I'm curious whether the 2008 ratings bracket changes will be embraced by the players, or if they will just keep playing in the division with name they have been accustomed to playing in. So this pool is not applicable to everyone.

O.k., there's some typos in that, but you can figure out what I'm trying to ask here. If the ratings bracket changes change where you can play, are you going to change where you do play?

Past experience says that they won't in most parts of the country. There seems to be some stigma attached to playing where your rating says you belong and beating the players that are playing above where their ratings say they belong that are populating that division. If everyone played where they belong, the competition would be much better.

when they first put the ratings system in place for the am divisions the cutoff for advanced was well above the point at which players in this part of the country generally moved up- the players eligible for INT at that point ignored the cutoff in droves- i expect the same thing to occur this time.

John, we'll see. But I think you might be underestimating the learning curve effect that has made players understand better what they are capable of doing or not doing compared to when we first had limits closer to this. Plus, the fact that Ams can now play in pro for merch may turn out to be significant factor that wasn't available back then.

i'm 41 years old and dont have an int. win in a sanctioned event, now rated 916 mostly play masters but recognize i am not gathering points as fast as i could as an int. so therefore i'll probably play int more this year for a goal to win a title, and possibly an invite to worlds in kansas city.

John, we'll see. But I think you might be underestimating the learning curve effect that has made players understand better what they are capable of doing or not doing compared to when we first had limits closer to this. Plus, the fact that Ams can now play in pro for merch may turn out to be significant factor that wasn't available back then.




John, I'm with you. Players eligible for INT still play in ADV in droves. I think you see a difference between new players moving up for the system, and players that have been playing for a while. The newer players tend to play in INT, if eligible, while the more seasoned players tend to play in ADV. I consider myself one of those players, and I can compete in ADV occasionally. You'll see a few players move back down to INT, but I think for the most part, INT eligible players that were already playing ADV will keep playing ADV. I guess I'll be REC eligible now, and I'll still be playing ADV (actually, I'll be playing ADV MASTERS now...and I''m very competitive with the locals in that division)

Chap

i think semantics play a large part- players don't want to say they've "moved down" a division whether the threshold for the division has changed or not.

I still don't understand why the PDGA continues to create new divisions . This seems to me to only further dilute divisions and payouts . This already being so diluted anyway by the use of funny money and dual priceing at alot of events.
If thte PDGA would only make all sanctioned events rating based this would solve alot of the problems they are attemping to address by creating more divisions.
This change seems like something that should have been put forward to the membership for a vote before being implemented.

That's why the Expert division name was originally part of the plan because about half of players will be "demoted" as a result of the ratings break shifts. However, keeping the conventional names barely won out in the Board vote. It's six of one, half dozen of the other on which naming sequence would be better. Even those who support one series versus the other don't necessarily think it's the greatest.

If thte PDGA would only make all sanctioned events rating based this would solve alot of the problems they are attemping to address by creating more divisions.




The PDGA provides the options, TDs make the call on the divisions. They now have a clear path to offer ratings based events next year. Let's see if more start to offer them.

I thought it was interesting that this was created for me the 960 rated am player I was slightly offened because the of the under "40" language . I am planning on playing open master next year anyway but this brings in some doubt to that decision .Does this mean there will be two divisions for each bracket at next years world ams?

Still Advanced divisions only at Am Worlds although you could say that each division is open to all ams that qualify for it by age and gender. No ratings breaks. No pros (except in the Pro Worlds part of it).

so nothing will be offered for the "experts"?>

sorry now i understand

i answered "Yo, that's me!"

A lot of people answered "Yo, that's me!" It is interesting to see which divisions have greater resistance to change.

I think at the Illinois Open Series we'll see more players playing in their former division one day and in their new division the other. We are zippering the divisions so that pretty much everyone but the good, young pros can play in their division one day and play up one division the other.

Interesting if you asked how many Ams over 935 might play Pro sometime.

Interesting if you asked how many Ams over 935 might play Pro sometime.

That would be a different poll. What I'm testing here is players' resistance to moving to the division indicated by their rating when the new ratings breaks allow them to move down.

My own experience running tournaments with really low trophy-only pro entry fees already tells me that 935 and below players will rarely ever play Open for the experience, even if it only costs them $10.

But what if they can win merch? That's the new twist.

it's not really a new twist- it is bringing back an old one, years ago when ams could receive merch in pro divisions the only ones you would see playing pro for merch were the "uber-ams" waiting for worlds, etc to move up.

I agree Ams receiving merch in Pro divisions is a throwback. But that was before ratings and the competition environment plus player expectations have changed as a result. I still expect the "uber-ams" as you put it to be the primary ones using the option. However, I think at A-tiers and NT events, you might see ams doing it just to be part of the pro experience on courses they are familiar with. I think you'll also see more crossover in small market C-tiers where they don't have many pros or those with higher ratings.

"Hey UBER~AM...move up."

I like it.

Perhaps Goober-Am in some markets... :p

But that was before ratings and the competition environment plus player expectations have changed as a result.



i don't agree that the competition environment has fundamentally changed as a result of ratings- peer pressure/guilt/confidence level still dictate when people move up a division in this part of the country to a much greater degree than their rating.

I don't think a player's rating directly affects the choices as much as seeing other player's ratings and realizing what it takes to beat those players. With online pre-reg becoming much more common, players can see who has entered. I'm certain this information affects the divisional decisions for many players that wasn't available before ratings and online pre-reg postings.

Are the ratings requirements decided with a goal of keeping a certain number of players (approx) per division within a class?

I think they are decided more with an eye towards offering divisions where the lowest rated players who must play in that division can feel like they can finish in the prizes if they play their best.

Yes and Yes plus. Players within 50 points are competitive at least for cashing, especially in lower rated divisions with a wider standard deviation in performance from event to event. The reason the new Intermediae range is 35 points is both to keep the number of players in that range 'reasonable' (since there are many members in the range from 875-950) and make the break at a round number like 900.

Neato! Thanks for the replies.

i see alot of long term intermdiate players who dont feal they are good enough to move up, bumping a guy who has played for years but is not the best player down to rec is stupid, who wants to be playing rec for years, who would even do that? now you have novice and rec, which mean the same thing, makes no sense.

No one is bumped down if they don't want to play there.

No one is bumped down if they don't want to play there.



whatever, your telling a guy who has always been an intermediate that he's now just as a good as some guy who plays once a month for recreation, we can barely get recreational players to play minis, guess what, they dont and never will play pdga tournaments!

maybe your idea is about helping new comers compete, but i see the problem as keeping old timers interested in competing

I agree with you 100% that the division names aren't the greatest. With all of the smart folks on this Board, the PDGA Board and on the Committee, no one could come up with a better naming sequence. One key reason the original Expert name was chosen for the new name set was that players would not be demoted and many promoted as a result of the ratings break changes. However, tradition won out over that rationale and we have what we have. I'm hopeful that we can move toward using colors that match our PDGA tee skill levels or maybe just Am1, Am2, Am3 and Am4 in the future.

whatever, your telling a guy who has always been an intermediate that he's now just as a good as some guy who plays once a month for recreation, we can barely get recreational players to play minis, guess what, they dont and never will play pdga tournaments!



Ahem, as one of those Novice/Rec players you are speaking of, I do play in quite afew tournaments. That is part of my why I play, is to attempt to be competitive. Now the fact that recreational players in your area may not participate may be occuring for a variety of reasons, but I see a lot of the Novice/rec players in our area attempting to compete.

Thank you,

steve

No one is bumped down if they don't want to play there.



whatever, your telling a guy who has always been an intermediate that he's now just as a good as some guy who plays once a month for recreation, we can barely get recreational players to play minis, guess what, they dont and never will play pdga tournaments!

We offered Am 4 for our tournament series this year and always had eight to a dozen players. We usually had about 30 more in Am 3.

Assuming you are correct about Texans, that is not true of Illinoisans.

For "Ratings Events," is a 970+ rated player required to play "Open / Gold" even if they have not accepted cash yet? Also, is there a document that describes these details for 2008?

Yes, but they are allowed to take prizes instead of cash, and maintain Amatuer status.

whatever, your telling a guy who has always been an intermediate that he's now just as a good as some guy who plays once a month for recreation, we can barely get recreational players to play minis, guess what, they dont and never will play pdga tournaments!



Ahem, as one of those Novice/Rec players you are speaking of, I do play in quite afew tournaments. That is part of my why I play, is to attempt to be competitive. Now the fact that recreational players in your area may not participate may be occuring for a variety of reasons, but I see a lot of the Novice/rec players in our area attempting to compete.

Thank you,

steve



ok if that is the case i stand corrected, but lets just be clear, if you have a revolution bag with 15 discs and a pair of solomen shoes, you are not a recreational player, no matter what your skill level.

For "Ratings Events," is a 970+ rated player required to play "Open / Gold" even if they have not accepted cash yet?


It's a little bit of a trick question which I answered either earlier on this thread or a similar one. If you host the Blue division below the Gold division, then 'yes' a player at 970 or higher must play Gold and can accept merch prizes if an Am. However, if a TD decide to offer the Advanced division below Gold instead of Blue, an Am over 969 could play Advanced. This wouldn't technically be a pure ratings event, but TDs can offer whatever mix of divisions they feel serves their players best. So it could be an option to offer only Gold-Advanced-White-Red-Green instead of Gold-Blue-White-Red-Green

Ohhh! I didn't get that from the table alone. Thanks for answering the question again.

So there's a poll going on the first post of the first page of this thread. According to the poll, about 1/2 of the current advanced players who will be eligible to move down to Intermediate won't. About 3/4ths of the current intermediates who will be eligible to move down to Rec won't. Only about 1/3rd of the pros won't.

Everybody is answering in a vacuum, presumably. I would expect that there would be a domino effect. If in any particular region a significant number of players move down to their new division, players who are eligible are probably more likely to move down to their new division.

I'll move down. I moved down last time I was eligible and had a lot of fun for a season, doing well in the division indicated by my rating, rather than donating in the division that local bump rules had required me to play.

In some cases where there aren't any or many higher rated Ams, it doesn't take much bravado for a player at 925 to actually play in the higher division that only has a few players up to 950 and not the "uber-Ams" in the 960+ range.

No one is bumped down if they don't want to play there.



whatever, your telling a guy who has always been an intermediate that he's now just as a good as some guy who plays once a month for recreation, we can barely get recreational players to play minis, guess what, they dont and never will play pdga tournaments!


If his rating is below 900... then... um... he's not a ton better. Regardless of how much he plays, whether or not he has salomans and a revo bag and 5 CE Valks, 5 Champ Rocs, and an Aviar from 1990, he's still rated in the same bracket as the guy with the flip flops, champ wraith, and wizard carried in a newspaper satchel.


-Chris.

For those of you who are eligible to move down a division in 2008, there's a poll at the top of page 1 of this thread.

Regarding playing up a division - I think part of the issue is the inevitable time lag in an improving player's rating. I'm rated 896, because that's how I played in a single tournament that was six months ago. In the meantime, I've won Intermediate in a non-sanctioned tourney, moved up, and then cashed in Advanced in my next tourney.

The ratings update hasn't rolled around yet, so I'm still below 900. I feel like my skill level is right around the 935 cutoff level, but the ratings won't reflect that for a while. By the time my rating is finally up to 935ish, my skill level would ideally be up to 950 or 960 (fingers crossed).

If you're getting better there is always going to be a gap between your skills and your rating, and in this situation I think the only thing that makes sense is to play up. It's good for the sake of sportsmanship and for the sake of continuing to be challenged!

ok if that is the case i stand corrected, but lets just be clear, if you have a revolution bag with 15 discs and a pair of solomen shoes, you are not a recreational player, no matter what your skill level.



Not true...I know guys who look like a super pro (bag, clothes, shoes, accessories) but throw like a Intermediate yet they have been playing for years.

ok if that is the case i stand corrected, but lets just be clear, if you have a revolution bag with 15 discs and a pair of solomen shoes, you are not a recreational player, no matter what your skill level.



Not true...I know guys who look like a super pro (bag, clothes, shoes, accessories) but throw like a Intermediate yet they have been playing for years.



I have heard those guys called "pro-recs". I think its very appropriate. :D

Not true...I know guys who look like a super pro (bag, clothes, shoes, accessories) ....



I look pretty good in clothes and shoes, but then I look pretty good without them, too. Maybe not like a pro, but . . . pretty good :)

I prefer to play in the range that my skill level is equal to. I feel my rating is close to it at this time. You have to remember that you will always have some guys moving up thru the ranks or baggin, but some may be leveled out at their skill level. You should know where you belong talent wise and if your rating is alot lower than that, then you should/could play above your rating til it catches up. You have some players who show up each week but never have a chance to place. I hope this will give those players a chance to place at a event and keep them motivated to come out. I know if I play a really good round for me, I can hang with alot of people that are better than me. I cannot yet at this stage, play with them for 4 rounds. Do I want to play in a tournament with no chance to compete? It doesnt sound like alot of fun to me. I could play advance masters but would not be competitive. I am a 897 player and will play in my division until my scores indicate it is time for me to move up, even if my rating is lagging behind. It does not matter to me what my division is called be it rec, novice, or 1,2,3. I just want to play where i belong or above that. I do not want to play down where my skill level would be alot better than my competitors though. Not everyone has the time to devote or the talent to continue improving. Hopefully this will keep players of all levels coming out. That is really the goal isnt it? To keep people playing the game we love?

Not me Bruce, I will play where I fit in to be competitive. If I play good, I get rewarded, bad, I don't. I just hope the PDGA offers tournaments that will have REC divisions, otherwise, were playing against 930s.

Mini Thumber

its not up to the pdga what divisions to offer- its up to the td's.

I believe that the A tier tournaments should only have Adv and Int since Majors only offer Adv and A tiers are the top tier tournaments.

I believe that the A tier tournaments should only have Adv and Int since Majors only offer Adv and A tiers are the top tier tournaments.

Your premise is false. There are at least two Majors that offer lower amateur divisions.

I believe that the A tier tournaments should only have Adv and Int since Majors only offer Adv and A tiers are the top tier tournaments.

Your premise is false. There are at least two Majors that offer lower amateur divisions.



Since Mid-Nationals apparently isn't happening this year, I can only name one major that offers lower amateur divisions, and at least 90% of all PDGA members are ineligible to play in that one due to their gender (U.S. Women's).

Chap

I just think the Ratings associated with the poll are very Weird. if those ratings are the new ratings for each division then I should be a Recreational player because my "sanctioned tournament" rating is only 887.
I play Open division at my home course and place in the top 4 and I usually Play Advanced at all my other tournaments. I've won 4 icebowls in advanced and was planning to move up to pro this year.

By the rating system you are saying that players up to 970 rating should be playing Advanced?? 970 is some pretty good golf and worthy of playing open in my eyes.
I'm 887 and I would Destroy all players in novice,rec,intermediate, and I usually keep up with all the advanced players and a bunch of the pros.
If i were to bump down to where my Rating says I should be then I would probably win all my tournaments and get called a bagger everytime i played.

I like the idea behind this, but I think the ratings are way off. In my eyes anyone over 940+ would be good enough to play pro. I live in New Jersey and our state doesn't have a ton of players, thus our competition isn't as great. It's possible that areas that have so many 950+ Players would need to extend their Advanced Division to include more players as there are more players rated over 1000 who would likely win over the under1000 players.
This isn't true for my area or most areas around me it seems.


-Scott Lewis

hey Scott hows it going! i hear what you are saying, but it could be your area. in every area i've played or reviewed, 887 is not gonna do good in advanced and playing open as a 950 player will only result in donating. i mean, i can win my local minis if i shoot really good and if 2-3 of the truly good players show up and then shoot very average for them. but theres no way i can go cash in a sanctioned event. the issues for Rec and Novice are unique in some ways because there is no floor. a total beginner will get creamed by an 887 player, no doubt. if we seek to attract new members from the beginner categories, perhaps we need more lower rated divisions?

on another angle, why not leave the cut lines fluid for ratings based events? that way divisions can easily adjust for local conditions. there is nothing really magic about the cutoffs, and they are changed anyway, so why not make them a lot more flexible.

if we seek to attract new members from the beginner categories, perhaps we need more lower rated divisions?



there are already one too many unless you are in illinois.

ya really think so? which one is the extra one? i can see how one might say we have too many for established golfers, but are we really tapping the full potential of the low-end market with the single new division? i dont really know.

Perhaps your 887 rating doesn't properly reflect your ability because you haven't had a rated round for a year and a half (jun 06). The ratings system is designed for people who play tournaments regularly, and I would hope that common sense would tell players not to choose their division based on outdated performance.

ya really think so? which one is the extra one? i can see how one might say we have too many for established golfers, but are we really tapping the full potential of the low-end market with the single new division? i dont really know.



i guess it depends on whether you believe the pdga should attempt to be all things to all people (obviously the prevalent idea the past few years) or merely the administrative body for serious tournament play (my opinion, but that cow is way out of the barn at this point). in my area the rec division was barely populated with the old divisional breaks, i'm sure novice will be similar. i don't really see the point myself to creating divisions for players to win with absolutely no skills. where's the incentive to improve?

could you just skip the lower divisions to keep divisional sizes as before? btw, i agree with you on the "cow has left the barn" part. i suppose that as long as both ends of the spectrum are okay, and the big fat middle is happy we'll do okay being everything to everybody. it IS an increasingly daunting challenge, imo.

ya really think so? which one is the extra one? i can see how one might say we have too many for established golfers, but are we really tapping the full potential of the low-end market with the single new division? i dont really know.



i guess it depends on whether you believe the pdga should attempt to be all things to all people (obviously the prevalent idea the past few years) or merely the administrative body for serious tournament play (my opinion, but that cow is way out of the barn at this point). in my area the rec division was barely populated with the old divisional breaks, i'm sure novice will be similar. i don't really see the point myself to creating divisions for players to win with absolutely no skills. where's the incentive to improve?



The incentive to improve is that there are 4 more divisions above Novice filled with people that could destroy someone belonging in that division. It's enough for me, at least. As long as Climo is out there, I have incentive to get better. ;)

To Sandalman:
what's up Pat? haven't talked to you in a while :)
I like the idea of making the cut lines more fluid as the competition level varies from area to area. I would expect other places to be way more competitive than where i live and I can also expect that there might be places where there is even less competition than here(i hope not :( ).
I can agree that there is no way a 887 rated player should win an advanced tournament as they should probably be playing intermediate.

To Curt:------
I had a huge message written out to you because I wasn't sure what your intent was for your reply to my post. I wasn't sure if that was meant to be leaning towards me or anyone in general so I'll save everyone the benefit of the doubt and reply this way......

I know that I am not a 887 rated player and I do have enough of a conscience to not play based on my "outdated performance" which in fact was When I was playing some of the better golf in my career. The rating isn't really based on "outdated performance" as much as it is merely "bad performance". In Non PDGA events during that time which is "outdated" I either won or placed in the top 4 in all of them(playing in advanced or open). If i could put together all the rounds from all the tournaments I've played I'd figure I'm more around 925-930 rated.

Also, I have common sense and have no intentions to bump down. i made no mention that i would, but only said that if i did I know what would likely happen. I am wondering more about others who might want to do it. Common sense is also not necessary when you have a rating system. since your rating is used to distinguish the division you "should play in" then anyone rated 887 can play under advanced. I think you were referring to their Conscience and how others will feel about them.

Common sense, in one definition, is practical good judgment. It would be practical for you to look at the division ratings and see that you fit into one of them and then you would play in that division.
Conscience is defined as : the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual. It would be against my conscience and against the opinion of those around me to do so and thus I don't. I would feel bad bumping down and I would get called a bagger(although i've been getting called that for 4 years). I wouldn't bump down although common sense might tell me that i should so i can win.. which would be the common sense viewpoint on why people even enter tournaments of any kind.

I don't mean to offend anyone here as I hope no one wanted to offend me. I just wanted to show how i felt about the situation and my viewpoints on the wording used. just wanted to reply to the replies to my reply :)

-Scott Lewis

p.s. To Curt again :)- I agree that the rating system is designed for players who play more regularly. More rounds averaged in means that your rating is way more consistent to how you actually play. and it means that your older rounds go off your rating so that older rounds aren't possible to effect your rating and could help keep people from intentionally "bagging".

Everyone just needs to get it into their heads that all of the divisional definitions have changed for PDGA tournaments. "Advanced", "intermediate" and "recreational" mean something completely different now.

Greatzky:

Sorry if my previous post offended you. It was unintended, and I did not get my point across effectively (I should have considered the post more carefully).

My intention was definitely for the post to apply to people in general and not a personal attack.

After reading your post, I would have to agree conscience is a much better term for what I had in mind. Very glad to hear you have a conscience and are playing in the truly appropriate division.

About the player who would want to cheat the system, who is the topic of this conversation, I think that the rating system will keep this to a minimum. 1) a player could not do this very long before a rating kept up. 2) to continue in the action a player could only play PDGA events on rare occasions and would have to screw up a tournament or to along the way.

I wonder if there is any way to screen players outside of the ratings system, perhaps even to the extent of placing unrated players into the appropriate division.

I wonder if there is any way to screen players outside of the ratings system, perhaps even to the extent of placing unrated players into the appropriate division.



From what I understand the TD has the power to move people into different divisions and this would apply to those w/o ratings as well. It would make sense that most w/o ratings would normally be locals that the TD might be familiar with and would know if the person is bagging and should be moved into a higher division.

and as far as 887 or even 940 rated golf winning advanced and cashing in pro... its def. gotta be the area... try coming down to NC and cashing in Intermediate w/ 887 level of play. Not saying this about you in particular... just saying that someone of that level would have a tough time winning a tourney in Intermediate let alone hanging in Advanced or Pro.

I think they (PDGA) did what they could for most areas w/ the divisional break points and there are some places where there have to be exceptions (your area sounds like one) as there may also be areas where you might as well have a 'touring pro' like rating in the 1010's or higher to hang in the pro field and a 970 player has a snowballs chance.

The other thing to consider is that some areas may not have enough who enter a rating range or the TD chooses not to offer that division in an event ahead of time or offer them on opposite days like Brakel. So a Rec player might have to play Int on a day or a Novice play Rec which gets a bigger division than if held separately.

I wonder if there is any way to screen players outside of the ratings system, perhaps even to the extent of placing unrated players into the appropriate division.



From what I understand the TD has the power to move people into different divisions and this would apply to those w/o ratings as well. It would make sense that most w/o ratings would normally be locals that the TD might be familiar with and would know if the person is bagging and should be moved into a higher division.

The TD has the power if the unrated player is a non-member. If he is a member, the TD can only usurp the power. At IOSeries tournaments and for Byron Big D Doubles we calculate ratings for some non-members and require them to play in the proper division. Not that many unrated players bag that way. With the new ratings breaks, I think the number of unrated players bagging in the wrong division will get even smaller.

thx for the replies and I understand better what is going on now.

bruce: I definitely wouldn't expect an 887 rated player to do well in NC :) when I was originally writing my 2nd reply i was going to list the places that were the most competitive and NC was on the list.

-Scott Lewis

I took a look at the four most recent North Carolina tournaments to post results. At your average recent tournament there are one or two players in Intermediate who will have an Intermediate rating four days from now. All the rest are under 900. Will North Carolina TDs accomodate these players by offereing the Rec division? Will these players just play up a division if NC TDs don't change? Will i be driving down to North Carolina any time soon?

I'm 934 rated right now and probably will still be 934 rated with the January update. I'm playing where my rating says I play. :D

Could somebody fill me in on the actual PDGA members numbers shift as we head into the new divisions. For instance:

How many rec's were in the old rating division compared to the new ratings now?

How many intermediates in the old rating division compared to the new ratings now?

How many advanced in the old rating division compared to the new ratings now?

How many would now be classified as novice?

Based on current Am Mens ratings as listed on the membership page.

A) players => 935 = 1095
B) players from 915 to 934 = 1259
C) players from 900 to 914 = 989
D) players from 875 to 899 = 1349
E) players from 850 to 874 = 856
F) players below 849 = 1272

Old Adv (915-1100) = A+B = 1095+1259 = 2354
New Adv (935-1100) = A = 1095

Old Int (875-914) = C+D = 989+1349 = 2338
New Int (900-934) = B+C = 1259+989 = 2248

Old Rec (400-874) = E+F = 856+1272 = 2128
New Rec (850-899) = D+E = 1349+856 = 2205

New Nov (400-849) = 1272

The new Adv takes a hit, but may draw some more Pros since the pro playing Am number rose from 955 to 970.
This added 528 more Pros to the 1438 that could play Adv in 2007.

...hmmm... so much for it being about evening out division sizes since they were almost perfectly distributed before.

Hey, thanks for the footwork on the numbers. It will help me explain to our tournament players what's going on. It seems to me that what is happening in a nutshell is grabbing the lower end advanced and calling them high end intermediate, then grabbing the lower end intermediates and calling them higher end recs, then taking the lower end recs and calling them novice. At the same time figuring some lower end pro's will play as higher end advanced. Did I get the gist of this?

I think it was more about maintaining competition within the divisions.

There was a growing problem of lower rated Adv players never having a chance when competing with players 50-60 ratings points above them. Playing to avoid DFL is OK for a while, but not year after year.

When the Ratings started, the adv division was the smallest division (as fits a bell curve situation) and there was a fairly small gap from the highest and lowest ratings in the division. As the ratings of the Pros have gone higher and higher, more Ams have stayed in advanced moving the average cashing rating above that of a bottom rated player having a great tournament.

The change brings the tops and bottoms close enough for the bottom players to do well if they have a great tournament, and an achievable goal of shaving 2-3 strokes off their game to be competing for the top cards.

It helps lower the number of players that have no chance of cashing and provides more incentive for more players to attend an event.

I assume that would hold true for the lower intermediates having a more reasonable chance of success in rec and the lower rec having a reasonable chance in novice?

You can always make equal size divisions but it doesn't mean the ranges are fair. You could have just two Am divisions of roughly equal size with a single break at 895 and boost the first prize in the top division from a basket to a big basket plus a metal mini basket.

I assume that would hold true for the lower intermediates having a more reasonable chance of success in rec and the lower rec having a reasonable chance in novice?



I'm not sure what you were getting at, but there are a couple of things to keep in mind. First, it is much easier for a player below 900 to improve his game by 3-4 strokes with additional practice than it is for those above 900. Second, as players improve they become much more consistent, and the range between their good and bad rounds drops. Their rating (past performance) becomes a much better predictor of future performance.

A 5 stroke ratings based advantage in the Recreational division still leaves most player capable of being on the lead card if they play a very good tournament, and not very likely of being on the top cards if they do not play a good tournament.

here is a logistics question. i know the new ratings changes allow for ams to play PRO for merch and still retain their AM status. how will anyone know this. is there a new notation on the tournament results? for that matter, how do you know if an amateur has denied cash in the past when playing open, if they finished in the money?

here is a logistics question. i know the new ratings changes allow for ams to play PRO for merch and still retain their AM status. how will anyone know this. is there a new notation on the tournament results? for that matter, how do you know if an amateur has denied cash in the past when playing open, if they finished in the money?



Like this

dening cash (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6458#Open)

alright, try this..

an am plays pro under the new rules and is allowed to accept merch instead, he places in the last cash position. so he isnt denying a payout (just taking it in plastic), therefore the next on the list wouldnt get paid. (as the example above shows).

Click, click, back, back. It is probably not the thing an intermediate needs to worry about. :D

Either they will change the TD report to cover that situation, or they won't and it will be a mess. The 2008 TD report is not on the page where they link to tournament documents. I heard that the 2008 TD report was not ready yet, but I don't know.

im not worried about it, not something im even entertaining at my skill level, just curious if this is one of those things that they changed but forgot that supplemental work was required.

There's just no way to know until the 2008 TD report is published.

i also don't really understand these division changes...i guess i can see the point of them, but around KC these are going to make it harder to compete in intermediate.

for instance, for the kan-u-wyco tourney, we have an intermediate player that spent most of 2007 playing pro masters and also did pretty well playing advanced. well because of the bracket changes, now there is a 923 rated played playing intermediate. d'oh! these brackets will probably take care of themselves in the long run, but i guess i just don't see the competitive benefit of bringing in players in the mid to low 900's back to the intermediate division. also i guess there will always just be people that enjoy only winning (or being expected to win) and not being challenged. i can think of MANY players around KC like this.

But your rating isn't in the Intermediate division so why does his 923 rating matter to you? He's less than 25 points above the new 900 base rating for Intermediate. In fact your rating wasn't in Intermediate last year when the bottom break was 875. Is the problem that TDs in your area don't offer the Rec division so you're forced to enter Intermediate?

i understand your point chuck, i have no real qualm with the brackets.

i guess i just don't understand wanting to go back as far as playing division goes.

If you continue to play in your rating range, it's not going back, just a name change. You nor anyone else has necessarily gotten worse. You and many others have and will hopefully have gotten better.

i also don't really understand these division changes...i guess i can see the point of them, but around KC these are going to make it harder to compete in intermediate.

Everywhere you go, it has always been hard for deep Rec players to compete in Intermediate. If deep Rec players want to compete they should try competing in Rec. There are plenty of tournaments in Kansas and Missouri that offer the Rec division.

If you want to understand the division ratings bracket changes, go look at the ratings of the top players in advanced. There are 175 Advanced players rated from 960 on up to 985. What sense does it make to require a 915 rated player to compete against that crowd?

So long as PDGA competition is about large entry fees funding prize payouts for amateurs, we have to have division breaks and division spreads that make it sensible for our members to show up and compete. The former numbers were pretty discouraging to the 915 to 930 rated players, and thats a large number of players to be discouraging.

It seems to me that these new guidelines are pretty fair. I know it took about 935-950 rated golf to win at the old AM2 (<915).
I really hated going to a full tourney (90 players) with the distribution of less than 20 MPO and MA1 but 50 in AM2. I'd like to see TDs just offer MA1 and MA3 in the future.

I'm probably gonna play in every division this year.
I'll actually go from playing MPO one week to MA2 the next,and I'm sure my rating will no longer fit into AM2 after the April update.

Here's the one issue: In the first real tournament in Virginia, players aren't playing by the new breaks, they're playing by the old structure. Loriella Am is full.

The average of the rated Advanced players is 926.
The average of the rated Intermediate players is 865.

Of the 16 with ratings registered in Intermediate, only 3 are above 900. The rest could play Rec.

14 of the 24 with ratings registered in Advanced are below 935 and could play Intermediate. (I'm one of them)

So what happened?

1. The not changing the names means that a lot of people feel like they are being "demoted" if they play down where their rating says they belong.

2. The TDs decided that Intermediate would play white-white, advanced would play white-blue. When there were only 7 or 8 people signed up, I asked this question and decided to play advanced. (My rating would be 10 points higher if I took out the rounds last year on short "touch" courses that I'd never played before or only played once.)

3. There's no Rec offered.

I haven't looked at how its going in the rest of the country, but I think that it will take a few years before people play where their rating says.

I look at it this way, I cashed in 5 of 8 tournaments that I played with the old system against the old advanced field last year. Until the bottom half of the guys I played against last year start moving down to intermediate, I can play in a division where I'm challenged and I've got a chance to take home a disc or two if I shoot well. If I play intermediate, a level that is for folks up to 2 strokes a round better than me, I'll get called a bagger...

If it had been left "expert" I think it would be different.

No one wants to "move down" here, especially when moving down lumps you in with the brand new players whose ratings put them in Rec or Novice, and sticks you on the lesser tees for both rounds.

The idea of a new rating break to split the old advanced into two divisions, thereby making the payout to the sandbagging 980 golfer smaller was a good one. Telling the guys who were near the bottom of advanced should go back to intermediate looks like a bad one from the implementation standpoint.

My suggestion: Change the limit to make a division 900-950. Call it advanced. Make 950+ a division called "semi-pro" keep it paying in plastic.

In parts of the country that have a tougher advanced division players will play in their ratings indicated division sooner. Take a look at the Cracked Plastic. There were 30 or so legitimate 935+ Advanced players and only about ten wannabes. Six or seven of the newly minted Intermediates moved down to Intermediate.

I think there are parts of the country where cultural attitudes about conformity and peer pressure will make change slower. Backwater places will still be backwater places. There's nothing much to be done about that.

brian is correct with the exception of rec not being offered- it was.

the bod failed to recognize the power of semantics when they waffled on calling a division expert and decided to effectively demote everyone below 935 a division.

backwater? hmmm... HYPOTHETICALLY some may construe that as insulting just as some might think i were insulting bruce were i to tell him to take his backwater comment and stick it. (not that i am doing so as that would be a breach of conduct on this mb)

And I'll have to endure the "BAGGER" taunts, despite signing up for a division whose cap is 33 points above my rating. :mad:

Silly PDGA.

bagger.

It's more like silly peers that should be asking the TD for a Recreational (or Novice) division instead of yelling bagger.

rec was offered, td can lead a bad player to water but can't make them drink.

rec was offered, td can lead a bad player to water but can't make them drink.



I'm sure John is right. I probably didn't even look below Intermediate on the menu since that's as low as I could go.

I was a relatively early registrant and based on where the players ended up, I think I made the right choice. Hopefully by the end of this year it won't be an issue for me as I actually play tournaments on courses I've played before and my rating hopefully goes up...

We'll see how long this distribution stays this way in this backwater cesspool of golf... :D

I don't think the ratings breaks will ever be able to reconcile the upper advanced/ open player transition. After 2 tourneys, I got lucky and have a high advanced rating, and will be ready to start donating soon :) I can accept that moving up will mean not cashing for a while. That's fine. The idea of having to go home with some sort of prize is unhealthy for the sport. Please, no more divisions.

I don't think the ratings breaks will ever be able to reconcile the upper advanced/ open player transition. After 2 tourneys, I got lucky and have a high advanced rating, and will be ready to start donating soon :) I can accept that moving up will mean not cashing for a while. That's fine. The idea of having to go home with some sort of prize is unhealthy for the sport. Please, no more divisions.



Splitting divisions means the guy who finishes top 5 in 16 of 20 advanced tournaments in the last 3 years... and yet doesn't move to open, doesn't walk away with an average of $100 of plastic every tournament that they can turn around and sell.

I'm a fan of really flat payouts not the give this "Am" a financial incentive to keep playing am.

I like to finish well enough to win something, but beyond a disc or two, I'd rather have just had a lower entry fee. Really, I like having the player's pack disc to throw and a disc for cashing to hang on to... beyond that unless I'm getting a stack of plastic that I throw already and lose often, I'm like... what do I do with it?

I'm not opposed to splitting divisions, or people taking home discs for a good performance, but too many divisions allow for players to move up and cash easily at each step, then when they hit the adv/pro transition, they are suddenly not cashing at every tournament (if at all).

Generally speaking, to combat the problem of getting discs in the players pack/payout that you don't want, why not suggest to the TD that they work out a deal with a local store, club store, or online distributor for store credit? The payout then becomes more useful.

You just gotta know that if the PDGA opted for AM1, AM2, AM3, AM4 for names that most of these questions/decsions would have never come up. I got slammed on our local message board or trying to get my fellow intermediate-rated players to play in the intermediate division this year. Now, after a couple of tournaments, people are coming up and telling me I am right because lower-rated pros are dropping down etc. Keeping the old names was the worst thing that could have happened. Playing to win and playing to cash are two different things. If people played in their divisions, maybe they'd learn how to play under the pressure of closing-out a tournament - NOW they may be ready for the next level up..it's a good skill to have and one you may never acquire if you playing in too high a division...

No, no, no, this is the year when that irritating "bagger" talk MUST STOP. It has made me sick over the years just to hear it. Is it a compliment? Is it really a complaint? I have no idea, it's simply irritating. I am sooooooo glad I don't play very many pro/ams anymore. I say there needs to be a new chant for anyone who yells "BAGGER"! Just yelling back "Move down" won't do... I think I am losing it.

You just gotta know that if the PDGA opted for AM1, AM2, AM3, AM4 for names that most of these questions/decsions would have never come up. I got slammed on our local message board or trying to get my fellow intermediate-rated players to play in the intermediate division this year. Now, after a couple of tournaments, people are coming up and telling me I am right because lower-rated pros are dropping down etc. Keeping the old names was the worst thing that could have happened. Playing to win and playing to cash are two different things. If people played in their divisions, maybe they'd learn how to play under the pressure of closing-out a tournament - NOW they may be ready for the next level up..it's a good skill to have and one you may never acquire if you playing in too high a division...



I agree. Names, Schmames. The new breaks provide reasonable ratings based divisions with regressive names. Guys who are hovering just below 900 are top rated rec players. They haven't played Rec in years. I call 'em Am III's. Me, I'm mired in Am IV. Call it what ever you want, pink division, novice, uber juniors, whatever. All I know is the players in my division suck as bad as I do. In AM III they don't suck as badly etc.

The only thing that worries me are the tournaments that only go down to Intermediate. In the past I would play the ones that had a good course, a good TD and fun folks to play with so I could be a likely doner in the under 915 division. This year it will be a tougher decision for me to play those same events and be a certain donor in an under 935 division.

TDs need to actually enforce the rating brackets...who cares if you signed up as am... "well your rating says you play in the higher division...if you don't like it, then don't play so well...." Mitch.. am bagger of the year in...02? i remeber the year you were DOMINATING. you were not bagging though you were having a great run of tournaments....erik drake is bagging.... haha. move up (better yet move your SKILLS up) all baggers are afraid of competition. i think bagger is a compliment from some and a shot from others. if I call anyone a bagger, its cuz they wont move up. and I disrespect that. better yourself, right?

I like to yell, "Bagger, get a Winnebago!" at the guy who wins in Open. :D

[QUOTE]
beyond that unless I'm getting a stack of plastic that I throw already and lose often, I'm like... what do I do with it? [QUOTE]


You might do what I try to do some. If it is usable plastic for beginners, keep in you car or bag, when you see a passing kid or someone that might be intrested in disc golf give one to them. I also have donated disc's to the Edge program and sent some over to the troops for Christmas.

I would like to know the implications of being called a bagger. I, myself have been called a bagger before. I just smiled and that was the end of it. I know that must be a rare occurrence because people are talking like it's the worst thing in disc golf. So, please indulge me on the other situations so I can prepare myself for the backlash of playing the division I AM SUPPOSED TO PLAY.

Do you lose friends because of this? Wow, that friendship must have been strong before the bagger incident.
Do you get beat up?
Death threats?

Please, it has to be something more than just being called a bagger.

Yes, Barsby, Dr. Drake is truly a bagger. I mean, 10 years ago he was the best young player I knew. He was practically ready for Open then. Now all these guys have passed him because he shied away from true competition. Don't try to butter me up reminding me of past glories just cause you want me to keep giving you money! Ha ha!!!! I should move down...NOT. It would feel like the Twilight Zone out there. It seems like everyone who moves up to OPEN nawadays is a great golfer, I know they kick my butt. They respond to good competition. Only one more year of me paying to watch you young guys play. Just give me some cashes, disc Gods please........

Chuck, could you post a link to the new Ratings breakdown for all divisions for me please.
I have looked all over for it and can not seem to find it.
Thanks!

From the home page click on the link for tour information in the updates box. All the info is on that page.

You get to all Tour info from the link in the box on the upper right corner of the Home page called: 2008 PDGA TD/Tour Information (Updated 3/17/08)

www.pdga.com/documents/2008/08PlayerDivisionsGrid.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2008/08PlayerDivisionsGrid.pdf)

Thanks gentlemen, I knew it was right in front of my face.

Nice avatar, Mike. Looks like mine! I sold the disc to Schlaak so maybe I'll have to let him have the avatar too.

On the bagger topic, I finished 2nd in pro master last weekend. Next weekend I'm playing intermediate at Bowling Green. :D If I play as well at bowling Green, I could finish 10th. :eek: :D:cool:

I think there are parts of the country where cultural attitudes about conformity and peer pressure will make change slower. Backwater places will still be backwater places. There's nothing much to be done about that.



wow, what a great excuse for bagging, if you are almost garanteed to win, you are bagging, no matter what your rating, ratings are updated so slowly that that they cant even be seen as accurate anyway.

what i want to know is have the tournaments up north offered the new novice division. i havent noticed it being offered in TX, i did noticed that an OK event last weekend was ratings based, so they had novice, (btw, a pro women won am2 ;))

^^^ Hey, you're right ^^^ :D

At least 75% of the sanctioned tournaments in Illinois are offering the novice division this year.

At least 75% of the sanctioned tournaments in Illinois are offering the novice division this year.




NC doesn't offer novice.

no novice here in va either.

The smaller events around Houston are offering MA4. We didn't at TX States simply because it didn't work well with our pool/division distributions.

The smaller events around Houston are offering MA4. We didn't at TX States simply because it didn't work well with our pool/division distributions.




I thought it was because crowning someone MA4 State champ was absurd.

I have not seem any Novice Divisions in WA state.

The smaller events around Houston are offering MA4. We didn't at TX States simply because it didn't work well with our pool/division distributions.




I thought it was because crowning someone MA4 State champ was absurd.



No more absurd than MA3, MA2 or MPM for that matter.

Logistically we couldn't make it work without a 4th course.

i agree with matt, it would be absurd, i think ma2 was kind of absurd, it should be advanced ams and open state champs. but what the heck do i know, i just didnt think anyone would want to play novice and the fact that nobody seems to be offering it backs that up a little bit

I think it's rather shortsighted by those who want to see pro purses grow. With no spectators, no sponsorship. By only catering to the current echelon of players, you'll only get participants not spectators. Spectators, if we ever get them, will have to come from the vast number of Rec players out there. By "rolling up the carpet" and saying you have to be able to play at this level to compete, we'll continue churning and swapping each other's money. Nothing wrong with that but consider that not offering lower and lower divisions will definitely not broaden the sport.

I think it's rather shortsighted by those who want to see pro purses grow. With no spectators, no sponsorship. By only catering to the current echelon of players, you'll only get participants not spectators. Spectators, if we ever get them, will have to come from the vast number of Rec players out there. By "rolling up the carpet" and saying you have to be able to play at this level to compete, we'll continue churning and swapping each other's money. Nothing wrong with that but consider that not offering lower and lower divisions will definitely not broaden the sport.




How will you get spectators when they decide to play Novice instead?

I think it's rather shortsighted by those who want to see pro purses grow. With no spectators, no sponsorship. By only catering to the current echelon of players, you'll only get participants not spectators. Spectators, if we ever get them, will have to come from the vast number of Rec players out there. By "rolling up the carpet" and saying you have to be able to play at this level to compete, we'll continue churning and swapping each other's money. Nothing wrong with that but consider that not offering lower and lower divisions will definitely not broaden the sport.




How will you get spectators when they decide to play Novice instead?



plus they can play rec, there is no difference among sub 850 rated players, they will probably have a 700 round followed by a 900 round and every place inbetween all over the map, i think novice is not being offered because nobody sees a difference between rec and novice, how much more friendly to new players can you get then a "recreational" division?

Wouldn't you agree there are more potential players with ratings under 850 than all of current PDGA members combined? Continue doing the same things, expect to continue getting the same results.

The Lexington Open X currently has 5 Novices signed up. ;)


The one thing I thought of that would effect the other divisions would be the lessening of points gained as the lower field moved to Novice and Recreational because of they feel they are playing in a division according to their rating.

Just means that if you play Intermediate you will have to play more tournaments to get the points to qualify for the Worlds. :p

plus they can play rec, there is no difference among sub 850 rated players, they will probably have a 700 round followed by a 900 round and every place inbetween all over the map, i think novice is not being offered because nobody sees a difference between rec and novice, how much more friendly to new players can you get then a "recreational" division?



You speak in mere conjecture about something you know nothing about. There's no difference among players rated over 900, I think you should turn pro already.

Where Novice is offered, sub-850 players are playing. For the tourney I'm playing this weekend, the pre-reg for Novice is just as large as the pre-reg for Open.

I think the tourney model Brakel's and Brett have developed in Illinois is doing a great job serving all levels of players in creative ways. May not work everywhere due to entrenched perspectives but it's worth a shot to try.

Mike is playing IOS #1 in Kenosha, Wisconsin this weekend.

We started offering Am 4 last year and had eight to a dozen players at every tournament. If a TD is not filling his tournaments already, there's no reason not to offer all the lower divisions.

10% of the amateur male PDGA members in Virginia are Am 4s. 15% in North Carolina. If Virginia and North Carolina are similar to Michigan and Illinois, 90% of your players are Am 4 non-members.

If I could fill Saturday with Open pros and Sunday with Advanced men, I wouldn't see much point to offering Am 2, 3 and 4. As it is, I'm hoping Am 4 will grow and some year we'll be a step ahead of the PDGA offering Am 5.

Wouldn't you agree there are more potential players with ratings under 850 than all of current PDGA members combined? Continue doing the same things, expect to continue getting the same results.



i agree with this, time will tell

plus they can play rec, there is no difference among sub 850 rated players, they will probably have a 700 round followed by a 900 round and every place inbetween all over the map, i think novice is not being offered because nobody sees a difference between rec and novice, how much more friendly to new players can you get then a "recreational" division?



You speak in mere conjecture about something you know nothing about. There's no difference among players rated over 900, I think you should turn pro already.

Where Novice is offered, sub-850 players are playing. For the tourney I'm playing this weekend, the pre-reg for Novice is just as large as the pre-reg for Open.



i hope that works out, but what is the difference between the novice and the recs, that was my question. in tx sometimes the am2 winners play as well as the am1 winners, sometimes the am3 winners would have beat the am2 winners. im just trying to understand if there is a need for novice. if there is then i'm all for it, but it just doesnt seem apparent here in tx.

Last year the IOS ran the AMIV division inside the Recreational division as an experiment (AMIV was capped at 835, AM3 at 875).
Sample winning rating averages for the last three IOS tourneys in 2007:
MA3 MA4
946 865
907 871
912 851
So yes, there is definitely a difference. There will be tournaments where the winners of one division may have bested the next division up, but that is more the exception than the rule. Typically a division winner must be shooting above the division rating cap to win.

Mike is playing IOS #1 in Kenosha, Wisconsin this weekend.

We started offering Am 4 last year and had eight to a dozen players at every tournament. If a TD is not filling his tournaments already, there's no reason not to offer all the lower divisions.

10% of the amateur male PDGA members in Virginia are Am 4s. 15% in North Carolina. If Virginia and North Carolina are similar to Michigan and Illinois, 90% of your players are Am 4 non-members.

If I could fill Saturday with Open pros and Sunday with Advanced men, I wouldn't see much point to offering Am 2, 3 and 4. As it is, I'm hoping Am 4 will grow and some year we'll be a step ahead of the PDGA offering Am 5.



i hope if you build it they will come, maybe it has to do with how many people are signing up for tournaments in a given area, most of the ones i play fill without a novice division, and the am2 and am3s are usually the first to be marginalized.

Sometime last year I took a look at the tournament stats of our Am 4 players. Two things were obvious: (1) By offering Am 4 we we're getting players with that rating to play a lot more tournaments than they played the previous year. (2) They were playing our tournaments more and other TD's tournaments less.

Offering Am 4 split the Am 3 field a little, but mostly it drew out more Am 4 rated players. And since we were doing it as a shadow division inside Am 3 last year, it made our Am 3 division look huge.

i just took a look at some of those tournaments, it looks like they were mostly one day tournaments, are adv/open playing on a different day? we dont really have much of that down here, but i can see how having a two day two round gig would allow for a lot more people to play, we have the poison ivy open every january like that, but its usually the same people playing both days in different divisions.

the only real problem I have with the MA4 division is that by the time most players (at least around here) want to start playing in sanctioned events, they're already competitive in the MA3 division. I think if TDs have a limited field size, leaving off MA4 is a good idea. At least then the MA4-types who do want to play will be carded with some (hopefully) more experienced MA3 players and can learn a bit about the sport and tournament etiquette without "slowing down" the more experienced MA2 and MA1 divisions.

On a somewhat-related note: I've noticed a very interesting paradigm that has become more prevalent after this change. It seems that many of the old-school golfers really want to push hard for players to move up and play above their ratings. But, when I tell them that MA2 will be playing the long boxes with MPO and MA1... the same old-schoolers complain that those players are just going to slow down the event. Of course this is usually the same group that views a consistently 930-rated golfer playing in MA2 as having "moved down". Ironically, if the PDGA had stuck with "advanced" for MA2 and "expert" for MA1... these people would most likely not be complaining.

I feel like the new MA2 is a much better, much more competitive division. I also feel like the players there *should* be playing the more challenging teeboxes on most courses. The beauty of the new MA2 division is that the players in that range are skilled, but working on certain pieces of their game or trying to build consistency. The more challenging holes allow players a real chance to "sink or swim", preparing them better for MA1.

Perhaps I'm biased since I fall well within the MA2 range, but I think that MA1, MA2, and MA3 are enough for most events. I also think that the brackets are fine where they are. MA3 provides a good enough starting point. I would be very surprised if MA4 gets much participation nation-wide, but at least it's there if the local scene would benefit from it.

Just looking at a few tournaments you played in 2007, it looks like half the Am 3 players were Am 4s. Will they keep playing Am 3 now that the cap on Am 3 is 900?

I've noticed that Michigan and Wisconsin TDs are mostly not offering the Am 4 division. I hope Indiana TDs follow suit. I'd be happy for the IOSeries to have a monopoly on Am 4 for 300 miles around.

We'll have at least a dozen Am 4s playing on "Open-2-4-Saturday". Ten are pre-registered already.

I am offering AM4 in all 4 my Sanctioned events this year.

am4 would be cool for the jrs and women who dont really have enough players to make a division, sometimes am3 is a stretch for a 10 year old.

my first tournament i knew nothing about competion golf, but i had been playing everyday for 9 months and so i signed up for am2 because i thought recreational meant recreational, my idea was of some guy who had played 4 or 5 times and wanted to compete, boy was i wrong, i finished 31st in am2 but the am3 winner would have won am2, go figure

i just took a look at some of those tournaments, it looks like they were mostly one day tournaments, are adv/open playing on a different day?



The IOS tournaments are two one day tourneys. With one set of divisions playing on Saturday, the other on Sunday. The average last year was 169 players/weekend. This year the days are split with MPO/MA2/MA4 playing on Saturday and all others on Sunday. (last year it was Pro/Adv Sat and Int/Rec/Jr on Sun).

Just looking at a few tournaments you played in 2007, it looks like half the Am 3 players were Am 4s. Will they keep playing Am 3 now that the cap on Am 3 is 900?


Well, I think you'd need to assume that non-members are MA4 players in order to make that 50% figure accurate... but if we do assume that, I think the answer is still yes. In this area, many of the 875-900 rated players play MA2. Some even MA1 or MPO :eek:. I haven't attended very many tournaments where a decent-sized MA4 field could have existed if offered (last year). and judging by the number of pre-registrations I've taken for tournaments across Texas and several other states, your number of 10 MA4 pre-registered is huge. Please don't mistake my meaning, I think it definitely has a place and if the region supports a good MA4 field, then by all means offer it.

For instance, I won't be offering MA4 at my June event in Rockwall, but if I end up doing an event in McKinney or Denton this year, I will offer MA4. Both of those areas have a very strong casual contingent and offering MA4 at $10 or $15 just might bring them out and give them a taste of tournament play. I think that those areas of DFW are an exception to the North Texas rule, though. In fact, Denton is so different that I probably won't sanction it with the PDGA.

I think what you're seeing is regional differences in one vs two day events creating some of the differences. The south and west have more 2-day events and the north central to east have more 2-day events that are 1-day for competitors because some divisions are offered Sat with the others on Sun. That allows the lower level players to enter their true rating level without being "psychologically" prodded to play two days in a higher division. The model Brakel and others are offering has more potential to build the sport on a broader basis because the format caters to a wider range of skills AND allows more total participants to compete over the same time period. Those who want to play two days can also do so by entering the division above them the other day.

I'm not discounting the merits of splitting the divisions to different days, but as a competitor I can say that while I do enjoy 1-day tournaments, sometimes I really want the second day to overcome a bad round on the first. Playing both days in a spit event doesn't allow me to combine my scores :)

Also, I think part of building the sport is allowing people to compete against the best in their area (or many times, the best in the sport) even if not in the same area. The more that players gain skill, the more they want to know how competitive they would be if they did move up. They need to be able to compare their scores on a round to the next division up the chain. Newer players often want to socialize with and observe the top pros. There are many ways to build the sport, and hopefully the events that split days don't discourage the above.

I've always been a big fan of the TD's right to lay out the event how he sees fit. Nobody knows the players in the area better than a local TD. :)

Okay, I saw mention of the Ratings event in Oklahoma, but no mention of the results other than Jennifer won MA2. Well I'd like to expand on this thought to some of those folks making comments here that are in my area (North Texas/Oklahoma).

If you look closely at the results, keep in mind that the divisional names Open, Adv., Int., Rec. and Nov. are really meaningless when you use ratings. I offered the following divisions on a fairly simple course in Pauls Valley, OK.

MA4 = <850, MA3 = <900, MA2 = <935, MA1 = <970 and MPO = 970+.

The winner of each division would not have placed "In the Money" of the next division up...ie...<850 winner would not have placed in the <900 and so forth, until you get to the <970 division. There was a tie for first in that division and that score would have placed them in Last place money in the 970+ division. But the next score down in the <970 would not have placed.

So, get rid of the Division name stigma go to ratings and use colors or rating numbers and you will begin to see that bagging will be a thing of the past.

The only problem I see is everyone is stuck on names. Like "I play Advanced" or "I play Intermediate" it doesn't matter that the intermediate player is rated 870 and the rest are rated 920, the 870 player just couldn't bruise their ego by playing Rec.

However, go to Gold, Blue, White, Red and Green as the division names which are set by ratings and there are no longer the ego names like Adv, Int., Rec., and God forbid, Novice. :eek: :eek:

Look the results from a Ratings event in Pauls Valley, OK HERE (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7524) and you be the judge of what works.

good analysis Tom, and yes i was referring to your event, i wish i could have been there, but i had to go get my but kicked at world dubs :D

I couldnt find any results. How did you handle the non-PDGA folks? I have considered running our annual event as a ratings based event, but in our area usually 2/3 of the total players are non-members or non-current...and, there are only a hand-full of players rated over 970.

Use this...

Ratings Calculator (http://www.pdga.org/competition/ratings/CalcWCPtemp200.xls)

I couldnt find any results. How did you handle the non-PDGA folks? I've run enough events around here I know how all the non-pdga players play and guided them to the appropriate division. As far as the non-current players, they still have a rating.

I have considered running our annual event as a ratings based event, but in our area usually 2/3 of the total players are non-members or non-current...and, there are only a hand-full of players rated over 970. anyone can step up and play in the 970+ division

Sometime last year I took a look at the tournament stats of our Am 4 players. Two things were obvious: (1) By offering Am 4 we we're getting players with that rating to play a lot more tournaments than they played the previous year. (2) They were playing our tournaments more and other TD's tournaments less.



This weekend we had record high Am4 attendance, 18 players. The other sanctioned tournament 26 miles away did not offer Am4 so I have to assume that we got his and ours. I'm not sure how that worked for the other TD, but I should quit trying to explain these things, and take my blessings where I find them. :D

I figured out this weekend that TDs who do the graduated entry fee thing probably cannot offer Am 4 except at a loss. We completely tossed the graduated entry fee thing this year. If you are an amateur you pay $X. If you are a pro you pay $Y. Am1, Am4, AmGrand -- it doesn't matter. All ams pay the same reasonable entry fee and get the same tournament value. Same with the pros, but $12 more.

Has there been any analysis of round ratings to determine the difference between the old and new ratings breaks? For example: X average rating was winning Intermediate last year, and Y average rating is winning this year. Obviously, it should be higher for Intermediate and Rec, but does it coincide with the difference in ratings breaks between last year and this year? What about Advanced? That one could go either way with some pros moving down and some Ams moving up because they can accept merch.

If this has been done, it would be interesting to see the differences.

I think it's too early to tell. Many players seem to be playing up because they don't like being "demoted" in the division name and some don't care. Plus, the competition season is barely getting underway in the northern US with few official results.