Is an award offered? Should one be awarded?

That would be an award that would go in the same category as "Mid-Nationals Champ" in my book. Its something that means you are the best of the mediocre. I think there is enough to reward mediocrity in this game already. IMO, it is not needed and would have no beneficial purposes.

I think improvement should be rewarded in every sport. In sanctioned bowling, nearly every week players are receiving patches, coasters, pins, etc. for personal achievements (100 pins over avg., 700 series, etc.). It encourages the players, which in turn yields better players.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'm sure you were mediocre when you started too..I'm mediocre on a good day..

Yes I am still Mediocre. At least it feels like it most of the time.

I think you might be on to something. I kind of like the idea of personal achievements. There is nothing wrong that except it would cost more $$$. I already pay enough for membership. I agree incentives to practice and get better should be stronger.

I dont see a need for am rookie of the year. How would you determine it? Most ams (especially rookies) dont play out of their region, so how would you really know who is the best. I think AM player of the Year would be OK (does it exist?), but having an award for best am rookie seems like a waste of time.

A rather snide attitude to claim that all of the Am Worlds titles both men and women and all Pro Worlds titles except MPO, MPM and MPG are mediocre. The fourth toughest Worlds title to earn is the Blue division at Mid-Nationals in terms of the average rating of the competitors. And that's out of roughly 30 Worlds titles that are contended. All other Worlds titles including every woman's title have weaker competition than Mid-Nats Blue but are still not mediocre titles to win.

I never said that Am worlds or any title is mediocre. I think that Mid Nationals is the weakest of all majors because the field is so limited. The best players are not allowed to compete. How is that not Mediocre?

Mediocre to me, isnt that bad of a thing. Im not trying to take away from ANY major title.

The best players are not allowed to compete. How is that not Mediocre?



The best players in Open are not allowed to compete in any other Am or Pro Worlds division either, so what's your point? Take the winners of every division at Pro & Am Worlds and Mid-Nats and have a competition. The Blue division winner will likely be in the final 4 and end up 4th out of 30. That's not mediocre.

My point is it is a PRO tourney. All othe titles you are referring to are AM titles. Big Difference. To me its like having a "major" on the Nationwide Tour in Golf. It just doesnt seem to make any sense at all, at least to me. Im not trying to be a jerk (although I think Im accomplishing it today :D).

you're not being a jerk... you are right.

A rather snide attitude to claim that all of the Am Worlds titles both men and women and all Pro Worlds titles except MPO, MPM and MPG are mediocre. The fourth toughest Worlds title to earn is the Blue division at Mid-Nationals in terms of the average rating of the competitors. And that's out of roughly 30 Worlds titles that are contended. All other Worlds titles including every woman's title have weaker competition than Mid-Nats Blue but are still not mediocre titles to win.



average rating of competitors tells you zero about how difficult it is to actually WIN the competition. the am nats blue winner does not have to beat a single player whose rating exceeds 975. without looking it up i'm sure that the champions of am nationals, am worlds, MPO worlds, MPM worlds, MPG worlds have had to beat better players.

I already conceded the MPO, MPM and MPG titles as stronger competition. The Advanced World title is close to Blue, and with recent bagging (supported by PDGA policies that force top Ams to remain Ams for 7 months until Am Worlds), may have a few over 975. But in 2005, Matt Hall was Blue winner and in final 9 at Am Worlds and has progressed to 1000 since then. Blue players are competing against experienced pros and fast track players like Matt who have been on their way to higher ratings. Regardless, the whole point of this sidetrack is that these are not mediocre titles any more than the World titles earned by men and women of all ages below them in skill level.

(supported by PDGA policies that force top Ams to remain Ams for 7 months until Am Worlds)....much else snipped



No one forces amateurs to remain Am, just as no one forces players to become pro (nor should they). Some players make a choice to eschew certain $$$ to take a shot at the Am Worlds title, but certainly no one is forcing them to do so.

And I think the Am Worlds title would clearly be the 4th most difficult, over the Blue. It eclipses the Blue by the fact that are certainly players rated higher than 975 at the time the event is played, added to the fact that the Advanced field at Am Worlds is much deeper than the blue (more higher rated players), and that's no knock on the players who've won the Blue division...Matt Hall and Nick R�tten. Now the Mid-Nationals courses may perhaps be more challenging, at least in total....:)

There are no mediocre titles, only mediocre players (like me). :)

Chap

Some players make a choice to eschew certain $$$ to take a shot at the Am Worlds title, but certainly no one is forcing them to do so.




It's not the players forced to remain Am that are necessarily hurt by the policy as much as those they beat up on in the Am divisions for the additional 7 months of unnecessary bagging time because our policy forces them to. Ams playing Trophy Only in the pro division does help but is not always available.

See what you did, Doot? :)