These were posted today...

http://www.pdga.com/documents/2007/2008CompetitionChangesSummary.pdf

My thoughts (numbered by rule change)

1. This is a good thing and it is about time.
2. I really like this idea, especially including charity events. I sanction a fund raiser in January and the extra 25 dollars for C Tier instead of D Tier would have been nice to donate to the NC food bank rather than the PDGA.
3. VERY GOOD. It would suck for a club / TD to do a B Tier and have a minimum 1000 dollar purse and 2 pros show up.
4 & 5. These were made b/c a minimum purse was no longer required.
6. More divisions? This is rediculous!
7. This is not good either. Lets just intice MORE people to bag and go to worlds.
8. Sure, why not.

Everyone's thoughts?

I can't believe they added another division!!?!!? Guaranteed to solve nothing! Why add another division? People are now just going to bag Expert AND Advanced. If it is PDGA sponsored then you should have to play in a certain division depending on your rating...simple!!

6 and 7 are taking the sport backwards!!

I just reviewed this document and believe this is a step in the right direction. What is lacking is the control of non-members, and nonrated amateur players. We need a way to officially rate these players. Maybe a one-time amnesty for your first PDGA event to establish a rating, trophy only with no merching allowed and the TD reserving the right to bump someone to the appropriate division.

I just reviewed this document and believe this is a step in the right direction. What is lacking is the control of non-members, and nonrated amateur players. We need a way to officially rate these players. Maybe a one-time amnesty for your first PDGA event to establish a rating, trophy only with no merching allowed and the TD reserving the right to bump someone to the appropriate division.



AGREED!

I am so unhappy to hear that they have added another division. People want to play in large divisions. I know I prefer events with at least 30 players in my division. This will only continue to shrink divisions and promote sandbagging. For 2009 is the competition commitee going to break divisions every 10 points so everyone can get a win during the calendar year?

I feel like we should have two large divisions. Open and amateur both with age protected divisions beginning at 40). Amateurs should get a players pack and win a trophy. Open players should get paid. I must be crazy to propose a system this simple.

1. points are meaningless
2. eh, whatever (no point in sanctioning charity events anyway)
3. flexibility=yes, but i could see this leading to serious controversy over payouts
4. & 5. eh, whatever (this probably affects less than 5% of all events)
6. more divisions = stupid, division name changes = retarded
7. worst decision ever: I really hope an Am (waiting for Am worlds before he goes pro) cashes really well at an A-tier or major and gets a voucher for like $1,000 in merch so that there is no merch for anyone else to pick from just to show how stupid this decision is.
8. eh, whatever

The control of non-members is not needed from PDGA policy but the TDs. PDGA policy will not change anything unless it's changed to disallow nonmembers to enter another tier below A. Right now, TDs can require nonmembers to play in whatever division they choose. The solution regarding nonmembers is at the TD level. They don't need outdated ratings to say Bobby has to play in Advanced or Open for full price. Or, Jimmy can enter Intermediate or Rec and play for the trophy only at a reduced entry fee. These are all legal right now and protects members from potential nonmember baggers.

BTW, they didn't just add 1 division, they added potentially 2-6.
Expert: Men, Women, Masters, W. Masters, GM, WGM

Either you're crazy or you haven't been on the message board for long because that idea has been shot down multiple times.

I like the changes because it gives the 950-980 people a division without sandbagging in Adv or donating in Pro.

If you take a closer look at the ratings separations in #6 you should notice that it's way more fair in terms of competitiveness than before. A 900 rated player rarely beats a 950 rated player. But that player can beat a 934 rated player. And as for the bottom division, even an average weekend only beginner is about a 860 rated player. That entusiast division will be appropriate. The intermidiate division will be more competitive with less donaters in that field. An 850 player might have a tough time beating an 899 rated player, but the 850-899 rated players make more mistakes and therefore would probably be fairly competitive even though the spread is 49 pionts. Once you break 900 you are probably becoming more consistient, and the 34 point spread is relative to experience. Once you break 935, you are starting to increase in skill enough to compete with the 950+ players....

Players rated 950-980 only donate at A-tiers and NTs. A-tiers and NTs are for the best of the best players. Players rated 950-980 can conceivably cash at A-tiers and NTs but they are not the top players.

but part of the problem is sandbagging in Adv, too, which this will help with.

I understand that thats how it is structured Chuck, but the majority of TD's don't take the time to weed out the baggers unless a player complains. Something is needed as an additional guideline to TD's to increase the level of control they exert at ant given event. Right now, in NorCal, we are constantly being invade by non-rated baggers in what is suspossed to be a ratings protected division.... Why should a player who not rated get to enjoy that PDGA benefit? And how do we help the TD rate the non-rated player?

but part of the problem is sandbagging in Adv, too, which this will help with.


how?

The advanced rating spread is much more compact than before. So statistically, it will mean that the players will be way more competitive. Any player in that range could have a series of hot rounds and win. Before those same players would all be competing, but the guy with a 973 rating wins easy... The guy in second place is only a stoke ahead of third, but 1st is 7 strokes ahead of 2nd...

I feel like we should have two large divisions. Open and amateur both with age protected divisions beginning at 40). Amateurs should get a players pack and win a trophy. Open players should get paid. I must be crazy to propose a system this simple.



If you haven't been paying attention, you can run a sanctioned event with your plan right now. All the updated divisional structure does show what's possible not what a TD has to do.

The new division was added at the bottom of our current structure to accommodate the growth of new players in the sport. Most do not start at ratings more than 850 and they'll have a chance to compete in PDGA play without getting hammered right off the bat. By moving the 915 break up to 935 AND allowing ams to enter pro and cash with merch, it helps the Open division. First, the top Am division will likely be smaller since there are fewer ams in that ratings range and some will be tempted to occasionally play Open now, especially if the entry fee for Expert is closer to Open than Advanced is now.

The top Expert prize will likely not be as large in comparison to the bottom Open cashers like it does now when Advanced wins a basket with a score higher than the bottom Open casher because the division will be smaller than current Advanced. By moving the ratings break up 20 points, it now will not be as big of a jump for Ams to go pro. Pros win regardless what decision a 970 Am makes. If the player enters Expert, the retail/wholesale differential potentially helps the Open purse with the added money being distributed among fewer Open players. If the player enters Open, it's a bigger division with the entry fee added AND if that player cashes, he only gets merch which again helps the purse or the TD with expenses.

Sorry, it will be less bagging in the Adv division now and moved to the Expert divison, if that is what you meant.

The Expert division will now endure the bagging by 970-990 rated players potentially. But how many 990 rated players will stay in the merch division? So the 935 rated player has a better chance against the 960-980 rated players than the 915 rated player does now.

I also think this simple solution, though unpopular, would solve a lot of problems. I'm not sure how I feel about this yet, but I'm game to wait and see how it turns out.

One of my first thoughts is merchandise planning. You kind of know how much mech to plan for as it is, but if an Am-playing-Pro decides to take merch (and he's placed fairly high) that could put a strain on your resources. I guess you cant plan on that....maybe get the guys address and send him a voucher to a local store.

For those that rely on the artificial added cash, this would give them one more Am division to use the wholesale/retail diff. to their advantage. :D

I'll reserve judgment until we get it going. Lets give it a chance.

FWIW...

1. I know no dg'er who worries about points. Get rid of this concept...it just muddies the already murky dg picture.

2. Because of 3., this (2.) may be OK.

3. Fine.

4. As a "Lifer-Am" I don't really care about 'added cash' (but I know those who "play to make money" do care) and I hope this won't already strap the tournament organizers moreso (than they already are).

5. See 4. above.

6. a) Enthusiast is WAY too PC for me.
b) Take it from someone who played tournament chess for years...and saw SERIOUS sandbagging...to the likes of $10,000.00 for first place in ratings-based world tournaments...per each division, not just the "big boys". If you have ratings and you play for money, there WILL be sandbagging. Period. As dg grows, and the $$ increases, this problem will only increase. Mark it down! Now don't get me wrong, I LIKE ratings...BUT so I can compare that I now am a bazillion points behind the world champ (and having been a bazillion and 10 points behind last ratings update, that tells me I'm making progress!) but for no other reason. If you want to get rid of sandbagging, you'll have to get rid of ratings-based divisions. At least age based divisions CAN'T be bagged (unless you've developed a time machine...where upon I want part of that action!); you are what you are!

7. Not sure about this but am leaning towards it being a bad thing....

8. Haven't taken the time to fathom the depths of all this. Initial question would be 'has anyone checked to see if the new divisions jibe with the ratings breakdowns and both jibe with the already-in-place (but stupid, in my opinion) skill level breakdowns for courses?' Second question would be 'why is there a table (with headers of Division and Skill Level) which show all (again, stupid) skill levels for courses yet only list SOME of the catagories of players, i.e. there are the Expert, Advanced, Intermediate, and Enthusiast of Amateur and the Open of Pro...but what about Pro GM, et al? Third question...naw, two is two too many already.

Karl

The ratings breaks were chosen partly based on the number of members in those ranges and whether the range was narrow enough to give players some chance to cash.


Second question would be 'why is there a table (with headers of Division and Skill Level) which show all skill levels for courses yet only list SOME of the categories of players, i.e. there are the Expert, Advanced, Intermediate, and Enthusiast of Amateur and the Open of Pro...but what about Pro GM, et al?



Not necessary because any Am or Pro of any age can enter those divisions even in a non-ratings event just like they do now as long as their rating meets the criteria table which will be updated to match these changes.

I lobbied for less Am divisions and less, larger divisions but there are a lot of Conservatives that are making the final calls. It's kind of like congress....The Republicans oooooorrrrrr AMs didn't agree with the Liberals ooooorrrrrrr Pros saying that we need less, bigger divisions ;)

How have the conservatives done in this country the past 6.5 years :confused:

BTW, they didn't just add 1 division, they added potentially 2-6.
Expert: Men, Women, Masters, W. Masters, GM, WGM




All the updated divisional structure does show what's possible not what a TD has to do.



<font size=4>ATTENTION ALL TOURNAMENT DIRECTORS:</font>

Please note that the new competition system changes show what a TD can choose to do, not MUST do. There is absolutely no reason to begin offering multiple overlapping and redundant divisions of Expert Masters, Expert Grandmasters, Expert Women's Masters, etc.

In fact, by adding this new Expert division to the amateur structure, shouldn't those four divisions for each gender be enough? Please give serious thought to whether age divisions are still necessary. At your tournament, wouldn't the following be sufficient for men and women:

<table border="1"><tr><td> <u>Division</u> </th><th> <u>Ratings</u> </th></tr>
<tr><td> Expert </td><td> 935+ </th></tr>
<tr><td> Advanced </td><td> 900-934 </th></tr>
<tr><td> Intermediate </td><td> 850-899 </th></tr>
<tr><td> Enthusiast </td><td> < 850 </th></tr>
</table>

Chuck,

Your answer doesn't really jibe with my question (although you probably stated some good stuff). Let me ask it another way. I'm 52, rated 951, and wickedly prefer to play amateur (playing Pro only if that's the only option available). What are ALL of my possible options for 2008?

Karl

If I sanction any tournaments next year I don't think I'll offer Advanced or Enthusiast, just Expert &amp; Intermediate for ams.

Karl, if you are an amateur you may enter Adv GM, Adv Master and Expert plus MPO, MPM and MPG and accept merch prizes in any. Your rating is too high to play Adv Master or GM if you are a Pro PDGA member but you can still play Expert in the am ranks. In ratings events you could enter the Blue or Gold divisions regardless if you are an am or pro.

I lobbied for less Am divisions and less, larger divisions but there are a lot of Conservatives that are making the final calls. It's kind of like congress....The Republicans oooooorrrrrr AMs didn't agree with the Liberals ooooorrrrrrr Pros saying that we need less, bigger divisions ;)

How have the conservatives done in this country the past 6.5 years :confused:



Some of us Ams are vociferous in our support of less, bigger divisions. :D

Chuck,

I'm an "Am" and thanks for the clarification!

Karl

since we're going point by point...

1) points are useless in their current format. no one cares, unless you went to bowling green, cuz thats the only way you have a chance. either revamp the points system entirely, or scrap it

2) ok, fine. nothing earth-shattering.

3) i am really unable to reach a stable opinion on this one. i am highly suspicious of basing A/B/C strictly on added cash. and i kinda feel like without payout standards and attendance requirements we are not setting any real standards for the tour. i dont know, i feel uneasy, but i am keeping an open mind

4) ok, fine, whatever. i am worried that this could help entrench the fallacy of calling skins money part of the purse, but we'll see how it goes.

5) ditto

6) tweaking the existing structure is fine, as long as you dont expect real change. the difference between what we have now and this is very minor, so if this is how the competition committee wants it, then fine. that being said, now that we've adjusted things to better serve this ratings group, we need to get busy and try to reach out to it. this is a great opportunity to actually market to the "enthusiast" (i totally hate that label, but thats just me. ditto for "expert"). i just hope we dont miss the chance.

7) more attractive for an almost-pro to test the waters. that should mean a few more players in the pro divisions. that means bigger payout for the pros. the plastic payout means a TD can profit from the almost-pro, instead of flipping his entry back out 100%. up-and-comers win, established pros win, tds win. for me anyway, this line tiem is the no-brainer.

8) we already could offer ratings events. if this change makes that option more clear, then great. with this new clarity, we should quickly learn if the market wants ratings based events

Regarding Expert age divisions, there will still only be one division per amateur age/gender combination. We never really discussed changing the names to Expert Master, etc but just leaving them as they are as Advanced divisions.

Regarding Worlds, I'm not sure if the Advanced division will still be called Advanced or now Expert, but I believe there will be only one "open am" division for those under 40.

"open am"



Its about time we got it right.

Blue: maximum rating 974
White: maximum rating 924
Red: maximum rating 874
Green: maximum rating 824
Purple: maximum rating 774

Expert 935+
Advanced 900 � 934
Intermediate 850 � 899
Enthusiast &lt; 850


Are these going to match up?

Since the status of Mid-Nats is unknown for next year, there's no reason the Blue, White, Red and Green divisions wouldn't match the new breaks. Not only that, but the divisions will be closer in size based on the number of total PDGA members in those ranges. Gold would start at 975.

Thanks Chuck....

If you haven't been paying attention, you can run a sanctioned event with your plan right now. All the updated divisional structure does show what's possible not what a TD has to do.


I'm running a little low(er) on brainpower since my 7-day-old roomate just moved in, so, please, correct me if I'm wrong.

If a TD wishes to run an event that uses a format different from the competition system, the he/she must petition the tour manager for a waiver and clearly state the differences on all flyers and announcements. Doesn't this mean that you must follow the tour standards and competitive system if you don't?

The only tweak I would like to see is that, if an Am "cashes", and accepts merch, in a Pro Event that is B tier or above, that person would have to register in a Pro division the following year.

Maybe change it to A tier or NT if need be.

If the am is that good, but is waiting for Am Worlds, then they get their shot, but after that year, they move to where they should be.

I just reviewed this document and believe this is a step in the right direction. What is lacking is the control of non-members, and nonrated amateur players. We need a way to officially rate these players. Maybe a one-time amnesty for your first PDGA event to establish a rating, trophy only with no merching allowed and the TD reserving the right to bump someone to the appropriate division.



Senior, Senior, Senior.....

It is the TD's decision as to where he LETS a non-member play. If they so desire, a TD can make ALL non-members play Advanced.....if they so wish /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

:D

If a TD wishes to run an event that uses a format different from the competition system, the he/she must petition the tour manager for a waiver and clearly state the differences on all flyers and announcements. Doesn't this mean that you must follow the tour standards and competitive system if you don't?




The competition structure provides all of the various options. TDs are expressly allowed to restrict the divisions offered without any special permission from the PDGA. If you want to do something where the rating break would be different from the published values, you could run it as an X-tier which would require some oversight by Dave in the sanctioning process. If you wish to have an old school type event with just Open, Expert and Women, you can do it as long as it's announced ahead of time that the divisions are restricted to these only.

The only tweak I would like to see is that, if an Am "cashes", and accepts merch, in a Pro Event that is B tier or above, that person would have to register in a Pro division the following year.




Not a bad thought but the new structure supports the "Am for life" option where you never win cash, just merch even if your rating goes to 1040. I wouldn't expect that to happen unless maybe the player is also a disc dealer. Once the player has a rating that's high enough to regularly cash in their region, they'll cross over to pro purely for economic reasons.

Ok, regarding points, I have a solution.

You have a tier based point system (I know it's tier based now, hear me out.)

A tier ams get 300 points MAX. B Tiers 200, C Tiers 100. Where am fields are larger than 300, you get 1.5 point per player. (because these are BIG tournaments)

If you win an A Tier, you get 300 points! If you are say, 2nd among all ams*, you get 290 points.

*All qualified players must be playing the same courses and tees.

If you play a lot of big tournaments, you will accrue higher valued points per player, but not based on every player you beat, but how you placed in the division.

Here's how this is appropriate.

You go to Bowling Green. There are 336 players in advanced, but there are over 735 ams. You came in 214th (you really stunk, you are totally better than that!) (your division plays different courses than others). you didn't make 1220 points, you earned 244* 1.5 or 366 points. This may shrink the draw of such an event as a ratings booster, but it levels the playing field for people who do not live near Bowling Green. (yes, Bowling Green has perverted our current system. How many winners of Am points in the last 3 years DIDN'T go to Bowling Green?

But wait, there's more.

If you are a pro, you are playing against all PRO players REGARDLESS OF GENDER, points wise. This makes masters players earn points off of pros. Pros can earn points off any other pro they beat. This can actually BOOST womens ratings. They may beat a bunch of the open, many masters, and most of the grandmasters. If there are only 3 in their division, they are pretty much screwed in the current system.

Same with ams. If you are an Expert, Advanced, Intermediate, or Enthusiast, you get points for EVERY AM YOU BEAT. Regardless of division.

So, say you are running a B Tier: The top player in Pro and Am will earn 200 points. Below that, all players are competing against all other players in their class (Pro or Am) for points.

This seems to make a lot more sense for closing the points race gap. Basically, the top players from the East half of the country win the am points if they go to bowling green. Instead, consistent upper finishing at good events will propel you up the ladder.

Oh yeah, 1 day 2 round tournaments should get 1/2 the points, maximum of 150 (who's heard of a 1 day A Tier?)

Majors should utilize a method of 1/2 point per round per player. This is where you could see windfalls. 6 rounds times the amount of players at Am worlds? Imagine 3 points per player times the number of players you beat in your division... compared to a maximum of 300, that's pretty sweet.? Wow.

That's my solution. No player will earn more than 300 points in any given tournament, and players in small events will still earn the same amounts, based on who they beat... or lose to. This makes players who attend a lot of tournaments have a bit of an advantage, bu they still have to play well, and probably need to go to Worlds too.

That's my story and I am sticking to it. there are some holes. But there are holes in the current system too, probably.

I see no mention of the 955 bump rule.
I would think that this needs to be moved up if the whole point of moving /adding a division was to find a home for the 950-980 rated player. Perfect example is Mike Conners sitting on 955 right now forced to play open. He got both his boys kicked in at the Twisted Flyer Open last weekend.

Also if you allow ams to accept merch in lieu of cash to reduce bagging what is the need to restructure the divisions? More divisions will only reduce the field sizes which nobody wants. :confused:All the players that I know like the bigger fields.

If there is anybody out there who wants a smaller field please feel free to speak up.

The 2008 table will bump all of the ratings breaks up accordingly. The 955 will be 975.

Nothing wrong with big divisions but Advanced was "hogging" the benefit relative to Open and other divisions and many times earning rewards disproportionate to the other divisions. This lead to even larger Advanced divisions as Intermediates played up for the "gold."

The new breaks balance the divisions a little better and rewards will fall more in line with the distribution of members in the ratings ranges. There will still be decent sized divisions but more evenly spread. And, those TDs who want a big am event can always decide to restrict it to just Expert or just Advanced. I can even see weekend events where TDs have Pros play one day and Advanced on down play the other day with no Expert division so the Experts have to play Open if they want to play the event. There are several ways to provide a tournament experience based on what you think is right or will work in your area.

Wouldn't restricting an event to just advanced hurt the turnout for an event. All ams above 935 would not be allowed to play without donating in open. Doesn't that contridict the spirit of the rule for finding a home for the 950 to 980 rated player by forcing a 935 rated player to play open?

How about restricting and event to expert without advanced...which essentially extends the expert division down to 900. Now we have 900 rated players forced to compete in the top advanced division. We have already decided that 915 rated players rarely compete in the current system. None of what you are saying about not offering all divisions make any sense.

Again, my whole issue is the inevitability of reduced field sizes. Boo competition committee.

Nothing wrong with big divisions but Advanced was "hogging" the benefit relative to Open and other divisions and many times earning rewards disproportionate to the other divisions. This lead to even larger Advanced divisions as Intermediates played up for the "gold."





What is wrong with the largest division benefitting from its size? What is wrong with intermediate players stepping up? At least there is "gold" that is feasible for them to attain. Unlike a 955 rated am moving up to chase that open "gold"

Boo current system where Advanced players have been taking home huge rewards in comparison to how well they've shot compared to last cash pros. Their size has been out of whack because two divisions went all the way from 915 to Climo with little incentive or requirement to go pro. Made a field day for players in the 970 zone who could stay am and reap big prizes without performing that well just because the division was big.

I'm not saying TDs should restrict some divisions, just that they can do so to balance division sizes in their area which might have a different distribution of players.

I think when they talk of reducing divisions offered, they are either talking about dropping the age protected divisions and forcing a ratings based look,
or running two one day events in a weekend and offering every other division each day. That way the rating breaks are close enough that some players will play up and play both days.

Change? Ooooo. Change is bad. Very bad. Always bad.

If this change should actually be bad, it is not like we've changed our ability to change it back.

I might only have one or two more years of disc golf left in me, so it does not matter much to me one way or the other. I'm now a donor in Expert. So I'll play tournaments with low entry fees, trophy-only options, and I'll play tournaments that look like fun.

Oh, wait. I was already doing that.

No biggie.

Chuck specifically talked about not offering an expert division thereby forcing all ams over 935 to play open. I do not understand this line of thinking. :confused:

What is wrong with the largest division benefitting from its size?



Remember that the largest division has become large more because the competition structure was set that way a few years ago with the 915 break. We watched what happened in terms of player choices and ratings ditributions. Now it's time to make a few tweaks and provide a better balance and fairness for all ams, and in this case, pros, too.

Chuck specifically talked about not offering an expert division thereby forcing all ams over 935 to play open. I do not understand this line of thinking.



The difference is that in 2008, ams can play pro and accept merch instead of declining like they have to now to remain Ams. That will change the dynamics in some developing areas (maybe not most of TX) where there are only a handful of lower rated pros. So being a 938 am is competitive with those guys.

Chuck specifically talked about not offering an expert division thereby forcing all ams over 935 to play open. I do not understand this line of thinking.



The difference is that in 2008, ams can play pro and accept merch instead of declining like they have to now to remain Ams. That will change the dynamics in some developing areas (maybe not most of TX) where there are only a handful of lower rated pros. So being a 938 am is competitive with those guys.



Ok, I am with you on that scenario.

But increasing the number of divisions decreases field size. Which is not cool no matter what you say or how you regurgetate what you have already said without addressing the issues.

It has already been established that players like the larger field sizes. Which in turn created larger turnouts and better competition. Isn't that what is good for the PDGA; larger turnouts. Case in point Bowling Green. More events like that one will be what takes this sport to the next level.

Chuck specifically talked about not offering an expert division thereby forcing all ams over 935 to play open. I do not understand this line of thinking. :confused:

This is not a cult. No one can force anyone to do anything here. If they can force you to do anything, you're in way too deep. :D

Actually they can make us do a lot of things.

The division breaks won't change the number of total players above 850, but spread them among the existing divisions more fairly. Remember that the PDGA is growing at 10-15% depending on where you are so the numbers going up to Expert may be offset by growth alone.

The places that have lots of higher am level players will still have the same numbers but they will be spread more fairly. The Ams over 955 have had an unfair advantage due to the current structure and may not be ready to turn pro. Now, they can't cherry pick a monster division while sitting back and waiting to go pro. But they now have the option to play pro and remain Am. So they get a smaller more competitive division but more options.

The players around 915 now have a chance, especially with Advanced being just a 35 pt range. More Intermediates will be more likely to play up with a capped Advanced division. I don't think you really know how it will turn out and it will be different depending on the distributions and the types of choices players make in an area.

You are right, I don't know how it will turn out, neither do you. But, I have a pretty good idea. By your own admission the new divional structure will spread the players out which will make the largest am division smaller. I just don't understand why you are dead set against large advanced divisions when that is what the players want. Wouldn't it be better for the sport AND better for the PDGA to give the players what they want?

I am of the belief that what is good for the PDGA is what is good for the sport of disc golf. Correct me if I am wrong but aren't higher turnouts for events better for the PDGA?

Just because you don't think that it is right for advanced divsions to be "hogging" all the loot, doen't mean that we shouldn't give the players what they want.

I think you're missing the point that the Advanced division has become big as much due to the ratings breaks as having more participation. The ratings range has become too wide to be fair for the bottom players at 915 forced to play against those up to 80 pts higher in rating. No other am division has that unfair spread in ratings.

It has become unfair with many times more Ams over 955 hanging out in am versus turning pro in the last years. Ams over 914 are forced to enter Advanced have no alternative other than not playing and get pillaged by the extra high rated players more than 40-50-60 pts above them. What was a more level playing field 3 to 4 years ago has slipped away before these adjustments.

There's nothing preventing piles of Advanced players from entering an event in the new system AND they'll have a more fair division to enter which will boost it even more from lower rated players.

Men
Men over 50

This is all we need

Think MSDGC

Whoever thought up the "expert" division has camel dung for brains. All in the name of "competition"? Ha Ha funny joke! What - you're not kidding? We need "Mars Attacks" to visit the next BOD meeting.

Men
Men over 50




If that's all you need in Maryland, then fine. Do it. But those old school views might not be right for other places.

The guide says


Eliminate minimum payout percentage, minimum pro purse, and pro attendance from the tier requirements for
A/B/C Tiers and rely on added cash requirements.



When was pro attendance ever a criteria?

Additionally, what does the language about eliminating minimum payout percentage mean?

btw. I commend the PDGA folks for including reasons why the proposals are the way they are, as well as defending the disc approval/disapproval scenario. Including this information to support actions is a big improvement for the PDGA, and help focus the debate, even if the decisions themselves are questionable.

from the competition change pdgf...

The current 950 to 980 rated player under 40 has a couple of options but does not have a home in the
current system. Their skill level has exceeded the current Advanced division but they have minimal chances at
cashing in the Open division.



this is complete BS. if more "experts" would simply move up, open payouts would be deeper and more "experts" would have better chances of cashing.

instead, the PDGA decides to continue with the built by ams, cater to ams direction.

If that's all you need in Maryland, then fine. Do it. But those old school views might not be right for other places.



As an aside, I hear you use this reason/excuse a lot. I also hear Pat use it a lot. "Let's leave it up to the locals": Let's just say that there is a fine line between good policy and a complete lack of direction/leadership.

When was pro attendance ever a criteria?
Additionally, what does the language about eliminating minimum payout percentage mean?



The current guidelines required TDs to recruit enough pros to the event to meet the minimum purse requirements. So, minimum number of pros became a "requirement" by default based on the added cash and entry fees you would have to have. This is one factor that has pressured TDs to boost entry fees, and they have gotten away from Advanced fees in some areas.

By changing the requirements to the amount of added cash, the TD is responsible for what they can control which is the minimum amount of sponsor cash provided. They can't control the turnout, especially with weather and competing events.

Of course, if you are held to meet a minimum of $500 added, you can't be held to a payout percentage minimum. If a low number like 10 pros show up paying $50 each, you end up with 200% payout. But if 40 show up, you have 125%. So, if the TD knows they have the $500 in hand already, they don't have to jack up the entry fees, and in fact, can lower them so the the percentage payout will look even better, hopefully boosting attendance.

"Let's leave it up to the locals": Let's just say that there is a fine line between good policy and a complete lack of direction/leadership.




If you look at international events, they might have just Open men and women in several places with a few finally having masters. Some still don't have an Advanced division. Their payout percentages are 25%, 33% and 40% in the international PDGA tables with 25% being common. So to say, fewer divisions and alternate compensation can't work is not correct. The PDGA casts a global umbrella for competition with a variety of options and TDs choose what works based on the environment in their area.

Thanks, I still think the language is confusing. We also use the term "payout" to refer to the distribution of the purse.

Actually they can make us do a lot of things.

O.k. then. It is a cult. Send me $50 and I'll send you a disc I have personally prayed over. This disc will change your life. If you or a loved one is stuck in the 880s, put it under your pillow and in a month you'll be making those 30 foot putts. Make your checks out to me and send them to

3121 Wanamaker
Waterford MI 48328

I agree that "payout percentage" has multiple meanings just like "cashing" might mean merching. It's hard to change the terminology that's come into common use such as the ball golf word "stroke" versus the more appropriate "throw" or "shot" for disc golf.

In order for the new divisions to work the ratings need to be updated more frequently. I propose monthly at a mimimum. It takes too long for your rating to go up and to prevent bagging the ratings needs to be based more on what you've done for me lately, like the past year. Otherwise it will take too long for your rating to catch up to your current skill level. Especially for those moving through the ranks quickly.

I think TDs should be forced to submit scores within 2 weeks, no exceptions, and the rating should be calculated and published monthly.

Chuck you have got to stop being so closed minded on these types of issues.

You are missing the point. I have never ever heard any lower rated advanced players complain that the current divisional structure is unfair. Never ever...have you?


Go ahead don't answer my questions, just paraphrase yourself and say the same thin over and over and talk about what is "unfair" not what it best for the sport.

Just strictly hypothetical. You are now finally a 938 rated player and you have been bottom cashing in advanced. Now they cut the field size and you are again donating like you have been for the most part the last couple of years once you passed 915. The bigger fields meant you might get 10th and still get your entry fee back (in merchandise and maybe an extra disc.) Now you really have no chance because in reality you were never in the top 3 before.

I kind of think there is something in doing it strictly ratings based. If you are a 950 rated 50 yr old is that any different than a 950 30 yr old.

Or is a 915 women any different than a 915 guy?

I know you could always argue yes there are some differences liek the 30 yr old might still be improving but the 50 yr old is on the down side. I am not saying that but someone could argue that.

My point is I don't think more divisions is better. As a TD it already felt like there are too many divisions. Now we have more. There is nothing worse than having 100 people at a B tier event falling into 10 divisions so you have 1 divison of 30 1 division of 25 and 45 people randomly falling into the other 8 or so divisions. It seems like more work for TD's. How much do you really want to spend on trophys if there are 10 divisions so 30 of the 100 entrants are trophy winners?

Sorry it's a tangent.

I have never ever heard any lower rated advanced players complain that the current divisional structure is unfair. Never ever...have you?




Yes. And that's where you're taking a narrow opinion sample. We receive feedback from players around the world which is taken into consideration. Some members of the competition committee say it's a big problem in their area where the 915 to 930 players feel they're being taken advantage of by 965-985 players in comparison to the 40 pt range for Intermediate division. All you need to do is look at the results.

Let's say you had 100 people at an event and were giving away 2 baskets in a drawing. The emcee says the 15 wearing a white shirt were in one drawing and the 85 with any other color were in the other drawing, no one would think that was fiar, even those wearing white shirts.

All we're doing is releveling the playing field for all ams the best we can do it for both fairness and membership numbers in the ranges.

My point is I don't think more divisions is better. As a TD it already felt like there are too many divisions.



Then just restrict them. Is it more work to buy extra trophies you might not need or simply specify the divisions you'll offer in the flyer? You'll also now be able to run a ratings based event which may have only 5 or 6 divisions max.

Not necessarily to you Chuck, I'm just replying in general...

Did a little digging (for data) regarding "Expert-rated amateurs" in the northeast. In ALL of New England, there are only 17 of us. Even if you add in all of NY (5), NJ (6) and PA (17) there are STILL only 45 amateurs rated over 934. That's 9 states worth...pretty much the entire size of the Union during the Civil War!

I've played in a section (Adv M) in a random CA tournament that was over half that big, and that's considering IF all 45 players in the northeast got together and played in the same tournament. ZERO chance of that EVER happening; that would involve 800miles worth of Expert players getting together. It is more likely that 2 or 3 of us getting to the same tournament, since those 9 states spread us out pretty well.

This concept / division might work in other areas of the country, but what it will do - at least in the northeast - is pretty much "kill" the Am rated over 934. Some might go to Pro (I know the Pro's will like this...more easy money) and the rest of us will be "forced" to play in age-based divisions. I know that there are some people who don't like the age-based division system but to them I say "Since this system (Expert) is now in place, without the age-based divisions, I would have to "quit" the PDGA (for I won't go Pro, and there won't be enough Experts in the northeast to even make up a division)."

Just FWIW....

Karl

In order for the new divisions to work the ratings need to be updated more frequently.



No connection at all. Why shouldn't a player be allowed to play in one division for a whole year to compete in a local or regional series? No matter how good someone gets, most feel a player should get a shot at a series title for at least one season. The updates come frequently enough such that some faster improving players might cross to another division once in a year.

The average PDGA member only has two rated rounds in a month. That's not enough to change someone's rating more than a few points if they have a dozen rated rounds, even if those two rounds are particularly good. It takes more rounds to be added and older rounds to be dropped to make much of a move so two to three months the way we do the updates now can make a difference. We tried to see if there was a way to update ratings for new players faster so their rating is based on more rounds. But you would have to do the whole ratings process anyway so there's no shortcut.

This concept / division might work in other areas of the country, but what it will do - at least in the northeast - is pretty much "kill" the Am rated over 934.



One size doesn't fit all which is why there's such flexibility in the system. Just like Women and players over 40 or 50 have had to deal with smaller divisions for a long time in most places, the PDGA can't directly manufacture perfect distributions of players everywhere. However, with the new option for ams to merch in pro divisions and the option for pros under 975 to slide over to Expert, there are more options to allow TDs and players to adjust to smaller numbers at some events and combine groups in a more fair way. Ratings events is one way to consolidate divisions in areas with smaller numbers in their age/gender groups.

One of the concerns the Competition Committee has heard about and studied is the loss of players in the 935-970 range who turned pro too early, had no place to turn and dropped out of competition and the PDGA. This new system with adjusted breaks and crossover options is expected to help retain and hopefully recover players in this range who now have a more viable set of options.

Late to the debate here, but....

I want to play in large divisions, even if I have no chance to win and little chance to cash. But.....others don't, as you can tell by 2-player age-protected divisions you see in some tournaments.

We could have larger divisions AND the new system, with smaller rating disrepancies within a division, if we eliminated the age-protected divisions for Amateurs. Not saying we should, just that we could.

But to rephrase someone's earlier post---TDs are free to do much of this. They only have to offer the divisions they want, as long as it's announced in advanced. Offer Pro only. Offer Pro &amp; Expert only. Don't offer age-protected division. For our New England problem, offer Expert but not advanced, which would effectively combine these two groups in a larger division (somewhat like they've been the last few years, anyway). I've helped run events with no age-protected divisions, or limited amateur divisions, as well as offering every imaginable division.

TDs are free to do this because they don't like the new structure, or to demonstrate that their ideas are better. Players have the option of joining in these demonstrations, or not.

Chuck, I loosely sifted through these 8 pages, but did not see what I was looking for. As a 964 rated Pro, it seems I can play expert next year as long as my rating stays below 975. What happens when my rating moves above 975? Forced to play Open again?
Will amnesty be offered next year again?

seriously though, i can't see anyone playing the "enthusiast" division.....so really its the same thing just the point breakdown is lower. so long as no one plays enthusiast i think its how it should be.

This is ridiculous....When did we(the people) vote on this...More divisions!?!?!?! Enhusiast!?!?!? Ru serious...This is getting out of control...Intermediate, and enthusiast!?!?!?! WOW...It just keeps getting better....I cant wait to tell any new player about the sport now....
I fully understand why the PDGA wants everyone to play events: $. But cmon, is the PGA creating meaningless divisions to get extra memberhip fees? Hey, I play paintball tournaments...What division u ask, oh, well i play in the no gun, throw the nerf paintballs that dont explode division...Is that where we are headed...
When i first started playing this sport in 2000, I was introduced to OPEN, ADV, Beginner...thats it!!!! It was fine, I fell in love and continue to play....What a silly thing this is becoming.... Im embarrassed for u and me. We al need to start voting on these things.

In order for the new divisions to work the ratings need to be updated more frequently. I propose monthly at a mimimum. It takes too long for your rating to go up and to prevent bagging the ratings needs to be based more on what you've done for me lately, like the past year. Otherwise it will take too long for your rating to catch up to your current skill level. Especially for those moving through the ranks quickly.

I think TDs should be forced to submit scores within 2 weeks, no exceptions, and the rating should be calculated and published monthly.



I agree.. I think if ratings are what we are using to determine divisions they need to be more frequently reported, updated, and published...

I just reviewed this document and believe this is a step in the right direction. What is lacking is the control of non-members, and nonrated amateur players. We need a way to officially rate these players. Maybe a one-time amnesty for your first PDGA event to establish a rating, trophy only with no merching allowed and the TD reserving the right to bump someone to the appropriate division.



Senior, Senior, Senior.....

It is the TD's decision as to where he LETS a non-member play. If they so desire, a TD can make ALL non-members play Advanced.....if they so wish /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

:D



Thanks for reminding me Mike... I know that you are one TD that the baggers have a tough time dealing with. You have been the ruin of many a baggers careers. I am referring to other events I have attended, where the TD never questions the non-members and the winners circle in Am2 is 75% non-rated, non-members who all shot 960 rated golf all weekend.... It has got to stop at some point if we want to get more out of being a dues paying member IMO... :D

This is ridiculous....When did we(the people) vote on this....



PDGA members have voted---with their registrations and dollars----every weekend. All those 890-rated players are free to play Advanced (soon to be Expert) if they want to.

You may not like all these divisions.
I don't like all these divisions.
Apparently, many do. They keep playing in them.
And the PDGA board represents them, too.

Oh, and in the recent election, ballots were cast. Were there candidates campaigning to get rid of these divisions? Did they get the most votes? Did the most votes go to a candidate who supported the division structure?

As a 964 rated Pro, it seems I can play expert next year as long as my rating stays below 975. What happens when my rating moves above 975? Forced to play Open again? Will amnesty be offered next year again?




Any pro with a rating over 974 has to play in a pro division. I doubt you'll see a blanket amnesty program for a while but every player currently listed as a pro member has the right to petition the Tour Director to return to am status. However, it seems unlikely that a return to am status would be granted to any pro over 974 and it would be unnecessary for those under 975 since they can enter any Am division that matches their rating anyway.

Why is everyone making such a big deal out of this. Its like rooster pointed out. Not many golfers are going to play the enthusiast division. So what we really have here is a different way to view out previous division structure, that IMO is more fairly distributed by ratings. I pointed this out before. The points spreads in each respective division is a more realistic spread for fair competition. The numbers as chuck pointed out are based on current player performance. The highest percentage of Am golfers are rated between 900 and 934. A 900 golfer can realistically beat a 934 rated golfer on any given day, but not a 960 rated one....

seriously though, i can't see anyone playing the "enthusiast" division.....so really its the same thing just the point breakdown is lower. so long as no one plays enthusiast i think its how it should be.



At the IOS series this past year, Bruce essentially had an AM4 division (rated &lt;835). He more than doubled the number of players in that ratings range that came out to play. Maybe you can't see people playing in that division, but I enjoy playing there. (I do admit, the name leaves something to be desired).

I am referring to other events I have attended, where the TD never questions the non-members and the winners circle in Am2 is 75% non-rated, non-members who all shot 960 rated golf all weekend....



This is exactly my point. Even if TDs got nonmember ratings, it doesn't mean they will look at them. Many don't check now whether a member is entering below their proper division. Much easier for the TD to just not allow full paid entries for nonmembers in divisions below Expert and Open. If nonmembers want to enter Adv, Int or Ent (like LOTR?), they pay a reduced trophy only entry fee and can't win merch.

So will the excel spreadsheet finally be updated to handle trophy only in all divisions?

Krupicka, I hope no one here is trying to put down the lowesr divisions. I understand that the Rec/EWnthusiast divsision has a very important place in the scheme of things. I myself am referring to the statistics. The majority regular touring Am players that are between the ages of 20 and 39 yrs old are in the 900-934 range....

The spreadsheet gets updated each year to handle whatever competition changes occur. Currently, Rec hadn't been Trophy Only since usually the regular entry was low enough to not make sense. Under the revised system, I can see adding the TO option to all am divisions.

Chuck is this anywhere close to actual ratings breakdown
&gt;935 Expert appx = 19% of Ams
900-934 Adv appx = 35% of Ams
850-899 Int. appx = 30% of Ams
&lt;850 enthus. appx = 20% of Ams

Here's what we had at the end of 2006:
<table> <tr> <td>.</td><td>Pro</td><td>Pro</td><td>Am</td><td>Am</td><td>. </td></tr> <tr> <td>Rating</td><td>M</td><td>F</td><td>M</td><td>F</td><td>Total </td></tr> <tr> <td>1020+</td><td>22</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>22 </td></tr> <tr> <td>1010+</td><td>50</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>50 </td></tr> <tr> <td>1000+</td><td>64</td><td></td><td>0</td><td></td><td>64 </td></tr> <tr> <td>990+</td><td>150</td><td></td><td>5</td><td></td><td>155 </td></tr> <tr> <td>980+</td><td>238</td><td></td><td>17</td><td></td><td>255 </td></tr> <tr> <td>970+</td><td>311</td><td>0</td><td>54</td><td></td><td>365 </td></tr> <tr> <td>960+</td><td>397</td><td>1</td><td>138</td><td></td><td>536 </td></tr> <tr> <td>950+</td><td>436</td><td>4</td><td>281</td><td></td><td>721 </td></tr> <tr> <td>940+</td><td>353</td><td>3</td><td>464</td><td></td><td>820 </td></tr> <tr> <td>930+</td><td>272</td><td>6</td><td>612</td><td></td><td>890 </td></tr> <tr> <td>920+</td><td>221</td><td>3</td><td>709</td><td></td><td>933 </td></tr> <tr> <td>910+</td><td>146</td><td>10</td><td>834</td><td>0</td><td>990 </td></tr> <tr> <td>900+</td><td>116</td><td>7</td><td>734</td><td>1</td><td>858 </td></tr> <tr> <td>890+</td><td>70</td><td>13</td><td>758</td><td>2</td><td>843 </td></tr> <tr> <td>880+</td><td>60</td><td>18</td><td>620</td><td>1</td><td>699 </td></tr> <tr> <td>870+</td><td>42</td><td>12</td><td>576</td><td>9</td><td>639 </td></tr> <tr> <td>860+</td><td>20</td><td>17</td><td>480</td><td>11</td><td>528 </td></tr> <tr> <td>850+</td><td>20</td><td>12</td><td>404</td><td>12</td><td>448 </td></tr> <tr> <td>840+</td><td>12</td><td>15</td><td>304</td><td>10</td><td>341 </td></tr> <tr> <td>830+</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>254</td><td>21</td><td>299 </td></tr> <tr> <td>820+</td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>193</td><td>32</td><td>236 </td></tr> <tr> <td>810+</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>155</td><td>20</td><td>181 </td></tr> <tr> <td>800+</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>125</td><td>42</td><td>176 </td></tr> <tr> <td>775+</td><td>8</td><td>16</td><td>219</td><td>91</td><td>334 </td></tr> <tr> <td>750+</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>118</td><td>64</td><td>190 </td></tr> <tr> <td>725+</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>68</td><td>69</td><td>145 </td></tr> <tr> <td>700+</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>41</td><td>51</td><td>94 </td></tr> <tr> <td>650+</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>50</td><td>64</td><td>117 </td></tr> <tr> <td>600+</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>14</td><td>29</td><td>45 </td></tr> <tr> <td>600></td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>21</td><td>46</td><td>68 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Total</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>12042 </td></tr> </table>

That makes the Adv, div. 31% and the int. div about 26%, so it was close...

The point is that fair play is more evenly distributed in the new rating divisions IMO

I do admit, the name leaves something to be desired



Believe me, the committee spent much time deciding on the name options. Rec had always been an unpopular name since many players have played competitively at that level for many years and it's not just newbies in that range. Enthusiast was the only name that didn't have the negative of alternatives like Rookie, Tenderfoot, Novice or Beginner. It would be even tougher to find an appropriate name if Advanced had become Expert and we needed two names below Intermediate. So, adding Expert above Advanced works and Enthusiast is still better than Rec. That's how it shook out. Also, about half of ams get a name "promotion" with the revised names rather than a demotion if Advanced was the new top division.

Other options were considered like Am1, Am2 or skill colors but the thought was to keep the names somewhat more familiar for the moment so not too many things were changed at once in 2008.

I don't have a better name, though inconsistent is pretty accurate. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

In order for the new divisions to work the ratings need to be updated more frequently. I propose monthly at a mimimum. It takes too long for your rating to go up and to prevent bagging the ratings needs to be based more on what you've done for me lately, like the past year. Otherwise it will take too long for your rating to catch up to your current skill level. Especially for those moving through the ranks quickly.

I think TDs should be forced to submit scores within 2 weeks, no exceptions, and the rating should be calculated and published monthly.




Good luck....beating a dead horse

Mark,

It may be MORE fair (I don't have the "old" statistics) but I come up with (I had to extrapolate a linear progression within the Expert - Advance demarcation...therefore I could be off a bit...) Expert = 14.3% (of all amateurs), Advanced = 29.3%, Intermediate = 32.6%, and Enthusiast = 23.8%; not exactly "perfect" by any means and not as "perfect" as is could be...considering ANY ratings breaks are simply man-made and could have been set to the exact % breaks of 25%, 25%, 25% and 25% or some other breakdown (as determined to be feasible), etc.

Karl

Men, Women, All by Age and Rating Groups (http://www.vapidgolf.com/pdga/division_member_distribution.ppt)

this data uses all Active players who have a Rating, and is presented in both numbers of players and as a percent of Total Active Players with Rating

I don't have a better name, though inconsistent is pretty accurate. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



nice

Chuck,,,,Can you (or anyone) tell me if the "Board" considered elminating AM MASTER/GRANDMASTER, ect. (except for Worlds competition)

If another rated division is being added, eliminating those divisions would create extra players to fill in the slots. This would mean division numbers wouldn't be so decreased with the added "expert" division.

I was curious if this was discussed at all?

Never happen.

Men
Men over 50




If that's all you need in Maryland, then fine. Do it. But those old school views might not be right for other places.



FYI Chucky - its MA that institutes this "old school" view.

I guess what I'm trying to fathom - is what collection of manure suppliers has gained access to and influence over the PDGA BOD. And how said board has allowed itself to not only accomodate - but to embrace the distribution and support of such large heaps of dung - and with a straight face - claim that it's
1) good for competition???
2) serves the membership???
3) is an improvement over the existing divisional mess???

Have all you people lost your freaking minds? PDGA members have been lamenting the "have a division for every player so no-one loses" mentality since the open PDGA Board meeting at Worlds in 19 freaking 92. How is it that we are STILL EXPANDING THIS CONCEPT????

counter to chuck's theory of "TD's can choose to hold whatever divisions they want" - the reality is that if the PDGA establishes a division - players who fall into that category will demand it from TD's as long as there are more than 3 players to populate it - happens all the time - and most TD's are so accomodating - they SELDOM say no.

counter to the notion of 2-3 strokes per round being a "fair" break for ratings in a division - look at the (insert loud cursing here) TOURNAMENT RESULTS FROM ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY - and it's easy to see that average scoring spreads are 12-18 strokes PER ROUND in most divisions. So what ignoramus came up with the bright idea (and actually sold it) that 2-3 strokes makes for better competition?

By what logic can you (with a straight face) take all the "pro" players (which by CK's #'s make up ~4% of total membership by rating) - isolate them into increasingly smaller groups - and claim to be promoting competition? These are the players that generally have
1) been playing the longest
2) developed the highest skill levels
3) in many cases been the developers of everything that IS disc golf (course designers, TD's, teachers, mentors,, etc) - and yet you justify isolating them in competitive events merely by applying the label "pro". And on top of that - if some of them happen to be over 40 - you separate them even more.

HEY EVERYBODY - LET'S HOLD COMPETITIONS WHERE EVERYBODY BUT THE BEST PLAYERS GET REWARDED!!! HEY THAT'S A GREAT IDEA!!!

It's this sort of BS that makes me (a legacy member, former ROY, 20 year TD, etc etc) want to not sanction any more events. Why would I want to support this nonsense financially? How can I, or why would I recommend this organization to a new player as worthy of their time and $$$???

You're all so worried about retaining newbies - but your solution is to drive out the lifers - that's just plain idiotic.

ATTN PDGA- YOUR DIVISIONAL STRUCTURE IS A COMPETITIVE JOKE!!!!!! GET A GRIP ON YOURSELF. AMAZINGLY UNBELIEVABLE

29.53% of our Active players with Ratings have ratings less than 935 AND are 40 or older. even if you lower the cutoff to 900, its still 18.67%.

all women are 6.61% of our Active players with Ratings, so if we are looking to eliminate the smaller divisions, why not call for the elimination of gender-based divisions?

please understand that i am not suggesting we do that.

I havent gone through the whole thread so if this question was asked then sorry, but what keeps someone with obvious pro level skills from bagging in the Expert Division especially at B and C Tiers?

On a side note, I think we can finally end the bagging convo's by making it mandatory to be a PDGA member to play in PDGA events. Offer temp. memberships for 3-6 months at reduced prices to see if a person wants to join, but to play in sanctioned events they should be members. I say this because I have a friend who won in the Intermediate division in our recent tournament, but he is no Intermediate. He can shoot a minimum 9 down consistently at all our courses, but hes not a PDGA member so he can get away with this. It's simply not right and unfair to all the other Int. players who were in this event who didnt stand a chance.

The difference is you repeat the old school mantra and the Comp Comm and the Board listen to members, observe their choices and analyze what's happening. That's what a member organization does and tries to make things as fair as possible for membership to the extent they can.

Every person on the Board and Competition Committee has their own ideas about what they would like to have if they were king or queen and could decree THE system. But that's not how it works. However, anyone can be king or queen as a TD and run an event that suits them among the PDGA options, including experimental formats, or go without PDGA sanctioning. The PDGA competition system is like an annually tweaked wholesaler food menu that hopefully provides enough variety for restaurants (TDs) to select what they think their customers will like. If the customers don't like some items, the word eventually gets back to the wholesaler who modifies it accordingly.

He can shoot a minimum 9 down consistently at all our courses, but hes not a PDGA member so he can get away with this.



The TD can and should control this.

The difference is you repeat the old school mantra and the Comp Comm and the Board listen to members, observe their choices and analyze what's happening. That's what a member organization does and tries to make things as fair as possible for membership to the extent they can.



The difference between what and what Chuck?


What old school mantra are you talking about? The one where competition is supposed to be about COMPETING???? Yeah I know - it's a novel concept - see if you can get your mind around it.

It's funny (yet maddening) that you say - "we listen to the members" - and simultaneously say - leave the divisional choices to the TD's - yet you won't listen to the TD's!!! LISTEN - ahh what's the use - just another freakin brick wall.

Good luck to all 746 divisional winners next year. what a joke.


Every person on the Board and Competition Committee has their own ideas about what they would like to have if they were king or queen and could decree THE system. But that's not how it works.



Ahh see that's where you're wrong - or just complacent - or worse yet (insert word here I'm not allowed to use). As elected officials -you the BOD ARE BOTH KING AND QUEEN - and have the power to make things right. You're all just to chicken to do it - or can't figure out what "right" is. Such a shame really - it's such a great game :(


However, anyone can be king or queen as a TD and run an event that suits them among the PDGA options, including experimental formats, or go without PDGA sanctioning. The PDGA competition system is like an annually tweaked wholesaler food menu that hopefully provides enough variety for restaurants (TDs) to select what they think their customers will like. If the customers don't like some items, the word eventually gets back to the wholesaler who modifies it accordingly.



Total cop out. The ultimate in weak leadership = the fear of actually leading.

Craig, don't you think that a lean towards realistic ratings protected divisions like this will help to move Ams into the Open division faster? I do. Especially if the TD's start truly implementing the cut-offs. Players will realize they might as well get ready to move up. The level of competition will be enhanced IMO. Isn't this restructuring mainly for Ams and to help them move more smoothly into the Open division? If I am missing something please explain it. But I think you are flying off the handle at something that will probably help grow the membership in the Open division.... I respect the fact that you have put so much into the sport, but there are many, many of us who are not pro's and have only been a member for a few years and only know the current structure.

BTW, I have only ever played Adv, masters in PDGA events. with the new structure I would be inclined to play in the Advanced division, especially if meant a broader group of ages between the ratings ranges. The competition and opportunity tto learn would make it worth it. I am about a 900 rated player. I would not feel like I was donating if the cap was 934 and would enter the advanced division

It seems you are of the "old school" mentality that there should be only a pro and am division at all tournaments, which is basically saying that all of the low skilled players aren't good enough for your tournament - PAY UP or GO AWAY! Same with the advanced masters who would rather play with their peers - go away.

You admitted yourself that there are people asking for certain divisions and the TDs succumb - isn't that a good thing instead of them not playing the tournament?

You are exactly correct GANG...I dont know how long players will continue to support an org. which does not support competition.





Men
Men over 50




If that's all you need in Maryland, then fine. Do it. But those old school views might not be right for other places.



FYI Chucky - its MA that institutes this "old school" view.

I guess what I'm trying to fathom - is what collection of manure suppliers has gained access to and influence over the PDGA BOD. And how said board has allowed itself to not only accomodate - but to embrace the distribution and support of such large heaps of dung - and with a straight face - claim that it's
1) good for competition???
2) serves the membership???
3) is an improvement over the existing divisional mess???

Have all you people lost your freaking minds? PDGA members have been lamenting the "have a division for every player so no-one loses" mentality since the open PDGA Board meeting at Worlds in 19 freaking 92. How is it that we are STILL EXPANDING THIS CONCEPT????

counter to chuck's theory of "TD's can choose to hold whatever divisions they want" - the reality is that if the PDGA establishes a division - players who fall into that category will demand it from TD's as long as there are more than 3 players to populate it - happens all the time - and most TD's are so accomodating - they SELDOM say no.

counter to the notion of 2-3 strokes per round being a "fair" break for ratings in a division - look at the (insert loud cursing here) TOURNAMENT RESULTS FROM ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY - and it's easy to see that average scoring spreads are 12-18 strokes PER ROUND in most divisions. So what ignoramus came up with the bright idea (and actually sold it) that 2-3 strokes makes for better competition?

By what logic can you (with a straight face) take all the "pro" players (which by CK's #'s make up ~4% of total membership by rating) - isolate them into increasingly smaller groups - and claim to be promoting competition? These are the players that generally have
1) been playing the longest
2) developed the highest skill levels
3) in many cases been the developers of everything that IS disc golf (course designers, TD's, teachers, mentors,, etc) - and yet you justify isolating them in competitive events merely by applying the label "pro". And on top of that - if some of them happen to be over 40 - you separate them even more.

HEY EVERYBODY - LET'S HOLD COMPETITIONS WHERE EVERYBODY BUT THE BEST PLAYERS GET REWARDED!!! HEY THAT'S A GREAT IDEA!!!

It's this sort of BS that makes me (a legacy member, former ROY, 20 year TD, etc etc) want to not sanction any more events. Why would I want to support this nonsense financially? How can I, or why would I recommend this organization to a new player as worthy of their time and $$$???

You're all so worried about retaining newbies - but your solution is to drive out the lifers - that's just plain idiotic.

ATTN PDGA- YOUR DIVISIONAL STRUCTURE IS A COMPETITIVE JOKE!!!!!! GET A GRIP ON YOURSELF. AMAZINGLY UNBELIEVABLE

Thanks for saving me the time.

Chuck, and the BOD have forgot that this was once a sport, now it is a social club, tending to its members.

I don't care what system anybody came up with, it would eventually morph into basically the same system we have because the leaders are going to realize that to get the most people playing in one tournament is to offer choices - that is, until there are so many people in one division that it fills the course.

So why don't we split off? The pros can keep the PDGA and the Ams can create the ADGA. Would the pros be happy then? Bite the hand that feeds them??.... I mean where does the majority of disc sales and tournament entrants come from? Ams or Pros? Who really makes the wheels go around? It seems like the reason these ideas are being implemented is because the Pro and the TD's and the PDGA want to see the money keep rolling in... Do you want a sport for the few or an association of all disc golfers?

Being good in most things in life is just that, being good, when no one cares to pay for your skills. You're just a member like everyone else and shouldn't get treated differently. You prove you're good against the course and if some people want to play against you, that's cool and you swap some money around. The PDGA "member oriented" competition system just adds some structure, consistency and a way to track results for MEMBERS.

You can also call players competitors but few can make a living at this so they're members first and expect fair treatment in the way they swap money amongst themselves. If you want DG competition in a true professional sense, there are few places to find it. Even the USDGC would likely collapse without its main sponsor support that's not even outside our sport. Outside money will come when crowds care about watching, care who's winning and care about the latest details of Joe's relationship with Jessica, and the hint that Rafael might have been using steroids in the 2003 Worlds. There are hundreds of PDGA events run in a professional manner that allow people to watch good quality play but few are watching and almost none are paying. The competition format of those events whether there are 20 or just one division is immaterial if few watch.

as both a player of modest ability and a BoD member, i see that the association has a great focus on the social/recreational aspects of the sport and how to build a divisional structure for it. i see no equal focus on a structure based on truly competitive play.

here is what i pray for:

1) a new Competition Program focused on true competition. my little brain says that consists of of Open, Master(50), and Women. 50-100K budget to start. 4-6 events to start.

2) let what we have now continue as is, but as its own distinct Program. the CC can tweak the divisions and ratings breaks every month if they want - its ok in this Program.

players who are attempting to be "pro" have different needs from those who are novices or admitted ams-for-life. they are all valuable! but they have very different needs, and one structure CANNOT serve both sets of needs.

Mark,

The current structure (before implementing 2008 changes) is one of developed entitlement. The organization has set up a system based not on player skill level for entering competition - but based solely on arbitrary player choice. To compound this problem - we have established for ourselves a means to justify this arrangement through an inappropriate use of labels for these divisions - Am vs Pro. These labels are absolutely 100% meaningless - and have no basis in reality. I may compete for cash - but I certainly can't make a living on the sport - so the labels we apply are both inaccurate AND misleading - and to use them as a basis for defending a players choice of division is a circular argument.

The fact is - is that there aren't as many "skill levels" as our divisional structure would have you believe - the degree of overlap between the various "categories" is significant, and can be consistently identified all over the country.

The "problem" with this overlap has been being discussed for 75% of my tournament career - and without fail - whenever changes are made - it's always to the benefit of the "middle of the pack" player - and never to the top players.

It has become apparent that developing a high level of skill holds no priority for the player organization. If it did - we would promote a system where large fields of players are encouraged to test their skills against one another at every opportunity. Entry fees would be scaled based on some quantifiable measure of skill to ensure fairness. Instead, we encourage players to categorize themselves in ever smaller groups to ensure the best chance of "winning" (although what value winning has in a field of 5 men - when there's 90 in attendance remains a puzzle to me).
In the past 7 years, I have seen attendance in the Open division drop from an average of 25-40 players to between 8-25 players at all but the biggest events. Offering players currently in what could be described as middle of the pack MPO's their own new division will reduce these #'s even further. So the notion that it will somehow build the "pro" ranks - is a fallacy.

Perhaps you think I have flown off the handle - more accurate might be that I'm about ready to fly the coop. The PDGA is basically saying that guys like me are of no value to them. And that the guys that have either been unable to develop to my skill level - or are on their way there - are more deserving of rewards for their mediocre play than I am. OK - so there are more of them - so more $$ for their participation than for mine. Makes sense for them - but not for me. But what they don't realize is that guys like me are the people bringing in new members, mentoring new players, running events and collecting fees for them - well perhaps not for long.

I don't care what system anybody came up with, it would eventually morph into basically the same system we have because the leaders are going to realize that to get the most people playing in one tournament is to offer choices - that is, until there are so many people in one division that it fills the course.



the most recent example: MSDGC2007. 144 players. three divisions.

fill ONE course? we can already fill two.

Sure, if you are continually giving people options to avoid competition, most of which are more lucrative than tackling competition straight on, and you do it year after year after year, pretty soon you will have a burgeoning entitlement class which squeezes out the competitive class, but you will no longer have a sport. I'm not sure if our current structure is a result of natural selection or social engineering, I just know that it is getting less and less likely to produce a real sport.

The usual rebuttal that this system builds the numbers faster, thereby laying the framework for future competitors is also intellectually bankrupt. You don't create an environment which attracts competitors by stocking it with non-competitors.

Craig Thank you for the well written explanation. I have always wondered about this.

I enjoy the level of competition in my division, but at the same time it always made wonder what kind of an accomplishment being the world champion of a 9 person division was? Kind of silly if you ask me. I also have thought that insted of catering to non-members and allowing them to play in the lowest ratings protected division made no sense as well. Make them play the highest available division if you are not a member or rating at sanctioned events is my preference. More players in the open division. Every time I suggest that someone points out that a new player will not come back because he could get beat by a much better player....

With the way things are now, it seems like strict enforcement of a ratings sytem might balance out the respective divisions and help players move up.

I hope you don't fly the coop, as I think we need input from those who have a first hand knowledge and a good grasp of the history that creates a balance in the process. I am still learning, but I think these types of discussions are very important to the PDGA.

Being good in most things in life is just that, being good, when no one cares to pay for your skills. You're just a member like everyone else and shouldn't get treated differently. You prove you're good against the course and if some people want to play against you, that's cool and you swap some money around. The PDGA "member oriented" competition system just adds some structure, consistency and a way to track results for MEMBERS.

You can also call players competitors but few can make a living at this so they're members first and expect fair treatment in the way they swap money amongst themselves. If you want DG competition in a true professional sense, there are few places to find it. Even the USDGC would likely collapse without its main sponsor support that's not even outside our sport. Outside money will come when crowds care about watching, care who's winning and care about the latest details of Joe's relationship with Jessica, and the hint that Rafael might have been using steroids in the 2003 Worlds. There are hundreds of PDGA events run in a professional manner that allow people to watch good quality play but few are watching and almost none are paying. The competition format of those events whether there are 20 or just one division is immaterial if few watch.



Well that's about the most honest thing I've ever read from you CK. Thanks for admitting that the system is'nt really trying to be about competition.

So can we rename the Competition Committee so that it more accurately reflects reality? How about the "Customer Service Committee"?? At least then we could justify ignoring the few in favor of the many.

Maybe at some point, you'll come to the realization that people won't start watching until "the leader of the pack" is "leading" more than a group of 20 players. Increasing the # of divisions makes this less and less likely.

It's crazy to me that at an event the top 25% of scores are spread through out 3 sometimes 4 or more divisions. Some of those 25% are winners and some are losers, the winners are the players that bagged and played am and the losers are the players that sucked it up and played pro. It baffles me that a guy who shot better than 85%+ of the field and paid more to play will walk away with nothing and "ams" that paid less and shot a lot worse, walk away with stacks and stacks of plastic. Disc golf is the only sport I know of that promotes and rewards mediocrity. :o

There should be one "cash &amp; prize" division with a reasonable entry fee and the payout should be deep, 50-60% of the field. I'll even agree to one age protected division 50+. The others should be trophy only. Then all of us can compete against each other in one big division with a nice big purse, I also think this model is more attractive to potential sponsors but that's a whole other topic. ;)

The way I see it, guys with high ratings and that do really well work on their game, they play more than once or twice a week, and actually practice, ie throw discs somewhere besides the course. I was affectionately told I was a bubble boy, too good for advance and not good enough for pro. I didn't harass the BOD and beg them to make me another division, I got out there and practiced and what do you know? I got better and had one of my best summers ever. It seems to me all of these divisions do not encourage players to improve it actually rewards them for not :confused:

I know this is off the subject, but it sure would be cool if there was a handicapped world event. Pros, Ams, men, women all playing against each other in one huge week long event... I mean ratings can be converted into handicaps can't they. I would really enjoy going up againt all the top pros using handicaps...... We do this in the Shasta Series, but I have never heard of the PDGA sanctioned event like this...

I don't know why people don't watch DG but it's great that they like to play. That to me is a healthier recreational activity where participation is available basically until you can't walk or throw, unlike football or so many other sports where the pro side of it is mostly for the young.

If we were a sport interesting to spectators it would have happened already like it did for say beach volleyball. I believe the only money true pros will earn in this sport down the road will be like a lot of other participation sports where giving lessons, teaching in schools, producing DVDS, running clinics, running courses, writing books and possibly getting manufacturer endorsements will be the source of steady money, not big purses. We have to have things like final 9s to even get our current hard core players to watch by holding them hostage for getting their payouts. What would lead anyone to believe future players and spectators would be more inclined to watch than play, especially when people have easy access to play into their 80s?

I totally agree that this sport will only support a lot of people making a living once there are a lot of people who will watch. However, I think your system severely retards the growth of a spectator class. Most people interested enough to pay to watch are people who are impressed because they have tried real hard to do that and cannot. Almost all of these people fit into the competitive class: they embrace competition and try to improve, even if they themselves never progress to high skill levels. Their nature makes them more likely to enjoy the performance of top players.

The funny thing is is that these are not the kind of people you cultivate with your system. Sure, they exist in your structure, or rather coexist in your structure, but your structure does little to attract or retain them. The challenge of the game is what attracts them, you just get in their way.

In summary, even if our goal is to create large enough numbers to form a spectator class, we still would be better off catering to competitors, since they are much more likely to eventually be spectators.

I believe the only money true pros will earn in this sport down the road will be like a lot of other participation sports where giving lessons, teaching in schools, producing DVDS, running clinics, running courses, writing books and possibly getting manufacturer endorsements will be the source of steady money, not big purses.



While there is potential truth in these statements - if this is what you believe, you should not be in a position of influencing the structure of competitive play for the rest of us. Mostly because you guarantee that your participation will be devoid of the pursuit of other possibilities. Support of an expanding divisional structure is evidence of this.

Oh man this is getting out of control!!! Here is what I think............3 Am divison total..........Intermediate/Rec/Enthusiast (whatever the hell you want to call it)That division has cheap entries and you get a players pack and play for trophys.............Advanced has more exspensive entry fees and you play for same thing they play for now.............. Expert has entry fees almost exactly the same as Open and you play for merch..........NO and I mean NO age proctected divisions........who cares..........Your not playing for money and there is an appropriate division for your skill level so why break off into smaller age proctected divisions..........Then we have Open with all the same divisions it has now with the much liked taking merch instead of cash option which I think is AMAZING!!!

Everyone has a division for their skill level...........Why make 3 AM divisions into 9 when there is no need......Oh and only have womens Advanced and Expert.......If they are testing the waters in the Rec/whatever/whatever division there is mostly likely only one of them and they will end up playing with the boys for trophys anyway and they will get a nice players pack.

Thats easy and I think it will help people move up.........If you want to win more stuff.........MOVE UP!!! If you want to play for money........MOVE UP!!! If you think your ready for Open but not sure........MOVE UP AND TAKE MERCH!!!

Thats just my 2 cents

"If we were a sport interesting to spectators it would have happened already"

wow. now i understand why you favor only miniscule change. why bother, we cant get to where we want to go. please tell me there is another way to take your statement.

if this is what you believe, you should not be in a position of influencing the structure of competitive play for the rest of us.



I have not participated in the NT development nor hindered it so you don't have to worry about that. It's apparent even that group has trouble getting sponsorship so far and agreeing on formats because the local players, club and TDs control what happens. I do provide the PDGA World Rankings free to support media efforts in this area and work to produce better gold level permanent courses including challenging final 9s for the very top at Worlds.

I fully support having just Open and Women only at NTs but that isn't happening because the economics aren't there and no one running one of those wants to take the financial hit nor is able to get enough sponsorship to pull it off at the level you would want an NT to be. The Memorial is a great gathering event for the sport but should not be an NT for a variety of reasons, with uncontrolled pedestrian access to courses as one.

All I'm saying is that there are things people watch and are fascinated to watch them immediately and things they watch they are not. We are media savvy consumers and quickly give a thumbs up or down for what we watch. The good thing is that our sport does attract new players to actually play once they see or try it and the sport has an addictive nature. I don't know why this seems like a negative? It is what it is. Certainly more exposure can increase the potential for spectators but I think it's more likely to boost the number of people who try the game and like it versus watching.

It's difficult to convey how good players are and how good a 3D shot weaving thru the woods really is on a 2D screen let alone the number of cameras required to attempt to capture that shot properly. Things like DGTV and YouTube have boosted viewership online but I think even those watching are those who play, which is good thing to build the sport. I just don't know who will comprise the spectators down the road that will produce the viewership needed to make video coverage financially viable and generate big sponsorship. That doesn't mean people shouldn't try, but this sport can still be great with 20 times as many players, even if what they continue to do is mostly play rather than watch. And the best players will be able to make a living from the items I listed already.

Personally I would like to see the 3 am divisions only also.
Rec- Low fee, great players pack, trophy only
Int- higher fee, great player pack, Trophy only
Adv- Higher fee, no player pack, plastic
Pro- same fee as adv, no player packs, cash or merch options

And also, trophy should be ribbons.

This makes people either want to play, or want to play up for better prizes.

I believe there should be a pursuit of competitive formats because that is where the super pros and up and coming super pros will play and make a living. USDGC and MSDGC are on the right track, obviously. We aren't there yet, but it should be pursued. I agree our current changes do not promote that and I believe a seperate track should be taken for this - isn't that what the NT is for? So, you can't say the PDGA hasn't supported that type of format, right?

I get the sense from gang and others that the current format should be done away with completely, which would not be a good idea in my opinion. The way I see it, most TDs are looking for the most people to participate, which the current format will provide.

I don't understand how fewer divisions would lower turnout. What's difference between finishing 7th in adv for $35 vs. finishing 30th in an all inclusive field for $30? I think the payouts would be similiar, never really crunched the numbers on it. And yes, lower level players would be missing out but they'd knowing it going in, honestly, not everybody can win!! Let's get people excited about being a pro, striving to be a pro. Not hiding out, having their egos stroked, collecting plastic.

You don't really have to understand it. Just ask guys who run tournaments that don't fill if all eight of their Am Masters are going to show up if there isn't an Am Master division. Or the pro masters. Or the pro women. Or any other gender or age protected division.

I started running Am 4 this year to see if it would add players. It did. The guys who played one or two tournaments last year rated 800 are now playing the series.

You don't really have to understand it. Just ask guys who run tournaments that don't fill if all eight of their Am Masters are going to show up if there isn't an Am Master division. Or the pro masters. Or the pro women. Or any other gender or age protected division.

I started running Am 4 this year to see if it would add players. It did. The guys who played one or two tournaments last year rated 800 are now playing the series.



Wow! You mean if we are more inclusive, we will attract more players?!?!?!? That's incredible. Got any news on the Hindenburg Mrs. Wiggens?

I have a question as well about this, I am one of those lost in space type players. 94.....8?? Rated player and I have last cashed twice in c-tier events since going pro. I am still an Am in the books, until next year...I guess because I have a baby coming and no time to play. So I have cashed for 100 dollars this year, which is my entry fee for EVERY TOURNAMENT I PLAY!!!!! I don't have time to practice with 2 jobs and a child coming, but I'm a bagger if I played Advanced. I love Disc Golf and I love competition, but it is hard to be a competitor when you play as hard as you can and either win and get called names or lose and feel like S$%T! So take that as you will but I thought I would give you a realistic answer from someone who goes through it.

And....second thing Chuck, can I play "Expert" next year if I have cashed in an Open tournament as an Am???

Peace
Scott

If people dont feel like they can compete, then why compete? Its a competition for F's sake!!! Tournaments are there to showcase what you've been practicing for. Advanced is for people who are good, not great....It was easier when i started. Play avanced until u realize you would have cashed open, and move up...Now, its like the salmon in the river are weak, and steps have to be put in because they cant swim up river anymore...We are creating a future with noncompetitive rewards, where everyone makes it up their own river and spawns...Be careful when you build those steps, cause the stronger salmon might pick another river.

I believe there should be a pursuit of competitive formats because that is where the super pros and up and coming super pros will play and make a living. USDGC and MSDGC are on the right track, obviously. We aren't there yet, but it should be pursued. I agree our current changes do not promote that and I believe a seperate track should be taken for this - isn't that what the NT is for? So, you can't say the PDGA hasn't supported that type of format, right?

I get the sense from gang and others that the current format should be done away with completely, which would not be a good idea in my opinion. The way I see it, most TDs are looking for the most people to participate, which the current format will provide.

And....second thing Chuck, can I play "Expert" next year if I have cashed in an Open tournament as an Am???



Yes. As long as your rating is under 975. You couldn't play in an Am division at a Championship like Worlds or Am Nats.

I think it's funny how many people yell about it just being about the competition. If that was the case then we wouldn't need any prizes at all till pro.

It's easy to say its about the competition when your cashing 1/3 of the time or more. But the average person I would say is playing for prizes first and then fun. Mr. rated 800-900 is not going to continue to play or grow in the sport if there isn't a division where they can play and not get killed in.

Heck I have a sub 900 rating and have played in all 3 am divisions, many times in Am1 knowing I was not going to place, but to have fun and play a longer course, or play with friends.

Most people in Ohio play up, we seldom have many rec players at our monthly's, most play Int instead. I don't see this changing. But if there is not a place for the starting or people who just can't play great then the PDGA will loose a lot of people. There's not a ot of fun playing in AM1 and loosing week after week if your sub 900.

And to the person who said whats the difference between wining Am2 for 35.00 and placing 9th or what not in AM1 for 30.0, well thats not where the difference is, its the people placing 5th in Am2 or anywhere in Am3 who will never place in Am1.

Yes our system lets people who don't play the best that day at the course get prizes, but thats why we call them divisions. I am all for more AM1 only tournaments, but you can't cut the divisions out either. You have to let your members have both. I'd love to see the NT have a pro and am side, that is 1 division only on both sides. That would be more of a showcase, or at the most have a 1 open men's, 1 open womens, 1 am mens and 1 am womens division. In Columbus we have both the NT and a A tier the same weekend. It fills up almost every year on both sides. Now if we could just experiement with things like this and make them 1 division weekends, maybe we could see what the competition ends up like.

So why don't we split off? The pros can keep the PDGA and the Ams can create the ADGA. Would the pros be happy then? Bite the hand that feeds them??.... I mean where does the majority of disc sales and tournament entrants come from? Ams or Pros? Who really makes the wheels go around? It seems like the reason these ideas are being implemented is because the Pro and the TD's and the PDGA want to see the money keep rolling in... Do you want a sport for the few or an association of all disc golfers?



Yep. That'd show'em.

Let us non-competitive, activity-loving, non-sporting, masters-coddling, division-multiplying Ams leave, taking our majority numbers and TD profits for merchandise with us, and see how the "reward only the best" lobby enjoys what's left. I think the phrase, "be careful what you wish for" might be heard.

Apparently, there's a top pro "players union" that has been formed to work with the PDGA to improve various things in the competition arena that are important to those players. Should be interesting to see how that goes.

where did you hear that? i'd like to learn more.

David,

I wrote that in what is suspossed to be a sarcastic tone in reaction to all the moaning and groaning I was reading here....

Maybe I should clarify......

We should all be thankful for what we have and try to improve on it. The fact is that close to 90% of the active members in the PDGA are not Pro's they are Am's and that says alot about how we the Am's support the pro's in this sport. So all this complaining from pro's here hit home for me. Kind of a classes issue.. Like we are the sniveling little Ams who want everything and deserve nothing. I just wanted to point out that the current structure is where it is because of the lop sided nature of the membership numbers and without us Ams there is not much of a membership for the PDGA....

Feldberg told me some brief details in a quick phone call about something else shortly after the Worlds. He planned to call me in the next few months to get some feedback on a few course design issues that concern the group.

So all this complaining from pro's here hit home for me.



Apparently even pros making big-time money can't be satisfied:

http://sports.aol.com/story/_a/time-for-...85?ecid=RSS0001 (http://sports.aol.com/story/_a/time-for-players-to-stop-whining-and-go/n20070911184609990085?ecid=RSS0001)

let me guess, it has something to do with trees in the middle of fairways and baskets stuck in trees. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Senior, I recognized the sarcastic tone, liked it, and thought I'd carry the absurd notion further. I probably didn't go far enough, though.

Instead of splitting out Pros &amp; Ams, why not have a new organization for each viewpoint? Forget this PDGA trying to serve a diverse membership with a variety of wants and interests. Forget this democratic mess of catering to the majority (Ams). We'll have Disc-Golfers-Over-40 Organization, an Only-the-Best-Disc-Golfers-Need-Apply Organization, etc. We won't just have 30 divisions, we can have 300 organizations! Knowing my eccentric viewpoints, I'll be in alone in my own little organization. And I'll agree with every decision it makes.

Sadly, I suffer from the notion that, while I don't like many things the PDGA does, I know it must serve diverse members, with competing ideas of what it should be, and the PDGA must strive toward a myriad of goals at once. I can live with that.

let me guess, it has something to do with trees in the middle of fairways and baskets stuck in trees.



Nope. Nothing specific to Highbridge and Open didn't play the course where that issue arose. Issues mentioned had to do with baskets and appropriate hole lengths.

Let me correct that assumed stat about pros vs ams....

based on current membership from on this web site, it is about 39% pro to 61% Am. That is actually better than I thought for the pros. But it still shows that there are about 2 and 1/2 times as many Ams as pros. Why does that really matter... because if we want to see Ams move up and become pros and watch the membership grow, you had better take care of business on both sides of the equation. The totals will probably not change much. The amount Ams coming in will continue to keep the numbers lop-sided. As the numbers of Ams going Pro will continue to be way smaller than the amount of new Ams coming in. It would be nice if the numbers of players going pro was equal to the numbers of new Am members, but that probably won't happen. So if the majority of players want to see a more fairly distributed ratings based divisions structure, give it to them.

let me guess, it has something to do with trees in the middle of fairways and baskets stuck in trees.



Nope. Nothing specific to Highbridge and Open didn't play the course where that issue arose. Issues mentioned had to do with baskets and appropriate hole lengths.



and playing with the same playing partners the first 2 rounds.

Chap

Except that 99% of those listed as pros are really ams that just happen to play for cash.

Except that 99% of those listed as pros are really ams that just happen to play for cash.



This thread is a big enough mess with descending into semantics!

I seem to recall reading something about Steady Eds vision of the PDGA a few years ago. Anyone know what artcicle this might be? I seem to remember somthing about how hard it would be to provide a useful organization and a living for Pro's if we were indeed broken into several stand-alone associations.

PDGA (pro)
ADGA (Am)
JDGA (JR)
WDGA (womens)
MDGA (masters)
RDGA (rec)
the list could go on.....

The point is that Steady Ed gave the association to all of us to ensure a cohesive all inclusive association of the all the people who play disc golf...

and playing with the same playing partners the first 2 rounds.



Nope. Only the few that happened to get a bad draw like KC had a problem with it. But he also admitted he would have been fine with it if he had a good draw. When you consider that each group in the A pool had one "star" and three other players, the three other players thought it was cool to get two rounds with their star. So, if it came to a vote, I'd say it would be supported.

That procedure was not intended to necessarily become common practice but as a way to make sure we didn't get into a time crunch at lunch time the first day of Worlds. None of the courses at Highbridge had ever been fully loaded to know the round timing for sure, and even with some experienced scoring people, it would be their first time working together. Plus, as you know, HHSC doesn't have enough restaurants closer than 30 minutes away and over 250 would need lunch that day.

So, the thought was to find ways to make the lunchtime turnaround go as smooth as possible in the event it resulted in a time crunch from long rounds and/or weather. Players are playing the course and not the players in their group anyway, right? Especially in the early rounds. As it turned out, most felt this was one of the best Worlds in terms of everything running on schedule and that's partly due to some of these tweaks to traditional practices like this one.

Actually CHUCK, now your specualting. Maybe you didnt speak with enough players after worlds. The general consensus was that the same group was not cool or fun...I for one played my best rounds with that same group, but I didnt like it. And there you go with that A pool again, LOL....Worst idea in discgolf....I for one probably will not Attend worlds if that continues....Big deal you say, and i know, one person doesnt matter. Actually, what if you make me my own division for worlds...The "Hates A pool B pool division division". Anyway, this is the competition changes...Not worlds complaints...On with the thread.

the Pdga listened to all the 900 rated golfers that played in Adv before and ever won anything. My problem is they should have never been there and I they played in that division they should have known what was going to happen.

All I see this doing is the same thing guy below 935 will play up and the guys below 900 will play up and then they will complain again and the divisions will be broke down farther.

I have played in tounaments that had no AM2 division but only Am1 there were not problems

Senior If you wanted to playin another Division you could have played int.

Maybe you didnt speak with enough players after worlds. The general consensus was that the same group was not cool or fun...



Ball golf does this for every event. I'm sure Tiger doesn't always like who he plays with twice. If you look at the groups at the end of Worlds or any other event of four rounds or more, the same three or four players play together more than one round at the top.

As I said, the procedure was not directly for the player's benefit but for the general benefit of the event organization for those set of conditions at Highbridge. I don't care either way if future events use it. But it did work to help keep things on schedule and that benefits everyone.

Let me correct that assumed stat about pros vs ams....

based on current membership from on this web site, it is about 39% pro to 61% Am. That is actually better than I thought for the pros. But it still shows that there are about 2 and 1/2 times as many Ams as pros. Why does that really matter... because if we want to see Ams move up and become pros and watch the membership grow, you had better take care of business on both sides of the equation. The totals will probably not change much. The amount Ams coming in will continue to keep the numbers lop-sided. As the numbers of Ams going Pro will continue to be way smaller than the amount of new Ams coming in. It would be nice if the numbers of players going pro was equal to the numbers of new Am members, but that probably won't happen. So if the majority of players want to see a more fairly distributed ratings based divisions structure, give it to them.



See Mark,

This sort of # evaluation becomes a part of the "circular" argument I mentioned previously. Try taking CK's breakdown of ratings without the pro vs am labels and see what % of players fall into what sort of groups. What you'll find is that the total %age of current pdga members rated over 1000 is 1.13%, over 990 - 2.42%, over 980 - 4.53%, over 970 - 7.57%, over 930 - 32.2%. Does anybody besides me wonder how there can be 789 players between 940-959 who call themselves "pros" and 745 in the same range calling themselves "ams"? Doesn't make much sense to me.

The system as it stands basically says to the top rated players - you guys go play by yourself - we'd rather give the 940-950 rated guy who lacks the confidence to try his skills against the best in his area - we want to give that guy a basket - but the same rated player who chooses to play Open and test himself against the best - we want to make it just barely possible to get his entry fee back.

For David Sauls, who takes my admonishment of our competitive system as a desire to eliminate all divisions, and to tell the newly developing players to take a hike - you've got it all wrong. This isn't about a reward for me - this is about the reward for that 940-950 rated golfer who has the guts to step up and test his mental and physical skills against the best - that guy deserves everything the current MA1 guys are getting for playing in a "protected" division. That's called promoting FAIR competition. When we establish a divisional structure that is based (even loosely) on skill and skill alone, ditch the nonsense labels of pro and am, THEN we might approach something we could call FAIR COMPETITION. But as Chuck said above - the PDGA isn't really interested in that - they are interested in customer service - and if enough "members" say waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - I don't want to play against the top 2% - then they get what they want.

All the recent adjustments to divisions (in the past decade) have always been about taking the top divisions - paring them down to the cash cut line - and letting the bottom 2/3rds go off and hide in the "merchandise" category. Effectively gutting the Open divisions - making it harder for the over 40 (970+) crowd to cash, and even harder for the 930+ crowd to even want to join in! Why should they? When they can "get paid" MORE, for a lesser performance??

The one thing you are overlooking is that those fat merch payouts have funded the added cash for the pro divisions. The top finishing mercher is just getting a nice reward as "king" of the group who provided added cash for the pros that day. The top pros who benefit from the added cash should be rightly thankful since very few other sponsors are contributing to their cause and few spectators are watching. The fact the last casher might shoot better than the merch king that event is immaterial since he chose the competitive division and came up short, but at least not short enough to miss cash.

With the Expert division likely smaller next year than Advanced has been in similar events, the top prize in Expert might not be as high in comparison to last cash in Open as it has been. The winning score in Expert also will be closer if not better than last cash score. From a practical standpoint, it would make more sense to award bonus prizes like baskets to those in the Enthusiast and Intermediate divisions vs Adv &amp; Exp so they can practice. Many Adv and Experts will have won baskets already.

Look guys, for one I could be playing intermediate if I wanted to. But I see that as bagging because of what I think the division is for. It is an intermediate step from beginner to an advanced player. Once you have played disc golf regularly for three or four years you should not be an intermidiate IMO.

I can't stand it when you see a guy who plays one or two sanctioned events a year, never gets rated, and hides in AM2 for years and years as a bagger of sorts. The same can be said for advanced being and intermediate step to Pro. So to me, if TD strictly enforced a defined ratings sytem of divisions it would encourage players to move up more rapidly to the open division.

That is the point I was trying to make when I said I would play in advanced if there was a range from 900-934. I would probably increase my rating faster in that environment and know that I have a chance to win and therefore head in the right direction. Once I break 935 I would probably play a mix of expert to Pro-masters events. I think the new structure will be good for membership and advancement.

What we need to go with it is a system that does not allow playing for prizes or cash unless you are a member and have a rating.

For David Sauls, who takes my admonishment of our competitive system as a desire to eliminate all divisions, and to tell the newly developing players to take a hike - you've got it all wrong....



I should clarify that I think have so many divisions are silly, but....(1) I respect the numbers of people who think otherwise and want to play in them and (2) I reject the argument made by some that players should be forced to play against top competition, or quit (perhaps not you, but some of the posters here).

Just as sandbaggers are a real issue to deal with, another is the players who move up to Pro, find they can't compete but are paying much higher fees, and end up quitting altogether. I don't really think we want to lose them.

IF I RAN THE ZOO---well, that's a long story with a very different structure, started over from scratch, but I doubt most disc golfers would like it. But it would involve far fewer divisions, mandatory bump rules and a dump rule as well that allowed players to move down if performance warranted, without petition.

In defense of all these divisions---I see similar things in other recreational sports. Golfers and bowlers use handicaps, which means the player who plays best does not win. I don't understand why this appeals to anyone. When I used to have knees and play basketball, and I would seek games where the competition was my level or slightly higher. It was still competition---we tried to win. But when I wandered into a game against college players and was so overmatched I couldn't function, I went back to where I could. I tried tennis and did the same thing, at a much lower level. So I'm not as offended by disc golfers seeking levels they can at least compete in.

For myself, I don't like all the divisions because I want to play in as large a field as possible. Age and injuries have left me a 901-rated player with little chance of improvement. I still play Advanced half the time, and don't care that I can't win. The rest of the time I play Advanced Masters, mostly for the comraderie as I think it's a really silly division.

But I'm not presumptuous enough to think that everyone else should want what I want, let alone be forced to take it.

I agree with 1/2 of the last sentence you said. The problem being is that new members may have to wait for a rating. I had to wait 4 months before I got a rating after I joined so if what you said were to happen simply because I joined at a bad time would keep me from cashing/merching. But I do believe that in order to play PDGA events then you MUST be a PDGA member. This is why it is called the PDGA Tour in my opinion. It is a series of events designed for PDGA MEMBERS. Now, no one can stop someone from playing disc golf, but in order to play a sanctioned tournament to test your skills then one should join no matter the tier level.

Also, I just dont see the need in adding more divisions when it will simlpy take away a persons chance at cashing, esp. if a tournament doesnt have much funding/sponsorship. I think it simply would have been easier to change the ratings structure on what constitutes Int. from Adv. by increasing the rating from 915 to either 925 or 935. This may hurt Int. players (and I am an Int. player) chances of cashing but it also provides the "competition" that we're all talking about. If an Int. player with a mediocre rating like 890 truly does want to cash then he will play his butt off and make sure he can compete to his/her best level against a 925 or 935 rated player.

Now some will say if said Int. player wants to test themselves then they should move up, but common sense says that an Int. player is just going to straight up fail in the Adv. division and he/she already knows they dont stand a chance so why waste $. By increasing the rating guidelines this gives Adv. players with low ratings from humilitating themselves and wasting their money against 950-980 rated players, and Int. players a chance to test their skills against a somewhat Adv. player. The only way I would agree to let a non-member pay is by not letting him receive his prize, period! If he/she wants their prize then said person MUST join! No membership= NO merchandise, NO trophy, absolutely NOTHING!

I may seem harsh about this, but it never bothered me until one of my friends decided to start playing tournaments, and he is clearly an Adv. player who can hold his own against the Pro's here in BG but plays Int. knowing he will win, and he can get away with it because he's NOT a member. And it only costs him $5.00 to cheat these players.

I have most strongly urged those who disagree to run tournaments with their proposals---sanctioned where possible, non-sanctioned if necessary---to demostrate better solutions. Of the 4 events I run or help run every year:

1 is open to every conceivable division, and has even allowed 1- or 2-player divisions
1 is open only to Pros &amp; Advanced, with all the age-protected divisions
1 is only open to Pros, no age-protected divisions (but has a non-sanctioned, Am-only parallel tournament that mostly caters to beginners).
1 is only open to Pros &amp; Advanced, with no age-protected divisions (though that part may change in future).

It is true that with limited divisions offered, a certain number of players will play in higher divisions that they otherwise would have (Intermediates as Advanced, Masters as Open, etc.).

Do you want more donators in Pro? Well lower the cost of admission. If Pro's had to pay less then Expert to play for the weekend more people would play up.

Heck, at sub 900 rating, but a player who plays with pro's all the time in weekly's and monthly's, if the cost to play pro was not so out of the reach of the rest of the divisions I would gladly play up to pro and donate.

At my home course playing in leagues I can routinely play better DG with my pro friends then my rating implies.

and playing with the same playing partners the first 2 rounds.



Nope. Only the few that happened to get a bad draw like KC had a problem with it. But he also admitted he would have been fine with it if he had a good draw. When you consider that each group in the A pool had one "star" and three other players, the three other players thought it was cool to get two rounds with their star. So, if it came to a vote, I'd say it would be supported.

That procedure was not intended to necessarily become common practice but as a way to make sure we didn't get into a time crunch at lunch time the first day of Worlds. None of the courses at Highbridge had ever been fully loaded to know the round timing for sure, and even with some experienced scoring people, it would be their first time working together. Plus, as you know, HHSC doesn't have enough restaurants closer than 30 minutes away and over 250 would need lunch that day.

So, the thought was to find ways to make the lunchtime turnaround go as smooth as possible in the event it resulted in a time crunch from long rounds and/or weather. Players are playing the course and not the players in their group anyway, right? Especially in the early rounds. As it turned out, most felt this was one of the best Worlds in terms of everything running on schedule and that's partly due to some of these tweaks to traditional practices like this one.



Actually, I heard a lot of complaints about it, and I was only there for about 36 hours. KC was one of the vocal ones, but there were several other grumblings. Even KC would have accepted the bad round 1 draw, if it was only for 1 round. Also, I know Sprague and Leiviska were on the same card the first 2 rounds, so some groups apparently got more "stars" than others, although that's kind of a separate issue, I guess, although it's even more critical an issue if you're going to pair people together for 2 rounds.

I think the competition would have been better served to be a few minutes (even 30 minutes) late for round 2 than to worry about whether or not the scoring team can get stuff turned around. The online scoring team was experienced, and should have been able to handle it. The marshals are also experienced, and can help turn boards around, which is normally part of their duties anyway. Also, if you got behind, you could always update the scoreboards first, and enter the online scoring from the round 1 scorecards (players should see their scores first anyway, not the internet) If you needed more time, you could have always delayed things 15-30 minutes. Yes, players play the course, but after round 1 players who have shot well have earned the right to play with players who shot comparably. Mentally, it makes a difference, and of course, you should be placed with who your competition is, otherwise, why would we ever shuffle? By your logic, we could leave people in the same group for any and all rounds.

Also, players are usually smart. You had lunch available on site, but also because of the remote location, most of the players knew lunch was going to be an issue. You schedule rounds at 8AM and 1:30PM. Even the HG or GR or whichever course played longest shouldn't have taken more than 3.5-4 hours, meaning players had at least 90 minutes for lunch, and you had at least 90 minutes to turn scores around. Plus not all courses would come in at the same time, so you had some stagger there. If weather became an issue, you could always push the late rounds back.

I can't believe you sacrificed fair competition for potential lunch and scoring issues, that really weren't issues.


Chap

The one thing you are overlooking is that those fat merch payouts have funded the added cash for the pro divisions. The top finishing mercher is just getting a nice reward as "king" of the group who provided added cash for the pros that day. The top pros who benefit from the added cash should be rightly thankful since very few other sponsors are contributing to their cause and few spectators are watching. The fact the last casher might shoot better than the merch king that event is immaterial since he chose the competitive division and came up short, but at least not short enough to miss cash.

With the Expert division likely smaller next year than Advanced has been in similar events, the top prize in Expert might not be as high in comparison to last cash in Open as it has been. The winning score in Expert also will be closer if not better than last cash score. From a practical standpoint, it would make more sense to award bonus prizes like baskets to those in the Enthusiast and Intermediate divisions vs Adv &amp; Exp so they can practice. Many Adv and Experts will have won baskets already.



Chuck - you are like the king of misinformation. The notion that TD's even know how, let alone have the time and where withall to take profits from the difference between their wholesale cost and prize value is yet another fallacy. I know I don't run my tournaments that way. I know very few people who do. From everything I've seen the Brakels post about their events - I'm virtually certain they don't either. So putting forth the notion that this is common practice is misleading AT BEST. And a poor excuse for justifying like rated players playing different divisions.

Allowing yet another chop at what is now I guess the bottom rated section of the Open division does nothing but take the already dwindling MPO division and make it even smaller - driving the ratings cut for cash even higher. I can't think of a more blatant form of discrimination towards the sports highest rated players.

You want a fair system - take all the men - split them into three groups by rating, allow an entry fee structure that is scaled to skill level - and be done with it. Adding more divisions to what we have now is ABSOLUTELY the most short sighted decision that could have been made.

Mark,

The current structure (before implementing 2008 changes) is one of developed entitlement. The organization has set up a system based not on player skill level for entering competition - but based solely on arbitrary player choice. To compound this problem - we have established for ourselves a means to justify this arrangement through an inappropriate use of labels for these divisions - Am vs Pro. These labels are absolutely 100% meaningless - and have no basis in reality. I may compete for cash - but I certainly can't make a living on the sport - so the labels we apply are both inaccurate AND misleading - and to use them as a basis for defending a players choice of division is a circular argument.

The fact is - is that there aren't as many "skill levels" as our divisional structure would have you believe - the degree of overlap between the various "categories" is significant, and can be consistently identified all over the country.

The "problem" with this overlap has been being discussed for 75% of my tournament career - and without fail - whenever changes are made - it's always to the benefit of the "middle of the pack" player - and never to the top players.

It has become apparent that developing a high level of skill holds no priority for the player organization. If it did - we would promote a system where large fields of players are encouraged to test their skills against one another at every opportunity. Entry fees would be scaled based on some quantifiable measure of skill to ensure fairness. Instead, we encourage players to categorize themselves in ever smaller groups to ensure the best chance of "winning" (although what value winning has in a field of 5 men - when there's 90 in attendance remains a puzzle to me).
In the past 7 years, I have seen attendance in the Open division drop from an average of 25-40 players to between 8-25 players at all but the biggest events. Offering players currently in what could be described as middle of the pack MPO's their own new division will reduce these #'s even further. So the notion that it will somehow build the "pro" ranks - is a fallacy.

Perhaps you think I have flown off the handle - more accurate might be that I'm about ready to fly the coop. The PDGA is basically saying that guys like me are of no value to them. And that the guys that have either been unable to develop to my skill level - or are on their way there - are more deserving of rewards for their mediocre play than I am. OK - so there are more of them - so more $$ for their participation than for mine. Makes sense for them - but not for me. But what they don't realize is that guys like me are the people bringing in new members, mentoring new players, running events and collecting fees for them - well perhaps not for long.



I had been reading this entire thread and was going to post about the lowest rated field. I am in that field with Krupicka. I often see him in the second round of tournaments. I was going to post that I really don't care what the division is called. I have used self-depracating terms for the division. I have said that I have cashed in the "Special Ed" division. Being a low (no lower than that, I mean really low) rated player, I have no expectation of winning anything. I play. I pay. I have a lot of fun. I play often enough that I am not as gawdawful as I was last year. That trend continues. The reality, is that I will always be a lower rated player no matter how far that goes.

I was going to post another self-depracating reply and then saw the above and other posts. Oh, you poor pros. Oh, I feel terrible that there are not enough lambs brought to you so you can feast upon them. Oh, you poor boy. Not enough blood to suck. Not enough lower 900 rated players to wander into your den so they can donate real mony, moolah, greenbacks to you. Oh, you poor boy having a smaller field with less minnows. My heart bleeds for you. PT Barnum told us long ago that a donor for your division is born every minute. Hang in there buddy. While you are waiting I will work on my putting. I will donate even at the Enthusiast level. If they only offer Intermediate and I like the course, I will donate there too. Sorry Pal, even I aint dumb enough to play pro. No money from me for you. Boo hoo. Those meanies at the PDGA took away the so-called experts. You can't feast upon them any more. If I am not dumb enough to be a donor don't you think they (after all they are much higher rated than me) would be smart enough to stay away from you as well. Oh, I know. You want everybody to"play up!" We've discussed that in other threads. We all know "playing up" is against the law and violates PDGA rules After all, those guys would have to be high to think they can beat you. Boo hoo.

The one thing you are overlooking is that those fat merch payouts have funded the added cash for the pro divisions. The top finishing mercher is just getting a nice reward as "king" of the group who provided added cash for the pros that day. The top pros who benefit from the added cash should be rightly thankful since very few other sponsors are contributing to their cause and few spectators are watching. The fact the last casher might shoot better than the merch king that event is immaterial since he chose the competitive division and came up short, but at least not short enough to miss cash.

With the Expert division likely smaller next year than Advanced has been in similar events, the top prize in Expert might not be as high in comparison to last cash in Open as it has been. The winning score in Expert also will be closer if not better than last cash score. From a practical standpoint, it would make more sense to award bonus prizes like baskets to those in the Enthusiast and Intermediate divisions vs Adv &amp; Exp so they can practice. Many Adv and Experts will have won baskets already.



An important factor in the Pro/Am divide---those "merch" profits supported the whole thing.

Yet another piece of the puzzle in the push to move Ams to Pro is the escalating entry fees. Around here they've doubled over the last 8-10 years, to fund increasing pro payouts. It's one thing to challenge the top players, with little chance of cashing, when it only costs $30 - $40 per weekend; quite another to do it at $60 - $100. Yet, when the PDGA tried to cap entry fees, there was quite a howl.

Just one more obstacle to a large-scale overhaul.

Maybe you didnt speak with enough players after worlds. The general consensus was that the same group was not cool or fun...



Ball golf does this for every event. I'm sure Tiger doesn't always like who he plays with twice. If you look at the groups at the end of Worlds or any other event of four rounds or more, the same three or four players play together more than one round at the top.

As I said, the procedure was not directly for the player's benefit but for the general benefit of the event organization for those set of conditions at Highbridge. I don't care either way if future events use it. But it did work to help keep things on schedule and that benefits everyone.



Ball golf does this for a specific competition-related issue that the 2007 PDGA Pro Worlds did not have (and I brought up this point in the Worlds thread before competition started as soon as I found out you were doing this). Ball golf only plays one round per day. They make sure you play one morning round and one afternoon round in your first 2 rounds, because conditions are often more difficult in the afternoon than the morning for various reasons. The easiest way to accomplish this is to leave people in the same groups for the first 2 days. On Saturday and Sunday, it doesn't matter as much, because players that are within even 6 shots of each other are normally no more than an hour apart on tee time. Since the 2007 PDGA Pro Worlds had all players in the same pool starting at the same time (shotgun start), there is no competitive reason to have people in the same groups for 2 rounds. If we were running on tee times, one round per day, you might have an argument.

Chap

I can't believe you sacrificed fair competition for potential lunch and scoring issues, that really weren't issues.



That's so full of it I won't even address it. For someone with ball golf experience, it's unbelievable. I guess it's too bad Tiger had to suffer an "unfair" second round again with Steve Stricker today.

As Co-Director of Scoring for Pro Worlds 2007, I can tell you that this measure saved an enormous amount of time when doing the turn-around that first day of Pro Worlds. We had 4 loaded courses coming in almost simultaneously on the very first day of singles competition when scoring staff was just getting used to working with each other. As Chuck indicated, it absolutely helped to keep things on schedule and benefited both players AND staff at the event.

If tee times were pushed back 30 minutes that afternoon, everyone would have cried bloody murder. Most of the poo poo-ing, both then and now, seems to be from those who immediately reject anything new and different, didn't like the other golfers they played with the first day, and/or didn't realize how it made things run smoother for staff and the players.

We know it was smoother for staff...Noone said it was not. I know it was easier for players as well...Its just not fair to the bad draws. Thats all...Same poop as B pool A pool divisions, its not fair...YOU KNOW WHY!!! Because u say its random, but its not!!! It was seeded!!!! If it was random and someone got a bad group, yes its fair, couldve happened to anyone, but it was NOT random...Slightly random is an oxyMORON. End that and make it FAIR for next year.

Unless A &amp; B pools are on courses next to each other, there will likely be even more seeding than just the 18 who were seeded this year, possibly going back to top 54 in A pool. That's Gentry's call along with Bellinger. I watched the truly random draw this year and true random draws always have things that look like "fixes." That's the nature of random. If all cards were balanced, then it would likely have been done that way on purpose and not random.

As Co-Director of Scoring for Pro Worlds 2007, I can tell you that this measure saved an enormous amount of time when doing the turn-around that first day of Pro Worlds. We had 4 loaded courses coming in almost simultaneously on the very first day of singles competition when scoring staff was just getting used to working with each other. As Chuck indicated, it absolutely helped to keep things on schedule and benefited both players AND staff at the event.

If tee times were pushed back 30 minutes that afternoon, everyone would have cried bloody murder. Most of the poo poo-ing, both then and now, seems to be from those who immediately reject anything new and different, didn't like the other golfers they played with the first day, and/or didn't realize how it made things run smoother for staff and the players.



I don't reject anything new and different, just because it's new and different. I reject stuff that doesn't make any sense. Whether or not it saved you guys time is not the issue. If you thought that was going to be an issue, then Chuck should have altered the schedule by a half-hour each day to make sure you had enough time. I don't buy for one minute that's the reason he kept people together for the first day. Also, not all pools did it, so even that policy was applied inconsistently. One other aspect apart from the obvious competition issues, is the social aspect. A large percentage of players go to Worlds to meet people and play with different people. By keeping people together for 2 rounds, that idea was also stifled a bit.

Chap

I can't believe you sacrificed fair competition for potential lunch and scoring issues, that really weren't issues.



That's so full of it I won't even address it. For someone with ball golf experience, it's unbelievable. I guess it's too bad Tiger had to suffer an "unfair" second round again with Steve Stricker today.



Actually, it's apparent to me you still don't understand WHY ball golf does what they do. If ball golf went with shotgun starts every day, they'd shuffle every round.

Chap

Stop thread spamming......It makes no sense....And it's Spam for cryin out loud!

Wait.......Is this the 2007 Worlds in the Middle of Nowhere thread or is this the 2008 Competition thread???

Also, not all pools did it, so even that policy was applied inconsistently.



All groups in pools that played two rounds the first day (MPO, MPM) stayed together both rounds thus shooting holes into some theory that I had a social engineering agenda. I had no agenda other than keeping things simple. The aspect of people meeting others at Worlds was actually considered. But top guys quickly end up together anyway so delaying that for one round likely allowed people to see just about as many different people net as normal.

Spammers!!! Lets get back to discussing the Competition changes...

Topic: Why do you think the new Competition changes will either help or hurt the PDGA? Be as candid as possible, but be nice!

I can't believe they added another division!!?!!? Guaranteed to solve nothing! Why add another division? People are now just going to bag Expert AND Advanced. If it is PDGA sponsored then you should have to play in a certain division depending on your rating...simple!!

6 and 7 are taking the sport backwards!!




I think you got it all wrong here. It may indeed be yet another division, but in reality it is a better way to distribute people into groups of ratings. I did some math and it makes sense. The Advanced diviosn will more than likely become much larger due to this change. It makes the transition periods from each respective level shorter IMO...

In all due respects, the issues regarding Worlds procedures are also part of competition and potentially impact players in 2008 and beyond whether it interests you or not. There are close to a 1000 members who may play Worlds in 2008.

Just having some fun Chuck.... Besides Spam is a fun word...

Spam, Spam, and Spam.... :D

Even mentioning spamming is spamming........ :D

What changes are you proposing for next years worlds competition?

I propose including a can of spam to each player for lunch....

I'm not proposing any for 2008. But we tried some things at Worlds this year specifically related to the Highbridge scenario. Whether they are worthwhile in general has yet to be determined by others involved with 2008 and 2009. I don't expect to be involved with either as player or staff.

I like the Expert field idea, and plan to play in it. I'd have the option to play in Advanced or Expert (or Open). What I'd like to see is that as you move up, you get the chance to play the more premiere courses. We saw this at the Michigan State Championships this year (A B-Tier) The A Pool was Open, B Pool was Advanced, And C Pool was the rest, for the most part. A Pool got to play Flip City, Leviathan(longs), and Goliath, 3 tough premiere courses. B Pool got to play Flip City, Leviathan(longs), and Beast. Finally, C Pool Played Best, Beauty, Leviathan(Shorts). We saw a lot of AM-2 Qualified Players Playing AM-1 Just to play the tougher courses, knowing that they had to play their best just to cash. I know that, going to a new area, or playing locally, I'd step up and play a higher division, just to play the better courses.

Now, as far as everyone yelling about offering more divisions, the sport is still too small to NOT cater to what it takes to keep members. If that means offering 17 Divisions so that everyone who plays 'well' has a chance at taking home prizes, so be it, but every person who stays in the sport is another mouth spreading the word. We need to have 10,000 AMs to support the Vendors, so that they can support the pros.

Also, as far as the 700 AMs and 700 Pros in the same little ratings gap, consider someone who shoots 2 900 rated rounds one weekend, and 2 1000 rated rounds the next vs someone who shoots 4 950 rated rounds in those same 2 events. The person who consistantly shoots 950 rated golf is a bagger in MA-1, and a donor in MPO. The person who shoots the 900/1000 rated rounds would cash at least 50% of the time in that sampling in pro. 950 =/= 950 in this case. I'm a solid 930 golfer, and would rather play up in a amateur division where I have a chance to win some prizes if I play my best. For me to cash in open, I have to shoot the rounds of my life.

We know it was smoother for staff...Noone said it was not. I know it was easier for players as well...Its just not fair to the bad draws. Thats all...Same poop as B pool A pool divisions, its not fair...YOU KNOW WHY!!! Because u say its random, but its not!!! It was seeded!!!! If it was random and someone got a bad group, yes its fair, couldve happened to anyone, but it was NOT random...Slightly random is an oxyMORON. End that and make it FAIR for next year.



Why not go the opposite way. Kirk Yoo did something for the Pro Crosstown a couple of years ago that added cash to the event. He let people pay an extra fee to be put on the card in the first round with a top pro. That was cool, I got to play with Shawn Sinclair (whom I learned to putt from a video on disc golf review), he a gentlemen and a very nice guy--I have great disc story and I learned few things from him as well. Why not take an idea like this, make it more dynamic, scale it up, and take the extra cash and donate it to the EDGE foundation or break it up for other areas etc... If it's not going to be perceived as fair even if it is, why not make it interesting and let some DG enthusiasts get to play some top guys that might not ever have a chance to play with otherwise, at least in the first round.

I've proposed this idea for Worlds prior to when we ran it in 2001. Players would silently bid on getting to play with anyone in the first round in their division including buddies. Half of the bid would go to the player who was bid on and half would go to the purse for that division. The more popular a top pro was, the more money they might make from players who wanted to play a round with them.

No go on the concept. Basic reason was that it wasn't fair to those who couldn't afford to bid.

I've proposed this idea for Worlds prior to when we ran it in 2001. Players would silently bid on getting to play with anyone in the first round in their division including buddies. Half of the bid would go to the player who was bid on and half would go to the purse for that division. The more popular a top pro was, the more money they might make from players who wanted to play a round with them.

No go on the concept. Basic reason was that it wasn't fair to those who couldn't afford to bid.



You could cap the bid at a reasonable amount say 25 bucks and have a 1st, 2d, 3rd and 4th choice it should be a simple algorithm and/or you have backup e.g. if you didn't get any of your choices you get a fundraiser disc signed by your first choice. Just throwing out some brainstorming ideas. Keep them coming.

I'm not among the folks who need persuading. I think $25 is too small a cap though to make it worthwhile to handle the admin work to run it for Worlds at least.

I'm not among the folks who need persuading. I think $25 is too small a cap though to make it worthwhile to handle the admin work to run it for Worlds at least.



It's all good, just throwing out ideas, and I am a firm believer in letting them go if they go stale.

I've proposed this idea for Worlds prior to when we ran it in 2001. Players would silently bid on getting to play with anyone in the first round in their division including buddies. Half of the bid would go to the player who was bid on and half would go to the purse for that division. The more popular a top pro was, the more money they might make from players who wanted to play a round with them.

No go on the concept. Basic reason was that it wasn't fair to those who couldn't afford to bid.



I know that I would be more inclined to play at a Pro Worlds if I knew that there was a chance that for an extra $100 I might get to play with a top pro of my choice. It would at least get me in the door and registered to play. I'm sure something like this would at least marginally increase pro worlds attendance.

To go with that, one of the most influential rounds I ever played was first round at one of the first tournaments I played at Flip City. The grouped us MPO, MA1, MA2, MA3 as the fields were almost identical in size, and, at the time I was playing MA3. I learned SO much that round that I decided that it might be fun to play as many tournaments as I could. I also saw that I could compete with people that are at a higher level than I am, and it helped me to build the confidence to move up. Putting some top AM players with top Pros could help them prepare for the day they step up and play pro.

For the next worlds, we should be grouped "randomly" for the first round- and just stay there. Play all rounds with the same people, until the final nine. Because we're just playing the course, not other players. :) That would save lots of time.

Even better, just organize your own foursomes and play with your buddies the whole time even in different divisions. Maybe reorganize to scoring order for that last round when maybe it makes a difference what you do on the last few holes to try and catch someone or hold them off. Then, have a random draw Final 9. We're all members so why should just the top players get all the glory in the DVD? I'm sure the average player would get a much better idea how tough the USDGC course is for example by watching Rothstein and I the year we finished in the last two spots... :D

And we should have the Legends start on hole 1. Hole 2 would have the 4 top Open men, hole 3- 18 a mix of all the divisions in every group. When we finish the really short par 54 course in 3 1/2, we can all have a group hug :p

Actually, that's how some Worlds have started with the Legends on hole 1 with Steady Ed and the gang giving the wolf howl to get the first round started... :)

Note: I wrote this post earlier in the thread, but had problems with my computor. This may seem a bit off topic now, but refer to earlier in the thread.


It's crazy to me that at an event the top 25% of scores are spread through out 3 sometimes 4 or more divisions. Some of those 25% are winners and some are losers, the winners are the players that bagged and played am and the losers are the players that sucked it up and played pro. It baffles me that a guy who shot better than 85%+ of the field and paid more to play will walk away with nothing and "ams" that paid less and shot a lot worse, walk away with stacks and stacks of plastic. Disc golf is the only sport I know of that promotes and rewards mediocrity. :o





I agree 100%. I have an idea that can promote better play. It seems to me that currently, Advanced is the most glamorous division. For example, I won three baskets, a piar of BITES, over $500.00 in script (merch) from excelling in the AM field in Oregon last year. I was a pretty good player improving rapidly and certainly skilled enough back then to hang with the pros. WHY DIDN'T I MOVE UP AS SOON AS I WON MY FIRST EVENT? Because I won so much freakin stuff I felt like moving up to Pro would downsize my earnings. THAT IS COMPLETELY BACKWARDS. We should make the Pro division the most glamorous!!

Lets suppose that instead of playing for a ton of prizes, I was playing for a moderate stack of discs and a trophy. Comparing my scores at the end of a tournament in that system would reveal -- Wow, my score was good enough to cash in PRO, too bad I didn't move up and take home some serious cash.

As oppossed to last year --Wow, my score would have earned me $180.00 in Pro, its a good thing I just won that much in script and a basket playing AM, I don't think I'll move up yet.

I think if our sport is to truly grow, we should entice as many players as possible to strive to reach their highest potential. If Ams are unhappy that all they would win are trophies, they should start taking themselves seriously and practice to play up. If a player really can't commit the time to play Pro, they shouldn't expect the sport to cater to them for just being alright golfers. I have nothing against ams, but I think we are a bit spoiled in this sport.

I believe the Competition Committee agrees with this and that's one reason for the Expert division. It will be smaller than Advanced has been. The entry fee will be closer to Open and could even be set equal to Open if the TD so desires. That will change the dynamics of the big prize in the top Am divison versus low prize in Open for similar scores.

Two reason the Expert division is B.S. smaller field and higher entry fee. I havent tried playing in an Pro event because of the entry fee now you are increasing it for my division. More reason not to sign up next year.

So, it's more fair for you to take advantage of players rated much lower than you and not score as well as Open players and take home bigger prizes?

I feel like we should have two large divisions. Open and amateur both with age protected divisions beginning at 40). Amateurs should get a players pack and win a trophy. Open players should get paid. I must be crazy to propose a system this simple.



If you haven't been paying attention, you can run a sanctioned event with your plan right now. All the updated divisional structure does show what's possible not what a TD has to do.

The new division was added at the bottom of our current structure to accommodate the growth of new players in the sport. Most do not start at ratings more than 850 and they'll have a chance to compete in PDGA play without getting hammered right off the bat. By moving the 915 break up to 935 AND allowing ams to enter pro and cash with merch, it helps the Open division. First, the top Am division will likely be smaller since there are fewer ams in that ratings range and some will be tempted to occasionally play Open now, especially if the entry fee for Expert is closer to Open than Advanced is now.

The top Expert prize will likely not be as large in comparison to the bottom Open cashers like it does now when Advanced wins a basket with a score higher than the bottom Open casher because the division will be smaller than current Advanced. By moving the ratings break up 20 points, it now will not be as big of a jump for Ams to go pro. Pros win regardless what decision a 970 Am makes. If the player enters Expert, the retail/wholesale differential potentially helps the Open purse with the added money being distributed among fewer Open players. If the player enters Open, it's a bigger division with the entry fee added AND if that player cashes, he only gets merch which again helps the purse or the TD with expenses.



i guess i'm not paying attention either. how would this work in reality? do you advertise an open and amateur division? is a 990 rated amateur allowed to play am? who is eligible for the am division, all ams?

If you wanted to run a two division event next year, you would advertise that the only divisions offered are Open Men and Expert (and maybe Open &amp; Adv Women?). You can do this now except you would say Advanced instead of Expert. That event would be like a small scale version of a combined USDGC &amp; Am Nats.

Oh, and Expert would be open to all pro and am players under 975. Today it would be all pro and am under 955 could play Advanced. Next year, if you really wanted to boost Open in this format, you would offer only Advanced, not Expert. Then, the Advanced division would be capped at 934 and all players over 934 would have to enter Open if they wanted to play. Ams over 934 that played Open would be allowed to receive merch prizes if they cashed which isn't the case now. I think this is the format that might appeal to Craiger to offer to show it works, and that's fine if players in his area support it.

I get to play maybe once a week if there was a trophy only I would play I almost give my plastic away. If I sell it I sell it for retail value cause I if I get close to my money back for the tournament I am happy. Its not me fault that players that are below 915 and play advance lose they shouldnt be playing advance.
.

Chuck you have an excuse for everything.




Not excuses. Just sharing the extensive thinking, discussions and analysis that have been going on for years in the Competition Committee to continue making the system flexible for all places, all TDs and as fair as possible for our diverse array of members. The lack of fairness has been the 915-930 players getting pounded by the 960-980 Ams on the threshold of turning pro but who typically wait one or more years to win or do well at Am Worlds. This wide range of ratings in Advanced from 915 to 985, almost twice the spread in Intermediate, artificially produces huge divisions with payouts relatively unfair for the bottom pros. Making the breaks more fair in 2008 helps resolve these problems at both ends of the range.

if there was a trophy only I would play



Actually, I think this is a great idea to propose to your TDs. If Expert is going to be smaller anyway, why not have lower entry fees and not worry about prizes? Then, if you're up for the competition in pro at some events, you'll have more money to afford the Open entry fees and maybe win something.

So, it's more fair for you to take advantage of players rated much lower than you and not score as well as Open players and take home bigger prizes?



You are talking about players over 960 ratings that is not me.

I had every plan next year to play Gentlemans Club, the Memorial and St Patricks classic but if there are only 15 people in my division it isnt worth it.
By the way is there any dates for these yet.

thanks chuck, i was a bit confused. are we witnessing the beginning of the end of the "am" and "pro" labels?

By the way is there any dates for these yet.



I think they have to set the NT schedule for next year first then the A-tiers follow. Not sure if any of those will be NTs or even how that's going to work next year. I'm not involved and haven't heard anything on the plans. I assume they'll be discussing this at the Summit meeting next week so maybe we'll know better around Oct 1st.

Frankly, I think it's unclear what players choices will be at the higher tier events regarding playing up in Expert or pros playing sideways. For example, if they restrict the pro division to Open only at NTs which gets discussed every year, then quite a few pros, especially older ones, may decide to play Expert if there's an am event at the same time. I'm certain that's what I would do as a GM Pro at 946. With online reg, you'll be able to watch what happens leading up to the event.

are we witnessing the beginning of the end of the "am" and "pro" labels?




I can't see those titles ending. However, there's more recognition that our weekend warriors who play for merch or cash are in an as yet unnamed category that's somewhere between Am &amp; Pro.

are we witnessing the beginning of the end of the "am" and "pro" labels?




I can't see those titles ending. However, there's more recognition that our weekend warriors who play for merch or cash are in an as yet unnamed category that's somewhere between Am &amp; Pro.



I can't see those titles beginning. (With any real or useful meaning.)

BTW, you have not ended the move up move up move out nature of our competitive system, you have institutionalized it. This really is unbelievable.

Two reason the Expert division is B.S. smaller field and higher entry fee. I havent tried playing in an Pro event because of the entry fee now you are increasing it for my division. More reason not to sign up next year.



I agree 100 percent. The reason why people play advanced is for the huge fields. This will inevitably be taken away at certain events.

I am rated 934 and you don't hear me complain about being pounded in advanced. I am consistenly on the lead card, finished 3rd in an A tier and that is why I don't think the current system is unfair. I know that I can win, it is good competition for me.

If the rating spread is such a huge problem then shift them up, but don't add another division. That is some weak sauce.

IMO, the ratings were basically shifted up as you suggest. Let's pretend that the names are insignificant.

Old top am division: 915 +
New top am division: 935+
A shift up of 20 points to make things a bit more fair in the top division. Division may be initally smaller but will become more competitive for all involved. This good competition should increase the field size over time.

Old middle division: 875 - 914
New middle division: 900 - 934
A shift up of 20 points. Division should be same size and have the same competition.

Old bottom division: &lt; 875
New bottom middle: 850 - 899
25 points above and below the old bottom division has been defined into a ratings defined tier to improve comptetive balance at the middle bottom tier.

New bottom division: &lt; 850
New division created for folks who want to come out and compete but don't have the crazy good skills that the 850 and above rated players have.

As Steve points out, the division ratings breaks were shifted up and a new one defined at the bottom. Those members have been there all along but now they have a recognized division and the structure is better positioned for new member growth. Of course, some complaining may not think those players matter. Unfortunately, many TDs also don't think they matter by not offering the Rec division even today because events are filling up with higher level players in many areas without needing them. But growth is going to come from the bottom and ways to provide opportunities for lower level competitors to have the same fun experiences as the higher level players needs to found either by adding more courses to an event or splitting events into two days with some divisions one day and other divisions the next.

I believe there should be a pursuit of competitive formats because that is where the super pros and up and coming super pros will play and make a living. USDGC and MSDGC are on the right track, obviously. We aren't there yet, but it should be pursued. I agree our current changes do not promote that and I believe a seperate track should be taken for this - isn't that what the NT is for? So, you can't say the PDGA hasn't supported that type of format, right?

I get the sense from gang and others that the current format should be done away with completely, which would not be a good idea in my opinion. The way I see it, most TDs are looking for the most people to participate, which the current format will provide.



gang4010, do you not read every post after your posts or do you just selectively reply?

How many NT events are there? 11?
How many Sanctioned events are there? approx 800? (or more - I haven't counted lately) - Are you suggesting 11 out of 800 is promoting a different "form/format" for competition? I see it as more of a high dollar showcase - with the end result being having to travel farther, pay more, with a dwindling chance for return (as attendance at NT's isn't always what it's cracked up to be). Don't know about you - but I don't have the resources to be able to take a whole week to travel to someplace I've never beeen so I can be prepared to compete.

I think its important to make this distinction: There is NOT another division added to the top of the Am ranks. It is added to the BOTTOM. And, the ratings caps are shifted up to make competition within each division be a little more fair. Maybe we needed new names for all the Am divisions :p We have had advanced as the top division in Am for so long....its going to take some time to get past that.

Jroc, I agree.....

The structure will actually force each respective category of Am baggers up. So just wait and see.... The expert division will not be as small as you think...

I think its important to make this distinction: There is NOT another division added to the top of the Am ranks. It is added to the BOTTOM. And, the ratings caps are shifted up to make competition within each division be a little more fair. Maybe we needed new names for all the Am divisions :p We have had advanced as the top division in Am for so long....its going to take some time to get past that.



If that is true then why is the whole purpose for this divisional restructuring to "find a home for the 950 to 980 rated player?"

Why is advanced not the top am division anymore?
They changed the name from rec to enthusiast, and added the expert division. No how is it that they did not add another division at the top of the amateur ranks?

Why create more divisions. It seems like there are too many as it is.

Has there been any thought about having seperate governing bodies for AM and PRO? This could potentially add legitimacy to both.

Give it a year and we will have the same problem that we have now.
All I see this doing is the same thing guy below 935 will play up and the guys below 900 will play up and then they will complain again and the divisions will be broke down farther.

The problem has been the guys playing up a division when they shouldnt then complain that they got there buts whipped in a division they shouldnt be in.

From my perspective, the whole purpose for the changes was not just to find a home for the 950-980 player. It also formally gives the very new beginner a home as well. By shifting everything up (and, regardless of what title is in front of those divisions), it makes the progression up the Am ranks more logical, putting the top Am rank in line with the bottom Pro's. And, by letting Pros under 975 take merch if they wish, theres room to play both until they either a) get good enough to compete in Pro for cash; b) stay at the top Am rank, and occasionally play Pro at the local tournies/home courses where they know they can compete. The changes are all about giving TD's and players (whether they realize it or not) flexibility.

Am I for or against the changes...I dont know yet. I'm willing to try them out. Am's that complain about getting wiped when they play up a division are not the concern. Its the 915-925 Am's that dont have a shot against the 960-975 rated Am's, but are forced to play in the same division...thats where the problem is. Call the divisions whatever you want...I think the ratings breaks are more appropriate in the new system than the current system.

Should be an interesting year!

Am's that complain about getting wiped when they play up a division are not the concern. Its the 915-925 Am's that dont have a shot against the 960-975 rated Am's, but are forced to play in the same division...thats where the problem is. Call the divisions whatever you want...I think the ratings breaks are more appropriate in the new system than the current system



This would not be the problem if those 960-975 "ams" played up. It just seems so simple to me that if the top half of advanced players played up, they would cash more in pro. Since the field is bigger, the payouts would be deeper, they may not win but they could cash. Really, a 975 golfer on average &amp; depending on the course is 2.5 strokes off a 1000 rated golfer. If a player wins a tournament shooting 1000 rated golf over the course of 2 rounds, the 975 golfer is only 5 shots off. 5 shots back usually gets you paid in a decent sized pro field. Am I crazy? Is it not that simple?!?!?

Another thought, since ams can now play "pro" and take merchandise when they cash, why not have the corollary be true? A pro can play down (if their rating allows) and accept cash rather than merchandise. We could eliminate age protected divisions altogether and have only the 4 divisions using the ratings breaks. When you sign up for a division you would put your division and whether your cash or merchandise. I think this would allow lower rated master, grandmaster, etc... to play against a field that is comparable in skill but not as small. I think it's hilarious that while some ams complain about being wiped up, there are quite a few pros that have been playing for many, many years whose skills have declined but still play tournaments. They sign up for a division they have little chance in but don't say a word. That is of course if they are still playing. Many of these pioneers no longer play competively for the very reasons some ams wanted a new division. The real shame is little is being done to retain these players.

I ran a PDGA tournament some time ago with 2 pro GMs, there was not a third so they bumped to masters w/o complaint and finished 1, 2 from the bottom. The same tournament I had 2 players sign up for Adv GM, there was not a third, I explained there were 2 pro GMs, they could have a division if they moved up, they said "no, put us in intermediate am". So I did, both "ams" beat the 2 "pros". Crazy. :confused:

Crazy :p

I have run or been on staff for tournaments where the exact same scenario happens...and many others where your left shaking your head thinking....wtf?! :confused:

Here's an idea: seperate the men and women (unless the women choose to play with the men), put each in one big division, payout in a 'flight' system, and for those that "cash", give them the option of merch or cash. And, if they choose cash, it can only be 50% of the payout value.

They did something like this at a long standing tournament in Tulsa OK last year.. It looked kind of interesting...it seems to take 'bagging' completely out of the mix. Go to the Tulsa Disc Sports section in the Affiliated Clubs section and look for the Chandler Tornado (probably 'Chandlerstock') thread from '06.

Now back on the subject... I dont know what the answer is.....no one does really. But, I think these new changes might be a step in the right direction. All we can do is try them out, see what works and what doesnt...and go from there. All the complainers (not you or any specific person) need to give it a chance. Maybe I'm just nieve, but I would like to think we can all work together (hence, my avatar) to make things the best they can be.

I think next year I'm going to offer only the 4 divisions, no age protected ones. I would still like a better solution for the lower rated pro master and GMs "playing down" I thinks it sux that they have to take merchandise and can't accept cash. Do they need plastic? Probably not, why should they be penalized for using the system as it is intended, playing against a bigger field with players of their skill level. Where as an am is encouraged to play up where they can now accept merchandise to retain their status. This could almost turn 3-4 current divisions into just 1. I would like to see the am and pro labels abandoned, I can't count how many times I've read ams talking about cashing, refering to the prizes they won. Really, aren't we all pros, anyway. Without labels we could have divisions based solely on skill. This could eliminate all of this mess, or at least simplify it! ;)

Personally , I like the idea of an expert division .
I have been called a bagger for almost my whole entire disc golf exsistance . I am sitting right now at a 934 rating and have been as high as 944 . With the ratings cutoffs at this point I am at the TOP of and advanced division and at the bottom of an expert division which is basically a step BELOW PRO divisions . I LOVE it . NO more bagger comments for me .
To add to the stupid ways that they name the divisions , I am basically the lowest expert disc golfer in existance . LOL I love this game .

Craig has been the most vocal that divisions could have a much wider ratings range. Here's some data from the recent Mid-Nationals which has players with established ratings playing in 50 pt ranges. The first data column shows the base ratings and range of the players in each division. The next five columns show how far above or below their base rating the best and worst player has thrown so far after playing that many rounds. For example, in the third data column, the player in the Blue division who has shot best above his rating on average for the first two rounds is 36 rating points. The worst is now 55 points below is rating on average.

For reference, everyone played the same two courses in their division in the first two rounds, a second course in R3 & R4 and a third course in R5. The standard deviation indicates how far above/below their rating 2 out of 3 players in the division have shot so far.
<table> <tr> <td>BLUE</td><td>Rating</td><td>1 Rnd</td><td>2 Rnds</td><td>3 Rnds</td><td>4 Rnds</td><td>5 Rnds </td></tr> <tr> <td>Average</td><td>947</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>. </td></tr> <tr> <td>Above</td><td>973</td><td>51</td><td>36</td><td>32</td><td>36</td><td>33 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Below</td><td>924</td><td>-67</td><td>-55</td><td>-43</td><td>-33</td><td>-35 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Range</td><td>49</td><td>118</td><td>90</td><td>75</td><td>69</td><td>68 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Std Dev</td><td>.</td><td>26</td><td>20</td><td>18</td><td>18</td><td>18 </td></tr> <tr> <td>WHITE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>Average</td><td>906</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>. </td></tr> <tr> <td>Above</td><td>924</td><td>46</td><td>48</td><td>40</td><td>36</td><td>39 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Below</td><td>876</td><td>-34</td><td>-27</td><td>-28</td><td>-32</td><td>-33 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Range</td><td>48</td><td>80</td><td>75</td><td>68</td><td>68</td><td>71 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Std Dev</td><td>.</td><td>23</td><td>23</td><td>18</td><td>18</td><td>19 </td></tr> <tr> <td>RED</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>Average</td><td>851</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>. </td></tr> <tr> <td>Above</td><td>870</td><td>55</td><td>58</td><td>52</td><td>47</td><td>43 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Below</td><td>827</td><td>-59</td><td>-46</td><td>-65</td><td>-46</td><td>-52 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Range</td><td>43</td><td>114</td><td>104</td><td>117</td><td>93</td><td>95 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Std Dev</td><td>.</td><td>39</td><td>30</td><td>39</td><td>35</td><td>37 </td></tr> </table>


You can see after 3 rounds, no one at the bottom of the division 50 points below the top rated player could beat him if he were just shooting his rating. But that player could still cash. As expected, the lower rated players are less consistent and have a wider range and standard deviation. But players over an 875 rating will find it hard to shoot even 20 rating points (2-3 shots) higher or lower than their rating more than 1 out of 3 events. Newer players who are quickly improving will have somewhat better chances to play better. As you can see, after one round like a league, it's possible for players to shoot higher over their rating than in a multiple round event. Players sense this and that's why many are more likely to be OK playing with higher rated competition in leagues with fewer divisions.

I took the same Mid-Nats scores and recast it by shifting players into the new divisions for 2008 to see how it looked. For Expert, it looks like even the bottom rated player at 935 has a shot to win in a 2-round event and will still be able to cash sometimes in a 4-round event. The new Advanced and Intermediate breaks show that the bottom rated player in the division could win even a 4-round event. The logic for the narrower ratings ranges in Expert and Advanced divisions versus Intermediate is again shown with lower standard deviations where it's less likely for players at the higher levels to break out from shooting within 2-3 shots of their rating in 3-4 round events.
<table> <tr> <td>EXPERT</td><td>Rating</td><td>1 Rnd</td><td>2 Rnds</td><td>3 Rnds</td><td>4 Rnds</td><td>5 Rnds </td></tr> <tr> <td>Average</td><td>952</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>. </td></tr> <tr> <td>Above</td><td>973</td><td>51</td><td>36</td><td>30</td><td>23</td><td>22 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Below</td><td>935</td><td>-67</td><td>-55</td><td>-29</td><td>-33</td><td>-35 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Range</td><td>38</td><td>118</td><td>90</td><td>59</td><td>57</td><td>58 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Std Dev</td><td>.</td><td>28</td><td>21</td><td>17</td><td>17</td><td>17 </td></tr> <tr> <td>ADVANCED</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>Average</td><td>917</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>. </td></tr> <tr> <td>Above</td><td>930</td><td>46</td><td>48</td><td>40</td><td>36</td><td>39 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Below</td><td>900</td><td>-34</td><td>-27</td><td>-43</td><td>-33</td><td>-33 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Range</td><td>30</td><td>80</td><td>75</td><td>83</td><td>69</td><td>71 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Std Dev</td><td>.</td><td>21</td><td>21</td><td>20</td><td>18</td><td>19 </td></tr> <tr> <td>INT,</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>Average</td><td>873</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>. </td></tr> <tr> <td>Above</td><td>898</td><td>55</td><td>58</td><td>52</td><td>47</td><td>43 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Below</td><td>851</td><td>-59</td><td>-35</td><td>-40</td><td>-46</td><td>-52 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Range</td><td>47</td><td>114</td><td>93</td><td>92</td><td>93</td><td>95 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Std Dev</td><td>.</td><td>37</td><td>27</td><td>28</td><td>32</td><td>33 </td></tr> </table>

It is stats like this that make my support of the new structure even stronger. I pointed this theory out based on my own experience at events and backed it up with some simple calculations. The 850 to 899 range golfers will make more mistakes accross the board and therefore it is very possible that an 850 rated golfer could beat an 899 rated golfer on any given round. One plays up the other down. Likewise for advanced the spread is smaller with less mistakes. I will be pllaying advanced this year at the saint patty's classic becuase I think I have a legitimate chance of playing very well against that range of rated players. I think the system build personal incentive into the competition. My odds for 2008 just got better. If I stay in Adv. masters, I will be gauranteed to compete against one of those 950+ rated players that seem to revel in counting their 1st place trophy's, so I like the new odds...... :D

Dealing with the large Advanced Masters division (15% of PDGA members) with a 200 point ratings range remains one of the longer range issues for the Competition Committee. There are several places where there's a highly rated Adv Master compared with everyone else in the neighborhood that plans to stay there indefinitely. It's "fair" in the sense that players should be allowed to stay Ams forever. On the other hand, it's a constant irritant for the local Masters, both Am and Pro, and is a regular source of complaints to the PDGA on what to do.

Adv Masters have been allowed to play Intermediate or Advanced for a while now based on their ratings. Of course, the same extra high rated players may be in Advanced also so it doesn't provide a better alternative. With the new structure, most of the Adv Masters are under 935 and can enter a capped Advanced division, plus now those Adv Masters higher than that can play Pro Master and receive merch if they cash. Both of these changes should help the core group of Adv Masters have a better and more fair experience most of the time.

Back to being the king of misinformation again I see Chuck. How about - since we're talking about finding a solution in the overlap between MA1/MPM/MPO - that you do some stats associated with those groups?
Personally I'm interested in statistics for more than 45 players in a single event, and find your use of such as statistic as indicative of any sort of trend woefully lacking in anything meaningful.

And gee - how bout trying to use some statistics from multiple events, from different regions - so that trends might actually contain some substance.

Those stats are indicative of what we've known for 5 years so there's no surprise. There were 81 players in that event with 45 in Blue and 23 or so in White. You realize I'm with you regarding the ratings/performance overlap with age and gender divisions and their performance stats look the same for players in the same rating range. Roger and I have tracked player's standard deviaitons for several years now due to the 2.5SD drop function. Those around 1000 rating have around 20-25 pt SD. Those around 925 have 30-35SD and those around 850 have 40-50SD.

That's why if you truly want a competitive event, you do it with ratings divisions from top to bottom. If you want maximum participation, you're more likely to get it by offering the full range of age and gender divisions.

I ran my latest rounds in the estimator and I am a 904 rated player and my std. dev. is 34.... It makes it quite difficult for me to play a round that will not be counted towards my rating. I would have to shoot 85 points below my rating. I have had that appx. std. dev since I started being rating in 2005 and have yet to play a round with a rating low enough to be dropped.....

Nothing wrong with that. Overall the current procedure results in players having 1 in 50 rounds dropped. Since all of your rounds look like they're possibly on relatively familiar courses, you're less likely to have that really bad round that you can have when traveling to play in unfamiliar terrain. Let alone, many of the dropped rounds are from players who showed up late and missed a few holes which is why the 100 pt cap is there vs just the 2.5SD calc.

What division will be used as the qualifier for the 2008 US amateur champs? Expert or advanced?

I'm sure it will be Expert for the qualifiers that take place in 2008.

What division will be used as the qualifier for the 2008 US amateur champs? Expert or advanced?



Hopefully NONE, and we forget invites and let anyone come who wants to and not cap it. Sad when BG has more AM's there then our US AM Championship.

Bowling Green is a big party. US Ams is a serious tournament for serious baggers. :D

You realize I'm with you regarding the ratings/performance overlap with age and gender divisions and their performance stats look the same for players in the same rating range.



You don't appear to be with me Chuck. You appear to be on the other side of the mirror with Alice. Eliminating the overlap would be accomplished by combining the divisions that overlap (in some form or fashion) - not splitting them into MORE divisions.

How about the PDGA focus on the first word in their name, "Professional". Why are they the governing body for Ams too? It seems a conflict of interest. The PDGA, base on its name, should be focused on Pros, and tourneys for pros. The National Tour, Big A teir Events, etc.

Their needs to be a governing body like the USGA that focuses on the game of disc golf, not on pros and pro level competition. See ... http://www.usga.org/aboutus/index.html

Is the PDGA bitting off more than it can chew? Would the sport be better served by having 2 governing bodies? One (PDGA) that focuses on pro events, the pro tour, sponsorship, etc. and a second (USDGA) that focuses on the sport, rules, growing the game, age based championships (Pro and AM), individual &amp; course ratings, etc.

It seems to me the 2 could have different agenda, one to frow purses and get teh pro game up to a TV ready level and one to focus on the sport of disc golf and what is best for the game.

Thoughts?

I've only been in this sport a short amount of time compared to most of you who are posting in this thread, but it seams to me that two fully functioning bodies would take a long time to come to fruition. Not to mention it would potentially double the amount of yearly fees we put into this sport.

Ams really aren't a part of the PGA and wouldn't really need to be part of the PDGA. It is for the pro tour. Ams would be served by the USDGA.

There has already been discussion on this. I myself made a sarcastic statement not to long ago. It's the slippery slope.

PDGA, ADGA, WDGA, JRDGA, SRDGA it could go on and on:

Association of disc golfers who don't want any particular rules or government: ADGWDWAPRG

see, it would be utter chaos if we don't just stick with one governing body.

Ball Golf has done well with the 2 governing bodies. One group is a for profit, promoting, getting sponsors, focused on increasing cash ... the other is not, it is a non-profit focused on what is best for the game regardless of profit.

we are not in the same league as as ball golf yet. If we ever get as big as Ball Golf we will have to have 3 or more organizations, untill then we have to support one large foundation.

Still not a good rebuttal. Why do we have to stick with one organization?

if you believe it would work, draw up a plan and start it. which one would you pick to start - the am side or the pro side? and why?

Eliminating the overlap would be accomplished by combining the divisions that overlap (in some form or fashion) - not splitting them into MORE divisions.




That can happen if you run ratings events which is easy to do in 2008. The format is right there for you next year with Open, Blue, White, Red, Green and Purple (if you have any below 800 rating). No overlap, exactly what you want. The ratings breaks are exactly the same as the Am divisions will be with breaks at 975, 935, 900, 850 and 800.

Nothing was split for 2008. Advanced was moved up 20 points and renamed Expert. Then, the new Enthusiast division was added at the bottom to address areas with growth in this range and progressive TDs who offer it.

Jerry,

Remember that in Ball Golf there are actually multiple rules organizations (USGA, R&amp;A, PGA, PGA europe, PGA Mars etc...)

Steve

Actually the rules of Golf are maintained in the US and Mexico by the USGA, not the PGA. The PGA is the governing body of the PGA tour. And just like the PDGA the pros have plently of issues with the PGA. The pros also play in non-PGA sanctioned huge events like the Masters and the British Open. Just like the PDGA doesn't schedule tourneys around Marhall Street.

Eliminating the overlap would be accomplished by combining the divisions that overlap (in some form or fashion) - not splitting them into MORE divisions.




That can happen if you run ratings events which is easy to do in 2008. The format is right there for you next year with Open, Blue, White, Red, Green and Purple (if you have any below 800 rating). No overlap, exactly what you want. The ratings breaks are exactly the same as the Am divisions will be with breaks at 975, 935, 900, 850 and 800.

Nothing was split for 2008. Advanced was moved up 20 points and renamed Expert. Then, the new Enthusiast division was added at the bottom to address areas with growth in this range and progressive TDs who offer it.



Using your own ratings distribution the general percentage of members approximating your proposed divisional breaks works like this
970+ 7.5%
930 - 969 25%
900 - 929 30%
850-899 24%
800-849 10%

Please explain the logic behind separating only the top 7.5% as a competitive division. It it the part you consistently ignore.

All these folks talk about player retention - but seem to be ok with telling the best players it's fine to make them play in smaller and smaller fields. Not sure how that would encourage them to keep playing.

chuck said :

That can happen if you run ratings events which is easy to do in 2008. The format is right there for you next year with Open, Blue, White, Red, Green and Purple (if you have any below 800 rating). No overlap, exactly what you want. The ratings breaks are exactly the same as the Am divisions will be with breaks at 975, 935, 900, 850 and 800.

Once again I beleive it is not only the idea of who gets to play where but what TIER event is being offered .
Now I have altered my ideas alittle from the past but the ideas remain the same . Also the idea of am and pro is sooooo worn out that I would suggest that you are a PRO at a tier level you have cashed at ( in other words if you cash at a C tier event you can only play pro at that level event but would still be able to play am at a B tier untill you cashed at that level ) I would hope these ideas are available at an X tier events

At a C tier ( I can remember a few years ago there was a push to not allow 1000 rated players at a C tier event and maybe this time has come ) , or just have such a low entry fee and low added cash and the 1000 rated players will consider it a waste of time to even show up .
Either way the point is there may have come a time in disc golf that the low tier events should be made more for a
FAUX-PEN ( not really the top of the heap open ) type of class of player , as chuck put it .
Divisional breaks at a C tier would be as follows
Open all rated players under 1000 to a cutoff of 955
NO MASTER DIVISIONS , NO expert divisions
Advanced divisions 954- 900 and tradional breaks from there .


At a B tier event :
I like the idea of ratings breaks but would take it a few steps further . The 975 rating would be a cut off for OPEN TO MASTERs .
This would lead to an open division of players rated above 975 , masters and expert from 935 to 974 and advanced 934 to 900 , and so on down .

At an A tier
Standard PDGA divsions with all the trimmings except if you are above a 1000 ratings you must play open .

Actually the rules of Golf are maintained in the US and Mexico by the USGA, not the PGA. The PGA is the governing body of the PGA tour. And just like the PDGA the pros have plently of issues with the PGA. The pros also play in non-PGA sanctioned huge events like the Masters and the British Open. Just like the PDGA doesn't schedule tourneys around Marhall Street.



Technically, in the US there is the PGA of America which is the governing body for all golf professionals (not just the touring pros, but the teaching pros that run golf courses and give lessons) and then there is the PGA Tour which is a separate organization.

And none of the 4 majors are actually run by the PGA Tour.

chuck said :
now those Adv Masters higher than that can play Pro Master and receive merch if they cash. Both of these changes should help the core group of Adv Masters have a better and more fair experience most of the time.

BIG BEG TO DIFFER HERE now on with the expert division the higher rated advanced master 935 and up is FORCED TO PLAY with 970 rated ams of most likely much younger age and obvious much more " game " , or is going to play in a protected pro division of OVER 970 rated players for the most part , cause the expert division will siphon some of those " lower masters away "
NOW if we would cap the PRO master division ( OPPS now wait I cant say that or I might get put on the probation list cause some 1020 over 40 player cant run away with a divison )
Basically the 935 rated over 40 player got shafted .
Dont worry I do still plan to play just now I am a donater in 3 different divisions , EXPERT , OPEN and Masters .
HOW NICE

Actually the rules of Golf are maintained in the US and Mexico by the USGA, not the PGA. The PGA is the governing body of the PGA tour. And just like the PDGA the pros have plently of issues with the PGA. The pros also play in non-PGA sanctioned huge events like the Masters and the British Open. Just like the PDGA doesn't schedule tourneys around Marhall Street.



Technically, in the US there is the PGA of America which is the governing body for all golf professionals (not just the touring pros, but the teaching pros that run golf courses and give lessons) and then there is the PGA Tour which is a separate organization.

And none of the 4 majors are actually run by the PGA Tour.



Good point. Ball golf has taken it to the next level because there was a need.
PGA of America = Org for all pros, touring and club pros. It, "is the public's link to the game, serving an essential role in the operation of golf facilities throughout the country." In disc golf this could be an organization for all the pros that run and help maintain courses.
PGA = Organization that runs the tour. Organizing large pro tour events. This is the PDGA.
USGA = Governing body for the sport. Controls the rules and promotes the sport. Does what is in the best interest of the game regardless of its impact on the Pros. This is what disc golf needs in my opinion.

All three have different agenda, and that allows them to better achive those goals. Focusing on their core mission.