I am sure this has been posted in some thread or argued for pages, but is the PDGA doing anything to limit the sandbagging that goes on in the Masters division these days. As stated in the thread below " Should 38 year olds be protected from 40 year olds", being able to pick and choose based on who is there is crappy. I think many of the local clubs are fighting this issue and the only way most can agree to deal with this is making the Master's entry fee about half of the Open entry fee. This will take care of guys just going toward the easy money and/or picking and choosing based on who showed up.

I think we can all agree that the protected divisions look silly, especially when you have a guy who is top 20 based on rating playing in a protected division? Is there going to be a change in the entry fees or has this started yet. I still see tournaments where the entry fees are exactly the same or $10 cheaper. The arguement of where to put added cash will never go away, but this seems much easier to deter people from bagging. I still think the majority of all added cash should go to the Open division.

I truley feel bad for the legitamate Masters players (rating 950 or 975) who get in a division with guys well over a 1000. It reminds me of the days where there were a few guys playing advanced who whipped everyone's butt and people always complained. Now it goes on, but its "legal" so it's just hush hush.

Will the fees change for the better?

This is from a post on a local message board that I think hits a lot of points! This is not my post....

"As for why Masters division exists - you are right. It was to increase participation and give more people a chance to 'cash'. I'm sort of ok with the idea of the division - but it should be just as you said (I've been consistant in that all along) and should be for a significantly less entry fee, but also, significantly less added money. If you want to play with people just like you, then great, do it. But the added money should be in the top division, where EVERYONE can play for it regardless of when their parents begot them, because it will serve to bring bigger fields and motivate the top masters and advanced players to practice and play against better players, and bring the entire level of disc golf up. The bigger the field, the larger and deeper the payout. The hopes for the Media to cover DG will surely require it to feature the best players, which will in turn attract sponsors, which will grow the sport. Diverting the ADDED money (I'm not talking about their own entry fees, which should stay in each division) from the top division will undermine the chances for DG to become a Media spotlighted sport. It appears we both agree with this, somewhat. "

The PDGA is encouraging TDs not to add cash to Masters when there is cash being added.

A lower entry fee might get some of the better Masters to play Open but that strategy did not work well in the amateur divisions. Some people will stay down because of the lower entry fee if the entry fee is an issue for them. Ratings caps have worked in the lower amateur divisions.

Master entry fees have traditionally been about 60-70% of Open entry fees for quite a while in Minnesota. However, I don't see the PDGA restricting Master and older entry fees except possibly at higher tier events in the future. This year the NT events allocate 3 shares of added cash each to Open Men & Women vs the other pro divisions. That allocation can certainly be adopted by B & A-tier TDs.

these issue wont go away as long as we (the Association) continue to attempt to serve both serious competitors and recreational/social players with the same structure. it may be time to draw more clear distinctions between Competitive Events and Recreational/Social Events

There is no added cash for pro masters at this weekend's B-tier in Rockford, Illinois. The open division is getting $500 added and the pro women are getting a sponsor-paid entry fee to USWDGC added.

Et tu Brad? What's with hating on Masters division? We used to treat them with respect because if it wasn't for them we wouldn't be playing where we do now. Is this a indication on what to expect for when I need social security? :confused:

No hating going on, I have no problem with the division, just how people pick and choose based on who shows up. I think the best players should play in one division or if they choose to play in the protected division, then the entry fees are significantly lower. Just my opinion and I think T.D.'s are battling this issue. Maybe not, but it just seems like another way to sandbag and get away with it? I still got love for you Matt! :cool:

I know that Bradley but there has to be a BIG shift in the competitive mindset of players and the PDGA.

Do not offer any age restricted divisions for NT events if the focus should be on Men's and Womens's Open. Try that for 2008 and see what occurs.

they already tried that- didn't work. this stuff is all flogging a dead horse until there is major added $ from outside the sport (which may not ever occur).

giddy up cowboy.

Even with added cash the problem may still exist . As CK has said they can take that added cash and run a NONPDGA event and add it where they would want .
Matt is right when he said it will take a major change in the way people think .
I would hope that some day the people in this sport would step up and do the right thing but ..............
I have serious reservations about that .

Brad is right,
Matty - it's not a matter of hating anyone, or disrespecting anyone, it's a matter of structure and competition. When any over 40 player can score as good as more than 1/2 of the Open division, what purpose does the division serve other than inequitable rewards?

If we wish to recognize over 40 or over 50, or whatever age group men, why don't we do it within the larger group of men competing? When there are 50 guys who show up, why split them into 2 groups (or more) when they are largely shooting within the same range of scores?

What if - instead of having separate prize pools and entry fees, we rewarded people based (primarily) on total score, and then (secondarily) by age groups? This means a single mens division, which would pull a percentage of total entry fees to reward "categories" within the larger group. Sort of like a bonus system for being "best in class". So a top Master could actually benefit MORE from a top finish by getting a good share of the larger overall purse, and a bonus for being old to boot!! The same could effectively be done for ratings based " divisions".

I have been tempted lately to try and get TD's to let me play both divisions (and pay double entry fees) to drive home the point of how absurd our divisions are. Hey, if they wanna give a prize for the best player over 40 - hey - I want that prize!! But I kinda thought that a DG tournament was supposed to give the biggest prize to the guy with the best score of the day (and hey - on the day that I am that guy - I want that prize too! don't you??) - and that where large #'s of people gather to play - the division w/ the highest entry fee would be the one with the toughest competition and biggest reward. That does not appear to be the case in our current system - which defends to the death the right to choose a division, over figuring out how to make the best score be what we're competing for.

For those that cry about how much it costs to play - I say establish an entry fee structure based on rating - so a 950 rated guy doesn't have to shell out big bucks to play against the 1000+ rated guy - but still benefits from exposure to those players, and gets rewarded EQUITABLY when he plays well.

these issue wont go away as long as we (the Association) continue to attempt to serve both serious competitors and recreational/social players with the same structure. it may be time to draw more clear distinctions between Competitive Events and Recreational/Social Events



I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter. Do you have any solid ideas on this yet? I know we do a lot of thinking out loud on this board but that seems like something worth exploring.

For those that cry about how much it costs to play - I say establish an entry fee structure based on rating - so a 950 rated guy doesn't have to shell out big bucks to play against the 1000+ rated guy - but still benefits from exposure to those players, and gets rewarded EQUITABLY when he plays well.



I believe that this "sliding scale" idea could work well, particularly if it's coupled with a flighted reward system.

The entry fees for an A-tier could be something like:
1000+ players: $100
980-1000 players: $90
970-980 players $70
960-970 players $50
950-960 players $40
915-950 players $35
intermediate and other divisions would be traditional


The $35 would cover greens/sanctioning/TD fees, lunch both days, players package, trophy fund, and a subsidy towards cashing players.

Am's that "cashed" would be paid out in funny money. The total pro purse would be higher than under a traditional scheme, but the payout would be split by a larger number of players.

The top 1/3 of the field would cash. The entire field would be split into flights after the next-to-last round. All players (with the possible exception of the very last place or two) would be within 3-4 strokes of their flight leader going into the final round and have a chance to win their flight. All flight winners would receive a trophy.

For those that cry about how much it costs to play - I say establish an entry fee structure based on rating - so a 950 rated guy doesn't have to shell out big bucks to play against the 1000+ rated guy - but still benefits from exposure to those players, and gets rewarded EQUITABLY when he plays well.



I believe that this "sliding scale" idea could work well, particularly if it's coupled with a flighted reward system.

The entry fees for an A-tier could be something like:
1000+ players: $100
980-1000 players: $90
970-980 players $70
960-970 players $50
950-960 players $40
915-950 players $35
intermediate and other divisions would be traditional


The $35 would cover greens/sanctioning/TD fees, lunch both days, players package, trophy fund, and a subsidy towards cashing players.

Am's that "cashed" would be paid out in funny money. The total pro purse would be higher than under a traditional scheme, but the payout would be split by a larger number of players.

The top 1/3 of the field would cash. The entire field would be split into flights after the next-to-last round. All players (with the possible exception of the very last place or two) would be within 3-4 strokes of their flight leader going into the final round and have a chance to win their flight. All flight winners would receive a trophy.



I still hate having to pay more just because you are a good player. I don't see it as the lower players paying less I see it as higher rated players paying more just because they are good. I also bet that 970 guy is [censored] that he isn't 969 and maybe he will flop a small event just to get his rating lower so he can save $100 in the next few big events he wants to play.

How about doing odds instead? Basically that's what it is. If you want to play you should pay just as much as everyone else. I hate how a lot of ideas seem to encourage mediacrity. Instead of giving players incentive to get better you give them a reason not to. :confused:

I am sure this has been posted in some thread or argued for pages, but is the PDGA doing anything to limit the sandbagging that goes on in the Masters division these days. As stated in the thread below " Should 38 year olds be protected from 40 year olds", being able to pick and choose based on who is there is crappy. I think many of the local clubs are fighting this issue and the only way most can agree to deal with this is making the Master's entry fee about half of the Open entry fee. This will take care of guys just going toward the easy money and/or picking and choosing based on who showed up.

I think we can all agree that the protected divisions look silly, especially when you have a guy who is top 20 based on rating playing in a protected division? Is there going to be a change in the entry fees or has this started yet. I still see tournaments where the entry fees are exactly the same or $10 cheaper. The arguement of where to put added cash will never go away, but this seems much easier to deter people from bagging. I still think the majority of all added cash should go to the Open division.

I truley feel bad for the legitamate Masters players (rating 950 or 975) who get in a division with guys well over a 1000. It reminds me of the days where there were a few guys playing advanced who whipped everyone's butt and people always complained. Now it goes on, but its "legal" so it's just hush hush.

Will the fees change for the better?

This is from a post on a local message board that I think hits a lot of points! This is not my post....

"As for why Masters division exists - you are right. It was to increase participation and give more people a chance to 'cash'. I'm sort of ok with the idea of the division - but it should be just as you said (I've been consistant in that all along) and should be for a significantly less entry fee, but also, significantly less added money. If you want to play with people just like you, then great, do it. But the added money should be in the top division, where EVERYONE can play for it regardless of when their parents begot them, because it will serve to bring bigger fields and motivate the top masters and advanced players to practice and play against better players, and bring the entire level of disc golf up. The bigger the field, the larger and deeper the payout. The hopes for the Media to cover DG will surely require it to feature the best players, which will in turn attract sponsors, which will grow the sport. Diverting the ADDED money (I'm not talking about their own entry fees, which should stay in each division) from the top division will undermine the chances for DG to become a Media spotlighted sport. It appears we both agree with this, somewhat. "


You'll be happy to hear that the B-Tier (tentatively: Glass City Open) I'm running in late summer 2008 will only be adding cash to the Open Men and Women division, and the entry fees only around $50.00 for open men. 1500+ being the goal added cash. We get 10 pros, the purse is 2000. And little to NONE getting put into age-protected divisions. Same goes for Adv. Once I hit 1500 any additional will go to the top Amateur division (well, to the vendors, so added funny money) up to 500, and then back to adding to Pro if I get that high.

:) And if this all sounds absurd coming from a Toledo discer, hopefully it won't sound so when we're rolling into 2009 for the 2nd annual.

I think there should be a rule for Masters (or any pro division) just like in Am divisions, if you are above a certain rating (lets say 1000), you can't play in Masters... UNLESS.... there are at least 3 other Masters age players in the same boat. This way, when there is a large enough field for the very top masters to play against each other, they are allowed into the division, but otherwise, those top rated Masters players should play Open.

The same could be said for Grandmasters, with say, a 980 rating cutoff. Maybe for Grandmasters, make it 3 players above said rating.

I like the current trend of less money for Masters. It only seems fair that the majority of the money be available for all to compete for, hence the Open divisions.

Lower entry fees coupled with less added money would do a lot to help motivate the 1000 rated Masters (elite DGers by any measure) to compete against the best players. But, for NT events, it is ridiculous to let guys in a protected division (more laid back, easy going, friendly, less butthead open players, etc. ---- i.e. less stressful and more likely to help scores) compete for USDGC spots against the Open players in the more stressful environment. TDs should have the courage to have Masters players throw from one different tee, just to make them ineligible for the USDGC.

Each year I get browbeat into adding more money than I like to the Masters at the Cincinnati Flying Pig Open - just to avoid the lambasting that goes on for months by the Masters players in my town. At least the NT's do add a majority of the added money to the Open.
What many TDs fail to do when adding money to masters is they forget that the masters' entry fees were already less that the Open, so they get out of whack, proportionately. To add $10 per player added money yields a greater payoff per entry dollar for masters, if they paid less to play.

The idea of a moving scale based on rating looks good. Cash is always an issue for people determining divisions. Nobody likes to draw dead at a tournament I am an under 900 golfer who would play for money if I could play people closer to my rating. Shouldn't disc golf competition be about rating not age?

Why not ratings based (pro) divisions? This could be off topic but could solve this topics issue. Couldn't ratings be more aggressive towards people that consistently win a certain division?
Move them up faster?
I have said this before but table tennis uses a similar system.

BTW Chuck I think the PDGA rating system is right on. When me and my buddies play for money we spot a stoke for every ten points. It always comes down to the last few holes every time. We even add scores together to balance out doubles. Same results. Keep up the good work!

when ratings are near-live, not 2-3 months old, this would be a viable system. As for now....

I would like to see the ratings system taking a step towards world policing instead of individual scrutiny by Chuck every time it's time for an update. Our ratings should reflect recently played tournaments once the data is uploaded. Perhaps have a "proofer" to make sure there are no errors in recording, such as not setting different layouts per division, misrepresented player #s which have different player ratings, etc. If we had a form for each tournament's data to send in error discrepancy forms, the PDGA membership would be it's own ratings watchdog group. Bring Chuck in for extreme case only.

Once we get there, we can run rating based pro divisions easily. One day.... soon...

Not happening even if we had the technology. All more frequent updates do is add volatility to the ratings, more redundant work and no benefit from a competition system standpoint which is what the ratings are for. Players skills don't change that fast and it would create more work for the TDs with division changes with players delaying more often to pre-reg until they see their rating. Events would also get rated more out of sequence based on when they were submitted. Teaching or helping TDs to do a beter job uploading would go far towards letting players see more accurate round ratings and fixing the display so that Unofficial ratings stay up when the Official results get posted will also help.

these issue wont go away as long as we (the Association) continue to attempt to serve both serious competitors and recreational/social players with the same structure. it may be time to draw more clear distinctions between Competitive Events and Recreational/Social Events



I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter. Do you have any solid ideas on this yet? I know we do a lot of thinking out loud on this board but that seems like something worth exploring.



not really solid, but i have been thinking about it for a while. one side says "real competition", the other says "i wanna play with my buddies/peers". who's to argue with either? they are both great concepts. we're lucky disc golf can offer both. for we might benefit from making it very clear which we choose for a given event. they sure do seem to have different needs.

why not build two separate programs within the pdga? the competitive tour features structures that offer top competition and serves the needs of the competitve players and those who aspire to become that way. the recreational tour is focused more on the social/recreational side. it has all divisions, more relaxed rules. maybe like a C or B tier nowadays.

i just have a developing sense that neither side will be happy as long as the efforts are co-mingled, and the sport may be better served by creating more separation between the two.

wanna be serious about competition? make it Open, Women and Masters and masters starts at age 50 for that track.ideally, require competitive qualification for every event in this track. require a 25000 minimum purse and who cares if there are only 5 or 10 a year. it's that good! there's enough events that come close to this approach that this is well within the realm of reason. in fact, it may already be happening. we (the Association) might need to pick up the pace a bit ourselves if we want to remain relevant to truly competitive disc golf.

on the other hand, our current, traditional system has amazing things to offer. broad appeal among 11,000 Members across the full range of skill and experience. a flexible division structure that encourages lifelong participation. lots of events. its a wonderful thing, it really is, and it would be folly to throw it out.

it could be we have both already, and just need to draw a finer distinction between them.

Pat is on the right track - it's not about the entry fees - it's all about the venue. Listen to Pat - he is very wise.

The original idea of reducing fees and restricting added cash has merit, imo. The idea of a sliding scale has more merit, as do other ideas that result in reasonable bets for everyone but reward the top players. However, dividing the system into 98% casual and 2% competitive is a copout. It's merely an admission that we don't strive to be a sporting organization, but instead are content with being a recreational club.

As a side note, I realize open players are frustrated, but I just don't buy into the idea that we need to single out the top masters. They are doing nothing wrong. They just happen to be **** good relative to their age. The fact that a few masters can compete with the top open players is such a tiny part of the overall issues/problems, and ignores the fact that at some age, age breakdowns are appropriate.

For those that cry about how much it costs to play - I say establish an entry fee structure based on rating - so a 950 rated guy doesn't have to shell out big bucks to play against the 1000+ rated guy - but still benefits from exposure to those players, and gets rewarded EQUITABLY when he plays well.



I believe that this "sliding scale" idea could work well, particularly if it's coupled with a flighted reward system.

The entry fees for an A-tier could be something like:
1000+ players: $100
980-1000 players: $90
970-980 players $70
960-970 players $50
950-960 players $40
915-950 players $35
intermediate and other divisions would be traditional


The $35 would cover greens/sanctioning/TD fees, lunch both days, players package, trophy fund, and a subsidy towards cashing players.

Am's that "cashed" would be paid out in funny money. The total pro purse would be higher than under a traditional scheme, but the payout would be split by a larger number of players.

The top 1/3 of the field would cash. The entire field would be split into flights after the next-to-last round. All players (with the possible exception of the very last place or two) would be within 3-4 strokes of their flight leader going into the final round and have a chance to win their flight. All flight winners would receive a trophy.



I still hate having to pay more just because you are a good player. I don't see it as the lower players paying less I see it as higher rated players paying more just because they are good. I also bet that 970 guy is [censored] that he isn't 969 and maybe he will flop a small event just to get his rating lower so he can save $100 in the next few big events he wants to play.

How about doing odds instead? Basically that's what it is. If you want to play you should pay just as much as everyone else. I hate how a lot of ideas seem to encourage mediacrity. Instead of giving players incentive to get better you give them a reason not to. :confused:



I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Matt on something, but it's a very valid point. I get what the sliding pay scale is all about, but I also see how it could appear to "punish" players just for being higher skilled. And it just possibly could encourage sandbagging or tanking.

I believe that a handicapping system would work much better at "evening the bet" than a sliding scale of entry fees. Works in horse racing. Otherwise, less talented players are still "donating" just as frequently, just less total $$.

For this to work, it would take some serious stats analysis but lets say for example it works something like this:

rating handicap

> or = 990 0 stokes
< 989 .5
< 969 1.5
<949 2.5
<929 3.5
ect, ect., ect.,

We have tried this at the local minis and it turned out to be a lot of fun for all and kept the best players on their toes. the best players still have an advantage if everyone plays their rating. Ties in actual strokes always go to the higher rated player. Of course, every player has to have significant number of rated tournaments so that their rating is accurate. And the top players would hate it since their incomes could be impacted significantly.

My problem with handicapping is that it is easier to shoot above your rating the lower you rating is. Steve Dufrane was wanting to do a $50 winner take all handicap tourny and wanted me to do the handicapping but everything I came up with seemed to favor the lower skilled players more instead of making it fair for everyone.

The only "handicapping" system I like is extra holes for the better players.

Ex, Rec plays 18 holes
Int plays 19
Adv plays 20
Pro plays 21

This allows the players to determine the amount of strokes they give based on the way they play. This is the sytem that was used at the Tom Bass minis not too long ago and really seemed to work for everyone remember Michael?

Anyway it is much easier for a 900 rated player to improve his score by 4 strokes than it is for and 1000 rated player because there are more chances for the lower rated player to gain a stroke than the 1000 rated player. Lets say a 1000 rated round on a certain course is 7 off perfect so 900 is about 15 which means the 900 rated player has 8 more chances to improve than the 1000 rated player.

Thus it seems like the handicapping system would be bias towards the 900 rated player because improving his score by 4 strokes would be more probable than the 1000 rated player improving by 4. Also what if the 900 rated guy improved his avg score by 7 (bacically eliminating 1/2 the mistakes) why would it be fair to the 1000 rated playr who would have to eliminate 100% of his mistakes to match the 900 rated player.


Sorry if that is hard to follow

I agree, Matt. That system did work well and I think everyone had fun.
Now maybe we have to turn this over to McCaine, who is a mathmatical genius....
:D
very hard to administer fairly. I would actually think that fractions of a stroke might work best, calculated by how high a person's rating is. And then maybe the lower your rating (800-850 say .4 strokes per hole vs 850-900 = .5, 900-950 = .6 stroke/hole, etc., everyone rated against a standard SSA of 1000 for the course. That way a rec player who has a good day does not blow away the field...

I tried a true HC event one time, and found that the fairness of HC strokes for lower rated players breaks down around the 900 mark.
I like that folks are at least willing to talk about ways to deal w/ the divisional issue. Another idea that might help temper the feeling of the highest rated guy being "punished" for being good by having the highest entry fee (an idea I don't quite understand) would be to have a base entry fee for all players, w/optional "side pot", "super pro", or "best in class" type add ons that are optional for all players. This could keep the base entry affordable for all players, and make the stakes being played for the choice that's available, instead of the choice of "who to play against". It could also make rewards available for those players that both "qualify" for multiple categories, and wish to pay to be part of them. Nothing is forced upon any player - other than a more modest intial entry fee than we have now - which few should object to.

"Without course and slope ratings, there would be no gauge for players to use in determining their relative skills and the game would lose its long-cherished ability to pit the beginner against the best player head-to-head."
By Peter Dennis, USGA Assistant Director of Handicapping and Course Rating

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

My hope is that the PDGA will eventually develop a handicapping and course rating system similar to the USGA. Information pertaining to the USGA Handicapping system can be found here. (http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/handicaps.html)

When I am discussing disc golf with people outside the sport, one of the questions I am often asked is "what is your handicap?" The majority of men and women who ask me this question are not members of the PGA or anything like that; they are mostly weekend warrior/golfers who play local municipal courses and occasionally participate in a four-man scramble hosted by their employer or church. And every single one of them has a handicap or they know what a handicap is.

A disc golf handicapping system based solely on PDGA player ratings would be limited to only active members of the PDGA. I believe one main goal of the PDGA player rating system should be to use SSA averages in effort to accurately define par for a particular course. Until "par" and a "course rating" is correctly established for existing (and future) courses, disc golf will be unable to offer a universal handicapping system similar to what millions of ball golfers know and love.

I am sure this has been posted in some thread or argued for pages, but is the PDGA doing anything to limit the sandbagging that goes on in the Masters division these days. As stated in the thread below " Should 38 year olds be protected from 40 year olds", being able to pick and choose based on who is there is crappy. I think many of the local clubs are fighting this issue and the only way most can agree to deal with this is making the Master's entry fee about half of the Open entry fee. This will take care of guys just going toward the easy money and/or picking and choosing based on who showed up.



One idea would be to restrict the divisional eligibility of a pro player based upon how that player renews his/her PDGA membership each year. For example, if an individual renews his annual membership as an open player, he/she can <u>only</u> play in the open division that year. Likewise, a person who registers as a masters-aged player would only be eligible to compete in the masters division for that calendar year. This would, undoubtedly, eliminate the ability for players to flip/flop between divisions. The annual ID cards would state the eligible division and players would be required to present their ID cards in order to play in any PDGA sanctioned event. If you forget to bring your ID card to an event, you don't play in the tournament.

I suppose an "exception clause" would be needed for events where there is not enough players to create a particular division (i.e. if only two MPM players showed up at an event and four were needed to host the division, those players would be granted exception to play open for that particular event). Throw in a reduced entry fee structure for MPM divisions and this would probably encourage a lot of the top rated masters to enroll each year within the open division. Of course, calling such a division as "open" might require a categorical name change.

Open events which allow all competitors could still be contested within this restricted divisional structure, but they should be limited in number and stated as such up front. These open tournaments would ideally be qualification-style events such as the widely recognized and popular USDGC.

My hope is that the PDGA will eventually develop a handicapping and course rating system similar to the USGA. Information pertaining to the USGA Handicapping system can be found here.




The USGA only wishes they could have a ratings system like ours that relies only on event results for the data versus self reported scores. I met with some members of their handicap committee in their Far Hills, NJ office a while back. They tried to do calcs similar to our system and failed miserably. They discovered that only a small percentage of players report their scores properly according to their system. The other players either report mostly their best rounds so they can brag about their handicap. Or, they mainly report poor rounds so they can inflate their handicap for handicap events.

The other problem with their system is their course ratings are never verified by actual scores. A team of evaluators goes around and rates the course elements for how they will impact scoring for both scratch players and bogey golferes according to some charts. That determines the course rating and the slope assigned to it. Actual scoring results don't matter in their system.

If you want a handicap based on the PDGA system, the Disc Golf United personal and league handicap service is available here: www.discgolfunited.com (http://www.discgolfunited.com)

"Without course and slope ratings, there would be no gauge for players to use in determining their relative skills and the game would lose its long-cherished ability to pit the beginner against the best player head-to-head."
By Peter Dennis, USGA Assistant Director of Handicapping and Course Rating

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

My hope is that the PDGA will eventually develop a handicapping and course rating system similar to the USGA. Information pertaining to the USGA Handicapping system can be found here. (http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/handicaps.html)

When I am discussing disc golf with people outside the sport, one of the questions I am often asked is "what is your handicap?" The majority of men and women who ask me this question are not members of the PGA or anything like that; they are mostly weekend warrior/golfers who play local municipal courses and occasionally participate in a four-man scramble hosted by their employer or church. And every single one of them has a handicap or they know what a handicap is.

A disc golf handicapping system based solely on PDGA player ratings would be limited to only active members of the PDGA. I believe one main goal of the PDGA player rating system should be to use SSA averages in effort to accurately define par for a particular course. Until "par" and a "course rating" is correctly established for existing (and future) courses, disc golf will be unable to offer a universal handicapping system similar to what millions of ball golfers know and love.


Have never been asked this, however if you want to tell someone your handicap your best bet is to round to the nearest ten and count down from 1000 in increments of 10.

For example: I'm a 927 rated player. 930 is the nearest 10. Therefore if I wanted to tell someone my handicap I would say 7.

I can't believe that that is your most asked question though. Crazy.

I can't believe that that is your most asked question though. Crazy.



I never said that was my most asked question. :)

The USGA only wishes they could have a ratings system like ours...



Ridiculous. Laughably ridiculous.

Your ego is out of control if you believe that.

The USGA only wishes they could have a ratings system like ours...



Ridiculous. Laughably ridiculous.

Your ego is out of control if you believe that.



I have one thing that punishes everyone in regards to ratings. Round destroyers. Those guys who have decided that they are going to drop a round so they shoot a ridiculously low score. Maybe there needs to be a calculation that washes these scores from the tournament scores. When a guy shoots a 300 rated round and he's 950 rated, that's got to hurt the legitimacy of everyone else's rounds. Yeah, he paid to play, but he's not attempting to play a round that will contribute to a legitimate set of scores. That hurts everyone involved.

Ridiculous. Laughably ridiculous.



I'm not known to joke about this. Your dislike for the system clouds any rational discussion of the merits. Even Dean Knuth who invented their "fudge factor" slope system admits to the handicap failings due to self reported scores. Their numbers haven't been aligned to real scores since the 1970 US Amateur event. But the local clubs make money on the servicing the handicap system so they're entrenched with a popular but ultimately flawed system. The British handicap system only uses tournament scores so the USGA admits it's an improvement over the U.S. system in terms of accuracy.

Round destroyers. Those guys who have decided that they are going to drop a round so they shoot a ridiculously low score. Maybe there needs to be a calculation that washes these scores from the tournament scores. When a guy shoots a 300 rated round and he's 950 rated, that's got to hurt the legitimacy of everyone else's rounds.



Maybe you forgot that we don't use propagator scores that are more than 70pts below a player's rating to calculate the SSA?

My hope is that the PDGA will eventually develop a handicapping and course rating system similar to the USGA. Information pertaining to the USGA Handicapping system can be found here.




The USGA only wishes they could have a ratings system like ours that relies only on event results for the data versus self reported scores. I met with some members of their handicap committee in their Far Hills, NJ office a while back. They tried to do calcs similar to our system and failed miserably. They discovered that only a small percentage of players report their scores properly according to their system. The other players either report mostly their best rounds so they can brag about their handicap. Or, they mainly report poor rounds so they can inflate their handicap for handicap events.

The other problem with their system is their course ratings are never verified by actual scores. A team of evaluators goes around and rates the course elements for how they will impact scoring for both scratch players and bogey golferes according to some charts. That determines the course rating and the slope assigned to it. Actual scoring results don't matter in their system.



In case you didn't notice, I wrote that I hoped the PDGA would develop a handicapping and course rating system similar to the USGA. I also suggested the usage of the PDGA player ratings and "to use SSA averages in effort to accurately define par for a particular course". Unlike their system, our data <u>would</u> utilize tournament scores/ratings to help establish/confirm course ratings and, eventually, create a disc golf handicapping system that could be used by Joe Blo Public and not limited to PDGA members who have obtained a player rating.

It's already there with the Disc Golf United handicapping service that uses the same PDGA calculation method to produce handicaps. It also provides the SSA for each course played and adjusts the handicap accordingly. Of course, since it uses self reported scores, it can have the same inaccuracies as USGA handicaps.

There may be cases with our player rating system of players "cheating" the system to inflate their rating (i.e. schuling to get a round dropped or DNF-ing), and there are times when all the propogators simultaneously play above or below their usual level that may slightly skew that round rating. Overall, however, I feel our system works very well to give a very accurate picture of a player's skill level for an average of the courses that they play. It does break down a little if an accurate, short-armed player competes primarily on those types of courses and then competes at a bigger, more-open type course, and the vice-versa when a big-arm that struggles to hit gaps plays primarily on courses that suit their game.

I've suggested a few times (have yet to get anyone else to second the motion, but will keep on trying) that players should have two components to their player rating, power and accuraracy. Courses would be given a power rating such as .7, which would mean that scoring on that course is influenced 70% by power and 30% by accuracy. A wide-open long course might be a .9 and a very tight, short course might be a .1


Have never been asked this, however if you want to tell someone your handicap your best bet is to round to the nearest ten and count down from 1000 in increments of 10.

For example: I'm a 927 rated player. 930 is the nearest 10. Therefore if I wanted to tell someone my handicap I would say 7.



That was my first inclination as well and serves as a quick 'n' dirty answer. With the average tour pro golfer at around a +2 handicap and our top pros at 1030+, it appears that it's a pretty good match.

Down the line, however, things get a big out of whack. i.e. I'm a 950ish disc golfer and under the Q&amp;D method it'd convert to a 5 handicap golfer. That's a bit out of line. Given my disc golf skills and 25 years of ball golf play, I'd liken my disc golf play to about a 12-13 handicap golfer.

Further down the line, the Q&amp;D method would give a 900 rated disc golfer a 10 handicap. That's way out of line. A 900 rated disc golfer is more like a 20-25 handicap golfer.

Having said that about handicapping, however, I do use the Q&amp;D method when talking to non-discers. I think it's much better PR to give a quick answer that they can relate to, even if it's not entirely accurate, than to stammer about how all holes are par 3, even if pros average over 5 on them.

What the heck was the topic on this thread anyway . . . oh . . . i guess that makes this post 100% thread-drift . . .

It's 10 pts per shot around a 50 SSA. It's 6 pts per shot around a 72 SSA similar to ball golf. So, our 900 golfer converts more to a 17 handicapper in comparison to ball golf. In addition, since putting in BG is tougher than DG, if we adjusted our basket to make our putting stats similar to BG, the ratings of our current 900 players might slide to 860-875 getting their handicap in the 21-25 range per Denny's estimate for equivalency.

Regarding power and accuracy ratings, I hope that down the road we can actually break out skill levels for players such that there would be even more categories like ball golf with fairway accuracy, putting percentages, save percentage, etc.

Just to clarify: the way I'm doing the math, based on what you just posted, on an SSA 72 course, a 1030 rated player would be expected to shoot 67, a 950 player 80.3 and a 900 player 88.7. Does that look right?

Yep. With Winthrop Gold around 68 SSA, it's more like 6.6 pts per shot so a 1030 player would average around 63-64.

Would changing the age requirements be of any help or would it deter others? Like say, changing Masters to 45 instead of 40?

It's 10 pts per shot around a 50 SSA. It's 6 pts per shot around a 72 SSA similar to ball golf. So, our 900 golfer converts more to a 17 handicapper in comparison to ball golf. In addition, since putting in BG is tougher than DG, if we adjusted our basket to make our putting stats similar to BG, the ratings of our current 900 players might slide to 860-875 getting their handicap in the 21-25 range per Denny's estimate for equivalency.

Regarding power and accuracy ratings, I hope that down the road we can actually break out skill levels for players such that there would be even more categories like ball golf with fairway accuracy, putting percentages, save percentage, etc.

I've often thought this to myself chuck, but then again i don't play too many courses with 'defined fairways' your courses at the worlds were ok, but it would be tough to get a fairway percentage on some holes on gold, blueberry and i thought the bear was silly. there are lots of different routes to the basket, with many "tweener holes" where stroke seperation wasn't merely a throwing well issue, more of a good shot hope it finishes luck fest on about 9 holes.

this type of layout is comparable my home courses squirrel creek and hanging oaks. we need "real fairways" to determine stats.

Would changing the age requirements be of any help or would it deter others? Like say, changing Masters to 45 instead of 40?

imo, the idea of setting master age as high as 50 is worth consideration. the number of 40-49 y.o. players who are competitive at the highest levels is compelling. from a practical side, TDs are in the drivers seat on this one. they can simply offer "GM" only. MSDGC takes that route.

You need to look at the number of 40-49 year olds that are no longer able to be competitive in open that may continue to play if they have a protected place to play, not the few that are still competitive in open and choose compete in Masters.

I would be a lot quicker to embrace a ratings ceiling on the age protected divisions than an increase in the age limits.

Best Idea I have heard mentioned in a while.
D.P. :D

yup

that sounds like a worthy idea also. i could prolly get those numbers if i get a few hours to go at it.

Gary,

Interesting concept, but personally I'll disagree with it (unless you / others can convince me otherwise). My stance is as follows:

[I'll preface the following by first "throwing out" this whole "pro / am" thing (which only muddies the waters)...]

I. If you want everyone in one big pool, and the "best man wins", then have 1 section and 1 section only. I think we all agree that this is the "purest way" to compete...but not the most desirable.
II. If you want everyone in ability-demarcated divisions, then have ratings-based divisions only. Whatever the splits are are arbitrary...not good, not bad...they just are (assigned by the PDGA).
III. If you want everyone in age-demarcated divisions, then have age-based divisions only. Where these divisions are broken is usually in groups of 10s (40 - 49, 50 - 59, etc.) but can be whatever we want them to be.

But if you assign some arbitrary ratings cutoff for age divisions, you are 'punishing' those that are 1) "lucky" to be at the top of their arbitrarily-assigned respective ratings division (which I admit IS just being lucky) or 2) "good for their age". In the first case, any arbitrary ratings demarcation are exactly that - arbitrary (and can be adjusted whenever...just like they have been this year). But in the second case, a person may have worked very hard to "stay in shape" (for their age) or "improve"...and now you are suggesting to eliminate them from playing in that division - forcing them to "play up"! I'm missing the logic behind this. I believe if you are a 901 rated person in a 900 - 934 rating division, your job is to improve to 934. If you are 47 years old and can't "compete" with 40 year olds, your job is to improve so you can. As mentioned before, neither ratings nor age groupings are "pure" but we seem to like them. I'm basically for age divisions OR ratings divisions, but mixing and matching both of them together seems not the way to go.

Karl

I totally disagree with Karls logic for many reasons .

Adding player ratings to age protected divisions would produce a ripple effect and basically eliminate sandbagging at all levels . This in turn would create a truely " protected " class of players who need the protection ( based in declining ability cause of age and also allow the best of the best to compete against one another )


What about Jack Nickolas playing in the " Masters " tourney and winning it in what was it 86 when he was what 46 . ( now I realize the " age cutoff for ball golf is 50 ) but the point is there are some players who can compete at the top level of our sport and IMPO should be made to play in that division if they are capable of . OF course if there was true money that was only allocated to the top divsions we would have those players play where they belong .

Putting both age based and ratings based caps on levels would also provide a cutoff of " pro " and "am " at the highest level of our sport ( which also basically includes are 3 showcase divisions open , master , advanced )

I believe people like you Karl are the reason for putting a ratings cap on age protected division.

You are evidently a good Player Rated 950 and you play in Advanced Grandmaster a good part of the time.
You should be challenging your self and playing something more challenging like advanced 75% of the time or Pro Masters.

Lets see 950 Rated Player
Won Advanced Grandmaster tournaments by 15 strokes and 41 strokes.
Won Advanced Master tournaments by 5 and 9 strokes
Why not challenge yourself?

Lets see 950 Rated Player
Won Advanced Grandmaster tournaments by 15 strokes and 41 strokes.
Won Advanced Master tournaments by 5 and 9 strokes
Why not challenge yourself?



:o

"Why not challenge yourself?"

:oHe would have LESS PLASTIC to sell......

First of all, I hear what you guys are saying (...appreciate differing opinions...) and acknowledge that I am "fortunate" that the PDGA - presently - has divisions that "benefit" me (although I donate 'winnings' to various dg endeavors here in the new england general region), but I've worked very hard at staying physically in shape and practicing...so why shouldn't a system be set up to benefit those types? Most sports are!

All I'm saying is that you should have EITHER age-protected divisions OR rating-protected divisions. I'm cool with either. Combining them is just making the system more "neutral-friendly" (coddling to the middle ability of any one age group). Why arbitrarily 'cut out' the top of an age group? What did they do to deserve such being ostricized? Be "good" for their age? Shame on them ;). I thought "getting good" was the goal here! Remember I'm OK with ratings-based divisions, but IF you have age-based divisions let them be so! None of this "age-based but if you're too good for your age you're banished" stuff.

Karl

Ps: I DO challenge myself every time I play! I challenge the course (and usually lose). I challenge myself. I'm playing with 3 playing partners, not 3 playing opponents. I take pride in getting a PR; if you beat me that day and I've PR'd I'm still wicked happy. None of this mano-a-mano stuff. It may be for you (and most others), it just isn't for me.

According to your rating, there are only 10 players better than you in all of CT. You would have cashed in most of the pro divisions. I don't think I'd be too upset if choruses of "Bagger" rang out as you accepted your merch.

Rich,

Don't worry, I wouldn't be too upset if choruses of "Bagger" ring out. I think of it this way...if one was to always "give in" to the "bagger" hoots, that person would move to some other division until they didn't win anymore. The next week again there would be "bagger" calls issued toward someone else (that week's winner), and THAT person would move, and so on until there is only 1 person in that division (everyone else has moved on). Silly. Note: There will ALWAYS be bagger chants from those who didn't finish first...because they don't want that competition any more), For this reason, the whole "bagger" syndrome is a bunch of wombat droppings. If you don't like people playing in the division they are allowed to by the PDGA, don't shoot the player, shoot the system (or, in other words, do something to CHANGE the system...be it the Pro / Am thing, the age division thing, etc). But I know, holloring cat calls is a lot less effort than actually expending energy toward accomplishing something real (if that's what you want)...so there will always be bagger calls. I just think of it as a sort of applause!

Karl

It is basically impossible to change the system in place since the protected players would have a HISSY fit if the system would reflect true compitition , cause they would lose the protected status allowed by the old system .

I have never understood the system that allows protection for the best players of the sport . To top it off when this protection is allowed at the highest levels of the sport it does NOT give the next tier player down a chance to compete in a fair compitition between equal opponents .

I find your post rather amusing coming from a guy who has won more than his fair share of "Protected AM Divison" events.
Most of the Pro Masters I played with last week had lower ratings. Maybe you should allow those other guys there fair share :o

If I could play in a TRUE PROTECTED " pro " division , where fair and equal compitition of like players is not only respected but allowed ( age protection with ratings breaks lets say )
I would in a heartbeat .

However with the current system in place , If I was to play in an age protected division where there are MANY ( not a few ) 1000 rated golfers , I might as well just hand them my money and go home .

As far as playing in protected am divisions , I have stated before I would much rather win my division and donate my winnings to DFLs in kids , womens , or intermediate divisions then if I was to play in some " arbitrary protected pro division " and donate to some person who could win in OPEN .

Thanks but that is just the way I roll .

Oh and to add to the blue hat discussion on another thread , if I had my way , because I would be asking for protection from the best of the best in a " true protected pro division ( age protection with ratings breaks )", IF I was not playing in the highest division ( with no protection ) I do not feel I am warrented any ADDED cash .
IF I dont play with the big boys the big fish should not be avail to me .

I can not agree with that. But to each his own. I think you donating your stuff is great but, are you not taking away the same thing from the person who deserves it in Am Masters??? How many wins does one need? Indirectly playing an am divison is still suplmenting the Pros.

The last paragraph is also suspect. There may only be 15-20 1000 rated masters players and I am not scared of any of them and I relish the rounds with these players!

As for not adding cash to all open divisons, that is silly as I said on the other thread Most of the sponsorship money comes from players over the age of 40. Like Chuck said, if he is bringing some food, he or she has a right to share with whomever.
This debate is never ending, good luck in bagging, it has the same ripple effect as a 1000 rated player playing with 980 or below players.

In my opinion , as far as taking away from other advanced masters is sorta true but I have also found that alot of those advanced masters could ( and should play by player rating proof ) play in intermediate and are just subjecting themselves to the same thing I would be if I played " pro masters "

Along those lines , playing with 1000 rated masters seems crazy to me cause

a . they can WIN in the highest division and could ( if they would play in the right division ) win as much as they do in masters if all qualified people would play in same division .
( of course this assuming that all added cash would go to the highest division also )

b . I have NEVER SHOT A 1000 rated round ( 991 being the highest ) so how is anyone supposed to compete against those who AVERAGE a 1000 rated round .

As far as baggin ,
IN 2006 I went to am worlds in tulsa and had planned to " move up " after a top 5?10?25? finish .....
62th place out of whatever .....
did not even qualify for semifinal round ....
Yea that is bagging .... NOT
and most of my wins are little C tier events that I end up running the event or asst TDing .

I would love to see events where at C tiers I would BE FORCED to play Pro masters but when going to a higher tier , it is proven time and time again that I dont belong with the big boys when they come out and play . PROOF Is in the PUDDING ....
IF the system allowed playing in divisions based upon age and ability ( and possibly tier ) ... you would always play in a division of almost totally equal ability and a true winner for that weekend would be had ..


you may feel perfectly fine having the chance against the " protected big boys " but I do not .
Just in my area ( South East PA ) I can think of Five 1000 rated masters ( and there is at 20 other masters age players 980 rated and above ), So until a system is divised that I feel is FAIR all the way around ...

:Last note please reread post on this thread #777650

I guess just cashing is not enough for you then.

Sharky please reread comments from last post ,
IF I could bounce back and forth ( am and pro based upon Age , rating and tier levels )
Yes just cashing would be enough at C tiers
BUT since once I turn " pro " and accept cash the PDGA is saying I am A PRO at all levels HA what a joke that is .

A perfect set up would be for a 944 rated 42 year old ,
AT C tier events I would have to play pro master ( assuming a ratings cap )
AT B tier events I could play pro master or advanced ( assuming a ratings cap )
AT A tier events I could play advanced master or advanced or pro master ( assuming a ratings cap )
( this include world championships )

I would love to see events where at C tiers I would BE FORCED to play Pro masters but when going to a higher tier , it is proven time and time again that I dont belong with the big boys when they come out and play . PROOF Is in the PUDDING ....
IF the system allowed playing in divisions based upon age and ability ( and possibly tier ) ... you would always play in a division of almost totally equal ability and a true winner for that weekend would be had ..

IF I could bounce back and forth ( am and pro based upon Age , rating and tier levels )
Yes just cashing would be enough at C tiers
BUT since once I turn " pro " and accept cash the PDGA is saying I am A PRO at all levels HA what a joke that is .




Your current rating allows you to jump between am and pro.

we are the same age and my rating was no higher than yours going into last year (now up to a whopping 954) and i cashed at every event i played except one including an a tier. had to play like complete [censored] at wvo to not cash there as well. you are taking advantage of the system as much or more than jim or joey when they play masters.

if the status quo doesn't suit then eliminate age based am divisions and never apply ratings to pro divisions. imo the status quo is fine other than letting 970 pros play down.

BUT there is NO ratings cap that makes other 1000 rated master play where they belong competitively AND I am just above the cutoff for advanced masters ( with finishing in 62 place a year ago ) is where I feel I belong at HIGH end ( world championship caliber ) events .

you have shot 1000 rrated rounds I have NEVER , NO comparision until I do that ....
I have to admit If I could get to where even every once in a while shoot a 1000 rated round and hopefully have a CHANCE to compete agaainst 1000 rated players on a regular basis ... then I have no arguement .

Whoopty-freaking-doo, you played bad in one tournament (a year and a half ago). You've won nearly every other one you've played.

all the tourneys Ihave " won " were little C tiers where the compitition is not nearly as stff
As I have said before until it is proven at PDGA events ( 4 rounds or more ) that i can put a 4 round event together with maybe a 1000 rated round in there to compete agaisnt those other 1000 rated players
all I am doing is donating ...
and if all I am going to do is donate , I would rather play advanced master ( and pay MUCH LESS FOR IT ) and donate my winnings to up and commers ( kids , women et al )

When was the last time you actually tried to play up at one of those "little C tiers where the compitition is not nearly as stff"?

I got to admit that the new system is better then the old , allowing movement , but it just does not go far enough impo .
If you are going to blur the lines between am and pro just put caps on all age based divisions and let the chips fall where they may ,
FOR example if the CAP on advanced masters was 935 PERIOD , FINE I would play pro master or advanced .
IT should not mattter if I cashed at some small C tier
HOWEVER there should be corresponding caps on ALL LEVELS of compitition
ADVANCED lets say 980
PRO MASTER lets say 980 at C tiers
1000 at B tiers

The point is once again , allowing the fairest compitition among those who are like ability ( with respect to age also )
To add to that , when the lines of player ability are no longer blurred then IMPO you could add cash to all divisions cause then there is no BAGGING at all ( or it is severly limited ) due to trying to get the same like players playing in the same division and not some arbitrary liine drawn that someone can take advantage of .

how are ratings divisions any less arbitrary than age based ones?

Looking at your results, I noticed a little something. There was NEVER A 1000 rated masters player at any of the events you played in.

Now I am not sure if you all played the same pads or not but, your score in several of those same events puts you WINNING??

Now, who's bagging? If you are going to argue about 1000 rated players, go to events where your excuses hold merit. Otherwise you are clearly taking away from players playing in the RIGHT divison :eek:

you have shot 1000 rrated rounds I have NEVER , NO comparision until I do that ....
I have to admit If I could get to where even every once in a while shoot a 1000 rated round and hopefully have a CHANCE to compete agaainst 1000 rated players on a regular basis ... then I have no arguement .



i have shot 1 officially rated 1000 round since turning masters age and it was at a course that i designed and installed and would be my home course if i didn't have one "at home". you are selling your game short.

tell diffenderfer and savercool hello if you still see them. :)

Not to change the subject but I am saying that if there was a true stepping stone approach by the PDGA with all players at all levels playing in divisions that were made for fair and equal compitition , I am pretty sure that there would be alot more players playing where they BELONG and not baggin .
This would be done by age , rating and tier requirements combined .
The am divisions ( up to our highest level of am compititions ) have this and It could be incorporated into the pro divisions just as easy , and as I have said before would create fair and equally competitive divisions straight across the board .

Now on to answer both Bob and John ,

The last event I played in was at French creek and was a total suprise to almost everyone there ( and was commented on by many players cause NORMALLY FRENCH CREEK is a total loss for me ) and I still did not win even advanced masters division . Lost by one stroke by a player who is better then me just not as experienced .

Uhm dont know what you are talking about when you say there are no 1000 rated PRO masters at events I Played .
Jim Myers and Craig Gangloff ( granted they played open but that is the point they are OVER 40 and could play masters if inclined ) were at one of them at codourus , Bob hoffman was 1000 rated at french creek but dropped 4 points since then .
And then there are the oklahoma tourneys .
My job sends me to Norman OK for training ( have been going since 93 ) and I play tourney who have as their players Mitch and Clint McClellan .

Bob , you do bring a valid point to trying in bigger tourneys and I would love to do that but this is a big thing that prevents me ,
My days off are sunday monday and most tourneys that bring out the best compitition are 2 days and I cannot attend .
The saturdays that I do get off are for the 1 day events I run or assist TD .

As I have said before even for the one day C tier tourneys that I run or assist , I would love to play pro masters and have a shot at last place cash but then I am a " PRO " . HA what a joke when I have to compete at bigger level tourneys ( for ever and ever ) against 1000 rated pro masters and pay the bigger prices to donated to someone who beats me on an average of 6 strokes per round .

To add to this , I have been advocating equal for all . People who condemn me for playing in a protected division have the right but in a round about sorta way it proves my point . I believe I should not be able to play in advanced masters in lower tiered events . It would be nice if I could come back when the competition gets more difficult ( just for the protection from the proven much better players ) .


John , I will say hi to them as I see them sporatically .

as far as selling my game short , ehh maybe , and that is WHY i would love to see this stepping stone approach done .
AT C tiers I would have to play pro masters
At B tiers choice of advanced or pro masters
at A tiers choice of advanced masters , advanced or pro master

To me it just seems logical to have fair and equal compititions avail
Do you see anything wrong with that ???

Its so nice to live in So Cal where we don't sweat this stuff so much. Live and let live. What it really boils down to is a few folks in Open that are [censored] that geezers with kids in college, ex-wives, mortgages, and grandkids can shoot semi-decent golf and still cash. Lighten up, kick back and enjoy your brief time on the planet...oh yeah, and GO CHARGERS!! :cool:

My point has and will be that if the PDGA ( as the leader of competitive , governing entity of DISC GOLF ) was to stand up and make definitive divisions that are fair to all players ( and impo that can be done as stated before ) , this stuff would not be discussed nor debated .

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but it sure seems like you're willing to do the right thing only if it's forced on you.


My point has and will be that if the PDGA ( as the leader of competitive , governing entity of DISC GOLF ) was to stand up and make definitive divisions that are fair to all players ( and impo that can be done as stated before ) , this stuff would not be discussed nor debated .

to be clear, the PDGA doesn't govern the sport of Disc Golf. They sanction events. If a person wants to run an event outside of the PDGA's rules and regulations, they are welcome to do so. If you don't agree with how things are done in the PDGA, there is always the option to not use the PDGA's services.

My point has and will be that if the PDGA ( as the leader of competitive , governing entity of DISC GOLF ) was to stand up and make definitive divisions that are fair to all players ( and impo that can be done as stated before ) , this stuff would not be discussed nor debated .





Are the one's they have now somehow unfair ?

If the rules were made to allow equal fair competition at all levels that would be more of what I am saying . Right now alot of people are playing by the rules set forth and I cannot believe more people do not see it as unfair .
As I said before playing where I play sorta proves my point that the system seems wrong .
SO most people think I should move up donate and be done with it and I say that is UNFAIR . Most people also think I should not play where I play and I say by current rules who is to stop me ???

NOW under the stepping stone idea , EVERYONE would fit in a specific area that would create fair and competitive divisions for all.

In a nut shell, I would like that competitive equality be spread across all levels and that those of you who are willing to play against the best this sport has to offer would be duly compensated for that .
Me personally I am just looking for a place that I could compete with like people ( decent players over 40 ) which Ironically there are alot of them in disc golf , and be rewarded if I was to be the winner on that day against like ability players .

You still have not answered all of my questions, did you play the same tees when you shot scores that would have won Pro Masters?

As for the perfect scenario, I do not see that ever happening as the pDGA, is catering to everyone wth the options that are in place currently.

The title of the thread was open EF vs Master EF, I still see no reason for the difference . If there is added money add it to the open unless the sponsor has asked otherwise. The elite players will have to make choice$$$$.

Personally, I think you are at the appropriate level for the top Advanced masters. When you exceed 950 you have to think about whether you are being challenged by your competition and if it would be more interesting to move to advanced or Pro Masters.

You should move to Texas. 940 is a pretty good rating for an Advanced Master here. I don't think you would be considered a bagger here with a 940 rating.