the Innova Team.

Chuck, thanks for the stats.....

I think it is interesting that as far as age protected divisions go, the number of men playing in Am and Pro are fairly close (40% Pro to 60% Am), but the Pro Open and Adv. Open are lop sided toward the Am side (25% pro to 75% Adv.) Does this mean that the pro open division has the most potential for growth from the younger Advanced pool of players? I think it does...

I also think it shows that the system works well and grooms certain players for the open division, and that it is simply a matter of time. It also seems that many advanced players are hiding out (so to speak) until they feel confident enough or bump to do pressure. The number of open division players and the level of skill will increase as advanced players move to that division.

As for us old people, we choose that division because we have much better odds of cashing or merching (not another disc!). I think the fact that all the age protected divisions are very equal (close to 50/50) shows that it is the same motivation to play those divisions regardless of your rating or membership status (Pro/Am.).

I think the stats support that the 40, 50, 60 year requirement is the right starting age. I also think that it supports the idea that the system is working toward growing the sport to another level as far as the open division goes. ;)

I guess shorthand doesn't translate. The system which generates invitations to Worlds is based on venues that have players all playing the same courses at the same time (largely). I take issue with that system - and thus do not support the resultant "championship" derived from it.

In addition - of the eight times I went to Worlds - virtually all of them were marathon exercises in birdie fest golf (winners being 70 or 80 under par in 8-9 rounds of golf) which pretty much lost it's allure for me after eight times. The last straw was watching preferential treatment for top players - a snub to the basic rules of tournament play (multiple instances, multiple TD's, multiple top players). Please don't ask me to elaborate - as I don't wish to drag up things that are now over a decade old. Suffice it to say they were enough to sour the experience. And apparently, such occurances have not ceased.

In addition - of the eight times I went to Worlds - virtually all of them were marathon exercises in birdie fest golf (winners being 70 or 80 under par in 8-9 rounds of golf) which pretty much lost it's allure for me after eight times.



Craig,

I won't disagree with your other statements, but concerning Pro Worlds being exercises in birdie fest golf, I would like to point out that the 2005 Pro Worlds in Pennsylvania played on following courses: <ul type="square"> Jordan Creek SSA ~56.0 Little Lehigh Parkway ~56.5 Tinicum Park SSA ~55.2 Nockamixon State Park SSA ~66.0[/list]

The upcoming Pro Worlds 2007 in Highbridge, WI will be played on the following courses: <ul type="square"> Blueberry Hill SSA ~57.0 Granite Ridge SSA ~58.0 Highbridge Gold SSA ~62.0 [/list]

Clearly, your assumption about Pro Worlds being "birdie fest golf" is quite outdated.

This also won't be a marathon like say Iowa with 6 different courses and 8 rounds before the semis. Every division will play only three challenging courses twice before the semis. Less preliminary practice required on tougher courses and a second chance at each.

In addition - of the eight times I went to Worlds - virtually all of them were marathon exercises in birdie fest golf (winners being 70 or 80 under par in 8-9 rounds of golf) which pretty much lost it's allure for me after eight times.



Craig,

I won't disagree with your other statements, but concerning Pro Worlds being exercises in birdie fest golf, I would like to point out that the 2005 Pro Worlds in Pennsylvania played on following courses: <ul type="square"> Jordan Creek SSA ~56.0 Little Lehigh Parkway ~56.5 Tinicum Park SSA ~55.2 Nockamixon State Park SSA ~66.0[/list]

The upcoming Pro Worlds 2007 in Highbridge, WI will be played on the following courses: <ul type="square"> Blueberry Hill SSA ~57.0 Granite Ridge SSA ~58.0 Highbridge Gold SSA ~62.0 [/list]

Clearly, your assumption about Pro Worlds being "birdie fest golf" is quite outdated.



Have the Highbridge coiurse been modified? :confused: The reason I ask is because a 59-60 was 1000 at Mid-Nats on the gold, 53 on Blueberry, and 55 on Granite. :confused: To me Blueberry seems harder than Granite.

All three are somewhat different from the first Mid-Nats you won, with Granite having the most changes. Blueberry always had multiple pin placements and a longer combo than Mid-Nats is being used for Worlds. Blueberry 17 & 18 are different from 2005. Granite was completely rerouted after hole 7 with maybe 5 holes from 8-18 still the same and others improved. A few Gold tees are also going in for Worlds to lengthen a few holes. New Highbridge Gold 8 is the combo of old 7 & 8, old 2 is 300 feet longer and now a par 5, and a new shorter hole 2 was added in the woods to the right of 1. Plus HG has a few longer placements being used than previous Mid-Nats.

Clearly, your assumption about Pro Worlds being "birdie fest golf" is quite outdated.




Short term memory loss? What did Kenny average last year in Augusta, -7 or -8 per round?

Let's hope that this year's Pro World's raises the bar and that the tournament selection folks don't let it fall back down into limbo-contest-mode again.

Unfortunately, if the only Pro Worlds bidder has mostly 'birdie fest' courses, there's no way around it other than skip the Pro Worlds for that year. Fortunately, we'll soon have the IDGC and Highbridge to backstop the possibility that no one wants to bid on hosting PW in the future.

I'd love to see $1 from each of our dues go to a fund for the Pro Worlds staff. A little extra financial incentive coupled with a real "gold" standard for these courses could be the recipe for no more limbo-contest worlds.

Clearly, your assumption about Pro Worlds being "birdie fest golf" is quite outdated.




Short term memory loss? What did Kenny average last year in Augusta, -7 or -8 per round?

Let's hope that this year's Pro World's raises the bar and that the tournament selection folks don't let it fall back down into limbo-contest-mode again.



Denny,

The SSA for the 2006 Pro Worlds courses were the following:
<ul type="square"> Lake Holmstead SSA ~54.0 Riverview Park SSA ~51.5 Pendleton King SSA ~49.0 Hippodrome SSA ~63.0[/list]

Additionally, Climo's scores were 51,50,45,45,65,47,46 which averages out to 49.9. That's a far cry from "-7 or -8 per round."

The course designers in Augusta did the best they could with the land they had to work with, and considering this data presented, I disagree strongly on your assertion that Pro Worlds 2006 was also "birdie fest golf."

I also don't appreciate the "short term memory loss" quip. :mad:

Clearly, your assumption about Pro Worlds being "birdie fest golf" is quite outdated.




Short term memory loss? What did Kenny average last year in Augusta, -7 or -8 per round?

Let's hope that this year's Pro World's raises the bar and that the tournament selection folks don't let it fall back down into limbo-contest-mode again.



Denny,

The SSA for the 2006 Pro Worlds courses were the following:
<ul type="square"> Lake Holmstead SSA ~54.0 Riverview Park SSA ~51.5 Pendleton King SSA ~49.0 Hippodrome SSA ~63.0[/list]

Additionally, Climo's scores were 51,50,45,45,65,47,46 which averages out to 49.9. That's a far cry from "-7 or -8 per round."

The course designers in Augusta did the best they could with the land they had to work with, and considering this data presented, I disagree strongly on your assertion that Pro Worlds 2006 was also "birdie fest golf."

I also don't appreciate the "short term memory loss" quip. :mad:



Gee, I can't get mad when people comment on my memory loss, I keep forgetting to...

Denny,

The SSA for the 2006 Pro Worlds courses were the following:
<ul type="square"> Lake Holmstead SSA ~54.0 Riverview Park SSA ~51.5 Pendleton King SSA ~49.0 Hippodrome SSA ~63.0[/list]

Additionally, Climo's scores were 51,50,45,45,65,47,46 which averages out to 49.9. That's a far cry from "-7 or -8 per round."

The course designers in Augusta did the best they could with the land they had to work with, and considering this data presented, I disagree strongly on your assertion that Pro Worlds 2006 was also "birdie fest golf."

I also don't appreciate the "short term memory loss" quip. :mad:



The memory loss comment was a joke.

I stand by my contention that the winning worlds score last year averaged at least -7 per round. The total to par is no longer on the tournament results page, but I'm pretty sure that Kenny shot better than -70, the number -72 sticks in my mind.

I believe the Hippodrome was par 65, Riverview 56, and Pendleton 55. I don't believe in using revisionist history to now claim that Kenny was only -30( 7.5*-4)

It is my opinion, and others are free to disagree, that for major championships the winner should average even to -3 per round. (Take note that Avery shot -18 for 3 rounds at the Players Cup. I'd like to see the Red Hawk play even a bit tougher relative to par, but without increasing the difficulty due to distance. I think that puppy's stretched out as far as I'd like to see.)

These are the averages from the last ten years of major golf championships:
<table border="1"><tr><td>4 Round Total</td><td>Per Round
</td></tr><tr><td>Masters</td><td>-4.0</td><td>-1.0
</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. Open</td><td>-3.1</td><td>-0.8
</td></tr><tr><td>British Open</td><td>-8.4</td><td>-2.1
</td></tr><tr><td>PGA</td><td>-10.8</td><td>-2.7
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Average</td><td>-6.6</td><td>-1.6
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Those results are unrealistic for disc golf in terms of scoring versus true gold level par. If SSA and par are identical on each course, the Open winner shoots at least 1035 to win. That's -3.5 per 7 rounds in relation to SSA and likely -5 to -8 in relation to gold level par. So, the "appropriate" amount under properly set par on non-birdie fest courses will run around -40 to -50 on the PDGA Tour stats page. And again, it's the easier putting versus ball golf that produces this higher below par championship value, plus the fact we play 7 rounds plus a final 9 versus 4 rounds in ball golf championships.

If SSA and par are identical on each course, the Open winner shoots at least 1035 to win.



Sounds good to me. If every 10 player rating points is approximately equal to one stroke, and a 1035 rated round is even par, then the following would apply to a worlds with 7.5 rounds:

<table border="1"><tr><td> Player Rating</td><td>Per Round</td><td>Total
</td></tr><tr><td>1042</td><td>-0.7</td><td>-5.3
</td></tr><tr><td>1038</td><td>-0.3</td><td>-2.3
</td></tr><tr><td>1032</td><td>0.3</td><td>2.3
</td></tr><tr><td>1032</td><td>0.3</td><td>2.3
</td></tr><tr><td>1030</td><td>0.5</td><td>3.8
</td></tr><tr><td>1030</td><td>0.5</td><td>3.8
</td></tr><tr><td>1029</td><td>0.6</td><td>4.5
</td></tr><tr><td>1028</td><td>0.7</td><td>5.3
</td></tr><tr><td>1026</td><td>0.9</td><td>6.8
</td></tr><tr><td>1026</td><td>0.9</td><td>6.8
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

The golf metric is well established and people love to see the game's best having to shoot awesome rounds to break par for major championships. There's no reason that this can't be accomplished for disc golf, if we feel that it's desired.

We may not feel that we should pursue this sort of scoring and that' fine, but it's not true to say that it isn't possible.

Except setting par at the rating of our best players wouldn't make much sense.

There's room for reasonable people to disagree on this question. Just like some people think par 6's don't make sense. ;)

Other than the term 'par' is not used to refer to the best but for a reference number more in the middle of some range.

I stand by my contention that the winning worlds score last year averaged at least -7 per round. The total to par is no longer on the tournament results page, but I'm pretty sure that Kenny shot better than -70, the number -72 sticks in my mind.

I believe the Hippodrome was par 65, Riverview 56, and Pendleton 55. I don't believe in using revisionist history to now claim that Kenny was only -30( 7.5*-4)



The problem here is now we're getting into the "What is par" argument. I don't doubt that Ken Climo was shown as -70 or -72 because he was that many strokes under the pro par that was set for the tournament. Which included birdie 3s on pro par four holes.

Let's get back to Craig's original point about "birdie fest golf" which I understood as a comment about the courses being all deuce or die, with very few if any two-shot holes, and all considered basically par 54, and the top pros shooting all scores in the 40s.

For example, if you want to see birdie fest golf click below: http://web.archive.org/web/20000617162505/pdga.com/apool.phtml
Ron Russell beat Ken Climo in Rochester in 1999 because Ron averaged 45.0 for the tournament, and his worst score in the first 8 rounds was a 46. Ken Climo lost to Ron because he averaged 'only' 45.9 and during the first 8 rounds he shots scores of 49,48, and 47. This is a classic example of a "limbo-contest worlds" as you would call it.

Ignore all the par arguments Denny and just look at the quality of the courses. With world class courses with SSA ranges of 55-66, Pro Worlds are longer, tougher, with many, many two-shot holes and are no longer the deuce-or-die contests of years past. Just considering that, I stand by my original assertion that any assumption about Pro Worlds being "birdie fest golf" is quite outdated.

Jeff, if you substitute deuce-fest or deuce-or-die-fest for birdie-fest then I agree with you. Based on the worlds that Craig was referring to, I don't doubt that his intended meaning was the same as yours.

It may seem like much ado about nothing, but I think it's important to be careful with syntax and avoid perpetuating the myth that the terms birdie and deuce are interchangeable.

Sorry for all the thread drift. I think the age cut-off's should be 45 and 60, thereby eliminating one division.

I think the age cut-off's should be 45 and 60, thereby eliminating one division.



I'm glad you think that. If you to eliminate a division, just do not offer it in events you run and convince as many as possible to do the same. And you can do that convincing in threads idiotically titled, "Should 45 years olds be protected from 43 year olds?" and "Should 60 years olds be protected from 58 year olds?" :p

[quoteLet's get back to Craig's original point about "birdie fest golf"

[/QUOTE]

The original point was not about the fact that the eight times I played worlds you had to score in double digits or fall behind - that is sort of BESIDE the point - that is..... the divisional structure that is the basis of tournaments leading to and part of worlds is unworthy of a World Championship. When a significant number of quote unquote MASTER players would place in the cash in the OPEN division (the title that every disc golfer dreams of being good or lucky enough to get) - the competition becomes little more than a farce. This is my personal opinion - and I am well aware it is not widely shared - that's fine. Those that wish to compete at Worlds are welcome and encouraged to do so.

Couple the divisional structure with the notion of having to take an inordinate amount of time to go and learn multiple courses in order to be prepared to compete, with the fact that you don't ACTUALLY have to earn your way into the event (virtually anyone can get in if they try - via waiting list or other means) - and I choose to put my energies towards loftier goals.
In lieu of PDGA Worlds - my goals are set on competing in the USDGC, where there is only one division, and you have to earn your spot (with very few exceptions). So far I've made it every time, and am one of 14 players to do so. I hope I make it again this year!!

Craig, I hope you make it to the MSDGC (http://www.msdgc.com/) from now on too! We don't protect 38 year olds from their more experienced 40 year old counterparts either. Although once you get to 50 and have all that extra experience, then we start the protection.

When a significant number of quote unquote MASTER players would place in the cash in the OPEN division (the title that every disc golfer dreams of being good or lucky enough to get) - the competition becomes little more than a farce.



I think you may have just stated one of your base assumptions that is the source of your hang-ups about the divisional structure. Not every disc golfer dreams of getting the World Champion title.

I bet less than 50% have that pipe dream. I for one have never even had that thought enter my mind let alone dreaming about it (until now: "Dave, wouldn't it be awesome to be standing in front of the world holding up the World Championship trophy?!") :D

Seriously, the people that are serious about gunning for that title play MPO in Worlds. To others, it may mean more to get the MPM title. Why do you feel it is your place (or anyone's) to dictate people's priorities and desires to them? It is a moot point in any case, since (without doing all the research to verify this), has any MPM player (playing Worlds in the MPM division) even come close to challenging the scores of the top MPO players?!

I agree with Craig in ways on this. It seems that some would opt for lessor divisions knowing they can at least say they are a "world champion" They are obviously able to compete well in the Open Divison. In these cases, with the lessor divisions it is very apparent based on the schalacking these playes gave the rest of the field.... But who really knows? Seems the title of World Champion has got a bit watered down due to this. I always, and still see it as there only being one true world champ. And that is the Open Champ!

That is true, any time you have to expand upon the title, it's not the "true" title.

It's like the difference between "You look good" and "You look good for a person your age". But at some point, all you can hope for is the latter.

It seems that some would opt for lessor divisions knowing they can at least say they are a "world champion" They are obviously able to compete well in the Open Divison. In these cases, with the lessor divisions it is very apparent based on the schalacking these playes gave the rest of the field....



Shellacking? Here are results for MPM at Worlds for all events recorded online:
2006 � top 3: 3 strokes separated them � Brad Hammock wins
2005 � 12 strokes � Dean Tannock wins
2004 � 28 strokes - Brad Hammock wins
2003 � 10 strokes � Brad Hammock wins
2002 � 13 strokes � Brad Hammock wins

Only one year would be considered a romp.

But looking at this, it is clear to me that if a certain BH played Open (and stopped kicking over piles of stones), a lot of this discussion would not be happening.

has any MPM player (playing Worlds in the MPM division) even come close to challenging the scores of the top MPO players?!




Dr. Rick in Cinci?

Separate point:



Couple the divisional structure with the notion of having to take an inordinate amount of time to go and learn multiple courses in order to be prepared to compete, with the fact that you don't ACTUALLY have to earn your way into the event (virtually anyone can get in if they try - via waiting list or other means) - and I choose to put my energies towards loftier goals.
In lieu of PDGA Worlds - my goals are set on competing in the USDGC, where there is only one division, and you have to earn your spot (with very few exceptions). So far I've made it every time, and am one of 14 players to do so. I hope I make it again this year!!



I agree with you on the additional course prep time contributing to an already long tournament being a downside of worlds. I also don't blame you for picking the tournament that's played on a course that's our most complete test of golf. (thus far)

I've gotta point out, however, that last year's worlds had 38 open competitors rated over 1000. Aside from the USDGC, the average event that you (Craig) entered had 10.7 open competitors rated over 1000. If pursuing the highest level of competition is your goal, then why would you knock an event with way more 1000 rated players than your average event?

I'm all for reducing the total number of divisions to eliminate some of the 1-5 player stuff, and I'd love to see more tournaments offered with ratings-based divisions.

In 2009, I'll turn 40 and will get to choose between playing worlds as a pro-master or giving it a shot for the am masters title. unless my player rating miraculously jumps over 970, then i'll love to have the opportunity to compete for a "world championship" with a bunch of other guys of similar ability. call it what you may, but i know for sure that i'll have fun. :cool:

I'm 44 turn 45 this year and I play advanced masters. I enjoy playing with guys my own age because we share many of the same life and cultural experiences. When I make a musical reference to how I'm playing they get it when the 20 year old guys I play with don't. When a tournement is played over several rounds I also want the guy I'm playing against to be just as sore and tired as me. You young guys out there recover a lot quicker. I just played in the standing rocks open and tied for sixth place up several spots from last year and I anticipate doing better next year. Age protected divisions allow us to compete with the possibilty to win, if I had to play against younger guys I would get pounded tournement after tournement which would kind of take some of the fun out of it.Almost every sport has age protection such as old timer leagues in hockey and softball for a good reason. We still have the desire to compete but our physical skills are starting to decline. There are always going to be exceptional players that can compete against younger athletes but most of the guys I play against in masters aren't able to sustain a high enough level of play to compete over a multi-round tournement against younger guys. For any of you master and above player's there will be a tournement this fall at standing rocks ( Stevens Point WI ) just for us this year.

For any of you master and above player's there will be a tournement this fall at standing rocks ( Stevens Point WI ) just for us this year.



The Gerritol Masters Open , in beautiful Stevens Point .
Good times ! :D

For any of you master and above player's there will be a tournement this fall at standing rocks ( Stevens Point WI ) just for us this year.



The Gerritol Masters Open , in beautiful Stevens Point .
Good times ! :D


I heard someone call it the AARP Open. I believe it will be at Yulga and not Standing Rocks.

Yes, Chuck is correct; the Midwest Masters (or whatever Randy ends up calling it) will be at Yulga in September. If you're 40 and you like wooded courses, this event is for you.

As far as 40-year-olds being protected, we'll need protection from 50-year-old Rick Rentz! He shot a 6-down at Standing Rocks and won ProGrandMasters by 8 strokes. He would have won ProMasters by one stroke.

This is one stupid thread 38 year old protected from 40 year olds. Get a freaking life!!!!!!!! :mad:BOY!!!!

This is one stupid thread 38 year old protected from 40 year olds. Get a freaking life!!!!!!!! :mad:BOY!!!!


Thanks for the insightful post!

How many other "sports" have multiple codger divisions? We have pro master, pro GM and pro SGM. Is that it? And I agree with ZZ, move the masters age up.



No, we also have Legends.

Many other sports have age based divisions. Look at pretty much any sport that is am based. Swimming, skiing, track, and so on. If it fits the model of an Olympic type sport, it probably has age based divisions.



Do any tourneys offer Intermediate Legends division?

Yes, it's called Legends :)

This is one stupid thread 38 year old protected from 40 year olds. Get a freaking life!!!!!!!! :mad:BOY!!!!



Move up or move over. That is how Masters works. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I just had to get this back in the top of the news since the Pete May incident .
I think this idea is more relative then ever now .
OR should the question be
Should 39 year olds be protected from 34 year olds since 40 year olds are protected from 38 year olds ?
Or maybe JUST MAYBE 954 golfers should be protected from 1000 rated golfers no matter what the age ? HUMMMMM
Or maybe a 1000 rated golfer should NOT be protected no matter what age ?

Do any tourneys offer Intermediate Legends division?



lmao!!!

1000 rated golfer should NOT be protected no matter what age

best thing I have read on here in a long time

1000 rated golfer should NOT be protected no matter what age

best thing I have read on here in a long time



While I am all for age protected Divisions, I must say I do agree with this as well. I think it is absurd when I see a Pro win Pro Masters when he would have cashed or even won in Open.

Granted it occasionally will happen just due to the fact that someone might just be in the zone that weekend, but when it happens on a regular basis, one has to wonder.

My take, first of all the intent was not protect a 40 year old from a 38 year old, but to protect the 40 to 50 year old division from predominately a 20 to 35 year old division. Can I turn this question a bit and ask is it right to protect a 48 year old player from a 23 year old player? I think it is foolish to say that the Pro Master division should be removed when the MAJORITY of this age group is not competing with the Open division. Sure there are some that do, but the facts are, most players cannot throw as far at 48 as they could at 24. About the only saving grace is the new molds of plastic. However, I can putt better now than I have ever been able to so there are some trade offs.

if length was the only thing that mattered, you would be correct. but what you do with your tools are just as (if not more) important with how long they are. that "stats show a rating decline with age" does not mean age alone causes the decrease. it does not even prove age is the biggest factor. i'd be willing to bet that how much practice time you put in is more important than age, at least up until 55-60.

All I know is that I'm 45 and rated 943 and I am extremely competitive with 16yo, 23yo, and 32yo players rated 940-ish. I am also fairly competitive with 16yo, 23yo, and 32yo players who are rated 960-ish.

The fact that the 940-960-ish youngsters that compete with can out-throw me by half a mile on wide open holes doesn't really matter in the end, as they typically mix in a few to several disasters per round that I avoid.

The young guns that out throw me by half a mile and avoid disasters like I usually do aren't an issue, as they are rated 980-1000. :)

I guess all I'm trying to say is that when I play against similarly rated players that are one-half to one-third my age, I can hold my own quite nicely, thank you.

Hey Jerry , How is the leg doing ???
What I was trying to say is there still can be a masters division it should BE CAPPED by player ratings .
As 11 said the ability of players does decline with age BUT it does not drop in the 1000 rated players NEARLY as much .
I beleive this is cause they have PROVEN over time that they can play at the best level this sport has to offer .
AND TO ALLOW those players to play in a protected division since they can play at the highest level is IMPO just plain CRAZY .

Yet you are allowed to play advanced masters is that so different?

I would love to see a cap on all divisions FYI .
I have advocated that for years as you well KNOW .
BUT to put a cap on JUST AM divisions is stupid
IE if I would personally happen to play masters in a PDGAevent and cash , I could NOT go back to adv masters if I would want to ( pros who cash cannot go back to adv master unless under 915 )

I would also advocate not only capping all divisions by rating but also by PDGA EVENT .
I have said this many times before but basically
NT and A tiers - Payout 33-40 % all added cash to open only
if you are 1000 or higher you MUST PLAY OPEN
955 to 999 could play ADVANCED or over ( 40,45,50 ) pro master .
954 to 900 Intermediate or Advanced MAster if over ( 40,45,50 ).
all other am divsions as is
Womens divisions and all other higher age brackets could be as is also .
B tier Lower entry fee then A tiers - 40 - 50 % payout - all added cash to open field
All 980 rated players and above OPEN
925 to 979 Advanced or Pro MASTERS ( if over 40,45,50 )
875 - 924 Intermediate or Adv masters ( if over 40,45,50 )
All other divisions left alone as they are now
C tier events - VERY LOW ENTRY FEE and very flat payout .
NO or very little added cash and only to open field
ALL players 955 and above play open
900-954 Advanced or PRO masters ( if over 40,45,50 )
all other divisions as is
This could also be an area where the AM entry fee is actually higher then the PRO FEE .

It is healing nicely after the surgery. I am doing rehab and have started playing again.


Hey Jerry , How is the leg doing ???

I can hold my own (though I usually don't cash) in an Advanced division, but I won't play PDGA tournies unless there is a Masters division because I just find people in that division to be a bit more mature and capable of exercising sportsmanship.

Of course, that may just be the locations that I've played in or the fact that if I play Advanced I'm usually towards the bottom and inevitably end up carded with people who aren't playing well and hence are sulking and blaming everyone and everything except themselves.

For me, it's just a matter of who I want to end up giving my money to and how (un)pleasant the experience can be.

Ken

P.S. I know I'm in the extreme minority in this, but there is a part of me that thinks divisions are strange and arbitrary and ought to be done away with entirely at the PDGA level (or at least B or A tiers). I mean, I can see for a club monthly trying to get people out and protecting some people from the wide disparity of talent level, but isn't the whole point of playing in a sanctioned tournament to compete against everyone? Make a flat entry fee for everyone, pay out the top 15 and give everyone else a disc for participating. If it's that important to you that you have a chance of winning and you can't get satisfaction from shooting well and doing better than expected, then go play in your club monthly.

Ken
A few things
First I am not totally against a ONE division tourney but IMPO I like to compete against people I am close to in player rating . I do not have to be at the top either but do not really like being a cellar dweller . I also like the ability to be rewarded based upon beating players of like capability .
With a one division tourney there is the possibility of having rewards for best player ( out of all the players ) based upon a certain skill level or arbitrary division .

Second and for you this is a big one ,
At your player rating you can play intermediate ( or higher ) , with that being said you choose to play advanced or advanced master and that is fine ( just As I choose to play adv master in the system we have now )
BUT if guidelines were set up by the PDGA to prevent BAGGING AT ALL LEVELS at all compitions , I would think at that point we would have a true and fair compititions .
Where the PDGA sets up guidelines now we have arbitrary champions and arbitrary winners at all levels ( except those who are willing to gamble against the best ) .

BUT if guidelines were set up by the PDGA to prevent BAGGING AT ALL LEVELS at all compitions , I would think at that point we would have a true and fair compititions .




Hear Hear!!!!
This thread is stupid because the answer is right there. I've wondered about this ever since joining the PDGA. :confused:
Why are not all divisions capped?
Why are not all divisions capped?
Why are not all divisions capped?
Why are not all divisions capped?

I'm asking 4 times because I'm starting to think that may be what it takes.

Capping only some divisions is just plain stupid. :confused:Either don't cap any divisions and listen to the shouts of BAGGER!!!! reverberate, or cap them all and listen to the... crickets.

My $.02 I've been wanting to shout the entire time I've been reading this thread (Thank you, William!)

-JPB

i am a 967 rated player and i guess you argue i as a 45 year old 967 rated player should not get protection from a 38 year old 967 rated player... (despite the fact that as one ages ones bones, muscles, recovery-time, etc. deteriorate )

so -- given your logic -- why should Des Reading as a 967-rated player be protected from the same 967-rated 38 year old that you argue i should not be protected from?

disclaimer: i am in favor of age and gender protected divisions and feel we should rely upon individual players to decide whether or not they wish to enter protected divisions for which they qualify. if you do away with Masters you will only force the small incredibly skilled for their age minority into Open while you will force the majority of Masters out of PDGA play altogether (that will be the consequence and effect of doing away with age protections). that said, i am also not against one division tourneys like the USDGC

Aviar X
NO you would not force the majority of players out of the PDGA. They will still play in Masters just a Capped version which IMPO would be more fair to those who TRUELY NEED The PROTECTION .
Having age protected divisions are IMPO there to allow those of us who CANNNOT COMPETE at a level of the TOP PLAYERS and SHOULD NOT BE A PLACE THAT THE TOP PLAYERS can HIDE out to have a protected win just casue they are over a certain age .

II won't play PDGA tournies unless there is a Masters division because I just find people in that division to be a bit more mature and capable of exercising sportsmanship.

Of course, that may just be the locations that I've played in or the fact that if I play Advanced I'm usually towards the bottom and inevitably end up carded with people who aren't playing well and hence are sulking and blaming everyone and everything except themselves.

For me, it's just a matter of who I want to end up giving my money to and how (un)pleasant the experience can be.


I agree.

As far as the Des Reading isssue , you actually prove my arguement even further .
Des Reading is the BEST female golfer at this time and she has a 967 player rating . All other female golfers have a lower rating then she does RIGHT .
WELL then they NEED PROTECTION from those 1000 rated men who constantly would beat her and her female competitors .

THis just added , I just read that Michelle Wie is NOT going to play against men anymore . PROVES my point again .
Women NEED the protection from the men .


THE 1000 rated masters can and have proven they can compete against the best of the best and DONT need protection just cause they are over a certain age .

As far as Des shooting against a co -967 rated player that is UP TO HER is she chooses to play in a rated division FINE but she still should be afforded the protection via reason above .

The Des Reading issue also brings up the argument about having all one division tourneys and having best of show prizes for all those at the top of a " protected division " .

ANY way you slice it , the competitive structure we have right now allows way to many people a place to hide out and NOT give their best effort to " win " . IS that really the true spirit of a sport , to not give your best and still win ???

Why don't all but the top division have a ratings cap?
If Open Masters was capped at 1000, the original question would be moot, would it not?

In terms of pure competition, having ratings-capped divisions would make sense (break it up into blocks of 50 points or so and eliminate gender and age divisions). However, most people want to have _fun_ at a tournament (and are not overly concerned by the exact amount of winnings they take home). Who they play with (age and/or gender) is a major reason for their attendance. The PDGA is attempting to cater to these needs / wants.

In terms of pure competition, having ratings-capped divisions would make sense (break it up into blocks of 50 points or so and eliminate gender and age divisions). However, most people want to have _fun_ at a tournament (and are not overly concerned by the exact amount of winnings they take home). Who they play with (age and/or gender) is a major reason for their attendance. The PDGA is attempting to cater to these needs / wants.


That is all well and good. But "wanting to have fun and play with like ages" should not be confused with "being a professional and competiting for money". If you want to have fun, play Am. If you want to compete for cash, play Open. I'm surprised we don't have 960-rated Masters whining because they want to play in the Women's Open Division just so they can "compete" where they really want to and have ALOT more fun!

I dont have a problem having fun at an event , and would consider it MORE fun if I had the ability to TRUELY COMPETE against those of similiar playing ability . However I must Instead play in a division that I end up donating to some player that is way above my skill level or playing in a division where most around me feel I dont belong cause I am better then most who play in that division .

Now I must admit that those 2 things could happen if there was rating based events or caps on all divisions BUT at least there would IMPO be some fairness to it all then .

I dont have a problem having fun at an event , and would consider it MORE fun if I had the ability to play against those of similiar playing ability . However I must Instead play in a division that I end up donating to some player that is way above my skill level or playing in a division where most around me feel I dont belong cause I am better then most who play in that division .


And what are said divisions? If you want similar skill-level, play Advanced. If you want similar ages, you have 2 divisions to choose from.....

I would not go open cause there is no way I am good enough for that . Pro masters has a few people who can play with the best ( proven by ratings ) that do not cause they have easy money coming there way .
Advanced is a good fit for me IMPO but I have come to like ADV masters cause I have found they have MORE FUN playing ( especially cause they have play for the LOVE of the sport and love to play against like player rated people )
I have to admit I am a little high rated ( 941 ) in fairness , however I also played in am worlds last year and came in 62 place and found if I am the upper middle of the adv master pack at worlds that is where I belong .

ONCE again I really dont consider myelf AM OR PRO .
I am like most other people in the middle and really there is no real place for us to go in the current system .
IF there was however caps on all divisions other then OPEN , and or there were caps per PDGA EVENTS ( see previous pages for idea ) or something to allow all players to compete against people of like abilities , IT TO ME would just seem more fair then the system we have now .

I don't understand. You have your choice of 4 divisions and you're saying there's no place for you? That must suck. I only have 2 divisions that I don't fit in.

Like I said there are divisions that I can choose from but each one has a loophole that does not IMPO define it as a true competitive division .

I understand, just giving you a hard time. In reality, there are only 2 truly competitive divisions, the Open ones. As long as we have age-protected pro divisions, we are short-changing the Open division and working against being a truly competitive professional sport.

I forgot to mention one point in my other post. I really have a hard time begrudging anyone playing advanced instead of pro (whether it be at open or master's level) when the registration fees are often (where I've played) 30-50% higher for pros. I sense for some people (particularly at Masters age where they are starting to have kids playing the juniors and are absorbing that cost as well), that it isn't so much about winning a couple discs as saving a couple dollars...and I'm okay with that.

I've often had this weird thought that if the fees were reversed (30 bucks to play Open and 50 to play in a protected division), most of the people who are just playing to play (and aren't going to prize anyway) might play Open and the only ones left in Advanced division would be the people who need to be near the top or playing against someone of their same talent level in order to want to be there. In other words, why not make the people who want to have a protected division pay the premium rather than people who are willing to play Open? (This goes against the prevailing logic, I know...it's just my backwards/outside-the-box thinking.)

Ken. Your backwards thinking is already being done. On Saturday at IOS #3: $10 gets you in Open Trophy Only, $15 Trophy Only in advanced.

ONCE again I really dont consider myelf AM OR PRO .



There is absolutely no way a 941 rated male &lt;50 player is a "PRO", therefore you're either an "AM" or a "DONATOR.

Worlds - pro masters cash-cut average round rating:
2006 - 976
2005 - 980
2004 - 982

U.S. Masters
2006 - 983
2005 - 977
2004 - 978

At 941 you fit nicely into Advanced, Advanced Masters or Blue (at a ratings event). Plenty of choices! And 941 will be sniffing last cash in Grandmasters at Worlds, so there'll be another choice on your plate.

Wow neat topic! A 929 rated player (same as myself) who never played Open, at 27 years old, and you are concerned about making more money in the Pro-Open division, Why?
I am almost 41 and never thought of (protected divisions) as being a weakness. I guess since i will play any disc golfer, anytime on any course, i had never put that (protected thing) idea into my head.
In your case, The Poll, is a good way to raise eyebrows but to increase the popularity or payout at golf events which seems to be your concern, i think. How is it done?
Thats a question everyones debating. To take a semi-underground sport and make it converge with sponsorship/
investors for larger opportunities is a real sensitive area for some folks.
But back to protected divisions.....When Kenny comes to Masters i hope to have a good enough game to lose to him by only 15 strokes instead of 30 or more. The reality is......
doing some fundraisers for your Local events could increase interest as well as bigger payouts. Disc manufacturers would love for you to buy 50 custom discs and sell them in honor of increasing the bonus for tourney payouts. I see a lot more events promoting themselves in various ways which compounds the payouts as well as puts nice players packs in peoples hands. But that takes Action...so.

Floyd Henke

I was trying to keep this at just a discussion about age and discrimination ( uhm age protection I mean ) but the idea of entry fees is something that needs discussed also .
Basically , the prices are way too high for me to even consider open .

I have to admit even at local events when the top pros show up I still have a tough time giving up $5 when I know I have no real chance at getting my money back . AND I KNOW alot of other people that feel the same way .
I run alot of handicap events in my area for that reason .
EVERYONE at a handicap event has a chance to get their money back and it becomes all one division .

As far as reversing entry fees that is my idea in a C tier event at a PDGA tourney based upon my ideas
AT a C tier event as stated before all players 955 and above would have to play open
THIS WOULD BE a LOW ENTRY FEE and very flat payout with little or no added cash
954 to 900 would be advanced or pro masters
all other PDGA divisions would fall into place as is .
THE KEY to this would be charging maybe $20 tops for open , $15 for pro masters entry fee and $30 or so for all am players with a huge players pack . THis way the TD can still make money on all those players below 954 and all those players above 955 would be paying a small entry fee for a GOOD CHANCE at thier money back even if you finish in the top 75% .

AT a C tier event as stated before all players 955 and above would have to play open
THIS WOULD BE a LOW ENTRY FEE and very flat payout with little or no added cash
954 to 900 would be advanced or pro masters
all other PDGA divisions would fall into place as is .
THE KEY to this would be charging maybe $20 tops for open , $15 for pro masters entry fee and $30 or so for all am players with a huge players pack . THis way the TD can still make money on all those players below 954 and all those players above 955 would be paying a small entry fee for a GOOD CHANCE at thier money back even if you finish in the top 75% .



If your goal is to not attract any real pros and have 1/2 the advanced division play "open" and consequently a bunch of intermediate players move up into advanced, then I bet your scheme will be a success.

Better yet, label a bunch of chairs with divisions and we'll play musical divisions. The player that doesn't get a chair has to be the TD.

actually Denny you are on the mark so to speak
There was a push a few years ago to not allow 1000 rated player to play in C tier events .
I dont believe in that idea but at C tier events I feel the emphasis should be on the AMS and the up and commers .
At a C tier in my world ( HA HA ) the top pros would be running the events , putting on clinics for the true ams , Maybe playing too . C tiers should be chump change as to allow the up and commers a taste of what MIGHT BE if they would play good at B and A tiers .
TO add to this at little C tiers ( cause there are soooo many **** divisions allowed to be played ) right now the payout for the open division is TERRIBLE .
WIth my idea there will be plenty of people to play a C tier in the open division and with the flat payout alot of people will be paid .

WIth my idea there will be plenty of people to play a C tier in the open division and with the flat payout alot of people will be paid .



And they would all become stuck as Pros.

NO THEY WOULD NOT . There is a flex part to it at higher PDGA EVENTS . Just cause you cash at a C tier does NOT MAKE you a " PRO " .
WHat makes a pro in my idea is a certain RATING for a certain tier . Go back and read entire post on how ratings could be used based upon different levels of PDGA events .
Better yet I will repost it again .
I would also advocate not only capping all divisions by rating but also by PDGA EVENT .
I have said this many times before but basically
NT and A tiers - Payout 33-40 % all added cash to open only
if you are 1000 or higher you MUST PLAY OPEN
955 to 999 could play ADVANCED or over ( 40,45,50 ) pro master .
954 to 900 Intermediate or Advanced MAster if over ( 40,45,50 ).
all other am divsions as is
Womens divisions and all other higher age brackets could be as is also .
B tier Lower entry fee then A tiers - 40 - 50 % payout - all added cash to open field
All 980 rated players and above OPEN
925 to 979 Advanced or Pro MASTERS ( if over 40,45,50 )
875 - 924 Intermediate or Adv masters ( if over 40,45,50 )
All other divisions left alone as they are now
C tier events - VERY LOW ENTRY FEE and very flat payout .
NO or very little added cash and only to open field
ALL players 955 and above play open
900-954 Advanced or PRO masters ( if over 40,45,50 )
all other divisions as is
This could also be an area where the AM entry fee is actually higher then the PRO FEE .

they already have a tier status where you can run an event exactly how you've said C tiers should be, it's called UNSANCTIONED.

give your idea a whirl and let us know how well it goes over.

Giving it a whirl does not work cause there are TOO MANY other options and people dont like the idea of FAIR compititions they like the ability to BAG .
THE ONLY way for fair compition to work is to have the PDGA say it is the way to go .
OF course this will never happen cause there are tooo Many people who complain when their " BAG ABILITY " is taken away .
As Moderator has said
The ship has sailed long ago and the reality of FAIR based compition is LONG GONE .
HOWEVER I will NEVER UNDERSTAND how a person can hide in a division just cause he is OVER a certain age and just rule the roost .

I do agree with you that all divisions, except Open Men and Women, should have a cap.

I have said this many times before but basically
NT and A tiers - if you are 1000 or higher you MUST PLAY OPEN



<font color="blue"> if you want to follow the reasoning of the title of this thread, then the argument becomes should 998 rated players be protected from 1000 rated players? </font>



B tier
All 980 rated players and above OPEN




<font color="blue"> should 978 rated players be protected from 980 rated players? </font>


C tier events -
ALL players 955 and above play open




<font color="blue"> sounds like easy pickins for the 1000 rated players who want to avoid tough competition at higher tiers (?) </font>

<font color="blue"> the real solution to the problem of getting the *very best* Masters to play Open rather than Pro Masters is simple: charge Masters entrants 50% of what you charge Open players to compete. Then disproportionately add cash to Open. in other words, make the Masters payout much smaller and you create an incentive for the best Masters to play Open without hesitation. a side effect will also be to make it easier for am. masters to try out Pro Masters since the donation is smaller and the very best Masters players will be in Open where they probably belong. </font>

I do admit that using the ratings system has its limitations .
Your point is valid that a cut off of any rating allows someone to " bag " due to them being at the top of some cap point .
HOWEVER , at least there is a point at which there is PROTECTION FOR those who cannot compete against the big boys .
As far as a C tier being easy picking for the big boys ,
THe answer to that is a DEEP PAYOUT and LOW ENTRY FEE . You could also cap the top prize at a C tier if needed .

I know my plan is not full proof but at least it seems fairer to ALL CONCERNED at each STEP of a PDGA event .
As I have said before , WHAT fairness in compitition do we have now ? Every division that is NOT capped ( advanced , master et al ) are areas where people can HIDE out and NOT play against those they should be playing against based ON ABILITY .

The idea of charging masters 50% less is a good idea but has its flaws too .
IT STILL allows a masters player the ability to take money from players who NEED THE PROTECTION .
I know this is a tough sell but as I have said before the AGE BRACKET idea should be there to protect players who cannot compete at the highest level anymore .
NOT JUST LET ANYONE who is over a certain age play in that division .

The idea of charging masters 50% less is a good idea but has its flaws too .
IT STILL allows a masters player the ability to take money from players who NEED THE PROTECTION .



The benefit of that idea, that I think you're missing, is that the 1000+ rated 40+ year old will have a lower expected return in the new Pro Masters division and will make the decision to play open based on the economics.

1000+ rated players do not "bag" because they are afraid of the competition in open. They play where the money is. Those that play a lot of tournaments are trying their best to subsidize an expensive hobby while holding onto the glimmer of a hope that the purses will suddenly shoot through the roof and allow them the chance to really be a professional disc golfer before their skills leave them.

With entry fees, gas, lodging, missed days work, injuries, and family pressure, I definitely do not blame anyone for playing within the rules of the game and attempting to maximize their winnings.

I don't think it's a bad idea to put a cap on non-open divisions, but maybe instead of blaming those at the top of the division we could look at the problem of those at the bottom playing up into a division that they don't belong and then complaining about it.

If I were to put caps on divisions, though, they'd be quite a bit higher than many others would suggest. i.e. I'd cap advanced men at 1000, advanced masters at 980, and pro masters at 1020.

cmon denny,
your proposed ratings breaks would affect how many players? I think we could count them on one hand - useless!!

Craig, you're right. I don't think that bagging's a problem in advanced or pro masters and that's why nobody would be bumped up under that scheme. The reason I like those caps, even though they wouldn't bump anyone, is that there's a clear line in the sand so that those at the top of their divisions won't get badgered as much with "bagger, bagger, move up!" As it is, if a 960 rated player wins a tournament in advanced they're suddenly a bagger and if a 1000 rated pro plays as a pro master then they're a bagger.

I do think that it's a problem that there's too much pressure for players to "move up" even though they're far from being at the real pro level. It does a disservice to the game and the real competition that those at the top deserve, to have so many non-pros playing in the pro divisions. I know that y'all deserve to play for bigger purses, but that's not the way to do it.

I was reading a number of newspaper articles on disc golf online today and came upon one about a course that I'm familiar with. They quoted one of the local "disc golf professionals" who happened to be a 899 rated player. When someone goes to the park and watches our local "pro" pound a couple beers, smoke a phatty, and then griplock his disc into the deep schule, they've had quite a stellar introduction to the sport.

The open divisions need to be the cream of the crop. For NT's and majors there should be MINIMUM player ratings to enter those divisions. ALL the added cash should go in the open divisions. I've got no problem as an amateur player having a portion of my entry for a particular event be added to the open purses, as long as it's clearly stated in advance of the event.

where do i go in your plan denny?

latest worlds update yesterday...

44 masters...20 rated 980 or higher...14 of those over 990... :eek:

5 players rated below my rating.... :(

3 more years til gm age....
can't play worlds or majors in am division...

i'm pretty well stuck with having to play my a+ game for every round at worlds to hopefully have a chance at making the semis... :p

i do like the entry fee changes ....though i do my tournaments opposite....

i charge masters the SAME price as open and add almost all the added cash to the open division, making it monetarily advantageous to play open if you want the bigger payday!

keith

i do like the entry fee changes ....though i do my tournaments opposite....

i charge masters the SAME price as open and add almost all the added cash to the open division, making it monetarily advantageous to play open if you want the bigger payday!

keith



if you followed the same protocol except that you charged Masters division entrants 50% of what you charge Open entrants --- wouldn't you make it even more monetarily advantageous for the really skilled Masters to play Open? (and less disadvantageous for lower rated Pro Masters and even Adv. Masters to sign up and enter as Masters?) ;)

There's point where fiddling with the fees and added cash portions will spur the Masters and older players, both Pro and Am, to just run their own events and abandon the Open division to find their added cash. Isn't that already happening at Idlewild?

where do i go in your plan denny?

latest worlds update yesterday...

44 masters...20 rated 980 or higher...14 of those over 990...

5 players rated below my rating....

3 more years til gm age....
can't play worlds or majors in am division...

i'm pretty well stuck with having to play my a+ game for every round at worlds to hopefully have a chance at making the semis...



The only thing what I suggested would impact in your world is to take the added cash away from pro masters. That might impact last cash by a couple of bucks.

From one 950ish rated player to another I ask you, why didn't you take amnesty? You fit right in advanced or advanced masters.

I used to be a donator and now I play in my right division and buy a CFR if I want to make a donation.

There's point where fiddling with the fees and added cash portions will spur the Masters and older players, both Pro and Am, to just run their own events and abandon the Open division to find their added cash. Isn't that already happening at Idlewild?



Well, it is happening as a PDGA-sanctioned XB tier event at Idlewild on Saturday July 28, 2007
(visit this thread for further 2007 Masters at Idlewild event info) (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=706687&amp;an=0&amp;page=0#Post7 06687)
but, while this <font color="green"> $1000 added cash </font> event is set up by a Masters for Masters at a superb, high-SSA course, i don't think it really signals a trend occuring in response to fiddling with fees and added cash...

what i don't get is why there is resistance to seeing that making Masters entry fees 60% or less than Open would solve the problem of the scenario where a few of the very best Masters-aged players choose not to play Open. When you also add comparatively less cash to Pro Masters, you create a scenario where the relative size of the Open and Masters purses incentivizes your 1000+ rated Masters to play Open.

instead many TD's are charging Masters entry fees that are 90% as high as Open and -- that makes the easier-pickings Masters purse a little too tantalizing to a few too many of those highly-skilled players ;)

The problem with "fixing" the perceived inequity between Master and Open by cheapening the experience for Masters and older players disguises the real problem which is not enough spectators care to watch or pay to watch our top players. So the financial difference between the two divisions would occur as a result of true economic forces and not some artificial fix to make the Open players feel better at the expense of older players. I believe Masters and older players accept this short term entry fee fix to an extent, recognizing where our sport is in its growth curve. But magnifying the entry and added cash differentials beyond a certain point I believe will create a backlash which will result in more Master and older only events.

I'm not sure if reducing the entry fees for a division will result in "cheapening the experience for Masters". Those at the top will have the opportunity to play for a higher expected return in open. Those in the second tier of masters aged pros will have the chance to win and may end up winning about the same as they would have before. Those in the middle/bottom of pro masters aged players will have a chance to cash and won't have to fork out as much for the tournament.

The open purse will be bigger and most of the open cashers will win more. The ones that will lose under this scenario are the open players that get beat by masters aged players playing open and the bottom few cashers who don't now cash.

Here's a goofy anecdote: I played in a small event recently with 7 pros over 40, 2 pros under 40 and 6 advanced players signed up. The TD said he was going to only have one pro division and a huge rabble-rabble-rabble went up because 6 of the 7 pros over 40 wanted to be protected from the 7th, a 1000+ player. So it was settled that there'd be 3 open players and 6 masters player, but then the 1000+ rated 40something decided that his shoulder hurt and he couldn't play open (the real motive should be obvious by now). That left a divsion of 2 in open, so two of us from advanced "moved up". It turned out that the open winner would have come in third in masters, the advanced players had a good battle that the other two of us missed out on and the "hurt" pro master beat everyone and took home the money.

What I don't understand is why folks with so much experience and good intentions are stuck on looking at our system as something that can be fixed with a patch, or addressed piecemeal.
Denny, your #'s on what it would take as a master or advanced player to cash in Open at worlds is so incomplete its laughable. You can't take a single player and their rating and insert them into a current (limited) field and expect that to represent anything close to reality. To compare skills and potential finishes, you need to include ALL the players in question (i.e. pick a ratings break and take everyone in all current PDGA divisions - and then do your comparison).

Chuck - you have so many good ideas and intentions -the reason I give you so much grief is that you have either been unable to convince those around you of their legitimacy, or have given up and are trying to make them semi legit within a tragically broken system.
Mr Geibel is the only one I see even attempting to reconcile the system with workable solutions. And while I may not agree on all levels with his attempts - the fact that he actively is making those attempts should ring the bell announcing that TD's can be a driving force for change - if only policy would support them.

The changes needed to fix the system are not piecemeal - they are comprehensive. The tiered system as it is, does not support TD innovation - it stifles it. The fact that events are 98% all singles events (and largely take 100 players or less and break them into 5 or more divisions) - with the only financial difference being the player fee to the PDGA and the %payout required, is evidence that the PDGA has ceased promoting COMPETITION in lieu of supporting a basic revenue stream. The more events they can sanction - the more fees they can collect.

Hey - on a certain level - that's just fine. The organization needs such a revenue stream to be able to promote certain programs. But there has to be a better way.

CK suggests that changing the system would result in protected divisions going off on their own - when from a practical standpoint - this could be a reasonable and integral part of a better working model. If the system included a quota of different types of sanctioned events within a given region - all levels could be served and targeted with quality events - and we could eliminate the bogus overlap that exists currently.
Example: If each region currently has 100 sanctioned events a year, and we broke them down into #'s that included age protected only divisions (how about 35 and up as an example, or use the current 40 and up I don't care), and 950+ single division events, 950 and under, 900 and under, etc. Tie those events into a different set of tiered requirements that would keep the largest fields for the highest sanctioning levels, make a majority of events more affordable to cater to the "hobby level player", and tie entry fees directly to skill level for all events - we could separate those that wish to COMPETE from both the opportunist looking for an easy return, and from the casual player looking for an accessible - organized event setting. When scheduling in an area has TD's competing for a limited # of spots for masters only players, or 920 and under players (or whatever the "event types" might be) - the best events will naturally rise to the top. The most difficult courses will host the highest profile venues and attract the best talent - biggest fields and purses. The easier courses will rightly cater to the beginning player and the locals who rarely travel - and should feature lower entry fees, purses, player fees, and sponsorship requirements.

Now here's the rub. TD's are an interesting breed - all (or most) of which have egos that need stroking. We all want to host events that are well regarded and well attended. We like it when folks travel long distances to play our events, and hence want to put up the biggest prizes possible. Few however have either the time or wherewithall to go raise sposnsorship dollars - be it through merchandising or beating the streets for local or corporate sponsors. So to achieve their goals - they just bump up the entry fees and put the purse load on the players. And of course to go with that rub - is the other one - the popularity of the sport is growing so rapidly, that every new course wants to sanction an event, or two, or more per year - which makes people less willing to travel, and dilutes both field size, and available sponsor dollars from within the DG community and from local businesses which support events.

The answer has got to be in some form of control and quota system, where only X number of events of a certain type are available within any given region per year. This will promote competition amongst promoters to put on the best event possible. It could promote variety in venues by rotating non performing events in and out of sanctioning availability during any given season. It could also provide for better control and oversight of sanctioned events - increasing the quality of services provided to members.

OK - I've rambled enough - bottom line the 38 vs 40 y.o argument is but a small piece of a more comprehensive fix that is desperately needed if we want to represent ourselves as a professional organization to both our membership, and to potential sponsors. A bandaid ain't gonna do it.

The answer has got to be in some form of control and quota system, where only X number of events of a certain type are available within any given region per year. This will promote competition amongst promoters to put on the best event possible. It could promote variety in venues by rotating non performing events in and out of sanctioning availability during any given season. It could also provide for better control and oversight of sanctioned events - increasing the quality of services provided to members.



I agree with this. I also think that the total # of NT's should be reduced to 6 per year, with two divisions only, higher entry fees, much higher minimum added cash, and significant added cash from the PDGA budget.

I've been trying to pursuade folks that the 23 events on the Fabulous Florida Tour is way too many. Some of the events are run on marginal courses, too many don't fill, and the series points championship for the amateur divisions is determined mostly by the total number of events someone can attend. Tournaments get most of their outside sponsorship by swapping with other clubs, thereby creating the illusion that we're obtaining significant sponsorship, but are largely playing a shell game.



Denny, your #'s on what it would take as a master or advanced player to cash in Open at worlds is so incomplete its laughable. You can't take a single player and their rating and insert them into a current (limited) field and expect that to represent anything close to reality.



I was making a simple point, that I still stand by, that a 941 rated player would have to play out of their mind for a week in order to cash at worlds in pro masters. That is reality. Your statement sounds a little sideways to me.





Worlds - pro masters cash-cut average round rating:
2006 - 976
2005 - 980
2004 - 982

U.S. Masters
2006 - 983
2005 - 977
2004 - 978

where do i go in your plan denny?

latest worlds update yesterday...

44 masters...20 rated 980 or higher...14 of those over 990...

5 players rated below my rating....

3 more years til gm age....
can't play worlds or majors in am division...

i'm pretty well stuck with having to play my a+ game for every round at worlds to hopefully have a chance at making the semis...



The only thing what I suggested would impact in your world is to take the added cash away from pro masters. That might impact last cash by a couple of bucks.
<font color="red">
From one 950ish rated player to another I ask you, why didn't you take amnesty? You fit right in advanced or advanced masters. </font>

I used to be a donator and now I play in my right division and buy a CFR if I want to make a donation.



2 reasons....
1)i have way too much plastic already
2)i'm an idiot.....


in my "new" neck of the woods, i am very competitve in pro masters in b&amp;c tier events(the majority)

the "problem" comes because of my insatiable need to travel and get the snot beat out of me across the country so that other old guys will feel better about their games :eek: :D:D

i also joined for 5 years at the same cost as an am BEFORE amnesty came about....
i played advanced last year at an event in georgia while i was injured with my torn tendon and STILL cashed...
shows i don't belong there in most georgia events....

i also price masters the same for the reason of market...

in florida i could expect a larger open field so i priced masters lower...
in arizona there WAS NO masters divisions EXCEPT the memorial for the 5 years i was there....and here in ga, the masters division is usually 3-8 players(except the 1 a-tier)
so having only 2-4 guys getting paid, it made sense to me to have it be at least something in return for thier patronage(versus them not coming at all)

EVERYONE at my events gets a players package(even though not required), everyone gets a free lunch, 50% of every division gets paid, and i do a drawing for each 10 entries for prizes...and all of that is possible WITHOUT TOUCHING any entry fees due to the fabulous sponsors that have supported my events over the years :D

it works for me in my part of the country and may not work everywhere....but alot of things that work for some, don't for others.....that's what makes things interesting...

sorry for the long post....just wanted to address all the stuff

keith

EVERYONE at my events gets a players package(even though not required), everyone gets a free lunch, 50% of every division gets paid, and i do a drawing for each 10 entries for prizes...and all of that is possible WITHOUT TOUCHING any entry fees due to the fabulous sponsors that have supported my events over the years


Florida misses you, Keith! :cool:

On that extra plastic: when you come to visit me at the Spirit of the Suwannee Music Park, bring some stuff if you want to unload anthing. I've got a little pro-shop in the country store there.

Craig said ,
\Mr Geibel is the only one I see even attempting to reconcile the system with workable solutions. And while I may not agree on all levels with his attempts - the fact that he actively is making those attempts should ring the bell announcing that TD's can be a driving force for change - if only policy would support them.

These ideas have been in my head for sometime .
I have tried VERSIONS of these ideas within THE PDGA requirements at other PDGA events with limited success . The main detractor has been that people can choose to go to other events that allow them to get the best bang for thier buck .
I can , as others have said , understand why people want to maximize their profits , however I must think about the REALITY of the sport on the whole when it comes to TRUE compitition .

I am on a quest to do certain things ( mainly get my 2 home courses up to TOTAL completion ) and at that time I will ask the PDGA to run events in MY ideas ) and hopefully prove that my ideas work .
I know it will take certain people to look past thier OWN wants and take a chance on a NEW way of doing things but ..... I have a dream that someday , most people will realize that very thing .
TO MAKE SOMETHING better you have to take a chance .

A VERY interesting thing happened today .
I had a NON PDGA event that has a low turnout .
I was signing up all the pro players in one group and one person of course wanted to play masters .
THEN we got into this huge debate about who was going to play where , and one thing led to the other .
As a side note , there were ONLY 2 players UNDER 40 .
There were 10 players over 40 .
At this point we went thru EACH PLAYER and made them make a decision as to what division they are going to play .
AND YOU KNOW WHAT ,
FIRST THRU 8th place ( by score ) were the 8 players who chose ( or were guilted into playing ) open and the 9-12th player ( by score ) were the players that chose masters .

IF there is anything when it comes to it
Players KNOW where they belong at a certain tourneys .
Those who felt they NEEDED the protection from other players were NOT guilted into playing in a division they were outclassed .

I realize this is a small fraction and a small tourney BUT if people really put their mind to it and played by FAIR COMPITITION and not be motivated by MONEY and GREED , MAYBE just maybe we could have a REALLY FAIR DIVISIONS and a REAL FAIR TOURNEY .

And as one last side note
The first 6 players ( by score ) who played " open " were over 40 years of age which proves ONCE AGAIN THAT AGE IS NOT THE LIMITING FACTOR to determine ability .
WHEN is this PDGA going to learn this ???????????????
And more to the point when are they going to do something about it ?????????

AGE IS NOT THE LIMITING FACTOR to determine ability .
WHEN is this PDGA going to learn this ???????????????
And more to the point when are they going to do something about it ?????????




GUILT??? I don't even understand your argument! They should have had a fun, friendly, promaster group and let the two guys battle it out for Open. Who said the Masters owe @#$% to the Open division?

There is little the PDGA can do (even if they wanted to, which I doubt is the case) about it if they want older men to continue playing tournaments.


Around Texas the old guys are entirely responsible for having supported DG with hard work and $$$ that made successful tournaments possible. Most of the work in the clubs and the tournaments gets done by Masters+ aged men and women. Most of the financial support of the tourneys come from older guys who own businesses or are active in seeking sponsors. Everyone reaps the benefits of DECADES of work by others then [censored] because they get one small benefit of playing with guys that are more often a lot more fun to play against in the first place.

Beside, age has everything to do with ability. Only someone that has not blown out a knee or shoulder would say any different. Some guys are LUCKY enough to avoid serious injury and can still play at an elite level as they get older.

Forcing a person into the Open divison where they can't compete (or just don't want to) is forcing them to be content to donate or quit playing tourneys

I think Keith said it very well. There is no perfect system. But the system better accomodate thems that that brought'em. (to the dance, paid for the dance floor, the lights, the band and the soft drinks.)

I don't know about the rest of you, but I definitely need protection from Mr. Mike! :D

While I'm not sure this argument is valid, Mike is correct. Men's Masters make disc golf happen in Texas. You might argue it's their game; without them there would be much less disc golf in this state. If they want their cake they will have it. That might not be fair, or even best. But if you remove them, you will definitely hurt the sport in this State.

I doubt it will hurt disc golf in texas. More likely, the Master's will just hold their own tournaments and payout however they want. That will only hurt the PDGA, which is the real root of the problem. I understand that Master's support the sport and are responsible for progress, but should that equate to easy money for a few? In the true nature of professionalism, the big money should be in the division with no restrictions. If you want the big money, play in the top division. If you want to have fun with same aged players and play for each other's entry fees, play in a protected divisions.

The money flow will be determined by the market. If the money is in Masters, then that's just the way its going to be and fighting it is like pushing water uphill.

thank you 28003
The point is about true and FAIR COMPITITION FOR ALL PLAYERS . THAT has been what I have been argueing for all these years .
I am GREATFUL to the players who have come before me and ran events ( even though I have been doing it since 1995 myself ) , I am even VERY OPEN to senior players when it comes to course design , thoughts and concerns for disc golfers , and the like .
WHAT I dont like to see is when people ( no matter what age they are ) set up things , or have things run that they can benifit from a system that allows PROTECTION when none is needed . I DO believe lots of players need protection but those who take advantage of a situation are IMPO wrong .

There were lots of points to my post .
First off , there are LOTS of players with 20 years of experience in this sport now , and IMPO they for the most part can beat most of the up and commers .
Combine that with the fact that with 12 players who can play "open " and 10 of those are over 40 of which 6 of them beat the 2 UNDER 40 players , there is LOTS OF OVERLAP in the competitive system , and AT CERTAIN events BOTH LOWER LEVEL AND HIGHER LEVEL events , the overlap should be avoided at all costs .
I DONT CARE HOW OLD YOU ARE if you proved that you can play at a certain level , NO MATTER WHAT level that is ( whether it is the top level of 1000 rated players , or a lower level that is generally compairable a 955 rated golfer , or whatever level it is ) you should be playing against people in that level .
I am not against the idea , as a matter a fact rather for it , that we have " best of show prizes " for any arbitrary division that is in a certain bracket FINE , but to have 10 divisions of 5 people each ( at tourneys now ) instead of 3 divisions of 16 each based upon ratings is crazy .

I don't know about the rest of you, but I definitely need protection from Mr. Mike! :D

While I'm not sure this argument is valid, Mike is correct. Men's Masters make disc golf happen in Texas. You might argue it's their game; without them there would be much less disc golf in this state. If they want their cake they will have it. That might not be fair, or even best. But if you remove them, you will definitely hurt the sport in this State.



So you think it is right that we have 10 Pros show up to our events and 7 of them play Masters. Wait and its at Macgregor where all but one hole hole is under 350ft and the 1st -3rd masters shoot better than the 2nd and 3rd place Open players? Basically If they would have just played Open there would have been a bigger division and more $$$ for everyone??? :confused:

And you wonder why H-town golf is the laughingstock of TX.

Even worse was the tournament at Eberly Ranch where everyone was payed in cash and the lowest paying division was open because there were only 4 players compared to the 12 masters who played with half shooting better than everyone but the 1st place winner once again.

I agree that Open should be where you go to test yourself against the best. But don't kid yourself. DG has become "easy" money for the best, occasional winnings for a few and no winnings for the majority. Look at the tournament leader boards. Always the same names. Mid-rated pros need "the perfect round" to get on the lead card. The odds are pretty high that they can't put 4 together and are lucky to get their entry back.

I don't think that's a problem where the entry fees are cheap. I played tournaments in Europe where the entry fees are $5-10 euros. No divisions, or just am and open, just have fun and everyone expected the top players to take home all (but not very many) the euros. no payout for ams, maybe a trophy.

But it might be a good thing that some top golfers play Master. It gives the mid-rated Open players a better chance at cashing. That should be good for the Open divison.


Just my opinion, but watch what happens in Europe when the start asking 75 euros to play in a tourney. vaarwel, mijn vriendin! Auf Wiedersehen, meine Freunde!, adieu, mon amie!

I agree that Open should be where you go to test yourself against the best. But don't kid yourself. DG has become "easy" money for the best, occasional winnings for a few and no winnings for the majority. Look at the tournament leader boards. Always the same names. Mid-rated pros need "the perfect round" to get on the lead card. The odds are pretty high that they can't put 4 together and are lucky to get their entry back.

I don't think that's a problem where the entry fees are cheap. I played tournaments in Europe where the entry fees are $5-10 euros. No divisions, or just am and open, just have fun and everyone expected the top players to take home all (but not very many) the euros. no payout for ams, maybe a trophy.

But it might be a good thing that some top golfers play Master. It gives the mid-rated Open players a better chance at cashing. That should be good for the Open divison.


Just my opinion, but watch what happens in Europe when the start asking 75 euros to play in a tourney. vaarwel, mijn vriendin! Auf Wiedersehen, meine Freunde!, adieu, mon amie!




Well if all the masters moved up a lot more players would be able to cah but it seems there are just not wanting to play if they can't win. There isn't too many things that bug me more than seeing the winner in Masters take home more $$$ than the winner in open and the Masters guy payed less and shot worse. :confused:

I don't know about the rest of you, but I definitely need protection from Mr. Mike! :D

While I'm not sure this argument is valid, Mike is correct. Men's Masters make disc golf happen in Texas. You might argue it's their game; without them there would be much less disc golf in this state. If they want their cake they will have it. That might not be fair, or even best. But if you remove them, you will definitely hurt the sport in this State.



So you think it is right that we have 10 Pros show up to our events and 7 of them play Masters. Wait and its at Macgregor where all but one hole hole is under 350ft and the 1st -3rd masters shoot better than the 2nd and 3rd place Open players? Basically If they would have just played Open there would have been a bigger division and more $$$ for everyone??? :confused:

And you wonder why H-town golf is the laughingstock of TX.

Even worse was the tournament at Eberly Ranch where everyone was payed in cash and the lowest paying division was open because there were only 4 players compared to the 12 masters who played with half shooting better than everyone but the 1st place winner once again.



Me thinks he protests too much.

Matt, you're proving my point. You're not even talking about what's good for the sport, little alone the reality of what is. You're talking what's good for Matt, the erstwhile Pro.

The fact is that in a state driven by Masters players, you're going to have events driven by and for Masters players. That is reality.

When you say Houston is a laughing stock, you wouldn't be the first. I once said the same thing. Why do we have so few Pros. I now have a different perspective. Who cares? What we have is a fairly robust disc golf scene driven primarily by local Masters players.

I know this irks you but there is only one way it is going to change... Let me know when you need some volunteers to help you in your Pro invitational event and I'll be there!

I agree that Open should be where you go to test yourself against the best. But don't kid yourself. DG has become "easy" money for the best, occasional winnings for a few and no winnings for the majority. Look at the tournament leader boards. Always the same names. Mid-rated pros need "the perfect round" to get on the lead card. The odds are pretty high that they can't put 4 together and are lucky to get their entry back.

I don't think that's a problem where the entry fees are cheap. I played tournaments in Europe where the entry fees are $5-10 euros. No divisions, or just am and open, just have fun and everyone expected the top players to take home all (but not very many) the euros. no payout for ams, maybe a trophy.

But it might be a good thing that some top golfers play Master. It gives the mid-rated Open players a better chance at cashing. That should be good for the Open divison.


Just my opinion, but watch what happens in Europe when the start asking 75 euros to play in a tourney. vaarwel, mijn vriendin! Auf Wiedersehen, meine Freunde!, adieu, mon amie!



Read this post again, and read Mike's last post. People get incredibly focused on what they think is right. They neglect what is real. Market forces are market forces and you neglect them at your risk. Take a look at what happens when you do. The next hot product eats your lunch.

Our Market has a structure, ignoring that structure and how it works won't yield a perfect system; it will yield one that will fail.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I definitely need protection from Mr. Mike! :D

While I'm not sure this argument is valid, Mike is correct. Men's Masters make disc golf happen in Texas. You might argue it's their game; without them there would be much less disc golf in this state. If they want their cake they will have it. That might not be fair, or even best. But if you remove them, you will definitely hurt the sport in this State.



So you think it is right that we have 10 Pros show up to our events and 7 of them play Masters. Wait and its at Macgregor where all but one hole hole is under 350ft and the 1st -3rd masters shoot better than the 2nd and 3rd place Open players? Basically If they would have just played Open there would have been a bigger division and more $$$ for everyone??? :confused:

And you wonder why H-town golf is the laughingstock of TX.

Even worse was the tournament at Eberly Ranch where everyone was payed in cash and the lowest paying division was open because there were only 4 players compared to the 12 masters who played with half shooting better than everyone but the 1st place winner once again.



Me thinks he protests too much.

Matt, you're proving my point. You're not even talking about what's good for the sport, little alone the reality of what is. You're talking what's good for Matt, the erstwhile Pro.

The fact is that in a state driven by Masters players, you're going to have events driven by and for Masters players. That is reality.

When you say Houston is a laughing stock, you wouldn't be the first. I once said the same thing. Why do we have so few Pros. I now have a different perspective. Who cares? What we have is a fairly robust disc golf scene driven primarily by local Masters players.

I know this irks you but there is only one way it is going to change... Let me know when you need some volunteers to help you in your Pro invitational event and I'll be there!




Give me a course that the Pros will want to play and maybe that will work but until the we're SOL.

Do you think consistantly having 3 open players and 7 masters players of similar skill level is good for the sport? The sad thing is that one of the 3 open players is usually a master who decided to play open and often walks away with 1st place.

I just think its funny that the master aged players run away from two guys for no reason but the fact that they might not win 1st place. Also I think this is bad for the sport because who wants to travel to Houston to play Pro when they know there won't be more than 3 people? :confused:

Give me a course that the Pros will want to play and maybe that will work but until the we're SOL.

Do you think consistantly having 3 open players and 7 masters players of similar skill level is good for the sport? The sad thing is that one of the 3 open players is usually a master who decided to play open and often walks away with 1st place.

I just think its funny that the master aged players run away from two guys for no reason but the fact that they might not win 1st place. Also I think this is bad for the sport because who wants to travel to Houston to play Pro when they know there won't be more than 3 people? :confused:



I agree that Houston needs an open and reasonably maintained Pro course but wouldn't you agree then, that is part of the problem?

As for the Pro/Masters situation and is that good for disc golf. Again, you're viewing the world we live in through idealist glasses, IMO. If we want to talk about what's best for the sport, well then... But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about reality. The fact is that reality doesn't serve you right now Matt, it serves those Masters who currently are the power in this state. That isn't just reality, believe it or not, but it is fair.

People generally do what is their best interests. Now, sometimes what they think is best and what is best aren't the same thing. You might make that argument here, but I will disagree with you. I see no compelling logic that taking care of the Open player is what is best for the sport. Frankly, taking care of the Masters player, while it plays to our power base, may not be either, but it is closer than taking care of the Open player (I think taking care of the Am player and growing that segment is, but you've all heard that before).

So from now on I will pay the TD for my Open entry fee and ask him not to show me on the players list so that the Masters players wil be tricked into playing open and then show up to right after 2 minutes has been called. Sorry but its still pretty weak when you see 10 players from the open division switch to Masters (at the tournament) just because one guys shows up. LAME!