If there were two or three am divisions, with no doubly-protected age subdivisions, then I wouldn't mind the top half be rewarded by performance up to no more than 2 to 3 times the retail value of the entry fee.

Looking at the current system, I don't care if there's 20 am divisions divided by age, religion, whatever, as long as there is no profit due to performance in any of them.

Let me define what I mean by 'profit' before the semantics police step in.

If an am, regardless of division pays $30 for a tournament and gets a player's pack that has a value of $30-50, then that not profit. They all got the same merch, regardless of performance.

If an am, regardless of division pays $30 and is rewarded by performance, then I consider this profit. Whether it's $.01 or a new car.

The problem most people see exists when all am division are moderately to heavily rewarded for performance. By heavily rewarded, I mean anything more than 2 or 3 times the retail value of their entry. IMO, anything over 2 times the retail can (and will) be sold to recover their entry fees and put aside money for the next tournament. People still naively don't think this happens.

Those that don't see any profit in am divisions just have a different definition of the word 'profit.'

I believe that 'am' is a poor word to describe someone who is only different from pros in skill, as I discussed here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=742745&page=0&vc=1#Post7 42745) .

The problem I see, as many other do, is when 'ams' are heavily rewarded for beating people in a division that is randomly divided by skill.

For instance: If you suck, you can play in the Expert division, pay $30 and have a chance to bring home $30-$120 in merch, sell it and pay for your next three tournament. You are profiting from those who don't quite suck enough to play Advanced. You're called an amateur even though you probably wouldn't play if you couldn't profit.

I you really suck, you play advanced, which is also divided by an arbitrarily decided range of skill. You pay $25 and have a chance to bring home $25-$100 in merch, sell it and pay for your next three tournaments. You are profiting from those who don't quite suck enough to play Intermediate. You're called an amateur even though you probably wouldn't play if you couldn't profit.

And so on. It's not fair to the people in the bottom of each 'am' division. They watch others in their division profit off their entry fees, only due to where they fall in a randomly picked range of ratings. Not to mention I think ratings are outdated and bogus--but most everyone knows how I feel about them.

I believe that the open division in each gender, plus one or two divisions of age should be the only divisions that are heavily rewarded. Johnny Pro rated 960 is no different than Tom Bagger rated 960�Johnny doesn�t practice more, play more, attend more events or have sponsors to help with expenses. The PDGA randomly gives Tom what, in any other sport, should be an honorable distinction to justify why he gets to take some people's entry and is protected from others.

Now Tom and all the others like him think they are distinguished from 'pros' because of a pro/am distinction, when, I believe, they are separated by skill only. This 'amateur' title emboldens them and gives them perceived justification to be entitled to profit.

It's ok to have lots of divisions, as long as you take the profit out of all amateur divisions!!!

You definitely win the Jacob Loper award for the most threads started in one week!!!

I think you've single handedly used up the quota of new threads for posters rated 1000+. Congrats.

As an amateur and as a player that I don't think will ever be able to compete in Open, I agree with you. If you play AM, get a players pack that represent your entry fee (maybe even plus some) and then the winners can have some nice little trophies to hang on to. You aren't PRO, stop acting like it by playing for the prizes rather than the fun of competition.

Also, by paying out in players packs, every AM gets the same prizes effectively. If a player wants to profit, as you said, they have to get better and move up. Also, TD's can get tourney discs for less than $10 a disc and then put them at retail in the players pack, which means more money to cover the pro purse and costs of the tourney.

I like that there is a division that I feel I will fit into better. I don't like that too many players in my division want to profit.

You definitely win the Jacob Loper award for the most threads started in one week!!!


Thanks for the award, discette, and thanks for the props, krupicka. As the recipient, I will cherish this award and try to honor the man after which it was so proudly named. :D

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I'm glad to see at least some people take time to read my point of view.

Profit should be taken away from the "baggers" and given back to the people that are in the right division to begin with.

As an amateur and as a player that I don't think will ever be able to compete in Open, I agree with you. If you play AM, get a players pack that represent your entry fee (maybe even plus some) and then the winners can have some nice little trophies to hang on to. You aren't PRO, stop acting like it by playing for the prizes rather than the fun of competition.

Also, by paying out in players packs, every AM gets the same prizes effectively. If a player wants to profit, as you said, they have to get better and move up. Also, TD's can get tourney discs for less than $10 a disc and then put them at retail in the players pack, which means more money to cover the pro purse and costs of the tourney.


Brilliant!!!

There comes a time when the blind man takes your hand and says "Can't you see?"

I played as an Am in a non-sanctioned series last year:

first seven events cost $20 each = $140
Last season end event = $50
bagtag & membership = $20

Payouts to me in divisional cash = $141.50
Handicap Payout = $80
Skins = $40
Horseshoe Tournament 3rd place. = $15
Sunday handicap doubles = $26

Total payout to me = $302.50
Total entry fee cost = $210.00
Profit = $92.50
plus a T-shirt Player Pack for each event

Add in gas and lodging and I didn't even break even, but I had alot of fun and took home cash and trophy's.......

Why don't we just payout in cash to everyone and be done with it....

Personally I am all for trophy only AM's with great players packs.

The other thing That I feel is very sadly set up is the age divisions. I think if we use age protection then it should only be in A tier or NT tourneys.

Why don't we just payout in cash to everyone and be done with it....



Because then the open pro's wouldn't get near the amount of cash they do now.

If we just paid everyone in cash, then it would just be a bet per each division.

To lower entry fees and just provide player packs for ams, will likely have the following consequences:
(1) Less retail/wholesale differential to cover tournament expenses and/or add to the Pro payout making it even less desireable to be a TD.
(2) Increase the number of non-sanctioned events that do provide payout which would be where those TDs in (1) might go
(3) Increase the likelihood that players will set up their own sidebet pools with the money saved on lower entry fees such that the winning "Ams" will potentially still take home more than the lowest cashing pro and now their winnings would include non-accounted for cash.

Anyone doubt this?

Chuck for those of us not TD's can you provide a cost detail of what a tourney takes, and how come most TD's say they loose money?

If in fact it cost to much to run a PDGA tourney and the TD's loose money then why do we continue to see an increase in PDGA events?

As I lifetime Am I also agree with you in principle, with a few notes:

* Not every Am sells his plastic for cash. In fact, though I'm sure it happens, I've never done it, and never seen it.

* For practical matters, I would draw the "profit" restriction line at a point that it doesn't encourage Ams to stay Am for the plastic. 2X entry fees may or may not be that point.

It would be great if this scheme led to lower entry fees.

One question, though: Were the PDGA to adopt such a structure, if a sufficient number of Ams don't like it, would an increasing number of non-sanctioned tournaments pop up, paying out Ams in tons of plastic, defeating the purpose of this change?

Oh, I suggest you save your breath, or fingertips, on the nomenclature. I think almost everyone agrees the names Pro & Am are inaccurate, but they are useful to us in the current structure. Besides, if you open the discussion up to what would be better names, we'll never hear the end of it, and might end up with worse solutions than "Enthiasist".

If we just paid everyone in cash, then it would just be a bet per each division.



That's all it is now. The only exception is that the Ams are picking up the majority of the tab (i.e. expenses) due to the TD being able to take advantage of the retail vs. wholesale costs. Don't fool yourself, and don't think the Ams aren't watching to make sure this doesn't change.

Why do you think there is an increase in 'Am-only' tournaments? How much would they increase if a larger percentage (say 50% or so) of Am entry fees went into pro purses?

Considering TDs have historically lost money or barely broken even since the beginning of competition, why would you think that would stop? There's always new TDs to take over when the old ones have had enough.

Pros do not pay their way in covering the admin costs (not PDGA fees) if they get at least 100% payout. So, the entry fees and number entering on the Am side usually have to cover those for the pro field unless the TD gets sponsors to cover those costs.

Where would you think TDs make money? Some sell the merch for prizes and have additional sales so they can make some there. But even those TDs are likely to give much of that back to the pro purse. Some will run raffles for baskets which produces money either for the club or possibly the purse. There's no income from spectator fees or TV rights. The PDGA allows the TD to take a percentage as a management fee but I'm guessing only a few take all they are allowed since many times the club is the financial entity putting on the event, not the TD.

If it wasn't for the TDs making money off the AMs, the pros wouldn't get much of a payout.

For a different perspective on this topic... I am one of those people that sling extra plastic as an AM. I am by no means good enough to play Open yet but I do cash at 80%+ of the AM tournaments that I play in. What is wrong with someone like me selling off extra plastic that I don't throw to make a couple extra bucks to pay for the next tournament? I play because its a good time but if I can help fund my addiction while having a great time, why is that wrong of me? Just because I am not out there paying double the tourney fees to donate to top pros doesn't mean I don't have a right to be there.

And also, in many tournaments I am given plastic that is pre-selected and 90% of the time it is plastic that I don't throw. The idea of huge player packs and no payouts will turn a lot of golfers away from tournaments which is the exact opposite of what the PDGA is trying to do. If I were to pay $50 for a tournament (knowing that I am only playing for a trophy or whatever) and am handed a player pack of equipment that I don't need or use... I would be pretty discouraged from coming back. The idea of competition is to reward good play and having a flat payout completely eliminates that. If people really wanted to play for trophies, you would see more people taking advantage of the "trophy only" options at tournaments. I for one think it would be a shame to only pay out in players packs and I think many others would tend to agree.
Just me $.02... let the profitable AM bashing begin! :D:p

Pros do not pay their way in covering the admin costs (not PDGA fees) if they get at least 100% payout.



Come on CK - you're tightroping the truth again. The percentage of entry fees returned (as required by the tournament sanctioning agreement) is figured after fees are paid - that includes PDGA fees, series fees, club fees, etc.

As regards tournaments not making any money - also partially true. My experience has been that most TD's choose to turn profits back into their event to maximize payout. This is partly due to convenience -as few TD's are successful in getting outside added cash. It's alot like the entire DG culture - funded from within. Td's lose money when they forget to account for expenses, and end up giving it away instead.

I do not understand the making money off ams notion. As a TD for ten plus years, I have never figured out the difference in wholesale v. retail and stuck it in my pocket or the pro purse. As far as the am purses go, what comes in, goes out, so to speak. I have barely enough time to do all the things that need to be done, let alone figure out some profit margin. I usually screw it up anyway and award more plastic than money was taken in.

Anyway, I like the idea of capping all am division players' payouts. Maybe 1.5 or 2x the entry fee for winning. The rest of the payout would be flat, top 20% get the same payout, next 20% the same, and so on. All leftover cash would roll over to the pro purse. If you play down, you will get something but not a lot, and compete for a part of your fee. If you play up you now have a chance to compete for all of your money. Of course, the payout scale would have to be shifted, at least top 50% would cash. This could be incentive to play up.

To lower entry fees and just provide player packs for ams, will likely have the following consequences:

I don't want player packs and trophy only. There is a place in my system, if you'll take time to read it, for moderate payout for the top am division in a limited divisional system. If there's 20 am divisions, then, yes, I would like to see flat payouts with huge players packs.


(1) Less retail/wholesale differential to cover tournament expenses and/or add to the Pro payout making it even less desireable to be a TD.

How so?

(2) Increase the number of non-sanctioned events that do provide payout which would be where those TDs in (1) might go


I love this BS assumption, I've heard it many times and it doesn't hold water. If there were non-sanctioned tournaments, how do you keep the pros out of the am divisions? Why couldn't I come play in the plastic division in that tournament? You couldn't keep me out. Even if the highest division was a "am-only" or, more accurately, merch-payout then after a while people in this division would wonder why they aren't playing for money instead of making the TD rich.

(3) Increase the likelihood that players will set up their own sidebet pools with the money saved on lower entry fees such that the winning "Ams" will potentially still take home more than the lowest cashing pro and now their winnings would include non-accounted for cash.


Sidebets can happen at PDGAs or any sporting event. There is nothing to stop it, and, IMO, nothing wrong with it. Sidebets? Go for it!

Yes, it's a good idea. Maybe Chuck will get the competition committee to work on it. :p

Chicken Little, you ought to realize from some of these responses that there are more and more ams who won't fly the coup, they will play disc golf just for the competition.

(1) Less retail/wholesale differential to cover tournament expenses and/or add to the Pro payout making it even less desireable to be a TD.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How so?



I believe you're proposing lower Am entry fees even if events have what you consider moderate payout. Simple math shows less net differential for TDs to use.



(2) Increase the number of non-sanctioned events that do provide payout which would be where those TDs in (1) might go


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I love this BS assumption, I've heard it many times and it doesn't hold water. If there were non-sanctioned tournaments, how do you keep the pros out of the am divisions?


NEFA and the Southern Nationals seem to be handling it fine. I suspect some of the other well developed DG markets would be able to figure out how to handle getting players in the proper divisions. After all, isn't that what everyone has to do for leagues right now?



(3) Increase the likelihood that players will set up their own sidebet pools with the money saved on lower entry fees such that the winning "Ams" will potentially still take home more than the lowest cashing pro and now their winnings would include non-accounted for cash.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sidebets can happen at PDGAs or any sporting event. There is nothing to stop it, and, IMO, nothing wrong with it. Sidebets? Go for it!


My point is that if the rewards are satisfactory then someone taking the effort to set up sidebets thru the whole field is uncommon. Sidebets in foursomes happens regularly. If the rewards are dropped, it will increase the sidebetting because players will have more money to spend that's not in entry fees.

The Competition system already accommodates event formats proposed by Whorley and McCaine. There's no need to restrict what TDs can offer since they are allowed to do it now. The Competition system has evolved based on what has worked over the years. No one envisioned the sytem we have now 15 years ago. It's changed due to technology and member preferences. With volunteer Board members over the years, I doubt they would ever want to restrict options for TDs and events except for specific series like the NTs and Championships.

The PDGA already provides a payout table that would keep AMs from making too much. The problem is that most TDs do not follow it.

IMO, anything over 2 times the retail can (and will) be sold to recover their entry fees and put aside money for the next tournament. People still naively don't think this happens.



What's most interesting about these 'Ams make too much money' arguments is that the ones making the argument, more often than not, used to be Ams taking big Am prizes. And, if we're to believe the pointing finger of 'everyone-is-doing-it' hypocrisy, you can be sure that when they were bagging their way to big am purses they turned around and sold all that fresh plastic on the 'net or out of trunk of the car. Did V.W. sell Am division winnings ?

Some people aren't as naive as some other people are cynical. Some people understand that those pointing fingers probably do, or used to do and would likely still do if they could get away with it, exactly the things they accuse others of doing :)

So, let the free market decide. If it's good enough for America, it's good enough for disc golf. People are free to run tourneys in the way suggested and it would be wrong to tell them to stop doing so. Disc golf consumers will decide if they want to buy.

Restricting what the TD is allowed to offer won't solve the problem that you see because the TD is not restricted to PDGA events. If the TD believes that he will get a better turnout offering prizes, he will probably offer prizes most of the time.

The other question I have is what makes the offended Pros believe that the cowardly Ams that hide out will grow a pair and start playing up in sanctioned events just because the PDGA takes the big prizes away ? It is fine to say that is the only place that big payouts will be, but for the 950ish plwyer, the open division is probably not hiding any big payouts.

All these rebuttals never address the core criticism of:

Why do we have a system which financially encourages people to play down, because the long term effect is that the system retains non-risk takers and spits out the risk takers? This is bad for the sport.

The "rebuttals" never tackle the criticism head on. For instance, we have the tried and true

"You can't force people to play open."

I have yet to see a proposal that ever forces people to play open, but people keep replying with it. To clarify, you can play am till your rating is 1020, you are just not going to profit from your skills.

"This easy reward system is great for the sport."

No system that aims to reward mediocrity can be called good for any sport. Since the institution of this system (no "evolution" by the way), the result has been predictable. It has fed growing fees, in both pro and ams. It has encouraged people to play down, where the low hanging fruit is. It has penalized the highly competitive people who strive to test themselves.

In short, the am ranks have burgeoned, while the pro ranks have grown little at all. All of these results could have been clearly seen in the nineties by anyone with foresight. Now, foresight is not needed, only hindsight. Yet still, people are in denial of this phenomenon, or they actually try to call this 'tyranny of the risk avoiders' good for the sport.

TDs will run non-sanctioned tournaments. It will start the demise of the PDGA.

This is the chicken little argument. Whether it is accurate or not is open to question, and more importantly it is terribly cynical to the core. When made by PDGA decision makers, it simple amounts to a complete lack of core principles. They would rather run a successful racket that increases memberships and poisons the sport than adhere to or promote actual competitive ideals. When this argument is made by ams, it is usually a veiled threat of "I'll take my business elsewhere." I'm not sure if this argument scares PDGA folks, they are too lazy to tackle it, or they don't see it as a problem at all because they also don't value competitive ideals.


"those who promote changes are hypocrites"

A rebuttal that avoids the real issue. In other words, if it turns out that those promoting the concept in fact did not profit from the system, would it make their argument stronger?




I suspect the truth is more like this:

Anyone with healthy ideals knows the system is corrupt, even with the am ranks. Those that don't are mostly rationalizing. The PDGA could take a leadership role and do the right thing. This might cause a loss of membership, and total membership appears to be a higher ideal than founding a sport. In the end, the leaders have spoken: we are a club, not a sport, and do not intend to promote sporting ideals.

very well said.

I do not understand the making money off ams notion. As a TD for ten plus years, I have never figured out the difference in wholesale v. retail and stuck it in my pocket or the pro purse. As far as the am purses go, what comes in, goes out, so to speak. I have barely enough time to do all the things that need to be done, let alone figure out some profit margin. I usually screw it up anyway and award more plastic than money was taken in.





In the 4 events I run or help run annually, we are acutely aware of the margin we make on Ams. I can't really speak to the TDs who are not aware of the precise figures, but the profit is there nevertheless, and if it wasn't, the TDs would find themselves leaving Pro/Am tournaments with a hole in their wallet. Especially if they or the club are adding anything to the Pro purse.

On behalf of the IOSeries, I always know roughly what our profit is on any amateur entry fee. If you're running crappy tournaments with high profit margins, or if you are giving away the farm because the club is sitting on a pile of cash, you don't have to know. We have to know.

And if an amateur can make a profit by selling his prizes, I'm all for that. I'm not at the top of the merch pyramid. I'd be happy to not be at the bottom either.

All these rebuttals never address the core criticism of:

Why do we have a system which financially encourages people to play down, because the long term effect is that the system retains non-risk takers and spits out the risk takers? This is bad for the sport.





OK. Head-on.

We DON'T have a system that financially encourages people to play down.

Well, not hardly. The vast majority of Ams don't play Am instead of Pro because of the vast prizes they can win, compared to playing Open. More than half the Ams aren't winning any prizes, and the overwhelming majority are within the 2X of entry fees Whorley recommends. They're playing to compete with players of similar skill. Most of those Rec & Intermediate & lower-half Advanced players wouldn't likely play Open, regardless of the payout in Am divisions. It wouldn't be "risk-taking", it would be competitive suicide, as we'd be slaughtered.

So it's a relatively small number of players who receive enough financial benefit, in the form of high merchandise prizes, to encourage them not to move up to Open. So you're slightly right on this point---but only slightly.

And to play devil's advocate---defining "competition" correctly as "competing for prizes" and defining "peers", for the sake of this statement, as "players of roughly comparable ability"---is it your position that the joy of competing for significant prizes should be reserved for only the most talented, and that those people who are not gifted with youth or strong arms or great hand-eye coordination are not worthy of this pleasure?

I actually agree with many or your conclusions and suggestions for reform, but I must admit to being a little sketchy about the rationale behind them.

We DON'T have a system that financially encourages people to play down.




Like I have always said to Chuck, why doesn't the PDGA keep records of and report return on investment for everyone. Use some surrogate for ams like 60% of reported value, including player packs. Then at the end of the year, plot it by rating for both ams and pros. Then look at the 940-980 ranges in both groups. It's as if the PDGA has created a stark choice for these folks: pay higher fees with an expected loss or lower fees with an expected return. I don't know if there is bagging on the margins of adv/am or am/rec, but if there is, the am chart would explain why.

Of course, Chuck has repeatedly refused to ever produce a chart. I suspect he or the PDGA intentionally fails to keep such statistics because they realize those stats would illuminate the inequity of the system.

btw, it is not just financial reward you need to consider, but expected financial loss.


is it your position that the joy of competing for significant prizes should be reserved for only the most talented, and that those people who are not gifted with youth or strong arms or great hand-eye coordination are not worthy of this pleasure?



The answer is simple: rewards should be tied to performance and risk taken. That "pleasure" is available to everyone. I also find it suspect that people wouldn't play a sport unless they received financial incentives. Almost every one us did that for most of our youth. The little leagues of high schools didn't need to lure us with financial rewards, and guess what, we still came out to play.

Agreed that total Am winnings would be useful information, and shine useful light on this debate. Perhaps that fewer Ams are profiting than we think.

Your post refers to the 940-980 rated Ams, which is where most of the debate is. But the debate should include the 880-rated players, too.

I understand your feeling that rewards should be tied to performance, but many of us simply can't perform any better. I don't need financial rewards to play....but they make it more fun. Just as people of modest ability like to bet (i.e.; financial rewards) in their casual rounds and on ball golf courses and bowling leagues and even on sports they watch other people play. More fun.

Perhaps the majority of disc golfers really do want it to be a "social activity", not a "sport", by your definitions. Should the member organization not do what the members want?

Of course, Chuck has repeatedly refused to ever produce a chart. I suspect he or the PDGA intentionally fails to keep such statistics because they realize those stats would illuminate the inequity of the system.




I'd be fine seeing a chart like that but I don't have the data. That's something Gentry would have to pull out from the PDGA database.

Your argument might hold water if in fact the Ams were actually taking any of the outside cash brought into events. But the prizes they win come from the money they paid in. And they are already contributing to the pros by covering their admin and some added cash at B-tier and higher events. Too bad that the Am numbers are larger than the number of highest rated players. Does that mean Ams should pay a "numbers" tax just because?

If pros should earn higher rewards "because of their skill" someone needs to care to pay to watch them or learn from them or bask in their celebrity. That's how pros earn the big bucks. It's not on the backs of the Ams in their sport unless those Ams care to pay to watch them, to enroll in their clinics, or buy their books & DVDs. It's not happening too much yet in disc golf.

But don't torch what's working for the Ams in this sport just because our pros aren't getting fawned over like some high profile sports. Some players care about becoming pros in sports due to the extrinsic rewards (cash, fame, women). Our sport primarily appeals to those driven by intrinsic rewards (accomplishment, satisfaction) to be the best and there's nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, that may never fill their wallets.

btw, it is not just financial reward you need to consider, but expected financial loss.

I have been saying this for years .

At non PDGA events I will play pro or at least pro masters cause the entry fee is sooooo much lower and the loss of $25 is NOTHING even if I dont win a thing cause of the ability to compete against higher level of compition . ALSO
you normally dont have the "level of higher compitition" showing up at non pdga events and there is a possibility of bottom place cash at non pdga events

At lower PDGA events this idea is true too ( lower entry fees and lower level of quality compitition ) BUT unfortunatly at a C tier event at this time if you would accept cash you are a PRO in PDGA rules ( which impo is BOGUS , that is what the ratings are for to prove where you fit in )
Now it is nice that the PDGA has gone back to allowing ams to take prizes in pro divisions at pdga tourneys and this will help BUT with the addition of the expert division counteracts this .

The "rebuttals" never tackle the criticism head on. For instance, we have the tried and true



Anyone can run events using most of the formats suggested here.

Don't just complain about all these divisions or Am payouts. Prove that another format is better. Run an Open-only, or low-am-payout, or whatever. Prove that players will play regardless. Prove that Ams will play Open if there's no financial incentive not to. Get out of the classroom and onto the street, so to speak.

This is not intended for James or anyone else in particular, since I've no idea what events you run, how you run them, or how they do. But I notice that whenever I or Chuck or anyone else makes this argument, no one rebuts it head-on.

My hope is that we'll evolve in this direction with more and more single-division or limited-division events already being held.

Hey david , I dont know the whole jist of the arguement but whenever someone says go out and do it , that is a double edged sword .
IF the TOP governing body(ies) are not going to say what can and cant be done then the underclass is going to take the easiest way out to appease the most people ( especially in a strugging to get ahold of participation market as disc golf is )

I want " fair and balanced " competitive compitiions that give the best reward to the people who wish to challenge themselves against the proven best .
Those of us who choose to play in a division that protects them against the best of the best should NOT expect greater rewards then those who do compete in that unprotected division .
This is even if there are only 15 open players and 55 advanced ( or expert ) and 28 pro master players .

Your post refers to the 940-980 rated Ams, which is where most of the debate is. But the debate should include the 880-rated players, too.

David ,
what about the pro masters ??? Now the " profit " being made on pro masters is nill as far as a TD is concerned , but the profit that player is making by playing in a protected division is WAY more then the advanced players winning stuff , on a individual basis .

The PDGA doesn't mandate so many divisions---just allows them. People can offer fewer (or pressure their local TDs to do it). I've done so.

The system I prefer, personally, eliminates Pro Master (or moves cut-off to 50), and age-protected Am divisions. And the big payouts to Ams (I like Whorley's suggestion, capping it at 2X entry fees, but still having some prizes). BUT....I'm not in favor of mandating it if many more disc golfers don't agree with me.

I'm more of a free marketeer, preferring the carrot (bigger & better single-division events to draw players) to the stick (PDGA outlawing popular alternatives). And yes, I agree that currently the big payouts in Advanced are the wrong sort of carrot.

If pros should earn higher rewards "because of their skill" someone needs to care to pay to watch them or learn from them or bask in their celebrity.



This is your typical copout argument when I say the system should at least attempt to reward performance. You specifically do not counter that argument, but instead throw dust in my eyes with some irrlevancy about people paying to watch folks play. People paying to watch might one day be a relevant if the question was "Hey Chuck, what will it take to get real money into the pockets of disc golfers?" But that is not what I asked. I asked "Hey Chuck, why is the system set up to discourage those who strive to challenge themselves and take risks? That is anti-sporting."

You never answer that question, you only allude to the fact that ams contribute to the pro purse as if that makes the inequity A OK. I guess your rebuttal is "two wrongs make a right." But the basic fact remains: the transfer of funds does not change the structure of the incentives.


Maybe we should change the names, that way you could see beyond this lame reply you always give: Disc golf pros can't bring in outside money, therefore the perverse reward system we employ is justified.

If you changed the words "disc golf pros" to "better disc golfers," would you still maintain the same basic argument?

While eliminating the Pro Master division seems to be popular with the "fewer division" crowd, remember that pros older than 49 have that division as an option to play tougher competition since most of the time, there are not enough pros over age 49 for a division. If Pro Master goes then I'm more likely to play in an amateur division than play Open except for the few events I might be willing to enter Open as Trophy Only if allowed.

If you changed the words "disc golf pros" to "better disc golfers," would you still maintain the same basic argument?



I'd be perfectly fine if all but the top handful of pros who have signature discs recognized that they are ams playing for cash and would return to Am status all the way up to 1020 or so. Entry fees could be adjusted so the rewards are at least similar at the higher levels. That would be healthier for the sport because then the promoters would actually have a chance to breakeven or even profit from their efforts. If anyone should get paid next it's the tireless TDs and volunteers versus the players if we're talking about economic rewards for the effort here.

I'm sorry I can't change the economics to make the better players earn more due to their numbers. Teachers probably deserve more pay than pro athletes but that ain't happening either. Gutting the reward system under the top players isn't the way to do it nor will it work in a free market economy. Most McDonald franchises make more than organic high quality food restaurants also. We can do our best to make the competition fair but mother nature and economics have much to do with not producing as many top players as you might desire.

I want " fair and balanced " competitive compitiions that give the best reward to the people who wish to challenge themselves against the proven best .
Those of us who choose to play in a division that protects them against the best of the best should NOT expect greater rewards then those who do compete in that unprotected division .
This is even if there are only 15 open players and 55 advanced ( or expert ) and 28 pro master players .



So which method do you use to address it? Take money from the 83 non-Open entry fees and give it to the Open pros, or force 40 or so of the 'non-Opens" into the Open division so they can donate more directly? How do you make this work and keep all 100 people (and the TD) interested when in the end we are all just playing for each others entry?

Chuck,
Do you think by ignoring this querstion I will stop asking it?

By what logic do you justify calling the separating out of the top 7% of player members (by rating) "fair competition"?

I'm sorry I can't change the economics to make the better players earn more due to their numbers. Teachers probably deserve more pay than pro athletes but that ain't happening either.



This is another one of your copouts: always assuming that this argument can be simply boiled down to "pros deserve more money." I simply advocate a just system and let what happens happen. If more pros make a living then fine, if not, then fine also. In other words, supporting pros financially ain't the goal, supporting a healthy competitive environment is.

btw, What does McDonalds or some lack of arbitrary level players have to do with supporting a healthy competitive environment?

Since we're playing for each other's entry fees, the number of players entering determines the payouts. If anything, you should support more divisions so it dilutes the larger payouts strictly due to the numbers. Unless money comes from the outside or you take it from another division, how do you account for the natural fact that there will be fewer players at higher skill levels? Tell us how to do it on a free market basis without restrictions other than skill breaks? No more than 50 ratings points per break.

And Craig, I'm not dodging your question. I had it partly written when the server went down. more later.

Since we're playing for each other's entry fees, the number of players entering determines the payouts.



I'm talking to a wall.

I continually state that ams shouldn't be playing for each other's money, and your reply starts with "Since we are playing for other people's money."

Like I said, no one is going to eliminate free market options that members want. So, your suggestion will have to deal with that reality. Just like being the best tiddly wink player in the world doesn't payoff other than maybe a spot on Letterman, being better in DG doesn't payoff yet. That's the reality. You want to get paid better for better performance, someone has to care enough to pay for it. Otherwise, you better be happy for yourself getting better.

Maybe it doesn't meet your gauzey eyed vision of amateur competition from the past but it's the reality of today. If money comes in because outside interests start to care, then the system will right itself in no time because players will be restricted from playing up unless they have minimum skills. To imply that the current system prevents that from happening is a copout in itself. If people were fascinated watching the best, they would have been doing it by now in droves when it's been free.

Probably not the thread for this but, We are the Professional Disc Golf Association. The PDGA should be working towards getting more pros and leave getting more ams to the grass roots efforst of local clubs, schools and groups. Lower the am entry fees and I personally think that ams should play for player packs and trophys, and Pros should have to EARN their right to play OPEN PRO. NOt just buy their way in. WE need to take away the incentive of ams playing am just for the merchandise. I think its dumb that any player can buy their pro card and play in Pro events. This gives no legitimacy to being pro.
I think we need to look at the USDGC. This year there is alot of players paying money to try and qualify at a great event. WHY because the payout is great and the event is run great and you NEED to be a good player to play. The tournament makes people want to play open. IF there were more events in which people had to qualify and these events all had payouts like the USDGC, we might get more players practicing more to attain the level of play needed to be able to play in the event.
IF all NT tournaments only allowed pros who earned their pro card play or had a qualifing system, the numbers for these events will drop in the beginning but down the road the numbers will increase. and there will be more legitimacy to a NT PRO tour.

Please explain the logic behind separating only the top 7.5% as a competitive division? It is the part you consistently ignore. All these folks talk about player retention - but seem to be ok with telling the best players it's fine to make them play in smaller and smaller fields. Not sure how that would encourage them to keep playing.



Not ignoring. The division breaks were based on competitive ratings ranges with a possible tweak of 5 pts one way or the other to balance the percentage of players in each range. Even the top 975 to 1035 range is 50% larger than what would be �fair� for the 975-995 players at NTs and most A-tiers. But that�s what the numbers show.

What you�re ignoring is that technically �pros� should not be playing for each other�s money as much as playing for other people�s money which can be provided by sponsors, spectators paying to watch, teaching at clinics or giving lessons, producing educational materials for sale, or working at pay-for-play facilities. But I already mentioned this in McCaine�s response.

For what it�s worth, if you want to run a ratings event with fewer divisions, you can do it next year. Offer just Open, Advanced and Enthusiast with PDGA sanctioning. That would give you three divisions with players over 934, over 849 and under 850. Try it and see how it works. Include Intermediate if you don�t want the Advanced division and the payouts to be too big. Now that ams can enter Open and get merch if they cash, the Experts might be fine playing Open in this format.

Chuck, It is obvious that age has given you more wisdom than most of these people.
I have just read some of the most idiotic statements about what the PDGA should do that I have ever seen. Ignore the Am's and worry about the Pro's, makes no sense to me. If I was an Am and knew that no one in the sanctioning body I played under cared what I thought I would certainly not be encourage to stick with them.
You guys do as good of a job as I believe can be done. Especially considering the fact that most of the "PRO's" in the PDGA are so self absorbed that they can't see what got us to where we are today. Most of these guys need to look at what percentage of the money taken in by the PGA is spent on developing future players.
Ignore the future and it will surely ignore you.

Sorry :o

Tkiefer said
So which method do you use to address it? Take money from the 83 non-Open entry fees and give it to the Open pros, or force 40 or so of the 'non-Opens" into the Open division so they can donate more directly? How do you make this work and keep all 100 people (and the TD) interested when in the end we are all just playing for each others entry?

First things first ,
ALL ADDED CASH goes to open division only .
Second ,
I am a radical thinker in this area so hear me out .

I have had lots of ideas and they are all dependant upon some form of tourney being run so lets break it down

ANY system that would allow the " same caliber " players to play in more then one division ( as we have now with open , pro masters , and advanced having no player ratings caps )

I would do a few things
I would make the divisions that have severe overlap pay a fee to play in that division to the OPEN division .
I did this a few years ago when we had the pro-2 idea , I took $5 from each pro 2 player and put it towards the open pot .
Trust me I annouced it in advance and there was really only one person who complained and it was beleive it or not the winner of the pro2 division hoping for a huge payday when there wasnot one , cause in my opinion he came into a tourney thinking he could sandbag and play pro2.
Another idea is charge those individuals who have a proven player rating the full open fee and take the difference in entry fees and add it directly to the open pot .
This would make high rated masters and advanced think twice about sandbagging in a protected division . This also would have a trickle down effect about some 15 year old kid who can whip most advanced players but into playing in a division he truely belongs . I dont care how old you are if you have the ability to play in a division you should do it and not worry about some arbitrary age braket award .

Any lower tiered event also will have more overlap in divisions and the payout to those in protected divisions should NEVER be more in prizes then what the last place cash in the open division . If a div. has so many players that the first place player in that division would win more then the last place open player then the prizes should be capped at that last place amount and the rest of the " prize money" ( minus the TD profit for whatever he uses it for ) should be given to the first place non cashing pro .
AND yes that last idea is for PRO MASTERS too .


Now onto my ideas which I have said many times before , but will quickly state here .
There should be ratings breaks in each disc golf division and could fluctuate with the tier level of the tourney cause it is my opinion that a C tier does not draw the same caliber of player an A tier does and there are different players at these events
With this idea there are still going to be " lapover " but not nearly as there is now and the player who would have won that rated division truely deserved it .

Hey david , I dont know the whole jist of the arguement but whenever someone says go out and do it , that is a double edged sword .
IF the TOP governing body(ies) are not going to say what can and cant be done then the underclass is going to take the easiest way out to appease the most people ( especially in a strugging to get ahold of participation market as disc golf is )

I want " fair and balanced " competitive compitiions that give the best reward to the people who wish to challenge themselves against the proven best .
Those of us who choose to play in a division that protects them against the best of the best should NOT expect greater rewards then those who do compete in that unprotected division .
This is even if there are only 15 open players and 55 advanced ( or expert ) and 28 pro master players .



"Underclass"?
Defining a member organization doing what the members want as "appeasing" them?
Do I detect condescension?

For what it�s worth, if you want to run a ratings event with fewer divisions, you can do it next year. Offer just Open, Advanced and Enthusiast with PDGA sanctioning. That would give you three divisions with players over 934, over 849 and under 850. Try it and see how it works. Include Intermediate if you don�t want the Advanced division and the payouts to be too big. Now that ams can enter Open and get merch if they cash, the Experts might be fine playing Open in this format.



Give it up, Chuck. I've seen this suggested several dozen times, and no one's ever going to rebut it.

I think the difference for 2008 is that Ams can win merch in Open making this more feasible than before, plus the ratings breaks are shifted. Craig has tried something similar before in unsanctioned play so maybe it will work for sanctioned play?

I was not saying ignore the ams, but focus more on making a real pro tour. WE are the PDGA. it sounds like you know the percentage of money the PGA spends to encourage less able players. Please share what that percent is. When i watch golf on TV many of the ads i see for promoting the sport to kids and those with less ability than the PGA pros is done by the USGA not the PGA. Please share this info if you have it

To avoid painting everyone with the same brush, or anyone with the wrong brush, it seems to me that the complaints fall into 4 broad categories, more or less degrees of complaint about prizes Ams receive:

#1 --- Top players (Pros) want to receive higher payouts, and should take money from current Ams to fund them.
#2 --- Only the very best players are entitled to win anything in competition.
#3 --- It is unfair, among two players at the same event, a player with a higher score wins more than a player with a lower score, due to playing in different divisions.
#4 --- #3 creates an economic incentive for players to remain in lower or protected divisions, which hurts the long-term growth of the top levels and, hence, the sport.

#1 involves either taking more money than we currently do from Ams and adding it to the Pro purse or, more commonly, forcing the better Ams and/or Pro Masters to play Open by making their current divisions unavailable. This assumes those players will willingly pay Open fees even when almost guaranteed to lose. It seems more likely to exacerbate the move-up, move-up, move-out phenomenon.

#2 strikes me as arrogant. There frequently seems an assumption that players reach the top solely through their own accomplishment, and anyone could do so if they worked hard enough and took the risks. Some of us are too old or have too little athletic ability to ever rise to this level.

#3 clearly bothers some people here a great deal. I admit to a bias that it doesn't bother me at all---if a lower-division player, such as an Rec division player, shoots higher than me but takes home prizes while I do not, I'm just happy for him and congratulate him for playing well among his peers. The fact that some players reject it in principle shouldn't overrule the fact that the majority seem to not mind at all.

Changing the division threshholds will not change this outcome, just change who the lower-division winners are. As long as lower divisions win anything at all, someone with a higher score will win more than someone with a lower score, in a higher division. The only way to eliminate this affect is the ban all winnings for all divisions other than Open. Clearly not the wishes of the majority of disc golfers.

#4 is the complaint that makes most sense to me. Yet, the solutions seem to cause more problems than they solve. While it's only a small percentage of Ams (the top Advanced) who might consider playing Open but for the economic incentives of staying Am, proposed changes affect the other 90% of Ams as well.

Whorley suggested we can take the profit incentive out by giving Ams big player packages and limiting the top payout to about 2X the entry fees. This struck me as an interesting and promising proposal. After looking more carefully, I see that we're already doing just this. If TDs give a player package of $13 or more, don't add cash to the Am divisions, and follow the PDGA payout tables----the Am division winners around 2X, or less, of their entry fees back.

The only way to remove any economic benefit of playing Am rather than Open is to (1) ban all Am prizes AND (2) require Am entry fees to be as high as Pro entry fees. Which would decimate the Am division and, in the long run, not help the Pros very much.

Now that ams can enter Open and get merch if they cash, the Experts might be fine playing Open in this format.



I sure hope the classification of "Expert" is only a proposal for consideration. I think it would be a mistake for the PDGA to adapt this title to describe an amateur division. I view the word "expert" as being the best there is in a particular field or profession and I believe most other people (and dictionaries) have the same interpretation of this title.

Tiger Woods and the like are considered the experts in the world of golf, not the top ams in the sport. When legal council calls an expert witness to the stand, they're not looking for an amateur's testimony. When it comes to money and investing, financial experts are the individuals/firms that investors turn to for advice, not an undergraduate who is still working toward a finance degree. In the world of snow skiing, the double-black diamond trail is designed for the expert skier. The highest rank in marksmanship (shooting) is considered the expert. The references are endless...

Again, I think labeling an amateur division "Expert" would be a mistake and would lead to confusion outside the disc golf circle.

Not all experts earn money at what they do, nor make a living at it. Most would have called Tiger an expert golfer when he won three straight Am titles before turning pro. With no skill cap on our amateur side, it seems perfectly fitting that an Expert could at some point have a 1025 rating in our structure at the point in time where you have to qualify and make a full-time commitment to being a pro to play on the money side of our structure. Call it a long range view.

I believe the PDGA has done that. There will be an "expert" am division.

Not all experts earn money at what they do, nor make a living at it. Most would have called Tiger an expert golfer when he won three straight Am titles before turning pro. With no skill cap on our amateur side, it seems perfectly fitting that an Expert could at some point have a 1025 rating in our structure at the point in time where you have to qualify and make a full-time commitment to being a pro to play on the money side of our structure. Call it a long range view.



Which is completely ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and ASSBACKWARDS

Wow by todays ratings everybody below the top 15 would be Ams. :eek:
Schweby (http://www.sharkysshots.com/albums/userpics/10002/normal_IMG_1359.JPG) you just made the cuTT. :D

Blue is definitely better but that was the C committee's wish.

Not sure why it's ridiculous if the pros have to qualify for the tour in 2025 to earn $100,000 first place tournament checks and a player with a 1025 rating earns $200,000 as a dentist and plays casually, a lot like top amateur ball golfers who don't (or haven't yet) turn pro. I think Scott Martin is a prototype with an excellent "real" job but can still rise to the occasion to play with the current big dogs.

Not all experts earn money at what they do, nor make a living at it. Most would have called Tiger an expert golfer when he won three straight Am titles before turning pro. With no skill cap on our amateur side, it seems perfectly fitting that an Expert could at some point have a 1025 rating in our structure at the point in time where you have to qualify and make a full-time commitment to being a pro to play on the money side of our structure. Call it a long range view.



We already have "experts" with ratings at or above 1025

Player Name PDGA# State Country Rating Division
Ken Climo 4297 FL USA 1035 M Pro
Steve Rico 4666 CA USA 1031 M Pro
Jesper Lundmark 15239 Sweden 1031 M Pro
Darrell Nodland 7225 ND USA 1031 M Pro
Nathan Doss 11794 CA USA 1031 M Pro
Micah Dorius 14609 CA USA 1030 M Pro
Michael Moser 5557 DE USA 1030 M Pro
David Feldberg 12626 OR USA 1030 M Pro
Josh Anthon 17946 CA USA 1030 M Pro
Barry Schultz 6840 WI USA 1029 M Pro
Avery Jenkins 7495 OR USA 1028 M Pro
Ben Gaddis 28071 SC USA 1028 M Pro
JohnE McCray 9852 FL USA 1026 M Pro
Brian Schweberger 12989 NC USA 1025 M Pro

Did anyone within the PDGA look up the definition of "Expert" in a dictionary prior to suggesting this proposal? (at least, I hope it is still a proposal)

Chuck,

nearly all of our tournaments the entry fees make up 85% + of our purses. There are only 2-3 events that have a $100,000 purse.

And you eliminating Open players with this other AM division is taking players and purse away from the Open players....THAT IS WHY IT'S RIDICULOUS.

Expert is going to phase out the common Open player until there is only 15 to 20 Pro's and it's horse excrement in my opinion.

I would love to see a set amount extra from each division go to the open pool.

Maybe something like:
Am4 donates 5.00
Am3 Donates 10.00
Am2 Donates 15.00
Expert Donates 20.00

So that way experts may want to actually play open instead of donating 20.00 of there entry fee there anyways.

I am also for trophy (ribon or medal preferably) for the lowest 2 or 3 divisions.

Kev, did you notice the year 2025 at all in my post? You're focusing on the creation of Expert and not adding the ability for ams to win merch which will boost Open divisions.

Expert is no more misleading than me being a Grandmaster, presumably much better than those up-and-coming Open dudes and Masters, right?

So that way experts may want to actually play open instead of donating 20.00 of there entry fee there anyways.

I am also for trophy (ribon or medal preferably) for the lowest 2 or 3 divisions.



Nothing like making TDs lick their chops at running non-sanctioned Am only events nearby that type of PDGA sanctioned event.

Expert is no more misleading than me being a Grandmaster, presumably much better than those up-and-coming Open dudes and Masters, right?



Look up "expert" in a dictionary and tell me what you find. From outside the world of disc golf, I would think many would consider the "Expert division" as being the best players in our sport. I think a better divisional name could have been chosen for the top amateur players... :confused:

I would consider a pro better than an expert. Which would you rather have on your side an expert marksman, or a professional?

I would love to see a set amount extra from each division go to the open pool.

Maybe something like:
Am4 donates 5.00
Am3 Donates 10.00
Am2 Donates 15.00
Expert Donates 20.00

So that way experts may want to actually play open instead of donating 20.00 of there entry fee there anyways.

I am also for trophy (ribon or medal preferably) for the lowest 2 or 3 divisions.



TDs currently profit about 35-40% from every Am entry fee (if they pay out 100%, including players pack), and are free to add this to the Open purse. In fact, if you see "cash added" to the purse, other than named sponsors, that's probably where it's coming from.

I assume you mean Ams should support Pros, even more than now.

I would consider a pro better than an expert. Which would you rather have on your side an expert marksman, or a professional?



Expert marksmen are the top competitors in that sport....and they are not all professionals. Their highest classification (or division) is "Expert".

And you can be an expert marksman and not a professional expert marksman such as being in the military or police force.

I have a question for Kevin (preferably) or anyone who might know. Does Chuck have any special powers on the Competition Committee, or he just another member? Who are the other members? Additionally, what Board Member appointed Chuck?

Chuck seems to be the de facto spokesman for the PDGA in all areas of competition, and discussing these issues with him is pointless. I am now trying to gauge just how deep the resistance to real reform or real discussion there is at the upper levels. In other words, does this tunnel vision extend all the way up?

btw David, I can't remember your second point, but the point about "Trying to make more money for pros" couldn't be any more misleading, at least from my point of view.

And you can be an expert marksman and not a professional expert marksman such as being in the military or police force.



You are absolutely correct, sir. One does not have to be a professional to be considered an expert. However, what does the word "expert" mean or imply? This is my point...

Are experts not the best amateurs then in the new system?

The term expert can be argued I suppose, by those so inclined, but it is obviously a very poor choice just judging from the common sense replies from folks on this board. Couple that with the word enthusiast, and one gets the impression that something is very amiss with those in charge of these things.

Powers of persuasion only. Chris Bellinger is the Board liaison and Dave Gentry is the chairman. I was invited to be on the committee especially to provide stats on things like member ratings distributions, for example. Kevin McCoy, Dan Doyle, Jay Reading, Gary Duke, Suzette Simons and John Chapman are other members. And with a new Board in the past year and Exec Director, can't imagine any good ol' boy influence unless you consider Brenner, Dodge and Bellinger with their one year of experience.

And you can be an expert marksman and not a professional expert marksman such as being in the military or police force.



You are absolutely correct, sir. One does not have to be a professional to be considered an expert. However, what does the word "expert" mean or imply? This is my point...



Expert, noun, someone with great skill in, or extensive knowledge of, a particular subject

Nothing there that implies 'best' at anything

As an advanced master, I'd say that the new expert division eliminates the need (for me anyway) for an advanced master division. I think most advanced masters will fit neatly into the the new advanced division.

For me, choosing the advanced master division has always been because I have no illusions of ever being able to compete against 970 rated players exept as a fluke. It was not specifically about competing with people only my own age even though I love them. In fact, I think by turning advanced masters into advanced - it will be of some help to the younger up and comers who will get the example and perspective of an older presumably more mature player in competitive conditions even if they do end up kicking the older guys a**.

In the trophy vs cash debate, I'd say this. I think a 10 dollar or whatever value trophy will be valued more by a top 3 finisher than a 10 dollar disc. Not just for kids, but for old farts like me too. The trophy usually goes in a prized spot in the home and serves as a semi-permanent inspiration to continue playing and improving. The merch disc.. who knows what happens to that? For these reasons, All TD's should consider diverting some of the merch bucks to trophies for AM's. Todd Gillihan does this in NC and when I go to a fellow disc golfer's home, they show me the trophies (usually from one of Todd's events) not the old merch bucks discs if they can even remember or still have them.

Dave

I would love to see a set amount extra from each division go to the open pool.

Maybe something like:
Am4 donates 5.00
Am3 Donates 10.00
Am2 Donates 15.00
Expert Donates 20.00

So that way experts may want to actually play open instead of donating 20.00 of there entry fee there anyways.

I am also for trophy (ribon or medal preferably) for the lowest 2 or 3 divisions.



Please tell me that this is a joke suggestion? You're against players having a financial incentive to not improve, (was the term used 'rewarding mediocrity'?) then want to fine them for getting better?!? :confused:

You win the award for worst idea on this thread.

No, it's more of keeping it propotional to the entry fees. And yes an Expert should want to get to the next level to gain all the prize money being added to pro.

If it cost 50.00 to enter expert division, then 20.00 should go to open.

If it's only 15-20 to enter Enthusiast then 5.00 seems about right.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can actually argue that expert is a appropriate moniker. A 935 golfer has hardly demonstrated great skills, when compared to those at the top.

Just admit it. The term "expert" is terribly misleading and confusing, and borderline ridiculous. Just change it to something else, and while you are at it, throw the term enthusiast as deep in the bin as you can. The old term novice may not have been perfect, but it is a hundred times better than enthusiast.

A good test for evaluating terms: if they don't immediately convey a semi-correct meaning to a non disc golfer, start over.

BTW, the 2008 plan was a group effort with contributions from all committee members. It was one of the best committee synergies I've been part of for hammering out compromises on all of the tough trade-offs. Personally, I lobbied for Ams getting merch in pro divisions because of our experience with this approach in MN. I also supported moving the current Advanced ratings break up. Beyond that, I supported most of the compromises that emerged from other members on several items. What you see when I post on these topics is more how the committee came to produce the policies and not any person's specific contribution including mine. If it seems like I have more power, it's only because you see me post more than others to explain what's happening and why on several topics.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can actually argue that expert is a appropriate moniker. A 935 golfer has hardly demonstrated great skills, when compared to those at the top.

Just admit it. The term "expert" is terribly misleading and confusing, and borderline ridiculous. Just change it to something else, and while you are at it, throw the term enthusiast as deep in the bin as you can. The old term novice may not have been perfect, but it is a hundred times better than enthusiast.

A good test for evaluating terms: if they don't immediately convey a semi-correct meaning to a non disc golfer, start over.



Hey, he just asked for a dictionary definition, and that's what I gave! Frankly couldn't give 2 hoots what you call your divisions, we don't use them... :D

Will TDs be required to offer all three am divisions?
I would think a lot of tourneys will just offer AM1 and AM3 so it would really just lower the ratings cap for current AM2, instaed of under 915 you'd have to be under 900.

In amateur bicycle racing, they have category 1, 2, 3 ,4, and 5. That seemed to work well. No psychological issues with people who couln't get over the presumed underlying assertion behind various lables of convenience.

Thanks for your candor. I have always appreciated that.

Will TDs be required to offer all three am divisions?



TDs are required to offer all 30 divisions identified in the chart if at least 4 players show up that want their Adv Sr GM Women division. Would you turn your grandmothers away? :eek:

On the other hand, what most TDs do is restrict their division offerings to whatever they want which they are allowed to do as long as they clearly publish the offerings in advance.

I think at the IOSeries next year we will have something similar. Am 1, Am 2, Am 3, Am 4. Maybe an Am 5. We'll see.

No, it's more of keeping it propotional to the entry fees. And yes an Expert should want to get to the next level to gain all the prize money being added to pro.

If it cost 50.00 to enter expert division, then 20.00 should go to open.

If it's only 15-20 to enter Enthusiast then 5.00 seems about right.



Can't you see how this will drive players away in droves?
"Oh, my rating just went up past 935, next weekend will cost me $5 more just to line the pockets of a few pros visiting from out of state. Hmmm, think I'll play that unsanctioned event/mini/league instead"
Or...
"Hmmm, I shot good golf this weekend, better suck it up next time so my rating doesn't boost me up a division"

The only system that makes sense is mandatory flat fees across all divisions, and mandatory move-ups from Am to Open based on ratings. All prize money is from added cash, anyone who has a moral exception to cash can take merch instead.

Far, far better, imo. I just imagine a pleasant old lady walking up to a tourney and asking questions. If I had to tell her "we separate into divisions based on skill, 1 is the best, 2 is the next best, etc." she will leave with some rudimentary understanding.

If I start going into this inane explanation of enthisiast, intermediate, advanced and expert, she is going to have to get out a notepad, ask me to repeat it a couple of more times with quizzical looks, and then refer to her notepad next time she walks by a tournament. With the 1-2-3-4-5 system, the only question she would ask two months later is "I forgot, is 1 the best, or is 5?"

I don't think anyone in the committee is really happy with the series of four am division names. However, no one wanted to change the naming conventions in addition to all of the other changes being introduced for 2008. I believe the committee felt what was done would produce the least disruption for players and TDs trying to figure out where they are playing next year.

The Recreational name was going down regardless due to many complaints from competitive players who have played at this level for years. Enthusiast isn't great but it seemed better than the other alternatives we could come up with, even with a thesaurus. I'm hopeful the naming issue will be revisited before 2009.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can actually argue that expert is a appropriate moniker. A 935 golfer has hardly demonstrated great skills, when compared to those at the top.

Just admit it. The term "expert" is terribly misleading and confusing, and borderline ridiculous. Just change it to something else, and while you are at it, throw the term enthusiast as deep in the bin as you can. The old term novice may not have been perfect, but it is a hundred times better than enthusiast.

A good test for evaluating terms: if they don't immediately convey a semi-correct meaning to a non disc golfer, start over.



For anyone who has not seen the proposed divisional changes for 2008, please click here. (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2007/2008CompetitionChangesSummary.pdf)

It would seem logical (to me, anyway) to have proposed another amateur division below Advanced....keeping "Advanced" the top amateur title. And I have to agree with James, "enthusiast" does not seem to be the best choice for the beginner division. I wasn't much of a "recreational" fan, either. Remember, we are trying to grow the sport and capture sponsors and media who are unfamiliar with disc golf and our terminology.

btw David, I can't remember your second point, but the point about "Trying to make more money for pros" couldn't be any more misleading, at least from my point of view.



James, I preceded the 4 points with the description that these were different points of view taken by different people, and hoped I was clear that they didn't all apply to any one person. I was trying to separate out different arguments from different opponents of the current Pro/Am setup.

I recognize that you have not promoted the "soak the Ams and give it to the Pros" viewpoint, and you have clearly stated that you have not. Other posters have, however.

Remember, we are trying to grow the sport and capture sponsors and media who are unfamiliar with disc golf and our terminology.



I think they understand Open.

It might be tougher explaining the big prizes for Am divisions.

It would seem logical (to me, anyway) to have proposed another amateur division below Advanced....keeping "Advanced" the top amateur title.



Okay, here's the challenge: Propose four names in sequence that includes Advanced and Intermediate, which was non-negotiable for 2008. Advanced can even be at the top and Intermediate at the bottom if it works out that way. Go for it. Maybe your ideas can be useful for 2009.

Hey, we've survived calling people "Pros" & "Ams".

We'll survive these silly names as well.

It would seem logical (to me, anyway) to have proposed another amateur division below Advanced....keeping "Advanced" the top amateur title.



Okay, here's the challenge: Propose four names in sequence that includes Advanced and Intermediate, which was non-negotiable for 2008. Advanced can even be at the top and Intermediate at the bottom if it works out that way. Go for it. Maybe your ideas can be useful for 2009.



Can we stick "semi-pro" in there somewhere?

Remember, we are trying to grow the sport and capture sponsors and media who are unfamiliar with disc golf and our terminology.



I think they understand Open.

It might be tougher explaining the big prizes for Am divisions.



"Hey, honey....the Post-Gazette says there is a disc golf tournament in town this weekend and spectators are invited to attend for free. I think we should go and check it out. Doesn't one of our nephews play this sport? Anyway, the newspaper says there are seven divisions playing two separate courses; open, open women, masters, grandmasters, expert, advanced and intermediate. Let's go see the Expert division that starts their final round at 2:00 pm."

advanced 1, advanced 2, advanced 3, and intermediate or perhaps advanced a advanced b advanced c and intermediate.

:-)

I think Grandmasters might be the best in that sequence. They certainly would be more entertaining with the variety of throws they know. BTW, the chess sequence goes Expert, Master, Grandmaster, etc.

No numbers allowed. And even if you did use them, it would more likely be Am1, Am2, etc. I think Advanced 2 or 3 sounds rather funky.

Bottle, Toddle, Coddle, and Wobble

ok tomato, tom "ahhh" to, potato, and pot "ahh" to :-)

no wait, i'd guess by the rules that would have to be advanced tomato,, tom "ahh" to, potato, and intermediate pot "ahh" to.

:-), :-)

Bagger 1, Bagger 2, Bagger 3, Bagger 4

I am all for just calling it Am1, Am2, Am3, Am4

Well it looks like we have a rare message board plurality then!

Lets use guitar chord abbreveations....
Expert = advanced sharp
Am1 = Advanced = Adv. 1
Am2 = Advanced Stustained = Adv.2 Sus.
Am3 = Advanced Diminished = Avd.3 Dim
Am4 = Advanced Flat = Adv. 4 flat

It could work!

It would seem logical (to me, anyway) to have proposed another amateur division below Advanced....keeping "Advanced" the top amateur title.



Okay, here's the challenge: Propose four names in sequence that includes Advanced and Intermediate, which was non-negotiable for 2008. Advanced can even be at the top and Intermediate at the bottom if it works out that way. Go for it. Maybe your ideas can be useful for 2009.



Can we stick "semi-pro" in there somewhere?



I wish....I know that it would be the PLAYERS choice if they actually got to experience it. Plus it would be a better stepping stone for players instead of sticking them in another AM division where they will continue to be stuck for life.

At least with Semi-Pro they got to play along with the Open and base how well they play within the Open field. Once these players in SemiPro could match their scores with the Pro players they would be more likely to pay the extra entry fee to compete against the pros. It gave these players a parachute effect, so they would gather more experience in the upper division instead of stuck in an other AM division not getting any better.

Chuck if you had your way the divisions would look like

1025+ Open (all 10 of them)
1010-1025 Expert Censea AM
1000-1009 Expert Apprentice AM
990-1000 Expert Shark Blue AM
980-990 Adv Orangutan AM
970-980 Advanced Lemur AM
960-970 Semi Advanced Kangaroo AM
950-960 Extra Recreational Enthusiast Expert AM
940-950 Advanced Enthusiast Blue AM
930-940 Intermediate Enthusiast White AM
925-930 Intermediate Recreational Enthusiast Green AM
922-924 Intermediate Toad Sucking Purple AM
920-922 Enthusiast Sponge Bob pink Division AM
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on

8538 divisions so it is more competitive

Actually, I was just suggesting the name "semi-pro" without a change in structure. Sometimes it seems most descriptive of 95% of our Pros....sometimes, most descriptive of our Ams.

Chuck if you had your way the divisions would look like

1025+ Open (all 10 of them)
1010-1025 Expert Censea AM
1000-1009 Expert Apprentice AM
990-1000 Expert Shark Blue AM
980-990 Adv Orangutan AM
970-980 Advanced Lemur AM
960-970 Semi Advanced Kangaroo AM
950-960 Extra Recreational Enthusiast Expert AM
940-950 Advanced Enthusiast Blue AM
930-940 Intermediate Enthusiast White AM
925-930 Intermediate Recreational Enthusiast Green AM
922-924 Intermediate Toad Sucking Purple AM
920-922 Enthusiast Sponge Bob pink Division AM
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
897-899 Homer Simpson Doh!!! Division (its all mine!!!! :D)
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on

8538 divisions so it is more competitive

Chuck if you had your way the divisions would look like

1025+ Open (all 10 of them)
1010-1025 Expert Censea AM
1000-1009 Expert Apprentice AM
990-1000 Expert Shark Blue AM
980-990 Adv Orangutan AM
970-980 Advanced Lemur AM
960-970 Semi Advanced Kangaroo AM
950-960 Extra Recreational Enthusiast Expert AM
940-950 Advanced Enthusiast Blue AM
930-940 Intermediate Enthusiast White AM
925-930 Intermediate Recreational Enthusiast Green AM
922-924 Intermediate Toad Sucking Purple AM
920-922 Enthusiast Sponge Bob pink Division AM
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on

8538 divisions so it is more competitive






As opposed to the One Division proposal, where 20 players rated 960-1030 compete and everyone else stays home?

All I see from this discussion is:

1. If I create enough divisions...maybe I just might win one...I may be the only player in that div., but at least I won.

2. we only need three divisions within gender ...Pro, Am and Junior. Please see above.

3. as far as using AM's to fund Pro's...is it more about that Am's spend more money on "schwag" than Pro's..I don't know why that is, it just seems to be that way.

4. and a last thought about moving up. it is human nature to play to the level of your competition and not above. I was always taught to play with people better than you, that way you can learn something. Moral: Stay an AM, play like an AM.

These are my opinions, take them as that. I'm not going to debate my opinion with you.

..the One Division proposal...


Do you have a link to that proposal?

I wish we only had about 3 competitive divisions. (PLUS age divisions)

960+ Pro/Semi Pro
930-960 Advanced
900-930 Intermediate

All golfers 900 and below be recreational players where they sign up get a disc and a shirt and it's more like a 5K fun-run. Pay out in a flight system so that sandbagging is eliminated.

Recreational was an acceptable name. Not to mention the abbreviated name was a great play on words: (Rec=Wreck)
FWIW some areas of volleyball use:
Recreational, Intermediate, Competitive, Open
Others use
B, BB, A, AA, AAA

Chuck if you had your way the divisions would look like

1025+ Open (all 10 of them)
1010-1025 Expert Censea AM
1000-1009 Expert Apprentice AM
990-1000 Expert Shark Blue AM
980-990 Adv Orangutan AM
970-980 Advanced Lemur AM
960-970 Semi Advanced Kangaroo AM
950-960 Extra Recreational Enthusiast Expert AM
940-950 Advanced Enthusiast Blue AM
930-940 Intermediate Enthusiast White AM
925-930 Intermediate Recreational Enthusiast Green AM
922-924 Intermediate Toad Sucking Purple AM
920-922 Enthusiast Sponge Bob pink Division AM
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on




Actually, I think this helps the top pros like you more than anyone else to have many Am divisions so that no division is big enough like Advanced to earn a decent prize and TDs get all that differential for the pro purse.

You ought to know better considering I developed ratings events with fewer divisions. As long as the range is no more than 40-50 points for each division, that's all I'd like to see for normal weekend events with up to 5 divisions based on skill. Maybe see the age divisions only at big events when there are enough players to make them interesting.

#1 --- Top players (Pros) want to receive higher payouts, and should take money from current Ams to fund them.
#2 --- Only the very best players are entitled to win anything in competition.
#3 --- It is unfair, among two players at the same event, a player with a higher score wins more than a player with a lower score, due to playing in different divisions.
#4 --- #3 creates an economic incentive for players to remain in lower or protected divisions, which hurts the long-term growth of the top levels and, hence, the sport.

I would have to add a #2,#3,#4a , cause there is WAY TOO MUCH OVERLAP of current divisions and players .
THe overlap is what causes the tensions of players who play in higher levels of compition and SHOOOT Better then those who play in lower protected divisions and dont win SQUAT in comparision .
WHen the overlap or player capabilities is solved then so will be the animosity for those who challenge themselves against the best and dont get squat for thier efforts .
Also when the overlap of players is solved at that time I will not have a problem with someone winning more in a division with more people in it because there is NO hiding in a protected division .

Chuck, Would you be against a structure similar to the one below? Give me your opinion on the +/-'s




I wish we only had about 3 competitive divisions. (PLUS age divisions)

960+ Pro/Semi Pro
930-960 Advanced
900-930 Intermediate

All golfers 900 and below be recreational players where they sign up get a disc and a shirt and it's more like a 5K fun-run. Pay out in a flight system so that sandbagging is eliminated.

First, it looks like you're forcing players over 959 to go pro? Second, that's a lot of members under 900 who have already shown they are willing to pay higher fees and want the "right" to compete for prizes. I think many would consider that a "member benefit" that was taken away by your system. This would also cut out more differential to pay for admin costs and potential added cash.

Iafsaledog, does Chuck's pure ratings-based, color-coded system suit? It certainly eliminates overlap. And as I read it, it's an available option in 2008 for TDs.

Whorley, no link to the One Division Proposal. I was just taking the 8000+ division argument to its opposite, absurd extreme. Though I've seen some postings come awful close (one on this thread would allow unlimited divisions, as long as only one division ever wins anything).

I wouldn't force 960+ into being a PRO but they would be AM's playing in PRO or Semi-Pro due to their skill level.

995 players have no business beating up on 935 AM players

I would never force anyone up into PRO but I would be for forcing them out of beating up on less skilled players unless it's a major

Please expand on what you mean by "semi-pro".

In My Semi Pro.

They would pay half of the Open fee(like trophy only), play within the Open division but ONLY against other Semi-Pro's. Both divisions would only be separated by score not division.

If they want to accept cash they can/ If they want to take merch and retain their AM status they can also.

This is PERFECT for the players that are 960-980 who play PRO at the local weekly events and move down to Adv. when the PDGA sanctioned tournament comes along. Their purses wouldn't have any added cash, so if they ever want to play for the big bucks and added cash they would pay the extra amount to be in Open

Interesting but I must be slow on the uptake. I'm still not clear. When you say they would be separated by "score, not division", do you mean that the Pros & Semi-Pros would be grouped together and play together but, at the time to award winnings, separated out to the Pros were awarded from their entry feel pool (plus added cash), and the Semi-Pros from their smaller entry fee pool (with no added cash)?

The merch option (to retain Am status) is already part of 2008 changes.

Your not that slow...your right on it ;)

It's a traumatic change for an Adv player to go from a division where he is usually near the top, then when he moves up to Open and he pays nearly two times the entry without knowing what to expect in the Open division....The SemiPros and Pros playing together would break them in slowly instead of just throwing them to the sharks......where they sometimes lose interest very quickly by donating to the top tiered players at a cost that is nearly twice what they were paying in Adv.

And it sounds like you were suggesting this for a non-sanctioned event? Might be fine for that.

Come on Chuck, I'm a company man!!!! ....I don't run UN_sanctioned events ;)

I have a lot of time and energy invested in this game...Why wouldn't I support the PDGA? ;)

You said the semi-pros over 959 could retain their amateur status by taking merch. In what events could they play Advanced? Just Am Worlds? Or are you suggesting that just those in the 930-959 range might try semi-pro once in a while and retain their am status?

nope I saying they could accept merch if they want to retain their AM status.

Once a person start raking cash, then they should be pro, even if its semi-pro.


But we have been round and round on this...I'm going to accept the new changes cuz the boss says we have to, but I can still be somewhat disgruntled with the feeling that it's gonna drain the open fields and only work on the Am side of things right?



;)

Chuck, as was reading your last reply, some thing struck me. You are wondering if playing in the semi-pro would jeopardize their am status. well, you know me, I am pretty much thinking "what am status, they are no more ams than I am a pro." Then I thought, "Well Chuck is always telling me that there are no (or few) pros in this sport, so following his logic, if there are no pros and therefore no ams, since all of those distinctions are meaningless, why would protecting a fictitious moniker be important?"

So, I am curious, since there really are no ams in your world, what status are you protecting?

Wouldn't we get the same result if we allowed the "Expert" division to be grouped with Pros---play alongside them, but separated out for prizes? Define it backwards---they're winning merch or can take cash, but with cash they are no longer Ams (ineligible for Am-Worlds). "Semi-Pro"....a division between Am & Pro (and we get rid of the name "Expert").

I haven't thought this through but I think you might have something to work with there.

I think he was setting in in KMack's overall proposition of a 960 limit on Advanced, with everything above being Pro or Semi-Pro. If a player is rated 961, in THAT SYSTEM, how is he retaining Am status? He's simply semi-pro & might as well take cash.

So, I am curious, since there really are no ams in your world, what status are you protecting?



I think we're protecting our version of "amitude." Our am structure is sort of like Reese's peanut butter cups mixing a little bit of pro with a little bit of am to provide a tasty result for our members. :p

So, I am curious, since there really are no ams in your world, what status are you protecting?



I think we're protecting our version of "amitude." Our am structure is sort of like Reese's peanut butter cups mixing a little bit of pro with a little bit of am to provide a tasty result for our <font color="red"> AM </font> members. <font color="red">While our current PRO's become nearly extinct like Reese's Pieces</font> :p

T kefer said :
Iafsaledog, does Chuck's pure ratings-based, color-coded system suit? It certainly eliminates overlap. And as I read it, it's an available option in 2008 for TDs.

Yep that is a start . BUT it is an OPTION ( as pro2 was and we saw where that went ), and that is the problem .

NOW if the other option ( all divisions of the old style ) were balanced with the ideas of what I had suggested before ( removing the ability of a player who can hide in a division and PROFIT more then someone who challenges the best of the best on that day )
THEN WE ARE ONTO " FAIR AND BALANCED " competitive divisions .

I want to add there is NO problem with those who feel they need the protection from the best of the best .
GOD knows I need all the protection I can get . I just dont think ( even if there were 35 advanced masters at a tourney and 15 open players ) that I should get more " prizes " then those who are willing to play against the best of the best .
To take it one step further , EVEN if I would shoot better then most of those of those open players , I am playing in a protected environment .

I want to add there is NO problem with those who feel they need the protection from the best of the best .
GOD knows I need all the protection I can get . I just dont think ( even if there were 35 advanced masters at a tourney and 15 open players ) that I should get more " prizes " then those who are willing to play against the best of the best .
To take it one step further , EVEN if I would shoot better then most of those of those open players , I am playing in a protected environment .



Would you ban all prizes in all divisions other than Open?

If not....even if the prize for first place in Intermediate is only a $10 disc, isn't that player profiting more than the just-out-of-cash open player who may have shot 40 strokes better, and faced vastly better competition?

If so....are you agreeing with someone else on this thread that competing with comparable players for prizes of any kind is a pleasure reserved for only the very best, and that those who are older or less athletically gifted or infirm are unworthy?

Just trying to find where the line is.

Or would you soften a bit towards Whorley's proposition---that the "profit" of playing in protected divisions should be restricted, though not necessarily eliminated, so as to not be a financial incentive to keep players from moving up?

T kefer said :
Iafsaledog, does Chuck's pure ratings-based, color-coded system suit? It certainly eliminates overlap. And as I read it, it's an available option in 2008 for TDs.

Yep that is a start . BUT it is an OPTION ( as pro2 was and we saw where that went ), and that is the problem .





To relieve T Kefer of culpability---that was my post you're quoting.

Do I understand that the problem is that TDs have the option of offering a fair &amp; balanced system (Chuck's), but aren't forced to---that they also have the option of offering a structure you feel us unfair?

Chuck has been promoting that system for some time, and it's hardly caught on. I see this as evidence that disc golfers don't want it.

I'll soften my stance that anyone can TD a tournament with limited divisions or no Am payouts, and prove it's better. I'll ask---among current TDs, how many are besieged by requests to change their formats to any of these alternatives?

Chuck has been promoting that system for some time, and it's hardly caught on. I see this as evidence that disc golfers don't want it.



Now that the ratings breaks thru the structure are finally lined up properly and Ams can accept merch prizes in pro, I think the difference between a "ratings" event and regular event will amount to whether the women and older players have their divisions. It will depend on how many show up and how compelling it is to play with their age or gender. We've discussed in the CC whether it would be OK to just group the older players or women together within a ratings division every round, regardless of score, as a means of providing the social aspect within a strictly ratings environment. This is something for further consideration down the road.

For example, four Advanced Masters show up and two have ratings in the Intermediate range and two in the Advanced range. There are 20 Advanced and 20 Intermediate. The idea would be to let the Advanced Masters play together every round but their scores would be in competition for the prizes in the Advanced and Intermediate divisions respectively. There would be no Advanced Master division with prizes. If a fifth Advanced Master showed up but wanted to be paired throughout the event based on scores in Advanced and not specifically with the other four guys, that would be fine, too.

It's a little more work for the TD to do pairings for the women and older players. However, I think many TDs might prefer this versus dealing with trophies for additional divisions. In the case where maybe the Intermediate play shorter tees and Advanced longs in one round, the Adv Master group in the example would just have each play the proper tees. This option combines the best elements of fewer divisions at events all based on ratings and the social aspects that women and older players that most seem to prefer for groupings.

david said Question 1:
If not....even if the prize for first place in Intermediate is only a $10 disc, isn't that player profiting more than the just-out-of-cash open player who may have shot 40 strokes better, and faced vastly better competition?

Answer :
With the lower am divisions having ratings cutoff and there is normally no possilble way for an intermediate to shoot what the top end players shoot then there is no reason to " take " from those players other then what the TD does with the profit margin from the winnings .

However , yes at this point I do agree with Whorley ( and said this in threads years ago ) about " capping " the winnings in those lower divisions as to not allow some player who would happen to sit right at a " ratings break " to constantly win lots of prizes just cause his " ability " stops at a ratings cut .

Question 2 :
If so....are you agreeing with someone else on this thread that competing with comparable players for prizes of any kind is a pleasure reserved for only the very best, and that those who are older or less athletically gifted or infirm are unworthy?

Answer :
I have never said that people of lower ability should not get prizes , what I would like to see is some cap on the ability of players of like abilities who hide out in protected divisions cannot profit over those who are willing to play
against the best of the best at a given tourney . And combine that with what I said in Question 1 .


Question 3 :
Or would you soften a bit towards Whorley's proposition---that the "profit" of playing in protected divisions should be restricted, though not necessarily eliminated, so as to not be a financial incentive to keep players from moving up?

Answer
See above

It would seem logical (to me, anyway) to have proposed another amateur division below Advanced....keeping "Advanced" the top amateur title.



Okay, here's the challenge: Propose four names in sequence that includes Advanced and Intermediate, which was non-negotiable for 2008. Advanced can even be at the top and Intermediate at the bottom if it works out that way. Go for it. Maybe your ideas can be useful for 2009.



Advanced 935+
Amateur 900+
Intermediate 850+
Novice (or Recreational or Enthusiast) &lt; 850

Thanks for clarifying your position. When you wrote "GOD knows I need all the protection I can get . I just dont think ( even if there were 35 advanced masters at a tourney and 15 open players ) that I should get more " prizes " then those who are willing to play against the best of the best . ", I wanted to be clear whether that was an absolute or not. Others here have said they specifically oppose prizes in lower divisions, and I was uncertain if that was what you were saying, too. I now better understand that it was not.

I agree in principle on reducing prizes in protected division to reduce financial incentive to play there. It's finding a way to do that, without causing more damage elsewhere, that troubles me. (If the current advanced players are split into two smaller division of advanced &amp; experts, perhaps the lower prize pools will do just that. Won't help with the Pro Masters debate, though).

David said :
And I am sorry to Tkeifer for the mix up :

Question 1 .
Do I understand that the problem is that TDs have the option of offering a fair &amp; balanced system (Chuck's), but aren't forced to---that they also have the option of offering a structure you feel us unfair?

Answer :
Any system that allows players of like capability to hide out , be protected , AND PROFIT more then those who are willing to compete against the best of the best is UNFAIR and IMPO not right .
For example :
I want to play in a one on one basketball tourney and I know I am not the best player . I am a good player but not the best and I choose to play in a protected division cause Jason Kidd shows up and no one plays in his division am I allowed to win more money cause I am scared to play against him ???? ( as most of us are , and most of us choose to play in a protected division . )
Should Micheal Jordan be able to play in a protected division just cause he is over 40 years old ??? especially knowing he could be just as competitive against Jason Kidd .

David said :
Chuck has been promoting that system for some time, and it's hardly caught on. I see this as evidence that disc golfers don't want it.
I say :
Mainly the reason it does not work is there are soooo many players who feel that they deserve something for doing nothing more then playing against like capable people and winning against those players on that day .
Really if you take into account all scores of that day they did not win squat other then some arbitrary divisional win .
Are those winners of protected divisions due something . YES
Are they due more then what the top pros who prove they are the best . NO

David said :
I'll soften my stance that anyone can TD a tournament with limited divisions or no Am payouts, and prove it's better. I'll ask---among current TDs, how many are besieged by requests to change their formats to any of these alternatives?

When you define better , you mean more players , more prizes . I cannot argue that at this time in disc golf , that is all that matters to most people .

I define better as a compitition who the WINNER ( and in golf the winner is the lowest score player who is willing to not hide out in a protected division ) gets the most money .
All those other players who are willing to compete against the best of the best get rewarded in recongnition .
Any other players who are wiliing to compete in protected divisions get rewarded for thier ability to play better than those who are of comparible ability .
THere would be NO OVERLAP in ablitity and protected divisions would have a cap as to how much you can win .
Wholeys idea of 2xs or whatever .

It used to be that the Ams were protected from the Pros in the Olympics.

We'll see.

It's not that I have any objections to this structure. I'd like to to see it tried and see how it works in practice. I just don't foresee many TDs offering it, if any.

I still have the same two questions that I have always had.

1. Where will the money come from to pay the best players more than the rest ?

2. How do you keep that financial base over the long haul ?


The two questions are connected. How you address the one effects the other. The current PDGA approach seems to be one of growing the amateur base to a point that corporate sponsorship can be obtained for the tour events.


My answers:
1: from corporate sponsorship.
2: by developing a strong multi-dimensional amateur player base that includes corporate, scholastic, true amateur, and current amateur competitions.

Explanation:
Without a large growing amateur base, the pros will continue to fund their own purses. There will be no true Professional division in disc golf until the money comes from outside the sport. Anything we can do to maintain and grow the amateur ranks helps the Pros in the long run.

The question becomes "How can we attract and retain more amateur players ?". Do we use pseudo-financial rewards for performance or just reward them for participating ?
I think you will get more repeat players from a performance based rewards system, but see the need for a participation based approach in some markets.

I believe that once enough people start playing there just might be enough interest to attract sufficient outside money to create a professional division. Until then we are all Ams playing for each other's entry fees.

This whole idea "that whatever the market decides is best" is lame. It is simply an out for weak leadership. Instead of guiding a sport into the future, years from now, leaders can reminisce and say "the market decided to make disc golf into a club rather than a sport. What could we have done?"

It is totally a self fulfilling prophecy. You engineer a system that rewards non-risk takers and penalizes risk takers. Not surprisingly, over time, you retain non-risk takers at a greater rate than risk takers. Then, as a rebuttal to the claim that a true competitive system should reward risk takers, you say, "well, let the market decide." Of course the market you speak of has already been culled of most risk takers. Well, is it any surprise what the remaining folks will vote for? They will seek out the easiest path if it is made available to them. Their vote is certainly not an answer to the question "Is this a proper system to build a competitive sport?"

"Is this a proper system to build a competitive sport?"




That presumes this is either a viable goal given the lack of outside interest for spectating and sponsoring, or a worthwhile goal based on your narrow definition of competition, which has been shown to be outdated.

Anything we can do to maintain and grow the amateur ranks helps the Pros in the long run.



This is a complete fallacy in my mind, clouded by meaningless terms such as am and pro, and further clouded by a misguided goal of "supporting pros." A sporting organization should promote and support competition, provide an outlet for people who wish to compete, not create a system that deters people from stepping forward.

In fifty years, the amount of money that top players earn will be a function of how many competitive people have taken up the sport in the preceeding fifty years, not how many "what we call ams" have been lured in and retained. I doubt you can see the difference, but I submit it is a huge distinction. Two totally different demographics. One with the possibility to create a thriving sport, the other doomed to middling weekend activities.

Outdated? Maybe within a selectively culled population, but certainly not outdated within the real world.

I always compare our system to some socialist state. I'll agree that if you took a vote within the Venezuelan people right now, they would vote against real competition. Their visionaries might also argue that "real competition" is some outdated concept. I have little doubt about what their leaders will argue or how the people will vote. I also have little doubt as to where they will end up in twenty years. They are just digging the hole deeper.

I didn't have a problem with it. Nothing derogatory, no big deal.

This whole idea "that whatever the market decides is best" is lame. It is simply an out for weak leadership. Instead of guiding a sport into the future, years from now, leaders can reminisce and say "the market decided to make disc golf into a club rather than a sport. What could we have done?"




The market will decide, whether you want it to or not. If the PDGA outlaws what its members want, someone else will provide it.

If you compare our system to socialism, may I compare a PDGA-mandated system against the members' wishes dictatorial?

Leadership isn't necessarily forcing the members the board represents into a structure they don't want. If people aren't following willingly, it's not leadership, it's just coercion.

Leadership is the folks at the USDGC, creating a new and attractive venue, which others have begun to emulate.

Telling the majority of disc golfers that what they want their sport, and their organization, to be, is "lame", is lame. IMO.

Just a thought....
The market will decide what they want, but only with the options they have. That's what entrepreneuring is all about. Give the market another option. The PDGA should adopt a more entrepreneuring spirit and offer something off the main-stream and let the membership decide what they want.
I agree with James. Poor leadership is using excuses to drive decision making and calling it "market-driven-adherence".

The PDGA structures gives plenty of options, since TDs only have to offer the divisions they want....can pay Ams or not....or can use the entirely-different, purely-ratings-based structure. Few TDs use these options, and too few players demand them of their TDs. I agree that even more options would be better...if used.

I agree with most of James's ideas in principle, but not with how to implement them.

Leadership isn't necessarily forcing the members the board represents into a structure they don't want.


Maybe not 'necessarily" but in most things leadership is just that. It's a parent forcing their kid to eat well, to behave correctly, to study when they would rather watch tv, etc. It's a football coach forcing his team to work hard when they would rather not. It's an elected body forcing a state to enforce a supreme court decision, even when the people of the state strongly oppose it.


If people aren't following willingly, it's not leadership, it's just coercion.


Certainly, part of leadership is convincing people to act for something greater than themselves. However, implying that coercion is evidence of failed leadership is false. See the examples above.

For example, is Congress leading by failing to address the impending social security crises? I mean, public opinion does not favor any conceivable action to address the problem, and our elected leaders have been unable to convince the populace otherwise. So, by your statement, if Congress takes any unpopular actions to address the problem, they are showing a lack of leadership and are furthermore lame. I see it very differently.

Just a thought....
The market will decide what they want, but only with the options they have. That's what entrepreneuring is all about. Give the market another option. The PDGA should adopt a more entrepreneuring spirit and offer something off the main-stream and let the membership decide what they want.
I agree with James. Poor leadership is using excuses to drive decision making and calling it "market-driven-adherence".



I disagree. All options are open. You can run tournaments that are ratings based, Pro only, Am only, women only, Masters and above only, sanctioned, unsanctioned, and just about whatever else you can come up with. To say the PDGA needs to adopt an "entrepreneuring spirit and offer something off the main-stream and let the membership decide what they want" totally misses one main point:

It�s the TDs that offer the events. Not the PDGA, but the TDs.

So if you want it, get your "entrepreneur spirit" in gear and offer it. The PDGA gives you plenty of latitude to promote your 'what's best for the sport' format flavor of the month. "That's what entrepreneuring is all about." The market will decide and give you feedback in the form of attendance.

Your analogy of Congress omits a couple of things. You can't easily form a new country if you don't like the one you're in. You can't decide, "Hey, I don't need a country anyway, and I'll just live off of and benefit from their efforts." You can't even easily move to another country if you don't like your's.

The kid analogy, football team analogy and Supreme Court analogy are all of the same flaw. None of them are true 'open' systems where it is easy to switch to another alternative.

But you can do all of this to the PDGA. In a heartbeat.

A better analogy would be for the maker of Oreo Cookies to decide that they are only going to offer a heathier, lower fat version with creamed broccoli filling from now on because it is the best thing for the nations youth. No more 'original' Oreos, sorry.

In the best interest of the population, maybe. Sound business decision? I'll let you judge.

I happened upon this thread today and have read about a third of the pages. One problem I see in the original post is the name of the players. Tom Bagger is really Joe College. He is smart. He would be a fool to play pro. He would rarely win unless he is one of those young guns who is currently 960 but is really ascendent. He expects to be 1000 rated in the future or near future and has jumped the gun. He is the guy who plays with the big boys and they say, "who the #$%&amp; was that kid?" If he is a steady 960 is is certainly not Johhny Pro. He is Donny Donor.

Nice try. Hey,if you can guilt a few guys into playing pro, go for it.

Your proposal already seems to be a quasi reality. If there are a million divisions none of them will have a very steep payout. PDGA would become AYSO. Every kid gets a trophy and we can say "nice shot" even if that shot goes awry. If it gets to watered down we get the situtation where a friend of mine won the Rec division in a tournament and won an inexpernsive trophy and no plastic whatsover. That baffling situation is adrift of this thread. The chrybydis to that scylla would be a lions den of minimal divisions where the strong feast upon the weak. Personally, some type of balance makes the most sense to me. If TD's want to pay deepr they can offer less divisions and get more players in them. If players like it they will show up. If they don't like it they won't show up. This capitalism thing really works. Players win with their arms but they vote with their feet.

The analogy isn't about what the followers can or cannot do, it's about what the leaders choose to do, even when they know their choice may be unpopular and have difficult side effect (kids run away, players quit, voters vote them out). Buried beneath it all is of course the aasumption that the leaders would take the first step and think things thru and realize that this action is needed, regardless of the consequences.

btw. I don't see the PDGA as a cookie peddler motivated by profit. I guess I assume the PDGA's motivation should be to lead the sport into the future. This might be at the heart of my differences with lots of other members. I think many members see the BOD as simply administrators of a club, there simply to please the club members. Hell, the BOD might also see themselves that way, I don't know. Over time, the members might remain happy, the club might grow some, but I beleive that without a core focus or reason for existence beyond planning fun activities, the club will peak out and decline. I think the PDGA has lost that focus. It used to be building a foundation for a new sport. Now, it is about keeping the majority pleased, whether that conflicts with the original goal or not.

The analogy isn't about what the followers can or cannot do, it's about what the leaders choose to do, even when they know their choice may be unpopular and have difficult side effect (kids run away, players quit, voters vote them out). Buried beneath it all is of course the aasumption that the leaders would take the first step and think things thru and realize that this action is needed, regardless of the consequences.

btw. I don't see the PDGA as a cookie peddler motivated by profit. I guess I assume the PDGA's motivation should be to lead the sport into the future. This might be at the heart of my differences with lots of other members. I think many members see the BOD as simply administrators of a club, there simply to please the club members. Hell, the BOD might also see themselves that way, I don't know. Over time, the members might remain happy, the club might grow some, but I beleive that without a core focus or reason for existence beyond planning fun activities, the club will peak out and decline. I think the PDGA has lost that focus. It used to be building a foundation for a new sport. Now, it is about keeping the majority pleased, whether that conflicts with the original goal or not.



The problem James is that you can't prove that the BOD is wrong. Given the cumulative business experience, and the cumulative non-profit experience of our outgoing Board, I'd say that I'd be more likely to accept their opinions on the issue than your's.

The notion that a system that forces Ams to play Pro is good for the sport has no basis in reality that I know of; perhaps you can find one?

The analogy that I gave wasn't to paint the organization as a peddler motivated by profit, but to show that the organization has to take into account that other options are easily available to its members. Sorry if I didn't convey that well. Perhaps I should have used the analogy of a car manufacturer deciding to only sell horses because they are better for the environment?

I think part of the disconnect here is a disagreement over how to best promote the sport. Some feel that doing things that increases awareness, membership levels, participation levels and so on is what the PDGA should be focused on. Others feel its creating and nuturing the professional aspect of the sport.

I'd even throw out a third. If looking to put money into people's hands is what is in order, instead of making the payout higher for a small number of pro players, I'd put it in the hands of the promoters (TDs, volunteers) instead. Make it a winning proposition to run a tournament, and the tournament opportunities will multiply accordingly.

Perhaps my own misunderstanding about what constitutes leadership is my own lack of it. James's experience serving on volunteer boards must have been far different from mine; I could never seem to get radical changes made or my visions implemented without first convincing others of their merit, or at least convincing them to give my ideas a trial to demonstrate their effectiveness. I wish I'd had leadership ability so I could have driven them through past the judgements and opinions of others.

Or maybe I'm just in over my head, intellectually. I've been lost ever since our system was described as "letting the market decide" and "socialism" at the same time.

I still have the same two questions that I have always had.

1. Where will the money come from to pay the best players more than the rest ?

2. How do you keep that financial base over the long haul ?


The two questions are connected. How you address the one effects the other. The current PDGA approach seems to be one of growing the amateur base to a point that corporate sponsorship can be obtained for the tour events.


My answers:
1: from corporate sponsorship.
2: by developing a strong multi-dimensional amateur player base that includes corporate, scholastic, true amateur, and current amateur competitions.

Explanation:
Without a large growing amateur base, the pros will continue to fund their own purses. There will be no true Professional division in disc golf until the money comes from outside the sport. Anything we can do to maintain and grow the amateur ranks helps the Pros in the long run.

The question becomes "How can we attract and retain more amateur players ?". Do we use pseudo-financial rewards for performance or just reward them for participating ?
I think you will get more repeat players from a performance based rewards system, but see the need for a participation based approach in some markets.

I believe that once enough people start playing there just might be enough interest to attract sufficient outside money to create a professional division. Until then we are all Ams playing for each other's entry fees.



Well said.

But you left out the other solutions offered for paying the best more than the rest: (1) take money from the Ams and give it to Pros or (2) don't let the Ams win any money, so the open players by default are winning more. Both have been suggested from time to time, including on this thread. (Not by me).

Reading this heated debate has inspired me to come up with a new term "reverse bagging" which may help cut down on the word count in some of the posts - I'm always trying to do my part to help out.

OK, so we all know bagging is playing "down" to take money/prizes from lesser players.

Reverse bagging is encouraging lesser players to play "up" so one can take their money/prizes.

for example most post could be aptly reduced to the word [email protected]#* (or reverse bagger) perhaps capitalized or bolded followed by an exclamation point or various other syntax symbols. The reply could then be concisely written as REVERSE BAGGER#@@!* (or bagger whichever applies)

Remember, you heard it here first :-)

Bagging or reverse bagging, no one knows if that is the other guys true motive, but we are all free to accuse :-)

Reading this heated debate has inspired me to come up with a new term "reverse bagging" which may help cut down on the word count in some of the posts - I'm always trying to do my part to help out.

OK, so we all know bagging is playing "down" to take money/prizes from lesser players.

Reverse bagging is encouraging lesser players to play "up" so one can take their money/prizes.

Remember, you heard it here first :-)

Bagging or reverse bagging, no one knows if that is the other guys true motive, but we are all free to accuse :-)



Who needs to know the other guy's motives?
We just surmise them, and continue on with the debate.
It keeps our arguments pure.

How about inverse bagging .
That is when the player who has no other choices other then bag or donate . He would like to choose compete somewhere but does not really have a true option . He either becomes someones cannon fodder to be tossed around like a ragdoll or becomes a hated higher level player of some arbitrary division that pays well above what he should win for shooting 20 strokes less then the best players on the course .

All I am looking for is a place that I dont have to inverse bag .

To donated to some 1000 rated player / to donate to some young whipper snapper or to bag in some arbitrary division ????
THAT IS THE QUESTION .

We should start a message board wiki!!!

yes, inverse bagging. That's a bad position to be in....hmmm nothing productive to suggest right now. tough one

The notion that a system that forces Ams to play Pro is good for the sport has no basis in reality that I know of; perhaps you can find one?



Well, in case you haven't read, no one is proposing this.

I have had plenty of suggestions in the past and really would iMPO help alot of players get a taste of every level of the competitive experience but ...
there are too many protected players that would loose out that it would never happen .

Basically my ideas have been put caps on ALL DIVISIONS except open and change those caps per the tier of the pdga level of event .

We should start a message board wiki!!!

yes, inverse bagging. That's a bad position to be in....hmmm nothing productive to suggest right now. tough one

amnesty program or reclassification

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We should start a message board wiki!!!

yes, inverse bagging. That's a bad position to be in....hmmm nothing productive to suggest right now. tough one


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

amnesty program or reclassification

Uhm , Pat , I am a 934 rated , over 40 years old AM .
No place to play in pro ranks cause normally I would be donating to some 1000 rated golfer in either the open or pro master divisions .
The only real places in the am ranks is
1. " expert " which I am donating to some young whipper snapper who can out toss me by a MILE
or
2. play in a division I have been called a bagger since I turned 40 .

Just for some more info on why I play where I play .
I have always heard some people say I should play up ( pro masters ) .... Well the pro master division is rife with 1000 rated players ( which means they AVERAGE a 1000 rated round every time they play ) and I have NEVER SHOT A 1000 rated round ever . ( the highest I have been is 992 )
SO how am I supposed to compete against some person who averages shooting a 1000 rated round when I have never shot a 1000 rated round .

As far as my feelings in am . It still comes down to where I would want money to go . IF I play in the expert division I could donate to some young whipper snapper who has so much plastic at this point he does not need no more , or I could play in advanced master and bag mostly and donate my winnings back to the park , or to the lower divisions ( jrs , womens intermediate , and the like ) to pay out DFL ( which is normally what I do )

william, believe me i can relate. our records are very similar. i went "pro" for $40 earlier this year and am at 939, so i cant even play as a Pro Playing Am. i kinda think that all divisional structures create winners and losers though. who is which is just a function of where they draw the lines.

i went "pro" for $40 earlier this year and am at 939, so i cant even play as a Pro Playing Am.



You mean you can't play Adv Master but can play Advanced just like this Pro GM at 946. :)

Pat said :
i kinda think that all divisional structures create winners and losers though. who is which is just a function of where they draw the lines.
Bill said :
And I beleive with just some thought and some people looking in the mirror and honestly accepting they cannot and should not always WIN , a system can be devised ( especially with our tiered tourney structure ) that everyone could be part of a truely fair competitive structure .
Beleive me , if I can come up with a system that to me seems pretty fair for most to all involved ....
Then I am sure someone with a heck of alot more disc golf tourney experience could do the same .