On PDGA Tour results pages, the Pro Women's division is listed as 'Open Women.' Since normally Open refers to no protections -- anyone can enter without restrictions (men, women, old guys, young gals, etc.) it is a completely unprotected division which women and masters are free to compete in it (and maybe some day a woman will win the Open division of a PDGA NT event). Note that we do not call the Pro Masters 'Open Masters' for that very reason (it is an age protected category). So why do we call the Pro Women's division 'Open' Women given that the division is gender- protected? Female Professional disc golfers are very skilled athletes and i don't think they some sort of false classification to prop them up.

I contacted someone regarding this in the PDGA and they told me i was right but that it doesn't seem likely it will be changed anytime soon, but that i might help it happen if i suggested a new title like 'Elite Women'...

i really don't get why Pro Women (Profesional Women Disc Golfers) isn't the perfect name for the division...? :confused:

I agree that it should be called Pro Women as there is only one Open division.

I believe it should be Open Women's Division. While it is protected for Women only it is open for ALL women player's.

I believe it should be Open Women's Division. While it is protected for Women only it is open for ALL women player's.



Open Masters is open for all Masters age players.....

Open Master is also misnamed.

The is one "open" division, and it is unprotected by age or gender or any other factor.

Women, 8 year olds, and 88 year old trans-sexuals are all welcome in the Open division.

imo, a lot of confusion has resulted from our naming "standards" and our use of the word "open" for protected divisions.

imo, a lot of confusion has resulted from our naming "standards"


...the word stable comes to mind...

There is only one "open" division.

last time i said that i got a nasty-gram from Yeti, claiming i was dissing Des by saying so... so keep an eye out for a special IM :D:D:D

There is only one "open" division.




While that's true, in the case under consideration the word Open is qualified with the word Women following it. It's the most clear way to describe the division which is open to females of all ages whether Am or Pro. Pro Women would imply that you must be a pro to enter it which would not be true.

At some point even Open will not even be the appropriate name for the top division when the money gets large enough that players will have to qualify to participate in that division in regular tour events, not just the USDGC or Player's Cup.

Chuck, you beat me to the point.



There is only one "open" division.




While that's true, in the case under consideration the word Open is qualified with the word Women following it. It's the most clear way to describe the division which is open to females of all ages whether Am or Pro. Pro Women would imply that you must be a pro to enter it which would not be true.

At some point even Open will not even be the appropriate name for the top division when the money gets large enough that players will have to qualify to participate in that division in regular tour events, not just the USDGC or Player's Cup.



Ditto.

USDGC and Player's cup are excellent examples where Open is not a valid term, by the definitions being suggested.

Pro Women would imply that you must be a pro to enter it which would not be true.

simply not true. Am players can get into PGA events even. you do not need to be a "pro" to play in a pro event... in either B or D G.

I believe that's exactly what I said.

I'll thread drift a tad...

Women actually have more choices than men when it comes to what division they play in. All divisions are open to women if they choose to enter(ratings appropriate). Well, I can't play juniors..

I've played in traditionally men's divisions in some events because there were no other women.

I guess I'm saying that I don't feel dissed by having only a Pro Womens division. If the PDGA changes the name of divisions, spiffy. :)

I would say we have Men's Open and Women's Open.

Both are clear.

actually, it is exactly what you said. i was agreeeing with ya and i did not phrase it clearly enuf.

MTL, "open" mean open with no restrictions.... if you put in a gender restriction, it is no longer truly "open"... whether we call it that or not

OMG... filthy feets is right. don't try to quote me on that though. I'll deny my agreement with him till the day I die :D

Open = no restrictions, anyone can play. That's what it *really* means, although it has long been a misnomer in this sport used to mean "pro". In actuality, "Open" is one division in which anyone can play regardless of age, rating, or amateur status. There cannot be an "Open Masters" or "Open Women" division, because that would be a contradictory term. The proper way of labeling those divisions is "Pro Masters" and "Pro Women", respectively.

Of course, an argument could be made that if you label it "Pro", any amateurs would not be allowed to compete within that division... but I digress.

One point I forgot to make:

88 year old trans-sexuals are all welcome in the Open division.


Regardless of where they are welcome, it seems they all flock to the OMB division. Just saying.

:D

leave Parker out of this, josh :D

Men's Pro Elite
Women's Pro Elite

makes the most sense to me for the current Open and Pro Women's divisions.

I also think "Open Women" and "Loose Women" sound a little too much alike for some reason, maybe it's the chip in my head.

Chap

This is offically the most worthless and pointless thread ever.

WHO CARES!

apparently AviarX cares :)

(so do i... calling a gender protected division "Open" is just plain silly)

This is offically the most worthless and pointless thread ever.

WHO CARES!



I disagree, there have been many threads that were more pointless (meaning both more futile and without a meaningful point/argument).

Chuck, you beat me to the point.



There is only one "open" division.




While that's true, in the case under consideration the word Open is qualified with the word Women following it. It's the most clear way to describe the division which is open to females of all ages whether Am or Pro. Pro Women would imply that you must be a pro to enter it which would not be true.

At some point even Open will not even be the appropriate name for the top division when the money gets large enough that players will have to qualify to participate in that division in regular tour events, not just the USDGC or Player's Cup.



Ditto.

USDGC and Player's cup are excellent examples where Open is not a valid term, by the definitions being suggested.



are you kidding? Both are open to anyone who qualifies without restrictions based on age or gender -- right?

Des or any other woman can play in Open which is why it is NOT called Open Men. if it were not for the fact that the PDGA is primarily an organization of amateurs, we could just call Pro Masters "Masters" and Pro Women "Women."

There has never been to my knowledge any requirement that competitors in Open or Pro Women or Pro Masters be "pros." i became a "Pro" member this year because i entered a pro tournament last year as an Am. and cashed... i could have declined the cash and retained my Am. statues but still play Pro events, but instead renewed as a "Pro."

i care because calling Pro Masters "Open Masters" or Pro Women "Open Women" is just wrong. it is a free country though and probably most of the membership doesn't care. it just strikes me as a bit condescending to act like Professional Women or Pro Masters division names fail to do our ladies or elders proudly enough and we should pretend these divisions are Open. Maybe we should call AM1 "Open Advanced" or "Elite Amateurs" /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

MTL, my point in creating this thread was to see if anyone out there agreed with me and to make it a topic for consideration, since the PDGA contact i corresponded with agreed with me but thought any recommendation to change it was unlikely to pass. after opening this can of worms, it is good to see Suzette and Anita don't disagree with me :D

MTL doesnt care (anymore) becuz the arguments against his position are so substantial :D

USDGC and Player's cup are excellent examples where Open is not a valid term, by the definitions being suggested.



:confused: Juliana has cashed at the USDGC :p

Could we pick a more inane topic? What does a name matter?

The challenges we face are slightly more significant than skin deep. Like when are we going to finally offer an amateur classification of competition? Or create a tour system that supports organizers better than it does the 15 touring players?

i care because calling Pro Masters "Open Masters" or Pro Women "Open Women" is just wrong.



Based on what? The title indicates exactly who can enter. Open Masters is open to anyone who is of Master age whether pro or am, man or woman. If I say something is a house, it's any house. But I say it's a red house then it narrows the field. In Spanish, the adjective comes after the noun such as casa roja (or maybe it's rojo) just as in Open Women, the division open to women with no additional qualifiers required. What's the big deal?

For a worthwhile challenge, the Senior Grandmasters would like a new name that doesn't directly indicate their age. Esquires has been used elsewhere but most think it sounds a little too aristocratic for DG.

How about "MuchoMasters", following the Spanish lean?

Since they have ascended past Grandmaster level, perhaps something along the lines of Star Wars like Yodalers or Jedi.

Chuck, its silly to call it Open Masters. if there were a closed Masters i could see the need to differentiate an Open Masters from it. Pro Masters differentiates the division from Am. Masters where cash prizes are not awarded. whether or not a winner accepts a cash prize isn't determined till the end of the competition in the Pro Masters division, but the cash prize payout option is in effect prior to the beginning of the event.

if you really believe we calling it "Open" Masters is not a misnomer -- then shouldn't we call MA1 "Open Advanced"? :confused:

at some points arguing over names is silly which is why geting our divisions named in as factually sensible a way as possible is preferable.

Open
Pro Women
Pro Masters

we needn't gild the lilies.

Since they have ascended past Grandmaster level, perhaps something along the lines of Star Wars like Yodalers or Jedi.



Prizers would be Paddawon... or Ewoks.. LOL!

then shouldn't we call MA1 "Open Advanced"?



It's unnecessary because Advanced includes everyone that's an Am. All of the other Advanced subset divisional names are qualified by gender and/or age just like the Open divisions are qualified by age and/or gender.

If you notice, we don't call it Open Masters just Masters since it doesn't need further clarification because the other master divisions are specified like Advanced Master, or Master Women. I don't think anyone is confused by the current naming conventions and they are consistent. Using Pro narrows the definition inappropriately.

given that logic as to why we just use Masters and not "Open Masters" on our event result pages, why don't we just use Women then instead of "Open Women" since the other Women's division are specified? (Women Masters, Advanced Women, etc.) :confused:

Actually, we could just use "Women" but now it's tradition to use "Open Women." I think it might add a little pizzazz to the title that they might not want to give up. No confusion. No harm done.

adding pizzazz is the part i find misguided and silly.

upthread, Suzette and Anita appear ready to give the "pizzazz" up and let the play of Pro Women speak for itself. ;)

I doubt the men feel the need to change their division title to Pro Men which would logically follow. In fact, they do everything possible not to discourage Ams from entering Open divisions.

If there were actual naming confusion in some way where players were continually asking the PDGA who can play in what division, then maybe this dialog would have some merit. As it is, it's not solving a current problem and would create additional ones with any changes.

I doubt the men feel the need to change their division title to Pro Men which would logically follow.



Open is not restricted to Men so that would be a misnomer.



If there were actual naming confusion in some way where players were continually asking the PDGA who can play in what division, then maybe this dialog would have some merit. As it is, it's not solving a current problem and would create additional ones with any changes.



i disagree and so far so do the respondents to the survey. if we deem that the women in no way need added "pizzazz" to the name of their division, why not change the silly tradition? :confused:

I don't believe you've made the case that a change is needed. In fact, it makes no sense in comparison to the current titles. Feel free to petition the Board with this issue but I suspect they would first refer it to the Competition Committee for comment.

then shouldn't we call MA1 "Open Advanced"? :confused:


It used to be exactly that. M1O/M1M/M1G/M1S/M1L and M2O/M2M/M2G/M2S/etc

"Open" has traditionally meant "not age restricted" in the PDGA. That's why the term "Open Masters" has always such a ridiculous and wrong combination of terms. "Pro master", yes; "open master" no frickin' way.

"Open Women" follows the tradition.

I'm afraid you're just wrong here. Pro Women and Pro Masters are not correct and less inclusive since amateurs can enter. Open is not some magic protected word that cannot be qualified. Broader words can be modified in a reductive manner such as Open Women which is the same as Open minus men, especially when the terminology is more efficient than additive. If you want to refer to the group of states touching Massachusetts, it's much easier to say New England minus Massachusetts than it is to list each of the states.

the word being searched for here, is oxymoronic. Emphasize what you want.

qualifying "open" with "masters" "men" "women" "juvenile deliquent" is oxymoronic.

but, to quote dictionary.com...one would be
a mournful optimist.

to think this will be easily resolved, and in a manner in line with proper language usage.

(ex-teacher mode OFF ) :D

the word being searched for here, is oxymoronic. Emphasize what you want.

qualifying "open" with "masters" "men" "women" "juvenile deliquent" is oxymoronic.

but, to quote dictionary.com...one would be
a mournful optimist.

to think this will be easily resolved, and in a manner in line with proper language usage.

(ex-teacher mode OFF ) :D



:eek: :D :D:p

signed, a mournful optimist [ ;) ]

Emphasize what you want. Qualifying "open" with "masters" "men" "women" "juvenile deliquent" is oxymoronic.




Oxymorons only occur when the words are essentially opposites or have a potentially humorous contextual juxtaposition. As before, 'red' and 'house' or 'Open' and 'Women' do not qualify. Back to school.

perhaps redundant and unnecessarily repetitive are the right descriptors. :eek: :D

or more to the point:

overly redundant ;)

oxorons only occur when the words are essentially opposites or have a potentially humorous contextual juxtaposition. As before, 'red' and 'house' or 'Open' and 'Women' do not qualify



Open Women & Open Masters do qualify as oxymorons, and they also being used in humorous contextual juxtapositions. Masters and Womens divisions are age and gender protected respectively while conversely Open refers to a division unrestricted and without protections. :p

Why do we have divisions? Can't we all just get along?

it's bush's fault

Masters and Womens divisions are age and gender protected respectively while conversely Open refers to a division unrestricted and without protections.



That's why they work so well together. Open Masters division includes all players of masters age regardless of gender or Am/Pro status and Open Women refers to exactly who the division includes which is every woman of any age regardless of Am/Pro status. No other terms specify the divisions as precisely as the terms we use.

I learned this one word when I was young.... "to"

Open basically means Open TO all
Open Women => Open TO Women
Open Masters => Open TO Masters

When you're Labeling things, it's sometimes acceptable to leave the simpler words out, believing that they're implicit in the context. I beleve that's the spirit of this 'rule'.

Masters and Womens divisions are age and gender protected respectively while conversely Open refers to a division unrestricted and without protections.



That's why they work so well together. Open Masters division includes all players of masters age regardless of gender or Am/Pro status and Open Women refers to exactly who the division includes which is every woman of any age regardless of Am/Pro status. No other terms specify the divisions as precisely as the terms we use.



Womens & Masters does the job more precisely in that the redundant term Open is left out.

the PDGA event results pages list Masters as "Masters" and Women as "Open Women"? If Masters is understood not to need "Open" in front of it why isn't Women's? was there a time, maybe before Sorenstam, Wie, Korver, Reading, etc. when the guys in charge failed to envision Women competing in the real Open division?

Open Women is no more redundant and more correct than say Advanced Amateur. Redundancy is not a bad thing if it makes concepts more clear. We certainly can use that in disc golf.

two Pro Women have weighed in on this thread and both said there is only one Open division. your move ;)

No one says Advanced Amateur. It would be redundant.

According to the 2006 PDGA Tour Player Classifications & Divisions (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2006/06DivisionsGuide.pdf) it has already been decided.

Advanced Men are just Advanced.
The top female division open to Female players of any age is Pro Women.

thanks Gary

so i guess i was misinformed by the PDGA person i contacted regarding this matter and the Event results pages on PDGA.com simply have not yet been updated to reflect these latest, greatest division labels? who would be the person who would update these pages Chuck?

other than that, as the great Rosanne Rosanna Danna used to say:

never mind! :eek: :D


Professional Divisions

Open - the top professional division, available to players of any age.
A world class Open player has many years of disc golf and tournament experience, throws 350-500 feet or further, makes 7-
9/10 putts from 25-30 feet, rarely makes a mistake, and has a shot for every situation.
Ratings Guideline: 1000+ Score range: <51
An average Open player has several years experience, throws 325-400 feet accurately, makes 6-8/10 putts from 25-30 feet, and
has a variety of shots (rollers, forehands, etc) to draw from. Ratings Guideline: 950+ Score range: <56
Pro Women - the top women�s division, available to female players of any age.
A top Open Women's player will have played at least 5 years, throws 300-375 feet accurately, make 6-8/10 putts from 25-30
feet, throws backhand and forehand.
Ratings Guideline: 925+ Score range: <58
An average Open Women's player will have played several years, throws 250-325 feet, make 5-6/10 putts from 25-30 feet.
Ratings Guideline: 900+ Score range: <61
Masters - available to players who will be 40 years of age or older during the current year (born 1966 or earlier).
Seasoned veterans who throw 300-400 feet consistently, make 6-8/10 putts from 25-30 feet, have good shot variety.
Ratings Guideline: 925+ Score range: <58
Masters Women - available to female players who will be 40 years of age or older during the current year (born 1966 or earlier).
Ratings Guideline: 875+ Score range: <63
Grandmasters - available to players who will be 50 years of age or older during the current year (born 1956 or earlier). 10-15
years experience, throw 250-350 feet, make 5-8/10 putts from 25-30 feet, often rely on trick shots.
Ratings Guideline: 900+ Score range: <61
Senior Grandmasters - available to players who will be 60 years of age or older during the current year (born 1946 or earlier).
Legends - available to players who will be 70 years of age or older during the current year (born 1936 or earlier).

Less precise and maybe won't get changed. Dave Gentry is probably overseeing this area but there are much more important items ahead of that.

looks like there are still some problems though for us sticklers :D


Pro Women - the top women�s division, available to female players of any age.
A top <font color="red"> Open Women's </font> player will have played at least 5 years, throws 300-375 feet accurately, make 6-8/10 putts from 25-30
feet, throws backhand and forehand.
Ratings Guideline: 925+ Score range: <58
An average <font color="red"> Open Women's </font> player will have played several years, throws 250-325 feet, make 5-6/10 putts from 25-30 feet.
Ratings Guideline: 900+ Score range: <61

Less precise and maybe won't get changed.



wow



Dave Gentry is probably overseeing this area but there are much more important items ahead of that.



no doubt there are many more important items. the devil is in the details though and it never hurts to cross little things off the
"to do" list ;)

it's bush's fault



lol

Open Women is no more redundant and more correct than say Advanced Amateur. Redundancy is not a bad thing if it makes concepts more clear. We certainly can use that in disc golf.

"open women" is not redundant, it is wrong. "open" and "women" do not mean the same thing, at least for most women in most circumstances. it is NOT an OPEN division. whether anyone likes it or not, it is incorrect to use "open" as a modifier to a word that confers protection.

"Advanced Amateur" is totally ok, altho perhaps a bit cumbersome. an Adv Am is an amateur player who is darn considering she is an amateur. she has advanced skills compared to other Am golfers.


btw, if you fix the little problems they dont turn into big ones, and it frees up a lot of time to take a good look at the bigger ones. letting small problems fester is a great way to build an inefficient, ineffective organization.

"open women" is not redundant, it is wrong. "open" and "women" do not mean the same thing, at least for most women in most circumstances. it is NOT an OPEN division.



Open Women is precise. It is a division open to all women. Simple as that. No confusion. No using the restrictive term 'Pro' with women which is incorrect as a division name. There's a difference between division names such as Open Women and a player definition such as a Pro or an Amateur woman. Both can enter the Open Women division.

Both pro and amateur can enter the Advanced Women division as well.
Should it be the advanced pro/amateur division ?

Which again points out the need to differentiate between division names/definitions and player definitions.

You could call them the chicken farter division, who cares

by chuck's (and others') logic, the following should be the new division names:

MPO = Open
FPO = Open Women
MPM = Open Masters
FPM = Open Masters Women
MA1 = Open Amateur
MA2 = Open Amateur Under 915 Rating Points
MA3 = Open Amateur Under 875 Rating Points
FW1 = Open Amateur Women
FW2 = Open Amateur Under 800 Rating Points Women
FW3 = Open Amateur Under 750 Rating Points Women

hrm... that looks rather silly. perhaps we can reduce it down a bit using common sense. Because "Open" is nothing more than a descriptor preceeding the article "to", it can also be left off (just like its successor article) for the sake of brevity... it is an implicit modifier. If we can assume that "Intermediate" is understood to mean under 915 for men and 800 for women, "Recreational" is understood to mean under 875 for men and 750 for women, then we can also abbreviate those terms. The "Amateur" qualification serves two purposes: it means that only players with amateur status can compete within these divisions, and it means that prizes will not be payable in cash. Let's apply this filter and see what we get:

MPO =
FPO = Women
MPM = Masters
FPM = Masters Women
MA1 = Amateur
MA2 = Amateur Intermediate
MA3 = Amateur Recreational
FW1 = Amateur Women
FW2 = Amateur Intermediate Women
FW3 = Amateur Recreational Women

hmm ok, well we've made it a bit better looking, but there's nothing to indicate which divisions pay cash... and the top amateur division gets no special title... plus, the top division doesn't have a name at all! so, for the sake of beautification, let's add some descriptive words in there to further differentiate between the intended groups:

MPO = Pro
FPO = Pro Women
MPM = Pro Masters
FPM = Pro Masters Women
MA1 = Advanced Amateur
MA2 = Intermediate Amateur
MA3 = Recreational Amateur
FW1 = Advanced Amateur Women
FW2 = Intermediate Amateur Women
FW3 = Recreational Amateur Women

Now, that looks better and it retains all the necessary descriptive terms which let people know who they will be competing with when they sign up for a division. If only I could think of a word to further qualify the top division... something that told people of it's complete lack of restriction... but I can't come up with a word which has an open enough meaning. Oh well... I guess "Pro" will have to do.

You've missed one round of simplifications.
Now that you've added the Pro Modifiers, the Amateur modifiers are no longer needed. Either it's Pro or it's not.

MPO = Pro
FPO = Pro Women
MPM = Pro Masters
FPM = Pro Women Masters
MA1 = Advanced
MA2 = Intermediate
MA3 = Recreational
FW1 = Advanced Women
FW2 = Intermediate Women
FW3 = Recreational Women

There's a difference between division names such as Open Women and a player definition such as a Pro or an Amateur woman. Both can enter the Open Women division.

yes, i agree there is a difference. the difference is that the division name "open women" makes no sense as a division name, and "pro women" does make sense as a player classification. but we are talking about division names.

NOT that wikipedia is a great reference source, but their definition of OPEN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_%28sport%29) is clear.

definitions for "open" from various sources:

wikipedia: " An Open in sports terminology refers to a sporting event or game tournament that is open to all people, regardless of their age, ability, gender, or other categorization. Opens are usually found in golf, tennis, and chess."

dictionary.com " Accessible to all; unrestricted as to participants: an open competition. "
and " Free from limitations, boundaries, or restrictions: open registration

from thesaurus.com, we have these as synonyms:

admissible, agreeable, allowable, appropriate, attainable, available, come-at-able, employable, fit, free, general, getable*, nondiscriminatory, not posted, obtainable, on deck*, on tap*, open-door*, operative, permitted, practicable, proper, public, reachable, securable, suitable, unconditional, unoccupied, unqualified, unrestricted, usable, vacant, welcoming, within reach

please take note of unrestricted, unconditional and unqualified in this list. the term "women" is a restriction, and therefore invalidates the use of the term "open" in conjuntion with it.

"open women" is incorrect. its not the end of the world. deal with it.

you're correct, there mr. duke... although the same case could be made for the word "pro" in the presence of "amateur". The use of one obsoletes the other. I left it in there as a descriptive word that would indicate to players not only the required amateur status, but the lack of cash payout as well. I suppose it could go either way :)

But, as you pointed out, not having the Pro descriptor left you top division with no title, so keeping the Pro descriptor makes more sense, and the top division could reasonably be changed to Open.

It looks a lot like the PDGA division guidelines.

I already agreed that Open wasn't required in front of Women but is a traditional term just like the QWERTY keyboard layout has persisted for more than a century. And there's no reason to change it because there's no confusion. That's the essence of communication.

You've missed one round of simplifications.
Now that you've added the Pro Modifiers, the Amateur modifiers are no longer needed. Either it's Pro or it's not.

MPO = Pro
FPO = Pro Women
MPM = Pro Masters
FPM = Pro Women Masters
MA1 = Advanced
MA2 = Intermediate
MA3 = Recreational
FW1 = Advanced Women
FW2 = Intermediate Women
FW3 = Recreational Women

now what about those stupid abbreviations? unfortunately, the3 database is architected in such a way as to make the conversion to a new set of division codes nearly impossible. but thats another story. FPO makes as little sense as the speeled out version, and even less when the full name is corrected.

so my allusion was successful :)

I think the point of this whole thing is that a term has been misused for a long time. some people have no need for correct usage of words, some of us (*points at filthy feets*) have a strong need for proper grammar. At the end of it... if there's correct and incorrect... even if people are okay with or used to the incorrect... the correct usage should always prevail. No argument can be made against proper grammar.

This is a professional organization. IMHO, all terms, documents, rules, and guidelines associated with a professional organization should be... professional. Just because we're used to something doesn't make it right.

I already agreed that Open wasn't required in front of Women but is a traditional term just like the QWERTY keyboard layout has persisted for more than a century. And there's no reason to change it because there's no confusion. That's the essence of communication.

the QWERTY keyboard was created because people could type faster than the original typewriter mechanics could handle. back then the keyboard was the DVORAK layout. QWERTY was designed SPECIFICALLY to SLOW the typers down!

i agree about the essense of communication... thats the best reason yet for clearing up the confusion the current division names create.

If necessary, I can fix that database relatively easily, regardless of architecture. ;) I've volunteered my services before... but nobody has ever responded. Oh well. I guess I'll keep getting *paid* to work... how mundane.

back to the argument :D

/popcorn

Now we have come around to discuss the QWERTY keyboard... :confused:

How about Pro Open, Pro Women, Pro Master, Pro Master Women, etc. Those seem sensible to me, but what do I know?

I don't think it's as big of a problem as it has been made out. I honestly DO NOT CARE what you call my division. :D

I don't think anyone is really making that big a deal out of it... we're just discussing :) If the divisions must be named (which they must), why not just name them correctly?

if it could easily be fixed, i'd'a done it by now. trust me on that one.... i'll show you the schema some day and we can both share a huge chuckle... or horror and tears, as the case may be :cool:

QWERTY keyboard was created because people could type faster than the original typewriter mechanics could handle. back then the keyboard was the DVORAK layout. QWERTY was designed SPECIFICALLY to SLOW the typers down!



DVORAK layout was proposed as an alternative to QWERTY according to Wikipedia (could be inaccurate).

In any event, Dvorak didn't write much for the keyboard. Mostly symphonic pieces. :D

yeah, he was like the first writer of american country music (i'd say folk music, but the native americans prolly beat him to that punch)

You've missed one round of simplifications.
Now that you've added the Pro Modifiers, the Amateur modifiers are no longer needed. Either it's Pro or it's not.

MPO = Pro
FPO = Pro Women
MPM = Pro Masters
FPM = Pro Women Masters
MA1 = Advanced
MA2 = Intermediate
MA3 = Recreational
FW1 = Advanced Women
FW2 = Intermediate Women
FW3 = Recreational Women



regarding MPO: what does the 'M' stand for :confused: (i doubt it would be Mens since Open is not gender restricted)

also, why not make Advanced simply Amateur? (the reasoning here is i think the term Advanced may actually de-incentivize moving up -- although the majority of the PDGA is amateur so they might resist that)

it stands for "Mighty"

I think the main resistance to caling MA1 simply "Amateur" is that the old naming convention is still in casual use all over the country. Someone please correct me where I'm wrong here because this change happened about the same time that I started playing, so most of this is hearsay: Although the three divisions of Amateur competition have always been strictly amateur... for some reason, they used to be named "Advanced", "Amateur", and "Novice". A few years ago, the PDGA renamed them to "Advanced Amateur", "Intermediate Amateur", and "Recreational Amateur" to clarify. It never really made sense to have a single division named Amateur when there were multiple amateur divisions.

Anyway... some of the old fogies still refer to MA2 as "Am" or "Amateur"... so if you re-named MA1 as "Amateur", you'd end up with some really confused old guys :)

definitions for "open" from various sources:
[QUOTE]

definitions for "open" from various sources:

wikipedia: " An Open in sports terminology refers to a sporting event or game tournament that is open to all people, regardless of their age, ability, gender, or other categorization. Opens are usually found in golf, tennis, and chess."

dictionary.com " Accessible to all; unrestricted as to participants: an open competition. "
and " Free from limitations, boundaries, or restrictions: open registration


please take note of unrestricted, unconditional and unqualified in this list. the term "women" is a restriction, and therefore invalidates the use of the term "open" in conjuntion with it.

"open women" is incorrect. its not the end of the world. deal with it.



thank you. one of the reasons this was brought up is because i think this doesn't cast our sport in the best light vis-a-vis other sports. the intention may have been good, but calling our Pro Womens division "Open Women" is awkward and wrong even if it has become a tradition.

<font color="green"> "The difference between the almost right word &amp; the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning." </font>-- Mark Twain Letter to George Bainton, 10/15/1888

it wasnt to clarify... it was to protect the feelings of beginning players who, some thought, did not lioke being called novices.

eveyone must have their feelings 100% validated ya know... database schema be dammed

it wasnt to clarify... it was to protect the feelings of beginning players who, some thought, did not lioke being called novices.




Even now, Recreational isn't a great term but no better one was proposed at the time or since. Many in the Rec division are long time competitive players who just happen to have ratings in that range. I'm pushing for color divisions like the Mid-Nats but old habits are hard to break. Their three letter codes are already in the system.

it wasnt to clarify... it was to protect the feelings of beginning players who, some thought, did not lioke being called novices.




Even now, Recreational isn't a great term but no better one was proposed at the time or since. Many in the Rec division are long time competitive players who just happen to have ratings in that range. I'm pushing for color divisions like the Mid-Nats but old habits are hard to break. Their three letter codes are already in the system.



tradition for tradition's sake too often blocks progress.

the term Advanced may in a strange way have a power of de-incentivizing am.s from moving up. it just doesn't seem wrong to stay in a division referred to as "Advanced" :p

maybe we should call it semi-pro ;)

I think we might need to drift towards the more-fun idea of suggesting new names for MA3 and new explanations of the MPO acronym

MPO = "Major Payout Optimists"
and let's call MA3... the Newbie division

:D

FPO = "Females Pretending to be Open"

yeah, he was like the first writer of american country music (i'd say folk music, but the native americans prolly beat him to that punch)



Not really Country music. He died WAY before the Nashville sound was created. But he did use American folk music themes in the New World Symphony.

Enough! I'm guilty of a most terrible and heinous digression :(

actually those folk themes can be traced back to the very origins of the octal scale. folk music uses the pentatonic scale, which is the basis of all "western" folk music. pagan songs, irish gigs, european gypsies, american indians, and european settlers of the new world all have used the pentatonic scale as the foundation to folk music. traditional country music has some roots in the pentatonic and blues scales, which makes it at least to some degree an outgrowth of world-folk music. kinda cool... something wires us all up the same, no matter where we come from... i like that, it gives one hope.

maybe we should call [Advanced] semi-pro ;)



or Triple A and Intermediate could be Double A

this would square all the cash value "amateurs" win and also emphasize they aren't full blown pros until they move up :D

it would also better justify the P in PDGA... :eek:

the rec division could remain as an amateur beginner division with lowered membership fees...

^ food for thought ^

The only problem I had with the 3 letter identifiers was inconsistency.

In the Pro divisions: (MPO,FPO,MPM,FPM...)
The first place is Gender
The second place is category (Pro)
The third is protection level

In the Am (men) non-age protected divisions: (MA1,MA2,MA3)
The first place is Gender
The second is Category (Am)
The third place is skill protection level

In the Am age protected divisions: (MM1,FM1,MG1,FG1...)
The first place is Gender
The second place is age protection level
The last place is skill protectino level

In the am women non-age-protected divisions: (FW1,FW2,FW3)
The first place is gender
The second place is gender
The third place is skill protection level.

The Juniors Divisions are: (MJ1,FJ1,MJ2,FJ2...)
The first place is gender
The second place is age protection
The third place is age protection

I've always liked the idea of using baseball-style divisions... Pro for the elite (req. pro status - a bit like the touring pro division that has been discussed), semi-pro for lower-rated pros and higher-rated amateurs. AAA for advanced, AA for intermediate, and a special recreational division with lowered membership fees and benefits. My version would look something like:

(For brevity I'll only discuss the divisions which aren't age- or sex-restricted)
- Pro: requires a Pro membership, >= 965
- Semi-Pro: does not require a pro membership, Ams may participate and decline cash, >= 940
- AAA: requires an amateur membership, >=900
- AA: requires an amateur membership, >= 850

all others fall into a recreational division. non-members, players under 850, etc.

IMHO, this would eliminate a lot of the plastic-hoarding that goes on in MA1 and would even up the playing field a bit. At every event I attend, there are "advanced" players who are rated easily over 950, yet continue to demolish MA1 and take the merchandise rather than competing with people of their skill level and possibly lose money. There are also those pro players who have cashed in one or two pro tournaments, but rarely are able to compete with the "big dogs" when they show up. They're usually stuck with either donating money or staying home.

Of course there are problems with a system like this... many tournaments won't have the participation to support an extra division. The "big dogs" will have less motivation to compete if they can't win as much money... so it might have to be reserved for B-tier and above tourneys, or something like that. I dunno if another division is the answer... but *something* has to be done about those "gray areas" where the competition isn't as fair as it should be. Maybe we just require 940+ ams to play Open (*snicker*) and give them the option of retaining their amateur status by taking merchandise in lieu of cash for their winnings.

OK, OK... that was a major drift... but to bring it back home: If there are issues with how the divisions are named, perhaps a new divisional structure (with all-new names) is warranted. I think that the new names would be easier to adopt if they weren't just new words for the same old system. Plus, the existing system needs some tweaks... so maybe kill two birds with one stone.

/mental-exhaustion

i think it would be a mistake to not force Semi-Pros to pay the higher membership fee. one dis-incentive to moving up each December is the added membership fee -- especially for young guns.

semi-pros in baseball receive salaries and are not amateurs. it is a stretch to call Advanced players amateurs and that is why i prefer the idea of calling them Triple A or Semi-Pro...

i still don't get the M in MPO. Pat's "mighty" fits better than "men's". maybe APO for All (genders) is best...
to my knowledge -- there is no PDGA division that requires participants to be male...

Open Masters division includes all players of masters age regardless of gender or Am/Pro status and Open Women refers to exactly who the division includes which is every woman of any age regardless of Am/Pro status.


Chuck, you can re-define the terms however the heck you want right now and argue their meaning to your heart's content.

But that doesn't change the fact that "Open" in the context of PDGA divisions has traditionally meant "without age restriction".

I personally don't think there should be a difference in fee for pro or am status. It's not as if it costs the PDGA more money to track stats on a pro versus an am... Pro players already pay more to enter tournaments, and that part makes sense. They're playing at the high stakes tables... but should their membership fees be higher as well? What's the justification?

Standardizing membership fees and creating a semi-pro division I think would help alleviate some of the real problems that a skill-based division system presents. Realistically, there should just be Amateur and Pro. that's it. Toss in some age and sex restrictions and be done with it. Of course that would hurt participation... so it's out.

Some thought was obviously put into the current system. Skill-based divisions help promote participation, thereby furthering the sport as a whole. I'm on board. That said, I think it's about time to re-adjust the lines a bit. And for gawdsake use the right terminology this time :D

i agree. semi-pro would also help bolster the P in PDGA -- when an outsider or the media are looking in

under the present divisions -- what percentage of the PDGA membership is Pro?

i thought the P was for Plastic

I thought P was for [I'm a potty mouth!]

:D

only for the Am bagger divisions (and pro masters :) )

In any event, Dvorak didn't write much for the keyboard. Mostly symphonic pieces. :D


Dvorak keyboard info--great site!!! (http://www.dvorak-keyboard.com/)

although, his cello concerto is an absolute masterpiece---arguably the most perfectly scored orchestral work of any--and it's accompaniment.

--music geek mode OFF :D

"open women" is incorrect.



one of the reasons this was brought up is because i think this doesn't cast our sport in the best light vis-a-vis other sports. the intention may have been good, but calling our Pro Womens division "Open Women" is awkward and wrong even if it has become a tradition.



[/QUOTE]

Open Women's divisions exist in many other professional sports. Billiards, Bodybuilding, Cycling, Horseshoes, Fencing, Running, Sailing, Skating and Surfing have been awarding titles to Open Women champions long before Disc Golf came into the scene.

I believe a better argument for "awkward and wrong" is having amateurs associated with the Professional Disc Golf Association.

Open Women's divisions exist in many other professional sports. Billiards, Bodybuilding, Cycling, Horseshoes, Fencing, Running, Sailing, Skating and Surfing have been awarding titles to Open Women champions long before Disc Golf came into the scene.

I believe a better argument for "awkward and wrong" is having amateurs associated with the Professional Disc Golf Association.



do you support then making Advanced and Intermediate Semi-Pro divisions? (i do)

if the sports you mention truly do have "Open Women" as a division tilte then it is still a misnomer and does not justify our doing it. Open implies without age or gender restrictions. we may as well have Open Intermediate... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

what does the LPGA do?

what does the LPGA do?



I think they have their own tour. :D

[QUOTE]

what does the LPGA do?



Well, I just checked LPGA.com for fun, and clicked tournament schedule, and the first two tournaments listed are:
Weetabix Women's British Open
CN Canadian Women's Open

And of course there is also the US Women's Open

And in an article about the Canadian Women's open it's stated "2006 CN Canadian Women's Open champion Cristie Kerr (67-70-74-65=276, -12) easily outdistanced the rest of the field..."

Makes sense to me.

those are the names of events though -- not the division, right?

what does the LPGA do?



I think they have their own tour. :D



:D

those are the names of events though -- not the division, right?



Shouldn't make any difference if it's grammatically incorrect. Interestingly, it's not. In fact the USGA hosts the U.S. Senior Open.

The difference is that The US Senior Open or the Women's Open is not calling the division itself "Open" but the event open to all who fit the protocol (seniors, women, etc.)

Women's Open is acceptable; Open Women is misinformation :p

The difference is that The US Senior Open or the Women's Open is not calling the division itself "Open" but the event open to all who fit the protocol (seniors, women, etc.)

Women's Open is acceptable; Open Women is misinformation :p


For the record, the word "Open" when associated with an event title means "no invitation required". If it's not designated "Open", It usually means that you need to earn a spot either through points, wins, or some sort of high-brow status that gets you an invite from the club :D

Comparing the "U.S. Open" to disc golf's "Open Women" division is not valid in the least. you might as well use "Open-toed Sandals" (*points at Pat again*) as a point of reference.

Like AviarX said above... "Open Women" is incorrect. No matter how you try to spin it, there is a set of rules associated with the English language. Simply put, the usage of this term (for the purpose being discussed) is in violation of those rules.

No matter how you try to spin it, there is a set of rules associated with the English language.



Sorry but the English patrol has no jurisdiction over how titles are created. The question is whether the meaning of the words used is communicated clearly and succinctly, and it is. If you look at most of our division titles, they are reductive with the broader term used first and then qualified (reduced) to a smaller data set with the second and even third term. Advanced Master, Junior 13 & under, Advanced Master Women and of course Open Women.

So what you're saying is that the PDGA has no intention of attempting to appear professional in its use of the language? I'm not sure I understand the reason behind that. What is there to gain from knowingly titling divisions incorrectly? You might argue that the grammar is inconsequential and does not necessitate a change... but shouldn't the PDGA at least *use* its own guidelines? What is wrong with at least using the official division names?

From a practical standpoint, the naming conventions have never been reviewed and updated since women were allowed to play in what were divisions named for men and now that pros can play in pseudo amateur divisions. The names probably need to be reviewed and possibly revised. However, when the idea comes up, there are more pressing volunteer needs and the argument regarding confusion from new naming has halted further progress. Perhaps there are inconsistencies from an outside perspective. But internally, players seem to know exactly where they belong under the current naming convention. This allows limited resources to be directed in other areas with more pressing needs for the moment.

interestingly enough, this very thread is a "volunteer review" of those titles. Just because people know what it means doesn't make it right.

I'm of the philosophy that there are many things about Disc Golf which need to change before we can be fully accepted by the mainstream. In my opinion, the leader of that drive has to be the PDGA. Because I love my chosen sport (even though my 900 rating tells of an abusive relationship), I have frequently donated my time and money to furthering the sport. I intend to continue doing that, and I know I'm not the only one. In order for our efforts to be effective, the PDGA needs to strive towards being as professional and presentable to the public as possible. It is *very* discouraging to see the PDGA take a stance like "screw grammar, you know what it means". That's the old-school BS that has been holding us back for too long.

The whole reason behind this thread is that there are *members* of the PDGA who do not agree with the unprofessional misuse of certain terms. Is it productive to ignore the suggestions and ideas of members? In my view, everyone who has expressed an opinion here in this thread has volunteered a little bit of their time to furthering the cause. If you're going to tell me that the PDGA has no interest in that input... I can hardly think of a more heinous waste of volunteer effort.

As a volunteer in this capacity on the Competition Committee, the input is always worthwhile. So far, no alternative options that are clear and accurate have been offered. Your assertion that the titles are grammatically incorrect is flat out incorrect. They cannot be because titles do not follow any rules. Just like product and advertising words like Kodak and Xerox, they are correct by definition. And as pointed out most of the titles follow the logical broader term, qualifying term, qualifying term sequence so they are internally consistent to each other. There's no pressing problem grammatically, even to outsiders. The problem has more to do with the changed meaning of the divisions that has become less than ideal.

You're missing the point. While it is true that entity names are given exception from grammatical structure, that does not give one complete freedom from sensible naming. We could call the division "chix who golf fer cash moneys" and it would still be technically correct because it's a name... but do we really want to appear that stupid?

I believe the concern, of much higher importance, is to strive to attract more Open Women, not to change their division title which I doubt has been a deterrent.

it's just a piece of the pie. The better we look as a whole, the more players we will attract. I'm not saying that the name itself is a deterrent to women joining the sport, but the general professionalism is lacking and that *is* a factor (for players of both sexes). The improper naming is a symptom of the problem... and is the reason for this thread.

The second baseman isn't any closer to second base than the "shortstop" who is basically the other second baseman on the other side of the base. Is the catcher the only guy out there who catches the ball? Don't they all catch the ball if it comes to them? Baseball had better change the names of these positions if it ever hopes to get mainstream acceptance.

what a ludicrous comparison. We're not discussing the terms "drive", "stroke", "tee", "hole" or any of the other misnomers in our sport which are far more off base than "catcher" and "shortstop" are in baseball. We're talking about the names of divisions which are posted on scoresheets and the like for the public to view. We're talking about the *official* name for a division which is constructed poorly. In this particular case, the name displayed on the *PDGA World Championship* scoreboard was not consistent with the guidelines that the PDGA itself defined.

In baseball, the positions are aptly named. The catcher catches more thrown pitches than any other position on the field, and the shortstop's primary responsibility is *not* second base... so your crazy comparison doesn't really work anyway.

My point is that there is an easy option to present a more professional appearance to the public. We just aren't doing it. This thread has not seen a good argument *for* using the wrong name. Rather than popping in with a ridiculous baseball example, why not try and provide something a bit more pertinent?

given that most mainstream professional sports have entirely separate organizations for their sex-protected competition, this might present an issue... but, ask and ye shall receive. I have a meeting in 20 minutes; when that is over I will be more than happy to dig around on the web and report my findings.

Well, just by going to google.com and searching for

"open women" AND division

I can see on the first two pages that Open Women is a division offered in cycling, running, boxing, weightlifting, rowing, and of course disc golfing.

It's all a matter of perspective. If you asked my wife, she would say by nature all women are open and most men are not. :D

You'd think we didn't have real problems to think about...

yes, I too can see that there are a few other misguided sports as well.

please reference the 2006 PDGA Divisions Guide (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2006/06DivisionsGuide.pdf) for some interesting information. It seems that "Pro Women" has become the official name of the top sex-protected division (this was discussed earlier in this thread), but it happened sometime between 2004 and now. See the 2004 PDGA Divisions Guide (http://www.pdga.com/player_class.php) which Google finds appropriate. The official name changed, but the definition was not updated properly (also discussed earlier).

Our friend AviarX also contacted the PDGA office about this... and they confirmed that "Pro Women" is more proper. We had about 70 people (so far) vote on this discussion... of which 55 (again, so far) think that "Pro Women" is the more appropriate term. Do I really need to keep going?

It's all a matter of perspective. If you asked my wife, she would say by nature all women are open and most men are not. :D

You'd think we didn't have real problems to think about...


I certainly agree that there are more pressing issues... none of which I believe that I can contribute to, considering the pushback I've gotten from the PDGA when I suggest following their own literature :)

and if we fix the little stuff as quickly as possible it'll be amazing at how much time is free'd up for important stuff

Even if other names change to better reflect the division composition, I don't see the need to change Open Women as one of them. It's apparent that Pro Women was a likely a typo that fortunately didn't make it to the website. It could change to just Women as mentioned earlier but Open Women gives a better indication that it's the top group of female players compared with any other name.

Pro Women communicates the actual definition of hte division better than Open Women.

how can you possibly dispute the real definitions posted above? the clearly support the Pro Women" moniker.

It's apparent that Pro Women was a likely a typo that fortunately didn't make it to the website.


Actually, the PDF from previous years "apparently" was changed for 2006, with the word "Pro" intentionally replacing the word "Open". It's kinda hard to make a typo in what is "apparently" a cut/paste operation.

Why do you continue to fight so hard for this? The players like it better as "Pro", at least one employee in the home office agrees... even the official documents have been updated to reflect a more appropriate title. Is there any chance of you actually bending to the will of the masses on this one? Is this what it's going to be like when we *do* deal with more pressing issues?

it'll be OK. its a Board decision, and everything the board writes is perfectly clear and contains no ambiguities at all. so i remain very hopeful :cool:

I'm not 100% sure, but I think nastytoes here is being sarcastic :D

BTW - I'm no "basher"... I just want to see forward progress for the sport. The amount of animosity and pseudo-competition we have in this type of discussion is indicative of a deep-rooted problem which needs to be addressed. At some point the members of the board need to realize that once in a blue moon, a regular-joe member might actually have a point worth listening to and considering. I for one do appreciate the hard work that people put into this thing on a volunteer basis, and will even recognize the efforts of those who get paid for it. That said... 20,000 heads are better than 12 (substitute actual numbers where appropriate). This message board can be a very valuable tool in the progress of the PDGA and the sport as a whole. Maybe we could even get it onto a platform more stable than the current one :eek: and start to really utilize votes like the one at the top of this thread.

p.s. - I might even be able to help with the hosting costs of an upgraded message board. I've offered before (via posts and PM)... but have yet to see any sort of response.

Pro Women communicates the actual definition of hte division better than Open Women.



If Ams are allowed to enter the division, it's not exclusively for Pro Women. However, Open Women exactly defines who can enter which is all women am or pro. It's pretty obvious what the correct choice should be.

it'll be OK. its a Board decision, and everything the board writes is perfectly clear and contains no ambiguities at all. so i remain very hopeful



The Board doesn't involve itself with this lower level of decision except for the Board member who oversees the Competition Committee.

obvious, indeed. "Pro Women" in no way indicates that it is for pro-classified players only. It indicates the level of play and the method of payout, as well as the sex restriction on participants. "Open Women" first says it's open, then says "but only for women"... which is not only incorrect it is unnecessary.

Go to your local pet store and tell them you need food for your bird fish. they'll look at you like you're crazy because you either have a bird or a fish... one animal can't be both. Just like one division can't be open *and* for women only. While you're there, ask them how to get rid of a dead horse.

All you need to do is look to the naming convention for the biological kingdom and the trees you try to avoid such as quercus rubra which of course has the broader term first, quercus for oak, followed by the qualifying term rubra for red.

I don't think we want to give the misguided impression to outsiders that players and women in particular can actually make a living as pros in this sport. That's why the terms Open and Open Women are so appropriate. Only a few players truly make a living on the competitive side as pros with Des probably being the closest woman currently with that status. But most are players entering Open or Open Women with the chance to win cash versus merch but would be far from pros except hopefully in how they carry themselves (and that would probably be the best argument for calling them pros).

worth re-visiting:



wikipedia: " An Open in sports terminology refers to a sporting event or game tournament that is open to all people,
regardless of their <font color="red"> age, </font> ability, <font color="red"> gender, </font> or other categorization. Opens are usually found in golf , tennis, and chess."

dictionary.com " Accessible to all; unrestricted as to participants: an open competition. "
and " Free from limitations, boundaries, or restrictions: open registration

"open women" is incorrect. its not the end of the world. deal with it.

Chuck, i am puzzled by your apparent attachment to the division title: "Open Women." Has a top Pro Woman with clout told you that is her preferred name for the division? at what point did you buy into the idea :confused:

my original concern was the title of the division reads like it might be the result of a well-intended but misguided patriarchal attempt to help make the Pro Women's division something it is not (Open), but now i am just puzzled why "Open Women" is preferred over "Pro Women" by the powers-that-be -- especially given the PDGA's own present classification guidelines which specify Pro Women not Open Women as the title of our top Women's division.

If you are going to call the top gender-protected divsion "Open" why not be consistent and do the same with top age-protected division? :confused: It is not my preference because i find "Open Masters" and "Open Women" to sound awkward (if not ignorant), but given your argument for Open Women do you also argue for Open Masters? why or why not?

The definition defines a division listed specifically as "Open" but it does not exclude its use with additional qualifiers such as Open Women, Open Masters, etc. Apparently other sports see it that way, too. I believe several others also allow amateurs and pros to play together within their gender and/or age restricted open divisions.

I don't think we want to give the misguided impression to outsiders that players and women in particular can actually make a living as pros in this sport. That's why the terms Open and Open Women are so appropriate. Only a few players truly make a living on the competitive side as pros with Des probably being the closest woman currently with that status.



shouldn't we be far-sighted in our nomenclature and envision a day when our Pros won't just win some cash for their performance
but will instead win enough cash to call Professional disc golf their career? :confused:

by the way the point has been made upthread but maybe it needs to be reiterated: Pro Womens and Pro Masters divisions do not preclude am.s from participation -- rather "Pro" describes the level of play as well as the type of payout the division normally pays out.

Open Women and Open Masters will still define it better when that day comes that pros can make a living in the open divisions.

your opinion is noted /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Chapman hinted that although Pro Women is more accurate than Open Women, any change toward sensible accuracy would be resisted unless i came up with something really silly like "elite" to replace "open" ...

if it were just my opinion i wouldn't care but i'd like to see our sport look professional when ESPN and others begin to look in... :mad:

Open Women should be restricted to Par 2 holes

This is message board gold. Spinning wheels on topics of absolutely no value to the sport (or any of us even on a personal level). You gotta love it!

sorry -- Nick -- please go back to your regularly scheduled big problem solving heroics and don't let an inquiry into what Members have to say about some of our division names keep you from getting serious traction /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

if anything, this thread is a good indication of how difficult it can be to get even little things right.

if it were just my opinion i wouldn't care but i'd like to see our sport look professional when ESPN and others begin to look in... :mad:



The following sports use the Open Master division:
Weightlifting (I've seen on ESPN)
Sharpshooting (ESPN)
Cycling (ESPN)
Windsurfing (ESPN)
Snowshoe Racing (sponsored by NIKE for crying out loud!! SNOWSHOE RACING)

I don't think naming a division Open women or master looks unprofessional at all, and apparently neither do ESPN or NIKE. In fact, those names are very descriptive and easily understood.

Is 'Open' or 'Pro' Women the better division moniker?
Users may choose only one (81 total votes)
Open Women - 14 17%
Pro Women - 59 72%
either one of the above will do - 8 09%


72% of disc golfers who voted in this poll disagree with Nike.

the question still remains: If disc golfers like it better as Pro Women, the PDGA Official Classification is Pro Women, and even the ENGLISH LANGUAGE prefers Pro Women... why does Chuck hate it so much? What does it take to get such a small thing fixed? Apparently, reason, logic, and the will of the masses can't affect even the tiniest decision... why are we all members again? What is it that causes us to pay a couple hundred bucks a year in membership and tournament fees to an organization that refuses our input unless it's in the form of a paycheck? I used to have a good justification for that... right now it's getting harder to come up with.

also, spot-checking the list above... windsurfing does not have an official open women's division, they classify by discipline and sex only. They do not have an official amateur division. Vollyball looks like the same thing. Events sanctioned by the official pro sanctioning body don't have an amateur division. so... it's just women's and men's.

the majority of amateur-level competitions (in mainstream sports) top out at the collegiate level. we all know how strict the NCAA is about pro versus amateur... there aren't too many real examples to go by. Either way, the populous has spoken. "Open Women" should give way to the *already* official moniker of "Pro Women".

I don't hate it. I even call the entrants in Open Women, who are not amateurs, Pro Women. It's just not a better division name and doen't need fixing (unlike some other names). You had your say on the issue and didn't persuade me at least but I'm only one vote on the CC and not the head of it. And apparently many other (presumably literate) sports consider Open Women an appropriate moniker for their division that includes all women.

yes, I too can see that there are a few other misguided sports as well.





Published event results from a recent Running competition:
Josh Cross, 9th Open Men
Casey Carlstrom, 9th Masters Men
Rick Hobecke, 2nd Veterans Men
Rebecca Harmon, 2nd Open Women
Katie Danner, 4th Open Women
Valerie Curtis, 8th Open Women
Lorrie Tily, 4th Masters Women
Zsophia Franck, 1st Veteran Women

Published event results from a recent Boxing competition:
Boxing: Angel Bovee of Yonkers won a gold medal in the open women's welterweight division beating the Western region's Ela Nunez 3-2. ... Jennifer Egan, a Mahopac resident, claimed a gold medal by walkover in the open women's middleweight division.

Published event results from a Shooting competition:
Shooting: Kurt Boysen of Yonkers and Jeff Mancini of New Rochelle teamed with Tony Schneider to win a bronze medal in the men's and women's open division team skeet, scoring 344 out of 450.

Published event results from a Surfing competition:
Maui's 12-year-old female phenom, Carissa Moore, continued her NSSA onslaught by winning this year's open women's division.

Published event results from a Skiing competition:
...Sergio Font (MEX), with a beaut of a Ski Line 7 to finish his pass,
score 9500 points to win the Open Division and, Lorena Botana (ARG)
with close to 6000 pts won the Open Women's division.

Published event results from a Water Skiing competition:
In July 2005 she competed in the World Games in Duisburg, Germany and won a bronze medal in the Open Women's division after coming 5th in slalom, 3rd in jump and 2nd in tricks. Later in 2005 at the European (EAME) Championships in Albarella, Italy she helped the GB Open and Junior Teams repeat their successes from 2004 by winning Team Gold Medals. At the individual level, Emily won 4 gold medals (slalom, tricks, jump and overall) in the Junior Girls Competition and, in the Open Women's Competition, won a bronze in Slalom, Silver in Jump, Gold in Tricks and Silver in the Overall. She is currently the European Junior Girls Overall Champion and the European Women's Trick Champion.

Published event results from a Sailing competition:
The top result for the girls comes one week after Manyi and Mabel did incredibly well to finish in the Gold fleet at the 120 strong Australian Open Laser Radial National Championships and a very credible 11 th and 12 th in the Open Women's Division and 3 rd and 4 th in the Women's Youth Division.

Published event results from a Bodybuilding competition:
The figure division consisted of several beautiful ladies, divided into teen, open, and masters (over 35). Kathryn Enochs won the teen division. The master's figure division was won by Cami Wolfe. Wolfe also won the open women's division. Wolfe is a fabulous figure competitor with great symmetry.


More Bodybuilding results:
In the Open Women division, Open Women Lightweight went to Nancy Lublink. Open Women Middleweight went to Vicki Combest and Open Women Heavyweight and Overall winner was won by, big surprise, Dani Craig. I hope she brought a U-haul for all those trophies!

Published event results from a Track & Field event:
Full Purapura athletics results

3 August: Purapura Games athletics results:
Under 19 200m Men - Akaruru Akaruru (Puk) 28.0s Gold, Osolai Akai (Puk) 29.4 Silver,
Taua Elisa (Mani) 30.0 Bronze.
Under 19 200m Women - Emma Kaitara (Mani) 34.7 Gold, Enuake Takai (Rak) 35.0 Silver, Amy Auora (Puk) 35.3 Bronze.
Open Men 200m - Vata Vailoa (Puk) 27.5 Gold, Thomas Elisa (Mani) 28.4 Silver, Papapo Koteka (Mani) 29.1 Bronze.
Open Women 200m - Loisi Teinaki (Puk) 34.8 Gold, Herodia Repaio (Rak) 35.7 Silver, Tereapii Rouru (Rak) 35.8 Bronze.
Under 19 Men 400m - Osolai Akai (Puk) 75.0 Gold, Akaruru Akaruru 77 Silver, Ngarima Simiona (Man) 78 Bronze.
Under 19 Women 400m - Maria Tukia (Puk) 85.0 Gold, Mum Papahu (Rak) 89.0 Silver, Wetu Beniamina (Puk) 92.0 Bronze.
Open Men 400m - Vata Vailoa (Puk) 1.10.0 Gold, Stewart Williams (Puk) 1.12.1 Silver, Jack Pokipoki (Man) 1.12.6 Bronze.
Open Women 400 - Tereapii Rouru (Rak) 87.0 Gold, Rimangauru Makonia (Puk) 89.0 Silver, Matavaka Merota (Man) Bronze.
Under 19 Men 1500m - Stanley Pokipoki (Rak) 5.28mins Gold, Roimata Rouru (Rak) 5.45 Silver, Ruarau Ruarau (Puk) 6.07 Bronze.
Under 19 Women 1500m - Maria Tukia (Puk) 8.32 mins Gold, Paddy Luka (Puk) 8.43 Silver, Rosalina William (Man) 9.08 Bronze.
Open Men 1500m - Stewart Willams (Puk) 5.29 Gold, Dylan Murray (Man) 6.00 Silver, Marcel Elisa (Man) 6.08 Bronze.
Open Women 1500m - Corriner Maretapu (Pen) 6.54 Gold, Romea Temoana (Puk) 7.26 Silver, Tereapii Rouru (Rak) 7.33 Bronze.
Open Men 800m - Stewart William (Puk) 2.50.1 Gold, Neti Tarau Jr (Rak) 2.56.0 Silver, Marcel Elisa (Man) 2.58.5 Bronze.
Under 19 Men 800m - Tengere (Puk) 2.54.3 Gold, Stanley Pokipoki (Rak) 2.59.4 Silver, Ruarau Ruarau (Puk) 3.11.2 Bronze.
Under 19 Men Shotput - Kuo Marurai (Puk) 10.10m Gold, Junior Merota (Man) 9.95 Silver, Teariki (Pen) 9.45m Bronze.
Open Men Shotput - Papau William (Man) 10.40 Gold, Apha Nooroto (Puk) 9.30 Silver, James Kareroa (Man) 9.30 Bronze.
Under 19 Women Javelin - Tina Papai (Man) 27.07m Gold, Wetu Beniamina (Puk) 26.98m Silver, Maria Tukia (Puk) 24.16m Bronze.
Open Women Javelin - Lawrencia William (Man) 23.75m Gold, Atera Temoana (Puk) 21.96m Silver, Ngatupuna R (Rak) 19.88m Bronze.
Under 19 Men 100m - Akaruru Akaruru (Puk) 13.3s Gold, Grabral William (Man) 13.3 Silver, Stanley Pokipoki (Rak) 14 Bronze.
Under 19 Women 100m - Any Auora (Puk) 16.4 Gold, Emma Kaitara (Man) 16.7 Silver, Mum Papahu (Rak) 16.9 Bronze.
Open men 100m - Vata Vailoa (Puk) 13.4s Gold, Thomas Elisa (Man) 13.5 Silver, Neti Tarau Jr (Rak) 13.7 Bronze.
Open Women 100m - Loisi Teinaki (Puk) 17s Gold, Tereapii Rouru (Rak) 17.6 Silver, Herodia Repaio (Rak) 17.6 Bronze.
Under 19 Men 4x 100m Relay - Gabral, Taua, David Ngarima (Man) 54.8 Gold, Akaruru, Kuo, Tipi, Osolai (Puk) 54.9 Silver, Stanley, Roimata, Bashan, Puna (Rak) 1.12.5 Bronze.
Under 19 Women 4x100m Relay - Amy, Maria, Wetu, Taumaihi (Puk) 1.08.5 Gold, Emma, Dawn, Joyanna, Rosalina (Man) 1.08.8 Silver, Enuake, Mum, Mamatotoo, Culture (Rak) 1.10.0 Bronze.
Open Men 4x100m Relay - Papapo, Veremo, Thomas, Samuela (Man) 53.8s Gold, Vata, Tereva, Yimano, Rori (Puk) 55 Silver, Toka, Officer, Tuteru, John (Rak) 56.4 Bronze.
Open Women 4x100m Relay - Loisi, Teoi, Taute, Rimangauru (Puk) 1.09.3 Gold, Matavaka, Miliana, Joy, Mama Hotu (Man) 1.10.7 Silver, Herodia, Tereapii, Raela, Kimiora, (Rak) 1.11.1 Bronze.
Under 19 Women Long Jump - Wetu Beniamina (Puk) 3.82m Gold, Amy Auora (Puk) 3.78 Silver, Tina Papai (Man) 3.70 Bronze.
Under 19 Men Discus - Maona Ravarua (Puk) 31.12m Gold, Tealo Tinomana (Puk) 31.12 Silver, Stanley Pokipoki (Rak) 26.17 Bronze.
Under 19 Women Discus - Amy Auora (Puk) 21.44m Gold, Mum Papahu (Rak) 20.45 Silver, Norma Manila (Puk) 18.60 Bronze.
Open Men Discus - Vata Vailoa (Puk) 27.17m Gold, John Mehau (Rak) 26.49 Silver, Tuteru Taripo (Rak) 26.13 Bronze.
Open Women Discus - Matepi Nio (Puk) 23.78m Gold, Nikita Samson (Man) 23.40 Silver, Wainika Taana (Rak) 22.10 Bronze.
Under 19 Women Shotput - Emma Kaitara (Man) 7.82m, Sheena John (Man) 7.70 Silver, Uata Rikini (Puk) 7.53 Bronze.
Open Women Shotput - Lawrencia William (Man) 9.32m Gold, Ngatupuna R (Rak) 8.60 Silver, Nikita Samson (Man) 8.35 Bronze.
Under 19 Men Javelin - Tealo Tinomana (Puk) 45.75m Gold, Ruarau Ruarau (Puk) 41.97 Silver, Grabral William (Man) 36.47 Bronze.
Open Men Javelin - Vata Vailoa (Puk) 43.70m Gold, Rori Daniel (Puk) 41.02, Teanini Teariki (Rak) 35.48 Bronze.


Either way, the populous has spoken. "Open Women" should give way to the *already* official moniker of "Pro Women".



the populous has spoken, eh? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

also, spot-checking the list above... windsurfing does not have an official open women's division,


Actually, if you read the list above, those are sports which offer an open master's division.

We're up to 16 pages of guys going back and forth on what to name a women's division. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

To quote Carl from Caddy Shack, "I have to laugh".

The irony isn't lost on me. :D

No women on the Competition Committee and it's not because they've been excluded. No women have lately volunteered to run for the Board or be on any of the committees including chairing the Women's Committee (unless that changed recently). There are several State Coordinators at least.

There are several State Coordinators at least.



I'm one!

I still think it's funny. ;)

thats one articale about one s[port. doesnt matter howm any times they make the same mistake in the articale, they are still wrong.

unlike the general population, the PDGA Membership is less willing to accept whatever affronts to the english language our leaders decide to unleash upon us.

the populous has spoken, eh? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

yes, the PDGA membership populous. Everyone allowed to vote here on the board must be a PDGA member. Those who cared to vote made "Pro Women" the resounding favorite over "Open Women". please see my above post about the vote totals for the "populous" reference.

Either way, this has become tiresome. We attempted to right a wrong... we voted, we explained, we even pointed out that the PDGA *already* made this change in their official divisions guide. I can only talk to a brick wall for so long. If the PDGA wants to be unprofessional, I can't stop them. I'll just have to accept the damage done and move on. Sandals... it's all yours ;)

thats one articale about one s[port. doesnt matter howm any times they make the same mistake in the articale, they are still wrong.[/[QUOTE]


You are incorrect, Sandalman. The Open Women divisional results I posted were acquired through numerous independent web sites (via Google). I simply wanted to provide evidence that Open Women Divisions exist and are recognized in more traditional (and much more popular) sports outside of Disc Golf.

[QUOTE]
unlike the general population, the PDGA Membership is less willing to accept whatever affronts to the english language our leaders decide to unleash upon us.



Based upon the spelling skills you've demonstrated above, I question your authority in the proper use of the English language. :o:D

Ah, now if we could only get all the guys here arguing the women's division names to bring out a few girls to play we might be talking............Call me a pro woman, open woman, doesn't really matter, just bring someone for me to play against.

Never leave home without your orc.



^ sage advice! ^ :D

Ah, now if we could only get all the guys here arguing the women's division names to bring out a few girls to play we might be talking............Call me a pro woman, open woman, doesn't really matter, just bring someone for me to play against.


find my wife a job that lets her play on saturdays, and you've got a deal :). her last tournament was LOSO 2004, where she won the rec women's division... sadly, her job keeps her away from all the weekend events. If she had been able to keep working on her game for the last couple years... she might just be competition for ya ;)

spelling and typing are two different skillsets. :D

yes, it was more than one article, i see that now. they're all wrong :D

her last tournament was LOSO 2004, where she won the rec women's division...


oops, I meant that she won the Open Rec Womens' division. My mistake.

I think the bottom line is that the 3 women who have posted on this topic don't give a rat's rump what you call the top women's divsion.

Our overwhelming concern is the overall lack of women playing DG in general and tourmanents in particular.

Please return to your discussion. :D

Our overwhelming concern is the overall lack of women playing DG in general and tourmanents in particular.



I concur. :)

Our overwhelming concern is the overall lack of women playing DG in general and tourmanents in particular.



I concur. :)


a valid concern, but not the subject of this thread :)

Our overwhelming concern is the overall lack of women playing DG in general and tourmanents in particular.



I concur. :)


a valid concern, but not the subject of this thread :)

maybe the stupid name is keeping them away :D

maybe the stupid name is keeping them away :D



i am "open" to that possibility :D :D /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

my opinion of the possibility is only advanced, but i did express it once, so now to it i must steadfastedly adhere

if i send you some cash for your trouble, would you accept it? :eek:

(paper or plastic?) :D

a valid concern, but not the subject of this thread :)



Then please re-read the beginning of my post. It IS on topic. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I think the bottom line is that the 3 women who have posted on this topic don't give a rat's rump what you call the top women's divsion.



i thought the common theme amongst them was that "there is only one Open division" ;)

There are "common themes" and then there are "overall concerns".

There is only one "open" division, but if I had to choose what I cared about more, it would be the lack of women players. But as was pointed out earlier, that isn't the topic of this thread. ;)

i would like to see more women players too. not sure a thread asking if others would like to see that happen is necessary though. and i think the politically powerful in the PDGA are on board too.

what got you interested in disc golf and kept you here?

I think we should stick the historical PDGA definition of "Open", which is "not age restricted".

There's nothing wrong with that definition. It still works fine. Just because the tiddlywinks and bocce ball organizations use the term Open differently doesn't mean we have to change.

We should make changes that make sense and do something to beter things. Changing the defintion of "Open" does none of that.

2. Correct me if Im wrong, b/c Im not double-checking, but if this debate has arisen from the table of divisions and their codes/qualification standards, and/or from the M/S Word originating doc that describes PDGA divs, then the term Open Women is in fact a subtitle beneath the title Professional Divisions, so its already evident that Open Women are Pros.



You asked for the corrrection. The term Open Women is not a subtitle underneath the title Professional Divisions. Pro Women is a subtitle. Open Women is used within that subtitle to describe it. :cool:



<u>Professional Divisions</u>
.
.
.
Pro Women - the top women�s division, available to female players of any age. A top Open Women's player will have played at least 5 years, throws 300-375 feet accurately, make 6-8/10 putts from 25-30 feet, throws backhand and forehand.
Ratings Guideline: 925+ Score range: <58
An average Open Women's player will have played several years, throws 250-325 feet, make 5-6/10 putts from 25-30 feet.
Ratings Guideline: 900+ Score range: <61
.
.
.

PDGAOffice,

here are my concerns aboutyour responses:


1. Its now been proven that many other sports use the same terminology ie Open Women. In that context the title of this thread is inappropriate, ie the nomenclature has been proven thru broad usage in sports in general it follows that it is sensible.

so it is monkey-see, monkey-do now? well, then lets start clear-cuting our fairways, dumping tons of chemicals on our courses, and generally abandon all of the good things that make our sport different simply because "that aint the way we'vwe done it before". That is lazy, it's a cop-out, and a lot more should be expected from our leaders. Accepting what others do, especially when they are incorrect, is not a good recipe for success. Take a Stand. Save the Environment. Play Disc Golf. Use Good Grammar. those are not so incompatible.


2. Correct me if Im wrong, b/c Im not double-checking, but if this debate has arisen from the table of divisions and their codes/qualification standards, and/or from the M/S Word originating doc that describes PDGA divs, then the term Open Women is in fact a subtitle beneath the title Professional Divisions, so its already evident that Open Women are Pros.

well, Duke already corrected you, so no need to rehash that. It is very clever to blame the issue on some old document. That definitely concludes the discussion satisfactorily :).


3. And to me this is really the only meaningful point here, dont you think this is a Women's issue that really should be decided by the Women ? Here are 2 suggestions that would empower the Women to decide 1 whether this is an issue at all and 2 how they wish it to be handled. Either send it to the Women's Committee for dissemination to our female members, or, but this wont ensure Women only voting on it, move the issue to the Womens thread.

wow, what a concept - let the Members decide. maybe we should try that! oh, when you give the Women the right to make up their own name with no regard to any of the other division names or organization coherence, please make sure that the Mens Committee, Juniors Committee, Masters Committee, and all of the necessary variations gets the same right, in fact, before form a committee for each division so each can become empowered to deal with this issue as they/it see fit. Yep, that'll work well.

Accepting what others do, especially when they are incorrect, is not a good recipe for success.



Yeah....let's hope Disc Golf doesn't use the same recipe for success like other professional sports who award titles to Open Women winners; Bodybuilding, Billiards, Cycling, Fencing, Running, Skiing, Skating, Surfing, Track & Field, etc.

It sounds like a recipe for disaster... :o

PDGAOffice,

here are my concerns aboutyour responses:


1. Its now been proven that many other sports use the same terminology ie Open Women. In that context the title of this thread is inappropriate, ie the nomenclature has been proven thru broad usage in sports in general it follows that it is sensible.

so it is monkey-see, monkey-do now? well, then lets start clear-cuting our fairways, dumping tons of chemicals on our courses, and generally abandon all of the good things that make our sport different simply because "that aint the way we'vwe done it before". That is lazy, it's a cop-out, and a lot more should be expected from our leaders. Accepting what others do, especially when they are incorrect, is not a good recipe for success. Take a Stand. Save the Environment. Play Disc Golf. Use Good Grammar. those are not so incompatible.


2. Correct me if Im wrong, b/c Im not double-checking, but if this debate has arisen from the table of divisions and their codes/qualification standards, and/or from the M/S Word originating doc that describes PDGA divs, then the term Open Women is in fact a subtitle beneath the title Professional Divisions, so its already evident that Open Women are Pros.

well, Duke already corrected you, so no need to rehash that. It is very clever to blame the issue on some old document. That definitely concludes the discussion satisfactorily :).


3. And to me this is really the only meaningful point here, dont you think this is a Women's issue that really should be decided by the Women ? Here are 2 suggestions that would empower the Women to decide 1 whether this is an issue at all and 2 how they wish it to be handled. Either send it to the Women's Committee for dissemination to our female members, or, but this wont ensure Women only voting on it, move the issue to the Womens thread.

wow, what a concept - let the Members decide. maybe we should try that! oh, when you give the Women the right to make up their own name with no regard to any of the other division names or organization coherence, please make sure that the Mens Committee, Juniors Committee, Masters Committee, and all of the necessary variations gets the same right, in fact, before form a committee for each division so each can become empowered to deal with this issue as they/it see fit. Yep, that'll work well.



Wow, are you going to have this kind of demeanor and tone of voice when you are sitting right across the table from Brian during PDGA meetings? That should create a nice atmosphere for resolving issues.

Baldguy;

Here are my concerns on this issue:

1. Its now been proven that many other sports use the same terminology ie Open Women. In that context the title of this thread is inappropriate, ie the nomenclature has been proven thru broad usage in sports in general it follows that it is sensible.


not to be unnecessarily extreme, but thousands of people all over the world drive drunk every day of the year... does that make it sensible?

2. Correct me if Im wrong, b/c Im not double-checking, but if this debate has arisen from the table of divisions and their codes/qualification standards, and/or from the M/S Word originating doc that describes PDGA divs, then the term Open Women is in fact a subtitle beneath the title Professional Divisions, so its already evident that Open Women are Pros.


This debate has arisen because the term "Open" is misused and there are many of us that deem that misuse unprofessional and below the standards we expect the PDGA to uphold. I can rehash a bunch of reasons why... or the reader can simply scroll up.

3. And to me this is really the only meaningful point here, dont you think this is a Women's issue that really should be decided by the Women ? Here are 2 suggestions that would empower the Women to decide 1 whether this is an issue at all and 2 how they wish it to be handled. Either send it to the Women's Committee for dissemination to our female members, or, but this wont ensure Women only voting on it, move the issue to the Womens thread.


Actually, I do not think this is strictly a Women's issue. I think it's a standards and practices issue (or Rules and Standards, to better fit the forum). The PDGA's women are certainly *capable* of making a decision like this, but the responsibility falls on the PDGA membership as a whole. The majority of us want to be represented in a way that will further the sport.

So that we don't rehash too much... let's try another angle: Give us a *good* reason (read: supported by facts and/or logic) that the term "Open" is only used to refer to Pro divisions. Chuck says that it is the broader term, later qualified by "Women"... if that is true, then all divisions should be preceeded by the term "Open" and qualified by "Amateur" or "Intermediate", etc. Please see my earlier post where I explained this concept through example.

If you can give us a good answer for why "Open" is only used for Pro divisions (instead of all divisions), but is somehow better than the word "Pro"... I'll drop this topic and immediately go buy something from the PDGA pro shop :)

Wow, are you going to have this kind of demeanor and tone of voice when you are sitting right across the table from Brian during PDGA meetings? That should create a nice atmosphere for resolving issues.


Not to defend filthy feets... but if you know him personally, you know that sarcasm is part of his personality. I don't think anyone sitting across from him at a table is going to take offense to this tone. Sometimes, a bit of shock and awe is the only way to get someone's attention.

Discette, with all due respect to you, the three answers provided by Brian were asking for an response such as mine. also, Brian and i have spoken many times. Sometimes i've {made him mad}, other time made him happy. i am convinced that Brian knows that opinions lead to discussions which lead to all kinds of things, sometimes even consensus and progress.

are you suggesting that i should acquiesce to whatever anyone says, just to be able to sit across a table knowing we are all of the same mind on all issues? if thats why people voted for me they werent paying attention, and they dont know how orgnziation behavior works.

we'll be all right. there's a time and a place for all styles. believe it or not, i am frequently called upon for my diplomacy skills in work related issues. i have worked (not vacationed, been there, travelled, but WORKED) in England, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Hungary, Romania and China (and of course everyone's favorite, the USofA). my work involved being the advance man to set up new businesses with new joint venture partners with my US employer. i was the one they sent to take care of business on the ground over there. i am fairly confident of my actual flexibility and capacity for compromise and negotiation. its been proven repeatedly over the last 20 years.

showoff ;)

yeah but you can still out drive me :D

(if there's no trees on the fairway, anyway :o)

Discette, with all due respect to you, the three answers provided by Brian were asking for an response such as mine. also, Brian and i have spoken many times. Sometimes i've {made him mad}, other time made him happy. i am convinced that Brian knows that opinions lead to discussions which lead to all kinds of things, sometimes even consensus and progress.

are you suggesting that i should acquiesce to whatever anyone says, just to be able to sit across a table knowing we are all of the same mind on all issues? if thats why people voted for me they werent paying attention, and they dont know how orgnziation behavior works.

we'll be all right. there's a time and a place for all styles. believe it or not, i am frequently called upon for my diplomacy skills in work related issues. i have worked (not vacationed, been there, travelled, but WORKED) in England, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Hungary, Romania and China (and of course everyone's favorite, the USofA). my work involved being the advance man to set up new businesses with new joint venture partners with my US employer. i was the one they sent to take care of business on the ground over there. i am fairly confident of my actual flexibility and capacity for compromise and negotiation. its been proven repeatedly over the last 20 years.




You are very much entitled to defend your point of view.
However, it is probably more productive to refrain from any sort of negativity while doing it.

ZING!

wait... who's Nick? :p

i would gladly accept any pointers on where in my reply you thought i was negative, condescending, or indicated an inability to compromise. i can be condescending, but not so often negative, and only very extremely rarely unwilling to compromise. (i am assuming you are referring to the post of mine you quoted, and not Brian's original response.)

i would gladly accept any pointers on where in my reply you thought i was negative, condescending, or indicated an inability to compromise. i can be condescending, but not so often negative, and only very extremely rarely unwilling to compromise. (i am assuming you are referring to the post of mine you quoted, and not Brian's original response.)



Sandal, sadly I must admit I thought the same things as Discette when I read your response to BDH, and frankly, I expect that as a new board member, this does not become your standard demeanor. Do you honestly not see anything wrong with the way you said the following:


so it is monkey-see, monkey-do now? well, then lets start clear-cuting our fairways, dumping tons of chemicals on our courses, and generally abandon all of the good things that make our sport different simply because "that aint the way we'vwe done it before". That is lazy, it's a cop-out, and a lot more should be expected from our leaders.

Ever witnessed a session of British Parliament? This is tame :)

No more thread derailment, please. It would be nice to have a response from BDH, or at least some more discussion on this topic. Pat's demeanor is not the issue here.

actually, i see my response as mildly aggressive, somewhat direct, and within the spirit of message board communications. lets remember that i was responding to a post in which a BoD member openly admitted he was not going to bother looking up a quote. if discette had also chastised Brian for condescension the charge against me might gain some credibility. and btw, as Gary Duke, Texas State Coordinator, pointed out, not bothering to look something up ended up with the wrong conclusion. hmmmmm....

again i ask, should i simply agree to all other opinions without dissent? or are we just talking about style of this post?

Baldguy is right... Brian and I are not the topic here. We have worked, can work, and will work, productively together.

I don't really have an issue with either usage of the term Open to describe the top and otherwise unrestricted women's division. I have a problem with people that describe all professional divisions as the open divisions. And those TDs that describe above 2m as OB instead of disc suspended above 2m, but that's a different topic.

Open is used in many places as unrestricted by age or skill level. I'm find with that. The division guidelines need to be updated to reflect that. The document needs to be corrected in any case because it uses both Pro Womena and Open Women to describe the same division.

Upon further review, I prefer Open Women to Pro Women when you compare it to the Master Women name. It might be confusing without Master Pro Women.

too bad you cant at least try to work together.

here is the message you sent me:
----------------------------------------------------
Pat

As an incoming board member its time to clean up your act. If you are going to make a mountain out of molehill issues like FPO nomenclature and diss your principal employee in public then your and my relationship is going to be fraught with problems. Under Georgia law I dont have to give the PDGA any notice, if thats what you are looking for just say the word and I will advice the others either you go or I go. As a BOD member its time to start acting like a PDGA advocate, I dont care if we disagree, but if you chastise me one more time in public, it will be hardball between you and I.

BDH
-------------------------------------------

you are threatening "hardball" between you and I? whats that mean??? do i need to look over my shoulder when i am walking down the street??? whats with the threats?????

you are giving an ultimatum of "either you or me"??? what kind of maturity does that indicate???

Brian, i have no issue with Brian. i do have some ideas about the actions that Brian takes. big deal. thats called differences of opinion. i readily admit when i am wrong, no problem.

we say we want new blood in the BoD. we say we want new ideas. guess what... those dont happen without discussion, even confrontation. if you want a yes-man, just let me know. if our organization is perfect, let me know, and i will stop all efforts to improve it in which i am involved.

this is not chastisement or dissing. it is suggesting that as much as you wish me to tone down my online act, and agree to not disagree with pdga stuff, one cannot bring about progress without some level of discomfort.


ps - i would have replied via PM, but when i click the REPLY button it says i cannot proceed. are Members not allowed to PM the PDGAOffice account?

I find this amusing. Pat was duly elected, and he has his own opinions and style. The horror.

I suspect that everyone, paid and volunteer, have disc golf at heart and will work towards common goals. Geniality is overrated, especially when goals can be achieved. My prediction is that y'all will work together just fine.

I sincerely hope that was posted with permission and further hope that the two of you come to an understanding that personal opinions posted on the message board, even when posted by board members, do not represent the opinions of the PDGA.

It is also important to note that people in positions of responsibility often work whole heartedly in support of decisions or opinions they may not personally agree with.

I think if you are sending threatening e-mails, you give up your expectation of privacy. If Brian is threatening to quit over something as trivial as this, that's something we should all know.

Sandalman says:


i readily admit when i am wrong, no problem.



Prove it.

i agreed my original reply was somewhat aggressive...not much, but a start. i have said many times that i was wrong on this message board i'm pretty sure i'll be wrong again. if you truly want me to find examples, i suppose i will dig them up. i will say tho that not all issues are either/or. often the question is not right vs wrong but rather open- vs. close- minded, change vs. status quo, and so on. i am not afraid of being wrong. i am afraid of being silent and of being silenced.

I think if you are sending threatening e-mails, you give up your expectation of privacy. If Brian is threatening to quit over something as trivial as this, that's something we should all know.



Wow Bruce....I can't believe that you actually wrote that. This coming from the guy that we all know from firsthand experience is an expert at quitting over trivial matters. Does the hypocrisy ever end with you?

While Pat's adversarial approach in regards to dealing with the PDGA Board and staff, may seem trivial to you, it is something that deeply concerns me and many other PDGA members. Nobody wants a yes man or a puppet on the BOD, but we also do not want somebody who continually chooses to stir the pot and ruffle feathers instead of using a more appropriate method (common courtesy) to make positive changes from within. Is this asking too much of a newly elected official?

Regards,
Brian Graham

so ummm.... how 'bout them cowboys?

seriously. folks. simmah down.

BDH - can you please respond to my question about "Open" being used only for the pro divisions? That's on topic, and that's what I think will help clarify this whole issue. If the PDGA wants to define "Open" strictly as "not restricted with regard to classification" then fine... I'll accept it whether I think it's right or not. With the way this thread has gone, I don't think I'll be talking about "professionalism" again for awhile... I just want to know the official stance.

"adversarial approach in regards to dealing with the PDGA Board and staff, may seem trivial to you, it is something that deeply concerns me and many other PDGA members"

a bit of a stretch, there. good thing those "many" members didnt vote for me!

i dont continue to chooseto stir the pot or ruffle the feathers... just do it when i feel it is appropriate. i feel it is a far better approach than threatening to "play hardball".

And the beat goes on..... :(

grrr... do I need to hack this forum and lock out all non-topic-related posts? :D

maybe I should run for office just so I can get in on all the meaty arguments. Or apply for a consultancy so I can make this server run worth a **** :cool:

*sigh* it's a really good thing I have my discs with me today. nothing cures the frustation of participating in disc golf message boards like... playing disc golf

hack the board??? and all this time i thought it was Grunion! :D

i guess i was WRONG!

I think if you are sending threatening e-mails, you give up your expectation of privacy. If Brian is threatening to quit over something as trivial as this, that's something we should all know.



Wow Bruce....I can't believe that you actually wrote that. This coming from the guy that we all know from firsthand experience is an expert at quitting over trivial matters. Does the hypocrisy ever end with you?

While Pat's adversarial approach in regards to dealing with the PDGA Board and staff, may seem trivial to you, it is something that deeply concerns me and many other PDGA members. Nobody wants a yes man or a puppet on the BOD, but we also do not want somebody who continually chooses to stir the pot and ruffle feathers instead of using a more appropriate method (common courtesy) to make positive changes from within. Is this asking too much of a newly elected official?

Regards,
Brian Graham


Can we use the epithet that rhymes with "thumb mass"? Perhaps I should stay away from ad hominem attacks and leave that to experts.

If we had a Constitution, i.e., if we had not recently reduced our organization to mob rule, I'd be circulating a petition. I think it is against the interests of the PDGA for a staff member to be threatening to obstruct a newly elected Board member in the performance of his duties as a board member.

I don't see how anyone can view committing or walking away from committing felonies as a trivial matter. I have to assume you are simply ignorant of the matter, since it has been discussed openly at length. If the PDGA were to be prosecuted for what it is doing, the presumptive penalty would be a $250,000 fine. I don't see how anyone can view that as a trivial matter.

PDGAOffice,

here are my concerns aboutyour responses:


1. Its now been proven that many other sports use the same terminology ie Open Women. In that context the title of this thread is inappropriate, ie the nomenclature has been proven thru broad usage in sports in general it follows that it is sensible.

so it is monkey-see, monkey-do now? well, then lets start clear-cuting our fairways, dumping tons of chemicals on our courses, and generally abandon all of the good things that make our sport different simply because "that aint the way we'vwe done it before". That is lazy, it's a cop-out, and a lot more should be expected from our leaders. Accepting what others do, especially when they are incorrect, is not a good recipe for success. Take a Stand. Save the Environment. Play Disc Golf. Use Good Grammar. those are not so incompatible.


2. Correct me if Im wrong, b/c Im not double-checking, but if this debate has arisen from the table of divisions and their codes/qualification standards, and/or from the M/S Word originating doc that describes PDGA divs, then the term Open Women is in fact a subtitle beneath the title Professional Divisions, so its already evident that Open Women are Pros.

well, Duke already corrected you, so no need to rehash that. It is very clever to blame the issue on some old document. That definitely concludes the discussion satisfactorily :).


3. And to me this is really the only meaningful point here, dont you think this is a Women's issue that really should be decided by the Women ? Here are 2 suggestions that would empower the Women to decide 1 whether this is an issue at all and 2 how they wish it to be handled. Either send it to the Women's Committee for dissemination to our female members, or, but this wont ensure Women only voting on it, move the issue to the Womens thread.

wow, what a concept - let the Members decide. maybe we should try that! oh, when you give the Women the right to make up their own name with no regard to any of the other division names or organization coherence, please make sure that the Mens Committee, Juniors Committee, Masters Committee, and all of the necessary variations gets the same right, in fact, before form a committee for each division so each can become empowered to deal with this issue as they/it see fit. Yep, that'll work well.



Wow, are you going to have this kind of demeanor and tone of voice when you are sitting right across the table from Brian during PDGA meetings? That should create a nice atmosphere for resolving issues.



i think you are maybe reading some tone and demeanor into it that may not be there. i for one am glad to know there will be someone willing to challenge our leadership and get them to take a critical look at their own positions. in fact you could have equally have asked Brian if he is going to give dismissive answers to member ideas or opinions that he disagrees with?

when they are across the table from one another, i suspect (hope) both will be a little more accomodating of the other's perspective.

" just do it when i feel it is appropriate" ????

It was appropriate to call out fellow committee members on a chat board about a subject that is basically a debate in semantics? Come on now.

I believe it was mentioned more than once that the chat board approach being taken looked less than productive while you were still in the 'candidate' position. If this is 'appropriate' in your mind, I would expect problems. Especially if you feel it was justified to "stir the pot or ruffle the feathers" over something as trivial as 'Pro' vs. 'Open' titles.

You will have your meetings, you will have your say, you will have your chance to make yor opinions known. Why poison it all here in such a circus of an arena? You're no longer one of the circus clowns, you are part of the management team.

i think you are maybe reading some tone and demeanor into it that may not be there. i for one am glad to know there will be someone willing to challenge our leadership and get them to take a critical look at their own positions. in fact you could have equally have asked Brian if he is going to give dismissive answers to member ideas or opinions that he disagrees with?

when they are across the table from one another, i suspect (hope) both will be a little more accomodating of the other's perspective.


well said.

I just thought of something: Is it right to call the younger divisions "Juniors" if their parents do not share the same name? Discuss.

/msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

[ So that we don't rehash too much... let's try another angle: Give us a *good* reason (read: supported by facts and/or logic) that the term "Open" is only used to refer to Pro divisions. Chuck says that it is the broader term, later qualified by "Women"... if that is true, then all divisions should be preceeded by the term "Open" and qualified by "Amateur" or "Intermediate", etc. Please see my earlier post where I explained this concept through example.



... your request is still being side-stepped, dismissed, or maybe they are working on the answer /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


If you can give us a good answer for why "Open" is only used for Pro divisions (instead of all divisions), but is somehow better than the word "Pro"... I'll drop this topic and immediately go buy something from the PDGA pro shop :)



if the powers-that-be already have their mind made up, they may find such provocative and humorous challenges fairly irritating. ;)

i wanna buy something from the PDGA Open Shop. but it was only Pro from 8AM to 3PM central, so i'll have to wait till tomorrow :D

" just do it when i feel it is appropriate" ????

It was appropriate to call out fellow committee members on a chat board about a subject that is basically a debate in semantics? Come on now.

I believe it was mentioned more than once that the chat board approach being taken looked less than productive while you were still in the 'candidate' position. If this is 'appropriate' in your mind, I would expect problems. Especially if you feel it was justified to "stir the pot or ruffle the feathers" over something as trivial as 'Pro' vs. 'Open' titles.

You will have your meetings, you will have your say, you will have your chance to make yor opinions known. Why poison it all here in such a circus of an arena? You're no longer one of the circus clowns, you are part of the management team.



your blaming the wrong party for the poisoning of the topic. it was the dismissive 'we know best' approach of others that prompted Pat to become challenging. At that point the issue was dropped and they began making Pat the issue. yeah, it's a major conspiracy -- we got Pat to volunteer his time and expertise to throw monkey wrenches in the Grand Plans of the PDGA /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif it's sad those who want the division to be called something less contradictory than Open Women have to be treated as if they are BAD guys. why not just make a case for using "Open Women" and not merely site pseudo sports that have already erred in the matter but are getting television coverage?

I'm not talking about poisoning the topic, I'm talking about poisoning the relationship.

The new person doesn't have to use this arena for such purposes. There are better ways now that he is an insider. He doesn't have to try and force change via the message board. To do so isn't productive for anyone.

There will be times that he doesn't agree with the decision of the board (majority rules), and as one of the committee members it will be his place to promote the common good after the meeting is over. Not air out his misgivings or take on committee members after the fact in public forums. Do the prior actions convince anyone that this will be possible for our new member?

This is not about something as trivial as 'pro' vs. 'open'. If this subject is important to Pat, he will have plenty of opportunities to bring it up. This is about being responsible for the role that you have been voted into, and learning how to be productive and have the Board as a whole be productive as well. IMO, trying to change things via a chat board is not productive, and not necessary if you have better avenues available.

i do not (yet) have other avenues available. i do not intent to solve a problem here, just discuss it. there was no animosity until i (over)reacted to a post from a current leader who made a policy statement without researching it, and ended up being wrong. at least i know why i am the bad guy :)

i thought Pat was Discussing on the discussion board a topic of interest to him. i didn't see him posting with a avatar that says OFFICIAL PDGA BoD nor did i hear him poisoning the relationship. he confronted the post that dismissed his perspective. wow.

i am beginning to wonder if the PDGA wants me to unask the question of why we call the Professional Women's division
"Open Women" ... :confused:

Email or telephone doesn't come to mind? Waiting for the next meeting doesn't come to mind?

Perhaps you may consider that your role on the message board changed the day that you became a Board member, and that your approach using this medium should reflect this change. You can't be one of the clowns if you have taken the position of ring leader.

On a more positive side, I voted for you, and I still think you have good ideas. Please convey them constructively in a forum that allows all to be treated fairly and have their views heard without snap judgement by the masses, and perhaps positive change will occur.

actually, i am not a BoD member yet. i may or may not be privy to any current BoD discussons, depending on whether i get forwarded the BoD Discussion Baord messages from thje yahoo group.

obviously, the last page of tis thread has been a trainwreck.

i will do my best to live up to your vote, which i do appreciate. i will (and have, believe me) toned down my "style" of posting a bit. i failed on that today, for reasons i have explained.

regardless, i absolutely promise this: when i am on the BoD, the other members will get nothing but respect from me. i am capable of seperating a person's opinions and actions frrom them as human individuals.

actually, i am not a BoD member yet. i may or may not be privy to any current BoD discussons, depending on whether i get forwarded the BoD Discussion Baord messages from thje yahoo group.

obviously, the last page of tis thread has been a trainwreck.

i will do my best to live up to your vote, which i do appreciate. i will (and have, believe me) toned down my "style" of posting a bit. i failed on that today, for reasons i have explained.

regardless, i absolutely promise this: when i am on the BoD, the other members will get nothing but respect from me. i am capable of seperating a person's opinions and actions frrom them as human individuals.



Thank you. I feel less worried now.

when you are on the BoD, here is something i'd like you to consider if and when this issue comes up for review. regardless of whether other organizations like weightlifters use open women as the title of one of their divisions -- i envision the day when a woman will compete and cash in open. (didn't already Juliana cash at the USDGC?) some day, maybe my neice, your daughter -- or some woman reading this -- may be a top competitor at Worlds in Open. unlikely? ... maybe. farfetched? -- no. Sorenstam and Wie in ball golf are already making it conceivable. so anyhow, one day a woman will be competing to win Open and -- unless the Open Women name gets changed to pro Women -- it will look like our titles were a little myopicly named.

thanks for listening :D

actually, i am not a BoD member yet. i may or may not be privy to any current BoD discussons, depending on whether i get forwarded the BoD Discussion Baord messages from thje yahoo group.

obviously, the last page of tis thread has been a trainwreck.

i will do my best to live up to your vote, which i do appreciate. i will (and have, believe me) toned down my "style" of posting a bit. i failed on that today, for reasons i have explained.

regardless, i absolutely promise this: when i am on the BoD, the other members will get nothing but respect from me. i am capable of seperating a person's opinions and actions frrom them as human individuals.



Thank you. I feel less worried now.



Proof is in the pudding. So far the pudding seems to prove otherwise.

Nick, [this is a rhetorical question, but] why do you keep 'pudding' your foot in your mouth? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Nick, [this is a rhetorical question, but] why do you keep pudding your foot in your mouth? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



How so Rob? Should I not be concerned that Pat is going on the Board? How is my concern about him any less appropriate than his concern about current Board members? His history of openmindedness is non-existant. He happens to have a history of abusing his PDGA priveledges also.

I hope that he can do something I have never seen him do once: Admit mistake and change his behavior. We shall see, won't we...

Nick, since Pat is on the BoD now, it is a little out of character for you to fail to support him and give him the benefit of the doubt even if it doesn't look like he deserves it ;)

else, perhaps you should give Brian's posts here the same degree of criticism that you do Pat's.

you once grilled Pat over his decision to volunteer to be on the BoD -- maybe you need to re-visit his background qualifications -- including his ability to think on his feet and relate with others professionally -- by clicking here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=OtherPDGATopics&Number=518176&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)!

I don't read Pat's posts for reasons you know. I will watch his actions and form an opionion based on them. If he does even a fair job I'll be very happy and supportive.

man, even I'm getting caught up in the drift...

Nick, are you saying that you don't read pat's responses to your questions? That seems silly to me.

Either way, I think we're putting the cart before the horse just a little bit here. I've known pat for a few years and sure, we've had our disagreements... but once we found our common ground, we understood each other perfectly. There are many types of personalities in the world. Having a solid leadership core means having different people with different personalities so that the team gets the widest spectrum of views on a particular subject. Mr. Brenner is a passionate person and it's hard to hide a personality like that... sometimes it's hard for others to know how to handle. I have confidence that Pat will be a valuable addition to the BoD. I think right now the onus is on the board members involved in this discussion to learn how to play well with others. And I'm not talking about just Pat. Throwing up one's hands and threatening to quit because of a disagreement shows some pretty thin leadership fiber.

Bottom line: learn to embrace your differences and let them work to your advantage. If I hear any more whining, I'm turning this board around.

If you want to feel otherwise that is your perogative, as it is mine to find your view in that regard irrelevant.


The fact that you find someone's view "irrelevant"... especially a PDGA member's view... only goes to further my point. Just because you don't like what I have to say does not make my opinion invalid or any less relevant. Please tell me that you didn't really mean it that way. I would hate to form an opinion of someone based on a misunderstanding.

"If you want to feel otherwise that is your perogative, as it is mine to find your view in that regard irrelevant."

nice. and i'm the condescending one.

BDH - I tried to reply to your PM... no workie. "We Cannot Proceed". Please feel free to email me at [email protected] if you would like to discuss. Or PM me your email address and I'll reply there.

I thought this was settled yesterday when Sandalman agreed he over-reacted and promised:


when i am on the BoD, the other members will get nothing but respect from me. i am capable of seperating a person's opinions and actions frrom them as human individuals.



Please guys, we all saw the train wreck yesterday, and I for one don't want to see the replay over and over again.

Un-flipping-believable.

Thanks Suzette for the voice of reason.

This thread perfectly demonstrates why the message board is a VERY poor place in which to discuss anything like policy (though it is a terrific place to share info about tournaments, and for many other purposes).

It also demonstrates why one needs to be very careful what one writes, because it is so easy to come off in a way that one perhaps did not intend.

Does anyone else find it amusing that the only two women posting on this topic don't seem to be bothered by this issue?

Cripes, just change the name. The last thing we need is for someone to think that the PDGA doesn't care about women's issues.

BTW - what ever happened to all those threads talking about the hottest women golfers and the argument over having semi-nude women on Avitars? Not to mention the constant sexual commentary that happens on the misc. thread? I know that if I go look them up the same posters will be there pointing out how bad those threads are for the PDGA's image /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif.



Hey Brian, how's Finland. Wish I were there instead of Houston...

ALL this goes to show ya...if ya beat a dead horse long enough you can still get a knee-jerk reaction. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

this dead horse needs more than a back crackin'!

You're right! A round of ales..........on euphersteve...! :cool:

Don't really have anything to contribute, just want to get it off my "new to me" list..... carry on.....