I thought I'd make this thread so that the new brackets can be discussed reasonably.

discussed reasonably.



Uh, good luck with that one.

Seriously though, I didn't care for the title of the other thread either.

Of course there are far too many divisions, and this latest change just adds another one, but the PDGA is always going to stick with all these divisions because that's what the membership asks for and makes them happy. People can argue about the redundancy and the overlapping and the pointlessness of age divisions in our divisional structure until they are blue in the face, but the facts are many people would cry bloody murder if divisions were ever removed - we've been weaned on them for far too long. And since no sane organization would do anything to jeopardize its membership or income, we're stuck with this. From the standpoint of the spirit of true competition, even if it makes all the sense in the world to reduce divisions, it just ain't happening. Ever.

I don't think making the 75 year olds play in Open is going to help with the "real sport" image. :cool:

Think MSDGC
Men
Men over 50
It's a frisbee tournament for %^&*() sake.

The PGA doesn't have breakdowns like this.

They have over 55 and open. That's it.

It's 50+ not 55 and those are for "true pro" divisions that earn big money. We have the divisions of Ams playing for cash that are the best in the World in the older age brackets and Ams who play for merch who are the best players in the world in their age brackets who play for merch. If we had the big money involved like ball golf, I don't think you would get any argument that Open and over age 50 could be our big Pro World Championship divisions. That's quite a ways off.

Of course there are far too many divisions, and this latest change just adds another one, but the PDGA is always going to stick with all these divisions because that's what the membership asks for and makes them happy. People can argue about the redundancy and the overlapping and the pointlessness of age divisions in our divisional structure until they are blue in the face, but the facts are many people would cry bloody murder if divisions were ever removed - we've been weaned on them for far too long. And since no sane organization would do anything to jeopardize its membership or income, we're stuck with this. From the standpoint of the spirit of true competition, even if it makes all the sense in the world to reduce divisions, it just ain't happening. Ever.



While in general I tend to agree with this, why propagate the system when you don't have to? Are you suggesting there was a hue and cry for this expansion? Think about how this came to be. It wasn't even sent out to the membership for a vote. I'm starting to think these kinds of changes should be vetted with membership approval required.

Again, I don't see any real harm, but I don't see any need either.

many running races award prizes in 5-year increments. that doesn't mean disc golf should too. but amateurs seem to generally want to enter competitive events where they are competing against similar folks in a format that allows them a more likely opportunity to place/win/receive recognition and prizes for their performance.

however, isn't that what ratings are for in OUR sport? why would so many players want to play against people their own age as opposed to players of a similar ability?

if i was concerned about playing in an event with a chance to compete against similar-skilled players i wouldn't care if they are 5 or 55 or 95 years old and male or female or transgendered.

like mr lagrassa said, we can be "right" and limit divisions but we'd better be willing to deal with smaller turnouts if that decision turns away amateur players.

We have the divisions of Ams playing for cash that are the best in the World in the older age brackets and Ams who play for merch who are the best players in the world in their age brackets who play for merch. If we had the big money .... That's quite a ways off.



The only reason they are "the best in the world" (laughing) is because we pigeonhole them into little tiny groups and exclude a large portion of their skill level peers.
And the only reason it's a long way off is folks like you CK are stuck in this line of thinking and acceptance AND CONTINUED PROMOTION of the status quo.

It's not just CK, it's the literally thousands upon thousands of members and non-members and disc golfers everywhere who would raise holy you-know-what if the traditional divisions were abolished. It's what they've been weaned on for the last 15 years and all they've ever known.

I couldn't agree with you more about this, Craig, but this ship has sailed.

Interesting discussion, at least when the dribbling zealots aren't ranting it up.

Over here in the UK, we're implementing strict ratings-based divisions for 2008, with protected divisions only available in Amateur, and that includes women...

Does that mean that ratings divisions are only in pro? So you might have a Pro 2 and Pro 3 based on ratings?

No; ratings boundaries for all divisions: 'Pro', Am1, Am2

However we're also mandating a fixed entry fee across the divisions, so 'forcing' people to play pro is not an issue.

Could you please share what your breaks will be? Will they be matching the PDGA breaks (which will likely change for 2008) other than the Am1/pro break?

Having looked at our skill spread, we've gone with splits of 920 (Pro - Am) and 850 (Adv - Int).

Will drop you a PM

I have no problem with splitting the age ranges down from 10 to 5, as long as the incentive for one to play in one of those divisions is lessened as well. By that, I mean that I think that these upper age divisions should be something close to "trophy only", although there must be some money involved, otherwise, why would the PDGA have separate Pro and Am classes for the same age range?

Go Neil!!!! Please let us know how well your events are received. I'm willing to wager it'll work just fine.