The PDGA recently posted the statements of the nine Board candidates. Unfortunately, it did not post all of our resumes, which we were asked to provide (and which I did provide).

In my statement I said that I would open a DISCussion thread in which I would answer questions from the membership about my position on important issues. I feel that this is important because our statements cannot be inclusive and because the PDGA election format does not offer the membership a very good opportunity to examine the candidates' platforms in detail.

So ask away, and I'll respond as soon as I am able. It may be a bit slow for the next three weeks, because I will be "on tour" (Des Moines Challenge, Minnesota Madness and DGLO). I don't have a laptop, but I do occasionally have assess to the internet.

Dr. Shive,
1. Given the choice, would you chose to consolidate divisions, or offer divisions that cater to different age ranges?
2. What, if anything, would you do to change the amateur division structure?
Thanks.

to 28003:

I don't see pressing problems with the current pro or am divisional structures. For example, Worlds registration figures suggest that they "ain't broke, and so don't need fixing". I would not change them unless there was considerable pressure from TD's to do so, because they are the group most responsible for our disc golf "quality of life". I support the autonomy of TD's to not offer some divisions, as for example Marshall Street, and the "one division, one champion" events.

Certainly I don't want more divisions. I strongly protested the recent Board proposal to increase the number of Worlds awards for senior divisions (4/4/07 Board minutes) partly because it would have that effect. I felt that it was unnecesary, an embarrassment to my division, and unfair to the younger divisions.

Thank you Peter!

One complaint that has been regularly leveled at the PDGA by a few members is that their services, both to members and TDs is not what it should be. Can you comment on this, whether you think it is a problem, and if so what you might do to address it.

Also, this is less directed at you than at the candidates and the PDGA per say. We currently have one Board Member who is the part owner of a disc golf merchandizing company. On more than one occassion he has utilized the MB as a medium to direct members to his company. Furthermore, there is a least one candidate in this election who owns a disc golf related company. Would you be willing to propose amendments to the by-laws of the organization to include documents prohibiting Board Members from marketing their companies, and from enacting changes in the PDGA that would directly benefit their companies? Even better, to modify the Conflict of Interest statements to directly address these issues with the penalty of removal from office if a Board Member is not in compliance.

While this seems harsh, please view it from the perspective that IMO, one should run for the Board with the intent of helping disc golf, not one's company.

to Lyle:

I don't read the message board enough to be familiar with the specific issues that you refer to, and I worry that a message board thread might not give a complete picture of just what happened. Still, the general question is a very important one.

I believe that the current Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Policies are adequate. They do a reasonably good job of defining what constitutes conflict of interest, and how it should be dealt with. Similarly, existing policies for removal of officers, which can be implemented separately either by the Board or by the membership, should suffice. I don't see the need for an overhaul here, beyond some minor clarification of the language in those codes.

Personally, I take the conflict of interest issue so seriously that, if I win a Board position, I will resign my sponsorship arrangement with Innova. You can't imagine how much it would grieve me to do this, and that prospect was the single biggest obstacle to my decision to run. I believe that, were I to retain such an arangement, I would be so much at odds with the conflict of interest policy that my credibility as a Board member would be compromised.

Certainly I don't want more divisions. I strongly protested the recent Board proposal to increase the number of Worlds awards for senior divisions (4/4/07 Board minutes) partly because it would have that effect. I felt that it was unnecesary, an embarrassment to my division, and unfair to the younger divisions.



I could see how one might feel that it's unnecesary to add world champion breaks at every five years, and how it's unfair to the other (younger) divisions who aren't afforded such.

However, in the grand scheme of things, I think it's a far less of a crime to offer these divisions once a year at the World Championships than to keep embracing the ridiculous number of divisions at tournaments throughout the year. I always shake my head in disbelief when I see a local PDGA-sanctioned event with 40-50 competitors broken out into ten or more divisions, none of which have a double-digit amount of competitors.

My idea of a perfect Frisbee world is that as the event rises in tier status, competitive level, sponsorship & prize money, and number of entrants, more divisions are added. In other words, lower level 'D' and 'C' tier events are restricted to only a few divisions with low entry fees, and tournament directors (with less sponsorship $$ and total purse from the entry fees) aren't forced to dole out trophies and prizes to every mom & pop division, where beating 3 other guys on the local pitch-n-putt to become 'Metropolis Advanced GrandMasters champion' just seems silly to me.

As we move up to 'B' tier and 'A' tier events, the sponsorship level, number of competitors, (one usually finds full fields at this level) total purse and level of competition increases to the point where it makes sense to have more divisions at these events.

Then you get to the Major event level where for just a few events, you have the biggest number of competitors in each field, the highest level of competition, and the largest purses to work with. For one event only, Pro Worlds, why not crown world champions in your age or division? Where being crowned the 2007 PDGA Advanced GrandMasters champion means everything to you because you beat 50 other guys in a weeklong competition over a variety of world class courses!

to Jeff:

Why not do this at Worlds?

1) Because it is so often unnecessary. If this policy had been in effect last year in my division, I would have won both the 60-year-old and the 65-year-old title. If Pete May had beaten me he would have won both titles. If the policy had been in place in MPG, Rick Voakes would have won both the 50-year-old and the 55-year-old title.
2) Because it is unfair to the younger divisions. My division had twenty entrants, and the Legends had about half that. But Masters and Open, which would not have more awards, had far more players.
3) Because a World Championship should mean something, and when you increase the number of championships you decrease their value in direct proportion.
4) Because you may distort the focus. Let's suppose we go with the current odds, which indicate that I'll be beaten at Highbridge by Tom Monroe and/or John Kirkland, but that I will win the 65-year-old championship. If that happened, the focus would be wrong, because the real significance of that result would be, not that I had won another championship, but that I had finally been beaten.

Peter, if you win i sincerely hope you will NOT forgo your sponsorship with Innova. I am sure you have the integrity and self-awareness to make decisions in the interest of the Association, or to step aside on specific topics. plenty of Association issues have nothing to do with Innova. please, keep your sponsorship!

on another matter, the primary reasons offered in support of the new divisions at Worlds was that the older players would stop playing if they did not get a chance to win a significant award. i can appreciate the sentiment and the desire to thank/reward older players, but am not sure these admirable objectives are best accomplished by making the already overgrown division structure even bigger. thats why i voted no. (its good to see we share an early position :) )

The PDGA Board of Director candidate statements have been updated to include the resume of Peter Shive, which was mistakenly omitted. The updated document can be found here:

http://www.pdga.com/documents/2007/07BODCandidateStatements.pdf

My apologies to Peter and to all PDGA members for this omission.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

Personally, I take the conflict of interest issue so seriously that, if I win a Board position, I will resign my sponsorship arrangement with Innova.

I am glad to read this, Peter. When I was first appointed to the board, I completely closed down a sort of commercial website that I was running and from which I received some compensation from disc manufacturers - for the same, good reason,

Personally, I take the conflict of interest issue so seriously that, if I win a Board position, I will resign my sponsorship arrangement with Innova.

I am glad to read this, Peter. When I was first appointed to the board, I completely closed down a sort of commercial website that I was running and from which I received some compensation from disc manufacturers - for the same, good reason,



I agree, and thank you for stepping up Peter.

Peter,

What do you think , as we all age , to limit "age protected" divisions to a certain number of registrants at major events including the World's?

Pete,

It seems the main complaints of PDGA members are the following :

1. Too expensive to join (no need for the magizine)
2. Too many divisions
3. Most members don't know where the money the spend goes

How do you plan to address these three issues, if at all?

to discrising:

It is inevitable that we will need to do something like this, because the number of tournament players in age protected divisions is growing rapidly.

Even now some events fill, but caps are usually applied on a first-come, first-served basis because it is simple to apply, has an element of fairness, and encourages entrants to apply early. Sometimes the am registration is frozen first.

Ultimately it may be fairer to the membership to cap division registrations at a level proportional to their size. Worlds reserves the right to do this, but hasn't needed to implement it yet.

I wouldn't want to create another level of PDGA beaurocracy to deal with this yet, because it is not now a major problem and can still be dealt with more simply at the local level.

to _MTL_:

I am afraid that my position will not be popular with you.
1) I believe that the PDGA is a good deal. For your information, the Board did pass a "membership without magazine" option, which will take effect next year. But in my platform statement, I questioned the way in which that decision was reached.
2) I wouldn't change the number of divisions unless there was considerable pressure from TD's to do so. At least you can see (from earlier posts on this thread) that I am opposed to increasing the number of divisions.
3) PDGA financial statements are a matter of public record, published on this site. Anyone (even nonmembers) can look at them. In addition, the PDGA books are independently audited.

to _MTL_:

I am afraid that my position will not be popular with you.
1) I believe that the PDGA is a good deal. For your information, the Board did pass a "membership without magazine" option, which will take effect next year. But in my platform statement, I questioned the way in which that decision was reached.
2) I wouldn't change the number of divisions unless there was considerable pressure from TD's to do so. At least you can see (from earlier posts on this thread) that I am opposed to increasing the number of divisions.
3) PDGA financial statements are a matter of public record, published on this site. Anyone (even nonmembers) can look at them. In addition, the PDGA books are independently audited.



Thanks for the reply Peter, you actually already have my vote.

I was just asking questions that most people would ask.

I agree that the PDGA is agreat deal and did not know about the membership without magizine offer, that is a GREAT thing (however, I will still purchase the magizine)

It seems the main complaints of PDGA members are the following:



Pure supposition, not to mention that they are complaints - to the whatever extent that they are - of only some PDGA members. Peter's comments probably more accurately reflect the membership's general attitude. (Which, without some sort of valid survey, is a supposition of my own.) :D

which kind of proves Lyle's tagline, doesnt it.

Not really - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism. There's plenty of historical proof for it; thank goodness much of it appears to have stopped.

But I don't see anything in the current exchange which does; even if it was clear, which it is not, what you mean by "which."

Peter, a few more questions to add to the list if i may.

how will you go about balancing the needs of the PDGA with the needs of the Membership?

how much hard cash should the PDGA provide to the owner/operators of Major event venues for the purposes of course/infrastructure improvements?

should the PDGA seek to develop new revenue streams within the sport, or should it focus on enabling outside entities to develop these product and service offerings?

thank you, sir

how will you go about balancing the needs of the PDGA with the needs of the Membership?



Excuse me, but aren't the PDGA and the membership the exact same thing? Perhaps you meant to say balance between the goals of promoting the sport and benefiting the membership?

The organization is nothing without members. Everything the organization does should be for the benefit of current and/or future members.

Hopefully Pete can understand your question better than I did. I find it most distressing that a current BOD member sees the organization as a separate entity from the membership.

excuse me, but you jumped to a conclusion that is neither warranted nor implied.

i meant the question exactly how i asked it. i see cases where the interests of the Association might not be aligned with those of its Members. i would like to help fix that.

to be clear: i do not see "the organization as a separate entity from the membership". in fact, i 100% agree with your description of the org-member relationship. i am interested to know how Peter will address any situations where he feels the Association's goals and Membership's goals are not in synch.

so... yes... they should be the same thing. i want to make sure they are. i am sorry you feel distressed. if you will read my actual question without reading anything extra into it, i believe you will find it is just a straightforward question and that it most certainly does not imply that i view the Association as separate from the Members. i trust you will not continue to imply otherwise.

see what i mean?

I don't want to speak for her, but I don't think "she jumped to a conclusion." I read your question the same way Discette did. Maybe it was the way you phrased your question? I don't understand how you can have a difference of interests of the Association and its Members if the association and members are one and the same. If you don't "view the Association as separate from the Members", how can the interests not be aligned?

to sandalman:

These are three deep and complicated questions. To answer completely would require much space and quite a bit of knowledge that only a Board member would have. I'll scratch the surface here.

1) The PDGA provides a variety of services for a membership that has an enormous spectrum of needs. Trouble often occurs when some members don't understand (or don't care about) the needs of others. This is a problem that can never be completely resolved, but it can be lessened if the PDGA explains clearly what it is doing and why.
2) Let's talk about Pro Worlds here, because I know something about it. My understanding is that the PDGA provides $6000 up front to the club, and then revenue shares (50-50) above a guaranteed amount. The club is expected to do some effective fundraising. I was not aware that any additional cash was provided to the club for "course improvements" or anything else. I don't believe any should be provided, because the basic arrangement seems fair to me.
3) There are pitfalls here, as many of us remember the unfortunate experience with Sports Loop. My gut feeling right now is that John Duesler is levering a much more modest investment into a much greater return. I suspect that I'm fairly conservative, preferring to deal with people we know well and can trust. I have thought a lot about fundraising (eg, my "For Love or Money" article in last year's DGW), and believe that it should start within the disc golf community before it can be effectively exported.

I don't want to speak for her, but I don't think "she jumped to a conclusion." I read your question the same way Discette did.



I agree. The statement reads pretty plain and clear:

PDGA board member Pat Brenner: "[H]ow will you go about balancing the needs of the PDGA with the needs of the Membership?"

The members are the association, Pat, in the many board meetings I attended for more than five years, it was evident that the board members all felt that to be true.

Peter I just read your resume for BOD elections.

I will be voting for you. I agree with you we need the magazine.
I fly all the time and people always see me reading DGW. It will be
a disaster to lose such a publicity tool.

On another note. Keep up the good work. I have talked with you in the past and you seem like a genuine person. More interested in spreading your wisdom than with you own personal needs.
I hope you win and I hope you use your age and experience to our advantage.

Hi Peter,

this may be slightly off-topic, but --

What was your impression of Idlewild and do you think courses with high SSA's are going to become more and more prevalent as our sport evolves?

hope to see you again in the Cincinnati area sometime soon, and thanks for running for the BoD.

KY States (singles) at Idlewild - June 2nd, 2007 (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=696958&an=0&page=0#Post6 96958)

to AviarX:

Idlewild amazed me. It is now one of my favorite courses, perhaps even THE favorite course, of all time. It has everything going for it -- topography, water, well-groomed trees and vegetation, and very intellegent hole design (including alterante pins and tees). It is also just a beautiful place to be, and the club has installed the necessary construction elements (bridges, buttresses, etc) in complete harmony with the natural setting. It makes you use every shot you are capable of throwing, but it doesn't need any yellow rope or other artificial elements to make you do it. When you think about the amount of forethought and effort it takes to build a course like that, you realize that it is a great privilege to play there.

I expect that courses like Idlewild (I think of them as the "par 72" courses) are an indication of the direction that disc golf is heading. We will always need plenty of the "par 54" type courses, because newbies are our lifeblood, and Idlewild would intimidate and dishearten most beginners. But the Idlewild-like courses will become our crown jewels.

Idlewild is the best course in the midwest.
AviarX you all do a great job. Keep up the good work.

I expect that courses like Idlewild (I think of them as the "par 72" courses) are an indication of the direction that disc golf is heading. We will always need plenty of the "par 54" type courses, because newbies are our lifeblood, and Idlewild would intimidate and dishearten most beginners. But the Idlewild-like courses will become our crown jewels.



Like they couldn't put beginner tees halfway or 2/3 of the way down those fairways?

It boggles my mind that people continue to think there must be separate beginner courses. Any expert course can also serve as a beginner course by putting a set of tees 250-300 feet from every polehole.

I can understand that some courses can only be beginner courses because of the limited land available to them, but I just want to rip out my hair and scream when I see people lamenting over longer courses with pro par fours and fives which could intimidate and dishearten most beginners. The solution is so ridiculously easy.

Thank you, Jeff!

I've posted before that I love Idlewyld. It is my hope that that course becomes "the standard" and not "the crown jewel".


Peter, I know you're running for the BOD and not the rules committee, but just to further delve into your philosophy:
How would you re-write the following rules Q&A to bring it into line with the sport of today and not 10 years ago?

"Is every hole par 3?"

The simple answer is no, not necessarily, though in practice it's almost always done that way.
In a way, par is irrelevant since it's your total score that matters. That's what you should be using to measure your performance (against prior rounds, against those you're competing with, etc). But par is useful in that it provides a general reference point, as it does in traditional golf.
Par is whatever is assigned to a hole by the designer. Since disc golf was originally modeled after "par three" ball golf, disc golf holes have a tradition of being par three as well. In the early days that worked fine, as pretty much every hole was reachable. Since then, holes which require two or more shots to reach have become fairly common. While they may have a realistic par of 4, 5, or more, they are often played as par threes in tournament play. The practical par is sometimes posted on tee signs so that newer players have a reasonable goal.
Almost all experienced golfers consider an 18-hole course to have a par of 54, and will speak of scores in reference to that, so that (for example) "2 under" means 52. It's often easier to talk about scores relative to par than total scores.

to Jeff _LaG:

They could put short tees on any hole on any course. Of course, they don't even need to do that. The recreational players could just walk up the fairway until they felt suitably close to the pin, and throw from there.

But this would be a misuse of a course like Idlewild. Those holes weren't designed to be played from 200 feet out. I suspect that the course pros at Idlewild wouldn't want to put in short tees any more than the Augusta National or Pebble Beach folks would consider putting in recreational tees halfway up their fairways.

to denny ritner:

This isn't an issue that excites me, but it certainly isn't irrelevant because some penalties are "par plus . . .", so pars must be assigned for individual holes for tournament play.

The individual hole pars need to be divvied up so that they a) they are whole numbers, b) they reflect some sense of relative hole difficulty, and c) they add up to a reasonable par score for the course. Any scheme that could satisfy those three conditions would be OK with me.

I haven't thought very much about this might best be done, but others have (ie, Chuck Kennedy, John Houck), and I would look to them for methods that we might apply.

I expect that courses like Idlewild (I think of them as the "par 72" courses) are an indication of the direction that disc golf is heading. We will always need plenty of the "par 54" type courses, because newbies are our lifeblood, and Idlewild would intimidate and dishearten most beginners. But the Idlewild-like courses will become our crown jewels.



Like they couldn't put beginner tees halfway or 2/3 of the way down those fairways?

It boggles my mind that people continue to think there must be separate beginner courses. Any expert course can also serve as a beginner course by putting a set of tees 250-300 feet from every polehole.

I can understand that some courses can only be beginner courses because of the limited land available to them, but I just want to rip out my hair and scream when I see people lamenting over longer courses with pro par fours and fives which could intimidate and dishearten most beginners. The solution is so ridiculously easy.

Like beginners should expect to shoot par? It boggles my mind to think that people continue to think that par is the score you get after you've played the game two or three times. Par for the course is a score that most golfers never acheive. Par is excellent, not something beginners should think of acheiving.

Course designers: short tees and easy pars attract vandals and litterers. How many of those do you need at your courses?

On courses over say 8000 feet that are designed for Gold level play, there should still be a shorter set of tees but not for Rec players as such. Tees set for White level players are appropriate but can still have par 4s & 5s that parallel the pars from the Gold tees. At Highbridge, our Gold course at 9700 feet has White tees at 7700 feet. This is still longer than most city courses but more fun for amateurs to play because the shots are more in their skill range.

Putting a par 3 style Rec course within a Gold course is not good design from my standpoint. To do that would require huge long walks for the Rec players. If they have to walk it, they might as well throw it. So, make the shorter tees just a skill appropriate challenge that's somewhat shorter but not half as long.

I apologize for the continued thread drift:


Like beginners should expect to shoot par? It boggles my mind to think that people continue to think that par is the score you get after you've played the game two or three times. Par for the course is a score that most golfers never acheive. Par is excellent, not something beginners should think of acheiving.




As we're all aware, I'm a big proponent of following ball golf's lead in most cases. Setting tees appropriate for different skill levels is one instance in which the color system that has been developed for our sport is superior to that of ball golf. We can use data to create a blue level course with where a 950ish rated round is even par. I love playing a course where a good rond for me is 2-3 under and a bad round is over par. I've got no illusions (dave stopped running the e-plastic) that I'm a pro. I understand that a blue course is an advanced level course and a top pro will average 5-8 under with a course record around 12 under. On appropriate gold tees those same top pros will average 0-3 under and the course record will be around 7 under.

It would be very difficult to make golf tees such that players of a particular skill level would shoot even par. Ideal golf tees are set up so that players of a particular skill level will hit approximately the same club into the green in regulation, assuming they've hit a good drive. i.e. On a 460 yard par 4, a typical tour pro will drive 290 yards and then hit a seven iron into the green. The club champ will drive 270 + 160 yard seven iron = 430 yards. When it gets down to the tees for a good "advanced" woman, she'll drive 180 yards plus 125 yards for a seven iron = 305 yards. The difficulty with the golf tees compared to disc golf tees is that there's much more likelihood that a golfer will whiff, shank, skull, worm-burn, air-ball, flubb, duff. The variability of the outcome for any level of golfer with handicap higher than about 6 is much greater than for disc golf. The tees can be set appropriately for the golfer than doesn't hit any horrible shots during the hole, but the odds are 50-50 that the typical player will hit at least one such shot on every hole.

It's much harder to learn to hit a golf ball and maintain a certain level once attained than to throw a golf disc. This is one of the great elements of our sport that it doesn't require 15 hours a week of practice to be decent.

Like beginners should expect to shoot par? It boggles my mind to think that people continue to think that par is the score you get after you've played the game two or three times. Par for the course is a score that most golfers never acheive. Par is excellent, not something beginners should think of acheiving.



Even with 250-300 foot par threes on every hole, no beginner comes EVEN CLOSE to shooting par. But they also aren't then playing pro par and pro par five holes that are 600-900 feet long.

You completely missed the mark on that one. You put in short tees so that beginners don't have to play long and difficult holes, not so they can shoot par.


Course designers: short tees and easy pars attract vandals and litterers. How many of those do you need at your courses?



Huh? Short tees and easy pars attract vandals and litterers? And long, difficult courses don't and somehow *scare* them away? That has to be one of the strangest things I've ever read on PDGA DISCussion. Please elaborate. :confused:

to Jeff _LaG:

They could put short tees on any hole on any course. Of course, they don't even need to do that. The recreational players could just walk up the fairway until they felt suitably close to the pin, and throw from there.

But this would be a misuse of a course like Idlewild. Those holes weren't designed to be played from 200 feet out. I suspect that the course pros at Idlewild wouldn't want to put in short tees any more than the Augusta National or Pebble Beach folks would consider putting in recreational tees halfway up their fairways.



I don't buy this at all. There's no "shame" or "misuse" in putting appropriate tees on a long and difficult course to make it appropriate for beginners. It's thinking like this that is the very reason we have separate beginner and expert disc golf courses for no reason. And you can darn well bet there amateur tees and ladies tees that are 30-50 yards closer for the regular club members and visitors to Augusta and Pebble Beach to play. The last thing they want is some duffer shooting 150 from the longest set of tees, tearing up the property, and backing up play greatly.

With the current thinking, we now have people putting in short courses that weren't designed for extension even though they may have the room, and everytime a more challenging course is put in, the novice players cry bloody murder because the course is too long and challenging for them. When all the course designer needs to do is put in tees appropriate for beginning players.

This is a critical issue at this point in the history of the sport. We can make the push for real golf courses with par 60+, tees set up for 3-4 standardized color levels, benches, signs, trashcans, alternate basket locations, land that isn't shared with other park users and a modest $5-$10 greens fee or we can put in more of the same old same old and complain that the sport "isn't going anywhere".

Agreed! Sorry for the thread drift, Peter.

Jeff, Pete's comments about Idlewild not needing short tees reads right to me-- there are over 20 courses in the Cincinnati area and therefore Idlewild was designed to challenge gold-level disc golfers. Rec players can work on their game at the other 20 area courses -- in general they don't find Idlewild fun anyways (if they do they can always improvise shorter tees anywhere up-fairway that they like). Boone Woods (also in Burlington, KY) is only one mile down the road and is perfect for Rec players.

I doubt there are any Championship ball golf courses that only have one set of tees. I suspect they would be downgraded in any ball golf course rating system. So, if we're aspiring to develop championship disc golf courses, mulitple sets of tees should also be part of the package. However, since it looks like the work has to be done by volunteers at Idlewild, they get a pass from the standpoint that if no one at a lower skill level wants to volunteer to do them, it's their own fault at this point they aren't there. It was the same situation at Seneca back in the 90s where they didn't have hard surface Rec tees. Not sure if that's changed.

I don't want to continue to pollute Peter's thread anymore (perhaps someone should start a separate one) but the point is why can't ALL courses with the room for it be like Idlewild? Why do we need separate rec courses with some artificial man law that prevents us from putting shorter tees for rec players to enjoy? It makes absolutely no sense. And until something is done about it, we'll continue to have pitch-n-putts that the tournament players loathe, and awesome world class courses that the novice players cry bloody murder about being too hard. It's all so dumb.

Peter said: "I don't see pressing problems with the current pro or am divisional structures. For example, Worlds registration figures suggest that they "ain't broke, and so don't need fixing".
and then:
"Because a World Championship should mean something, and when you increase the number of championships you decrease their value in direct proportion."

Hi Peter,
Thanks for your willingness to address issues in advance of elections. Being that this particular issue has been a pet peeve of mine for many years, I have to take exception to the above quoted statements, as they seem to be at odds with one another. If possible - I'd like to see a more in depth reconciliation of these ideas.

The divisional structure is definitely broken IMO. My reasoning is that if a group of men all play the same course on the same day, and all shoot between X&Y (regardless of divisional status) that there is no need to separate them into divisions. Take virtually any sanctioned event, compare scores between M10, MPO, and MPM and the majority will have 90% or more of the MPM within the MPO scores, and 60% or more M10 within the MPO scores.
So my question for you is this: Do you base your notion of "if it aint broke"... on attendance of major events offering this divisional structure? Or on comparing players skill levels within these divisions?

To me - basing it on attendance is a circular argument. People like it so it must be good. Well - based on how you reward them - of course they're gonna like it!
But when a guy like Brad Hammock can (at age 39) be crowned "World Champion" when his score would place him in the top 5 in the Open division - isn't that "reward" a little misplaced? BH gets to be world champ, and the second place finisher in Open gets........

Thanks in advance for your thoughts. CG4010

Looking at the scores for the recently completed "A" tier Virginia Open it appears to me that the system did work.
There were 50 open players, the top 5 scores were -22, -17, -13, -13, and -9 and Erik Smith who finished 27th did not cash with a +4. There were 22 Masters players with the top five at -18, E, +2, +5, and +5. So 3 out of 20 Masters would have cashed in Open not much overlap that I see.

to gang4010 and sharky:

As long as you have age protection, there will always be arguements like Craig's -- that some people in a division could be competitive in a younger division -- no matter where you put the age breaks. So to me the issue is not so much where to put the breaks, but rather whether we should have age protection at all. I am, obviously, a strong advocate of age protection, but a vigorous debate of its strengths and weaknesses is certainly a logical part of my platform issue of Professional Standards.

That said, I'll address Craig's example. I used to think that we should dump the Masters division, not because there were players in it who could compete in Open, but because I thought that the Masters division weakened the Open division. Now I'm not so sure.

What would happen if we abolished Masters? Let's suppose that half the Masters would play Open, and the other half wouldn't play at all. Would Open players win more money?Open fields would be larger, but some of the extra cash would be won by the Masters players. Also, the loss of the other Masters would lower the support base for the event, and the lost "overhead" would have to come partly from the Open purse. Finally, a few TD's might be so irritated about not being able to offer Masters that they wouldn't run tournaments. I don't believe that the Open players would come out ahead.

Right now I say, "Let the TD's decide". They know best what structure works best for their event. If a TD doesn't want to offer MPS (for example), I would never argue the point. I believe that Marshall Street does not offer Masters. If that works for them, fine.

You can't just look at one event. You have to look at all the events of different tiers over an entire year and at different regions around the country. Once you do that, the overlap is clearly obvious.

However, the status quo will never change. Even though we have player ratings to show how abundantly clear the overlap is and how inappropriate our system is, having since become weaned on their protected status, no PDGA divisional change would ever be enacted that would change things or god forbid eliminate age-based divisions. They would cry bloody murder. Since no organization would take measures that might bite the hand that feeds them, we end up stuck with this archaic competitive system.

I shake my head in disbelief at every tournament where golfers with almost exactly the same 950 rating shoot almost exactly the same score in Open, Pro Masters, Pro Grandmasters, Advanced Masters &amp; Advanced, and: <ul type="square"> the Open and Pro Masters guys don't cash and win nothing the Grandmaster takes 1st place $$ the Advanced Master takes home a stack of discs and t-shirts the Advanced golfer takes home a polehole! [/list]

again, Terry, i was asking a simple question. the topic being discussed immediately above provides a great example of why the question needs to be asked from time to time.



I don't want to speak for her, but I don't think "she jumped to a conclusion." I read your question the same way Discette did.



I agree. The statement reads pretty plain and clear:

PDGA board member Pat Brenner: "[H]ow will you go about balancing the needs of the PDGA with the needs of the Membership?"

The members are the association, Pat, in the many board meetings I attended for more than five years, it was evident that the board members all felt that to be true.

Right now I say, "Let the TD's decide". They know best what structure works best for their event. If a TD doesn't want to offer MPS (for example), I would never argue the point. I believe that Marshall Street does not offer Masters. If that works for them, fine.



Just a general phiolosophical question related to the "Let the TDs decide." Please attempt to draw a line between "Issues that should be addressed by the BOD" and "Issues that should be left to the TD."

Just to get my tone, I will editorialize. While I am not a fan of complete dictatorship and understand that some TD freedom is necessary, I often feel that "let the TDs decide" is just a convenient way for leaders to avoid the most pressing issues we face, and thus conveniently shirk their responsibility.

I don't know if this has been brought up yet because I have not been following this thread. What will you propose be done about rules involving illegal substances and alcohol? The current rule is still vague and does not spell out its intent fully.

Tony,

What do you find vague about the current rule?

to James McCaine:

It's impossible to produce a complete breakdown on this question, but I can be incisive in some areas.

So for starters, I revere TD's and people who build and maintain courses. I believe that these people are more important to most PDGA members than the PDGA is, and I would give their opinion much consideration.

For example, consider the arguements posted earlier sugesting that rec tees be built at Idlewild halfway down the fairways. The idea has some good points (although personally I believe it has more bad ones). It's fine to advance this thought, and even to lobby the Idlewild people. But I would never try to establish a PDGA policy that would coerce in that direction. What might or might not happen at Idlewild should be decided by Freddie Salas and the Idlewild club, and nobody else.

The question of divisions, also discussed above, is trickier. If we are going to have age (and gender) protection, the PDGA should define a sufficient spectrum of divisions to allow TD's to run successful events. I believe such a spectrum exists now, and I'm not in favor of expanding it.

Beyond that, I would not interfere. I would not (for example) want the Board telling the USDGC or the Players Cup that they have to offer age protection, or telling Marshall Street that they have to offer Masters, or the U.S. Masters that they have to offer Open.

to Tony_Clifton:

I believe the rules are clear enough, and that the problem lies in the enforcement. Enforcement is in the hands of the TD's, who have a wide variety of opinions. The idealist in me wishes that the PDGA could make TD's enforce the rules.

But the realist in me believes that uniform enforcement will not be possible until players are willing to report violations. This would have to start at the top (with the Open Pros), and probably we are not there yet, because too many Open Pros would regard such action as "ratting out their buddies".

Right now the privileges of being a pro are not worth the responsibility of reporting violations. One way to change this would be to raise prize funds which were explicitly contingent on such reporting.

Peter,

Back to Craig's point I would have to say that I agree with him that the current divisional structure should be somewhat modified. especially in the pro division, and specifically to increase the number of pro players. I can play master's this year (turning 40 in less than a month) and I would never think of it, unless it would be a master's only event.

What do you think about upping the age of master's to at least 45 and maybe even 50 (just like the PGA). Guys like Craig, Tannock, Hammock, Oates, etal are still very competitive in the open and often times would even win open events. It should mean more to them to have cashed or won in a field with Doss, Orum, Jenkins and all of the great young disc golfers 1/2 their age than to win in a field where you know it is unlikely that you will finish out of the top 10. It would also push them to play their best and to increase the size of the pro divisions.

With advances in sports medicine and the knowledge people have on taking care of themselves, staying competitive well into your 40's should not be a problem. For the lower rated "pro masters" there is always the chance to drop back down and play advanced and maybe they could up the rating for the cutoff (say to 960-970).

This may as you say lead to a few less masters players and I'm not trying to discourage anyone from playing, but it kind of becomes meaningless when as stated above you have 4 different players with similar ratings who could all win their respective divisions at smaller tournaments. I feel that so many divisions are promoting a PC version of reality (one where everyone has to win or their ego will be hurt) This is one reason I love the USDGC so much - one division - one champion and the older players have for the most part done pretty well there.

Looking at the scores for the recently completed "A" tier Virginia Open it appears to me that the system did work.
There were 50 open players, the top 5 scores were -22, -17, -13, -13, and -9 and Erik Smith who finished 27th did not cash with a +4. There were 22 Masters players with the top five at -18, E, +2, +5, and +5. So 3 out of 20 Masters would have cashed in Open not much overlap that I see.



A fine example of my point. Here's how I look at the Virginia Open.
48 Open players scores range from 194-267
20 Masters Players scores range from 198-262
43 M1O Players scores range from 219-261

Put all 111 players in one division and pay 45% - that's 50 players. The cash cut line score would be around 224 or 225, allowing 8 MPM players to cash (40% of the MPM field) and 7 M1O players to cash (16% of field).

Pick any event where these three groups all play the same courses and you will find similar results. I submit the call for want of sponsorship and bigger fields is a matter of promoting competition instead of....... whataver it is you call what we do now.

one reason against rec tees at Idlewild is cloggage. Courses like Banklick (Banklick doesn't have rec tees but is far more rec friendly than Idlewild) are so crowded at times that some of us avoid even trying to play it. Idlewild -- while it has been getting busier all the time at least doesn't usually entail backed-up tees. It was built exclusively as a gold level course because there are so many blue and red level courses already in the area and because the extra cost and labor involved in pouring shorter tees takes a back seat to many other grooming and beautification priorities.

ball golf examples only work so far. unlike our great sport where a rec player can make a tee anywhere down a gold-level fairway they like -- ball golfers can't go halfway down a long fairway -- put tees in the ground and swing away. (at least i think that's a no-no in ball-golf) also the private money involved helps offset the added costs (and labor/time). i'm not against red, blue and gold tees if the budget makes it do-able from the get-go (also keep in mind the wooded fairways at Idlewild were hand-carved by disc golf volunteer/enthusiasts).

Basically all that plan does is tell every player rated over 915, "Go away and come back when you can shoot 965 rated golf." Because at the Virginia Open you had to shoot 965 rated golf to finish in that prize pool. As it was, you only had to shoot 925 golf to finish in the prizes in Advanced, and that is low enough to keep all your 915-965 rated players interested.

A fine example of my point. Here's how I look at the Virginia Open.
48 Open players scores range from 194-267
20 Masters Players scores range from 198-262
43 M1O Players scores range from 219-261

Put all 111 players in one division and pay 45% - that's 50 players. The cash cut line score would be around 224 or 225, allowing 8 MPM players to cash (40% of the MPM field) and 7 M1O players to cash (16% of field).

Pick any event where these three groups all play the same courses and you will find similar results. I submit the call for want of sponsorship and bigger fields is a matter of promoting competition instead of....... whataver it is you call what we do now.



Or you could make two divisions of around 50-60 competitors each by placing a ratings break at a PDGA player rating of, say 950 or so.

But that makes too much sense, so obviously it is unacceptable.

You have to keep it interesting enough for the donators to come back.

With 74% of the MA1 players failing to place I don't see that happening long. Then the cash line moves higher and soon 70% of the Masters don't make the cut. When they leave you are left with the 40 Pros and 7-8 Masters and a couple of MA1 guys that should be pros anyway.

Now only 16 of them are cashing and the other 50 players are at the local mini.

I'd like to give my thought on the division issue, eventhough this is kind of out of the topic (which is asking questions to Pete).
I don't know if this is already an option, but why not leave the choice to the players to register in the division they want.
TD's can offer the divisions they want, but then if a master wants to play open, I think he should have the right to do so. As long as the Pro / Amateur distinction is respected (an MPM can't register as MA1...)

A question for Pete (and the other guys):
Will foreign PDGA members (non US residents) be able to vote for the board elections?

to several posters:

I'm not in favor of moving the divisional age breaks. No matter where you put the breaks, there will always be some players in the older division who would be competitive in the younger one. Changing the age breaks just changes the names of those players.

For example, raising the breaks by five years would make me once agan the MPS favorite. That wouldn't be fair. I've had my place in the sun, and it's time for someone else to have their chance.

All PDGA members, US and foreign, vote in the Board elections.

From a statistical standpoint, we've shown that as a group, player skills do not start to drop until after age 40 with an average increase of one throw (10 pt rating drop) for every 5 years on average. In other words, the same random group of fifty 40-year olds with an average rating of say 950 would likely have ratings averaging 910 by the time they reached age 60.

So, I get to inform my son, Ben, and my son-in-law, Nic, when I next see them, that I would most assuredly have had a rating well over 1000 when I was their ages.

Thanks, Chuck! :D We already knew that, though, didn't we, Peter?

I should mention that the stats were done for pros who had at least been pros for 3 years before being included in the 5 yr ratings tracking for the calculations. We wouldn't want to discourage any new players over 39 that their fate is sealed after their first rating. :)

So lets go back on topic to asking questions of our candidate. If the competition committee were to propose a competitive format that preserves the existing 30 overlapping divisions, but also gives a TD the option to run a format with a half dozen or so non-overlapping ratings-based divisions, would you generally be open to that?

Before dealing with competition questions at this point, I think you should wait and see the proposals already being considered for next year that address several of the issues discussed in the past few months. Preliminary Board approval will be sought this month based on the Competition presentation at the Spring Summit. Then, these will be published for members to review and comment. Once these are published, hopefully by July, it will be easier to frame the questions for Peter and other candidates.

Seeing many votes will be cast before the competition proposals will be published, it is a valid question.

As a general comment, Board members will continue to do less and less of the functional work to run the PDGA which is being done by staff and committee members. While suggestions and recommendations for initiatives can come from the Board, the actual work will likely not be done by Board members. Board members should increasingly be evaluated more on their disc golf experience, volunteer efforts, negotiation and management skills, ability to communicate and work well with others and their demonstrated willingness to follow through with commitments even when the going gets tough. So, rather than dealing in nitty gritty details, Board members' ability to listen to proposals, discuss the bigger picture ramifications and how issues will affect members, the PDGA financially and the sport in general are the evolving functions of the Board. And Peter is demonstrating one of these traits by his willingness to field questions from members on this forum.

And Peter is demonstrating one of these traits by his willingness to field questions from members on this forum.


I think he's demonstrating more than one with his responses. He's showing that he looks at the bigger picture rather than the immediate issue at hand. He's also doing a good job of not getting sucked into the trolling and keeping a respectful tone to (at least his part of) the discussion.

Agreed. He's got my vote

Basically all that plan does is tell every player rated over 915, "Go away and come back when you can shoot 965 rated golf." Because at the Virginia Open you had to shoot 965 rated golf to finish in that prize pool. As it was, you only had to shoot 925 golf to finish in the prizes in Advanced, and that is low enough to keep all your 915-965 rated players interested.



Maybe the INT cuttoff should have never moved from 925 then eh?

mr shive
do you think the election is fair since not all the candidates can post here? (and b4 u answer have u seen the post that got one of the candidates banned?)

Are you the one from the Southern Nationals board who volunteered to post on this board for Mike Kernan?

As a PDGA member, Mike has had the opportunity to have his message heard on this forum, he just cannot abide by the rules the rest of the membership has agreed to. He seems to think because he served in the military he can use any language he wants to regardless of the rules of the message board (what he calls "freedom of speech"). He has been banned from the message board because of his lack of respect to the rest of the membership, and that should be remembered by people who vote.

there should be a rule that the candidate gets to answer first.

(john, that is not anything against you or your response... my questions were also intercepted by other posters before Peter had a chance to respond to them. it would be nice to hear what the candidate has to say before everyone else weighs in.)

mr shive
do you think the election is fair since not all the candidates can post here? (and b4 u answer have u seen the post that got one of the candidates banned?)



Please keep in mind it was not one post that got a candidate banned. The candidate you refer to has a history of probations and suspensions on the message board.

to 6Pack:

I did not know that any other candidate was banned from posting here. I rarely read on this forum, and then only a very few threads. If elected, I would read many more.

I think it's regrettable but not unfair. It would be unfair if I were allowed to beak rules that other candidates were held to, but that is not the case here.

to bruce_brakel and Chuck Kennedy:

I don't see any harm in airing competition questions now. I'd like the membership to get some feeling for where I stand well before they have to vote.

Bruce's question may catch me uninformed. I thought that TD's were free now to offer ratings-based events if they wanted to. Please enlighten me if I am wrong. In any case, I believe that they should have the option to do so.

If you are asking, "divisional and ratings-based AT THE SAME EVENT?", I would say no. Too complicated.

mr shive
do you think the election is fair since not all the candidates can post here? (and b4 u answer have u seen the post that got one of the candidates banned?)



Mike Kernan blatantly violated the rules of the DISCussion board and will be required to follow the duration of his suspension according to the disciplinary procedures that have been created. Allowing him to post in *any* capacity, even for 'official business', would ruin the credibility in the disciplinary system we have all worked hard to establish. Mike is constantly preaching that the PDGA needs to follow its own rules and would be the first person to jump up and down screaming bloody murder if the PDGA were not to follow the rules and make an exception like this for anyone else.

Voting for PDGA Board Member Candidates will take place from June 1 to July 31 2007, and Mike Kernan's suspension ends on July 6, 2007. That is a period of 25 days, or more than 3 1/2 weeks, with which Mike Kernan can present any information about his candidacy for PDGA Board Member or respond to questions on this PDGA DISCussion board.

Ratings based events as such other than Mid-Nats are not part of the current competition scheme although a TD can cobble together an event that's mostly ratings based by limiting the divisions to Open, Advanced, Int &amp; Rec plus Am women's divisions. However, they exclude boys/men at those ratings in those divisions. One of the competition proposals for next year will make running a ratings event compatible with the proposed divisional break revisions.

Mr Shive:

There are numerous disc golf series' throughout the country that host monthly/by-monthly/etc. non-sanctioned "mini's" (tournaments.) The primary reason some of these series are non-sanctioned is that they do not want to have to pay the $50 sanctioning plus $2 per player plus $5 per non-PDGA player for their tournament (which would either require additional sponsorship by the TD or money taken out of players' purses. In addition are the guidelines and TD responsibilities/deadlines required by the PDGA.)

Do you believe these minis/tournaments should continue to exist as non-sanctioned tournaments or do you think it would benefit both the PDGA and the local scene to encourage TDs to sanction such events? In my region, a Points Series is filling tournaments weekly with *90 players* for many non-sanctioned events.

If you feel the PDGA should try to have as many quality tournaments as possible sanctioned, how would you answer a TDs argument that $150 taken away from the purse for a 50 player "C-Tier" is too much [on a most basic level benefits for a sanctioned C-tier include a listing on the PDGA calendar, player ratings, results listing, and an optional $50 insurance policy - one could (and has) argue(d) that the "value" of the listed is less than $150 for a 50 player tournament]?

Voting for PDGA Board Member Candidates will take place from June 1 to July 31 2007, and Mike Kernan's suspension ends on July 6, 2007. That is a period of 25 days, or more than 3 1/2 weeks, with which Mike Kernan can present any information about his candidacy for PDGA Board Member or respond to questions on this PDGA DISCussion board.


I'm sorry, but Mikey will not be able to post for 25 days before the election. He'll be suspended for 24 days and 18 hours of that period, with the over/under for "post count before re-suspension" remaining at 6. :)

Post deleted by doot

OK. I suppose that's only fair.

So how about it 6pack, are you Mike's voice on this forum?

Six days, hours or minutes? ;)


Uh....."post count". :)

Keystrokes :cool:

to doot:

If a local club wants to offer an unsanctioned event, they should feel free to do so. You are right about the reason why clubs may want to do this. The benefits of sanctioning are sometimes not worth the costs.

So if the PDGA wants to attract these events to the sanctioned status, it can follow either (or both) of two courses. It can increase the benefits and/or decrease the costs.

At this time there is much I do not know. I'm not sure how many more sanctioned events the PDGA might like to offer. Even if it wants more, I don't know whether it would be worth it to the PDGA to increase the benefits or dcrease the costs. I'm guessing that the balance is close to equilibrium now, so maybe the curent situation is OK.

Doot: I tried to send you an IM and it said the PDGA has no record of a user by that name! :D Sorry you no longer exist. A picture of that disc we were talking about can be found here: http://discontinuum.org/index.php?option=com_smf&amp;Itemid=26&amp;topic=897.msg45 076#new

You may now return to your regularly scheduled thread, Ask Board Candidate Peter Shive.

I do not recall any ruling that someone whose posting privileges have been suspended could not have comments posted on an active thread, on their behalf, by someone who does have posting privileges.

If that is the case (and getting info on a candidate out seems pretty important to me, perhaps as a unique exception) then PDGA board candidate Mike Kernan's answers to questions posed to him on a thread could be responded to through a third party.

Of course, that third party would have to moderate, pre-posting, Mike's posts so that the third party does not get suspended due to the content of what Mike writes.

On the one hand, that would probably result in more reasonable-sounding posts, which would benefit Mike.

On the other hand, that might be less fun for him, and he may be less motivated to participate.

I would be happy to be a personal moderator for Mikey if the moderators of this list would permit it, and if he would. :cool:

this is getting good :D

Of course, anyone who is interested in what Mike K. has to say can just take a look at the SN website and get all they can handle of his position.

True. It is interesting to stop by both . . .

the NEFA, http://www.nefa.com/phpbb/

and the SN, http://www.nefa.com/phpbb/

forums occasionally.

I believe that Mike Kernan is currently posting under the alias of "Bluff Magee."

mr shive
do you think the election is fair since not all the candidates can post here? (and b4 u answer have u seen the post that got one of the candidates banned?)



Mike Kernan blatantly violated the rules of the DISCussion board and will be required to follow the duration of his suspension according to the disciplinary procedures that have been created. Allowing him to post in *any* capacity, even for 'official business', would ruin the credibility in the disciplinary system we have all worked hard to establish. Mike is constantly preaching that the PDGA needs to follow its own rules and would be the first person to jump up and down screaming bloody murder if the PDGA were not to follow the rules and make an exception like this for anyone else.

Voting for PDGA Board Member Candidates will take place from June 1 to July 31 2007, and Mike Kernan's suspension ends on July 6, 2007. That is a period of 25 days, or more than 3 1/2 weeks, with which Mike Kernan can present any information about his candidacy for PDGA Board Member or respond to questions on this PDGA DISCussion board.



Who in the world ever convinced you guys that every candidate had to have equal access in every medium? What do you think this is, Europe? We're America, the person with the most money gets the most access!

On a more serious note, Mike Kernan is not the only candidate not posting here. I've yet to see posts from Todd Andrews and other candidates. If you're depending on this medium to win this election you're probably counting too much on a very few people.

Sorry to follow the thread drift, Peter, but that's how these things go...

Here's Mikey's platform statement copied from a NEFA rules thread:

Mikey's List of things He'd Change in the PDGA

1. No sponsored players on the Rules Committee
2. Professional players must pass a rules test before being allowed to play in PDGA NT, Major or A-tier events
3. Eliminate rating-based Majors
4. Require past attendence of at least 100 players in a division for the PDGA to label an event a "Major"
5. Allow non-members to post at PDGA Discussion in at least one area of the forum
6. Strengthen the rules of play by defining and clarifying more rules
7. Figure out how $200,000 can be spent to keep track of the membership of a 10,000 member organization
8. Permanently ban Lagrassa, Sweeton, Doot, and McCoy
9. Require disc manufacturers to compensate the PDGA for every disc the PDGA approves for tournament play
10. Get Chuck Kennedy off the payroll

True. It is interesting to stop by both . . .

the NEFA, http://www.nefa.com/phpbb/

and the SN, http://www.nefa.com/phpbb/

forums occasionally.

I believe that Mike Kernan is currently posting under the alias of "Bluff Magee."



He's underparmike on the nefa threads (I'm drunkentroubadour).

8. Permanently ban Lagrassa, Sweeton, Doot, and McCoy




wtf, stepford steve gets to stay? just ban the stepford sons? No fair, no fair..

more than half of those seem like meaningful, relevant and worthwhile discussion topics

I do not recall any ruling that someone whose posting privileges have been suspended could not have comments posted on an active thread, on their behalf, by someone who does have posting privileges.

If that is the case (and getting info on a candidate out seems pretty important to me, perhaps as a unique exception) then PDGA board candidate Mike Kernan's answers to questions posed to him on a thread could be responded to through a third party.

Of course, that third party would have to moderate, pre-posting, Mike's posts so that the third party does not get suspended due to the content of what Mike writes.

On the one hand, that would probably result in more reasonable-sounding posts, which would benefit Mike.

On the other hand, that might be less fun for him, and he may be less motivated to participate.

I would be happy to be a personal moderator for Mikey if the moderators of this list would permit it, and if he would. :cool:



This is covered under our Rules (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/boardrules.php?Cat=0), Terry.


PDGA Discussion Board Rules - The following will not be allowed:

4. Allowing others to post under your account name.



This is a moot point now anyway - the request was already made, and has been denied by the executive director.

Remember that voting for PDGA Board Member Candidates will take place from June 1 to July 31 2007, and Mike Kernan's suspension ends on July 6, 2007. That is a period of 25 days, or more than 3 1/2 weeks, with which Mike Kernan can present any information about his candidacy for PDGA Board Member or respond to questions on this PDGA DISCussion board.

There's a big difference between allowing others to post under your account name, and talking through a surrogate. There's no rule preventing Terry from passing along what Mikey says to Terry.

Since Mikey isn't really into discussing ideas so much as he is into using an idea as a platform for personal attack, I doubt that there is much of substance that Terry could pass along.

8. Permanently ban Lagrassa, Sweeton, Doot, and McCoy




wtf, stepford steve gets to stay? just ban the stepford sons? No fair, no fair..



Obviously, I'm not working hard enough to offend UPM! How do you rank Doot?

PDGA Discussion Board Rules - The following will not be allowed:

4. Allowing others to post under your account name.



This is a moot point now anyway - the request was already made, and has been denied by the executive director.

[/QUOTE]

I object.

I did not make a request to be permitted to do something, I asked if there was a rule in place that forbids my passing on Mike's thoughts he sends to me.

The rule quoted above has nothing to do with the instant situation. Its language does not describe what I asked about, and . . . we all know that the discussion that led to the rule above being made was very specifically about people letting others use their account to actually make their own postings. That had been happening, and it was stopped. There was no discussion of quoting from nonmembers or posting thoughts shared by members with suspending posting privileges.

The remainder of this post will be made on a new thread so as to not further digress from the candidacy of Peter Shive, who definitely has my vote and my support.

more than half of those seem like meaningful, relevant and worthwhile discussion topics



Problem is, his manner here and on the other forums drowns out the good parts.

agreed.

that being said, it is not foolish to recognize that there is some wheat along with the chafe

Peter,

Why have age protection at all, why not just have ratings based protection. Add in a few more ratings based cutoffs, get rid of the age protection and lets play golf, If it works for Am Nationals why can't it work for the AM's and Pro's the PDGA represent?

I feel it lowers the quality of events to have a 1010+ player in a division of 20 people and only one other 1000+ rated player in that division. If a 1005 rated player has to compete against the Elite 1025+ rated player why can't the gentleman who is older but obviously skilled also do the same.

Mr Shive,

How do you feel about the current policy prohibiting Ams from accepting prizes in leu of cash if they "cash" playing in a Pro event?

One would think to increase Pro fields that Amateurs who play Pro but want to retain Amateur status would be allowed to accept prizes, but current policy specifies that the cash for that cashing position goes directly to the TD.

If I were at a level where I could conceivably cash I would have considered moving up for a Pro only event, but realizing any monies I would have earned (even in the form of prizes) would be forfeited is very dissuasive.

Regards,

F Doot

Stay tuned...

Peter is pre-registered for a tournament in Minnesota this weekend, so you might want to grab a burger and just check in from time to time, rather than staying tuned. :D

Considering that he's playing in his age division with a 50 pt lead over his closest competitor rather than the next younger division twice the size where he would be ranked second just 5 pts off the highest rated player, we might guess his answer to Flash.

BAGGER :D

Considering that he's playing in his age division with a 50 pt lead over his closest competitor rather than the next younger division twice the size where he would be ranked second just 5 pts off the highest rated player, we might guess his answer to Flash.



Thanks for singling me out Chuck, but I still think it is a valid point and in now way alienates anyone who is in an age protected division! Play based on skill not age, age does not necessarily indicate less aptitude. You have shown with statistics that pro men over 40 will have their scoring ability start to decline each year, but not go away. Ratings are what the PDGA uses to determne skill and should be used to determine which field the individual should play in. I am just asking for a little tweaking in the skill based cutoffs and meld everyone into those fields. Anyone who is really wanting to compete should be happy to compete against individuals with similar skills, not in a division they will crush!

The PDGA provides a wide variety of competition options. TDs have had the option to restrict them as much as they wish but they've had to repsond to their customer base. The PDGA is like a franchise operation with TDs as the franchisees. There are certain things the franchisees have to do for sanctioning and then they have the flexibility to modify things according to their market. Having fewer competition options likely means fewer franchisees participating in PDGA programs.

At this point, a current weakness on the PDGA's part is the inability for franchisees to offer a true ratings based event for their customers who want to play that format. That's being addressed in the competition proposal for next year. Eliminating age divisions is not part of it. However, there may be incentives within the proposed structure such that older players and women of similar skill level may choose to play together more often than they do now even in non-ratings based events.

"some wheat along with the chafe" ... I hope that was an intentional funny!

One would think to increase Pro fields that Amateurs who play Pro but want to retain Amateur status would be allowed to accept prizes, but current policy specifies that the cash for that cashing position goes directly to the TD.


Not true. Declined cash goes to the next position down so that all prizes get shifted accordingly. This is in the competition manual (http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/07CompetitionManual.pdf) section 1.10 A.

1.10.Distribution of Prizes
A. Any prizes (money or merchandise) declined by a player
must pass down to the next finishing position. (Example:
If a player placing third declines his prize, the player in
fourth place will receive third place prize, the player in fifth
will receive fourth place prize, etc.) Tournaments are
allowed to retain prizes that have been declined by all
players within a division.

Mr Shive,

How do you feel about the current policy prohibiting Ams from accepting prizes in leu of cash if they "cash" playing in a Pro event?

One would think to increase Pro fields that Amateurs who play Pro but want to retain Amateur status would be allowed to accept prizes, but current policy specifies that the cash for that cashing position goes directly to the TD.

If I were at a level where I could conceivably cash I would have considered moving up for a Pro only event, but realizing any monies I would have earned (even in the form of prizes) would be forfeited is very dissuasive.

Regards,

F Doot



Aside from the point that was clarified about the money not going to the TD, I strongly agree with your point.

We should encourage am's to play up for smaller events and still be able to compete at the highest amateur level for the big events. They'll add to the pro purses, let the intermediates playing in advanced have a new face for their taunts of "bagger", and the TD will only have to pay out funny money worth 50% of cash to any am's that cash. Everyone wins!

to flash_25296:

Tournament registration of players over 50, amateur and pro, is growing rapidly, in some cases explosively. The Senior Tour (MPS) has been far more successful than I ever dreamed it could be. This is a very healthy part of the PDGA, and there is no point in dismantling it.

Nevertheless, I have no objection to allowing TD's to run ratings-based events if they want to. If this format is in fact superior, then the disc golf world will beat a path to its door.

It would be great to compete with you at the Mid-Nationals in St. Louis, especially if you are coming in support of this PDGA Championship right after becoming a Board member. :)

If you can survive the MN Majestic, you can survive about any event. Hope you've dried out by now.

to doot:

The PDGA already provides suitable opportunities for amateurs who want to win prizes without jeapordizing their amateur status. They can play in amateur tournaments.

to Chuck Kennedy:

The Senior Tour works because of the committments of its members. I publish my MPS touring itinerary months in advance. It is important for me to honor those commitments. To do otherwise would let the other MPS players down and destroy my own credibility.

Minnesota Majestic was a Senior Tour event and we loved it, even in the rain. Challenges excite us. The next Senior Tour event is DGLO this weekend. Most of us are going, not in spite of Monster-Toboggan, but because of Monster-Toboggan.

I'm a professional player and I play for money. If I win a spot on the Board I have no intention of changing my style of play, so no Mid-Nationals for me. Board members can support tournaments without playing in them, and I would be fully supportive of amateur events.

The Mid-Nationals is not an amateur event but one that brings players in the sport together, both pros and amateurs. Pros win cash at the Mid-Nats since last year. More PDGA members qualify for this event than any other Championship including yourself. It's the extension of the USDGC for players with ratings under 975. There's nothing wrong with your Senior Tour as a step down from the NT Open tour just like there's nothing wrong with pros playing in the Mid-Nats as a Championship for lower skill groups than the USDGC.

to Chuck Kennedy:

I didn't know that ratings-based events now pay cash.

If so, they rank with other recent Board protocols (like "amnesty" and "pros playing as ams") which are designed to destroy professional play in age-protected divisions.

I will oppose them on that basis.

Just Mid-Nationals at this point, not regular weekend events.

Peter, thanks for taking the time to answer any and all questions thoughtfully and with an open mind.

to Chuck Kennedy:

Then, at this time, I oppose the Mid-Nationals.

Please, let no one misunderstand. I am against "amnesty", "pros playing as ams" and "ratings-based pros". If these protocols are important to you, then you should most certainly not vote for me because I will get rid of them if I can.

I want the Board to define clear standards for professionals. This includes clarifing and amplifying, rather than blurring, the difference between professionals and amateurs. Privileges and responsibilities of professionals need to be spelled out. At this time I favor the following points:

1) Pros play for money. That is the big privilege.
2) The decision to turn pro should be taken very seriously, for long-term career objectives rather than short-term gain.
3) Reclassification should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and should be unusual.
4) Professionals should not only be encouraged to follow and enforce the rules, they should be obligated to do so.
5) Professionals should compete against amateurs only for exhibition. No professional should be able to win a title, trophy or prize that would otherwise have gone to an amateur.
6) Purses for Open pros, male and female, should be larger. In most other ways, all professional divisions should be treated the same.

2) The decision to turn pro should be taken very seriously, for long-term career objectives rather than short-term gain.
3) Reclassification should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and should be unusual.
6) Purses for Open pros, male and female, should be larger. In most other ways, all professional divisions should be treated the same.



these are the reasons I voted for you.

But, don't NOT vote for Peter just because you disagree with him on one or two things. It's quite difficult :D for one person to get significant changes made about any specific thing, even if they are on the board.

As long as we define professionals as those making their living as disc golf pros by winning competitions, instructing and/or running facilities like Morley Field then I would agree. Most PDGA members are Amateurs Playing for Cash (APFC) and Amateurs Playing For Prizes (APFP). Nothing wrong with that and I believe our system has worked better than many other sports to build particiaption and reward excellence at all levels.

However, from a competitive basis those who are AFPC and those who are APFP of similar ratings are essentially the same in the big picture and don't warrant the pro/am distinctions you are striving so hard to make. If you are willing to truly make your living as a disc golf pro and go on tour like our handful of professionals then those distinctions should be sought and supported. But other than those few players, the rest of us are serious hobbyists that provide the foundation to eventually expand the sport to a higher level that supports more true pros.

to everybody:

I want to thank everyone who has posted on this thread for the heft and tone of your questions. I started doing this partly because I wanted to develop a thick skin. I know that many PDGA members are fiercely opposed some of my positions, and I expected some daunting flames.

That hasn't happened, not yet at least. Instead, I have learned quite a lot that I didn't know before. Perhaps most useful of all, the process of responding to these questions has helped me to come to a better understanding of just what I do believe and why.

Indeed, it has been fun. I'm in the middle of a three-week tour in the Midwest, lucky enough to have access to the net most days. So I'm traveling, practicing or playing every day, and have enjoyed coming in at night and taking a shot at this stuff.

Thanks again.

As long as we define professionals as those making their living as disc golf pros by winning competitions, instructing and/or running facilities like Morley Field then I would agree. Most PDGA members are Amateurs Playing for Cash (APFC) and Amateurs Playing For Prizes (APFP). Nothing wrong with that and I believe our system has worked better than many other sports to build particiaption and reward excellence at all levels.

However, from a competitive basis those who are AFPC and those who are APFP of similar ratings are essentially the same in the big picture and don't warrant the pro/am distinctions you are striving so hard to make. If you are willing to truly make your living as a disc golf pro and go on tour like our handful of professionals then those distinctions should be sought and supported. But other than those few players, the rest of us are serious hobbyists that provide the foundation to eventually expand the sport to a higher level that supports more true pros.



There are probably less than 12 people in the world whose sole income comes from disc golf tournament winnings with no other source of income. We don't have true professionals as the word is defined in any other walk of life. Until the sport and tournament structure has grown in significant leaps and bounds, I agree that the distinction Peter is trying to make is very premature.

I would not vote for a candidate who would not support ratings-based play. Because player ratings are based on nothing but ability and actual tournament scores, ratings based events are simply the smartest and fairest way to organize divisional play that was ever created. These events eliminate the multiple overlapping divisions that are so predominant in our standard tournament structure. As long as we can continue to build faith in the accuracy of players ratings, I would like to see ratings-based play not only continue to be offered but grow greatly in popularity, if not someday become the standard for the majority of tournaments.

There are probably less than 12 people in the world whose sole income comes from disc golf tournament winnings with no other source of income.



Actually, there are none.

Not even Kenny. He makes outside income through Innova and the sale of KC discs.

But in that vein then there are also no ball golfers whose sole income comes from golf tournament winnings. I believe they make a lot of income from being sponsored by golf companies.

But in that vein then there are also no ball golfers whose sole income comes from golf tournament winnings. I believe they make a lot of income from being sponsored by golf companies.



It is true that most ball golfers are sponsored players who likely receive some income from ball golf companies. But they also could make their sole income from tournament winnings.

To my knowledge there are very few, if any, disc golfers who make their income solely from tournament winnings and sponsorship. I'm under the impression that even Kenny frames houses in the off-season. I bet that Schultz, Feldberg, Jenkins, etc. also work at other jobs too. You don't see many professional ball golfers doing that. Are "professional" standards for "professional" disc golfers really needed at this time?

Just because a candidate has a few ideas you don't agree with, he probably has a few you like. When he is on the BOD, nothing happens unless their is a majority vote. Vote for reason, a level head and the ability to get along with other BOD members. That should narrow it down to Pete and a few more.

to Chuck Kennedy, Terry Calhoun, drdsc and everyone:

The most frustrating aspect of this election is that I should be running against Chuck Kennedy. I am clearly running against Chuck's philosophies, but the man himself is not a candidate. Thus the election will not provide the sort of direct test of preference that we badly need.

Some have suggested that it's OK to vote for me even if you have some disagreements with my position. I want to qualify that very carefully. Look over the comments on this thread, especially the ones from Chuck and me. See whether you prefer the "Kennedy philosopy" or the "Shive philosophy".

So, for example, ask yourself the following questions:
1) Do you believe that our only real professionals are those who make their living in the game?
2) Do you believe that, throughout my playing career, I have been nothing more than an amateur playing for cash rather than merchandise?
3) Do you believe that ratings-based events should pay cash?

If you believe any such things, please DON'T vote for me. If you elect me I am going to pitch my tent on issues like those, because they will define the face of disc golf in the future. There is no point in my representing a membership that, while it might believe I am some sort of all-around good guy, doesn't support my core position. It would be a waste of my time and the Board's time, and would ultimately work to the detriment of the membership.

1) Do you believe that our only real professionals are those who make their living in the game?

Ideally, some day, yes. Pragmatically, given where we are, no. We define "Pro" as those who play for money and I accept that. I would personally only become a Pro (and play for money) when the time comes, if it ever does, that I can "practice" more than I "play." Meanwhile, if by some fluke I beat you this weekend, you're still getting the cash. I'm not.


2) Do you believe that, throughout my playing career, I have been nothing more than an amateur playing for cash rather than merchandise?

Nope.


3) Do you believe that ratings-based events should pay cash?

I don't really care. I don't play for cash in tournaments. (See above.)

With regard to ratings, I'm sorta coming around to seeing them as the "real" competition in disc golf. I play in various age-protected divisions, or not, but the ratings are a national competition for which one could see each individual tournament as equivalent to a single round in a larger competition.

A 20-year-old with a 956 rating is not the same player as one who is 60 and has a 956 rating. The 20-year-old has a significant advantage on courses like the ones we play this weekend due to the "on average" decline in driving distance with age.

Last winter I estimated that my son has a 9-11 stroke advantage over me on the Toboggan Course. We played it together two weeks ago and he beat me by 11 strokes. (BTW, that was the whole of my DGLO preparation. I haven't played the Monster Black for two years, even though I live here.)

The week before that, I beat him by 4 strokes on the Original Course Red (short tees).

Where that imbalance in the ratings comes into play is in large, significant tournaments. There is a strong tendency to play the longest possible courses in top disc golf competition. That creates an age discrimination against older players, especially in the most important events.

My prediction for this weekend at DGLO: My son, Ben, will beat me by a total of at least 30 strokes for the three rounds this weekend. (If we played three rounds on the Monster Yellow and Original Red, I would beat him.)

That's why it's important to have age-based divisions. Ratings-based divisions are really only fair across all ages on perfectly designed courses where the totality of the holes thrown in a tournament are not heavily in favor of those who drive longer. This weekend's National Tour event is about as prime an example as is possible of big tournament=long drives: long, long, long. (That's not a criticism of the DGLO!)

3) Do you believe that ratings-based events should pay cash?



Peter, please explain this position. Why should ratings based events not compete for cash? Or are you suggesting that what divisions had been formerly designated as merch divisions not be competing for cash in RB events?

Peter,

In this thread you have stated opposition against ratings-based events but in the course of discussion I'm getting a sense that you may not be all familiar with how they work and their effects on competition and the competitive structure. These events were only around for a few years so (and correct me if I'm wrong, none occurred in your area of the country) so that is understandable. Ratings-based events would not be anything that is out of line with many of your core philosophies which you have outlined.

1) Pros would still be the only ones that play for money.
2) The decision to turn pro would still be taken very seriously, for long-term career objectives rather than short-term gain.
3) Reclassification to amateur status would still be considered on a case-by-case basis, and would be unusual.
4) Professionals would not only be encouraged to follow and enforce the rules, they would be obligated to do so.

Additionally, I think you may paint yourself in a corner and possibly steer away votes by pitching your tent on this issue, when you could agree to re-examine and re-evaluate it. Personally, though I had previously stated that I would not vote for a candidate who would not support ratings-based play, I'm in agreement with drdisc aka Tom Monroe that just because a candidate has a few ideas I don't agree with is not a reason to vote against someone. I also agree with Tom that voting for reason, a level head and the ability to get along with other BOD members should be very important. While I sympathize with your frustration, the personalization of this issue ("that I should be running against Chuck Kennedy", "Kennedy philosopy" or the "Shive philosophy") is not a good example of this.

Jeff, Peter is driving from Minnesota to Michigan today, arriving at my home early tonight. (The entire Pro Senior Grand Master division is staying here, plus some others, for the DGLO this weekend.)

He may have time to respond tonight but probably not during the day while he is on the road.

Ratings based events as such other than Mid-Nats are not part of the current competition scheme although a TD can cobble together an event that's mostly ratings based by limiting the divisions to Open, Advanced, Int &amp; Rec plus Am women's divisions.



At one time, wasn't "ratings-based events" a tournament format available for X-tier sanctioning? It is not listed as an X-tier option under this year's PDGA Tour Standards (http://pdga.com/documents/td/07TourStandards.pdf), however, I recall ratings-based events as an "experimental" format that was once available for competition (with permission of the PDGA Tour Manager).

Yes. It's now being more integrated into the regular competition structure as more of a subset option rather than separate option.

Jeff, Peter is driving from Minnesota to Michigan today, arriving at my home early tonight. (The entire Pro Senior Grand Master division is staying here, plus some others, for the DGLO this weekend.)

He may have time to respond tonight but probably not during the day while he is on the road.



Thanks, Terry. :cool:

With regard to ratings, I'm sorta coming around to seeing them as the "real" competition in disc golf. I play in various age-protected divisions, or not, but the ratings are a national competition for which one could see each individual tournament as equivalent to a single round in a larger competition.


A 20-year-old with a 956 rating is not the same player as one who is 60 and has a 956 rating. The 20-year-old has a significant advantage on courses like the ones we play this weekend due to the "on average" decline in driving distance with age.




Terry,

The same can be said for some twenty year olds vs twenty year olds, some may have been playing longer or have genetic advantage for throwing long, but can't putt. As long as they can drive to within 15 feet that can usually make it. Not all youngins can throw far, some of them rely on other skills like pinpoint accuracy on up shots and extended putting range. How many times have you seen two people with similar player rating shoot the same round differently, one guy throws longer and scores 7 bogey 3 pars and 7 birdies, while another guy throws not as long and has 1 bogey 16 pars and 1 birdy, effectively the same score but completely different rounds, each relying on a different skill set.

True, but I think Terry's point is (correct me if I'm wrong) that age is a personal characteristic that the player cannot change, and one that has a generally consistent affect on the way one plays.

Older players generally don't throw as far as younger players, and distance is generally more important on the "championship-length" courses often used for NT/A-tier tournaments. The same could be said for male players vs. female. That doesn't mean that there aren't some exceptions, but here probably is a statistically significant correlation.

Yeah, that's sort of my point. Some statistics that Chuck gathered at Worlds' support a 50-foot decline in driving distance for Masters versus Advanced (group averages of course, the normal curve distribution surely has overlaps) players.

A 40-year-old player who finishes in the top third at Worlds (Masters) and has a rating of 940 is actually a much better player (likely, anyway, for all skills except driving distance) than a 20-year-old who finishes in the top third at Worlds (Advanced) and has a 940 rating.

The difference is a skill - driving distance - proven (insofar as anything in disc golf can be said to be proven) to be very specifically age related.

The 20-year-old will cream the 40-year-old on a course like the Toboggan and the 40-year-old will cream the 20-year-old on a short, technical course (on average).

I would not be surprised if distance were not the primary factor in men's versus women's scores as well. I know darned well that if my wife could drive 325' (my best; her best is a forehand roller that goes 200') she would beat me every time we're out on the course. That's why I don't think it is necessary for the women to always play the same length of tees as the men.

The dilemma for older players is that the general rule in disc golf is that the higher level the tournament, the longer the TDs like to make the holes. Which makes sense, of course, because most of the excitement is in Open Pro or Advanced, as well as most of the players and most of the energy. :cool:

If the Advanced were playing a mixed set of holes that didn't favor driving distance, I'd likely be beating a bunch of them this weekend. But on Toboggan-Monster-Toboggan, my playing Advanced would be a joke. (Yet I took 6th place in Advanced at DGLO just a couple of years ago when at least one of the rounds was from short tees.)

Scoring distributions on "long and open" versus "shorter and more technical" holes for elite (blue level) women match masters and grandmasters in their rating range more than the scoring patterns of young Advanced guys in that same rating range. At the Mid-Nats last year, I shot a 1021 round on the technical course to vault onto the lead card going into the last round on the Gold course the next day. Apparently there was wagering at the campground on what I would shoot the next day on the long course. I shot "only" my rating as they expected and got passed by a few young arms who could shoot low on that course where shooting my rating would be an above average score for me. I'm just one data point, but we have many datapoints to back up that expectation.

I agree 100% with Peter's guidelines for professionals. We simply differ in the timing.


1) Pros play for money. That is the big privilege.
2) The decision to turn pro should be taken very seriously, for long-term career objectives rather than short-term gain.
3) Reclassification should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and should be unusual.
4) Professionals should not only be encouraged to follow and enforce the rules, they should be obligated to do so.
5) Professionals should compete against amateurs only for exhibition. No professional should be able to win a title, trophy or prize that would otherwise have gone to an amateur.
6) Purses for Open pros, male and female, should be larger. In most other ways, all professional divisions should be treated the same.



These above guidelines are for a sport that's developed way beyond our current status. On the other hand, item 4 is a key aspect of professionalism and should be pursued as an organizational goal for all players, but especially those we call pros.

It's unfortunate that our sport has not yet gotten to the point where Peter's guidelines could be fully realized. Many great multi World Champions like Peter, Climo, Reading, Korver, King, Monroe, Voakes and Schultz may not be at the top of their game when our sport can truly achieve Peter's guidelines because the real money is there. That doesn't mean we can't aspire toward those goals, and the NT has been an effort in that direction.

But the reality is that making competition plans, formats and decisions in the PDGA as if most of our members are amateurs who play for prizes/cash will get us farther toward eventually making Peter's guidelines a reality. I'm all for continuing to call those who play for cash "pros" since they are the best in the world in their age and gender categories. I wouldn't be TD for Pro Worlds if I didn't believe that and will accord them all of the respect and hopefully payouts that they deserve for proving they are the best. However, providing the competitive opportunities for interplay between our ams and pros at the same or higher skill levels during regular weekend events and not getting too hung up on the purist am &amp; pro definitions will help retain and unify players to build for the long term.

The one elephant in the corner delaying our progress toward large purses is the fact that we haven't demonstrated the ability to draw paying spectators. We barely get any non-disc golf connected spectators watching free and some events "force" ams to stick around for a Final 9 before they can get their prizes, partly to boost spectating. We've made enough attempts in this area to indicate it's going to take growing our player base with more courses as part of the solution. I've been building courses since 1989 having recognized that fundamental issue early on. I think people who are interested in this sport would rather play than watch, given a choice. That's wonderful for the growth of the sport but not for purses since that's the fundamental thing that drives sponsorship and larger purses - spectators.

Until a successful model for drawing spectators is developed, this will be a great amateur participation sport with our best players mostly swapping each other's money. The sport can still be huge in that regard but those making the money in an amateur participation sport will be making gear, selling it and teaching players. And Climo plus a handful of others will still make some money with signature discs. Ratings were a little ahead of their time when they came out in 1999, but using them for competition is now becoming more mainstream. Peter's guidelines may be 10-20 years ahead of their time for disc golf but I will fully support them when that time comes.

Until a successful model for drawing spectators is developed, this will be a great amateur participation sport with our best players mostly swapping each other's money.


I agree 100%. A promising idea we've yet to successfully implement down here is to print tickets with a face value and then give an organization like the boy scouts all the tickets they want to sell as fundraisers.

to Chuck Kennedy, gang4010 and others:

I wouldn't mind waiting a while for the implementation of my six "professional guidelines", if in the meantime I could see some slight drift in that direction. Instead there has been, over the last three years, a steady erosion of professional standards, so much so that much of what now passes for "professional" in disc golf is a joke.

I have written at length about the problems with "amnesty" and "pros playing as amateurs". Now I will comment on "ratings-based pros".

Divisional competition is like capitalism. Anyone with desire and dedication can follow a dream as far as talent and hard work can take them. The sky is the limit. It is the best system in which to stimulate long-term development of personal excellence, and this is just what professionals should be doing.

Ratings-based competition is like communism. Any peaks of personal excellence are sought out and stamped down flat. Rather than encouraging the development of personal excellence, it is a system that invites sandbagging. This is no place to nurture professionals, and to pay cash is to invite players to become professional for the wrong reasons.

I am not worried about "painting myself into a corner" on the issue of professional standards. It is a central part of my platform, and it should be clear from several of my previous posts that I WANT to lose votes if the membership doesn't support me on this, because then there would be no point for me to be on the Board.

when it comes to getting spectators to real life events, I would say getting more TV time on bigger networks does more than anything...

look at poker for instance - there is no way it is more interesting to be a spectator there than it is to watch it on TV and see the commentary and the player's hands

the main spectators are a combination of players put out, relatives, passer-bys (people already in vegas on vacation)

the veteran poker pros are doing the same thing now that they have always done, yet now some of them are famous for it and signing auto graphs and doing commercials all the time... why? because of their air time on espn, which lead to other networks to show poker shows

pros become famous when regular people see them on TV and put them on a mental platform, which in turn, makes them want to get autographs, meet them in person, etc. which leads to real spectators

golf is another great example, why would a spectator want to go to a golf tournament and sit in the stands at one particular hole, to watch everybody play it? when they could just sit at home and watch on TV and see most all the top pros play most all of the holes... they do it for reasons such as 1) to meet the pros, get autographs, etc. 2) to say they've been there

its that recognition a pro gets just for being on TV that will take this sport mainstream (among other things of course, but this is a big deal)

Ratings-based competition is like communism. Any peaks of personal excellence are sought out and stamped down flat. Rather than encouraging the development of personal excellence, it is a system that invites sandbagging. This is no place to nurture professionals, and to pay cash is to invite players to become professional for the wrong reasons.

I am not worried about "painting myself into a corner" on the issue of professional standards. It is a central part of my platform, and it should be clear from several of my previous posts that I WANT to lose votes if the membership doesn't support me on this, because then there would be no point for me to be on the Board.



Peter, it's statments like the one above that again make me question the extent of your familiarity with ratings-based events and their effect on our divisional structure and tournament play. How do ratings-based events encourage sandbagging? As competitors inevitably develop and become better golfers they cross the ratings thresholds and move up into higher competitive brackets in ratings-based events. No longer do you have open-ended protected divisions like our current system where these competitors can hang out forever. No longer do you have 1015+ rated Pro Masters and 1000+ rated Pro Grandmasters who beat up on the rest of their division who are rated significantly lower - in ratings-based events, these competitors then play in the Gold division against other similarly rated golfers.

May I ask Peter if you ever played in a ratings-based event? When the bulk of these events were occurring in 2003 and 2004, did you read the threads on this discussion board about ratings-based events? Have you talked extensively with other tournament golfers about this format? Have you had a conversation with anyone on the PDGA Competition Committee, or the PDGA's ratings guru, Chuck Kennedy, about player ratings and ratings-based events and their effect on our divisional structure and tournament play?

Again, I wonder if having anything less than extensive knowledge about ratings-based events but basically making this the central part of one's platform for PDGA Board Candidate, is a preferred strategy. :confused:

I, too, fail to see how RBEs invite sandbagging. It's been proven that if you are constantly at the top of your division, you will eventually, sooner than later, get bumped up to the next division by your rating. It is not uncommon to see a top INT player play 930 golf for a tourney or two until the ratings are updated and move him to ADV.

RBEs to me are a better version of what we have now. It's another format that would work, but needs a complete MIB mindzap of the DG community to gain traction.

My opinion: ratings based divisions are great for all the "not the one best division" divisions. In disc golf that division would be Open Pro. (Men and women.) All other divisions that are not Open Pro should, IMHO, be ratings based.

In disc golf today, am merch pays the way of the tourney expenses. It makes total sense to only have 2 cash paying divisions, MPO and FPO, and have all other divisions play for merch and be segregated by ratings. If you got game, go play for the cash. If your game ain't so great, then play with similarly skilled players in ratings bounded divisions for the merch booty that funds the tournament machine.

That would put all the best players playing against each other, and it would also put all the not-so-best players playing against similarly skilled players in fair divisions that would also help fund the tournament via merch payouts.

Where's the downside?

BTW, I'm a 45 year old 942 rated am that can hold his own just fine, thank you, against a field of 16, 22, 27, 30, 35, etc. year old 940 rated players.

My opinion: ratings based divisions are great for all the "not the one best division" divisions. In disc golf that division would be Open Pro. (Men and women.) All other divisions that are not Open Pro should, IMHO, be ratings based.

In disc golf today, am merch pays the way of the tourney expenses. It makes total sense to only have 2 cash paying divisions, MPO and FPO, and have all other divisions play for merch and be segregated by ratings. If you got game, go play for the cash. If your game ain't so great, then play with similarly skilled players in ratings bounded divisions for the merch booty that funds the tournament machine.

That would put all the best players playing against each other, and it would also put all the not-so-best players playing against similarly skilled players in fair divisions that would also help fund the tournament via merch payouts.

Where's the downside?

BTW, I'm a 45 year old 942 rated am that can hold his own just fine, thank you, against a field of 16, 22, 27, 30, 35, etc. year old 940 rated players.


This needs to be repeated!

Where's the downside?



The fact that most Masters, GM's, etc, who would like to play for cash will get torn up by the top open guys.

Where's the downside?



The fact that most Masters, GM's, etc, who would like to play for cash will get torn up by the top open guys.


I don't quite know how to tell you this, but most of the under-40 players who would like to play for cash also get torn up by the top open guys. Not to mention the fact that a few of the top Open guys are Masters age, and could go tear those guys up now in MPM any time they choose.

{thread-jack on}

Rhett, when you post are you proving or disproving the sentiment expressed in your tagline? :)

[thread-jack off}

Where's the downside?



The fact that most Masters, GM's, etc, who would like to play for cash will get torn up by the top open guys.


I don't quite know how to tell you this, but most of the under-40 players who would like to play for cash also get torn up by the top open guys. Not to mention the fact that a few of the top Open guys are Masters age, and could go tear those guys up now in MPM any time they choose.



Still seems like you are telling the age-protected divisions to either donate to the top guys, play for merch, or don't play at all. We could lose a lot of the top guys in those divisions based on your proposal, which IMO, would not be a step forward for our sport.

Not if the division below Open allows pros to win cash and Ams to win merch. AND, the TDs allow women and older players to remain in their gender and age groups throughout the event if they wish.

Isn't this the "Ask Peter Shive" thread?

Still seems like you are telling the age-protected divisions to either donate to the top guys, play for merch, or don't play at all. We could lose a lot of the top guys in those divisions based on your proposal, which IMO, would not be a step forward for our sport.



Brad, perhaps you were not aware that in the past, ratings-based events typically paid cash to the top two divisions, Gold and Silver, with the cutoff between the two usually at a rating of about 950-960. Additionally, it was customary that all the sponsorship money and added cash went to the Gold division (and perhaps the top Ladies division as well) and the silver division played for their entry fees only. By having a Silver division that pays cash you are giving most of those in age-protected divisions an opportunity to compete like they've never had before because all the elite guys that own their age-protected divisions in standard tournament format must now play in Gold. A perception that ratings-based events tells those in age-protected divisions "to either donate to the top guys, play for merch, or don't play at all" is not accurate at all.

Isn't this the "Ask Peter Shive" thread?



Sounds like this is a fundamental issue and Peter has already said he's learned things from this discussion.

are you guys planning on continuing both age-based and skill-based choices?

i still fail to see why age/ratings/traditional-based divisions cannot peacefully co-exist within our single Association. age and skill/ratings divisions all work for (and appeal to) the vast majority of our Members and are appropriate for the majority of events. at the other end of the spectrum, pure "open" (or FPO) events are necessary for true championship events.

it is increasingly clear to me that the root cause of the tension between the two camps (or three if you see distinctions between ratings and age divisions) is that the Association attempts to use a single set of divisions for all circumstances.

at some point we need to say "look, here is how a Championship event is structured and here is how the others can work." to me, championship events should be MPO and/or FPO only. other events can structure things however they wish... use age divisions if you want a fun, social gathering or for groups that want to play with their age-peers... use ratings ro Am/Adv divisions for skill-oriented events... it is all good.

Peter: is it possible for the Association to be an effective force for both Ams and Pros? if so, what conflicts do you see that could arise from serving both ends of the spectrum and how might they be solved? if not, would you rather see the Association focus oin Ams or Pros?

A perception that ratings-based events tells those in age-protected divisions "to either donate to the top guys, play for merch, or don't play at all" is not accurate at all.



I was referring to Rhett's proposal, which only had MPO and FPO playing for cash. I know about ratings based events and think they are a fun format to play in once in awhile. I definitely would not want to see them become the only format available to TD's though.

I agree that the PDGA should continue to provide a wide array of competition options with TDs and clubs choosing the combination they prefer, and that's pretty much what we've got now. However, at this point, the ratings based options can't be fully realized without the am &amp; pro interplay elements that have been discussed. Once that happens, then you'll have appropriate choices where both ratings events and conventional events can work better together, especially in an event series.

I was referring to Rhett's proposal, which only had MPO and FPO playing for cash.



Oh, I understand now. Sorry for the confusion.

Come on Pat, don't these guys also get the friendly warning to let Peter answer first? After all, it IS the ask Peter thread. :confused:

yeah, i know :( after it continued i guess i just figured it was gonna play out that way and that i would be a nuisance if i kept suggesting we let the candidate speak first. i apologize for what turned out to be singling you out. :(

No sweat, Pat. I'm just wasting time hoping this crazy wind today will blow itself out before dark so I can get in a few holes either at the course or in the "Rock Yard".

A perception that ratings-based events tells those in age-protected divisions "to either donate to the top guys, play for merch, or don't play at all" is not accurate at all.



I was referring to Rhett's proposal, which only had MPO and FPO playing for cash.


I personally don't think disc golf and the PDGA are anywhere near big enough to have multiple overlapping "pro" divisions all playing for cash. I've run some tournaments, and every merch player is a positive to the bottom line and every cash player is a negative to the bottom line. To have multiple overlapping skill divisions all playing for cash drains the potential of the Open division.

We will just continue to play for our own entry fees if we don't do something to change things. I don't mind playing for entry fees, but with all the talk about how disc golf should have better pay-days around here, you'd think people would be willing to look at trying something new. If you do think that way, however, you'd be wrong.

Rhett, you're a leader. You run tournaments that fill. Just quit offering pro masters if you feel that way. Tell the master men to play open if they are good or advanced if they are under 955. Tell the master women to any of perhaps five other appropriate divisions, Open Women, advanced women, intermediate or rec men, whereever they want. There is no rule that you have to offer master divisions.

You, of all people, can implement your idea because you don't have to worry about losing a few huffy cash-sucking masters. With any luck, you'll replace them with cash donating ams.

This is what I've figured out: if I want the tournament format to be this way or that way, all I have to do is convince my partners that we ought to try it out and see how it works for us. I'm not waiting on the PDGA to create a division for players who aren't good enough for Rec. I'm doing it and getting a dozen players signing up for it. You can do the same with your idea.

Thank you Mark Ellis for giving me this pep talk once upon a time.

I will follow the standard PDGA divisional guidelines for the one tournament a year I run. "Going Rogue" and eliminating age protected divisions from one tournament will accomplish about as much as validly calling a foot fault in a PDGA tournament.

Everyone has to do it for it to work.

thats not going rogue. you can already offer whatever divisions you want, and do not need to offer those you dont. as long as you state what you are doing, its no problem to simply offer Open and Pro Women.

all we need now is to allow players to accept Stuff instead of Cash if they want to stay am. this would create a lot of new players for Open-only events and be a real boost to this format. if players embrace it, it would mean immediately larger pro purses and fields - something that cannot possibly hurt our efforts to attract more serious attention.

btw, anyone who uses the point system as a reason to not take this approach has it backwards. points are defined by competition, not the other way around. (imho.)

Everyone has to do it for it to work.

Someone has to lead to get others to follow. But it works for you regardless of whether anyone follows. Eight divisions are always going to be easier to run than twelve.

Come on Pat, don't these guys also get the friendly warning to let Peter answer first? After all, it IS the ask Peter thread. :confused:



Hey, guys, Peter's gone to bed after some pretty nice discussions. (He's my puppet slave now :D not!)

The guy doesn't travel with a laptop, he goes to public libraries when he can and replies when he can. He's focused on whipping my butt this weekend at the DGLO. I don't know when he will post again.

Waiting for his replies could mean long waits and, so far, this has been a pretty civil thread, thus useful.

Can we really vote in Board members who go to bed so early ...uh, uh ...sorry Terry. :o:D

to everybody:

I'm going to make this my last post, because voting is in progress and interest in this thread is way down. I want to comment on one last PDGA problem even though nobody asked.

The Board election format needs fixing. The PDGA changed from having candidaters run for specific positions, to having the top votegetters win the spots. There are two big problems with this. First, candidates can't run against each other, and the membership loses the definitive choice it would have when two candidates have a very different position on important issues. Secondly (and most serious), a critical skill position on the Board could go unfilled, as might happen this year if Bob Decker (Treasurer) does not win reelection.

I would try to get the Board to return to the old election format.

all we need now is to allow players to accept Stuff instead of Cash if they want to stay am. this would create a lot of new players for Open-only events and be a real boost to this format.

Peter,

incoming BoD members need to get up to speed on a wide variety of issues, activities and expectations.

what kinds of information and materials would you like to see as part of a "BoD Intro Kit"?

thanks,

pat

OK, I can't resist this one. There are still some important issues out there, and pressing ones at that.

I saw a disc at DGLO that bothers me. It is designed for turbo putters. It is shaped like a gear wheel in cross-section. The fingers fit into the recesses between the gear "teeth", and there is a raised spiral groove on the bottom for the thumb.

I was told that this disc has been approved by the PDGA.

This disc should be decertified. It would spawn a whole spectrum of discs that should not be in the game. There are two problems. The first is safety. Because of spin, the rim speed of a disc can be far higher than its forward speed. Any projections on the rim can cause serious cuts and gashes, especially because the major cutting forces will have a shearing component in addition to simple compression.

The second is that it is not, strictly speaking, a disc. At issue here is the interpretation of the term "disclike" in the specification protocol, which obviously needs to be sharpened. I would like this to mean, at the very least, round in horizontal cross-section. A simple, unambiguous, term is "radially symmetric".

I'm a traditionalist on this one. The present disc technology allows adequate creativity. It has already advanced to the point that older courses are being made obsolete. If we don't outlaw radical shape innovation, we will end up with a bizarre assortment of things that don't look much like discs and which could (like the aerobie if we allowed it) make all previous discs and throwing skills obsolete, as well as courses.

to sandalman:

I feel that it would be mainly my responsibility to get "up to speed", because the PDGA can't anticipate what I may or may not already know.

I've been thinking about how best to fill in the gaps. Much of what I need to know (organizational documents, minutes of Board meetings, financial statements, etc) is already available on the PDGA site. If elected, I know that I would request (if available) "amplified" minutes for, say, the last year or two. The problem with the posted minutes is that you can read what action the Board took, but you may have no idea why that action was taken.

Another way of learning is to talk with people, especially those who have Board experience, either as Board members, as staff members, or as people who have interacted with the Board (like TD's, for example). Because I tour a lot, I have already had many such interactions. I'm not the best at this because I'm not particularly gregarious, but I'm not exactly a hermit either.

A simple, unambiguous, term is "radially symmetric".



So would you decertify the Aerobie Epic too? It is not radially symmetric and has been an approved disc for the last 4 years.

OK, I can't resist this one. There are still some important issues out there, and pressing ones at that.

I saw a disc at DGLO that bothers me. It is designed for turbo putters. It is shaped like a gear wheel in cross-section. The fingers fit into the recesses between the gear "teeth", and there is a raised spiral groove on the bottom for the thumb.

I was told that this disc has been approved by the PDGA.

This disc should be decertified. It would spawn a whole spectrum of discs that should not be in the game. There are two problems. The first is safety. Because of spin, the rim speed of a disc can be far higher than its forward speed. Any projections on the rim can cause serious cuts and gashes, especially because the major cutting forces will have a shearing component in addition to simple compression.

The second is that it is not, strictly speaking, a disc. At issue here is the interpretation of the term "disclike" in the specification protocol, which obviously needs to be sharpened. I would like this to mean, at the very least, round in horizontal cross-section. A simple, unambiguous, term is "radially symmetric".

I'm a traditionalist on this one. The present disc technology allows adequate creativity. It has already advanced to the point that older courses are being made obsolete. If we don't outlaw radical shape innovation, we will end up with a bizarre assortment of things that don't look much like discs and which could (like the aerobie if we allowed it) make all previous discs and throwing skills obsolete, as well as courses.

I agree for technical reasons. The tech standards require a disc to have a radius and a diameter. This disc, and I've seen it, is shaped like a geared wheel with rounded edges, or a flower with petals. It does not have a radius, which is a distance from which all the points on the circumference are equidistant. Since a diameter is equal to twice the radius, and it does not have a radius, it does not have a diameter either.

If the Turbo meets tech standards, then a square putter would too, and that would be nice for sidehill baskets. :cool:

It does not have a radius, which is a distance from which all the points on the circumference are equidistant. Since a diameter is equal to twice the radius, and it does not have a radius, it does not have a diameter either.



It does have an average diameter though. From the TS document:

(1) Outside Disc Diameter - This attribute is recorded using a pair of calipers with a 40-cm
measuring capacity. Measurements are taken from two transects at right angles to one another
across the long axis of the disc, and then averaged. The outside disc diameter is used in
calculating the maximum weight permitted in PDGA competition. The maximum weight may
not exceed 8.3 g per cm of outside disc diameter.

to krupicka:

I'd like to, but I don't believe I'd get enough support. A more practical option would be to grandfather it.

From mathwords.com:

Disk: The union of a circle and its interior.




While the currently pdga-approved object in question <u>does </u> have a radius (it's radius just isn't constant) and <u>is</u> radially symetric (at least on top), it isn't a disk.

No matter how you dice it up semantically, however, it was a mistake to make this legal. This needs to be nipped in the bud before "discs" start growing sticky tentacles that radiate off the rim and grab chains or any other number of goofy mutations that those guys up in Chicago come up with.

mathwords.com doesnt even spell it right. sheesh! :cool:

The following is a question from Mikey Kernan:

"David Gentry is the PDGA Tour Manager. In 2006 the PDGA paid for him to fly all the way to Japan to learn first-hand about International PDGA competition. Yet recently he claimed in an e-mail to candidate Mike Kernan #14304 that he is "not up to the specifics on International events".

This was in response to a question Mike asked in regard to the PDGA charging different fees for events overseas versus events in the USA, such as $0 per player for non-members in Europe versus $5 per player for non-members in the USA. (I'm not sure if that is a fact, but could be true)

So, Board of Directors Candidate, do you feel that David Gentry is properly doing his job as PDGA Tour Manager? Don't you agree that the PDGA Tour Manager should know what the PDGA charges for overseas sanctioning? Finally, does this indicate that all the PDGA's finances are improperly centered in one person, the PDGA Executive Director?

Thank you for tackling this thorny issue."

Mike

PDGA tour manager, Dave Gentry followed proper office protocol in politely advising Mr. Kernan to contact the International Committee chairman, as that committee has been charged with the management of the International program. It should be noted that Mr. Kernan's reply to Dave contained profanity, false accusations, an insult and a threat. Dave used his better judgement and showed great restraint in not responding to this unwarranted attack and he has my full support in this regard.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

It should be noted that Mr. Kernan's reply to Dave contained profanity, false accusations, an insult and a threat.




How so out of character! :p

I guess its time for another one of those "look at the message, not how it is said" defense type posts again?

I guess its time for another one of those "look at the message, not how it is said" defense type posts again?



I'll bite. A fairly well educated, mature in years person, who cares about others hearing and understanding their message, especially one who hopes to be persuasive, does not use "profanity, false accusations, an insult and a threat" to accomplish his communications goal.

Self entertainment, on the other hand, maybe so.

And/or a mature person realizes that you may be saying a bit more than you realize by such an approach. Your unintended message may be, "I don't know how to get along with other people and thus will never succeed in a constructive manner if put into a group or management situation."

peter, in the dgw issue you wrote an article asking "someday you will be old too and then what?"
in answer to your question i would say that you would play in the ratings based division in which you qualify to play in. that way you can still compete, likely with the other guys in your age group as well as younger players on the rise who could learn game skills and ettiquete from someone with your experience.

my question to you would be how do you think the creation of increasingly more divisions is affecting the growth of the sport, and why do you think that 2 players with the exact same rating( and thus the same scoring average) should be in different divisions based on age? my thought is that it is a lack of competitive spirit and a desire by each player to play in the division which gives them the greatest chance of winning. I have heard the (i want to play with the other guys my age argument, but i don't buy it. likely those players are of like skill and would be in the same division anyway.

to Dr_Evil:
I have already commented on ratings-based play (post #700743). Ratings-based play is a great option for amateurs to consider, but not for professionals.

to Mikey Kernan:
In my view, the question seems inappropriate. David Gentry works for Brian Graham, Brian Graham works for the Board, and the Board works for the membership. If I (as a member or as a Board member) had a problem with David's work, I would first raise the question privately with Brian Graham (privately because staff personnel are sitting ducks and cannot be expected to defend themselves effectively from public attack). If BG could not satisfy me, I would then take the matter to the Board, again privately, and my main complaint would be against BG. Finally, if the Board seemed incompetent, I would take the case, publically, to the membership, and this time my main case would be against the Board, not against David or BG.

so you believe there are times when a single BoD member can/should go around the rest of the BoD and take an issue to the streets?

how do you think that would affect your relationship with the rest of the BoD?

to Dr_Evil:
I have already commented on ratings-based play (post #700743). Ratings-based play is a great option for amateurs to consider, but not for professionals.

to Mikey Kernan:
In my view, the question seems inappropriate. David Gentry works for Brian Graham, Brian Graham works for the Board, and the Board works for the membership. If I (as a member or as a Board member) had a problem with David's work, I would first raise the question privately with Brian Graham (privately because staff personnel are sitting ducks and cannot be expected to defend themselves effectively from public attack). If BG could not satisfy me, I would then take the matter to the Board, again privately, and my main complaint would be against BG. Finally, if the Board seemed incompetent, I would take the case, publically, to the membership, and this time my main case would be against the Board, not against David or BG.



As long as were on this topic, how would you do this and in what style? What if you thought it was an issue but had no evidence that it really was, would you still go public? Would you ask for a second opinion somewhere else or try and find real evidence that it was an issue? Also, what if the issue wasn't really an issue for the membership, but only for you or a small subset of... oh I don't know, posters on this site, would you still go public?

Given these questions please reply to Pat's question, how would you expect your going public to affect your relationship with the Board?

Not sure why his relationship with the Board at that point would be relevant? If they were perceived to be incompetent in the private meeting before going public, they are no more competent when he would go public and would already know he was going to go public.

to Chuck Kennedy, gang4010 and others:

I
Divisional competition is like capitalism. Anyone with desire and dedication can follow a dream as far as talent and hard work can take them. The sky is the limit. It is the best system in which to stimulate long-term development of personal excellence, and this is just what professionals should be doing.

Ratings-based competition is like communism. Any peaks of personal excellence are sought out and stamped down flat. Rather than encouraging the development of personal excellence, it is a system that invites sandbagging. This is no place to nurture professionals, and to pay cash is to invite players to become professional for the wrong reasons.





Peter - how is it then, that paying MPM players more for the same score as someone in another division does not invite or qualify as sandbagging?

Your comparison to communism is misplaced and inappropriate. If it's not - and what you say about divisions/capitalism vs ratings/communism is true - then how does fair competition, and equitable rewards, fit properly into a capitalist (make the most I can for me and me alone) model for organized DG? I don't think you can reconcile the two - or if you can - I have yet to see it either in words or in practice.

Not sure why his relationship with the Board at that point would be relevant? If they were perceived to be incompetent in the private meeting before going public, they are no more competent when he would go public and would already know he was going to go public.



Good question. Of course I didn't pose it. On the other hand IMO, thinking about that question is pertinent. I wonder how much of the notion that someone is competent, or incompetent is based on our own perceptions. Actually, I don't wonder, but I think you get my point. It is my belief that if you think the Board is incompetent, most likely it's you who are incompetent, or at least unsophisticated in how Boards conduct their business. Which is more likely, a group of several other individuals who are all incompetent or you? Odds are...

Do not get me wrong, I have no doubt that there are incompetent Boards with one intelligent person. But I also suspect there are competent Boards with one ignoramus, or more likely, one person with a view of how a Board should operate that is inconsistent with the view of the rest of the Board, who thinks the rest of those guys are nuts.

Going public is a tough thing to do and it basically destroys the trust and working relationship within the Board. If you're going to do it, you darn well should do it for a good reason. A disagreement in philosophy or even in some very fundamental beliefs on how the organization should be run is not reason to betray the Board Room trust. The philosophy of the Board, good or bad, will out with time and then the real owners of the organization, the stake-holders can act. If they choose not to, that should tell you something.

The only time when the Board should be outed, IMO, is when they are conducting illegal activities. The argument that they are conducting the business of the organization in a fashion that isn't open isn't sufficient, especially when they can prove that the information is fully available in a public venue, even if you don't like that venue. Keep in mind, it is not my feeling that the published information should include a detailed breakdown of how every dollar is spent, rather that an accounting should be presented that is reasonable and acceptable to any credible accountant.

When you vote for the Board, you are empowering them to act on your behalf, not tell you how every dime is spent. Your recourse, if you don't like what they are doing, is to vote them out of office... IMO.

BTW Peter, if elected, are you going to submit a questionnaire to the membership asking if they want a dime for dime accounting of the PDGA's financial activities?

To Peter or any active BOD members:

Do you think something should be done to increase the recruitment and retention of Women, families and juniors in the PDGA? It has been said that they are they future of disc golf. Do you believe that has any truth? Also there has been discussions on the topic of subsidising entry fees for open women to offset the cost of touring expenses and give them more incentive to play more events.
1) How can a subsidy program be done?
2) Is a subsidy program worth doing?

mark, sure, increasing the membership ranks for women, juniors and families is a good idea. providing a competitive program and making our events more attractive to these segments is one of the drivers behind the new lower rated division. we need more of an entry level, and the new green division provides it. there's even been talk of another division below green at some point in the future, depending on how things pan out.

it is true they are part of the future. their influx will be a big part of getting more courses in public parks and education programs.

i have not heard anything about subsidizing women's entry fees. there's a lot of questions that could come up in that discussion. i'd like to hear some of the details of the proposal before going further. i think i could make decent arguments foreither side.

to sandalman:

I see the Board as like a Congress (with a bit of the Judicial Branch mixed in), and the Executive Director as like a President. I wish that Board members felt as comfortable as congressmen and women about expressing opinions freely (except in certain personally sensitive areas), but in recent years they have not, so much so that the membership often doesn't know what's going on, and doesn't know why certain actions were taken after the fact.

I would be different. I want to communicate quite openly with the membership, both ways. I don't see this as going behind the Board's back, or as any sort of betrayal. Nobody expects all Board members to be in agreement, and opening up the process seems healthy to me, and should improve the sense of trust between the Board and the membership.

Other Board members might object. I haven't talked with any current members about this, but I know one former member who would certainly object. If enough Board members were sufficiently upset they could vote me off the Board. If that happened, so be it. I am what I am, and an important part of my platform involves communication.

to several:

I am leaving for Worlds this morning, and will probably be without a computer til I get back in August. By that time the election will be over. Hopefully I'll see some of you who have asked recent question (Craig?) at Highbridge, and we can chat there.

I will try to get to a computer to handle some of these, but I can't be sure. I hope so, because they are good ones. I particularly would like to address the ones about "Boardroom trust", ratings-based events for pros, and subsidies.

to sandalman:

I see the Board as like a Congress (with a bit of the Judicial Branch mixed in), and the Executive Director as like a President. I wish that Board members felt as comfortable as congressmen and women about expressing opinions freely (except in certain personally sensitive areas), but in recent years they have not, so much so that the membership often doesn't know what's going on, and doesn't know why certain actions were taken after the fact.

<font color="red">I think this is incorrect and we should be careful in the comparisons we make. If there is anyone that really thinks Congress is open about why they act and in what fashion, stand up now. Congress tells us what they think we want to hear. I think we rarely get the "real" story. Obviously that is a huge generalization, but one with more than a smattering of truth. On the other hand, we have seen the Board roasted on this site, if in no other venue, and in a way that has directly contributed to a more closed mouth approach in relation to this site. Can we really say that the Board is less communicative than past Boards or are we judging them by this site?

Also, remember that unlike Congress, the Board is much more closely integrated into our community. Expecting them to communicate freely when attacked in this medium is silly. And if you think communication isn't inhibited under those conditions PM me and I'll outline my own experiences here that show clearly how even the most zealous open communicator can be inhibited in their interactions if harassed sufficiently.</font>



I would be different. I want to communicate quite openly with the membership, both ways. I don't see this as going behind the Board's back, or as any sort of betrayal. Nobody expects all Board members to be in agreement, and opening up the process seems healthy to me, and should improve the sense of trust between the Board and the membership.

<font color="red">I'm curious to see how this will be when the rubber hits the road. On the other hand, do you really think there is a trust issue between the membership and the Board, or do you think there is a trust issue between some individuals and the Board? Again, I caution about making generalizations about the organization based on what happens here at this site.</font>



Other Board members might object. I haven't talked with any current members about this, but I know one former member who would certainly object. If enough Board members were sufficiently upset they could vote me off the Board. If that happened, so be it. I am what I am, and an important part of my platform involves communication.

to Lyle_Ross:

The Board loses credibility when it makes a decision that is not explained, or where the explanation doesn't make sense. For example, consider the recent "extra world titles for older divisions". There were two explanations, given after the vote:
1) Players in the upper half of the divisions couldn't be competitive. This is silly. Last year, players in the upper half of MPS finished first and second at Worlds. Certainly I am competitive in MPS this year. Pete May's rating is currently seven points higher than mine, and he is competing for the Amateur Senior title with no players within 20 points of him. How can the Board possibly argue that he is not competitive?
2) We need to encourage more older players to compete at Worlds. Also silly. The percentage of older players competing at Worlds has been the highest of any division.

So I would prefer that important issues be aired before the vote, and sensible explanation for action be given after the fact. I don't see why the Board would object. Sure, some members would flame DISCussion, but that's part of being a Board member. Besides, it wouldn't be as bad as it is now.

So if elected, I would continue to maintain a thread like this one, on which I would answer questions from the membership about my stand on important issues. I'd figure that the membership had elected me on a platform of openness, and I would owe it to them. An additional benefit is that I'd learn from them in the process.

If that is considered a betrayal of "Boardroom trust" or "outing the Board", then I am certainly sad for those who consider it so. But I could not imagine, after having been so open about my attitudes during the campaign, disappearing behind a veil of secrecy after being elected. That would be a larger betrayal, perhaps not of the Board, but of the membership.

Putting it another way, I would feel two loyalties, to the Board and to the Membership. But my higher loyalty would be to the membership, because they would have elected me and because I have made promises to them.

to Lyle_Ross:

The Board loses credibility when it makes a decision that is not explained, or where the explanation doesn't make sense. For example, consider the recent "extra world titles for older divisions". There were two explanations, given after the vote:
1) Players in the upper half of the divisions couldn't be competitive. This is silly. Last year, players in the upper half of MPS finished first and second at Worlds. Certainly I am competitive in MPS this year. Pete May's rating is currently seven points higher than mine, and he is competing for the Amateur Senior title with no players within 20 points of him. How can the Board possibly argue that he is not competitive?
2) We need to encourage more older players to compete at Worlds. Also silly. The percentage of older players competing at Worlds has been the highest of any division.

So I would prefer that important issues be aired before the vote, and sensible explanation for action be given after the fact. I don't see why the Board would object. Sure, some members would flame DISCussion, but that's part of being a Board member. Besides, it wouldn't be as bad as it is now.

So if elected, I would continue to maintain a thread like this one, on which I would answer questions from the membership about my stand on important issues. I'd figure that the membership had elected me on a platform of openness, and I would owe it to them. An additional benefit is that I'd learn from them in the process.

If that is considered a betrayal of "Boardroom trust" or "outing the Board", then I am certainly sad for those who consider it so. But I could not imagine, after having been so open about my attitudes during the campaign, disappearing behind a veil of secrecy after being elected. That would be a larger betrayal, perhaps not of the Board, but of the membership.

Putting it another way, I would feel two loyalties, to the Board and to the Membership. But my higher loyalty would be to the membership, because they would have elected me and because I have made promises to them.



Excellent point and one that I concede. In part I agree with your position. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of outing that was unnecessary, or inappropriate. I think sometimes we lose our perspective on what needs to be discussed and how. If you don't mind I'd like to PM you on this topic.