Well well, seems that old Pete May's legacy will be one of complete lunacy. Apparently not able to compete with Peter Shive, Pete May convinced the majority of [censored] on the PDGA BoD to award him a World Title.

I'm sure 99% of the membership isn't aware of this since they don't read the minutes of PDGA meetings.

here's the latest PDGA BoD's joke on its membership:

"Age Change in Senior Divisions at PDGA Championships-Pete May suggested that after the age of 60 years of age it becomes increasingly challenging for players to be competetive within the traditional separation of age based divisions e.g. a 69 year old can not compete with a 60 year old, a 79 year old can not compete with a 70 year old.

In the spirit of fairness and in an effort to present increased opportunities for senior players to compete, Pete proposed that at PDGA Pro and Am World Championships starting at age 60, World Championship Titles (with no prize money) be awarded in 5 year increments. There must be a minimum of 2 players in each division."

It should be noted that Steve Dodge and Pat Brenner rightfully stood up and voted against this outrage. The other 5 BoD [censored] voted for this complete [censored].

Please notice that Bob Decker, current candidate for re-election to the BoD, was one of the [censored] who voted for this [censored]. I don't care how good a CPA he is, he's got to go...maybe he can hold Pete May's hand as they walk through the door...

Once again, the PDGA takes a step away from being taken seriously as a legitimate sport.

The Association would do well to learn from the past (instead of clinging to it) and embrace its future.

That's ghay.

What an intelligent response!

sounds like a great opportunity to ask the current candidates a good question

I don't know. I kind of think that if a division is big enough to attract four players, maybe we need to find some way to split that division in half. :D

The Association would do well to learn from the past (instead of clinging to it) and embrace its future.




Such as becoming more like other successful individual sports like tennis that also have championships at 5 yr age breaks in even younger decades than Pete proposed? At the meeting, Pete provided background on other sports where 5 yr breaks are used. Some actually competed in 5 yr age groups. Others just break out the champion in the older 5 yr group in the 10 yr group that competes together, similar to what Pete poroposed, and award them the title and small memento but no cash.

It's still ghay.

chuck, i'm no english major, but i believe it's "champion." with quotes.

So now we can dub a "world champion" in a field of two players?

The Association would do well to learn from the past (instead of clinging to it) and embrace its future.




Such as becoming more like other successful individual sports like tennis that also have championships at 5 yr age breaks in even younger decades than Pete proposed? At the meeting, Pete provided background on other sports where 5 yr breaks are used. Some actually competed in 5 yr age groups. Others just break out the champion in the older 5 yr group in the 10 yr group that competes together, similar to what Pete poroposed, and award them the title and small memento but no cash.


1. Can you show me a source? I thought tennis didn't have a Professional world champ, but I may be wrong.
2. The USTA has over 700,000 current members, we have 10,000. They may have a need for 5-year breaks, we don't.

So now we can dub a "world champion" in a field of two players?




We've been awarding Hall of Famer Sylvia Voakes World titles in her division of one several times. Is the division size relevant if she or he happens to be the only one who enters their 10 yr or 5 yr bracket?

yes, because a division of one is just plain silly.

no offense to any player involved, but come on...

Player: "I am World Champ"
Friend: "wow, cool, that rocks! was it a tough battle?"
Player: "yes, one full week of disc golf is quite demanding"
Friend: "yeah i bet! that is amazing you won the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP! Awesome!"
Player: "thank you so very much"
Friend: "so how was the competition? how many people did you whip? was it close at the end?"

... and you can guess the rest.

i beat everyone i played against

Geez, get a grip people. Its only for the Worlds, it only affects old guys, its done in other sports (no, I won't do the research for you so do it yourself if you are curious) and the world isn't going to crumble because of it. Local TDs won't have to make extra tropies or offer extra divisions, and some 68 year old isn't going to bag in Pro Worlds and further dilute the Open division.

This will have no negative effect on how seriously outsiders take the sport as the 'over 60' divisions are not in the viewing screen of those who would be evaluating the PDGA as a professional endevour. Get real with it. If anything, perhaps increased participation among the older players will attract a sponsor who wishes to reach a certain demographic.

chuck, i'm no english major, but i believe it's "champion." with quotes.



nice

and some members wonder why anybody would want to vote for Mikey when some of (not all) the current BoD members can make dumb decisions over and over... u may not like him, but at least he isn't an idiot

the PDGA is growing, but were not that big yet, no reason for 500 divisions, just to make somebody feel better - sounds more like a joke than a "professional" association

If the philosophy is that competition of less than X number of competitors is no competition at all, then those on the Board should move to require, not just suggest, a minimum of X players to hold a division at all tier levels, not just Worlds. If providing fair divisions for players of all skills, ages and gender to participate is also what we stand for, then providing opportunities to encourage even a few more people to participate should be considered. The current Board considered Pete's proposal and agreed.

Oh, and the original title of this thread is disrespectful and a disgrace. Telling a PDGA member in good standing to basically go screw himself and leave the organization due to a disagreement over a simple policy is in very poor form. But unfortunately it is not only very common on this resource, but also seems to be encouraged and applauded.

How can the PDGA move forward if its members can't even have a civil discussion that respects each other and their viewpoints?

more divisions equals more jokes about our sport....How about the 29 1/2 yr old, with blond hair and 4 brothers division...I think i got it locked up.

...then those on the Board should move to require, not just suggest, a minimum of X players to hold a division at all tier levels, not just Worlds.


Excellent idea. Pat, will you suggest this to the Board?

tim, i agree with your overall sentiment about the language of the initial post. however, remember the Pete is leaving the BoD, so that is the "exit" he is referring to. i did not take the post as wishing anyone would leave... just recognizing that someone already made the decision to leave (the BoD).

more divisions equals more jokes about our sport....How about the 29 1/2 yr old, with blond hair and 4 brothers division...I think i got it locked up.



Its only 'over 60' divisions, and only twice per year. Exaggeration of the situation may seem to show cleverness, but it really isn't necessary.

I don't think most of the jokes concerning DG involve the Senior Grands and Legends players.

So what is to stop this from trickling all the way down to masters? The precedent is set.

Perhaps, I took it a bit stronger than that. One of the drawbacks of the on-line media is tone and intent are often left for the reader to infer.

So what is to stop this from trickling all the way to masters? The precedent is set.



Oh no, what's to stop the senior discout at the movies from trickling down to the teenagers? Wait, the food service industry is also in great jeopardy as they have a seniors menu! There goes the economy!!!!

Has anyone notified the Congress?

If anything, perhaps increased participation among the older players will attract a sponsor who wishes to reach a certain demographic.



Fixodent? Bengay?

Depends.

While, as usual, Mike blows his message by making it ugly, at some level I agree with him. I see no reason for this change. Yes I know, tennis, with how many millions of players does this. Are we really planning for the future or responding to Pete May? Are we now going to have an influx of 60 to 80 year olds who have been waiting for this opportunity?

On the other hand, I suspect that the Board Members who voted for this didn't think it was the greatest idea since swiss cheese, but realized it's impact was minimal at best. If it cost and really dilluted things then I'd have an issue.

That said, it does look partisan and it does look like a waste of Board time. Given some of the real issues that exist, I'd think there might be more... interesting things to discuss.

So what is to stop this from trickling all the way to masters? The precedent is set.



Oh no, what's to stop the senior discout at the movies from trickling down to the teenagers? Wait, the food service industry is also in great jeopardy as they have a seniors menu! There goes the economy!!!!

Has anyone notified the Congress?




How can the PDGA move forward if its members can't even have a civil discussion that respects each other and their viewpoints?




Talk about the pot and the kettle.

So what is to stop this from trickling all the way to masters? The precedent is set.



Oh no, what's to stop the senior discout at the movies from trickling down to the teenagers? Wait, the food service industry is also in great jeopardy as they have a seniors menu! There goes the economy!!!!

Has anyone notified the Congress?



Exaggeration of the situation may seem to show cleverness, but it really isn't necessary.


Maybe you should read your own statements.

score update:

furrow 1
kieffer 0

All,

Point one:
I can understand the rationale for age and gender based separations in any physical competition (as age and sex are known and distinct ways to categorize people), when it makes sense . That is the key phrase.

I would say that, with approx. 11000 possible eligible players, it does not make any sense to me to have the distribution anywhere less that a 10 year spread in any category above Juniors. This is where the ratings based arguments will come into play, as age becomes less relevant when the scores are comparible because the older compensate in alot of ways for thier lack of length by guile and smarter play.

If I would have to guess at the age distribution of members, I would guess that we would have a pretty small percentage under 10 with a somewhat gradual rise to a peak in the mid-late 20's. I would think that this would then start dropping slowly until about the mid 40's when the curve will get steeper until the 60s where we are bouncing off of the 100 or less mark.

Point two:
Being a champion in any sport implies that there was a competition. In Mrs. Voakes case, there was no competition within her age category, therefore no championship should be awarded for that category.

An acknowledgment for her service within the sport and the fact that she was the only participant in that category would be appropriate, but awarding a world championship to her by just paying her entry fee, is not sport"person"-like.

I would (and may) argue the same point if there is a 10-year old girl who participates in the World Ams and is the only entrant.

Thank you,

SEnk

(By the way, if I were the one who could take advantage of this, I would do so. It is would certainly not be my fault that someone is willing to award me a prize for showing up.)

Tim,
The reason this is a problem is not strictly because of the increase in divisions for our older players. You are correct when you say it won't effect many people, or TD's.

The problem (and what has been echoed here by several) is that we feel the need to reward..........EVERYBODY!! This sentiment is prevalent in our divisional structure - if someone feels they can't win (i.e. couched as saying they "can't compete") no worries - the PDGA will create a division so it's easier for you to do so. This is why we have the HUGE amount of overlap between divisions now. Doing this for the senior divisions just highlights the absurdity of our larger scale drubbing of competing for the sake of competing. Organized DG has become a game of how few people can I play against and still be called THE WINNER. what a joke

Gang,


Organized DG has become a game of how few people can I play against and still be called THE WINNER. what a joke




Great point. I compete to get better and because I enjoy playing and meeting different people. There is a reason why the term "bagger" is often brought up when the winner of any event is announced (even if it is unwarranted).

SEnk (or the Chief donator in the rec division at 624 rating)

If it increases the participation levels and makes sponsorship more attractive, then it is a good thing. Our current 'organized DG' is about participation levels and promoting the sport to the general public. We may not like it, but that is where we are at in the sport's evolution.

Most educated people realize that there is only one true 'winner' of a tournament, that being the Open champion. Outsiders realize this just fine also.

If tourrnaments would regularly fill with just this one division, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Until then, anything that increases the particiapation and makes the sport attractive to all demographics is a good thing, IMO.

So what is to stop this from trickling all the way to masters? The precedent is set.



Oh no, what's to stop the senior discout at the movies from trickling down to the teenagers? Wait, the food service industry is also in great jeopardy as they have a seniors menu! There goes the economy!!!!

Has anyone notified the Congress?



Exaggeration of the situation may seem to show cleverness, but it really isn't necessary.


Maybe you should read your own statements.




Perhaps if you also agree to keep things in the proper perspective. But my response was one of a sarcastic nature, not of exaggeration.

score update:

furrow 1
kieffer 0



Was there a certification involved in being designated as a scorekeeper on the DG discussion board? Open book test perhaps?

that must have smarted more than intended. sorry. have a tissue on me.

that must have smarted more than intended. sorry. have a tissue on me.



Sorry Kevin. My hackles are a bit up after watching a select few here basically tell people who have volunteered a great deal of time for our benefit to go screw themselves for their efforts.

I was aware of this proposal before the Board voted on it, and I e-mailed all Board members asking them to kill it. Unfortunately, they did not. If I am elected to the Board I will try to get it revoked. It is an embarrassment to my division, for several reasons:

1) It is unnecessary. Players in the upper half of senior divisions are certainly competitive. If this had been in place last year I would have won both titles (MPS and this new "65-69 title"). If Pete May had beaten me he would have won both titles. If it had been in place in MPG Rick Voakes would have won both titles.
2) It is unfair to the younger divisions. Here is MPS with about 20 Worlds entrants getting two titles, and MPG, MPM and MPO with far more competitors getting only one.
3) It cheapens the title. If you double the number of titles, you decrease their value proportionately.
4) Older players do not need more incentives to attend Worlds. As it stands, most MPS players get invited to Worlds just by virtue of being old, and a higher proportion of MPS players attends than any other male division. What really needed to be changed was the qualifying criteria for senior division Worlds invitations.
5) I particularly hate this policy because I could win the "65-69" year title this year and I would have no respect for it. If, as expected, Tom Monroe and/or John Kirkland takes MPS (and I were the best of the rest), the focus should not be on me winning another title, but on the fact that I had finally been beaten.

i had my hackles removed after watching loved ones volunteer and serve and receive similar treatment. it goes with the territory. i'm only here for the comedy.

as you mention, it's small potatoes. the new "champion" thingy. but maybe there's something there that is indicative of the pdga mindset.

let's not get in the way of the main attraction, our spat is merely a sideshow.

dont worry Tim, this score is only for this thread. each thread has its own score, so if someone cannot hold their own here, they can always find another thread that is more winnable by someone with their particular level of skill. they can even start their own! :D

in all seriousness, more players is usually a good thing, no argument there. the question is what we do to get that increase. in this case, it has been promised that a) the cost is minimal (no big award, no basket, just a small award of some sort) and b) this "division" is only available for Worlds, and no other event.

since the discussion at the SUmmit was a public forum, it should be ok to share some additional thoughts that were offered. when the topic was introduced, one primary line of reasoning ran like this:

older players cannot compete effectively in the current 10 year bands;
older players will lose interest if they cannot compete in their division
older players will lose interest unless they can play for a title;
older players contribute more dollars to the Association than the average Member;
if older players lose interest in disc golf, then the Association will lose their dollars;

therefore,

the Association should award these "championships" in order to keep older players interested in order to capture their dollar contributions.


my biggest issue is not with that logic (its pretty much impossible to defend or reject) but rather with the continued trend towards more divisions, the dilution of the competitive structure that comes with it, and the timing of the decision.

in other words... the Association knows very well that quite a number of Members question the number of divisions we currently have. in my opinion, it is not productive to create more divisions while discussing the perception that we have too many divisions. its a "good faith" kind of thing. while i believe the sport has benefited tremendously from the tireless efforts of these older Members, both as competitors and leaders, i feel there are better forms of recognition available than the title of "world champion".

i may be wrong... perhaps these older players really would lose interest to the point that they would withhold their financial support if they could not be "champion". i would hope not, because that just seems so inconsistent with the view that older players are among the most generous and unselfish of us all.

Actually, I was thinking a great deal about age divisions during the Great Lakes Open last week and mulling over the idea that, over age 60, categories at every five years would make sense, at least for amateurs. As I enter my seventh decade of life, I do see general degradation of health and physical faculties hitting others around or just older than my age.

There is a reason why we have more than one Junior division and although it's hard to see for people who still think they are immortal, the tail-off in abilities (on average) at the other end seems quite similar to the growth in abilities among the young, just backwards.

I haven't read the board minutes to see what the full language says, but will eventually get around to it. Meanwhile, I have no opinion about divisions for professionals, because I am not one and have no intention ever to be.

I agree with the criticism of the original post - the post made by Ransom Jones, PDGA #28954. He uses the adjective "old" as a prejorative, dismisses more than half a decade of valuable volunteer leadership as "lunacy," and, well, I just bet that it's hard to argue with Ransom in person without his resorting to foul language rather than reason or logic pretty quickly :cool:

terry, with all due respect, and remaining in general agreement re the tone of the opening post, the issue here is not ransom or his choice of words. it is the new division and the perception it creates that the Association is less than serious about addressing the boom in the population and diversity of divisions. i trust that someone with your experience, wisdom and tenure would understand that while the words may aggravate and irritate, the message is worthwhile. in other words - debate the substance (which you started to do) not the style (which you finished with).

comparing opposite ends of the age spectrum is interesting, but i am not sure of its relevance. i can see your line of reasoning leading directly to the conclusion that players over some age threshold get full Membership at reduced rates. after all, earnings potential decreases with age for most people. further, this would be consistent with your policy of doing for seniors what we do for juniors wouldnt it?

Mr. Calhoun,

Having never met you I would not judge you. Yet you seem to have no problems judging me while you claim to be the best communicator/coordinator the PDGA has ever known. It's poor form sir. Good Day

#28954

while you claim to be the best communicator/coordinator the PDGA has ever known



Thanks for making this easy, Ransom. The above statement is a lie. Nice. Just about what I expected, despite your never having met me. Or, did you hear me say something like that in a dream?

comparing opposite ends of the age spectrum is interesting, but i am not sure of its relevance.



Pat, I think that the Junior divisions reflect the fact that in those age groups there is a rapidly developing basic health, fitness, and athletic skill set that increases quickly within a few years (on average). Thus we have <19, 14-16, 11-13, and <10 for Juniors.

I hope it doesn't happen in my own personal situation, but I do see a similar, very fast-paced diminution of health, fitness, and athletic skills at the end of our lives (on average).

Why not have 8-year-olds play against 17-year-olds, after all, their ages are within a decade of each other? Hmm.

There was an interesting piece on the news the other day. It turns out that we have so over rewarded the Gen Y kids that unless they get constant affirmation in the work place, they become depressed and very unproductive. There are consultants making a living advising companies on how to keep these guys motivated.

Essentially it comes down to lots of recognition and many small awards. Some companies do daily awards for the best producer of the day.

As soon as I start advocating for a bracket where I'm assured a win, I expect someone to hand me a beer and tell me to get over it.

It is a thoroughly disgusting phenomenon that ignorant, factually wrong, or poisonous statements (applies in different aspects) like these can remain posted on DISCussion:


Well well, seems that old Pete May's legacy will be one of complete lunacy. Apparently not able to compete with Peter Shive, Pete May convinced the majority of [censored] on the PDGA BoD to award him a World Title.



"[L]egacy will be one of complete lunacy": Pete, as a member of the Augusta Sports Council and an otherwise influential person in the region was instrumental in the creation and development of the IDGC. His depth of experience in the management of nonprofit sports organizations was incredibly valuable to the board over the past half decade.

"[N]ot able to compete with Peter Shive": I suggest that Ransom take a look at last year's Pro Worlds scores and note that Pete led up until nearly the very end. That's not "not able to compete" in any reasonable person's lexicon.

"[A]ard him a World Title": Really? Don't you mean, at best, that maybe Pete has more chances as he ages to win a world title now, not that he was "awarded" one?

Are we now going to have an influx of 60 to 80 year olds who have been waiting for this opportunity?


Congrats to Lyle O. Ross for making me laugh (an involuntary burst that was both unexpected and of an unusually high volume) loud enough to get busted reading the boards at work. My mind was filled with a scene of stampeding elderlies rushing the local disc golf courses. Bravo.

I'd like to comment on this thread, but the fear of being told to "get over myself" or "get a grip" or somesuch nonsense has taken its toll. I will refrain from comment, except for this: Really? This is a problem for people? Sure it may be unnecessary... but does it really hurt the sport in some fundamental way that necessitates heated debate? When I was about 7 years old I gave my grandfather a coffee mug that I made myself. It said "#1 Grandpa". It made his year... but I suppose it was unfair and that award should be posthumously revoked since he was the only one competing. My vote? divisions of one are fine if he's the only one man enough to show up and compete in said division. We break down the juniors divisions at very similar rate and I don't see an uproar of disapproval when we hand out those trophies. The point Pete made was valid. A 59.5 year old man is generally more physically capable than a man 9.5 years his senior. The condition is exaggerated further when comparing a gentleman of 69.5 with one of 79. It doesn't do anything to hurt the sport as a whole and it is a real (if somewhat insignificant) improvement on the current system. I can't find logic in the opposition of such.

comparing opposite ends of the age spectrum is interesting, but i am not sure of its relevance.



Pat, I think that the Junior divisions reflect the fact that in those age groups there is a rapidly developing basic health, fitness, and athletic skill set that increases quickly within a few years (on average). Thus we have <19, 14-16, 11-13, and <10 for Juniors.

I hope it doesn't happen in my own personal situation, but I do see a similar, very fast-paced diminution of health, fitness, and athletic skills at the end of our lives (on average).

Why not have 8-year-olds play against 17-year-olds, after all, their ages are within a decade of each other? Hmm.


Terry,
The problem with this is that you are talking about amatuers. I think we should offer diverse division in the amateur divisions to cater to more age/gender/ratings groups. But, from a professional standpoint, this should not translate to the Pro fields. Pro should reflect the best of the best. When you put conditions on that, as Peter said, it diminishes the meaning of titles and wins. The Pro field should not be viewed as the PDGA's version of "well-fair".

Point well taken... :D

It was the stampede that got me. Images of handcuffed senior citizens, after an out of control tourney.

You'll see that when they start putting Viagra in the player's packs.

I would like to officially go on record as saying "Thank You Pete May for all your hard work and volunteer efforts that bettered the PDGA." I hope I get a chance to play you at ping-pong some time, because I am very confident that I could score one point against you. :)

[edited due to personal attack]

I know I speak for the majority when I say that I appreciate all you've done for us, the disc golf community.

Just wondering...

Would that be the Seniorer Grandmasters division? Or the Pre-Legend division. :)

It said "#1 Grandpa". It made his year... but I suppose it was unfair and that award should be posthumously revoked since he was the only one competing.



Unless you are Jesus, he was in a 2 person division. :)

its silly...We dont need more divisions..Thas all there is to say...there is already to many...Am, open, women, and grandmaster is fine....

I'd like to suggest that we move DISCussion of the new age brackets here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=703394&page=0&vc=#Post70 3394) and let this crap-titled thread die.

What is the rule on the proper number of divisions in any sport? Who has the right to declare a sport is "lame" because it has more or maybe less divisions than you think is proper? If the two best players in a defined age and gender category are the only ones to show up for a World Championship, is not the winner still the best in the World that year in that category?

Considering that employees get evaluated and they all get paid, it's kind of like a bunch of one person divisions at every worksite. Yes, some get paid more than others and in theory they get paid more for performing better. But it's not like the company operates like one giant division where only the best third of employees get paid and the rest starve. A company like that doesn't survive if it doesn't treat their employees fairly and allow each to excel in their own way.

Chuck,

I understand what you are saying and, if there are 2 or more entrants, I wholeheartedly agree that the winner between those 2 individuals should be declared a world champion. My only point are cases where there is only 1 entrant, a championship could not be earned, as there is not a competition to be won (a championship should be earned, not awarded).

SEnk

(Before anyone goes there, if two people entered,and one is unable to complete the round for whatever reason, I would still award the championship, as they were competing at some point in time and they managed to complete the activity. If neither completed the round, I would not award the championship to the one who completed more.)

BTW, I'm undecided on the merits of the new 5 yr brackets. However, it's consistent with other things we do in the PDGA such as award titles in divisions that may only have one member. In addition, I've always been uncomfortable with winners of field events at Am & Pro Worlds being declared World Champions for a very few number of throws in comparison to the singles title. You would think a true Worlds putting title would include maybe 4-6 times as many throws and minigolf title being at least 3 or 4 rounds.

I understand these are the only events of their kind with a geographically wide participation base and tradition is wrapped up in the awarding of these titles. But the limits of time allowed keeps these side events from being sufficient for true World titles in my opinion as opposed to titles won at Worlds. I could see Putting Champion at Pro Worlds 2007 on the trophy versus World Putting Champion Pro Worlds 2007. Of course, if I ever won one of these titles, I would definitely be telling my family and friends I was a World Champ. :D

Seems to me, only players above 60 would even care about this. Maybe you guys will change your mind after a few operations and 20 or 30 years onto your game?

I go by the rule that if you want to be a World Champ, you have to go to where the World Championships are held and compete. If no one else considers it important enough to show up and do battle, you win by forfeit.

You should not be punished because you put forth the effort to compete, but no one else showed up to give you competition.

2002 PWC Legends 3, MPS 7
2003 PWC Legends 7, MPS 10
2004 PWC Legends 7, MPS 10
2005 PWC Legends 8, MPS 12
2006 PWC Legends 5, MPS 19

OK, there are the numbers - except for last year, the number of participants was pretty consistent, and even last yrs numbers weren't a "bonanza" of players (although 19 MPS might have been a record field). So explain again the logic of breaking so few players into TWICE as many divisions? I would think with the MPS field approaching 20 or more players - guys like Peter S/Pete May would be savoring the victory that much more than when only competing against 10.

Comparing declining physical abilities to the developing ones in kids is so totally off base - a totally unfair comparison, I call BS on that argument (choose another smokescreen). Regardless of Mikey's lack of tact in addressing this issue - he is pretty much right on re the absurdity of this change. And as I stated previously, it reflects the general "reward culture" that has become prevalent in our divisional structure.

I heard the same stories about the Gen Y entering the work force - without constant reinforcement and hand holding - those workers become very unproductive. What a sad model to be emulating.

We should think more highly of ourselves than to believe if we implement a more fair rewards system, that our participants will selfishly abandon us - what are they gonna do quit playing? If they do - did we really want them around? Tournaments are filling more often now (and there are more of them than ever before), yet people offer the argument that we don't have the players to populate events with fewer divisions offered? Those two conditions are seemingly at odds with one another don't you think?
Come on BOD - look at the success of MSDGC and grow some.

To terry's earlier point, we should just have the old guys compete against the juniors. Similar skill level right??? :D

We should think more highly of ourselves than to believe if we implement a more fair rewards system, that our participants will selfishly abandon us - what are they gonna do quit playing? If they do - did we really want them around?



Maybe the Board has learned a lesson from when the older age divisions were raised by five years and we lost members and participation levels of players in the 36-39, and 46-49 brackets for several years.

Chuck, that analogy to the workplace was pretty lame. I hven't seen many (or even heard of many) people that are willing to pay just to be allowed to show up at work. I know I haven't had any workers come up to me to ask, "Who is taking money, and where do I sign up? Oh, and can I collect my winnings at lunch so I can get home before the big game on TV tonight?"

Just pointing out in exaggerated fashion that there's no universal rule to say how many divisions is correct for a sport. Our culture leans toward providing opportunities to excel at all levels in all activities for boosting and retaining self esteem. That's served us well in terms of productivity in our economy and personal well being. So, it shouldn't be any surprise that those values are also reflected in how those who establish competition systems in any sport set them up.

so, can the Pro Open field be broken down into 3 year breaks, since there's a much larger amount of players, we should make each division as defined as possible. I mean, a 38 year old should not be forced to compete with a 21 year old, what's the fairness in that?

We've already shown that pro players under age 40 who have been pros for at least 3 years will not have a ratings change up or down on average for the next five years. On the other hand, pros over age 39 will lose roughly 10 points every five years up to age 60. And it drops somewhat faster after 59 but we don't have enough data to make that call yet.

<font color="blue">Well well, seems that old Pete May's legacy will be one of complete lunacy. Apparently not able to compete with Peter Shive, Pete May convinced the majority of [censored] on the PDGA BoD to award him a World Title.</font>

I'm sure 99% of the membership isn't aware of this since they don't read the minutes of PDGA meetings.

here's the latest PDGA BoD's joke on its membership:

"Age Change in Senior Divisions at PDGA Championships-Pete May suggested that after the age of 60 years of age it becomes increasingly challenging for players to be competetive within the traditional separation of age based divisions e.g. a 69 year old can not compete with a 60 year old, a 79 year old can not compete with a 70 year old.

In the spirit of fairness and in an effort to present increased opportunities for senior players to compete, Pete proposed that at PDGA Pro and Am World Championships starting at age 60, World Championship Titles (with no prize money) be awarded in 5 year increments. There must be a minimum of 2 players in each division."

It should be noted that Steve Dodge and Pat Brenner rightfully stood up and voted against this outrage. The other 5 BoD [censored] voted for this complete [censored].

Please notice that Bob Decker, current candidate for re-election to the BoD, was one of the [censored] who voted for this [censored]. I don't care how good a CPA he is, he's got to go...maybe he can hold Pete May's hand as they walk through the door...


I consider the original post in the thread a personal attack against long-time volunteer Pete May, yet I can't report it to the moderators because "this post has already been reported."

kinda like when i tried to report your personal attack and wish that a long-time Member be cast into the fiery pit of Hades. :)

kinda like when i tried to report your personal attack and wish that a long-time Member be cast into the fiery pit of Hades. :)



Ransom Jones #28954 is a long time member?

I consider the original post in the thread a personal attack against long-time volunteer Pete May, yet I can't report it to the moderators because "this post has already been reported."



That means it is being looked at already. In the mean time, feel free to send an e-mail to the moderation team and /or use the 'Notify Moderator' to report the post you just made where you quoted the original.

EDIT: I just checked my e-mail and it looks like you did just that. It is being looked into.

kinda like when i tried to report your personal attack and wish that a long-time Member be cast into the fiery pit of Hades. :)


It was a figure of speech as opposed to a personal attack :D, but I won't be appealing anything as it just seems too ludicrous to me that the original crap was not deleted yet part of my post was.

Oh well. :p

kinda like when i tried to report your personal attack and wish that a long-time Member be cast into the fiery pit of Hades. :)



Ransom Jones #28954 is a long time member?

he's paid for three years at least. given our churn rate, i'd say he's a long term Member. in fact, another year or two and he'll have beaten the odds (if the 30% chrun still holds).

besides, why would it be ok to be ignorant towards someone based on the longevity of the Membership?

he's paid for three years at least. given our churn rate, i'd say he's a long term Member. in fact, another year or two and he'll have beaten the odds (if the 30% chrun still holds).

besides, why would it be ok to be ignorant towards someone based on the longevity of the Membership?



I never said it was, so I'd appreciate it if you'd take care not to insinuate so. I was just curious on your definition of a long-time member. In this case, I would think the person who was originally attacked here is the long-time member, and is also the person who was treated most ignorantly along with most of the BOD.

Wouldn't you agree?

yes, he was A long term Member, no doubt. and one who has contributed a lot.

how could i have worded my question more generically so as not to offend? i tried to make it right down the middle.

let's see if i have this straight. calling a 64-year-old "old" is a personal attack?

no wonder i hardly ever get to play PDGA tournaments in Mississippi...no one really cares to work with the PDGA down here because your reputation is so bad. it's hard to refute people's claims that the PDGA takes things way too seriously if y'all can't handle that little joke.

let's see if i have this straight. calling a 64-year-old "old" is a personal attack?


Wow, your reading skills are directly proportional to your tact. You, sir, are an [edited due to personal attack].

geez Rhett, comeon, lets at least try to set a decent example. if i can do it, so can you.



let's see if i have this straight. calling a 64-year-old "old" is a personal attack?


Wow, your reading skills are directly proportional to your tact. You, sir, are an ignoramus of unbridled proportions.

sandalman, i think you can get suspended for quoting a personal attack like that!

let's see if i have this straight. calling a 64-year-old "old" is a personal attack?

no wonder i hardly ever get to play PDGA tournaments in Mississippi...no one really cares to work with the PDGA down here because your reputation is so bad. it's hard to refute people's claims that the PDGA takes things way too seriously if y'all can't handle that little joke.



Sorry, but in my neck of the woods, telling someone that their legacy will be one of lunacy and that they shouldn't let the door hit them would be taken as a bit more than a joke. Add in the nice use of '[censored]' in a way that basically allows for the reader to infer what improper word you were using to describe various Board members without getting yourself booted, and your message was one of disrespect and poor taste. Complicating things is the fact that the main target of your rant is a person that has been working as a volunteer for a long time, trying to help promote the sport we enjoy.

IMO, the real joke here is that more people aren't chiming in to chastise the lunacy you shoveled, especially fellow board members. Unfortunately, that joke isn't of a humorous nature, but a sad commentary.

if i chimed in more than i already have i would be (rightly) accused of interfering with the message board disciplinary process.

if i chimed in more than i already have i would be (rightly) accused of interfering with the message board disciplinary process.



I think not. Remember that your first response was "sounds like a great opportunity to ask the current candidates a good question" Nothing concerning that attacking the Board in such a manner was inappropriate, nothing concerning that you didn't condone such an approach, not even an effort to change the title of the thread.

"sounds like a great opportunity to ask the current candidates a good question" Leadership usually requires a bit more, and when a decision is made by a committee, the members have a responsibility to carry on and present a common effort as opposed to fueling dissent, even if they weren't in the majority of the vote. :(

Please note that I editied this as I felt it necessary to soften it up a bit from what it was. I do have to keep in mind that you too are also volunteering to help promote the sport and thus deserve a certain level of thanks and respect.

geez Rhett, comeon, lets at least try to set a decent example. if i can do it, so can you.



let's see if i have this straight. calling a 64-year-old "old" is a personal attack?


Wow, your reading skills are directly proportional to your tact. You, sir, are an ignoramus of unbridled proportions.





Can one really get punished for quotes?

Only if you the hand thing when quoting someone.

We should think more highly of ourselves than to believe if we implement a more fair rewards system, that our participants will selfishly abandon us - what are they gonna do quit playing? If they do - did we really want them around?



Maybe the Board has learned a lesson from when the older age divisions were raised by five years and we lost members and participation levels of players in the 36-39, and 46-49 brackets for several years.



And what exactly was that lesson? That after an initial backlash of a couple years the number of our members doubled over the next five years? Hmmmm. Perfectly illustrated Chuck - it says when we make a decision that changes the status quo - there is some initial discomfort - and then we settle into reality and move on. So it will be if we ever decide to grow a pair and clean up our divisional mess.

So it will be if we ever decide to grow a pair and clean up our divisional mess.


LMAO!
They seem to care more about the self esteem of players over 60, than a legitimate competitive structure. That's why there are only 2 real professional divisions and the rest are Ams on power trips.

And what exactly was that lesson? That after an initial backlash of a couple years the number of our members doubled over the next five years?



I've heard from many players that are in the last few years of a decade that they'll wait until they hit the next age break before ramping up their participation in events. There are many more that have quietly made the same decision.

As 28003 points out, there are really only two divisions that have a handful of players who are really professionals. In which case, why should you care whether most of our players prefer to play in traditional age and gender divisions? These have been there in other sports and in disc golf long before I got in the game.

At least Roger and I came along with ratings for alternative competition options and more structure for our traditional divisions. And yet, you're hammering me for still supporting the traditional divisions that players happen to like that are part of a members organization.

When the big money comes, it will primarily go to the true pro divisions. But until then and even then, aren't most players in this for fun, exercise, being outdoors, camaraderie and occasionally shooting well enough to win a little from our buddies' pockets?

When the big money comes, it will primarily go to the true pro divisions. But until then and even then, aren't most players in this for fun, exercise, being outdoors, camaraderie and occasionally shooting well enough to win a little from our buddies' pockets?


I totally agree with you here Chuck.....which is why NO ADDED CASH should go to age protected divisions!
If theyreally are playing for "fun, exercise, being outdoors, camaraderie and occasionally shooting well enough to win a little from our buddies' pockets", then why would they throw a [censored]-fit when playing in a division of 4 and they come in 2nd cause they are a few years older? I doubt anyone has "friends" that are only 65-69 year olds.
Your point is fine for most tourneys, but should not translate to our top events. These should cater to the "true" professionals, not the minority, age-protected divisions.

The PDGA payout table for 2007 has already moved in this direction by requiring triple shares of added cash for Open and Open Women divisions at NT events. It's up to the TDs to consider doing it for A-tiers but I believe that's been happening this year in some cases. That combined with lower entry fees for older pro divisions will continue to funnel more cash into the top.

So it will be if we ever decide to grow a pair and clean up our divisional mess.



Ain't gonna happen, ever, because everyone is already weaned on the current system and the traditional divisions, and it would be suicide to go against what makes the membership happy.

is this a case where one could argue that the interest of the Members are not exactly in line with the interests of the Association?

is this a case where one could argue that the interest of the Members are not exactly in line with the interests of the Association?



You'd have to take a poll to determine it for sure, but while there are obviously dozens of message board denizens who think our divisional system makes for multiple overlapping divisions with the same skillsets, rewards mediocrity and encourages sandbagging, I'm willing to bet there are thousands if not tens of thousands more disc golfers who are perfectly content with the way things are. It's what they've been weaned on and all they've ever known and wouldn't stand for anything different.

This train left the station decades ago.

is this a case where one could argue that the interest of the Members are not exactly in line with the interests of the Association?



Is that really possible? Aren't the members what comprise the association ("We are the PDGA"), and thus they are one in the same?

Perhaps a different question is, "Would the elected leaders be negligent and actually do more harm than good if it decided that alienating large segments of the membership is acceptable in order to slightly prop up the illusion of a true Pro tour financed by each other's entry fee?"

No added cash to protected divisions Is the perfect solution...You think B ham- would BAG if his division had low payouts...no...Masters say they are there for the competition and fun...So keep it that way...No ADDED CASH&gt;

The manufacturers could also help this if they didn't have bonuses for winning in the age protected pro divisions (except maybe Worlds) by older sponsored players above a certain rating.

good point CK....

so let me get this straight...it's not a personal attack to call someone an ignoramous of unbridled proportions?

is this what others have said is the inherent bias in the moderation of this message board?

why do you get more hits on a thread with a negative title than on a nice one?

why would someone exploit that concept?

have you heard of a decision on that post? i am waiting on one on the post where he wished a Member a trip to Hades. and the one where calhoun insinuated me retarded. justice comes slow these days :)

No added cash to protected divisions Is the perfect solution...You think B ham- would BAG if his division had low payouts...no...Masters say they are there for the competition and fun...So keep it that way...No ADDED CASH&gt;



That and/or increasing the level of added cash (i.e. increasing sponsorship levels) in the Open division so the option to play up becomes more attractive. We're getting there, and signs like the local Walmart now selling discs shows that the DG demographic may be getting big enough to start attracting more attention.

is this a case where one could argue that the interest of the Members are not exactly in line with the interests of the Association?



Is that really possible? Aren't the members what comprise the association ("We are the PDGA"), and thus they are one in the same?

Perhaps a different question is, "Would the elected leaders be negligent and actually do more harm than good if it decided that alienating large segments of the membership is acceptable in order to slightly prop up the illusion of a true Pro tour financed by each other's entry fee?"


that is both a different question AND a very good question, no doubt.

yes, it is possible. organizations want to live, just like people or animals. the current mission statement (http://www.pdga.com/org/documents/2006/MissionStatement03Summit.pdf) seems to address constituencies including sponsors, pros, ams. the sport and the organization.

maybe my question should be more like this: what do you do when the needs of one constituency are significantly different from, perhaps even in conflict with, the needs of another constituency? the conclusion that you cant do both (think of the existing divisional structure vs. the need to develop true "pro" conpetition and the arguments around that topic) leads to talk about creating two organizations - a path which seems like it would "damage" the Association even though it is better for the different interests. please understand this is not a well-formed idea and i am not saying the Association is failing, should be split, or anything like that. just exploring an idea about how an organizational needs can differ from Member needs from time to time.

have you heard of a decision on that post? i am waiting on one on the post where he wished a Member a trip to Hades. and the one where calhoun insinuated me retarded. justice comes slow these days :)



i agree. where's those financial statements kernan asked you to link to?

sandalman, while many of us appreciate your candor, your inability to back up your statements does indeed make the pdga look like a joke, just as 2-player divisions getting added cash does, just as biased moderating does.

perhaps we could get a pdga consultant, for a high price, to determine if our message board is biased? or pay that consultant a large fee to find those financial documents for you sandalman? is it possible that gangloff is referring to someone who doesn't have the courage to link to those financial statements when he speaks of eunuchs?

so let me get this straight...it's not a personal attack to call someone an ignoramous of unbridled proportions?



That comment was reported to us for personal attack late last night Thursday 6/14.


and the one where calhoun insinuated me retarded. justice comes slow these days :)



A decision on that is also forthcoming. Message board users need to realize that the moderators and the Communications Director have careers, families, and a myriad of other obligations and that these decisions, which can result in probation or suspension, need to be weighed carefully. Please have a little patience and understanding.

Always a challenge, especially when organizations get larger. There will be decisions that negatively impact a special interest or subset while addressing a bigger issue. But if a solution shows obvious disadvantages to a large group of your membership, perhaps it is time to step back and see if there isn't a different solution that better addresses the problem without all of the negatives. The litmus test is always, "Are we really addressing the overall best interest of the Members?"

In the example given, (existing divisional structure vs. the need to develop true "pro" competition") does this really have to be the trade-off? If you step back, you may consider that a different solution would be to make the Pro division more attractive (more sponsorship) and have more large purse Open only type events (a true 'pro tour') as opposed to trying to force a small handfull of high rated old guys to play Open and in effect screw over (and possibly lose) hundreds of sub 950 rated old guys who aren't really 'professionals' in the true sense of the word.

6er, to be honest, i didnt see the "monthly" when i responded to that post. thats why i pointed to the yearly docs. sorry for the mistake. monthly are a good topic. dont think one can snap a finger and have this stuff materialize. we're closer to having it available than you might think. i suspect that disclosures will increase substantially after the BoD change. i'm doing as good as a i can.

so let me get this straight...it's not a personal attack to call someone an ignoramous of unbridled proportions?



That comment was reported to us for personal attack late last night Thursday 6/14.


and the one where calhoun insinuated me retarded. justice comes slow these days :)



A decision on that is also forthcoming. Message board users need to realize that the moderators and the Communications Director have careers, families, and a myriad of other obligations and that these decisions, which can result in probation or suspension, need to be weighed carefully. Please have a little patience and understanding.


Don't forget to post the result of your investigation into whether the dog-crap-for-brains poster named 6pack personally attacked Pete May in the initial post of this thread.

Let me go on the record [edited for factual error]:

(a) I have never made a claim to be the best communications director for the PDGA ever. It's ludicrous to even think so, and I don't. Thus, when 6Pack posted that, he was lying, and doing so in an ad hominen personal attack intended to make me appear to be vain in a way that I am not, and thus diminish the credibility of my postings. That's essentially the definition of a personal attack. (See below.) I reported that lying personal attack to the moderators but have received no response yet.

(b) I also do not use the word "retard," it's not in my working vocabulary, yet PDGA board member Pat Brenner posted a statement that said that I used or intended the word in regard to him. That also amounts to a personal attack (Again, see below.) because there may be people now who believe that I would use that word instead of understanding that I view any use of that word to be an negative indication of the user's character. Again, it serves an ad hominem purpose, being a personal attack to diminish my arguments by diminishing me rather than a real rebuttal or statement of fact.

(c) So . . . now a moderator quotes PDGA board member Pat Brenner's personal attack in a way that causes the false allegation and ad hominem attack to be seen by even more people, thus furthering Brenner's ad hominem intent.

We have a real problem when moderators re-publish personal attacks (Especially in a response that by its wording and juxtapositioning seems to lend support to the allegation.) and I wonder, once again, if they all understand what a personal attack is.

Personal Attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attack
"Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of a logical argument, namely the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened."

(b) I also do not use the word "retard," it's not in my working vocabulary, yet 6Pack posted a statement that said that I used or intended the word in regard to him. That also amounts to a personal attack (see below) because there may be people now who believe that I would use that word instead of understanding that I view any use of that word to be an negative indication of the user's character. Again, it serves an ad hominem purpose, being a personal attack to diminish my arguments by diminishing me rather than a real rebuttal or statement of fact.



Mr. Calhoun, you sir, are lying. I have never posted that you called me a "retard", and you will not find evidence anywhere that i posted that. So, if lying is a personal attack, I guess you will be in the same suspended boat with me. That's poor form sir.

It's a shame that we won't hear from you for a while Mr. Calhoun. Seems you have slipped on the slippery slope of censorship once too often. good day sir!

You are right, that was PDGA board member Pat Brenner. I was confused by the multiple quoting and apologize.

As much as I dislike 6pack's style (form), he is correct on this issue. Ease up, Terry, or at least attribute qoutes to whom they belong.

It will be interesting to see if I get suspended for mistakenly saying that you made the statement that Pat had made. If I do, then it would seem fairly logical that the person who made the statement in the first place should also get suspended. Otherwise, how would it be a bad thing to have attributed it to you? Would have had to have been a bad thin in the first place, no?

Not to mention that a moderator then quoted it, which means the moderator, and anyone else who did, thus has committed an offense.

You are right, that was PDGA board member Pat Brenner. I was confused by the multiple quoting and apologize.

did you make a mistake, Terry, or are you lying? i never said you called me a "retard". i said you called me "retarded". you did not use that word but you did insinuate i needed "special education" and you meaning was remarkably clear. and if the mods choose to use your definition, i fear we wont be hearing from Rhett for a good long while.

tim, that solution sure does seem like it would work, and i hope we continue to move further in its direction.

You are right, that was PDGA board member Pat Brenner. I was confused by the multiple quoting and apologize.



unfortunately Mr. Calhoun, you broke the rules. that it was a mistake is of no consequence; you are guilty sir, tried and convicted.

i don't like it anymore than you; but maybe now that someone as intelligent, honorable, and reasonable as you has been convicted in the latest Salem Witch Hunt and Trial sponsored by Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep/Plymouth/Mercedes, you may feel the sting of hypocritical undeserved censorship that others before you have endured.

Mr. Calhoun, since you are about to be banned for 72 hours for your second Mb infraction, maybe you could spend that time reflecting on the meaning of free speech. Maybe you won't be so quick next time to judge others not as intelligent and honorable as you.

Maybe in the future you won't be so quick to dismiss those who seek to improve the PDGA through parody and satire---both of which contain "lies", but are yet, in the USA, constitutionally protected forms of free speech.

Disc golf at its core is entertainment. One as intelligent as you, Mr.Calhoun, should realize that you can not believe everything you read on the internet, in the newspaper, or see on Fox News. Your outrage at the "lies" would be well-directed in another direction, Mr. Calhoun, such as at our so-called leaders of the US federal poltical realm who nearly every day proclaim "lies" to be "facts"...does weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ring a bell?

Let's allow our free-spirited disc golf brethren to speak their minds, before they leave and start their own organization. We are better unified than divided.

As I am certain I have been felled by the same chainsaw as Mr. Calhoun, I would like to say that I have enjoyed my limited time interacting with disc golfers from across the globe. It is a shame that fear has kept many others from joining our discussion. Until I return, remember this:

:D

You seem to know this process really well. It's almost like you've gone down this road already.

As I pointed out, 6Pack, it's only an offense if the original posting by Pat Brenner was an offense.

And, Pat, "retarded" and "retard" - neither is in my vocabulary. Reading "retarded" into my belief, frequently stated in various communications, that you should have difficulties understanding (special needs?) what some people post as arguments. So many times I post something and you ask what I was trying to say when others have no problem understanding it. I don't think the government or educators recognize "special education" as having negative connotations. Does the PDGA? I hope not, since we no doubt have a percentage of disc golfers in those categories as teenagers or adult learners. Was your posting an offense? We'll see.

Also note, 6Pack, that the instant my mistaken atttribution was pointed out I apologized and corrected it. Your posting about my alleged "claim" still stands, unsupported and unapologized for.

And, yes, folks I tire of this, too. But someone's got to stand up and point it out or it happens, has its consequences, and those who do the ad hominem thing are simply encouraged. We could all stop worrying about this - and so could the moderators - if the ad hominem stuff would just stop. You know, make your argument without the extraneous stuff.

Special Education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_education
"Special education is instruction that is modified or particularized for those students with special needs."

As much as I dislike 6pack's style (form), he is correct on this issue. Ease up, Terry, or at least attribute qoutes to whom they belong.



Sorry. As I said, I was confused by the multiple quotations and tried but could not find the original post. I did correct it ASAP, and apologize for the mis-attribution.

Ok.

Just a little clarification: Is this "wikipedia" that you often quote here the same online type encyclopedia that anyone may add their thoughts/comments to?

Yes, but completely erroneous information normally gets rooted out pretty quickly.

Confucius say
"He who wrestles with pig, just get muddy, but the pig has fun!"

Personally, I'm advocating five year posting brackets for members.

Starting at the age of 20 you have limitations on what you can post. The older you get the more limitations. That is, younger guys get to say more ludicrous and rude things. The younger you are the more ridiculous things you get to say. Every five years, a new limitation gets added so that no matter how asinine you really are, you look more intelligent.

Using this method, we will understand that any post that is absolutely ridiculous in nature had to come from a younger member.

Then once every five years we will switch the structure so that older member's posts have the least rules. Then we will understand that the most asinine posts are from our oldest members.

On the other hand, we could all just post civilly. Naw!!