Several pros such as Gangloff, Whorley and McCaine like to hold the Open division as the only unprotected division. But it's also protected most of the time by elements you don't think of. The only true Open competition would be where the best players in the World could all gather without barriers such as qualification, PDGA membership, scheduling and money. I'm not sure we've had an event like that so a true Open competition has yet to occur.

If Bob Jackson wins the Open division in a C-tier does it mean he won an unprotected division? Anyone think Bob is the best in the World, even that day, for that "protected" victory? Open division at minimum is protected in most events if KC or Nate aren't there. The top rated player or World Champion should be there for it to come close to an unprotected division. USDGC and Worlds come close to unprotected competition but even these have requirements such as PDGA membership,qualification and ability to afford the time and money to travel. Who's to really say that Aziki Kazuki from somewhere else in the world may not actually be the best player if he knew about the event and could afford to travel?

All the argument about Open being the only unprotected division does is provide cover for the best local players to justify dominating their little kingdom and not even have to play to their normal skill level to win in many places. Darrell Nodland has been a dominant figure for years in North Dakota and I'm sure has to challenge himself mentally to stay in the game and try to beat personal goals and set new course records since no one else has typically been close.

If a 990 rated player shoots 986 golf to win over a field of players all below 975 rating in a C-tier and a 940 player shoots 984 golf to win Masters in a field of players with ratings mostly above him, is it true that the 990 rated player was more competitive, faced tougher competition, performed better than the Master? To say that players who shoot better than their ratings haven't been "competitive" is nonsensical if you think of competition as striving to do better and win whatever challenges you face. And if that 990 rated player came from 100 miles away and could have traveled 200 miles the other way to face KC and the gang, how is Open at most events unprotected?

So, if the argument becomes one about how many protected divisions there should be the question should be, then how many players who have done the best competitively should be rewarded? The PDGA now provides a variety of ways to slice and dice the division mix based on the preferences of the players, TDs and clubs. I submit that if you only have one division and the person who wins was already the best (by rating) and only shoots their rating, the competition system is a sham when many players busted their butts trying their best and shot better than their current level. By having more divisions, those who truly excelled compeitively at that event also get recognized.

Granted, there are many divisions won by players who just showed up which is certainly not competition. Likewise, the disparity in skill levels in some age or gender divisions is so wide that it would be hard to call that a competitive experience for the player who won. But at least in the Am ratings brackets and full scale ratings events like Mid-Nationals, only those who competed their butts off and typically exceeded their skill level that event will win. Believe me, the year Karen Jaskolka won the Green division at Mid-Nats, the old guys chasing her told me they were trying harder than they ever had to catch her and win. That's providing a competitive environment better than most players that aren't world beaters will ever experience.

So, the PDGA as a membership org has to balance both competitive and fun (winning stuff) aspects of the game. But to say that the core amateur structure doesn't provide a great competitive environment, and occasionally some pro divisions of all ages, is to not understand the nature of competition. Narrowing the structure would undermine our opportunity to shepherd the up and coming stars thru the system with competitive experiences all the way to the top. The point is the current structure isn't all social, all divisions are protected to various degrees, and TDs can shape each event by their divisional offerings to slant it more towards competition or more towards a full service event.

Please tell me that was tongue in cheek. If not, I think you've lost your mind.

Usually your arguments consist of playing devil's advocate, but this tops them all. Do you even have your own opinions?

You're grasping at straws with ridiculous premises. I'm terribly sorry I don't have time to pick it apart. I'll do that when I have more time.

Someone call the insane asylm, they are missing a patient.

Mr. Kennedy, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Made a lot of sense to me, especially the points about competition.

Forcing a bunch of sub 950s up against the 1000s just to pad the take isn't competition, it's forced charity. Putting me on a basketball court with Jason Kidd isn't competition for me or him. Put me on a court with similarly skilled old guys and we'll have a good competitive game or games, and have a good time along with it.

And don't give me the 'if you practice more you can compete with Jason Kidd" line. Sorry, it isn't going to happen.

I'm not sure what your main points are, but I'll address what I think they are.

First, we have The open division is really a protected division.

This is nonsense. The definition of open is anyone can enter. Climo, Schultz, Doss, Kinsington, etc. If you enter open at any tournament, it is possible that any of these guys, or hundreds of people who are notch below them will show up. In short, you are taking a risk many others at the tournmmwnt will not take. You have no protection from the the best players, or simply better players. None.

If your point of this subject was simply to state the obvious fact that the USDGC is more competitive than the Gonzales Open, then we can agree.


I found this statement of yours interesting as it seems to illustrate another of your points: I submit that if you only have one division and the person who wins was already the best (by rating) and only shoots their rating, the competition system is a sham when many players busted their butts trying their best and shot better than their current level

Would you also submit that any PDGA tourney is a sham when Tiger wins as expected, even though Woody Austin played over his head, or that the marginal tour card holder played great and barely missed the cut.

The last point I see is that since everyone must presumably play, and play decently relative to their level in order to win, we have a superior competitive system. The obvious rebuttal is that with a bigger division, they would have to play better to win, or in other words, be more competitive in order to win. Additionally, a reasonably sporting person might find it odd that the system often produces greater returns for those taking less risks, and that might be the common argument against our structure, rather than arguing whether beating someone else is "competition" or not.

Or you can have 1 division with 12 sidebets, one for each suggested division.....right?

The ONLY thing that the OPEN division is protected from is GROWING!!!!

Numbers are about to decrease in our fields significantly. I honestly think we are basing WAY TOO MUCH emphasis on ratings and as I see it, the ratings are pretty flawed depending on what part of the country you are at.

You guys are flying off the handle at CK, without real analysis of his example. The idea could be compared to something like a tennis tournament. Players are seeded based on rank and are separated into tiers. So each players level of difficulty encountered enroute to the eventual win is separate and against diferent levels of players. The winner did not have to compete against everyone who entered the event. So in essence, every divison in the PDGA waters down the level of competition to the point that in provides a certain level of protection for everyone at the event. It may be in the form of the open players avoiding non-seasoned players with bad etiquette. Am I insane now too?

TK and BDH are trying to polarize this discussion and WRONGLY portray me as an extremist. I don't want one division--never had, never will. I don't agree with Craig's system, either. Our solution ideas are very different.

My system is this and was posted 9 days ago:

Use gender and age to split the money-divisions and simplify the amateur divisions. Pay the Pros out in cash, pay the Ams out in merch and have Rec and Juniors be trophy only with huge player packs. 7 divisions. That's it. That's the list.

Have Am entry fees be no less than 75% of Open fees--preferably 100%. Have Ladies, Rec and Junior be no more than 50% of Open fees.

Put ALL the added cash into the Open and Ladies divisions only to discourage baggers in Masters. Pay Money divisions flatter to 40%. Pay merch divisions to 50%. Trophies to top three Rec. Pay Ladies and Juniors out 100% if possbile.

Open
Masters
Grandmasters
Ladies

Amateur
Rec (<900 rating cutoff)
Junior (<14)

The ONLY thing that the OPEN division is protected from is GROWING!!!!


That's gold.

So once someone hits a 901 rating they would have to play open. That is the biggest B.S. that idea is worse than the Pro2 idea. Your ideas you just want more people to donate to you.

TK and BDH are trying to polarize this discussion and WRONGLY portray me as an extremist.



Get over yourself. I wasn't addressing you or your views. You weren't being portrayed in any form.

chuck's concept negates all world championships ever awarded in every sport. while he is correct that some guy who was trapped at his desk job the week of World's might actually be the best in the world, concluding that Open is therefore a protected division simultaneously defies all practicality and common sense. chuck's point is interesting, and fun to think about, just a mental exercise in the end.

So once someone hits a 901 rating they would have to play open.


If you would kindly take the time to (re-)read, I have no cutoff for am. The cutoff is for Rec, sir. I'm sorry if that's not clear.

So once someone hits a 901 rating they would have to play open. That is the biggest B.S. that idea is worse than the Pro2 idea. Your ideas you just want more people to donate to you.



Pro 2 was just marketed all wrong....There could be a way that there would be another Pro division within the current pro system that I know would solve many of these issues. The problem is that a lot of people are more concerned about the profit margins of TD's at events to try and make it work.

The ONLY thing that the OPEN division is protected from is GROWING!!!!


That's gold.

so you are warming to the rating system after all :)

chuck's concept negates all world championships ever awarded in every sport. while he is correct that some guy who was trapped at his desk job the week of World's might actually be the best in the world, concluding that Open is therefore a protected division simultaneously defies all practicality and common sense. chuck's point is interesting, and fun to think about, just a mental exercise in the end.



I don't think so. He isn't discrediting anyone who is competing with similarly skilled players and rises above by doing his/her best and winning. To be a World Champ, I think that would be the case, wouldn't it?

But he is saying that the Yankees wouldn't get much satisfaction if they joined the Thursday night New York Rec Department softball league and won the league championship. Or if the top team in the same rec league got bumped up and had to face the Yankees in a three game series because they've been winning too much in their protected 'division'.

i understand, but how does that make disc golf's Open division protected?

I just realized something. Either his caps lock button is broke or I just got yelled at by the old commish; in addition to being ignorantly polarized by him as a "one-division" extremist.

It feels kind of wierd. Like being spanked very softly by an elementary school librarian.

I'm trying to cut down on my internet yelling recently, and always take time to actually read and comprehend someone's ideas before replying in such a vociferous manner.

I don't hold it against you, though, and would be a hypocrite to do so. I still consider you one of the great leaders in the association's history. Belated thanks

I read three contentions in Chuck's original post.

The idea that the open system is not open, or is protected, is preposterous. The only protection in a given event is from people who choose not to show up due to geography or choice not to be PDGA members (in certain tiers). My 15-month-old niece can enter any open event she wants to (even Worlds).

The idea that a player is not "competitive" if he's not playing above his rating or normal game is a strange use of the word.

The rest just depends what connotation you put on "competitive". In one sense, a 5-way tiebreaker in the rec division is more competitive than a 30-stroke win in the top division---the competition's tighter among the participants. Just as a close matchup in high school football is considered competitive, while a mismatch in college football is not. But this is just one use of the word, and not the same sense James & others are using it. How it figures into Open being "protected" is a mystery to me.

In a large open tournament that draws quality players from a wide area, it doesn't. I think Chuck was using the comparison to describe local events and C tiers where one or two top guys show up and can pretty much guarantee that they will cash regardless of whether they shoot to their ability or not. Situations where there is no real competition, where the environmental conditions (tournament too small or too remote to bring in true competition) end up creating a 'protected' sure top 5 finish.

In a large open tournament that draws quality players from a wide area, it doesn't. I think Chuck was using the comparison to describe local events and C tiers where one or two top guys show up and can pretty much guarantee that they will cash regardless of whether they shoot to their ability or not. Situations where there is no real competition, where the environmental conditions (tournament too small or too remote to bring in true competition) end up creating a 'protected' sure top 5 finish.



If so, it's quite a stretch of logic.

They made not face much competition, but "protected" implies an action taken by someone to keep that competition away.

The ONLY thing that the OPEN division is protected from is GROWING!!!!


That's gold.



But is it TRUE?

Fewer events with open divisions?
Fewer total open players?
Lower total purses for open?

I'm just a lazy am---where can I find the statistics to verify this?

chuck's concept negates all world championships ever awarded in every sport. while he is correct that some guy who was trapped at his desk job the week of World's might actually be the best in the world, concluding that Open is therefore a protected division simultaneously defies all practicality and common sense. chuck's point is interesting, and fun to think about, just a mental exercise in the end.



I agree with this too. I was very entertained by reading CK's thoughts.

I have to say I believe the Open division is exactly that. But I do remember calling the TD of a Pro only event and asking him if it was kosher for me and my 14 year old son to enter the event in the open division. He told me it was up to me, but not expect the most welcome atmosephere for my junior player amongst the the pro players. Not all mind you, but some.

I think that shows the effect the Pro level has on those without the respective ability. If all Ams were playing open they would cause lots of problems for those who worked hard to call themself a professional and we Ams can sense that we don't rightly belong, hence me asking for permission. Protection? In theory, maybe......

If so, it's quite a stretch of logic.

They made not face much competition, but "protected" implies an action taken by someone to keep that competition away.



A stretch of logic, but I think the main point was to address the view expressed by many that the people in divisions besides open are not 'competitive'.

So, Chuck's argument that "open is a protected division" amounts to nothing more than "there are tournaments were one person easily wins."

The rest of his post is his attempt to redefine the argument. The argument has always been:

The PDGA competitive structure allows people to use divisional protection to avoid better competition; worse than that, through the payout structure, it often encourages anti-competitive behavior. Therefore, a better system should be created, one which encourages competitive behavior.

Rather than discuss the actual argument, he'd rather state that playing against your equals can still be termed "competitive."

The ONLY thing that the OPEN division is protected from is GROWING!!!!


That's gold.



But is it TRUE?

Fewer events with open divisions?
Fewer total open players?
Lower total purses for open?

I'm just a lazy am---where can I find the statistics to verify this?



Just give this new Competitive structure 2 or 3 years and compare the total number of Pros today and then.

K-mack, how would you respond if you knew that 75% of the current Am players were forced to play open if the structure made it so thru ratings? Do you think pros be able to put up with that many newbies who have limited ability and etiquettte? Maybe you already do, but I don't know that. Just wondering?

well said.

i also read it as an argument against tournaments in general. what do we need others around for when we're playing to improve? maybe soon i'll be able to mail in my results from my last two casual rounds and the pdga will send me a ribbon?

or wait, not a ribbon, but a blue powder-coated polehole and a stack of discs.

wow, i'm beginning to see the light.

So, Chuck's argument that "open is a protected division" amounts to nothing more than "there are tournaments were one person easily wins."

The rest of his post is his attempt to redefine the argument. The argument has always been:

The PDGA competitive structure allows people to use divisional protection to avoid better competition; worse than that, through the payout structure, it often encourages anti-competitive behavior. Therefore, a better system should be created, one which encourages competitive behavior.

Rather than discuss the actual argument, he'd rather state that playing against your equals can still be termed "competitive."



IMO, his argument is that the divisional structure encourages better competition as it helps to create a situation where all competitors (those within the division) are of a similar skill set.

I agree with him. As an example, there is no way I'll be competitive in Open. I have as much chance against a 1000 rated pro as I do taking on Jason Kidd one-on-one. Make it so I can't be competitive, and I'll lose interest. So will 'Jason Kidd' as he has to once again be bothered to exclaim 'you're still out'. No one wins in this situation.

K-mack, how would you respond if you knew that 75% of the current Am players were forced to play open if the structure made it so thru ratings? Do you think pros be able to put up with that many newbies who have limited ability and etiquettte? Maybe you already do, but I don't know that. Just wondering?



I would like the (Advanced or Expert) players playing within our division anyhow. If they can see they can compete with us by competing side by side with us, they may be more likely to move up into the Open division. I think us Open players can help teach some of these players how to be better players.

I would like the competitive system that would allow the Expert players to play within our division, but only against other players in their division. Everyone would only be separated by score not division. This helps train these players to be ready for Open. Keeping them hidden in their own division makes it harder for them to move up. When they do move up, they get overwhelmed by the level of play and then they either go back to Am or completely quit playing tournaments.

how is the only division that has no requirments protected?

Every other division has some standards as to who cannot play. Open is the only one where any golfer in the world can play, no matter talent, past, status, age sex or anything else.

the problem seems to come from the blending of tournament styles. open is a tournament style, not a division. i suspect that most disc golfers would be pleased if tournaments were all ratings-based or all open rather than the blend that is typical of most events. eliminating the am and pro label would allow for both types of competitive systems to thrive beyond where they both are now.

if joe player wants to play in divisions with similarly skilled players then he would probably choose the ratings-based tournaments. maybe ken climo would too, he should also have this option. his would be the highest division, by the way.

open would be just that--open. unless of course ken or nate don't show up, then we don't know what it is. chuck hasn't told us. ;)

Of course the thread title was intended to be provocative and not jam up the membership thread. On the other hand, the title still stands. In the truest Darwinian sense that McCaine likes to spout, if the best aren�t there it�s not true competition. With 40+ A-tiers, NTs and championships, the �Faux-pen� division (there's your name dscmn :D) occurs in most of our events without the best players being able to attend or unlikely to attend because they are attending the events with the best players. Open in B & C tier events is �protected� from the top players by scheduling, geography and cost/benefit issues. I�m trying to break thru the misconception as tkieffer points out that Open is the only place for true competition. Sometimes it is but usually it isn�t.

So, if that�s the case, it�s just a matter of how you organize those who show up and field size alone isn�t the only factor. I contend that two players with close ratings in a division produce a better competitive experience than four players spread over a 150 pt range. In boxing, you go mano y mano within your weight division. That�s almost Darwinian competition but is it really when the little guys aren�t taking on the heavy weights? Just tell the Flyweights their division isn�t a real competition.

With regard to division sizes, obviously bigger is better as long as it results in providing a competitive experience. That�s why the ratings brackets are arguably better for providing competition. It�s a matter of balancing potential field size and skill range. Using the boxing analogy, why don�t they combine the boxers in two neighboring weight classes to make a bigger field? Why not three? There�s a point where more matches would be mismatches and they�ve discovered where to draw those lines. They do it by weight. We can do it with ratings.

So, I agree we don�t need as many divisions as we have to provide a competitive experience for competitors. Six divisions do a good job covering the range of actively competing PDGA members. And the top Open/Gold division may not provide the best competitive experience at some events simply due to who can and does attend. The best competition week in and week out will more likely be in the lower am ratings based divisions due to numbers. And if all divisions pay the same entry fee, why wouldn�t the winner of the division that had the most competition deserve the best prize? (That�s in events with no added cash.) And in a nod to Darwinian competition, seems like all added cash should still go to the top under the assumption it should go to the division people want to watch, one of the fundamental aspects that justifies being a true pro.

I absolutely agree that an event with entrants in 10 to 15 age and gender divisions, most which are small, is less likely to provide competitive experiences for several divisions having players close enough in skill level AND capable of winning. But that�s OK if members like those options and the TD or club wants to offer them, especially since several of the players might be club members who have volunteered to help with course or event at some point.

Personally, I like all options and would attend events in all formats, and have. Things like the cost, format (no stagger starts), travel time and courses usually play a bigger role than the competition structure offered.

open is a tournament style, not a division.

this wording is very clarifying. i wish i would have had it about 20 minutes ago for the summit meeting. thank you!

Pat, back from the the summit meeting eh....Have your ears popped yet?

I�m trying to break thru the misconception as tkieffer points out that Open is the only place for true competition. Sometimes it is but usually it isn�t.




Well, keep trying, because at almost every tournament, open is where the best competitors are.

At any rate, the rest of your post is restating the same thing in your first post: you think the best competition is having everyone close to equal in the same division. Once again, you fail to directly address the core criticism I listed earlier. Just keep avoiding it, maybe it will go away.

The top rated competitor is not necessarily the best competitor at the event. That's TBD. And unless it's Climo or Nate he's not the best player that could be competing. Kind of like all the other chimps competing to be �alpha male for the day� while the real Alpha's off taking a nap. If no Climo, no Nate, his potential caliber of competition is determined by how close the other Faux-pen players are to his rating. Even if Climo is there at a C-tier, is it really competition if his rating is 40 points higher than the rest. Maybe not much competition for Climo but at least the rest can truly say they competed against the best in a bona fide Open division.

The best competitor at the event might be the person who took down their competition by the widest margin and perhaps shot the best above their rating which could be in any division (talking about an event with ratings divisions only). The player with the best overall score is likely in the Faux-pen division. But that's all they might be is the person with the best score and winner of that division, unless they also happened to be the best competitor because they took down the top rated player there by more than other division winners with an impressive set of round ratings.

It's important to separate those who play competitively from the division they enter at an event which may or may not provide a competitive environment. That can occur at any skill level.

The best competitor at the event might be the person who took down their competition by the widest margin and perhaps shot the best above their rating which could be in any division



I think this illustrates why you can never address the real issue. I'm surprised that you haven't lobbied for tournaments where everyone pools their money together and the money is redistributed to those who shoot the most above their rating. They deserve it afterall.

Sadly, you probably would be unable to look down the road and realize that in such a system, it would be profitable to purposely lower your rating, setting up for the kills. Those would be the actions encouraged by that system. Every system intentionally, or unintentionaly, encourages actions by those within it. Ours encourages people to avoid competition, but you are unwilling to or cannot recognize that simple defect.

White Captures CK Open

Highbridge(AP)-- Joey White's shot 27 over to capture the 2007 CK Open this weekend. White's event rating came in at a 905, a full 52 points over his 853 rating. World Champion Nate Doss's 1050 rated -22 was only 19 over his rating but good enough for last place cash. White gushed to ESPN later, saying: "It was great to take out the Champ. He put up an awesome fight, and for me to come out on top is almost unbeliebvable!"

The best competitor at the event might be the person who ... shot the best above their rating


that would never work. we'd hafta wait three months to know who won! :D

This thread is a pointless exercise in rhetoric. I don't care about the definition and connotation of 'protected' or 'competition.' It almost seems you purposely made this thread to discourage actual exchange of ideas and discussion on the other threads.

mark, ears dont pop when you telecommute. :) it seemed like a productive session today.

Was Hank Aaron every reallly competitive since Babe Ruth was already dead? Ricky Henderson never got a chance to steal bases against Ty Cobb. We really will never know if the 1927 Yankees could beat the 1975 Reds. The Olympics weren'tt really open when they banned South Africa. Football stopped being competitive when Jim Brown retired early and there simply has not been an open bike race since most of the best riders have been banished for doping at one time or another. If Climo throws one into the woods and nobody sees it did it really happen? If he is playing at the local C tier that might happen. If it happens at Worlds it will be on discgolftv. Yes, the latter has better competition but they are both open. Open means that anybody can be there not that everybody was there. As posited by Chuck the only truly open competition would be in the disc golf fantasy league.

The top rated competitor is not necessarily the best competitor at the event. That's TBD. And unless it's Climo or Nate he's not the best player that could be competing. Kind of like all the other chimps competing to be �alpha male for the day� while the real Alpha's off taking a nap. If no Climo, no Nate, his potential caliber of competition is determined by how close the other Faux-pen players are to his rating. Even if Climo is there at a C-tier, is it really competition if his rating is 40 points higher than the rest. Maybe not much competition for Climo but at least the rest can truly say they competed against the best in a bona fide Open division.

The best competitor at the event might be the person who took down their competition by the widest margin and perhaps shot the best above their rating which could be in any division (talking about an event with ratings divisions only). The player with the best overall score is likely in the Faux-pen division. But that's all they might be is the person with the best score and winner of that division, unless they also happened to be the best competitor because they took down the top rated player there by more than other division winners with an impressive set of round ratings.

It's important to separate those who play competitively from the division they enter at an event which may or may not provide a competitive environment. That can occur at any skill level.

It almost seems like Chuck would expect an appearance fee for KC or Nate. I would be very interested in seeing a true athlete participate in our 'sport'.

Highbridge(AP)-- Joey White's shot 27 over to capture the 2007 CK Open this weekend. White's event rating came in at a 905, a full 52 points over his 853 rating. World Champion Nate Doss's 1050 rated -22 was only 19 over his rating but good enough for last place cash. White gushed to ESPN later, saying: "It was great to take out the Champ. He put up an awesome fight, and for me to come out on top is almost unbelievable!"



Clever but misleading rhetoric because these players wouldn't be in the same division in a ratings event. Try this hyperbolic example which is more in line with the intent:

The Lakers won all four quarters squeaking past the Celtics 98-94. However, Kobe missed everything he threw up from midway through the second quarter on, going 1-13 FG. His 5-18 FG may be a little bit deceptive, since Kobe was 1-7 on shots where the clock was winding down and he was forced to create something. Earlier that evening, an autistic teen�s hoop dreams come true. In his first action of the year, Senior Jason McElwain missed his first two shots, but then sank six three-pointers and another shot, for a total of 20 points in three minutes as his Greece Athena High School tops Spencerport High School. (Fictional) Asked about his hero, Jason said, �Kobe�s the best but tonight I really shot well to help the team.�

If Joey White topped a dozen guys up to 875 rating in the Red division with that performance, he indeed performed better than Nate. But it would also be perfectly fine if Nate still earned more since he played in the elite division and the money should be added to that group since, in theory, people want to watch them.

Or try this one: Tiger slips past Phil Mickelson on the final hole to win the Example Open after both played the final five holes 4 over par. In the Nother Tournament, Natalie Gulbis came from 5 shots back and stole both the tournament and course record from Annika Sorenstam who had been on record pace until a triple bogey on the 17th hole sank her hopes of defending the title.

It's silly to consider OPEN a protected division when the protection factors CK included are geography, time constraints, and personal choice. The PDGA does not mandate that KC not play the "Chowderville Open C-Tier" event because he will crush the local "Open" players.

The "Chowderville" players may be lucky (at least from, a "will I win?" perspective) that KC was at The Memorial instead, but they were not "protected" through the divisional system of the PDGA or by the Chowderville TD's.

triple bogey on the 17th hole sank her hopes of defending the title.



Sounds like a CK design to me...probably a bunch of trees in the fairway.

Seriously though Chuck, what is your obsession with trying to make everyone agree with you? Ever heard of the term, "let's agree to disagree"? Enough already!

It's silly to consider OPEN a protected division when the protection factors CK included are geography, time constraints, and personal choice. The PDGA does not mandate that KC not play the "Chowderville Open C-Tier" event because he will crush the local "Open" players.

The "Chowderville" players may be lucky (at least from, a "will I win?" perspective) that KC was at The Memorial instead, but they were not "protected" through the divisional system of the PDGA or by the Chowderville TD's.



Who wants to play with those chowderheads anyways?

There's no problem with people believing Open isn't protected, but to use that as the reason other divisions don't provide competition, that's many times tougher than Open, belies the facts. There are competitors at all levels and competitive environments at all levels and the competition in Open is sometimes weaker than the mid-pack divisions. Just for comparison, look at who is registered for Cuddy's Last Call in nearby Maine versus those at Sugarbush, Vermont this weekend:
www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6274 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6274)
www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6880 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6880)

There's no problem with the Open players choosing Cuddy's over Sugarbush since our competition system provides options for all players. Just recognize that Cuddy's Open players have been protected by the fact it's scheduled during an NT (likely not on purpose) and there's not a big enough purse to attract the big dogs. On the other hand, Cuddy's Open group looks very tight in skill level so the competitive environment might be more intense than what Anthon & Barsby might face this weekend: www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7209 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7209)

Thankyou for illustrating the degree of your discriminatory attitude towards the MPO division Chuck. Really really astounding.

I can't think of a more clear way to declare that 2nd place is the first loser. Your premise says very clearly that competition is always and only about winning - 1st place is the sole determinant of whether or not a player is competing or being competitive. It's that very attitude that is at the root of the divisive and derisive relationship that exists in the current divisional structure.
I won't even address the notion of the only division open to all being "protected" - that's like arguing the earth is flat - not much point due to the obvious evidence to the contrary.

I would like to address the notion of what being competitive means or should mean. Some folks like CK and TK seem to think that if you're not within 4-5 strokes per round of the best player in attendance - you're not being competitve. And that pitting players that far apart in skill level (they like to call it "forcing people") against one another is somehow unfair. Well - I gathered some statistics a week ago on the years first 60 B Tier events. Perhaps the info will be revealing for you - as they are real statistics, and not just "perceptions" of what are real.
Avg MPO attendance 19 players
Avg Scoring range per round (top to bottom) 11.6 strokes
Avg MPM attendance 8 players
Avg scoring range 9.46 strokes
Avg MA1 attendance 27 players
Avg scoring range 13.8 strokes

Scoring range is PER ROUND

So while they argue that the overlap in skill doesn't matter, that player choice should prevail, and that competition isn't really competition unless people are within 4-5 strokes of each other - the numbers do not bear any of that out. In fact the greatest disparity is in the division that they so vociferously defend MA1. Of course - you guys aren't really interested in the "real" #'s. Just thought I'd share for those that have a clue.

See I and lot's of others believe that when you show up on tournament day - you're there to compete against the course - against yourself - to test your skills and produce the best score you are able to. Necessarily when we gather - we compare our scores to others at the end of each round. And by design, we reward those with the best scores.
When we all show up at the same course, play at the same time - the competition includes everyine in attendance. Separating people the way we do is curious - we basically take the top 4-5% of all players everywhere - and make them compete amongst themselves - and then start making larger pools of competitors for the distribution of rewards. We do this basically because of attitudes like TK -if I can't feel I can win - I won't play. So the notion that it's the MPO player being selfish, greedy, etc for wanting to be rewarded for the best score - is really pretty backwards.
For those of you that believe I am some sort of advocate for "eliminating" all divisions - you need to search out more of my posts -and you'll see that's anything but true. If it were "all about me" - I'd be out there every weekend trying to take take take all I could. Again - anything but true.

So while they argue that the overlap in skill doesn't matter, that player choice should prevail, and that competition isn't really competition unless people are within 4-5 strokes of each other - the numbers do not bear any of that out. In fact the greatest disparity is in the division that they so vociferously defend MA1. Of course - you guys aren't really interested in the "real" #'s. Just thought I'd share for those that have a clue.



That's great data in defense of the change in Am rating breaks for next year. Thanks for pulling that together.

Yeah sure - now if they institute the changes - watch the MPO attendance be driven down closer to 12-14. Woohoo!

Oh sorry I forgot this part
Average overlap between scores in MPO and MPM - 80% of scores in MPM were within the scoring range of MPO.

46% of MA1 scores were within the scoring range of MPO.

So basically the three "most competitve" divisions were largely all shooting the same scores - so we divisde them for what reason again? Of yeah - we don't want to hurt someone's feelings by not giving them a chance at first place RIGHT!

Oh sorry I forgot this part
Average overlap between scores in MPO and MPM - 80% of scores in MPM were within the scoring range of MPO.

46% of MA1 scores were within the scoring range of MPO.

So basically the three "most competitve" divisions were largely all shooting the same scores - so we divisde them for what reason again? Of yeah - we don't want to hurt someone's feelings by not giving them a chance at first place RIGHT!



Are you disturbing a semantic and theoretical debate with FACTS?

More on the semantic front, from Merriam-Webster:

competitive - inclined, desiring, or suited to compete

compete - to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective (as position, profit, or prize)...


Merriam-Webster seems to believe that players in our protected divisions are "competitive". Not necessarily the best system, but it's fair to call them competitive.

Oh sorry I forgot this part
Average overlap between scores in MPO and MPM - 80% of scores in MPM were within the scoring range of MPO.

46% of MA1 scores were within the scoring range of MPO.

So basically the three "most competitve" divisions were largely all shooting the same scores - so we divisde them for what reason again? Of yeah - we don't want to hurt someone's feelings by not giving them a chance at first place RIGHT!



Not sure of your methodology---if a single 700-rated player play MPO open, the overlap would be 100%.

Beyond that, your figures seem to show (1) to problem is much more age-protection than skill-protection, and (2) not that the current system isn't "competitive"....but that it could possibly be MORE "competitive", even with Chuck's usage of the word, with reform.

The ONLY thing that the OPEN division is protected from is GROWING!!!!


That's gold.



But is it TRUE?

Fewer events with open divisions?
Fewer total open players?
Lower total purses for open?

I'm just a lazy am---where can I find the statistics to verify this?



Just give this new Competitive structure 2 or 3 years and compare the total number of Pros today and then.



From fact to conjecture---from the open division IS not growing to that it WILL NOT BE growing.

A competing conjecture is that the smaller Am divisions will reduce the size of payouts, and thus one incentive to stay Am be removed, and the effect of players with worse scores profiting more than open players with better scores, be reduced. Maybe, maybe not. I gather this is part of the PDGA board's rationale for 2008 changes.

And a moment as devil's advocate---might we not want our top division to be smaller and more exclusive? To require players to qualify to be "Pros", and not just let anyone willing to throw their money down call himself a "Pro". Many feel major league sports have watered themselves down with expansion. Or is it just about needing more donators in the prize pool---is it just about the money?

We do this basically because of attitudes like TK -if I can't feel I can win - I won't play.



TK here. Since you don't know me or my 'attitudes', you aren't qualified to state them.

But I'll help you. If you look at my stats, you'll see that it isn't about winning. Its about playing with people with similar skills and situations. The chance of being competitive with peers. I don't belong in Open, and I'd irritate them about as much as the situation would irritate me. In the end, I'd find a different venue.

Same would go for softball, volleyball, basketball and so on. If I was to pursue any of these seriously, it would be in an age protected league. I'm not a kid anymore, and I don't kid myself as such. And don't give me the 'play in an am division then' crap. I'm not going to play tournaments as a 60 year old babysitting for Rec players because my rating puts me there. Just like I wouldn't play against 16 year old beginners in a basketball league.

So, as you laser focus on the fact that there may be one or two Masters players (and perhaps one or two more in other divisions) who should be encouraged to shoot in Open, keep in mind that there's a dozen more that don't belong there and wouldn't join in. Your 'fix' would be a detriment, the real fix is to figure out how to make Open more attractive. Part of breaking up Ams into smaller groups was to help you out with this, although many Pros here can't seem to grasp it.

:mad:

hogwash. there's a lot more than two masters who can be a factor in Open in most events. from strictly a competitive standpoint, no. but a 935 player can absolutely fit into a 144 player Open field, should he pay the entry fee somehow qualify.

you want to make Open more attractive? bigger fields would be a start. bigger fields wont happen as long as the current plethora of 54 divisions remains the only focus of our competition planners.

I count 10 pro, 12 Am and 8 Junior for 30 max. Even combining a Pro/Am Worlds with Women Nationals, not all of them would have players.

Hogwash yourself. At the tournaments I'm at its one or two (OK, maybe three, let's split hairs).

You said it yourself. "From a stictly competitive standpoint, no."

If you're going to talk the talk, start walking the walk. I see you're 935 rated old carcass playing MPM and MPG. Move up, set an example!

whats the calc you used? (not challenging you, just asking...)

tk, it doesnt make sense for me to play open unless the event is open only. and check the MSDGC07 results. the disc golf world is bigger than the pdga.

whats the calc you used? (not challenging you, just asking...)



Experience playing local tournaments in Wisconsin and watching overall scores at such. A Master or two, many times from out of state, would have been competitive in Open. We know who they are, we know it before going in, and it doesn't really matter much to us. Their choice, we make ours.

tk, it doesnt make sense for me to play open unless the event is open only. and check the MSDGC07 results. the disc golf world is bigger than the pdga.



The disc golf world is bigger than the PDGA? Wow, thanks for the enlightenment.

Keep it in mind when you contemplate 'forcing' bigger Open turnouts by eliminating options for those of us who have no business in Open.

ok, i understand. that question was for CK tho for stating "I count 10 pro, 12 Am and 8 Junior for 30 max."

there are 1,132 active players with ratings >= 935. a lot more than 30.

Tim, how many times do i need to say I WANT TO KEEP THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ???

i just want to augment it for a 5-6 tournaments a year. i am struggling to understand why/how this threatens you.

btw, i play Open an average of twice a week, even though Masters(40) is offered.

That doesn't. Not at all. In fact, an 'Open only' National tour that fills and pays well enough to support the top touring pros would be a great thing.

But making statements such as 'move Masters age up to 50', rearrange divisions so we get larger Open fields and so on shows that you're not very consistent at times.

"I count 10 pro, 12 Am and 8 Junior for 30 max."




That's the number of possible divisions in one event in 2008, countering your comment about 54 divisions.

Oh sorry I forgot this part
Average overlap between scores in MPO and MPM - 80% of scores in MPM were within the scoring range of MPO.

46% of MA1 scores were within the scoring range of MPO.

So basically the three "most competitve" divisions were largely all shooting the same scores - so we divisde them for what reason again? Of yeah - we don't want to hurt someone's feelings by not giving them a chance at first place RIGHT!



Are you disturbing a semantic and theoretical debate with FACTS?



Funny how #'s are always ignored - ??for the multi-divisional pundits. Why is it that if 32% of PDGA members have ratings over 930 - that only the top 4-5% (970+) are separated from the rest?

If it's fair to say that closer to 40% are MA1 or above (using the current mandated minimum of 915) - and the average scoring spread is about 12 strokes per round in MA1, MPM, and MPO COMBINED - how is it you justify establishing divisions based on only a 4-5 stroke scoring spread?

How about looking at the new info in the 2008 Competition thread for some hard numbers?

there are 5 skill levels against 5 age divisions per gender. 5x5x2 = 50. plus 4 divisions available for ratngs based events. when a TD sits down to plan an event, he starts with 54 divisions from which to choose.

Nope. Not unless something's changed. I'm counting the actual divisions a TD could offer which is no more than 30 on the Competition chart for 2008 which you should have received. There's only one skill level for all divisions over 39 and you counted 5 per.

there is no more Advanced Grandmaster? i did not understand this program that way.

There's one Am Grandmaster division called Advanced, There are no Expert, Int or Enth Grandmaster divisions which I believe you tried to count.

Ah, but if eligible 4 players approached the TD, could the division be used? For example 4 <899 rated 50 something could create an Int. Grand Masters division...

senior, my understanding is that those divisions could in fact be formed.

No. It's no different from now. There's only one division for each gender/age combo above age 39 called Advanced ________. All older Am members have the option to enter the appropriate Am division - Expert, Advanced, Intermediate, Enthusiast - based on their rating.

Just a taste of reality here. At Texas States, there were several times where the TD actually considered removing some divisions. Talk about a fire-storm of protests. It is fine and dandy for those concerned about the high number of divisions to come on here and present wonderful alternatives. The reality of our membership is that they like those divisions and get rancorous if you remove them.

BTW - please don't come back with the "good of the sport" argument. After being through this discussion several times I have to say that those who believe the good of the sport lies in forcing players to play where they don't want to generally fall into the make them play in my division so there is more money there category.

The reality is that if you lower the number of categories, long term it might be good for the sport, but short term you're going to take a bite. It might be possible but few leaders are going to pursue such a pathway.

Furthermore, I'd argue that if you were really going to lower the number of divisions, the better alternative would be to cut the Pro divisions and make Am trophy only. You can't argue that there is not enough money to really support a Pro division and you can't argue that if you make Am trophy only that you take away the argument that Ams want lot's of divisions to win plastic.

Just a taste of reality here. At Texas States, there were several times where the TD actually considered removing some divisions. Talk about a fire-storm of protests. It is fine and dandy for those concerned about the high number of divisions to come on here and present wonderful alternatives. The reality of our membership is that they like those divisions and get rancorous if you remove them.


Break up those tea parties! Turning a sport into a social events on the field of play instead of off the field. IMO, pick one or the other-Am or Master! You can't hide from everyone.

yes. have we all forgotten "united we stand. divided we fall."

divisions are the terrorist cells of disc golf :)

(ok, thats silly message board hyperbole, but its friday afternoon)

Pat is a uniter, not a divider.

I like it! :)

I'm curious why I would continue to play in events where I had no chance of breaking even or having much fun ?

I don't need to get a lot to be happy, but I do need to feel that I can be competitive. Not that I can win, but that I can reach the "cash" because that is the line where a player can claim to have competed well. Trophies for the top three only mean that I have to reach the top three to have competed well.

I will retreat to playing casually with my friends when I get the chance. I certainly won't be donating week after week in fields where I have no chance of being competitive.

Mr. Kennedy, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.




Best reply EVAR!!!!!!! :) :D :D

http://www.tripledisc.com/preview/msdgc/jeo.jpg