lets try these:

Wow I answered agree to all the ones I dissagreed with and vice versa.

Ha! Good one on me.

I actually read "An event's tier should determine which Division may be offered" to suggest that there should be fewer divisions at a top-level event. The question really doesn't say that, so I answered wrong.

I voted for "strongly disagree" when I should have voted "strongly agree" because I think that higher level events should have more age-based divisions offered, for the following reason:

Distance is an age-based skill. When you combine that with the tendency for top level tournaments to have "stretched out" courses that are longer than at many other tournaments, you actually create a situation where those events make the age-based bias against older players even stronger.

Terry, here's my question to you since you keep bringing up "distance" as a deciding factor.....If you have a 920 rated junior, a 920 rated 19yo Adv., and a 920 rated adv. master from the same area, where does distance come into play? Also, not to stereotype /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif, older guys seem to be better putters, so what good is distance if you can't sink the putt?

Terry, here's my question to you since you keep bringing up "distance" as a deciding factor.....If you have a 920 rated junior, a 920 rated 19yo Adv., and a 920 rated adv. master from the same area, where does distance come into play? Also, not to stereotype /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif, older guys seem to be better putters, so what good is distance if you can't sink the putt?

No matter how old you are, or not, you can train to get much better on most disc golf skills, but old guys have a limitation as to how far they can drive, no matter how much they train.

Stats Chuck just published on another thread show that the average driving distance for the top 30-50% of players at worlds in Masters and Advanced Open are MA1 = 348' and MM1 = 298' - that, right there, is a 50-foot-per-drive, age-related bias against older players. (That top 30-50 percent would have an average higher rating than 920, so let�s use my current rating of 942 in an answer to your question.)

Chances are that a 942-rated 22-year old can throw a good deal further than can a 942-rated Advanced Master, 50 feet or more, it�s an even greater discrepancy when you use a 942-rated Senior Grand Master like me. Let�s use those Worlds figures, though, and say that the 942-rated Advanced Master can throw 298 feet and the 942-rated Advanced young guy can throw 348 feet, on average, with equal accuracy off the tee. The ratings system says they are as good as each other, and they are, on some virtual average course that doesn�t exist in real life.

Now, put them head to head on an 18-hole course with an average length of 370 feet per hole. What happens? The young guy can get within putting distance on most holes. The old guy can�t. Man, I have been there and done that: Monster course, Toboggan course, White course, La Mirada when stretched out for the Golden State Classic. The list is a long one.

Let me paraphrase: What good is skillful putting if you are 72� out and your young competitor is 22� out? That old guy can't make that putt except by random chance. That young guy, with a 942 rating, is going to make a significant percentage of those putts.

That's not fair competition. Yes, the old guy is probably going to play anyway. I would. But this is why the average old guy wants an age-protected division.

Terry, here's my question to you since you keep bringing up "distance" as a deciding factor.....If you have a 920 rated junior, a 920 rated 19yo Adv., and a 920 rated adv. master from the same area, where does distance come into play? Also, not to stereotype /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif, older guys seem to be better putters, so what good is distance if you can't sink the putt?

No matter how old you are, or not, you can train to get much better on most disc golf skills, but old guys have a limitation as to how far they can drive, no matter how much they train.

Stats Chuck just published on another thread show that the average driving distance for the top 30-50% of players at worlds in Masters and Advanced Open are MA1 = 348' and MM1 = 298' - that, right there, is a 50-foot-per-drive, age-related bias against older players. (That top 30-50 percent would have an average higher rating than 920, so let’s use my current rating of 942 in an answer to your question.)

Chances are that a 942-rated 22-year old can throw a good deal further than can a 942-rated Advanced Master, 50 feet or more, it’s an even greater discrepancy when you use a 942-rated Senior Grand Master like me. Let’s use those Worlds figures, though, and say that the 942-rated Advanced Master can throw 298 feet and the 942-rated Advanced young guy can throw 348 feet, on average, with equal accuracy off the tee. The ratings system says they are as good as each other, and they are, on some virtual average course that doesn’t exist in real life.

Now, put them head to head on an 18-hole course with an average length of 370 feet per hole. What happens? The young guy can get within putting distance on most holes. The old guy can’t. Man, I have been there and done that: Monster course, Toboggan course, White course, La Mirada when stretched out for the Golden State Classic. The list is a long one.

Let me paraphrase: What good is skillful putting if you are 72’ out and your young competitor is 22’ out? That old guy can't make that putt except by random chance. That young guy, with a 942 rating, is going to make a significant percentage of those putts.

That's not fair competition. Yes, the old guy is probably going to play anyway. I would. But this is why the average old guy wants an age-protected division.



If every single disc golf course was completely wide open with an average length of 370 feet per hole, this would have relevancy. But they're not.

Some holes are open; some holes are wooded. Some courses are open, some are wooded. But averaged over all those tournament rounds the 942-rated 22-year old who can throw a good deal further than can a 942-rated Advanced Master throw exactly the same scores.

Throwing distance means nothing. Final score means EVERYTHING.

But averaged over all those tournament rounds the 942-rated 22-year old who can throw a good deal further than can a 942-rated Advanced Master throw exactly the same scores. Throwing distance means nothing. Final score means EVERYTHING.



I think the problem is our focusing on players with equivalent ratings when we are not in fact talking about ratings-based events, but I will assume equivalent ratings for the following:

If you and I head out to the Toboggan course for a two-round tournament and you can throw 348' while I can only average 298' - we know up front who is going to win unless something weird happens. And the skill difference that makes the difference is drive length.

Put us on a "touch" course with holes that are 240' in length and I'm probably going to beat you. (This is hypothetical, not personal.) That's because I would not have the same rating unless my short game and putting was better than yours.

Over time, during the year, this is how we get ratings.

But you could get to my approach and putting skill levels. I cannot get to your driving distance - that's age-based reality.

Since top tier events are usually on longer or stretched out courses, in an individual event, older guys are penalized for an age-related reality: Thus, reality causes age-based divisions to make sense.

Competition is great, but on a long course I am playing for fun, not to compete. Because I can't. Unless there is an appropriate age-related division.

So what if they (22 year olds) get better. Good for them! If you're playing a ratings based event, you won't have to play against that 22 year old that got better, you'll play against another up-and-coming 22 y/o, or 59 y/o, or 40 y/o, or 25 y/o woman, that on average, plays just as good as you. So what? If you're so concerned with winning as opposed to being able to compete with a chance to win, then only play really short courses, in your hometown that you play really well, only on days you feel great, when the moon and stars are all in allignment...or just admit you don't like being challenged while playing disc golf... or you just like playing with old men :p

Maybe all those young guns that throw really long should not play any short courses, because if they can't throw tight holes well and can't putt, well they just can't compete. So they might as well not play if they can't compete.
I do understand what you're saying about older people have/ may have hit their limits on distance and younger people CAN improve their putting. But you keep refering to distance potentials, ignoring the fact that IF you played with others rated about the same as you, it really wouldn't matter. Unless you only played those really long courses.

Terry, here's my question to you since you keep bringing up "distance" as a deciding factor.....If you have a 920 rated junior, a 920 rated 19yo Adv., and a 920 rated adv. master from the same area, where does distance come into play? Also, not to stereotype /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif, older guys seem to be better putters, so what good is distance if you can't sink the putt?

No matter how old you are, or not, you can train to get much better on most disc golf skills, but old guys have a limitation as to how far they can drive, no matter how much they train.

Stats Chuck just published on another thread show that the average driving distance for the top 30-50% of players at worlds in Masters and Advanced Open are MA1 = 348' and MM1 = 298' - that, right there, is a 50-foot-per-drive, age-related bias against older players. (That top 30-50 percent would have an average higher rating than 920, so let�s use my current rating of 942 in an answer to your question.)

Chances are that a 942-rated 22-year old can throw a good deal further than can a 942-rated Advanced Master, 50 feet or more, it�s an even greater discrepancy when you use a 942-rated Senior Grand Master like me. Let�s use those Worlds figures, though, and say that the 942-rated Advanced Master can throw 298 feet and the 942-rated Advanced young guy can throw 348 feet, on average, with equal accuracy off the tee. The ratings system says they are as good as each other, and they are, on some virtual average course that doesn�t exist in real life.

Now, put them head to head on an 18-hole course with an average length of 370 feet per hole. What happens? The young guy can get within putting distance on most holes. The old guy can�t. Man, I have been there and done that: Monster course, Toboggan course, White course, La Mirada when stretched out for the Golden State Classic. The list is a long one.

Let me paraphrase: What good is skillful putting if you are 72� out and your young competitor is 22� out? That old guy can't make that putt except by random chance. That young guy, with a 942 rating, is going to make a significant percentage of those putts.

That's not fair competition. Yes, the old guy is probably going to play anyway. I would. But this is why the average old guy wants an age-protected division.




What about an 920 ADV master who can throw 400' Versus a 920 19y/o that can only throw 300'? Terry distance isn't all about age.

What about an 920 ADV master who can throw 400' Versus a 920 19y/o that can only throw 300'? Terry distance isn't all about age.




Those are extremes in those age brackets, not the norm. Division breaks and decisions are based on norms and averages, not exceptions.

What about an 920 ADV master who can throw 400' Versus a 920 19y/o that can only throw 300'? Terry distance isn't all about age.




Those are extremes in those age brackets, not the norm. Division breaks and decisions are based on norms and averages, not exceptions.



Are your serious? I see a lot of young guys that can't throw nearly as far as most old guys of the same level.

Terry, here's my question to you since you keep bringing up "distance" as a deciding factor.....If you have a 920 rated junior, a 920 rated 19yo Adv., and a 920 rated adv. master from the same area, where does distance come into play? Also, not to stereotype /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif, older guys seem to be better putters, so what good is distance if you can't sink the putt?

No matter how old you are, or not, you can train to get much better on most disc golf skills, but old guys have a limitation as to how far they can drive, no matter how much they train.

Stats Chuck just published on another thread show that the average driving distance for the top 30-50% of players at worlds in Masters and Advanced Open are MA1 = 348' and MM1 = 298' - that, right there, is a 50-foot-per-drive, age-related bias against older players. (That top 30-50 percent would have an average higher rating than 920, so let�s use my current rating of 942 in an answer to your question.)

Chances are that a 942-rated 22-year old can throw a good deal further than can a 942-rated Advanced Master, 50 feet or more, it�s an even greater discrepancy when you use a 942-rated Senior Grand Master like me. Let�s use those Worlds figures, though, and say that the 942-rated Advanced Master can throw 298 feet and the 942-rated Advanced young guy can throw 348 feet, on average, with equal accuracy off the tee. The ratings system says they are as good as each other, and they are, on some virtual average course that doesn�t exist in real life.

Now, put them head to head on an 18-hole course with an average length of 370 feet per hole. What happens? The young guy can get within putting distance on most holes. The old guy can�t. Man, I have been there and done that: Monster course, Toboggan course, White course, La Mirada when stretched out for the Golden State Classic. The list is a long one.

Let me paraphrase: What good is skillful putting if you are 72� out and your young competitor is 22� out? That old guy can't make that putt except by random chance. That young guy, with a 942 rating, is going to make a significant percentage of those putts.

That's not fair competition. Yes, the old guy is probably going to play anyway. I would. But this is why the average old guy wants an age-protected division.



As someone who actually works out I would have to strongly disagree with this ongoing position of Hot Tub's that you can't strengthen yourself to increase your driving distance. People in their 80's lifting show increase in muscle mass etc. so if someone older wanted to continue to compete at a higher level instead of tumbling down the ratings stairs they could put some effort into it. They typical disc golfer though is not going to do this, so it's easier to just keep creating age protected (sport daycare) divisions.

terry, yeah, agreeing with that question could mean either thing. since there is a high degree of agreement on this question the next step would be to get into which divisions should be offered at which tiers.

interesting that you think top tiers Should have more divisions... so NTs would offer more choices than a C tier? or am i missing something...

I don't think the NT is really a tier but a specific series with specific goals. I think A-tiers would be considered the top for purposes of discussion. From a practical standpoint, the number of divisions at lower tiers is limited by current rules. TDs can require a minimum number of players to host a division or restrict them in advance. A large percentage of players in the small divisions choose a division with more players without the TD even asking since it's a common occurrence for them in their area.

nt events and probably a tiers should be open only. mpo and fpo.

and to say two people regardless of age with the same 940 rating will not normally shoot about the same is an insult to the ratings. my experience, they are pretty close. people of the same rating usually are of very similar skill level in terms of scoring. some may throw farther, some may approach better, some may putt better, some may manage the course better. each person has different strengths. but similar rated players have demonstrated a similar overall skill based on overall scoring. period.

I think your opinion might be shaded by living along the east coast where the courses can be and are more balanced due to terrain variety. I believe you'll see more age differences among similar ratings in areas with more wide open courses like Texas. In my view, the technical difference in distance that might occur among those of different ages with the same rating is not as large as the perception of the difference per Terry's remarks. The average distance facts are valid. But how that converts into actual differences on the typical course is not as pronounced.

I have no problem with going to a ratings based divsional structure but the only question is what do you do about the senior grandmasters who have been playing for CASH for 20+ years? Do you send them to play with the 20 year old who is just getting into the sport for merch or just a trophy? I think this would be considered a slap in the face to many people who have helped to get this sport to where it is and now the only way they can compete for CASH (which they have been doing forever) is in an age protected division. And I have heard someone saying on here we can offer cash and merch in the same division, but I think it would be way too much work for the TD to decide who gets what.

It would be way too much work for the TD to estimate ahead of time how many players would opt for merch or cash so that the TD could purchase the correct amount of merch to meet payout without having merch left over.

I have about as many Pro Senior Grandmasters playing my tournaments as I have Pro Junior Girls.

I have no problem with going to a ratings based divsional structure but the only question is what do you do about the senior grandmasters who have been playing for CASH for 20+ years? Do you send them to play with the 20 year old who is just getting into the sport for merch or just a trophy? I think this would be considered a slap in the face to many people who have helped to get this sport to where it is and now the only way they can compete for CASH (which they have been doing forever) is in an age protected division. And I have heard someone saying on here we can offer cash and merch in the same division, but I think it would be way too much work for the TD to decide who gets what.



You simply pay out all the divisions in ca$h and eliminate the plastic from the equation.

Perhaps it's not so much distance that separates the two 942 players, but power. Having the added power to throw another 50' could mean the ability to throw certain shots or control discs the other doesn't get to because of the lesser power.

That said, I also believe that ratings divisions offer the possibility to be more competitive than the current divisions.

Also, just because I'm totally unfamiliar with pdga events and tournaments. What is the correlation between, say, an A-tier or NT event and other sports (say, like the PGA).

To me it seems that the A-tier or NT events should be open only and be the best players we have in the sport. It is, after all, the Professional Disc Golf Association and those are the showcase events of the sport, are they not?

As for age based protection/divisions. There comes a time when you have to expect to not be able to compete at the highest level. Even the PGA has a seniors tour to allow older players to compete against fair competition, but it's separate tour. Maybe this means that older players don't get to play at every tour event. Maybe that's just part of life.

As this sport grows, it will change and the fact of the matter is that the majority of popular competitive sports events are for the young, not the old.

A couple more distance comments...

1) Are there any winning Open pros throwing under 350'?
2) Could it be that the reason the older players aren't throwing further isn't because of their age, but because of the difference in the sport when they began versus now. Back in the day, it was about fun and being competitive, I believe that now, touring people in the open divisions are really examining their forms to maximize their ability. I don't know that's always been the case with older players who were not pushing the envelope with distance (courses were shorter and equipment less effective for distance). Many older players are settled in their form and equipment and have no desire to adjust either just to add a little distance. Conversely, the younger kids have the examples like Ken Climo, Barry Schultz, Avery Jenkins, etc. who are all distance throwers to emulate.

Just a thought.

Perhaps it's not so much distance that separates the two 942 players, but power. Having the added power to throw another 50' could mean the ability to throw certain shots or control discs the other doesn't get to because of the lesser power.

That said, I also believe that ratings divisions offer the possibility to be more competitive than the current divisions.

Also, just because I'm totally unfamiliar with pdga events and tournaments. What is the correlation between, say, an A-tier or NT event and other sports (say, like the PGA).

To me it seems that the A-tier or NT events should be open only and be the best players we have in the sport. It is, after all, the Professional Disc Golf Association and those are the showcase events of the sport, are they not?

As for age based protection/divisions. There comes a time when you have to expect to not be able to compete at the highest level. Even the PGA has a seniors tour to allow older players to compete against fair competition, but it's separate tour. Maybe this means that older players don't get to play at every tour event. Maybe that's just part of life.

As this sport grows, it will change and the fact of the matter is that the majority of popular competitive sports events are for the young, not the old.

A couple more distance comments...

1) Are there any winning Open pros throwing under 350'?
2) Could it be that the reason the older players aren't throwing further isn't because of their age, but because of the difference in the sport when they began versus now. Back in the day, it was about fun and being competitive, I believe that now, touring people in the open divisions are really examining their forms to maximize their ability. I don't know that's always been the case with older players who were not pushing the envelope with distance (courses were shorter and equipment less effective for distance). Many older players are settled in their form and equipment and have no desire to adjust either just to add a little distance. Conversely, the younger kids have the examples like Ken Climo, Barry Schultz, Avery Jenkins, etc. who are all distance throwers to emulate.

Just a thought.



I think some very good points are being made here. For one, how many other "Professional" sports have competitors over 40 that are at the top of the sport? If the PDGA is trying to get Disc Golf in the spotlight, then the TOP PRO players MUST BE SPOTLIGHTED, not those of us that are past the time we can compete in the Open division. We have to stop thinking about ourselves and how the Division structuring affects what tournaments we are able to play (those of us over 40), and quit creating divisions that are designed to make us feel good about our game.

Back in the early '80s, we had Pro and Am divisions. We had Midnight Flyers, then Kitty Hawks and Super Puppys were added, then all of a sudden we had the Aero. I for one was throwing Kitty Hawks and Aeros 400+, and some of the other players around me were throwing 50' shorter and some 50'+ longer. We didn't whine and cry about who could throw farther, it was about how many throws it took to get around the course.

I think we need to Showcase our current talent in the A & NT events and let everyone else play local stuff. It doesn't hurt my feelings to know I am no longer one of the best in this sport and that I can play in a division that caters to my current ability. I won 10+ tournaments when my game was there and now I can have those great memories and not try to re-live them, but savor them and help the young guns of today have something better than what I did.

It is just my opinion, but here it is as I see it:

NT & A Tiers: Pro only with a 975+ rating, if they don't fill within 2 weeks of the date, open it to any Open player that wants to play.

All other Tier events: Ratings based offering Pro or Am: and use the 50 rating point example I have seen somewhere on the MB, like:

975+
925 - 974
875 - 924
825 - 874
below 825

Offer each rated division in either pro or am, give the pro's cash and give the Ams trophies and a players package.

OK, now I am off the soapbox and you can start the bashing, but remember, this is just my opinion, but I think it is a great one. :D

Good points made in the last two posts.

I truly hope that the pro ranks grow to a point that MPO/FPO only A-Tiers can be a reality in more than a couple of places in the country.

As it stands, you need as many players to show at most events as you can get. Even if straight single division events were filling up, there would be a need for events that cater to the lesser skilled players that are out there for a good time and some friendly competition. Whether the PDGA sanctions them, or they break away and do it themselves, they will happen because the players like those events and the TD can put them on without going in the hole.

I don't play master's golf to make me feel good about my game, I play it because I enjoy it whether my game is doing well or not. I didn't enjoy large field events when my game wasn't doing well.

NT & A Tiers: Pro only with a 975+ rating, if they don't fill within 2 weeks of the date, open it to any Open player that wants to play.




Good luck finding a TD or club willing to run these events. Unless a TD or club has a big sponsor "in their pocket", there's no way to meet the minimum 125% payout or the incentive to scramble for sponsors. You'll find TDs and clubs all over willing to run the highest level Am events under whatever combination of divisions you can imagine.

Consider the fact that our premier championship, the USDGC, would likely fall flat on its face if Innova decides to withdraw support or pass it on to some other entity. We can barely get enough money to run huge pro events like Worlds even with major help from their CFR program. The pro version of our sport at the highest payout level is contingent on the annual decision of a few guys from almost disappearing.

It is interesting to see the logical discrepancy between the majority agreeing that TDs should be able to offer any division they want regardless of tier, and the majority agreeing that TDs should not be able to offer any division they want at NTs.

NTs and A-tiers are or should be quite different animals. NTs are currently being run like an A+ tier, just a little bigger than an A-tier. But the intention was to create a special series of events specifically featuring the top men and women players in a standard format at venues suitable for showcasing the sport for spectators and potential large sponsors. It's been a failure in several measures relative to what it was originally intended to become. But they've certainly put on some fine A+ tiers. Under our current financial structure, the primary way to finance an NT would be to ideally run an A-tier with all divisions you can handle a week or two in advance of an NT (with concurrently being less desireable).

NTs and A-tiers are or should be quite different animals. NTs are currently being run like an A+ tier, just a little bigger than an A-tier. But the intention was to create a special series of events specifically featuring the top men and women players in a standard format at venues suitable for showcasing the sport for spectators and potential large sponsors. It's been a failure in several measures relative to what it was originally intended to become. But they've certainly put on some fine A+ tiers. Under our current financial structure, the primary way to finance an NT would be to ideally run an A-tier with all divisions you can handle a week or two in advance of an NT (with concurrently being less desireable).


word

NTs and A-tiers are or should be quite different animals. NTs are currently being run like an A+ tier, just a little bigger than an A-tier. But the intention was to create a special series of events specifically featuring the top men and women players in a standard format at venues suitable for showcasing the sport for spectators and potential large sponsors. It's been a failure in several measures relative to what it was originally intended to become. But they've certainly put on some fine A+ tiers. Under our current financial structure, the primary way to finance an NT would be to ideally run an A-tier with all divisions you can handle a week or two in advance of an NT (with concurrently being less desireable).


word



Agreed but it seems like TDs don't like running two separate events. I don't blame them either. :D

NT & A Tiers: Pro only with a 975+ rating, if they don't fill within 2 weeks of the date, open it to any Open player that wants to play.




Good luck finding a TD or club willing to run these events. Unless a TD or club has a big sponsor "in their pocket", there's no way to meet the minimum 125% payout or the incentive to scramble for sponsors. You'll find TDs and clubs all over willing to run the highest level Am events under whatever combination of divisions you can imagine.

Consider the fact that our premier championship, the USDGC, would likely fall flat on its face if Innova decides to withdraw support or pass it on to some other entity. We can barely get enough money to run huge pro events like Worlds even with major help from their CFR program. The pro version of our sport at the highest payout level is contingent on the annual decision of a few guys from almost disappearing.



Chuck,

The point I think you missed in my opinion, (probably because I didn't go into that much detail) is that all the other events a TD holds and sponsors they acquire from all the events they hold are what sponsors their NT or A tier event. Right now with the tournament system the way it is, of course this would only work with a TD that is willing to bust his butt, have several local events prior to a Major and make it happen. Kind of like Brian Mace does in Fort Worth. He has several events throughout the year to help finance the ZBoaz Open. This is just an example of how it could be done and a place to begin.

Furthermore, with all the differing opinions and bickering about how it should be done, and everyone on the MB saying ".....your way is not right and my way is better......blah..blah..blah", I don't see any improvement coming from those attitudes and comments. I am not saying my way is the right way to do it or the best way to do it, but it was A way.

As I see it, if we could all get rid of the MY WAY is the ONLY WAY attitude and discuss options openly without feelings getting in the way of what would be best for OUR sport, then and only then will we find way to really make things better.

It's not a 'my way' versus 'your way'. It's a sustainable way that makes sense with the economics. If you propose a way, it may work functionally but not practically. It's important to explain how your idea would work in practice.

It's not a 'my way' versus 'your way'. It's a sustainable way that makes sense with the economics. If you propose a way, it may work functionally but not practically. It's important to explain how your idea would work in practice.



The "my way your way" note was not directed at you personally, but it seems to be the general attitude of most of the MB posters.

I agree with you in that things must work economically, otherwise we have the situation we have now, NT's and A Tiers falling flat and not being able to sustain a purse that makes sense for those that would chose to play as tour professionals.

My personal belief is that there is a way to make this happen, but not until the "Tour" and each tournament in the tour becomes an incorporated business with professional volunteers. And before you say anything about that, this is several years in the future and this sport makes a demographic impact on the public. That my friend will only come with continued growth.

I don't want to go into specific business plans on the MB, but if someone wants to discuss specifics of how I believe this concept works in detail (as many others have proved it to work in many various venues) then please feel free to send me a pm.

let me guess. is it amway?

let me guess. is it amway?



Oh my how sharp you are...you must be :p ;)

an unwell smiley and a winking smiley? i'm a sick winkie? help me out friend. the online haiku can riddle me for days.

Back in the early '80s, we had Pro and Am divisions. We had Midnight Flyers, then Kitty Hawks and Super Puppys were added, then all of a sudden we had the Aero. I for one was throwing Kitty Hawks and Aeros 400+, and some of the other players around me were throwing 50' shorter and some 50'+ longer. We didn't whine and cry about who could throw farther, it was about how many throws it took to get around the course.



****! Where were you when I started :) I'm struggling to hit 400' with the new tech discs. One of my golf buddies actually carries an old 1970's driver (it looks like a putter).

You ever imagine how far you could hurl this new plastic if you had it back when you were chucking the old discs 400'?

You ever imagine how far you could hurl this new plastic if you had it back when you were chucking the old discs 400'?



Yes.

Back in the early '80s, we had Pro and Am divisions. We had Midnight Flyers, then Kitty Hawks and Super Puppys were added, then all of a sudden we had the Aero. I for one was throwing Kitty Hawks and Aeros 400+, and some of the other players around me were throwing 50' shorter and some 50'+ longer. We didn't whine and cry about who could throw farther, it was about how many throws it took to get around the course.





Is this message board distance or real distance... oh wait, they didn't have message boards back then did they.

Even today I wonder about these kinds of statements. Take Ken Climo for example. He rarely throws 400 feet even with high tech drivers. If it was easy to throw a midrange (an Aero is essentially a midrange) that far, the top pros would rarely use drivers; midranges are just way more controllable.

Even Markus K. only throws a Buzz up to around 400 feet (I've seen video footage) and he is very long.

I would have to say that distance is attainable at 300-400 or so out of most plastic by the better golfer ( those who know how to use " unstable " by todays standards plastic )
I think that is part of the problem to the whole competitive system .

DIsc golf discs of today are " easier " to get distance out of then those of years ago . IN other words a lesser player today can get the same distance as a better player cause of the plastic .

That is why you see courses going LONGER , the players need to be able to seperate themselves .

I can guarentee you , If I had to throw old school discs ONLY today my rating would be way lower , BUT if the higher rated players had to play with OLD school discs only , their rating would only drop alittle cause they are BETTER PLAYERS , not better cause of the technology .

I have said this for sometime now and people dont want to beleive it , but I think it is true . Alot more players are not as good as they are but the hi tech plastic has made them better .
All you 955 rated and lower players ,
Go try even on a good day to throw NON HIGH TECH cyclones , cobras , sharks , scorpions and see if you can even get CLOSE to your rating ( or average score on the normal course )
NOW , let Mitch MAC throw an areo ( patent pending non the less ) on hole 9 at N.E Lions in Norman OK ( 325 ft slightly downhill ft hole with a wall of 50 ft trees about 15 ft in front of basket ) and he will park it every time .

All you 955 rated and lower players ,
Go try even on a good day to throw NON HIGH TECH cyclones , cobras , sharks , scorpions and see if you can even get CLOSE to your rating ( or average score on the normal course )




Where's the cutoff for non hi-tech? I can go out with a Roc and an Aviar and shoot around my same scores on most courses.

Not that I don't agree with you, Bill. Just causing trouble...

I would have to say that distance is attainable at 300-400 or so out of most plastic by the better golfer ( those who know how to use " unstable " by todays standards plastic )
I think that is part of the problem to the whole competitive system .

DIsc golf discs of today are " easier " to get distance out of then those of years ago . IN other words a lesser player today can get the same distance as a better player cause of the plastic .

That is why you see courses going LONGER , the players need to be able to seperate themselves .

I can guarentee you , If I had to throw old school discs ONLY today my rating would be way lower , BUT if the higher rated players had to play with OLD school discs only , their rating would only drop alittle cause they are BETTER PLAYERS , not better cause of the technology .

I have said this for sometime now and people dont want to beleive it , but I think it is true . Alot more players are not as good as they are but the hi tech plastic has made them better .
All you 955 rated and lower players ,
Go try even on a good day to throw NON HIGH TECH cyclones , cobras , sharks , scorpions and see if you can even get CLOSE to your rating ( or average score on the normal course )
NOW , let Mitch MAC throw an areo ( patent pending non the less ) on hole 9 at N.E Lions in Norman OK ( 325 ft slightly downhill ft hole with a wall of 50 ft trees about 15 ft in front of basket ) and he will park it every time .



I 100% agree with this. I see it frequently with other players and have experienced it directly.

All you 955 rated and lower players ,
Go try even on a good day to throw NON HIGH TECH cyclones , cobras , sharks , scorpions and see if you can even get CLOSE to your rating ( or average score on the normal course )




Where's the cutoff for non hi-tech? I can go out with a Roc and an Aviar and shoot around my same scores on most courses.

Not that I don't agree with you, Bill. Just causing trouble...



I can do this too and I'm only rated 870 but I've not really competed much in the last year or so. I think there are more factors than simple rating that would have to be accounted for. But, I've seen some players who do very well in competition who would do much worse if you took their tech drivers away. On the other hand, those guys all had tight short games!

Ehh ,
Some courses are that way that you can shoot the same with High tech and non high tech discs .
Buchmiller in short positions comes to mind .
French creek either course also
Sedgley woods also ( as a matter of fact this course in it short position is BETTER with avairs and slow speed plastic to begin with )

BUT try throwing Little Lehigh with High tech vs low tech
for me I can almost guess a 5-8 point swing between the 2

NOW I do beleive the better players would have a different score too but not the wide swing MAYBE 2-3 strokes at best .
The reason being they have better control and the ability ( natural or learned ) to throw a disc better then I .

Heres another example in our area ,
JAKE AZATO can KILL BRANDYWINE with a cobra and a putter ( 1,2 up maybe ) where it takes all I have with HIGH TECH to get 6 up . If I was to play with LOW TECH discs add another 5-8 strokes to my score there .
What does Jake shoot with High Tech I really dont want to know to avoid total embarrasement to myslef but I would guess 2-4 under .

I don't know about all that. You can get an Aero out to 300-400 only if you have a really high ceiling. Rocs also need height as "room to work" for max distance. I can throw an Orc or an Avenger 330' with a low ceiling whereas I can't an Aero, Aviar, or Roc anywhere near that in the circumstances even though I can throw a Roc 325' if the hole is set up for it for me.

So don't forget that you have to compare that 350' Aero toss to the 650' Big D in the Desert driver throws, not to the typical 350' golf shot.

I also know that Climo, Shultz, Feldberg, et al will still kick my butt with an Aero and a Roc against my whole bag. :) Kind of like how Tiger will still own you ball golfers even though you have mini-van sized club heads. :D

Ill will agree with you there about the " air " to play .
Sorta goes along same line as short courses cause you dont need the " air " to play and can still get a slow moving disc to go 200 - 250 with a lower ceiling shot .

BUT I still believe better players would not be that much worse for wear if we instantly went back to the low tech stuff
where as ME LOL LOW TECH , HIGH SCORE LOL on some courses possibly triple digit scores LOL :) /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif :eek:

BUT I still believe better players would not be that much worse for wear if we instantly went back to the low tech stuff
where as ME LOL LOW TECH , HIGH SCORE LOL on some courses possibly triple digit scores LOL :) /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif :eek:


I disagree with that, too. :) Play your home course with just one disc: a hard version of your putter. Use a KC Aviar, a hard Challenger, a Wizard, or whatever. If you try your hardest you should be amazed at how close to you normal score you will be. You won't park the long holes, but after a couple of full-pulls to get the feel, you won't be in any trouble either.

I know you dont know who I am or my abilities on a disc golf course but to be truthful one of my best abilities is to get out of trouble with minimal damage to score .
I have had many people say this to back it up .
Basically , I personally cant throw a hard version of my putter cause I really stink at the sport on the whole .

Maybe we should change this thread to Bills Reality Check LOL :D

IF that is the case what is the point of the high end plastic other then the WOW Factor off the tee pad
I believe once again it makes so so players able to look better then they really are .

Seems like most popular couses only require a Putter and Mid anyway. :D

I think having a Tech standard would effect Am scores more than Pro's. With that said I think that a lot of AMs would shoot better without thier ULTRA LONG drivers.

Yet another productive thread...

IF that is the case what is the point of the high end plastic other then the WOW Factor off the tee pad
I believe once again it makes so so players able to look better then they really are .


I think so-so players get in more troule the farther they can throw with hi-tch plastic, and those so-so players will shoot closer to their best normal score because they don't get in as much trouble when they aren't throwing the finicky discs farther off the fairway. :)

I guess in reality I completely disagree with your original statement that top players see less improvement with hi-tech discs than crappy players. :D The top players can control the ultra long range drivers better and can actually reap the benefit of throwing farther because they don't throw farther off the fairway like the crappeir players do.

BUT I still believe better players would not be that much worse for wear if we instantly went back to the low tech stuff
where as ME LOL LOW TECH , HIGH SCORE LOL on some courses possibly triple digit scores LOL :) /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif :eek:


I disagree with that, too. :) Play your home course with just one disc: a hard version of your putter. Use a KC Aviar, a hard Challenger, a Wizard, or whatever. If you try your hardest you should be amazed at how close to you normal score you will be. You won't park the long holes, but after a couple of full-pulls to get the feel, you won't be in any trouble either.



You must be way better than me Rhett. I can do this with mid-ranges, but I just can't get a putter out over 250 feet. On our biggest courses that adds 10 strokes or more to my game.

No, you must be way better to get that kind of performance out of your drivers without ever putting them in the schuule. :)

No, you must be way better to get that kind of performance out of your drivers without ever putting them in the schuule. :)



We don't have schule here.

The 940-990 rated golfers hasn�t found its spot in our divisional structure, which has started conversation about adding another Am division. Being an Open player I am very concerned that the Open division will take a tremendous decrease of players in attendance. I do understand we need to make a spot for these players. I would propose that we take a look at offering them a fair place in our system that will both help Open fields as well as put the 940-990 rated golfers into a division where they can get the most out of their entry fee as well as get them the training they need to make it at the Open level.

One of the main reasons I see that the 940-990 rated player will not make that jump to Open is because the entry fees are way to high to get into the mix and learn to get better playing with the Open players. The $100 entry fee for these guys is too high, when they are not quite ready to play in the top 40% of the Open field. These guys become donors until they get the experience they need to compete with the top 40%. At $100 a pop it becomes very expensive and most of these players find that they can spend that kind of money in other aspects of life that is more rewarding to them and we begin to lose these people.

The proposal that I am introducing will offer the 940-990 rated a golfer a division where they can compete as well as give them on the job training. I am suggesting that we take a cue from the Trophy Only option that was introduce in the last few years and amend it to make it even more appealing to those players.

Offering a Semi-Pro division which will allow players to pay a discounted entry fee and get to play with the Open field but at the same time they will be only competing against other Semi-Pro players. The Semi-Pro�s will be grouped in with the Open field depending on the scores they shoot. They will not be playing for the added cash that the Open players are playing for but being in the same division, they will learn from the Open players on what it takes to get into that top 40% cash spots. Once these Semi-Pro�s play in these events and finish near or around the top 40% then they will be more likely pay the $100+ entry fees and play for the added cash.

I honestly believe that the 940-990 rated golfers really would like to play for cash instead of merchandise, even if it was without added cash. Many of these Advanced players turn around and sell their merchandise on eBay or run local events and prize out there winnings to turn it into cash. We can eliminate this practice and just give them what they want as well as train them to be better players. More stronger players creates stronger competition.

There has been discussion to only allow Open (Men & Women) players, plus age divisions, at our National Tour events. I�m not sure that we could fill all of our NT�s with just these divisions and Semi-Pro�s could fill the void that we have in these instances.

I couldn't agree more with everything that is said here. A half-priced trophy only option is one way to accomplish what Kevin has proposed. The way I understand it is that the half-priced trophy-only entrants are for all intents and purposes Open competitors. They will be grouped by score and starting hole right alongside all other Open division competitors, just as if they had paid full price. They will receive all tournament amenities (player's pack, free lunch, player's party, etc.) just as if they had paid full price.

The only difference is that these half-priced trophy-only entrants are exempt from cash if they were to place in the money.

The PDGA, the TD, and the local club are essentially taking the "gambling" aspect out of it by charging only enough to cover tournament expenses, and encouraging participation and a full field from those who want to play with elite golfers but aren't as competitive. Offer a half-priced trophy-only option for $50 instead of $100, and I predict you'll rarely have less than a full tournament field, and a lot of this divisional structure grumbling goes away completely.

Looks like Kevin's proposal forces all players under age 40 with ratings over 939 to become Pros, so Advanced division becomes 915-939?

I really didn't read it that way. I read it more as making the trophy only option more of a requirement so that it was treated more as a division than an option. And allowing trophy only the option of earning cash amongst themselves.

I think there could be a 1/3 and a 2/3 entry. The 1/3 being the current trophy only option where every 3 T/O players becomes equivalent to 1 full price player in payout, and the 2/3 option competing amongst themselves for a smaller side pot. And of course the full price players competing for added cash.

Looks like Kevin's proposal forces all players under age 40 with ratings over 939 to become Pros, so Advanced division becomes 915-939?



My thoughts exactly.

Cap MA1 at 965. If any player over 965 wants to play MA1, let them...as Trophy Only participants.

the magic number should be 941 or higher :o:D

Not at all....players would still have the option to remain Adv all they want....but I know that they would prefer to play for the cash in Semi-Pro

And it's not Trophy ONLY, there would be a cash value, but just not added cash...it would be near the same as the Trophy only structure but it would allow them to cash as Semi-Pros

....but I know that they would prefer to play for the cash in Semi-Pro




Not if they give up their Am eligibilty. It doesn't solve the current problem with players staying in Advanced with ratings up to 1000. Adding an Expert division forces them into a higher Am division and doesn't force them into Pro.

BUT CHUCK,

I don't think these players would mind moving up to pro if they knew they could compete.

The reason most don't move up is they don't want to pay twice the entry fee to get destroyed.

Almost EVERY Advanced player here in Tulsa plays OPEN in the minis because it's not that bad to lose just $5 or $10 dollars. But if it was $20-$40 dollars they would play adv.

I bet its the same in most local areas, that ADV players play Open in their local mini tournament action

Almost EVERY Advanced player here in Tulsa plays OPEN in the minis because it's not that bad to lose just $5 or $10 dollars. But if it was $20-$40 dollars they would play adv.

I bet its the same in most local areas, that ADV players play Open in their local mini tournament action



Yup, I see it every year in Ice Bowls and monthly unsanctioned events - advanced and mullet pros playing Open.

Nobody cares when the entry fee is low. The problems come with higher entry fee events when you feel like a donator. That can only go on for so long for most people.

Almost EVERY Advanced player here in Tulsa plays OPEN in the minis because it's not that bad to lose just $5 or $10 dollars. But if it was $20-$40 dollars they would play adv.

I bet its the same in most local areas, that ADV players play Open in their local mini tournament action



Yup, I see it every year in Ice Bowls and monthly unsanctioned events - advanced and mullet pros playing Open.

Nobody cares when the entry fee is low. The problems come with higher entry fee events when you feel like a donator. That can only go on for so long for most people.



EXACTLY!!!!

and thats why the turnover of 940-990 player comes from, tired of paying the high entry fee with no return

Terry has a point, they play Open when it won't change their Am status.

Kevin has a point, If we can give them a place to play that makes sense to them without forcing them to become Pros, they will play there.

That along with the fact that taking them out of the Am ranks may also suck them out of the Pro ranks and leave the Open division running on fumes.

I think everyone agrees on these three things.

1. There needs to be a top cap on Advanced to keep the competition fair for the 915-920 players.
2. There needs to be place for the Am players above that cap to compete outside of the traditional Open division, or they get tired of donating and quit.
3. The structure needs to be set up so that they are eased into the Open division when they are ready.

If that is so, can we work specifically on meeting those objectives ?

Chuck, why don't y'all just change the rules, stating that anyone accepting cash in semipro can still play am worlds, or better yet, just do away with our meaningless am/pro distinction and let anyone play am worlds.

Or cap Am worlds at Advanced and offer the semi-pro div at Pro Worlds.

offer the semi-pro div at Pro Worlds.



<font color="red">NO! </font> Sorry but I don't think we should have a world chanpion Semi-Pro. Then again I also disagree with having the Rec division at Tx States but that still happens.

You will have a Semi-Pro Champion. The question is whether they are crowned at Am Worlds or Pro Worlds.

Another idea would be to cap the amount that "amatuers" can accept and still compete in Majors/Am Worlds/etc. You could cap "semi-pro" earnings at $200 or something like that. You could make the cap amount close to equalling the amount it would cost a trip to Am Worlds even.

Semi pro wouldn't be a World Champ division, just like there isn't a Intermediate World Champ

Think of Semi-Pro as the Open division with training-wheels, cuz they will be with the Open players in every aspect except the final payout.

Semi-pro solutions are designed to protect or help the pro players - a PDGA membership group that currently does not pay their way at events. That's the way it should be if you really had pros that people cared to pay to watch. But it's not. We cater to those who have chosen to play for cash. Why? Just because they are better is not a good enough reason. There are Ams in other sports just as good as those who work as pros.

Notice I said "work" as in run pro shops, clinics, teach classes, give lessons. If their sport supports it, they might get added cash at some of their top events. Not only should we reduce entry fees for Open which I know Kevin supports, but we should consider reducing the minimum payout requirement to be equivalent to our merch divisions. Maybe allow TDs to pay 60% of entry fees back to cash divisions at B & C-tiers with no added cash. They can pay more if they wish.

Right now, there are 370 players with ratings in a 3-pt range from 915-917. There are only 350 players with ratings over 989 in the World. Why are we trying to skew the system to overly support this elite group that cashes regularly compared to our much larger group of developing players in the 915 to 930 range trying to hang in there with much higher rated Ams?

If we truly want to help our very best players, which I'm not against at all, we need more Ams not more relatively mediocre Pros in the structure to help TDs financially support those efforts under the current economic model for our sport.

I know EVERYONE will agree that <font color="red">You play better when you play with better players.</font>

I am more concerned with making good players better, not put them in another division that promotes mediocrity.

I see your point. They are not a separate division, but a subdivision of Open.

Then you will need to offer them the same sign up options at Pro Worlds that you would offer at regular events.

You can make that same argument about Intermediate and Rec players. What do they do when it comes to Am Worlds? They play the only division that is offered. This would happen at the Pro Worlds, they are offered the Open division, if they feel like they are not ready they have the option to go or stay home.

28003, that would be a workable solution also.

chuck, what are you replying to?

You threw a roadblock at Kevin's idea by saying "but then these guys can't play am worlds."

I was just suggesting that if you changed the rule about am worlds, then your roadblock would be removed.

As to your post, you confuse cause and effect, and are constrained by your own creation: you created a system where TDs make money off ams, now, based on your own fincial creation, now declare that ams are more valuable because they finance the TDs. Well, if we set up a model where the pros financed the TDs, would they then be more valuable?

It is a meaningless question, just like your assertion that ams are more valuable because they support TDs.

You are correct Kevin, I wan't thinking it through properly.

That's why the Mid-Nationals could eventually overtake Am Worlds, especially if we retain the merch divisions and add true Am competition for trophies in the future such that Am Worlds is where those players go and Mid-Nats is where the merch players go for national titles. That's a big picture, longer range possibility. Then, members at all levels would have a fair shot at National or World titles at their level of skill.

Maybe we should have a POLL. If the question was put to 940-990 players, if they had the option to play week to week for cash or one week at AM Worlds, I guarantee they would take the opportunity to play for cash every week and still have the option to attend the Pro Worlds

Well, if we set up a model where the pros financed the TDs, would they then be more valuable?




What would that be? I'm all ears. If the PDGA allowed fee based pro divisions, that would certainly make supporting pro events more palatable for TDs to run. In theory, C-tiers only require 85% payouts to pros. But usually, the TD will at least make those divisions get 100% payback assuming there are enough Ams there. I think that's Brakel's approach.

The Expert division proposal meets the criteria Gary presented.

My point is that when looking at our sport, the economic model of running tournaments is a completely independent and secondary matter. It is basically an irrelevant consideration when looking holistically towards the sports future.

<font color="red"> W O R D ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! </font>

That's why the Mid-Nationals could eventually overtake Am Worlds, especially if we retain the merch divisions and add true Am competition for trophies in the future such that Am Worlds is where those players go and Mid-Nats is where the merch players go for national titles. That's a big picture, longer range possibility. Then, members at all levels would have a fair shot at National or World titles at their level of skill.



I what other sport do they have 10+ AM world champs? I'm sorry but Saying you are the 2007 Recreational or 2007 Green Division World champ sounds pretty weak. The world championships should be composed of the smallest amount of divisions that would allow the event to fill so that you have fewer divisions and larger fields. The current structure is ok at worlds but to add more divisions is stupid.

The Expert division proposal meets the criteria Gary presented.



I'm not sure the expert division does a lot to move players toward the Open division.

I like Kevin's idea because it has those players competing side by side with the Open players, learning from them and seeing how well they match up to them at every event.

I really think that is an important part of the process. There is a lot of truth to the saying "you play better when you play with better players".

Semi-pro solutions are designed to protect or help the pro players - a PDGA membership group that currently does not pay their way at events.



Are those the only players it helps? Let's look into this a little more. Ok offering the semi-pro option would help those 940-990 AMs that want to play for cash but do not want to fork out $100 for a slim chance of cashing. It also helps the 915-917 guys you talk about so much because there are not as many 940-990 AMs in thier division. Oh why we are on the subject the 915-917 guys weren't complaining when the INT cut-off was 925 because they were raking in the merch in Intermediate.

Bascially Chuck Kevin's idea would help to develope the 940-990 AMs into good Pros as well as give the lower rated Ams a better chance of cashing and as they get better they can also use the Semi-pro option. Seems pretty good to me but as usual you will bring up some random thing to make your ideas look better.

Since the TD (club or individual) is taking all the economic risk and responsibility, it is everything but irrelevant. Perhaps if the tournaments were all funded by PDGA dues or rich people with an amazing benevolence to disc golf tournament players, but not under the current model.

I'd even argue that looking holistically would lead you towards EDGE and the likes to promote the overall growth of the sport as opposed to what we currently put together as a tournament (i.e. play for each other's entry fee).

My point is that when looking at our sport, the economic model of running tournaments is a completely independent and secondary matter. It is basically an irrelevant consideration when looking holistically towards the sports future.



I couldn't disagree with this more! The TD and tournament structure are central to the sport's future unless you change the nature of how the sport is played and pursued. Even at the level of non-sanctioned play, the sport revolves around TDs or LDs and their efforts.


That said... AAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!

I quite like the plan Kevin is proposing but I hope that it is realized that it is a modified version of something Chuck proposed 6 months ago or so.

Chuck's plan was to pro-rate entry into the Pro division. The pro-rating would depend on your PDGA rating. This is simply a large one step pro-rating based on a clear one step player rating. BTW - both Kevin and James shot down Chuck's original proposal. :D

The one thing I don't understand (and that may be because I'm stoopid) what exactly is the payout you're proposing for the "semi-pros? Kevin." 28003 posted the notion of a limit on this group but that still doesn't answer their payout scheme. Perhaps it's there but I missed it.

I'd like to explore Chuck's original proposal in the context of this thread.

The idea was that by lowering the cost for lower ranked players you would give them an incentive to move up. I think the issue that Kevin and James had was that in the original structure, they would have an equal shot at the payout. I argued that their odds of winning would be so low as to be zero. Occassionally a 970 ranked player would play 4 rounds out of their minds and win but that would be exceedingly rare.

So, why not consider this, Make your semi-pro start at 990 or so and charge those between 990 and 970 80%, those between 969 and 940 70% etc. I wouldn't be against adjusting their payout but if you adjust it too much they loose any incentive for playing up.

All that aside, I think Kevin is on the right track. However, I still don't understand why you're now accepting this Kevin and I'm guessing it's because you're proposing a lowered payout for those players.

So Lyle you want direct gambling to take place? I mean if you base entries off the odds of winning then that is what you are doing.

What about that 990 guy that was 940 a year ago and has been shooting 1010 for the last 3 months? Should he have to pay more that the 990 guy that was 1010 a year ago and has been playing 970 for the last 3 months?

Since the TD (club or individual) is taking all the economic risk and responsibility, it is everything but irrelevant.


The TD and the local club are taking all of the economic risk and responsibility for the future of the sport?

Don't confuse PDGA concerns with promoter concerns. The PDGA should be concerned about the future of the sport. They need to set goals, formulate policies, etc. Almost as an afterthought, they can then devise ways for tourneys to be economically attractive to promoters.

An afterthought, not something that drives more fundamental goals.

Open entry fee $100= Open plays for their entry fees(minus PDGA dues and fees) +the added cash

Semi-Pro's fee $60(equal to ADV, minus PDGA dues and fees) Semi-Pro's play for their entry-fess and don't get to play for the added cash that the Open players play for...basically like a C-Tier

I couldn't disagree with this more! The TD and tournament structure are central to the sport's future unless you change the nature of how the sport is played and pursued. Even at the level of non-sanctioned play, the sport revolves around TDs or LDs and their efforts.



Typical irrelevant rebuttal. No one was dissing TDs or clubs, but if it makes you proud to defend them, go right ahead.

Equals smaller Open divisions AND less added cash to Open AND less incentive for TDs to run events with cash payout divisions.

I suggest something fairly simple.

Full price is $90 plus fees.
Trophy Only is $30 plus fees. (1/3 of Full))
Semi-pro/Expert is $60 plus fees. (2/3 of Full)

The Trophy Only works the way it does now. Every three count as one full paid player for payout.

Every four Semi Pro players count as 1 full paid player for payout, and they get paid at 100% in merch or 60% in cash.
60% cash does not effect Am status.

$30 (1/3 of Full) from each Trophy entry goes to the Pro payout, $22.50 (1/4 of Full) of every semi pro entry goes to Pro payout.

Kevin, wouldn't the same effect be achieved by eliminating Pro Masters and Pro GrandMasters?

No, they are taking the economic risks and responsibilities for the tournament. As such, the PDGA has to take care to make sure running a tournament doesn't turn into such a losing proposition that no one will be willing to be a TD, resulting in there being no tournaments (more realistically, no 'PDGA' tournaments). Keeping this in mind cannot be an afterthought. It is a reality.

As for the future of the sport, I'd still argue that it lies more in increasing overall participation as oppposed to tweaking the current tournament format.

I couldn't disagree with this more! The TD and tournament structure are central to the sport's future unless you change the nature of how the sport is played and pursued. Even at the level of non-sanctioned play, the sport revolves around TDs or LDs and their efforts.



Typical irrelevant rebuttal. No one was dissing TDs or clubs, but if it makes you proud to defend them, go right ahead.



James first, then Scooter then Kevin... :D

James, you're wearing rose coloured glasses. In a perfect world you can separate the beautiful sport of disc golf from the mud of reality, but we don't live in a perfect world. If you want to talk philosophy I'm happy to but you're buying the beer (I only talk philosophy over beer).

The reality is that the two parts of disc golf, it's "holistic" :p nature and it's tournament or play for pay structure are currently inextricably linked. I'm not telling you they couldn't be unlinked but that is how it is right now. Furthermore, I might argue that the best way to unlink them and grow disc golf holistically is to take it back to an Am only status (oops, philosophy without the beer... sad).

Scooter, excellent point and one I hadn't thought of. However, Kevin's post makes the solution clear. You make the same tiered structure but your payout is dependent on your pay-in. Only guys at the top get to play for the added cash. So 990-970 80% of entry Pro entry fee and their payout is based on that 80% payin. 969-950 60%, 920-949 40% etc.

This scheme will actually attract more players than Kevin's flat break because the cost of entry is so low for the players below 950. Heck, I'd play up if I could get into the Pro bracket at that rate. It'd be fun!

Even if you don't accept this, Kevin's notion is a good one for exactly the reason Chuck's would have worked. It significantly lowers the risk for the lower ranked players.

Kevin, wouldn't the same effect be achieved by eliminating Pro Masters and Pro GrandMasters?



I really think the age divisions are untouchable

I'm not sure what you and Lyle are thinking. It sounds like y'all figure the PDGA is forever wedded to the current economic model of financing tournaments. Why? Especially if that model is a hindrance to more primary goals?

No responsible organization entrusted with the sport says "Well, we fund ourselves this way, so let's tailor our goals to support our funding." It's the proverbial tail wagging the dog. And if your rebuttal is "well, how are we going to fund tourneys?" My reply is "I don't really care, the fact that promotors need incentive is a given, but it is hardly some vexing issue, and in no instance should it drive policy."

Kevin, wouldn't the same effect be achieved by eliminating Pro Masters and Pro GrandMasters?



I really think the age divisions are untouchable



They are indeed untouchable, and I've come to the conclusion that any arguments to the contrary are pretty much a colossal waste of energy.

Membership orgs make decisions independent of their memberships wishes at their own peril. Even traditional sports bent to the lure of the dollar when the Olympics started "officially" allowing pros to enter.

Whatever. If you are merely stating "leadership is difficult, doing the right thing might be unpopular," then I'll agree and say "Oh, well, such is the burden of leadership."

If you are saying (and the leaders are in agreement) that "leadership is difficult, doing the right thing might be unpopular, it is more important to be popular then lead," then the sport is really in trouble.

ps. does the Olympics even draw the same ratings it used to, when only ams played?

I would guess the Internet has something to do with Olympic ratings being down.

Leadership means at least listening to the membership. It's not one leader like George Bush but a Board of elected members who also play and TD events. If your competition ideas were sound it might have been duplicated by another org already. But it hasn't. TDs have had years to consider the option to offer trophy only divisions for Ams and they haven't. An idea isn't good in vacuum, only in the arena of competitive alternatives. Your ideas consistently fail the test.

Leadership means at least listening to the membership.



It doesn't seem like the members are all that happy. I don't remember a time where there was so much dissent amongst the members. How many threads have been started about Boycott the PDGA, what do you hate about the PDGA? Maybe its just the rate increase of memberships

Kevin, wouldn't the same effect be achieved by eliminating Pro Masters and Pro GrandMasters?



I really think the age divisions are untouchable



They are indeed untouchable, and I've come to the conclusion that any arguments to the contrary are pretty much a colossal waste of energy.


Question from a young, naive member.....Why do the smallest divisions have the most "power"? Why are the divisions with the smallest number of people untouchable?

Kevin, wouldn't the same effect be achieved by eliminating Pro Masters and Pro GrandMasters?



I really think the age divisions are untouchable



They are indeed untouchable, and I've come to the conclusion that any arguments to the contrary are pretty much a colossal waste of energy.


Question from a young, naive member.....Why do the smallest divisions have the most "power"? Why are the divisions with the smallest number of people untouchable?



I don't have a great answer for you but part of it is that they belong to the biggest PDGA membership class. 70% or some such of our membership is Masters or older.

Those smaller divisions aren't untouchable. TDs offer them to get bigger fields. If TDs don't offer Pro divisions other than Open and Women Pro, it's allowed by the PDGA if announced in the event flyer, even if 10 of them show up.

70% or some such of our membership is Masters or older.



It's about 48%.

I don't have a great answer for you but part of it is that they belong to the biggest PDGA membership class. 70% or some such of our membership is Masters or older.


Is that true? Where can we find stats like that? BTW, I was talking specifically about Pro Masters/GM.

Kevin, wouldn't the same effect be achieved by eliminating Pro Masters and Pro GrandMasters?



I really think the age divisions are untouchable



They are indeed untouchable, and I've come to the conclusion that any arguments to the contrary are pretty much a colossal waste of energy.


Question from a young, naive member.....Why do the smallest divisions have the most "power"? Why are the divisions with the smallest number of people untouchable?



Because they make up the majority of the representatives and thus have a lot of power. They also make up the majority of the TDs and volunteers.

How many registered Pros are over the age of 40? over 50?
How many registered Ams are under the age of 40? and rated below 940?
Is there an easy way to find this out?

Age divisions are in tact because peoples bodies begin to break down over years and its a fact not a theory.

Obviously a 50 year old doesn't have much in common with an 18 year old, game or conversation. Its best for both parties to be seperated

If your competition ideas were sound it might have been duplicated by another org already.



You mean like every other sport, or every other profession on earth.


TDs have had years to consider the option to offer trophy only divisions for Ams and they haven't. An idea isn't good in vacuum, only in the arena of competitive alternatives. Your ideas consistently fail the test.


This is nonsense. As long as crack is offered, the addicts will demand it. I didn't see a lot of people leave the welfare system voluntarily either, until it was drastically restructured.

Your under some illusion that competitive structures are ocompeting in some free-market landscape, and we can tell the strong concepts from the weak by their prevalence. That is way off base. A more apt anlogy is that we have severely altered the natural landscape by introducing a weed that has strangled out the other plants. Is the weed more desirable because it is most prevalent?

Understandable. But if a 60 year old man wants to make the same money as an 18 year old, and vice versa, why shouldn't they compete against each other? That's how it is in the business world.

You mean kind of how capitalism has been a "weed" that has won out over other economic models or that weed of democracy is seeming to eventually win out over other political structures?

Age divisions are in tact because peoples bodies begin to break down over years and its a fact not a theory.




Kevin has captured the essence of why these divisions exist. If you want to end them, it would help if you present a good rebuttal to the essence of this quote. One could certainly coherently argue about the exact age cutoffs, or argue about incentives, but I have yet to hear any coherent argument that an age cutoff at some age doesn't make sense.

Understandable. But if a 60 year old man wants to make the same money as an 18 year old, and vice versa, why shouldn't they compete against each other? That's how it is in the business world.



That is the definition of OPEN, so if they want it, bring it.

There are the Johnny Sias's of the world that rather play in the Open division even though he would compete better in the masters or even grandmasters division. But more than not the older player will take the easier way to the profit, which I can't blame them for it. They have put the time in on this earth they deserve to get a break or two ;)

Yes, the essence of capitalism has won out over almost everything but disc golf, where unobservant leaders actually believe in socialism, or confuse socialism with other, more successful philosophies.

O M G Chuck, we are back to the MARXISM conversation again....lol :D

And for Scooter and Colin we are not talking about Richard Marx

http://www.katfm.com/images/80s_Popstars/Richard_Marx.jpg



:D

Understandable. But if a 60 year old man wants to make the same money as an 18 year old, and vice versa, why shouldn't they compete against each other? That's how it is in the business world.


Even though I usually play Masters, I agree with this philosophy. If this philosophy was applied consistently across our sport, we would have basically two divisions playing for profit, male and female, and you would see most of the present masters and grandmasters playing in that one division.

Our competitive system is social group capitalism, which is simply an upgrade of casual play. People like to play with others they like or might like socially and then beat them to a pulp in a capitalistic way. If you look at typical casual foursomes, they may have sidebets in straight up competition if they are roughly at a similar skill level. It's also likely they are all in similar age range. The more their skills vary, the more there will be handicapping of some sort, doubles and/or the dollar amounts at stake will be lower so the bottom skill player isn't likely to donate a lot. Seems a good reason our competition system has grown and ratings help establish skill levels among people that other players don't know yet so wagering with them seems as fair as their casual games.

My only question is why does there have to be only one model ?

What we have now is perfect for the majority of those involved in it.

What we need is an additional model that is structured toward the scholastic version of amateur competition, and a model that is structured toward the adult metro league class of amateur. Maybe under three different organizations, maybe under the same one.

Once those get up and going, hopefully the sponsorship dollars will provide the incentive to fix the Pro divisions.

And for Scooter and Colin we are not talking about Richard Marx


I actually took a class in undergrad that focused on the effects of Marxism and Naziism leading up to WWI and WWII.

Whatever. If you are merely stating "leadership is difficult, doing the right thing might be unpopular," then I'll agree and say "Oh, well, such is the burden of leadership."

If you are saying (and the leaders are in agreement) that "leadership is difficult, doing the right thing might be unpopular, it is more important to be popular then lead," then the sport is really in trouble.

ps. does the Olympics even draw the same ratings it used to, when only ams played?



Take our environment. The best thing for health is to force all people to ride the bus. Holistically, the country will be cleaner and more beautiful. We'll have less disease and the Middle East will become irrelavant. It's silly to think this is realistic or that it will happen. In fact, some might even argue that it isn't what's best for the world or the environment.

Your notion of doing what is best for the sport is a similar argument. What's more, if I recall from past discussions, your basic premis is to force players to play up. Since no one agrees with that position (except other Pros) you're selling it as painful, but what's best for the sport. Now, if your goals don't include keeping as many players in the sport as possible, you may be right. But the current evidence is that this will chase off players. So, what is your view of the best thing for the sport? A perfect system with fewer players? Also, keep in mind that perfect here is being defined by you, many who post here disagree with your notion of perfect. Nick Knight argues that perfect is an Am based system. What evidence do we have that force them Pro is better than force them Am?

You are correct, being a leader is difficult. But it isn't just making hard decisions, it's making financially sound ones.

Wow I'm impressed, strike your name from that remark then, I figured you were too young to have those kind of conversations ;)

Nope, just too dumb.

My only question is why does there have to be only one model ?

What we have now is perfect for the majority of those involved in it.

What we need is an additional model that is structured toward the scholastic version of amateur competition, and a model that is structured toward the adult metro league class of amateur. Maybe under three different organizations, maybe under the same one.

Once those get up and going, hopefully the sponsorship dollars will provide the incentive to fix the Pro divisions.



I agree with you about creating adult metro and scholastic versions, but it's a different topic than this one.

[QUOTE]
It doesn't seem like the members are all that happy. I don't remember a time where there was so much dissent amongst the members. How many threads have been started about Boycott the PDGA, what do you hate about the PDGA? Maybe its just the rate increase of memberships


Look at who starts those threads and pumps the negative posts up. If it were not for the posts of only six (6) people, you'd rarely read anything here except for reasonably-argued criticism of a helpful nature, and there would be no perception of a (fictional) vast amount of member unhappiness.

Your under some illusion that competitive structures are ocompeting in some free-market landscape, and we can tell the strong concepts from the weak by their prevalence.




This is no illusion, this is reality. There are no real barriers of entry that stop anyone from putting together a disc golf tournament. Just look at the large number of unsanctioned events that go on. It is a free market. To ignore this reality would be to seriously jeopardize the future of the PDGA, and in the end, the future organized growth of the sport.

There is also enough latitude in the PDGA sanctioning options to allow for some of the ideas you are presenting. The fact that many have not taken off may be the market basically signaling that the overall membership doesn�t prefer those formats over what is currently offered.

I don't have a great answer for you but part of it is that they belong to the biggest PDGA membership class. 70% or some such of our membership is Masters or older.


Is that true? Where can we find stats like that? BTW, I was talking specifically about Pro Masters/GM.



There's nothing worse than being a loser. It's 35% are Masters or older and 65% are over 30. Now where did I pull that number, Oh yeah right out o' my back side. :o No, No really, I read it somewhere...

Go to Home/Information/demographics.

So, Matt's suggestion is probably the closest to the truth; simply by being in positions of power the old guys protect their turf. Wow, and I thought disc golf was better than the rest of the world.

Nonetheless, you can still see that the old guys hold a significant chunk of power, perhaps you young guys need to push to have a referrendum put out to end the old guy divisions. I'd be curious to see what the result was.

Your under some illusion that competitive structures are ocompeting in some free-market landscape, and we can tell the strong concepts from the weak by their prevalence.




This is no illusion, this is reality. There are no real barriers of entry that stop anyone from putting together a disc golf tournament. Just look at the large number of unsanctioned events that go on. It is a free market. To ignore this reality would be to seriously jeopardize the future of the PDGA, and in the end, the future organized growth of the sport.

There is also enough latitude in the PDGA sanctioning options to allow for some of the ideas you are presenting. The fact that many have not taken off may be the market basically signaling that the overall membership doesn�t prefer those formats over what is currently offered.



I always find it amusing that James doesn't think we're free market. That somehow the PDGA controls every event out there and is unresponsive to the players. And then he proposes forcing players into the Pro division.

Your notion of free market is different from mine James.

Honestly, I'd like to go back to Kevin's proposal. It seems like a sweet plan to me. James, are you morally opposed to what Kevin has proposed?

O M G Chuck, we are back to the MARXISM conversation again....lol :D

And for Scooter and Colin we are not talking about Richard Marx

http://www.katfm.com/images/80s_Popstars/Richard_Marx.jpg



:D



That guy is the Chit. :D

Wow I'm impressed, strike your name from that remark then, I figured you were too young to have those kind of conversations ;)



I read "The Jungle" 4 times and was the only person to pass the AP World history test at my school.

Oh don't Marxist have to throw with a towel tucked in thier pants?

What's more, if I recall from past discussions, your basic premis is to force players to play up. Since no one agrees with that position (except other Pros) you're selling it as painful, but what's best for the sport.



Well, I'll assume that your premise is to mischaracterize arguments to make them either easier to understand or to rebut.

I have never argued that people should be forced to play pro. In simple terms, I only argue to align performance with reward. I have no problem with amateur divisions, just don't reward them financially.


Since no one agrees with that position (except other Pros) you're selling it as painful, but what's best for the sport. Now, if your goals don't include keeping as many players in the sport as possible, you may be right.



This is y'alls typical response: the numbers will drop off the map. Maybe. Maybe not. It might be the price we pay for a healthier player base. We might experience a healthier growth, consisting of sportsmen and women, who actually believe in competition, and are the base of real sport, capable of a healthy growth. Instead, we have an activity that subsidizes the non-competitive type (which attracts other non-competitive types-just witness this discussion), and punishes many of the competitive ones (the ones that are needed to attract other competitive sporting types). It's a vicious cycle, that stunts our growth as a real sport.


being a leader is difficult. But it isn't just making hard decisions, it's making financially sound ones.

We're just back to a similar argument: the PDGA must enact non-competitive policies to attract non-competitive people. Why, because they need money. Needing money has now surpassed sport-dominated goals. Pathetic actually.

As an aside, I don't buy your conclusion that this would be some unsound financial decision that will bankrupt the PDGA. There are a lot of debatable assumptions in that conclusion.

Free market? I'm not sure the concept is that applicable.

Similar to what I said before, if a hungry man is faced with a choice of entering two buildings, one of which will offer a handout, and another which makes him work for his food, which will he choose. If more hungry people choose the free lunch, does that mean that offering free lunches is some market driven approach. I don't know, seems like an absurd way to view the question. A more important question, to me at least is: in societal terms, what is the end-game for the free lunch building, versus the end game for the work-for-food building?

I think a better analogy would be whether the person chooses to lunch with us vs. lunching with the bowling crowd, the ball golf crowd, the non-sanctioned DG event crowd, the 'book club and doilly knitting' crowd or whatever other otions there are. Especially as we are asking for this person to pay for the lunch, not giving it away for free.

I think a better analogy would be whether the person chooses to lunch with us vs. lunching with the bowling crowd, the ball golf crowd, the non-sanctioned DG event crowd, the 'book club and doilly knitting' crowd or whatever other otions there are. Especially as we are asking for this person to pay for the lunch, not giving it away for free.



So are you saying that AMs only play tournaments because of merch? If so that needs to be changed.

Anyway Kev's system is #1 in my books but I would bet $1,000,000 that his system isn't used and Chuck's is. I think it has something to do with the Old men in power thing.

Free market? I'm not sure the concept is that applicable.

Similar to what I said before, if a hungry man is faced with a choice of entering two buildings, one of which will offer a handout, and another which makes him work for his food, which will he choose. If more hungry people choose the free lunch, does that mean that offering free lunches is some market driven approach. I don't know, seems like an absurd way to view the question. A more important question, to me at least is: in societal terms, what is the end-game for the free lunch building, versus the end game for the work-for-food building?



And therein lies the problem. You're assuming:

a) that players are hungry - you know, people don't have to play disc golf

b) that no one will offer an alternative (SN etc.)

Your analogy is good when it comes to necessities but it falls apart in the entertainment world. That is where you go wrong here. While disc golf may be necessary for you, in your blood so deeply that quitting would mortally wound you, that isn't true for most players. It isn't starving, it's the cost of entertainment. Why pay for entertainment that isn't entertaining?

No, but all players play tournaments based on how they perceive the value vs. the required investment (time, travel cost, entry fees, and so on). The components of the total value may be tangible (payout, players pack, etc. ) or intangible (camaraderie, competition, getting better, promoting the sport, the groupies, etc.). For each person, how they rate these types of returns differs. Overall, what returns the TD emphasizes is based on what has worked in the past, the feedback they get from the participants and how full the tournament is from year to year.

Consumer behavior, and it isn't that much different than the economics surrounding the purchase of a sandwich.

Kev's system won't be approved because, as it stands, it doesn't solve the fundamental problem of too wide a ratings range in Advanced and it introduces other problems. That's what started the Expert dialog. Simply divide the Advanced division like we've done for Intermediate and Rec into similar sized ratings ranges. Why this is so controversial is baffling, especially since it's only being proposed for the roughly 40 A-tiers out of 750 events.

I assume Kev's proposal is for all tiers? Even if you allow those in Semi-pro to play in Am Worlds, which makes more of a mockery of Am status than we have already, you'll end up with another set of divisions with overlapping skill levels. I can't see a 945-955 player seriously considering becoming semi-pro to play for 60% cash in a smaller division where he's at the bottom versus Advanced where he's near the top of a much larger division playing for bigger merch prizes, even considering the conversion rate. If half of them do convert, you then have another group of players in the same ratings range in two divisions and still potentially have 985 rated Advanced players.

The Open division gets as small as it does with the Expert proposal at A-tiers and disappears at lower tiers if semi-pro at lower tiers. The payouts for Expert would be no different from the Semi-Pro if conversion is at 60%. In addition, Advanced players above the ratings break must play Expert. No special exceptions need to be made to allow a new type of Am called semi-pro be allowed to enter Am Worlds. There are no divisions with ratings overlap other than self choice to play up.

The one main issue is the potential to gut the Pro division with that ratings range.

There's no gutting involved. Just better financial support for our few bona fide pros at the top in A-tiers and a better option for all in that 950-985 range and eliminating the high end predators in Advanced.

There's no gutting involved. Just better financial support for our few bona fide pros at the top in A-tiers and a better option for all in that 950-985 range and eliminating the high end predators in Advanced.



Change the name an I'll give you an "ok". :D

Blue, of course.

Blue, of course.



Doesn't quite fit the current structure.

It does if the ones below it are also changed at the same time. It would also eliminate a division. Blue, White, Red goes down as far as Expert, Adv, Int and Rec

It does if the ones below it are also changed at the same time. It would also eliminate a division. Blue, White, Red goes down as far as Expert, Adv, Int and Rec



Yeah but then people outaside the DG community will really have no clue how are divisions are setup. At least now they can assume that the ADV guys are better than the Rec.

How about calling it the "Terminal" division? IDK sounds good to me. :D

Do you know what order White, Red, Brown and Green divisions are in orienteering? Put the Sharpshooter, Expert and Marksman divisions in order.

What about using the light spectrum from highest to lowest energy?
Ya' know VIBGYOR (ROYGBIV backwards)

The color ship has already sailed several years ago. Designers have been designing and installing courses already that match the PDGA design guidelines and player skill levels. The levels were originally selected to match the common sequence in ball golf. All we need to do is get the division names in sync and all of the elements being developed over the years will all tie together. New players coming into the sport would learn that the Red tees are designed to challenge red level players. White tees are their next level up for challenge and provide a goal to improve their rating to the white level.

There's no gutting involved. Just better financial support for our few bona fide pros at the top in A-tiers and a better option for all in that 950-985 range and eliminating the high end predators in Advanced.



Then I must have no real idea of what it is you are proposing.

Please explain it one more time keeping in mind my areas of concern are:
1. the bulk of donating or bottom cashing will be playing in that division if it becomes available and that alone will have a devastating effect on the MPO purses.
2. Adv players in this range that formally had strong peer presure to move up will have a legitimate reason to stay in Adv in the vast majority of events that do not offer the Exp division so the mid level Adv players really lose.
3. As the current stock of mid level pros burn out and drop out, the players that normally would have filled in for them will have already found a comfortable home. This will devastate the MPO ranks for years to come.

1. the bulk of donating or bottom cashing will be playing in that division if it becomes available and that alone will have a devastating effect on the MPO purses.
> Nope. Already did the modeling on this and posted it before. Payouts are equal to or higher in Open because there's potentially more added cash generated from Expert division and smaller Open field means added cash is distributed over fewer players. Expert would only exist when there was added cash at least $X at B-tiers and is required at A-tiers anyway.

2. Adv players in this range that formally had strong peer presure to move up will have a legitimate reason to stay in Adv in the vast majority of events that do not offer the Exp division so the mid level Adv players really lose.
> Nope. Currently, most of these top Advanced are only hanging around for one more shot at Am Worlds before going pro. With Expert available at bigger events, they'll always have a fallback position in big events to Expert while they're climbing the Open ladder. They know they'll have no problem cashing in Open sometimes at C-tiers and small B-tiers so their future turning pro is better under this plan than the current structure.

3. As the current stock of mid level pros burn out and drop out, the players that normally would have filled in for them will have already found a comfortable home. This will devastate the MPO ranks for years to come.
> I think it would also be necessary to require Ams over a rating like 955-965 to enter Open as Trophy Only at lower tier events with no Expert division. That would solve the permanent camping out problem and provide a haven for those contemplating dropping out after trying to reach the top Open ranks over several years.

As I said, I clearly don't understand your proposal.


1. the bulk of donating or bottom cashing will be playing in that division if it becomes available and that alone will have a devastating effect on the MPO purses.
> Nope. Already did the modeling on this and posted it before. Payouts are equal to or higher in Open because there's potentially more added cash generated from Expert division and smaller Open field means added cash is distributed over fewer players. Expert would only exist when there was added cash at least $X at B-tiers and is required at A-tiers anyway.
<font color="blue"> Source of confusion: Is expert a Pro or Am division or something different ? What is the payout structure and how is added cash generated from it ?</font>

2. Adv players in this range that formally had strong peer presure to move up will have a legitimate reason to stay in Adv in the vast majority of events that do not offer the Exp division so the mid level Adv players really lose.
> Nope. Currently, most of these top Advanced are only hanging around for one more shot at Am Worlds before going pro. With Expert available at bigger events, they'll always have a fallback position in big events to Expert while they're climbing the Open ladder. They know they'll have no problem cashing in Open sometimes at C-tiers and small B-tiers so their future turning pro is better under this plan than the current structure.
<font color="blue">If they are Pros (having easily cashed at C-Tiers) then expert can't be an Am division</font>

3. As the current stock of mid level pros burn out and drop out, the players that normally would have filled in for them will have already found a comfortable home. This will devastate the MPO ranks for years to come.
> I think it would also be necessary to require Ams over a rating like 955-965 to enter Open as Trophy Only at lower tier events with no Expert division. That would solve the permanent camping out problem and provide a haven for those contemplating dropping out after trying to reach the top Open ranks over several years.
<font color="blue">How is that different from forcing players to become Pro ? Their options are play Pro or stay home.</font>



Like I said, it's obvious I don't understand your plan. I thought it was another Am division above Adv.

What I really like the basis of Kevin's idea because it is purely incentive based and voluntary. It offers players a chance to play where they think they are getting a good value and a chance to improve their game. It gets the players that may have the skill to move up playing with the Open players at all tier levels. And it is adding cash to the Open payout. And we should be getting a lot more players in the MPO division at smaller events. That's cool, but the real payoff is that it opens up the Adv division to some real interesting competition.

I miss a day of reading and 150+ posts later I say.....wow - interesting proposal and great discussions! (who said the discussion board could not be constructive?)

One thing I can not believe has not been debated or even really brought up (Chuck alluded to this), is why the 990 top end cut off??!!

For most events this encompasses the entire Open division (except maybe 2-3 players - edited to say "woops - i was thinking 1000+. 4-6 is more realistic....but this does not really change the point"). I am not saying that this is bad, but if most players want only to play for the reduced entry fee, this will kill the Open division and demoralize the top players.

For larger events where there is significant added cash, this dynamic would be lessened since more higher rated players would ante up more coin to chase the added money.

So, why even have any ratings constraints on this Semi-Pro idea? Why not let the desires of the players dictate who plays in what field?

Here is the problem I see with having a set ratings range for semi-pro: The cutoff is arbitrary and will work well (as intended) for some events. But for most, the 990 cut-off will garner a ton of gripes since it is not at the right place for most events.

Here is a problem I see with having no ratings range for Semi-Pro: It is conceivable that the winner of Semi-Pro will make more money than the Open winner (if more than 60% take the reduced entry fee option and there is no added cash....like the majority of events).

Here is the problem I see for either set up: Lots of players will hate pre-registering since they will not know what field to compete in since they will not be able to get an idea of their "odds" of winning (or of making the most cash back).

gary, up til now the poor oppressed 989 rated Pro player has had only ONE division available to him. this obviously is unfair to 989 rated Pro players when so many other players have four, even six, divisions available from which to choose. the Expert Division is a first step towards rectifying this injustice, and giving the 989 rated player the choices he deserves.

:D

mp3, i agree about the 990 cutoff. any ratings based cutoff will be arbitrary. where the cutoffs are should be determined BY THE TD - who has far better knowledge of the local scene than does the more centralized association.

all, if one event wants to make 975+ the cash division and another wants to make it 1000+, why not? i believe this option is under-considered considering the flexibility is gives the TD and local scene. players still get ratings, if you take cash you become a Pro... all that still applies. the complexity of the Points System is sometimes cited as a reason to not consider this option, but that is a problem with thwe Points System, not this approach.

Gary, here are the original proposal and background posts on Expert: http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=647022&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=186&fpart=2&vc=1

plus 647408, 647523 & 647749

Here's the post showing how this year's Z-Boaz event might have worked if Expert was available:
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=OtherPDGATopics&Number=646065&Searchpage=0&Main=641316&Search=true&#Post646065

Chuck ,

I don't think the PLAYERS want another AM division...Shouldn't we be more focused on the players wants and needs are. They are the ones who pay the membership fees. I don't think they are drinking the kool-aid on this Expert division

Pat, since you are on the board, y'all might want to consider reigning in your competition committee mindset. Give them some new direction. Someone just can't get their mind around anything more than one concept. We keep seeing it get recycled again and again and again. No one (at least the main speaker for the committee) seems able to step back and ask "Why do we have to keep patching this thing, I thought our last patch was enough."

It needs new ideas, not repackaged old ones..

Look at who starts those threads and pumps the negative posts up. If it were not for the posts of only six (6) people, you'd rarely read anything here except for reasonably-argued criticism of a helpful nature, and there would be no perception of a (fictional) vast amount of member unhappiness.



Come on Hot Tub. I've left all this dissent alone for days now out of a general disinterest in The Association, the time wasted debating you and the Apologist, and an interest in seeing if others would take up the case or introduce other issues. And they have. You again reveal your own bias which is 100% "Everything's Great" propaganda 24/7. Your best move is to just wait me and the others out, and once we leave in a couple of months, or don't renew next year you can return to living in disc golf fantasyland.

I'm on that committee and I'm trying ;)

Chuck

Would it be possible for a TD of an event this year to get a waiver and offer the Expert Division?

Also, if approved next year for A-Tier events, can B, C, or D-tier events offer the Expert division with the same ratings breaks? Would a Series be able to offer these divisions for all their events? So Cal could be a good test market for this new divisional set up for the average C & B tier event as opposed to just A-Tiers. This assumes the format would be known well in advance of the events/series.

Also, could a TD get a waiver from the PDGA to group these Expert players with the Open players so these up-and-coming Pros can cut their teeth and compete head to head with Pros like Kevin's plan offers? This would offer the best of both proposals. Lower entry, don't loose Am status (no $75.00 Pro PDGA fee) and a chance to compete with Pros, plus, it spares the 916 rated Am from playing with a 960 rated player.

So Cal has a large player base so this new Expert division makes a lot of sense in our area. We have quite a few Rec and Int players working their way up the Am ladder. The 916 rated guys make it known that they don't think it is fair for them to have to be forced to play against 960 rated guys (who will be rated even higher later in the season). We also don't want to lose those 960 rated Am guys that may not do well at the Pro level and possibly drop out.

I think the Expert division is a great idea. It will work well in my area and, as a TD, it won't cause extra work at sign up, payout time or inputting on reports. The current PDGA division format is popular here and popular with So Cal members. I for one don't want to bite the hand that feeds our successful club series. (BTW, our successful club and series feeds new members to the PDGA as well.)

I vote yes for the Expert division as a solution to retaining 955+ rated players in our system until they are ready to turn Pro.

The Ams drive both So Cal and the PDGA, not the Pros. The Expert plan will eventually feed the Pros with more players and retain members longer. Work it from the bottom up, not the top down.

OK, so I do understand your proposal and feel that all of my original concerns are valid and not addressed by this plan.

<font color="blue">1. the bulk of donating or bottom cashing will be playing in that division if it becomes available and that alone will have a devastating effect on the MPO purses.</font>
> Nope. Already did the modeling on this and posted it before. Payouts are equal to or higher in Open because there's potentially more added cash generated from Expert division and smaller Open field means added cash is distributed over fewer players. Expert would only exist when there was added cash at least $X at B-tiers and is required at A-tiers anyway.
<font color="blue">Less money across less people is not the same thing. Modeling that puts MPMs into the MPO division so that numbers look decent isn't realistic unless you are going to abolish the masters division.</font>

<font color="blue">2. Adv players in this range that formally had strong peer presure to move up will have a legitimate reason to stay in Adv in the vast majority of events that do not offer the Exp division so the mid level Adv players really lose.</font>
> Nope. Currently, most of these top Advanced are only hanging around for one more shot at Am Worlds before going pro. With Expert available at bigger events, they'll always have a fallback position in big events to Expert while they're climbing the Open ladder. They know they'll have no problem cashing in Open sometimes at C-tiers and small B-tiers so their future turning pro is better under this plan than the current structure.
<font color="blue">If they are Pros (having recently easily cashed at C-Tiers) then they aren't maintaining their Am eligibility without some fudging of the rules for 50% payout</font>

<font color="blue">3. As the current stock of mid level pros burn out and drop out, the players that normally would have filled in for them will have already found a comfortable home. This will devastate the MPO ranks for years to come.</font>
> I think it would also be necessary to require Ams over a rating like 955-965 to enter Open as Trophy Only at lower tier events with no Expert division. That would solve the permanent camping out problem and provide a haven for those contemplating dropping out after trying to reach the top Open ranks over several years.
<font color="blue">I have never been in favor of a forced move to Pro, and this is basically that, except for really big events that can afford the work around</font>

<font color="blue">Why isn't an incentive based program that allows players to play Trophy only or pay a little more and play semi-pro, or pay full price and play for full purse (with an upper ratings cap on the semi-pro option) not a better solution to the problem ? We have been asking the Pros that have been complaining for a system that doesn't make Pro look better by making Am look worse. This is a system that makes competing with the big boys look better and makes donating more affordable.</font>

Less money across less people is not the same thing. Modeling that puts MPMs into the MPO division so that numbers look decent isn't realistic unless you are going to abolish the masters division.



You talk about incentives and this is exactly how this proposal will work. The lure of Expert will reduce the MPM divison size at A-tiers because lower level MPMs will cross over such that the higher rated MPMs that should be playing Open will shift to Open for better potential payouts.

If they are Pros (having recently easily cashed at C-Tiers) then they aren't maintaining their Am eligibility without some fudging of the rules for 50% payout



Those who cash wouldn't still have Am Worlds eligibility but would have Expert as a better option at A-tiers and help boost the purse for the remaining Open players. This would help keep these players from dropping out if they can't get higher than a 955-975 rating.

I have never been in favor of a forced move to Pro, and this is basically that, except for really big events that can afford the work around




It's not a forced move to pro. The primary players who would need to use this are those high rated Ams who can't turn pro until after Am Worlds during the seven months prior to Am Worlds. If Ams over 965 do not turn pro after a year, continuing to compete as a trophy only player in open would be their consequence in lower tier events and playing Expert in A-tiers. The only ones who might want to do this are "true Ams" and those who want to continue to compete in Am Worlds. Otherwise, there's no downside for them turning pro at that rating level because they would be competitive in lower tiers and have the option of Open or Expert at A-tiers.

james, if its any consolation, i have not seen anything that convinces me that this "expert" division or the "christmas tree" structure represents an improvement over what we have now.

Offering a Semi-Pro division which will allow players to pay a discounted entry fee and get to play with the Open field but at the same time they will be only competing against other Semi-Pro players. The Semi-Pro�s will be grouped in with the Open field depending on the scores they shoot. They will not be playing for the added cash that the Open players are playing for but being in the same division, they will learn from the Open players on what it takes to get into that top 40% cash spots.



Just playing devil's advocate here.

The argument has been made that comparing MPM's final scores with MPO's final scores is not valid since the pressures they were under to perform are not comparable.

IMO, if one accepts this argument, one have to reject your idea of co-mingling players with different buy-in and a different reward structure in the same division.

Have you thought about that as a possible prevalent gripe from full-price players who get beat by the Semi-Pro's?

I really don't understand what your asking....

Semi-Pro's and Open players would play together but their purses are each in it's own. Even if a Semi-pro beats an Open players it depends on where they finish within their division on what they get paid.

The Semi-Pro is the Open division with training wheels

The extra benifit to this is that if the Semi-Pro consitantly finishes in or near the Open cash lines, the Semi-Pro is more likely to make that jump into the added cash Open division.

It gives them the trial period to see if he/she is really ready for the next step, instead of just moving them up and throwing them to the wolves

How is this different from Pro1 and Pro2 or whatever it was called that was tried a few years back?

The extra benifit to this is that if the Semi-Pro consitantly finishes in or near the Open cash lines, the Semi-Pro is more likely to make that jump into the added cash Open division.

It gives them the trial period to see if he/she is really ready for the next step, instead of just moving them up and throwing them to the wolves


That all sounds great on paper, but what about the Open players who being forced to play with players who aren't in their division? Will they be accepting of playing with players they aren't playing against?

The biggest gripe against mixing divisions in a PDGA tournament understandably comes from the MPO division players who have paid a lot more to enter and have a lot more on the line, and these guys in the past have wanted to be on the same card as the guys they are competing against for the money. Would they now be willing to "baby-sit" and train these up-and-comers with the understanding that some/most of these guys will eventually end up as full-price added cash^h^h^h^h^h^h MPO players?

I don't know the answer; I'm just asking.

I understand how it works - you did a great job of explaining it in your initial post (not sure how it is being confused with Pro2 :confused:).

What I am pointing out is that to the "purists" will not accept this setup since you have people competing for different things on the same card. It is psychologically unfair. (BTW, I do not take this stance....just playing devil's advocate).

Another way of looking at it is similar to mixing divisions on one card. That is frowned upon by many and is recommended to be avoided as much as possible. You even call them separate divisions (I would call them fields or sub-divsions):


Semi-Pro's and Open players would play together but their purses are each in it's own. Even if a Semi-pro beats an Open players it depends on where they finish within their division on what they get paid.



This brings up another question: For PDGA Points, will players get points for every Pro and Semi-Pro they beat, or just for the players in the field/sub-division they are playing in?

which brings up another question: do points really matter?

which brings up other questions: why is the competitive structure so bound to the points system? which is more important, a strong, reasonable competitive structure, or the points system?

Open players would learn to put up with it because it benefits our future.

Open players are more likely to make rules calls that you don't see in the AM ranks, this will also help the game in that aspect.

which brings up another question: do points really matter?

which brings up other questions: why is the competitive structure so bound to the points system? which is more important, a strong, reasonable competitive structure, or the points system?



My take on this: Points do not matter at this time. But, when the sport grows to a point where there is triple the interest in Worlds, they will.

Worlds is the PDGA's Major. I guess that since it is theirs, they can do a points system for qualification. But like you imply, if this qualification method stands in the way of a new/modified structure that makes sense for the good of the sport, it would make sense to change the qualification method/criteria for Worlds. If one event dictates how all the other events are run/structured, that seems bass ackwards.

Points won't dictate the competition structure but supplement it.

Points won't dictate the competition structure but supplement it.



That is not true. I have heard of events not being allowed by the PDGA since their structure does not translate in way that points can be assigned. One such kind of event, you may possibly be familiar with: have you heard of Ratings based events?

Open players would learn to put up with it because it benefits our future.



This is a rather weak argument (against an admittedly weak/minor objection to your proposal) that may or may not fly. Many Pro's (people in general, really) are pretty vocal about who they are interested in benefitting. Clue: themselves (and in the here and now). :(

sorry Chuck, mp3 is correct. points have been specified as the reason for not sanctioning certain structures, including ratings based events or events with structures that are not aligned with the points construct.

[At least now they can assume that the ADV guys are better than the Rec.



I like to think that they assume that the "Grand" Masters are the best of all. :D

Nope. Currently, most of these top Advanced are only hanging around for one more shot at Am Worlds before going pro.



Gary, I don't agree. I think that many of those young guys are beginning to realize that school, kids, wives, work, or whatever, are going to keep them from being able to play competitive as a Pro for most of the rest of their lives.

I don't have the stats to back this up, but I think that is where one big retention loss of PDGA members comes from - young guys who did not realize this in time and who got good as Ams, turned Pro, had their lives get busy, and not only could not practice or play enough to stay competitive, but found it depressing to pay Pro and constantly donate, and eventually stopped even bothering to renew as a PDGA member.

Nope. Currently, most of these top Advanced are only hanging around for one more shot at Am Worlds before going pro.



Gary, I don't agree. I think that many of those young guys are beginning to realize that school, kids, wives, work, or whatever, are going to keep them from being able to play competitive as a Pro for most of the rest of their lives.

I don't have the stats to back this up, but I think that is where one big retention loss of PDGA members comes from - young guys who did not realize this in time and who got good as Ams, turned Pro, had their lives get busy, and not only could not practice or play enough to stay competitive, but found it depressing to pay Pro and constantly donate, and eventually stopped even bothering to renew as a PDGA member.



That was my situation 17 years ago. New job, cross-country move, new baby. No way I could stay competitive...

One such kind of event, you may possibly be familiar with: have you heard of Ratings based events?



Ratings events have always had points assigned since the beginning. They've even figured out an "unfair" system to award points for team match play.

sorry Chuck, mp3 is correct. points have been specified as the reason for not sanctioning certain structures, including ratings based events or events with structures that are not aligned with the points construct.



I truly do not know what type of events these would be? We know why some events can't be rated with mulligans and match play. I think the only tricky thing now programming-wise is suppressing awarding Am points for them when pros play in Am divisions.

Terry, the line you quoted was from Chuck, and I don't agree with it either.


Nope. Currently, most of these top Advanced are only hanging around for one more shot at Am Worlds before going pro.



Gary, I don't agree. I think that many of those young guys are beginning to realize that school, kids, wives, work, or whatever, are going to keep them from being able to play competitive as a Pro for most of the rest of their lives.

I don't have the stats to back this up, but I think that is where one big retention loss of PDGA members comes from - young guys who did not realize this in time and who got good as Ams, turned Pro, had their lives get busy, and not only could not practice or play enough to stay competitive, but found it depressing to pay Pro and constantly donate, and eventually stopped even bothering to renew as a PDGA member.



My argument has been that Kevin's idea should accomplish most of the same things that an expert division does, but does it all by making the option more appealing than bagging in Advanced, unless the baggers are truly there for the profit. In practice, it's much of the same thing except that it is subdivision of the Pro division in all tiers in Kevin's plan and a new division in Am in Chuck's. From what I could tell, Chuck was in favor of 50% cash payout, why not for both Ams and Pros in that division. I know that I have heard that offer in the merch divisions to anyone wanting to sell their voucher.

The concepts are really not that far removed, but by having the group as a subdivision of MPO, the players in it will be exposed to more MPO players than they will in another Am division.

As far as having a mixed MPO division, that happens in most tournaments that split the Adv and MPO on different days and offer Trophy Only.

Let's compare the ramifications on as close to apples to apples basis as possible. Assume that the ratings ranges are the same in either proposal at perhaps 950-984. Let's also say that payout in semi-pro and "pros in Expert who decide to convert merch to cash" is 60% of entry fees. Entry fees for Semi-pro and Expert would be the same. Since the payout and ratings ranges are the same, the same number of Masters in this ratings range would be expected to play in either division instead of Master Pro at A-tiers. Open field size and payouts would be expected to end up the same with either proposal because the total money is the same. So, at this point both proposals are equal.

We're only looking at A-tiers for the moment. Under the Expert proposal, Ams under age 40 with ratings in the 950-984 range would have to play in Expert or play Trophy Only in Open assuming this is not the event where they are turning pro. If they are planning to go pro, they could play in Open or Expert and take the cash conversion if they end up in the merch. Advanced division is smaller than currently so prizes will be lower and only has Ams in it with ratings below 950 and maybe a few pros with ratings under 950 who have crossed over.

Under the Semi-pro proposal in A-tiers, Ams in the 950-984 can remain as baggers in Advanced unless the PDGA forces players to turn pro. Otherwise, some at this level will have gone semi-pro, especially if the PDGA allows them to still retain Am Worlds eligibility. If there's no requirement to go Semi-pro, we end up with a bigger Advanced division than with the Expert proposal with a continuation of the current unfairness for Advanced players at the low end. Semi-pro is also a smaller division than the Expert division since some are in Semi-pro and some still in Advanced.

Since most in the PDGA, including our pros who play for cash, are actually Ams, or in our case, merch/cash players, it makes much more sense to complete the gaping hole in our progressive ratings structure for Ams. We should have less not more cash playing players, and those that do, should be paying more of their way.

Under the Semi-pro proposal in A-tiers, Ams in the 950-984 can remain as baggers in Advanced unless the PDGA forces players to turn pro. Otherwise, some at this level will have gone semi-pro, especially if the PDGA allows them to still retain Am Worlds eligibility. If there's no requirement to go Semi-pro, we end up with a bigger Advanced division than with the Expert proposal with a continuation of the current unfairness for Advanced players at the low end. Semi-pro is also a smaller division than the Expert division since some are in Semi-pro and some still in Advanced.



You can come up with all the numbers you want.....THE 940-990 PLAYER WOULD RATHER PLAY FOR CASH! The MAIN reason they are in ADV now is because they don't want to pay the big entry fee with no chance of return....PLEASE consider what the PLAYER would rather do. Not what best suits the numbers, cuz you can wiggle numbers anyway you want

Let's compare the ramifications on as close to apples to apples basis as possible. Assume that the ratings ranges are the same in either proposal at perhaps 950-984. Let's also say that payout in semi-pro and "pros in Expert who decide to convert merch to cash" is 60% of entry fees. Entry fees for Semi-pro and Expert would be the same. Since the payout and ratings ranges are the same, the same number of Masters in this ratings range would be expected to play in either division instead of Master Pro at A-tiers. Open field size and payouts would be expected to end up the same with either proposal because the total money is the same. So, at this point both proposals are equal.
-
<font color="blue"> Just adding that both proposals also feature the Trophy Only option in MPO. And a notion MPM players will move to a semi-pro option quicker than an Am division option</font>
-
We're only looking at A-tiers for the moment. Under the Expert proposal, Ams under age 40 with ratings in the 950-984 range would have to play in Expert or play Trophy Only in Open assuming this is not the event where they are turning pro. If they are planning to go pro, they could play in Open or Expert and take the cash conversion if they end up in the merch. Advanced division is smaller than currently so prizes will be lower and only has Ams in it with ratings below 950 and maybe a few pros with ratings under 950 who have crossed over.
-
<font color="blue"> I don't know what it is like where you are, but most of the top Ams I hear are not staying Adv because they like to win plastic, but because Open is too expensive to donate to all of the time. If you give the top Ams and lower Pros an option that they feel has value, I think a large number will migrate to it within a year.

Now for the differences, and this is mainly at non A-Tier events which make up the vast majority of our events.

I do not favor forcing players to play in Open at anytime.
I prefer giving them a choice that is appealing to them and letting them do the right thing.

You have a plan that will work at large events with a lot of added cash. It has to be propped up at smaller events by restricting Am players to Pro divisions. It will decrease the size of the MPO division.

The other plan will work at all events, supports itself, and doesn't make anyone mad (except a few whiny pros that may have to play with some semi-pros once and a while). </font>
-
Under the Semi-pro proposal in A-tiers, Ams in the 950-984 can remain as baggers in Advanced unless the PDGA forces players to turn pro. Otherwise, some at this level will have gone semi-pro, especially if the PDGA allows them to still retain Am Worlds eligibility. If there's no requirement to go Semi-pro, we end up with a bigger Advanced division than with the Expert proposal with a continuation of the current unfairness for Advanced players at the low end. Semi-pro is also a smaller division than the Expert division since some are in Semi-pro and some still in Advanced.
-
<font color="blue">If there is a cheap alternative to bagging in Advanced, peer pressure will force the players there. It forced hundreds of not quite ready players into the Pro ranks for years before ratings came about. It will work in the future if you allow them to retain Am status. BTW, I would only push for allowing the 60% cashout option for Ams at Pro Only events where there is not a stockpile of plastic to pay the Am Semi-Pro players, But Kevin says pay them all. </font>
-
Since most in the PDGA, including our pros who play for cash, are actually Ams, or in our case, merch/cash players, it makes much more sense to complete the gaping hole in our progressive ratings structure for Ams. We should have less not more cash playing players, and those that do, should be paying more of their way.
-
<font color="blue">
I am not advocating getting rid of Ams, I am suggesting that by allowing top level Ams to compete as a subdivision of Open with Open players, they will be more likely to move to full Open compettion than if they are kept separate. The only drawback for the TD is that the merch markup is already dedicated to the Open division.

The MPO fields will be larger. The competition would have to get better. Pros that routinely find themselves on the Semi-Pro cards will start putting in more practice time to move higher.
It seems like it will lead to a situation where we will be able to have full Pro Only events more than once or twice a year.</font>

You can call this new division whatever you want, but both Kevin & Chuck are basically agreeing that there needs to be a division for players who are not quite ready to go pro. Chuck thinks they should be able to retain Am status OR cash, whereas Kevin wants them only to get paid cash and become a pro. Chuck is offering solutions to keeping the Ams as amatuers if they desire, but also offering them cash if that is what they choose. Chuck's plan leaves the Pro choice to the player, where it belongs. He doesn't presume that every 960 rated player really wants to play for cash. Some really do want to compete for titles.

I like the Expert versus the Semi-Pro division because it offers protection to the 915 rated Am. I like the option of the 60% cash payout because lower Pros can "play down" and better-than-Advanced can "play up". If you group the Expert with the Pro division (like Kevin's plan) you get the best of both plans. It sounds like a compromise to me.

Chuck's plan has a plus in that it will feed the better Masters into the Open because the lower rated Masters can drop to Expert. The top Master's will "move up" to go for the cash and that in turn will grow the Open division. Chuck's plan helps to eliminate the Pro Masters division using market forces not a sledgehammer.

I do not agree with Kevin that these 950-980 guys ALL want cash, but if they do, Chuck's proposal offers a solution.

I think we need to protect the 915 rated player AND FORCE the 955 player UP, but not necessarily into Pro. Kevin's plan does not protect the 915 rated player.

Again, Kevin and Chuck are both offering a solution to retain 950-990 rated players. But only one plan offers a solution to protect the 915 rated Am. Their solutions are nearly the same, except one is tilted Am and one is tilted Pro.

Now for the differences, and this is mainly at non A-Tier events which make up the vast majority of our events.

GD: I do not favor forcing players to play in Open at anytime.
CK: Then why would you either force players to move to semi-pro (one option) or want 3 of them to play in 5 person semi-pro division at a C-tier making the Open division smaller than it is now and 3 stay in Advanced and continue bagging there? In ball golf it's a privilege for Mas to play trophy only in the Open division and I believe they pay the entry fee.

GD: You have a plan that will work at large events with a lot of added cash.
CK: It's not designed for lower tiers except B-tiers with at least $1000 added if the TD wants Expert.

GD: It will decrease the size of the MPO division. It has to be propped up at smaller events by restricting Am players to Pro divisions.
CK: No way. It will increase the MPO division because more players over 949 will be comfortable moving over to Open when they have the Expert at the bigger events where they aren't compeitive like they are at locals. Plus those over 964 will have to play Trophy Only in Open. If people object to that, instead we could allow them to only play Trophy Only in Advanced to protect the group currently being the most dicriminated against, Ams in the 915-930 range.

GD: The other (semi-pro) plan will work at all events, supports itself, and doesn't make anyone mad (except a few whiny pros that may have to play with some semi-pros once and a while).
CK: It works by making the Open division smaller than the Expert proposal which isn't used at lower tiers and makes the Open division larger. And it doesn't solve the problem of top rated players staying in Advanced which is the reason for this whole exercise.

Suzette when I hear it from you it sounds so much better, when Chuck twists numbers around doesn't consider the players wishes its frustrating.

Suzette for Governor of California, I'll start your campaign..you got to be able to take down the Govenator right? :D

BTW, an additional benefit arises with the Expert plan to boost participation at events with split weekend days where some divisions play Saturday and some Sunday. If you have the Expert and Intermediate play on the day opposite the Pro divisions, Advanced and Rec, you get players who will move up and play the next higher division on the other day. This happens already in some areas where Advanced typically plays on the day opposite Intermediate.

But do the proposed mix above and you'll see even bigger turnouts, especially in Open since the 960 player plans to or already has cashed in Expert. This staggereed division sequence doesn't work as well with Semi-pro being on the day opposite Open because Ams can't cash in Semi-pro but pros can cash in Expert.

Man, y'all weave a tangled web. Apparently driven by a need to "protect" this person and that person. Why do they need protection in the first place? Because you have put a price on their head.

Take the price off, and no one needs protection.

James, you're free to run your mini USDGC one division, one champion events any time with full sanctioning. Should be pretty easy to run, about like a medium size league with 30-40 players unless you can figure out a way to get some big sponsorship cash.

You can call this new division whatever you want, but both Kevin & Chuck are basically agreeing that there needs to be a division for players who are not quite ready to go pro. Chuck thinks they should be able to retain Am status OR cash, whereas Kevin wants them only to get paid cash and become a pro. Chuck is offering solutions to keeping the Ams as amatuers if they desire, but also offering them cash if that is what they choose. Chuck's plan leaves the Pro choice to the player, where it belongs. He doesn't presume that every 960 rated player really wants to play for cash. Some really do want to compete for titles.

I like the Expert versus the Semi-Pro division because it offers protection to the 915 rated Am. I like the option of the 60% cash payout because lower Pros can "play down" and better-than-Advanced can "play up". If you group the Expert with the Pro division (like Kevin's plan) you get the best of both plans. It sounds like a compromise to me.

Chuck's plan has a plus in that it will feed the better Masters into the Open because the lower rated Masters can drop to Expert. The top Master's will "move up" to go for the cash and that in turn will grow the Open division. Chuck's plan helps to eliminate the Pro Masters division using market forces not a sledgehammer.

I do not agree with Kevin that these 950-980 guys ALL want cash, but if they do, Chuck's proposal offers a solution.

I think we need to protect the 915 rated player AND FORCE the 955 player UP, but not necessarily into Pro. Kevin's plan does not protect the 915 rated player.

Again, Kevin and Chuck are both offering a solution to retain 950-990 rated players. But only one plan offers a solution to protect the 915 rated Am. Their solutions are nearly the same, except one is tilted Am and one is tilted Pro.



Hey Discette I think not having to play with 10 950-970 AMs every event benefits the 915 player. Also the 915 player was in a great position about three years ago when the INT break was 925.

chuck, a few posts back you say :

It's not designed for lower tiers except B-tiers with at least $1000 added if the TD wants Expert.

then follow a couple posts later with :

an additional benefit arises with the Expert plan to boost participation at events with split weekend days where some divisions play Saturday and some Sunday



so which is it, is Expert intended for use at the A tiers or the whatever-tiers? are some A tiers one day? if so, thats sad. DG is already barely athletic. we should not be encouraging our biggest events to become even less so. but thats another topic :cool:

The Wisconsin tour has been split day B-tiers that could work exactly like I stated. Added cash in the $1000 range wouldn't be needed with this stagger format. Brakel also has huge split day events where I'm pretty sure he would use this stagger division option. They just tried more staggering in Michigan with current divisions and it seemed to work as intended to get more players in divisions each day.

I could see allowing Expert at C-tiers if they used this split day or full weekend stagger division grouping. But it doesn't make sense to have Expert at no added cash events with all divisions playing simultaneously.

You can dress up a turd with all the bells and whistles but you can't fool me that it's still not a turd. You can twist the numbers all you want but I still smell the turd. That smell is the attendance of Pros at events cuz it will dramatically change for the worse. Which sucks for the guys who have put the time in to get better.

Put the question into the players hands and I can promise that the PLAYERS all would think that another am division between Adv and Pro is ridiculous.

also why would you want to make a plan that only works for A Tiers? When Semi-Pro can work at every tier level. Once again I strongly feel that PLAYERS would give up the chance to play in AM WORLDS for the chance to make some of their money back every week. All of these people that would like to goto a Worlds could fill up our Pro Worlds which would be a change. (*****Conspiracy theory***** Maybe the PDGA doesn't want to eliminate these players going to AM WORLDS because it is more financially beneficial to fill up Am Worlds and not Pro Worlds)

In every town in America that runs local mini events sees that all these adv level players are playing pro for the cash, we would just be allowing them to do the same thing on the weekends....It's what the PLAYERS want.

GD: It will decrease the size of the MPO division. It has to be propped up at smaller events by restricting Am players to Pro divisions.
CK: No way. It will increase the MPO division because more players over 949 will be comfortable moving over to Open when they have the Expert at the bigger events where they aren't compeitive like they are at locals. Plus those over 964 will have to play Trophy Only in Open. If people object to that, instead we could allow them to only play Trophy Only in Advanced to protect the group currently being the most dicriminated against, Ams in the 915-930 range.

GD: That has been shown time and again not to be the case. If you give players a sense of entitlement to remain Am, they will. If you give the Ams a division that runs up to around 985, they will fill it. They probably won't play many of the hundreds of B & C tiers that clog up the PDGA schedule, but they will remain Ams at A-Tiers and above.

Why use Brackels tournies as examples. Those events promotes mediocrity and I would put money there is NO ONE in that whole state that could beat my GIRL!!! All that Illinois tournies do is pad pockets of the organizers and sets the eBay market for discs.

Let's help make players better not promote mediocrity.

Anyone that doesn't agree when you play with better players you get better, obviously is wearing blinders. The Expert (AM) Division will just set these players back a few more years to reaching the level they deserve to. And then we will have players that are 980-1010 that will be leaving the game cuz they can't afford to play in events that has very little return.

Yes, and you will apparently run a premeire event (pro worlds) of a sport, which will require subsidies, while inferior events (am worlds) rake in the money. I realize you can never grasp the irony, or realize just how screwed up and unhealthy that is. It is a symptom of what you continue to prop up, just as are your protection and division schemes, and I will continue to do my best in pointing out why, not for your ears cause you are deaf, but for others who can hear.

GD: That has been shown time and again not to be the case. If you give players a sense of entitlement to remain Am, they will. If you give the Ams a division that runs up to around 985, they will fill it. They probably won't play many of the hundreds of B & C tiers that clog up the PDGA schedule, but they will remain Ams at A-Tiers and above.

CK: And the problem is what? It makes no difference to TDs and promoters if everyone plays for merch. They would prefer it. All we're doing here is completing the unfinished business of having our Am ladder go to the top with appropriate steps, just like ball golf. Again, we slipped up by not splitting Advanced when the original Am steps were created, partly because there were few in the 950-990 range and because no one wanted to force players into pro figuring that the big money lure would continue to pull them there anyway. But as you pointed out, they'll stay Am under the current structure longer than they should. With the Expert option, they can still remain Am but the rewards in Expert will be quite a bit less than bagging in Advanced with a division maybe a third the size and higher entry fees. Once you're at the 975-980 level with different Am economics than today, Open looks like a much better value than Expert.

so let me ask an obvious (and probably repeat) question: Is there anything in the PDGA guidelines that restrict TDs from offering a division like this "Expert" concept? Is there anything that restricts them from forcing players above a certain rating to play in that division (I'd think this would be true)?

Maybe it could be done on a trial basis, get some actual player feedback before making a broad decision...

Well, I think all of the pros and cons have been spread on the table.

Comments ?

I will fight to the end on this one. Any of ewe's would do the same if the ONLY division you can play in is being ripped a new one :mad:

Yes, and you will apparently run a premeire event (pro worlds) of a sport, which will require subsidies, while inferior events (am worlds) rake in the money. I realize you can never grasp the irony, or realize just how screwed up and unhealthy that is. It is a symptom of what you continue to prop up, just as are your protection and division schemes, and I will continue to do my best in pointing out why, not for your ears cause you are deaf, but for others who can hear.



The ironic part of this is that the side that requires the subsidies is the side that is complaining. I would keep quiet and hope the other side didn't notice.

I like the soccer example. Eliminate the Pro side for 5 years and concentrate on getting the sport into the elementary school systems. Grow a fan base from the kids up and then sell it to TV.

Yes, and you will apparently run a premeire event (pro worlds) of a sport, which will require subsidies, while inferior events (am worlds) rake in the money. I realize you can never grasp the irony, or realize just how screwed up and unhealthy that is.



Yes, it will require big subsidies because we have pros that few outside the sport care to watch let alone pay to watch so far. Is that my fault, the PDGA's fault? We have players playing for cash that aren't paying their way that like to be called pros. I'm one of them. We get catered to because we have that magic title of 'pro' which only a small percentage of our players have truly earned the way it's done in other sports with pros making a living at it - because people pay mucho bucks to watch them.

We wouldn't need subsidies if our cash players paid their way just like the Ams. They would still try to be the best in the World in their age and gender bracket. We would still get just as much sponsorship as we do now. In fact, it could be more because more sponsors would offer merch instead of cash and that would be acceptable then. If the best in the world are playing, sponsors could care less if we call them Ams or Pros.

Well, I think all of the pros and cons have been spread on the table.

Comments ?



Don't you mean the Pros and the Ams have been spread.... :D

You miss it also. You mistakenly think I should be appreciative of something you probably view as a golden goose. you also mistakenly assume that since this is some revenue stream (highly overstated) for the pros, that I should value it in some self-interested way. Well, since, I don't you might brush it off as irony, or consider why.

I'd argue, that based on the PDGA efforts alone, the sport was closer to a break through 15 years ago than it is today. I am hopeful that the sheer mass of the game will attract a large sponsor, who will wash away yours and Chuck's philosophy, and banish it to the storehouse of anti-competitive ideals. This will happen because they will add money that gets everyone looking upwards, not downwards and sideways. Chuck and you will probably claim victory: "we made the sport attractive to sponsors," when in reality, you simply stunted its growth

I also worry that your philosophy might ultimately quench the future potential of disc golf entirely. I am starting to worry, thus my ranting here, that we are missing a big opportunity, that we may not reach the critical mass, or a critical mass of the right kind of people, to ever break through. The content of these discussions is a large factor for our future.

We wouldn't need subsidies if our cash players paid their way just like the Ams



This is complete BS. We need subsidies because of the model WE HAVE CREATED, a model that we must continue to tweak every year to make it "work." A model that requires bigger fees of both the ams and pros to "work," which has screwed the market. A model that has created a critical mass of people who demand their payout, even when they are in the bottom of the bell curve, making them dependent and resistant to healthier models. It's a failing model in so many ways.

BTW, I have a radical solution that could speed up our progress dramatically to develop a true pro structure but that's for another day.

Kevin, if a vote of only the players affected by your or my solution was held, I suspect you would lose dramatically. The Expert option helps more players and the only ones in the negative are the Masters over 1000 who might have to work harder to make the same money at A-tiers. In fact, those at all levels benefit including your level, or are faced with a relatively neutral choice with those in the 960-980 range having a coin flip.

There are 351 players in the world with ratings over 990 and the top third to half of them will benefit directly with Expert at A-tiers. If we go from 915 to 930, there are slightly over 2000 members, about 1 in 6, that are negatively impacted by not capping Advanced. Now there are a few masters and a handful of women in both those counts but the numbers are overwhelming. I don't see either plan making much difference for the players in the 950-989 range so that may be a split vote but still more for Expert if Am Worlds eligibility would disappear. Those from 930-949 also benefit about the same with either plan.

Kevin, to say I'm not catering to the desires of members belies the facts of the matter. I have enough issues that are sometimes controversial in this sport so there's no joy on my part in falling a sword again on this issue. I would personally have a better option than I have currently as an MPG with either plan. Bring on Semi-pro or Expert. But I feel it's in the best interest of more members to complete our Am ratings ladder.

Kevin, if a vote of only the players affected by your or my solution was held, I suspect you would lose dramatically. The Expert option helps more players and the only ones in the negative are the Masters over 1000 who might have to work harder to make the same money at A-tiers. In fact, those at all levels benefit including your level, or are faced with a relatively neutral choice with those in the 960-980 range having a coin flip.



The beauty of the message board is that we can actually make a poll for this....cut and paste your theory, send it to me and we will create a thread for the PLAYERS to decide. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!! :D

I can let the voters decide can you come off your socialist stance long enough for the people to decide :D

This is complete BS. We need subsidies because of the model WE HAVE CREATED, a model that we must continue to tweak every year to make it "work." A model that requires bigger fees of both the ams and pros to "work," which has screwed the market.



The only relevant issue regarding whether we could have had cash players by now that are truly pros is whether spectators want to watch our game played at the highest level and pay for it. The answer has been a resounding 'No' so far. No yammering about how our competition model has evolved has anything to do with this fundamental aspect of our game that has not attracted the masses to watch whether in person or even video. The model we have is potentially the best that could have been achieved by now as a participation sport versus a spectator sport.

The largest failing which is finally being addressed with EDGE is the development of players in school programs. Most pros have certainly not done much to help that issue over the years versus play. Even that growth will be stunted because there's not space for courses in the major population centers either in parks or schools. If the masses don't have access by walking down the street to watch or play the sport like they can tennis or half court basketball, we'll have a long time ever getting there.

The only relevant issue regarding whether we could have had cash players by now that are truly pros is whether spectators want to watch our game played at the highest level and pay for it. The answer has been a resounding 'No' so far. No yammering about how our competition model has evolved has anything to do with this fundamental aspect of our game that has not attracted the masses to watch whether in person or even video.


I'd agree that ultimately, we need a critical mass that want to watch. I do think our model has hindered the growth of that critical mass. You assume it is just some total numbers game. I tell you it is a numbers game, but the numbers are how many competitive types play. The more that you attract and retain, the closer you are to the critical mass of people who truly appreciate the skills of the top players, and will pay to see it up close. Attracting and catering to people who don�t value competition is a viscous cycle: not only does it hinder growth towards the critical mass, but it tends to turn off potential competitors, you know, the type that value real competition.



The largest failing which is finally being addressed with EDGE is the development of players in school programs.



EDGE is great, but when these kids get the competitive itch, many of the real compeitors will be attracted towards true competitive outlets. We will attract and retain a smaller percentage of those kids. Why? because at the most fundamental level, we lack a sporting ethic. it's woven into our structure.

Yammering about our competitive structure does matter.

Yes, and you will apparently run a premeire event (pro worlds) of a sport, which will require subsidies, while inferior events (am worlds) rake in the money. I realize you can never grasp the irony, or realize just how screwed up and unhealthy that is. It is a symptom of what you continue to prop up, just as are your protection and division schemes, and I will continue to do my best in pointing out why, not for your ears cause you are deaf, but for others who can hear.



The ironic part of this is that the side that requires the subsidies is the side that is complaining. I would keep quiet and hope the other side didn't notice.

I like the soccer example. Eliminate the Pro side for 5 years and concentrate on getting the sport into the elementary school systems. Grow a fan base from the kids up and then sell it to TV.



I don't, well I haven't since first reading these threads years ago, understand the sense of entitlement that suggests something is owed to any given bracket. The simple fact is that unless there is a "market force" driving something it isn't going to happen, I don't care if it is the most beautiful concept ever conceived. Doing what's right means as much doing what works as making it "correct."

I will fight to the end on this one. Any of ewe's would do the same if the ONLY division you can play in is being ripped a new one :mad:


Aren't you close to Masters age yet? :cool:
Well at least you complain and are balding like a Masters! ;)

Kevin, Kevin, Kevin. There's nothing I could say in response to your personal attack against the 1400 players who played the IOSeries last year that would not get me banned, so carry on.

I don't miss it, I say it's not economically viable until you have an Amateur base that will be impressed by the talent of the Pros. An amateur base that advertisers will be interested in selling things to. That is the basis of every Pro Sport in this country.

Critical mass is hundreds of thousands of interested Amateurs, not ten thousand Pros.

If you noticed, I have stated what I think is needed a few days ago. The current structure only serves to produce new Pro players. It needs real sponsorship of the Pro divisions to do it well, but that's all it can really do. We will not reach critical mass through the current system.

That doesn't mean we should scrap this current system, we will need it later.

We need to supplement the current system with more traditional amateur models. First in the schools, and then in the metro organized leagues. I believe that these are the only vehicles that will generate the numbers needed to support a true professional class.

I am open to altering my views if you can demonstrate where it is incorrect, but this is what I believe needs to happen.

Kevin, Kevin, Kevin. There's nothing I could say in response to your personal attack against the 1400 players who played the IOSeries last year that would not get me banned, so carry on.


:D
You liked that one? Don't take it so tough, my girl can beat the best from many states....BEEEEEEEEEEELIEVE IT!!! ;)

http://www.twistedflyer.com/img/photo/players/courtney_peavy2.jpg

y'all aren't talking about "pros" and "ams." you're talking about those that want to play competitively without protection and those that want protection.

eliminate the pro-am terminology and that player will decide what is right for him or her. tds and tournaments will be successful by fulfilling the needs of the clients.

pay out in cash or prizes or a mix to ALL competitors, it's that easy. players will decide if they want to play for prizes or whatever is being "offered up" by attending or not attending.

all players will have a rating and a division. for some this will be important, for others that opt for open tournaments, these ratings and divisions will be meaningless.

ta da. my work is done. where's the next non-profit that needs fixin.

I will fight to the end on this one. Any of ewe's would do the same if the ONLY division you can play in is being ripped a new one :mad:



Perhaps you should think of this as one battle, not the entire war. Decide which issue(battle) that you think is MOST important and fight for that instead of trying to win the entire war all at once. Remember that you are not fighting against Chuck and the other PDGA members you are fighting to solve a problem for all of us.



The "problems" facing the divisional structure are not going to be solved overnight with one sweeping proposition. It will take several proposititions, several re-writes and improvements to get this right. I implore all sides to work together to implement soultions in small steps.


There are at least six different (yet overlapping) issues swirling around here, not all have to do with our divisional structure. One proposition will not solve all the (perceived) problems. We cannot fix all these problems all at once. Heck, not everyone even agrees that all of these are problems.

The following are a list of the problems/viewpoints that are continually being discussed:


1) Ratings breaks for the Am divisions need correction. A mistake was made when ratings were implemented and the ratings breaks needs to be adjusted. Bruce said that most of us will agree on two basic issues: 1) You can't force someone to play pro and 2) It is not fair for 915 players to be grouped in divisions with 980 rated players.

One possible solution is to create a new division between Advanced and Pro. (Chuck, Kevin and others disagree on how to implement this solution.)

Another possible solution is to do away with all the different divisions and just offer two. This solution ignores the wishes of the current members and is too radical, too controversial and burns too many bridges to implement. (See 5 below)

2) The PDGA needs to attempt to solve the move up, move out syndrome MUMO, as well as attrition.

There are many reasons for MUMO, and one proposal cannot begin to solve the problem. One reason continually cited for MUMO is that the cost to move up (bigger membership fee and higher tournament fees) does not match the rewards. The 965's get tired of donating and find another activity to spend their money on. The "new" proposed divisions by Kevin and Chuck may help retain these players.

Another reason for MUMO and/or attrition is other parts of player's lives force choices: spouses, homes, children, careers. We may be able to keep these 955+ "pro" weekend warriors around longer by not forcing them to stay in a pro division because they once accepted cash. By forcing them to play as pros they will most likely remain donators to the players that can dedicate the time and energy to practice and staying at the top of the sport. If it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to go to a few events each year and these players can actually compete with others in a similar skill set, these players may actually stick around year after year. And yes, offering another division, like Chuck's, without forcing players to go pro could keep these players as active members.

3) Attract outside sponsorship. Neither Kevin's nor Chuck's plans address this nor can they solve this problem. So why is that being discussed here? The problem of so many pro divisions (See 5) and higher rated players staying in Advanced (See 4) would be solved overnight by some big sponsor offering $100,000 purse. You will have to fight off the 915's that want to sign up for THAT event.

4) Open players want more players to play against, or there are too many divisions diluting the Open purse, or it is not right for Ams to win more money than Open players, or all players shooting the same scores should be in the same division. Right now, all players in all divisions are simply gambling for each other's money. A short term solution is to cut the amount of pro divisions offered. Another solution is to cut am payouts to force them up to Open. Either that, or add the $100,000 to the Open division and there will be a hundred players to compete against. These are probably not going to happen in the short term.

The PDGA needs to atract/cultivate more competitors, not force them up. The long term solution to "cultivate" competitors is allow the 950+ "Expert/semi pros" work up to being Pros. We won't get more pros overnight, but we will get more down the road. This approach is slower and provides a solid foundation and long term growth.

5) There are too many divisions. Is this really a problem? I think most agree that C & D tiers should always have room for Juniors, Recreational, Grandmasters or even "Polkadot Shirt Wearer" divisions. Someday, the Memorial or other NT events will be able to have hundreds of Pros in only two divisions (Men & Women), especially if you add $100,000. But until that time, you can't simply force two divisions upon the players at events of ANY size. Patience is needed here.

Marshall Street (a limited division event) doesn't seem to lack for players. However, that event is not just about competition it is also about "coming together", which is the root of this sport. The roots should not be forgotten, nor tossed out overnight (See 6). This "coming together" will fade away year by year as the sport attracts more competitors who will attend events to win, not to see old friends. Slashing the many divisions currently offered or forcing players to go Pro will simply result in more MUMOs.

6) Disc golf needs to be a sport with true competitors that seek true competition. Some argue that you won't get that if you keep catering to "players". With patience (or $100,000) that day will come. Until then, you can't force it upon today's membership. Lower tier events should always be open to all "players". That is how players work their way up to being elite competitors. You cannot create competitive athletes overnight or even in one or two years.

7) Grow the Ams and you will grow the Pros. You cannot grow the sport from the top down. Things grow large when they can grow deep and widespread roots. Things without deep roots can be blown over even in a mild storm and certainly can't withstand the impact of a large one.



OK, this was very long winded and covered many subjects. Solutions to these problems are very complex. It is difficult to find a single solution. It is nearly impossible to find a solution for one of the above concerns without considering the consequences for the other issues.



Let's not fight to the death. Let's not try to win the war today. Instead, let's focus on winning a few small battles against the problems and not each other. Let's work for victory and peace for all sides. Let's not work for the defeat of anyone.

Suzzette,

You sum'd up alot in that post....Someone is going to have to win the lottery to be getting $100,000 added to a purse. Disc Golf isn't the greatest for TV so it is going to be hard to attract those major sponsors.

The Duece'ler is out working hard getting some of the best sponsors that we have ever seen, but I would be suprised to see much more than what we are presently getting. Sweet deals from business (Hotels, Flights, maybe rental cars is next?) The Mictrotel deal is pretty sweet, but it's a hard sell to get a dozen of those kind of deals.

I'm not saying Chuck's plan is completely wrong, and I give MuChO ReSpEcTo to ole Chuckles for all he does for this sport and the organization. I'm not sure there is many people that put a quarter of the time he puts into this sport. We can agree to disagree on this where these players should or want to be playing. I do know that this problem is being addressed and thats a positive in itself.

A thought on adding a division in the 945-980 range... first, I'll say that I am for this. However, I wonder if a shift will occur, over time, in what divisions are offered. I currently don't see a lot of the recreation division. I know it's out there, I just don't see it a lot. So basically it is Int, Adv, Pro. If we add expert, will it shift to Adv, Exp, Pro over the course of a few years?

I could see this happening with more interest in the sport because more interest should equal a larger field of quality players.

I'm not trying to argue against this, just put out a possible scenario (one that I don't think would happen at lower tier events, but that could over time).

We offer Rec division out here at most tourneys, so the lack of that division is regional.

Not offering the lowest division also exacerbates the "percevied sandbagging" issue. Let me explain. When there is no MA3 division offered, the MA3s don't "not play". They play MA2. When the true-MA2 payers crush the MA3s like little bugs, the true-MA2s are called baggers and then the MA2s move up to MA1. When the true-MA2s play MA1, the true-MA1 then in turn crushes the true-MA2, and the true-MA1 is similarly called a bagger.

When the true-MA1 gets called bagger long enough, he moves up to MPO where he has to pay 2-3 times more money in entry fees and in turn gets treated to a crushing the likes of which the MA3 and MA2 players never saw. And then the true-MA1 "pro" quits playing tourneys.

So in reality, by not offering the MA3 Rec division, you are robbing the MPO division of future pros. :)

I agree with this assessment of the bagging dynamics completely, Rhett. Around here we do not offer MA3 in PDGA events, but I think it is for a different reason:

We have an active non-sanctioned schedule (this year 4 club events per week) that we see as the places to draw in the newbies. Overall, there is a high enough population of DGers around here that play PDGA events that we do not need to use PDGA events as the entry point into competitive golf.

IMO, PDGA events are not ideal for noobs to test the water since they are a pretty high commitment (time & money & formality) and can be intimidating for many.

We offer Rec division out here at most tourneys, so the lack of that division is regional.

Not offering the lowest division also exacerbates the "percevied sandbagging" issue. Let me explain. When there is no MA3 division offered, the MA3s don't "not play". They play MA2. When the true-MA2 payers crush the MA3s like little bugs, the true-MA2s are called baggers and then the MA2s move up to MA1. When the true-MA2s play MA1, the true-MA1 then in turn crushes the true-MA2, and the true-MA1 is similarly called a bagger.

When the true-MA1 gets called bagger long enough, he moves up to MPO where he has to pay 2-3 times more money in entry fees and in turn gets treated to a crushing the likes of which the MA3 and MA2 players never saw. And then the true-MA1 "pro" quits playing tourneys.

So in reality, by not offering the MA3 Rec division, you are robbing the MPO division of future pros. :)

Except, if you offer MA3 long enough [16+ years in Michigan] you wind up with so many good pros that 950+ players stay am [22 of them in Michigan] and it is the 915-925 players who get crushed like bugs and quit playing tournaments.

I think each PDGA region has its own mix of players and needs its own solution to these kinds of problems. Unfortunately, most TDs are not creative enough to see how they can address these issues within the PDGA framework.

Except, if you offer MA3 long enough [16+ years in Michigan] you wind up with so many good pros that 950+ players stay am [22 of them in Michigan] and it is the 915-925 players who get crushed like bugs and quit playing tournaments.


A 915 player gets crushed by a 954 player equally as an 875 gets crushed by 914. :)

It's when the 960-970+ guys are crushing the 915 that it gets a little ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as the 960 player in Open going against the 1020-1040 players. :eek:

I sure wish there were an easy answer, because we would've already done it and wouldn't be here right now.

There is an easy answer. I'm doing it. I'm doing it at a sanctioned doubles tournament in a couple of weeks and maybe at a singles tournament in August.

Except, if you offer MA3 long enough [16+ years in Michigan] you wind up with so many good pros that 950+ players stay am [22 of them in Michigan] and it is the 915-925 players who get crushed like bugs and quit playing tournaments.



Nice precis on 16 years of Michigan disc golf, Bruce.

I completely agree with those who think the cut-off ought to be higher. I also think that we could cultivate a little, "It's okay to be intermediate" attitude; better than we do, anyway.

As it is, I notice more and more guys who actually play intermediate, where their rating is, and I try to seek them out and let them know that I think that is cool. The Advanced divisions in the smaller tournaments locally are often smaller than the Intermediate and even the Rec, sometimes.

I actually like the idea of the Expert division, because I'd like to move from telling people I am a "Grand" master to telling them I am an "Expert." Except I just do not want to be forced to play for money.