Am Ratings Leaders

Where can I view a list of Am ratings leaders? The list I see at PDGA ratings page lists Pro only as to leaders.

It is easy to see the am leaders, state by state, but I want to see a country wide comparison.

A short, unscientific survey of several states shows that there are some Am's with ratings in the mid 960's. I know there are some in the 970's and even 980's. But, I do not see any way to sort that and get a list of the leaders, country wide.

Also, this is not a troll post intended to get a nasty string of bagger comments.

[Chris Hysell]

Bagger Justin Jernigan of NC is 972.

[girlie]

Chill Pumpkin,

JJ's gonna win the Worlds this year!

:cool:

[Chris Hysell]

Or next year or the year after. Or Brandon Bailey in 2010.

[dannyreeves]

16 year old Coda Hatfield from Oklahoma is 970. He will be in the running for the win at Am Worlds.

[twoputtok]

Koda will take it all. The kid plays like he has been around for 20 years. He has one of the best attitudes towards the game that I have seen in a long time and hes only 16.

Watch out for this one.

[MTL21676]

JJ denied his cash at USDGC to play AM worlds....yeah he qualified and yeah he cashed.......unreal...and yeah he's in High School

[bruce_brakel]

Where can I view a list of Am ratings leaders? The list I see at PDGA ratings page lists Pro only as to leaders.

It is easy to see the am leaders, state by state, but I want to see a country wide comparison.

A short, unscientific survey of several states shows that there are some Am's with ratings in the mid 960's. I know there are some in the 970's and even 980's. But, I do not see any way to sort that and get a list of the leaders, country wide.

Also, this is not a troll post intended to get a nasty string of bagger comments.



I don't think there is a link or tool to get there but I hacked around and came up with:

Advanced Ratings (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php?offset=0&selection=m1O&col_type =current&order=rating)

[bruce_brakel]

Junior Boys (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php?offset=0&selection=m1j&col_type =current&order=rating)

More Junior Boys (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php?offset=0&selection=m2j&col_type =current&order=rating)

Fat Old Men (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php?offset=0&selection=m1m&col_type =current&order=rating)

Junior Girls (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php?offset=0&selection=f1j&col_type =current&order=rating)

More Junior Girls (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php?offset=0&selection=F2J&col_type =current&order=rating)

[bruce_brakel]

The lists that those links generate are not at all reliable. For example, my stats come up under advanced instead of with advanced masters and 9 year old Kiralyn is in with the Junior Girls <19 instead of Junior Girls under 10.

[bruce_brakel]

Chicks (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php?offset=0&amp;selection=F1O&amp;col_type =current&amp;order=rating)

[bruce_brakel]

Do I need to explain that if you click on the bold words above that takes you to ratings sorted by those divisions?

Thanks Bruce - that was cool!

[neonnoodle]

Do I need to explain that if you click on the bold words above that takes you to ratings sorted by those divisions?



Yeah, and while you're at it could you explain this:

For years now I've been opening my diskettes using the handy silver pull tab, but when I insert them into the floppy drive smoke starts coming out and I have to go by another computer.

Any advice?

[prairie_dawg]

Yeah Bruce,

If only the results were correct :crazy

ray

[rhett]

The lists that those links generate are not at all reliable. For example, my stats come up under advanced instead of with advanced masters and 9 year old Kiralyn is in with the Junior Girls <19 instead of Junior Girls under 10.



True dat. None of the SoCal M1Ms come up in that query. Nice job coming up with it, though.

[bruce_brakel]

Yeah Bruce,

If only the results were correct :crazy

ray



That is probably why it is no longer available at the ratings page, because they have not updated the sort function to cope with the new junior divisions and the new ratings capped divisions.

If you use the link to advanced you seem to get all of the advanced players except a smattering of fat old men and boys who play advanced. You also get the intermediate and rec men.

Probably why it still uses the OLD divisional abbreviations too...

M1O, etc.....

[tpozzy]

Beginning in 2003, you only registered for a specific class (pro, am or junior), rather than the old divisions, which matched the division you usually played. The online database doesn't include gender and birthdate, so there's no way to calculate the brackets for a search (e.g., ams over 40) right now. It's on the project list to implement, though.

[okcacehole]

16 year old Coda Hatfield from Oklahoma is 970. He will be in the running for the win at Am Worlds.



I think he just jumped again...he will have a house full of baskets by the time he goes PRO

[rhett]

I am the Am Ratings leader for MA2! :D

Probably tied with a few people, though. :)

[Chris Hysell]

Rhett does that mean you may be in the wrong division?

[rhett]

I'm not sure what "wrong division" means. I have a rating, and according to the PDGA it is an Intermediate rating. :eek:

[scoop]

I'm not sure what "wrong division" means. I have a rating, and according to the PDGA it is an Intermediate rating. :eek:



I hope I smelled a bit of irony in that last statement. If not, then it's just a sad and lame excuse. You know it. I know it. We all know it.

Just because something is within the 'letter' of the rules, doesn't make it fair or honest. It just means that someone can use the 'letter' of the rule to justify their dishonesty, lack of genuine sportsmanship, and integrity. If you've been playing more than 4-5 years of tournament play, have won even a single MA2 event, and are just a meager 1 point from an automatic bump...but insist on continuing to play MA2 because it's where you "belong"...then you're dillusional about the intent of the rule, the spirit of good sportsmanship, and the notion of fair play.

Seriously...be a man and step up, and quit stealing plastic from the kids who have yet to even sniff a 900+ rated round, much less a 900+ cummulative rating.

[dannyreeves]

I think Rhett plays Advanced.

[rhett]

Eff you. What a pompous you are.


BTW, if I were playing up in the Male Professional Open division right now, without registering as a pro, I would still be tied for the ratings leader in Intermediate.

For anybody's information that cares to read, when my rating dipped to 906 last year, I started playing MA2. A lot of posts here on the message board led me to that choice, the main line of questions being the fact that all the am divisions are filled with people playing far above their ratings. The question that remains unanswered to this day about the ratings is if they work and if they are in the right places. If a bunch of 890 players are in advanced and are getting their tails kicked by 930 players and are also crying about how those 930 players are baggers and should go pro, then what the heck are the ratings doing for us anyway?

I decided to play where my rating dictated and give the system a chance. Fortunately the Wintertime Open was basically a player pack tourney, with all cashers receiving basically the same thing, a pro orc. The entry fee was really low to match, so I didn't feel bad at all. I didn't take a trophy away from any up and comer, and all was good. I did a bit better at the Memorial and won a pile of stuff, but I used those winning to fund half of a "every hole CTP" at my EIEIO tourney. (Thanks Pizza God for the other half worth of discs!) ElDo Open was next, and it had a really low payout, so again no harm/no foul.

Unfortunately the San Diego Open is this weekend, the payout will be huge like usual, and my rating just went up to 914. Now what??? Follow the system or abandon the new PDGA amateur competition structure due to peer pressure? Humph.

You see, Rooster-feathers-for-brains, the bummer about the stinking 914 is that I have been trying to play where my rating dictates. This makes it very very difficult. If tourneys were low entry/low payout it would be no big deal. But a fat payday brings all the jerks like you out to comment on my intentions. And since my intentions are not to stock up plastic, it's already a tough decision on where to play.

Did you really call me a freaking thief??? Eff you again.

Here's a question for everybody: what do the ratings breaks mean and what are they for? If 915 if the cutoff but you are a sandbagging immoral poor-sport [b]thief if you still play the division when your rating is over 900, then why isn't the cutoff 900? Is 903 okay but 909 is stealing? Is 907 just a poor-sport?

If the rating break is moved to 900, will 895 players be the new thieves of the division?

I'm serious here: what are the ratings breaks for?

[Moderator005]

Just because something is within the 'letter' of the rules, doesn't make it fair or honest. It just means that someone can use the 'letter' of the rule to justify their dishonesty, lack of genuine sportsmanship, and integrity. If you've been playing more than 4-5 years of tournament play, have won even a single MA2 event, and are just a meager 1 point from an automatic bump...but insist on continuing to play MA2 because it's where you "belong"...then you're dillusional about the intent of the rule, the spirit of good sportsmanship, and the notion of fair play.

Seriously...be a man and step up, and quit stealing plastic from the kids who have yet to even sniff a 900+ rated round, much less a 900+ cummulative rating.



I'm one of many who have been critical of Rhett but I think you take it a little too far. You are basically saying that he lacks integrity and sportsmanship and that is over the line.

And Rhett doesn't play Advanced, he plays either Intermediate or Advanced Masters.

[sandalman]

If the rating break is moved to 900, will 895 players be the new thieves of the division?

I'm serious here: what are the ratings breaks for?



WORD!

[sandalman]

ummmm... just an idea, but why not start a division for people who are really high ranked ams, but not truly competitive as pros? i dunno, maybe we could call it "sub-pro", or "close-pro" or sumpin like that... :p

I decided to play where my rating dictated and give the system a chance.



It is not like Rhett is thumping everyone in AM2, so I would say that he should stay in AM2 for at least the rest of this year.
However, I would think that you would play fairly well at SDO due to ur exp. at that course.
Also, AM1 in SoCal has quite a few 950+ rated players that are flirting with Open, but as far as I know, none of them are going to be bumping up mid-year.
My rating is only 4 points higher than Rhett's, but I am doing OK in SoCal AM1 and have had only one round below my rating this year. Plus, I have won in AM2 a few times so I am not going back to AM2.
The difference with Rhett is that he played Masters last year, so where do u go from there??

[gnduke]

For all of those that think a player is bagging if he/she is playing where the PDGA says they should play....

<font size=7>You're wrong</font>

All day wrong. For all of those players that are playing above where the PDGA says they should play and complain about getting beaten by players that actaully belong in that division...

<font size=7>You're also wrong</font>

If you don't like the splits, then play where your rating says you belong and let the PDGA see how wrong the numbers really are. As long as nobody is paying attention to the current ratings, the PDGA will never be able to see if it works properly or not.

This is especially important if you do not agree with the current splits between divisions. The PDGA can't get an accurate read on where the splits should be unless you play where your rating puts you.

If you don't like it, and don't use it, it can't be monitored properly and will not be changed properly.

Don't u think that there is some amount of "local" variance??
I think of the breaks as a guide.
If u r at 915, but u r not playing much and kind of sliding, then AM2 would might be a better fit than AM1.
Not so black and white, more of a gray area.

[bambam]

Got a question for you, Mark.... no anger, just curious... please define "local variance" for me.

[tbender]

Robbie, that is wayyyyy out of line.

The breakline is 915. It doesn't officially matter how long Rhett (or anyone else) has been playing. Those statements about throwing distances, putting percentages, years experience are outdated and have been replaced by the ratings system. Below that line, you can play Intermediate. Above it, and you play Advanced. At 915, you get sucked into a cosmic vortex and disappear forever.

Does that mean I don't think a few people are bagging with sub-915 ratings? No. I think there are a few who could jump now and be fine (as long as they don't get scared by that first noncashing tourney). Especially with the ZLT10 Tour. Since ratings aren't kept for them, they allow some folks to dominate the lower Am divisions without being forced up.

I chose to play Advanced with my 900 rating (now 910) for my own reasons. Namely, I've bought more plastic than I've won and I needed to get used to focusing for an entire tourney if I wanted to get better. 10 events in, I'm 50% cashing -- mission accomplished so far. Everyone has their own reasons, and I will respect that. I may not like the reasons, but I will respect them. Do I think all those 930+ players who keep beating me need to move up so I can continue to play 910 golf and place better? No. No. No. I'm the one playing in the "wrong" division.

At least folks like Rhett are playing within the system and not being like our favorite Texas bagger, staying a non-member so he can play Intermediate for life (or until States this year).

Bottom line -- Do you want to keep people in the tourney structure or have them quit in frustration because they are playing where they "should" and getting thumped everytime out? Which adds to the PDGA and gives the organization a chance to look at the data and tweak if need be?

[gnduke]

If you read carefully, I say that no one is wrong for playing up, only if they play up and then complain about not being competitive. If you only play local events, then that is already figured into your player rating.

All I am asking is that players are allowed, even encouraged to play where thier PDGA ratings places them so we can see if the system will work as designed, and to help the PDGA adjust the cutoff levels so that it will work as intended.

As long as the ratings are ignored and the old fashioned "Win and you have to move up" system is used, we will never know if the rating system will work properly.

[bruce_brakel]

ummmm... just an idea, but why not start a division for people who are really high ranked ams, but not truly competitive as pros? i dunno, maybe we could call it "sub-pro", or "close-pro" or sumpin like that... :p

Or we could call it Pro 2 and some 80 i.q. type could tell us what idiots we are.

80-ish ?

Isn't that just a little optimistic ?

[scoop]

For all of those that think a player is bagging if he/she is playing where the PDGA says they should play....

<font size=2>You're wrong</font>

All day wrong. For all of those players that are playing above where the PDGA says they should play and complain about getting beaten by players that actaully belong in that division...

<font size=2>You're also wrong</font>

If you don't like the splits, then play where your rating says you belong and let the PDGA see how wrong the numbers really are. As long as nobody is paying attention to the current ratings, the PDGA will never be able to see if it works properly or not.

This is especially important if you do not agree with the current splits between divisions. The PDGA can't get an accurate read on where the splits should be unless you play where your rating puts you.

If you don't like it, and don't use it, it can't be monitored properly and will not be changed properly.



I can see y'll's counter points to my earlier post. Really I can. And I understand the logic and reasoning behind them. But I still stand by what I said. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Theoretically, YES, everyone should play in the division dictated by their rating. But it's never. Ever. Going to happen. If the PDGA wants to accurately measure where the line is and the actual effectiveness of their ratings system, then they will have to place a floor and a ceiling on every division...in other words, nobody can play in any division other than the one for which they are rated.

But we all know that is as unlikely to happen as it is that every player will voluntarily play in their correct division.

In a perfect world? Everyone plays in only thei division, and all B-tiered events and higher would be open to current PDGA members only. But it's an imperfect world. One where we have tough-guys boasting about being the very best of the second lowest division in our sport. I'm much more impressed with the boastings of guys/gals who realize that their rating (from an imperfect ratings formula) are not necessarily indicative of their actual ability.

Rhett, I hope we have opportunity for a friendly match on a neutral course someday. I’ll even meet you more than half-way. I’ll be in Vegas for the Halloween Classic in October. Don’t forget to bring your f-bombs (you dropped several ineffective ones on the floor somewhere in here).

[gnduke]

I don't see that we disagree that much. You should play where your rating places you. If you are improving consistently, your rating will catch up and move you up.

If a player is bragging about being the best Rec or Int player around, then I think thier rating should be close enough to the next level for them to move up and still be competitive. I have no problem with players playing above thier rating, only with players that play up and then complain about "baggers" in thier new division. The players that belong in that division are not baggers. They are the players that should be playing in that division, and all those that are rated below that division but still choose to play in that division are voluntarily donating to them (statistically).

If a player chooses to play up, they should be doing it to develop thier game by playing against better players. They should expect to be getting beat by those better players until thier game improves enough to start beating them. They should not expect those higher rated players to play up in the next division just because they chose to play up.

[coda_hatfield]

I am second in advanced in the world. 977 :DYou can call me a bagger because I know I am. :o

[mitchjustice]

so if #2 is a Bagger...hum

[tbender]

Well said Gary.

"Play up at your own risk."

[scoop]

Gary,

I agree 100% with everything in your last post. I think there is a lot of value to be gained by playing up. And it's probably the quickest and best method for improving one's game.

[coda_hatfield]

Somebody has to be #1. So it doesn't matter somebody has to be the bagger. /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif :eek: :o

[twoputtok]

And you have become the PRO of Am Baggers. :D

Come on Worlds.
So you can move up to be a real Pro not the sudo one that you are now. :D

[jeffash]

I am ranked #317 in Pro Master. :D
I'm dominating my buddy Nick Arbeitman from KC- He's #318 :eek:

[bruce_brakel]

Gary,

I agree 100% with everything in your last post. I think there is a lot of value to be gained by playing up. And it's probably the quickest and best method for improving one's game.



Your stats belie your words, Rooster.

I think this is a disc golf urban legend. In a game where you physically play against an opponent, like football, basketball, or tennis, clearly you can improve rapidly by playing better players or teams, especially if there is a coach there pointing out on the film why the other team or player kicked your asterisks.

In disc golf you can play up a division and play with essentially the same people you would have played with if you had played where you belonged: first round, random group of strangers; second round, similarly skilled opponents who either are playing up like you or are playing where they belong like you.

Moreover, disc golf offers incentives to play your best that are not necessarily present in baseball, football, basketball etc. But those incentives are present only if you are playing where you belong. If you have a bad morning round in the division you belong in, you can play well and finish in the incentives. If you have a bad round in the morning while playing up, you have no chance to collect any incentives at the end of the day.

And then there is the anecdotal evidence: Munschy, 10 points per year for two years of playing up, not bad but I'm doing better playing where I belong; Lauwers, 1 point per year for two years of playing up; Boledovich, has not renewed but does not seem to be improving much; Klem, 2 points per year for two years; Gacioch, -8 per year over two years. I did not search the database for confirming examples; I thought of people who play up, listed them and then went to see how it was working for them. I'll bet you'd see the same thing if you looked at Churches, Oakley, Jeffries or any of the guys who were playing advanced the last couple of years with intermediate ratings.

On the other hand, the people I see improving rapidly are the ones working the system, playing in the division indicated by their rating, and taking home lots of incentives, Mosier, Scooter and to some extent myself. Mosier played up some but he was all for playing Int or Rec on Saturday, converting the incentives to cash, and then coming back to play up on Sunday.

Don't get me wrong: I have no problem with anyone donating if that satisfies their emotional needs. I see no evidence that it provides a competitive benefit to the player in this game where you don't play the opponent; you play the course.

Our system seems to have been designed by people who understand behavioral psychology. If you work with the system it will work for you.

I'm pretty sure there is only 1 advanced winner at World's this year. So, by the "baggers" logic there are going to be some dissapointed "baggers." Waiting for World's and not taking money to retain status is almost as crazy as winning 6 tournaments in a row and not moving up :D

[rhett]

I have always realized that you have to play Pro Open caliber golf in order to finish in the top 10 in MA1 at Am Worlds. And I don't have a problem with that. My realistic goals will never involve finishing top 10 in MA1 at Am Worlds. :)

But there are a lot of guys who hold off in search of that World Champ title, and no one can count on getting it. You could stay am forever with the mindset of "I'll go pro after an Am World Title" because there are always new up-and-comers who are great golfers and might have a better week than you that week. I have no problem with people shooting for that goal because I know it will always take Open Pro caliber golf and a great week at just the right time in order to be the Am World Champ.

Turning down USDGC cash seems pretty harsh, though, just to roll the dice one more time.

I think this is a disc golf urban legend.


I agree 100%. There is a LOT to be learned from better players, but I don't necessarily think playing up in a tourney is going to teach you what you need to know. Like Bruce said, after the first round you are just playing with similarly skilled players anyway. I find it much mo' beneficial to actually walk behind and watch the top pros. You learn a lot more watching the top players on the first card on Sunday than you do playing on the 14th card and missing all the great shots.

[bruce_brakel]

-- You are now ignoring this person. --

[Luke Butch]

[/QUOTE]
Moreover, disc golf offers incentives to play your best that are not necessarily present in baseball, football, basketball etc. But those incentives are present only if you are playing where you belong. If you have a bad morning round in the division you belong in, you can play well and finish in the incentives. If you have a bad round in the morning while playing up, you have no chance to collect any incentives at the end of the day.

On the other hand, the people I see improving rapidly are the ones working the system, playing in the division indicated by their rating, and taking home lots of incentives, Mosier, Scooter and to some extent myself. Mosier played up some but he was all for playing Int or Rec on Saturday, converting the incentives to cash, and then coming back to play up on Sunday.


[/QUOTE]

A few odd things I noticed:
-Who plays any Am division in DG for the incentives?
-Don't you find it a little screwed up that a person that can win Advanced also finished 7th in Int. the day before?
-"working the system" to generate "incentives"(lots of plastic) which eventually becomes cash sounds like taking advantage of the system.

I have a 914 rating. Do I even consider playing Int? No. I would look very stupid. I've been playing adv. for the last year and have been steadily improving(867 to 914).

Disc Golf is a ladder. When you reach the top of one division you should move up and probably be in the bottom half of the next division. In many areas of the country a 914 rated golfer would almost always beat the Int. and would be in the prizes most of the time in Adv. The exception may be at tournaments where decent/good Adv. players with ratings about to be above 915 would rather play Int. than play Pro2.

Also mentioned was the situation of when you have a bad round. No one should be in a division where they can play bad and still finish well without a very good 2nd round.

[rhett]

What are the ratings breaks for?

Obviously 925 was too high so they lowered it to 915 this year. But a lot of people on here now seem to be claiming that 915 is also way too high. That includes an 884 player who is only 9 ratings points above the Rec cutoff.

It sounds like the 884 rated players are beating and merching against a bunch of Rec-rated players who are playing up to Int. But does that make sense for them to do? Why aren't the <875 guys playing Rec where they belong? That's what causes the problem. The 850 guys play Int and get beat by the 880 guys, and the 890+ guys play Advanced get get whooped by the 920+ guys. And then the 900 guys complain about the 930 players needing to turn pro.


I just wonder what would happen if everybody played where their ratings dictate. But for that to happen a few somebodies would have to take a whole lot of crap for playing where their ratings dictate. Anybody pursuing that course would be a fool not to expect that, though. :) Hopefully they won't try to hide while doing it.

There is some leeway allowed in the system, right??
I just got my butt back up above 915 during this latest ratings update, but I played AM1 all year because I won 2 tourneys in AM2 the year before.
In contrast, the winner of AM2 Championship in Socal was rated 935+ at the end of the year. Should he have been bumped mid-year??

I would think that the ratings breaks should be +/- 10 ratings points at least.

[rhett]

There is a rule whereby regional series' can "lock" the ratings at some point in order to finish the series. Last year we "locked" at the June update.

[magilla]

I am the Am Ratings leader for MA2! :D

Probably tied with a few people, though. :)



Jeremy Coles....914....Bagger extrodinaire(Won KOA Pro/AM this past weekend)...BUT still an INT player by the standards set forth by our "Parent Organization"

Youve got to be pretty darn clueless to now argue over who should be where...before it was "they dont have the right to have BUMP RULES". Whats next :confused:

The system has been set...so why not follow the system??..If a player rated below the cut wants to play up then they will only better themselves in the end. If a 914 rated player wants to play in INT then thats what they are allowed to do. Why should you, I or anyone else care?
The issue I have with the recinding of "Bump Rules" is Where is the line from Am to Pro....They have drawn a line in the Ams so no rule is needed. BUT there is no reason why, under the current system an Adv player should be allowed to continue to dominate.....

As I have said in the Past...an Am should have to declare BEFORE playing in a Pro event that they will deny the cash.
Not just test the waters and take it if you happen to play well enough. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[bruce_brakel]

Jeremy Coles....914....Bagger extrodinaire(Won KOA Pro/AM this past weekend)...BUT still an INT player by the standards set forth by our "Parent Organization"



If you look at the ratings of his opponents, there were 52 players in the division and 9 had intermediate ratings. The rest were rec players.

Jeremy Coles played where he belongs. It is not his fault if disc golfers in California come to a PDGA sanctioned tournament and then ignore the PDGA format. He has no obligation to move up to Advanced so that all the recreationals can kid themselves and pretend that they are intermediates.

Jeremy is playing where he belongs, working with the incentive system built into our PDGA format, and apparently improving rapidly. Thank you Jeremy for supporting my point that playing up is not all it is cracked up to be.

Let's look at some of the int-wannabes:

hmmm ... hmmm ...

O.k., there's only one player in the intermediate pool with a sufficient history of tournament play to be of interest on the other side of the equation: George Houston has always had a rec rating and has always played up to Intermediate, even when rec was offered. George is improving at the rate of one ratings point per year. Thank you George. If you are reading, you know what you have to do.

[gnduke]

I never said playing up was successful, only that players do that to improve quickly. And I think there is some merit to that argument if you are a player that is improving.

You tend to play to the level of your competition. If everyone else in your division gets a birdie on this hole, and you can't because you don't have a flick shot, then you will probably go out and get one. If the division is half and half about getting a birdie on this hole, then you might not care enough to develop your game.

Just saying, the more you get your bu tt handed to you, the less you like it and the more incentive you have to stop it. If you find that you can't compete or get better, move back down.

[magilla]

There is a rule whereby regional series' can "lock" the ratings at some point in order to finish the series.



:confused: :confused: :confused:

[nix]

Got beat by Pete Lopez, who cashed BTW. Time for me to move down eh?




-pizza god

...You tend to play to the level of your competition. If everyone else in your division gets a birdie on this hole, and you can't because you don't have a flick shot, then you will probably go out and get one. If the division is half and half about getting a birdie on this hole, then you might not care enough to develop your game...



I understand part of your point, but how would you know if half your division was getting a birdie on a particular hole? Unless your division is small enough that you are playing with all of them.

If people tended to play to the level of their competition, then there wouldn't be any baggers or the illusion of baggers. Also then people wouldn't have a tendency to get better over time, since they get grouped after the first round with people who are very close to their own skill levels.

As much as I hate to agree with Bruce Brakel (cuz then people might confuse me with Jon Brakel), the notion that playing above your division in tournaments makes you a better golfer is poppycock. Total and absolute nonsense.

Playing with better golfers in casual play, however, does have it's merits. That's where the young newbie golfers can learn things like flicks and rollers and how to throw straight, etc.

A tournament is not the place to get an education. Playing up accomplishes one thing - a cash donation and the chance to play in the last group with the other tools that thought playing up was a good idea.

[oxalate]

As I have said in the Past...an Am should have to declare BEFORE playing in a Pro event that they will deny the cash.
Not just test the waters and take it if you happen to play well enough. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Maybe this statement is more related to your comments about bump rules, but could you elaborate why you feel this is important.

Perhaps to prevent an Am from taking cash at an event where they happened to play the rounds of their life and accepting cash in the excitement of the moment and then being stuck in the Open division where they typically won't cash.

[magilla]

As I have said in the Past...an Am should have to declare BEFORE playing in a Pro event that they will deny the cash.
Not just test the waters and take it if you happen to play well enough. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Maybe this statement is more related to your comments about bump rules, but could you elaborate why you feel this is important.

Perhaps to prevent an Am from taking cash at an event where they happened to play the rounds of their life and accepting cash in the excitement of the moment and then being stuck in the Open division where they typically won't cash.



Maybe "Deep Down" I still have a resentment for the elimination of "Bump Rules".

The NorCal Series had the 1st and longest running "PDGA Approved" Bump Rules that used a Fair and Consistant method for moving players up in Divisions.

When the PDGA started the Player Ratings, the need for a "Bump Rule" in the Ams was eliminated...BUT it still did nothing to move an Am to Pro...That is where I have an issue. :p

On my point about Ams needing to declare status BEFORE laying in an Open event.....just an added quirk.. :D

It seems to happen alot where the Ams play OPEN and...OOpps, guess what I cashed.....and the question of should I take it or not comes up....

Well in my opinion that choice should be made BEFORE playing the event......Then there is no question as to what will happen IF that player cashes...whether it be last cash or a much higher payday...(This commonly is the determining factor of weather to take the cash or not) We should take that decision away....If you cash then you have already stated that you will 1) Turn it down; or 2)Take the Cash

This makes perfect sense and is in line with what other Am/Pro organizations do.......If you want to play Pro, then declare your status BEFORE you play, Not after you find out how much money you MIGHT make... :o

[oxalate]

Although I don't have an appreciation for how things are in NorCal, I don't see how Ams declaring their intentions before the event would make much difference.

For instance, an Am that finishes in second in a Pro event will either accept or decline cash. If they accept the cash (which in this case would likely be a decent payout), then they played well enough and actually earned it. If they decline the cash, then their entry fee was a donation. Declined cash moves down to the next player and the Am gets nothing more than the experience.

I suppose it would make the awards ceremony go more smoothly if you knew ahead of time so you could reshuffle the declined cash. Given their options of accepting cash or nothing (or playing in Pro2 if offered), I suppose most Ams playing in a Pro division probably know before the event whether or not they would accept the cash.

Yea, i can't imagine that this is such a huge problem. If it is then perhaps this is just the effect of too many AMs playing PRO weekend after weekend.
I would think that if during the player's meeting on Sunday u simply made it clear that all AMs need to let the TD know if they will be declining the cash after the last round.
It is not often that AM1 players place in the cash in Pro in my exp.

[prairie_dawg]

Magilla,

I think you have the wrong idea of what the bump rule entailed. If you were not a PDGA member and a PDGA sanctioned tourney was full, you could be bumped from the tournament by a PDGA member unless you joined the PDGA right then. That is the "Bump Rule" that the PDGA has gone away from that you read in the Sanctioning info, at least I'm pretty sure that is the one. ;) It didn't deal with bumping people up into divisions they should be playing anyway.

That rule was a real pain on the TD and staff just before players meetings, but it got new PDGA members, but not happy ones necessarily.

Ray :cool:

[rhett]

Ray, NorCal had the "80/20" rule whereby if you finished in the top 20% of your division 80% of the time, you were bumped up to the next division and not allowed to play in th elower division anymore. This included bumping players from Am to Pro.

Was there a min. number of tournaments played before the 80/20 rule came into effect???

[bruce_brakel]

As much as I hate to agree with Bruce Brakel (cuz then people might confuse me with Jon Brakel), the notion that playing above your division in tournaments makes you a better golfer is poppycock. Total and absolute nonsense.

Playing with better golfers in casual play, however, does have it's merits. That's where the young newbie golfers can learn things like flicks and rollers and how to throw straight, etc.

A tournament is not the place to get an education. Playing up accomplishes one thing - a cash donation and the chance to play in the last group with the other tools that thought playing up was a good idea.



I just wanted to add that whether playing up helps or hinders is an uncertain fact, not an opinion. In other words, we could go through the data base, identify players who play up, and see how rapidly they are improving. We could also identify players who play at the top of their division and see how fast they are improving. Then we would know whether playing up helps or not, various opinions notwithstanding. Because we have not done so systematically, the answer is uncertain, but not unascertainable. When I have conducted this exercise by sampling, I have found that generally the player-uppers are stagnating. This makes sense in light of my understanding of behavioral psychology, but more importantly, it is confirmed by the data I have looked at. I have merely sampled from the pool of Michigan golfers I know. If anyone out there is working on a higher degree in statistics, here is a good thesis paper project for you!

I play down three or four levels almost all the time except at tournaments. I play in a league for kids and my rating is 200-500 points higher than everyone I "compete" against. I play casual rounds with my family, and, except for Jon, same story. Over the three years that we've been running junior league my rating has gone up 30 some points!

[magilla]

Was there a min. number of tournaments played before the 80/20 rule came into effect???



Yes there was...It was based on consistant play (which typically is the dividing line between Am and Pro) Only 5 events in succession were used to calculate the 80/20..So a player had to be consistantly in the tyop 80% to be affected. As the 6th event was played then the 1st was dropped and so on.
Not very many people were actually "Bumped" by this rule(3 or 4 a year)..BUT it did level the fields very well by sending the individuals who finished in the Top 20% to the next higher division.

Of course all of this is Mute because of the PDGA's elimination of ALL Bump Rules.

Have u got bored enough to check the rated rounds of these players?? Would it have just been a matter of more frequent ratings updates for the current system to come into effect and "bump" them??

[rhett]

There is no bump from Advanced to Pro, and that is where Magilla's heartburn lies.

The problem right now is that once you go pro, you're done. Stuck. That's it. No going back. Forcing people to go pro sticks in people's craws like paying ams sticks in Nick's. That's why I say we eliminate the whole Am and Pro designation thing and just let the progression be Rec/Int/Adv/Open, with ratings breaks between each and a new ability to play Advanced if your rating warrants even if you have cashed in Pro. No pro, no am. Just different skill divisions. Open plays for cash, all others for merch.

Just think how many 890 rated Advanced players would go back to Int when the 945 rated pros start winning Advanced. And then the 860 rated Ints would go to Rec....and the new "rating below Rec" division could be implemented....etc. etc.

There is no bump from Advanced to Pro, and that is where Magilla's heartburn lies.

The problem right now is that once you go pro, you're done. Stuck. That's it. No going back. Forcing people to go pro sticks in people's craws like paying ams sticks in Nick's. That's why I say we eliminate the whole Am and Pro designation thing and just let the progression be Rec/Int/Adv/Open, with ratings breaks between each and a new ability to play Advanced if your rating warrants even if you have cashed in Pro. No pro, no am. Just different skill divisions. Open plays for cash, all others for merch.

Just think how many 890 rated Advanced players would go back to Int when the 945 rated pros start winning Advanced. And then the 860 rated Ints would go to Rec....and the new "rating below Rec" division could be implemented....etc. etc.



Now you are just being silly!!!
I think that the Pros would resist because as a Socal Open regular player has professed, Open players get to make fun of everyone else. That is why they play Open.
They can always claim the pressure was different or the Tee that was 5 feet further back changed the shot or...
:)

[magilla]

There is no bump from Advanced to Pro, and that is where Magilla's heartburn lies.

The problem right now is that once you go pro, you're done. Stuck. That's it. No going back. Forcing people to go pro sticks in people's craws like paying ams sticks in Nick's.



Ah, but your wrong on one point.....NEVER did we require a player who was "Bumped" to actually register with the PDGA in the new division.

I actually encouraged the Adv players bumped to retain thier "Am Status" so they could travel and continue to play AM. We only required that they play OPEN in NorCal Events.
I wanted to see those players go to World's, SoCal, etc..and continue to play as Ams. Playing in the Open field in NorCal would only ready them for stiffer competition from "Sandbaggers" in regions that couldnt care less how long someone continues to win, over and over and over again.

Go ahead Rhett and try your format in the SoCal Series, I can use even more players up here in NorCal :p

[rhett]

Ah, but your wrong on one point.....NEVER did we require a player who was "Bumped" to actually register with the PDGA in the new division.



I thought NorCal used to send in the PDGA registration and pay for it just to make sure they registered in pro. Musta been someone else. :)

[magilla]

Ah, but your wrong on one point.....NEVER did we require a player who was "Bumped" to actually register with the PDGA in the new division.



I thought NorCal used to send in the PDGA registration and pay for it just to make sure they registered in pro. Musta been someone else. :)



At one time there was discussion to that effect. Al we had to do was send the list to the PDGA and they would reissue a new card, BUT the committee decided that this was unfair to those who wanted to continue to compete against other Ams around the country. :D

[rhett]

There was somebody that used to do that. Do you remember who it was?

[okdiscrat]

For what its worth,I have one tourny on my rating,and as it turns out my rating is 927,I have played against adv. players and I did not fare very well, However I am going to be playing advanced this weekend because that is where my rating says I am supposed to. Who knows it may be correct,but I wont know until I try.

You dont get a rating, with only one rated round....or thats what they have always said, anyway.....

you have 3 rounds, but that still doesnt jive with what has been purported in the past.....

[okdiscrat]

Well, I finished 25th out of 29, That is not competing that is giving money away,I had fun though and got to hang with some old school guys when the int. and rec. guys were out on the course., Which more than made up for the monetary loss.I still believe I would be more competitive in intermediate ,but as long as forced to play in adv. I will learn what I can ,and hopefully become one.

Or Brandon Bailey in 2010.



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ....