I wanted to start another thread for NON-FLAMING POSTERS ONLY!

I feel that the PDGA continues to move in the wrong direction with the 'Pro playing Am' rule. It further muddles the dividing line between Pros and Ams. Some people say that Ams are actually (plastic) Pros, and understandibly so if you look at the 'am payouts' these days. I, however, look at it the opposite way. No matter we label ourselves, we are all amateurs. Only Barry Schultz and a handful of others can say different.

The 'Pro playing Am' rule shows that there is no difference between the two. I don't believe there is a distinction between being payed out in plastic coins instead of real coins. In the age of eBay, this idea is laughable. Since I see no distinction, I don't believe divisions should be divided according to that. Felix eloquently summed it up by saying �The PDGA is finally owning up to the fact that, in light of the tens of thousands of dollars paid out annually to so-called "amateurs" in the form of merchandise, the distinction between "pro" and "amateur" is not only artificial, but meaningless.�

The true difference between what the PDGA calls 'Pros' and "Ams" is skill, talent and experience. Pros don't earn a tour card or qualify for events; They simply say "I'm a Pro" and lay their money down. It's seems then that everyone that has enough entry fee for a PDGA tournament is a Pro in the eyes of the PDGA.

The PDGA uses Player Ratings to divide players. I feel this system doesn't have enough data to give an accurate number. There are many other flaws with the system that have been well chronicled on this board and I won't take time to rehash this argument. I know Ratings are popular among members, but I don't feel they are accurate enough to protect them in contrived divisions.

These seemingly arbitrarily picked divisional breaks reward players for mediocre play. James McCaine said �This stupid system is like a long climb up the mountain with piles of money spaced at intervals along the way. Many people look to the piles halfway up because they are easy to get to. Why look to the top if there is easy pickings halfway? If the pile was placed at the top like it should be, then this discussion would not be happening. Noone would be hanging out halfway and resting, everyone would naturally be moving upward towards the rewards.� Also stating, �It still baffles me that we have designed a system that financially punishes players for improving their skills.� I agree with him and feel that the solution to the greedy/unmotivated amateur is flat payouts.

I feel like there is about to be an upheaval about all of this madness. The only tournament that has it right is the USDGC. You have to qualify against the best to even make the field and there is only one division, one champion.

I feel that the ONLY suitable way to divide players fairly is by gender and age. Dividing people up by PR is reminescent of a bowling league, or a better example would be a handicap-scored ball golf league. Dividing people up by a number is only done at the grassroots and recreational level. Player Ratings are better suited for the Recreational leagues or Club Monthlies.

My vision of a PDGA tournament is simple--The best against the best.

The PDGA is far from that it seems. It's just a bunch of recreational players, chopped up into contrived divisions, playing for each other's money, getting payed out in with coins (paper or plastic).

vince,
that was a well written and rational post.
I tend to agree with most of what you have said.

I do feel that this new rule is a step in a positive direction.
Essentially it is an admition of the lack of an AMATEUR class of players. If the current "amateur" division was made truly so (ie: trophy and players packages, only) the current "advanced" division (with new rule in place) becomes the pro-2 division of last year - paid out in plastic. Suddenly there are real options for golfers. If you want to compete for competition only, play am.
If you wanna gamble for other's entry fees, play pro-2 or open.

So do you think we should split it into 2 Groups. One group plays for plastic "Amature" The higher more skilled group plays for cash "PROS"

So one Pro division and one Am Division and you have to win a certain number of AM tournaments to qualify to become a PRO.

Then we could have a whole other division for people who dont care to play for plastic or cash and call it the "Recreational Division" Those players pay a lower entry fee, get a players pack and play for trophys only.

Does that sound good???

no, little one.

one group plays for competition (amateur)
one group gambles for entry fees (pro)

Thanks for your opinion, Fluke. However, I think that Pro2 has the same problems. I don't believe that PR are accurate enough to justify dividing (protecting) Pros >960 and those who are <960. I also see it as arbitrarily setting a line (960)... No matter what the number is, it's always going to **** someone off.

There is only cash at the mountaintop in other pro sports because spectators will pay to watch those players and sponsors will pay big money to be part of it for rational business reasons which also comes back to spectators watching. The fact of being good at something, even the best in the world, is not an entitlement to riches unless others are willing to pay you for it. That does not include other players being 'forced' to contribute toward the demonstration of your skills.

Most disc golfers are blase about watching our best players, let alone unrelated non-golfing spectators. We have contrived final 9s with all payouts delayed until it's over just to keep players around so it looks like we have spectators. I feel somewhat sorry for our elite players who bust it to be great and currently few outside the sport really seem to care. But look closely and you'll see my little violin, because in my own case along with the other volunteer designers for the NDGC, we've worked hard to become top course designers and still make 1000 times less than Jack Nicklaus just for attaching his name to a golf course design.

Those piles of loot James talks about at waystations on the way up the mountain were not left there by adoring fans. The loot was placed there by the players themselves at that level. They have every right to redistribute their loot amongst themselves without a mountain tax sending some up the hill. The fact that there might be 10 times as many people swapping loot with big payouts for their winners has absolutely no relevance to whether the loot the folks at the top of the mountain are swapping. If money from fans rains from the sky, the folks at the top wiil have first crack at it when it comes. The lower level folks don't need to get any of it and may not know it's there until they get farther up the mountain.

I think it is a step in the right direction because we don't really have pros. The reality fo disc golf is that skill levels go Rec/It/Adv/Open. It only makes sense that all players should be allowed to play where their rating puts them. If Ken Climo wears out his shoulder and his rating drop to 940 in 10 years, he should be allowed to play Advanced if he wants.

I do feel that this new rule is a step in a positive direction.
Essentially it is an admition of the lack of an AMATEUR class of players. If the current "amateur" division was made truly so (ie: trophy and players packages, only) the current "advanced" division (with new rule in place) becomes the pro-2 division of last year - paid out in plastic. Suddenly there are real options for golfers. If you want to compete for competition only, play am.
If you wanna gamble for other's entry fees, play pro-2 or open.



This is perfect!!!!!!! I would be all for this. People who want to compete for prizes can be pros and people who want to play for trophys can be ams.

There just cant be 1 huge pro division. It has to have something like the National Tour that you have to qualify to play in the events or get an invitation to play in and then something like the Buy.Com tour for the lesser skilled proffesionals who are on the rise but not quite to the top level yet.

Let me know when this happens and ill be happy to be a proffesional.

Let me know when this happens and ill be happy to be a proffesional.



you already are, that is unless you don't belive what you're winning has any cash value.

In my opinion Proffesionals play for Cash and amatures play for prizes. So untill i start playing for cash then i will go on calling myself a amature.

I know that what i win has cash value. So if you want to call me a pro then thats fine but i wont start admitting it untill i am paid in green pieces of paper that come from the US MINT.

I feel that the ONLY suitable way to divide players fairly is by gender and age. Dividing people up by PR is reminescent of a bowling league, or a better example would be a handicap-scored ball golf league.

Dividing people up by a number is only done at the grassroots and recreational level. Player Ratings are better suited for the Recreational leagues or Club Monthlies.

My vision of a PDGA tournament is simple--The best against the best. The PDGA is far from that it seems. It's just a bunch of recreational players, chopped up into contrived divisions, playing for each other's money, getting payed out in with coins (paper or plastic).



Excellent post, Whorley.

I agree with you that dividing players up by ability is more suited for grassroots/recreational level. But that's what all of us are, with the exception of about 50 touring pros! Make SuperTours and PDGA Majors the premiere events, where there are big purses, higher entry fees and one division for each gender.

Use player ratings to break out divisions in all other tournaments. When it comes to divisional structure, I still contend that age is no way to divide players. The ability range amongst an age group is wider now than it has ever been before. The facts are clear - we have 990+ rated Masters and Grandmasters competing against players in their divisions that more often than not average 40 or 50 points or more lower for the field. It's a sham.

We have a player rating system that is 90% of the way towards being effective. 5% of the remainder is the PDGA ensuring that the formulas used to caluculate them are accurate, and that they are updated regularly. The other 5% is player acceptance. We need the players to buy into them and give them a chance. We need player support for them, and no public naysaying. All it takes is one Robert Leonard to dismiss them as "bunk" and confidence in the player ratings goes out the window.

Maybe all the smaller B and C tier tournaments should be qualifyers for the A Tier and SuperTour and NT events. Then the A Tiers and SuperTours and NTs should be qualifyers for the Majors.

That sounds like a fair system to me. That way only the best of the best are at the higher level tournaments. We can keep our same divisions as we have now but only the best of the best will make it to the events that have PAYOUTS. Then only the best of the best at those tournaments will make it to the tournaments with HUGE PAYOUTS (the majors)

In my opinion Proffesionals(sic) play for Cash and amatures(sic) play for prizes.



the funny thing about opinions is that they are often wrong.

I agree with some of what you say. I just think the PDGA should start to move towards focusing on the Pros instead of governing the Ams and Rec players, too.

They are 'Recreational' by definition and should not be able to compete with the best amateurs in the region. Just like in any other sport. So I don't think they should play in a PDGA tournament, that's what local mini tournaments are for. You want to coddle the present players, regardless of ability. That is a recreational mindset (which has it's place.)
You're right, people of eaual talent should be able to play in divisions against each other. But when you reward heavily within each division, there is no more incentive to move up. The only incentive left any more is pride because there are 10 divisions with 100% payout.

Your present view of the PDGA is short-sited. You see the PDGA as it is presently, with generally weak Pro tournouts. Disc golf is growing by leaps and bounds. In 5 years, if the current PDGA membership doubles, there will be a respective increase in Competitive Open, Women, and Master divisions because there will be a larger talent pool. In 10 years, if current membership triples or quadruples, the competitive Open, Women and Maters will increase. OK... What about in 25 or 50 years? We're not going to be drawing from a small pool anymore. Same argument goes for the amateur side of things.

Eventually, Pro and Am tournaments will have to be separated because the courses can't hold but 90 people.

I believe that eventually there should be a PDGA, an ADGA and a USDGA that governs the rules of play.

Here�s my proposal for the divisional system.

Pro (Cash purse)
Open
Masters +40
Grandmasters +55
Women
Women Masters +40

Amateur (Trophy only, low entry fees, nice players packs,and other amenities)
Open
Masters +40
Grandmasters +55
Women
Women Masters
Junior -16
Junior -12

Let me start by addressing the problems with this plan.
First, no, I am not related to Nick Kight.
Second, this system must provide a way for lower-skilled pros in the current system to drop down to amateur status. Once a player accepts cash in pro division, he may no longer play am ever again at a PDGA.
Third, this system would run better if am and pros tournaments (except for d-tiers) were separate and on different weekends. This would further the distinction bewtween ams and professionals and would also encourage ams to come and watch the pro tournament, patronize sponsors, buy discs, volunteer etc�
Fourth, this system ends quasi-professionals from receiving any type of payout anymore. The term �AM Payout� is laughable, and in the age of eBay is bordering hysterical.
Fifth, entry fee need to be lowered across the board. This would encourage a larger tournout. My example would be c=20-35, b=35-50, a=50-75, major=75+. I think am entries should be very low, 10-25.
Sixth, I don�t mention ratings anywhere. I do like PR and especially WCP, however.

Concerning Pro2/TrueAm/Prize class� There is either pro or not pro. You aren�t and am if you get paid out, period: Whether you�re paid out in discs, bags, baskets, pesos, traveler�s checks or gold bars. This am payout is a phenomena of the short-sighted fear of losing current tournament players. Tough [*****]� that still doesn�t change the fact that they are quasi-professionals playing in protected divisions for easily-converted-to-cash payout. You can�t have skill-based protected pro divisions. You are then rewarding mediocre play. That�s like taking all of the sprinters at a track meet, dividing them up into a faster group and a slower group and giving medals to the top three finishers in each heat. It makes no sense, and it�s not competitively fair. If you want to play for money/prizes and keep am PDGA status, then that�s what local non-PDGA tournaments are for.

I�m trying not to go too deep into detail here, but I truly stand by these ideas. How do we get there? Two words come to mind� Cold Turkey.

Please don�t label me as a dissenter, because I pay my dues and I respect the efforts of the PDGA and those who run it.

I would not honestly call player ratings bunk, but there are some exceptions.

It was made on the other post that there are three types of players.
1) Up and comers; players that play above their player rating.
2) Steady player; experienced players that have leveled off on their improvement.
3) Declining players, people for what ever reason, injury/age/commitment, are not playing as good as they once did.

Being one of the up and comers, I am currently playing about 60-70 points above my rating, I have only been chucking a disc for 1 year now. However, my rating is correct for what I was playing last year. There is not alot of PDGA events in my region, so it is harder for me to raise my rating. This spring I will be playing alot more and hope to get my score up to where it needs to be.

To say that people need to play where their ratings are at is slightly wrong. I agree that there needs to be great consideration for the division between PRO and MA1. I think that once a players rating goes above a certain level ie 915 and 955 (current cut offs), then they are not allowed to move down. But if a player wishes to play up, and likely get gravely beaten, then I feel that is fine. After all you only get better by playing with better people.

As for the huge Am payout. I play MA1, however I accept prizes that have a considerable monetary value, usually which is above my entry fee. So therefore I am playing for profit. If I was to sell these discs on site, I would walk away with cash. So I say I play professionaly. Am I good enough to walk around saying I am a professional? No. But I am in no denile as to my true status in this sport, "to compete for profit". Most people would call that a professional.

Well, first of all, even if you were a dissenter, that should not be considered a bad thing. If no one ever thought outside the box we'd all suffocate.

I have a couple of questions for you, however.

1) Who will run these tournaments? Without some form of incentive for the TD, why should he/she dedicate a large amount of his/her time and money for what appears to be nothing?

2) Currently, our largest sponsors are disc manufacturers. One of the reasons they can afford to sponsor tournaments is the fact that they will be guaranteed to move a decent amount of product at each tourney (the plastic payouts). Trophy only tourneys won't give them the sales volume they normally rely on to offset their sponsorship dollars. How do you propose to replace the expected loss of sponsorship?

I understand your ideas, and used to believe in a very similar system, but I think the reality (for now) is that it won't happen any time soon. I'd love to be wrong, tho.

I assume that you are asking about my 'P'DGA model, because the ADGA model will still fatten the pockets of the TD's/manufacturers and continue that proud tradition.

1) I will. My incentive will be pride. The pride of providing a place for the highest level of competition between disc golfers. Plus, there's less BS of dealing with am payout and the like. This is one of the hardest thing about being a TD anyway.
2) Get off your [*****] and go to everyone in town for sponsorship.

****If you separate the Ams from Pros (PDGA/ADGA on separate weekends), you give the Ams and Rec players a reason for coming to the Pro event. Currently, there is no distinction between the two. Ams even get paired up with Pros sometimes in the first round of B and C Tiers (Pros love that /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif). Ams see the Pros up close and personal just for entering events now.
Why would they want to come to a Pro-only event when they can play in the same tournaments many times a year? If you end this, then Ams and Rec players will have incentive to see the Pro compete at PDGA's.

Here�s my proposal for the divisional system.

Pro (Cash purse)
Open
Masters +40
Grandmasters +55
Women
Women Masters +40

Amateur (Trophy only, low entry fees, nice players packs,and other amenities)
Open
Masters +40
Grandmasters +55
Women
Women Masters
Junior -16
Junior -12

Let me start by addressing the problems with this plan.
First, no, I am not related to Nick Kight.



Well, you are a distant cousin, there's simply no denying it... ;)

I'd keep the Seniors divisions too though. They will becoming an ever larger demographic over the next 20 years...

They have every right to redistribute their loot amongst themselves without a mountain tax sending some up the hill.



Of course they have the right, but does that mean organization in charge of competition should sanction/encourage it.

Mountain tax? Is this the old "ams subsidizing the pros" argument. This is an aside, but I'm sick of always hearing this. First off, it's hard to call it a tax unless ams are receiving merch at a higher cost than they would pay on the open market. Secondly, how the TD/club spends their markup is their business. Just like a private business, they can plow it into the pros, plow it into the ams, keep it for their hard work, or keep it for the club. I don't care. Thirdly, many pro tournaments don't have any added cash at all.


The fact that there might be 10 times as many people swapping loot with big payouts for their winners has absolutely no relevance to whether the loot the folks at the top of the mountain are swapping.



Huh. It is extremely relevant. One reason we have small open divisions is precisely because people have more lucrative options elsewhere. Whorley described a one division option, I think someone mentioned it is done in Sweeden.

One would think the Professional Disc Golf Association would dream about big fields and attempt all types of creative things to achieve this goal.

Huh. It is extremely relevant. One reason we have small open divisions is precisely because people have more lucrative options elsewhere. Whorley described a one division option, I think someone mentioned it is done in Sweeden.

One would think the Professional Disc Golf Association would dream about big fields and attempt all types of creative things to achieve this goal.


I don't know about that. I've heard old-timers talking about how they quit playing tournament because they were tired of always giving their money to the Lissamans. I've heard pro women talk about quitting tourney play because they were tired of always giving their money to Juliana. I've heard plenty of the old tourney players say they were really tired of always giving their money to the same 3 or 4 people.

Not that they were tired of not winning, but that they were tired of always giving it all to the same small group. So just because there isn't currently "one big division" doesn't mean that there never was one, or that there aren't other problems associated with that format.

one division with ratings based side bets. (this has been discussed and is a great option in my opinion)

or...

let the prizes determine your division:

cash division--$50 each top 1/3 payout

polehole division--$30 each 2nd place gets a skillshot, 3rd a mini basket

10 disc division--$20 chance to win 10 discs of your choice, t-shirt to all

etc...pick what you want and play that division regardless of your "classification." if climo wants a polehole and so do you, well you're screwed.

Wow. Severe myopia! Look beyond the past and present. The reason limited divisions didn't work in the past was because the talent pool was so small. In the present we chop up divisions to appease/reward people. This recreational mentality has brought disc golf to it's current growth rate. If disc golf doubles within ten years, then I estimate that 1/2 of every tournament will have separate Pro and Am weekends due to sheer numbers.

I believe that the PDGA must draw the line between Pro disc golf and Amateur disc golf. It should do that by phasing in the 'flattening' am payouts and separating Pro and Am tournaments.

If the line is drawn, then it's at 1000 rating with everyone else below playing for merch unless they choose to pay up to play up.

No cold turkey plan will work nor be approved. The PDGA cannot force TDs to do anything that doesn't make sense for their player base. Witness the success of other non-sanctioned events. Unless you can create a sensible transition plan toward your utopian ideals that works along the way, yours or any other proposal is doomed.

I said "one reason." :D

There are other reasons. Another reason that should be addressed revolves around the fact that it is a bad bet/financial decision for alot of people. This is not very difficult to address if the PDGA wanted to. I have heard lots of ideas (dscmn describes one above) that could be used. Problem is, they probably don't fit well into PDGA tier guidelines and they might work counter to one of the sacred measures of a tournament's worth.

I believe that the PDGA must draw the line between Pro disc golf and Amateur disc golf. It should do that by phasing in the 'flattening' am payouts and separating Pro and Am tournaments.



I agree with the flattening payouts entirely. I also agree with separating the Pro and Am tournaments. However, I would allow people to play in both. In such a setup, I envision Pro tourneys that might be attractive to people rated around 900 and above and who mostly play am tourneys. Don't snicker, it's possible.

Whorley's posts provide so much to respond to that I can't right now. Chuck's point is critical. The leaders in the PDGA can lead, but we can't be more than one step ahead of the players and the TDs, or they will just ignore us and have unsanctioned tournaments.

If the am players in Maine and Scandinavia are happy to play for player packs, trophies, lunch and CTPs, that is wonderful. Those of us who have offered the same in other locales have had mixed results, suggesting that players exposed to both kinds of tournaments prefer skill based divisions with a payout most of the time, but will play the other kind occasionally.


The PDGA uses Player Ratings to divide players. I feel this system doesn't have enough data to give an accurate number.

You can never tell someone that their feelings are false, unless maybe you are the Kai of Bajor and you grab them by the ear, but the factual premise suggested by this emotional self-report is clearly false. If ratings were wildly inaccurate there would be little correlation between player ratings going into Worlds and how they finish. Worlds draws players from all over whio have never competed against each other before. If you look at the stable divisions, the divisions where there are not many new and rapidly improving players, the players who should win do win. I finished within two throws of the place that my rating said I should finish in my division. Most of the people who beat me were the people rated higher and most of the people I beat were the ones rated lower.

Maybe i'll post a little more later.

For those of you who want to see bigger Open payouts and purses, more spectators, recognition, etc.; here's what you have to do:

1) Bring new players into the game, help them have fun, get them hooked on it.

2) With more players, demonstrate the need to local parks departments that more courses are needed.

3) Repeat #1 and 2# as often as possible.

4) Once you have a larger recreational market share, then you can compete for sponsor dollars, and people will care enough to watch the top players play.

For example, right now, there are far more bowling alleys than disc golf courses. If you want payouts and TV time similar to the bowlers, you need to touch as many people's lives and generate as much interest as bowling does.

Arguing about Open/AM/Rec/Merch/Pro/Pro2 divisions is a lot of contemplating your navel - interesting and entertaining (for some), but not very productive. If you want to make things better, follow steps 1-4 above. A word of caution: it won't change overnight - this is a long-term process.

1) Who will run these tournaments? Without some form of incentive for the TD, why should he/she dedicate a large amount of his/her time and money for what appears to be nothing?

And most TDs are currently dedicating large amounts of their time and money for what?


2) Currently, our largest sponsors are disc manufacturers. One of the reasons they can afford to sponsor tournaments is the fact that they will be guaranteed to move a decent amount of product at each tourney (the plastic payouts). Trophy only tourneys won't give them the sales volume they normally rely on to offset their sponsorship dollars. How do you propose to replace the expected loss of sponsorship?

I'm not sure why many people consider elimination of the "merch" system in favor of a "cash only or trophy only" system necessary or advisable, or why many seem to think that introduction of trophy-only competition necessarily spells the end of "merch prize" competition.

Merchandise prizes can (and, most likey, will) continue under a "Professional (prize)-vs.-Amateur" (trophy-only) system: they'll just take place in the "merch prize" division rather than in the "Amateur" division.

As I see it, the problem currently is not that "AMs" receive their winnings in the form of merchandise, but that it distinguishes between those competing for cash prizes and those competing for merchandise prizes, and (wrongly) labels only those who compete for cash "pros," since both groups are competing for prizes that have real (as opposed to symbolic) value, i.e., cash or items that can be readily converted into cash.

IMO, the new policy permitting "cash pros" whose ratings fall below a certain level to compete for merchandise prizes signals the PDGA's long-overdue recognition that: a) under the current system, everyone is competing for prizes of real value, so distinguishing between "pro" and "amateur" based solely on the type of prize rather than the monetary value of the prize, is no longer tenable; and b) if the distinction between divisions rests primarily on the type of prize offered rather than the monetary value of the prize, there is no compelling reason to maintain a one-way street between cash and merchandise prize divisions. (When (if) trophy-only competition becomes a part of the sanctioned tournament structure, it may be necessary to re-introduce the "professional/amateur" distinction, although there is no compelling reason why a person should not have the opportunity to go back and forth between the two, provided s/he competes in only a single division at any given tournament.)

So, in essence, the new policy eliminates the notion of "professional" and "amateur" from the tournament divisional structure in favor of a predominantly (exclusively?) ratings-based competition. It does not, however, require conversion to an all-cash payout system.

Here�s my proposal for the divisional system.

Pro (Cash purse)
Open
Masters +40
Grandmasters +55
Women
Women Masters +40

Amateur (Trophy only, low entry fees, nice players packs,and other amenities)
Open
Masters +40
Grandmasters +55
Women
Women Masters
Junior -16
Junior -12

How about:

Prize Divisions (may be either cash, merch, or both):
Open
Advanced
Intermediate
Novice

Trophy-only Divisions
Open
Advanced
Intermediate
Novice

Subdivisions (both Prize and Trophy-only, as appropriate):
Women
Masters
Grand Masters
Senior Grand Masters
Legends
Jr. under 19
Jr. under 16
Jr. under 10

<font color="red">These are really important questions and even though they have been replied to some I think there are other views on them. </font>


Well, first of all, even if you were a dissenter, that should not be considered a bad thing. If no one ever thought outside the box we'd all suffocate.

I have a couple of questions for you, however.

1) Who will run these tournaments? Without some form of incentive for the TD, why should he/she dedicate a large amount of his/her time and money for what appears to be nothing?

<font color="red">If I understand you correctly Dan, you are referring to the Am level no payout tourneys. This is like a typical running event. All runners pay $10-$20 and get a T-shirt. after the cost of the T-shirt, the rest of the revenue goes to the sponsor or the cause the sponsor is supporting. The big difference is that you can fit 2000 runners into an event and only a couple of hundred disc golfers into an event. Basically, the margins will be thinner, but nonetheless there. Selling plastic at these tournaments and other activities can be used to raise some money. Furthermore sponsorships can still be used to raise revenue. That is, a lunch sponsor combined with a beer sponsor could replace the T-shirt giveaway and then all the $15/player could be pocketed by the TD. </font>

2) Currently, our largest sponsors are disc manufacturers. One of the reasons they can afford to sponsor tournaments is the fact that they will be guaranteed to move a decent amount of product at each tourney (the plastic payouts). Trophy only tourneys won't give them the sales volume they normally rely on to offset their sponsorship dollars. How do you propose to replace the expected loss of sponsorship?

<font color="red">Honestly, I don't know how the manufacturers sponsor every event but I know that for Texas States, their sponsorships come in the way of discounts. That is, they aren't coughing up dough, they are selling the TD discs at the same cost they sell to resellers so the TD can mark up to retail and make a profit. My tendancy is to think that TDs get more cash and real prizes from other sources. In reality I don't know but I suspect I'm not far off. If this is indeed the case nothing will change the Dairy Queen sponsorship, or the Red Bull sponsorship and those will still be the same, Pro or Am. Those sponsors, I'm guessing, are more interested in volume than the idea of a Pro event. </font>

I understand your ideas, and used to believe in a very similar system, but I think the reality (for now) is that it won't happen any time soon. I'd love to be wrong, tho.



<font color="red"> Some have argued that by eliminating the plastic payouts at tournaments you will bite the manufacturers. I don't think this is true. All of the plastic that is made ends up in the playing pool eventually. Whether I buy it from a TD, or from the guy who won last weeks tournament, or from Academy, I only need so much. If I'm not buying it from the guy who won last weeks tournament at a discount, then I am probably buying it from the TD with the $15 I saved from my entry fee. If this is correct the change would be invisible to the manufacturers. They still move the same amount of plastic and therefore have the same inducement to sponsor TDs with discounts. The one possibility this neglects is that some players may not switch from buying from tourney winners to TDs. They might switch to buying from stores or online venders. The manufacturers still sell the same volume but through a different venue. It is then incumbent on the TD to induce players to buy from him rather than other venders. This occurs by being cost effective and available.

What do you think?</font>

As Fore points out, it doesn't have to be just one way or the other. We know that there are currently more Ams interested in the merch payout structure most of the time versus the lower entry fee 'trophy only' system because that's the type of players we've attracted. There are those in our system who occasionally or all of the time might prefer the lower entry fee option. Events with only this option are available in some regions plus now TDs can offer the 'trophy only' option within the merch divisions.

As Nick points out, and I'm willing to find out, there's a larger untapped market of true amateur players who only would want to compete in low entry fee, trophy competitions. Our current structure somewhat disguises that option and isn't designed to really cater to that untapped pool of potential competitive players. Whatever proposals get developed, they must address the ongoing desires of our current merch oriented players and provide an attractive entree for the true amateurs to grow the PDGA membership.

As Nick points out, and I'm willing to find out, there's a larger untapped market of true amateur players who only would want to compete in low entry fee, trophy competitions.


I disagree with that statement.

Nick posits this theory. There is no evidence that the large masses of rec players have any inclination at all to play competitive golf. You are making wild and unfounded assumptions when you say that these people "would only want to compete in...trophy competitions." There is absolutely nothing in place that leads to the conclusion that all these players who play disc golf but don't compete in leagues or tournaments already would even want to compete in leagues or tournaments.

The great untapped masses seem quite happy to show up at the course and play casually however often they go out to play. We should certainly be letting them know about our leagues and tourneys, because some of them most certainly will enjoy the formalized competition. But rec players like to play casually. That's why they aren't playing tourneys.

There is no evidence that the large masses of rec players have any inclination at all to play competitive golf.



I'd say there is but it may not be mostly adults, at least in the beginning. There's no reason to believe there isn't an untapped market among the millions of school age people who actively pursue a myriad choice of sports in Park & Rec programs. Granted, we already offer Junior divisions. But I think this untapped growth will have to be developed via the same institutions that all of the other intramural and club and Park & Rec sponsored sports have been developed and supported. Those players will grow up. Some will prefer to continue on the lower cost track and others will prefer the plastic bait like our current player base. The PDGA will be wise to address both player orientations as the umbrella organization for the sport.

Before I answer I ask, how would you divide the divisions in your system?

Chuck, are you a robot programmed by the PDGA? There are other options than continuing to put band-aids on a competitive system that is hemorrhaging. What if the PDGA dis-banded? Would you start a system that's exactly like the current one?

If I sound robotic, it's only because I've been proposing and revising, and revising again, competition proposals for several incarnations of the Board over the past dozen years. The ratings system, initiated in 1998, partly resulted from that process since I needed tool to help move stepwise forward.

The challenge, and rightly so, is to figure out how to make stepwise improvements without undermining the existing system. By the indications we have and the Board looks at, the current system is 'successful' despite its issues. Those of us proposing alternatives obviously think there are things that can be improved. It's our job to show how to get from here to there and not put the PDGA at unknown risk in the process.

It's silly to say what you would do starting from scratch. Of course it would be different. The ratings didn't exist at the time along with the internet, for example. The keyboard layout would be different if it were designed today versus our mechanized past.

Before I answer I ask, how would you divide the divisions in your system?

I presume that's in response to my alternative divisional proposal.

Given that one of the goals of the policy change allowing "pros" whose ratings fall below a certain level to compete in the Advanced division and Advanced players whose ratings fall below a certain level to compete in the Intermediate division is apparently to promote more equitable competition by grouping together players of commensurate skill, it stands to reason that the break-points between divisions should be rating-based.

I've always thought the Player Ratings would be best used in a recreational (true-am) setting. But I maintain that if people are playing for each others entry fee witha weighted payout, using PR to make divisions only causes problems. People will always complain about the number of divisions and where to set the breaks. It not fair to reward people for excelling for medioicrity in contrived divisions.

I have ideas....

I like the Nordic tour. Not just the events that make up the formal tour, but the fact that there is basically no divisions. Open, Masters, and Womens, I believe, maybe a Junior division.

I also think that pros should play for prizes worth more than double their entry fee. Ams should have a max payout of double the entry fee. This way, payout can be deep, and there is less of a division between say, 1st and 5th place in a field of 30. These people are in the top of their division, and with shallow payout, those who win repeatedly are only making maybe 10-15% more than second, the top 1/3 should get back their entry fees. payout could go as deep as 2/3. It's amateur, these people should be out there to have fun and compete.

Here's the killer.
Intermediate, recreational, and junior divisions should play one day tournaments only. This works well to grow the sport. It allows those who have busy lives or less serious endeavors in their disc golf careers a chance to test the waters. perhaps these divisions could be offered on different days... perhaps junior and recreational on saturday, and Intermediate on Sunday. Players who enjoyed the competition in the junior or rec divisions can compete in the Intermediate division if spots are offered. This would allow for a range of divisions, but allow the more serious players (ADV, PRO) to play 2 days, and the less hardened to play shorter tournaments. If you want to play 2 days, you can either play the Rec and Int divisions, or play advanced against the larger competition. This would allow younger players to get a chance to play tournaments without their entire families being involved - "Just pick me up at 5:30, mom!"

This leaves the pro division. I feel the top 33-40% could be rewarded, utilizing added purse to deepen the payout, as opposed to boosting the top payout. Added funds could instead of being directly distributed among the same number of contestants, could instead go to a sliding scale of fictional added players to deepen the payout.

Here's how it would work. 30 Pros, $50 per player $1410 to pay out the top 10 players. $141 per player.

With $500 added cash, 5 fictional players are added to the purse. This allows the payout to pay out the top 12. 35/3 is 11.667. The payout is now $1910 among the top 12, instead of 10. $159 per player It might be a less drastic top payout raise, but you are giving more people a chance at the money. with just $500 added, 40% gets paid out, not just 33%. it would be relatively easy to add this little calculator into an excel file.

If $50 is not enough for pros to play for, they can enter moeny into a pro pool. Top 1/3 get paid. so, if say, out of a pool of 30 pros, 12 want to add to the pro pool, say, $50. the top 4 would divvy up $600. say, 300, 150, 100, 50. now, this allows everyone to play for the regular payout, but allows the top players to play for more than tournament funds. Anyone who wants in, can, those who opt not to, are not punished for it. The Pro pool is a side bet, and no PDGA fees will be deducted.

So basically, added cash deepens the payout for pros. Pros can opt to add to a pro pool on top of the normal (reasonable) entry fee.

Ams play with a maximum 2X payout, with deeper payout as this is a division all about fun and competition.

Rec and Juniors play Saturday only. 1 day events will get more players into tournaments. More players who get the bug, means larger player pools and more tournaments.

Intermediates play on Sunday. Intermediates and Juniors can play in Intermediate if they want an extra day's worth of tournament.


-----

What it does....

Juniors and Rec players can play single day tournaments. This allows them to get a taste of the sport, and allows Juniors with busy families a chance to play. If they are insistent on playing for 2 days, they can play Junior then Intermediate, Rec then Intermediate, or simply play in advanced.

Intermediates will play for 1 day. Those who want to play for two days can play advanced. Or they can play Recreational then Intermediate, if their player rating allows it.

Advanced players play for moderate spoils, but more than anything, they play for EXPERIENCE. There are no huge payouts for them when they reach the top of the Advanced field. It will not pay for Advanced players to "bag". When they want to move up to pro, it will be a small step up in funds.

Pros can play for a modest entry fee, playing for 33% payout, unless cash is added, which would both boost the payout but also increase the number of spots paid out.
Pros can also opt to join a pro side bet pool, which also pays out the top 1/3. this would be free of PDGA fees.

Top pros will then be playing for good amounts of green. Pros in general, will be playing for that elusive cash.

OK, bit lengthy, but what do you think of my plan?

Remember that the ratings were originally developed as a better tool for identifying what division an amateur should enter. We already had the Advanced, Intermediate and Novice/Rec defined by words in the competition system but no standardized way to determine when players should move between them. They weren't designed to be precise since human performance isn't precise, it's a probability. The ratings will never say you'll shoot a 55, just that there's a 95% chance your score will be between 50-60. Some players wish to accord the ratings more precision than they deserve and that's fine for fun and bragging rights. And every sport seems to be interested in rankings at the top. But players don't get paid based on their rating and have to actually throw their scores. So it's still gets down to player vs player.

I will not rant, I will not rant. Take a deep breath... Ahhhhhhhh!!! Good boy, whorley!

Your idea would probably result in more TDs running unsanctioned tournaments, especially the TDs who want to attract touring pros to their event, and TDs who just want to run an event their way without excessive meddling from the PDGA.

Format changes have to work for the TD who decides whether to sanction his event or we are out of the non-profit business of being the PDGA.

Here's how it would work. 30 Pros, $50 per player $1410 to pay out the top 10 players. $141 per player.

Are you suggesting that each of the top 10 playes receive $141? If so, what incentive is there for a player in fourth place on the lead card to try to move up or to go for the win? Also, how would the money be split if there were a three-way tie for tenth: would the $141 be split among the three players, or would the entire pot be split among all twelve?


The Pro pool is a side bet, and no PDGA fees will be deducted.

It may prove problematic to implement such an arrangement since it is likely to run afoul of anti-gambling statutes in some jurisdictions. Similar arrangements, no doubt, can be found currently at tournaments, but where they do occur, they take place outside the purview of the PDGA and its representatives (the TDs).

As Nick points out, and I'm willing to find out, there's a larger untapped market of true amateur players who only would want to compete in low entry fee, trophy competitions.


I disagree with that statement.

Nick posits this theory. There is no evidence that the large masses of rec players have any inclination at all to play competitive golf. You are making wild and unfounded assumptions when you say that these people "would only want to compete in...trophy competitions." There is absolutely nothing in place that leads to the conclusion that all these players who play disc golf but don't compete in leagues or tournaments already would even want to compete in leagues or tournaments.

The great untapped masses seem quite happy to show up at the course and play casually however often they go out to play. We should certainly be letting them know about our leagues and tourneys, because some of them most certainly will enjoy the formalized competition. But rec players like to play casually. That's why they aren't playing tourneys.



And in my opinion that is an equally if not greater unfounded assumption. Besides, neither Chuck nor I suggested rec players were the pool we are interesting in attracting...

This involves the ability to think ahead a little and not be limited by past performance.

On another note, I find it particularly gratifying that so many are now capable of seeing the vast potential out there and discussing the more advanced concepts of competitive structure. Don't let the naysayers hinder or slow you down, there will always be those who say it is not possible, that what we have is enough, our job is to press on and do what we can to make any gains we are able.

A true amateur classification that dwarfs even our prize classification's numbers is my dream.

More courses and gambler/carney players is a good thing certainly, but if the competitive system these vast new players plug into does not function properly then their interest will naturally wane and that will put us right back where we are, which is not a bad place, don't get me wrong, but I am confident, almost certain, that the best, by far, is yet to come.

And it won't get there by doing the same things and hoping for a new result. We must broaden our ambitions and our efforts and have a competitive system that provides a natural and healthy (not contentious) place for ALL competitors, PARTICULARLY TRUE AMATEUR competitors.

There is no evidence that the large masses of rec players have any inclination at all to play competitive golf.



I'd say there is but it may not be mostly adults, at least in the beginning. There's no reason to believe there isn't an untapped market among the millions of school age people who actively pursue a myriad choice of sports in Park & Rec programs. Granted, we already offer Junior divisions. But I think this untapped growth will have to be developed via the same institutions that all of the other intramural and club and Park & Rec sponsored sports have been developed and supported. Those players will grow up. Some will prefer to continue on the lower cost track and others will prefer the plastic bait like our current player base. The PDGA will be wise to address both player orientations as the umbrella organization for the sport.



There is no denying it. Chuck is smart. Maybe not handsome, but you can't have everything... :o:D/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif ;)

Are you suggesting that each of the top 10 playes receive $141?
<font color="red">No, I was merely showing that the added cash could both boost the payout and add more cash spots at the same time. I didn't want to figure out the payout, ansthat is not my forte. but instead of the $500 added to the 10 pros who cashed making their payout equal to $166, it shows that you pay to 12 and still pay out $159 per player. a loss of $7 per player is not a ridiculous amount to allow more players a chance to cash. It's still a boosted payout. </font>

If so, what incentive is there for a player in fourth place on the lead card to try to move up or to go for the win? Also, how would the money be split if there were a three-way tie for tenth: would the $141 be split among the three players, or would the entire pot be split among all twelve?
<font color="red"> My reply negates this comment </font>


The Pro pool is a side bet, and no PDGA fees will be deducted.

It may prove problematic to implement such an arrangement since it is likely to run afoul of anti-gambling statutes in some jurisdictions. Similar arrangements, no doubt, can be found currently at tournaments, but where they do occur, they take place outside the purview of the PDGA and its representatives (the TDs).

<font color="red"> </font>

I don't know the legality of such things. In general, this sport is gambling, we all pay a fee and gamble on our skills to win prizes, cash, plastic or otherwise. I am just trying to think outside the box. My ideas about Pros are not as well honed as my ideas about ams... and I may change my ideas as I play more pro tournaments.

I've always thought the Player Ratings would be best used in a recreational (true-am) setting. But I maintain that if people are playing for each others entry fee witha weighted payout, using PR to make divisions only causes problems. People will always complain about the number of divisions and where to set the breaks. It not fair to reward people for excelling for medioicrity in contrived divisions.



Though this makes our work a good bit more difficult, it is undeniably true.

Chuck is smart. Good looking is debatable. Not by me though.

But then there is that junior girl playa Kelsey invited to my Tag Finals who said , "$5??? What kind of payout can there be on $5?" Kelsey said, "There is no payout. It is just for ratings and for fun." And the other girl said, "Well, that's just wrong."

Once they get off the farm they aren't going back.

I don't know the legality of such things. In general, this sport is gambling,

You could discuss gambling issues somewhere that at least had "gambling" in the thread. Sportsmanship over Gambling (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=172204&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=5&vc=1)

A worthy and well thought out grouping of ideas. Well worth consideration and possible implimentation.

Alas, they would only be putting makeup on a donkey though, so long as we lack any significant distinction between Professionals and Amateurs the ill will and infighting will continue unabated. Once that standard is set I believe the natural and logical structure of our greater competitive system will largely become selfevident.

I don't want to discourage you or your ideas, just remind you that the big fish is the one we want on our plate, then there will be plenty of time to get the rest.

De Ja Vu.

De Ja Vu.

All over again. :D

De Ja Vu




:D:D:DThat was funny.

BB, you make broad generalizations from your experience with your girls league. You may have had mixed results with your format, but that's just one circumstance.
Your attitude sounds defeatist to me. 'Ams' are greedy nowadays and expect a Pro-type payouts. It's not their fault, they have been programmed to by PDGA-style weighted payouts. You and Chuck seem resigned to the fact the this could never change.

A worthy and well thought out grouping of ideas. Well worth consideration and possible implimentation.

Alas, they would only be putting makeup on a donkey though, so long as we lack any significant distinction between Professionals and Amateurs the ill will and infighting will continue unabated. Once that standard is set I believe the natural and logical structure of our greater competitive system will largely become selfevident.

I don't want to discourage you or your ideas, just remind you that the big fish is the one we want on our plate, then there will be plenty of time to get the rest.



As one of the "Ams" that play for profit i.e. Plastic Coins, I support a strong definition of Amateur in the PDGA competition structure. It may be hard for some people to believe, but I am not necessarily playing in MA1 to get stacks of plastic, I am playing it because it is where I am currently at skill wise. If the PDGA were to take a strong arm approach to the payout structure of AM's and made them a trophy only class I would support it. At least as long as our tournament fees went proportionately to the quality of the trophies given out. I would hate for the new "trophy only" AM divisions to be paying for the Pro payouts.

A payout structure like this would not discourage me to keep competing, in fact, personally I would strive harder to reach the professional level of the game and play for cash.

Perhaps this is naive hope, but I would be surprised to see that most of the highly competitive MA1 players are only in this game for the potential merchandise they can win. I would expect some backlash at the idea of a limited payout structure to AM's, but isn't that what being amateur is all about, being limited (mainly skill)?

I feel that I am in the same boat as Mills, we are both up and coming advanced players, who do not quite have the consistentcy of a pro, and both of us are trying to qualify for 2006 Am worlds. I know that I will definately finish the 2005 season playing MA1, but likely I will retain my amateur status for 2006 while playing the Open division to get practice for 2006 Worlds.

Also I feel there should be a hard cap on the rating of an MA1 player. Like the soft cap right now, 955, would be a good cap. Granted then 955 pro would be on average would be 4.5 shots off of scratch golf, but 4.5 strokes can come and go. How enforcable the 955 cap would be is another question, I would bet the rating on the card, which could be up to one year behind the skill of a golfer. But that would be another issue.

As for Chuck being smart but ugly. You better watch out, he could probably find some fairly smart ways to kick your butt.

As one of the "Ams" that play for profit i.e. Plastic Coins, I support a strong definition of Amateur in the PDGA competition structure. It may be hard for some people to believe, but I am not necessarily playing in MA1 to get stacks of plastic, I am playing it because it is where I am currently at skill wise. If the PDGA were to take a strong arm approach to the payout structure of AM's and made them a trophy only class I would support it.



And I am a 16 Year Open Player and if given the chance to become a true amateur might well jump at it. I have never felt completely comfortable playing for my friends money and in many ways I wish a lot of the added cash went to other causes: i.e. buying baskets, supporting excellent TDs and staff, building local clubs, advertising, spectator incentives, etc.

I don't know how many of us there are in this gambler/carney competitive system, but I know for a fact it is not zero and it would be nice to have at least one refuge for us within the competitive system.

You and Chuck seem resigned to the fact the this could never change.



The players who like the big merch system will still like it whether the PDGA abandons it or not. It's not foolish for the PDGA to find ways to accommodate these players in whatever changes or enhancements are made to the overall system. I'm optimistic and part of the process for change. But some of the proposals here either don't accommodate these players or show the steps to get from where we are to where they propose to go. Figuring out the steps is the hard part and why it takes so long to make changes. The implications on player points and invites to Worlds are all intertwined and it's difficult to deal with all of these items in 'sound bites' on the Discussion Board.

The players who like the big merch system will still like it whether the PDGA abandons it or not. It's not foolish for the PDGA to find ways to accommodate these players in whatever changes or enhancements are made to the overall system.



Everytime this discussion comes up, this concern is brought up.

What about the people that want large merch payouts? They'll leave us if we don't cater to them.

If they want to be a pro, welcome them. If they don't, let them go!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your concern over those who demand something for nothing confounds me. It is unhealthy for our sport. What does society do when a high school graduate demands the pay of a college graduate. Oh wait, this doesn't happen much because it's ridiculous!

After you grasp this simple idea, everything will fall into place.

I agree with James.

The FEAR of alienating the small number of truly spoiled players, and I do believe it's a small number, is really a major roadblock. And it's an unfounded fear in my opinion.

Man, I agree with James so much, I'm going to quote him, just for emphasis:


Everytime this discussion comes up, this concern is brought up.

What about the people that want large merch payouts? They'll leave us if we don't cater to them.

If they want to be a pro, welcome them. If they don't, let them go!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your concern over those who demand something for nothing confounds me. It is unhealthy for our sport. What does society do when a high school graduate demands the pay of a college graduate. Oh wait, this doesn't happen much because it's ridiculous!

After you grasp this simple idea, everything will fall into place.

And you know those same people are going to invest time and money into running the unsanctioned events to fill the gaps... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

What does society do when a high school graduate demands the pay of a college graduate. Oh wait, this doesn't happen much because it's ridiculous!



Lebron James for example? Here's an example that makes the point James can't grasp. You don't get paid just because you're good, it's because people also will pay to watch you. True in basketball. Not in disc golf. That's the primary reason better skill, gets better reward. Enough other people value your skill. Taxing other players that play the same sport in other divisions, even if not as good, is inappropriate, at least in a free economy.

BB, you make broad generalizations from your experience with your girls league. You may have had mixed results with your format, but that's just one circumstance.
Your attitude sounds defeatist to me. 'Ams' are greedy nowadays and expect a Pro-type payouts. It's not their fault, they have been programmed to by PDGA-style weighted payouts. You and Chuck seem resigned to the fact the this could never change.

I make broad generalizations from four years of offering sanctioned tournaments with trophy-only options or trophy-only formats, and ten years of occasionally playing trophy-only events. I have more experience here than anyone posting on the message board as far as I know. Other than myself and the TD in Maine, I don't even know of anyone who ran a sanctioned trophy-only for ams event last year. I think maybe there was another.

Anyone saying that there needs to be more of these events needs to run them somewhere reasonably close to ME!

If you would like to play a low-entry fee trophies-and-ctps for ams sanctioned event in 2005, make plans to take a weekend trip to Chicago in mid-September. With the money you save you could go see the Cubs play St. Louis on Sunday in the Friendly Confines, or go to the Adler Planetarium and Shedd Aquarium. Great America is just downthe road a few miles from the disc golf park. There are lots of fun things to do on a weekend in Chicago.

Click the signature website for details.

Does this mean that as a 953 rated Pro Master player I could play in Pro Worlds and Am Worlds this year?
If so, in theory, I could play well enough to cash as a Pro Master at Pro Worlds, and still get to play as an Advanced player at Am Worlds.
I'd welcome the opportunity to face that kind of challenge, but something about that possible scenario doesn't ring true.

I get paid for my job, and noone will pay to see me. ;)

I'm doubt anyone on here is envisioning large piles of money. I totally agree with you that pro disc golfers will only make alot of money when people want to watch disc golf tournaments. However, I don't see that observation as relevant to the discussion of how the professional organization should structure their competion and build for growth until people start watching disc golf .

Please spare me the "taxing other players" argument. I would promote rationality in our system regardless of what happens to the markup at am tourneys.

I believe Pros cannot play as an Am in Majors, even if their rating is below 955.

And you know those same people are going to invest time and money into running the unsanctioned events to fill the gaps... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



James, Hank's Place, and Tony, what makes you guys think that Ams gambling for plastic are getting something for nothing? The ams are paying an entry fee, just like the pros. They are 'protected', but that's no different than a Pro playing Pro Master (something James should know about).

Tony, of all people, has benefitted the most of just about any Am that I know, based on his finishes over the last few years in Intermediate and Advanced. Taking first in Intermediate at Texas states in 2003 and then continuing to play Intermediate in 2004? Then you complain about Am 'entitlements'? Care for a side of hypocrisy with your burger?

Unless he turned down any prizes for those events, which is always possible. If you did, then more power to ya, you're a better man that I, Gunga Din.

Dan, if you see age protections exactly the same way you see ability protections, you will see me as a hypocrite.

The "something for nothing" argument, for me at least, revolves solely around ability protections. Simply, why should the best player in the 40 - 50% range have a higher expected return than the worst player in the 90 - 100% range? The example someone gave about the sprinters was a better illustration.

James, Hank's Place, and Tony, what makes you guys think that Ams gambling for plastic are getting something for nothing? The ams are paying an entry fee, just like the pros. They are 'protected', but that's no different than a Pro playing Pro Master (something James should know about).

Tony, of all people, has benefitted the most of just about any Am that I know, based on his finishes over the last few years in Intermediate and Advanced. Taking first in Intermediate at Texas states in 2003 and then continuing to play Intermediate in 2004? Then you complain about Am 'entitlements'? Care for a side of hypocrisy with your burger?

Unless he turned down any prizes for those events, which is always possible. If you did, then more power to ya, you're a better man that I, Gunga Din.



:mad: How nice to judge someone by a stat sheet....

Dan, do yourself a favor and look at when those 2004 events I played in Intermediate occurred. At the 2004 Victoria Open, I moved to Advanced (with my 890 rating at the time--which was still Intermediate) and stayed there. I've sold exactly 2 discs that I've won, and given away to friends and events a hell of a lot more (and will be doing so this weekend again at the Houston Ice Bowl).

No hypocrisy Dan. The system could change I would still play with the same frequency.

You want hypocrisy? I didn't not renew and still post on this board.

Since when does it matter what is done with the discs that are won?

You are still complaining about the 'unfairness' of a system and taking rewards because of that very same 'unfair' system. Maybe hypocrisy isn't the correct term, but 'pot calling the kettle black' would probably work.

When did this site only allow members to post?

James, Hank's Place, and Tony, what makes you guys think that Ams gambling for plastic are getting something for nothing? The ams are paying an entry fee, just like the pros. They are 'protected', but that's no different than a Pro playing Pro Master (something James should know about).




Dan, I don't have a problem with ability protection. Nor do I thus totally agree with the "getting something for nothing" argument.

Where I agree with James is simply his statements about the reluctance of some people to DRASTICALLY change the competition/prize structure for fear of alienating and/or losing a portion of the current player base.

Now, having said that, I think that paying a fair price ($30? +/-) to compete in a organization-sanctioned one-day tournament and get absolutely NOTHING prize-wise in return, regardless of placing, is a very fair price. And I wouldn't hesitate to alienate and/or lose any portion of the player population that doesn't want to play by those rules. Call me radical I guess.

Dan, if you see age protections exactly the same way you see ability protections, you will see me as a hypocrite.

The "something for nothing" argument, for me at least, revolves solely around ability protections. Simply, why should the best player in the 40 - 50% range have a higher expected return than the worst player in the 90 - 100% range? The example someone gave about the sprinters was a better illustration.



James, while they are not the same, wouldn't you agree that a better player (let's use Brad Hammock for example) playing a 'weaker' division such as Masters is not that much different from a 950 rated player choosing to play Advanced instead of Open.

The sprinter example is one way to look at it, another would be bowling tournaments. Some bowlers will play in a cheaper handicap tourney, while others prefer a scratch tourney, even though the scratch tourney would offer tougher competition. The benefit of the scratch tourney is that it pays out more if they do well.

wouldn't you agree that a better player (let's use Brad Hammock for example) playing a 'weaker' division such as Masters is not that much different from a 950 rated player choosing to play Advanced instead of Open.




It's similar in that they both will probably be strong in their division. However, age and gender protections seem legit to me, so I really don't see that as an apt analogy. At any rate, if our structure made more sense and the bets were made more reasonable, you would probably see more masters playing open PLUS, there would be little incentive for the 950 pro player to drop down.


The benefit of the scratch tourney is that it pays out more if they do well.



I don't know the economics of bowling, but if mediocre bowlers are getting higher returns than good bowlers, then something is wrong.

OK, now I think I get your point a bit more. I am looking at returns as pure numbers, where you are looking at it in relation to the cost of entry (?). Like a % return on investment kinda thing, right?

The scratch bowler wins more $$, but the one playing in the weaker tourney has a better chance of cashing. Probably the same options if you were a 950 rated am.

Now, having said that, I think that paying a fair price ($30? +/-) to compete in a organization-sanctioned one-day tournament and get absolutely NOTHING prize-wise in return, regardless of placing, is a very fair price. And I wouldn't hesitate to alienate and/or lose any portion of the player population that doesn't want to play by those rules. Call me radical I guess.



Call me a radical too then because that's exactly the same way I feel. All the problems with divisional structure and payout and amateurism versus professionalism occur because above that fair price, the 'return' concept becomes increasingly important.

Dan, I've played under the system in place. Call that whatever you want. But if you hold a gun to my head and ask if I would have played the same number of events under a low-entry proposed format, I would answer yes. The competition is more important than the payout.


I believe what we're wanting is Ams to pay less while receiving less, so they do not get the same rewards for playing worse golf.

Like a % return on investment kinda thing, right?




Exactly. Im sure we have 915 rated players with much higher return on investment (ROI) than many 980 players. I've always advocated to Chuck to plot ROI vs rating so we could give aspiring golfers a nice visual of their expected financial prospects as they progress through the system.

Chuck will reply that we can never create a smooth curve that has ROI increasing as rating/ability increases. He's right, but damnit, we could try or at least recognize why our system retards growth at the highest level.

Tony, believe me, I couldn't agree with you (and Jeff) more on that statement.

Whether or not it will happen across the board is another story. I think in certain areas (mine, for example) you would have no problem getting attendance levels at about the same as they are under the current system. We don't have the number of courses, however, that other areas have, so there are rarely 2 tourneys going on within 100 miles of each other. Would that work in the bigger markets, such as Texas, NC, etc?

If there were competing tourneys, one like you describe above, and one, unsanctioned, under the current system that pays out a bucketful of discs and a polehole to 1st place advanced, would anyone show up to the cheap, no payout one?

I think, as Chuck pretty much stated, the scenario above is the one that scares the PDGA the most.

I would choose the cheaper trophy tourney over the higher entry tourney that pays out fat stacks of plastic.

Am I in the minority? I can't answer that.

BB, you make broad generalizations from your experience with your girls league. You may have had mixed results with your format, but that's just one circumstance.
Your attitude sounds defeatist to me. 'Ams' are greedy nowadays and expect a Pro-type payouts. It's not their fault, they have been programmed to by PDGA-style weighted payouts. You and Chuck seem resigned to the fact the this could never change.



Whorly, Bruce and I want enough people to show up to our tournaments so that we don't lose any money in the process. Last year we offered trophy only options at 5 tournaments. Very few people opted for that option. If we ran our tournaments as trophy only I'm fairly certain players would choose to play other tournaments. Now, just connecting the dots for you here...if the PDGA opted to allow only trophy-only style payouts for ams, those players would opt to play unsanctioned tournaments. However, we all can change the way payouts are done by changing things a little bit each year. Our players have made it clear that they do not want a wholesale change in the way our competitions are run, but they tolerate some changes each year.

Let's say there's a ball golf course and four 20 handicappers weekly get together to play skins for $30 ante. Just behind them is a group of college guys with 10 handicaps playing for $10 ante. The golf course adds a new rule that says those whose handicap is over 15 have to pay $10 extra per round and those with handicaps under 15 get $10 apiece added to their side bets. The club's management decided it wasn't fair that the better players on their course weren't getting better rewards for playing better. And on the same day, no less. Are the 20 handicappers going to continue to play at that course? Is it fair?

That golf course is no different from the PDGA. I'm not saying that better players shouldn't get better rewards, in theory. Teachers should also be paid better, too. However, it's how that's done. It's not proper to tax players in other divisions. It's perfectly fine that added cash, if any, goes to the top divisions. But those with better skills need to earn it from those who are willing pay to see that skill. If few are willing to pay to see that skill, it's just tough and no amount of 'tax' manipulation is either fair or is going to work.

You and Chuck seem resigned to the fact the this could never change.



The players who like the big merch system will still like it whether the PDGA abandons it or not. It's not foolish for the PDGA to find ways to accommodate these players in whatever changes or enhancements are made to the overall system. I'm optimistic and part of the process for change. But some of the proposals here either don't accommodate these players or show the steps to get from where we are to where they propose to go. Figuring out the steps is the hard part and why it takes so long to make changes. The implications on player points and invites to Worlds are all intertwined and it's difficult to deal with all of these items in 'sound bites' on the Discussion Board.



I am not proposing to abandon the spoiled child we have ourselves facilitated. A single professional scale of skill protected divisions should give them plenty of room to sand... I mean compete. The point, and the only one that matters, is to get them the HELL out of the "Amateur Class", where they have NO BUSINESS gumming up the works and creating such pervasive competitive systemwide negative feelings!

I don't believe it's accurate that the PDGA is against 'trophy only' events if it's determined that members want it. It's a member organization with a volunteer Board. The Board members don't get paid enough to make risky decisions and I believe they would feel terrible if they made misstep that caused the org to fold. Trophy only events are available for TDs and some have tried it with mixed success that's been variable on a regional basis. One of the cool aspects of our sport is the variety of events that can be offered regardless whether they fit the sanctioning process (i.e. skins, doubles, mulligans, wolf, bocce, etc.). There's no reason it has to be one way or the other and the PDGA has been open to try alternative events and formats under the X-tier if the format is different enough to require it. Much of this for and against stuff on here has to do with assertions there's only one way to do it, one way to solve problems, when there have been many ways it's been demonstrated to work in some regions.

It seems to me like the majority of the players that want the trophy only cheap entry events are the players who have been playing for quite a while. Too me it sounds like they won their fair share of plastic and at one time were out there to do WIN everytime they played. Now they go out there for the competition and the fun and the atmosphere and just the general love for the game. The other people who want the cheap trophy only events are the ones who love the game but basically know that they arent going to ever cash in an event anyway but they like the same things that the first group likes. Atmosphere, competition, fun, etc etc etc. Thats all fine and dandy for those 2 groups of people but there is a third group of people which is the group where i will place myself. Just started seriously playing tournaments last year. Cashed about 50% of the times i played and am just getting used to performing in a tournaments setting. I am now HOOKED to going out to tournaments and trying to place as high as i possibly can and take home as much plastic as i can. My rating is on the rise and my goal is to become a top proffessional in the next 5 years or so. This group loves the same thing the first 2 groups love but they dont want to do it for NOTHING. They want to go to tournaments and pay the entry fees that we have now and win plastic.

I also think that the 3rd group is the new breed of disc golfers. More people are finding out about the sport and more athletic people are taking it up and the spread of talent is widening at a quick pace. These guys learn that you can go play tournaments and WIN discs and they are all for it.

Its my opinion that if you play for the love of the game and competition but dont want to win plastic then maybe you should just stick to Montlies and leagues and things of that nature and leave your spots at the cashing tournaments to people who want to play for PRIZES.

Thats just my opinion.

The competition is more important than the payout.




These are the folks I want to compete against. That is a "Sportsman" talking, boyeeeeeeeeeee!

I think Dan is right though about the point of diminishing returns when entry fees start getting crazy high. If NTs were $50 and only Women and Men divisions (period) I would almost guarantee they would all fill. And if entry fees across the board were cut by half that there would be next to no need for the skill or age based divisions. Why do I think this?

Read the words at the top of this post and think on it. If you don�t get it, you will likely NEVER get it�

Pimp, I do not think that anyone is trying to segregrate a "class" of golfers out of the PDGA. What is being argued, is that what is now being called Amateur is not really amateur, if you are paying for $$$ worth of plastic. And honestly, being of the same category as you say you are in, the payout structure of the amateur events would not bother me if it changed. Trophies look nice on my shelfs. Receiveing a trophy instead of plastic does not cheapen the event, but currently, under the prior payout structure intact by the PDGA, Am's, like you, are getting too used to the high payouts. And that if a trophy tournament and a plastic tournament were relatively close to each other, no one would attend the trophy one. This is concerning to alot of people in the PDGA.

I do not really care how I am paid out, as long as I make a good return. Obviously if I paid $30 to play, won and got a $5 trophy, I will be ticked off. But if I got a really nice plaque or big trophy I would feel that it was worth it. As an amateur, what you are paid should not hinder your advancement. I would never argue that I do not play for the $$$ (ie discs), but that is what is currently paid to Am's. Once I am good enough to play Open, I will. But untill then I will play advanced, and be happy with what ever payout I get, as long as it appears that my money was not wasted.

By wasted, I believe that entry's should be allocated to the prizes in the divisions where they were recieved. If all Am entries went to the pro cash and the TD gave out a bunch of used/old discs to the Am's which had no value, THEN I would be mad and suspicious about the pay out allocation.

Southern Nationals AM Championships home to the $10,000 Amateur Purse!!!!

I would agree that we are all playing for prizes with a cash value. Maybe there should be a limit set on what you can win at 1 tournament. Thats how they do it in ball golf. You remain an amature untill you decide to take more then i think 700 dollars at 1 single event. Maybe we should set a limit like that on PDGA tournaments. Once you accept more then X amount at 1 event you are not longer aloud to compete in amature majors. We can still have the same divisions we have now but if you want to take the FAT payouts then you have to give up playing in the amature majors. Say the limit is set at 250 dollars then thats the max that first place can accepts and remain elidgeble(sp) to compete in the amature majors. This means if first place is a basket and you win then to take the basket home you have to give up your right to play in the amature majors.

Sorry if that was thread drift im still a little drunk from last night.

I also agree that if i feel like i got a good return on my money then I would also play trophy only events but the trophy only events i have seen have home made trophys as the prizes. I mean they are cool for home made but if im playing for a trophy only i want a Sweet ***** troophy that is worth well over my entry fee. Basically i want instead of the money being given back to me i want it to be put into the trophys. Say first place would have won 150 bucks. I want my trophy to be 150 bucks worth of trophy. Not 20.

I don't believe it's accurate that the PDGA is against 'trophy only' events if it's determined that members want it. It's a member organization with a volunteer Board. The Board members don't get paid enough to make risky decisions and I believe they would feel terrible if they made misstep that caused the org to fold. Trophy only events are available for TDs and some have tried it with mixed success that's been variable on a regional basis. One of the cool aspects of our sport is the variety of events that can be offered regardless whether they fit the sanctioning process (i.e. skins, doubles, mulligans, wolf, bocce, etc.). There's no reason it has to be one way or the other and the PDGA has been open to try alternative events and formats under the X-tier if the format is different enough to require it. Much of this for and against stuff on here has to do with assertions there's only one way to do it, one way to solve problems, when there have been many ways it's been demonstrated to work in some regions.



The apparent mental block surrounding this seems to stem from your and apparently the BODs notion that by including "Amateurs" within our competitive structure we have to hurt the feelings of "Prize Division Players". That simply is not the case.

The "Amateur Classification" I an others here are talking about is an ADDITION to the competitive system not a REPLACEMENT to the prize divisions. The only thing they would be giving up is something they never really had in the first place: a claim to being "Amateur".

I do not really care how I am paid out, as long as I make a good return. Obviously if I paid $30 to play, won and got a $5 trophy, I will be ticked off.



And therein lies the problem.

It is amusing, bemusing, and a tad disgusting, the attitude and culture that has been cultivated from years and years of a merch heavy competition structure.

The "Amateur Classification" I an others here are talking about is an ADDITION to the competitive system not a REPLACEMENT to the prize divisions.



You and some others, but not all. I am for full REPLACEMENT. Its chances of working as a solution, alongside the current format, are very small. In my opinion.

Toodles all!

Let's say there's a ball golf course and four 20 handicappers weekly get together to play skins for $30 ante. Just behind them is a group of college guys with 10 handicaps playing for $10 ante. The golf course adds a new rule that says those whose handicap is over 15 have to pay $10 extra per round and those with handicaps under 15 get $10 apiece added to their side bets. The club's management decided it wasn't fair that the better players on their course weren't getting better rewards for playing better. And on the same day, no less. Are the 20 handicappers going to continue to play at that course? Is it fair?




First off, this analogy is off base. Who is asking the PDGA to charge lower skilled golfers and put that money towards the higher skilled golfers? It's like the third time you've implied this.

Also, I'm starting to understand. You see the PDGA simply as a casino boss whose job is to facillitate as much gambling as possible. (Curiously, this casino boss resides over a relatively stagnant casino compared to the gambling craze occuring in the world outside)

Maybe someday the PDGA will feel that their role is to guide and nurture the SPORT of disc golf.

Who is asking the PDGA to charge lower skilled golfers and put that money towards the higher skilled golfers? It's like the third time you've implied this.



You get upset when the winner of a lower skilled division with 40 entrants wins more than the winner of a higher skilled division with 15 entrants or let's say even the last cash winner of the higher division who shot a better score than the winner of a lower division. You believe it's 'right' that the player shooting a better score should win more regardless how the division sizes and entry fee numbers work out. Any attempt to manipulate that naturally occuring scenario will be some form of tax. I don't think most players are averse to having lower entry fees stepping down for lower divisions which I've promoted for a decade (i.e. Master fee 60-70% and Advanced fee 40-60% of Open fee). But beyond that, if the field numbers work out that the lower skill division winner takes home more than someone who cashes with a better score in the higher division, tough noogies. It's not something that's unfair or something that needs to be 'fixed.' More added cash permanently solves that problem but if no one cares to watch and pony up, you don't fix it on the backs of lower players.

Maybe someday the PDGA will feel that their role is to guide and nurture the SPORT of disc golf.



Only if that equals an immediate increase in revenue.

PDGA is all for ideas to increase the sport with an attendant increase in new revenues. The concern with changes has usually been risking loss of current revenue whose source and predictability are better known. Show how your alternative can potentially improve revenues without risking the current ones and you'll likely have takers on the Board, at least for testing.

I understand that completly. The thing is that I am not sure that some of the changes to true amateurism can be done without across the board change. With a change such as that you would likely see decrease in revenue for a period of time. Something that I am sure the PDGA BOD would not do for the sake of the SPORT.

It seems that arguements can be turned around on a discussion board.

A return that I would be happy with.
Pay in $30

Recieve players pack ~$10-20
Something for winning/placing remainder ~$10.

If you pay $30 and only recieve $5 worth of benefit, then there is no motivation to going to a tournament. If THAT was the senario I would never play a tournament untill I was good enough to play open. I never expect to make money, thats not why I play. But wanting a return is not greed, it is business.

I've got the answer. Every Pro player above 980 has to commit to working with a 950ish player until he can shave 3-4 strokes from that players score. The number of 980 rated players should double the first year, then double the doubled total again the next year. and so on.

After a while, there would be enough 980 rated players to fill all of the Pro events.

That 980 player's ratings might drop to 950 while working on improving the 950 player's game. :D

I do not really care how I am paid out, as long as I make a good return. Obviously if I paid $30 to play, won and got a $5 trophy, I will be ticked off.



And therein lies the problem.

It is amusing, bemusing, and a tad disgusting, the attitude and culture that has been cultivated from years and years of a merch heavy competition structure.



I have to disagree with you there. This is not a disc golf attitude problem. If I pay $30 to enter a poker tournament and get a $5 prize in return for winning I'd be a little ****** too.

Unless it was stated up front that 90% of my entrance fee was being used to pay for the free drinks, girls from Hooters serving wings, and 'entertainment' in between rounds. Or something of that nature.

But, in our wonderfully capitalistic society, if you pay X number of dollars to enter a competition, it's perfectly reasonable to expect significantly more than X number of dollars in return for winning that competition.

That 980 player's ratings might drop to 950 while working on improving the 950 player's game. :D



You really think so Chuck? If that is the case, then I am the sole reason for Tom Monroe's rating to drop below 1000 (999).

That, and the fact he's getting old and gimpy :)

You get upset when the winner of a lower skilled division with 40 entrants wins more than the winner of a higher skilled division with 15 entrants



I get "upset" because the system encourages/rewards players to play against inferior competition and punishes those who step up against higher competition. It basically sucks the energy out of the competitive escalator.

Essentially, I don't believe the lower skilled divisions should be playing for a monetary reward. They can play pro if they want a monetary reward.

Do I expect all pros to get a positive return? Of course not. Do I expect to see ams getting a positive return on their investment. Not in discs or merch, but hopefully they get merch value for their fee and the added experience will make them feel that it was more than worth it.

Personally, the most logical ideas I have heard is essentially flat payouts for the am divisions. I would add a little slope to the payouts to reward good play, but stop far short of providing a financial incentive. This would cure alot of the inequity of the system.

For pros, I would encourage TDs to try to capture as many competitors as possible and let them use creative pricing strategies/incentives/whatever to achieve the goal of total competitors.

I would also allow people to move freely between the divisions (admittedly, I need better terms than ams and pros). I doubt you would see many of what I call pros playing in am tournies because they are primarily motivated by financial rewards and those don't exist at the am tournies. However, if the bets/incentives were reasonable, I suspect the pro tournies would attract alot of the ams and alot of the lower skilled pros.

This would only partially address my concerns, but it would put an end to the much of what is presently wrong with our system.

I know, you think it won't work. There will be a mass exodus to a new organization that charges high-entry fees and creates contrived divisions so people can gamble against their own-skill level. I personally doubt it and believe the PDGA could do alot to prevent it, but at the end of the day, I don't care because I'm convinced that the PDGA would ultimately succeed and provide a healthy foundation for organized competitive golf.

PDGA is all for ideas to increase the sport with an attendant increase in new revenues.



Is the alternative true, that the PDGA is all for ideas to increase the sport with an attendant decrease in revenues?

Sadly, I suspect you would answer no.

Has the PDGA become a Washington Bureaucracy that is soley concerned with its own survival over its intended mission?

Following the logic of better scores getting better reward, then certainly more added cash should be going to the GM Pro division than the Open Women division (I'm not saying I'm upset, just making the point). But you don't see all kinds of efforts to get us extra incentives like the women. If there's day care for the women, let's hire caddies for the geezers. I'd say a Final 9 among geezers might be at least as, if not more, interesting than the Open men in terms of shot skills demonstrated and certainly more than the women. Snapper, Slaz, Monroe, Greenwell, Voakes, take your pick.

With a change such as that you would likely see decrease in revenue for a period of time. Something that I am sure the PDGA BOD would not do for the sake of the SPORT.



I'm getting tired of sniping attacks at the PDGA like this one. I am personally offended by it, even though I am not on the PDGA BOD.

Who the hell do you guys think the PDGA BOD is? Do you think they get six-figure incomes for being on the PDGA BOD or something??? Gimme a freaking break!

The PDGA BOD is made up of volunteers. We currently have some volunteers on the BOD who have been pretty successful in their business lives, so the time they give up to serve us is basically costing them money. I am not aware of a single one of them having any affiliation with any disc related business, so there is no way they could even reap any financial reward for any decisions they make.

But crap-head comments like the one above make it sound like you think that the PDGA BOD members are somehow making money off the organization. You should listen to Terry Calhoun. He says he doesn't even put in for reimbursement of his airline tickets to go to PDGA BOD summit meeting. So it actually costs him money to serve us!

So wake up and smell the coffee. We may not agree with every decision that the BOD makes, but I don't see you guys offering to lead.

Rant off.

I get "upset" because the system encourages/rewards players to play against inferior competition and punishes those who step up against higher competition. It basically sucks the energy out of the competitive escalator.



I think this is 100% accurate. And I didn't used to.

Sorry to be a tired old record, but the animosity within and dysfunction of our competitive system comes from too many divisions fighting over the same resources in a futile attempt to reach some balance of �Chance to Win�; not �Chance to Compete� or �Chance to Have Fun� or �Chance to Hang Out with Buddies� but a chance to make a little money or profit on the entry fee.

This has EVERYTHING to do with our sports lack of a true amateur class. I mean, why should we expect any different when every division is fighting over the same pool of players and entry fees all seeking to get their piece and no divisions are built upon the very premise of Amateur Sport? It is simply unbelievable to me that more folks do not see as clearly and concisely as I do where and why we fail.

I mean most sports that make it, really make it, are made up of 90 to 99% participants that never �expect� to make a red nickel off of their play. They go to �meets�, �tournaments� or �competitions� simply to be around larger and larger numbers of enthusiasts. (I think if each of us thinks back to when we got into tournament disc golf, that was the driving force behind our attendance.) Not to make back our entry fee in cash or equal value in prizes but because we love the game and we love the people in the game.

Regardless of the vast considerations involved, NOTHING SHOULD CLOUD OUR VIEW OF THE GOAL, to share that awesome sense of community and enjoyment of our sport with as many people as we possibly can! (Not just the gamblers and carneys!!!)

As Dan says, people are looking for value. There is some value in the competition and social interaction and some have said they would be happy with this, but lots of folks are looking for something tangible. So, how about this:

Professional Division:
--High Entry Fees.
--Cash Payout only, using current PDGA payout tables.
--No player's pack required, but may be offered at TD discretion.
--TD may retain up to 10% of entry fees to cover administrative expenses.
--Added sponsorship cash goes to this division.

Premium Division:
--Moderate Entry Fees.
--Merchandise Payout at customary retail value, using current PDGA payout tables. TD's may award direct merchandise premiums or use scrip or other means of exchange.
--Player's pack equivalent to 20% of entry fee to all players.
--TD may retain up to 10% of entry fees to cover administrative expenses.

Amateur Division:
--Nominal Entry Fees.
--Trophies/Medals/Certificates to top 10%(or more, at TD discretion) of field.
--Player's pack equivalent to 50% of entry fee to all players.
--TD may retain up to 10% of entry fees to cover administrative expenses.

Any Division may have gender- and age-based subdivision, based on current PDGA guidelines. Professional and Premium Divisions are Open, meaning that, other than age or gender, all players registering compete against each other, regardless of PDGA Player Rating or previous winnings.

The Amateur Division may use hard-capped ratings based subdivisions. This would allow for novice, recreational, and intermediate players to compete against like-skilled peers.

Players may register for any division/subdivision offered for which they qualify. If a previously non-cash winning player wishes to try their chances against the pro's, they may. If a pro player who is off their game due to injury or long lay-off wishes to play for premiums or trophies, they may.

A TD may choose to limit a tournament to certain divisions by declaring such on their sanctioning agreement. No TD will be required to offer all divisions, other than equal access to both men and women players. Current requirements for a minimum number of players to open a subdivision will remain. TD's may, at their discretion, offer subdivisions to smaller numbers of players, to accommodate such (3 women, 2 masters, etc.).

This system would give everyone a place to play, give the TD's a stated opportunity to recoup some of their expenses, fairly address the question of waning or advancing player skills, and separate the prize class from the "true amateurs." I'm sure this could stand some tweaking, but I think it's pretty simple to understand and treats everyone fairly.

BTW, searched several thesaurus' for a word more classy than "prize" to label that division and came up with Premium. I think it's fairly descriptive of what people are after at that level.

PDGA is all for ideas to increase the sport with an attendant increase in new revenues.



Is the alternative true, that the PDGA is all for ideas to increase the sport with an attendant decrease in revenues?

Sadly, I suspect you would answer no.

Has the PDGA become a Washington Bureaucracy that is soley concerned with its own survival over its intended mission?



James, I have to agree with Rhett here, you are going a little too far here. Let's stick to persuasion over accusation, k?

They need enough innertia to exist and then I think you will see that they are the best PDGA BOD to date. Seriously, think back about the snails of the past, and even then it was probably more a result of conservative members than lack of activist leadership...

Anyhow, I'm not calling you out or anything, just that you consider their position more fully and what we can hope to get done via this VERY limited media.

As you were...

Dang Rhett, you get to emotional. Step back and discuss. I am not sniping at the PDGA BOD.

PDGA BOD volunteers have ideas that they want to put into effect. In order for them to implement these ideas it takes money. So money IS a factor for some. If they were to implement something that could potentially decrease the revenue for a period of time then that could effect the possibility of them being able to move forward with their projects etc.

So please dont sit back and play like money is not a huge issue in changes in structure.

Awesome John! Really!

I'd add this though to the official wording:

The Adult Amateur Divisions may use hard-capped ratings based subdivisions. This would allow for novice, recreational, and intermediate players to compete against like-skilled peers.

The Youth Amateur Divisions may use age, gender or grade level as criteria for divisions.

I'd love to see an entire tour dedicated to school aged children with divisions based on 1 thru 36 seed(sp?) per school, where 1 plays against 1, 2 against 2 and so on. But the possibilities are nearly limitless once a true amateur classification is securely created and vigilantly guarded within our competitive system.

It is in this area I hope to dedicate my later efforts in promoting our sport. The Cash and Prize players will beat on each other until doomsday, but the Amateurs are where the REAL potential for exponential growth is for disc golf. I just hope the PDGA is a part of it�

Very well done Jon!!

Rhett, Scott is not being sarcastic, y'all are basically in agreement. Apologize. ;)

You should snipe at me, cause I would have said it in a sarcastic tone. :p

Anyways Nick, I really like and appreciate this board. I feel that they have made steps in a lot of positive ways. However, I feel Chuck is stubborn and dead wrong on this issue. :D I'm sure he feels the same about me. It's not personal, just an exchange of ideas. You never learn by talking with people that agree with you.

The difference is idealism versus realism. For those who know me, it's unusual I'd be on the reality side in this case. :)

Not a bad idea, I would support it. Play Premium until I was good enough to play Professional.

Not a bad idea, I would support it. Play Premium until I was good enough to play Professional.




And if you are short on cash, you can play Amateur for experience and points. Or if you have some extra, treat yourself to a challenge and play Professional one weekend.

Speaking of points, I'd say that Amateur points would be a factor of 1, Premium points would be 2, and Professional points would be 3 (for C and D tiers). For B tiers, multiply by two (2,4,6), and for A tier and NT, multiply by three (3,6,9). No fractional points, simple steps up.

If you finished 3 of 6 in Amateur C tier you get 4 points. If you are 4th of 18 in a Premium B tier, you get 56 points. If you win a 10 person Professional subdivision in an A tier, you get 90.

Anyways Nick, I really like and appreciate this board. I feel that they have made steps in a lot of positive ways



I do to, but I'd still like to see that the awesome amount of thought and effort spent on ideas here are recognized and considered when the PDGA makes divisional structure changes. Conversely, I'd like to see the PDGA float their ideas here first before making changes - the feedback that bounces back might be extremely valuable. We'd also likely see a lot less reactionary and critical threads like "This pro playing am rule has to go" which arose barely even a month into the rule's tenure.

Who gets to play in Am Worlds?

I've read this entire thread twice now and my head is spinning from so much conjecture. One thing is clear to me:

WE NEED DATA to continue making sound decisions.

For a controlled experiment to be valid, the element of time is important. Changing the competition structure every year WILL decrease player attendance and PDGA membership retention. Keeping the same structure for no less than three years will provide time for plenty of data to be analyzed, assuming TD and clubs can report accurately to the PDGA.

Just think: we can gather percentages of trophy-only acceptances; percentages of pros playing as ams; percentages of rec players stepping up and 'donating' to the pro division. and so much more!

We need to record the data at every sanctioned event, at every level, so that, in the near future, we can speak in accurate numbers instead of analogies and emotionalisms. And we can see EXACTLY what is and is not fair to players, profitable to the PDGA, etc.

Does the Competition Director currently have a system for this? Is it realistic to think we can accumulate all this data? Is it too large of a task?

BTW, Chuck, thanks for being level-headed through all these rants and personal persecutions.

Who gets to play in Am Worlds?






Anyone who has never accepted cash, just like it is now.

I would say the real question is: What would the payout structure be at Am Worlds?

It was actually the combination of your's and Scott's posts that set me off.

I stand by what I said.

I would say the real question is: What would the payout structure be at Am Worlds?



I would be in favor of a combined Premium/Amateur payout at Am Worlds. Payout tables with retail merchandise value, as currently used, and very very very nice trophies for the top 3 in each subdivision. And, of course, a super player's pack for every player.

Trophies to top 5 at am worlds, minimum.

My main problem with Jon's idea, or Nick's similar idea, is that I don't see why two players with similar ratings should be in different divisions merely because one wants to opt out of playing for prizes. I've been letting players opt out of playing for prizes in exchange for a lower entry fee for three years and there is no social incompatibility between these groups.

My lesser problem is that Jon's format simply dictates too many details. I think we should give our TDs the freedom to set entry fees and player packs in a way that works in their area. Don't make me do all those extra percentage calculations.

Who gets to play in Am Worlds?




Anyone who has never accepted cash, just like it is now.

I would say the real question is: What would the payout structure be at Am Worlds?

Depends on whether the the tournament currently operating under that name is for Ams or Prems.

It's nice to officially create an amateur class. This will create a venue for those that desire this and hopefully increase participation. That is good.

However, the rest of the structure is basically what we already have, with all its associated problems: no incentives to move up, dwindling open fields, rewarding mediocrity, etc.

Regarding the pro class, I still don't get why the PDGA doesn't value total competitors. Have no set entry fee structure, let TDs be flexible with the payout scale and base the criteria for tiers on much smaller purses and a required number of players.

By the way Rhett, I know all of the BOD is volunteers and have never thought it was anything but a losing financial proposition for them. It never crossed my mind that criticizing their emphasis on revenues would be construed as questioning their honesty. I feel that vision is way more important (in the long run) than revenues, not because I assume revenues would line their pockets. Although I hear that Chuck now flies a private jet to all his new course design jobs. :o :p :D

By the way Rhett, I know all of the BOD is volunteers and have never thought it was anything but a losing financial proposition for them. It never crossed my mind that criticizing their emphasis on revenues would be construed as questioning their honesty.


I guess I just don't see where the BOD is emphasizing revenues. :confused:

I feel that vision is way more important (in the long run) than revenues, not because I assume revenues would line their pockets.


Believe me the visions that have been there for years have exceeded their capability to address them. Adding two new staff to get after some of these visions like the NDGC was a big risk that will hopefully be sustainable.



Although I hear that Chuck now flies a private jet to all his new course design jobs.



Only in my dreams. I'll be getting mine with Barry when our respective efforts in design and play are recognized as worthy by the public. Only in our dreams...

My main problem with Jon's idea, or Nick's similar idea, is that I don't see why two players with similar ratings should be in different divisions merely because one wants to opt out of playing for prizes. I've been letting players opt out of playing for prizes in exchange for a lower entry fee for three years and there is no social incompatibility between these groups.



In this case it has nothing to do with ratings. Anyone of any rating could play either Professional or Premium. The difference is the pay-in/pay-out. The way I understand what you have been doing, Bruce, is that all the Ams play together and when it's time to pay out, some get prizes and some get trophies, depending on what entry fee they paid. First gets a trophy, second gets a stack of discs, third gets a trophy, etc., etc. Correct me, please, if I misunderstand.

In my system, one week a player may feel like she wants to stake her entry fee against others in the Professional division and play for cash payouts. Another week, she may want to pay less, get a little player's pack and compete for premiums. Yet another week, she is strapped for cash, but wants to compete, so she pays a small fee and plays for trophies, and this week she plays in a ratings capped division.



My lesser problem is that Jon's format simply dictates too many details. I think we should give our TDs the freedom to set entry fees and player packs in a way that works in their area. Don't make me do all those extra percentage calculations.



Well, with your reticence to run "gambling" events in your state, I'd think that you would be returning more than a fair share in player's pack to the players anyway. The percentages that I suggested are only that...suggestions. I put them there to indicate that there should be some tangible value returned to the player, other than just the experience of playing in the event. And when they have the chance to win premiums, the up-front value is lower than if they are playing for trophies.

As far as "dictating details," I think it's incumbent on the TD's to demonstrate value to the players and be able to report such to the sanctioning body, just as they do now for payout on the TD report. I'd be more liberal than we are now and allow lunches and other amenities to be included in player return value. It's really no different that the current system of expecting certain purse values and payouts at different tier levels. I'd like to see the players that choose to compete in the Amateur division be assured of some value for their entry, beyond the experience.

A work in progress.

There's also a lot of instability in Jon's structure with players jumping around on game day. If I understand it correctly, I have at least 9 different divisions I could enter (Open, Master, GM in Pro, Premium and Am). A woman my age might have double that, in theory. So, players look and see who shows up and what they'll do. If only a few pros show up, guys like 1000+ rated Chris Heeren could play Premium like he did in Advanced last year (unsanctioned) when there were few pros. Pretty much any player with a rating below 900 will not even consider playing Premium until they are 40. Of course, if new players come in the system in the Am track, they might not be conditioned to play Premium except for a short time period before turning pro and the Premium division will die (riiigght).

What I suspect might happen without lower rating brackets in premium, is that you'll have a flourishing market in side betting within Am divisions with a boomlet in ad hoc 'TDs.' You say fine and dandy. But within the current structure, there's not an incentive to do that at that level because of the prizes. And that's more money that has become part of our event purse, not outside of it, which helps generate funds to cover event expenses and pro payouts. Or, an enterprising TD would just run non-sanctioned events with the merch prize model for these traditional Am divisions (SN).

In Jon's environment, there would not even be peer pressure to turn pro let alone stay there each event since players can hop around. You could see 1000 rated players in Premium, especially on split field weekends. At least with the current Pro in Am, that rating is capped. As Jon said, it needs some tweaking. These are just some observations.

However, the rest of the structure is basically what we already have, with all its associated problems: no incentives to move up, dwindling open fields, rewarding mediocrity, etc.




It's all about choice. The incentive is there. You want to win money? Play Professional. Is plastic enough? Then go Premium. Don't care about that stuff? There's a place for you. If the added cash is there, the Open fields won't dwindle. This is really a market based tournament economy.



Regarding the pro class, I still don't get why the PDGA doesn't value total competitors. Have no set entry fee structure, let TDs be flexible with the payout scale and base the criteria for tiers on much smaller purses and a required number of players.



So remove all requirements of entry fees from the proposal and let the market dictate. If a TD can raise $5,000 in added cash, let him charge the Professionals a $5 entry fee and fill the field with a waiting list. This is all about choice, which there is little of now. People are badgered into "moving up." I say just let people play disc golf with and against those others that they feel comfortable with. And let each player choose the format of pay-in/pay-out that he or she wishes.



By the way Rhett, I know all of the BOD is volunteers and have never thought it was anything but a losing financial proposition for them. It never crossed my mind that criticizing their emphasis on revenues would be construed as questioning their honesty. I feel that vision is way more important (in the long run) than revenues, not because I assume revenues would line their pockets. Although I hear that Chuck now flies a private jet to all his new course design jobs. :o :p :D



I, personally took no offense. I'm certainly not getting rich from this opportunity to serve.

BTW, Chuck's not on the Board. He just hangs out with us.

:)

You never learn by talking with people that agree with you.



So I must be the most super "learned" person around then... ;)

The difference is idealism versus realism. For those who know me, it's unusual I'd be on the reality side in this case. :)



And the solution is a melding of idealism and realism otherwise the result is stagnation. Make sense?

Idealism is where you think you want to go. Realism is choosing what appears to be a doable way to get there.

And if you are short on cash, you can play Amateur for experience and points. Or if you have some extra, treat yourself to a challenge and play Professional one weekend.




<font color="purple"> HOLD THE PHONE!!! SAY WHAT?!? </font>

No way Jon! That is an absolutely horrible idea. The Amateur class needs to be protected from Cash and Prize class players not be the group of divisions for "no-chance" pros.

Or are you kidding? I hope so...

Anyways Nick, I really like and appreciate this board. I feel that they have made steps in a lot of positive ways



I do to, but I'd still like to see that the awesome amount of thought and effort spent on ideas here are recognized and considered when the PDGA makes divisional structure changes. Conversely, I'd like to see the PDGA float their ideas here first before making changes - the feedback that bounces back might be extremely valuable. We'd also likely see a lot less reactionary and critical threads like "This pro playing am rule has to go" which arose barely even a month into the rule's tenure.



You have to inject yourself into the dialog Jeff. I created a proposal and sent it in. Chuck did that and went to the PDGA Summit. The amount they hear from you is proportionate to the amount of effort you put into putting your ideas before them. This is not unreasonable.

I would say the real question is: What would the payout structure be at Am Worlds?



I would be in favor of a combined Premium/Amateur payout at Am Worlds. Payout tables with retail merchandise value, as currently used, and very very very nice trophies for the top 3 in each subdivision. And, of course, a super player's pack for every player.



I take back my praise of your proposal Jon. It is now obvious that your "Amateur Class" is just an ugly weaker sister to the Pro-Prize class.

So long as you treate the Amateur Class as a place for weak unskilled players with no dedication to playing the game purely for the joy of competition, you will still have infighting for players and entry fees.

IT NEEDS SEPARATION!!!

I don't see why two players with similar ratings should be in different divisions merely because one wants to opt out of playing for prizes



BRUCE!!! Don't lump me in with that! There is absolutely NO WAY ON HEAVEN OR EARTH I WOULD SUPPORT LETTING PROS OPT INTO A "REAL" AMATEUR CLASS OR DIVISIONS.

N E V E R!!!!


My lesser problem is that Jon's format simply dictates too many details. I think we should give our TDs the freedom to set entry fees and player packs in a way that works in their area. Don't make me do all those extra percentage calculations.



Chyah! Good idea Mr. PDGA BoD member. Why have any standards at all then...?

Entry fee and payout standards are crucial in this pre-sponsorship point in our development if we want to have any hope what so ever of keeping the logic of our competitive system intact. Otherwise we're going to have rec players winning more cash value than Open players winning cash.

C'mon, a smart lawyer or lawyer helper like you should be able to multiply cash amounts by numbers in a table

In this case it has nothing to do with ratings. Anyone of any rating could play either Professional or Premium. The difference is the pay-in/pay-out. The way I understand what you have been doing, Bruce, is that all the Ams play together and when it's time to pay out, some get prizes and some get trophies, depending on what entry fee they paid. First gets a trophy, second gets a stack of discs, third gets a trophy, etc., etc. Correct me, please, if I misunderstand.

In my system, one week a player may feel like she wants to stake her entry fee against others in the Professional division and play for cash payouts. Another week, she may want to pay less, get a little player's pack and compete for premiums. Yet another week, she is strapped for cash, but wants to compete, so she pays a small fee and plays for trophies, and this week she plays in a ratings capped division.




I am with you Jon all the way up to this sentence: "Yet another week, she is strapped for cash, but wants to compete, so she pays a small fee and plays for trophies, and this week she plays in a ratings capped division."

It is my position that Amateurs deserve REAL protection from professional players more so than professional players could ever need or deserve protection from other professional players (REGARDLESS OF SKILL LEVEL DIFFERENCES). If the Amateur Class you propose is a "garbage" division for the pro/prize divisions then you are not doing anything of value to our competitive system.

I'd like to see the players that choose to compete in the Amateur division be assured of some value for their entry, beyond the experience.



Then you would like amateurs to have unamateur motivations. C'mon people, there is another option! It is not just a weaker form of professional play; it is a noble option, an option worth our vigilance to protect, it is an unknown option in disc golf, it is the true "Amateur" option. It is not idealism, it is a necessity for our future success as a sport and the longer we put it off or treat it like an ugly third afterthought of a class the longer we will have bickering and infighting in the professional divisions.

Idealism is where you think you want to go. Realism is choosing what appears to be a doable way to get there.


But idealism is what makes you want to do what is doable to get there. ;)

OK, my post fell by the wayside with just a few responses, but no reactions to my reasonable payout for Advanced players.

Since advanced is a step above Intermediate, but a step below pro, I feel there's no need to reward them in the same scale as the pros. If Pros pay to 33%, Ams should pay to at least 50%, and maybe 67%, where Intermediate should pay to 75%, Rec should pay 100%. Everyone gets something for playing.

What the major difference in my system is, is that payouts increase as you get better, they do not mirror the other divisions. Maybe a pain to think about, but not really. Here's how it works.

Rec and Juniors
players play for, say, $12-15. For that they get a disc or a tshirt. Ribbons or some similar reward for the winners. not plastic. No money goes to the TD, this is the cost of promoting the sport. So, for this division, a DX type disc ($8-9 value) and a $3-6 "trophy". What is a $3 trophy? it's a certificate, or a tournament stamped mini (make sure you have blue, red, white, yellow, green, purple, whatever color that goes... a Blue mini is first place, red second, white third, etc. Rec players play 2 rounds on Saturday. This division is for getting players involved in the sport and creatig that positive tournament experience which is so crucial in those first couple tourneys. Awards are given out on Saturday after the second round. Players are encouraged to sign up for Intermediate if they want to play on Sunday.

Intermediates
Intermediate players also get a disc or t shirt. Intermediate players play for $20. $3 goes to the TD, $8-9 to the disc, and $8-9 towards prizes.
Payout should be 67-75%.
First gets A Champion disc, Second, A Pro disc, 3rd through whatever gets A DX disc. The top payout should be a single Champion disc, Intermediate players play on Sunday only. two rounds. This is a step up from Rec division, giving a taste of the payout, and awards are given with the rest of the payout divisions. The key is, nobody gets more than double the cost of entry, and only a few players get snubbed to allow the first and second place disc values. Rec players should also be rewarded for playing. We want them to catch the buzz.

Advanced
Advanced players play for 2 days. Their entry fees should be a step up from Rec, but not double, say, $30-35. More if a larger player pack is awarded. Advanced players get a Tshirt AND disc, or equivalent value, basically double the player pack of Int, Rec, and Junior divisions. $3 goes to the TD. $3 + $9-16 would leave $16-18 for prizes. Top advanced player can expect $60-70 in payout. Equivalent to double your entry fee. Payout to 50%. Advanced players can expect to make their entry fee back if they are in the top 25% (excluding players pack)
Advanced players play for competition, but also for moderate spoils. No huge am payouts. Ams who want more, should step up their game and play in the Pro division.

Pro
Pro players play for about 50% more than advanced. Say, $50. Payout top 33%. Pros looking to play for more can opt for a boosted pro payout, say, double. Those pros who do not opt in on this boosted payout will be paid based on the regular pro payout. This allows moderately skilled players to play for reasonable cash, but not impede on the Ams domain (they wouldn't want to anyway, since the big am payouts are no longer.) While those pros who want to play for the big prize can opt in and play for that amount too. This allows for several scenarios.

Scenario A:
30 Pro players, 12 opt in for the boosted payout.
Top 4 players are all in the payout pool. These players get the regular pro payout plus their cut of the boosted payout.

Scenario B: 30 players, 12 opt in.
One of the non boosted players places well. First gets first place money and First in Opt-in pool, Second is not in boosted, and only gets the money for the regular payout. Third gets Third place plus second place opt-in cash, Fourth gets Fourth and third opt in, etc, etc. Not a really hard concept to grasp.
Added cash:
Added cash goes to the pro divisions, since those divisions should reward good play. Added cash shouldn't simply increase the payout for that top 1/3rd, it should also be used to extend the payout deeper into the division. For every hundred added to the purse, payout should add a fictional player. May seem confusing... but..... For each $300 added cash, 1 more person may cash. Top players will also have boosted payout, as will everyone who cashes. If you raise $1000 in added cash, 3 extra pro players will get in the cash. This will make last place cash more attainable, and should increase pro attendance, since the payout is deeper. A TD who raises added cash can expect a higher pro turnout, and possibly Advanced players will play up hoping they can break into the deepened cash.

This allows for players to play for $12, $20, $30-35, $50, and $100. But the most important things that it does is to award players more appropriately for their accomplishments. Not in a bad way, but in a way that encourages players to play up. Bigger benefits for those who play against more challenging competition.

But it also creates good opportunities for first time disc golfers to try out the sport in a tournament atmosphere. Rec and Juniors can play for $12. Our gift to them. We want to get them hooked. I would even go as far as to say waiving the PDGA fee for first time players. The PDGA should waive the non PDGA fee for players entering their first tournament. We want to encourage new players to come to tournaments to grow the sport. What about this plan is unreasonable?

Money from different divisions is not funneled into the Pro purse. Advanced Players are not playing for trophies, only Rec and Juniors are.

O.k., Now I see what Jon L. is proposing. Something like this:

<table border="1"><tr><td>Cash Payout</td><td> Merch Payout</td><td> Player Packs
</td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td> Men</td><td> Men
</td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td> Women</td><td> Women
</td></tr><tr><td>Masters</td><td> Masters</td><td> Masters
</td></tr><tr><td>Juniors</td><td> Juniors</td><td> Juniors </tr></td></table> where you always have your choice of which column to play in and ratings have no bearing on where you play.

I think if the PDGA were to go that route my partners and I would go this route:
<table border="1"><tr><td>UNSANCTIONED</tr></td></table>

O.k., Now I see what Jon L. is proposing. Something like this:

<table border="1"><tr><td>Cash Payout</td><td> Merch Payout</td><td> Player Packs
</td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td> Men</td><td> Men
</td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td> Women</td><td> Women
</td></tr><tr><td>Masters</td><td> Masters</td><td> Masters
</td></tr><tr><td>Juniors</td><td> Juniors</td><td> Juniors </tr></td></table> where you always have your choice of which column to play in and ratings have no bearing on where you play.

I think if the PDGA were to go that route my partners and I would go this route:
<table border="1"><tr><td>UNSANCTIONED</tr></td></table>



What the sam hill are you talking about Bruce? By your own account that is essentially what you have been doing more or less for the last 3 years with your partners...

Nick. Settle down. You're losing it. Again.

Nick. Settle down. You're losing it. Again.



Thanks for the concern. But check the various formats you have proposed and used over the past 3 years, you have touched on nearly every point jon proposed including the further bastardization of the amateur class.

I'd like to see the players that choose to compete in the Amateur division be assured of some value for their entry, beyond the experience.



Then you would like amateurs to have unamateur motivations.

Grow up, Nick.

Giving amateurs something of value for their entry fee doesn't make them mercenaries or hypocrites. Even the USGA allows amateurs to receive "merchandise of nominal value provided to all players" (USGA Rules of Amateur Status, 3-2.e(ii) (http://www.usga.org/playing/amateur_status/rules/amstat_rules.html); see also USGA Decisions on Rule 3 - Prizes (http://www.usga.org/playing/amateur_status/rules/amdec03.html)). Are you really prepared to forbid giving players packs, complimentary lunches/water/juice, teeshirts, etc. to amateurs? Because those are most definitely items of value, the giving of which strict amateurism cannot countenance.

I'd like to see the players that choose to compete in the Amateur division be assured of some value for their entry, beyond the experience.



Then you would like amateurs to have unamateur motivations.

Grow up, Nick.

Giving amateurs something of value for their entry fee doesn't make them mercenaries or hypocrites. Even the USGA allows amateurs to receive "merchandise of nominal value provided to all players" (USGA Rules of Amateur Status, 3-2.e(ii) (http://www.usga.org/playing/amateur_status/rules/amstat_rules.html); see also USGA Decisions on Rule 3 - Prizes (http://www.usga.org/playing/amateur_status/rules/amdec03.html)). Are you really prepared to forbid giving players packs, complimentary lunches/water/juice, teeshirts, etc. to amateurs? Because those are most definitely items of value, the giving of which strict amateurism cannot countenance.



I didn't say that now did I. But amateurs do not need to have that "expectation" met like gamblers and carneys. The expectation is that the experience will be the primary reward. Players packages and even trophies are niceties at best.

You guys act as if you have never played in an "amateur" sport before... Maybe you haven't... If you have, and truly grasped the amateur motivation it should be able to even yet cut through the layers of professional motivation and be apparent to you. That is what needs to be introduced to Disc Golf and that is what will be truly worth our efforts to protect from corruption.

OK, so i go out and take my wife to dinner and Nick goes ballistic.

Value for the Amateur division means, "Thanks for coming to play today. Here's a tee-shirt for you, and coupon for a sandwich. Good luck. We hope you win a trophy."

Do you know what easing into something means, Nick? Or are you a "cold turkey" kinda guy?

If I'd have been here to defend my proposal along the way as you made attack post after attack post without DISCUSSION, I'd have said that it would probably be a good idea to introduce this method of division to all players at first, then gradually put in caps or barriers as things progress. But, the mighty Mr. Kight, who sees all, knows all, and wants to be all, couldn't stand to have a discussion.

My idea is no better or worse than anything else that has been proposed, by you or anyone else. It does take into consideration the waning pro that wants to start playing down, the up and coming advanced player that wants to test himself in the pro division, the player that doesn't care about winning a pile of stuff and wants to compete for the love of the sport. But since you seem to want to cram your ideas down the throats of everyone else, have at it.

Have YOU ever played in an amateur sport before, Nick? Or do you just wish you had and now want to cram that philosophy into disc golf. Years of this system have perpetuated the expectation of many people, and it's not going to change overnight. I have been an amateur athlete, in the days before commercialism. I was on the US Ski Team development squad in 1970 and 71, until a serious injury ended my career. We had some of our expenses for training and travel paid, but most of it was on our dime. We raced for medals and trophies and fame and glory. In 1976, the first "job subsidies" started to be seen, and now there isn't a world class athlete in any "amateur" sport that doesn't have a shell job that allows them to travel and train and that pays performance bonuses for high finishes in international events. A gold medal in the Olympics or World Cup competition is worth upwards of $100,000 these days.

So, Mr. "Pierre de Coubertin" Kight, good luck with your "true amateur" class. Those of us that have other ideas about how to ease into it will stand out of your way and watch you change the disc golf world.

Nothing anyone else proposes ever suits you. You are as offensive and arrogant as Millz, though you do spell better. I'll just keep my ideas to myself and discuss them with people that can rationally do so. Somewhere along the line, we'll come up with a better system than we have now, if you don't shoot it down first.

O.k., Now I see what Jon L. is proposing. Something like this:

<table border="1"><tr><td>Cash Payout</td><td> Merch Payout</td><td> Player Packs
</td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td> Men</td><td> Men
</td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td> Women</td><td> Women
</td></tr><tr><td>Masters</td><td> Masters</td><td> Masters
</td></tr><tr><td>Juniors</td><td> Juniors</td><td> Juniors </tr></td></table> where you always have your choice of which column to play in and ratings have no bearing on where you play.

I think if the PDGA were to go that route my partners and I would go this route:
<table border="1"><tr><td>UNSANCTIONED</tr></td></table>



Bruce,

Ratings do play a part in the Amateur Division. In my original post, I said:


Any Division may have gender- and age-based subdivision, based on current PDGA guidelines. Professional and Premium Divisions are Open, meaning that, other than age or gender, all players registering compete against each other, regardless of PDGA Player Rating or previous winnings.

The Amateur Division may use hard-capped ratings based subdivisions. This would allow for novice, recreational, and intermediate players to compete against like-skilled peers.



I should have said advanced in there, too.

I'm all for introducing some caps or ratings guidelines in there somewhere, but what I was addressing was the "pro's playing down/ams playing up and donating/some people want to only play for trophies" discussion. What if someone with good skills (950+) doesn't want to play for cash or merch, today or any day? Do you deny them the opportunity to play? Aren't they just being a "true amateur" as Nick wants? Do you have to be a lousy player to be a "true amateur?" Or is there room in the system for outstanding players to be "true amateurs?" I'm just asking.

Please suggest a hard or soft cap that would exist between Professional and Premium or between Premium and Amateur that would allow some flexibility for people to move back and forth as their game progressed or regressed. I'm all for coming up with something that will get us where we need to be, satisfying the needs of those that wish to compete for money or stuff, and those that just wish to compete for the experience.

As far as players' packs go, take them out of the equation. Any good TD will provide some non-competition value for the players, anyway, to keep them coming back.

Actually, John, your proposal is one of the better ones I've seen proposed. rWc :cool:

Nick. Settle down. You're losing it. Again.

This was in reference to Nick putting up seven consecutive posts. Seven consecutive posts might be a modern record.

Ok, now maybe I understand what Jon is proposing. Let me see if I can figure out how to table it.

<table border="1"><tr><td>Cash</td><td>Prizes</td><td>No Payout
</td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td>Men</td><td>Some Men < #### Divisions
</td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td>women</td><td> Women < #### Divisions
</td></tr><tr><td>Masters</td><td>Masters</td><td>Masters < ####
</td></tr><tr><td>Probably no juniors</td><td> juniors?</td><td> juniors
</td></tr><tr><td>No caps</td><td> Maybe caps?</td><td> ratings caps </tr></td></table>

This looks a lot like exactly what we are doing now except you are taking away the merch payouts from intermediate and rec and juniors.

You can say, "Oh they are free to play for a payout in the center column," but we all know that is a sucker bet and not a real option.

Under this format I'd be running Sanctioned Sunday / Unsanctioned Saturday tournaments like Gary does in Joliet. On Sunday I'd offer every cash paid and merch paid division for a normal entry fee. I'd offer one trophy-only sanctioned division for the three or four players that wanted that and ratings too. On Saturday I'd run the traditional merch paid lower divisions.

I'm not saying me and me only. TDs everywhere are going to offer what they and the players want regardless of what the PDGA format is. If we can't somehow pound a round popular format into a square PDGA format hole, we'd just have to go unsanctioned.

There are 133 tournaments on the Michigan schedule for 2005. You can count them yourself at www.mdgo.org. (http://www.mdgo.org.) If the average PDGA member plays eight of them, that leaves about 24 members per tournament. This is going to be an absolutely brutal market for TDs. This is not a market where they can afford to offer an experimental format that no one wants to play.

Nick usurped me again. Mine is similar to Jons, and sorta to Bruce's, but it addresses issues like:
<ul type="square"> Top pros wanting to play for more cash
Lower pros still wanting to compete, but not for insane entry fees
Ams getting merch, but not to the point of greed
Growing the sport by allowing for inexpensive Int, Rec, and Junior divisions. Starting players out with a one day format instead of a full weekend format
Allowing newbies the option of playing on Saturday or Sunday.
Allowing for distinctive benefits to move up to another division
Still allowing the TD to make money. They may have to suck up the Rec and Junior divisions a little, but will still make money on their players packs. [/list]

I like your ideas Matt. They are original and I think they address most of the issues you point out.
I also think entry fees are way too high, even this year's proposed standards. I forget who said it, but I love the idea of a Pro tournament that has $5,000 added cash and a $5 entry fee. It's not as far fetched as it seems and it's looking in the right direction.

The premise that James McCaine states is irrefutable. Paying out ams to today's standards is stagnating the natural desire to be the best. It's like giving $3 million to the winner of the NCAA Tournament, while the winner of the NIT gets $2 million. There would be no motivation to make the field of 64, you could just limp into the NIT and play for a bunch of loot.

Will anyone address my ideas? I say Player ratings aren't accurate enough to split Pros and Quasi-Pros into divisions playing for substantial entries/payouts. There is TOO much on the line these days to protect a player in a lower division based on PR. This should only be used in a Rec/low entry/flat payout tournament because of the inaccuracies.
Does anyone think my idea about splitting up Pro and Am weekends? Separating Rec and 'Am' players might entice the Recs and Ams to see the Pros compete then. TDs can give fat players packs to Recs/Ams with nice discs to fulfill the economics.

The PDGA must make a true distinction between Pros and Ams! There is not one now, and it stagnates the system. There's too many divisions with weighted-rewards.
Flattening am/rec payouts would start to accomplish this.

Will anyone address my ideas? I say Player ratings aren't accurate enough to split Pros and Quasi-Pros into divisions playing for substantial entries/payouts. There is TOO much on the line these days to protect a player in a lower division based on PR. This should only be used in a Rec/low entry/flat payout tournament because of the inaccuracies.



What is so inaccurate about ratings? Other than the timeliness of updates? I still would like to see bimonthly updates at the least.

Any other inaccuracies are the result of the TDs not doing their jobs correctly and designating the proper divisional layouts on their reports. (grumble, grumble, Temple, grumble)

Chuck has already said they are tweaking this year to help, but overall and regardless of perception, ratings aren't as bad as you seem to think.

You state these as if they are natural laws. I would suggest they are not:


Paying out ams to today's standards is stagnating the natural desire to be the best.



Not exactly true. Players will usually try to play as well as they can for the efforts they are willing to or capable of exerting toward practice. I believe people also sense when they have gotten as good as they are going to get. Ramping up the rewards for getting better will neither drive these players to work harder to get better nor might they be capable of getting much better. That doesn't mean they don't like to compete and shouldn't get returns commensurate for their efforts amongst their skill peers. It also doesn't mean they should get added cash if no one cares to pay to watch their efforts at a level lower than the best.



It's like giving $3 million to the winner of the NCAA Tournament, while the winner of the NIT gets $2 million.



No problem with that if that's what advertisers/spectators were willing to pay. This is not a socialist economy with wealth redistribution based on some appearance of fairness. It's based on the efforts of the organizers, advertisers, spectators and competitors contributions toward the rewards in a free market economy. If there's a larger pool of lesser skilled competitors in a competition, that winner is likely to earn more than the winner in a pool of higher skilled competitors paying the same fees and not getting outside funding. That is expected and still fair. The winning share of the players in the Superbowl, such as that construction worker playing one game, will be more than the annual salary of the teacher of the year.



I say Player ratings aren't accurate enough to split Pros and Quasi-Pros into divisions playing for substantial entries/payouts.



They are accurate when you consider any dividing line only prevents a player from dropping down, not from moving up. When we have justification for true pros (enough added money to sustain say 50 players on tour), they will be willing to and probably have to earn a pro card similar to ball golf. Ratings may only be part of that process to qualify for that card.

I still would like to see bimonthly updates at the least.




They are bimonthly for three of the five updates during peak season.

I still would like to see bimonthly updates at the least.




They are bimonthly for three of the five updates during peak season.



Hey, you're right.

-Mr. Ob(li)vious

Ramping up the rewards for getting better will neither drive these players to work harder to get better nor might they be capable of getting much better. That doesn't mean they don't like to compete and shouldn't get returns commensurate for their efforts amongst their skill peers.



You're a commie, aren't you.


The winning share of the players in the Superbowl, such as that construction worker playing one game, will be more than the annual salary of the teacher of the year.



Yes, but will the loser's share of the superbowl be way less than what the Dolphins get?

"You're a commie, aren't you."

Aren't we all?

In a true capitalist society wouldn't we just have an open pool and let dog eat dog winner take all? :)

Yes, but will the loser's share of the superbowl be way less than what the Dolphins get?




Take a look at the contracts and you'll see there are several players on the Dolphins who make more than several players on the winning or losing Superbowl team. The reason they get paid better is because ultimately spectators value their services. In your world, you would pay everyone on every team the same base salary for the season and dole out bonuses relative to each team's finish position. Then teams would apportion the bonuses among their players according to how each contributed to their team's final standing. That's not the real world, as fair as that may seem.

Ramping up the rewards for getting better will neither drive these players to work harder to get better nor might they be capable of getting much better. That doesn't mean they don't like to compete and shouldn't get returns commensurate for their efforts amongst their skill peers.



Are you saying people always choose money over other values? I don't even know what you do but are you the highest paid in your field? Are you doing what's needed to be the highest paid, not just in your company but in the world? Does the fact that's it's double, triple or ten times what you make drive your life? Would it make you try harder if that top number somehow doubled next year? Do you have the physical capabilities to get much better if that's relevant in your work? But, hopefully you are happy and strive to do the best job you can within the framework of your overall environment and skill set, and enjoy it when you're recognized for those efforts amongst your peers?

That's not communist, that's America.

It should be apparent to anyone who spends a month in this sport that players are not in it for the big money except those who are too young and hope it changes, or those who are delusional.

XMatt

After thoroughly (kind of) reading your plan, I think your plan plan is **** nice. It is to the current system as the Pats are to the Fish. I prefer more flexibility on how the money would be used, but the principles underlying your proposal are sound.

Whorley, I see the separation/distinction between ams/pros as being more meaningful when it is applied to tournaments, rather than to players. In other words, I see a real need to have basically am only tournies and tournies where people can win money. However, I would allow people to move freely bewteen the two. For example, the 940 rated player can play in an am tourney one weekend. The next weekend, he hears that Climo, Schultz and all the big guns are coming to town. He would love to play the tourney, but $100 seems like too much since he has little chance of making the top third. The enterprising TD realizes this and says,

"Well, how about this. We will let you play for $25 in what we are calling the base pool. Everyone must enter this pool and we will pay out the top 66%. The big boys will end up paying $75 more to enter another pool from which we will pay the top third or half."

After contemplating this proposal from the TD, Mr. 940 player says "Hey, I can only spend $25, play in the great tourney and I have a reasonable chance to win it back. I'm in!!!!!!"

The tourney draws 70 open players, even though the purse is not super high. The PDGA looks down from the mountaintop at the action below (hold on there Rhett) and sees the increased numbers at this tourney and says "Hey, those larger numbers make our sport more marketable to sponsors. We will encourage them. In fact, we will give them a fancy name such as "A or NT" since these are the best tournaments."


Additionally, the type of structure in Xmatt's proposal doesn't really require accurate ratings. In other words, noone will be getting a financial windfall from a "misleading" rating or by tanking their rating. "There's no monetary reward down there, they shout" and not being commies, they soon bust their butt to get better.

Thanks James, I don't do the bestest job of presenting the proposal, but hoped it came across well.

"You're a commie, aren't you."

Aren't we all?

In a true capitalist society wouldn't we just have an open pool and let dog eat dog winner take all? :)



Communism/Marxism is a great idea ON PAPER!

But in reality, there are people that work harder and/or are better then others, so paying everyone the same regardless of ability, skill, or achievement is ultimately unfair. And is one of the reasons for economic upheavel (sp) in communist/socialist societies.

First off, I was speaking about the share given by the NFL to the respective teams. The NFL will give a greater share to the Eagle player since even though they lost the super bowl, they still deserve a bigger cut than the dolphins.

Now to this job business. I don't know why you would want to compare the PDGA framework to real world jobs. I am decidedly a mediocre performer in my profession (engineering), partly due to intelligence, qualifications, and ambition. I realize this and therefore find it entirely appropriate that my more intelligent peer who consistently demonstates superior performance gets paid way more. I don't twist that logic and say "I am the best freaking mediocre enginner around and therefore, I am entitled to get paid more than the worst of the really good engineers.

If real life was this way, everyone would aspire to be the best of the mediocre.

My point is that because he makes more is apparently not an incentive for you to do what's needed to make more. And yet you imply that increasing the rewards for higher skill or better performance in DG will make everyone want to bust it to play better for that reason.

James, I think you are off on a few points here.

1) What will make the 'big guns' (Climo, Schultz, et al) want to travel to this tourney you speak of? They have bills to pay, gas to put in the tank, etc. and need cash to make the trip worthwhile. A purse that's not 'super high' most likely won't cut it for them.

2) I'm not Chuck Kennedy, but even I can do the math and tell you that a 'ratings bagger' that intentionally tries to keep his rating low won't get very far. Sure, he could win a tourney or 2 after 'dumping' enough rounds to drop his rating, but he will have to shoot pretty well (compared to his artificially low rating) to win those tourneys. What happens when he shoots well? His rating goes up. It's either a catch-22, or a chicken/egg scenario, depending on how you want to look at it.

One division, one champion will eventually become a self fulfilling prophesy if you stack payouts in that fashion. is there any reason that a 900ish player would travel, find a hotel, and pay $40 to play in an event where they had no chance of placing. Well some would, but not very often.

Without substantial outside sponsorship, the am divisions (more specifically, the profits made from am payouts) are required to provide a venue for the pros to compete. Even when none of the profits from am payouts are added to the pro purse, the expenses of running the tournament are paid from that pool of money.

What should happen is that the am event is one weekend, and the pro event be held on a different weekend, then the payouts would be for different events and not directly comparable. The economics would be the same except the expenses would be higher.

In this view it is in the best interest of the pro divisions to do whatever is necessary to make the ams and specifically the mediocre ams as happy about playing tournaments as possible. In any skill related competition, there are going to be a many mediocre players and a few highly skilled ones. We are in need of numbers first. If we are able to generate the numbers, the rewards for the top players will come.

Now back to the point I would like to make. Every elite player should invest a few hours a week in building those numbers by helping new or emerging players become better and enjoy the sport more. They will only be helping themselves in the long run as they increase the number of players that are showing up to play tournaments.

And my point is that society has decided that in order to produce excellent performers, it is wise to to create incentives for those who wish to excel. The fact that any individual would choose not to excel or be unable to excel is of no consequence.

And my point is that society has decided that in order to produce excellent performers, it is wise to to create incentives for those who wish to excel.



Society has created financial incentives in the activities it finds valuable for whatever reason. In other activities, it has found less or no financial value for excelling. So far, disc golf falls in the latter. Excel for your own pleasure and sense of accomplishment, not financial rewards.

Jon,

Don�t go ballistic. Tone is a hard thing to convey effectively even if you are a good writer, which I am not. I was excited with your original proposal because it seemed to introduce a �real� amateur classification. I realize now that that misconception was of my own doing (projecting my wants on your somewhat general and un-fleshed out proposal). I�m not rejecting your proposal in its entirety, just the part that creates an �Amateur Class� and treats it like an ugly sister.

Why not treat it with respect and care? Give it the proper due for a classification that very well could take organized disc golf to the next level.

I�m all about value added services for events, every larger event I have done had amenities to the hilt (catered food, spectator prizes, final nines, players packages, trophies for top 3rd of field, etc.). Mostly what I am saying, now in hopefully a more calm tone, is that we need to take care in approaching the creation of this �new� classification, and specifically how we mold and present the �expectations� of this �new� type of disc golfer: The Amateur.

Nothing bothers me more than when we �gambler/carneys� refuse to accept that a player in disc golf could have a motivation and expectation that differs from our own. Again and again and again I hear folks saying how the amateur class is just a stepping stone to the �Greater� and more �Worthwhile� professional class. That when they can compete with the top 1/3rd of the Open division that they will make the jump to pro. Now I know that they are thinking in terms of what we currently call and consider amateur, where those statements might be true, but in light of a real amateur class those comments are offensive in the extreme. Nothing is more noble or worthwhile than true Amateur Sport. Getting �paid� cheapens everything about the experience for real amateur sportsmen.

Am I talking Greek here?

So I am sorry that I upset you, I was just trying to be emphatic about a point that is very important to me, and I believe all of disc golf. The multiple posts were just in response to points in posts that followed. You can take your time in responding or not respond at all.

The main point I want to communicate is that if you start, yet another classification and set the expectation within it that it is just a class for despondent prize and cash class players with lower expectations of profiteering, then you are not actually transitioning to an Amateur class at all, if anything you are going in the opposite direction, because you are just creating one more class that �expects to profit�. So yes �Cold Turkey� is the only way to start on the right note and set the proper expectation. And there is no way you should let the corrupting influence of �no-chance cash and prize players� with their foreign �expectation of profit� into this environment; instead it should be protected as best we can manage from that �corrupting influence�.

As concerns the concern of increasing the effectiveness of our Professional Class divisional functionality: the creation of a true Amateur Classification is not so much to create yet another competitor for the same player base and entry fee dollar, but to create a COMPLETELY NEW AND SEPARATE player base and source of income.

The dysfunction of our current cash/prize divisions is that the fundamental point of differentiation is too tenuous. One plays for other players entry fees in the form of cash, while the other plays for other players entry fees in the form of cash value!?! C�mon! What in that makes you think you�ll get anything but a self-destructive competitive system? There is no natural relationship between the various divisions that can�t be easily labeled as �contrived� (i.e. Open players are better than Masters players or Open players are better than Advanced players, or you should move up when you can compete with the top 1/3rd of the next division up, or it is only "natural" to at some point want to switch playing for fun and play for plastic and then later for cash (hogwash!)).

There is simply no way under heaven to make a divisional system work when there is no REAL and easily identifiable difference in motivation and expectation for competing. There just isn�t.

So we don�t need a real amateur class so that cash/prize players have a place to go when their game sucks or they lack confidence or their pockets are empty; WE NEED A REAL AMATEUR CLASS TO CREATE SEPARATION WITHIN OUR OVERALL COMPETITIVE SYSTEM. Because then, and only then, will we have �actual� poles from which to build a meaningful and logical scale of motivation/expectation/entry fee and payout levels (not to mention opening our doors to a new brand of competitor).

So, let�s neither of us go ballistic and discount the entire worth of each other�s contributions here or out there. If that is the impression you got, then I assure you that I have carefully considered each of your points, and as stated am with you all the way up to this (for me) important point of contention (which I hope you will engage me on, without personal attacks). I have that expectation.

Regards,
Nick

And my point is that the incentives must have a basis in reality. While it is a wonderful idea that the best players receive the highest rewards, who is going to provide those rewards.

I am not going to give up entire weekends and hard earned money to donate it to a few top pros every weekend.

I know I don't have the time to practice a few hours every day (or even every week) to improve my game enough to compete at that level. I will return to what I was for years, A casual golfer with no interest in organized competition.

To carry the football example a bit further. Let's imagine that arena football catches on big and the winner in the arena league wins more than the losing super bowl team. It will be argued that the players there are just those that couldn't make it in the NFL. Should they be rewarded more than the 2nd or 3rd place teams in the NFL ?

The same is true at each level of competition where the money is generated from those supporting that level of play (in this case only the players are the ones supporting any level of play).

Each level of play is providing it's own rewards and so each level of play is deserving of those rewards. period.

What will make the 'big guns' (Climo, Schultz, et al) want to travel to this tourney you speak of? They have bills to pay, gas to put in the tank, etc. and need cash to make the trip worthwhile. A purse that's not 'super high' most likely won't cut it for them.



Good question and one the PDGA really needs to ask. I maintain that much of this madness we are currently discussing stems from the PDGA many years ago trying to create a tour where the big guns could make money/living. Well, lacking any real sponsorship, the only way to make these tourneys attractive to the big guns was to keep raising entry fees. Over time, many of the people footing the bill tapped out. Sure some new ones come in, but basically the top level of the sport (in terms of participants, not ability) has stagnated. I think the PDGA jumped the gun by many years when they set out to create a tour that would financially support touring players.

So, back to your question, I don't know will motivate those guys. I suspect that there really are not a whole lot of lucrative opportunities left for them. And, the total number of lucrative opportunities is certainly not growing in any noticable way.

At any rate, I'm not sure that this tournament would have a purse attractive enough to entice the big guns, but I think a bunch of these tournies would be good for golf as a whole and ultimately for the future Climos and Schultzes.

As regarding the tanking issue, it's probably wouldn't happen and it is not real important to me anyway. I do agree with Whorley however that in principle, ratings are not accurate enough to fairly separate pools that are playing for equal monetary rewards.

But in reality, there are people that work harder and/or are better then others, so paying everyone the same regardless of ability, skill, or achievement is ultimately unfair.



Well, except if they are Amateur Sportsmen it isn't, the reward is in the experience of competition.

But I know what you are saying, and yes, it is not illogical that players within all of our current divisional offerings have an expectation of greater reward for working harder and improving your game. It makes sense to me.

Doesn't it to you too, Chuck? I mean we are talking a top to bottom organized competitive system here, right? Not some 4some with a sidebet...

I am not going to give up entire weekends and hard earned money to donate it to a few top pros every weekend.



First of all, in my example, I tried to find a base rate that would make people feel comfortable if they lost. Kind of like the money people are content with spending at the casino, track, baseball game, bar, etc.

Secondly, I am paying out 66% in this base pool. Therefore, everyone has a good chance in this pool of getting their entry back, evn though the top payouts in this pool would obviously not entice the big hitters. That is why they enter into the big hitter's pool. Anyway, this was simply meant as an illustration/attempt to get more people playing at the highest level in an effort to increase fields and attract sponsors.

Also, didn't you day you would pay a small fee for a trophy only division with no expectation of a return if it offered a good experience?

I suspect the real outcome of Jon's proposal would be the end of the Pro class (and I include the guys who get paid in plastic in this). Basically, everyone would play Pro or Premium only if they felt they could win. Ultimately this would filter down and push everyone to the Amatuer/Trophy class. If I know the top Premiun player is going to beat me why play in that class? All those morning sign ups would ask, "who's in this class today" and then decide where to play. There would be a few who would play those top classes, but the level of cash coming in would fall.

There would be an exception, those tournaments that were well sponsored would maintain a higher level of Pro and Premium players. People would play up for the shot of winning that preset money that came in from the sponsors. It's basically gambling/market economics. If the purse is big enough to justify the risk, lower level players will play up. The number that play up will go up the bigger the purse.

Personally, I like this. I have long felt we are rushing headlong into the Pro arena. The idea that we have players who make a living at this sport is heady and novel, but is it necessary or even good for the sport? Do pro players bring in sponsorships or does the number of players we have in toto or our "cool factor?" (or even better yet, the friends and influence pool of our TDs)

James,

What was that level of entry fee that you thought most folks would opt in without care to return?

My general rule of thumb is (once I like the TD and course) about:

Non-sanctioned: $30
C-Tier: $30
B-Tier: $40
A-Tier: $50
NT: I'm a sucker, if I can just drive there, I'll pay whatever.
Major: Same as NT.

I wonder what other folks tolerance points are? I guess in cahs/prize divisions it is directly relational to expected profit.

Mine is $0-Money Back 50% of the time. (Well in the last few years of Open it was, who knows what will happen in Masters now?)

This would be an interesting bit of research to do.

OK, Nick,

So how do you draw the lines between the Divisions?
As they are now? Pro's being anyone who has ever accepted cash at any time? Amateurs being anyone who has never played for nor accepted any prizes of any kind at any time?

You have to set some limits top and bottom if you wish to avoid "corruption" and how do you do that? If people have never played PDGA competition, there are no ratings to go by. And what about the guy that won $25 fifteen years ago, has been in school, married, working, and raising a family, and now wants to come back and just play for the fun of it. Can he be an Amateur again or is he just a bottom feeder in the Professional division forever?

What I want to do is offer players some choice. If we want to limit those choices for some, fine. Just define how to limit them. And what about those people that become the bottom feeders in the Amateur division? Will there be a time when you say to someone that has become dominant in Amateur that it's time for them to move up, so there's room for those bottom dwellers to win something?

Somewhere along the line a great number of players will be dissatisfied if the division that they've been crammed into for whatever reason is no longer a fit for their ability or desire for competition. Then what happens? They leave, and we are no better off than we were to begin with.

There needs to be some vertical movement allowed, in both directions. Whether that's governed by ratings, points earned in a given time, cash or merch value earned in a given time, or whatever, there needs to be mileposts. To deny an aging pro, who hasn't cashed in 5 years, but who loves the game and wishes to keep playing, the right to play in a trophy only category is somewhat self defeating, when you talk about retention. If someone's rating has slipped from 985 to 875 because of physical limitations or inability to practice/play regularly, aren't they still an 875 player, whether they have cashed or not? Wouldn't they still compete and offer competition to other players at the 875 level who had never cashed or won merchadise or even trophies?

Offer up some solutions, Nick. Help make the system work instead of bemoaning its shortcomings.

I'm going out of town on business for several days, starting this afternoon, so this will be my last post on the matter until I return next Thursday. I am sure this will continue on quite well without me.

Sorry James,

Must have gotten your post crossed with the "amateurs don't deserve to win anything because the aren't as good as the top pros" post.

Now on your proposal. I like it, and would probably pay and play, but probably not travel for it. Then again, I might sponsor a tee sign then just spectate and photograph.

Or like the USDGC do all of the above at full price, but I am not your average golfer, just average in ability.

I don't see why the base pool at that level couldn't be like the glamour spots in ball golf events. The entry fees are reduced, and you are not really in the competition, just playing the same course at the same time. You know that you are donating, but you get to play the event and get treated like a competitor.

is there any reason that a 900ish player would travel, find a hotel, and pay $40 to play in an event where they had no chance of placing. Well some would, but not very often.



Yes, I would and I think many others would! The problem is the current scenario, where the tournaments that most people travel to these days have entry fees of $75, $100, $125 or more. No 900ish player would travel, find a hotel, and pay these kind of entry fees to play in an event where they had no chance of placing.

Now if the entry fee was $40 for these tournaments, which could be considered "greens fees" and may include a nice player's package of a collared shirt and a tourny hot-stamped disc, I'd travel and play all the time, even if I had no chance of cashing!

I was quoting AM2 or AM3 pricing at $40, for Advanced or Pro a comparable value would be $65 - $100.

but ROI is what it is all about. If players are getting an adequate return for their investment, they will play. If the tournament is inexpensive and provides a great players pack, it will probably do well. I have always supported a purely flat payout (players packs) for the Rec divisions with trophies for the top three (or top 10% whichever is larger).

The bottom line is, at the end of the day , under any format you can dream up, the td needs to have a big pile of money.

He's paying $300 - $400 to the PDGA for being allowed to run a sanctioned tournament. He's paying $100-$200 to the trophy girl. He's giving the pros all their money back, just keeping it warm and dry and changing the sizes of the piles. The park often wants a fee for park use or pavillion rental. Sometimes the td has to get insurance. Most of the time the TD needs to make about $8 to $10 per player just to cover his expenses.

Any format you come up with has to stand up to the TD tests: Can the TD make enough money off this format to cover his expenses so that offering some other unsanctioned format isn't far more attractive? Will this format be more attractive than the unsanctioned tournament on the same day so that the players will play it and not the unsanctioned tournament?

I think Jon's format fails the second test in Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin.

I am an Amatuer disc golfer.

I am forced to compete for other people's entry fees and against players whose reason for playing is to take my entry fee.

I don't want to do that but I want to compete in organized competition.

Joe Shmoe and Jane Shmoe 850 rating that plays for profit has a safe place to play.

Joe Shmoe and Jane Shmoe 910 rating plays for profit and has a safe place to play.

Joe Shmoe and Jane Shmoe 950 rating plays for profit and has a safe place to play.

Joe Smoe 1000 plays for profit and has a safe place to play.

When these Joes and Janes get older, every ten years they get to play in yet another place for profit that is safe to play.

Why am I not given a place to play safely from those seeking profit?

Why am I not given a place to play safely from those seeking profit?




The PDGA doesn't itself provide anyone a place to play. It's up to TDs to do that within the structure provided by the PDGA. There are examples of successful (and less successful) low entry fee events all over the country. It's not the fault of the PDGA if your TDs do not choose to offer them. Besides the specific option for TDs to offer low fee, truly amateur events, they can also offer the 'trophy only' half fee option within the merch divisions. What more do you think the PDGA is responsible for doing short of hiring TDs to run the events you prefer?

What more do you think the PDGA is responsible for doing short of hiring TDs to run the events you prefer?





Promote and encourage Amatuer competition as much as they do for-profit competition.

I have seen charts and graphs made up giving TD's requirements on the profit that all the current divisions are entitled to.

Each year for-profit players are given more options so that it is easier for them to profit.

Let's face it, the PDGA caters to for-profit players and hardly acknowledges the fact that there are lots of poeple out there that want a true amatueristic place to play.

These players exist, I refuse to beleive I am the only one or that I am one of very few.

Children who wish to play competitive disc golf are forced to gamble their parents or their lunch money to play competitive organized disc golf because the PDGA promotes and encourages this type of structure.

Besides a blurb or two here and there on the message board, offering true amatuer style events under PDGA sanctioning is not even mentioned in PDGA documentation and for sure is not encouraged. If a TD wishes to run an event such as these he has to figure a way on his own to make it work without losing a mortgage payment and still staying under the guidelines (which were laid out for for-profit players at events).

I guess I ask that the PDGA BOD give more attention, detail, promotion and encouragment to true amatuer competition.

The PDGA has taken several steps to reduce the payouts in the past few years. Examples would be flatter and deeper Am payout tables including this year, including player packs and CTP value in the payout percent calculations, adding the 'trophy only' option within the merch divisions, holding the line on acceptable entry fees. Some TDs 'undermine' these efforts by paying out more than they need to according to the guidelines for each tier.

It starts with your local TDs hearing from the players to lower entry fees or by more players taking the 'trophy only' option at events. If the TDs don't believe the lower fee events will be accepted, no amount of prodding on the PDGAs part will change things. Two items the PDGA should consider is to not fix the 'trophy only' fee at exactly 50% of the regular Am fee and let TDs choose an even lower number if appropriate. The other item I notice is that free lunches, which are a regular part of events in some regions, are not included in the valuation for the event payout for some reason. Including that would also reduce payouts.

I would love the choice and opportunity to opt for 'trophy only' at a reduced rate.

What say you Texas TDs (Himing, Gimp, Vinnie, Mace, Moody, etc.)? Are any of you planning on offering this option to competitors at any of your events this year?

Have any of you ever offered it?

I am an Amatuer disc golfer.

I am forced to compete for other people's entry fees and against players whose reason for playing is to take my entry fee.

* * *

Why am I not given a place to play safely from those seeking profit?



I was an amateur who felt the same way. So was my brother. We also did not like the idea that 1/3rd of our entry fee was being raked off the top and paid to other divisions. There was one TD who took more like 2/3rds out of the divisions we played then at his unsanctioned tournaments.

So we got off our lazy tushes and started running events we want to play.

This year the PDGA format includes that a TD may offer a reduced entry-fee no-payout option. If you cannot, for any reason, run a tournament like the one you want to play, you could get together with the other Texas players who have expressed a preference for no-payout competition and start a petition that this be made mandatory in 2006.

Also, at every tournament you go to, ask the TD how much the True-Am entry fee is for your division. Since it is in the format documents and the TD may have seen it and forgotten the details, you might finesse a TD into offering it.

There is a problem with me trying to run an event like this(or any other event). The Texas schedule has too many tournements on it already, I would not want to add to the problem.

A trophy option is nice but only if it is the beginning step to seperation between ams and for-profit players. My hope is to one day compete in a division that is truly amatuer, not opt in for 1/2 price to play for-profit players whose mindset is geared toward profit off everyone elses entry fee.

I can see that the PDGA has taken steps to flatten payout and allowed TD's to claim CTP's and player packs out of entry fee in a way to reduce profit for non-pros. If these are steps to the end goal of having all non-pro players gradually moved to a true am structure over time then I am all for it.

Seperation between for-profit players and Amatuers is what I want to see. If it takes a few years to get to there then I can understand that. If that is not the end goal then it needs to be imo.

In actuality I think a TD could make good money in a trophy only tournament if he/she ran it right.

1. Clean slate, I charge $10/player and only give out a trophy to the winner and two discs to number two and one to number three. To make it easy I use a ratings based sytem, 950 and above, 900 to 949, 825 to 900, and below 824. Total cost $4 to 7 per disc and since I don't know the real cost of trophies, lets assume it's $15. Total costs, $60 for trophies, and max $84 for discs. With 50 players I've got $500 coming in and thus clear about $350. Of course to get players to come in I have to offer some incentives, CTPs, lunches, a keg (for between rounds) etc. As with all things the TD has to chose a balance between profit and perceived benefit. For this example lets say the TD spends $250 on incentives and lunch and then clears $100.

2. Sponsors. In this case the TD gets off his butt and gets some sponsors. No money (these kinds of sponsorships are much easier). He/she gets Dairy Queen to provide lunch (all of his $150 for lunch goes back into his pocket) and gets the local sports store to donate some merch (the $100 for CTPs goes in his pocket plus he got $200 of merch from the store so his CTP value goes up).

Now she's maxed out her benefit at $350 plus if she can get other prize donations she saves more on the prizes and can pocket that money too. Because he has no payout in cash he can keep the money and try and replace it with merch.

This is exactly what they do at running events and some of those generate a lot of revenue. Furthermore, the more sponsorship items you get the more players that want to come. Think about a tournament with Lunch, CTPs on 1/2 of the holes played, very nice trophies, a keg between rounds, and maybe even a T-shirt, all for 10 or $15. I'd play that in a heartbeat. Furthermore, the more savvy the TD the more money he/she pockets or donates to the local club or charity.

For those that think this is a reach, what do you think Chris was doing at the Texas 10? He kept his prices low $25 -$35 (I think higher for Pro) and split out some winnings with the rest going to charity. He got high numbers of players by having a frosty cool one and a great lunch that he busted a hump to get through sponsorship. If Chris had been about making money and not being a good human being think about what he could have put in his pocket.

Offer up some solutions, Nick. Help make the system work instead of bemoaning its shortcomings.



Great merciful heavens!?! Maybe Chuck was a sneak and didn't allow my competitive structure get discussed along side his at the last summit. Anyhow, I will consider your thoughts and questions and present them here for you again. I too will be busy watching my Eagles win the Super Bowl this weekend.

Have a good one.

I am starting to think about running an event like this one, if for no other reason than to see if it will work. It might take a year to get it all together but we will see. :)

O.K.

So I naively forgot about the PDGA, the park and insurance, on the other hand, you can see where I'm going... I think...

What was that level of entry fee that you thought most folks would opt in without care to return?

I'm not James. Are you asking at what price players will opt out of the payout or play trophy-only? Would it be impolite for me to answer? [Because Nick and I are always polite with each other!]

My experience is that most amateurs' net opt-out price is about 1/3 to 1/5th the full entry fee price. Define net opt-out price as entry fee minus perceived value of of the player pack. I would expect very few players to bite on the 2005 IOS 7 True-Am entry fee, but we are supporting the PDGA experiment by sticking to the PDGA set price.

For pros I have used an opt-out price of 1/3rd the entry fee so that the opt-out players are contributing something to the purse. Usually two or three pros will pay the opt-out price, and usually they tell me that otherwise they would have stayed home and cut the lawn, or gone to the beach, or played the $5 doubles league. None of them have ever said, "If you did not have a trophy-only price I would have donated $45 and played anyway."

Among the many other strange-format events I ran last year, I ran two "Chinese-menu" tournaments. In Advanced you had your choice of four entry fees ranging from $10 to $40. This is how it worked in Advanced:<table border="1"><tr><td>$10</td><td> $10</td><td> $20
</td></tr><tr><td>Mandatory</td><td> Optional</td><td> Optional
</td></tr><tr><td>Points-Trophies-Ctps</td><td> $15 value player pack</td><td> $40 in prizes added to your division</tr></td></table>This turned out to be an accounting challenge. The women helping with registration vowed to do evil things to me if I tried this format a third time. My Sunday payout volunteer said it was too difficult for him to do if i was going to play on Sunday, unless I was going to make him a fill-in-the-blanks form with instructions.

Anyway, I had players of every kind. Some players played both days because they could afford to with $10 entry fees. Or they paid full one day and played up for cheap the next.

This was funny: One guy paid $10 to play and turned down the "$10 gets you 15 Funny" player pack option and then bought a $14 disc for cash.

Of all the tournaments I'm not running in Michigan this year, that is the one I'll miss. :(

<table border="1"><tr><td>Entry Fees</td><td>$500
</td></tr><tr><td>Expenses</td><td>$500
</td></tr><tr><td>Net</td><td>$0
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Item</td><td>Cost
</td></tr><tr><td>Park Permit</td><td>$300
</td></tr><tr><td>PDGA Sanc/Ins</td><td>$100
</td></tr><tr><td>PDGA $2 Fees</td><td>$100
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

Hey, you can break even if you don't have any trophies! :)

Great merciful heavens!?! Maybe Chuck was a sneak and didn't allow my competitive structure get discussed along side his at the last summit.



Remember that Bruce wasn't there except via telephone. Second, the competition system discussion didn't make the agenda until I pointed out to Theo that we had our proposals, so we got squeezed in. Both proposals were displayed on the whiteboard for discussion.

One key hanging point between our proposals seems to be whether players who play as True Ams have to remain pure and never play for merch. Or said another way, can those who usually play for merch (or even pros) sometimes play as True Ams?

Nick, and it appears Scott, seem to think there needs to be a separation. I'm not sure the Board and myself see the need for this. I think a better case needs to be made for why this separation is needed. For example, one issue is what to do with the Am Worlds? Do the merch folks get the current version and another 'true Am' Worlds for those pure of motive would be created? Why can't the merch folks play together at the Am Worlds with the True Ams?

The separation I proposed was to require PDGA membership to play in any merch Am divisions and not require it (still $5 nonmember fee) to enter the true am divisions. This would prevent bagging in the merch divisions because most players in those would have ratings. Nonmembers would only be welcome to enter the low entry fee, low prize divisions since they couldn't poach for merch without being a member with a rating. At least in this approach, most new players would get to play in their first event with a low entry fee and perhaps be less discouraged if they didn't place.

I like that idea, but I'm still trying to do the math on the payout.

<table border="1"><tr><td>Entry Fees</td><td>$500
</td></tr><tr><td>Expenses</td><td>$500
</td></tr><tr><td>Net</td><td>$0
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Item</td><td>Cost
</td></tr><tr><td>Park Permit</td><td>$300
</td></tr><tr><td>PDGA Sanc/Ins</td><td>$100
</td></tr><tr><td>PDGA $2 Fees</td><td>$100
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

Hey, you can break even if you don't have any trophies! :)



Too true, on the otherhand, with the correct structure and the right sponsors it could be lucrative. I will spare you a set of made up numbers. Also, I don't think the park fees are the same across the country. California is warm but durn expensive. :)

When I say seperation I was more talking about seperating divisions. I dont think a good solution is to have trophy only players and prize players actually competing against each other at the same tourney.

As far as seperation of Pro and true am, I think it is needed. Pros should not be able to move freely between amatuer and Pro divisions regardless of rating.This is where the old "petition for reinstatement to Ams" rule should be put back in place.

I am all for Pros(below a certain rating) being able to move freely back and forth between pro and prize, whether plastic or paper their motives are the same.

As far as Prize players moving freely between prize divisions and Amatuer divisions, to be honest, I am just not sure yet but something tells me that it should be allowed.

Am worlds could easily be the place where there is a comprimise. Cap the prize winnings, beef up the Player Packs, add more to the non-tangible stuff and let prize and Am play together.

As far as Prize players moving freely between prize divisions and Amatuer divisions, to be honest, I am just not sure yet but something tells me that it should be allowed.

Am worlds could easily be the place where there is a comprimise. Cap the prize winnings, beef up the Player Packs, add more to the non-tangible stuff and let prize and Am play together.




That seems to be where most people I discussed it with fall on this topic. I believe Nick seems to favor full separation but the case to support that hasn't effectively been made yet.

I didn't make 'em up. :) $10 a head times 50 players. Sanctioning is about $50, insurance is $50, $2 a head times 50 players is $100. And park permits really are that expensive out here. We got jobbed out of about $760 for permit fees for the SoCal Championships last year.

Oh, and $15 dollar trophies are not what anyone would call "killer" unless you have someone donating a lot of labor and all you have to do is buy raw materials. Believe me, I've bought a lot of trophies the last couple of years. Usually $300-$500 for a typical mix of divisions and 90 players.

I do agree with Whorley however that in principle, ratings are not accurate enough to fairly separate pools that are playing for equal monetary rewards.

The problem isn't that ratings are not accurate in principle; the problem is that in some cases, the data set is too small to ensure that the scores which comprise the data set used to calculate a player's rating are representative of a player's actual ability. So, for example, a player who has played only a single tournament when his/her rating is calculated, and happened to shoot one hot round, is likely to receive a rating significantly higher than what his/her should be based on his/her "normal" level of play. (So, e.g., Robbie Dunn (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/player_ratings_history.php?PDGANum=23585&year=2004), whose initial rating of 975 was based on a grand total of four rounds played on his home courses (the tournament consisted of two rounds played on each of two courses), one of which was a tournament course record -13 (a 1042 rated round); he shot 7 shots worse on second round on the same course but still tied for low score that round.)

Assuming that a player continues to compete in sanctioned tournaments, however, over time, a player's rating, like water, will seek its own level, as the sheer number of data points in his/her calculation base begins to average out anomalous scores.

e.g.[/i], Robbie Dunn (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/player_ratings_history.php?PDGANum=23585&year=2004), whose initial rating of 975 was based on a grand total of four rounds played on his home courses (the tournament consisted of two rounds played on each of two courses), one of which was a tournament course record -13 (a 1042 rated round); he shot 7 shots worse on second round on the same course but still tied for low score that round.)



Actually on the same course I followed up that 13 under with a 3 under...... 10 strokes worse....... but who's counting :D

Now I thought it was pretty cool for my first rating to come out at 975...... but I realized it wasn't a true representation of my "game". Since then I've played an additional 13 tournaments and my rating has leveled out around 950.

Seperation between for-profit players and Amatuers is what I want to see. If it takes a few years to get to there then I can understand that. If that is not the end goal then it needs to be imo.

If separation between professional (cash and/or merch) and amateur (trophy only) players is the goal, wouldn't both groups be better served by separate, parallel [N.B>: parallel, not competing] organizations that cater to their own particular needs and concerns rather than a single organization that attempts to cater to both?

That could quite possibly be the best thing, but that is a huge stretch to think someone could pull that off in the near future with the blessing of the PDGA. I'd rather see it all worked out under this org.

We barely have enough volunteers to guide one org, let alone two!

Exactly.

Great merciful heavens!?! Maybe Chuck was a sneak and didn't allow my competitive structure get discussed along side his at the last summit.



Remember that Bruce wasn't there except via telephone. Second, the competition system discussion didn't make the agenda until I pointed out to Theo that we had our proposals, so we got squeezed in. Both proposals were displayed on the whiteboard for discussion.

One key hanging point between our proposals seems to be whether players who play as True Ams have to remain pure and never play for merch. Or said another way, can those who usually play for merch (or even pros) sometimes play as True Ams?

Nick, and it appears Scott, seem to think there needs to be a separation. I'm not sure the Board and myself see the need for this. I think a better case needs to be made for why this separation is needed. For example, one issue is what to do with the Am Worlds? Do the merch folks get the current version and another 'true Am' Worlds for those pure of motive would be created? Why can't the merch folks play together at the Am Worlds with the True Ams?

The separation I proposed was to require PDGA membership to play in any merch Am divisions and not require it (still $5 nonmember fee) to enter the true am divisions. This would prevent bagging in the merch divisions because most players in those would have ratings. Nonmembers would only be welcome to enter the low entry fee, low prize divisions since they couldn't poach for merch without being a member with a rating. At least in this approach, most new players would get to play in their first event with a low entry fee and perhaps be less discouraged if they didn't place.



You ask some terrific questins here Chuck and I hope to get a chance to address each of them sometime this weekend. In general though my answer is:

Merchandise Players can not compete with Amateur Players at the Amateur Worlds because they are not Amateurs.

More later.

Specifically to "Why do we need a more significant separation between the pro and amateur class?"

I'm interested to hear other folks take on this question too. Does anyone else even really think about it, good or bad?

We really need to have a sit down about this I think. Any of you guys going to the Mid Nationals or Pro Worlds? Let's try to sit and chat on it one of the evenings. I am confident we would get light years further along than we are using this shakey medium...

When I say seperation I was more talking about seperating divisions. I dont think a good solution is to have trophy only players and prize players actually competing against each other at the same tourney.

As far as seperation of Pro and true am, I think it is needed. Pros should not be able to move freely between amatuer and Pro divisions regardless of rating.This is where the old "petition for reinstatement to Ams" rule should be put back in place.

I am all for Pros(below a certain rating) being able to move freely back and forth between pro and prize, whether plastic or paper their motives are the same.

As far as Prize players moving freely between prize divisions and Amatuer divisions, to be honest, I am just not sure yet but something tells me that it should be allowed.

Am worlds could easily be the place where there is a comprimise. Cap the prize winnings, beef up the Player Packs, add more to the non-tangible stuff and let prize and Am play together.


I am more or less in agreement with Scott here other than letting prize players into the Am Worlds, particularly since some of them might be pro cash players (according to you own example Scott). The Mid Nationals would likely be prize class players Worlds IMO. Really they would see little if any change from the way it is right now other than they would not be labeled amateurs anymore, and not receive protection for cash players of the exact same skill level range.

Amateur Nationals would likely have adult and educational level based divisions and champions from each country would then meet in an Amateur Worlds, similar to other amateur sports that aren't hobbies like bowling, poker and windsurfing (no insult intended, they just don't seem to fit the mold of sport). The likely numbers for such a classification would dwarf that of the cash and prize classes.

And the separation would be to protect these Amateurs from the sports professionals, this too like other major sports.

This is not strange to me. The only thing that is strange is that it is so to seemingly so many disc golfers. I wonder why? Seriously, I do. I mean they must have some experience of amateur sport, right? Whether in college, high school, middle school or through community groups, I find it hard to believe that they have no knowledge of the thrill and purity of amateur competition. I still crave it!

I am more or less in agreement with Scott here other than letting prize players into the Am Worlds, particularly since some of them might be pro cash players (according to you own example Scott).



That would not happen due to the fact the prize players who have accepted cash in a pro division have lost their right to play in amatuer majors(just like it is now). Those players should have to petition the PDGA for reinstatment into Amatuer in order to be eligible to ever play in an Am Major agian just like a full fledged pro would have to.

I am more or less in agreement with Scott here other than letting prize players into the Am Worlds, particularly since some of them might be pro cash players (according to you own example Scott).



That would not happen due to the fact the prize players who have accepted cash in a pro division have lost their right to play in amatuer majors(just like it is now). Those players should have to petition the PDGA for reinstatment into Amatuer in order to be eligible to ever play in an Am Major agian just like a full fledged pro would have to.



I see. But do you understand my point about protecting "sanctity" of amateur sport and not just the appearance? That having players with pro mindsets intruding on the competitions of players with amateur mindsets would really be a violation of something very special and worth our protection?

I'd be ok with this being a transitional option so long as there was a plan to phase it out at the end of 3 or 5 years at which point players would have to choose between being a Cash/Prize Pro or an Am.

Being an amateur should not be synonimous with being a bad player, or not good enough to play in the cash or prize divisions, it should be a noble undertaking based on principled adherence to the fundamental spirit of Amateur Sport. May sound corny, but it is so true.

I see. But do you understand my point about protecting "sanctity" of amateur sport and not just the appearance? That having players with pro mindsets intruding on the competitions of players with amateur mindsets would really be a violation of something very special and worth our protection?




I absolutely understand and whole-heartedly agree. I just feel that true amateur divisions in disc golf have to be proven to work, even though a lot of us believe it will, before the nay sayers would even consider that option.

Amateurs should play with other amateurs only, but because of many years of our current "amateur" system, I just don�t foresee cold turkey being accepted (this includes an upfront plan to separate or eliminate the prize class). At this point in time I feel prize and Am just can't be separated, even though it probably should. Once True Amateur competition is proven to be accepted and work with disc golfers then I feel the right steps can be taken to either phase out the prize class all together or completely separate true ams from the prize/pro class.

Being an amateur should not be synonimous with being a bad player, or not good enough to play in the cash or prize divisions, <font color="red"> or those strapped for cash </font> , it should be a noble undertaking based on principled adherence to the fundamental spirit of Amateur Sport. May sound corny, but it is so true.

I see. But do you understand my point about protecting "sanctity" of amateur sport and not just the appearance? That having players with pro mindsets intruding on the competitions of players with amateur mindsets would really be a violation of something very special and worth our protection?




I absolutely understand and whole-heartedly agree. I just feel that true amateur divisions in disc golf have to be proven to work, even though a lot of us believe it will, before the nay sayers would even consider that option.

Amateurs should play with other amateurs only, but because of many years of our current "amateur" system, I just don�t foresee cold turkey being accepted (this includes an upfront plan to separate or eliminate the prize class). At this point in time I feel prize and Am just can't be separated, even though it probably should. Once True Amateur competition is proven to be accepted and work with disc golfers then I feel the right steps can be taken to either phase out the prize class all together or completely separate true ams from the prize/pro class.



Seems reasonable, though I don't think prize divisions ever need to be phased out, just melded with perhaps a set of skill based pro divisions. Not necessarily the skill breaks we have right now though, but something similar. TDs could run them with whatever divisions they want though starting out. I don't think the new Amateur Class need be a requirement at PDGAs anymore than Prize or Cash Classes are; just a requirement within our overall competitive system. Hopefully real Amateur Only events would start popping up all over the world (mainly within interscholastic sport), but with the PDGA ready and willing to offer organizational structure and support: Points keeping, posting results, promoting, etc.)

Hey! I can dream can't I?

But I think we are more or less on the same page here. Which is a great relief for me...

We barely have enough volunteers to guide one org, let alone two!

The unexamined assumption behind this statement is that there are no amateurs who will step forward to lead an amateur-only organization. Whether there are or aren't is simply unknown. The paucity of "true amateurs" participating in and/or volunteering to help at tournaments currently is questionable grounds from which to infer what might be the case with an organization dedicated primarily, if not exclusively, to the needs and concerns of "true amateurs" because one cannot know whether that is the result of lack of interest in organized disc golf per se or lack of interest in becoming involved, either as a participant or a volunteer, in a "professional" disc golf event, or, not to put too fine a point on it, lack of interest in being associated with what is perceived to be the culture of organized disc golf, be it the PDGA or the local club scene.

We barely have enough volunteers to guide one org, let alone two!

The unexamined assumption behind this statement is that there are no amateurs who will step forward to lead an amateur-only organization. Whether there are or aren't is simply unknown.



we already have a bod that is made up of some ams....
brakel,calhoun,theo,for sure are ams and i'm not sure about lyksett or wertz...so either 3,4,or 5 of the 7 are ams

Lyksett, Wertz and Chapman are Ams. Pete May is the one elected Pro (Sr. GM). But Hoeniger (MPM) and Stork (MPG) are Pros who participate with the Board.

thanks chuck....i thought chapman was a pro master from kc....but i knew that guru and stork also dealt with the bod but WERE NOT on it....which is kinda the point i think fore was originally trying to make,thinking that most of the people we hear about are pro's but it really is the other way around....
if were not careful they may make the pro division trophy only and funnel all the cash to the ams to even things out for the past :D..

They are "Ams" in what sense of the word? Are they "True Ams" or (i'll steal this from Nick) "WWCC Ams"?

I have been out of the discussion for a few days, but in lieu of, I had a few "profound" thoughts.

There will not be a lot of true professionals, until we can get major corporate sponsorship at tournaments and for the players. The sponsorships would have to be enough money for example to let all 1000 rated players to tour full time. These sponsorships would need to add enough cash to the tournament (like the NT events) where all the pros were at least making their money back. If I remember correctly, even the last place golfer at a major PGA tournament gets some money. But right now, with as infantile as our sport is, there is only enough money out there to allow a handful of players to tour full time, heck only top 30-40% cash at a tournament. Most have full or part time jobs as well as disc golf. If there are touring full time Jet Boat racers, then someday there will be touring full time disc golfers in large numbers.

Until then...I think dividing the tournaments into two divisions (not including age protection) of Open and Amateur will foster better "professional" players. I believe this was mentioned earlier with three divisions, but I suggest just two.

The Amateurs would have a capped entry fee, say $10, something low enough to get a lot of people involved and out to play, but will allow the TD to cover sanctioning costs, and trophies to the top three placers in Amateur.

In Open, lower the entry cost to not deter all the currently displaced advanced players. The added amount of people to the new Open division would allow for more people to cash. Say at a typical B-tier tournament you have 20 Open players and 30 Advanced. Well 7-8 Open players would cash and 10 advanced players would win merch. Combine these two groups and you would have 17-18 people cashing. And a lot of advanced players are currently beating Open players. The open division would play for cash only. (Buy your own merch).

Because the only real reason for people who are good at this game to stay Amateur, would be due to NCAA eligibility restrictions, and that lasts 5 years TOPS. Sure moving the advanced players up to Open would hurt them in the short term, but most of them probably never cashed in their first few advanced tournaments from moving up from Intermediate. In the long term, having 920 rated players getting beaten by 1000 rated players would only entice them to practice harder and get better.

Open Divisions (Men and Women separate)
Open
Masters
Grand Masters
Etc...

Amateur Divisions (Men and Women separate)
Open
Juniors
Masters
Grand Masters

Women can compete in the Mens divisions, if they choose or if there were not to be enough women to open a separate divsion.

The words �career advanced player� need to be erased from the disc golf vocabulary. Either you are playing this game for fun (Amateur) or you are playing to compete (Professional). As I mull over this discussion more and more, I am having a hard time trying to justify a middle ground between an Amateur and a Professional. I think it is time to phase out advanced. Just because somebody is not as good as a Climo, Shultz, Korver, etc, does not mean that they are not good enough to compete professionally. And I am tired of the elitism of �Open players�. I do not know Kenny or Barry, and I have briefly spoken to Juliana, and while she does not feel this way. There is a good number of Open players who think that they are �better� then the amateurs, and will get upset if an Amateur is playing in their group. (This happens in unsanctioned events). And if a 1000 rated player were grouped with a 930 rated player they would only be together for the first round, the scores would separate them. Golf is a personal mental game, just because someone in your group is doing worse then you, it should not affect your game because you are actually in the same division, with my proposed system.

While I can not assume to know underlying motivations for why Brakel, Calhoun, Theo, Lyksett or Wertz compete as begin "Amateur" or not, I can state as factual that there is no place within the PDGA Competitive System for an "Amateur" to compete purely for "Amateur" motivations. And this is where we fail in my opinion. In this inappropriate view and application of what an "Amateur Sportsperson" is and is not. It is what causes 99% of all inter-divisional conflict and animosity (dysfunction). And there is much much more that it does, but for the moment I tire of restating it. (Don't worry though, that won't last... :D)

Steve Wertz resigned. Mr. Decker, his successor, is an amateur.

Brian Hoeniger is a non-voting member of the board. Dan "Stork" Roddick is a non-voting paid consultant who is invited to participate in Board meetings. They are both classified as pros by the PDGA.

Although I was not physically present in Augusta and could not see the whiteboard, Nick and Chuck's proposals had been circulated by e-mail so I understood what was going on. I had one or both of them open in front of me on my laptop.

I think the PDGA would do better to create a true professional division rather than a true amateur division, if it were going to attempt to mandate a major change in the way tournaments are offered. This is the PDGA after all, not the ADGA.

In the true professional division the minimum C-tier payout would be 200%. Since this would eliminate tournaments with piddling amounts of added cash, advanced would be capped at 955 and there would be an "amateur open" merch-paid division above that.

Obviously this idea would be unpopular with all the pros who are not really pros, but I don't think it would be unpopular with the TDs or the true pros. Any TD who wants to run the pro divisions could simply save the cash he is making by not running B-tiers, and run a pro event from time to time.

This idea is about as seriously thought out as Jon L.'s idea, but at least I can blame the fact that I'm feverish with flu, and laugh it off later.

Until the fever breaks, explain why this would not work for our TDs?

The unexamined assumption behind this statement is that there are no amateurs who will step forward to lead an amateur-only organization.


Maybe you ought to do some examining before you make such assumptions. I truly believe the "ADGA" would be more than fine, and that the Pro end would be left wanting.

While I can not assume to know underlying motivations for why Brakel, Calhoun, Theo, Lyksett or Wertz compete as begin "Amateur" or not, I can state as factual that there is no place within the PDGA Competitive System for an "Amateur" to compete purely for "Amateur" motivations.

I disagree completely.

There is nothing in the Rules, the Tournament Sanctioning Agreement, or the players code of conduct that requires an amateur to accept his/her prize winnings or prohibits him/her from donating it to the local club, the TD, the last place finisher in the Novice division, or to any other player or cause whom he/she cares to choose. The fact that it doesn't happen with any regularity under the current competitve structure and the fact that the current system does not promote amateurs declining their winnings have no bearing on whether or not there is a place for true amateurs in that structure.

There is nothing in the Rules, the Tournament Sanctioning Agreement, or the players code of conduct that requires an amateur to accept his/her prize winnings or prohibits him/her from donating it to the local club, the TD, the last place finisher in the Novice division, or to any other player or cause whom he/she cares to choose. The fact that it doesn't happen with any regularity under the current competitve structure and the fact that the current system does not promote amateurs declining their winnings have no bearing on whether or not there is a place for true amateurs in that structure.





Because someone chooses to not accept there winnings doesn't change the fact that they are playing with a division full of people who don't have true amatuer motivation.

True Amateur competition is about EVERYONE you are competing against playing for the competition. It is not amatuer when the majority of players you are competing against are playing for profit. There is a big difference and I hope people will realize that.

The unexamined assumption behind this statement is that there are no amateurs who will step forward to lead an amateur-only organization.


Maybe you ought to do some examining before you make such assumptions. I truly believe the "ADGA" would be more than fine, and that the Pro end would be left wanting.

Um ... maybe you need to bone up on the difference between an assumption and an implication. :D

Scott wrote:
Seperation between for-profit players and Amatuers is what I want to see. If it takes a few years to get to there then I can understand that. If that is not the end goal then it needs to be imo.



I wrote:
If separation between professional (cash and/or merch) and amateur (trophy only) players is the goal, wouldn't both groups be better served by separate, parallel [N.B>: parallel, not competing] organizations that cater to their own particular needs and concerns rather than a single organization that attempts to cater to both?



You wrote:
We barely have enough volunteers to guide one org, let alone two;



the implication being that both groups would be better served by a single organization catering to both rather than two parallel organizations, each catering to its particular constituency.

The rejoinder that there are barely enough volunteers to staff one organization, much less two, is only probative if one assumes that the bulk of the volunteers for the second organization will come from within the ranks of the existing organization; that is, it does not forsee the possibility that the volunteers for an ADGA might be drawn largely, if not exclusively, from outside the PDGA's constituency.

A recurring theme in the posts in this thread is that the PDGA should also cater to "true amateur" disc golfers. The prior question, which has not been addressed, is why the PDGA, given its limited financial resources and extremely small volunteer base, should spread its resources and its volunteers even thinner by attempting to be all things to all people rather than concentrating the substantial bulk of its energies and resources on its core constituency, i.e., professional disc golfers, be they cash- or merchendise-professionals. To say that there aren't enough volunteers for two disc golf organizations doesn't even begin to address that question.

Because someone chooses to not accept there winnings doesn't change the fact that they are playing with a division full of people who don't have true amatuer motivation.

A person's integrity ought to be measured, not by the motives of others, but by the quality of her own actions.


True Amateur competition is about EVERYONE you are competing against playing for the competition. It is not amatuer when the majority of players you are competing against are playing for profit. There is a big difference and I hope people will realize that.

I take it, then, that you consider Tiger Woods to have been a fraud when he won his second and third US Amateur Championships in 1995 and 1996 because he had earlier competed in the Masters and the US Open both years (and when he won his first US Amateur Championship in 1994, for that matter, since he made his debut on the PGA Tour at the 1992 Nissan Los Angeles Open)? Do I take it that you consider people who compete in local tournaments that pay out cash or merch professionals? Do I take it you would prohibit a "true am" from ever "playing up" either to "test the waters" or if there weren't enough "true ams" at a tournament to constitute a division?

[sarcasm on]
In 1930, Bobby Jones won the British Open. The winner's purse that year was 500� which, being a so-called "amateur"�so-called because, having just competed in a professional tournament against professional golfers playing for profit, his claim to be an amateur was nothing more than sanctimonious hypocrisy�he declined.
[sarcasm off]

I take it, then, that you consider Tiger Woods to have been a fraud when he won his second and third US Amateur Championships in 1995 and 1996 because he had earlier competed in the Masters and the US Open both years (and when he won his first US Amateur Championship in 1994, for that matter, since he made his debut on the PGA Tour at the 1992 Nissan Los Angeles Open)? <font color="red">He was not a professional at the time. </font> Do I take it that you consider people who compete in local tournaments that pay out cash or merch professionals? <font color="red"> Well according to most sports, taking cash for anything related to the sport you play would be cause to remove a persons amateur status </font> Do I take it you would prohibit a "true am" from ever "playing up" either to "test the waters" or if there weren't enough "true ams" at a tournament to constitute a division? <font color="red"> Nothing wrong with testing the waters. As I said above though, in other amatuer sports accepting cash for anything related to the sport they are playing is cause to remove their Amatuer staus. </font> [sarcasm on]

In 1930, Bobby Jones won the British Open. The winner's purse that year was 500� which, being a so-called "amateur"�so-called because, having just competed in a professional tournament against professional golfers playing for profit, his claim to be an amateur was nothing more than sanctimonious hypocrisy�he declined.
[sarcasm off] <font color="red"> He did not and had not ever accept cash, therefore he was still an amateur.

Becasue there was a player at these events that was an amatuer does not make those events amatuer events, that was my point. A true amatuer division would be made up of ONLY amateurs. Thanks for helping me make my point. I think we just got our lines crossed on what we were talking about.

Sometimes I am just in awe of the fact that such a conversation like this one can even take place.

"The sun shines at night.
No, that is not correct.
Yes, it is, and you are dumb."

"Motivation" IS WHAT MAKES A PERSON AN AMATEUR SPORTSPERSON OR NOT (PERIOD).

And this is why organized amateur sport in disc golf does not exist other than in the hidden noble motivations of many players (most of which I would guess are in What We Currently Call the Professional Class...)

This is amazing. What is the world coming to when night is day? How could so many folks seemingly have no conception of "Amateur Play"? I mean, did none of you play sports in school or in a community group? Don't you remember? Or is this just a fained ignorance in an attempt to keep your bankie?

This is not in reply to Nick's post, although I'm taking the position that the sun does shine at night. Nick's post was merely convenient for hitting, "Reply."

As to whether 955 is an appropriate ratings point for players who have previously taken cash to decide to play for prizes, I took a look at the five October 2004 B-tiers. At those events you had to play 958 golf to win in Advanced. You had to play 953 golf to cash in Open. The average player rating of the last cashing spot in Open at those tournaments was 951.

The 952 rated pro who does the math in advance will be saying to himself, "Do I want to play advanced where on average I'm finishing second or Open where on average I'm last cash?" Most of them went pro because they figured they could play well and cash. That is still true. I don't think we'll see a lot of 952 pros dropping down to play advanced. However, if they do drop down to play advanced and win, with the next ratings update they most likely will be 955+ and then the option is closed.

I think this rule will be good for the 300 or so pro men rated below 910. I'm not too worried whether the 75 950+ rated advanced amateurs now no longer have an easy time in advanced.

I mean, did none of you play sports in school or in a community group? Don't you remember? Or is this just a fained ignorance in an attempt to keep your bankie?


They promised us ice cream or pizza if we won. That makes us pros, 'cause we were only in it for the food.

950 player debating,

C-tier event with small turnout. (midweek event)

Pay $50 with no chance of winning anything, but maybe getting to play the first round with a top pro (If any come)

Pay $35 with a chance of winning.

(I did cash at my last PDGA event on this same course, B-tier with 75 pro's)

Right now, I am leaning towards playing Advance just because I can. It may be a while before I get to play another PDGA event. (I can't wait until next year when I will be playing Pro Masters with never looking back)

I think I may save the extra $15 bucks. (this tournament is only about 7 miles from my house)

Do well. Let us know how you did if some 950 advanced player doesn't come after us with his milking stool (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=312630&Main=312242#Post312630) first.

Great merciful heavens!?! Maybe Chuck was a sneak and didn't allow my competitive structure get discussed along side his at the last summit.



Remember that Bruce wasn't there except via telephone. Second, the competition system discussion didn't make the agenda until I pointed out to Theo that we had our proposals, so we got squeezed in. Both proposals were displayed on the whiteboard for discussion.




I sure hope that this wasn't the manner in which the decisions to get rid of ratings based events, the Pro 2 division and the widely derided rule to allow Pros to play in the amateur division was handled. I would hope that usually, competition system changes or new proposals are sent in Powerpoint or Word form to each BOD/Summit member months before the Summit so that they can be slowly digested and considered, and not just squeezed in at the end of an agenda and roughly slapped up on a whiteboard for discussion.

This letter or post is to address the PDGA and the governing body of the PDGA.

I will make no bones about the fact that I do not agree with the �pros playing am divisions� in the sense that it is set up now. The basic fact that a person who chose to commit to play the pro division is in itself a decision that has to be upheld by the individual and the PDGA Board. That person knew that he/she would be making a commitment for the rest of their career to have to play by the set rules and regulations of the PDGA. That person, whether or not they were winning or just �cashing� in the highest level of the AM divisions, made a willful choice to do what they did. That person and the PDGA Board must honor, accept and enforce that decision. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about that decision, that person made it and it must be accepted.

Now with that said, I would suggest that the Board go back and look at many of the previous post on the DISCussion board and come up with a compromise to this action. There needs to be a new plan that takes into account the �pros� that want to be allowed to play am again and the AMS that will play the AM division for most if not all of the rest of their careers. I also think that is should be a vote not by just the board but by the whole membership of the PDGA.

I will agree that the AM division is not a true Amateur division because we play for �prizes� that can be valued at hundreds of dollars, but, this is the structure that the PDGA set up and it is the structure that needs to be adhered to for now. This discussion should not be about the �prize� structure of the divisions, but about the meaning of, or in this case the meaning as it has been set forth by the governing body of the PDGA.

One of the primary reasons of the PDGA is to help the sport grow by getting more casual players to play and to encourage more participation in tournaments at the local level which in turn helps the state level and ultimately helps the national level. It is called growing from the �grass roots� up. What has happened in the past couple of months has been in effect a �yard job� or the cutting of the grass at too low of a level. This is my opinion and several others. When you allow the pro�s to come �down� and play the AM division, then you have the AM�s who do not have the ratings of the division they are �trying� to play in move back down to their �rating� division, and thus you have a domino effect backwards. This means that true intermediate�s will now play intermediate and the recreational players that play intermediate will move back down and play the recreational division. And thus you now have new players playing once or twice only because they don�t want to get beat by �seasoned� rec�s. I do understand that the �PRO�s� in this case might have the �rating� of the AM player, but that is not the reason for them to play that division. This was the reason that the PDGA set up the PRO 2 division. This was a division for those that could not yet compete with the upper echelons of the pro ranking. The reason that I heard and saw that this division did not work was not that players did not want to play it but that TD�s did not offer it because it meant more work. I do not play many tourney�s, I am more of what people call a weekend warrior, but in all of the tourneys that I did play in, not one of them offered the Pro 2 division, these were A,B, and C, tiers. So now we have �pro�s who cannot compete and it is not that they are at fault here, but the PDGA in not enforcing a division that should be offered. I do know of some tourneys that did offer this division, but they were few and scattered throughout the country.

Here is my suggestion on how the PDGA compromises on this issue:
1. Allow �pros� to play in the AM division only if the division that they qualify for does not �make�.
a. If they play the AM division then they can only play for trophy, ratings and points only, no prizes.
b. Their entry fee is returned by at least �, ie..deduction of PDGA fees, players pack, trophy cost, misc. expenses.
c. They retain their �PRO� ranking and thus can work on bettering their rating without compromise.
2. Allow �pros� to regain their AM ranking by following these steps:
a. If they play the AM division then they can only play for trophy, ratings and points only, no prizes.
b. Their entry fee is returned by at least �, ie..deduction of PDGA fees, players pack, trophy cost, misc. expenses.
c. If, following one year of playing as an AM, no pro divisions, they then have won an automatic petition for regaining AM status from the PDGA board.

These are my thoughts, I believe that this issue will not go away. I also look back at some of the threads and posts and see more posts against this new rule then for it. If this is the case then you might, and I say might, see more of a back slide of the membership leave then come in.

I have worked days on this post as not to offend anyone in anyway, I am sure that I will, but I have tried not to. I also write this and ask the following, to not to try and berate this post or my thoughts. It is not here for your amusement but for you to ponder the possible outcomes of what might be or could be.

I am going to post this on a couple of threads, so please understand that I want as many people seeing this as possible.

Hey Dan!




I do not really care how I am paid out, as long as I make a good return. Obviously if I paid $30 to play, won and got a $5 trophy, I will be ticked off.



And therein lies the problem.

It is amusing, bemusing, and a tad disgusting, the attitude and culture that has been cultivated from years and years of a merch heavy competition structure.



I have to disagree with you there. This is not a disc golf attitude problem. If I pay $30 to enter a poker tournament and get a $5 prize in return for winning I'd be a little ****** too.

Unless it was stated up front that 90% of my entrance fee was being used to pay for the free drinks, girls from Hooters serving wings, and 'entertainment' in between rounds. Or something of that nature.

But, in our wonderfully capitalistic society, if you pay X number of dollars to enter a competition, it's perfectly reasonable to expect significantly more than X number of dollars in return for winning that competition.



Your boy ever play in any sports tournaments? Or competitions?

How much did he (you) pay? What did he get?

Hank, we pay around $200 (after the normal fundraiser things) for Pop Warner. Little league is less than that, but not much. In return, he gets a trophy. Sometimes we can keep the practice shirts/jerseys.

I don't think that can compare to DG tournies tho. For one, he is 8 yrs old. Plus, I am talking about months worth of entertainment, not a couple of rounds of golf.

As far as junior DG competition, I think they should be trophy only, with everyone receiving a healthy players pack. Juniors playing for prizes (plastic) based on finishing position is a no-no if you ask me.

But that's just juniors.

Okay Dan, it's certainly a tough comparison, and one that isn't apples to apples. I don't have any Litttle leagues, but I have Ultimate tournies, Paintball tournies, road races, triathalons, 3-on-3 tournies, racquetball tournies, and homebrew competitions. I compete in all of them and get next to nothing physical for my entry fee.

I guess the fact remains that I think $30 is a fair price to participate (and receive nothing tangible in return regardless of performance) in an organized sporting competition. It is obvious that there are a fair number, including yourself, that disagree. As stated, I simply find this amusing and sad. And perhaps more germane, I find it detrimental to organized disc golf.

I'm not saying I completely disagree with you, Hank. If it's stated up front what I'm getting then money is no object if I feel the price is right. Especially if there are Hooters girls close by.

Look at my stats, you'll see that I used to spend $30 or more for not much tangible in return all the time.

I guess the fact remains that I think $30 is a fair price to participate (and receive nothing tangible in return regardless of performance) in an organized sporting competition.


The problem I have with this is that the $30 is only the beginning. The cost of travel is now a big consideration for me. Then there is the cost of additional entries for wife and son (maybe a second son). There's food for four, lodging for four, drinks for four, snacks for four, etc. So I'm spending over $200, probably more, to play in a disc golf tournament with no return? I doubt I'd do that. I can play weekend doubles and compete or travel about an hour to play in another disc club's doubles for far less and use that money for something else.

The bottom line is, if changing the structure and payouts of disc golf tournaments is such a great idea, why hasn't the PDGA done it? Because they know they would lose competitors.

I have no problems with trophy only, but for a LOW entry. For juniors, a player's pack and trophy is fine. I guess I'm not a true amateur, or sportsman, or whatever, but why should I travel and spend money to compete for nothing? I can do that at home or travel to another course and meet some locals and play with them. Just another opinion. rWc

Hey Russ,

I travel like you do, with family. But I know that even if I took first in a big advanced field (which I've never come close to doing) it wouldn't cover my expenses.

I go to tourneys because they are fun. Tourney expenses (entry, gas, lodging, food) are entertainment expenses for me. I think it's worth it even if I don't merch, and I plan my trips with "not merching" in mind. :)

The bottom line is, if changing the structure and payouts of disc golf tournaments is such a great idea, why hasn't the PDGA done it? Because they know they would lose competitors.




I enjoy this logic. I also like the imbedded assumption that that the PDGA has some record of healthy growth, especially when compared to the growth of disc golf in general.