It is not reasonable to expect an Octogenarian to compete fairly against Seniors a full decade younger [outside of ratings-based events]. This margin of years/ability is much, much greater than say, 50 vs. 40, and the effects only heighten with the passage of time....

...before it is too late, and our Fathermostly-Figures are discouraged from public competition, there should be a further Division of Seniors, aged 80-and-up, and I respectfully proffer the Myths subdivision.

what about the 90 year olds? or 100yr olds? (if there are any)

or 100yr olds? (if there are any)



Those would be the Centaurs, reflecting both their age and their mythical status.

Tought to find the minimum three players to have a division.

Aside from the above-mentioned 80-year old [2006 PDGA Senior of the Year Pat Shea], there could be FIVE active Legends in the SoCal Region, FOUR from my home course, alone, on 1-1-08....

....regardless of Field size, it's the question of fairness, or lack-of, which I'm seeing....

New addition to the (color) division chart:

GREY!!!

The PDGA did add the special award at Worlds for the best score in Legends of the player 75 and older. Something similar could also be done for the best 80+ year old playing in Legends like Papa Jack Roddick would have earned at Allentown.

or 100yr olds? (if there are any)



Those would be the Centaurs, reflecting both their age and their mythical status.



Well, that's going to happen, eventually; Sam Ferrans has grown from a Teen Prodigy to a Masters Competitor, f'rinstance. Masters become Grands, whom become Seniors, etc. Unless we prefer they die Legends?!?

....the 10+ difference is not a supposition, but rather FACT, begining 1-1-08: Pat has his Icebowl Form filled.

ps I'm talking about PRO Divisions, natch; AMs is already headed more-towards ratings-based in 2008 [with extra Divisionery].

just curious of your opinion and not trying to prove a point but when does it become too much? (ok... after re-reading what i typed... maybe I am finding a point to be proven)

the idea of having a break every 10 years or 5 in some cases i've heard argued (not in this case) seem a bit too much.

The idea of Pro gets watered down at that point to me.

The PGA has 2 divisions... Pro (all who can hang) and Champions (50+) .I'm not always a big fan of saying we should be like our 'older brother' but in this case I think it would be a step in the right direction.

my point is... no disrespect but if a past top pro or legend (not the division but the status) gets older and older... they have to understand that @ some point they just arent a 'Pro' anymore. I think most if not all would understand.

If anything I think we should limit the age breakdown points to something like Pro, then age protected @ 40, then 55, then 70+ or something along those lines.

Or better yet... have the Seniors divisions mimick the juniors and have them all classified under Am status... pro would only be Pro or Masters... beyond that point you are an Am.

One other thing I think is odd is that the division guide doesnt even have anything older than Adv Grandmasters listed but the pro side has grandmasters, senior gm, legends, etc.... so is this saying that even if you were an am your whole life that as long as you can make it to 60 and still make it thru a round you are a pro?

The idea of pro has already been watered down. If you're going to reclassify the older players as ams, might as well do most of the rest of the players who don't make their living at disc golf. Our pro divisions are mostly players who compete for cash prizes coming from each other's entry fees. These are essentially "open" divisions for cash prize players of different ages versus truly pro divisions in the PGA sense per your argument. No reason not to have open divisions for older players since many of them have more cash to play for each other's entry fees than the younger players

not sure if that holds water chuck

i'm hearing... "i agree but because its already messed up why change it"

and i dont think you'd have to change it for everyone that 'doesnt make their living at disc golf'... just making some of these changes could potentially put us in the right direction

i do understand there are other factors in place... like the fact that we've setup a structure where the ams feel like they have to 'get paid' to a certain extent

I'm just saying there's no reason to change anything regarding exisitng pro age divisions until there are spectators and real money in the sport. Then, it will sort itself out naturally because you'll have to qualify to play for the big money rather than just pay the entry fee.

On topic, I fully agree based on the limited stats we have that by the time you get over 65, age has taken its toll on average and five year prizes, if not full divisions, makes sense.

then what about junior divisions?

why not have age protected pro junior divisions? sounds ridiculous but not sure how its much different than the uber senior divisions.

Few players over 50 are concerned about maintaining their NCAA sports eligibility... :eek:

good point about that... i wouldn't advocate it for any reason... just raising a hypothetical comparison to put things into perspective.

One other thing I think is odd is that the division guide doesnt even have anything older than Adv Grandmasters listed but the pro side has grandmasters, senior gm, legends, etc.... so is this saying that even if you were an am your whole life that as long as you can make it to 60 and still make it thru a round you are a pro?




Only if you enther suchly; I don't think 'aging Pros' should have to 'play down' in AM Divisions.

...no way to avoid small/one-person Divisions, what I'm suggesting. Perhaps these Fields could be 'swelled' a bit by the 'active' Legends' friends. I'm thinking about Guys like Pat's best-bud Kempton, who has been "Legends-eligible" for two Seasons, but since he has roughly no chance of beating Pat in competition, doesn't want to pay "X amount of $$" to "be a Spectator". Maybe I'm thinking of a lower-cost, Trophy-only entry? [something which already is available, PDGA-entrywise] The Director has to formally OFFER something along those lines on the Entry, yes?

By the way, Pat says he "appreciates people 'fighting' for him"....He mentioned something along the lines of sending a formal request to the PDGA Office, about this, by Snail-Mail. But presenting 'both sides' is fine with me. ;)

...no way to avoid small/one-person Divisions, what I'm suggesting.

...due to commmitment, pride, good public relations, etc. My Suggestion:

45-54 Masters
55-64 Grands
65-74 Seniors
75-79 Legends
80-84 Myths
85-89 Bodhisattvas
90-94 Buddhas
95-99 Brahmas
100 Centaurs

....101+, you name the Event after Them!

I don't think 'aging Pros' should have to 'play down' in AM Divisions.




thats kind of my point... if someone is 95 and they can't hang with someone who is 71 and feels like they need their own division then obviously they are 'playing down' with how they are playing.

I think it could be a bit of a joke and even more unfair if we had a division for 90+ and 100+ at a huge event.... its not far fetched to have a scenario where an able bodied/athletic 91 yr old could sign up with barely any experience/skill and beat a 'legend' of the game that might be 97 and knows the game but just can't hang physically.

its not right to think there could/should be a pro division where something like this could happen.

its not about asking someone to move down... its about common sense and realizing that no matter how good you were @ something that eventually in this case you grow out of being a pro... its a privilege or something to be achieved and not an entitlement.

now obviously these guys could still register as a pro and play in the 70+ division... but hopefully they would realize that if they get to the point where they can't hang w/ the 70+ Pros then maybe they better belong in the Am equivalent if there age starts to hinder their performance.

...its not far fetched to have a scenario where an able bodied/athletic 91 yr old could sign up with barely any experience/skill and beat a 'legend' of the game that might be 97....

That's one reason for the 5-year bracketing when these Guys get 'up there', yes. Don't discourage them; the fact both an 91, and 97-year old can/WILL compete is RAD!!

One thing everyone might not 'grab' immediately is that ALL/ANY Divisions offered are at the option of the Director....the notion of a "quorum" showing up at an event and demanding to compete in a certain Division is erroneous [the Entryform in effect dictates which Divisions are available].

I'm basically stumping for the [PDGA sanctioned] right to offer 'extended' divisionery.

Just the option! :p