I was curious how the ratings were stacking up in each division at the Worlds and noticed a trend. The highest rated players in the AM pools are in 1st place or 2nd place. Here's a snapshot of CURRENT placements that fit my observation:

MA1: Jeremy Koling - 986 - Second by 3 strokes
FW1: Kelsey Brakel - 902 - First by 7 strokes
MM1: Tim Weimer - 991 - First by 3 strokes
MG1: Mark Steddom - 957 - First by 7 strokes
FG1: Fiona Minzies - 843 - Second by 7 strokes
MS1: Chuck Hornsby - 924 - Tied for first
JR <19: David Wiggins Jr - 958 - Second by 3 strokes
JR <16: Oscar Stenfelt - 983 - Second by 7 strokes
JR <13: Joe Rivera JR - 894 - Second by 3 strokes
JR <10: Nicholas Duran - 831 - First by 17 strokes

Now, for some reason, it doesn't translate AS well to some of the Professional divisions:

MPO: Dave Feldberg - 1039 - First by 9 strokes
FPO: Des Reading - 965 - Third by 16 strokes
MPM: Jim Oates - 1015 - Tied for first
WPM: Pam Reineke - 924 - First by 19 strokes
MPG: David Greenwell - 1007 - First by 6 strokes
WPG: Sandy Gast - 895 - Second by 23 strokes
MPS: Michael Conger - 963 - Fourth by 9 strokes
MPL: Robert Krayl - 897 - Fifth by 56 strokes

Now I know this seems obvious to most people, but there are still some "rater haters" out there that think that the rating system is a joke. Well, my opinion? It's not bad at all.

I'm in 100% agreement with YOU, John.

If the CVS TDs continue to put people where THEY want them to play and NOT where pdga says they can play, they will lose more and more players attending their tournaments. I for one am one of them. I won't be attending ANY CVS tournaments because I'm told where I can play - BASED ON MY RATING AND STANDING 10 YEARS AGO! (I'll repeat 10 YEARS AGO) What the H E double toothpicks are they THINKING? that this would be GOOD for the growth of the sport? Bad move, I say.

I support your decision to boycott CVS. Hopefully the consortium of TD's will see their error and let you play whatever division you want.

That's OK...all but one tournament is full every year now. The tendancy for the CVS is to play up one division to test the waters. Both things can be true. The ratings are accurate and you should play open women.

The ratings are accurate and you should play open women.



I don't get it, with a 790 rating and a fairly consistant last place in FW1, why should she be forced to play pro? I know you should step up in CVS, but not if you haven't placed in years? Right. Help me out here.

John, the truth is that I don't have a dog in this fight.

The only reason I've been trying to get to the bottom of this is that Michelle has threatened to tell other players not to come to my tournaments because of the decision. It seems it has become almost personal. Although we don't get a lot of visitors from that far away anyway, I thought I might get some answers some day. :D

there is no doubt that a 986 player is going to be better than a 930 player.

However the problems with the ratings are :

1. Very inconsistent due to the rounds being rated based on what everyone shoots instead of the courses history - this also hurts players in a weaker field
2. It is tough to get a very high rating on higher SSA courses
3. Rounds are dropped
4. On courses w/ low score seperation, ratings are affected.

#1: Based on what everyone shoots is better in that it accounts for changes to the course difficulty, both in course changes (e.g. a tree being removed) and in environmental factors (pouring rain, tornadoes, etc.). It only depresses ratings for a rapidly improving field.

However the problems with the ratings are :

1. Very inconsistent due to the rounds being rated based on what everyone shoots instead of the courses history - this also hurts players in a weaker field



Well I'd be upset if my round at Otter Open with 45mph winds and frozen rain was compared to what Nate Doss shot in spring on a calm sunny day.

2. It is tough to get a very high rating on higher SSA courses


Doesn't this make perfect sense? A tough course, a tough rating? I'm unclear why this is a problem.

3. Rounds are dropped


I like the idea of the ratings system forgiving me for having a really really bad day, or allowing my rating to improve as my skill improves, instead of always calculating based on my rounds from my first year of play.

4. On courses w/ low score seperation, ratings are affected.


Compression? This also makes sense to me. On easy courses, where a pro can theoretically birdie 18 holes, it seems right to not rate every round over a thousand. Some AM1's are gonna shoot a -10, some Pro's are gonna shoot a -14.

I'm no conformist by any means, but I have to say, after everything I've learned about how ratings are calculated and maintained, I feel that ratings are in a player's favor. I think the overall picture is to have everyone feel good about how they play.

2. It is tough to get a very high rating on higher SSA courses


It's not tougher to shoot your rating. It's tougher to shoot as much over OR under your rating on higher SSA courses than lower SSA courses.

1. Very inconsistent due to the rounds being rated based on what everyone shoots instead of the courses history - this also hurts players in a weaker field



Popular myth but no evidence ever presented to support it once ratings have been officially calculated. There is no impact on players in a weaker field for almost two years now and the original impact was less than one throw or 10 pts on average.

The ratings are accurate and you should play open women.



I don't get it, with a 790 rating and a fairly consistant last place in FW1, why should she be forced to play pro? I know you should step up in CVS, but not if you haven't placed in years? Right. Help me out here.



I agree with you again, John. My current rating IS 790. The last 2-3 years I played Pro, I won nothing and contributed a heck of a lot of money to the open women. I also had a lot of DFL finishes those years and have paid my dues. I took all of 2007 off due to injury and wanting to save $$$ to purchase property. Coming back in '08, my game is still in the toilet and hasn't improved any.

So to the guy who says I should be in pro should look at the breakdown of the categories and clearly see that 790 is no where near what the pros ratings are, not even the advanced!

On courses w/ low score separation, ratings are affected.


Not incorrectly affected but just a narrower range. It's not even a ratings problem but course design issue or the TD not placing players on a better layout to spread scores.

That's OK...all but one tournament is full every year now. The tendancy for the CVS is to play up one division to test the waters. Both things can be true. The ratings are accurate and you should play open women.



Just as YOU should play OPEN Men.. :p

:confused:

The only reason I've been trying to get to the bottom of this is that Michelle has threatened to tell other players not to come to my tournaments because of the decision. It seems it has become almost personal. Although we don't get a lot of visitors from that far away anyway, I thought I might get some answers some day. :D



I'd like to correct you on this.
1) I have not been telling other players not to come to your tournaments, I've merely said that IF they do come to a CVS tournament, they won't be able to pick their division they are rated to play in, or want to play in, but will instead be told which division they can play in.

2) You informed me last year or so that you disagreed with the TDs running tournaments this way and so in my eye, you are "off the hook" so to speak and I don't hold you responsible for this silly decision. And NONE of this is personal! I think you're a nice guy and I have no beef with you, personally.

My beef is with the TDs who don't speak up and say who they are, but enforce these rules of playing by THEIR rules and not the pdga's rules. THAT'S who my beef is with...whomever they are.... come out come out wherever you are.... they seem to be hiding.

That's OK...all but one tournament is full every year now. The tendancy for the CVS is to play up one division to test the waters. Both things can be true. The ratings are accurate and you should play open women.



Just as YOU should play OPEN Men.. :p

:confused:



I'm glad you think so highly of my game, Mike! You're probably right since I've never beaten Oates and have at least beaten most of those Open players once.

The ratings are accurate and you should play open women.



Here's the breakdown of the ratings:
Advanced - 935 +
Intermediate - 900 - 934
Recreational - 850 - 899
Novice - 850 <

I'm at 790. So, according to the ratings, I "should" be playing NOVICE! But I'm not a bagger so I came back as Advanced and have not won a thing. I'm signed up to play US MASTERS and will play Adv. Masters Women.

Am signed up for US Women's Nationals and will play (for the first time ever and according to my 790 rating) Intermediate.

So why on earth should I continue to donate my hard earned cash to FPO who are rated 900+?????

1. Very inconsistent due to the rounds being rated based on what everyone shoots instead of the courses history - this also hurts players in a weaker field



Popular myth but no evidence ever presented to support it once ratings have been officially calculated. There is no impact on players in a weaker field for almost two years now and the original impact was less than one throw or 10 pts on average.




Look at worlds Chuck. Seems like a 5pt boost every round. :D

I have been playing disc golf for over 15 years and the from what I have gathered over those years is that, if you wait long enough I'm sure they will have a division for you.

There used to be 3 divisions Male Pro - Male Am - Women now there are 21, 36, 43 or so divisions.

2010 expect to see the Intermediate Beginner Recreational Novice Division for those players that have a ratings gap between 785 to 787.5....Once you get up to 788 you will then move up to the Advanced Beginner Recreational Novice. But don't get too good to fast and get up to 795 because you will then skip Expert Beginner Recreational Novice all together and fall into the Intermediate Recreational Enthusiast Novice division.

They may not have that name they may even have some fancy color associated with it.....

<700 Your a Brown player like doo doo the higher your rating it starts to turn to red like Roses.....once you hit 1000 you start turning a goldish tint and if you get over 1025 you are precious metal gold.


There will be a division for every color gap in between....starting with poo-poo brown then it's Mustard, then Olive, then Papaya whip, then Pear, then Saffron :p

I think we should have Open. Am. and Trophy. (side bets welcome). Oh and under 12 to keep Wiggins out.

That's OK...all but one tournament is full every year now. The tendancy for the CVS is to play up one division to test the waters. Both things can be true. The ratings are accurate and you should play open women.



Just as YOU should play OPEN Men.. :p

:confused:



I'm glad you think so highly of my game, Mike! You're probably right since I've never beaten Oates and have at least beaten most of those Open players once.



Rich, are you one of the Nor Cal TDs who decided it was better to not use pdga ratings? Now I understand why you want me to play open... because it might be your decision?

Not a TD...Don't care if you play at all.

Do you care to defend your statement then of why I should play FPO?

I didn't say you should. I said both things could be true. I don't know you, but if I were a former world champ or I'd cashed as recently as 2006 I wouldn't play AM anything. I have too much pride. You can do whatever you want (or whatever a TD allows).

there is no doubt that a 986 player is going to be better than a 930 player.



You have got to be kidding me. 986 against 930 is ridiculous. You can't honestly tell me a 56 point spread is fair to the 930 rated player. Around here the 976 "ADV" players take a lot of the cash most of the time. Don't believe me, take a look at any north Texas tourney. Better yet, look up Damian Power ( DFW's #1 bagger) Seems to me that ADV players shouldn't be punished for better players choking in open. As I've said before and I'll say again, if I didn't save money on reg fees I wouldn't be a member because of bulls**t like this.

I didn't say you should. I said both things could be true. I don't know you, but if I were a former world champ or I'd cashed as recently as 2006 I wouldn't play AM anything. I have too much pride. You can do whatever you want (or whatever a TD allows).



If you read up, yes you did and I quote: "The ratings are accurate and you should play open women." I haven't cashed in 8 years, since 2000. And yes, I can do whatever I want, except for the CVS which will tell me where I can play.

Michelle,
What do you gain by playing in Am Ladies divisions? From what I can see - there are seldom more than 4-5 players at the events you've chosen to attend. For that matter - you seem to only play a few events a year. Are you out for the experiences of playing organized events, or out to get a return on your entry fees the few times you do play?

Are there not enough other events available for you to attend? Or are the CVS just worthy of your ire because they don't allow free choice?

I am not a big advocate (strike that - I am not an advocate for the divisional structure AT ALL) for the whole "divide 90 players into eleventeen divisions so everyone can be a winner" / "customer service" approach to competition that the PDGA promotes. The way I used to handle ladies divisions when I was in Region 4 was to have a single ladies division - (AND PAY THEM ALL). There of course was still complaining that so and so shouldn't have to play against so and so - even though there were only ever 3-5 women total.

MA1: Jeremy Koling - 986 - Second by 3 strokes
FW1: Kelsey Brakel - 902 - First by 7 strokes
MM1: Tim Weimer - 991 - First by 3 strokes
MG1: Mark Steddom - 957 - First by 7 strokes
FG1: Fiona Minzies - 843 - Second by 7 strokes
MS1: Chuck Hornsby - 924 - Tied for first
JR <19: David Wiggins Jr - 958 - Second by 3 strokes
JR <16: Oscar Stenfelt - 983 - Second by 7 strokes
JR <13: Joe Rivera JR - 894 - Second by 3 strokes
JR <10: Nicholas Duran - 831 - First by 17 strokes

Now, for some reason, it doesn't translate AS well to some of the Professional divisions:

MPO: Dave Feldberg - 1039 - First by 9 strokes
FPO: Des Reading - 965 - Third by 16 strokes
MPM: Jim Oates - 1015 - Tied for first
WPM: Pam Reineke - 924 - First by 19 strokes
MPG: David Greenwell - 1007 - First by 6 strokes
WPG: Sandy Gast - 895 - Second by 23 strokes
MPS: Michael Conger - 963 - Fourth by 9 strokes
MPL: Robert Krayl - 897 - Fifth by 56 strokes




Here are the final results

MA1: Jeremy Koling - 986 - Won by 12 strokes
FW1: Kelsey Brakel - 902 - Won by 7 strokes
MM1: Tim Weimer - 991 - Won by 3 strokes
MG1: Mark Steddom - 957 - Won by 6 strokes
FG1: Fiona Minzies - 843 - Second by 7 strokes
MS1: Chuck Hornsby - 924 - Second by 3 strokes
JR <19: David Wiggins Jr - 958 - Won by 5 strokes
JR <16: Oscar Stenfelt - 983 - Second by 7 strokes
JR <13: Joe Rivera JR - 894 - Third by 7 strokes
JR <10: Nicholas Duran - 831 - Won by 13 strokes

MPO: Dave Feldberg - 1039 - Won by 14 strokes
FPO: Des Reading - 965 - Second by 12 strokes
MPM: Jim Oates - 1015 - Tied for second by 9
WPM: Pam Reineke - 924 - Won by 20 strokes
MPG: David Greenwell - 1007 - Second by 4 strokes
WPG: Sandy Gast - 895 - Second by 39 strokes
MPS: Michael Conger - 963 - Third by 6 strokes
MPL: Robert Krayl - 897 - Fifth by 106 strokes

Michelle,
What do you gain by playing in Am Ladies divisions? From what I can see - there are seldom more than 4-5 players at the events you've chosen to attend. For that matter - you seem to only play a few events a year. Are you out for the experiences of playing organized events, or out to get a return on your entry fees the few times you do play?

Are there not enough other events available for you to attend? Or are the CVS just worthy of your ire because they don't allow free choice?

I am not a big advocate (strike that - I am not an advocate for the divisional structure AT ALL) for the whole "divide 90 players into eleventeen divisions so everyone can be a winner" / "customer service" approach to competition that the PDGA promotes. The way I used to handle ladies divisions when I was in Region 4 was to have a single ladies division - (AND PAY THEM ALL). There of course was still complaining that so and so shouldn't have to play against so and so - even though there were only ever 3-5 women total.



It's not about what I gain, it's about saving more money lost. The entry fees difference is pretty big between pros and ams.

If I was out to play only to get my money back, then I would bag and go into the novice or recreational divisions, which I have not done and would never do.

Also, understand I'm coming back from taking an entire year off, something I haven't done since 1987. So until I get at least some of my game back, I'll continue to save $$$ and play Adv womens.

When I first started, all that was out there was "womens division" and I donated a whole lot of $$$ to the likes of Annie Kreml, Elaine King & Amy Bekken. As the years went by, a lot of other divisions popped up but I continued to donate to the pros. There finally came a time when I was winning (about '91-'99) and that was nice but it was never about the money, until this year. I just bought a property and have been spending my $$$ furnishing a home instead of others' homes. So I've clearly paid my dues.

Maybe one day my game will return and I'll go back to playing pro. However, in my area, there are more advanced women than pro women. I'd be pretty much all by myself in FPO and have 1 or 2 women in FPM but about 5 in Advanced.

Michelle,

Having gone through injury I have some empathy.

However - when it comes to paying to play - I have none. Paying to play in disc events means you can afford to do so with no return. This is money spent doing something you love. Any return is total gravy.

Paying to play with the expectation of ROI is what has led to the PDGA's bloated divisional structure steeped in entitlement. If you can't afford to pay to play without return (although playing Am doesn't really offer you ANY financial return does it?) - then I would suggest training without paying to play - until that time you feel you are again competitive.


You didn't bother answering what the issue was w/the CVS - is it that they have imposed divisional limitations at events you frequent - so now you'd have to find other events that don't? Also not sure about your claim of not having cashed in eight years - as this claim seems unsupported by your posted record - which has you cashing about 20 times in that time period.

That's why I used the word "donate" to the FPOs. If I couldn't afford it, I wouldn't play. I'm simply saving $$$ on entry fees that I have no chance of getting back. And you're right, what little merch I've won playing advanced are discs which are too heavy to use and a bunch of other things I find useless.

It's not about "training", it's about getting off the couch on the weekends and walking and seeing friends, it's never about the money.

I the issue I have with the CVS is 1) being told where I can play and 2) they use my world title against me. It happened 9 years and 4 days ago! Are you the same player you were 9 years ago?

The times I did cash - I was the only one so that's pretty easy to do. That's not winning, that's breaking even. So if you want to count those times as winning cash, so be it. But I sure don't, not when I'm the only one entered.

So would you like to have total strangers tell you where you can play, instead of where you're rated, or where YOU want to play? I'm guessing not.

The issue I have with the CVS is 1) being told where I can play and 2) they use my world title against me. It happened 9 years and 4 days ago! Are you the same player you were 9 years ago?



So would you like to have total strangers tell you where you can play, instead of where you're rated, or where YOU want to play? I'm guessing not.



Actually yes - I think as a sanctioning body, the PDGA should offer competition with very few divisions. The whole notion of player choice has gotten ridiculous. Everyone feels as if they are entitled to CHOOSE who they compete against. Sorry - my world view of "competition" means that the only choice you get is whether or not to enter.

The PDGA's vision of competition is anything but about competition - and more about marketing to maximize repeat customers. You can't blame them for adopting the strategy - it enables them to continue being an organization. But to pretend that it actually has anything to do with competition is a farce. Show me "divisions" where scores don't overlap more than about 10-20% and you might approach meaningful divisions.

I didn't say you should. I said both things could be true. I don't know you, but if I were a former world champ or I'd cashed as recently as 2006 I wouldn't play AM anything. I have too much pride. You can do whatever you want (or whatever a TD allows).



If you read up, yes you did and I quote: "The ratings are accurate and you should play open women." I haven't cashed in 8 years, since 2000. And yes, I can do whatever I want, except for the CVS which will tell me where I can play.

My punctuation is misleading. It should read: It is possible for both things to be true, the ratings are accurate and you should play Open. This is not an opinion, it's more of a philosophical statement. Now stop trying to pick a fight with someone that REALLY doesn't care about your problems.

Show me where the pdga says a 790 rated player SHOULD play open? It doesn't exist.

I'm not fighting but merely standing behind my statement to play AM this year. Who knows where I'll play next year.

You can chillax now, honey.

Sorta understand both sides of this argument there .
Craig is right .
Really the PDGA should be more about competing then it is .
They are a feel good society and trying to retain as many players as possible and it is not that I totally disagree with that but ... they should also admit they are a feel good society . The number of world champions should prove that .


The girl is also right too cause I got to admit I make a decent amount of money at my job BUT being rated at 934 I am not going to DONATE to some 1000 rated over 40 player EVER !!!!!!!!
Giving up 7 bleeping stokes a round just cause someone else is over 40 is bull !!!!!

To add to this whole thread and why it was started in the first place
the RATINGS are very accurate proven by the finishes by all the highest rated players in each division .

Once again it is proven to me the best can compete with the best and all others should have some sort of protection .
AND with protection IMPO comes a price and that price should be all added cash be ONLY given to the division with no protection .

My 2 cents on an argument that will go on forever .
Point is no-one is willing to take the hit to allow TRUE divisions and fair distribution of prizes based honestly on performance ONLY .

1. Very inconsistent due to the rounds being rated based on what everyone shoots instead of the courses history - this also hurts players in a weaker field



Popular myth but no evidence ever presented to support it once ratings have been officially calculated. There is no impact on players in a weaker field for almost two years now and the original impact was less than one throw or 10 pts on average.

[/QUOTE]

I'm waiting to see the final official ratings for the am worlds rounds, for before the shuffle when I played in the top pool with JK at 986 and the next day when we played the same course in nearly the same weather conditions but the best rated player in the lower pool was 949, I shot the same score so the rating should be within 1-2 points shouldn't it? will it be?

All rounds played on the same course will be averaged together for the whole week to produce the official ratings. So everyone who shot the same score should end up with the same rating. We decided that the wind/weather was close enough to the same each day to do that.

Wow. Just about the time when I'm sort of being "convinced" that dg ratings are meaningful, I read something that tells me that "...in some cases, 1 round will 'stand on it's own', yet, in some other cases, we'll just 'combine rounds' because we - an arbitrary body of people - have declared the outside influences (i.e. weather, etc.) to be "close enough" so we don't have to do each separately.

Where do you draw the line (as to what is "different enough" to constitute separation of data opposed to combining it)? :confused:

Back to square one! :(

Karl

Statistical SSA variance has been shown to be up to 1.5 throws under identical conditions and the identical set of players on the same course layout. Significant wind differences produce differences larger than that. So we, calculate the SSA values separately when the wind may be a factor. If the SSA differences between rounds is greater than 1.5, then the numbers stand on their own and players will get ratings based on the conditions for that round. If less than that, then all of those rounds are combined so everyone gets the same rating for the same score.

let me guess
square one is an arbitrary division based on age only
Yea that has been SOOOO good to this point .

Just in this worlds alone we have a 991 rated advanced master ( who at a C or B tier event could easily compete for OPEN or masters winner )
A 986 under 16 jr who ran away with his division who placed 2nd at an OPEN C Tier event earlier in the year .

Those are just 2 of the many examples where age dont mean SQUAT
ABILITY combined with age should be the factors considered

ABILITY should be the factors considered

Chuck,

My contention is where do you draw the line? Give me a definition of when wind affects things. 10mph? 20mph? Gusts over 27mph? Without a precise "line" the pooling or separation of such data make ALL situations just a bit less precise...which "hurts" the validity of all ratings.

Bill,

What the heck are you talking about? My "back to square one" was my thinking regarding the usefulness of ratings (Chuck's previous (to mine) comment).

If you want to be on your "soapbox" about certain players playing in the "wrong" division, pick the appropriate thread - and this isn't it - this is a discussion about "ratings: like 'em or not".

Karl

My contention is where do you draw the line? Give me a definition of when wind affects things.


We don't need to know the wind speed or other nasty weather conditions because it's all done by calculations. Roger calculates all rounds separately in the first pass. Those with SSAs on the same layout less than 1.5 apart are then combined for a second pass calculation. Those more than 1.5 apart are retained as separate calculations and ratings.

The problem with ratings is very simple.

Its not a perfect science and people who love them NEVER admit that it is not perfect.

We don't need to know the wind speed or other nasty weather conditions

so why is this part of the TD report???

The calculations themselves are as perfect as the scores written on the cards. That's what math is about. However, the process to determine the compression factor, how many rounds needed to become a propagator and their minimum rating, how many propagators are needed, how many rounds to use in each player's rating, how to weight them, how and when to delete them, what they should look like (instead of just scoring averages), rounding policies and where the division breaks should be are all subject to statistical variations and choices that cannot be perfect but are based partly on science, partly on fairness and partly on customer service factors.

We don't need to know the wind speed or other nasty weather conditions


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so why is this part of the TD report???



Partly tradition since it was asked before ratings were involved. In addition, we need that info when rounds are played with tee times in case it's necessary to break up the calcs by divisions for those rounds if the conditions might be enough different. We check the breakouts and if less than 1.5 difference among the groupings, we average them. If not then groups are done separately. When Roger does the calcs and does see a big difference in SSAs on the same layout, he can use the info to confirm whether it makes sense due to weather or perhaps the TD didn't set the course layouts properly. It helps for troubleshooting.

let me guess
square one is an arbitrary division based on age only
Yea that has been SOOOO good to this point .

Just in this worlds alone we have a 991 rated advanced master ( who at a C or B tier event could easily compete for OPEN or masters winner )
A 986 under 16 jr who ran away with his division who placed 2nd at an OPEN C Tier event earlier in the year .

Those are just 2 of the many examples where age dont mean SQUAT
ABILITY combined with age should be the factors considered



so are you saying no added cash should ever get added to the women's division?

and I agree w/ Lag... 'ABILITY BASED'

i built a spreadsheet that compares actual finishes against ratings-prejected finishes. you could set how much tolerance you allowed in the analysis - that is, i could say, well, if the field is 100 players, then finishing within 5 places +/- the prediction would constitute an accurate prediction. you cold change the 5 to whatever... i usually used 10% or 20% of the field. the analysis showed that ratings are very good predictors of performance against a field. why that continues to surprise people is beyond me. after all, numbers derived from relative performance data should be relatively good at predicting relative performance.

I do believe that women open should get added cash also fyi
even though it is a protected division by women only but cause it is the TOP class of women they should get a fair share of added cash

The only reason I have said both ability ( ratings ) and age limitations should be taken into account is the variences that can occur with the ratings would be covered by adding age protection to those who need it .

I would be fine with just ability events but I also believe the PDGA could use its tiered system to allow a variable in age and ratings breaks .

Oh and pat ,
I have never done a spreadsheet but just my looking at scores of PDGA events I have done and compared it to ratings and projected finish , there is a definate bridge from one to the other .

The funny thing is and the reason I have for saying both age and ratings based should be combined is if you break it down the duece and die courses offer less ratings varience based upon age ( ie the short pitch and putt courses allow for high rated older players to not only compete but WIN ) but the longer courses ( especially higher ssa courses ) have the other way .
Age does become a factor , especially if they are longer then 1 day events .

gotcha... and i realized i quoted he wrong part. I meant to quote where you said "cash be ONLY given to the division with no protection "

since you said 'the division' I had to check if you meant just a truly Open division or Open plus Pro Women.

thanks