Nick and Dan recently posed questions to me.

Nick,

I'm going to respond generally to your questions. I believe that there are members who want to remain "pros", and those who want to remain "amateurs". The current policy encourages a new type of player who can take advantage of both groups. There is a cynicism right in the grain of this that disturbs me.

I also believe that if you've won money, you should leave the prizes and trophies to the amateurs. I want there to be room at the bottom to encourage the newer players, and also to encourage the more experienced players who have decided that they aren't cut out to compete with pros.

I have nothing against pros competing with ams, but I don't want them to gain anything except points. Perhaps we could have them pay a reduced entry fee as compensation for not being in the hunt for prizes and trophies.

Dan,

Most serious posts are so quickly inundated under piles of irrelevancy that I don't have time to sort through it all for the "good stuff". Not even on my own thread! Lots of folks just like to be noticed, I guess.

I don't mind all that much. If posting can be such a source of entertainment and satisfaction, why not let them do it? Nobody is forcing us to read it all, and there are other effective ways to communicate seriously.

Thanks Peter,

So you see nothing inherently wrong with amateur divisions getting payouts just like the pros (based on amount of entry fees and added sponsorship, to the top 50, 40 or 33%) often at very comparable levels of cash-value (easily converted to cash)?

Or, you don't see this as a "Bunching" problem? Meaning since there is no amateur class (or pro class if you prefer) all of these divisions are just ever slightly lesser versions of the Open class but essentially the same; so they are "Bunched" together all competing for the same players, entry fees and purse dollars?

I appreciate your candor.

Regards,
Nick Kight

Nick,

No, there must be a clear difference, or the bunching problem you note would leave the amateurs out in the cold. The best way to do this is give the professionals privileges, and also associated obligations. The privilege we have given is that the pros play for a higher "cash value" than the ams. The obligations have been that a) they don't play for amateur prizes, and b) they have to be willing to play against the best players in their age group.

This seems to me to be an effective distinction.

Age has been demonstrated to be a poor way to group players in our sport for competitive reasons. It has only persisted as a 'valid' way to group players for social and traditional reasons. Those are certainly valid and comfortable ways to group non-professional players. But if we're talking about true professional play, it should truly be Open to all ages like the USDGC. In the case of the Champions Tour in ball golf, which is age restricted starting at age 50, it has validity because spectators still care to watch their aging stars, some who still compete frequently in regular tour events. If there weren't spectators for those players, those events wouldn't exist anymore as pro events. Those guys might still gather to play each other for cash which, of course, is essentially the way our pro divisions mostly operate now by just swapping money amongst ourselves.

If age was truly valid for DG true pro competition, then there should be breaks every five years including between 20 and 40. Otherwise, these players should feel a level of discrimination. Our World Champs seem to consistently be over 25 so those 20-24 year olds are apparently too young to have the skills and should have their own group right? And the way Barry and Ken are still playing, the 25-29 year olds still look like they need to age a little more.

If it sounds nonsensical to do this, you're right, but purely at the top true professional level. I'm all for age divisions below the top, but we shouldn't be getting added cash unless it's an age specific event like the Master Nationals which is somewhat like a Champions Tour event in BG.

Once we recognize our current age divisions are all non-professional in the conventional sense, the distinction between whether some win cash versus cash convertible merch doesn't seem to make sense. So, if those players are playing at the same skill level, why should they be separated so TDs have to host more smaller divisions?

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.

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.



They ARE playing by the set rules and regulations of the PDGA. The rules and regs just changed that's all. :p BTW "career": haaaah ha ha ha ha ha ha

Why don't people understand: THERE IS NO PRO AND AM IN DISC GOLF TODAY. They are just labels, and they are meaningless. There is no "decision to turn pro". In disc golf yesterday and still today, it is simply a progression of skill level: Rec-Int-Adv-Pro. Or as it was: Nov-Am2-Am1-Pro.

Maybe one day there will be pros and ams, but not any time soon. Until that time this new rule is just a better way to ensure that people are playing against others of similar skill level.

It's just astonishing that people can get so hung up on LABELS and not see the truth for what it is. :confused:

The truth is that we are all Pros when you get down to it.

If you plan to win more than your entry fee in value, you are playing for profit.

I am really surprised that this discussion is still going on. After all, players are going to play in the divisions they want to play in regardless of what the PDGA states. I would imagine that the <955 rated Pros playing Am ruling will affect me the greatest. Considering the PDGA calls me a Novice according to my rating and I play in MA1. However, all that this new rule does is let the lesser skilled pros play down to their skill level. Which your skill level sometimes is not truly represented by your player rating. A lot of these Am's on this board are worried that there will be "sharks" that come down and steal their prizes. But the people these Am's are worried about are already playing "up" in the Open. It is the same as me playing in novice or MA2. Even though my rating says I can play in these divisions. But when I ask players in these divisions if they want me to move down, they freak out and say NO! But I am not moving back down, I am playing Advanced golf, and will stay in Advanced untill I am playing Open golf. When I am playing open golf, my rating may or may not match, but either way, I will be playing better then the advanced players and they would not want me in their division, nor would I want to be.

Basically all it is doing is making it easier for people to move back down to Am instead of petitioning the PDGA. They still have to petition to become a full Am again, but at least they will be able to play with people of the same skill set. Regardless of what their ratings say.

Age has been demonstrated to be a poor way to group players in our sport for competitive reasons. It has only persisted as a 'valid' way to group players for social and traditional reasons. Those are certainly valid and comfortable ways to group non-professional players.


Oh, it has? Seems to work well in educational institutions, doesn�t it? Seems like there are quite a few sports, that when the need arises, a professional �Masters� division is utilized, and not just for social and traditional reasons either ($$$).

If anything, Chuck, skill is the �least� appropriate way to delineate �Professional Divisions�, where the best are supposed to compete against the best based on �Greater reward�. That is the what is supposed to drive players desire to compete in the top divisions, but as we all know that has been undermined by everyone wanting their �fair chance at winning�, and �why should we support a division we don�t (have to) play in�. Those are motivations of �Ratings Based� or �Skill Based� competitions, and appropriately so; but they are the exact motivations that undermine a competition where it is desired that all the best players play together. It also undermines the economic side of the equation by taking entry fees and sponsorship away from the division where the �best� are supposed to be competing.


But if we're talking about true professional play, it should truly be Open to all ages like the USDGC. In the case of the Champions Tour in ball golf, which is age restricted starting at age 50, it has validity because spectators still care to watch their aging stars, some who still compete frequently in regular tour events. If there weren't spectators for those players, those events wouldn't exist anymore as pro events. Those guys might still gather to play each other for cash which, of course, is essentially the way our pro divisions mostly operate now by just swapping money amongst ourselves.



So you raise the �Economic� card. OK, so what if any reason would a spectator have to see statistically �proven� inferior players such as are found in any but the top ratings division? Masters as it stands today has arguably some of the best players in the world in it, and in looking at my region (a fairly large one) the number of Masters players will soon outnumber the number of Open players. Therefore if the �economic� factors were to be a major consideration for the PDGA in setting up their competitive structure, they would do well to perhaps lean even a little more towards supporting the Master division than in the past. (Add to this that folks over 40 do the majority of organizing in disc golf and it seems clear that �economics� are on the side of the Master division even more so than the Open division and certainly more than any �Skill Protected� divisions.


If age was truly valid for DG true pro competition, then there should be breaks every five years including between 20 and 40. Otherwise, these players should feel a level of discrimination. Our World Champs seem to consistently be over 25 so those 20-24 year olds are apparently too young to have the skills and should have their own group right? And the way Barry and Ken are still playing, the 25-29 year olds still look like they need to age a little more.



Well according to the �economics� there are no need for such further subdivision of our �Open� division. Age has been found to be an appropriate delineation at the age of 40 (a few of whose reasons I now fully appreciate), and not at age 25, or 30 or even 35.

You see Chuck, I have actually played in the Open divisions since 1989. That�s 16 years. If I had to guess at my lifetime rating in it (since they only started (in part) in 1998 or so) I�d say that I was likely a 980 golfer. Right on the edge of cash at most events and occasionally shooting hot and getting deep into cash and even winning every blue moon. When I got to within one year of Masters the PDGA changed the Masters age to 40 from 35. At the time it didn�t really concern me, cause I still had some tread on my shoulder, knees and ankles, so I stuck with it in Open, learning more and more to focus on �doing my best�, �not giving up�, �enjoying the company and courses� and less on being a �contender�, because if I focused solely on the latter I would have quit the sport long ago.

Disc golf represents probably one of the only examples of participants actually �looking forward� to turning 40! It didn�t hit me until last year, and then I couldn�t help feeling giddy that soon I�d be playing with all my buddies who had moved up to Masters over the last 10 years, slowly leaving me as the elder statesmen with the �pack of babies� (I�m just kidding, though I think you know what I mean). I am really looking forward to this year in Masters, for any number of reasons; and hey, I didn�t hide out my last years in Open, biding my time, I played in 21 PDGA events last year in Open. If anyone in the PDGA has a right to say they paid their dues, you�re reading his words right now.


If it sounds nonsensical to do this, you're right, but purely at the top true professional level. I'm all for age divisions below the top, but we shouldn't be getting added cash unless it's an age specific event like the Master Nationals which is somewhat like a Champions Tour event in BG.



I think that you are telling us to ignore some pretty significant �economic� and �member demographic� numbers with that statement Chuck. And be careful what you ask for; I foresee over the next 10 years the emergence of more and more age protected professional events, series and championship events. It only makes sense when you consider who will have time to play the game and who currently is playing the game, particularly on the �professional level� (which I would argue is currently �EVERYONE� in organized PDGA disc golf).


Once we recognize our current age divisions are all non-professional in the conventional sense, the distinction between whether some win cash versus cash convertible merch doesn't seem to make sense. So, if those players are playing at the same skill level, why should they be separated so TDs have to host more smaller divisions?



I�ll tell you why Chuck, because it is a horrible idea to mix �Skill Based� divisional competition and �Age Based� divisional competition. Believe me, we in the MADC have tried just about every variation and they are �Oil and Vinegar�. You may satisfy the needs of one group with Skill Based divisions, but you are guaranteed to NOT meet the needs of others. And if I were to have to decide which were more important on the level of �Professional Competition� I would come down on the side of �age protection� every time, because where it fails in comparison to �skill protection� is at least hazy; �skill protections� failure is crystalline (Why pay out pro purse to certifiably inferior players, particularly when at the exact same competition, better players are not getting any award for better play?).

Now you may correctly ask, am I defending the Masters division, or age protection, because it now serves my own purposes? Well, I could ask the exact same question to you in defending the Pro2, Pros Playing Am, and Ratings Based options. The point is that they just �do not� work together. I know this, I think you know this (Mid-Nationals), we have to stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and admit once and for all that they don't; and (sorry Peter) the challenge is even larger than just the �Skill vs. Age� conflict, the far greater challenge, clearly for me, is the total and complete lack of a true, fully protected and valued Amateur Classification. (Therein lies the fundamental instigator of 99% of our divisional dysfunction.)

Those are the 3 main issues of serious dysfunction within our competitive structure.

Lucky for us folks are pretty tolerant and stick with it in spite of these many challenges� Why? Because disc golf is simply a great game. But the sooner we stop relying on that and make a competitive system that functions logically and for the benefit of the sport as a whole (not just feuding factions), the faster we will reach our greater goals of mainstream acceptance and greater sponsorship.

(not proofread, but not intended to upset or hurt anyone�s feelings, particularly those investing all of their self-worth on proper spelling and grammar)

As seems to be the case elsewhere, you're arguing against something I'm not against. I AM ALL FOR AGE DIVISIONS PLAYING FOR AND WINNING CASH. These can be called 'pro' to make people feel better even though they are truly semi-pro divisions. It's providing an organized way for a bunch of similar aged players to do group wagering amongst themselves. That's a fun and social experience I enjoy as much as anyone but don't mistake it for a way to make a professional living.

My whole discussion was whether our true pro divisions (men and women) should be the only ones getting added cash. We barely get added cash today as it is in our sport and our only true pros are essentially our road warriors. There's no justification for added cash to any age or ratings protected division with the exception of major events specifically catering to those groups.

Long live the Grandmasters!

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.


If that's the result of the "pros playing am" change, yahoo! The solution to the problem you present here (new players beaten by "seasoned" recs) isn't to go back not allowing pros to play in am divisions, and thus steering those "seasoned" recs up to intermediate. I'd say the solution is to add a "novice" or "beginner" division on to the bottom of the scale for those under-800 and new players.

I think the domino effect is what the PDGA is after in this whole deal...working toward a top to bottom scale of progression and digression available to all players. Pro-2, while noble in its effort, accomplished only one thing: dilluting competition by adding yet another division catering to the same level of players.

This new step streamlines the divisions, which in my opinion is a fairly good thing to do. The last hurdle in the way of it being very streamlined is the pro-am distinction. Either they need to get rid of it altogether, change it to a qualification-only status, or make the process to regain amateur status easier and more forgiving.

IMO, the only downside to the current process is that taking cash (even once) and becoming "pro" disallows players from participating in an Am major. Those "pros" who want to make the permanent move down into the Am ranks again still have the option to petition the PDGA for their am status, but the results aren't iron-clad guaranteed.

Between suggestions I've read here and some of my own thoughts, here's a plan that might make the whole transition easier:

1. Declare this year or next year an amnesty year in which everyone's pro-am status is wiped clean.
2. Make all divisions ratings-based (including a hard line between Pro and Advanced).
3. Allow players to go to any division for which they qualify by ratings.
4. Taking any pro cash during this amnesty year constitutes relinquishing amateur status. Always playing am divisions, or playing the pro division and declining cash constitutes being an amateur.

The amnesty idea is intended to remove stigmas and labels that have their basis in our flawed system of the past. And with the amnesty, there is no need for the ridiculous label/rule set entitled "Pros playing Am". That label alone (and the stigma it produces) is what seems to put the hair across most people's rear-ends.

The hard line between pro and advanced will push certain players to challenge themselves at a higher level rather than hang around in advanced waiting to go to an Am major. For 955+ rated amateurs who want to remain amateurs, they will have the choice of paying full pro entry (donating) and declining any cash they might earn or paying a reduced pro entry and competing for trophy-only.

Above 955 amateurs would be allowed to play the Am majors, of course, as well as in amateur-only events that would offer a special 955+ division (also open to players who want to move up for the day to challenge these guys).

So tournaments would be offered as any of these three types (excluding age based divsions for the purpose of simplicity, they'd still be available):
<table border="1"><tr><td>Professional</td><td>Pro-Am</td><td>Amateur-only</td><td>Ratings definition
</td></tr><tr><td>Pro</td><td>Pro</td><td>Open</td><td>955+
</td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>Adv</td><td>Adv</td><td><955
</td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>Int</td><td>Int</td><td><915
</td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>Rec</td><td>Rec</td><td><875
</td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>Nov</td><td>Nov</td><td><825</tr></td></table>

Just some thoughts...
--Josh

i don't want to get caught up in the circular debate on this topic but have one question for bruce,terry,or others "in the know"-
what was the logic behind denying trophy only competition to pros playing am?

it seems more sensible to me to allow them the same options as others OR to allow them ONLY trophy only competition.

As seems to be the case elsewhere, you're arguing against something I'm not against. I AM ALL FOR AGE DIVISIONS PLAYING FOR AND WINNING CASH. These can be called 'pro' to make people feel better even though they are truly semi-pro divisions. It's providing an organized way for a bunch of similar aged players to do group wagering amongst themselves. That's a fun and social experience I enjoy as much as anyone but don't mistake it for a way to make a professional living.



Chuck, I believe that you are confusing the word and concept of �Pro� with �Open�. They are not one and the same. A �Professional� is a �Classification� of players who plays for �profit�. �Open� is a �Division� of players of all skills and age, where (hopefully) all of the best players compete. To say that the Masters division is �Semi-Pro� is like saying Women Open is �Semi-Pro�. �Semi-Pro� is a �skill based� qualitative description and has no baring on �age based� divisions, based on being �Open� to all who are within a certain �Age Group� irregardless of skill level.


My whole discussion was whether our true pro divisions (men and women) should be the only ones getting added cash. We barely get added cash today as it is in our sport and our only true pros are essentially our road warriors. There's no justification for added cash to any age or ratings protected division with the exception of major events specifically catering to those groups.



Yes, according to �Your discussion� and understanding only the top Open division should get added cash because they are in your opinion the only �true professional division� (the rest are �semi-pro�). But I do not accept this mixed bag of nuts understanding, where we dabble at creating divisions based BOTH on �Skill� and �Age� as a determining factor in what is truly �Professional� and what is �Semi-Professional� (let alone �Amateur�).

We have �truly� �Professional� divisions, they are based on the premise of providing a competitive arena for the best players in:

Open
Women
Masters
Women Masters
Grand Masters
Women Grand Masters
Senior Grand Masters
Women Senior Grand Masters
Legends
Women Legends

These divisions within the �Professional Classification� are �Open� to all within those �gender� and �age� groups.

Skill based competitions, whether via ranges or handicap divisions, are inappropriate for �Professional� play. (I figure that�s why your Mid-Nationals, other than making some dough, is basically treating this like (what we currently call) an �Amateur� event).

To be clear, I am all for your Mid-Nationals and Semi-Pro divisions; I do see a need and a place for them, but not necessarily within the Professional or even the Amateur Classifications which I would like to see be significantly and clearly different from each other AS WELL AS these Semi-Pro divisions.

Being a professional does not mean play for 'profit' alone. It means attempting to make a living at a profession. I might play poker with buddies for cash and that's not professional. I do hope to make a profit but it's mainly gambling.

Most of those entering our age based professional divisions (and Open for that matter) are not truly pros. They are semi-pros, minor leaguers or gamblers. The fact that added cash is placed in Master is why the few older travelers who can make a living on the road like Hammock play Master instead of Open. He would likely play Open if the added cash was not added to Master. We don't yet have formal qualifications for becoming a true pro, but reaching 1000 rating comes close to a de facto requirement, for men at least.

Once you're dealing with players below the true pro level, then anything goes for creating competition divisions. Use skill, use age, use height, use weight and gender is already used. Skill is the only 'fair' way to do it. But if people like the method, such as age for social reasons, then it's valid, especially if players enjoy it, and it's supposed to be fun isn't it?

Getting people to play in their correct rated divisions is a good thing, not a bad thing. Often people who are playing in a division way above their rating only get out to 1 or 2 tournaments per year...even if they don't realize the reason.

You keep saying in your post, Paul, that the PDGA can not change who is eligible to play amateur or can not change the payouts for PDGA events. In reality the PDGA CAN change these things and already has. This is what the PDGA does, it regulates our sport by creating/changing rules and policies.

I would suggest that the PDGA does not pay attention too much the chatter on the message board as it does not represent very many members. It MIGHT represent their opinion, but only by coincidence.

We seem to be having this conversation in several places so I'll just say this:

There currently is "NO MARKET" (as concerns spectators or sponsors) for our Open divisions. Not MENS and certainly not WOMENS; so we rely solely on players to fund our events for the most part. Yes even our National Tour (hence super high entry fees).

Of course it would be best if Jim Myers, Joe Mela, Craig Gangloff and other highly skilled Masters aged players had the proper motivation to play in Open (which for professionals is �profit�, same unfortunately in WWCC amateurs); where the money was just so much better that it was a �no-brainer� to play Open. Unfortunately that is NOT the situation we operate under, and it is not because of �Semi-Pros� or �Gender� or �Age� protected divisions (which actually populate our membership ranks far more than open does); that is dictated by our lack of sponsorship, which is dictated by our lack of spectators, which is dictated by our lack of enthusiasts, which in MY OPINION is dictated by our lack of a true, thriving and foundational, AMATEUR CLASSIFICATION. Without that we are all left to compete for the same pool of money, same pool of players, and all for the same exact motivations �PROFIT�.

Until we address this fundamental flaw, we are just going to be disparate factions all vying for our slice of the same minimally expanding pie.

I'm not going to split hairs with you Chuck, regardless of the apparent lack of a coeherent definition of pro or amateur within organized disc golf, we know what it is, and what it isn't.

No Nick, we must cater the system to the newbies. We will attract them by offering easy financial rewards for their minimal efforts. Hopefully, they will become addicted to our system and call all their friends about how easy it is to profit at this "sport." This is how you attract true competitors. I mean, the statistics bear this out. Just look how many competitors fought it out at the top of our sport 20 years ago and compare it to today.

^^^^Tongue firmly planted in cheek. :D

Of course it would be best if Jim Myers, Joe Mela, Craig Gangloff and other highly skilled Masters aged players had the proper motivation to play in Open (which for professionals is �profit�, same unfortunately in WWCC amateurs); where the money was just so much better that it was a �no-brainer� to play Open. Unfortunately that is NOT the situation we operate under, and it is not because of �Semi-Pros� or �Gender� or �Age� protected divisions (which actually populate our membership ranks far more than open does); that is dictated by our lack of sponsorship, which is dictated by our lack of spectators, which is dictated by our lack of enthusiasts, which in MY OPINION is dictated by our lack of a true, thriving and foundational, AMATEUR CLASSIFICATION. Without that we are all left to compete for the same pool of money, same pool of players, and all for the same exact motivations �PROFIT�.



ahem - proper motivation for me Nick is knowing that everyone who SHOULD be in my division is REQUIRED to be there when entering a sanctioned competition. Currently they are not. I've told you a hundred different times that money is not a motivating factor for me personally in competing - so if you want to stick to that argument (that money/profit) is the reason driving people to play - leave me out of it.

i don't want to get caught up in the circular debate on this topic but have one question for bruce,terry,or others "in the know"-
what was the logic behind denying trophy only competition to pros playing am?competition.

I don't think that the wording of the rule reflects what was discussed. There are four permutations here:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Am playing trophy only</td><td> Pro playing trophy only</td><td> in
</td></tr><tr><td>a</td><td>b</td><td>Pro Division
</td></tr><tr><td>c</td><td>d</td><td>Am Division</tr></td></table>We intended to allow c if the TD chose to offer it, and to not make a rule regarding a and b. I don't recall that d was discussed.

By the way, just for a little perspective on this issue, 2005 will be the fourth consecutive year in which the PDGA has allowed pros to play for prizes in amateur divisions. There have been 16 tournaments over the last seven years in which pros have played for prizes in an amateur divisions. Last year, in addition we experimented with allowing amateurs to play for prizes in one pro division without consequence to their am status.

All we did this year is put the first idea in the standard format.

� our lack of sponsorship � is dictated by our lack of spectators, which is dictated by our lack of enthusiasts, which in MY OPINION is dictated by our lack of a true � AMATEUR CLASSIFICATION. Without that we are all left to compete for the same pool of money, same pool of players, and all for the same exact motivations �PROFIT�.



Our competitive structure has little or nothing to do with the type of growth necessary to truly bring disc golf into the mainstream. If we want to attract major sponsors, we need a huge increase in numbers. That will take more active promotion of the sport to new players, and above all, more courses.

For a model of how to achieve this growth, we should look not to ball golf, but to snowboarding.

Long live the Grandmasters!



They already have.

I'd like to double down though.

For a model of how to achieve this growth, we should look not to ball golf, but to snowboarding.

Does this mean that not only are jump putts mandatory but in the pro division they have to do them while spinning and somersaulting? Seems to me what got snowboarding on TV was the visuals. Kind of like skateboarding or BMX.

Disc golf is boring to watch. Even players who love the game do not show up in large numbers to watch the game. Other than the amateur prize hostage spectators, there are not that many players who care to watch the pros play.

Seems to me what got snowboarding on TV was the visuals. �

Disc golf is boring to watch.



True. But less boring than ball golf. And it's probably better suited for TV. After all, it's a lot easier to track a colorful flying disc with the camera than a tiny white ball. How can we make compelling disc golf TV? That's something that really interests me, but it's another discussion.

In the past 15 years or so, snowboarding has grown from a fringe pursuit of teenage stoners into a major sport that attracts all kinds of people, and has a virtual lock on the younger generations. It's done so not by emulating skiing, but by providing a similar experience that's different in critical ways. One major difference is attitude. The snowboarding community welcomed the kinds of people and behavior - a more, shall we say, carefree bunch - that many skiers shunned. Another difference is the learning curve - steep, but short. It takes a lot less time to get competent on a snowboard than on skis. Take a beginner out for a round of DG, and it's safe to say that by hole 18, he/she will have shown marked improvement, and even made some decent shots. A first-time ball golfer will probably still be swinging at air most of the time.

Of course, we'll have to break new ground if we really want disc golf to grow. We can't rely completely on snowboarding as a model, but it's a good place to start.

cmon bruce :) I don't think disc golf is that boring to watch. Then again i do spend hours watching ball golf on TV, so maybe its just me :D Personally, I love just watching discs fly long distances through the air. Thats what drew me to it as a kid, just watching the big guys throw it real far, it seemed unbelievable.

I'd say one of our long term issues is that disc golf is either more boring and/or more difficult (read that expensive) to shoot for TV than ball golf. It's much more difficult and will take more cameras to convey the much more interesting routes a disc takes for drives and approaches than ball golf. Some of our most interesting holes and courses for players will be unsuitable for spectating and shooting in the woods.

The most dramatic shots in ball golf are around the green. Those shots in disc golf are the least interesting, primarily because the throws are either too fast to see (putts) or are layups that intentionally have no chance for holing out. Whereas in BG, chip shots can be run at the hole with a visual chance to go in, even though the player is fine that the shot resulted in a layup. We'd be better off changing to a target that's hole in the ground to engender more drama for TV. One thing that can add drama is to shoot putts in slow motion. Since we rarely have live video, that's not a problem other than having a high speed shutter camera to shoot it.

Why fane any pretext of Pro or Am at all?

Seriously! What the h is the point?



i don't want to get caught up in the circular debate on this topic but have one question for bruce,terry,or others "in the know"-
what was the logic behind denying trophy only competition to pros playing am?competition.

I don't think that the wording of the rule reflects what was discussed. There are four permutations here:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Am playing trophy only</td><td> Pro playing trophy only</td><td> in
</td></tr><tr><td>a</td><td>b</td><td>Pro Division
</td></tr><tr><td>c</td><td>d</td><td>Am Division</tr></td></table>We intended to allow c if the TD chose to offer it, and to not make a rule regarding a and b. I don't recall that d was discussed.

By the way, just for a little perspective on this issue, 2005 will be the fourth consecutive year in which the PDGA has allowed pros to play for prizes in amateur divisions. There have been 16 tournaments over the last seven years in which pros have played for prizes in an amateur divisions. Last year, in addition we experimented with allowing amateurs to play for prizes in one pro division without consequence to their am status.

All we did this year is put the first idea in the standard format.

Of course it would be best if Jim Myers, Joe Mela, Craig Gangloff and other highly skilled Masters aged players had the proper motivation to play in Open (which for professionals is �profit�, same unfortunately in WWCC amateurs); where the money was just so much better that it was a �no-brainer� to play Open. Unfortunately that is NOT the situation we operate under, and it is not because of �Semi-Pros� or �Gender� or �Age� protected divisions (which actually populate our membership ranks far more than open does); that is dictated by our lack of sponsorship, which is dictated by our lack of spectators, which is dictated by our lack of enthusiasts, which in MY OPINION is dictated by our lack of a true, thriving and foundational, AMATEUR CLASSIFICATION. Without that we are all left to compete for the same pool of money, same pool of players, and all for the same exact motivations �PROFIT�.



ahem - proper motivation for me Nick is knowing that everyone who SHOULD be in my division is REQUIRED to be there when entering a sanctioned competition. Currently they are not. I've told you a hundred different times that money is not a motivating factor for me personally in competing - so if you want to stick to that argument (that money/profit) is the reason driving people to play - leave me out of it.



I guess we'll see now won't we?

I see Masters will be offered at the Soiree...

Point is you do have a choice, one some don't want you to have. I want you to have it, but due to your skill level it be a no-brainer to play Open (but not by screwing all the other divisions).

Now how Craig reads a post by me:

<font color="red"> You are a greedy Open player.

You're evil for offering Masters at the Soiree...

I want to manipulate you into having no choice and everyone else agrees with me. I don't want you to have any choice, and will work to restrict those choices.</font>

LOL!

I'd say one of our long term issues is that disc golf is either more boring and/or more difficult (read that expensive) to shoot for TV than ball golf. It's much more difficult and will take more cameras to convey the much more interesting routes a disc takes for drives and approaches than ball golf. Some of our most interesting holes and courses for players will be unsuitable for spectating and shooting in the woods.

The most dramatic shots in ball golf are around the green. Those shots in disc golf are the least interesting, primarily because the throws are either too fast to see (putts) or are layups that intentionally have no chance for holing out. Whereas in BG, chip shots can be run at the hole with a visual chance to go in, even though the player is fine that the shot resulted in a layup. We'd be better off changing to a target that's hole in the ground to engender more drama for TV. One thing that can add drama is to shoot putts in slow motion. Since we rarely have live video, that's not a problem other than having a high speed shutter camera to shoot it.



Well get to work on the discam already...

I like watching disc golf, particularly really good disc golf. If it was on TV I'd watch for sure.

I think this is all very interesting: "We lack this, and that's why we fail. Never mind that we don't give it a second thought anyway..."

Examples? Amateur Class, Spectators, Sponsorship, Logical Divisional Structure... more?

Targets in the ground ?????
I have a friend that has a very short course on his property.

I haven't broken par on that course because he uses 5 gallon buckets with rocks in the bottom for targets.

Very difficult to hit even from 6' away.

Holes in the ground or a jazzier version have actually been seriously considered by others. There are several advantages including cost, certainty of holing out when landing in the center of the target and ability to sink more variety of throws (similar to ball golf).

I would suggest that the PDGA does not pay attention too much the chatter on the message board as it does not represent very many members. It MIGHT represent their opinion, but only by coincidence.



That's insane!!! I've seen at least a dozen people come and say that 'Pro playing Am' is a terrible idea. I don't see any posts that come to it's defense except the ones that come from Chuck, Bruce and you. How many dozen more people have to come on here and say that it's a bad idea before it's more than coincidence?

It's this attitude that really gets me steamed. There's no reason for me to express my concerns about our flawed system, because it's just CHATTER!

That's insane!!! I've seen at least a dozen people come and say that 'Pro playing Am' is a terrible idea. I don't see any posts that come to it's defense except the ones that come from Chuck, Bruce and you. How many dozen more people have to come on here and say that it's a bad idea before it's more than coincidence?

It's this attitude that really gets me steamed. There's no reason for me to express my concerns about our flawed system, because it's just CHATTER!



Please back this up with fact. I bet you can't find more than 6 that have said anything close to it being a "terrible idea" as you claim.

Go ahead and do your searches and link to the posts and get back to us when you are done.

200 posts by Mills (Disc Pimp) only counts as 1 voice. :)

I don't think that the wording of the rule reflects what was discussed. There are four permutations here:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Am playing trophy only</td><td> Pro playing trophy only</td><td> in
</td></tr><tr><td>a</td><td>b</td><td>Pro Division
</td></tr><tr><td>c</td><td>d</td><td>Am Division</tr></td></table>We intended to allow c if the TD chose to offer it, and to not make a rule regarding a and b. I don't recall that d was discussed.

By the way, just for a little perspective on this issue, 2005 will be the fourth consecutive year in which the PDGA has allowed pros to play for prizes in amateur divisions. There have been 16 tournaments over the last seven years in which pros have played for prizes in an amateur divisions. Last year, in addition we experimented with allowing amateurs to play for prizes in one pro division without consequence to their am status.

All we did this year is put the first idea in the standard format.



if d was not discussed then how did it wind up in the 2005 tour standards? "....nor may they compete under the "true amateur" option"

seems to me that if the pro playing down were allowed (or even forced- probably my preference) to play for trophy only it would alleviate a lot of the concerns about mean old pro players of a certain skill level making off with all the poor defenseless am players (of roughly the same skill level) prizes.

I'm not even including quotes from flamers, me or NK and these were all posted in the first MONTH of the rules' implementation. You are missing the real point of my post anyway...

yo_estoy_MTL #306401 - 01/30/05 08:35 PM
This is the dumbest thing the PDGA has ever done.

parkntwoputt #306483 - 01/30/05 11:55 PM
I personally doubt that reassigning divisions by player rating will be entirely effective

fore #306485 - 01/30/05 11:57 PM
If you're good enough to cash in a pro event PERIOD, you should not be playing AM, regardless of whether or not you accepted

TBender #306687 - 01/31/05 10:41 AM
Until Amatuers stop playing for plastic coins, which are more difficult to spend at the mall, the Open and Advanced border should a two-way road, like the rest of the divisional breaks.

atxdiscgolfer #306688 - 01/31/05 10:43 AM
I agree

Luke Butch #306692 - 01/31/05 10:49 AM
I can't wait for the end of the season when the PDGA gets rid of this stupid rule.

D0NNIE #306862 - 01/31/05 01:03 PM
Just seems like a step backwards to me.

gang4010 #307047 - 01/31/05 02:48 PM
This whole idea is bassackwards. Allowing 955 to move down is a mistake.

James McCaine #307056 - 01/31/05 02:54 PM
It still baffles me that we have designed a system that financially punishes players for improving their skills.

gnduke #307071 - 01/31/05 03:07 PM
Any system that rewards "amateur" players with prizes of monetary value penalizes players for improving.

ScottyFaison #307361 - 01/31/05 07:29 PM
Don't make it so the adv division gets so watered down and don't have it packed with golfers who are looking for an excuse not to make a decision about going pro. If you cashed this year in pro and then play an am event and took prizes there, you have no guts to make a decision.

The Post by Tbender is actually in favor of being able to move back down...hence the "two road comment"

Because remember if your rating starts at 920 and you have to play advanced and then you have a bad tourny and your rating drops to 910 you can move back down to INT.

200 posts by Mills (Disc Pimp) only counts as 1 voice.



Hey not i resemble that remark :D

Seriously though the longer im a member of the PDGA the worse the PDGA becomes. I dont even WANT to be a member but I am FORCED to if i want to play in the good tournaments. If i could play great tournaments with good payouts and good TDs i would not renew my membership to the PDGA. Someone needs to start at new organization and do things the right way from the start.

These new rules to cater to the cry baby whiners that quit playing tournament because they moved up and can compete or to the people who want lower entry fees or whatever else the PDGA decides to cater to are getting out of control. If entry fees are too high, You shouldnt be playing tournament to begin with. If you cant hack it in a division then you should have moved up in the first place. If you want to quit playing tournaments because you cant compete, then your a sissy and you dont really love the sport as much as you say you do.

I just wish that people who are sitting back reading these posts would come out and say how they feel instead of being scared that someone is going to bite their head off because they dont feel the same way the PDGA does.

This rule is rediculous and just another reason why i wish i could not be a member of the PDGA.

Now, you can add me to your list of semi-relevant post snippets. The phrase "Pros playing in Am" just doesn't sound right in any sport. Pros have spent years of practice in order to qualify for the tour and play in million dollar events, make the big bucks, drive fancy cars, have multiple homes, have fat sponsor contracts and make quite a comfortable living. Why do they need to play against Ams?

Oh yeah, that's not the case here. It was just too wordy and potentially confusing to state the policy as it really is, "Semi-pros (we call Pros) who play for cash are allowed to play in a division with similarly skilled Semi-pros (we call Amateurs) who play for merchandise." Change the wording, change the meaning, change the perception.

TThe CheaTT already pointed it out, but...

I am for the new rule, read what you quoted from me and explain how it is against it.

What they (Pros) and we (Ams) are called is irrelevant. We both play for prizes of monetary value (paper or plastic). The difference in material is not enough to separate us by a hard border.

Until a real requirement is made to divide Pros and Ams (e.g., a qualification standard, not an extra $20 per year), we should have a complete sliding scale.

Some of those quotes sound damning when they are taken out of context, but if I remember where I read some of them in context, they weren't necessarily deriding the "pros playing in am" issue as much as they were calling for a complete overhaul of the system.

James McCaine #307056 - 01/31/05 02:54 PM
It still baffles me that we have designed a system that financially punishes players for improving their skills.

gnduke #307071 - 01/31/05 03:07 PM
Any system that rewards "amateur" players with prizes of monetary value penalizes players for improving.


These don't speak against the "pros in ams" specifically.


atxdiscgolfer #306688 - 01/31/05 10:43 AM
I agree


Again, out of context and aligned where it is in your quotes, it does sound damning. But how do we know what this guy actually agreed with?

I think you do have some quotes there that back up your argument, but some of it is just filler to pad the numbers. I have to go back to the original premise that even a dozen voices on this discussion page does not make or necessarily represent a majority opinion...could just be a very vocal minority overshadowing the silent majority. I think the PDGA would be more apt to respond to widespread non-use of the option rather than a few voices on the discussion page.

--Josh

I don't care who's called what.

I simply say that WWCC ams are playing for weighted payouts and it is clogging up the competitive system. We are lucratively rewarding mediocrity and therefore giving no incentive to want to be the best. I simply believe flattening payouts and lowering entry fees across the board would be better for the system as a whole.

Well, you certainly get credit for trying. And you didn't even go to Shive or Coach.


yo_estoy_MTL #306401 - 01/30/05 08:35 PM
This is the dumbest thing the PDGA has ever done.



One.


parkntwoputt #306483 - 01/30/05 11:55 PM
I personally doubt that reassigning divisions by player rating will be entirely effective



That's hardly calling the new rule insane.


fore #306485 - 01/30/05 11:57 PM
If you're good enough to cash in a pro event PERIOD, you should not be playing AM, regardless of whether or not you accepted



Not sure the context, but by itself that's not calling the rule insane. I'll give you a half.


TBender #306687 - 01/31/05 10:41 AM
Until Amatuers stop playing for plastic coins, which are more difficult to spend at the mall, the Open and Advanced border should a two-way road, like the rest of the divisional breaks.



That's arguing the other side. You almost get a deduction for that one.


atxdiscgolfer #306688 - 01/31/05 10:43 AM
I agree



I'll assume you know what this post was agreeing to. 2.5.


Luke Butch #306692 - 01/31/05 10:49 AM
I can't wait for the end of the season when the PDGA gets rid of this stupid rule.



3.5


D0NNIE #306862 - 01/31/05 01:03 PM
Just seems like a step backwards to me.



That's hardly insane. But I'll give it to you anyway. 4.5


gang4010 #307047 - 01/31/05 02:48 PM
This whole idea is bassackwards. Allowing 955 to move down is a mistake.



5.5, but you gotta wonder if the poster understood the new rule, since the new rule doesn't allow them to "move down".


James McCaine #307056 - 01/31/05 02:54 PM
It still baffles me that we have designed a system that financially punishes players for improving their skills.



Sorry, this has little to do with whether the rule itself is insane or not.


gnduke #307071 - 01/31/05 03:07 PM
Any system that rewards "amateur" players with prizes of monetary value penalizes players for improving.



Also has little to do with whether the rule is insane or not.


ScottyFaison #307361 - 01/31/05 07:29 PM
Don't make it so the adv division gets so watered down and don't have it packed with golfers who are looking for an excuse not to make a decision about going pro. If you cashed this year in pro and then play an am event and took prizes there, you have no guts to make a decision.



Again, not calling the rule insane. I wonder the context though when the poster is arguing about the adv division getting "watered down". Huh? I'll give it to you, assuming you just pulled a bad part of the post. 6.5

Well, you won the bet. You found more than 6. Plus Shive and Coach.

I did understand your post. Point is, 8.5 negative voices out of the 600 or so total posters here, out of the 5000 tournament players, out of the 8000 current members, doesn't mean much at all.

I simply say that WWCC ams are playing for weighted payouts and it is clogging up the competitive system. We are lucratively rewarding mediocrity and therefore giving no incentive to want to be the best. I simply believe flattening payouts and lowering entry fees across the board would be better for the system as a whole.



I totally agree.

Isn't this a strange world? :D

I did understand your post. Point is, 8.5 negative voices out of the 600 or so total posters here, out of the 5000 tournament players, out of the 8000 current members, doesn't mean much at all.


thats just simply insane!

I have nothing against the rule in particular, but Whorley's synopsis is far more important and would make the new rule basically irrelevant.

I did understand your post. Point is, 8.5 negative voices out of the 600 or so total posters here, out of the 5000 tournament players, out of the 8000 current members, doesn't mean much at all.



C'mon Hank, can't you do better than that? You forgot to add "out of 250 million Americans, out of 5 billion inhabitants of the planet, out of billions and billions of galaxies."

What kind of sphincter-based logic was that supposed to be?

Here's some questions to chew on....

What made the BOD think that the reason the 940ish players stop playing tourneys/renewing is the fact that they don't cash in Open?

What makes them think that allowing them to play in Advanced will bring them back?

How are they letting the 'lapsed members' know about this new rule?

How long will they try this before giving up on it? In other words, will it get a fairer shake than Pro2?

Hey Dan, I was going back to the original premise, that is, a few vocal voices on this board don't mean much in the grand scheme of things.

As for your things to chew on, as I've said a Nicklike 100 times, all this rule did was take the first step in removing an artificial barrier between consecutive skill levels. It's just a small step towards full ratings based competition. :D :cool:

I have no idea on things like bringing back members or notifying lapsed members, and I fully question the number of low end pros lost over the years as a % of the overall number of members lost. That all just seems like a bit of fluff compared to the bigger picture of moving toward a competition system that makes sense. :eek:

Hank, the 'bringing back the lapsed pro' thing was, according to one of the BOD guys, the reasoning behind this. There may well be others, and I may be paraphrasing incorrectly, but that was the gist of it as I understood.

Did you ever think that those that agree don't need to post because the rule is already in effect, and those that don't care won't bother to post on either side.

Hank, the 'bringing back the lapsed pro' thing was, according to one of the BOD guys, the reasoning behind this. There may well be others, and I may be paraphrasing incorrectly, but that was the gist of it as I understood.



I know. And I'm saying that reason is a little fluffy.

If by fluffy you mean questionable, then we are in agreement.

I did understand your post. Point is, 8.5 negative voices out of the 600 or so total posters here, out of the 5000 tournament players, out of the 8000 current members, doesn't mean much at all.



Considering that the PDGA never polled the electorate on the issue (and even if they did now, no one would probably respond, if similar results as the PDGA election returns of about 10% can be expected) this message board is really the only feedback tool the PDGA has to go on. While it may represent a small section of the membership, I like to think it's an educated and interested bunch who have the time and effort to think about these policy changes and their ramifications. I also feel that if 8.5 or a dozen or however many people from all across the country and all walks of life (intermediates, advanced amateurs, mullet pros, pro grandmasters, etc.) are voicing a similar opinion, it's got a lot of merit.

I would suggest that the PDGA does not pay attention too much the chatter on the message board as it does not represent very many members. It MIGHT represent their opinion, but only by coincidence.



That's insane!!! I've seen at least a dozen people come and say that 'Pro playing Am' is a terrible idea. I don't see any posts that come to it's defense except the ones that come from Chuck, Bruce and you. How many dozen more people have to come on here and say that it's a bad idea before it's more than coincidence?

It's this attitude that really gets me steamed. There's no reason for me to express my concerns about our flawed system, because it's just CHATTER!



It's not the system that is flawed Vince, it is your logic. Most people who play disc golf, don't post on this message board. Even most people who play PDGA tournaments don't post on the message board. Anyone who agrees with the divisional changes probably isn't going to post since they agree with what's going on. People who disagree are much more likely to post. Personally I don't think the argument is all that important because I don't think it is going to change very much. Having observed PDGA changes for many years now, I have found a pattern. PDGA institutes a rule or procedure change. Players that don't agree with it speak out and say how this is going to ruin the sport. The change doesn't make a very large impact on the sport and is mostly forgotten about by the next year.

It is going to take most of the year for the fringe players out there to even learn about these new options. Maybe by the end of the year some of them will take advantage of it. Maybe they won't.

Since we don't really have any Ams or Pros in this sport it is really a very minor change. If it works and more players come out to play that don't play much any more, then great! If it doesn't bring about that change, it hasn't really hurt anyone or anything despite what a very small minority of players have posted here.

I did understand your post. Point is, 8.5 negative voices out of the 600 or so total posters here, out of the 5000 tournament players, out of the 8000 current members, doesn't mean much at all.



Considering that the PDGA never polled the electorate on the issue (and even if they did now, no one would probably respond, if similar results as the PDGA election returns of about 10% can be expected) this message board is really the only feedback tool the PDGA has to go on. While it may represent a small section of the membership, I like to think it's an educated and interested bunch who have the time and effort to think about these policy changes and their ramifications. I also feel that if 8.5 or a dozen or however many people from all across the country and all walks of life (intermediates, advanced amateurs, mullet pros, pro grandmasters, etc.) are voicing a similar opinion, it's got a lot of merit.



Unfortunately you are wrong. :D

The people who are in favor of this change just aren't as outspoken as the people that are against it. It is human nature. If you like the current rule you probably aren't all flippin' and flamin' about it. You would probably be content. Content people don't rant nearly as much as the malcontent. Me? I like a good agrument any day, any subject.

If you want to have a discussion, then I�ll ask that you actually read what I write.

Here�s the question I posed to you that you didn�t seem to notice.
�How many dozen more people have to come on here and say that it's a bad idea before it's more than coincidence?�

It's not the system that is flawed Vince, it is your logic.



Please clarify, I have no earthly idea what you are talking about.

If you want to have a discussion, then I�ll ask that you actually read what I write.

Here�s the question I posed to you that you didn�t seem to notice.
�How many dozen more people have to come on here and say that it's a bad idea before it's more than coincidence?�



I would be concerned when 10-15 percent of our membership were against a current policy or rule. When it gets that high you have to consider the merit of the opposition. I'm not convinced that 10-15 percent of our membership have any current concerns based on the turn out for the last election.

Thank you, sincerely for answering my question and I think your answer is reasonable. My follow-up question is, what is 10-15% of the vocal Message Board?

If you want to have a discussion, then I�ll ask that you actually read what I write.

Here�s the question I posed to you that you didn�t seem to notice.
�How many dozen more people have to come on here and say that it's a bad idea before it's more than coincidence?�



More than coincidence what? That a dozen or so people don't like the concept? There is the idea that that dozen or so could be just as wrong as they think the BOD was in making the change.

I don't care who's called what.

I simply say that WWCC ams are playing for weighted payouts and it is clogging up the competitive system. We are lucratively rewarding mediocrity and therefore giving no incentive to want to be the best. I simply believe flattening payouts and lowering entry fees across the board would be better for the system as a whole.




And this, with which I agree, has little bearing on allowing similarly rated players play in the same division, as long as there is NO real distinction between Open and Advanced (again, other than $20 per year).

You guys will NEVER know how many people are against it because there the membership NEVER gets surveyed on what rules should be changed and what rules shouldnt. A bunch of guys are you elected to represent us sit around and make all the decisions. How many of our 8000 members actually voted for those elected people???

I would hazer(sp?) to guess that a very small percentage of the actuall 8000 people voted which would mean the elected officials for the board probably only represent a MINORITY or the disc golf community and that would also mean that the rules they see fit are not rules that the MAJORITY of the PDGA see fit.

I dont know any of this for a fact right now its all just speculation at this point but i would like to see the number of votes compared to total membership if anyone has access to those.

The PDGA neews to set up a section on this site where members can go and vote on the rules changes and vote on the elections so that its quick and easy to do and more people will vote and be hear and then we dont have to go threw all this BS. You give every member a passwords to the section when they join and they can use that to go and vote only once on each rule or official.

Its not a coincidence that a few people hate this rule.

It's not the system that is flawed Vince, it is your logic.



Please clarify, I have no earthly idea what you are talking about.



It is all explained in the words that come after the sentance that you quoted. I could restate it if you'd like.

All of us add something valuable to the disussion when we express our feelings about rules and process changes that the PDGA has made. However, it is incorrect to apply these feelings to the membership at large. The debates that happen here and the feelings expressed here represent the PDGA membership no more than a college campus debate represents the feelings and ideas of citizens of the USA. One is a subset of the other, it is not a representation of the other.

The remark that I made about that I think the PDGA should not hold too much merit to these discussions was flippant (I get that from my brother) and it was meant to be. However, it does represent my frustration with the idea that this message board some how represents our membership at large. This message board is just a tool for the members, non-active members and non-members of the PDGA who decide to use it.

Feel free to return to your regularly scheduled argument about "Pros" playing in the "Am" divisons. That is what this thread is, right?

You never answered my follow-up question.

However, it does represent my frustration with the idea that this message board some how represents our membership at large. This message board is just a tool for the members, non-active members and non-members of the PDGA who decide to use it.



Your right that this board doesnt represent our membership at large but it doesnt matter because our "Membership at large doesnt even represent our Membership at large" You guys only get opinions from a select group of people and im sure that if if ALL the members were actually surveyed that the opinions would be quite different then the ones you guys are seeing right now. Maybe you should HAVE to fill out a survey or vote on rules changes or elections to be a member. Thats easy. When you register online you should be required to fill out a survey about the issues of the previous year and the issues of the coming year and you should also have to vote on whatever there is to vote about before you can renew. That way we would get an actual knowledge of what the MEMBERSHIP wants and not just what a select few people think.

You guys will NEVER know how many people are against it because there the membership NEVER gets surveyed on what rules should be changed and what rules shouldnt.


That is a flat out lie. Surveys go out at election time. Not every year, but frequently. The survey responses are genreally the same tiny percentage as the voting response.


A bunch of guys are you elected to represent us sit around and make all the decisions. How many of our 8000 members actually voted for those elected people???


How can that ever be considered the BODs fault? Surveys typically go out with the election ballot. Interest in one or the other should drive *you* to fill out both. Theoretically. But only a tiny tiny percentage of members bother to fill them out. Like Jon says, that points to the vast vast vast majority of members being satisfied enough with what's going on to not be bothered to spend to 10 minutes voting/responding to the survey.

But what can the organization do? If the members don't want to express an opinion, all they can do is assume that the people are happy with the way things are going. Unhappy people should vote, and no one's voting.

it does represent my frustration with the idea that this message board some how represents our membership at large.



It might be frustrating, but it does represent us "some how." Even though it's only a small demographic, you can't discount it.

What if 30 people on this board were vocally against and only five were for it? What if it were 300 for and 50 against? What excuse about 'human nature' wold you come up with then.

I'm not arguing against what you stated and re-stated. I'm arguing that it pisses me off that you and the BOD seemingly TOTALLY DISMISS the opinion of any ONE MEMBER, much less a group of them.

When I have time tonight, I'm going to respond to your post #317188 which speaks volumes about the PDGA BOD.

That is a flat out lie. Surveys go out at election time. Not every year, but frequently. The survey responses are genreally the same tiny percentage as the voting response.



Ok your right thats a lie. Bad way to say what i wanted to get across. Yu will NEVER know because you have to fill it out and and send it back. Im going to start filling mine out and sending them back because the longer im a member of the PDGA the more i come to HATE the PDGA but i cant not have a membership because then i cant play the tournaments that i want to play. So untill there are good tournaments with good payouts and large participation on a regular basis outside the PDGA then i am forced to be a member.

How many surveys do you get back a year Rhett??? 10%??? 20%??? How many of the surveys that you get back are filled out by the younger members of the PDGA. How many are filled out by guys who are you age or ever older then you??? What percent of the surveys and votes that you get back are made by players under 25??? How many are players over 25???

You are never going to get an accurate knowledge of what people want by just sending out a survey and saying "Here fill this out if you want but if you dont it doesnt matter" You make it mandatory to vote and return the survey or you dont get your membership. Pure and simple. Im pretty sure you would get a good knowledge then. I know if im forced to do something then i might as well take my time and actually tell someone what i think.

Sorry i said we dont get surveyed. WE DO. Its just not really worth anyones while to return the survey. You need to make it worth their while.

By the way can you get me the statistics that i asked for earlier???

Wouldnt it be better, since you feel so strongly about this, to send your concerns and ideas to the BOD via e--mail from the contacts link above instead of going in circles on the message board? Afterall if you are THAT concerned then I am sure they would like to hear form you.

I think you can take what Rhett and Whorley are saying even further. The voice on the web site, and in the surveys, is the only voice that matters. The BOD responds to what they hear (and despite what sometimes seems to be the case, they often respond to what gets posted here).

Any organization acts on the information it receives. In the case of disc golf, the BOD, RC, and director have three sources of information: this site, the surveys and direct communication. Those three sources of information impact their own needs/perceptions of what is right for disc golf. Whether we like it or not, that is how change occurs within this sport.

As Rhett, and many Board Members, have pointed out, if the BOD really does something we don't like, they get feedback pretty quickly, both directly and through this site. If it got bad enough, someone would run for office with the intent of changing things. Indeed, two years ago, someone ran on a platform for change. UPM; and if my fading memory serves me, he got whooped up on. Someone feels that the Board is doing a good job and they took the time to vote!

Whorley has pointed out that there are several posters complaining about these changes. So what? What is the nature of the complaint? Who is making the complaint? Who is speaking out in defense of the change? What are they saying? My guess is that the BOD looks at the posts, assesses the information and makes a decision on how to proceed. They don't assume they are hearing from all players (they're a little too smart for that ;)). Instead, they evaluate the information they receive and act accordingly. The implied threat that people are coming on here to complain doesn't mean anything, rather, what is being said does; and then only who, what, where and when.

I think it was Theo that said, we were voted in to do a job, with that comes the empowerment to act independently on behalf of the organization. If someone doesn't like that they will institute meaningful change in the form of trying to replace BOD members at election time. Sounds like a good system to me.

Whether they would like to hear from me or not doesnt really matter. If im the only one who is going to write them do you think they are really going to do anything about it??? I mean seriously. What am i going to get when i write them. A letter that says he thanks for your opinion but we our going to do it our way and there is really nothing you can do about it. Thats how its done right now. Why would it be any different if i wrote them directly???

Sorry i said we dont get surveyed. WE DO. Its just not really worth anyones while to return the survey. You need to make it worth their while.



Amatuer entitlement again? (Relax, I'm kidding. :) )

On a serious note, if you are going to be a member of an organization, shouldn't you be interested in the business of the organization and do your part in making your voice heard--by filling out surveys, presenting suggestions/proposals to the BOD?

If the BOD was skimming money to Al Qaeda, but you were just a member because it saves you $5 on every tourney, doesn't that still make you look bad for being a member?

Whether they would like to hear from me or not doesnt really matter. If im the only one who is going to write them do you think they are really going to do anything about it??? I mean seriously. What am i going to get when i write them. A letter that says he thanks for your opinion but we our going to do it our way and there is really nothing you can do about it. Thats how its done right now. Why would it be any different if i wrote them directly???



Give the BOD some credit. They are pretty savy. If you make a good, non-angry, informed argument you might find them sympathetic. However, remember what their overall goals are. My guess is that this move serves their goals better than the way things were. No, it doesn't serve every member as well, but if you try and satisfy all the people all the time, you'll be Bill Clinton. :D

The voice on the web site, and in the surveys, is the only voice that matters.



WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!! That thinking is exactly the reason we are at this point in the first place. Well only the people who we can hear are the people that matter. That is wrong in so many freakin ways it not even funny. That may be the only thing to base changes off of but it certainly isnt the only voice that matters.

Actually it's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of reality. It is human psych 101. It's also business 101. It's called a perfect market. The idea is that all relevant and pertinant information will become known to the investor (or in this case the BOD). In this case, those who have an opinion on the topic will make it known, either directly via e-mail or phone call, or indirectly via postings, gossip etc. Those who are uninformed will become so when they run into the situation in a tournament. Eventually, everyone's opinion comes into play and shazam, the Board is informed.

So, I restate, the surveys, postings here, and other communications are all that really matters - and I will add to that - since they are in all likelyhood an accurate reflection of what is going on in the membership over time.

it does represent my frustration with the idea that this message board some how represents our membership at large.



1) It might be frustrating, but it does represent us "some how." Even though it's only a small demographic, you can't discount it.

2) What if 30 people on this board were vocally against and only five were for it? What if it were 300 for and 50 against? What excuse about 'human nature' wold you come up with then.

3) I'm not arguing against what you stated and re-stated. I'm arguing that it pisses me off that you and the BOD seemingly TOTALLY DISMISS the opinion of any ONE MEMBER, much less a group of them.

4) When I have time tonight, I'm going to respond to your post #317188 which speaks volumes about the PDGA BOD.



---Note, I added the numbers.

1) This board represents "us" and it represents "me" and it represents "you" but it does not represent the membership at large. It also represents a lot of people who aren't even members, so it couldn't ever represent the members at large.

2) I still insist that the board can not be used as a popularity vote. Vote for your BOD when given the chance and fill out the surveys when they are about things you care about. This forum does not serve well as a voting booth for our members. It is a good idea to create such an environment, but this is not it.

3) I don't dismiss your opinion. As a TD I am concerned with all the opinions of the people who will be playing my tournaments this year. I hope we can all have fun even with the rule changes for this year. I know I plan to have fun playing and running tournaments this year. I don't dismiss anyone's opinion, but I feel like you want to dismiss the opinion of everyone who isn't represented here. I know a couple of people who tell me that they vote in the PDGA election every year but neither one of them have a computer.

4) I look forward to your response. Please keep in mind that I am not on the BOD and do not represent the BOD in any way.

How many surveys do you get back a year Rhett??? 10%??? 20%???



I can tell that you do not pay attention to this organization, even though you claim to love disc golf and this is the only national/worldwide organization dedicated to disc golf.

I know this because I am not on the PDGA BOD. :) PDGA surveys do not come to me. I don't set PDGA policy.

And I know who the PDGA BOD members are. <font size="-5">It is really frickin' easy to find out who your representatives are.</font>

The best attended tournament in Michigan in 2004 was a tournament where pros were allowed to compete in amateur divisions. In a year when tournament attendance was flat, this event went from 186 players in 2003 to 238 in 2004.

I will need 239 members posting here saying it is a bad idea before I discount the 238 players who voted with their wallets and their weekend.

<font size="-3">Well deserved but "too over the top" rant against dg_pimp deleted</font>

I just figured that since you seem to know alot of things and people that maybe you had access to those numbers.

Now I know why Bruce became a lawyer and not a mathematician. :D

Wouldn't you need 53 members (the difference plus one) to post here?

Was there more than just one tourney's worth of anecdotal evidence behind the change? If you looked at the Pro2 numbers from NY States last year you would think it was a smashing success.

What even are you talking about Bruce???

2005 Election results (http://www.pdga.com/documents/0405ElectionResults.pdf)

Are those the numbers you're looking for, Mills?

I know we were excited at HFDS when we got 37 ballots (out of ~180-190) back.

First off, I was talking to Whorley but what I said applies to you and any other person who is passionatly against something.

Do you really think that by beeotching and moaning to Rhett_in_Socal or Tbender is a better way to get your concerns to the PDGA BOD then to actually contact the BOD directly?

Please explain that one to me.

im sure that if if ALL the members were actually surveyed that the opinions would be quite different then the ones you guys are seeing right now.



PDGA Membership Survey - Completion MANDATORY

Section I - Multiple Choice
Please choose the answer that best describes how you feel about the following rule changes:

1. Pros playing Am is �

A. An acceptable way to maintain competitive balance.
B. Bulls**t.
C. Pros can play Am?

Answer: C

2. Allowing TDs discretion in the enforcement of the 2-meter rule is �

A. Good, as it gives TDs the flexibility to adapt to a particular course.
B. Bulls**t.
C. Why don't we measure this in feet?

Answer: C

3. Enforcement of PDGA rules is the responsibility of �

A. Everyone.
B. The TD.
C. The ref.

Answer: C

Section II - Other Feedback
Please use this space to write about any issues you feel the PDGA Board of Directors should address in the upcoming year. If you run out of space, you may continue your answer on a separate sheet of paper.

Answer: Make weed smoking legal at tourneys!!!

What a JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

9 percent return. Are you serious. That is just down right PATHETIC!!!!!!!!! 9 percent. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Thats PATHETIC. Plus im willing to be that all the only people who return the surveys and vote are the old timers like Bruce and Rhett and all those guy that 40 and older. So in all actuality the only voices being heard are the ones of the old times and we are going by what they say and where they think the sport should go. Can I get a list of who voted so i can see the average age of a survey returner and voter.

Any way to get your point heard short of hostage taking is OK.

I have written to BOD members and committee members before. About half the time, it apparently is just as effective to place your rant here. :eek:

By the way, I don't hold it against them. I'd be the same way in their shoes.

It's pretty sad when it looks like around 60% of Iraqis voted with their lives at stake.

Now I know why Bruce became a lawyer and not a mathematician. :D

Wouldn't you need 53 members (the difference plus one) to post here?

Was there more than just one tourney's worth of anecdotal evidence behind the change? If you looked at the Pro2 numbers from NY States last year you would think it was a smashing success.


No. I'm going to need 239. All 238 of those players voted "yes" with their wallets. I'll need 239 players sending me $20-$50 each along with a "no" vote.

The PDGA has sanctioned tournaments where pros could play in amateur divisions for four years. Sixteen tournaments in seven states. Dan Howard played in one last year and beat a pro in Dan's amateur division. Dan must have slept through it!

The one Dan played went from standard format in 2002 to Pros Play Am in 2003. That tournament saw an attendance boost from 72 to 112.

The Pros Play Am event that I helped run in Waukegan had attendance go up by 22% over the previous year's standard form at event.

Pro 2 is a pro division where ams can take prizes and still be ams. Kind of just like what we're doing this year only the opposite. We did the optional Pro 2 thing for one year. We've done the optional Pros Play Am format since at least 2001.

Don't forget:

Should the World Championships be televised on:

1) ABC
2) ESPN
3) The Disc Golf Channel
4) A,B, and C

We did the optional Pro 2 thing for one year. We've done the optional Pros Play Am format since at least 2001.



Wow, what a nice long trial period Pro 2 was given! ;)

What a JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

9 percent return. Are you serious. That is just down right PATHETIC!!!!!!!!! 9 percent. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Thats PATHETIC. Plus im willing to be that all the only people who return the surveys and vote are the old timers like Bruce and Rhett and all those guy that 40 and older. So in all actuality the only voices being heard are the ones of the old times and we are going by what they say and where they think the sport should go. Can I get a list of who voted so i can see the average age of a survey returner and voter.



I voted. I'm 28.
My wife voted (with me nagging her to do so). She's 25.
Votes went in with our renewals. One envelope, 4 pieces of info (2 ballots, 2 renewals).

Better question, how many people renewed but didn't submit their ballots?

Is there an "un-edit" button on here somewhere?

dg_pimple_butt, you are a cry baby that won't even take action on your own behalf.

Here is dg_pimple: "waaaaah. waaaaah. waaaaah. I can't even take the time to figure out who is on the BOD. I can't be bothered to contact them. They are juts screwing me. Waaaaah. waaaaaah. waaaaaaah. I won't bother to vote because it makes no difference. waaaah. waaaaah. waaaaah. WHY WON'T THE PDGA BOD COME TO MY HOUSE, WAIT FOR ME TO COME HOME, AND THEN ASK ME MY OPINION ON EVERY SINGLE THING THEY DO???????????????? IT'S B-S THAT THEY DON'T DO THAT. The old timers are ruling me unfairly!!!!!!!! Why the hell can't they get my opinion out me when I refuse to answer surveys, vote, or contact BOD members myself????? WHY ARE THEY SCREWING ME LIKE THIS??????????????"

Does that sum it up, pimp?

Not saying that people should not come on here and have their point heard. Just saying that if someone is THAT much against somehting then surely they have their ideas on how to fix the problem. Posting those ideas here is great but I just feel that those ideas should be given directly to those who enforce these things first.

I am in no way saying that I agree with the things the BOD does, hence the reason I have been an inactive member since 2003.

For the record I think Pros under a certain rating should be allowed to move sideways, not sure if this was the best way to do it but I think it will work.

No. I'm going to need 239. All 238 of those players voted "yes" with their wallets. I'll need 239 players sending me $20-$50 each along with a "no" vote.

The PDGA has sanctioned tournaments where pros could play in amateur divisions for four years. Sixteen tournaments in seven states. Dan Howard played in one last year and beat a pro in Dan's amateur division. Dan must have slept through it!

The one Dan played went from standard format in 2002 to Pros Play Am in 2003. That tournament saw an attendance boost from 72 to 112.

The Pros Play Am event that I helped run in Waukegan had attendance go up by 22% over the previous year's standard form at event.

Pro 2 is a pro division where ams can take prizes and still be ams. Kind of just like what we're doing this year only the opposite. We did the optional Pro 2 thing for one year. We've done the optional Pros Play Am format since at least 2001.



Was the growth based on the fact that it was ratings based or was it based on the fact that our player base grew and maybe just maybe more people were playing tournaments in 2003 then in 2002 and maybe just maybe more people were playing tournaments in 2004 then in 2003. The only way to know if there is a correlation would have been to survey the players and ask them why they came in 03 over 02 and why they came in 04 over 03. That could have to do with about 100 things. Maybe the weather was nicer in 03 then 02 maybe the entry fee was cheaper maybe some of the people got a ride in 03 but couldnt in 02. There is really know way of knowing if it was because pros could play am or if it was for some completely different reason. By the way i think most everyone that played that ratings based events thought they sucked. Atleast that was what i hear from my friends and people that i talk to.

I understand and am not against what you said, I'm just pointing out that the assumption of "if you write the BOD, they will open it, read it, consider it, and possibly respond" may not be true.

They have always opened, read and responded to anything I have ever sent.

The PDGA has sanctioned tournaments where pros could play in amateur divisions for four years. Sixteen tournaments in seven states. Dan Howard played in one last year and beat a pro in Dan's amateur division. Dan must have slept through it!

The one Dan played went from standard format in 2002 to Pros Play Am in 2003. That tournament saw an attendance boost from 72 to 112.

The Pros Play Am event that I helped run in Waukegan had attendance go up by 22% over the previous year's standard form at event.

Pro 2 is a pro division where ams can take prizes and still be ams. Kind of just like what we're doing this year only the opposite. We did the optional Pro 2 thing for one year. We've done the optional Pros Play Am format since at least 2001.



Bruce, are you talking about the Jersey Jam? Your numbers don't make any sense if you are. First off, the Jam is (oops, sorry, was) a ratings-based event. I played the White division. I don't remember the exact ratings break but I think it was 900 and below.

Animalfest had an increase in numbers from 02 to 03, but wasn't a Pro play Am event. I played Intermediate (and won, woohoo!). No pros below me.

Thanks for reinforcing the logic behind my mathematician comment, tho. :D

BTW, Animalfest grew thanks to additional holes being added to the course, plus extra publicity, plus word of mouth that it is a greater than great tournament.

Dan: Read this slowly: You played in an amateur division at The 2004 Jersey Jam. This was an event where pros could play in amateur divisions. Pros played in four of the amateur divisions. A pro played in your amateur division. You beat him. The world did not stop turning.

That couldnt be it. A tournament got more entrants after it had been around for a year and more people are playing the sport and more people are talking about that tournament. Theres no way thats why there were more people. It had to of been because it was Ratings Based which Brure is now calling Pros Playing Am.

Dan: Read this slowly: You played in an amateur division at The 2004 Jersey Jam. This was an event where pros could play in amateur divisions. Pros played in four of the amateur divisions. A pro played in your amateur division. You beat him. The world did not stop turning.



Bruce: Read this slowly. The 'statistics' about me (and the Jam) that you posted were wrong. The Jam was ratings based in 03 as well. It actually had a larger field in 03.

Should I use the smaller field in 04 to say that maybe people didn't like Pros playing Am and stayed home? Of course not, that would be a misleading use of anecdotal evidence. Wink wink, nudge, nudge.

And, for what it's worth, the 'Pro' that I beat was Paul Fein. Helluva nice guy. About 100 years old. Normally plays Pro Legends. Rated at 801.

And, for what it's worth, the 'Pro' that I beat was Paul Fein. Helluva nice guy. About 100 years old. Normally plays Pro Legends. Rated at 801.



Paul Fein was the pro you beat!?! Well, that doesn't count! :D

dg_pimple_butt, you are a cry baby that won't even take action on your own behalf.

Here is dg_pimple: "waaaaah. waaaaah. waaaaah. I can't even take the time to figure out who is on the BOD. I can't be bothered to contact them. They are juts screwing me. Waaaaah. waaaaaah. waaaaaaah. I won't bother to vote because it makes no difference. waaaah. waaaaah. waaaaah. WHY WON'T THE PDGA BOD COME TO MY HOUSE, WAIT FOR ME TO COME HOME, AND THEN ASK ME MY OPINION ON EVERY SINGLE THING THEY DO???????????????? IT'S B-S THAT THEY DON'T DO THAT. The old timers are ruling me unfairly!!!!!!!! Why the hell can't they get my opinion out me when I refuse to answer surveys, vote, or contact BOD members myself????? WHY ARE THEY SCREWING ME LIKE THIS??????????????"

Does that sum it up, pimp?




Wow looks like i might have struck a nerve. Maybe im pretty **** close to being right about the old timers running everything and have no vision what so ever to get our sport to a higher level. I think thats the way the BOD likes it. Whats the average age of a BOD member??? Whats the average age of someone who voted for the BOD members??? Whats the average age of PDGA members??? Where can i get all this info so that i can put together a legit argument and tell the BOD what i think they should be doing instead of just making up stupid rules to cater to people who were stupid and shouldnt have moved up in the first place.

Now ill comment on the ignorant and off base comment you just made.

Thats not even close to it. First off i said they should make it mandatory when you renew to fill out the survey. I just moved and renewed online and the person at my old residence threw out my renewal packet when it came in so therefore i could fill anything out. Your right this year even if i could have filled it out and voted i wouldnt have. That was before all this ********* and ignorance came about. I have seen who is on the board and trust me i will be talking to whoever i need to talk to when i get to AZ this year. They will be having meetings all week from what i am told. I am about to sit down and write a letter to Theo and the BOD and tell them what i think about this whole situation and what i think of the PDGA. So dont label me and tell me what i will or wont do because frankly you dont know me and really cant say anything about me. You just think im some punk kid who is popping his mouth off cuz hes not going to win as much plastic this year as he would have. Thats not the case at all. Im a smart kid who has a vision of where he wants this sport to go and if there is anything he can do to get it there then he will. At this point in time this kid feels like the PDGA is actually hindering the growth of this sport instead of helping it. The reason the PDGA continues to grow is not because its a well run organization but because its a MONOPOLY. There arent enough tournament worth playing that arent sacntioned by the PDGA for people to not be members. The only reason I am a member is because it SAVES ME MONEY and gets me DGWN. Pure and simple, its saves me money and gets me a sweet magazine. Other then that there is NO reason to be a member of the pdga or then ratings.

Im going to write to Theo and the board and IF i get a responce i will post both what i wrote and what responce I get so that everyone on here can see what i wrote and what was said in responce.

Dan: Read this slowly: You played in an amateur division at The 2004 Jersey Jam. This was an event where pros could play in amateur divisions. Pros played in four of the amateur divisions. A pro played in your amateur division. You beat him. The world did not stop turning.



You know, if Dan got on and posted this I would probably tell him to post nicer... How can we expect members to treat each other with respect if Board Members don't treat members with respect?

That couldnt be it. A tournament got more entrants after it had been around for a year and more people are playing the sport and more people are talking about that tournament. Theres no way thats why there were more people. It had to of been because it was Ratings Based which Brure is now calling Pros Playing Am.



Tournament attendance was down last year, on average, on a tournament level. So if a tournament was up over last year, it was REALLY up. Most tournaments were doing well last year just to hang onto the players they had the year before. I don't remember where I saw the figures, but I think total # of players at all sanctioned tournaments was up about 10% but total number of sanctioned tournaments was up about 16% or so. Therefore attendance at any one tournament was down on average.

A couple of things,

First go back and read some of Bruce's posts. He makes a compelling argument with numbers that in tournaments where pros are allowed to play am the number of total participants takes a large jump. Numbers are hard to argue against.

Given that Bruce is a Board Member, is it not likely that when they decided to implement this change that they took into account the numbers that Bruce is presenting?

Chuck has posted on a number of occasions that the BOD is not going to implement any change that they feel will negatively impact membership numbers or tournament growth. This is because they are stewards of the sport and would not want to implement a change that would result in significant damage under their watch. In fact, it is likely that they are, if anything, overly cautious about implementing changes because of this.

In this case, the question is, will allowing pros to play am cost or gain players? Years of anecdotal evidence suggest that a lot of players get out because they get trapped in the pro pool. Furthermore, Bruce's numbers are consistent with the idea. It is likely that the BOD understands this change might cost them some top-level ams (not likely since they are not trapped and can ultimately move up). It is also likely they feel it will help them to retain a lot of low-level pros that would over time quit. I think they are correct, and given the cautious nature that I just described, I'm guessing they have a very good idea that this change will result in a net increase in players. This is also in agreement with the postings I've seen here. The people against are all high level ams who stand to loose payout. The people for are low-level pros, and a whole lot of other players who feel it will be best for the sport as a whole. Some of those others even seem to be getting a nice chuckle out of the notion that the high level ams that consistently take their money are whining about how unfair this is.

As for growth coming despite the mistakes of the BOD and because the PDGA is a monopoly, there isn't a lot of evidence one way or the other, but the PDGA is not a monopoly. There is the Southern Nationals, and as you have pointed out, a lot of other independent events. Some of those independent events do quite well (take the Texas 10 for example).

Why does the PDGA do well? Try they are doing an incredible job. The structure they have laid down, including rules, ratings and divisions, are generally utilized at all events, including the independent events. They have made this structure and all their information available to all events and have encouraged it's spread for the betterment of the sport as a whole. As with all things, it is very easy to focus on the shortcomings without looking at the strengths.

I'm 29 & I voted. My vote counted. The guy I voted for won the IL State Coordinator position by 1 vote.

Maybe you should talk to all of your buddies & get them to vote. It sounds like there are a bunch that support your ideas from posts on this thread.

You just think im some punk kid who is popping his mouth off cuz hes not going to win as much plastic this year as he would have.


Actually, I don't think that at all.

You have posted and posted about how you think the changes suck, and then you just posted about how you wouldn't bother contacting the BOD because "it wouldn't matter". That is crying and being a victim.

I hope you really do sit in on some BOD meetings and talk to some BOD members face-to-face. It will be great if you take the time to let them know how you feel about stuff. I hope you will also realize that not all of your desires can be implemented because some things are good the sport, and other things are good for you or good for me. But letting the BOD know what you want out of PDGA disc golf would be a good thing.

Hopefully you vote in your local regular elections too, and take the time to understand those issues. :)

Whats the average age of a BOD member??? Whats the average age of someone who voted for the BOD members??? Whats the average age of PDGA members??? Where can i get all this info so that i can put together a legit argument and tell the BOD what i think they should be doing instead of just making up stupid rules to cater to people who were stupid and shouldnt have moved up in the first place.








Send out a survey.

And, for what it's worth, the 'Pro' that I beat was Paul Fein. Helluva nice guy. About 100 years old. Normally plays Pro Legends. Rated at 801.



Paul Fein was the pro you beat!?! Well, that doesn't count! :D



Jeff, I did tie for 3rd, it's not like Paul was the only person I beat!! :D

A couple of things,

First go back and read some of Bruce's posts. He makes a compelling argument with numbers that in tournaments where pros are allowed to play am the number of total participants takes a large jump. Numbers are hard to argue against.



So far I have seen him use one tourney as an example. Pretty easy to argue against, especially when we don't know what other things differed from the previous year.



Given that Bruce is a Board Member, is it not likely that when they decided to implement this change that they took into account the numbers that Bruce is presenting?




I would like to think they took a whole lot more into account than that, don't you?



In this case, the question is, will allowing pros to play am cost or gain players? Years of anecdotal evidence suggest that a lot of players get out because they get trapped in the pro pool.



What evidence? The guys that played when I started and have since lapsed (there are several I know) don't fit this criteria at all. There are assumptions, but what evidence have you seen that we haven't? You are making conclusions where there isn't enough basis to warrant them.



Furthermore, Bruce's numbers are consistent with the idea. It is likely that the BOD understands this change might cost them some top-level ams (not likely since they are not trapped and can ultimately move up). It is also likely they feel it will help them to retain a lot of low-level pros that would over time quit. I think they are correct, and given the cautious nature that I just described, I'm guessing they have a very good idea that this change will result in a net increase in players. This is also in agreement with the postings I've seen here. The people against are all high level ams who stand to loose payout. The people for are low-level pros, and a whole lot of other players who feel it will be best for the sport as a whole. Some of those others even seem to be getting a nice chuckle out of the notion that the high level ams that consistently take their money are whining about how unfair this is.




Lyle, your desire to support the BOD is admirable, I guess. But you are simply winging it here. It's not all high level ams that are against this, nor are all low-level pros for it. You have less data to back your 'conclusions' than Bruce showed!

What evidence is required ?

What reason other than "they said they were Pro, they have to live with it" do you have for keeping players of similar skill from playing in the same division ?

My only problem is that they are allowed to call themselves Pros in the first place. There should be some minimum requirements to getting a Pro card and part of it would be a rating well above 955.

What evidence is required ?

What reason other than "they said they were Pro, they have to live with it" do you have for keeping players of similar skill from playing in the same division ?

My only problem is that they are allowed to call themselves Pros in the first place. There should be some minimum requirements to getting a Pro card and part of it would be a rating well above 955.



Gary,
Have I told you lately that I love you? ;)

What reason other than "they said they were Pro, they have to live with it" do you have for keeping players of similar skill from playing in the same division?



In my observation, the "you have to live with your decision" is something that opponents to the Pro's playing Am have taken as an absolute and unchanging truth.

It has been that way (for all intents and purposes) forever within the PDGA. Pro's could not compete with Am's - period. And it was that way forever in the Olympics movement. If you took this one 'truth' away from the opposition, they would have no real leg to stand on.

If the Olympics changed it, why can't PDGA?

Also, I am aware of several retired NBA players playing rec league here in town. It sounds like the opponents to the PDGA rule change want the PDGA to be the NCAA. Are they sure they really want that? :eek:

A couple of things,

First go back and read some of Bruce's posts. He makes a compelling argument with numbers that in tournaments where pros are allowed to play am the number of total participants takes a large jump. Numbers are hard to argue against.



So far I have seen him use one tourney as an example. Pretty easy to argue against, especially when we don't know what other things differed from the previous year.

<font color="red">You're not suppossed to actually go back and check the numbers, you're just suppossed to believe! :D </font>



Given that Bruce is a Board Member, is it not likely that when they decided to implement this change that they took into account the numbers that Bruce is presenting?




I would like to think they took a whole lot more into account than that, don't you?

<font color="red">Good question, I expect they did. </font>



In this case, the question is, will allowing pros to play am cost or gain players? Years of anecdotal evidence suggest that a lot of players get out because they get trapped in the pro pool.



What evidence? The guys that played when I started and have since lapsed (there are several I know) don't fit this criteria at all. There are assumptions, but what evidence have you seen that we haven't? You are making conclusions where there isn't enough basis to warrant them.

Furthermore, Bruce's numbers are consistent with the idea. It is likely that the BOD understands this change might cost them some top-level ams (not likely since they are not trapped and can ultimately move up). It is also likely they feel it will help them to retain a lot of low-level pros that would over time quit. I think they are correct, and given the cautious nature that I just described, I'm guessing they have a very good idea that this change will result in a net increase in players. This is also in agreement with the postings I've seen here. The people against are all high level ams who stand to loose payout. The people for are low-level pros, and a whole lot of other players who feel it will be best for the sport as a whole. Some of those others even seem to be getting a nice chuckle out of the notion that the high level ams that consistently take their money are whining about how unfair this is.




Lyle, your desire to support the BOD is admirable, I guess. But you are simply winging it here. It's not all high level ams that are against this, nor are all low-level pros for it. You have less data to back your 'conclusions' than Bruce showed!

[/QUOTE]


<font color="red">Ouch, I think I need to stop posting against topics you support and for topics you're against! Arguing against you is getting hard Dan. :D You are correct, no true analysis of the numbers has been carried out (to my knowledge). On the other hand, can you show the opposite to be true? That is, will this rule change seriously hurt the sport based on numbers, not supposition? Who is it going to drive out? You may be correct, that there is a large pool of Ams who will be disaffected by this change since they see the erosion, or potential erosion of their current or future winnings. Indeed, one might make the argument that the major motivation for participation at the Advanced level is the "payoff" and anything that threatens this will act to drive a subset of that pool from the sport. At this point it seems the questions are: does locking current players into the Pro pool cause a significant loss of players? Again, anecdotal evidence based on many discussions suggests it does. Will allowing them to play down cause a significant loss of Advanced players? Possibly, but I suspect that at the very least it will take some time for that to play out (that is, it will play out when those players come to the conclusion they are never going to beat those "pros" that drop down to play Advanced). I would have a tendency to argue that neither situation is healthy for the sport, a case where a subset of players is forced to play in a division where they can't compete and don't want to play, nor a case where a subset of players feel they are entitled to the protection of their winnings at a lower playing level (nor the situation where the primary motivator for playing "am" is to win plastic-money). Perhaps Peter is correct, if my memory serves, that there should be some penalty for dropping back down. For example (and this has already been suggested) if you move up you have to stay there for some period of time, say one year, before moving back down. Then once you've moved down you have to stay there for one year before moving back up. This would eliminate the fair-weather pro as defined by Peter. Alternatively, we could adjust our expectations, again as has been suggested, such that we play based on rankings, as imperfect as they are. </font>

[QUOTE]

Lyle, it's entirely possible that nothing the BOD does will drive out any more players than already have left. People who want to play tourneys will play them, and if it costs them an extra $5 then they will pay it. Sanctioning doesn't matter to that many people anyway, since points are of no real value to begin with. This move seems more likely a desire to get TDs on board since it offers them more profit than Pro 2 did, and less headache than pure ratings based tournies.

It just seems that potentially alienating/pissing off a whole slew of players (high, but not astronomically rated advanced players like Millz, intermediates that play up like me, midlevel pros in the 970ish range) in an attempt to maybe bring back lapsed members based on questionable, unverified "logic" is not the soundest thinking. It's a pretty major change to put in place on the basis of an 'assumption'.

Hopefully I'm wrong.

Maybe we need an 'exit' interview of sorts. When a member fails to renew it might help to find out why.

It just seems that potentially alienating/pissing off a whole slew of players ...intermediates that play up like me...


Maybe if you couldn't crack the leader card in Intermediate because all the Rec rated players were playing Rec instead of "playing up" to Int, then you might have a better feeling about playing in Int.

I guess the reason it pisses you off is because you don't want ot call yourself an "Intermediate". "Advanced" sounds so much cooler, even though your rating is Intermediate. And it pisses you off because now more people with Advanced ratings can play the Advanced division and finish above you? Is that the problem you have with all of this?

Maybe im pretty **** close to being right about the old timers running everything and have no vision what so ever to get our sport to a higher level.



Clearly they do have a vision for the sport, hence these rule changes. Their idea of what's best may be different from yours - in some cases, it may be dead wrong - but don't confuse that with lack of any vision at all.


Whats the average age of a BOD member???



What's the average age of any board of directors, anywhere? 60? Older? I'd say ours is relatively young.


Whats the average age of someone who voted for the BOD members??? Whats the average age of PDGA members???



I'm 25. I didn't vote. If I'd cared enough, I would have. I also renewed online, and if I could've voted there, I probably would've. I suspect that might be true of a lot of people our age.


You just think im some punk kid who is popping his mouth off cuz hes not going to win as much plastic this year as he would have.



Yeah, taking your posts on this thread at face value, that's how it would appear.


Im a smart kid who has a vision of where he wants this sport to go and if there is anything he can do to get it there then he will. � There arent enough tournament worth playing that arent sacntioned by the PDGA for people to not be members.



Define "worth playing". If you're truly interested in change, and you don't like the way the PDGA does things, it might be well worth your while to play some smaller, unsanctioned events. At the very least, they could give you a testing ground to see if your ideas actually work. And if they do, you'll have a proven track record when you present your case to the PDGA.

I respect your desire for change - actually, I'd rather call it progress. Our generation will be old and in charge someday, and it's good that we're getting interested early. But if you're serious, let's see some action.

Rhett, I've said on here that I'd love it if the Int. rated guys would all play Int. They don't (and most likely won't even with this change). I tried playing Int in '03 when they first put out the ratings breaks, won once and took 3rd in a big field the other time. I personally didn't think it was fair to other, newer players if I continued to play Int. so I stuck with Advanced.

Cashing is not and has never been a priority to me. Where I finish is not a priority (as long as it's above Jim Santoro and Jason Haas.)

Perhaps simply requiring players to enter their ratings bracket and not be allowed to play up (with the exception of playing up in Open for your age/gender and maybe in A-tiers) would take the pressure off the seeming peer pressure to play up under the current structure. There are certainly enough Ams statistically in the 875-914 and 915+ ranges that no additional players from below are needed to have decent size fields in most places.

An average Open player has several years experience, throws 325-450 feet accurately, makes 6-8/10 putts from 25-30 feet, and has a variety of shots (rollers, forehands, etc) to draw from. Ratings Guideline: 950+ Score range: <56



This is what the PDGA defines as an AVERAGE Pro. Which would dictate middle of the pack pro. 950 and above scoring. Why in gods name would the PDGA want a bunch of average pros to move down and play with the Amateurs. Sounds illogicall to me.


I guess the reason it pisses you off is because you don't want ot call yourself an "Intermediate". "Advanced" sounds so much cooler, even though your rating is Intermediate. And it pisses you off because now more people with Advanced ratings can play the Advanced division and finish above you? Is that the problem you have with all of this?



I dont think people play up because they think the name of the division sounds cooler. Thats rediculous. People play up to improve there game and play against better players and because they think they are ready to play up. I didnt play Advanced last year because i thought it was cool i played Advanced because i though i could handle it and it would be the best division to develope and boost my game. Now you are going to put average pros down in my division which will kick the players who play up bakc down into the Intermediate division and that in turn will kick the players who are playing up in the division back down to Rec and then no one new will come in because they wont ever have a chance at cashing untill they have been playing for a year or maybe more. The idea is to get MORE people to play not kick people down division and then out the bottom. I think there are alot more reasons that people move up and quit then the PDGA thinks. They just assume that its because they stopped being competitive and they were getting beat up on too bad. If thats the case then TOUGH LUCK really. In all other pro sports if you go pro and cant hack it you have to find somewhere else to play. You cant go back and play college or AAU or anything like that. You either find a lesser league in a diff country or you stop playing all together, OR you petition to get amateur status back again. Thats just how things work. I think more people have moved up and out because they either lost intrest in the game or they got a wife or girlfriend or had kids or got a full time career that doesnt allow them to play anymore. I think those reasons are FAR MORE likeley then i move up and now i suck so ill quit. If i move up to pro and suck im still going to play tournaments because i love the other aspects of the sport as well. Sure i love winning and thats all i focus on right now but ive played plenty of tournament where i got slapped around and still have a freakin blast. If people want to play tournaments they are going to come and play whether they are good or not. Why do you think there are so many 900 rated people playing advanced. You dont see people move up from the Intermediate division and get kicked around in ADV and then just quit because they cant win. They stay and play because they love the game and the competition and the atmosphere of tournaments. I think the PDGA needs to get some hard evidence that supports this decision before they go and make such a DRASTIC decision.

Who isn't it fair to, the Recs who are playing up?

I'm just trying to figure out why this is such a problem for you, or anyone else. It will take a few of us playing where our ratings put us and sticking with it in order to get the word out. I did that last year until my rating pushed me up and out of Int. (It was a great CTP-merch-raising tool for my tourneys. :) )

But the way i figure it, we'll never know if the ratings breaks are right if no one plays in their rating range. So if a 910 rated guy has to pound on the 850s who are playing Int in order to get them to play Rec, then so be it. There is room for another division below Rec if need be, so no one of lesser skill should have to get screwed.

It's just that you should have to be good to be able to compete in Advanced. I get killed there, but fortunately I can hide in Masters where I am competitive.

Pimp, my rating steadily declined from 931 to about 908 while playing in the bottom of the pack in Advanced. It climbed back up to 921 while playing at the top and on the leadercard in Intermediate. There were other factors, but when you are out of the "stuff", there really isn't much need for focus or intensity or other game-improving traits. When you are out the running after the first round or two, you aren't really in a position to be gaining anything. You are in the "fun zone" where you have people that are either resigned to having sucled thos tourney, or they are all ****** because they have thrown like crap all weekend.

Last card in Advanced or even Pro is not going to improve your game.

Perhaps simply requiring players to enter their ratings bracket and not be allowed to play up (with the exception of playing up in Open for your age/gender and maybe in A-tiers) would take the pressure off the seeming peer pressure to play up under the current structure. There are certainly enough Ams statistically in the 875-914 and 915+ ranges that no additional players from below are needed to have decent size fields in most places.

As a player I would be fine with this. I would have been fine with it when I was an Intermediate and I would have been fine with it when I was a Rec when the local rules required me to play Intermediate.

Any format concept has to pass the TD-test. Years of experience tells me that ams will play whatever crappy format is offered. So the question is whether the TDs would go with this or go unsanctioned. I don't know the answer other than my own answer as a TD.

So far I have not heard a single TD say, "I'm going unsanctioned with my event if I have to let mediocre pros play in amateur divisions with the other mediocre players." TDs understand where their added cash comes from!

People play up to improve there game and play against better players and because they think they are ready to play up. � i played Advanced because i though i could handle it and it would be the best division to develope and boost my game. Now you are going to put average pros down in my division which will kick the players who play up bakc down into the Intermediate division �



But if you're actually playing "up" to boost your skills, why would you drop back down because of stiffer competition? If your goal is to leave with a victory, then obviously you want to play where you'll have the best chance, and you'll move down if a bunch of people better than you join your division. By playing up, you're sacrificing your chances of placing for the opportunity to be with better players. You can't play up and expect to win.


� no one new will come in because they wont ever have a chance at cashing untill they have been playing for a year or maybe more �
� If people want to play tournaments they are going to come and play whether they are good or not.



So which is it?

Im done talking about this situation with random people. All it is doing is aggrevating me even more then i already am and im not gettin ANYWHERE with it. I will wait till i can talk to some BOD members face to face then i will voice my opinion and see what happens from there. Sorry you guys think i hate the PDGA, thats not the case at all. I thank them for ratings and marshalls and the National and Super Tours and the Worlds and everything else they do for the sport im just not very happy with the decisions they have been making lately.

Why play down when the goal is to play with better players?

This was touched on earlier, but I will try to clarify it.

The difference between playing on or near the lead card and playing on or near the DFL card is tremendous.

Take a 910 player. They will play near the top of the Int division and stand a good chance of winning it they play well. The other INT players playing at the same skill level are serious about trying to win and are playing their best games.

The same player playing in the bottom of Adv will be surrounded by better players not having a good day and much less interested in how they are playing that day. The mood is worse, and the disc golf they are exposed to is not as good as what they would see at the top of a lower division.

If a number of TDs start offering the trophy only options for their tournaments, the stigma of taking prizes away from others will go away as well.

Yeah, that makes sense. On the other hand, at Hawaii States, Intermediate and Advanced threw from different tees, so if you wanted to play the full course, you had to play Advanced or higher.

There are good reasons for playing up or where you should be, depending on your training goals. My point was, if you're playing up, you can't expect to win.

i concur with gnduke on this. i can play at or near the top of most adv master and even adv events. its fun and challenging. even when i tank the first round and am playing dfl with people 70 ratings points below, its still fun because i'm making up ground.

but when i play preo master, even if i shoot above my rating i am usually stuck with a couple "pros" who are having another crappy weekend and have the attitude to match. they might be a 10-30 points higher than me, but the only thing they're teaching is how to be a whiny little beetch.

moving up to play with better players works for a round, ort maybe two. otherwise if thats the motivation i'd say from experience that its better to wait until you improve enough so that you have a reasonable chance of playing in the middle of the pack.

I am not sure poeple should be forced to play where their rating puts them. I would imagine that if that were the case then in the lower divisions the home course guys would destroy the scores of everyone else. I can use my scores from this past weekend to show what i mean http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4861&year=2004&includeRatings=1#Intermediate

I know my home courses well and without the added stress of playing ADV I was able to relax and shoot my normal rounds. I think this is what would happen all over the place.

I don't think you should ever be forced to play down to your rating, just that there are valid reasons for playing at your rating even if everyone else with your rating doesn't.

"Professional Players should be able to play in the Amateur Classification any time they feel they can't cut it in the Professional Class anymore; and when that feeling changes, sure, right back into the Pros they go."

Is it just me or is this pure insanity?

This strange turn of events is only possible because we don't have an "Amateur Classification" worth a lick. I'd be more comfortable if they just dropped the word "amateur" completely from our divisional structure. It is such a maltreated term and division in our system.

Just cut all the pretense and make all divisions on a single scale of skill top to bottom with no Pros and no Ams. We've pretty much done this anyway, just without properly naming it.

What about age, gender and amateurs?

If you are not in the top Pro Divisions MPO, MPM, MPG or MPS, then you are a Semi-pro. Players playing for no profit, cash or cash value, are Amateurs. Simple, logical, seemingly impossible for some to understand.

Divisional Commitment (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=262092&Searchpage=0&Main=261384&Search=true&#Post262092)
Still Works - Divisional Proposal (http://www.serve.com/fun4nick/tmp1108600707-05DivProp.html)

Scott,
or you could have played up and exclaimed that you played head to head with one of the greatest young golfers in your area, Matt Hall.
Looks like you won't be playing intermediate anymore after shooting 960+ golf...

pretty soon you'll be whining how your home course adversely affected your rating. hehe.

I have played just as many events in advanced as i have in intermediate over the years. This was the first time i EVER played INT on any of my home courses. I am a super choke artist when i play advanced, even at home. Some of my worst rated rounds ever have been at my home course. Those two rounds will not do the trick on pushing my rating over 915, I have too many rounds in.

I wont beeotch when/if my rating ever goes above 915 for that reason, but surely I can find something to beeotch about when/if that time ever comes :D

I have played 3 one day events this year.

all 3 were C-tier events.

In Jan, I played the Poison Ivy Open as a Pro because I chickened out of playing Adv (and the entry fee was only $5 more to play Open)

I mostly had a good time, but had to play a round with an additude player. (1 stroke out of cash, would have one Adv by 2 strokes)

The past 2 wednesdays, I have played Adv in the Mid-Week Big Show events. I have had a blast both days. Not one bad Additude either day, even when there rounds were bad.

Even though I was the highest rated player at both midweek events, I did not win either. Actually, I got 2nd at both events.

I looked at it this way, I saved $30 in entry fees, Purchased $70 worth of plastic from MaceMan to help him pay a bill. (entry fee total, I actually won $125 between the two tournaments)

I had a blast playing with guys who I have not either ever played with or have not played with in a long time.

and i would not have cashed, or even come close to cashing in Pro at either event.


Lastly, in the last 3 tournaments, I have managed to raize my rating by almost 3 points. If the ratings for each round were not changed, I would have a new rating of 953. (this includes my worst round in a long time at the Lake course, shooting 9 over with a rating of way under 900)

Sounds like the Carrolton Open just got some nice CTP prizes. :)

Additude? :cool:

This strange turn of events is only possible because we don't have an "Amateur Classification" worth a lick. I'd be more comfortable if they just dropped the word "amateur" completely from our divisional structure. It is such a maltreated term and division in our system.




I am getting sick and tired of hearing we dont have any amateur class. Do you think that ball golf has an amateur class??? Because if you do your a complete HYPOCRIT!!!!!! My dad is part of the Amature ball golf tour and has been playing for quite sometime. When he shows up to a tournament he pays an entry fee. Somewhere between 200-400 dollars and the last tournament he was in he got a 200 dollar clubs and 6 meals with his entry fee. So right there he got his 400 back. Then on top of that they can win up to 750 in merchadise. IE a gift certificate to the pro shop to spend on whatever he wants. So we do have an amature class and its working just fine. Thats all i have to say because im getting sick of the fact that Nick keeps saying that we dont have an True Amateur class.

Nicks idea of a true Amature Class sounds like a bunch of Trophy Only no competition BS to me.

Just my 2 cents

Theie is no amature class. Its just a lable and it means nothing.

By the way, and this is off the topic, you're spelling is herrandous!

While you have a point Pimp, you're still comparing apples and oranges. The materials your dad gets as "prizes" have little value on the open market relative to the sport as a whole. That isn't to say they have none, it's just to say their impact is very small relative to the cash value of the sport as a whole. Furthermore, the value of those "prizes relative to the cost of participating in the sport is also small. A months worth of greens fees at best (admittedly at an above average facility). In context they do not go beyond the status of amateurism. The relative value of plastic giveaways to the total value of our sport is huge. In some tournaments, the value of the plastic given away is greater than the cash winnings at the pro level. That relative value immediately takes the disc golf amateur out of the status of amateur, relative to the sport. I understand that there is a subset of amateurs who collect plastic and never sell. I'm sure your one of them based on your stated approach. That doesn't matter. The potential for relative value winnings and for abuse (resale) means that there is no amateur class.

So your saying because people sell what they win they are not Amateurs??? Once the plastic i win is my possesion its mine to do with what i please. Melt it, sell it, throw it, give it away, its MINE. Are you trying to say if every am kept all their plastic they would be ams but as soon as they start selling it then they arent amateurs anymore???

That really doesnt make any scene and if you say im playing for profit that is also not true. If i stick around here and play B and C Tiers even if i win i will prolly get 150-200 in plastic if there is a good turnout. If i pay 40 dollars i still made 110. Then you have to figure that i paid for gas to get to the tournament then i paid for the Ave Pool and the CTPs so knock it down to 90 bucks and if it was far enough away i might have to get a hotel so knock that down to about 40 bucks. So when its all said and done im looking at 40 dollars profit IF i can sell the plastic for what the club is selling it for (which by the way is next to IMPOSSIBLE because the club prices are usually a RIP OFF) So hey i made 40 bucks playing a tournament in MY STATE. Then you factor in that ill be leaving for Vegas and AZ in 8 days. The hotel and flight alone are going to cost me 700 dollars and that doesnt include food or drinks or anything. So say i was to win both the Gentlemens Club Classic AND the Memorial i still wouldnt win enough plastic or baskets or whatever to even come close to paying for my trip so now im in the negative. There is really no profit in play am unless you are a complete bagger and just stay at home and play tournys that are like a few hours from your house.

Wow, You rag on the PDGA and now you rag on your local club. Do you ever volounteer to help with anything? Or do you think everything should revolve around your perception of what is fair?

Do you think that 18 dollars is FAIR for a Z or Champion Disc??? Yes i have offered to help run tournaments and such and have never been taken up on my offer so I stopped offering. Plus i dont have time to volunteer anyway. I work and practice all week then i practice and play tournaments all weekend. I am trying to get my own business started and trying to become a proffesional disc golfer. I dont have the time to volunteer but if anyone needed help and i had some time i would for sure help out.


By the way do you guys even read my posts or do you just pick things out you can rag on me about???

Theie is no amature class. Its just a lable and it means nothing.



well yeah, perhaps we should call all players under 1000 player rating something like " provanced", or "pramvanced"...... :D
it sounds like this thread will continue into oblivion, i prefer a "wait and see" kind of attitude, to see if this will work out for the disc golfing general populace, and react accordingly......

Go back and read my post if you want to see what I'm saying. I don't care what you do with the plastic. It's value relative to the cost structure of the sport and what pros make is high enough that you can't consider an Amateur winner an amateur. Many pro athletes gamble away their winnings or give them to friends; that doesn't stop them from being pros. It is the value of what they receive that marks them as a pro. Keep in mind that the NBA, and other major league sports consider any gifts to amateurs as inappropriate because they have value. The theory is that a trophy has no value other than sentiment (yes I know that some of the pro trophies have great value but amateur ones do not).

No argument that you can make will change the fact that the plastic has value. As long as that holds true - I can't believe I'm going to say this - Nick is right. It doesn't matter that, as a professional, one who gets paid in plastic, that you aren't good enough to make a living at it (i.e. cover your costs) as long as you get paid with something that has value you're a pro. It is only the artificial definition put out by the PDGA that allows you to fool yourself into thinking you're an amateur.

BTW - the same thing goes for your dad. It best suits the PGA to define your father and others of his status as amateurs and hence they have. They do this to build up the stature of their pros, for them it is probably more about controlling their image.

By the way do you guys even read my posts or do you just pick things out you can rag on me about???



It's one and the same. :p

Just kidding. ;)

By the way do you guys even read my posts or do you just pick things out you can rag on me about???



No, it's sort of like having an annoying little brother who doesn't understand why girls are important. You get enjoyment out of pointing out the cute ones who would like to kiss him. Of course that doesn't mean you don't like your little brother, just that it's fun. :D

Well im done arguing about the things that i cannot control. From here on out im giong to concentrate on my golf game and let that speak for me :D

8 days till i leave for Vegas and Scottsdale. Its time to start stretching and practicing.

Do you think that 18 dollars is FAIR for a Z or Champion Disc??? Yes i have offered to help run tournaments and such and have never been taken up on my offer so I stopped offering. Plus i dont have time to volunteer anyway. I work and practice all week then i practice and play tournaments all weekend. I am trying to get my own business started and trying to become a proffesional disc golfer. I dont have the time to volunteer but if anyone needed help and i had some time i would for sure help out.


By the way do you guys even read my posts or do you just pick things out you can rag on me about???



"Urk... Urk... Stop twisting my arm forcing me to buy that plastic for $18 a pop. You guys are so harsh." :D

I volunteer for my local club too. It's really easy. Show up early at the tournament, go to the TD, and ask him what he needs done. If the answer is absolutely nothing, go buy him breakfast. Most TDs are so busy running around they don't have time to write a formal work schedule, you have to be there and look for things to do. Same goes for the local club. If you show up at enough meetings eventually they figure out your a sucker and give you a job. Trust me, it will happen. Finally, I volunteer with my wallet. No not much, but if I see something small that needs money I pick it up and don't ask for compensation. I don't do this because I'm altrusitic, I do it because the guys who have been running the local club for the last 15 years do it. I figure the $20 to $30 a month it costs me is nothing compared to the $5,000 or $10,000 they've put in over the years. BTW - thanks to those guys, all of them, who run the local clubs and bring in plastic for me to buy at $18 a pop. Gee without you I'd still be jogging by myself on weekends or even worse, playing ball golf. :D

Do you think that 18 dollars is FAIR for a Z or Champion Disc??? Yes i have offered to help run tournaments and such and have never been taken up on my offer so I stopped offering. Plus i dont have time to volunteer anyway. I work and practice all week then i practice and play tournaments all weekend. I am trying to get my own business started and trying to become a proffesional disc golfer. I dont have the time to volunteer but if anyone needed help and i had some time i would for sure help out.


By the way do you guys even read my posts or do you just pick things out you can rag on me about???






this should be another thread of its own,
big d has a huge point.....i see this too at our local level where the organizers boost the retail price for plastic payback to ams and pocket the difference.....now before you all say the organizers should be recompensed for their efforts, and i agree about that part, they already are taking 25% off the top of all entry fees to "pay" for their efforts.
the whole situation as it stands doesnt bother me half as much as the fact that they think everyone else is so stupid not to realize they are doing this.....and when the organizers are confronted with the fact they are misrepresenting their local club by being greedy and not fairly returning the club members and other participants compensation back to the club, in any way whatsoever, their response is......well ive heard several excuses over the years and not one of them are valid, excuses like, "there are hidden costs", "thats the way everybody does it", "i have overhead to pay for", or "take it or leave it". avoidance about the whole issue from the organizers is mostly what i see. and yes, people still come and participate, why? cause its the only game in town.....i dont think these organizers im talking about are making a huge profit, thats what kills me, they leave themselves open for critizism for what?
i might add that these local organizers originally set up a 100% payback to club members for participating, whether through immediate compensation at tourneys or "end of the year" freebie events, but none of that came about.
Fallout from this one issue is larger than it should, accountability for the organizers was supposed to be inherent in the club charter, and that hasnt come to be.... alright, sorry about digressing......

Do you think that 18 dollars is FAIR for a Z or Champion Disc??? Yes i have offered to help run tournaments and such and have never been taken up on my offer so I stopped offering. Plus i dont have time to volunteer anyway. I work and practice all week then i practice and play tournaments all weekend. I am trying to get my own business started and trying to become a proffesional disc golfer. I dont have the time to volunteer but if anyone needed help and i had some time i would for sure help out.


By the way do you guys even read my posts or do you just pick things out you can rag on me about???



"Urk... Urk... Stop twisting my arm forcing me to buy that plastic for $18 a pop. You guys are so harsh." :D

I volunteer for my local club too. It's really easy. Show up early at the tournament, go to the TD, and ask him what he needs done. If the answer is absolutely nothing, go buy him breakfast. Most TDs are so busy running around they don't have time to write a formal work schedule, you have to be there and look for things to do. Same goes for the local club. If you show up at enough meetings eventually they figure out your a sucker and give you a job. Trust me, it will happen. Finally, I volunteer with my wallet. No not much, but if I see something small that needs money I pick it up and don't ask for compensation. I don't do this because I'm altrusitic, I do it because the guys who have been running the local club for the last 15 years do it. I figure the $20 to $30 a month it costs me is nothing compared to the $5,000 or $10,000 they've put in over the years. BTW - thanks to those guys, all of them, who run the local clubs and bring in plastic for me to buy at $18 a pop. Gee without you I'd still be jogging by myself on weekends or even worse, playing ball golf. :D



lyle, your club must be different from what im used to, i agree these "old timers" should be supported cause what they do and contribute, but only if they CONTRIBUTE back to the community they are involved in. if they are there only to line their pockets then their motives will be suspect and respectability will be lost. accountability for the people you trust to organize your events should be part of it......and if you dont see the organizers supporting the general well being of your local scene how can you blindly follow that kind of leadership?
lyle, nothing personal, i dont know your club and what your organizers are doing and have done for your disc golf community.

am golfers who pay 40-70 dollars for a chance to win 150 are not pro athletes. they are either am athletes or gamblers. but not pros by any stretch of the imagination.

Does the club have the discs for sale at the course? Are there other places in the area for disc sales? What does the club do with revenue generated from disc sales? If the local club is selling discs to help fund an annual tournament, that's not a rip-off. You don't seem to realize that they are putting back into the Disc Golf community to try to benefit ALL players (not just YOU). You seem to have this perception that only YOU have the knowledge of which way the game should advance, and YOU are above taking time out of YOUR busy SELF-SERVING schedule to help and work with others that are trying to make this game better for EVERYONE. How much organized Disc Golf action would happen in your area if the volunteers (past and present) said, "No, I'm too busy with my own interests. I'm not going to help put together any events because nobody makes it easy for ME!" ??? If I didn't volunteer my time and experience, there would probably not be any organized Disc Golf in my area. I put in a lot of time working on my game, pursuing a full-time career in the construction industry (being a business owner means it's not always 8 to 5 everyday), and trying to keep up the appearance of my house so the neighbors don't mind me and my family living here. I understand what you mean about the lack of hours in the day, but if YOU are really interested in making a difference, YOU will actually do something postive instead of just running YOUR mouth and degrading everyone else's attempts to make the Disc Golf world a better place. Doing for others does have it's rewards.

Hey Toad,

Nothing personal taken. I fully admit that I don't know what happens in most clubs but I doubt they are much different than my own. There is a mixed bag. While I have this chance I want to brag about our local club, HFDS. The old timers (those who step up no matter what) have a time and money investment in the local scene that is immeasurable. These guys show up, they kick in, and no one says squat (not completely true, I see a subset of local players who know what they've got and they say it). Most of these guys are known by a handful of players but most local players are clueless. Some are familiar, Dave Nez and Andi Lehmann, others never get mentioned, Jeff, Ed, Jack, Louis, Larry, Conrad, and many many others (including new comers who just haven't had the opportunity to perform at the same level yet. These guys do so much ,and trust me, they don't over charge, in fact, they probably get taken.

Obviously I can't speak for every club or every player, and I have no compunction against a guy making a buck or two but if your local club guys are taking you to the cleaners then I can't argue against a clean up.

Alright, I can't argue that, but if you only had two definitions, pro or am, where would you put them? And if you come back with am I'm callin' your mother! :D

Well im done arguing about the things that i cannot control. From here on out im giong to concentrate on my golf game and let that speak for me :D




You have fallen victim to one of the more prevalent message board fallicies. You have the notion that you might "win" this argument or that the people arguing against your ideas might suddenly "see the light" and join your way of thinking. I think in the history of internet message boards this has happened 5 times...go ahead, look it up. At best you let people realize there are people with other ideas. This might lead to the powers that be taking into consideration these oposing views when making future decisions. In Nick Kight's case he uses the message board to repeat his one note message until he thinks he has brain washed us all into thinking that his message is the only truth. It hasn't worked yet...which is why he still tries to get his message out on every thread.

You should think of this as a debate, not a competition.

You know what, Texas isn't perfect, but somedays I'm glad I live here. I'm always amazed at the understanding and support that disc golf gets here. Nice call John!

:cool:

Well im done arguing about the things that i cannot control. From here on out im giong to concentrate on my golf game and let that speak for me :D




You have fallen victim to one of the more prevalent message board fallicies. You have the notion that you might "win" this argument or that the people arguing against your ideas might suddenly "see the light" and join your way of thinking. I think in the history of internet message boards this has happened 5 times...go ahead, look it up. At best you let people realize there are people with other ideas. This might lead to the powers that be taking into consideration these oposing views when making future decisions. In Nick Kight's case he uses the message board to repeat his one note message until he thinks he has brain washed us all into thinking that his message is the only truth. It hasn't worked yet...which is why he still tries to get his message out on every thread.

You should think of this as a debate, not a competition.



If I can be rude and add to Jon's post, the BOD, for the most part, stays above the fray. As a consequence they don't develop the emotional commitment that we posters do. Consequently, they can hunt and peck through the ideas here and actually judge them based on merit, not on how much they might like or dislike the poster. That is why it is always wise to think about what you say about them. If you spend half your post-time ripping them up, are they likely to read what you've posted and give it a full measure? The idea that pros playing am might not be the best idea has merit. The cleaner the arguments made and the less rhetoric, the more likely they are to read and take that information into account.

Alright, I can't argue that, but if you only had two definitions, pro or am, where would you put them? And if you come back with am I'm callin' your mother! :D

am of course.

her number is 472-682-7825

Mr. Anonymous Toad,

You should name names, or at least not be hiding behind an anonymous account to level that kind of criticism. What club are you talking about that has been ripping you off for 25% off the top, to line "their" pockets?

You say you are in Anaheim. I can only think of two possibilities. And I know for a fact that one of them does not do that at all.

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and make up ideas about what might possibily be happening behind the scenes. But if you actually get behind the tables and help it will look a whole lot different.

And like another poster said, TDs are usually too busy trying to make it all happen to stop and try to train you on the spot. Show up early and often. Do what needs to be done. Check scorecards and sweep tee pads. After a little bit of that you suddenly look like someone who is serious and can be counted on. There are tons of people who show up at crunch time to help, and then disappear without doing anything. TDs don't know if you are serious or not just by your words. Many trusty-worthy seeming people have pulled the now-show on important things to let a TD down. So do whatever can be done, and make sure you are there at the right time for stuff if you are serious about helping.

well mr rhett in socal...i'm sorry i'm not there at EVERY socal event to bail you out :D(just the bigger ones)

i'll do my best to make more events in the future.....
but your going to have to find LOCAL help for the other events....

keith

Keith, you are the Toad???????? :)

Hey, I'm not in charge anymore. I only have two tourneys to worry about. Okay, maybe three since I can't help but help out at U.S. Masters. But since I play that one it doesn't really count.

I know SoCal didn't pay anyone, but there are people who think they did/do. There's really only one other organized club that moves any significant amount of money around, so maybe he is talking about that one. I don't know how they operate, but I bet the real story has nothing to do with 25% going into anyone's pocket. I could be wrong, but anonymous posters talking about un-namend clubs irritates me nonetheless.

i see this too at our local level where the organizers boost the retail price for plastic payback to ams and pocket the difference.



Figured that out did ya?

It's called wholesale and retail .....

Buy it at wholesale
Give it to Ams at Retail ... and then they sell it back to you some where in between ..... and you .... sell it again.....at retail

Am walks away with about 40% $value of what they think they've really won.

I qoute Nelson from the Simpsons "ha ha"

Happens all season long, everywhere you go.

IMHO
By the time most Ams are winning...they're not Ams any more.


If you think your chances are pretty good at winning in Ams, you should just buck up and play Open.

Mr. Anonymous Toad,

You should name names, or at least not be hiding behind an anonymous account to level that kind of criticism. What club are you talking about that has been ripping you off for 25% off the top, to line "their" pockets?

You say you are in Anaheim. I can only think of two possibilities. And I know for a fact that one of them does not do that at all.

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and make up ideas about what might possibily be happening behind the scenes. But if you actually get behind the tables and help it will look a whole lot different.

And like another poster said, TDs are usually too busy trying to make it all happen to stop and try to train you on the spot. Show up early and often. Do what needs to be done. Check scorecards and sweep tee pads. After a little bit of that you suddenly look like someone who is serious and can be counted on. There are tons of people who show up at crunch time to help, and then disappear without doing anything. TDs don't know if you are serious or not just by your words. Many trusty-worthy seeming people have pulled the now-show on important things to let a TD down. So do whatever can be done, and make sure you are there at the right time for stuff if you are serious about helping.



cant name names, even though i quit supporting the greedy few in my area, i still want them to strive for better disc golf in the area and bashing them behind their backs, or to their faces is not constructive....for the record im not in socal at all, used to be but they laid me off at disneyland and had to move to survive :D seriously, i was a so cal member, joined in 97, and though there have been a few growing pains by the so cal organization over the past years, the socal disc golf club is NOT who i am talking about, they arent even close to the graft and manipulation ive seen with the club im talking about. my whole post was to give credence to somebody elses post about what i think is unfair manipulation of disc golfers who just want to participate.
from personal experience i can tell you, rhett, that the generalities you put forth about involving oneself is way off base on this particular situation.
i was running and organizing tournaments for this particular club with no recompense for me, the disc sellers and so called "organizers" pocketed the money, i did this several years, i tried to invite change by drafting bylaws to apply for non-profit org., for the club to adhere to, they were ignored and to this day are still ignored.
how long do you beat your head against a wall till you pass out from the sheer frustration of it all? i now run my own tourneys, everyone is welcome, the entry fees are given back 100%, am and pro alike...no plastic.
rhett, please dont assume from your experience it applies to all the other people in the world, and if its any consolation i wish i was still part of the socal experience, i miss it a lot!
.

my god rhett....i know who the toad is.....









it's magilla :D

Why can't you name the club? There is only one that I can think of. You could be casting a shadow over an innocent entity by being vague. :)

Plus, it sounds like you don't believe they are striving for disc golf excellence, so what harm would outing them do? Except hurt their wallets.

Why can't you name the club? There is only one that I can think of. You could be casting a shadow over an innocent entity by being vague. :)

Plus, it sounds like you don't believe they are striving for disc golf excellence, so what harm would outing them do? Except hurt their wallets.



Ok everyone! Get your sickles, pitchforks and torches. I�ll bring the water tub for the trial by floatation test.

rhett, thanks for your interest in this. next time i get to socal for a tourney that you are going to i will get with you and explain things to your satisfaction. i dont feel this forum is the place for this.
thanks.

Okay toad.

Personally, I don't think innuendo about people's character and motives is appropriate. I feel people should name names or not bring it up on a public forum.

If we are discussing rules, and someone wants to say, "In this tourney once, this guy did such and such, and I didn't know what th eright call was", then that is fine because the who it is isn't really relevant to the rules discussion.

But saying "there's this guy in Podunk who always cheats by doing such and such. I won't say who it is, but you all know him he's a cheater", is a lot different. IMNSHO.

Know what I mean?

Why can't you name the club? There is only one that I can think of. You could be casting a shadow over an innocent entity by being vague. :)

Plus, it sounds like you don't believe they are striving for disc golf excellence, so what harm would outing them do? Except hurt their wallets.



Ok everyone! Get your sickles, pitchforks and torches. I�ll bring the water tub for the trial by floatation test.



I always love this test. Unless it has changed? Maybe the cheap ripoff artists float now? :D