Should a person play within their rating?

OK, so someone with a Recreation rating who used to have an Intermediate rating and has been playing* the game since 1978 wants to know what you think. Should "he" play in the division which his rating indicates or would that make him a sissy? (ok, he may already be a sissy--keep your comments to yourself)

*by playing I'm referring to the torturing of innocent frisbees and discs for 25 years.

[MTL21676]

I think the 925 rating rule is waaaaaaaaaaaaay to high....

My rating is 914 (however it should go up over 925 at the next rating)

If I wanted to, I could show up to a PDGA and play intermediate....I have had 4 2nd places in Advanced B Tiers and have an estimated 1030 round to my credit.....I know there are many players like me who dont have the 925 but should not be playing AM......but if everyone played based on their rating, the Intermediate field would be a lot harder

[rhett]

And Rec might have more than 6 people when it's offered.

[gnduke]

If everyone played where thier rating placed them, then each division would be competitve within itself.

If players are playing above thier rating, they are trying to improve quickly (based on the belief that stronger competition builds a better game) or caving to peer pressure that tells them they should "move up".

As long as players do not play where thier rating places them, we will not know how well the division cutoff lines are drawn.

Simply put, you should play where your rating places you unless you desire the stronger competition in a higher division.

[neonnoodle]

Yes he/she should. Though they are free to play up for whatever reason they may choose.

If everyone played within their recommended division you would have fairer competitions. Across the nation there are different breakdowns of skill ranges. Some areas have a ton of Adv players and no Rec players, others few Adv, and tons of Int players. Because you placed in Adv in one region does not mean that you would in another.

Note: If you know the WCP or SSA is say 60 on a course, just because you shot a 57 does not mean that an accurate estimate of the Round Rating is a 1030. This is due to compression. Each stroke under the 1000 round of 60 might not be a full 10 points in ratings, it is likely to be less, probably around 6 or so, resulting in a rating of 1018.

League ratings calculators are available, write to Chuck Kennedy. (You will need to update your propagators (“Gators”) when updates come out to keep them accurate.)

[bruce_brakel]

Based on the number of rounds you have in the data base, I'd say you've earned that rating and the right to play with people your own skill level. "Recreational" is just a bad name for a division that really should be called "Bottom Feeders Who Are Serious About The Game But Aren't Especially Good At It Yet and Cheap Baggers Who Refuse to Join So They Can Bag Some More."

Based on the data I've seen so far, that division is dominated by unrated players and Intermediates who slip in. That division needs a few members playing in it just so the rest will know who the baggers are!

Look at the data:

TBD 8/23/03 won by an Intermediate rated player who somehow played rec.

Vintage Cup 8/16/03 won by non-member who won every round by avg of 4 strokes per round

Illinois Open 8/10/03 won by unrated new member who shot his way into Intermediate

Overstable.com won by unrated non-member

Oh, here's a gem:

Addison Oaks Open 8/3/03 won by an unrated non-member who shot rounds that would have been rated at 911 and 933! Paper or plastic?!

Here's a better one:

Who'll Stop The Rain? 6/15/03 The guy who came in second in recreational had an intermediate rating when he played the tournament! The guy who won was an unrated non-member who had a 940 rated day!!!

[gang4010]

By what Robert said - it seems someone is noticing what I stated a year ago - the ratings spreads for divisional play are too small - and the cutoffs incorrect. A "recreational division" has no basis for application of the ratings system - none of the players are rated! Wake up guys - the RB system will fail if it is not inclusive of all divisions - not just ams.

[bruce_brakel]

This year I moved over to the division indicated by my rating rather than the division indicated by my age. It was great for my game and I'll tell you why:

Playing in the afternoon primarily against unrated non-members who were too good for Intermediate, I had to play my best to finish well. And in the morning when I was on a card with a bunch of Recs playing up, I had to kick their asses<FONT COLOR="ffffff">s</FONT>knowing that the unrated non-members were out doing the same.

by Rhett "And Rec might have more than 6 people when it's offered."

You would fall on the floor if you saw what is going on in Houston area. There may be 4-6 in adv. div. cause all the adv. moved to am, and am moved to rec. rec is huge here /msgboard/images/clipart/sad.gif
it all up to each individuals goals in life, some set highers standards for themselves, and others do not. (btw. I am rated rec, but play adv. quite well)

[rhett]

chu, that is how it should shake down. The advanced division will be depleted and it will show the glaring hole of not going to what every PDGA golfer knows as true: the divisional skill breakdown goes Pro Open/Advanced/Intermediate/Rec. With no advanced players it will be obvious that the never-cahsing "pros" rated between 910 and 960-ish should be playing advanced! /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif


As for The TBD Tourney, we had a "Ratings Lock" on June 30th so that players could finish the series in their divisions. We track points for all divisions all year long. (We started doing that back when the PDGA only tracked Advanced and Pro points.)

[ching_lizard]

Statistics aren't quite backing up those statements there Matchu. Here take a look at the numbers from States last weekend:

<TABLE BORDER=1><TR><TD>Division</TD><TD>Reg.Count </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>27 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPM</TD><TD>14 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MA1</TD><TD>37 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MM1</TD><TD>22 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MA2</TD><TD>40 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MM2</TD><TD>8 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MA3</TD><TD>17 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MM3</TD><TD>5 </TD></TR><TR><TD>FW1</TD><TD>7 </TD></TR><TR><TD>FW2</TD><TD>0 </TD></TR><TR><TD>FW3</TD><TD>6 </TD></TR><TR><TD>FPO</TD><TD>0 </TD></TR><TR><TD>FPM</TD><TD>1 </TD></TR><TR><TD>FJ3</TD><TD>1 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MJ3</TD><TD>2 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MJ2</TD><TD>5 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPG</TD><TD>2 </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>0 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Total:</TD><TD>194 </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>All Pros</TD><TD>44 </TD></TR><TR><TD>All Adv.</TD><TD>66 </TD></TR><TR><TD>All Int.</TD><TD>48 </TD></TR><TR><TD>All Rec.</TD><TD>28 </TD></TR><TR><TD>All Jrs</TD><TD>8 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Total:</TD><TD>194 </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>

Keep in mind that because the Recreational division wasn't ever offered at States before, players were forced to have to play up in order to get in the tournament. Many of the Ams were actually Rec. players that just wanted to get in the tournament. If you look at the scores of the former Am division you'll notice that there was a huge spread of scores/performance in the Am division in particular. For the most part, scores within the divisions all seemed to be about right...no real obvious baggers in any division except maybe the MM2. Guy Mikeska won by 10 strokes. His rating is 870 which is near the line for moving up to Advanced Master, but his ratings data is based on 20 rounds, so I'd have to say, that in his case, he had some fabulous rounds out there!

Ratings aren't based on whether you set higher standards for yourself or not...they are based on tourney performance. Your rating is 867 and if you had renewed your membership, then we could see how many tournaments that was based on. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif You can still set high standards for yourself and have a player rating that puts you in Recreational. You can still sign up for Advanced division if you have a Recreational rating. Yes, you might learn a few new things by watching/playing with better players, but chances are good that you just paid an additional $20 for those lessons and you will probably finish about 25 strokes behind the leader if you have the game of your life.

It all depends on whether or not you want to be competitive or not. If you don't and you don't mind paying a higher entry fee to get a few lessons, then go ahead...donate. But if you want to find out how competitive you'd be, then you still have to play once in a while in your rated division just to see if your skills have improved when compared against the guys in your own rated division...right?

[neonnoodle]

Larry,

I wonder what those numbers would have looked like in a straight up R-Tier format? (You might have gotten more pros to show as well...)

Nick

I wonder if there's anyone who hasn't already been berated by my opining on this issue, or if more on it from me would just constitute a redundant beat down. Hmmm...

BTW Ching, an 840 rated player played to with a stroke of that 870 you mentioned over two rounds in favorable conditions on Saturday. Guy did shoot well in the 27 holes of slop and the best golfer won the division. That doesn't mean he was bagging. How's that Rec. experiment going for you anyway? /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

[damonshort]

Most tournaments in IL and WI with Intermediate and Rec divisions are non-sanctioned, which means that you won't get rating points. So, you've got to play in the Adv divisions (whether you 'belong' there or not) to try to raise your rating past the Rec/Am level... maybe it's not a problem if theoretically it would raise your level of play, I suppose.

[davei]

Theo, I am somewhat ignorant of the ratings affecting points and what points are for. Do you get progressively more points for playing in higher divisions? IE, do you get 1 point for each player you beat in rec., and 2 for each in am and three for each in advanced, or is it flat? And, what incentive do points offer?

not to answer for theo but you do get more points fro playing in higher divisions (although the breakdown is not linear like 1,2,3)

points offer the same incentives as ever- beat your friends, go to the worlds.

in our area at least the players have been slow to conform themselves to the numbers, few are playing in their rated division. perhaps the numbers should conform to the players instead? i believe it was craiger who said long ago that the divisional breaks should be more closely tied to actual scores shot by players in the divisions in which they choose to compete.

i had one player at the old dominion ams who wanted to play to his recreational rating- after 1 round with the other rec players (true beginners all) he realized he was in the wrong place and asked to be moved up to int where he placed in the top 40% or so.

I can't find the reason to renew when someone can have there own division with added cash in a A-tier tournament.

[jconnell]

Dave,

The new points structure is located on the last page of the new Amateur Structure document (http://pdga.com/2003PDGAAmateurCompetitionStructurePlan.pdf). And it is definitely skewed to reward the higher divisions with more points, as it should be, so the best players still get the majority of the invites to Worlds.

As far as the ratings breaks go, I agree with those who are saying that we can't judge the effectiveness of the current breaks until players adhere to them consistently. There is too much variance from region to region mainly because there are still pockets around the country where players have been slow to conform and adapt (my own region included). I think much of any negativity about ratings is derived from those parts, because since the breaks aren't being used correctly, they appear to be out of whack.

It's an interesting thing to read about and witness.

Take two hypothetical tournaments held in different regions. They both have 25 players in Advanced.

Region A - 20 out of 25 have ratings between 930 and 955.

Region B - 2 out of 25 have ratings above 925.

In Region A, everyone's going to say the ratings breaks are right, they work, "yay ratings".

In Region B, chances are, people will say the breaks aren't quite right, they need to be adjusted, "boo ratings" (and probably those 2 players above 925 are getting pressured to move up to pro and to stop preying on the other 23).

The question is, who is right? What is the ideal? Stick with what we have (meaning Region A is in good shape and Region B needs to adjust) or re-adjust the breaks (so Region B is more fair and Region A is split up).

I'm in the "stick with what we have" camp, at least until we see more conforming to the system. If we adjust to often to appease the new squeaky wheel, we'll never find the consistency we seek.

The only thing I think needs to be changed is making it easier for the low-rated pros to drop back into their ratings bracket and be competitive. I assume that's what Craig means when he said "the RB system will fail if it is not inclusive of all divisions - not just ams". Somehow, I think the only way that will be rushed into being is for there to be fully conformity in the am divisions so, like Rhett points out, the numbers in Advanced scream out for the lower-rated pros to drop.

Just my thoughts...

--Josh

[davei]

Thanks guys. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif One more question, if you don't mind. Are participation points skewed also? Do you get more participation points in adv, than in lower divisions? All of this is aiming at how or if moving up divisions is incentivized, rather than mandated.

[davei]

Thanks, Theo.

[rob]

My only problem with the ratings are that Adv Master and Intermediate have the same points factor. The reason I say that is many of the tournaments I've played in have the Intermediates playing from the short tees, allowing for better scores; while Adv Masters play from the regular tees (as they should). While both divisions have the same ratings and players can choose to play in either one, where is the incentive to "play up", knowing many tournaments have a larger Intermediate division and a player can get more points and prizes? I started playing last year at age 39 and "moved up" to Adv Master this year. I've seen long time Adv/ Adv Master players "play down" when they get to a tourney and see small Masters/ larger Intermediate divisions. Even though they are playing by the "rules", it doesn't seem fair.

[jconnell]

Rob,

How can it be unfair? They're not just going to where the points and prizes are, they're going to where the better competition is also.

I think one of the intentions of making Adv Masters equivalent to Intermediate in terms of points is to encourage players into larger pools of like-skilled players rather than having the pool of players disected. The full-time Intermediates will benefit from those Adv Masters just as much as the Masters may benefit from the Ints. Each set of players has a larger amount of points and prizes to play for, which can't be a bad thing for anyone.

I don't think the difference in tee location should make that much of a difference in the equation either. The players are of like skills (or at least the ratings say that), thus negating any perceived advantage one might gain. If 3 Adv Masters jump into Int rather than play by themselves in their own division, it really isn't any different than if 3 other full-time Ints show up.

On another note, I think with the advent of ratings-based divisions, using shorter tees for the lower divisions is becoming counter-productive. It only hurts the players that are in those divisions when they can't get a rating for their rounds because there aren't enough propagators among them to generate a rating.

They need the upper divisions, which tend to have more rated players, to be able to have their rounds rated properly. The more tournaments they play in situations like that, and the longer the good players can linger and "sandbag" because their rating isn't changing.

JMO

--Josh

[pnkgtr]

I think perhaps a ratings cap for all protected divisions may be necessary.

[rob]

Josh- OK, I agree it's fair for players to play in any division within their ratings. If it makes larger divisions, all the better. My problem is that ratings were provided for those playing Int. as if they played the same course. That may be due to the way the TDs turn in the tourny info, not the player's fault. I admit it may also be my perceived idea that someone is "playing down"
Rich- maybe a ratings cap and/or restructuring of the ratings are necessary.

[neonnoodle]

Sounds like you guys are talking about problems with event course layout and tee assignments more than any problems with PDGA Ratings.

[xterramatt]

Rob, play intermediate, your ratings will probably go up, and you'll get points for all those kids you beat. You beat me in non tournament mode, it's just a switch to go to tournament play. The good guys play in advanced, but the value return is there as well if you play well. If you don't, it's not much different than ADMast cept for the cash, and the comeradery....

Play up man, you got the game Mr. 80 foot jump putt.

[jconnell]

You're right, Nick. I think the issue Rob brings up is one having to do with course layouts and TDs. That, and admittedly battling the "playing down" perception left over from the old system.

Rob, if Intermediates played shorter tees than the rest, but were rated as if they played the longs, then it is a problem. You should contact the Ratings committee about that particular event, I'm sure they would look into it. It's only hurting those Intermediates when that happens, because their ratings will end up being artificially higher than they should be.

Rich, don't protected divisions already have ratings caps? Isn't that what the whole amateur structure is about? Or maybe I misunderstand what you mean?

--Josh

[gnduke]

While MM1 and MA2 have the same points and lower entry level (875), only MA2 has an upper limit (925).
You don't get better competition in MA2, just more points and bigger payout. If you are a 920ish player, you are going to cash in MA2 bigger and more often than you will in MM1.

[neonnoodle]

People talk about incentives to move up often here on this board. The need to push people through our competitive system has been greatly reduced by the creation and implementation of the 2003 Amateur Division And Points System Plan. No longer is our Amateur Class simply a transitional class between neebies and the Professional Class, each Amateur Division is a point of destination.

We need to face the concrete fact that different disc golfers will peak at different levels of skill and provide a fair and fun place for them to participate in our events regardless of what that level is. If a players’ PDGA Player Rating moves them to a higher or lower division, then they are free to play in those divisions. If a player simply feels like they can compete at a higher level, then fine! Go for it!

Sandbagging is essentially dead in our Amateur Class. Yes, an occasional non-member slips in for a seemingly easy win. But even this is more of an event-by-event challenge. In that the TD has the obligation to either track non-members skill level independently from the PDGA (which more and more regions are doing) or require non-members to either play in the top division or a separate division for amateurs without ratings.

Of course the perception of Sandbagging will always remain in the Amateur Class so long as players play for each other’s entry fees and get payouts greater than the value of their entry fees. Since the Am Plan took effect “Moving up” has become a Pro/Am issue. How to create incentives for players at the top of the Amateur Class to turn Pro?

As far as I can tell no systemic incentives exist. Nor economic. Basically it seems to come down to a matter of personal choice or preference; to play in a division with your friends, to challenge yourself against better players, to win cash rather than cash value.

TDs try a variety of things to create incentives; flatter or flat Payouts in the amateur divisions, flatter payouts in the pro divisions, increasing the size of players packages in amateur divisions, utilizing bump rules, etc. But these are not systemic or uniform incentives that are common to all PDGA events, so the incentives loose tangible credibility and ultimately carry little weight in the minds of top amateur players. They’ll just go to events that give them stacks of plastic and poleholes and wear out their welcome at as many courses as possible.

So what do we do? How do we create a systemic incentive to get top feeders to make the transition to pro?

Try to create an incentive by increasing purse size by increasing sponsorship is not systemic other than a properly functioning and comprehensive competitive system might attract more sponsors.

Try to create an incentive by increasing purse size by increasing the price of entry fees in pro divisions. This often results in the opposite effect of actually providing an incentive to remain in the amateur class were entry fees are generally lower.

There is more than one option that will work. The one I endorse is the following:

A. Standardize all entry fees and payouts according to tier status for the Amateur Class (no exceptions without approval of the PDGA Competition Director).
B. Entry fees must be the same for all Amateur Divisions. Divisions are simply at different skill levels, incentive is placed on fair competition, not on how much payout you can or cannot get.
C. Players packages and Event Amenities should be mandatory in the Amateur Class Divisions and use no less than 80% of the entry fee and sponsorship dollars.
D. To maintain Amateur Status a PDGA member must follow strict guidelines as to payouts at ALL disc golf events or forfeit that status. (Amateur Competition is something worth protecting against those who would defile it.) Along with commonly accepted standards, an Amateur Player who accepts in cash value of more than $500.00 total in one calendar year relinquishes their status.
E. Payouts in Amateur Divisions should go to only the top 3 players in each division and use no more than 20% of the entry fee and sponsorship dollars. These payouts must be reported in Retail Cash Value to the PDGA.
F. Standardize all entry fees and payouts according to tier status for the Professional Class (no exceptions without approval of the PDGA Competition Director).
G. Entry fees must be the same for all Professional Divisions. Divisions simply are offered for different age groups and genders. (There is no need for incentives to have the different age groups or genders play in the open division, those who chose to, may do so.)
H. Payouts in Professional Divisions should go to 50% of each division. Payout scales standards must be followed. (no exceptions without approval of the PDGA Competition Director).

This will create the necessary systemic incentives IMO. It will also make us more cohesive as an association. It will also create the much-needed differentiation between our classes of players.

[20460chase]

IMO--Sandbaggers will always be around,at the start of the season I had a friend that played rec because he had only been playin for 6 monthes but he had a amazing learning curve and should have been playing in a better division if only to further his game by playing with better players and lots of people were salty he didnt move up {he now plays Adv.}Whereas in my case I couldnt afford to go to any tourneys this year and my player rating now suffers from that,I think its rated low enough that I could play Intermdiate and thats a joke as i would smash people and just get reemed by everyone.I will probaly play advanced again for a little while but since i didnt get to worlds in KC {major bummer}I dont even want to play Advanced anymore.I would rather get last in Open than first in Adv.,as long as my score was in competition with Adv.Is that wrong to feel that way? I mean really If more people felt that way it would water down the Open field but who wants to spend more to get less?I want to do it to raise my level of play,so that every shot counts as opposed to having one hot round and 2 mediocre rounds and winning plastic with a fifth place finish.Plus how cool would it be to play a round with the best players in the world consitently?Im not scared and it will show as im not against taking a beatin.And i will take several.Just my opinon.

[jconnell]

Chase,

There's nothing wrong with feeling that way. Wanting to play up is admirable. Willingness to donate (at least at first) without complaint is admirable. It just isn't for everyone (which you acknowledge).

I've seen players say things like you have (rather play with better players, improve faster, play "meaningful" rounds where every shots count), jump up to pro, get kicked around a bit, then turn around and be one of the loudest voices in the "sandbagger" taunts at award time. Mainly because they realize that their playing "peers" are in Advanced and they are not. Rather than admit they shouldn't have jumped, they try to badger others to join them in making the same mistakes. I find those types of people to be more pathetic than admirable.

As long as you avoid that road, Chase, good luck to you. You da Man, have fun, and start winning soon.

/clipart/happy.gif

--Josh

[neonnoodle]

Chase, if you started "smashing" folks in the INT division as you say, how long do you think your Player Rating would allow you to play in that division?

An essential part of sandbagging rarely discussed is that sandbagging at a single event once every three years is not a giant challenge, the one we work to avoid is the event after event, year after year abuse of the system, and this the PDGA Ratings System will simply not permit to happen.

[rhett]

Not that it was ever happening like that event after event, year after year anyway. But now, by God, now if you're committed to bagging like that and are foolish enough to join the PDGA, then the ratings will keep you from taking advantage like that!

[20460chase]

Nick--I only played Int for a Season and maybe two tourneys the following year.This summer was my 4th year playing and in my first year i played 3 tourneys mostly local pdgas and played novice then was pressured/had a desire for more comp so I played Int. for about a season which I stopped for the KC open in 02 {keep in mind my season is 6-7 tourneys mostly close} and played ADV from then on ,and this year only played 3-4 tourneys and didnt play well at any for the most part.That wont happen again as I feel alot more confident in my game and would play anyone,anytime.The worst that could happen is I will not win,but really doubt id ever finish last,Am i good enogh to be considered pro?Probaly not and will see next year if my broke [*****] makes some money to play some tourneys,but one thing i can promise is Ill be better because of it,and thats my goal to play on a level i know i can.Also I dont beleve I have ever made fun of anyone for cleaning house in a easy division but I also am not afraid to tell someone they should move up to better their game because I think It does make you better to take a beating.P.s.- I dont know if ratings were around when I played INT-but do know I played with lots of advanced players who could play pro but used the Am Worlds as a excuse to stay low and since I was invited this year and couldnt afford to go and had poor peformances at the tourneys i went to i dont expect to be invited next year so why not donate and meet and learn from the best? I dont think Id really drag anybody down,just dont expect to win.I guess Im just competitve.See ya.

[pnkgtr]

What about anti-bagging? Where a given region determines that because of a high amount of series points someone with a player rating -900 should play open.

[jconnell]

Due to discussion in my region regarding a "bump" rule like Rich suggests, Guru himself was consulted on that subject.

He responded thusly:
We expect to ban all regional bump rules for 2004. The real bump rule is the new PDGA ratings-based Amateur system which was rolled out in 2003. In terms of forcing people to go pro, the PDGA is against this in theory...

In that local discussion, the point I tried to emphasize against bumping based on series points or the like was that high point totals is not indicative of increasing skill. A person can attend every tournament possible in a series, never crack a top 5, but come away with the most points through shear volume. That's quantity, not necessarily quality. People shouldn't be forced up just because they attend a lot of events.

--Josh

[neonnoodle]

I agree with the PDGA position concerning bump rules. It belittles what it means to be a Professional Disc Golfer to have to force people to turn pro. More than that it is an admission of the fact that no real amateur class exists in organized PDGA disc golf.

[jmonny]

If you're consistently winning/placing high in any division, you should move up, regardless of rating...simple.

[neonnoodle]

Not if you are in an "Open" division. All professional class divisions are open depending on age and gender restrictions. All top amateur class divisions are open similarly.

There is no skill level cap on these divisions, nor is there any "consistently winning/placing high" restriction and it looks like any attempt to place one on players at PDGA events will be considered a breach of PDGA Sanctioning and Rules of Play.

If we want to place a skill cap on the top amateur class divisions, then we should also come clean about lacking any amateur class. That they are really just protected professional divisions. Personally I would welcome such an admission. It would do a lot towards the creation of a logical functional top to bottom competitve system, while possibly opening a door to True Amateurs and associations with other truly amateur organizations and resources.

[jconnell]

Sorry to disagree with you, Raw Dog, but winning isn't everything. If the winning/high finishes are indicative of increased skill, the ratings will reflect it. Basing anything purely on finish within a division isn't the best indicator of skill.

Sometimes winning is less indicative of a high-skill level, and more indicative of a weak pool of players in a division. If you bump up the few that have success in a division, then the next wave of players gets moved to the top by default, not necessarily by their improved skills. Then they become the targets and get pressured up the ladder. And the cycle goes on, ultimately dilluting the quality in the topmost divisions.

I think that was the biggest fault within the old system. The ratings correct it. Playing within the ratings-defined divisions should eliminate domination and consistent winning except for those that actually earned their way up the scale and have the higher rating to reflect it. Defaulting into "sandbagger" status by having the competition ahead of you removed (bumped) is a thing of the past.

--Josh

[20460chase]

Josh--I forgot to say thanks for your support,unless it was done in sarcasm which it didnt seem but with half the people on here its hard to tell and even sometimes even harder to enter a discussion and enter your opion because all people seem to do is want to nit pick every thing thats said as if they speak for the masses.----Nick,what division do you play in?Also are you a politition or a lawyer?I ask "master debator" out of curiosity.

[neonnoodle]

Chase, I'm an Open Pro. Have been for 14 years. Perhaps you are mistaking conviction with sanctimony. Understandable with what is going on in the world today, where it's tough to believe anything you hear.

I am more than willing to listen to your opinion and respond to it. I hope that you are willing to let me disagree with you without it becoming personal.

Question: Do you, or do you not see that sandbagging is more difficult in the new amateur competitive system? That though you might have someone of unfair skill in a division for one or two events, ratings make continued abuse nearly impossible?

It will take some time to deprogram the "Move Up, Move Up, Move Out" mentality that has been drilled into us for so many years. I'll try to be patient.

I know the PDGA may be against this, but the ONLY way with the rating system that you can eliminate real Bagging, is to put an upper cap on everything EXCEPT open. Putting an upper cap on ADVANCED will filter everything out. With this however, you would have to eliminate the rule that says once you cash you can not play ADVANCED. Eliminating this rule will allow someone who's game has slipped, to move back down if there ratings allows it. Personally I believe anyone 940 or above should play OPEN. But that is debateable. ( >940 OPEN, 870-939 ADNVANCED, 800-870 INTERMEDIATE, and so on..)

Just another point...I still can't figure out why with ratings we have MASTER...GRANDMASTER...ect divisions. I can understand it for OPEN/PRO, but not in the Amature divisions.

[neonnoodle]

Like I said, you'd have to admit that we don't have an "Amateur Class" to put a cap in the Advanced Division. I have no problem with this. What you are talking about is already available:

It's called the PDGA R-Tier. Pure, top to bottom, Ratings Based divisions.

[ck34]

If we would even consider putting a cap on Advanced, it would be at 975 under the current ratings breaks. However, I don't think we have any players in the World over that rating still playing Advanced. Pete Middlecamp who just won the Am Nationals had a 947 rating in July and a 982 rating in the update last week. He played Open last week and won (non-PDGA), and yesterday he just missed cash.

There's already an effective cap on Advanced called "peer pressure" that has been working for the past several years we've been tracking the stats. No one should even consider calling an Advanced player a sandbagger until they've been hanging out for more than a year above a 965 rating. But so far we haven't seen anyone do that. They've all moved up. Another example is Myles Harding, 2002 Jr World Champ. Shortly after his rating went to 981, he turned pro.

[neonnoodle]

Wouldn't it be nice if being amateur meant something besides having a low rating or playing for cash value rather than cash (or more often nuttin')?

Our competitive system essentially saids, "Whether you are a Professional or an Amateur, you will gamble for each others entry fees, and if you are successful at it in any division other than Open you are a sandbagger." This is a system bent on stepping on it's own success'.

If this is the way we truly feel, then have done with it and make just one division. The winner is the winner and that's that. I mean aren't we saying with our current set up that yes, here are protected divisions that you can play in, but if you do too well in them then you are not welcome anymore.

Move Up, Move Up, Move Out...

[ck34]

As a public service until we can get this feature working for the ratings database, here are the top rated Ams (who may have turned pro already) or are perhaps waiting to enter one more Am Worlds. I haven't checked their history to see if they've been at these ratings very long.

<TABLE BORDER=1><TR><TD>Peter</TD><TD>Middlecamp</TD><TD>19026</TD><TD>MN</TD><TD>982 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Jason</TD><TD>Coultrap</TD><TD>23236</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>981 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Glen</TD><TD>Hatfield</TD><TD>22994</TD><TD>MD</TD><TD>977 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Brian</TD><TD>Ard</TD><TD>19382</TD><TD>OH</TD><TD>975 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Adam</TD><TD>Crosby</TD><TD>21550</TD><TD>FL</TD><TD>974 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Shane</TD><TD>Thurman</TD><TD>21430</TD><TD>NV</TD><TD>974 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Jeff</TD><TD>Bauman</TD><TD>18659</TD><TD>MI</TD><TD>972 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Jon</TD><TD>Burpee</TD><TD>20753</TD><TD>GA</TD><TD>972 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Kristofer</TD><TD>Orrick</TD><TD>20020</TD><TD>TN</TD><TD>972 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Jason</TD><TD>McKinney</TD><TD>17714</TD><TD>IL</TD><TD>971 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Dixon</TD><TD>Jowers</TD><TD>17583</TD><TD>TX</TD><TD>970 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Cary</TD><TD>Silberman</TD><TD>13145</TD><TD>MT</TD><TD>970 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Joshua</TD><TD>Whalen</TD><TD>18655</TD><TD>OH</TD><TD>970 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Don</TD><TD>Nauss</TD><TD>20550</TD><TD>MO</TD><TD>968 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Larry</TD><TD>Gardner</TD><TD>22706</TD><TD>OK</TD><TD>967 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Doug</TD><TD>Bickell</TD><TD>14502</TD><TD>MO</TD><TD>966 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Brian</TD><TD>Chancey</TD><TD>18389</TD><TD>TX</TD><TD>966 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Sean</TD><TD>Butler</TD><TD>22076</TD><TD>IL</TD><TD>965 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Scott</TD><TD>Howard</TD><TD>17270</TD><TD>NJ</TD><TD>965 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Benjamin</TD><TD>Kowalski</TD><TD>17556</TD><TD>MI</TD><TD>965 </TD></TR><TR><TD>David</TD><TD>Lulchuk</TD><TD>14368</TD><TD>VA</TD><TD>965 </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>

Here's the over 39 Am crowd that likely could compete in Master Pro (I've been at 940-950 rating in Master Pro cashing/winning for the past 5 years). Ash and Gobrecht have already played pro at least once that I know of with Jay cashing in Open at an A-tier (but declining the cash).

<TABLE BORDER=1><TR><TD>Tom</TD><TD>Moeller</TD><TD>12767</TD><TD>PA</TD><TD>963 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Jay</TD><TD>Bitner</TD><TD>17759</TD><TD>TX</TD><TD>962 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Dave</TD><TD>Louderback</TD><TD>19627</TD><TD>FL</TD><TD>962 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Mark</TD><TD>Banghart</TD><TD>11524</TD><TD>MI</TD><TD>951 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Doug</TD><TD>Saulter</TD><TD>21126</TD><TD>OR</TD><TD>950 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Jeff</TD><TD>Hoffman</TD><TD>16016</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>949 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Jay</TD><TD>Gobrecht</TD><TD>14268</TD><TD>PA</TD><TD>948 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Jeff</TD><TD>Ash</TD><TD>17843</TD><TD>AR</TD><TD>948 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Mike</TD><TD>Goar</TD><TD>22305</TD><TD>UT</TD><TD>948 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Glen</TD><TD>Bruhschwein</TD><TD>17419</TD><TD>ND</TD><TD>948 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Michael</TD><TD>Dammes</TD><TD>12941</TD><TD>GA</TD><TD>947 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Mark</TD><TD>Hauser</TD><TD>13459</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>946 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Mitch</TD><TD>McMurtry</TD><TD>14477</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>946 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Jeff</TD><TD>Cowley</TD><TD>15443</TD><TD>CO</TD><TD>944 </TD></TR><TR><TD>James</TD><TD>Baier</TD><TD>13327</TD><TD>FL</TD><TD>943 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Frank</TD><TD>Spicer</TD><TD>6475</TD><TD>OH</TD><TD>943 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Jerry</TD><TD>Barklage</TD><TD>16534</TD><TD>MO</TD><TD>942 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Jon One Disc</TD><TD>Tylzynski</TD><TD>13212</TD><TD>MI</TD><TD>942 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Bob</TD><TD>Mikell</TD><TD>19396</TD><TD>FL</TD><TD>940 </TD></TR><TR><TD>W. Kyle</TD><TD>Power</TD><TD>14522</TD><TD>OK</TD><TD>940 </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>

Here's the over 49 Am group that might be getting ready for GM Pro. Of course, the division is so small that you don't get a decent size division unless they run ratings events in your area. I know Terry has already played MPG at Sandy Point and Flagstaff.

<TABLE BORDER=1><TR><TD>Donald</TD><TD>Olendorf</TD><TD>12651</TD><TD>MI</TD><TD>933 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Terry</TD><TD>Calhoun</TD><TD>15117</TD><TD>MI</TD><TD>932 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Mark</TD><TD>Ehlert</TD><TD>19970</TD><TD>MO</TD><TD>930 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Ron</TD><TD>Williams</TD><TD>13641</TD><TD>NC</TD><TD>928 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Ernie</TD><TD>Small</TD><TD>2306</TD><TD>KY</TD><TD>926 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Randall</TD><TD>Roseman</TD><TD>13094</TD><TD>KY</TD><TD>926 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Ted</TD><TD>Miller</TD><TD>14687</TD><TD>AZ</TD><TD>924 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Fred</TD><TD>Estrup</TD><TD>18426</TD><TD>IN</TD><TD>924 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Al</TD><TD>Babbe</TD><TD>19368</TD><TD>IL</TD><TD>923 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Rob</TD><TD>Kalnitsky</TD><TD>20251</TD><TD>CO</TD><TD>922 </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>

Considering how many thousands of PDGA Am members we have, these are pretty small numbers and the top young players are scattered around the country. Not much sandbagging going on at the top based on the numbers.

[Moderator005]

There's already an effective cap on Advanced called "peer pressure" that has been working for the past several years we've been tracking the stats.

We wouldn't be having these discussions if peer pressure was working.

[jconnell]

Chase,

I was totally serious. I have absolutely no problems with people who want to challenge themselves and play in pro when their rating doesn't necessarily put them there. Just as long as you understand it's your choice to do so, and not everyone has to or should follow your lead. Pro should be for those that desire to be there, not for those who are peer-pressured in because they have some success at a lower level.

My line of thinking on these matters is pretty much the same as Nick's. If Advanced and below are supposed to be amateur and not junior-pro divisions (I believe Advanced has been referred to as the J.V. to Pro's Varsity on this discussion board), then there can absolutely be no cap on the top division.

Personally, the only way I'd agree to a cap on Advanced is if there was another division set up so that those that have the 960 ratings can move up and out of Advanced, but still remain amateurs. I'd like to see a place for 1000-rated golfers who'd prefer to remain amateurs and not play for money to go. Then the ONLY reason to "turn" pro would be the chance to play for money (i.e. to be professional). The am divisions would no longer be viewed as a direct feeder system for the pros, when they should all be viewed as an end unto themselves.

--Josh

[jconnell]

Jeff,

I think Chuck's next sentence is the key in his statement that peer-pressure is working. "No one should even consider calling an Advanced player a sandbagger until they've been hanging out for more than a year above a 965 rating.

By that definition, Chuck is right.

What causes all these same sandbagger/ratings/divisions/bump rule discussions is people having varying and often conflicting definitions of what "sandbagging" is.

It is not that the peer pressure system to which Chuck refers isn't working, it's that people can't settle on a singular definition. I think the ratings system should at least be putting people on the same page when they discuss divisional assignments. That we have continue to see these types of discussions and hear the "sandbagger" taunts shows that the definitional conflict remains.

Just my thoughts on that subject.

--Josh

[gang4010]

Whoever brian is, he is very wise. You should all listen to him. He has seen the error of your ways. It really is obvious if you look. You all speak about the pieces, if only you were willing to put them together.

[20460chase]

Thanks Josh and like I said I was just making a opion not saying Im going to play pro not saying I should be pro not saying Ill beat Pros just sayin I feel its the only way to advance my game farther and even more to get more out of tournney experience by playing with the best even if your DFL the 3 other guys on your card are professional players use can watch and learn from,what could be cooler.Nick so are you a True Am or Open pro?In my eyes theres a big difference.

BBBBAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRSSSSS!!!

play where you belong, not where the rating says to....

[thcplz]

finally read enuff of the thread to comment.

personally, don't think SANDBAGGING is that big of a problem at the advance/pro level.(compared to)

the advanced players that BAG DOWN to INTERMEDATE, or intermediate down to rec.
(like i've seen since the rating system started,"playing my rating")

this is what keeps newbie's from not enjoying their first tourney, or the 1-2 year player from enjoying the really well run tourney.

BECAUSE PLAYERS PLAYING IN ADV. FOR 4-5 YEARS...
BAGGING DOWN BECAUSE OF THEIR RATING, AND CASHING TOP 4-5 EVERYTIME.
even if that only means that 1 person got squeezed out of their first finish in the cash.

trust me, i know how it feels on a personal level. it didn't stop me from playing, but i did learn the SANDBAGGER CHANT DURING AWARDS!!!!!
(sometimes that chant is very justified, others times it's in total fun. it's up-to you to know the difference)

[neonnoodle]

Craig and Brian,

I would offer the Ratings Based Event Format as the answer to your dreams guys. It is already here! And at this point the PDGA is allowing TDs to tinker this way and that with the ratings breaks.

The standards provided by the PDGA Ratings Committee are based on National numbers. I believe that National Standards are necessary, though perhaps not at this early stage. Keep in mind that this is a long-term project. The confusion and dysfunction today will be replaced with understanding and functionality tomorrow.

If you are basing your positions on the idea of providing fresh meat for your purses of the Advanced or Open divisions, then short term you are likely to be disappointed. Ratings Based Competitions are not designed per se to pressure folks to move up, they are designed to provide fair and competitive fields for players of different skill levels to compete.

Several people here have described why the system in the Amateur Class may have the appearance of allowing sandbagging in this first year of it’s implementation. But that it is appearance only. As folks figure out what is going on, and where they fit in the new system (furthermore as TDs understand the options of dealing with un-rated players). These challenges will decrease with time and experience.

Again, if you want to cap all divisions but Open, then run a pure PDGA R-Tier event. One way or another only good (and learning) can come from it.

Regards,
Nick Kight

[gnduke]

Metal, If a players rating puts him in INT or REC, then they are INT or REC players. They have just been playing up in the past.

GnDuke ... exactly!

[bruce_brakel]

Nick, where on pdga.com can we find complete information on th R-tier format?

[neonnoodle]

In the PDGA Tour link.

Player Ratings Q &amp; A (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.pdf)

[ck34]

That's an old link. Last I looked, Theo had not gotten around to posting ratings event info for this year. Those who want the latest player Q&amp;A and/or TD Guide for ratings events can contact me at: ck34@aol.com

Have any Td's or the PDGA Board come up with a good solution for the unrated players at their tournies?

This to me seems to be the biggest hurdle to jump in order for the system to work properly.

Brian, I am also against age-protected divisions in a ratings based AMATUER system. Maybe someone can explain to me why we have age-protection in a ratings based AM system?? I have tried to think of ANY good reason and nothing comes to mind. From a competitive standpoint the only reason to have an age-protected division is to protect the TOP LEVEL players after age has caught up to them. Since Pros have nowhere to go once there skill starts to deminish because of age I understand the need there and am ALL for it. But in the new AM system, shouldn't they just play where their rating puts them regardless of age?

[gnduke]

Because they want it that way.

What does it hurt the mainstream to have a small group of golfers relaxing, not bothering anybody, just having a good time whether they are playing well that day or not. Leave us alone, or we will have to move back down and start teaching lessons.

LOL GnDuke

I knew it wouldn't take long to get that response!/msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

It hurts a little because some of us youngsters are being deprived of competing with the BEST in our bracket. I am speaking on a competition level which is what a PDGA tourney is supposed to be about.

Glad to see an old folk agree that the only reason for age-protection is NOT based on competition./msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

[neonnoodle]

Scott, I was with you in wondering why there is a need for age or gender protection. And the reason it was agreed upon is exactly what Gary said. It's a basic question of giving the people (or members in this case) what they want. It's not as harmful to the competitiveness of these divisions as I had originally thought.

It should be stated that TDs are free to restrict divisions offered in almost any fashion approved by the PDGA Competition Director. You could run a pure PDGA R-Tier for Ams Only. Heck you could run one for 40 and over only. Just contact Nez.

But as a plan to be implemented Worldwide, Open, Masters, and Womens tracks will serve the needs and wants of the greatest number of players.

Back to my other question:

Have any Td's or the PDGA Board come up with a good solution for the unrated players at their tournies?

This to me seems to be the biggest hurdle to jump in order for the system to work properly.

[gnduke]

I have been giving thought to the idea the new (defined as unrated) players either play in the highest (MA1/MM1/FW1) division available, or that they play in an unrated division with a flat payout and/or increased players packs.

In the case of true beginners, the idea of having a competitive experience without risking thier entry fee (you are guaranteed a payout equal to or greater than your entry) could increase attendance in that bracket.

It would certainly incourage those that really are bagging to sign up and get a rating so they can play for a spot in the "cash".

[neonnoodle]

In the Ratings Based Events that I have been a part of there really has been very few problems with un-rated players. In 2003 PDGA events with the new Am Plan I haven’t seen any problems (which doesn’t mean they don’t exist).

The PDGA Ratings Committee prepared an Am Plan TD Q &amp; A document that goes out to all PDGA TDs and answers questions just like this one. Believe it or not, I don’t have a copy of this document handy. Hopefully Chuck will happen along and provide details.

There are several options:

1) Do as you have always done (before the new Am Plan) and get a feel for where they should play by asking questions about their skill level.
2) Offer an Un-Rated Amateur Division.
3) Un-Rated players must play in the top division of whatever track they are part of (Open, Master, Women).
Or if you can plan ahead a little:
1) Create and update a regional or local ratings system for non-PDGA players. Calculators are available via Chuck Kennedy. We do this in our region and I’ve heard of several other regions that do it also.

As you can see, rather than having to ask every single player what division their in within the amateur class, now the burden is lessened to only those without ratings. This should make life easier for TDs.

We have alot of unrated/non-members that play here locally. We have been having weekly minis and we have been calculating ratings with the "Chuck Kennedy Ratings Calculator". We have a C-tier coming up in a couple of weeks and that will be our first test to see if those calculations work well within a PDGA Event.

I think that with local ratings there may be a need to let a player play down(example: local rating of 930 should be allowed to play INT since their rating is solely based on home course low pressure play)Is there any good numbers out there that indicate how much better people play on their home course on average?

If players on average shoot like 2 strokes better at home and the SSA of the course is 46, then you could say that any player may play down to a division up to 24 points lower then their local rating. Would that be a good thing to do?

[neonnoodle]

I can't say Scott. I don't have any data on that sort of thing. If you are the TD and you think that it is reasonable to do, I would support that decision. 24 points seems like a little much though. I'd keep it closer to 10 or 15. But you might be overly complicating it for yourself. If they have averaged a certain PR over more than 10 rounds, chances are that it is pretty accurate.

[gnduke]

I would say from personal experience that I play from 2 to 4 strokes better in casual rounds so 24 points seems to be a reasonable number if based completely on casual rounds. I guess it depends on how competitive your weekly minis are.

[ching_lizard]

I too question what we can do about the unrated/non-PDGA players.

I would like to consider that the State Championship be declared an A-tier for all divisions, that seems like one way that no baggers sneak in because they are unrated...or at least if they do, then they can only take advantage of the system once. /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

I think that forcing every non-rated player to play in the Rec. division until they become a PDGA member and acheive a rating might be a fair solution too... how long is a bagger going to want to hang around in the Rec division anyway, but certainly even less time if Rec. division was only playing for trophies or token prizes?

Why can't non-members have a rating just like players who haven't renewed still get ratings? I know that by default their rating is calculated so why not just put them in the data base labeled as non-member? Don't publish there rating publicly, just include them in the list that is sent to TD's.

Maybe non-members could be assigned a non-member ID number(assuming a number is even necessary) at there first PDGA event. In that case you could also have it to where in their first PDGA event they can play whatever division they want but pay a lower fee and play for the trophy(ie pay the $5 fee $2 fee a reasonable amount to cover their % of trophy costs and player pack costs). That might eliminate the worry that attendence would be hurt since it would only be required once.

Keep in mind that this is all jumping out of my head as i type. I am just trying to think of things that might work and writing them down so i don't forget /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

[thcplz]

hey, guys.
if you cashed in advance(more than once), then your a <FONT COLOR="ff0000">BAGGER</FONT> WHEN YOU PLAY DOWN TO INTERMEDATE BECAUSE OF YOUR PLAYER RATING.

personally, my history goes
first tourney,i played int. &amp; was squeezed out of last place cash(squeezed by 1 by true bagger).
by the next year finished 2nd at outlaws, then took first at octoberfest.finished out the Z10, THEN MOVED-UP.
i didn't think i was ready, BUT have cashed in ADVANCED in 2-3 events &amp; suk as$ in 2-3 others. guess what still rated INT.
<FONT COLOR="ff0000">SO I CAN MOVE DOWN AND BEAT THE KRAP OUT OF THE INTERMEDIATE FIELD ANYTIME I WANT????</FONT>

my option about the rating system..
now it's just a general ranking,
UNTIL IT'S WELL ESTABLISHED FOR A FEW YEARS.

in the long run, a great thing!!
in the short term, a license to bag down.

"that's just my option,i could be wrong."

[jconnell]

Mike,

Apparently you are unwilling to understand or accept what ratings mean.

"UNTIL IT'S WELL ESTABLISHED FOR A FEW YEARS" What does that mean anyway? It only takes a handful of tournaments to get an accurate and meaningful rating, not years. Are you still going to be arguing that point in two years when your "well established" rating is still lagging behind your ego's choice of division?

Here is something that people that feel the same way as Mike need to realize: YOUR DEFINITIONS ARE OUTDATED! Throw out the old divisional definitions (of which there was nothing concrete) because they are subjective, obsolete, and unfair.

I find it kinda funny when people like Mike, who choose to play up above where their rating puts them (nothing wrong with that at all, BTW), seem to find it insulting to them when their rating doesn't agree with their divisional choice. And because of it, rail against the ratings as inaccurate.

Maybe someone could come up with some concrete and real examples of these "baggers" (Mike's definition above) crushing in Intermediate divisions? Someone with an intermediate rating who cashed once in Adv, who has played Intermediate against other intermediate-rated players, and who "beat the krap" out of them.

Or maybe someone can do it. You feel it's wrong to play in your ratings-appropriate division, that it is bagging, then prove it. Do it once, show that you are correct in saying you (or someone like you) will "beat the krap" out of Intermediate if you "play down" to your rating. Come up with evidence.

Until then, do what you wish as far as your divisional choice, but don't fault or chastize people who do choose to play within their ratings-appropriate division.

--Josh

[gang4010]

Josh,
I take metal mike's message a little differently. Here's is a player who by the current ratings breaks should be in the int class. By his own admission, he is competitive in the adv class. He seems to be saying that the ratings breaks are not grouping people appropriately. Or maybe that's not what he's "TRYING" to say - but said it anyway.

[gnduke]

The ratings groups are on 5 strokes wide.

Of course the better players in one group are going to be competitive in the next group.

I have a 918 rating, but have turned 960 rounds. That makes me somewhat competitive in Open, but I am not an Open player.

When you become a consistent player, then your rating will move you up.

[jconnell]

Craig,

I understand that point of view, but I don't agree with it. Is he competitive in Advanced against advanced-rating players, or against other players like him who are playing up from their ratings-division? I'm just going on what he posts, and haven't done any research about him personally.

Personally, I'm have a high intermediate rating (920), but I am very competitive in the local Advanced division (one C-tier win this year). But that's largely due to the fact that, except for a couple players, everyone in our Advanced division has intermediate-level ratings or lower.

By Mike's logic, I couldn't go to another region and play intermediate (against other intermediate-rated players) because I've had success at the Advanced level here. I'm a bagger if I do that.

I don't buy the "ratings breaks aren't correct" argument...yet. Until we see people play strictly in their ratings defined divisions, how can we know for sure that the breaks are wrong...or right?

That's what I don't particularly like about arguments like Mike's. He's saying the ratings system isn't working (or isn't working yet) without actually trying to use the system appropriately. The only way to know if it works is to use it. Trial and error. Slamming it or calling it broken at this point is silly.

--Josh

[ck34]

The ratings breaks are rarely exactly 5 throws wide. That's only exact for courses with an SSA at 50.4. Fortunately, many courses are within a few of 50 so it's certainly a reasonable estimate. However, as courses get more challenging, the effective range increases to 7 or 8 throws for courses like Renny or Warwick, which Advanced players may play, and up to 10 on Winthrop Gold. So, increasing the ratings range is happening everywhere by default with tougher courses even if we don't touch the 50-point ranges we have.

However, when ams play easier courses with SSAs in the mid to high 40s, the effective range can drop to 3 which makes it even 'easier' for lower rated players to cash in a higher division than their current rating.

Of course, for Rec Ams, there's no bottom rating. But since these players are usually playing low SSA courses, players with ratings up to 100 points below the top break can still cash because the range is effectively compressed on easy courses.

There will always be players in the Am ranks at some point in time whose skill level starts to advance quickly. Their ratings increase will slightly lag their improvement so it will seem like bagging at times to the player and those around them if they play in the division of their current rating. That's just the reality of the Am ranks. It's also the engine of inspiration for other players to become better.

One new stat we hope to add next year is an Action Rating which more heavily weights current rounds than older rounds. This number will help to identify the 'hotshots' out there who are on a fast track.

[gnduke]

That is a point I have been trying to make all year. If certain areas are discouraging players from playing where they should be playing according to the ratings and not peer pressure or ego, then we are not allowing ourselves to see if ratings are working.

[Dick]

actually the rating might as well be moved down to 900 for advanced. if anyone over 900 plays advanced around here you never hear the end of it from the advanced players even though when you play advanced you have little chance of cashing.
just my personal experience.
they probably just want more players in advanced to pump up the prizes. which is why advanced should be trophy only players packs so the club can make money off the retail/wholesale differential. the advanced guys who don't like no prizes can play pro.

[20460chase]

Hey guys--I cna relate to just about all your points but still think it comes down to the player himself,as I have a low rating but would never play under ADV ,because Id feel like I was cheating a player out of placing in that tourney and also cause Id feel like I was cheating myself out of my best game.I will say Ive considered playing lower in a division because I could only because of the other Baggers dropping to play because of thier "If I can win Int and am rated to play there why shouldnt I " attitude and that I dont consider sport.Ill take lumps in any division I play,as Im not Ken Climo and might have a bad tourney,not just a bad round,but that wont make me want to pound on a lesser division and win a bunch of plastic.I dont need a rating to tell me Im a ADV player,nor a Open Player ,and as long as I can have a 900 rating and play open if I want I have no real gripe about the system.I think this might help- If you dont know where to play think what you want out of your game.My desire is to be the best.To play against the best players i can everytime not just at places I know I compete {home courses-Ill smoke 3/4s of the field }Ive payed to play just to get pounded by people I should beat easily but didnt and didnt look at it like wow I [*****],more like that guy beat me and i better get my s**t together.I could look at it and say I should be playing REC so I can win or INT so I can place but beating-up a lesser division will never further my game-Sorry for babbling,do what you want Sandbaggers-I dont play INT anymore anyway and Im going to throw.

[20460chase]

BTW-I also want to play Pro eventually to beat Nick and shut him up for awhile,not just to play against the best.Off to market.

This whole rating thing makes me a little uncomfortable. I believe in them, think they are good for the sport and think people should play their rating. As of right now however, like anything new, I think there is something off about the whole thing and I don’t know what it is. Whether it’s the dividing lines (breaks) or people screaming bagger when you play your rating or what I don’t know. Take my case for example. Last year I was rated 933, played Advanced Masters and had a 2nd and two 3rd place finishes on the Fabulous Florida Tour in my division. This year, due to some physical problems plus less practice, general shuling and a game in decline my rating has plummeted all the way down to 887. I’ve kept playing Advanced Masters in the FFT tournaments I’ve attended, played pretty poorly and gotten stomped by the guys I used to be competitive against. My consistency is not there like it used to be.

This past weekend was the Miami tournament. It played on two courses, Kendall and Amelia. I had signed up Advanced Masters. When I showed up I asked the TD what pads the Advanced division was playing and he said longs all weekend. Now these long pads are HARD, so hard in fact that only two Open players out of the whole field finished under par for the weekend and one of them was John E. McCray, an excellent Open player (5 under). I know these pads and knew that this was not only a recipe for DFL for me (I don’t drive far), but also one of pain and no fun. I have been diagnosed with a bulging disc (very painful) in my neck and no it’s not a Valkyrie (I think they told me it’s my C6).

I still wanted to play and so I asked the TD to put me in Intermediate since this division was playing the regular pads and my rating allows me to play there with no issues. I just wanted to have fun. Here’s what happened.
Although I played poorly I got the last paying spot in Intermediate (9th) and pimped out a guy who was playing his first tournament for that spot by a couple of strokes. I felt so bad I gave him 1 of the 3 discs I won.

Although my game is at that level (Intermediate) since I didn’t come in anywhere near 1st in Intermediate, something definitely didn’t feel right about playing there. A lot of the same guys I play against all the time were surprised I was not playing in their division. At the same time I don’t want to go to other tournaments, play in Advanced Masters and get my clock cleaned to the point where I am embarrassed to talk about my score relative to the others in that division. Perhaps I’ll just stop playing tournaments altogether, or at least until my skills come back if they ever do. I don’t know. I just know that the rating system is a great idea that is still somewhat in its infancy. As such people don’t understand it enough and not everyone plays their rating, laying those that do open to criticism or ridicule sometimes.

[neonnoodle]

Like I said, it will take some time to deprogram the nitwits that still live by the old "Move Up, Move Up, Quit" competitive system. I am confident that folks will realize that this new Am Plan is positioned for the long haul. Where the natural flow and ebb of skill level for a player competing in PDGA events will never bring them to the abyss of quitting disc golf, but instead always have a fair and appropriate place for them to compete.

We just have to outlast this hideous initiation cycle of yelling out “SANDBAGGER”.

[20460chase]

Orfilio-I understand what you mean about embarrisment in score telling but at least you had a medical excuse to use if wanted I just putted crappidly all summer long.You should play where your most comfortable as long as the ratings say its okay.Im my case the 899 rating I have is decieving and also due to lack of play,but I would still be cheating myself to play lower than Adv.Thats me though,and giving up a disc was a Excellent gesture on your part.I think.Have fun.

[ck34]

Orfilio, everything about your story indicates that the ratings and breaks are working from a technical standpoint. The problem is it is bumping up against existing social conventions and traditions. So, the question is should we create a system that matches traditions or one that is fair, assuming they are somewhat incompatible options? The PDGA has already bowed to tradition by retaining Master and Women tracks in the new Am system. And, Advanced GMs have now forced the PDGA to include them as a separate track.

From an organization's standpoint, providing a fair system is more appropriate. Otherwise, everyone has a different idea of social conventions and traditions in different areas of the country that picking one version would be trouble. But the downside of 'fair' is the adjustment period where social acceptance takes time.

[aerohead]

Say it isn't so, Orfi! "Perhaps I’ll just stop playing tournaments altogether..." You made me run over to the FFT website to see if you were registered for Orlando. Glad to see you are. Sorry to hear about your neck, though. Hope it gets better.

on topic...
I think this sums it up nicely "people don’t understand it enough and not everyone plays their rating..." This is especially true in Florida.

Butch

To Butch...Unfortunately it is Butch. Being the plan ahead guy that I am I had signed up for Orlando way ahead and had registered in Advanced Master. Still don't know what I'm going to do since I have a lot of rehab coming up for my neck as well as traveling for my job so there will not be much practice time before the tourney. I can only see my scores going even more South with this scenario for the next month before Orlando.

Also, this is not a knock on the FFT or tournaments as I love the tour and think that our Florida tournaments are well run and a great time. I just feel that with things the way they are right now I am in a kind of no man's land. It's no one's problem but my own and the solution is obvious. PLAY BETTER. I think I just need to practice more outside of the tourney scene for a while.

To Chuck...I agree wholeheartedly that we should build a system that is fair rather than one that adheres to tradition and existing social convention. It should be the same everywhere you go in the country. That's exactly what the rating system is attempting to do and I for one am all for it. The adjustment period of social acceptance is problematic right now and having kind of felt it with my Miami experience I think I'm inclined to wait it out. Tournaments for me are about competition, fun and good sportsmanship and I want to keep that good side of the DG experience.

[rhett]

"Where the natural flow and ebb of skill level for a player competing in PDGA events will never bring them to the abyss of quitting disc golf, but instead always have a fair and appropriate place for them to compete."

Unless they play pro.

[bruce_brakel]

If Rhett's point is that we should make it easy for pros below a certain rating to become amateurs again, I agree.

[gnduke]

Why should a guy in his first tournament expect to cash ?

In order for the ratings to be evaluated properly, they have to be used. If you do not play where your rating places you, you are impeding the efforts of the PDGA to furhter the sport. I don't care if you agree with the concept, if you believe it won't work, use it and allow that to be proven.

The ratings system can not be evaluated unless used as intended by the majority of players, so please bag where your rating says you should.

[gang4010]

The ratings system can not be evaluated unless more people are willing to use it.

And to further that notion - to try it with variations in where divisional breaks should be so that we are not operating with blinders on. Assuming that the breaks are correct builds only one set of data (valuable to be sure - but somewhat incomplete). Without a comparative analysis (ie multiple sets of data), what are we getting?

I say this because the RB events I have run use these breaks 940 = Gold, 900-939 = Silver, 900- = bronze (with appropriate variations for ladies), and guess what - it worked great!!

Social conventions Chuck? Are these the ones where people recognize who their peers are and naturally feel uncomfortable being offered essentially a "protected" division from those players? I think they call that being ethical.

[ck34]

But of course. These are the same conventions that make Orfilio uncomfortable and want to stop playing even though he entered and played at his correct level. And the reason many players reaching 940 or so recently and in the past have been psychologically forced into pro too early and have now left competitive play rather than re-enter Advanced to match their skill level.

[jconnell]

Craig,

How can we get to your step (multiple sets of data) if we haven't even gotten to the first step (one set of data) yet. In order to have multiple sets, you need to start with one, correct?

This is still the first year of using the current breaks. And those breaks were determined after 4-5 years of data collection, number crunching, and at least one other draft of a published amateur competitive structure (remember the original 5-level proposal?). After those 5 years of data collection, the current breaks are what the committee and the PDGA decided to start with.

At this point, the system is barely starting to be understood by most people, let alone being correctly utilized often enough to yield any definitive answer one way or the other to whether the breaks are correct or not. Yet you want to add to the confusion that exists by adjusting breaks on the fly and gathering multiple sets of data to have a comparitive analysis?

It seems that most of these discussions of the breaks are based in each person's regional experience. Of course the breaks aren't going to be a perfect fit in every region, so obviously they might appear off. But if the system isn't universally and uniformly applied as is, how do we find out how many regions don't fit the "mold" of the current system? After that happens, the breaks will likely be adjusted so that the biggest percentage of the different regions fit the "mold".

Personally, I think the committee, Chuck in particular, has done a lot of that type of work already to get the numbers we currently have. And they'll continue to do so. Eventually, we'll have a system that is seemingly air-tight. Until then, the harping against it and failure to correctly utilize it is counter-productive to the ultimate goal.

Just my opinion.

--Josh

[jconnell]

On second thought, thinking about the idea of social conventions and the like, does it really make a difference where the breaks fall?

Regardless of the breaks, the bottom line is that players are going to be grouped into divisions with players who are, statistically-speaking, their peers. When playing where your rating allows you to play based on the pre-determined guidelines, you should feel comfortable competing against your peers in that division, and not feel guilty when you have a good day.

Regardless of where the line is drawn, there will probably always be people that disagree with them. The players just below the cut are probably always probably always going to get crap from the people just above the cut that they're playing down, or "bagging".

The lines are arbitrary, no matter where they fall, and they will always be splitting up players who might be of somewhat similar skills. It is inevitable. There is not going to be a discernable gap between one division's "worst" rated players and the next divisions "best" rated players.

I guess the argument about whether the lines should be moved or not will be inevitable too. There's no point in arguing what breaks are best when they are all really just arbitrary. That's why I'm of the mind that we should leave the breaks where they are for now.

The basic structure that exists goes from the very top, and breaks divisions into roughly the same range of ratings (about 50 points when assuming that the phantom break between Adv and Pro is ~970...making Pro ~970 to ~1030). That, to me, seems like the fairest place to start. From there, it can be determined which divisions need to be stretched and which ones might benefit from a reduced range.

--Josh

[thcplz]

got to catch-up, but the post by craig AFTER MY LAST. SUMED IT UP VERY NICELY.
SORRY JOSH.

HE11, why bother fighting it anymore.
i going to BAG DOWN AND DEFEND MY FIRST PLACE IN INT. @ OCTOBERFEST THIS WEEKEND.

LOOK-UP INTMEDIATE, HERE I COME.

[thcplz]

JOSH, I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT IT WASN'T GOING TO TAKE YEARS???
sounds like your backpeddling?
i'll re-read your last two posts.

GUESS THAT TEJAS is going to be one of the "regions that doesn't fit the mold of the current system".

i'll leave you guys to it from now on, i've posted my mind.

lurk mode on

[jconnell]

No, no back pedaling. You said "my option (sic) about the rating system..now it's just a general ranking, UNTIL IT'S WELL ESTABLISHED FOR A FEW YEARS" I said it won't take years to be well established. The ratings themselves should be "well established" now.

What I did say that it will take at least a full year of accurate data to evaluate the accuracy of the current ratings breaks. Personally, I don't think they are off much, if at all, on a national level. But then again, like I said, no matter where you put them, someone's going to [*****].

A 915 player like Mike will be competitive with another player with a 935 rating most of the time, just as a 895 rated player should be able to keep up with Mike most of the time. The lines have to be drawn somewhere, but regardless, all three will still be grouped with players who they can be competitive with and who can be competitive with them, whether the break splits them up or not.

Don't take it so personal that an arbitrary line allows you to play below your chosen division. Just do what you feel is best, and eventually your rating will agree with you, right? If you think it is "bagging" to play to your rating...don't do it. Just let the people who do choose to play by the rules do it in peace without giving them crap.

--Josh

is there any region in the country where ratings brackets mirror pre-existing player trends? here in va i would say the brackets were set 20 points or so too high.

josh- if the lines are, as you say, arbitrary, why wouldn't it be a good idea to set them to reflect actual player behavior?

i also agree with bruce and rhett that it should be easy for pros to step back to am status (see rhett, credit where due). i believe it should be taken even further and EVERY CURRENT PRO should be given a one time chance to reclaim am status, regardless of rating or winnings. the ratings system sure seems to mandate ceilingless am play.

[jconnell]

John,

I believe the reason that the ratings system was developed was to replace pre-existing player trends in the sense that those trends do vary regionally and were often a source of conflict. Setting up one set of standards, and having every region conform to that standard is the goal, is it not? So that a player from VA can travel to WA or CA or TX or MA or FL, and know what he can expect to find in each division.

The reason I say the lines are arbitrary is to emphasize that even if you set them to match VA (for example), you are going to have people who feel the lines aren't in the right place. Whether the Adv/Int line was set at 925 or 900 to start, there are going to be people like Mike, whose rating happens to fall just below the line they want to be above, that will nay-say the system and say it's a license to bag. That seems to be inevitable, which is why it is silly to argue from that point of view.

I don't doubt that there is reason to believe, in some regions, that the brackets are set a bit high. Heck, in my local region, if everyone played to their rating and their pro/am status, there would be NO Advanced division at all. At first glance, you'd think the line was a bit high. But when you consider how many of the "donator" pros actually fit the Advanced definition, I'd say the problem has more to do with those pre-existing trends moving too many people up too fast than the line being too high.

That's why I think pre-existing divisional trends ought to be thrown out when analyzing the effectiveness of the current ratings brackets. The ratings ought to be re-writing the trends, not bending to match them.

--Josh

A couple of more things I had left out due to length in the initial post and then I promise I’ll shut up. When I originally told the TD I wanted to move to Intermediate he was very accommodating, so accommodating in fact that since I was in Advanced Master, right in front of me he changed the card that goes on the scoreboard to Intermediate Master. I explained to him that my rating was too high for this division (887) Int. Master being <875, so that’s when he put me in Intermediate at my suggestion. What’s my point? He didn’t have a list of players in the tourney with their rating and relied on my integrity to ensure that I played in the “right” place. In fact I know of one player who played in a division whose rating right now is too high to be in that division. I’m not suggesting this guy did it out of malice or anything. Some guys I spoke to didn’t even know they had a rating or understood what the whole thing was about.

The TD is a great guy and ran a great tournament. He makes the players feel welcome, makes the correct calls and runs a good tourney. I’m not knocking him. There is a lot to manage when running a tournament. Having said that I think that going forward, any TD that runs a sanctioned tournament should have a list in front of him/her with all players registered and their corresponding most recent rating. If this thing is going to work then it has to start with ensuring that at the two minute warning people are playing where their rating says they should or above if they so desire, but never down as then the cries of “bagger” are surely justified.

One last note. Two of my buddies, both former Advanced players, have in two separate tournaments played Intermediate legitimately, well within what the ratings guidelines dictate. Each one won the Intermediate division, one in each of the separate tourneys. By the feedback they received you would think they had committed felonies.

[bruce_brakel]

I have looked. There is no region I can find where ratings brackets mirror pre-existing trends. In regions where there are a lot of amateurs, players move up to advanced somewhere around 900. In regions where there are fewer amateurs, players move up around 875.

The fact that the new system does not mirror our preferences under the old system does not mean it is a bad system. It is designed to allow amateurs to compete against players of a similar skill level. It will work fine if intermediates and recreationals will accept that are what they are, and then play where they belong.

The simple solution would be to abolish playing-up in amateur divisions at sanctioned tournaments. Can someone explain to me why we need to let recreational rated players play advanced?

[spartan]

Metal, you bag down and I will make sure you sleep with <FONT COLOR="ff0000">Loretta</FONT>...and the fishes. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

[neonnoodle]

The ratings breaks are not arbitrary. As stated they are based on National numbers and giving everyone in each division a statistical chance of cashing. Scoring overlap between divisions does, and will continue to exist. There is no way of avoiding it. And even though a player with a rating of 915 can shoot an occasional round of 960 golf, so long as their average remains below 930, they rightfully can remain in the Intermediate Division. If they keep shooting 960 rounds of golf, then their average will move up and they will not be permitted to compete in Intermediate any more.

Josh, Craig is talking about pure Ratings Based Events, not the New PDGA Amateur Competitive System. And his example, the last 3 or 4 Faux Leap Events, of which I think I've been at all of them, has one major draw to it besides the ratings breaks, it's cheap! I don't think those break's would draw nearly as well as the standard PDGA R-Tier Guidelines at a PDGA A, B, or C Tier sized event, because players with ratings between 940 and 960, which if I recall correctly make up a large percentage of our PDGA Membership, would just skip those events because at most events they'd be at a 5 to 8 stroke (1010 - 1030 upper end players) disadvantage per round. I barely attend any Super Tours anymore and I have a rating of 968! Given, there are areas around the country where a player like me would be in the money all of the time, but not in many A Tiers that I have looked at.

Perhaps Chuck or Rodney could lay out the reasoning behind why breaks were set where they were. For me they seem to be just about right.

Generally speaking, I think that Craig's argument operates under the assumption that by having more people in the Open division more people will get paid out and therefore more people will want to play in that division. The mistake as I see it in this logic is that more people will not necessarily show up for that division, because they have a pretty good idea that their chances of cashing are nill. The entry fee threshhold beneath which this might work is probably around $25 to $35. Above that and even 968 golfers will probably go to local tags instead.

[jconnell]

Nick,

I understand that the breaks themselves are not arbitrary, but based on research by the ratings committee. And I agree with you, they seem to me to be right.

So perhaps arbitrary is the wrong word to use, but the argument that Metal Mike puts forth ...that someone whose rating doesn't fit their perception of their proper division is "bagging" when he/she plays in their ratings-appropriate division...will never go away regardless of where the lines are drawn. In that sense, the lines can be arbitrarily placed anywhere and they will generate the same argument.

That to me makes those types of arguments about where the lines should fall a pointless venture. You put the Adv/Int at 910 instead of 925, that means 915-rated Metal Mike is happy, but now you've got the 905 guys realizing they're just below the threshold, but they can be competitive with Metal Mike, so they must be Advanced too. Now they think the break is wrong. And so on.

At some point you just have to set the line and leave it. Whether it be an arbitrary line or a well researched line.

--Josh

Nick, just because you choose not to play large events doesn't mean all, or even most, players with a similar rating feel the same way.

And what about the players rated just above the breaks? You happen to be just below a ratings break, so yeah, it would be great for you to play a Ratings event.

What about the guys rated 971? Now they're at an extreme disadvantage because they have to play in the top tier while guys like you and me, and all the other 940-969 chump pros get to hide in a lower division.

Oh my goodness, y'all are starting to confuse *me*.

I think there is a slight blur between "location of the breaks", and "size of the brackets".

Josh is right that, even if the break points were shifted, play would still be essentially "fair" because you'd still be within a few strokes of everyone around you. It's the span of the bracket that determines what is fair, not the placement of the breakpoints.

<FONT SIZE="-2">Come people think the brackets are too small. That is, 50 points is not enough "width" for a division. I think Chuck has statistically shown that 50 points is a good number for a reasonable definition of "fair". There is no question that other people have other ideas about what constitutes "fair".</FONT>

I think the choosing of the break points for this year was <U>influenced</U> by:
1) Count of members with ratings in each bracket,
2a) Distance in ratings points from the historical upper-end of Am competitors,
2b) Forward thought to a seamless pro/am ratings structure (or current comparison to R-tier).
3) Guesses/estimates of how many people might "play up" out of their rating bracket.
4) How many people would be playing in a new (or the same) division label in the new plan.
5) Nice round numbers.

Do we have so many people playing out of their bracket that it might be difficult to analyze this year's break points? Maybe.

[rshelt]

"and all the other 940-969 chump pros"

Hey Jim I resemble that remark/msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

[keithjohnson]

at least you do russ.....i barely resemble an intermediate rated player /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

[neonnoodle]

Jim, FYI I'm on the other side of that hellish line...

955 and up. At the Jam it was 960 and up as with the Philly Open (where my blistering performance at the Japan Open resulted in me having a rating of 958 so I could play in a protected division for the first time in 15 years. Oh yeah, it felt goooooooood. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif )

I thought 970 was the magic number. I can't find the document that explains this other than the old one from a few years ago where it was a different break in different tournaments. 970 was the Gold/Silver break for A tiers.

[ck34]

The official Gold/Silver break has been 955 this year for anyone who ran a B or C-tier ratings event. In an A-tier ratings event, the break should be 970.

[bruce_brakel]

So put it on the website somewhere already, dammint.

[rshelt]

Don't be to hard on yourself Keith, I think you more resemble an advanced master/msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif
no just kidding....actually you have been playing better. If you just stop letting the stupid little things bug you so much, and start having fun. I know you'll say that you're having fun, but sometimes I wonder. Maybe let up on all the caffine intake/msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif If I drank as many pepsis as you do during a round, my nickname would be way worse than "damit Russel"

[rhett]

It'd be "peanut bladder". /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

"Hey Jim I resemble that remark/msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif"

You'll notice I included myself in there as well.

[rshelt]

Or it would be "hershey squirts" /msgboard/images/clipart/sad.gif


Jim you know I always knew you were a chump/msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif
And you better have those bikes ready cause......
"IT'S DUNE SEASON AGAIN"/msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif/msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif/msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif/msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Just got the 250 tuned up. I still need to mount the lights on it. The 500 had been running fine, though I still can't get comfortable jumping it.

Playing within my division would be nice, but where I'm from that is diffucult. My rating is in the recreational division but in all PDGA and local tournaments I have played intermediate.
Why?
Because recreational is not offered at all in this area. It is frowned on. During the 9 month local series we have advanced and novice (still don't use the proper PGDA terminology). Novice is where all new players are lumped, and if you place 3rd or better you have calls of "bagger" or "move up" directed toward you. I played all year in novice and several people urged me to move to advanced. I asked them why I should move out of a competitive division for me, where I place, to a division I have no chance execept to donate. (I will move up next year!)
As for PDGA tournaments, I played three and recreational was not offered in any of them, so I played intermediate in two and placed toward the bottom, and played advanced in the third (intermediate was not even offered!) and again toward the bottom.
Maybe things are better in your neck of the woods. I am not entirely complaining, just stating facts. BTW I plan on going to the next club meeting to address these issues, so we shall see.

[ck34]

TDs HAVE to offer the Rec division if there are at least 4 players at that level (unless the event flyer specifically excluded some divisions). Find out who the other players are in your rating range so you know when to ask for the division. Check the results from tourneys you played in this year and you can quickly see the ratings of players in the divisions you entered.

Catcalls fo "BAGGER" and "MOVE UP" never end, even pros hear it, from time to time...... :D

Dont take it personally, it will never end.... :(

Playing higher than your skill rating, may help you learn new shots, and routes you never considered, but it wont help your confidence, coming in near DFL every time.

Sooooo......take the previous advice, of getting together 3 other similarly skilled guys, to form a rec division, if your rating is that low.

Rhett, sounds like the "Snapperitis" virus is alive and well in your area... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[johnbart20852]

that is a big problem in ky...when you play within your rankings division and are doing good people keep urging you to move up.. but then what happens your rating shoots back down... no one wants to play within their ratings here.... of course it may cause myself not to place as good as i have been but... the bagger stuff gets tired quick.. don't hate me because you blew up and i played steady...

BIG JB!!!!

Missin' ya down here in H-town!

[johnbart20852]

yeah i just talked to my club prez/exprez and they were saying move up...blah,blah,blah...but then i am trying to tell them that if everyone played where they were rated then the sandbagging would not be as bad... is it working like that there?? also.. would you be looking to sponsor someone?? me?

Play where your rating puts you, unless you are like 5 from the cap.....

Sorry, cant afford my bills, let alone a sponsorship.... :(

I would play within my rating if the first round were mixed, so that I had a chance to play with better players.

A lot of players in the novice and intermediate Am play up, to get a chance to play with better players. Many of us enjoy a good competition and would like to improve our game.

If there were more ratings-based events, that would help. I really don't understand the reason why there are no more. Yes, there is not enough information available, but, so I heard, the PDGA is working on getting some web pages set-up to answer all the concerns.

Just to mention it again, the Jersey Jam is ratings-based for the past 3 years (maybe 4?),and for the "true" Am, the "recreational" player, this is the tourney to be. Great Am packages (well above 100% payback), and we get to play with a couple of Pros inthe first round.

[neonnoodle]

I agree with Rob that there should be more ratings based events (surprise!). The thing about it for amateurs is that all PDGA events essentially ARE ratings based now.

I think that it will take some time for life-time amateurs to find there place within this new "skill-based" competition system. The players who are quickly strutting straight through these skill divisions, their skill increasing rapidly, will face the same ol' challenges they faced in the old system. Where there really isn't anywhere for them to play without smoking the competition utterly on occasion. Clearly the top division is their home, and for me there should never be a limit placed on the skill level of players in this top skill division.

To place a limit on the top amateur division is in essence admitting that no REAL AMATEUR class exists at all in disc golf. But that's another topic.

Ummm.....maybe I am missing something, but arent ALL Sanctioned events, made to use ratings?

They are in this GREAT state......

if there are TDs out there, not using them, THEY are part of the problem...

Of course playing up, is always an option, if you so desire...

Like I said before, its a good learning experience.....

So, what do you do in Texas? Put Advanced, Intermediate, and Novice on the Flyer, and put a suggested ratings range in parenthesis behind it? So that people know where to play?
Do you get a lot of newbies that play Novice or Intermediate?

It is not a problem of anyone playing below their rating, it is the problem of everyone playing above their rating.

Check the results and ratings of the players in each division for larger events across the country. Not very many areas have players playing where their rating places them.

Looks like things just kept going as if ratings didn't exist. all players with <font color="red"> any</font> experience kept playing ADV and were discouraged (so I've heard) from playing any other division.

[james_mccaine]

Questions for those who have run entire rating based events or anyone else that might know the answers:

(If you can/will answer these, describe anything else besides ratings that may have been a factor in your answer.)

Has this increased total turnout?

Has it increased turnout in certain rating ranges, if so which ones?

As for tourneys using the ratings in am fields, does anyone know if the PDGA is analyzing trends compared to last year(s) and if so, are there any early results or suspicions of what might be occuring?

INT and Rec are normally the largest fields in TX this year. (so they are always offered)

Enough players know the ranges that the TDs aren't usually bogged down keeping track of each players info. One of the scoring programs actually validates the players rating against the division they are signing up for.

[girlie]

A program like that would have been very helpful at the Jersey Jam as at least one person played below their rating and it wasn't discovered until after the tournament was over.

I'm all for ratings based events, but a little skeptical that the ratings ranges are adhered to by all that play.

Well, the TD has a list the PDGA sends them, with up to date membership info, and their rating, if they have one.

No Mystery there....

Now, for the unrated people, it can get a little grey, but generally you ask the person their average scores, on a particular course. This relies on honesty from the player, but they cannot cheat the system very many times. From there, you determine what division you and they think they shoudl play in.

There is a clear set of numbers, given by the PDGA, of what your minimum division you can play in, if you are rated.

last year it was...

Rec was 874 and below
Int 875-924
Adv 925+

2004, Adv starts at 915, according to what they are saying now(unless I missed an update where they changed it)

I have heard nothign of the rec/int border changing, but I also have not scoured every source to try and determine that.

[neonnoodle]

Questions for those who have run entire rating based events or anyone else that might know the answers:

(If you can/will answer these, describe anything else besides ratings that may have been a factor in your answer.)

Has this increased total turnout?

James, it is impossible to tell at this point. Over the past 4 years I have both run and help run RB events and have been told by many players that the only reason they came out was because it was an RB event. At the same time, there have been a few top masters players who have said that they will not attend events specifically because they are RB events. Ironically, most of the RB events in the MADC region have been won by Masters aged players.

Has it increased turnout in certain rating ranges, if so which ones?

Again, at this early stage it is tough to know. What is known is that more people are likely to come out if fair divisional breaks are available and every player has a statistical chance of playing well within that division.

As for tourneys using the ratings in am fields, does anyone know if the PDGA is analyzing trends compared to last year(s) and if so, are there any early results or suspicions of what might be occurring?

This is a question better answered by those on the PDGA Ratings Committee, however it is safe to say that such analysis is ongoing and the results will be applied to future upgrades to the competitive system.

Has it increased turnout in certain rating ranges, if so which ones?

As for tourneys using the ratings in am fields, does anyone know if the PDGA is analyzing trends compared to last year(s) and if so, are there any early results or suspicions of what might be occuring?




well, Intermediate, has become a MUCH more difficult division, since many of last years ADV players, dropped down to play where they are rated, many of the guys in last years ADV, that are high rated, went to Pro, so the ADV fields, definately took a big hit on numbers, whereas INT saw a big increase.......rec has likely seen an increase as well, of the people from last years INT, that were inthe bottom half most of the time, and rating allows them to play rec....

[ck34]

Very little formal analysis has been done yet with this year's results. The plan is to wait until we have the complete year and provide an analysis for the March Summit meeting. The shift from 925 to 915 for Advanced seemed warranted without extensive analysis. It was felt to be the only ratings related change we could make for 2004 without having truly analyzed the whole year.

I think one big reason people continued (in 2003) to play above their rating is because the decision was made to use the old "Advanced" and "Intermediate" names for the Am divisions.

If (new) generic names were used, or just the ratings numbers themselves, I think you'd see a lot more people playing where they "should" play.

[ck34]

In the Ratings Series I ran, most of the higher rated Masters wouldn't show up on purpose. One that did won Gold that time. Turnouts weren't that big but the series was scheduled late and on less desirable days like Sundays. There were players who only played the ratings series because they were competitive.

My concept in the overall scheme is that every location should have a balance of ratings events and traditional events to include everyone in some way. The top Masters get their advantage in traditional events and have to work harder at ratings events if they play. The 935-955 pros of any age might not be competitive or not play in traditional events but ratings events give them a chance. And, there are more of them to keep involved in PDGA action than high rated Masters.

[james_mccaine]

Thanks for the answers everyone.

Chuck, I assume that the primary intent behind rating-based events is equity/fairness. A secondary intent is probably that with fairness, more people will be encouraged to play. Are these previous statements close to accurate?

Also Chuck, I started wondering that if fairness was indeed a goal, what are your thoughts on the best metric to analyze this? Is it total spread throughout the division, relative difference between top X% and the median? How do you analyze this? Just curious.

[ck34]

Fairness has been the guiding principle in setting divisions based on ratings. And yes, the idea that more would play and/or remain involved as they moved up through the ranks until they "stall".

We've done statistical models already that determined the 50-point ranges. The idea being that someone at the bottom of the range had at least a reasonable chance to cash, if not win, that division. Their chances are better in a 2-round event versus 4-round event, or on shorter courses versus longer courses.

The model was based on the standard deviation of the typical player's scoring range on a course which is plus or minus 5 throws from their average. As you might expect, the deviation is wider, the newer or lower rated the player is. That's why you'll occasionally see up and comers with low ratings break through with unexpected wins.

Like I mentioned before, the TD's are biased against the rec and intermediate player here, and do not offer those divisions on the flyers. When questioned they don't give a reason other than something about turnout. They only want to cater to the pros and advanced. Other lower divisions, in their opinion, do not count as a legitimate source of players to fill the tournaments.
Is there anything the PGDA can do to incourage TD's to offer all the divisions?
In my area even the advanced players with intermediate ratings are scoffing at anyone playing intermediate let alone rec; I don't know if many in my area know about the rec division because it is never mentioned. New players are not aware of the diferent divisions and if they ask are told about am1 and am2 only.
This area is way behind the times.

Sounds like BAD TD's IMO.....

Luckily around here, many of the TD's are REC or INT rated, so woudl never be biased against them.

I have heard PRO TD's say things like that, but not quite that bad....

I believe a TD can exclude any division he desires, so long as it is stated in advance....

so long as you get 4 people who want to play in the division, there SHOULD be some rule, where the PDGA makes them allow you.

I'm sure this will earn a flame or two, but I get the impresion, I live in the rioght place, so I dont have to deal with some of the backwards *** TD stuff, I read on this board from time to time....

My Lunch is getting cold.....LATER!

[seeker]

IMO Rec and Int level TDs seem to pay more attention to the "developing" players

[james_mccaine]

Hey, I heard there are TDs around here that don't want to offer Open. :eek:

Chuck, your reason for choosing the range division makes sense because you are essentially stating that statistically, everyone in that division has a chance to win/cash(or a greater chance in 2 day tourneys).

I guess what I am asking is after you get 2 or 3 years of data. What measures will you use to determine if the goal of fairness (ie. roughly equal chances of winning per competitor)has been achieved? Does this make sense?

Hey, I heard there are TDs around here that don't want to offer Open. :eek:





:eek: I think thats more of a Money thing..... :eek:

[james_mccaine]

Well, now I feel better. :D

Off topic: Couple the fact that (1) open offers no/little financial incentive for TDs and (2) TDs in this area are more frequently "professional" TDs rather than clubs, TDs could really care less about offering open division. This is also something the PDGA should be aware of.

[neonnoodle]

I agree. If a true distinction were created between pro and am, there would probably be very few true pros (there are currently no true amateurs). I know I'd rather play in a low entry fee, players package, trophy only event.

I know that's a far cry from what you've got going on in Texas, but the fact remains that touring pros are wearing out their welcome in most regions. It's like taxation without representation, particularly in regions that don't have many highly rated players to begin with...

TDs and regions need to see some tangible benefits in holding and financing major events, besides just attracting big names. It's not like they bring big paying advertisers or sponsors with them. Somehow these NT and bigger events need to figure out how exactly they can give back to the communities they tax.

[ck34]

It will be real easy to log the rating of the winners in each Am division and also the lowest rating of a player who "cashed". We also know how many holes or rounds were played. We can do averages and frequency distributions to see if everyone within a 50-point range (or lower) seems to have chances to cash. We'll also track what percentage of players had ratings below the bottom rating break.

I just hope that every lower ranked Adv player that cashes thanks all of the Int players that are playing up for contributing to the pot and player count so that he could cash instead of donate.

[ck34]

One thing that might work is to actually volunteer to help the reluctant TDs run events under the condition that all am divisons are offered. Volunteering is the surest way in this sport to have a chance to get your way.

[rhett]

word!

[neonnoodle]

Volunteering is cool. Running one rocks!

You shoudl have to staff, to be allowed to [*****].......


:cool:

I'd still get to [*****] plenty.....

when do they new ratings come out, anyone know?

[thcplz]

check the ratings now,
i've had a few added recently..
capital-o-tx, big arms, etc....


my question is ....

when does the NEW 915 ADVANCED RATING GO INTO EFFECT????

i'm on the bubble.

btw i'm already playing advanced.

[rhett]

2004

[ck34]

Mid-Dec for next ratings update. New 915 Advanced break starts Jan 1.

[neonnoodle]

Events before what date will generally be included? Thanks.

If there are any errors that you have with any of the results in the MADC Region, please let me know and I'll see what I can do about correcting them.

[ck34]

Reports have been coming in pretty well so events as late as mid-Nov might make it in.

Since starting this thread I have played Rec a couple of times now. The first tourney I was in 1st by a stroke after the first round. I finished tied for 3rd. The second tourney I was near last after the first round, shot 11 strokes better the second round and came in 2nd about 10 strokes in back of 1st place in Rec.

My two new favorite personal disc golf slogans are:

"My name is Jon and I'm a Recreational Division Player."
and
"I've got a Recreational rating and I'm not afraid to use it!"

I am having fun for the first time in several years. I could care less about the prizes. I don't need any Frisbees. But its fun to play the second round of a tournament with people who have skills similar to mine but we are still playing for something. When I have played Advanced and Int in the past I've always played with people who are ****** off because they think they should have played better.

[bruce_brakel]

I am having fun for the first time in several years. I could care less about the prizes. I don't need any Frisbees.



Playing disc golf and having fun. As a TD that is all I want to hear. You can always sell those unwanted frisbees to the process!

I play AM1 even though my rating is only 918 simply because I could get away with a bad round before and still do well in AM2. Now i need to have 3 good rounds for top 4. That is what i like. :)

[dannyreeves]

Play the division that calls for your potential, not your rating.

It also probably depends on each person.
Myself, I am fairly competitive and I like to push myself. It would be weird to win without playing well, ya know??
Some people play more for social reasons, i think.

[atreau3]

I've only played 5 PDGA Sactioned events..3 this year, two last year...last year being my first year, i played intermediate... my rating ended up being 869... i practiced a lot over the winter, playing 4 ice bowls, winning 3 and second in 1 (intermediate). I decided that I needed to move up to get better (better competition better play). So far this year i've averaged close to the top half of advanced... my rating came up 10 points after two tourny's this year and now am rated 879...my goal is to break 900 this year...i will continue to play advanced, although my rating still says i'm an intermediate... i've definitely noticed that playing up is helping me to get better... play in a division higher if you can (as long as you aren't getting totally smoked). there is a big difference in the mental game between ma1 and ma2...

[gnduke]

I play AM1 even though my rating is only 918


918 is an AM1 (MA1) rating.

Depends on the competition. My rating is a lowly 857, even though I think I am quite capable of shooting in the 880-890 range.

If the tournament consists of a small division of rec players, and the TD decides to separate the groups in the first round (e.g only pro 4-somes, only advanced 4-somes, only rec 4-somes, etc), as it is outlined in the rule book as something that should be done (but does not have to be done), then I would move up. This way I have a chance to play with much better players. I don't consider playing within a small group of players with the same ability a good competition. Other people may think different.

On the other hand, if I find myself in a large rec division, then I would play rec. Chances are that I will not be playing with the same three or four people in both rounds. And hopefully I would find myself in a 4-some in the second round with other players that played above their rating.

I don't mind losing to better players...this, in my opinion, is a great way to learn. Some top pros that I had the chance to play with in the first round of some tournaments where quite helpful in providing me with feedback, and even giving up a bunch of strokes in the first round to an advanced Am can be quite insightful.

What I don't like are rec and intermediate players that are only a few points from the division breaks and just don't move up, because they "play within the PDGA guidelines". That just seems wrong, but that's just my opinion.

What I do like are tournaments that mix the 1st round groupings so that lowly Ams like me have a chance to play with better players in case we decide not to move up.

Play the division that calls for your potential, not your rating.



I think my potential is to have fun. I can't compete in a tournament with someone with a rating over 900, and I have enough rounds in the database to prove that. Although I have had a few rounds over 900, I have never played an entire tournament at that level. I have not been tearing up in Rec, but I can't compete in Int or Adv. Play to my potential? I think I have and the ratings show that my potential is 868.

How do you define potential??
If you have a bunch of rounds over 875, don't you have the potential of being an intermediate player??

Potential:
existing in possibility
the inherent capacity for coming into being
anything that may be possible
possible but not yet in existence


Do you have to win a division a bunch of times before moving up???

How do you define potential??
If you have a bunch of rounds over 875, don't you have the potential of being an intermediate player??

Potential:
existing in possibility
the inherent capacity for coming into being
anything that may be possible
possible but not yet in existence


Do you have to win a division a bunch of times before moving up???



No, my rating has to go up. My rating is the best indicator of my ability that I can see. A rating is an average. Everyone has individual rounds that are rated above their rating.

I think most of you are thinking about this as an improving player. One that will eventually become better than they are. I continue to work on my disc golf skills. However, I've been playing disc golf since 1978 and have been playing tournaments since 1993. Its not likely that I will get better at this game than I am now. And by your definition its not possible to play to your potential. I can play where I'm at and be happy doing it. I encourage everyone to play in the division that they get the best return for their entry fee (as long as the rules allow them to play in that division). And by "return" I'm not talking about money or prizes (although that might be what some find appealing). I'm talking about whatever will keep you coming back to more tournaments. If playing up gets your juices flowing and makes you want to come back again, then please do. What seems to be doing it for me is knowing I have a chance to play the second round with people who are the same skill level as me but who aren't ****** off about how they played in the first round.

[jmonny]

I decided that I needed to move up to get better (better competition better play). my rating came up 10 points after two tourny's this year and now am rated 879...my goal is to break 900 this year...i will continue to play advanced, although my rating still says i'm an intermediate... i've definitely noticed that playing up is helping me to get better...



Atreau3
Our "careers" so far are almost identical, and I agree with all of your reasons for playing up. Moving up and not cashing for a while forces you to get better and rise to the competition. You will reach your goal and that first Am1 cash will feel even better. Keep it up!
#21433

I decided that I needed to move up to get better (better competition better play). my rating came up 10 points after two tourny's this year and now am rated 879...my goal is to break 900 this year...i will continue to play advanced, although my rating still says i'm an intermediate... i've definitely noticed that playing up is helping me to get better...



Atreau3
Our "careers" so far are almost identical, and I agree with all of your reasons for playing up. Moving up and not cashing for a while forces you to get better and rise to the competition. You will reach your goal and that first Am1 cash will feel even better. Keep it up!
#21433



I have no problem with anyone doing that. Just don't think its the only way. There are many paths--choose wisely. I played Advanced in PDGA tournaments exclusively for a couple of years. It did nothing to improve my game. Your mileage may vary.

One of the reasons that I started to play Advanced was because most of the Illinois PDGA tournaments did not offer divisions below Advanced. They did the lower divisions unsanctioned and I wanted to get a rating to know how I compare. After realizing that my best performance in Advanced was probably never going to be better than the bottom of the pack, I started to run the tournaments that I wanted to play. With the help of a great team, this year we're running 3 PDGA tournaments as split day events. I can play in Rec on Saturday while they run the event and then I run it on Sunday while they play. It helped that my team consists of two PDGA officials that have Advanced ratings.

[rhett]

Our "careers" so far are almost identical, and I agree with all of your reasons for playing up. Moving up and not cashing for a while forces you to get better and rise to the competition. You will reach your goal and that first Am1 cash will feel even better. Keep it up!
#21433



This is only true of improving players. Some people only have the potential to play mid-level Rec, others the potential to play mid-level Advanced. I don't think that most people consider this. No one would argue that not everyone can win a SuperTour in MPO no matter how much they practice and many tourneys they play up. But the same is true for all levels. There is a perception (mis-perception in my opinion) that Int and Rec are only for newbies. With ratings breaks assigned to the division they are intended for players of those skill levels, regardless of whether they are new on the rise, old on the decline, or stable and playing at their potential.

One other thing: I don't think a Rec player playing Advanced is going to get better faster playing Advanced unless they are already rapidly improving and their rating is seriuosly lagging their skiils. Playing on or near the lead card is Rec will do far more for your skills than playing the last card of Advanced, where the people are ****** and throwing stupid shots (and usually getting hammered) because it doesn't matter because they are totally out of it. You get more experience duking it out for a trophy in Rec, where this 20 foot putt means the difference between a trophy or not, or last merch or not. The experience of dealing with pressure is just as important as anything else, and a low rated player has little chance of experiencing that in Advanced.

Well said Rhett. You should watch out. If you agree too much with me, you might be accused of being Bruce Brakel. Or is that the other way around? ;)

[jmonny]

[/b] Keep it up!
#21433



This is only true of improving players.




I see your point, it just seems like its working for him, I know it won't work for everybody. It sounds like Adreau3 has the confidence to do it and not put an emphasis on cashing every event but more on improving and learning.

[CMR]

no no fellowes come on rating is a # nothing more nothing less mine is 880 and i play in advanced just moved up 2 months ago my int tourneys where 12 13 14th places my advanced tourneys are 6th out of 12 and tied 8th out of 33 so ratings nothing to me at least GO BIG

I've got to say that I'm really sitting on the fence on this issue. Since I'm going to worlds this year I've decided that I'm going to play up at every opportunity beforehand to try to adjust my mental game to the "if you keep playing like that you will be DFL at worlds" and hopefully not embarass myself. I agree that playing in the last advanced group teaches you nothing but a bad attitude. I have been in the lead intermediate group a couple of times and choked myself out of cash every time. If there was ever a rec division offered around here I don't think I would play in it (even though I'm way eligible) because around here it would be filled with new players and I would feel really bad if I didn't win and even worse if I did. So as I said, I'm sitting on the fence and to muddy things up even more, next year I get to add masters divisions into the mix.

Ratings based events anyone?

[rhett]

Sounds like you could use a few more Int tourneys for your mental game. :) Part of getting better is getting consistent from round to round. Lead card to out of the merch is not consistent. I don't know why you would move up to Advanced if you are that inconsistent in Intermediate.

Ratings based events anyone?



In an R-tier do you play up two brackets? If not, what is the difference between an R-tier and a normal division tournament as far as what division you put yourself in?

[rhett]

In an R-tier do you play up two brackets? If not, what is the difference between an R-tier and a normal division tournament as far as what division you put yourself in?



Maybe I'll get accused of being Bruce Brakel for agreeing with you so much on this thread!

As nick would say, "Word!"

More info on R-tiers:

http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/PRWCPbro.PDF

Breakdown is somewhat different than just 875 < 915 <

[CMR]

hyde park ny sweet im orignaly from the island bayshore, never played in the ny though good stuff up there im going to hit courses on my next trip home should be awesome oh yea get of the fence GO BIG cause i do

[atreau3]

i live in Islip, right next to Bay Shore... there isnt any DG on LI though...

Erick

[bruce_brakel]

Ratings based events anyone?



In an R-tier do you play up two brackets? If not, what is the difference between an R-tier and a normal division tournament as far as what division you put yourself in?



I realize that the question is facetious or rhetorical, but the answer is mildly humorous. At the R-tier I played, the conversations with the people doing registration went like this:

What division is Am2?
There is no Am2.
Well, what division is intermediate then?
There is no intermediate. This is an R-tier.
Well, which of these different colors is the division for people who play Intermediate?
People who play intermediate can play in Bronze, White, Red or Green depending upon their rating.
[Turning away from the TD...] Jim, what division are you playing in? This guy is just giving me the run around!

Anyway, not having divisions with familiar names, and not having divisions that exactly corresponded to the familiarly named divisions seemed to liberate people to play in the division indicated by their rating.

[okcacehole]

yes

[rhett]

But the familiar names keep them from doing it.

I've only played one ratings based event and it seemed people actually played where they belonged with maybe only a one division jump. Most of the people I like playing tournaments with are under 900 rated but will play advanced in tourneys so a ratings based event with a sub 900 division means I get to hang with the people I enjoy playing with and still have an outside shot at competing.

Keep in mind that in the NY, NJ, CT area there really isn't a rec division offered and intermediate is only decently populated in B tier and up events so if you want to play with experienced players your only option is advanced.

[scoop]

Keep in mind that in the NY, NJ, CT area there really isn't a rec division offered and intermediate is only decently populated in B tier and up events...



<font color="gray">*/sarcasm on/* </font>Yeah, that's exactly the same problem we have here in Texas. Not nearly enough Rec or Int. players to field a decent or competitive tournament.<font color="gray">*/end sarcasm/*</font>

So, are you gonna come down to the Jam, and we'll battle it out again... :D

In the 899 und under division... :D

I woudl love a division, that cuts off at 899, 885 woudl even be nice, since I just dropped to 883.

:D

Fly out to Jersey in July and play the Jam... :D

Buy my plane tickets both ways, and pay my entry, and I am there!!!!

/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

This is only true of improving players. Some people only have the potential to play mid-level Rec, others the potential to play mid-level Advanced. I don't think that most people consider this. No one would argue that not everyone can win a SuperTour in MPO no matter how much they practice and many tourneys they play up. But the same is true for all levels. There is a perception (mis-perception in my opinion) that Int and Rec are only for newbies. With ratings breaks assigned to the division they are intended for players of those skill levels, regardless of whether they are new on the rise, old on the decline, or stable and playing at their potential.

One other thing: I don't think a Rec player playing Advanced is going to get better faster playing Advanced unless they are already rapidly improving and their rating is seriuosly lagging their skiils. Playing on or near the lead card is Rec will do far more for your skills than playing the last card of Advanced, where the people are ****** and throwing stupid shots (and usually getting hammered) because it doesn't matter because they are totally out of it. You get more experience duking it out for a trophy in Rec, where this 20 foot putt means the difference between a trophy or not, or last merch or not. The experience of dealing with pressure is just as important as anything else, and a low rated player has little chance of experiencing that in Advanced.



This is the most logical and sane argument against forcing players to move up and to, instead, allow AND encourage people to play where their ratings put them OR, in Eric's case, where they feel comfortable.... not where somebody else feels they should play.

... and to agree with Rhett is quite painful, but when he's right, he's right.

[slowmo_1]

I'm having this very debate with myself right now. I'm planning on playing the Waco Charity OPen Am's in 2 weeks. It's an A tier. Should I play in the Rec division with my 850 rating where I can be in the top of the cash, or in the Int division where I most likely won't cash? I keep bouncing back an forth in my own mind.

850 rating, wont neseccarily put you in the cash.....

A tiers bring out the biggest baggers.

Not to mention, the beast coudl beat you like a red-headed stepchild

[slowmo_1]

Kind of what I was thinking. I know what the beast did to me last tme I played it.

[tbender]

850 rating, wont neseccarily put you in the cash.....

A tiers bring out the biggest baggers.

Not to mention, the beast coudl beat you like a red-headed stepchild



Big deal, so they get to bag once more before their newly minted PDGA number generates a rating for them. :)

A-tiers require PDGA memberships (for non-junior divisions), not $5 nonmember fees.

Play where YOU think YOU should play. The baseline should be your rating, not the opinion of the peanut gallery.