I don't know if this has been talked about recently, but I thought I would throw it out there. I think that the Pro field should have a few less divisions now that the Am field is so well developed. In the past, there was no where to compete, except the Pro divisions and many players did not have the skills to do so. Those players welcomed a chance to get into a protected division as soon as they could. Originally, that was 35, and it made sense at first. That age was raised to 40, as people realized that 35 was a little too young. I think it's time to raise it again. I think we should do it like ball golf does. Open till 49, then Masters at 50. Possibly and probably we should keep a Legends with the players 65 and over.

Running Pro tournaments is much more difficult with respect to financing for the TDs, than an Am tourney. I think this would make it easier. Some players would drop to Ams, but some would help to fill out the Open field.

Opinions?

As a 40+ year old Pro player I think this is long overdue. I realize there will be hard feelings (how many pro players quit when the age was upped to 40?), but it's past time to get a handle on the massive amount of divisions in an event.

TDs have always had the option to do this willingly but they usually don't. It doesn't do much good for the PDGA to force a policy that few TDs wish to do based on their perception of what players want or are willing to accept. That was the original idea behind the National Tour. Yet even thru 2009, we still couldn't get the decision makers to restrict NT divisions to just Open Men and Women. Pro players of all ages under 970 rating already have the option to play Advanced. So if the TDs only offer Open, you have an event under the guidelines Dave is proposing. Try it at SoCal events and maybe it will catch on.

an interim phase in which the age becomes 45 for a few years before upping it to 50 sounds good :D

an interim phase in which the age becomes 45 for a few years before upping it to 50 sounds good :D



Probably a good idea. I don't know what kind of literature rewriting problems it may cause.
I could certainly live with an interim age 45, as our sport is a little more physical than golf, and 10 years is a pretty big jump, but the point is to get rid of one division, which effectively gets rid of two when you include gender. The Legends would probably have to start at 60, if the Masters started at 45, for the interim.

Having the NT just be open without large outside sponsor help is a bit much to chew off. I don't think three divisions is as much. Open, Masters at 45/50, and Legends at 60/65. I do not want to get rid of the Masters division ever. I just think the age limit needs to be raised, and we need to drop one division; not three.

I've said this before (and read this before on the message board) but I agree 110% with you Dave!!!

and to this Chuck....

TDs have always had the option to do this willingly but they usually don't. It doesn't do much good for the PDGA to force a policy that few TDs wish to do



What you are describing sounds like whats happening with Super Class. TDs always having an option to do so but there not being any apparent need/want.

Just one question Dave... would you keep the 40yr old age break for Ams or move them up to 50 as well.

I've said this before (and read this before on the message board) but I agree 110% with you Dave!!!

and to this Chuck....

TDs have always had the option to do this willingly but they usually don't. It doesn't do much good for the PDGA to force a policy that few TDs wish to do



What you are describing sounds like whats happening with Super Class. TDs always having an option to do so but there not being any apparent need/want.

Just one question Dave... would you keep the 40yr old age break for Ams or move them up to 50 as well.



No. Ams are a different story IMO. They are not professionals, and do not require the TDs to come up with a lot of cash. I would be much more inclined to divide Ams by skill catagories than age catagories. But, as Ams pay the bills, I would be open to any suggestion that increased Am participation.

I have decided to play Open this year in SoCal events so I can have a chance to play with some of the youngsters in the game. I certainly won't cash as much, and given the high level of competition here in SoCal I have essentially no shot at winning. This equates to a relatively small chance of breaking even on traveling expenses which in today's economy is no light matter, however I would like to have the opportunity to shoot an early round with one of the top players in the World not named Wisecup. I miss the high level of play that is more common in Open divisions, however I don't miss the attitudes that can accompany Open play, especially in the "cash bubble" groups.

The current system allows freedom of choice, which I support. I would like to hear from those parts of the country that have relatively shallow pools of Masters aged players. Changing the age level would probably guarantee that any cash bubble Masters players would be out of the money in a larger Open field for those regions.

The main problem I see is the lack of transition from Am to Pro. I suspect that the Masters and Grandmasters divisions have been growing faster than the Open division in many parts of the country. Is this true?

Cheers, DD

an interim phase in which the age becomes 45 for a few years before upping it to 50 sounds good :D



Probably a good idea. I don't know what kind of literature rewriting problems it may cause.
I could certainly live with an interim age 45, as our sport is a little more physical than golf, and 10 years is a pretty big jump, but the point is to get rid of one division, which effectively gets rid of two when you include gender. The Legends would probably have to start at 60, if the Masters started at 45, for the interim.

Having the NT just be open without large outside sponsor help is a bit much to chew off. I don't think three divisions is as much. Open, Masters at 45/50, and Legends at 60/65. I do not want to get rid of the Masters division ever. I just think the age limit needs to be raised, and we need to drop one division; not three.



so -- for example -- we could go have the Pro Masters division require being age 45 and older for 2010 and 2011 and then it would move to 50 and older from 2012 forward... Legends could go to 60 and older for 2010 and 2011 and then become 65 and older starting in 2012.

the drawback which jumps out at me is that some at the younger end of the present age-protected divisions and just keeping their heads above water competitively will likely *not* play Open when the change is enacted. So creating an attractive amateur division for these individuals would be worth consideration to keep them from simply dropping out altogether... having less divisions but not creating attrition by doing so seems to be the key challenge...

I am a 26yr old adv player so i dont know alot about what you guys are talking about but i will say this. a 970+ golfer is a 970+ golfer no matter what division he or she plays. i think the reason that some of the masters play in masters is simple, it is a more competitive division for them. there are 1000+ rated masters that play in open divisions and win $, but i think a 1000+ rated master is less likely to better their game. unless you are ken climo lol! but i think the masters division should continue because when i see a masters lead card they are always having fun and enjoying themselves! you dont really see that on an open lead card. let them have fun and play the game they love, competitively.

I am a 26yr old adv player so i dont know alot about what you guys are talking about but i will say this. a 970+ golfer is a 970+ golfer no matter what division he or she plays. i think the reason that some of the masters play in masters is simple, it is a more competitive division for them. there are 1000+ rated masters that play in open divisions and win $, but i think a 1000+ rated master is less likely to better their game. unless you are ken climo lol! but i think the masters division should continue because when i see a masters lead card they are always having fun and enjoying themselves! you dont really see that on an open lead card. let them have fun and play the game they love, competitively.




Those same masters can have dun in Open too! I know for a fact the last card can be fun. :D

Out of curiosity, does anyone know when the term "age-protected" came into the mainstream of the disc golf community? Any idea who may have coined that term? I simply don't recall hearing that descriptive term a decade ago. Personally, I've always considered the various masters-aged players as competing in "age-based" divisions......not protected divisions. :confused:

I did a google search but could not figure out a way to easily get a date for each page without opening every page. There are only about 20 unique occurrences. Google will say 294 but then it will edit that down to about 20 to eliminate redundant occurrences.

This is my three thoughts about the topic. I've been thinking about this for two days, unfortunately.

1) Age-based divisions exist as a marketing technique. The PDGA should do with age-based divisions whatever best markets the sport.

2) Eliminating two age-based cash-paid divisions will have far more impact on the players who play in those divisions than it will have on TDs. I play pro master once or twice a year, so, I don't care what the PDGA does here.

3) Responding to the original post, the only savings to the TD is not having to order an extra trophy, which he was not going to do if the players didn't pre-register, so the savings for TDs are nil. You need a better argument for change than that.

This is my three thoughts about the topic. I've been thinking about this for two days, unfortunately.

1) Age-based divisions exist as a marketing technique. The PDGA should do with age-based divisions whatever best markets the sport.

2) Eliminating two age-based cash-paid divisions will have far more impact on the players who play in those divisions than it will have on TDs. I play pro master once or twice a year, so, I don't care what the PDGA does here.

3) Responding to the original post, the only savings to the TD is not having to order an extra trophy, which he was not going to do if the players didn't pre-register, so the savings for TDs are nil. You need a better argument for change than that.




How about many players fro 40-45-50 are still competitive within the MPO division and if the age breaks were to be raised again it would create a larger field of players (especially at local events where there are usually 3-4 MPOs and 5-6 MPMs).

The larger division would probably mean you wouldn't have to shoot 990 or 1000 golf to cash but instead 970 or 980. This would mean that more of the guys who move up then drop out would stick around because they cash more often.

The 971 NPO gets smashed while the 971 MPM cashes every time.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

In my opinion, it ain't broke. I base my opinion on the fact that there a variety of divisional formats to choose from. Ratings based events have proved successful by the likes of event coordinators like Kennedy, Gangloff and others. Likewise, limited divisional formats such as USDGC, MSDGC, Vibram Open, etc. have also proven successful. Is it necessary to amend the popular divisional structure when so many format options already exist?

The 971 MPO gets smashed while the 971 MPM cashes every time.



The 971 MPM is rarer than the 971 MPO. The top 50 MPM money earners have an average rating of 989.

The top 50 MPO money earners have an average rating 23 points higher at 1012.

(unfortunately, can't sort by rating anymore)

But the proof is in the pudding: Some events can do very well without a Masters Division, but week after week with the average MPM player giving up, on average, a couple strokes per round against the average MPO player, those players will, on average, play less, move to Am Masters or even stop altogether. (Move up, move up, get old, move out)

Continue to permit TDs to offer Open only if they think it will serve their customers. But offering 40-somethings no other option but to compete against 20- and 30-somethings will drive people away when you're trying to attract.

The 971 MPO gets smashed while the 971 MPM cashes every time.



The 971 MPM is rarer than the 971 MPO. The top 50 MPM money earners have an average rating of 989.

The top 50 MPO money earners have an average rating 23 points higher at 1012.

(unfortunately, can't sort by rating anymore)

But the proof is in the pudding: Some events can do very well without a Masters Division, but week after week with the average MPM player giving up, on average, a couple strokes per round against the average MPO player, those players will, on average, play less, move to Am Masters or even stop altogether. (Move up, move up, get old, move out)

Continue to permit TDs to offer Open only if they think it will serve their customers. But offering 40-somethings no other option but to compete against 20- and 30-somethings will drive people away when you're trying to attract.



You sure about that? I see a lot more 970 masters at events than 970 MPO guys mostly because a lot of the 970s don't play as much anymore unless they think they will cash.

Also I don't know how comparing the top Open players by money to masters proves anything except that there is a larger ratings spread in MPO then there is in MPM.

Also I hope you didn't include Climo because he's now considered one of those old guys so maybe the AVG just dropped to 1011. :D

So what do you think we should do? Leave it as it is where there are many smaller events with more MPM players than MPO even when many of the masters guys are better than the "Open" guys?

I know around here there was an event where there was 10 MPMs and only one MPO (rated 940) and it took A LOT of convincing to get the Masters to all jump down so he had a division to play in. Well he got beat by most of them yet it seems like the MPM fields are always larger than the MPO and we are even playing short courses where each and every one of them could compete yet they would rather have two SMALL divisions than a larger one which IMO would be a lot more fun.

I also think Dave mentioned something about allowing the MPMs to move back to AMs since we have the golden 970 number now that allows players to jump back and forth.

If they are rated 970+ they should be able to compete with those same 970 guys that just happen to be a little younger.

There is a Master player in TX that I give a hard time because I beat him by a few strokes at most events but he always wins and thus makes more money than I do. I just always say "how do you expect me to catch you in money if I beat you every time and you still make more money?"

The thing is its not like he can't compete in MPO because when he moves up he normally finds a way to beat me and it is usually by making me miss my last 20fter. :D

Oh and I am not really for adjusting the Age-break but I would be for restricting masters to larger events where they might have a harder field of players to keep up with but at B and C tiers they are usually in the mix.

other than golf the different age divisions dont have much in common therfore forcing old guys to play with young guys might not be as enjoyable for any of the players.the masters that can compete with those that are younger may choose to play with them if they dont choose to then why force them to?
i play this game for the sport as well as the fellowship not to say i couldnt fellowship with the younger guys.

on some courses the players with the same ratings dont have the same skill package.some times i play open because on certain courses the cash is any bodies to win on other courses i dont stand a chance to compete with some of the younger players.as it is now i dont compete well with the master fields but i enjoy their company.

I think the 970 isn't always 970 thing is lame because for every course the old guy is at a disadvantage there is another one where he has the upper hand.


I play for fun too but its hard to have fun playing with the same 3 guys at every event because the Masters guys want the easy money.

With that said if Age-based divisions are still around in 20 years I sure hope I am still able to throw. Heck I'd love to be 40 right now and make the BIG bucks. :D

by the time your turniing 40 the existing masters are turning 50 and you will still be playing with the same 3 players.
i guesss there might be some youngun that changes things when you turn 40 that keeps you in their predetermined division by force.
change can be good, again i wouldnt want to be the decision maker as it would be impossable toplease all the people who are the pdga

Scooter said " Oh and I am not really for adjusting the Age-break but I would be for restricting masters to larger events where they might have a harder field of players to keep up with but at B and C tiers they are usually in the mix. "

GREAT BLEEPING POST . I have been saying that for years .
It would be nice if at lower PDGA tiered events that there was a standard to " ability " participation .
I have stated it many times but here it is once more

AT C and B tiers have all 980 and above players play open
then 930 to 979 have all players play either PRO masters or advanced and go down from there .

AT C and B tiers have all 980 and above players play open
then 930 to 979 have all players play either PRO masters or advanced and go down from there .



Tournament Directors have the freedom to do that right now, right? Why doesn't every tournament director across the land run at least one tournament like this next year. :cool:

AT C and B tiers have all 980 and above players play open
then 930 to 979 have all players play either PRO masters or advanced and go down from there .



Tournament Directors have the freedom to do that right now, right? Why doesn't every tournament director across the land run at least one tournament like this next year. :cool:




Probably because everyone is used to the Norm and when TDs seemingly go out and change things a lot of people get butt-hurt over the issue.

As soon as Akron is done it is my intention to do just that .

AT C and B tiers have all 980 and above players play open
then 930 to 979 have all players play either PRO masters or advanced and go down from there .



Tournament Directors have the freedom to do that right now, right? Why doesn't every tournament director across the land run at least one tournament like this next year. :cool:




Are you trying to say you would actually come out and play one of these events? There must be something wrong with the current structure that keeps you from playing.

Are you trying to say you would actually come out and play one of these events? There must be something wrong with the current structure that keeps you from playing.



I play in dozens of unsanctioned events each year for low entry fees - monthlies, Ice Bowls, Ace Races, BYOP partner doubles, random draw doubles, tag rounds, casual rounds, etc. However, $40 in entry fees for PDGA C-tier events is more than I want to donate, and the fees only go up from there for higher tiered events.

But this isn't about me - this thread is about either raising the Masters age, or an alternative solution of forcing 980+ rated Masters to play in Open.

Are you trying to say you would actually come out and play one of these events? There must be something wrong with the current structure that keeps you from playing.



I play in dozens of unsanctioned events each year for low entry fees - monthlies, Ice Bowls, Ace Races, BYOP partner doubles, random draw doubles, tag rounds, casual rounds, etc. However, $40 in entry fees for PDGA C-tier events is more than I want to donate, and the fees only go up from there for higher tiered events.

But this isn't about me - this thread is about either raising the Masters age, or an alternative solution of forcing 980+ rated Masters to play in Open.




I actually like the 980+ idea as it keeps the guys who can hang in MPO in MPO and those that cannot can still play MPM without having to play against 1000+ rated Masters.

But this isn't about me - this thread is about either raising the Masters age, or an alternative solution of forcing 980+ rated Masters to play in Open.



Something to keep in mind with ratings is that this is the first year 2009 where there are grandmasters and senior grandmasters with 980+ ratings, not just masters.

Just for the record, if we were going to "force" any ratings in Open, it seems like it should be set at 1000+, not 980. 1000s can cash, (and that is what Pro is about), and 980s would have a hard time cashing. Maybe for just the Worlds, (where maybe a title is more important than the cash) it could be as it is now. No limit. Just ideas.

But this isn't about me - this thread is about either raising the Masters age, or an alternative solution of forcing 980+ rated Masters to play in Open.



Something to keep in mind with ratings is that this is the first year 2009 where there are grandmasters and senior grandmasters with 980+ ratings, not just masters.

Just for the record, if we were going to "force" any ratings in Open, it seems like it should be set at 1000+, not 980. 1000s can cash, (and that is what Pro is about), and 980s would have a hard time cashing. Maybe for just the Worlds, (where maybe a title is more important than the cash) it could be as it is now. No limit. Just ideas.



980s make up the majority of those who cash at C and B tiers so I don't know how you figure they wouldn't cash. If a 1000 rated guy misses cash at one of those events then something went wrong.

I don't think that they should be expected to cash each time but a 980 Master playing Open at a C and B tier should cash at least half the time if not 75% of the time.

I don't know if this has been talked about recently, but I thought I would throw it out there. I think that the Pro field should have a few less divisions now that the Am field is so well developed. In the past, there was no where to compete, except the Pro divisions and many players did not have the skills to do so. Those players welcomed a chance to get into a protected division as soon as they could. Originally, that was 35, and it made sense at first. That age was raised to 40, as people realized that 35 was a little too young. I think it's time to raise it again. I think we should do it like ball golf does. Open till 49, then Masters at 50. Possibly and probably we should keep a Legends with the players 65 and over.

Running Pro tournaments is much more difficult with respect to financing for the TDs, than an Am tourney. I think this would make it easier. Some players would drop to Ams, but some would help to fill out the Open field.

Opinions?



My opinion is.....That this is the best post ever! I have been hoping for this for a long time.

OH...and it is a "protected division'. I cant play in it and it is for $ + added cash. The most simple solution is to stop adding cash to protected divisions. It makes no sense. They can hop around, I cant. Hence the story about blue hats and big plates. 45 is a great number for the division. K Climo is not a phenom. It happens at events all over the country. I have had 2 different events where i took 1st in OPEN and thanked a master for playing in a different division. Ask any of the younger sided 40+ guys. They will readily admit that its about easy cash.

Self-deleted before LaGrassa gets to it.

Self-deleted before LaGrassa gets to it.

I think the 970 isn't always 970 thing is lame because for every course the old guy is at a disadvantage there is another one where he has the upper hand.

<font color="blue"> a 970 am is likely to be on the upswing ratings-wise and a 970 Master is likely to be on the down-swing in ratings. Chuck has pointed out that statistically every year in age after a certain point (age 35?) leads to a predictable ratings drop. </font>


I play for fun too but its hard to have fun playing with the same 3 guys at every event because the Masters guys want the easy money.

<font color="blue"> There are as many varied reasons for playing in the Masters pool as there are Masters. There are the guys at the bottom who don't really have much shot at cashing but want to stay Pro and not drop down to the less prestigious amateur ranks. They enjoy playing with Masters aged players and are okay donating to that pool. If forced to choose between Open and amateur most in this category would probably choose not to participate (usually there is a higher donation fee to play Open than there is to play Masters).

Then there are the 970 Master guys who used to be 1000 or 990 but age has begun to take its toll in terms of endurance and they also may get less opportunity to practice and maintain their timing. and -- as anyone over 40 can tell you -- if you don't play and exercise *regularly* when you get older you lose the ability to just jump right back in and pick up where you left off. youth is more forgiving... injury also comes easier with age and bone and muscle strength deteriorate. that old guy who can throw farther than you probably has to work harder to do that than when he was younger.

970 Masters-aged players are also less likely to be able to ever get to 1000 (or 985) than their younger 970 counterparts. the 970 am. playing Open is usually on the upswing and learns and benefits from the competition. The masters player may get discouraged that he has dropped in physical skill from where he was previously and is likely to go thru the depressing experience of seeing that decline continue as he ages.

so while thinking of why 970 Masters could play open remember that you may cause a lot to drop out rather than move up. Don't characterize all Masters by the few very skilled high level ones who seem to take the easy cash. if you want to force 990 and above Masters at A and B tiers to play Open maybe that is an answer -- but try it and see how many drop out and how many do just fine.

the best way to deter so-called easy-cash masters is to make Masters entry fee 50% or 25% of Open fees so that payouts are considerably less. Those going to where the money is won't play age-protected divisions then ;) </font>

With that said if Age-based divisions are still around in 20 years I sure hope I am still able to throw. Heck I'd love to be 40 right now and make the BIG bucks. :D



<font color="blue"> now you're talking! due the time and earn the right to play against (other) old guys. learn how much harder it is to play the last round in a long tourney on long courses when you are 45 instead of just 25 in age. see if injuries allow you to keep going like you did when young. maybe you will be better than you are now when you're 50. odds aren't great you will be -- but who knows? and if you would rather take money beating old guys even though you could beat young guns then it probably says something (negative) about your competitive honor and class. but TD's should lower Masters entry fees to 1/2 or less of Open in order to deter the money grabbers. if a 1000 rated Master doesn't play Open and instead plays masters to only win chump change you will have to go to a new argument. The real one is: why are we looking to increase the Open field with old guys instead of with more *young* talent who will be around for decades in disc golf? </font>

I must say after going to worlds this year there were a lot more young guys then in the past placing fairly high up.

I even got to play with Barsby, Garrett, and Ziggy even though we had the Old guy Big Brother Rico on the card. :D

I like the idea of less age-protected divisions like originally proposed in this thread, but i think the idea of getting rid of all age-based divisions as some younger members seem to prefer is misguided because that will actually lead to attrition, rather than growth, of our membership.

we should be looking to get more teens interested in competitive disc golf -- that is where we can garner a larger share of true Pro players (1000 and above). they are also the ones that will be around for a while. when age forces them to move to Masters and Legend divisions, new young guns can be filling their slots ;)

it may seem easy to look to existing divisions to grow Open, but the real growth will come by getting more *young* and amateur players to learn our sport and step it up.

Sez me.

Oh yeah, check out where the 1000 rated players are playing in this tourney (http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=8387).


Rick Voakes = has balls.
I hope his scores come in hotter than any of those 1000 rated cowards. (I know they would kick my [censored], but what else do you say to a 1000+ rated golfer hiding in a protected division?)

Sez me.

Oh yeah, check out where the 1000 rated players are playing in this tourney (http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=8387).


Rick Voakes = has balls.
I hope his scores come in hotter than any of those 1000 rated cowards. (I know they would kick my [censored], but what else do you say to a 1000+ rated golfer hiding in a protected division?)




You better win? :D

Sez me.

Oh yeah, check out where the 1000 rated players are playing in this tourney (http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=8387).


Rick Voakes = has balls.
I hope his scores come in hotter than any of those 1000 rated cowards. (I know they would kick my [censored], but what else do you say to a 1000+ rated golfer hiding in a protected division?)



Cowards? Hiding in a protected division? I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this topic, however, I believe these players do not deserve to receive such derogatory statements directed at them.....especially when these particular players are not part of this discusion and all they did was simply register to compete in an age-based division offered for a 2009 PDGA sanctioned event.

age based protected. age based protected. age based protected.

_another note- I believe that only the OPEN division should be able to receive USDGC invites at NT and majors. Just saying. Everyone says you are just playing the course...but you certainly are not. You are playing yourself, and when you are in the mix, your stress levels increase and that has negative(mostly) results on your game. If you are 15 strokes ahead of your closest divisional competitor, you are in a state of relaxation or comfort and(at least me), you play better.

age based protected. age based protected. age based protected.

_another note- I believe that only the OPEN division should be able to receive USDGC invites at NT and majors. Just saying. Everyone says you are just playing the course...but you certainly are not. You are playing yourself, and when you are in the mix, your stress levels increase and that has negative(mostly) results on your game. If you are 15 strokes ahead of your closest divisional competitor, you are in a state of relaxation or comfort and(at least me), you play better.




I agree! If you are trying to get in and think you have a shot then play Open where the feel is a lot different along with the level of play.

I don't understand why everyone doesn't jump onboard with what seems to me to be the easiest solution to the concerns about very skilled Masters not playing Open --

implement a rule whereby Masters entrees (and thus payouts) cost at most 40% of Open entrees -- if Open entrees are $125 make Pro Masters entrees $40 or at most $50. Doing that will incline the *really* skilled Masters to play Open and it will also make am. Masters more willing to play Pro Masters. And add at least 75% of the added cash to the true Open field which is neither age nor gender protected. *Then* if a $1000 rated player plays Masters you know it is not for the money and you can quit accusing them of "hiding" ;)

I don't understand why everyone doesn't jump onboard with what seems to me to be the easiest solution to the concerns about very skilled Masters not playing Open --

implement a rule whereby Masters entrees (and thus payouts) cost at most 40% of Open entrees -- if Open entrees are $125 make Pro Masters entrees $40 or at most $50. Doing that will incline the *really* skilled Masters to play Open and it will also make am. Masters more willing to play Pro Masters. And add at least 75% of the added cash to the true Open field which is neither age nor gender protected. *Then* if a $1000 rated player plays Masters you know it is not for the money and you can quit accusing them of "hiding" ;)



Sounds good to me!

I'm saving that one for the PDGA later. :p

I don't understand why everyone doesn't jump onboard with what seems to me to be the easiest solution to the concerns about very skilled Masters not playing Open --

implement a rule whereby Masters entrees (and thus payouts) cost at most 40% of Open entrees -- if Open entrees are $125 make Pro Masters entrees $40 or at most $50. Doing that will incline the *really* skilled Masters to play Open and it will also make am. Masters more willing to play Pro Masters. And add at least 75% of the added cash to the true Open field which is neither age nor gender protected. *Then* if a $1000 rated player plays Masters you know it is not for the money and you can quit accusing them of "hiding" ;)

That's only a solution if the current system of letting TDs set their own entry fees is a problem, which it isn't.

I thought the PDGA already had guidelines when it came to Entry fees. I thought ADV entries couldn't exceed a certain % in relation to the Open fees?

I don't understand why everyone doesn't jump onboard with what seems to me to be the easiest solution to the concerns about very skilled Masters not playing Open --

implement a rule whereby Masters entrees (and thus payouts) cost at most 40% of Open entrees -- if Open entrees are $125 make Pro Masters entrees $40 or at most $50. Doing that will incline the *really* skilled Masters to play Open and it will also make am. Masters more willing to play Pro Masters. And add at least 75% of the added cash to the true Open field which is neither age nor gender protected. *Then* if a $1000 rated player plays Masters you know it is not for the money and you can quit accusing them of "hiding" ;)



Best post I have read on here in a long time and I have said this for quite some time as well. I rarely see a tourney set entry fees apart from Open to Masters and it drives me crazy. Or you may see Open at $65 and Masters at $55 or $60. Make the Masters entry fees the same or even a bit less than the Advanced fees and the true money hungry players will go where the money is. I think most disgruntled Open players get annoyed because you will see Masters players pick and choose based on competition. It's not the players fault, it is the TD's fault for making that choice so easy on them? Just my opinion...often times in Ohio our Masters are bigger or the exact same in size as Open...10-12 in each?

Can anyone who is a current TD explain why they wouldn't set entry fees apart significantly? I have never run a PDGA event, but this seems like a simple fix...

There's a good reason for not setting the entry fees for the older pro divisions more than $10-$15 lower in higher tier events. I've actually considered doing that a few times but didn't so so after hearing from the potential players. If you only have a division like GM that might draw 4-8 players, you want the entry fee and purse to be high enough that the first place winner might be able to cover their travel expenses. Not necessarily air fare but gas and overnight accommodations. I know that as a TD, that's the reason I've heard for over 10 years. If the entry fee is set at maybe $25, you'll get few if any older pro players of any rating to travel very far, especially since they know that little if any cash will be added to their division.

That must be why we pay the AMs in plastic too! So they can cover their expenses by selling their goodies.

That must be why we pay the AMs in plastic too! So they can cover their expenses by selling their goodies.



Funny, I don't remember you all up in arms and fomenting revolution for all the poor, underpaid pros when you were selling your plastic winnings :eek:

Sez me.

Oh yeah, check out where the 1000 rated players are playing in this tourney (http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=8387).


Rick Voakes = has balls.
I hope his scores come in hotter than any of those 1000 rated cowards. (I know they would kick my [censored], but what else do you say to a 1000+ rated golfer hiding in a protected division?)



Cowards? Hiding in a protected division? I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this topic, however, I believe these players do not deserve to receive such derogatory statements directed at them.....especially when these particular players are not part of this discusion and all they did was simply register to compete in an age-based division offered for a 2009 PDGA sanctioned event.


Yeah, they registered for a division offered... they registered to feast on the low-rated Masters guys, when they could be competing without any trouble in the Open Division. I commend Rick Voakes for having the cajones to say SCREW AGE and compete in the division he belongs in. There should be a maximum rating for Open Masters, IMHO, and it should be tiered based on event tier (960 max for C-Tier, 970 max for B-Tier, 980 max for A/NT/M... except for Worlds, which has crowning an age-group champion as its express intent).

Yeah, they're really worth of laudatory remarks. Yayyy easy button.


-Chris.

Cowards???? Might it simply be that is where the financial incentives are and thus, that is where they go. Financial incentives leading people in certain directions: Who'd a thunk?

It applies up and down and all around in our system. Most people notice it only when it applies to others.

There's a good reason for not setting the entry fees for the older pro divisions more than $10-$15 lower in higher tier events. I've actually considered doing that a few times but didn't so so after hearing from the potential players. If you only have a division like GM that might draw 4-8 players, you want the entry fee and purse to be high enough that the first place winner might be able to cover their travel expenses. Not necessarily air fare but gas and overnight accommodations. I know that as a TD, that's the reason I've heard for over 10 years. If the entry fee is set at maybe $25, you'll get few if any older pro players of any rating to travel very far, especially since they know that little if any cash will be added to their division.



That doesn't add up. How many in the field have a good statistical chance of placing first? The majority of the field has a good chance of *not* cashing at all! They are the ones who should be given the most consideration -- the bottom two-thirds of the field (the non-cashers) -- for it is upon them that events and payouts depend (at least until payouts are largely funded by sponsors). If you cater to those with the best shot at winning -- then you create a system in which the Masters who can cash in Open will be more inclined to play in Masters where the payouts draw them in!

Travel costs should only be a big consideration for Open imo. And what about one day events? Masters fees tend to be 80-90% the price of Open there too and that's crazy :confused:

The fee structure should consider the entire field -- not the elite Master-aged Pro who will travel to your event *if* you slant the fees and payouts to draw them in... TD's seem to cater too heavily to the ones going home with the cash and not enough to the ones from whose pockets that cash is being taken :p

all of you who don't like how events are run should quit griping and run one the way you want it done. while i don't necessarily agree with gangloff's ideas on age-based divisions at least he steps up and does it instead of whining about how others do it. td freedom is one of the best things the pdga has going for it currently.

there is a difference between whining and discussion -- and between being open and closed to feedback -- let those who have ears to hear, hear...

I think we should just make all members of the Professional Disc Golf Association as PROS!!! ;)

Well its not such a bad idea........

I think we should just make all members of the Professional Disc Golf Association PROS!!! ;)





:eek: :o:eek:

I think a lot of frustration here is misplaced. Instead of targeting the players that simply choose the division which is available to them and offers the best financial incentive, the focus should be on the tournament competition system which allows such. I understand that the tournament competition system needs to be robust to cover the differences in skill sets which occur from region to region around the country, and additionally must not change so radically so as to steer away great numbers of PDGA members. But while "TD freedom" is indeed a very valuable thing, the base competition system that governs it needs to change to take away the incentive for highly skilled players from playing in protected divisions, and golfers receiving more compensation for a score in protected divisions versus the same score shot in non-protected divisions. Intuitively, that makes complete sense yet we continue year after a year with a base competition system that provides for these inequities.

all of you who don't like how events are run should quit griping and run one the way you want it done. while i don't necessarily agree with gangloff's ideas on age-based divisions at least he steps up and does it instead of whining about how others do it. td freedom is one of the best things the pdga has going for it currently.



Thanks for your support John (I Think :) )
Leading by example only goes as far as you can be heard (from my experience). And if the leadership is unwilling to dictate which choices are most favorable (i.e. the current status quo) - leaving TD's to make any choice they want yields little in the way of change, little in the way of innovation, little in the way of consistency. The problem is only on the heads of the TD's BECAUSE the organization continues to fail to alter the base competitive structure to address competition as a goal.

there is no evidence the majority of the organization wants change.

Does the majority of the membership want the organization to fulfill its mission statement?

That must be why we pay the AMs in plastic too! So they can cover their expenses by selling their goodies.



Funny, I don't remember you all up in arms and fomenting revolution for all the poor, underpaid pros when you were selling your plastic winnings :eek:




Just because I didn't complain doesn't mean I thought it was right! I won discs gave them to my dad who sold them and then he covered my entries and expenses.

After moving up to Open I started covering myself but it was funny that even when I played decent at smaller events I would have won more staying in ADV.

Do you know how easy it is to sell a nice basket for 75% of cost? I mean once you have enough for a 9-hole course you might as well right?

I would have kept on playing ADV had it only been for a reduced entry fee with cool shirt and disc as a players pack and trophies to the to 5 or so but why wouldn't you take advantage of the system if possible? That is what the Masters do and I can't blame them for it but that doesn't make it right.

In 2005 I received $700+ in merch at worlds yet in the past two years the payout for beating 80% of the open field still hasn't added up to that much.

Does the majority of the membership want the organization to fulfill its mission statement?



i would imagine the majority of the members (myself included) could not tell you a thing about the mission statement except in generalizations such as "grow the sport".

The PDGA Mission Statement is a short list of generalities:

1. Continue to develop the professional and
amateur tours to complement national
sponsorship.

2. Work to develop the PDGA as the external face of
competitive Disc Golf.

3. Continue to add value to our membership while
encouraging competitive growth.

4. Establish, enhance and govern the
standardization in the rules of play, tournament
formats, and all other aspects of the sport of Disc
Golf.

5. Prepare our Organization for growth.

Ah well, my bad, it used to include verbage about promoting competition, competitive disc golf, etc. Guess they abandoned that.........big surprise. Now it just alludes to "competitive growth" - whatever that means.

I agree, the generalitites abound and astound.

Ah well, my bad, it used to include verbage about promoting competition, competitive disc golf, etc. Guess they abandoned that.........big surprise. Now it just alludes to "competitive growth" - whatever that means.

I agree, the generalitites abound and astound.




I think that means adding more divisions so more people can be competitive. More people competitive= competitive growth even if they are playing in 3 person divisions.

Here are some numbers, based solely on the state of California:

Open Division: 169 players (7.5% of current PDGA level of 2200).
87/169 = 51% of all Open players cashed last year in California.
Of those who cashed, 38/87 = 44% had ratings above 980.

Masters Division: 103 total players (10% of 1000 current Masters players)
56/103 = 54% of all Masters players cashed last year in California.
Of those who cashed, 23/56 = 41% had ratings above 980.

If the divisions are combined the relative cashing statistics for players above 980 will not change by much, however the relative amounts of winnings would of course change, as typical cashing scores in Masters would earn less money in Open.

The net result of the change is difficult to evaluate. The very top Masters players would be competitive, but the majority would be delegated to the cash bubble and below cards. Given the larger responsibilities of typical Masters players (mortgage, college tuition, ex-wives, etc), it is not clear what effect this would have on the numbers of PDGA dropouts.

The last year I played Open I was usually on the bubble of cashing, and I ended up one shot out of the money at the USDGC and the Worlds. I played with brats who kicked their bags and cursed every time they missed a shot, and I called an eventual World Champion on a courtesy warning after he repeatedly slammed his chair into a tree (and I spent most of the rest of the round walking on thin ice). It was no fun. After moving out West and enjoying a higher level of competition in Masters than was available back East I never looked back, and I have not played in Open since.

As stated previously, I am playing Open at SoCal events this year. I sincerely hope the behavior that I witnessed during my previous years playing Open has subsided, and I look forward to having some fun with the youngsters. Who knows, I might have a chance to play with Rico or McBeth in an early round and watch shots that I could never throw. Play Fun and Have Well!!

I think the Ex-wife issue would be solved if you lived in TX. We don't have alimony. :D


Thanks for the stats!

i would like to see what the average rating of bottom cash is for A, B, and C tiers respectively in the Open and Masters divisions... i suspect bottom cashers in Masters stand zero chance of cashing in Open and the lure for most participation is the *chance* of cashing.

it feels better to finish 5th than 30th...
even if neither place gets you cash.
Is that why?

i would like to see what the average rating of bottom cash is for A, B, and C tiers respectively in the Open and Masters divisions... i suspect bottom cashers in Masters stand zero chance of cashing in Open and the lure for most participation is the *chance* of cashing.



Take the select 1 or 2 MPM players and throw them into the depleted MPO division, and you are probably right. Take them all, and the MA1 baggers who have been raking in enough baskets to build their own courses, and the MPM players cash just fine.

Take a look at the results from the Seneca Creek Soiree - where no MPM div was offered. 12 out of 15 MPM eligible players cashed. I have been compiling some stats, I will try and complete and post them - but it is time consuming.

i would like to see what the average rating of bottom cash is for A, B, and C tiers respectively in the Open and Masters divisions... i suspect bottom cashers in Masters stand zero chance of cashing in Open and the lure for most participation is the *chance* of cashing.



Ok, here's one example that's pretty crazy. After looking at this, its hard not to agree with Craig that maybe the old folks and the young folks should just play together...

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=8328#Open

Ok, it isn't a long course, but the first round played to an SSA of 51.2, the second round 55.8... so 1000 rated golf would have been 107 for the two rounds...

First in Masters was 1 stroke off the pace in open... Last cash was the same score in both... and last cash in GM was 2 strokes ahead of last cash in open...

Kind of an interesting result that I only looked at because it is our club's tournament...


Also, the score that won advanced the day before would not have cashed in open, and the adv. master's score would have tied last cash...

One single tournament does not make for good statistics. Check out the 2003 Golden State Classic (The first NT event). The winning score in Masters would not have cashed in Open.

And the winning scores in Masters would have won in Open in the 2008 Golden State Classic!

The following is taken from the PDGA tour stats for California. I define the "Cash Line" as the player rating where you should expect to cash (i.e. get your entry fee back) at most of the events on average. Note that there are players below that line who cash and players above that line who do not cash.

169 Open players, median rating = 964, Cash line ~ 970
103 Masters players, median rating = 955, Cash line ~ 960
348 Am Open players, median rating = 923

12 of the top 50 Ams in California are rated above 970, which is the cash line for Open players in California. 7 of those top 12 players only competed in 1 or 2 tournaments. This leaves roughly 5 Ams in California who could theoretically be cashing on a regular basis in Open. 14 of the top 50 Ams in California competed in 5 or more events in 2008, and many of these guys would have a shot at cashing in an Open tournament. I am curious to see what percentage of these 20 or so players go Pro next year.

The top 35 California Masters players could expect to cash in Open tournaments on a regular basis. In other words, the top 1/3 Masters players would have a similar shot at cashing as the top 1/3 Open. The difference, of course, being the amount of cash won, which would generally be smaller for the Masters players.

So after running the numbers I have reached the following conclusion: All SoCal events should adopt Dunipace's idea for 2009. In addition to the stats, I agree with this idea for the following reasons:

1. I had already decided to play Open in SoCal events next year :cool:
2. I will turn 50 in 2010 and could move out of Open regardless :D

I ran the numbers for A tiers in November 2008 and found the following:

3 events had Masters and Pro fields:

lowest rated Open entrant who cashed
event 1: 982
event 2: 983
event 3: 988

lowest rated Masters entrant who cashed
event 1: 980
event 2: 972
event 3: 972

average rating of rounds of player to take lowest Open cash
event 1: 985
event 2: 1000
event 3: not available (Moccasin Lake Open)

average rating of rounds of player taking lowest Pro Masters cash:
event 1: 970
event 2: 960
event 3: ratings not available (Moccasin Lake Open)

4th event was Open only (Players Cup)
lowest rated entrant who cashed: 987
average rating of rounds played by player taking last cash: unavailable

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

edit: i just ran pro Worlds 2008:

average rating of the rounds of the player that took Open last cash: 992
average rating of the rounds of the player that took Masters last cash: 973
.

Howdy AviarX.

You should include the median rankings of the players if you want to make comparisons of the Cash line.

If you take the median rating of the players in the Worlds you get 984 for Open and 969 for Masters. That would increase my estimated cash lines based on California players by 20 in Open making it about 990 for the Worlds and 14 in Masters making it about 974 for the Worlds, which is essentially what you got.

Cheers, DD

I do not recall anybody saying we should eliminate the masters divisions; only to adjust them, which is a point some people seem to be missing

personally, I think some adjustments need to be made, although I am not sure what all I would do, which is why I like reading differing opinions in threads like this one - I do, however, believe that no 1000 rated player should be playing any division other than open, regardless of age, unless it is at worlds where a world title is at stake

has there been discussion of having a ratings cap on masters, and what about a time period for those that have played open, that cannot go back to masters? for instance, if you are over 990 you cant play any masters events, and if you are are under 990 and play an open event, you cant play in the masters division for 3 months.

just hypothetical numbers for the sake of discussion, but this would eliminate those who jump back and forth just to try to win more money. and for those masters who are obviously able to compete with the open players, well .. make them compete.

Howdy Thezac:

Any division between Masters and Open based solely on player ratings will not satisfy those Open players who are irritated that Masters players can make more money by shooting lower rated rounds. In fact it would only make it worse by lowering the average cash line for Masters even more.

As an example, if you made the line 1000 it would only affect a handful of Masters players. Check out the state of Texas and you can see what I mean. Not a single Masters player rated over 1000, and only two over 990. If you order the top 100 cashing Masters aged players in the WORLD in terms of player ratings, only 23 have ratings of 1000 or above (Gangloff being 23rd, even though he has never played Masters; I am just below him at 999 and have not played Open since 2001). So that would accomplish next to nothing as far as growing the Open ranks. If you dropped it to 990 then that would scrape off the top layer of Masters and move them into Open, but it would also lower the average cash line in Masters by a similar amount, and now Masters players with averages in the 950s would be cashing with regularity at general PDGA events, which would lead to even more grumbling by some of the Open players, especially from Masters aged players forced to stay in Open.

If you move the mandatory Open age up to 49, as Dunipace suggests, that would effectively eliminate the Masters division. It is not clear if it would also eliminate the majority of players in their mid to late 30s who might drop out of tournament play due to the smaller likelihood of being in competition for another decade. And there would still be players shooting hot rounds that some Open guys would grouch and complain about.

I have never met Clayton (bazkitcase5), but I like the fact that he did not wait until he was 970+ to move up, and look at the results! On the other hand, there are those who do not enjoy competing in Open and would rather stay Am all their life. So be it. This sport needs more young blood, and if some oldsters choose to shoot with the youngsters then more power to them. Who knows, it might help the "Spirit of the Game". But force feeding them to the sharks...that is another matter.

There are two ways to look at it:

1. The current system is flawed because the best Masters players are also good Open players.

2. Every tournament is a collection of sub-tournaments. Each division plays for its own money, so live and let live. We don't grumble about the Women or Grandmasters winning money with rounds that would not cash in Open, so why jump on the Masters players, especially since many of those players have donated time and money helping to run tournaments, install and renovate courses, and spread the joy of Disc Golf.

I have obsessed too much on this question. CYa on the links next year! DD

Word.

Devine said : As an example, if you made the line 1000 it would only affect a handful of Masters players. Check out the state of Texas and you can see what I mean. Not a single Masters player rated over 1000, and only two over 990. If you order the top 100 cashing Masters aged players in the WORLD in terms of player ratings, only 23 have ratings of 1000 or above (Gangloff being 23rd, even though he has never played Masters; I am just below him at 999 and have not played Open since 2001). So that would accomplish next to nothing as far as growing the Open ranks. If you dropped it to 990 then that would scrape off the top layer of Masters and move them into Open, but it would also lower the average cash line in Masters by a similar amount, and now Masters players with averages in the 950s would be cashing with regularity at general PDGA events, which would lead to even more grumbling by some of the Open players, especially from Masters aged players forced to stay in Open.

First off that is why 1000 is too high and that 980 should be adopted for ONLY C and B tiers . The A tiers and world championships could and should be more on age instead of ability since those are the HIGHEST events we have .

I dont know about your area but here in the northeast we have a BUNCH of over 40 players rated at 980ish and hold thier own very well at lower tiered events .
Also at the time you cap master and advanced you also take ALL added cash to only open division and make entry fees much lower for Protected cash divisions .
Then the combo of all those things should allow the best to play with the best and the rest of us play for what we deserve if we are not willing to play against the best .

Howdy AviarX.

You should include the median rankings of the players if you want to make comparisons of the Cash line.





Hi DD,

i think most players wondering if they should buy into the pool that is a step up, want to know what their chances at cashing are before they do so. (especially if you consider the pool that is a step up is usually more expensive to buy into). that is why i think the most pertinent stat isn't the middle (median) or the average rating of a given player (as it is usually behind and older players in general tend to fall down from their previous rating as they age and younger players temd to play a little better). Also the added pressure of playing in the Open pool is probably going to make it tougher for all but the most stellar Masters to play as well if they dive into the Open pool. so to me the most applicable stat is the lowest average total rating for rounds played in the event that still cashed. I am seeing a general tendency in A tiers that you need to shoot 985 in Open to get bottom cash, and in Masters 972. If you shoot less than that you generally aren't cashing at A tiers.

You have to consider the 950 rated Masters-age guy who wants to think he can shoot hot rounds and average 975 and take last cash which basicly covers his/her entry fee. Barry Schultz makes a great point in an old PDGA radio interview -- you only shoot your best golf once every ten rounds at best -- the trick in competitive disc golf is to get your average rounds to a level so that when you play average golf you cash. If I am a 980 Master (which i am not) and you force me into Open at A tiers i am going to wonder if i can shoot 985 golf and hold onto last cash in the final round when i am up against younger guys who won't be as worn out as an older guy when it comes to those huge last few holes of a tournament.

my two cents -- and i think they are sound -- is still that the way to deal with the issue is to cap entry fees for protected divisions at 50% of the cost of an entry into the one true Open division. Then the really good players will compete for money against the best and those not at that level can opt into the age-protections without being accused by young guns of stealing money from old men ;)

on that note -- and this will be controversial but good ideas often are -- we should cap am. entry fees and payouts too so there is no incentive to remain an amateur and make easy plastic cash when your skills suggest you could grow into a decent Open player.
iow, don't let those at the top of any protected division (am.s included) compete in earnings with those in the one true Open field

look to grow the Open field with young newbies who will be playing Open for decades...

age based protected. age based protected. age based protected.



age eligible. age eligible. age eligible.

:)

Howdy Lafsaledog

"I don't know about your neck of the woods, but here in the northeast we have a BUNCH of over 40 players rated at 980ish and hold thier own very well at lower tiered events"

I don't know how many "a bunch" is, but I would imagine it is less than a handful of players at a typical B or C tier MADC event.

When I played in MADC tournaments in the late 90s the big dogs were Moser, Mela, Myers and Gangloff, with Pitts, Gawler, Gregory and Brinster on the rise. Nearly 10 years later and those same names are still near the top of the heap, even though most of them are now Masters aged. Where is the young blood in the MADC? Why are the best players in the region mostly the same as 10 years ago? Will flooding the Open field with older players strengthen our sport, or make it even less attractive for Ams to move up??

As far as my neck of the woods, a typical SoCal B-tier features 4-8 Open players with ratings above 1000 in a field of 15-30, and 4-5 of the top 60 ranked players in the World. Those 980ish old guys you refer to would be welcomed with Open arms (and palms!)

Howdy Lafsaledog

"I don't know about your neck of the woods, but here in the northeast we have a BUNCH of over 40 players rated at 980ish and hold thier own very well at lower tiered events"

I don't know how many "a bunch" is, but I would imagine it is less than a handful of players at a typical B or C tier MADC event.

When I played in MADC tournaments in the late 90s the big dogs were Moser, Mela, Myers and Gangloff, with Pitts, Gawler, Gregory and Brinster on the rise. Nearly 10 years later and those same names are still near the top of the heap, even though most of them are now Masters aged. Where is the young blood in the MADC? Why are the best players in the region mostly the same as 10 years ago? Will flooding the Open field with older players strengthen our sport, or make it even less attractive for Ams to move up??

As far as my neck of the woods, a typical SoCal B-tier features 4-8 Open players with ratings above 1000 in a field of 15-30, and 4-5 of the top 60 ranked players in the World. Those 980ish old guys you refer to would be welcomed with Open arms (and palms!)



I know in TX at your typical B and C-tiers the 980 masters would be middle of the pack and can hang with the Open field.

We also may have 4+ 1000+ guys with E-mac and Coda showing up a bit and Yeti makes his home here in the winter but by adding more players to the field the cash line would move down and I would love to see our field sizes in Open reach more than 15-20 at these events.

Howdy Scooter

You know exactly what I am talking about since you played Sylmar and EIEIO this year. Tell those folks what the Sylmar Open field was like!

Cheers, DD

Howdy Scooter

You know exactly what I am talking about since you played Sylmar and EIEIO this year. Tell those folks what the Sylmar Open field was like!

Cheers, DD



Crabtree and I won $24 for last cash shooting 1000+ and I think It was Lil Paul's only missed cash.

With that said I think the rounds in Cali were rated a little high especially at EI.

And both of those events were C-Tiers!!!

(I agree about the inflated rounds at EIEIO)

Well Sylmar would have been a lot easier if there were more than 10 players considering there were 5 1000+ players.

A 980 rated player should be able to compete at MOST B and C tiers in open as it usually only takes 1 stroke per round above their avg to cash and if they moved up the cash line would probably drop 10 points.

DD said :When I played in MADC tournaments in the late 90s the big dogs were Moser, Mela, Myers and Gangloff, with Pitts, Gawler, Gregory and Brinster on the rise. Nearly 10 years later and those same names are still near the top of the heap, even though most of them are now Masters aged. Where is the young blood in the MADC? Why are the best players in the region mostly the same as 10 years ago? Will flooding the Open field with older players strengthen our sport, or make it even less attractive for Ams to move up??

OK you sorta provided my argument for me .
All those players ( or most ) are at or over 40 and as good as they get , could easily play at a level in the open division and WIN let alone compete , especially at lower tiered events .

To top that off there are Linc Morgan , Bob Hoffman , and Jay Gobrect ( GRAND masters ) all playing 980 rated golf or better . Those you mentioned and the ones I did are just off the top of my head , without even looking up stats .

As far as up and commers , we have Nick Schnieder and 2or 3 others out of Sedgley woods in philly .

The whole jist of this arguement is who should play wiht the best and I beleive it is those who prove they can play with the best ( over 40 players with ratings comparable to the top players ) instead of up and commers who are normally a JUMP behind the top level players .
I have studied this for a while and I am willing to bet for every AM at 980 there is about 5-10 master players who are there and there are maybe 1-2 1000 rated ams but there are 10 ish 1000 rated master and grand master total .

Once again I am not for doing this at the A tier levels but at the lower levels of disc golf we should think less divisions due to the overlap that is obviously present .

Oh and my idea of 980 is based upon 50 point " divisions in PDGA golf .
OPEN 980 - 1030
Adv and pro master 930 -980
Am and pro grand masters 880 - 930
Intermidiate and legends 830 880

Combining that with only added cash to open division and much lower entry fees for protected divisions the results I would bet would be the FAIREST way to promote the sport and compitition .

I plan to run a C tier and B tier event with ONLY those divisions and those breaks offered and see what happens

Hey guys,
When you are evaluating event results - you can't just take an MPM score and pretend to insert it into an MPO field and expect to understand the ramifications of including all the MPM players together with the MPO players. Pick an event - any event - and 90% of the time you'll find the range of scores in MPM is within the MPO scoring range except for the last 2-3 places.
This means that both groups are shooting the exact same scores, and the older players are getting greater rewards for identical scores. This is an inequity that I have yet to see a rational argument for.

lafsale, can you adjust the division-ratings breaks and still sanction? good luck with the approach, it will be interesting to see the result. any idea is a good one when it comes to resolving this problem.

Why would you want to "grow the open field"? In most cases Open players are a net loss or break even. Aren't Am players are where tourney organizer get the most benefit? What motivation does anyone (other than open players who want more players in their divisions for more cash up for grabs) have to grow the open field?

mostly cuz of the P in PDGA.

running the risk of diverting the thread into the "should the PDGA keep trying to be the Pro/Am/GoodOfTheSport DGA" thread tho.

Howdy Craiger

I ran the numbers on the SoCal 2008 events. Here is the rundown (and yes, I am merely comparing the Open and Masters scores, if they were combined the money line would have changed, but it gives a good reference for relative performance):

Wintertime (B: 29 Open, 29 Masters) Good overlap

El Do (B: 37,17) Top Master = 7th in Open, rest overlap

Sylmar (C: 10,9) Top Masters = 2nd in Open, 2nd Masters out of money

Emerald Isle (C: 19,11) Top Masters 7th

HB (B: 28/21) Top Masters in Final 4 (Probably Wisecup), 2nd Master in 13th, 3rd out of money

Everngreen (B: 14,12): Top Master out of money.

Crescenta (C: 13,7) Top Master wins (Wisecup). 2nd Masters out of money

Sylmar (B: 12,24) Top Master out of money (top 3 Masters were GM age!)

Santa Maria (B:12,8) Top Master out of money

Sunrise (C: 24,4) Paid 2 masters, would have been 5th and 6th, won less than they would have in Open

Sun Valley (B: 16,5) 1st place Master = 3rd Open, 2nd place = 6th, each won $40 more than Open counterpart.

Coyote (B: 15,14) 1st Master = 3rd in Open (Wisecup), 2nd Master out of money.

So there you have it. There was good overlap in the cashing scores at 4/12 SoCal events, some overlap at 5/12, and no overlap at 3/12. If you take Wisecup (GM ranked 25th in the World) out of the mix then there was no overlap for 6/12 events.

It should also be added that several GMs can score near the top of the Masters field on occasion out here in SoCal.

Of course this does not mean they will perform as well on average if forced into Open. I will keep you posted on my peformance next year.

Ask yourself this: How many Boyce's out there would regularly play in tournaments if the Masters age was 49? New kids and houses can take a serious hit on the pocketbook, which is why my wife and I have an agreement that she does not give me grief about playing tournaments out of town if I sort of break even for the year (only happened once). Cheers, DD

Why would you want to "grow the open field"? In most cases Open players are a net loss or break even. Aren't Am players are where tourney organizer get the most benefit? What motivation does anyone (other than open players who want more players in their divisions for more cash up for grabs) have to grow the open field?



I think the main argument on this thread is not Pro vs. Am, but Open Pro vs. Pro Masters.

PAT wrote : lafsale, can you adjust the division-ratings breaks and still sanction? good luck with the approach, it will be interesting to see the result. any idea is a good one when it comes to resolving this problem.

At this point at X tiers you can pretty much do anything you want as long as you clear it with the tour manager .
I have done different events in the past and have had the go normally under the X tier status but points are no diff nor is really anything else , just the ability of a TD to run something that does not go with the norm .
I did read that they want the breaks to stay about the same but when you ask normally you get .

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

How did the 980+ masters do at those events? If they are sub 980 I wouldn't expect them to be cashing in Open but I would say those above that should have a very good shot. Especially in areas where there are a lot of 980+ MPMs who would increase the amount of cashing spots in Open as would probably happen in Cali.

Howdy Scooter:

I would guess 3-5 MPM with ratings above 980 at most of these with the exception of the Wintertime, which had 9. I only played the Wintertime, El Dorado and Emerald Isle tournaments last year, as work got in the way for most of the summer and all of the Fall. DD

The whole jist of this arguement is who should play wiht the best



I thought this thread was about raising the Masters Age to 50, not "who should play with the best".

The whole jist of this arguement is who should play wiht the best



I thought this thread was about raising the Masters Age to 50, not "who should play with the best".



I don't think raising it would solve the problem of the best players not always playing against the best. Like many have said it would likely cause many of the current Masters to drop out. Hopefully they would move to Am if they are sub 970 though.

It seems that a ratings cap would solve the problem in a better way then just moving the age to 50. Then again I wouldn't be against forcing all the 40-49 y.o players in to Open either as that would mean more cash but I think only those who can compete should be expected to.

You don't really understand those guys at all if you think they will move to am. I know pro masters and grandmasters who almost never cash but no way would they play am.

That is why I believe the master age should not be raised , just put limits on who can play where via the ratings .
THe idea I put accross allows either pro or am divisions AMONG ratiings brakets with respect to age .

45 would be better than 50. I am one of those, currently age 48 and between the age of 40 and 45 my physical abilities were much more than between 45 and now. When I say physical abilities, I mean being able to play at my best for 4 rounds. I play great for two rounds but the two day events really take their toll on me on Sundays. I feel that my game will only go down from here and I look forward to Pro grand masters. While I can cash sometimes in the MPM, most of the top finisers are new MPM's in their early 40's. There is a HUGE difference between 40-45 and 45-50, at least with me there is. ;)

Your only 48???

just put limits on who can play where via the ratings

one of the best things I have read lately. if you are rated 990 or up you should be playing with the MPO

You don't really understand those guys at all if you think they will move to am. I know pro masters and grandmasters who almost never cash but no way would they play am.



I agree

Your only 48???



Yes 48 and still kicking your butt. :D

And I am one of those that will never play Am again. I'll hold down the permanent DFL spot before that happens. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Soo... coming from one who's physical abilities are beginning to wane at 46 (today!), and from one who is arguably the biggest masterbagger in New England...

I think if the Masters age is to be raised (should've happened a long time ago) it should be raised to 45 not 50. If you were EVER competitive, then there isn't a significant difference between 40 and 45, but there IS a difference between 40 and 50.

That having been said: I think the true solution is that more TDs should have the (Dodge)balls to simply not offer the Masters division if it is appropriate for the level of tournament they are running.

It works really well. Competitive players are deep down competitive. They'll come play no matter what.

At the end of the day, me winning $100 more than Brinster or some Frizzak when they beat me by 10 just ain't right (thanks Craig) but I'll still do it all day if I can...

Your only 48???



Yes 48 and still kicking your butt. :D

And I am one of those that will never play Am again. I'll hold down the permanent DFL spot before that happens. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



permanent DFL? Not if i'm there.That's my spot.

Sounds like a wager in the making. :D

They would have to create the TD mercy rule in case we were both deliberately missing putts on the last hole in order to finish last.

In my opinion Masters and all other age protected divisions should only be offered at SuperTours and Above. That would boost the Open fields everywhere for the B and C Tiers which I know is a problem in MI. We have about 8-10 Masters age players at most MI events and about 8-10 other pro players and alot of the time the Masters just run and hide in their own division instead of playing Open. Which would be fine at bigger events like A Tiers and above where attendance is high. But at smaller events it just weakens both fields. I see it all the time especially when there are more masters than non Masters players. 8-10 Masters guys (who are good enough to play Open) band together at a C Tier and play Masters and leave 4-5 of us Open guys to fight for 2 cash spot while they run off with the added cash and weaker playing field. But if they only offered Masters at A Tier events and higher we would consistantly get 15+ Players in the Open Division.

Just my opinion but what do I know...

Michigan TDs need to stop adding cash to that division. That would start to help and would take no effort from the PDGA. ;)

Why should TDs care? Seriously? Why should it matter to any TD whether Mark Ellis plays Grandmaster, Master or Open? Why should it matter to any TD whether he has 16 in Open and 4 in Master, or 12 and 8?

I can understand why these borderline pros care. Putting more players in their division lowers the borderline. But TDs? Why should any TD care whether Mills has a slightly better opportunity to win his money back?

They shouldn't, it doesn't align with their incentives. That says nothing about the merit of the idea though.

Why should TDs care? Seriously? Why should it matter to any TD whether Mark Ellis plays Grandmaster, Master or Open? Why should it matter to any TD whether he has 16 in Open and 4 in Master, or 12 and 8?

I can understand why these borderline pros care. Putting more players in their division lowers the borderline. But TDs? Why should any TD care whether Mills has a slightly better opportunity to win his money back?



TD's should care because of the role they play as TD. Like it or not, as a TD - you are an advocate. If you run sanctioned events, you are an advocate for the sanctioniong body, for their rule system, for their divisional system, etc.

When you vary from those systems, you become an advocate for those variants.

By being an advocate - you become a leader in your DG community - stating 'defacto' what you believe to be the "right" way to do things. Thus you provide example and influence on those around you about what the "right way" is (or what it should be).

Now some folks run events because they believe they can do it better than the guy across town, some do it because no one else will, some because they take pride in their course, there are myriad reasons. Regardless of their motivation, most want to provide the best venue possible, and want to fall into that category of doing it "the right way".

If along the way, you have issue with what the sanctioning body promotes as "the right way", then that is why you should care. Because your decisions are about more than just you.

Howdy All:

Many years ago I was running a tournament back in Maryland at a small course. There was a Virginia player who I thought was a sandbagger, and I had seen him shoot well on this course. So when he tried to sign up as an Advanced player I told him to move up to Open. He did not shoot that well, in fact not nearly as well as I had seen him play. I watched him over the years, and it was clear that he did not belong in Open, even though he was capable of playing at that level. His head simply was not in the right place for that type of competition. I gave him plenty of grief back then about it, and I regret that. Maybe my move out West has softened me, but I have much more of a "Live and Let Live" attitude. I don't pretend to know what is best for the sport, but I do hope that the Open division can find a way to grow. I have the feeling that many parts of the country have stagnated, and the rate that Open players are migrating into Masters exceeds the rate that Ams are migrating into Open. I have contacted the PDGA to try and get stats to see if that is the case. If it is then I agree with Dunipace, we do need to do something to increase the Open ranks. I am not sure if dragging old guys back into the mix is the solution, but it is one possibility.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know when the term "age-protected" came into the mainstream of the disc golf community? Any idea who may have coined that term? I simply don't recall hearing that descriptive term a decade ago. Personally, I've always considered the various masters-aged players as competing in "age-based" divisions......not protected divisions. :confused:

Rodney informs me,

"Bill Burns used the exact term 'age protected' in Oct 1999 on rec.sport.disc.

"Rick R used 'protected' when talking about masters in July of 1997 on rec.sport.disc. And there were other such references between 97 and 99."

Shortly after that is when the Masters and all the older age divisions were increased by 5 years starting in 2000.

My opinion is to limit any changes to ratings based changes. "Forcing" guys into a division, will likely result in losing competitors or having them play less frequently.

Change is easier when its enticed, not dictated, as we would all probably agree.

Anyone rated 985+ will play, regardless of age, so do what you want with those guys, me included (when I get there, 977 now), but take the others (majority) and tread cautiously.

Are the Pro Masters growing faster then Pro Open? That sounds like an Advanced/Open problem rather then the masters.
What business takes its fastest growing product and punishes it for out-performing?

Going by ratings eliminates all the age related BS, so that seems like a no-brainer to me.

Mike,

Why "punish" any 1 rated player more so than any other (as would happen / does happen) when you (we) have arbitrary rating demarcations, i.e. What's magical about 935? Why not have it 938? How about 941? Etc. As it is right now, a 935 player is cannon fodder in Advanced while a player 1 little point lower can potentially 'clean up' in Intermediate! At least with age splits (which are VERY prevalent in a LOT of other sports) are "god-induced" (as we have no control over how old we are / when we were born) - and a little less arbitrary than random rating breaks - and people can try to stay in shape and be 'good for their age' compared to being 'good for being a 935 player' (which makes no sense).

Karl

A rating break is no more "arbitrary" than a player's rating at any point in time. If a player has a rating near 935, it will not always be 935. If half the time they are under 935 and dominate Intermediate winning top prizes and half the time they are doormats in Advanced not cashing, it is no different from someone whose rating bounces around in the middle of Intermediate where they never win but get lower merch prizes maybe 2/3 of the time. The statistical economic prospects of both players are similar. If it were actually true that a player was locked into a 935 rating it would be less fair... but that doesn't happen. What does happen is players do get older every day and that can't be changed like your skill level can.

This is getting too coincidental Chuck! I post and you immediately post directly afterwards (others see my comments in the Rules section). Tsk tsk, Chuck.

And ratings breaks are TOTALLY arbitrary! Someone, maybe even you, CHOSE those numbers. And don't try to make your side of the story sound better by slinging BS about rating ranges...I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about any 1 ratings breakpoint being no better (or worse) than any other. 935, 850, 900...they are ALL just random numbers. And why any person should be 'penalized' for being '1 point too high' is just as random. Is the best we (as an organization) can do is be random? And the funny thing, is that it would truly be "OK" if it were randomly random...but it isn't...it is arbitrarily(man-made) random...which is way less fair.
Remember Chuck: GOD gave us our age, you only gave us our "ratings"...so don't even think ratings can be on the same par as with age /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
If ratings (which I think are a good thing) are here to stay, at least also allow other means of "classifications"...as we do with age-groups. The combination seems to be working well.

Karl

i agree with karl.

Karl,
I can see you have strong feelings on the subject, and I certainly appreciate that.

Can you explain again why you are against limiting divisions to skill level?
Or actually I guess you are pointing out that the separation between skill levels is arbitrary?
I can see that point.
But we do need structure, boundaries and limitations to make the entire system work, which will include, to a certain degree, some arbitrarily obtained divisions.
With ratings you (man) have control over yourself, while with age (god/God) you don't. Which seems fairer to use as a separator?
Anyway, I also agree with you that it is working pretty well as is, but wasn't this thread discussing what changes we COULD make(if we must)?
Peace,
Mike

I'm not disagreeing with age break divisions mainly due to tradition. But there's simply no argument that ratings ranges are more fair, if "fair" is what we are looking for in divisional competition. Select any age in the PDGA and the rating from top to bottom is typically more than 200 points. Even if you allow a 10 pt "error" in a player's rating, a 50-pt range has no more than a 70-pt range in skills. And some of our ranges are less than 50 pts like Intermediate at 35 pts.

Since a player's rating will fluctuate statistically by a few to several points each update, even if their skill level stays perfectly the same, it makes no difference what the specific rating break numbers are. Call them arbitrary if you wish but that doesn't mean they aren't fair. What's more important is the range of points which determines a player's statistical chances of cashing. As long as those ranges are fair, there's no one being discriminated against based on specific rating break numbers. The only exception is the pro player at 970-975 rating who is the only group with little chance in A-tiers.

Mike,

I just take the stance that "ratings" are "just numbers which - kind of - tell us how good we are (in comparison with other rated players)". They are NOTHING more than that! Chuck, et al "invented" those numbers and he (more so than anyone else) espouses their virtues ad infinatum. I know CK is "proud" of them, but they don't "rule" the entire sport (although he would like us to believe they do - thus making him stand in higher graces - by "tying" them into everything he can - from course tee lengths to competitive groupings).

I am against LIMITING divisions to skill levels because if it is THE ONLY WAY (my definition of limiting) it is arbitrary...or "lucky / unlucky" as you may call it. In a true "competitive atmosphere" ALL persons would be on 1 playing field (i.e. 1 division...no AM vs. Pro or gender / age / etc. "protection"), but I think we all believe there would be a decrease in the numbers of players attending tournaments if this were the case. And this is NOT what we're going after. So, as some sort of a 'compromise', "we" have developed 'categories'. It is HOW these categories are made that is my beef ! Arbitrary ratings breaks are putting way too much emphasis on something that can be manipulated (as can ratings - YOU have control over them) where as age is something that you have no control over (except wait until you hit the next age break and then you'll be "young for your age group" (and thus maybe have a better chance within it, etc.). Again, age is not the perfect competition scenario (all in 1 division is) but it is better (more pure / less that you can manipulate) than is arbitrary ratings' breaks.

And for those of you who jump all over me for the "manipulation conspiracy theory", it's not really that but the idea of being in my 50's (as I am) for 10 years and competing against others by age (or younger...as I can't seem to find enough GMs so always seem to play Masters) seems "fairer" - just trying to stay in good enough shape to succeed somewhat against them - than the scenario of one day potentially ever playing against a bunch of players all less-rated than me and the next week playing against players all higher-rated than me (when I've barely changed my ability at all (say a couple of points)).

In short "age" is more "fair" (than an arbitrary ratings break).

And as I mentioned, they (ratings) CAN be used - in some cases - to be A way of "segregating" (if the TD wishes) skill levels. I just hope that it will never be the ONLY way.

Karl

Sorry Karl, your argument loses but we'll continue with age breaks anyway. Even the age break backers fudge the process by lobbying difference between Pro vs Ams of a certain age.

thanks Karl for your clarification, and besides the swipe(s) at chuck, I can certainly see your point.
I wish NC had more GM's playing, then Stan McDaniel and Alan Beaver would quit picking on us younger Masters!
Anyway, I love the ratings, and feel that the pdga would not be as strong an attraction without them. I believe its considered one of the main reasons most people join/continue their membership.
Naturally, there are the clowns that manipulate their numbers, but how far will that get them either in the PDGA or LIFE?
I hope to see you on the course sometime Karl,

Mike

the scenario of one day potentially ever playing against a bunch of players all less-rated than me and the next week playing against players all higher-rated than me (when I've barely changed my ability at all (say a couple of points)).

Karl



Isn't it similar to when you have a birthday (or birth year by the PDGA guidelines?)... you are playing in a tourney as a Master one weekend and doing well then the next weekend you're allowed to play Grand Masters and you're killing it just because you're a week older?

You say the issue with 'skill based' is that the numbers are arbitrary but what if everyone played in one big division but there were 3 different 'payout' structures. (ie... 60 people in a tourney... top 20 are in the 'cash division' and top of those 20 get paid out... then the next 20 are in a division with the top of them getting paid out then the final 20 are in a lower division with the top of them getting paid out). I know someone like this would never fly but has it been talked about? I think it would be what would have to be done if we didnt have ratings. Although not perfect ratings keeps us from needing to split the field in such a way and allowing others to play against people in a similar ability set.

I personally think it should be something like this...
PRO
Men's - Open
Men's Masters (age 40+)
Women's Open
Women's Masters (age 40+)

I used to think masters could/should start @ 50 but with the trend of the sport I think the upper tier of ability will keep getting younger and younger and 40 is a good cutoff point. If you're 55 or 60 and you 'think' you are a 'Pro' and you should have a division... if you can't hang with the other Masters players then guess what... you probably aren't good enough to be called a pro and you can move down to the multitude of age breaks there might be in Advanced.

I know this would 'hurt the feelings' of a lot of great older pro players and founders of the sport but at some point they need to realize that maybe they aren't at the 'pro level' anymore.

I personally don't know that i'll ever be at that 'pro level' but hate the thought that I could stop playing today and jump back into the sport when I'm 60 or 70 and have a shot at winning a world title as a professional athlete.

Wow, I step away for lunch and I now have a 3-part conversation...and not much time to devote to any of it.


Chuck,
No, my argument doesn't lose - you just don't agree with it. Your..."Even the age break backers fudge the process by lobbying difference between Pro vs Ams of a certain age."...is just your typical way of clouding the points posed by semi-focusing on 1 point and steering that point to some other facet (but never really answering or talking about the issue). I've just come to expect that of you Chuck...as have some others on the PDGA MB.


Mike,
I don't mean to be malacious toward Chuck, it's just that he's a "diverter" (of issues) and a one-trick pony (any issue that he has a vested interest in). Inherently, I have reservations about anyone beating a drum in which 1) they have something to gain personally and, 2) can't discuss an issue without trying to 'pull it off course' (to fit their agenda / purpose). And while I respect Chuck for all the effort / time he's put into dg (maybe more than ANYONE else), he fits those 2 criteria to a tee...and thus I try to 'balance' his very subjective opinion with alternatives (as do others on the MB)...collectively, we may add up to as much (time) on the MB as he does alone.

My background (for my stance) comes from competitive chess years ago. Basically, ALL chess players are "pros"...in that they all play for both trophies and money. And before dg did the same, chess "categories" were (are) broken down into ratings. Classifications are usually 200 point groups (1600-1799, 1800-1999, etc.). I have personally seen players (more than 1 time) "throw" 1 game to get his rating just into the next bracket down. Then, the next tournament (which was a REALLY big tournament - The World Open in Philly, PA) they went and won that category...and won the $10,000.00 first prize...for THAT division! You saw it correctly...10K for a win in what might be analogous to winning the INT div. of a dg tournament.

It was because of this "money issue" that, when I started playing dg and joined the PDGA, I vowed that I would always be an "AM" (if I play Pro, it's because they aren't offering AM divisions and I want to play dg anyway - as I have at biscoe's VA Pro-day tournament in the past...and had I won cash, I would "declined"). Big money chess just soured me from the potential of big money 'anything else'. Understand, that whenever you bring money into the picture - and there is no other option to "slice it" except have ratings breaks (which ARE controlled by the player), there WILL, WILL, WILL be 'less than scrupulous' people "taking advantage of such". My point is let's set up the program in a way that will lessen (and hopefully eliminate) that possibility.

I too hope to see you on the course some day!


Andrew,

Similar, but not. In age-brackets, they're changing only once in ten years and you can always go back (but never forward). In ratings-brackets, they COULD change a LOT more frequently than that!
In your second paragraph, your scenario is a possibility, but again, I 1) believe ratings are good, but 2) believe them to be just approximate ability indicators. Nothing more.


Anyone else reading this,

I will surely make a LOT of "enemies" when I say that the majority (well, a lot of them anyway...) of discussions all boil down to "payout".
Payout.
Let me say it again. Payout.
Once everyone starts to think about how to improve the sport and stops thinking about it in terms of "payout" (read: personal income, ME, ME, ME, I won money therefore I won, etc.), I think we'll be able to make some concrete inroads towards getting better.
Unless the only way you think "better" is, is via money (which is typical of today's society). If that's the case, then you (whomever you are) and I will always be on opposite sides of the see-saw.


Karl

I know this would 'hurt the feelings' of a lot of great older pro players and founders of the sport but at some point they need to realize that maybe they aren't at the 'pro level' anymore.

I personally don't know that i'll ever be at that 'pro level' but hate the thought that I could stop playing today and jump back into the sport when I'm 60 or 70 and have a shot at winning a world title as a professional athlete.



I agree, but there is no way the PDGA can do this without suffering a major backlash

there will be those who say they are the best in their age range, because they have gotten used to the current age breaks

then there will be those who do not want to play for plastic anymore, so they will never play in an am division and would rather quit playing tournaments, than play 1 big masters division

I get Karl's point about the arbitrary ratings breaks, but I also get Chuck's point about player ratings never staying the same. If you are one point under the ratings break, it's not like you can consciously try to stay at that exact rating. In fact, usually when you excel in a tournament or few tournaments and win your division, you are playing well above that rating and will be forced to move up to a more competitive division after the nexting ratings update.

Additionally, in fourteen years of playing competitive disc golf, half of that time in the player ratings era, I have never seen or heard of a player purposely tank to maintain his player rating, division, etc. Not in a PDGA-sanctioned tournament, nor in any unsanctioned event, nor in a monthly, Ice Bowl, BYOP Doubles, random draw doubles, Ace Race, World's Biggest, tag round, glow round, or casual round. In every competitive disc golf event I've ever participated in, all I've ever witnessed is people trying their absolute hardest to shoot the lowest possible score they can.

Karl, this isn't chess. There isn't $10,000 at stake. No one tanks to stay under the ratings break, especially when we're playing for amatuer prizes and each other's entry fees. Get over the arbitrary ratings breaks and just understand that age protection is nothing more than ability protection. And what are player ratings? - the best possible measure we have of ability.

Karl, I played competitive chess and in fact looked at its system when considering the ratings process. But it's not relevant since it's a match play system with only three outcomes. You know exactly how many points you'll lose if you lose to a player of a particular rating so it's possible to sandbag pretty easily. We have multiple score outcomes in DG and if you shoot too low, the round doesn't count.

You can't do it easily and definitely not cost effectively in disc golf. Unless you know the SSA and can determine exactly what score you need to shoot to pull down your rating, you can't do it because truly tanking a round will mean it gets tossed. I'd have to calculate pretty precisely to do it myself and I have the info needed. I would need at least 4 tournaments to drop my rating below 915 from 938 since I normally have 25-30 rounds in my rating. And I'd have to hit the score that was right at 60-70 points below my rating in 8 straight rounds to do it. That's assuming the TDs all turn in their reports on time for the ratings update.

That's in the neighborhood of $200 in entry fees plus travel expenses and strictly showing up at those events with the purpose of finishing last. All so I could qualify for Adv Grandmaster to win merch prizes for at most 8 events if I play every weekend for 2 months before my rating bounces back up? As they say on SNL, "Seriously, Karl, seriously?"

Karl-

These age breaks are purely arbitrary as well.

Why 40, 50, 60, and 70?

Why not 37 years 8 months and 3 days?

Ding-ding-ding!

I haven't seen any mention of why we separate the 40 somethings from the 20 and 30 somethings. Our sport is more comparable to baseball than anything else. 40 year olds can sometimes compete and stay in the game, but basically are over the hill. Extremely rare is the 45 year old that stays in baseball. NEVER do they stay until 50.

Ball golf is actually not comparable to discgolf in this area. You can usually stay competitive until you are 50 competing with the youngsters.

I just turned 40. Asking me to keep up with these younger guys AGAIN (it was 35 before and I missed by a couple years) would make me pretty much quit the PDGA game.

I like the idea of smaller purses for Masters so guys with huge ratings can go where they belong, in the OPEN division.

I just finished my first Open competition in almost 8 years. I saw some hot golf and shot a bit below my player rating to tie for 7th in a field of 24 and win back my entry fee. My score would have tied for 2nd place in Masters, one shot behind the winner Dagoberta Bribiesca (nice final round Dago!!). Although I missed being in the hunt for a win, I thoroughly enjoyed shooting with the "youngsters". Some of the crushes I witnessed were other worldly.

I figure I am about 3-4 strokes a round away from being competitive in the Open division in So Cal. This equates to eliminating most mental mistakes, having an impeccable short game, and dialing the course in before the tournament. Nikko Locastro shot a 52 in the last round that made my hard fought 58 seem pedestrian. Cheers, DD

Maybe you should head back east, in Maryland you only have to beat JG, No Spin, Craigger and PP :cool:
Whoops, their all masters age and gasp No Spin a GM now. :D

Howdy Sharky! Yep, that was one of the big differences I noticed when I moved to SoCal; the competition is much stiffer out here. Take all those guys you mentioned and put them near the cash line and you have a typical B or C tier. Check out the player ratings for the Wintertime Open and you will see what I mean. (By the way, Philo showed up late for the first tee which explains his final round). This B-Tier had two of the young guns featured in the recent Flying Disc magazine: Nikko Lacostra and Paul McBeth (who made the cover). I think Nikko is staying out this way for the winter, and Paul is a So Cal regular. I had hoped to catch an early round with either of them, but alas, no luck. I heard that Paul hit the basket on the 500' hole 10. Wish I could have seen it!

Next Up: Emerald Isle March 21. DD

By the way, before I toot the SoCal horn too loud I should mention that we had 3 players withdraw from the tournament last week due to the forecasted potential of rain. And no, it did not rain.

I am going to make a new suggestion. Why don't we make a new pro division, Junior pro. In this division you have to be under 25 to compete. I feel this divsion is necessary because I am tired of playing against all these old guys who have been playing for ten years longer than I've been alive. They have had so much more time to practice and perfect their game it just doesn't seem fair to me. Also, I feel more confortable playing with people my own age because we can talk about similar things. I am tired hearing about other player's grown kids and how they are considering retireing soon. Even if there is not as much money, because of a smaller field, I think this division would be more enjoyable to me and my fellow "youngsters." Now I am not serious at all about this, but I don't see how this is much diffferent than what master age players complain about. In my mind there is just as much reason to have a masters division as a junior pro division. At some point if you don't take care of your body or you have an unfortunate medical issue then Am competition might be more realistic. I feel like the PDGA started to create divisions, at some point, for people who once played Open and have to much pride, or something else, to step back into the AM field. Granted alot of these players are the ones who have helped build this sport into what it is today and I am very greatful for them and all they have done, but they are the ones who run the majority of the tournaments, so why would they not offer the division they play in? I think the PDGA needs to make a stand here and increase the Open field, increase the Open payout, and increasing the number of possible tourning pros.

If you do the math, it's better to reduce the number of total pros of all ages to increase the payouts for the true open pros at the top when there's added cash.

I am going to make a new suggestion. Why don't we make a new pro division, Junior pro. In this division you have to be under 25 to compete. I feel this divsion is necessary because I am tired of playing against all these old guys who have been playing for ten years longer than I've been alive. They have had so much more time to practice and perfect their game it just doesn't seem fair to me. Also, I feel more confortable playing with people my own age because we can talk about similar things. I am tired hearing about other player's grown kids and how they are considering retireing soon. Even if there is not as much money, because of a smaller field, I think this division would be more enjoyable to me and my fellow "youngsters." Now I am not serious at all about this, but I don't see how this is much diffferent than what master age players complain about. In my mind there is just as much reason to have a masters division as a junior pro division. At some point if you don't take care of your body or you have an unfortunate medical issue then Am competition might be more realistic. I feel like the PDGA started to create divisions, at some point, for people who once played Open and have to much pride, or something else, to step back into the AM field. Granted alot of these players are the ones who have helped build this sport into what it is today and I am very greatful for them and all they have done, but they are the ones who run the majority of the tournaments, so why would they not offer the division they play in? I think the PDGA needs to make a stand here and increase the Open field, increase the Open payout, and increasing the number of possible tourning pros.


Yeah Jordan! Because then you'd get to play on my card at tournaments a LOT more! ;)

Granted alot of these (master-aged) players are the ones who have helped build this sport into what it is today and I am very greatful for them and all they have done, but they are the ones who run the majority of the tournaments, so why would they not offer the division they play in? I think the PDGA needs to make a stand here and increase the Open field, increase the Open payout, and increasing the number of possible tourning pros.



I think you hit the nail on the head, JR....and you didn't even know it. How 'bout you running an event? How 'bout you make a stand by organizing an event which offers no division for old men......or utilize a ratings-based divisional structure. The PDGA allows various types of tournament formatting so the organization has already taken the first step by providing options to tournament directors. The question is, how many tournament directors will make a stand and organize a sanctioned event outside the traditional divisional format?

Realistically, focusing on moving the old men into the open division is kind of like this spendulous package which was recently approved on Capitol Hill.....it will probably only work for the short term. The focus should be on growing the amateur participation within our sport. The more ams you draw into the fold, the more open players you'll have down the road. Trickle-up discenomics, if you will. :)

I am going to make a new suggestion. Why don't we make a new pro division, Junior pro. In this division you have to be under 25 to compete. I feel this divsion is necessary because I am tired of playing against all these old guys who have been playing for ten years longer than I've been alive. They have had so much more time to practice and perfect their game it just doesn't seem fair to me. Also, I feel more confortable playing with people my own age because we can talk about similar things. I am tired hearing about other player's grown kids and how they are considering retireing soon. Even if there is not as much money, because of a smaller field, I think this division would be more enjoyable to me and my fellow "youngsters."



Thanks for the morning laugh.

That's pretty much what it comes down to though - Masters players don't want to have to suffer through the "horror" of having to spend 3 hours in a foursome with someone in their 20s who has the exact same player rating. Oh, no! What will we talk about? I can't relate to this person!

The "horrors" that drove me out of Open were primarily related to attitude. Chairs slammed into trees, bags kicked and tirades launched over missed putts, endless [censored] and whining about the course or the baskets. Maybe I was snake bit my last years playing Open in 2000/2001, but I endured enough miserable rounds to last a life time. 4 of my 7 rounds at the Worlds that year featured at least one player who was way out of line. At the USDGC my group got into a screaming match over a called foot fault (the guy had one foot out of bounds when he threw; I had warned him to watch out for his back foot and when he faulted I called it and he went ballistic). It is no fun when one [censored] ruins it for the entire group, and I got sick of playing with [censored]. And then much to my dismay I started seeing similar crap from a select few players in Masters.

My three rounds in Open last week were a joy. There was plenty of laughter, some hot golf, and the expected amount of frustration or grumbling over poorly executed shots. Nothing like the travesties I endured way back when. I hope the Spirit of the Game continues throughout my SoCal Open journey this year. Cheers, DD

Clever.

The assumption, of course, is that if you don't offer Pro Masters, all those guys will play Open, increasing the field and therefore the total purse. The best over-40s probably will. Of the ones with little chance to cash in Open, some will play Am. And some will play fewer tournaments, or none altogether, which I don't think is the path to where we want to go.

Gotcha's advice is good---any TD is free to try this and see how it plays out. (Which, for reference, I'll be doing next month for the 6th year running.)

Clever.

The assumption, of course, is that if you don't offer Pro Masters, all those guys will play Open, increasing the field and therefore the total purse. The best over-40s probably will. Of the ones with little chance to cash in Open, some will play Am. And some will play fewer tournaments, or none altogether, which I don't think is the path to where we want to go.

Gotcha's advice is good---any TD is free to try this and see how it plays out. (Which, for reference, I'll be doing next month for the 6th year running.)



Who exactly are these guys "with little chance to cash in Open"?? My first foray into lumping the MPM and MPO players together (as well as the MA1), yielded results where 80% of MPM players cashed. I think the idea that if an MPM player were to play MPO - he'd have no chance to cash - is based on the notion of plucking that player out of the current divisional structure - and plopping him into the current (unpopulated) MPO division. That's just not a very real assessment.
When you put all the competitive MEN together - MPM players stand an excellent chance of cashing. Those that choose not to play will do so not because they are unable to get paid - they will do so because they won't get paid AS MUCH (in general). But this is what is at the heart of people's beef with the divisional structure as it is (at least mine is). The notion that I or any other 40+ player deserves to be paid more for the SAME SCORE as an MPO player is at the heart of our divisional dysfunction. Worrying about the guys that'll take their disc and go home is what is what we don't want to do. If we want to promote COMPETITION - we need to stop catering to ever diminishing skill ranges. The 30-40 point ratings breaks are just absurd.

Tell the truth, I'm not sure who they are. Looking back, both of the tournaments I hosted last year lumped all the Pros together in one division. I can see how the over-40s did (well), but have no idea who didn't show.

Throwing in the Advanced goes beyond the issue of whether there should be age protection. If you just combined the Open and Pro Masters, on courses where they play the same layout, would the lower Pro Masters finish more strokes out of the cash than they do now?

I don't have a dog in this fight---I'm a 50-year-old Am, 900-rated and declining---but I do tend to favor actions that increase overall participation. I'd rather people not pick up their disc and go home.

"If we want to promote COMPETITION - we need to stop catering to ever diminishing skill ranges. "

Among the problems is defining who "we" are. The disc golf world includes players with different personal situations, different goals, different ideas of what disc golf should be. Some want bigger payouts. Some want to see disc golf on ESPN, will millionaire players at the top. Some want it to be a game. Some are in it for social reasons. Some could care less about payouts.

So we try to accommodate many divergent views as best we can because we're too small not to,

My personal wish is for far fewer divisions. Judging by where people register when all divisions are offered, this isn't everyone's wish.

Among the problems is defining who "we" are. The disc golf world includes players with different personal situations, different goals, different ideas of what disc golf should be. Some want bigger payouts. Some want to see disc golf on ESPN, will millionaire players at the top. Some want it to be a game. Some are in it for social reasons. Some could care less about payouts.

So we try to accommodate many divergent views as best we can because we're too small not to,

My personal wish is for far fewer divisions. Judging by where people register when all divisions are offered, this isn't everyone's wish.



And therein lies in the problem. Even though reducing the number of divisions is intuitively absolutely the right thing to do from a spirit of competition standpoint, it will never happen. People have been weaned on the current system for far too long. There are far, far too many people who want their small divisions and the chance to be a winner. There are far too many Masters players who wouldn't stand for "the horror" of having to play in ratings based divisions against younger golfers of the EXACT SAME ABILITY as them. They would cry bloody murder if a Masters ratings cap were enacted, or ratings based divisions were enacted, or other sweeping changes to the competition system were enacted.

Even though reducing the number of divisions is intuitively absolutely the right thing to do from a spirit of competition standpoint, it will never happen. People have been weaned on the current system for far too long. There are far, far too many people who want their small divisions and the chance to be a winner. There are far too many Masters players who wouldn't stand for "the horror" of having to play in ratings based divisions against younger golfers of the EXACT SAME ABILITY as them.



It has happened. As a masters-aged player (42), I competed in two separate events last year in which both tournaments offered ratings-based divisions. The two events were the Patapsco Punisher (http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=7755) and the Seneca Creek Soiree (http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=8256) and I would say each of them were successful in regard to attendance. I would play more ratings based tournaments if 1) there were more ratings-based events to choose from and 2) if I like the course(s) in which the event is contested.

Jeff, I assume what you probably meant to say when you typed "it will never happen" was in reference to the PDGA eliminating the traditional age-based divisions altogether. If I am correct in that assumption, I agree with you that "it will never happen". And maybe it should never happen considering the fact players are provided options as to what type of divisional play they want to offer in their local events. Kudos to Craig Gangloff, Rich Myers and any other TD who stepped outside to box to do something different.

Jeff, I assume what you probably meant to say when you typed "it will never happen" was in reference to the PDGA eliminating the traditional age-based divisions altogether. If I am correct in that assumption, I agree with you that "it will never happen". And maybe it should never happen considering the fact players are provided options as to what type of divisional play they want to offer in their local events. Kudos to Craig Gangloff, Rich Myers and any other TD who stepped outside to box to do something different.



Yes, that is what I meant to say. You are correct in that assumption.

However, while offering choices sounds like a great idea in theory, I disagree with the philosophy of "Let's offer TDs and players what type of divisional play they want to offer in their local events" because then there will always be the pressure to stick with the traditional format where everyone's a winner. As opposed to the alternative which is to lead by example and set up a proper competition structure which promotes a healthy spirit of competition and doesn't result in multiple overlapping divisions of exactly the same ability. THAT will never happen.

Jeff, I assume what you probably meant to say when you typed "it will never happen" was in reference to the PDGA eliminating the traditional age-based divisions altogether. If I am correct in that assumption, I agree with you that "it will never happen". And maybe it should never happen considering the fact players are provided options as to what type of divisional play they want to offer in their local events. Kudos to Craig Gangloff, Rich Myers and any other TD who stepped outside to box to do something different.



Yes, that is what I meant to say. You are correct in that assumption.

However, while offering choices sounds like a great idea in theory, I disagree with the philosophy of "Let's offer TDs and players what type of divisional play they want to offer in their local events" because then there will always be the pressure to stick with the traditional format where everyone's a winner. As opposed to the alternative which is to lead by example and set up a proper competition structure which promotes a healthy spirit of competition and doesn't result in multiple overlapping divisions of exactly the same ability. THAT will never happen.




Usually there is pressure to add more or at least it would seem with the recent hacking of the ADV division into two parts.

Usually there is pressure to add more or at least it would seem with the recent hacking of the ADV division into two parts.



Excellent point - the Expert division created yet another overlapping division of players with almost the same skillset.

.. there will always be the pressure to stick with the traditional format where everyone's a winner.



What are you talking about? (please see below)

A tournament of 100 players in one division that pays out the top 40% will pay out to 40 players.

How many will cash if there are 10 divisions and the payout is 40%?

What are you talking about? (please see below)
A tournament of 100 players in one division that pays out the top 40% will pay out to 40 players.
How many will cash if there are 10 divisions and the payout is 40%?


It is still 40 players, but we now have 10 winners and that feels all warm and fuzzy inside. In reality, somebody shot the best score out of all of these 100 people. Their reward is diminished not only monetarily, but also mentally because folks tend to only look within the division the are competing therefore they can relate to the division they play in and not so much feel kudos for the four other divisional winners that may have smoked the other six divisional winners in total score.

Obviously we need definition between an amateur and pro disc golfer, but beyond that we start to muddy the water.

This weekend we are looking at 10 Masters compared to 6 Open players. Once the player participation tilt went to majority Masters, those that could compete in Open started filing in where the bigger slice of pie is. Now that's competition! :confused:

What are *you* talking about? Where did I suggest all tournaments should be one division?

There's a better solution, but a competition system which yields results like this (http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=8467#) is why there will always be pressure to stick with the current system - so that everyone has the chance to be a division winner and feel all warm and fuzzy inside. :D

Their reward is diminished not only monetarily, but also mentally because folks tend to only look within the division the are competing therefore they can relate to the division they play in and not so much feel kudos for the four other divisional winners that may have smoked the other six divisional winners in total score.



^ ^ ^ ^ Candidate for best run-on sentence of the year. :D

there will always be the pressure to stick with the traditional format where everyone's a winner.



I keep seeing this and I think it continues to miss a main point. Out of a 10 person 'protected' divison, 6 to 7 don't cash, and at most events 3 to 5 really never had a chance to cash based on their rating. Yet they still signed up for the 'protected' division. The focus continues on the top 1 or 2 that might be able to play Open, but what about the bottom 5? They aren't playing where they do because 'everyone's a winner'. It doesn't wash, and people in this situation out number the group of Masters that some so strongly feel should be forced to play Open.

td's are free to run events with whatever divisions they choose- td freedom is one of the only things this org has going for it. limit it and i'm taking my ball and going home whether the limitation is to the type of event i choose to run or not.

I have to agree with what John stated. Keep the flexibility (in what the TD can offer to us) intact.

We ALL have varying opinions (some rather fervent) on "...which divisions / classifications MUST be mandated...", but if it ever gets to this, we will ALL lose something (friends, money, prestigue, respect, etc.).

One of the neat things about dg is that is CAN be very structured but doesn't NEED to be. But if someone gets the power to "carve in stone" what THEY want, it will surely "scare" off a lot of people...and why do that...just to "prove" that you're the master of some (small) domain? Woopie, here's a feather in your cap!

Place too much structure within the system and it will be severely counterproductive - to at least a lot of us who are just trying to "spread the word about a good sport" (for those of you in a "power-play", well, you've got some other agenda I guess....).

Karl

The only agenda is to make for a competition system that doesn't result in a ridiculous number of overlapping divisions of essentially the same skill set, nor offers finanical incentives or rewards for playing in protected divisions and/or sandbagging; instead, it offers increasing rewards for increasing skill level and essentially installs a fundamental spirit of competition.

So Jeff what is your ideal competition system?

So Jeff what is your ideal competition system?



It doesn't matter. We'll never, ever move away from the current system.

Jeff,

I know we have "differing opinions" (on this matter) and that's OK.

But I'm not advocating one certain way - even if it were MY "preferred" way. I'm saying "the market will dictate what players want" and we (the PDGA) should embrace all variations. Sometimes it's better for a leader to not dictate but to succeed "by listening and then echoing sentiments".

Think of it as a case of "you can attract more bees with honey (variety in formats) than you can with vinegar (my way or the highway)".


Karl

That may be your only agenda Jeff, but I think there are others out there. :)

Karl, CK didn't respond first, so your stalker string is broken. :o

As to the subject.
The PDGA is working towards what I think is the right direction.
At least in payout.
The norm was 33% for payout and now they urge 40% to 50%. Flater payouts does reduce sandbagging somewhat.
Also encouraging players packs and such goes a long way to enhance everyones enjoyment of tournaments.
Spreading out the Am payout does not impact the events ability to generate cash. (For whatever reasons.)

Ratings breaks can be identified. I prefer the term skill plateau.
I see it when the scorecards come in. I think the ratings system is flawed but it is functional and there is a lot invested in it.
I think the skill plateaus will be identified in the future by some combination of Chuck's or someone else's Score Rating System and a future course ratings scale.
Meanwhile the arbitrary breaks offered can suffice with age protection for the larger populace.

For Pros, the age issue is a self regulating one. Players compete in age protected divisions for a variety of reasons. But they know they are not playing against the top seeds. A few years of glory as the young master and soon some younger player will join that division and so on.

I think, when the sport really grows, the pro question will answer itself.

Karl, I'm sure if we put $10 PDGA memberships for everyone to a general membership vote, "the market would dictate it." Of course, that's not the right thing to do and would undoubtedly result in the end of most of our essential programs and initiatives.

"The market will dictate what players want" is what already has occurred with our competition system. And now that every one is weaned on it, we're stuck with it for the rest of time.

You know better than to deal in absolutes Jeff.
We are not stuck with anything "for the rest of time." Change can happen and does. See my example above.

Jeff,

Your...

Karl, I'm sure if we put $10 PDGA memberships for everyone to a general membership vote, "the market would dictate it." Of course, that's not the right thing to do and would undoubtedly result in the end of most of our essential programs and initiatives.

"The market will dictate what players want" is what already has occurred with our competition system. And now that every one is weaned on it, we're stuck with it for the rest of time.


...puzzles me. What's wrong with that? Usually (not always, so don't go making irrelevant analogies - like your first quote above), in a participation event (sport or otherwise), what the general population wants is NOT bad for that event! Why are you persistently trying to force feed us (the rest of the PDGA) your beliefs? We know your side of the story (and standing up for it is great) but "you'll get your wish" (as to there being SOME events run as you would wish all events would be) and "others will get their wishes"...if variety is let to exist. But you (or others) mandating something isn't the best for EVERYONE, sorry.


Bob,

Your...

Karl, CK didn't respond first, so your stalker string is broken.


...made me laugh out loud so loud that someone in the hall popped in my office to see what was going on! Thanks, I needed that laugh!


Hope to see both of you at Matt's IB Sunday.

Karl

Eyes still watchin'

Usually (not always, so don't go making irrelevant analogies - like your first quote above), in a participation event (sport or otherwise), what the general population wants is NOT bad for that event! Why are you persistently trying to force feed us (the rest of the PDGA) your beliefs? We know your side of the story (and standing up for it is great) but "you'll get your wish" (as to there being SOME events run as you would wish all events would be) and "others will get their wishes"...if variety is let to exist. But you (or others) mandating something isn't the best for EVERYONE, sorry.



The problem is that "what the general population wants" has created a tournament culture which makes events like Craig's (and steps in the right direction) look extremely unfavorable in comparison. We're now weaned on our current tournament culture, and can go never go in any other direction. The vast majority *want* unjust financial incentives to play in protected divisions, multiple overlapping divisions of the same skill, bloated amateur prize payouts, tournaments with 13 divisions for 80 golfers so that everyone has the chance to be a winner, blah, blah, blah.

This isn't about "force feeding my beliefs" "getting my wishes" or "mandating something that is the best for EVERYONE." In fact, quite the opposite: all I've done all along is lament that a proper competition system will *never* come to fruition.

This discussion has run its course, Karl. We're stuck with the status quo. End of story.

craig's event structure seems to me to be well received, as was dick's at patapsco/rockburn. i have heard few if any complaints from folks who participated in them.

why don't you run one yourself instead of bemoaning the status quo? that is the good thing about the current state of affairs- if you want to run an event your way, you can. surely someone who is so certain of what is best for other people would be willing to actually attempt to facilitate the structure he believes best rather than just complain about how other people do it in a free system...if you're not willing to extend yourself that far then your complaining is merely that for its own sake. you've given up without even beginning.

run a good event on a good course and people will come regardless of the structure.

all I've done all along is lament that a proper competition system will *never* come to fruition.



At this point in the development of the game, I don't see anything improper about a competition format that encourages a lot of people to participate.

There are more and more tournaments every year that offer one or two divisions, that are oriented towards pure competition, rather than good-time feel-good competition. Until we are big enough to attract the sponsors that a sport like tennis has, you just got to deal with the consequences of not being big enough to attract the sponsors that a sport loke tennis has.

One of those consequences is we need lots of amateurs at every tournament to pay the bills so the pros can play for their entry fees, and a little sponsor money, and a little money skimmed off the amateurs. So long as we need lots of amateurs to pay the bills, we're going to have lots of divisions for them to play, and win in, and feel good about their performance, even though they sucked soda pop compared to the open pros.

That's just the way things are right now. So long as we're going to continue wasting every spare nickle on adding insignificant cash to the local pro purse instead of investing in the growth of the sport, [and yes, I am going for the run-on sentence of the week award] we're going to be here for a long time. Hunker down. Get used to it.

Karl, I'm sure if we put $10 PDGA memberships for everyone to a general membership vote, "the market would dictate it." Of course, that's not the right thing to do and would undoubtedly result in the end of most of our essential programs and initiatives.



The "market" consists of two or more parties - Buyer and Seller. The seller in your silly example simply wouldn't offer their product for $10. It's not up for a vote, it's a matter of what is on offer and are people are willing to pay - when these parties shimmy and shake, the magic happens and we have a product people are willing to offer for sale and others are willing to lay down their hard earned money to buy.


"The market will dictate what players want" is what already has occurred with our competition system. And now that every one is weaned on it, we're stuck with it for the rest of time.



It's a system of give and take. "The market" also evolves and changes over time.



Try evading this one!

Karl, I'm sure if we put $10 PDGA memberships for everyone to a general membership vote, "the market would dictate it." Of course, that's not the right thing to do and would undoubtedly result in the end of most of our essential programs and initiatives.



The "market" consists of two or more parties - Buyer and Seller. The seller in your silly example simply wouldn't offer their product for $10. It's not up for a vote, it's a matter of what is on offer and are people are willing to pay - when these parties shimmy and shake, the magic happens and we have a product people are willing to offer for sale and others are willing to lay down their hard earned money to buy.


"The market will dictate what players want" is what already has occurred with our competition system. And now that every one is weaned on it, we're stuck with it for the rest of time.



It's a system of give and take. "The market" also evolves and changes over time.



Try evading this one!




Maybe they should find the equilibrium point then? Right now at $75 there is a large surplus of memberships. I bet the best price would be around $40 flat.

The vast majority *want* unjust financial incentives to play in protected divisions, multiple overlapping divisions of the same skill, bloated amateur prize payouts, tournaments with 13 divisions for 80 golfers so that everyone has the chance to be a winner, blah, blah, blah.



Again, the majority is not getting paid, and many of these participants have little chance at winning. Their decision is not made on a financial basis. The 'unjust financial incentive' doesn't hold water if you look beyond the few. The 'touring sponsors' of most series are getting their return in investment in currencies beyond (and IMO more valuable than) money. Take these away and you'll reduce the number of people willing to make the investment.

As for bloated payouts, I dont see how a division structure change applies. If a TD pays out 100% of entry fees to one huge division vs. 100 small, how is one more bloated than the other?

Reducing am divisions could result in fewer peole considering the leap into open. Is it healthier to pay out smaller amounts to a larger number of people vs.having a couple of 980 ranked ams walking away with baskets and armfuls of other stuff? How does reducing divisions help promote moving up to pro if we go back to large am divisions with crazy amounts of 'loot' for the winners? Why would the top guys leave? Because their garage can hold no more discs and their yard isn't big enough for another basket?

Maybe they should find the equilibrium point then? Right now at $75 there is a large surplus of memberships. I bet the best price would be around $40 flat.



Now, you're changing the subject. We were talking about the economics of tournaments.

I wonder if the "membership is too expensive" whine is even more tired than the "there are too many divisions" cry.

why don't you run one yourself instead of bemoaning the status quo? that is the good thing about the current state of affairs- if you want to run an event your way, you can.



Why would anyone come? When across town, or the next day, there's a tournament where:

1) 990+ and other highly skilled Masters players get their own protected division instead of playing in Open where they belong

2) other highly skilled golfers can hide in an Expert amateur division

3) the top amateur players are paid out with hundreds of dollars in merchandise that they can sell on eBay, while Pros who shot better scores go home empty-handed

4) where there's 13 divisions for 80 players, of which many are overlapping divisions of golfers with exactly the same skill sets, so that everyone has the chance to be a division winner and bring home a trophy and feel all warm and fuzzy

5) etc.

I can't compete with that. This is the system we've established and what people have come to expect.


At this point in the development of the game, I don't see anything improper about a competition format that encourages a lot of people to participate.



You (and a few others on this thread) may not, but the competition system discussion has been going on for almost a decade on this PDGA DISCussion Board, and I'm tired of rehashing it again for the umpteenth time.

If there's one thing we can agree 100% on, it's that we're going to be here for a long time. Hunker down. Get used to it. :D

It is still 40 players, but we now have 10 winners and [..]. In reality, somebody shot the best score out of all of these 100 people. Their reward is diminished not only monetarily, but ...



Their reward isn't diminished monetarily, that person isn't entitled to a dollar of my money unless I say so . . . You want a slice of my pie, come sit at my table. You want a slice of Climo's pie you eat lunch with him.

We have Pro-only events, USDGC, Pro Worlds, NT events, etc. Ams already support pro payouts by buying fundraising discs, DVDs and other merchandise.

Jeff,

Your...

If there's one thing we can agree 100% on, it's that we're going to be here for a long time. Hunker down. Get used to it.


...sounds fine to me!

Scenario (that probably would never happen...but it may be similar / relevant to this discussion):
Tiger Woods just happens to be playing in a tournament on the same golf course that I am playing that day. He is playing with a bunch of his "peers". I'm on the other side of the course playing. Now while we both have (probably) had to pay-to-play, I have absolutely NO, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH expectations of beating his score with mine. If that 1:10,000,000 chance he has a heart attack and "I win", I doubt I'm going to go around bragging about such. Conversely, why should I pay ANYTHING into his potential purse? We each are in "our own little tournaments". That he ends up with the lowest score that day - well, good for him (but I kind of expected that anyway!).
The same COULD be said of me playing dg on the same course as Climo...yeah, we're on the same course, but that's about it. Sure I'm "interested" to hear what KC shot that day but I'm not so bold as to think it is really "competition" between he and I.

Besides, I'm too involved in trying not to have the course beat the crap out of me to worry about some person (who may have just lost his dog, has a fever of 103, etc...and boy, I can really get excited about wuppin' someone like that... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif ) "in competition" with me.

Karl

Aaaah!

Played my second tournament of the year, Emerald Isle Open (So Cal C-Tier). 11 Open players. Got to see some hot golf in the first round (Carlo Pelg ran off 8 deuces in a row...this is not a pitch and putt...long layout on a ball golf course). I lost focus late in the second round, could not hit a putt and gacked the last hole to finish one shot out of the money (still stings). My score would have been 2nd in Masters. So far here are the main lessons I learned from playing Open:

1. These guys throw a ton! I was weenie arm on most of the holes.
2. They putt better than I do.
3. I have to get in better shape and hit the practice field more often if I want to be competetive.
4. The jokes are a bit rougher.
5. More Open players smoke cigarettes than Masters.
6. The pace of play is a bit slower and the focus and concentration are much higher than in Masters.
7. Me tired.

Dave...You did cash, I tried to find you but you had already left.

Wow, must have been a deep payout! Or are you talking about CTP on hole 9?

Nice shooting with you Dave. So far all of my rounds in Open have been very enjoyable and both rounds yesterday were extra tasty. Next up for So Cal: Sylmar in June.

Cheers, DD

Deep payout, definitely fun playing with you...

I wish I could have made it this year but next year I will be going out and staying with VinCENT.

Deep payout, definitely fun playing with you...



Skip is mailing your check to you.

Thank Monica for the deep payout. She sold $521 in raffle tickets that all went directly into the pro purse. There hadn't originally been a plan to sell tickets - glad I insisted on it on Friday. It's amazing what a few cases of Stone I.P.A. will do for a raffle.

And yes, Dave, those Open guys throw a ton.

I wish I could have made it this year but next year I will be going out and staying with VinCENT.



For sure...I have an extra room, and two baskets in the backyard with lots of trees to throw through.

Thanks Rizbee and Monica!!

Great event. Looking forward to next year (when I could play Grandmaster!).

More than half of the Masters were Gmaster age this year, right??

Let's see...out of 13: Kirkland, Garber, Olsen, LeBeau, Nichols, Wisecup? Not sure about others, so it does look like half or more of the MPM field could have played MPG.

In two years I hope to be there with you!

Well Mr. Rizbee, I hope to be there (at the pro level) with you in two years! :D

Game on!!

I have just returned from the Hall of Fame Classic that is held at the IDGC in Appling, GA. I had originally signed up for Masters since I was traveling with Snapper Pierson and we wanted to have similar schedules (that is why I played Masters in Santa Cruz this year). Scheduling turned out to be a non-issue, as all of the divisions play at the same time and the three courses are next to each other. I was especially looking forward to playing with Johnny Sias and Stan McDaniel in Masters, but when they had to cancel I decided to play Open, primarily to see how the "youngsters" attacked the courses. If you have not played at the IDGC, you should check it out because the courses are killer! The Jackson course is especially tasty, requiring intelligent decisions and precise control of shots ranging from 150' to more than 400'. No two rounds will be alike, as different routes are often necessary for shots that land within a few feet of each other. There are lots of par 4s and a couple of 5s that will test every skill and then some (course par is 69, the SSA is around 67).

I was fairly conservative in practice and in the first round, but after watching the "youngsters" and seeing what an additional 25-50 feet can get you on your drives I became more aggressive on Sunday, especially after an extremely poor start due to timid play. I made some mistakes, but I also played a couple of the long holes as well as I could possibly play them, which was especially gratifying given their large degree of difficulty. At the end of the day I was one shot out of the money, which was irritatingly familiar from my Open days.

I wish I could have seen David Greenwell shoot 63 at Jackson and 57 at Warner that first day, but having the chance to play with Schweberger made up for it. All in all I would highly recommend playing Open if you want to challenge yourself and try and raise the bar again, however that also means going out to the woodshed and getting your butt kicked (thanks Schwebbie!). Hope springs eternal, but time marches on. Cheers, DD

I just returned from the El Do tournament. This was my 5th tournament of the year and my 4th in Open after playing 8 years in Masters (I turned 49 in April). It was good to be back in So Cal, but I miss the awesome par 4 courses at the IDGC in Georgia.

Rico and McBeth are in Minnesota, so the Open field was a bit less top heavy for this B-Tier, which still featured 8 players out of 24 rated over 1000 in Open. Micah Dorius gave notice that he can still shoot hot golf, with an opening round of 54 on the temporary 22 hole course designed by Dan Duron (thanks Dan!). I had a lousy first round of "Army Golf" (Left, Right, Left, Right...) that was 14 shots off the pace of Micah Dorius and ranked 21st out of 24 Open players. That landed me at the head of the "mullet group", which featured three Am players with a cumulative playing experience of about 9 years and maybe 10 tournaments. I enjoyed watching some potential up and comers and helped with a few rules of play. All in all an enjoyable round, especially since 25 footers look real easy after having nothing but 40-60 footers during the first round. Jumped from 21st to 12th and had a very pleasant round with some of the local talent to end up in a four way tie for 6th. I would have tied for 3rd in Masters for about $10 more. All total I shot with 4 Am players this weekend who had opted to play Open. Lots of potential, especially from NR, who threw some lovely shots. I thought he might take the cash. Maybe next year??

I am enjoying playing Open this year in So Cal. My best rounds are still 3-5 shots off the pace of the lead card, but hope springs eternal! Cheers, DD