Well?

I'm betting it will stay.

We are already seeing a lot of moved-up-moved-out players moving back in where their rating puts them. I've noticed players who have been playing once a year for the last three years already have three tournaments in this year.

Plus, if they get the major rules changes done like they were talking about doing, that is going to take a lot of time and energy away from further format tweaks.

I suspect that eventually a new set of divisions will be added, not identified as am or pro, where players of a certain skill level compete for merchandise similar to Advanced and Intermediate today. Pro divisions will still award cash and redefined am divisions will award trophies, player packs and CTP prizes.

I would hate to see a 3rd set of overlapping divisions added.

I would like to see the "classifications" go away. ie, no more "pro" or "am" designations. Just the following:

Open
Adv
Int
Rec

Then just the following age divisions:
Masters
Grands
Seniors
Legends

"Open" plays for cash, all others (and that means ALL others) play for prizes. Put a ratings cap on Advanced and age limits on the old fart divisions, and that's it.

Man Rhett that sounds good. And familiar. :)

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=306953&Searchpage=0&Main=306401&Search=true&#Post306953

And a few posts after that you said mine sounded familiar. :eek:

Guess we've both been saying the same thing for a long time. Why won't anybody listen? :confused: Don't answer. :D

Seriously. Calling all members of the Board to respond to Rhett's post.

yeah....isnt that how its supposed to be...?

I really think the solution is looking at each case individually. Instead of just saying everyone under X rating can play am, the PDGA should look at people who petition for thier am status back more seriously.

This elimantes ppl jumping back and forth each weekend.

When this person regains his am status and cashes in open, he must go through the process again before he can play amateur again.

Just my thoughts on a very possible solution

Or maybe have a rule saying that if you accept cash as a pro then you can't play back down in advanced for a certain length of time(6 months...year?)

That's the system that we had before this year and it doesn't encourage players to come back to the sport and play more tournaments. Most people won't petition the PDGA for am status, but if you tell them they can play it looks like some of them will come back.

I think we are simply in the middle of transitioning to a "no pro or am classification" system. It would be nice to officially hear what the plan is, but the facts look pretty strong:

First we get ratings going. Takes a couple of years, but it is in pretty good shape now.

Next we add a rating-max to each lower am division. Ams cannot play in divisions where their rating is too high.

Next we allow pros to play in the am divisions if their ratings are low enough and fit the below the rating max for that division. Since there is no rating cap Advanced, one must be established. 955 is picked because it creates the same size ratings range for Advanced as there is for Intermediate. (40 ratings points.) I think this is a big hint for things to come.


That is where we are now. Here are the next steps that I see coming:

Next adjustment: rating cap of 955 on Ams. If you are rated 955 or higher you play Open. Something will have to be done about pro entry fees being so freakin' high compared to Advanced, though, because you can't force someone to go from $45 entries to $125 entries and expect them to keep playing. There are issues that need to be addressed, so this next step is no slam dunk.

After that: revise the "old man" divisions so that there aren't parallel am and pro versions. This will be very challenging because the Pro Masters field has a lot of disc golf movers and shakers in it, and there is always a lot of emotion any time you talk about touching it in any way. This transition could definitely be the downfall of the plan, but without change here the whole structure stays unbalanced.

Just my opinions here. I have no knowledge of an official PDGA plan or anything, I'm just reading the signs. But I think it would make for a much cleaner competitive structure with these changes and one more: only Open plays for cash. All others play for prizes. :)

As requested,

Leave the old men alone. They aren't bothering you and pretty soon we will have all of the movers and shakers. :cool::cool:

Sorry, someone had to do it...

I know that was the system before.

What I am saying is the PDGA needs to be more willing to re-grant amatuer status than they were before

Rhett and Hank got it right.
The PDGA had it right before all these convolusions began to be instituted.

Perhaps the PDGA should not be spending valuable energy on luring Pro players back to tournaments through divisional options and loopholes. Changing requirements and standards each year may even contribute to players leaving the game.

I demand a division that I will rule. All the added cash should be put into this division. I deserve it. :p

I know that was the system before.

What I am saying is the PDGA needs to be more willing to re-grant amatuer status than they were before


Why is it necessarily an issue of the PDGA needing to be more willing? I would imagine that that there have been relatively few players who have petitioned for am status over the years, rather than the PDGA being too stringent. Otherwise I don't think the PDGA would have taken these steps attempting to be more welcoming to those disenfranchised pro players.

I think Rhett's on target with what he estimates are the future plans for the PDGA. We seem to be ever slowly moving toward a streamlined top to bottom system that allows players to move up and down as their skills improve or erode, while how those players have been compensated in the past will have no bearing on the skill division that they are allowed to play.

--Josh

masters age should be changed to at least 45, and 50 is even better.

a 40 year old body is in no way at a disadvantage in this sport.

lesser skilled masters can choose from either MA1 or MA2. or even Rec if your last name is atwood.

this masters/grandmasters/srgrandmasters/legends stuff is nonsense.

and you are how old? trust me, by the end of a 2 day event i am DONE! i can barely make it through 1 day sometimes. call me when you hit 40 and tell me again how the young guys have no advantage....

Doesn't this all come back to simply using ratings? I would hazzard a guess that if the PDGA is going anywhere it's to a straight ratings based system possibly with two divisions, Pro and Am. As John Lennon said. "Imagine there's no Masters, no Grand Masters too... imagine all the people playing at their rated level."

do away with the float rule!!!!!!!!!! a pro is a pro!!

and you are how old? trust me, by the end of a 2 day event i am DONE! i can barely make it through 1 day sometimes. call me when you hit 40 and tell me again how the young guys have no advantage....



I turned 39 ten days ago and I kind of agree with you from my experience. But, in my case that is more an effect of me being out of shape. I played soccer and ran track in highschool, cross country and soccer in college, ran 10K's, cycled in long road races and played lots of Ultimate as an adult. So....I have been in shape, but I am not in shape now.

I suggest that instead of age protected divisions, there should be fitness protected divisions. :eek:

and you are how old? trust me, by the end of a 2 day event i am DONE! i can barely make it through 1 day sometimes. call me when you hit 40 and tell me again how the young guys have no advantage....





So your saying that Al Shack and Brad Hammock and Ron Russel and Ken Climo and Barry Schultz and Schwebby are all YOUNG GUNS. If you didnt notice Hammock is 42 Barry and Kenny are in their late 30s if memory serves me correct and Al Shack is old enough to play masters so i really dont see were your coming from since ALOT of the SUPER PROS arent very young.

I think we are simply in the middle of transitioning to a "no pro or am classification" system. It would be nice to officially hear what the plan is, but the facts look pretty strong:

First we get ratings going. Takes a couple of years, but it is in pretty good shape now.

Next we add a rating-max to each lower am division. Ams cannot play in divisions where their rating is too high.

Next we allow pros to play in the am divisions if their ratings are low enough and fit the below the rating max for that division. Since there is no rating cap Advanced, one must be established. 955 is picked because it creates the same size ratings range for Advanced as there is for Intermediate. (40 ratings points.) I think this is a big hint for things to come.


That is where we are now. Here are the next steps that I see coming:

Next adjustment: rating cap of 955 on Ams. If you are rated 955 or higher you play Open. Something will have to be done about pro entry fees being so freakin' high compared to Advanced, though, because you can't force someone to go from $45 entries to $125 entries and expect them to keep playing. There are issues that need to be addressed, so this next step is no slam dunk.

After that: revise the "old man" divisions so that there aren't parallel am and pro versions. This will be very challenging because the Pro Masters field has a lot of disc golf movers and shakers in it, and there is always a lot of emotion any time you talk about touching it in any way. This transition could definitely be the downfall of the plan, but without change here the whole structure stays unbalanced.

Just my opinions here. I have no knowledge of an official PDGA plan or anything, I'm just reading the signs. But I think it would make for a much cleaner competitive structure with these changes and one more: only Open plays for cash. All others play for prizes. :)



I think the gap between the advanced guys and the Pros should be Pro 2 a division where advanced players have a chance at cashing with out turning pro and the bottom of the barrel pros have a chance to cash once again. Say I'm a 960 Am and I would like to play pro but the tournament has 22 pros of witch 9 of them are 990 to 1100 that should be at least 7 spots in the cash that I don't have a chance at so the tournament pays the top third witch is 7-8 pros so I just donated my entry fee to play pro. The same goes for a pro rated 955-980 that want to play in a NT or Super tour.

Then we get reed of age protected divisions and go with ratings based divisions. Since Brad Hammock plays master and is over 40 but he was a rating of over 1000, witch puts him as one of the top player in the sport.

not sure how often those guys show up at your local event, but i didn't happen to catch them at any of our c tiers. scwebby did come up to patapsco last year though. i think they are the exception rather than the rule. not many people at ANY age can beat them, they are on another level. what i am saying is that if you took all the 1000+rated golfers and sorted them into under 40 and over 40, there would be a HUGE disparity, compared to the overall percentage of over 40 golfers.
and if that doesn't mean anything to you, try the percentage of over 40 golfers running events! :cool:

PDGA Members should be required to declare their classification and division for the calendar year and stick with it for that year. The only time they should be permitted to play in another division is if their division is not offered and they qualify for one of the ones offered.

Certainly no "Amateur" should EVER be permitted to play in a Professional division, without relinquishing their amateur status, and under NO circumstances should a Professional EVER be permitted to play in an Amateur division.

That would make a mockery of our entire classification/divisional system...

(its a good thing we don't have professionals or amateurs in organized disc golf...)

and you are how old? trust me, by the end of a 2 day event i am DONE! i can barely make it through 1 day sometimes. call me when you hit 40 and tell me again how the young guys have no advantage....





So your saying that Al Shack and Brad Hammock and Ron Russel and Ken Climo and Barry Schultz and Schwebby are all YOUNG GUNS. If you didnt notice Hammock is 42 Barry and Kenny are in their late 30s if memory serves me correct and Al Shack is old enough to play masters so i really dont see were your coming from since ALOT of the SUPER PROS arent very young.



35 is not late 30s, gg math

Its certainly later then 34 and not even close to 22 years of age like I am :D Now IM a young gun. I dont consider 35 year olds to be YOUNG guns. They are expierience players. Not your or old just middle of the road :D

Whether or not there is a true need for age protected divisions, there is an overwhelming desire by the membership for it. My opinion is that when we get rid of pro and am classifications, the age protected divisions should play for merch. That will separate the Super Pro old farts from the fun loving old farts who prefer to hang out with other old men, where we can pull our pants up under our armpits and complain about how good things used to be instead of being forced to play with young whippersnappers who seem to think we enjoy looking at their [*****]-cracks.

But making it a merch division and only paying cash to Open would resolve a lot of the 1000+ rated Masters division issues.

Brad Hammock should play open, but one of the reasons why he plays masters is because of the bonus he gets when he wins a tourny. For most majors, he is probably a huge favorite to win the Master's Division.

Responding to a lot of different posts, I don't think there is a "plan." Until recently there was a philosophical majority disposition on the Board towards using ratings more and more as the determining factor in defining competitive divisions, and a preference to move slowly in that regard. But the Board has two new members and an open slot. The Board is constantly changing.

It is strange, but if you compare opinions on the lame political threads to opinions on threads relating to format and rules issues, usually the flaming liberals on the political issues become the arch conservatives on format issues. As a group, disc golfers are highly resistant to anyone tampering with the familiar format and rules.

The age restricted divisions especially are the "third rail" of disc golf politics. But since none of the board members make a living by being board members, they don't have the same vested interest in pleasing a constituency that elected politicians have.

When I started thesoft cap thread (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=291819&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1) it seemed inevitable to me that the advanced divisions would have a cap on them before long. To me it also seems like that if someone wanted to play amateur disc golf for purely amateur motivations, like Tiger Woods before he had won his third US Amateur Championship, we should not preclude that with a hard cap. The PGA never told Tiger, "Dude, two amateur national championships is one too many. You gotta quit competing or go pro," although some of his competitors may have.

We do have a plan to get disc golf recognized as a university sport. Therefore, there is a need for something that we recognize as amateur and not professional.

As to Pro 2, that concept does not work well for most of our TDs when it is played out to its logical conclusion. TDs need to make some profit on the amateur payouts to cover park use fees, sanctioning, insurance and, yes, added cash for the pros if they choose to do that. If Pro 2 were an established division, too many players would be playing for their money back and not enough would be contributing towards tournament overhead.

The top rated players over 40 are probably in better tournament shape than the average 40+ year old. Many play Open in local and regional events. What you might do is raise the age to play Master Pro to 45 and leave the Master Am age at 40. Then raise the Master Pro age by one year for each of the next 5 years until the offset was 10 years between the Pro and Am of the same name. The GM pro, Sr GM Pro and Legends ages would also go up in the same way but the equivalent Am name age breaks wouldn't change.

The current Master Pros who are under 45 would have to decide whether they would switch to Open Pro until they got a little older to play Master Pro again. Or, there would be general amnesty to let these players revert to Master Am status. This would result in raising the average rating of those in Master Am. The benefit would be getting the very top Master players to always play Open, not just at locals and reduce the percentage of added cash going to older divisions at premier events like the NT and A-tiers.

Man, this drives me nuts. Divide this, change age brackets, add one year, amnesty, revert back to am status. Just put all the financial incentives toward open; take them away from ams; and encourage open participation through reasonable pricing and payout.

The PDGA makes this so **** complex because they don't understand the basics. It is simple: admit that profit is for pros and understand basic economics/pricing. Once this is done, divisional breakdowns will be simple and bagging will disappear.

I have no problem with giving the masters added cash. My problem lies with people of master�s age with the skill of the top open players that play master for the easy money.
It's the same problem I have with 970+ player play in Advanced at B and C tears instead of moving up to pro.'
That�s why I thought that a pro2 division was the way to go but the PDGA got read of it after only one year, but they still hold on to the flawed masters divisions, because the old guys like to play with each other. I would like to play with people that are going to push me and my game to a higher level, but its hard to jump from $60 entry fee to a $125 entry fee witch is more like a donation to the top pros.

It is simple: admit that profit is for pros and understand basic economics/pricing.



I think the PDGA attempts to be and is relatively in sync with the marketplace subject to incremental adjustment as Rhett suggested. The marketplace does not value our pro excellence like some other major sports and our system operates accordingly, despite what some top pros would like to see. Tournaments, average players per event and memberships are up again for an unbroken string of increases. Doesn't mean the system can't be better but isn't the "marketplace" players voting with their wallets?

I like raising the age to 45 or 50 for Masters( I prefer 50 and I've said that for years). I think we would have more Amateurs under 50 then and the better players playing Pro Open. It would make both Open and Masters divsions mean more and have more respect. There are just too many very good Masters age players who could make the Open division larger. But it depends on what people want. Do we want a true Professional Open division or do we want several Age-protected divisions so more people can win cash/prizes? MHO

Just put all the financial incentives toward open; take them away from ams


I'm sure the disc manufacturers would love to see that huge quota of discs disappear from their sales. <---Sarcasm
I do agree that one of the problems is that AMs have become spoiled to the point of expecting prizes. Its almost like they don't want to get better, they just want more stuff.

Okay, I'll abandon the principles of rewarding excellence to encourage health and embrace the principle of subsidizing mediocrity to uh.....encourage mediocrity. I'll even abandon my basic belief that health/strength is preferable to mediocrity. I'll base my discussion on different values: the collective economic decisions of all golfers. Your disc golf marketplace.

I would personally love to have a real measure of the growth of total people who play disc golf since I started in the mid eighties. I have no verifiable numbers, but my experience tells me that back then, the % of tournament disc golfers to total disc golfers was way higher than it is today. The % of open disc golfers to total disc golfers was also way higher back then.

To use a network analogy. Total disc golfers are the target audience of the competitive arm (PDGA). The PDGA wishes to attract as much of the target audience as possible. In my estimation, they are attracting fewer of the target audience then before, but the total veiwership is up due to the phenomenal growth of the target audience. The PDGA says "see, we are successful, our numbers keep growing. Let's maintain our current strategies, they are kicking butt." My question is this: can continually reaching a smaller % of the disc golf population really be considered a successful strategy, or might it be a sign of something else?

Is it really a smaller percentage, James? I don't think so. Total disc golf numbers are up, but so are tournament player numbers. It could be that we are reaching the exact same percentage.

There is also a skew factor of "tournament full" that could affect these percentages. If the target base grows by X-%, and for arguments sake we assume that the same %-age of those players want to play tournaments so the potential PDGA tourney base grows by the same X-%, but tournaments are 100% full....then the measureable growth will be less than X-% even though X is where it really is.

I also disagree with your basic premise that total disc golfers are the target audience for the PDGA. While total disc golfers is an intersting statistic, the PDGA focuses on Tournament Players.

I think Chuck is right about the numbers but wrong about whether it is a bad thing. At a recreational level this game has exploded. In 1992, which is about as far back as I can clearly remember, almost anyone you saw on the course was a serious player. Now disc golf is the number 1 cheap group date activity for college and highschool age kids and there are huge numbers of casual recreational players.

These players do not necessarily want to play the game competitively at tournaments. These players want to get together with everyone they know in an elevensome and have a low cost social event. There is nothing wrong with that. If you don't like elevensomes you can work on the Fly 18 concept with or without Reese!

These are not the players we need to expand our membership base. These are the players we need to expand our TV audience.

It is strange, but if you compare opinions on the lame political threads to opinions on threads relating to format and rules issues, usually the flaming liberals on the political issues become the arch conservatives on format issues. As a group, disc golfers are highly resistant to anyone tampering with the familiar format and rules.



How true is this? Nick - flaming liberal - biggest supporter of a true Am format and ending 2 meter rule. Pat - flaming liberal - wants to move masters age to 45 or 50 and feels that the age divisions are... nonsense. He does however support the 2 meter rule. Myself, I'm so liberal that the call me a [*****]... well, a progressive anyway - I'm all for utilizing a pure ratings system. I like clean and easy to interpret and implement.

While I have no doubt that there are some old men with their butte cracks showing that refuse to consider the possible end of age protected divisions, there is also a group with their pants up under their armpits that think it is a true pain and should be eliminated for something simpler and fairer.

As for the BOD, I don't know where they fall on this issue but I think your point that they seem to be, in general, drifting towards a rating based system is telling.

Just put all the financial incentives toward open; take them away from ams


I'm sure the disc manufacturers would love to see that huge quota of discs disappear from their sales. <---Sarcasm
I do agree that one of the problems is that AMs have become spoiled to the point of expecting prizes. Its almost like they don't want to get better, they just want more stuff.



so true, I wanted more stuff, than i started throwing Discraft :). now I dont want any stuff from tournys. Unless its Discraft of course :)

It was pretty exciting to get stuff when I first started to play, but I must confess, it has been a burden @ times. I dont know in a way it is good I can give stuff away to friends and grow the game, but that does feed into the expectation of always getting something.

Maybe give more to the TD'S?

In 1992, which is about as far back as I can clearly remember, almost anyone you saw on the course was a serious player.



I disagree. The tourney scene was much smaller and most casual players didn't know there was a PDGA to take seriously.


Now disc golf is the number 1 cheap group date activity....



Can you please provide your source for this statistic?
And what does it have to do with this thread?

Fair enough. I don't have any numbers to counter your belief. I just remember that back in the old days, a large % of those I would see on any given day at the course played in the tournaments. Today, I can see a full course, but very few tournament players. At any rate, one would think that in order to attract sponsors, the PDGA has some surrogate measure of the growth of disc golf or an estimation of the total disc golfers on the planet. Maybe someone privy to this estimation could provide this figure.

As to your other point, I agree that one arm of the PDGA mainly sees only tornament players. However, I don't agree that the PDGA should limit its concerns to the desires of its current membership. In fact, IMO, those concerns should be secondary to the health of the sport.

disclaimer: I am aware that on one hand, the PDGA recognizes that in order to grow the sport, or to grow its members, it must increase the total pool of disc golfers. Thus, we have efforts like EDGE, intercoleegiate, etc. I support these efforts. They seem like sound strategies. It's the strategies of capturing this increasing pool that seem weak.

and you are how old? trust me, by the end of a 2 day event i am DONE! i can barely make it through 1 day sometimes. call me when you hit 40 and tell me again how the young guys have no advantage....



and i am 47 years old.

i trust you on your assessment that after a 2 day event you are DONE.

remember that phone call you got back in December '97. it was before caller ID, and you didnt pick up in time. that was me! :D

the 40th birthday should not be a factor that limits the success of most golfers. not being in shape, however, is. (thats not directed at you DrEvilson, i'm 20 pounds over where i should be also)

In 1992, which is about as far back as I can clearly remember, almost anyone you saw on the course was a serious player.



I disagree. The tourney scene was much smaller and most casual players didn't know there was a PDGA to take seriously.


Now disc golf is the number 1 cheap group date activity....



Can you please provide your source for this statistic?
And what does it have to do with this thread?



Jim, I think it was different in Michigan in 1992. In the Chicago area in 1992 all I usually saw were casual players when I played L'ville and B-Grove. When I went to Michigan and played courses with Bruce we mostly saw competitive players with bags and such. I think it has to do with the competitive nature in those areas at the time. Michigan had several good tournaments in most of the metro areas and several active clubs. The Chicago area had nothing in the way of tournaments and maybe one club. You had to go down to Joliet to go to tournaments or good league action.

Go to BG or L'ville --maybe even Round Lake on any night during the summer and you'll see guys and girls doing the group date thing. Something their parents might have done at the mini-golf place and their grand parents did at the drive-in. The alternative is a movie or the mall for today's kids. Disc golf is a nice cheap alternative.

I don't know what this has to do with this thread but someone steered us down this road talking about % of total players that play tournaments today compared with the past.

Sorry for the drift. Linear paths don't always get you there.

It is an observation from the courses I get to that was quickly confirmed by a google search:

www.dating-tips-advice.com/date_ideas/cheap (http://www.dating-tips-advice.com/date_ideas/cheap)

www.coolestdates.com/sporting_dates.htm (http://www.coolestdates.com/sporting_dates.htm)

www.spokane7.com/editions/story.asp?ID=26997 (http://www.spokane7.com/editions/story.asp?ID=26997)

Jon, you are right about the different attitudes in different areas back then. The world has gotten smaller in just 10 years and I think the mix has been levelling out. But I think teenage group disc golfing has been going on since the beginning. Grass roots growth and all.... Good luck in Kenosha, BTW.

Sorry for the continued drift, Bruce, but those links you posted in no way validated your claim that disc golf is the #1 group date suggested event. Disc golf was listed briefly and near the bottom of each list. Not that it matters, just keeping it real.

The float rule will sink.

masters age should be changed to at least 45, and 50 is even better.

a 40 year old body is in no way at a disadvantage in this sport.

**********

Played a 54 hole tourney with 19 Adv. Masters this weekend.
Advil, Ice, Yukon Jack, Aspirin, MD20/20, mirco brews,
converted golf carts, caddys, eyeglasses as deep as an 86 mold, knee braces, orthotics, and a few more fun things
like kidney stones, limp disc disorder, and the smell
of bengay.

Just driving to the tourney is hard enough for some of us!
Spend 25 years behind a desk, then 4 hours behind a wheel,
then go throw 36 holes, half of them long enough to require
2 full drives for many of the Adv.Masters, and THEN tell
me that being 18 is no advantage to being 40+.

It is now 2 days post tourney, and I'll bet 1 green American
dollar than I'm not the only one of 19 still aching.

If You've got a 40+ year old body that is not a disadvantage in this sport more power to you. There are not many
in the Hammock mold.

...The float rule will sink.



I think the float rule will evolve, but I don't think the PDGA will turn down the increase in revenue that the rule is bringing them. Jim, I'll bet you a Guinness that the float rule doesn't sink before the 2006 season. I might be wrong, you might be thirsty. :D

We are already seeing a lot of moved-up-moved-out players moving back in where their rating puts them.



Prove it.

I think the float rule will evolve, but I don't think the PDGA will turn down the increase in revenue that the rule is bringing them.



Prove it.

While I think that it is a good thing to have players play in appropriate divisions (and classifications: if we ever have more than one) letting players float around is not good for several reasons:

1) It perpetuates the lack of any definition or actuality of "Amateur" or "Professional" competition within the organized branch of disc golf. (Carnies and Gamblers)
2) There is no divisional stability. You get folks showing up, counting how many are in each division, calculating payouts (cash or prize) and deciding right there which division best suits their needs. This rather than everyone, including the TD, just knowing who is in what division (and classification) and preparing their play and events appropriately.
3) Any temporary jump in revenue is nothing compared to the benefits of having a REAL (and not just to us dgers) definition and actual competitive structure with TRUE Amateurs and TRUE Professionals.

I can't say for sure, but I think the solution will involve the will to do what is necessary to really address our end game, rather than incremental changes that may or may not in fact be leading us in the wrong direction.

If I had to gauge our success at this point, I'd say that the PDGA BOD IS GETTING IT, just not at the pace I'd hope for. But understanding a fraction of their situation, they deserve our patience and support. Moreso than rogue "know-it-all" "flash-in-the-pan" tournament directors or just plain loud-mouths who do nothing but whine and moan while doing nada.

Jon, PM.



Any temporary jump in revenue is nothing compared to the benefits of having a REAL (and not just to us dgers) definition and actual competitive structure with TRUE Amateurs and TRUE Professionals.



Agreed. At the end of the year, I'd like to know exactly how much $ the float rule has generated for the PDGA.

Pros should play by ratings in Open Division.
All else should be age-protected Amateurs.

... MD20/20, mirco brews ...



maybe they're not serious about the competitive aspect of the tourney. 'nuf said.

As to your other point, I agree that one arm of the PDGA mainly sees only tornament players. However, I don't agree that the PDGA should limit its concerns to the desires of its current membership. In fact, IMO, those concerns should be secondary to the health of the sport.




I could not agree more with James. Tournament players are a microcosm of the sport, but consider where major sports make the most money, from pro teams or the masses of am players that pay full price? Granted, at our level the impact is not the same, in all likelihood the tourney players still account for most sales but it won't always be that way.

We never ask the question of how we can tap into that group. Consider the questions: What services could the PDGA or a sister organization offer casual players? What would that be worth to them? Could we offer services that would encourage faster development of casual players into tournament players?

While it is hard to know what kind of revenues (prize money course support money etc.) could be generated by tapping into the casual market I think the observation, that increasingly the players we see are casual and not tournament, is acurate. Of the 30 people I've met on local courses this month, 2/3rds were casual non-Club non-PDGA. Ignoring those players is non-sensical.

The float rule may make it or sink. The fact is that this itteration is irrelavant to the greater problem. How do you get players in, keep them enthused and grow the sport?Experimentation will continue until we find a good way to accomplish those goals. The float rule is an attempt on the part of the PDGA to keep players active.

There is no question that the sport needs a casual format that is low cost and high fun with low levels of stress. Whether that is accomplished via a float rule or a new classification doesn't matter. What matters is how long it takes us to get there.

heres some ideas:

1) first, committ to the principle of never forcing anyone to "turn pro", ie take cash.

2) change the play-down level for MM1 from 915 to 930. a 930 rated "open master" is not gonna run away with the division. a 915 player is gonna have his hands full at the larger events. the current 915 is too low.

3) B tiers and above no payout except for trophy/plaque/etc for any player in MA1 and MM1 who is rated higher than 955 or 930. (same cutoff as the play-down threshold).

4) A tiers and above enforce some minimum standard for competing in the open divisions. standards could include:
* 930/900 ratings for open/masters respectively
* a top 3 finish at a B tier or above in the current or previous calendar year
(in MA1 for access to Open, in MM1 for access to Masters)
temp "tour" cards would be issued by the TD at the event, official tour cards would be forwarded by the pdga when they receive the event data from the TD.

it would be great to start making access to Open and Master fields something to work towards, not just a question of having the entry fees and free time. for there to be a true "Pro" class, we need to start setting some standards!

It is not really about the increased revenue. It is about defining competitive classifications by rating rather than by past preference for cash or prizes. In Michigan the PDGA has made at least $8 so far. But maybe one of those two players would have played Open and donated, so maybe it is $4. That will pay for Lorrie's salad at the PDGA banquet, so that makes it all worthwhile.

It is not really about the increased revenue. It is about defining competitive classifications by rating rather than by past preference for cash or prizes.


Agreed, but I think this will increase revenue and cash flow by increasing participation and fairness. As much as we like to be altruistic, the fact is that the sport, or any sport, is driven by income.


In Michigan the PDGA has made at least $8 so far. But maybe one of those two players would have played Open and donated, so maybe it is $4. That will pay for Lorrie's salad at the PDGA banquet, so that makes it all worthwhile.

I hated Pro 2.

I DESPISE the float rule.

Bring back Pro 2

we need to start setting some standards!



USGA: Rules of Amateur Status (http://www.usga.org/playing/amateur_status/rules/amstat_rules.html)

And before you jump on the $750 max payout for ball golf amateurs, consider that their total professional payouts are around $1,000,000.00 and ours are around $1000.00. That is a 1000 Times greater, leaving dg amateur maximum payouts at about $0.75!

Tournament Directors should be free to do payouts to Professional Class Players ANY WAY THEY PLEASE. Including cash, mix cash prizes, or just prizes.

Tournament Directors who give payouts of any kind, other than in the form of trophy, to Amateur Class Players based on performance should permanently lose their right to ever host a PDGA event again. And players that compete in such events lose their right to ever compete in a PDGA Amateur Division again.

THERE HAS GOT TO BE A CLEAR DEFINITION BETWEEN PROFESSIONAL AND AMATEUR, or you're just ******* in the wind.

If the cart is moving too slow, let's shoot the horse.

If the cart is moving too slow, let's shoot the horse.



No, let's address the fact that cars have been available for over 100 years now and get on with joining the 21st Century.

The PGA has the ability to make whatever restrictions it likes without any concern of another competing organization taking away it's players. It is because of the size of the purses and the prestige of the name.

If the PDGA tried a similar approach without the drawing ability of sponsorship dollars, it would be brushed aside. We cannot proceed faster or further than the membership is ready to follow. There have been major strides taken in the last few years. Many are complaining, but most are still around waiting to see what happens.

I would love to see a true amateur series of events promoted that could be used by municipal rec departments and schools for organized competition. After that was established, the PDGA could move it's focus to formalizing a "Pro" tour and calling what we do now a semi-pro tour. But the time to do that is after we establish an amateur base.

I also fail to see the need to restrict amateurs from competing in PDGA events and turning down cash/prizes above a certain value.

There have been major strides taken in the last few years.



This may well be true, but what measure are you using to gauge this progress?
What measure is the PDGA using to gauge progress?
Do they even have a such a measure?
Do they try to compile other measures for feedback on their policies?

I hope they have a plan and idea of objective measure in mind. I just know how much has changed and how long it took to happen. It reminds me of something I learned in the military. A complaining soldier is a happy soldier, it's when they stop complaining that you have to start worrying.

Growth. Try the charts on these pages: http://www.pdga.com/demographics.php

I'll take it that is how the PDGA measures it's success then. Absolute member growth, purse growth, event growth, entrant growth.

Are statistics kept on: Are members playing more frequently? Are members renewing (or a breakdown of the total member growth)? Is the dropout rate decreasing? Is total courses the surrogate for the sport's growth. If so, is it outpacing even the most positive of metrics listed on the page? Where did that total player estimate come from? Compare its growth rate to the most positive of listed metrics.

The PDGA provided metrics may be the most telling, I just wonder if they ever look at any other measures?

Member retention rates are monitored and compare favorably with other organizations. Hoeniger did an in-depth analysis based on gender, age and years as a PDGA member. Once a player has been a member for 2 years, their renewal rate jumps significantly. These aren't the only measures of success but they are easily available to members. Other successes (and concerns) are published in the reports to the Board at the Summit which have been made available to members via PDGA Radio, Terry's member news items, announcements on this discussion board and the PDGA pages in DGWN.

... MD20/20, mirco brews ...



maybe they're not serious about the competitive aspect of the tourney. 'nuf said.



after (mostly), for pain control. The bigger the tent,
the bigger the party.

It all depends on what markets the pdga wants to serve. Look at bowling and stick golf if you want to see real numbers, figure out what they do that can work for us. I'll never have a 1000 rating, but I can have a bowl full of fun, support the sport, scratch the competitive itch with the other greybeards, and enjoy watching the pros with whips
for arms and laser vision putts. its all good. :cool:

The problem I have with all this (and please bear in mind it's now nearly 1am in the UK, and I've been drinking), is not the way, in general, that the PDGA runs things.
At the end of the day, DG tourneys are a marketplace, and the events that best meet the requirements of the membership are those that will be most successful.
In the UK, we have a true Am system, there just isn't a payout, even the Open winner only gets a trophy. The events that regularly win the BDGA award for best event are rarely the ones with the best course, or even the best social, they are the ones that really stick in the memory for the all round package.
My issue (I knew I'd get to it eventually, nearly forgot), is that a lot of these things are mandated by the PDGA.
We're about to have our first ever PDGA event in the UK (Brit Open, 12-14th August if you're interested, excuse the plug) adn as such, all PDGA rules apply. This means all the mandated payouts, rules on accepting cash etc.

I'm the 6th rated UK player in '05 (with 2 American tourists ahead of me, my estimated rating is 940ish). We'll have a small Pro division at the Brit Open because players like myself who play Open in the UK will play Adv Am, so we still qualify for Am worlds 06. Why should I pay the extra to play Pro, only to refuse cash to stay eligable?

Aside: Sudden thought, witht he new Pros under 955 can play Am rule, does that mean that Pros under 955 can play Am worlds? End Aside

Anyway, back to the point, why can't the PDGA relax the rules on payout etc (make them suggestions) to allow TDs to experiment with the format? I'm sure the marketplace would very quickly prove which events are more popular with the buying public...

Aside: Sudden thought, witht he new Pros under 955 can play Am rule, does that mean that Pros under 955 can play Am worlds? End Aside

If the eligibility rule is actually enforced, no:
804.08.H
PDGA Amateur World Championships Eligibility: Current PDGA members registered in an Amateur division who have not relinquished their amateur status are eligible to play, once invited, in the PDGA Amateur World Championships. A player registered in a Professional division who has not accepted prize money in a sanctioned tournament at any time and who was registered in an Amateur division for the immediately preceding calendar year is eligible to play, once invited, in the PDGA Amateur World Championships.

Q. Can low rated pros play Am Worlds?
A. http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/05TourStandards.pdf second paragraph

I also fail to see the need to restrict amateurs from competing in PDGA events and turning down cash/prizes above a certain value.



As with the PGA, that is fine so long as they declare ahead of time (prior to the event) their intenition to decline any prizes or cash. None of this 'seeing if you win first' stuff.

There is NO RISK involved in creating a TRUE Amateur Class, particularly if the current divisions continue on as before simply under different names (Prize and Cash... we'll worry about a TRUE Professional Class once we have a well established TRUE Amateur Class.).

Just the risk that we wind up excluding college scholarship eligible young people from competing at PDGA sanctioned disc golf. Once you define "amateur" in such a way that most TDs refuse to offer the division or classification and most players refuse to play there, the few players for whom amateur status matters will not be able to compete at our tournaments.

I think we first should try making the trophy-only option an option TDs must offer and see if any of our membership will consistantly take that option. If not, redefining "amateur" within our sport to describe a classification that does not really exist will merely define college scholarship eligible kids out of our game.

Absolutely YES on the trophy only option!! Another good argument in favor of trophy only!!

Just the risk that we wind up excluding college scholarship eligible young people from competing at PDGA sanctioned disc golf. Once you define "amateur" in such a way that most TDs refuse to offer the division or classification and most players refuse to play there, the few players for whom amateur status matters will not be able to compete at our tournaments.



A) Has it ever occurred to you Bruce, that perhaps these competitors SHOULD NOT BE COMPETING in the carney/cash divisions? That if they want to keep their collegiate amateur eligibility, What We Currently Call Professional and Amateur Classifications in organized disc golf are, in the eyes of collegiate athletic associations and governing bodies, completely INAPPROPRIATE and for all the RIGHT reasons?

B) Has it occurred to you that IF there is a healthy vibrant and well protected TRUE Amateur Classification in organized disc golf, that it will likely completely and totally eclipse the number of players and tournaments now dedicated to folks competing for each others entry fees? That TDs approaching this new classification of player in the right way might just be able to turn a profit, as will manufacturers, vendors and even community and educational institutions.


I think we first should try making the trophy-only option an option TDs must offer and see if any of our membership will consistantly take that option. If not, redefining "amateur" within our sport to describe a classification that does not really exist will merely define college scholarship eligible kids out of our game.



No, you are wrong Bruce. Creating a classification specifically for Amateur Sportspersons will not eliminate them from our competitions; it will finally set a place at the table of organized disc golf FOR THEM.

I don�t know how much you work with other long time organizers in your region, or discuss what it is you REALLY would like to do, in the end, to help disc golf take a giant, or small, step forward; but I can tell you that in my working with them around the MADC region over the last 6 years that I have not had a single conversation that does not include the desire to introduce to and get school aged children and young adults to become deeply involved in organized disc golf.

Now how can we ever hope to do any of that if we have NO PLACE FOR THEM TO COMPETE!?!

What if the PDGA created scholarship funds for Ams who wished to get their prizes as cash added to their fund (maintained by the PDGA) rather than receive merchandise? TDs would send the discounted prize value as cash to the PDGA with the TD report and other fees. Maybe a $100 merch prize would be worth a $60 scholarship contribution (60% conversion). Players could tap the funds by submitting tuition invoices from the colleges and PDGA would pay the college directly on that account. To reduce paperwork, perhaps only prizes above $X value ($100?, $200?) could be converted.

What if the PDGA created scholarship funds for Ams who wished to get their prizes as cash added to their fund (maintained by the PDGA) rather than receive merchandise? TDs would send the discounted prize value as cash to the PDGA with the TD report and other fees. Maybe a $100 merch prize would be worth a $60 scholarship contribution (60% conversion). Players could tap the funds by submitting tuition invoices from the colleges and PDGA would pay the college directly on that account. To reduce paperwork, perhaps only prizes above $X value ($100?, $200?) could be converted.



You're not being serious I hope Chuck.

Tell me why it's not feasible? We already track points and ratings for members and dollar winnings for pros. There are scholarship mechanisms in other sports. Perhaps this could be ours.

Just do throw this out there. But wouldn't there be some hard nose NCAA officials out there whom would see this "scholarship fund" as a means to pay the tuition of the student? I am thinking they would compare it to a "booster" giving money to the collegiate athlete. NCAA already forbids players recieve payouts for their competitions, wouldn't this just provide "paperwork" to prove that their getting paid to play disc golf.

I do not know how these scholarship funds work in other sports, I could be dead wrong. I am just playing devils advocate.

Athletes earn scholarships due to their athletic performance. They can't spend the scholarship except with the school. This would be the same thing. The athlete earns scholarship money that can only be spent toward college tuition. The only long range bookkeeping policy would be in regard to how long the money stays available to the player. Perhaps if a player hasn't been a member for 5 years, their fund balance would transfer to the PDGA non-profit Foundation.

Thanks yous. Me is no longar ignant bout them collage scolarships. Nows me is gona gits 1 of dem edumacatshuns. So my moma can hang hur suns diplowma on da wefidgeratar. :D

I looked into it Nick. I spoke to the appropriate person at the NCAA. What we currently do works for them. They just go with the definitions of the sanctioning body unless there are egregious abuses. For the amounts we have at stake in the amateur divisions they said it was not an issue.

But, if we redefine the prize paid divisions as not amateur, they will go with that too. They rarely challenge the definitions of the sanctioning body.

Currently anyone who wants to run trophy-only pdga sanctioned competition can. I have in the past and my brother is doing one this summer. And we do not need to change a thing for junior level disc golf organizers to offer junior friendly gambling free formats. The junior format we offer at the IOS B-tiers is gambling free. At the C-tiers we pay out juniors to last place and the increments are so small that it is not like gambling for each others entry fees. This is such a popular concept with the juniors, I think we have six juniors pre-registered to play in the adult divisions!

I love Chuck's idea. It certainly does not run counter to NCAA notions of amateurism.

An MBA certainly won't help your spelling. Might want to change majors and stay in B'ham DG scene a little longer :D

Alabama is ruining my northern education. I need to get back up to Michigan where I belong.

What Birmingham Disc Golf sceen? We have 1 course for 400 players. Last night it took 1 hour to play 9 holes!

...to offer junior friendly gambling free formats. The junior format we offer at the IOS B-tiers is gambling free. At the C-tiers we pay out juniors to last place and the increments are so small that it is not like gambling for each others entry fees.

hey, didnt you know that all events are now gambling free because the removal of the 2MR has finally banished all luck from the sport? we are pure at last!

Athletes earn scholarships due to their athletic performance. They can't spend the scholarship except with the school. This would be the same thing. The athlete earns scholarship money that can only be spent toward college tuition. The only long range bookkeeping policy would be in regard to how long the money stays available to the player. Perhaps if a player hasn't been a member for 5 years, their fund balance would transfer to the PDGA non-profit Foundation.



I'm kinda confused.
With football, basketball, golf, etc., scholarship/grant recipients play sports for that academic institution.
It would not work the same way with disc golf.

Even though this proposed idea would be a "fund", would it be kept in an interest-bearing account? If so, who gets the interest?

Investing in future players (and players' futures) is great and needed. But I think growing previous ideas like basket funds and EDGE are working well. We need to cultivate those investments more first. Until the PDGA gets stronger financially, we should stick to growing our original ideas and continue to define existing structures and formats.

Furthermore, the fund is based on entry fees and the award is based on performance, not the fund is based on charitable donations or an endowment and the award is based on a mix of academic, sports accumen, etc..

This is just a delayed professional payout.

How easily people in disc golf twist the nature of "amateurism" in our likeness. I wonder why when it is so clearly corrupt?

Amateurism is not based on the concept of "profit based on performance". The very idea is repugnant.

When are we going to understand that TRUE amateur sportspersons do not need to be Bribed to come out and play!?!

hey, didnt you know that all events are now gambling free because the removal of the 2MR has finally banished all luck from the sport? we are pure at last!



au contraire. throwing into a tree is always a gamble -- no 2 meter rule needed :p

I think you guys are worrying about a whole lot of nothing. There is a guy on the Wyoming footbal team who plays pro disc golf and accepts cash. The NCAA has not stripped his eleigibility.

There are and have been NCAA college football quarterbacks who were drafted by baseball teams and paid professional minor league contracts, and then washed out and went back to college and played football. They were simply ineligible to play college baseball since they had gone pro in that.

I'm not aware of any college scholarships for disc golf, or even any college teams. If you play pro disc golf and and accept cash, that is what you would be giving up. And it doesn't exist.

I am not an NCAA expert. If you are or might be eligible for a college scholarship in another sport, you should probably be playing only that sport. But please check with the NCAA eligibility clearinghouse for your specific case.

Nick, you apparantly didn't read this post by Bruce:

I looked into it Nick. I spoke to the appropriate person at the NCAA. What we currently do works for them. They just go with the definitions of the sanctioning body unless there are egregious abuses. For the amounts we have at stake in the amateur divisions they said it was not an issue.

But, if we redefine the prize paid divisions as not amateur, they will go with that too. They rarely challenge the definitions of the sanctioning body.


The NCAA is fine with our definitions of pro and am. Deal with it.

STEAM is coming, don't ruin it :eek:

Nick, you apparantly didn't read this post by Bruce:

I looked into it Nick. I spoke to the appropriate person at the NCAA. What we currently do works for them. They just go with the definitions of the sanctioning body unless there are egregious abuses. For the amounts we have at stake in the amateur divisions they said it was not an issue.

But, if we redefine the prize paid divisions as not amateur, they will go with that too. They rarely challenge the definitions of the sanctioning body.


The NCAA is fine with our definitions of pro and am. Deal with it.



I must say that it is particularly comforting to strongly disagree with you again Rhett (and we actually read each others posts, well at risk of losing that...).

You know what we have is not "amateur", it has no relation to "amateur sport", "amateur principles" or "amateur motivations". YOU KNOW THIS. At least I hope you do.

Can we warp it to have a completely alien meaning? One nearly identical to our warped professional meaning?

The answer is self evident as are the limitations and animosities it fosters between divisions and our overall competitive system.

What exactly do you fear from a REAL or TRUE amateur classification? Is it just that you "Prizers" will no longer be able to fool yourselves into thinking that you deserve protection from other gambler disc golfers? That you have some erroneous romanticism concerning the word "amateur".

Bobby Jones would dry heave if asked if our definition of "amateur" were appropriate for the grand old game of golf.

It's wrong and you know it. You don't even deny it anymore, you just say something like, "See! They believe in our incorrect definition of amateur too!"

Weak! Very weak.

Oh surprise of surprises! Nick ignored the quoted post and said the same old thing yet again! :)

Nick, Amateur means what we say it means. There is no concrete definition that applies to all sports equally.

To us an amateur plays for rewards other than cash.

To you, they play for recognition alone.

Fine, let the argument go and spend your efforts on developing a "true" amateur class format for scholastic competition. Get with the EDGE people and get it going. Wouldn't it be great to see the DG moms pulling up to the course with minivans full of new players ?

I'm fairly certain that at one time if the guy playing college football and taking cash as a pro disc golfer were found out, his college career would be done. They may have changed the rule. They've changed a lot of their rules for the revenue generating TV sports. There is a specific NCAA exception for minor league baseball players. It might require a case by case application for waiver of the rule. I'm not an expert. When the issue came up a year and a half ago, I called the lady at the NCAA who answers those questions. You can too. Her answers then were
a) They just go with the pro/am definitions of the sanctioning body for that sport, and
b) Taking cash as a pro disc golfer could jeopardize a kid's athletic scholarship eligibility
but I've forgotten the questions.

In the NCAA an amateur football player at Northwestern is playing for $40-$50K per year in tuition, room, board, books, travel expenses, athletic equipment, medical care, those cute matching jackets they wear on the plane, etc., etc. You don't make the team, you don't get the cute jacket and all that comes with it.

And that does not violate their sense of amateurism!

If he accepts a free meal from a pro agent, hoo-boy, all [*****] breaks loose.

It is not as if their rules make anymore sense than ours.

In the NCAA an amateur football player at Northwestern is playing for $40-$50K per year in tuition, room, board, books, travel expenses, athletic equipment, medical care, those cute matching jackets they wear on the plane, etc., etc. You don't make the team, you don't get the cute jacket and all that comes with it.

And that does not violate their sense of amateurism!

If he accepts a free meal from a pro agent, hoo-boy, all [*****] breaks loose.

It is not as if their rules make anymore sense than ours.


I need to bookmark this post, bruce, and link to it after each of the next 500 posts on this topic by Nick. :)

This may have happened a few years ago, but as a case in point: Danny Ainge played four years of NCAA basketball at Brigham Young University, was an All-America choice, and went on to play NBA basketball. During the summers, he played PROFESSIONAL MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL with the Toronto Blue Jays. EVERY YEAR. Common knowledge, I'd say, with it being on TV and all.

The NCAA rules have to do with being a professional in any sport you are playing at the NCAA sanctioned level in college. As was said earlier, disc golf is NOT a varsity, NCAA governed sport. Even with sTeam.org, it will be a CLUB sport. That's why the football player at Wyoming can play disc golf and win cash. Disc golf isn't recognized by the NCAA as a sport. No disc sport is. Someone could race stock cars, arm wrestle, or play full contact chess for money and the NCAA wouldn't give a whit.

Before you attack me for being anti-amateur, save it. I participated in AAU track and in FIS skiing before either were tainted by sponsored "Amateur" athletes. I understand what your definition of Amateur is. It's just not what we (the PDGA) or they (the NCAA) use.

As far as EDGE goes, we intend to have some sort of scholarship program in the future, and will structure it so it will not jeapordize any student's eligibility or scholarship qualification. We're not all as stupid as you make us out to be.

i thought you had him on ignore?

Then again, there was a football player for Colorado that was also a snowboarder. NCAA told him that he could not play the olympics or it would it mess up his "amateur status."

The football player I think said, "Screw the NCAA" and did it anyway.

Then again, there was a football player for Colorado that was also a snowboarder. NCAA told him that he could not play the olympics or it would it mess up his "amateur status."

The football player I think said, "Screw the NCAA" and did it anyway.


I thought it was a skier, and the problem was that the kid was going to have to do some kind of endorsement deals in order to raise enough money to be able to go to the Olympics, so it really wasn't the same. (Getting endorsement money being "not the same" as winning cash skiing.)

i thought you had him on ignore?


I took him off. We'll see how that works out. :)

Jon, you replied to my post but it sounds like you are talking to Nick.

Rhett, you may be right. I couldn't recall off of the top of my head and I just woke up from my nap so my brain wasn't working yet.

Jon, you replied to my post but it sounds like you are talking to Nick.



I was. Just replied to the last post in the string at the time. Notice I changed the subject line.

Though fascinating to some, not me, whether a collegiate football player is able to play professional disc golf is of no interest to me and it does not answer the primary question concerning the relation of amateur disc golf to professional disc golf. Nor more importantly does even approach the definition of �Amateur Sport� or �Amateur Motivation�. Nor does it address the long standing challenges to the well being of organized disc golf�s competitive system.

There simply is no truth to the contention that Amateur disc golf is remotely related to the fundamental concepts of �Amateur Sport�. It simply is not, and ever since the first stack of plastic was dangled in front of a players nose to entice them to show up for an event, it has been just a �Pro-Lite� division.

So long as their primary motivation is to win others entry fee they are not amateurs in anything but inappropriate name.

So long as their primary motivation is to win others entry fee they are not amateurs in anything but inappropriate name.



Can I get a general agreement to this last statement ?

And an agreement to ignore that issue in the future since it's an issue caused by a definition.

Then we can work on devising a format/structure for trophy only, individual or team competitions easily implemented by cities/schools and the software/documentation to support that format ?

Nick, Amateur means what we say it means. There is no concrete definition that applies to all sports equally.

To us an amateur plays for rewards other than cash.

To you, they play for recognition alone.




I think this is one of my FAVORITE posts EVER!!!!!!!!! Also I think its one of the truest post EVER as well.
With that being said I would like to roll into my next point.


Fine, let the argument go and spend your efforts on developing a "true" amateur class format for scholastic competition. Get with the EDGE people and get it going. Wouldn't it be great to see the DG moms pulling up to the course with minivans full of new players ?



If Nick does this and it becomes a scholastic team sport then wont that just lead to THIS!!!!!!


In the NCAA an amateur football player at Northwestern is playing for $40-$50K per year in tuition, room, board, books, travel expenses, athletic equipment, medical care, those cute matching jackets they wear on the plane, etc., etc. You don't make the team, you don't get the cute jacket and all that comes with it.

And that does not violate their sense of amateurism!

If he accepts a free meal from a pro agent, hoo-boy, all [*****] breaks loose.

It is not as if their rules make anymore sense than ours.




I mean it would be a college Disc Golfer on scholarship for Disc Golf but you get the idea. In Nick trying to develope a true amature class for scholastic reasons wouldnt that just perpetuate the system that he now hates. Then if it started in schools wouldnt they end up competeing in college and end up being PAID ( in Nicks eyes) anyway. Which in turn would make them NOT an amatuer anymore( in Nicks eyes ). :eek: :eek: :eek:

oh me oh my... OUCH! i can feel the burn in nick's side half a continent away. :D

mr pimp, its time to revisit Nick's First Law of Thought, which states:

"Proposals to change disc golf must NEVER be thought through."

and it's first corrolary which further decrees:

"Even in the light of opposing logic, I am always correct."

Dang, Pimp! You really can think! :D:cool::D

Dang, Pimp! You really can think! :D:cool::D



You guys are too smart for me. Someday maybe I'll be able to convince myself that we have an amateur class too, since that seems to be the only criteria for it being REAL or TRUE.

I say keep the float rule. Once a disc begins to float, it is OB! I need a root beer float! :D

If it floats, it must be a witch! :D

Dang, Pimp! You really can think! :D:cool::D



Thats why he's a candidate for the "Bob West Award for Sportsmanship" :confused:

Pimp may be able to think, but I suspect he, and some others here, are missing the point that Nick is trying to make. The current payout structure for Ams in our sport is creating a problem (in actuality several problems). The ams are making a substantial amount of money off of disc sales. This does several things, it pushes ams to bag, it drives up the costs of am play, it drives out players who can't compete at the top level of ams who have to pay higher fees to support the plastic habit of the top players, it drives down the cost of discs since ams undersell the TDs (some will argue this is good but I disagree, without financial incentives TDs won't sponsor as many or as good of tournaments) it fosters a sense of entitlement, "I'm owed that plastic," and it looks bad just like those NCAA players getting all those perks looks bad.

I don't much care about the definition of amatuer, but I do care about this sport. Nick is right, we do need a true am class.

Frankly, Pimp and those who argue against this don't have a leg to stand on. Why should I have to pay for the priveledge of playing in a division with Pimp when all I want is a nice inexpensive round of competitive golf? I'm always bothered in this country when someone tells me I have to play by his rules and those rules include me paying him money, especially when I have a group of guys who want to play and none of them want to take huge chunks of the other's money. I'm not telling Pimp he can't have his plastic pay out, just that he has to play with other people who are of the same mind. The least that he and others like him can do is give me, and other guys who think the same as Nick, the same courtesy.

Really. Unless you play in the SEC, comparing college athletics to what goes on in our sport is way off the mark. College players generally have an incentive to play up. It's built in the system. JC players want to move to Div 1A; players at smaller universities want to go to the best and most competitive conferences. In fact, a lot of college athletes are busting their butt so they will one day reap a financial reward. AS A PRO.

How many pro ballplayers aspire to go back to college so they can make more money?

Why should I have to pay for the priveledge of playing in a division with Pimp when all I want is a nice inexpensive round of competitive golf? I'm always bothered in this country when someone tells me I have to play by his rules and those rules include me paying him money, especially when I have a group of guys who want to play and none of them want to take huge chunks of the other's money.



Then why dont you take those guys and go to a course and play against eachother for 10 bucks a pop and you guys can have a CASH payout all to yourselves. Or maybe go play a league where you pay a one time get in the league fee and then play every week against someone different head to head and at the end of the year get prizes and awards for best average, most valuable player and things of that nature. Thats competitive and cheap. We dont need what you guys call a TRUE AMATEUR CLASS. IMO It wont help the sport and will make people less willing to TD am events.

Thats why he's a candidate for the "Bob West Award for Sportsmanship"
:confused:



What is this supposed to mean???

Despite what you all think there is NO PROFIT IN AM GOLF. I have won over 200 discs in my amature career and have attempted to sell those 200 discs. You know how many discs i still have in my basement out of those 200??? Prolly about 185. Its not easy to sell plastic that you have WON because everyone always wants you to give it to them for next to NOTHING which most people wont do and if they are doing it they are just being stupid because in the end they wont make back the money they spent to play and travel to the tournament anyway. The only way to play for profit is to become a PROFESSIONAL and in our sport most of are PROS dont even make a profit when you figure in the road time and hotel and food and gas and entry fees. So in all actually i think we need to make sure that the pros in the sport ARE PLAYING FOR PROFIT before we start saying that our ams are playing for profit.

Then why dont you take those guys and go to a course and play against eachother for 10 bucks a pop and you guys can have a CASH payout all to yourselves. Or maybe go play a league where you pay a one time get in the league fee and then play every week against someone different head to head and at the end of the year get prizes and awards for best average, most valuable player and things of that nature. Thats competitive and cheap.



Be careful what you wish for. If this happens, then the advanced and intermediate divisions will be much less profitable for all but the greatest baggers. Many marginal players may drop out. Then, the top advanced players may find themselves in smaller, yet still competitive fields. They find that in some of these new tourneys, they don't even cash. In others, they barely make their money back. Soon, facing a difficult financial prospect, they drop out for the most part, just playing leagues and casually.

Since you are not in it for the profit, why do you care if the tourney entry fees are $20 and it all goes to players packs and trophys? Seems like you would like it. With a lower entry fee and the inevitability of losing money, the smaller entry fee would reduce your losses.

Be careful what you wish for. If this happens, then the advanced and intermediate divisions will be much less profitable for all but the greatest baggers. Many marginal players may drop out. Then, the top advanced players may find themselves in smaller, yet still competitive fields. They find that in some of these new tourneys, they don't even cash. In others, they barely make their money back. Soon, facing a difficult financial prospect, they drop out for the most part, just playing leagues and casually.



I HOPE that this happens. There will NEVER be a shortage or AMs who want to play for plastic. You guys act like the people that play right now are the only ones who will ever play tournament. This is just not true. If these people quit more people will move in to replace them. The sport will survive. I hope these people go and play leagues and have a blast playing some cheap competitive golf. There are plenty of AMs out there that LOVE to play for plastic and they will NEVER change their minds.

If what you guys are calling a TRUE AM CLASS is ever created it wont affect me ONE BIT because in less then 2 years I will never be playing for anything but CASH ever again.

Playing for plastic is what brings the AMs into the game. The ams are what make up the majority of the PDGA and the pros come from the AMs that got attracted by with plastic. You take away the plastic and you lost alot of ams and in turn you will end up with less pros because the ams that wanted to play for plastic end up with no place to develope the skills you need to have to become a competitive pro because lets face it your not going to be as focused and determined to get better if all your playing for is 5 dollars and a trophy.

This argument is pointless. You, like most of the BOD it seems, sees disc golf as some super healthy, thriving sport. New, large crowds moving into the system every year. More tournements every year. Purses are up. Growth Growth Growth. Since you may well see this sport as on the brink of a breakthrough, or even heading to a breakthrough, it probably makes sense that you would credit the competitive structure for what you see as disc golf's phenomenal growth. I hope you are right.

This argument is pointless. You, like most of the BOD it seems, sees disc golf as some super healthy, thriving sport. New, large crowds moving into the system every year. More tournements every year. Purses are up. Growth Growth Growth. Since you may well see this sport as on the brink of a breakthrough, or even heading to a breakthrough, it probably makes sense that you would credit the competitive structure for what you see as disc golf's phenomenal growth. I hope you are right.



Well we have more of a basis for what we are saying then you have for what you are saying dont we??? We have PROOF all you guys have is assumptions as far as im concerned. You THINK the reason people quit is because they cant win anymore and thats its to exspensive and its not fun anymore but thats all speculation. Did you send out a survey to all the people that quit to ask them why they quit??? Maybe they got sick.......Maybe they had kids and dont have the time anymore..........Maybe they got a career and dont have the time anymore.........Maybe they got a girlfriend that they love and the girlfriend HATES disc golf and it wasnt that important to them anyway..........Maybe they lost their job and are trying to find a new one but untill then they cant afford it........Do you REALLY know WHY these people stopped playing or are you just assuming why they stopped playing???

Why should I have to pay for the priveledge of playing in a division with Pimp when all I want is a nice inexpensive round of competitive golf? I'm always bothered in this country when someone tells me I have to play by his rules and those rules include me paying him money, especially when I have a group of guys who want to play and none of them want to take huge chunks of the other's money.



Then why dont you take those guys and go to a course and play against eachother for 10 bucks a pop and you guys can have a CASH payout all to yourselves. Or maybe go play a league where you pay a one time get in the league fee and then play every week against someone different head to head and at the end of the year get prizes and awards for best average, most valuable player and things of that nature. Thats competitive and cheap. We dont need what you guys call a TRUE AMATEUR CLASS. IMO It wont help the sport and will make people less willing to TD am events.



Ahhhhh, but why don't you and your buds go to a course and bet as much as you want and have at it? Then you can do what you want. Why do you care if the PDGA sponsors a low entry fee low payout scheme? Because it means you will get a lower payout.

I still don't understand why you can't allow us to have our sanctioned version when we are quite happy to allow you to have your sanctioned version.... Got Ya! See above, you aren't happy losing your nice payouts that you turn around and sell.

As for hurting sales and less pay for TDs, I've addressed both those issues in past posts. The fact is that TDs will likely make the same and plastic sales are determined by market forces (it's Econ 101) and won't change, well, prices will go up a little since the TDs won't be undersold by Ams on E-bay. Oh wait, that means TDs will make more. Wow!

I know they stopped playing. I don't really know why they stopped playing.

But what both sides fail to see is that there is room for both. I am in support of what Nick wants to see, except for the exclusion between true Am players and WWCC Am players.

The incentives are there for both types of players, and they will play where they feel drawn. I also think the true am class should some type of team/league format to encourage players to bring in friends and keep them around long enough to get hooked. Team play also leads itself more to scholastic and municipal play than individual competition does. There are many individual sports (Ball Golf included) that are played in a team format, Disc Golf could fit in nicely if we determine and publicize a suitable format.

Pimp,

You need to read back through your own posts, you're agruing heatedly for something that you say doesn't benefit you. Your position makes no sense given this.

I think it is up to the TDs/clubs to offer trophy only events and see what the turnouts and sales look like. It may very well prove viable to run both types in the same market.

But I disagree with anybody forcing one or the other upon all of the TDs.

Ahhhhh, but why don't you and your buds go to a course and bet as much as you want and have at it? Then you can do what you want. Why do you care if the PDGA sponsors a low entry fee low payout scheme? Because it means you will get a lower payout. <font color="red"> You must not be ablet to read because I said I hope this happens!!!!!!! There will be people who will replace the people who drop out so the payouts will be the same not that i care because at the last tournament that i played I spent half of my funny money because they had Tsunamis and I gave the rest away which is prolly what I will be doing the rest of the year unless they have something that I CAN USE!!!!! Ill prolly be walking around the to the AM3 guys and giving my payout away to the newbies because I KNOW FROM EXPIERIENCE that its next to impossible to sell plastic that you won and I already have enought discs just collecting dust in the basement anyway. </font>

I still don't understand why you can't allow us to have our sanctioned version when we are quite happy to allow you to have your sanctioned version.... Got Ya! See above, you aren't happy losing your nice payouts that you turn around and sell. <font color="red"> I never said that you cant have your sanctioned event with low entry and low payout. I even said that I HOPE IT HAPPENS. All I said was that the plastic payout division wont dissapear because there are always new people who will fill the space of the ones who dropped out which is evident by the increase in tournaments and attendence at tournaments around the country. There are obviously more people coming in then there is quitting because the payouts and number just keep growing and growing </font>

As for hurting sales and less pay for TDs, I've addressed both those issues in past posts. The fact is that TDs will likely make the same and plastic sales are determined by market forces (it's Econ 101) and won't change, well, prices will go up a little since the TDs won't be undersold by Ams on E-bay. Oh wait, that means TDs will make more. Wow! <font color="red"> That is almost laughable. They may and i say may )because i havent looked at the numbers and tried to figure it our yet) make the same amount of money but they sure as heck arent going to make more. Plus the majority of people selling on ebay arent amateurs selling the discs they wont. It is disc golf retailers with Ebay Stores selling at discounted EBAY prices to get rid of stuff thats doesnt really sell. Ive been going on ebay to buy discs for about 2 years and only ever found 10 discs that were what i wanted. Its all odd and ends and hit or miss on ebay. Most of that stuff stays up there and never sells. Just because the auction ends doesnt mean the disc sold. The EBAY crowd isnt hurting TDs or Disc Golf Businesses because most of the people selling them ARE TDs or Business and then you have some ams selling the odds and ends they dont want. </font>

As for hurting sales and less pay for TDs, I've addressed both those issues in past posts. The fact is that TDs will likely make the same...


I want to live in a world where TDs get paid. No wonder you have so many tournaments in Texas.

What are you talking about. You are not even supposed to acknowlege that people might be dropping out and if there are, there are at least five people looking to fill their spot. All brought to the disc golf table by the opportunity to win merchandise.

As to your argument about why people drop out. I accept that there are various reasons why people drop out. I know of many different reasons first hand. However, I think the argument that the system is fine, and people drop out for other reasons really misses the point. All that argument is saying is that when comparing people's personal interests/responsibilities against their interest in disc golf, disc golf loses. When their interest in competitive disc golf is low, they will naturally say "Oh, it's the family or the job or the money, etc."

However, if their interest in competitive disc golf remains high, the battle between their personal concerns and disc golf is far different. All of a sudden, they can find the time and the money, and their spouse and family is more supportive.

There was a reason most people enjoyed playing in the first place and I'm betting it wasn't solely about plastic. Maybe instead of asking why people don't play anymore, find out why people do play and work off that survey. If it turns out that people's primary motivation is to face weak competition in order to win plastic, then our future is pretty bleak.

What of the option of median priced events where the players receive a players pack equal to or greater than their entry fees upon completion of the first round/day and trophies for the top 3 and trophy discs to the top 15%.

That way the TD retains the built in profit from payout (it just is given to everyone) and the prices can remain fairly low.

Pimp,

You need to read back through your own posts, you're agruing heatedly for something that you say doesn't benefit you. Your position makes no sense given this.




Ive been doing quite a bit of thinking and have changed my opinions and views on alot of things. Since winning the Memorial and then cashing and having to spend funny money to buy discs that I DONT WANT OR NEED I have changed my mind about some things. I still love playing for the plastic because I can now donate it to TDs for CTPs and GIVE it to newbies and what not and i would not want to play for just a trophy but I see where you guys are coming from. If you want to have your events like that then go right about but dont try and stop us from having our events with a plastic payout. I see no reason that they both cant exist in harmony together because when you take away the people you are taking away its just going to free up room for more people who want to play for plastic and the cycle will just continue on and on and on forever. I do however think it would be utterly rediculous and borderline INSANE to get rid of the plastic payout amateur division. The trophy only tournaments can exist for the people who realize they dont like or can no longer compete in the plastic division and that will give them a place to play for a lower fee and still have competition and the comraderee (sp) of the sport.

Having both division exist in harmony and basically thrive off eachother would be great but to get rid of the plastic payout am division would just be insane.

From the Membership Page:

Current Members: 7102
Most Recent Members: 27080, 27081, 27082 then 27153

Sombody requested number 27153, but the top number should be 27083. Assuming that 27083 is the right number of "numbers"...

That gives a pretty nice number of percentage of current members compared to total number of members ever.

That number being 26.2%.

A recap: over 26% of all member that were ever members since the inception of the PDGA are current. That seems like a pretty good number, doesn't it? One out of four people who have ever joined the PDGA are current.

If it turns out that people's primary motivation is to face weak competition in order to win plastic, then our future is pretty bleak.




I agreed with and like your entire post up untill this point. People dont play against lowley competition in order to win plastic. NEVER ONCE have I picked a tournament to play because I knew there wouldnt be any competition at it. I pick and play tournaments because I LOVE TO PLAY and LOVE COMPETITION and either like the course or thats the only tournament that i can make it to that weekend. I dont of many if any people THAT ARE AMS that plane their tournament schedule around lack of competition. I DO on the other hand know and have heard of some PROS that plan their tournament schedule around lack of competition :eek:

Oh, the argument that TDs will go under and have no incentive has never been persuasive to me. It is a diversionary argument that is flawed to the core. The biggest flaw in that argument is the assumption that TDs are presently raking it in. They aren't. "Not much" is pretty much equivalent to "not much."

The second argument that disc manufacturers will be hurt is even worse. First off, I don't believe it is true, for a variety of reasons. Secondly, even it was true, who cares. The responsibility of the PDGA lies with the sport, not the disc manufacturers, not the TDs, not the players, certainly not the ones that want a big return for facing weak competition. The PDGA has created a monster and it is hungry and whining. Rather then make the responsible decision, they have chose to feed it some more.

As to your idea, I like it, but a new system might take years to get off the ground and I hope people don't judge things too quickly.

Ahhhhh, but why don't you and your buds go to a course and bet as much as you want and have at it? Then you can do what you want. <font color="red"> We do do this but we do it during the week and try to see if we can WIN our entry fee for the weekend :D</font> Why do you care if the PDGA sponsors a low entry fee low payout scheme? <font color="red"> I DONT just as long as they dont get rid of the division i enjoy playing in </font> Because it means you will get a lower payout. <font color="red"> That is absolutely not true </font>

Trophy only aint gonna fly unless the entries are waaaaay lower or like said above, player packs are nearly equal to entry fees. Then again you're gonna get a $16 JK Valk in that pack and a $10 putter. Mark ups will discourage the people from playing. I can't think of a single AM player (that I know) that chooses their tournies based on payouts. They play what ever is in their area on that particular weekend. Trophy only is crap.(IMO) There has got to be a better, more fair way to do things.

Trophy only is crap.(IMO) There has got to be a better, more fair way to do things.



There is. Let the TD decide how he wants to run the event then they will realize there really isnt all that much demand for the kind of division they are providing anyway and will go back to the way it is now.

I don't know, There really isn't a big problem here with payout markup, and most events are pick your own. If you get a voucher in the amount of your entry fee - PDGA and local fees, most players would be satisfied as long as they knew the format before signing up.

It would also get rid of the long lines waiting for payout since the vouchers could be cashed in during lunch, or after the second round.

What im saying is that if it was advertised as a trophy only tournament you wouldnt get nearly the turnout that you get if it was a plastic payout tournament unless its the only event around that weekend and its on an AMAZING set of courses with AMAZING trophys but to have AMAZING trophys the TD would prolly LOSE money on it.

I'd think it would be advertised as a fun event with full return of entry fee value to players up front. Pick you own plastic, and trophies for top players in each division.

If the TD has a good reputation, the players know they will get a disc or 2 at a good price, and get a tournament thrown for free.

This is not one to throw if you are counting on traveling players to fill it up, but if you have a good local player base, and a lot of local that don't play tournament golf, this could be a good way to get them out. It may take a few events before the word gets out, but in theory it could work.

I agree on that. The trophy would have to come with lips :o. The pick your own is fine, but not "trophy only"

Let me be clear: What I propose is not a threat or competition with the Cash and Prize Classifications. A True Amateur Class would not attract the same "profit-minded" players at all. In fact it would be "PURPOSEFULLY" designed NOT to attract them.


Well we have more of a basis for what we are saying then you have for what you are saying dont we???


That�s like saying because Bush won the Presidential Election all of his policies are right, which is pretty loose logic at best. Just because we have been bribing a certain limited group of folks to come out and play for a chance to win their buddies money in the form of plastic and it works for folks interested in coming out to win their buddies money in the form of plastic neither makes them �True Amateurs� nor does it prove that alternatives to that system will not work or do not have value in discussing and exploring in practice.


We have PROOF all you guys have is assumptions as far as im concerned.


Yes, you have been pretty clear �as far as� you are �concerned�. You like being enticed to come out to events for a chance to win your buddies money in the form of plastic. And that again proves what? That you like to come out to events for a shot at getting your buddies money. What in that deserves the protection from other folks at that tournament playing for their buddies money? What in that makes your classification deserving of the once honorable and worth protecting name of �Amateur�?


You THINK the reason people quit is because they cant win anymore and thats its to exspensive and its not fun anymore but thats all speculation.


How is observing your �OWN� feelings and direct discussions with your friends �speculation�? Is there anything more cogent?


Did you send out a survey to all the people that quit to ask them why they quit???


A) If your point has teeth then the same logic holds that �bribing folks to come out and play for each others money� is equally suspect.
B) Yes, I have been working on this, as have all other organizers worth a lick.

Do you REALLY know WHY these people stopped playing or are you just assuming why they stopped playing???


Our job is not to know, that is for GOD, our job is to do our best.

The �Participation Based on Winning Your Buddies Money� has worked for you. In your eyes this is proof enough that it is the best way to proceed. Seemingly, you are threatened by any concept, such as a true amateur class or prize players losing your protection from cash players. You fight it as if your very survival within disc golf hangs in the balance.

Gambling will likely always be offered within the PDGA competitive system. What we are talking about is opening up, something you apparently can not even imagine, an entirely brand new classification of player and competition more readily available to educational and public institutions and more in lines with the principles of Amateur Sport, Sportsmanship and Motivation. No matter how blind some folks on here are to the existence of Amateur Principles, or how well they are able to convince themselves that what we have is remotely related to amateurism, the reality and worth of REAL AMATEURISM is untouched, so long as there are people ready to fight to protect as noble and worthwhile a concept.

I think it is up to the TDs/clubs to offer trophy only events and see what the turnouts and sales look like. It may very well prove viable to run both types in the same market.

But I disagree with anybody forcing one or the other upon all of the TDs.



Agreed. Clarifying the differences and simply including the option and support is more than enough at this point. No need to force anything more than that on anyone.

I know they stopped playing. I don't really know why they stopped playing.

But what both sides fail to see is that there is room for both. I am in support of what Nick wants to see, except for the exclusion between true Am players and WWCC Am players.

The incentives are there for both types of players, and they will play where they feel drawn. I also think the true am class should some type of team/league format to encourage players to bring in friends and keep them around long enough to get hooked. Team play also leads itself more to scholastic and municipal play than individual competition does. There are many individual sports (Ball Golf included) that are played in a team format, Disc Golf could fit in nicely if we determine and publicize a suitable format.



Team play is an excellent option and I support it, I just don't think that it should be the only one. Offer wide enough guidelines that TDs can be inventive in attracting and retaining these entirely differently motivated players.

The PDGA should not force more than general simple and concise standards of classification on any player or TD, the rest is on them. Encouraging best practices is also part of their mandate though, so things that have success should be placed as frequently as possible in front of folks running events (this to their own, the TDs, benefit).

I emphatically do believe that a clear, concise and REAL deliniation between Pro and Am is needed. I am open to discussing the speed and form to which we arrive there, but insist that we plan that arrival prior to starting something new. Otherwise, it really isn't anything in newer than "Move up, move up, move out" which is unacceptible to me.

The problem between exclusion is that the mandate of the PDGA should be the professional player. To build a structure where the players are not allowed to compete in other forms of PDGA competition is not in line with bringing more players into the tournament scene. A ratings cap maybe, but not a hard line.

The problem between exclusion is that the mandate of the PDGA should be the professional player. To build a structure where the players are not allowed to compete in other forms of PDGA competition is not in line with bringing more players into the tournament scene. A ratings cap maybe, but not a hard line.



I completely disagree. Until we have a hard line we ARE excluding what will more than likely dwarf our Cash/Prize classification; the amateur class.

You do realize that I am not proprosing stopping Cash players from competing with Prize players or visa versa, right? To me there is no difference and no reason to protect one from the other.

Trophy only events will be at the top of the list of events i avoid.

Events that have both payout and trophy only divisions will be next in line.

until the Pdga changes its name to the Amdga, its focus should be on what we REALLY TRULY need - <font color="purple"> A TRUE PROFESSIONAL CLASS </font>

You can't have one without the other. Currently we have neither, just a mish mash of Prize/Cash gamblers.

I think at this point, most people agree that there are no true Pro or Am divisions, but there are defined Pro and Am divisions. The I have no problem maintaining the current definitions, and in no way consider myself a professional player. Yes I accept prizes when I do well, but not enough to offset my costs.

I do see the benefit of a truly recreational competition structure that combines low entry fees and recognition as the primary reward. I don't see why the current structure needs to be impacted by the creation of the new structure, nor why players that come into the sport through this new structure should be forced to decide if they wish to pursue the sport in one or the other of the two types of competition.

You have said yourself that for the top players in the Prize divisions, there is no incentive for them to compete in the true amateur divisions, but for the majority of the middle of the pack players there is a benefit to being able to bounce back and forth and compete in both.

You have said yourself that for the top players in the Prize divisions, there is no incentive for them to compete in the true amateur divisions, but for the majority of the middle of the pack players there is a benefit to being able to bounce back and forth and compete in both.



Where is the benefit for these new True Amateur Class players when they compete all year for thier schools, win every event, then have to face 32 year olds who have won 18 baskets and $1500 in big plastic coins at the Am Worlds? Or face them when they chicken out of gambling for their buddies money?

You want this new classification to be (much like WWCC ams) an escape from better players when that has NEVER been what Amateur Sport has been about. When you guys talk of "Trophies Only" or "Low Entry Fee" events or divisions YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A true amateur class, you are just talking about creating (YET ANOTHER) "Pro-Lite" division for even "less-confident" players.

A) I do not want to effect the way the current Gambler/Carney classification and divisions function. They will work the exact same way minus staking any claim to the word "Amateur".
B) The Amateur Classification is for Amateur players. The guiding principles for which these players play will be WORTH protection from players who play for profit, regardless of the amount of profit that might be.
C) Not all, perhaps none, of current PDGA Members will have ANYTHING to do with organized PDGA Amateur disc golf, whether organizer, td or participant.
D) All PDGA Members WILL BENEFIT from organized PDGA Amateur disc golf, whether sponsor, manufacturer, vendor, promoter, organizer, td, volunteer or participant.

What exactly in any of that is threatening to you or beyond comprehension?

C) Not all, perhaps none, of current PDGA Members will have ANYTHING to do with organized PDGA Amateur disc golf, whether organizer, td or participant.




So, you leave the current system alone and create a whole new class that is truly an amateur class. If no one plays in it and no one runs it, what good did it do to create it? You think that you will have a bunch of college, high school and grade school kids filling in the ranks? If there was a demand for that, those schools would already be running some thing like that with or without the PDGA sanctioning it, wouldn't they?

C) Not all, perhaps none, of current PDGA Members will have ANYTHING to do with organized PDGA Amateur disc golf, whether organizer, td or participant.




So, you leave the current system alone and create a whole new class that is truly an amateur class. If no one plays in it and no one runs it, what good did it do to create it?


Jon, did I say �no one plays in it and no one runs it�?


You think that you will have a bunch of college, high school and grade school kids filling in the ranks?


No, I don�t �think� so, I KNOW SO! Certainly more than they would ever want to be associated with the gambler/carney classifications�


If there was a demand for that, those schools would already be running some thing like that with or without the PDGA sanctioning it, wouldn't they?


I can tell you are not in marketing Jon. There was no �demand� for disc golf prior to it�s creation either, was there? Truth is, the PDGA can either involve itself in this or yes, they likely will be passed by �WHEN� (not if) educational and community institutions become involved in organized disc golf.

In case you had any doubts we are in the business of promoting demand for disc golf where it did not exist before, otherwise we�d just be chasing our tails now wouldn�t we?

Where is the benefit for these new True Amateur Class players when they compete all year for thier schools, win every event, then have to face 32 year olds who have won 18 baskets and $1500 in big plastic coins at the Am Worlds? Or face them when they chicken out of gambling for their buddies money?
<font color="blue"> When they are competing in their school leagues, they are protected. When they venture out into the real world they are not. Nut, as you said, those players that have won 18 baskets have no interest in beating the school kids. The school kids may have an interest in competing with the prize players that have won 18 baskets. But under your system, they don't have that option.</font>

You want this new classification to be (much like WWCC ams) an escape from better players when that has NEVER been what Amateur Sport has been about. When you guys talk of "Trophies Only" or "Low Entry Fee" events or divisions YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A true amateur class, you are just talking about creating (YET ANOTHER) "Pro-Lite" division for even "less-confident" players.
<font color="blue"> ?? how is it a pro-lite division when there is no incentive for the greedy player to attend and there are no prizes ?</font>

A) I do not want to effect the way the current Gambler/Carney classification and divisions function. They will work the exact same way minus staking any claim to the word "Amateur".
<font color="blue">The word Amateur is integral to the way the current system works even if it does not meet your (or any real) standards.</font>
B) The Amateur Classification is for Amateur players. The guiding principles for which these players play will be WORTH protection from players who play for profit, regardless of the amount of profit that might be.
<font color="blue">By attempting to protect them, you are restricting them from getting their feet wet in the prize pool until they are ready to give up "amateur" competition completely</font>
C) Not all, perhaps none, of current PDGA Members will have ANYTHING to do with organized PDGA Amateur disc golf, whether organizer, td or participant.
[clolr:blue]I might be lost here, but C and D seem to contradict each other</font>
D) All PDGA Members WILL BENEFIT from organized PDGA Amateur disc golf, whether sponsor, manufacturer, vendor, promoter, organizer, td, volunteer or participant.

What exactly in any of that is threatening to you or beyond comprehension?

<font color="blue">None of it is threatening, and I hope to see it soon, I just don't want to see players restricted from playing both ways. I don't see the top PDGA Am players rushing in to steal all of the trophies, but I do see a lot of middle level players that would benefit from playing both ways.</font>

Where is the benefit for these new True Amateur Class players when they compete all year for thier schools, win every event, then have to face 32 year olds who have won 18 baskets and $1500 in big plastic coins at the Am Worlds? Or face them when they chicken out of gambling for their buddies money?
<font color="blue"> When they are competing in their school leagues, they are protected. When they venture out into the real world they are not. Nut, as you said, those players that have won 18 baskets have no interest in beating the school kids. The school kids may have an interest in competing with the prize players that have won 18 baskets. But under your system, they don't have that option.</font>
<font color="green"> That is correct. I have taken the outrageous position that Non-Amateurs may not compete in the Amateur Classification and that Amateurs may not (unless changing their status or declining performance based awards) compete in Non-Amateur Classifications. I�m not sure where the controversy is in any of that.</font>
You want this new classification to be (much like WWCC ams) an escape from better players when that has NEVER been what Amateur Sport has been about. When you guys talk of "Trophies Only" or "Low Entry Fee" events or divisions YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A true amateur class, you are just talking about creating (YET ANOTHER) "Pro-Lite" division for even "less-confident" players.
<font color="blue"> ?? how is it a pro-lite division when there is no incentive for the greedy player to attend and there are no prizes ?</font>
<font color="green"> I thought your premise was that there IS incentive for the greedy player to attend and avoid high prices and zero chance to cash. You can have your trophy only option at your event for these �pro-lite� players, JUST DON�T EXPECT ME TO EVER CAVE IN AND CALL THEM �TRUE AMATEURS�.</font>
A) I do not want to effect the way the current Gambler/Carney classification and divisions function. They will work the exact same way minus staking any claim to the word "Amateur".
<font color="blue">The word Amateur is integral to the way the current system works even if it does not meet your (or any real) standards.</font>
<font color="green">How so, to perpetuate infighting and tail chasing? Seriously, what would be the difference if they were called say, �Prize Classification� players and could jump back and forth between Pro (Cash) and Prize divisions as needed (until the Pro Classification gets standards that is�)?</font>
B) The Amateur Classification is for Amateur players. The guiding principles for which these players play will be WORTH protection from players who play for profit, regardless of the amount of profit that might be.
<font color="blue">By attempting to protect them, you are restricting them from getting their feet wet in the prize pool until they are ready to give up "amateur" competition completely</font>
<font color="green"> Yes, I am. Amateurs don�t get their feet wet in the Pros until they turn pro. They are �supposed� to be two separate things.</font>
C) Not all, perhaps none, of current PDGA Members will have ANYTHING to do with organized PDGA Amateur disc golf, whether organizer, td or participant.
<font color="blue">I might be lost here, but C and D seem to contradict each other</font>
<font color="green"> Not at all. There may be a handful of TDs and Players currently PDGA Members that will become deeply involved in true amateur class competition and organizing, but the vast majority will not. That is all that I am saying. But all current TDs and Players WILL ABSOLUTELY benefit from an increase of participation at the true amateur level. If you need me to explain why I will be glad to, but you need only consider the relationships between any major sport and it�s coinciding amateur classification.</font>
D) All PDGA Members WILL BENEFIT from organized PDGA Amateur disc golf, whether sponsor, manufacturer, vendor, promoter, organizer, td, volunteer or participant.

What exactly in any of that is threatening to you or beyond comprehension?

<font color="blue">None of it is threatening, and I hope to see it soon, I just don't want to see players restricted from playing both ways. I don't see the top PDGA Am players rushing in to steal all of the trophies, but I do see a lot of middle level players that would benefit from playing both ways.</font>
<font color="green">Then we simply disagree on this Gary. This is an instance where being able to do anything actually is a restriction. A very potent restriction on the well-being and health of our sport. A restriction on reaching our stated goals. How we solve the problem of bottom 1/3rd attrition is a separate one from creating a meaningful amateur classification. In fact, it is the lack of a true amateur class that creates the log jam we call our competitive system where everyone is competing for the same basic pool of players because there is ONLY ONE POOL of players rather than two; Pro and Am.</font>

Nick i love how you take my saying out of context and try and turn them into something they werent when they were in the middle of a paragraph. You obviously have no vision or true logic or you would realize that this is only going to work AFTER people go threw the competing for plastic stage and realize that they cant hack it or dont like it. Then and only then will they try and find somewhere else to play. This is where you and your "True Am Class" or whatever the hell you want to call it come in. These guys will be retreating out of the Prize division into the cheap cushy division where they dont have to risk really anything and they will get back the money them put it gauranteed (sp?) What attracts people to the sport is the fact that they can pay money to play against other people and WIN stuff. Only after they realize they either CANT WIN or CANT AFFORD or DONT LIKE it will they be looking for somewhere else to play. How bout you go out and have 5 tournaments that are trophy only and 5 tournaments that are plastic payout and compare the turnouts. Then report back here and tell me there is a demand for your "TRUE AM CLASS" Ill go out on a limp here and say that your not going to have a very good turnout at the trophy only unless you offer some kick ***** trophys and kick ***** players packs and if you did that you would prolly end up losing money on the day and NO TD wants to do that. Ill also say that the attendance of the plastic payout tournaments will NEVER go down it will just continue to grow and grow and grow and grow untill we cant even handle the ammount of people who want to play and EVERY tournament is going to have a capped field and be pre reg only. Its almost getting to that point this year. Ive already heard of 3 tournaments that didnt fill last year but this year had to add 3 to 4 extra holes just to accomadate the turnout that they had.

So go do some field test and run some tournament how you want to run them and compare them to the NORMAL tournaments then come back and tell me there REALLY IS a need for these kinda of tournaments and tell me that it was worth your time and money to run them and tell me if you break even or not. Then you will have some proof and some solid ground to stand on but right now your sinking in quicksand.

I can tell you are not in marketing Jon. There was no �demand� for disc golf prior to it�s creation either, was there? Truth is, the PDGA can either involve itself in this or yes, they likely will be passed by �WHEN� (not if) educational and community institutions become involved in organized disc golf.

In case you had any doubts we are in the business of promoting demand for disc golf where it did not exist before, otherwise we�d just be chasing our tails now wouldn�t we?



I can tell you don't know your disc golf history Nick. There were people playing frisbee golf before there were permanent courses. There were permanent courses before there were baskets. There were leagues and tournaments before there was a governing body.

There should be players before there is a division. To everything there is a season and a time for every purpose under heaven...

I can tell you are not in marketing Jon. There was no �demand� for disc golf prior to it�s creation either, was there? Truth is, the PDGA can either involve itself in this or yes, they likely will be passed by �WHEN� (not if) educational and community institutions become involved in organized disc golf.

In case you had any doubts we are in the business of promoting demand for disc golf where it did not exist before, otherwise we�d just be chasing our tails now wouldn�t we?



I can tell you don't know your disc golf history Nick. There were people playing frisbee golf before there were permanent courses. There were permanent courses before there were baskets. There were leagues and tournaments before there was a governing body.

There should be players before there is a division. To everything there is a season and a time for every purpose under heaven...



Nice song, but we simply disagree on this. By the way, how was WWCC amateur class prior to their being one?

I remember, do you?

The answer is it wasn't.

I like your point of view Jon.
:D

I can tell you don't know your disc golf history Nick. There were people playing frisbee golf before there were permanent courses. There were permanent courses before there were baskets. There were leagues and tournaments before there was a governing body.



Absolutley 100 % correct. I was one of them, and my neighbors before me, who turned me on. We were pretty somethin when Midnight flyers came out, and that was into it some years. I think there were courses by the time the flyers came? I had a bag and everything, still have it today. I think it was made by Stancil Johnson and folks at Brand X?

I was a kid collecting and trading with Victor Malfronte & Stork through the mail. (Hello where ever you are)

In those days we were all IFA members (anyone know their number? or where to get it? I would love to find mine) We were throwing world class whamo stuff. Masters and All Pros before that. No putters, and we Never laid-up:D

I would have killed for a disc that would clear this one parking lot we played as a pond down the street from where I grew up. I look at it now with a modern disc, and I could clear it 4 times over.

Chickens and eggs. But I think you need a big enough group of people to beget organization? There weren't a lot of rules back then :D

Spirit of the game and intuition. :D

** It should be noted that the IFA was not really a "governing body" just an early attempt to get frisbee players in touch with each other and to promote basic skills.

I don't dispute the small remote groups of people playing different forms of frisbee golf here and there prior to poleholes and the PDGA. I do dispute that any significant growth took place prior to organization of it and that the same will likely be the situation concerning a true amateur classification. It likely already is exactly like that, with small (but more vast than the pre 1980's disc golf scene) pockets of unorganized amateurs sportsmen playing disc golf.

It seems natural that we would want to tap into and grow that resource. Providing organization is a natural for the PDGA. It is afterall what they were made to do. Not just to protect the selfish needs of a tiny profit driven group of disc golfers that have "thus far" dominated our sport.

Like those early folks were eclipsed by what we have now, what we have now will likely be eclipsed by what is to come, if we can get our act together and stop squabbling over the same piece of meat.

yes, i am restating the obvious and well-known

Nick will be eventually be right about there being an amateur organization. Someday, there will be a professional organization also. It's evolution.

I'm not sure how he is twisting any facts here.

Poster: sandalman
Subject: Re: Nick Twists words and facts

yes, i am restating the obvious and well-known



Pure unadulterated projection Pat.

i dont know if he is twisting facts here either, since i currently cant see anything he posts. i'm just relying on past experience on other threads. on one thread he has claimed i agree with him, and used out of context and partially quoted posts to "prove" it. it is kind of funny that a board monitor is the person who most repeatedly justifies the use of the banned words "[*****]" and "[*****]".

So Jon, you accused me of not knowing disc golf history. Where exactly have I been mistaken? And if so how does it pertain to the question of whether it is advisable to lead from the front?

So I was looking through the No Foolin pre-reg list and I saw a pro playing am who has not played a tournament in almost three years.

Welcome back! :D

haha...

i made this thread last year

Beached Will was my other name on here when i got deleted due to the server crash.