Am I the only one who thinks that pro2 was probably a better solution than age protection? To me it is becoming clearer that age really means nothing, especially in terms of rating. the current top guys hitting masters and grandmasters age can easily compete with the top players in the world, so really who are you being protected from? i think a pro2 division that is >970 or 960 should be given another chance. If people don't use it, that is fine, but we should make it available to the people who want to experiment with it. Is there some specific reason pro2 was removed as a sanctioned division? Chuck?

lack of interest.

Pro 2 failed primarily because it wasn't a required division but optional. In other words, when offered, the Advanced, and Master divisions were also offered. For it to make sense, you would need to exclude the Advanced division at those events and all pro divisions except Open for men and women. It would be necessary to allow Ams to get prizes instead of cash if they ended up in the money.

The operational problem for TDs was and would still be not knowing how many ams and pros would end up in the money spots until the event was over making it a scramble to calculate awards, especially when the Am retail/wholesale diffrential does matter for the overall finances for the event, independent of whether the TD uses that to cover event expenses or add cash to pro.

I had the pleasure of playing in several PDGA events as a Pro 2 and thought that it was one of the best decisions by our competition committee this decade. After years of yearning, I finally had the chance to play with the Pro Masters of roughly the same skill range. I finally got to play with Advanced Masters of roughly the same skill range. And of course, I got to play against the "normal gaggle" of guys that I usually shared the bottom cards with in Open at tournaments. After so many Open tournaments where I was continually strokes away from last place cash, I finally had the opportunity to play above that cash line and eventually even move onto the leader card. The emotions and excitement I experienced on a leader card were something I had not the pleasure to do since I left Advanced several years before.

Typically we played for only slightly more than one-half of the Open entry fee, and even though the number of entrants in Pro 2 outweighed the number of Open division entrants, the Open division paid much more handsomely due to the added cash. As it should be! The biggest stakes should have went to the more talented golfers in Open; Pro 2 wasn't about winning big money, it was about having a place where I could compete against golfers of my same skill level.

I thought the PDGA took an extremely important step by creating that division in the hopes of retaining 930-960 rated Pro players whose skills had declined over the years. The Pro 2 division also gave a training ground for new Pros to compete and improve, while in the process being still competitive and not just "donating" large sums in entry fees to higher skilled golfers.

Some of the problems with the Pro 2 division and why it ultimately failed were:

1) Having an Advanced and/or a Masters divisions along with a Pro 2 division was VERY redundant since all of their ratings were in the same range. It only added yet another multiple overlapping division of players with almost exactly the same skill range. Intuitively it made perfect sense to offer Open, Pro 2, (where pros could accept cash and Ams could take merchandise) Intermediate, Recreational, and maybe Novice at a PDGA event, but few TDs did it that way.

2) The payout structure needed more careful consideration. It was a little discouraging, and perhaps harmful to the overall impression of such divisional set ups, when for example, the last place cash Open player beat the top Pro 2 player by 10 strokes and got $50, while the top Pro 2 player got more than $150.

Some ways to accomplish better payouts could have been:
a) to reduce the Pro 2 entry fee even further. Again, the idea wasn't about winning oodles of money - it was to allow Pro 2 qualifying players to be part of the tournament and compete against players of their same skill range, without being donators.
b) to pay out a far greater % of the players in the Pro 2 division.

Unfortunately the format wasn't around long enough to even champion these recommendations.

3) As pointed out by Chuck, it was practically a logistical nightmare for a TD when determining awards in Pro 2 - you had to award the amateur players in merchandise and then figure out the payouts of the Pros interspersed between them.

What if Pro2 was just that PRO 2. No prizes. It could be an optional division to offer at the TD's discretion INSTEAD of masters and GM. i could see runnning an event with Gold(open), Silver(pro2), and Bronze(intermediate). I could even give out certificates for prizes to ams if some were above 935 and wanted to play pro2 without too much hassle. Not saying it should be required, but i don't see the reason it was removed as an option. especially so quickly that nobody had a chance to experiment with it much.

Pro 2 was not retained long enough to succeed. It was added in a year when a lot of changes were implemented. It was eliminated the following year. Jon and I offered the division five times at split-weekend tournaments on the opposite weekend from Pro Master and Open at tournaments in Illinois and Michigan. It was poorly attended even though it was getting the same payout deal as Open. Players just didn't know about it.

Other than that, it was and always will be economically dead on arrival. TDs have their largest profit margin on Advanced Amateurs. Back when the Intermediate cap was 915 and most players over 900 played Advanced, it would have been economic suicide to offer all those players cash instead of marked up plastic.

If a TD wants to offer Pro 2, he can. It would have to be a TD who doesn't need to profit on the tournament. There are ways to offer Pro 2 to PDGA amateurs and protect their PDGA amateur standing.

If there are PDGA members in any of the states where I play disc golf that would like to see a tournament offer Pro 2, I'll work with you on that.

Interesting thoughts here. I havent seen an event on the West Coast where they offer Pro 2 division. We must be behind the times out here in Cali. I certainly agree there could be some changes made to entice more players to move up somehow.
So were you saying there isnt much difference playing Pro Vs. Master?
I think i have a better chance at competing in Masters Vs. Pro(Open).
I can play against the likes of Steve Wisecup, Mark Collicut, Jim Oates, and so on.
But to think i can compete against Paul McBeth, Steve Rico, and Nate Doss is crazy.
Yes, i place below ALL these guys pretty regularly but at least in my AGE PROTECTED division i dont lose by an average 10-15 strokes per round. I feel there is still a little hope there to do something.

Like Jeff mentioned, He played the Pro 2 and gave him a boost and some kind experiences. He may not have got while playing against supreme competition.

I dont feel focus should be on squeezing out more players from the Masters division to gain more payout in the Open division but with the Ams playing Am for 8-10 years or more. Example: Check out the Coyote Classic in Ventura Oct. 21-22 (upcoming tourney).
There are 18 players rated OVER 950 in the Advanced division. At what point does it become too much AM bagging. I guess prizes and money are not my true objective so maybe my concerns are Not relative to this concept. My concern is "Whats up with the 950-970 rated AMs that may never play PRO?

Keep in mind though that the PDGA ( Professional Disc Golf Association) is 75% AMs.
Maybe it should be ADGA-w/ some PRO baggers mixed in. I pretty much enjoy things the way they are. BUT! A little incentive to create a large field of PROs could turn the tide.
I just feel there is way too much catering to the AMs situation. Example: There is only ONE "US Masters Championship" each year. Yet, there are several AM Championships going on every year, Why? Then there are the final 9's the Ams play for the top 4 finishers in a tourney,Why? How will they ever learn higher skills if they dont watch the PRO's do it. I think the top 4 Am's should carry the bags for the top 4 PRO's and learn their game, what a reward!
To sum it up, Pro 2 is interesting but the idea of reduced fees and less payout may not get 950-970 rated Ams anywhere but back in plasticville city!

Floyd

Interesting thoughts here. I havent seen an event on the West Coast where they offer Pro 2 division. We must be behind the times out here in Cali.

You're not behind the times. The Pro 2 division existed in the 2004-2005 timeframe before disappearing off the map.

Mid-Nats and R-tier haven't disappeared, they've just been assimilated into the regular competition format at least for ams, close to the original intent. The BG Ams is essentially a giant R-tier like an amateur Mid-Nats. The only part missing is that age divisions still exist there. The irony is that they would have even bigger divisions of fair competition if they eliminated the age divisions and all played together.

The need for Pro 2 has been mostly met already by allowing pros to enter am divisions if their rating is under certain levels. The pros can earn merch prizes, and likewise, ams can earn merch prizes if they cross over to try a pro division and happen to cash. The only thing that might be better is if the pros entering Am could accept cash at half the merch value won like we did at the Mid-Nats. It's actually much better with this format than pro 2 since pro 2 wouldn't generate any retail/wholesale differential for TDs. However, with pros sliding over to Am, the TDs get that differential with a bigger Advanced division.

There are 18 players rated OVER 950 in the Advanced division. At what point does it become too much AM bagging. I guess prizes and money are not my true objective so maybe my concerns are Not relative to this concept. My concern is "Whats up with the 950-970 rated AMs that may never play PRO?

A 950 rated player has zero chance of competing in the MPO division, but gets to pay double or more the entry fee. Their "reward" for stepping up is to play on the bottom card of Open with people who are mad at how poorly they are shooting.

If a 950 rated player wants to donate to the Open payout by playing MPO, more power to them. But it is no suprise or secret that most 950 rated players are declining the very poor proposition bet of entering MPO for a really high entry fee where they are spotting the 1000 rated players 5 strokes per round, and spotting the eventual winners 7 to 9 strokes per round. Maybe if the Open entry fees were $50 more people would step up, but the 1000 rated players like the high entry fees because they know they are going to cash.

There are a bunch of topics about this on the message board, but once you start trying to talk about what the real issues are....the threads die! :eek:

A 950 rated player has zero chance of competing in the MPO division, but gets to pay double or more the entry fee. Their "reward" for stepping up is to play on the bottom card of Open with people who are mad at how poorly they are shooting.

If a 950 rated player wants to donate to the Open payout by playing MPO, more power to them. But it is no suprise or secret that most 950 rated players are declining the very poor proposition bet of entering MPO for a really high entry fee where they are spotting the 1000 rated players 5 strokes per round, and spotting the eventual winners 7 to 9 strokes per round. Maybe if the Open entry fees were $50 more people would step up, but the 1000 rated players like the high entry fees because they know they are going to cash.

There are a bunch of topics about this on the message board, but once you start trying to talk about what the real issues are....the threads die! :eek: I see this happening at our course monthlies. We have a course champ that can shoot -17 down in Open, and many of the newer Open players feel they just make a donation each month and never take home any of the winnings. When our course has its larger B-tier event, there is no Open spot, so you see Open players in the MA1 division.

A 950 rated player has zero chance of competing in the MPO division, but gets to pay double or more the entry fee.

not if more 950ish players start competing in open and entry fees are made more reasonable. why do we charge double for open? that's another thread i suppose.

some people just won't be happy until there is a division for everyone. we might as well just skip to the chase and not even keep score. it's just a jolly old disc throwing parade anyway.

not if more 950ish players start competing in open and entry fees are made more reasonable. why do we charge double for open? that's another thread i suppose.


The higher skilled players, touring pros, and those who desire larger & larger purses to give the sport 'legitimacy' would never allow Open entry fees to be reduced. As long as there are still but a precious few corporate, regional, and local sponsors donating money (an even more difficult proposition given the current state of the economy) toward our purses, we're stuck with the current system where we're all essentially gamblers jockying for each other's entry fees. And essentially the only way to achieve increasingly higher purses is more Open players, or higher entry fees.

Formats like ratings-based events & Pro 2 were perfect for giving lower skilled players an option to compete against players of their same skill level for lower entry fees, and far diminished rewards. (As it should be for a protected division and inferior golf as compared to Open) However, any format that awarded even minimal cash awards to players with worse scores than in Open as well as took donators away from the Open purse was looked upon with scorn, and resulted in the demise of these formats.

So we're stuck with the status quo where golfers either pay high entry fees in Open with little expectation to cash and just accept donating to their higher skilled compatriots, suck up their pride and play Advanced for merchandise, or not play at all. About the only exceptions are proactive and forward-thinking TDs like Craig Gangloff who have experimented with sliding entry fees based on player rating, as he did for the A-Tier Seneca Soiree last November. (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=29835&page=2)

please explain how gambling for each other's high entry fees lends to legitimacy? i'd think larger fields lend more to legitimacy than larger handles (as long as the handles are propped by inflated entry fees). do you really think anyone outside the sport gives a hoot about a $1,000 1st place payout versus $250? it's all chump change.

as for catering to "touring pros". give me a break. we're talking a small percentage of events that might attract "touring pros". "touring pros" are an even smaller percentage of membership. let's focus on competition. proliferation of divisions that cater to anyone and everyone does more to detract legitimacy than cheap entries and small handles ever could.

A 950 rated player has zero chance of competing in the MPO division, but gets to pay double or more the entry fee. Their "reward" for stepping up is to play on the bottom card of Open with people who are mad at how poorly they are shooting.



It doesn't seem to matter how many times this attitude is debunked - it remains - even amongst those like Rhett - who have been around a long time.

If you want to say a 950 rated player has no chance of cashing in MPO - with the premise being that you take a player or two and throw them into the depleted MPO division that's based on 970 and up rated players - well then on a certain level - you're right - a 950 player has less chance at cashing when you tell all the similarly skilled players they can choose an easier place to "compete" if they want to.

But that scenario doesn't really reflect the actual "divisional shake up" conversation that suggests that the 970 ratings break isn't the place where there is a significant skill break. The one that suggests 1000 rated MPM players don't need a protected division, the one that espouses larger and fewer divisions for the sake of equitable rewards for the same score.

When you start putting more of the men in the same division - 950 rated players are right where they belong - in the middle of the pack - with a decent chance at cashing at most events - and even a decent chance at good cash on a good day. Don't believe me? Go pull event results from 10 random spots around the country and re-list all the MPO, MPM, and MA1 players into one group, and see how many 950 players fall into the top 40-50% of scores. You may be surprised.

It's 100% a valid point, but the notion of putting all those players in the same group will never catch on. Your experiment with sliding entry fees by player rating showed definitively that it can work. (And it's also absolutely the right thing to do from a spirit of competition standpoint) But sadly, it will never come to fruition because each interest group has become weaned for decades now on their respective gravy trains and would cry bloody murder against any change.

When you start putting more of the men in the same division - 950 rated players are right where they belong - in the middle of the pack - with a decent chance at cashing at most events - and even a decent chance at good cash on a good day. Don't believe me? Go pull event results from 10 random spots around the country and re-list all the MPO, MPM, and MA1 players into one group, and see how many 950 players fall into the top 40-50% of scores. You may be surprised.

If you start trying to address the real issues instead of throwing up knee-jerk reactions, then you will kill this thread just like the "Worlds Payout Discussion" thread. :)

If you take it a step farther, you might see that at this stage in our sport there should only be two cash division: MPO and FPO. If you delete the age protected cash divisions, then you might get somewhere. After the initial protest stage where over-40 pros quite the org for a couple of years, you'll get a bunch of 970-990 rated pros back in the MPO division, as well as a few 1000+ rated players that won't quit at all because they'll still cash all the time. The 940-950 rated pros can play in MA1 where they'll have a chance to play on the leader card, and all will be well. Then if we can quit paying out $300-$400 dollar baskets to the winners of MA1 the top of the Am pool just might move up to MPO when they are ready, provided the MPO entry fees aren't way too high.

We have opposite views of the problem, Craig. I see a need to make the MPO division more appealing so that more people will choose to play there, and you seem to see a need to try and force people to play there. I don't think the "force" method will ever work as people will play events until they are forced to pay high entries and then they will quit playing tourneys, leaving us with the same small fields in MPO.

Rhett,

I thought that Craig's sliding scale for entry fees _was_ a way to make the MPO division more appealing for others to play in, and it made sense to me, since there is a correlation between rating and likelihood of cashing.

If you start trying to address the real issues instead of throwing up knee-jerk reactions, then you will kill this thread just like the "Worlds Payout Discussion" thread. :)

If you take it a step farther, you might see that at this stage in our sport there should only be two cash division: MPO and FPO. If you delete the age protected cash divisions, then you might get somewhere. After the initial protest stage where over-40 pros quite the org for a couple of years, you'll get a bunch of 970-990 rated pros back in the MPO division, as well as a few 1000+ rated players that won't quit at all because they'll still cash all the time. The 940-950 rated pros can play in MA1 where they'll have a chance to play on the leader card, and all will be well. Then if we can quit paying out $300-$400 dollar baskets to the winners of MA1 the top of the Am pool just might move up to MPO when they are ready, provided the MPO entry fees aren't way too high.

We have opposite views of the problem, Craig. I see a need to make the MPO division more appealing so that more people will choose to play there, and you seem to see a need to try and force people to play there. I don't think the "force" method will ever work as people will play events until they are forced to pay high entries and then they will quit playing tourneys, leaving us with the same small fields in MPO.

Rhett - to me the biggest appeal is the field size and the cost to play. My sliding scale addresses both.
I'm not so much an advocate of forcing anybody to do anything, as much as I am an advocate of offering fewer choices overall.
I agree that the prize factor in Am divisions is a detriment - and generally reflects one of the bigger inequities in our rewards system.
The longer you offer a myriad #of divisional choices (that have multiple overlaps in skill) the longer it will take to get to an honest and equitable competitive/divisional structure.

The longer you offer a myriad #of divisional choices (that have multiple overlaps in skill) the longer it will take to get to an honest and equitable competitive/divisional structure.

And that's where I think organizational guidance needs to come into play - to make for an honest and equitable competitive/divisional structure which doesn't offer a myriad of divisional choices that have multiple overlaps in skill. The problem is that I think that the competition committee and powers that be would never make such a change for fear of alienating its customers.

So all we can do in the meantime is hope that TDs do like Craig and offer solutions which make sense, and hope that the light bulb goes on. But I think people will always choose the path of least resistance, the system which they are used to, and the one which offers the most opportunities for people to be division winners.

Here are the results of the A-tier in California this last weekend.

For this example, all MPO, MPM, and MA1 were grouped together and sorted by scores (disregarding final 9). They played the same courses at the same times. There are a total of 64 players grouped in this division. Assuming 50% of the field cashes, here are my findings:

100% of players rated over 1000 cashed.
90% of players rated 975 to 999 cashed.
57% of players rated 960 to 974 cashed.
36% of palyers rated 950 to 959 cashed.
18% of players rated below 950 cashed.

So if a 955 rated player was going to enter, he could consider his chances of taking home some cash at about 36% right? Based on this data only.

I tried to post the results here but the post character limit wouldn't permit it.

So the 950 players should pay an entry fee about 1/3 of the 1000 rated players for roughly equivalent last cash odds. Of course, the TD loses out on the retail/wholesale differential on the MA1 players lost to the cash side other than those who cash and take merch instead.

So the 950 players should pay an entry fee about 1/3 of the 100 rated players for roughly equivalent last cash odds. Of course, the TD loses out on the retail/wholesale differential on the MA1 players lost to the cash side other than those who cash and take merch instead.

So the 950 players should pay an entry fee about 1/3 of the 1000 rated players for roughly equivalent last cash odds and the opportunity to play in open. Of course, the TD loses out on the retail/wholesale differential on the MA1 players lost to the cash side other than those who cash and take merch instead but we're talking chump change anyway.

The 950 players have the opportunity to make sure all of the 1000 rated players cash (even if they just play their average or even below) and are playing for the scraps of the last cash positions which they might have a chance at 1 in 3 events. Not a proposition worth considering even if the entry fee is 1/3 and there are no options other than not playing.

The 950 players have the opportunity to make sure all of the 1000 rated players cash (even if they just play their average or even below) and are playing for the scraps of the last cash positions which they might have a chance at 1 in 3 events. Not a proposition worth considering even if the entry fee is 1/3 and there are no options other than not playing.

That last sentence sounds silly to me. It could only have been spoken by someone who did not play Craig's Soiree. At this stage in the development of the sport, everyone should be playing tournaments because they enjoy competing at something they are good at. They should enjoy competing against the best even if they don't stand a chance of winning. I don't think TD's should be catering to those who are playing to make money or to beat people who are not as good as they are.

As a then 890-rated golfer, I played the Soiree for $40. I got fed two meals, and got to compete in a very well run two-day tournament against some great players and got to play with some of them the first round. Money well spent. The sliding entry fee allowed that because I could not justify paying $80 for the weekend. If you give the lower rated players a good enough time at a reduced rate, the entry fee becomes just that, an entry fee, not gambling money. There were a lot of us at the Soiree happy for the chance.

It's hard for me to imagine running a tournament to make money off of the AM's. The amount of money made is not worth the time or the hassle. There are easier ways to make money. I don't resent TD's making money and would be happy for a set amount of each entry to go straight into their pockets. It seems silly to me to insist that AM's get paid in plastic just so TD's can make some money.

is it really all about the money, chuck? if it is we're in the wrong gig. is there any value to playing a tournament unless one can cash? if there isn't players will vote with their feet.

again, we're talking about chump change at 19 of 20 events therefore divisions shouldn't/can't be about the money. divisions should be about competition. having divisions for anyone and everyone doesn't foster competition.

I'll start from the premise that most of us who are pros, especially older pros, just happen to play for cash but are not striving to make their living from disc golf competition like the conventional definition of a sports pro. I may be off on this but I suspect that most are driven by the desire to play their best but not necessarily drive themselves to be THE best player at an event. Their preference seems to be for competing either against their age peer group or their skill level peer group. Neither of those preferences are provided by the proposed format of a division with reduced fees for lower skill levels where all ages and a wider than desirable skill level range would exist.

It's pretty clear that our competition structure is simply a larger scale version of people playing with their buddies. When people play with their buddies, they usually have similar skill levels and/or age levels, especially since sidebetting amongst them is quite common. I think someone who might join a buddy group who was much worse and really needed reduced fees or a handicap of some sort to compete in their sidebets would feel uncomfortable and might not continue to join them or just not participate in the sidebet.

The reduced fee format being proposed is fine if the idea is to more fairly allow players who strive to be THE best and play with the best compete. That makes sense if the intent is to provide a training ground for those who strive to get good enough to make a living as pros. Not only is that an unrealistic expectation for our sport, but I don't believe it represents the goals for most players who play for cash. I think that's been demonstrated time and time again by the division choices they make both as players and by those who decide to run events.

As a then 890-rated golfer, I played the Soiree for $40. I got fed two meals, and got to compete in a very well run two-day tournament against some great players and got to play with some of them the first round. Money well spent. The sliding entry fee allowed that because I could not justify paying $80 for the weekend. If you give the lower rated players a good enough time at a reduced rate, the entry fee becomes just that, an entry fee, not gambling money. There were a lot of us at the Soiree happy for the chance.

Well stated. If I could play for 1/3 the $90-$120 Open entry fee, I'd play practically every weekend. I'd play for 1/3 of what a normal payout would be if on the off-chance I'd happen to cash. I'd play just for a free lunch. I'd play for a trophy. I'd even play for NO PAYOUT at all - just the satisfaction of a world class course and high caliber competition.

All I want is a spot in the tournament and being able to compete against golfers of a higher skill level without having to pay the ridiculous Open entry fees for Major, NT & Supertour events. I don't want to play in Advanced and for merchandise; I want to compete against Open caliber golfers. If there was a way to offer reduced price admission for lower rated golfers, the Open division would sell out at practically every event. It's just disheartening that the competition committee, TDs, and many disc golfers seemingly don't get that.

If there was a way to offer reduced price admission for lower rated golfers, the Open division would sell out at practically every event. This just is not true. For a couple of years [ten tournaments or so] we've been offering "Half-in" for our pro divisions. For $20 instead of $40 anyone can compete in our pro divisions, and if they cash they get half of what the payout chart otherwise would require. There has been no rush of players to this option. A few of the Advanced players will play half-in on Saturday and Advanced on Sunday. Most players do not derive the value that you do out of competing in the same division as the Open players.

Increasing participation in the sport is or should be the most important factor in event formats. TDs and Competition Committee members are guided by what seems to be popular with the players. TDs are welcome to experiment with alternative formats to draw more players. There's no need to restrict formats in a way that might reduce participation. Until participation gets to a point where more and larger amounts of outside money flows into the sport, there's simply no need for restricting pro formats biased toward survival of the fittest versus participation. It's already being done in a few events such as the USDGC and Vibram. But it's not yet viable as a steady diet week in and week out for the pro division at the local level since sufficient outside money isn't there.

This just is not true. For a couple of years [ten tournaments or so] we've been offering "Half-in" for our pro divisions. For $20 instead of $40 anyone can compete in our pro divisions, and if they cash they get half of what the payout chart otherwise would require. There has been no rush of players to this option. A few of the Advanced players will play half-in on Saturday and Advanced on Sunday. Most players do not derive the value that you do out of competing in the same division as the Open players.

bruce is right- we offered half-price and trophy only options for events at loriella before the pdga even approved the idea- there were never players turning out in droves for these options.

i suspect that the bottom end guys in the sliding scale events would eventually tire of doing it more than 1-2 times a year as well.

but you were doing that while offering all the normal pDGA divisions, john. it was also back when the "am" cutoff wasn't 970.

we were doing it while offering masters and gm but am divisions were on different days so the opportunity was there for them. age-based is a 100% valid way of separating players.

why not just handicap everyone in the whole tourny 1 division "open".so an 790 rated junior would get 21 strokes per round on a 1000 rated player.a 950 rated gets 5 per round, etc
even if you weighted it 75-80 % instead of 100% all the higher rated pros would prob never win again since they obviously have some mastery of consistancy,and lower rated players have more of a chance to shoot well above there rating.I would bet you couldnt get 1 "pro" to support this idea.even tho it would prob. get more new players than any other idea on this thread.let a 13 year old junior win a 150 person tourney and walk with $500/or merch if it would affect am status.1 thing i know is kids love $ and the 13 year old winner would spread the word of his windfall like wildfire..next tourny 3-4 new kids

now the problem would be people without a rating or with a lack of enough rated rounds to establish a "real " rating.maybe a low cost entry,players pack ,trophy only for new players or ones without a rating established.

yes i know this will never happen and wouldnt work.
but the real "pros" can look at the sign up for open and tell you 1/2 to 2/3 that dont have a chance of winning any given tourny.tell me im wrong

why not just handicap everyone in the whole tourny 1 division "open".so an 790 rated junior would get 21 strokes per round on a 1000 rated player.a 950 rated gets 5 per round, etc
even if you weighted it 75-80 % instead of 100% all the higher rated pros would prob never win again since they obviously have some mastery of consistancy,and lower rated players have more of a chance to shoot well above there rating.I would bet you couldnt get 1 "pro" to support this idea.even tho it would prob. get more new players than any other idea on this thread.let a 13 year old junior win a 150 person tourney and walk with $500/or merch if it would affect am status.1 thing i know is kids love $ and the 13 year old winner would spread the word of his windfall like wildfire..next tourny 3-4 new kids

now the problem would be people without a rating or with a lack of enough rated rounds to establish a "real " rating.maybe a low cost entry,players pack ,trophy only for new players or ones without a rating established.

yes i know this will never happen and wouldnt work.
but the real "pros" can look at the sign up for open and tell you 1/2 to 2/3 that dont have a chance of winning any given tourny.tell me im wrongAnd pay everyone cash, while we're smoking pipes here.

Increasing participation in the sport is or should be the most important factor in event formats. TDs and Competition Committee members are guided by what seems to be popular with the players. TDs are welcome to experiment with alternative formats to draw more players. There's no need to restrict formats in a way that might reduce participation.

Bruce and John's examples seem to be complicated by the fact that Open division tournaments with lower-fee options may have run on consecutive days before or after an amateur only event, still offered concurrent age-based divisions, and not all Advanced level golfers want to pay even $20 for little chance at a reward. (which I personally could care less about) I'm just not so sure that with an enforced format change there would ultimately be reduced participation. Sure there might be some initial howls of protest from those for which the gravy train is no longer available. If it's done correctly though, I think participation could be higher in the long run, especially from mullet Pros, mullet older guys, and Advanced players who eventually warm up to the concept.

I know a lot of this is just going around and around the mulberry bush though. This stuff has been debated for decades now and especially since the dawn of ratings which instantly showed all the overlapping divisions of the same skill sets. I do agree though that TDs and Competition Committee members will continue to be guided by what seems to be popular. It's the path of least resistance and allows the most division winners and cashers, which even though it goes against a true spirit of competition, is what makes people happy.

The naysayers are at least consistent.

Consistently they try and say things won't work because they are entrenched in the status quo. When trying new things - they consistently make sure the status quo is available the same weekend - eliminating any real evaluation of what sorts of choices people are willing to make.

Consistently they say lower rated players won't do this, or their motivations are that - while members of those groups come on this very board and tell them they are wrong.

Consistently they fail to lead by example, because they are afraid to fail.

I can't say all the things I have tried from a divisional standpoint have been successful. But I have at least been consistent in trying things other than the status quo in an effort to learn what will and won't work through experience.

The naysayers seem to consistently "know" what will and won't work just through opinion and conjecture.

This "naysayer" is saying there's no problem with you trying stuff. That's more than most do that complain. But if you can convince the powers that be that your format should be the only one allowed everywhere on a weekend as an experiment, I want another weekend that's restricted to Super Class discs only and see what happens... :eek:

This "naysayer" is saying there's no problem with you trying stuff. That's more than most do that complain. But if you can convince the powers that be that your format should be the only one allowed everywhere on a weekend as an experiment, I want another weekend that's restricted to Super Class discs only and see what happens... :eek:

As one of the biggest naysayers CK - you are consistent in another way. You consistently believe and try and convince others that by instituting/espousing change - that means there is no room for more than one format. That it's all one way or another. That's certainly not what I espouse. I think a regional quota system for a variety of formats would be more effective in promoting the options - and would even create some competition for those spots - and decrease the scheduling conflicts that are so common right now.

When vintage and 150 class first came out - I advocated that those formats be designated for all SERIOUSLY low SSA courses. But no-one was interested in that idea.

The naysayers are at least consistent.

Consistently they try and say things won't work because they are entrenched in the status quo. When trying new things - they consistently make sure the status quo is available the same weekend - eliminating any real evaluation of what sorts of choices people are willing to make.

seems like the "naysayers" you are addressing are bruce and i, both of whom have been involved in offering reduced entry fee schemes for events since well prior to yourself.

Consistently they say lower rated players won't do this, or their motivations are that - while members of those groups come on this very board and tell them they are wrong..

I said "i suspect" the bottom end players won't go for the sliding scale on a regular basis, that is indeed my suspicion.

Consistently they fail to lead by example, because they are afraid to fail..

this is so condescending that i don't even think i can reply to it.

I can't say all the things I have tried from a divisional standpoint have been successful. But I have at least been consistent in trying things other than the status quo in an effort to learn what will and won't work through experience.

The naysayers seem to consistently "know" what will and won't work just through opinion and conjecture.

i know what works for me and have been at this crap for a long time so believe i know what the customers want- what is amazing is that the vocal minority of jeff and yourself can't seem to get it through your heads that just because you think (and in jeff's case it is 100% opinion and conjecture- at least you have stepped up and put your money where your mouth is instead of just bemoaning the status quo) your way is better then the competition system should be re-tooled to your specifications. i have said repeatedly that td freedom is the best thing this ORG has going for it currently- everyone out there is free to run their event the way they think it is best to run it. should the market decide your way is best more power to you.

As one of the biggest naysayers CK - you are consistent in another way. You consistently believe and try and convince others that by instituting/espousing change - that means there is no room for more than one format. That it's all one way or another. That's certainly not what I espouse. I think a regional quota system for a variety of formats would be more effective in promoting the options - and would even create some competition for those spots - and decrease the scheduling conflicts that are so common right now.

so... which td's would you force into running alternative format events? seems a little draconian to me.

Actually John - while you and I may not agree on some things - I honestly didn't consider you amongst the "naysayers". Mostly I was just ragging on Chuck - based on our past history of exchanges. But since you took the time to respond to me personally - I am happy to engage you and ask your opinions.


age-based is a 100% valid way of separating players.

Why or how is it 100% valid to give an over 40 player more money for the same score as an under 40 player? Their skill is obviously the same - and yet their reward is different. I don't even find this 1% valid John. But you never seem to actually want to discuss it, so I don't know why you think it's valid.

And why is it condescending to say that those who defend an obviously flawed system are afraid to lead? Obviously flawed is not just mine and Jeffs opinion - this argument has been going on for nearly two decades John. It's obviously NOT just a few people who think so.

Does being a TD make you a defacto leader in the DG community? I suppose it does - just so long as you cater to every single persons need to have a chance to "be a winner".
Are they not afraid of offending someone? (I've seen that argument here umpteen million times) Are they not afraid of conflict? (Why can't I enter the Advanced Grand Masters division - there are two of us here?) While most new TD's want nothing more than to offer an opportunity to play in an organized event (which is necessary and laudable) - the vast majority simply offer what the organization tells them to - this is fact. Once they've done it a few times - they adopt the "this is THE way it should be" attitude - and never try anything else. This is also where the organization should play a role in providing sufficient structure to the competitive system so that
A) COMPETITIVE play is promoted - sorry - I just don't see 5 overlapping mens divisions representing much in the way of true competition.
B) Rewards are equitable - see above
C) Varied formats are not only available, but PROMOTED - simply having them as options doesn't actually encourage their use. If it did - there would be SuperCLass, and 150 class, and throw from here to Mars class tournaments everywhere you look. But there arent, because they are not.

I'm all about TD choice. I agree that allowing TD's to run things their way is a positive way to keep people interested and willing to promote DG wherever they are. I am a perfect example of someone who does just that. But without some basic structure - even the word "organization" becomes an oxymoron.

Is it Draconian to say that courses that were built for whamos should use whamos instead of destroyers? Is there not some acceptable element of "promoting the game" inherent in matching the course to different categories of available equipment? Do you take your #1Wood out to the local par3 ball golf course? Or do you leave the big wood at home and play the irons? Why is it draconian to categorize courses by difficulty, and organize sanctioning of different formats based on that? Would this not be an effective way to promote different formats? What are the other uses for establishing "course ratings" or SSA? Merely to use as a point of reference when comparing our score? What other means besides pure TD choice would be effective in encouraging the use of different formats?

why not just handicap everyone in the whole tourny 1 division "open".so an 790 rated junior would get 21 strokes per round on a 1000 rated player.a 950 rated gets 5 per round, etc
even if you weighted it 75-80 % instead of 100% all the higher rated pros would prob never win again since they obviously have some mastery of consistancy,and lower rated players have more of a chance to shoot well above there rating.I would bet you couldnt get 1 "pro" to support this idea.even tho it would prob. get more new players than any other idea on this thread.let a 13 year old junior win a 150 person tourney and walk with $500/or merch if it would affect am status.1 thing i know is kids love $ and the 13 year old winner would spread the word of his windfall like wildfire..next tourny 3-4 new kids

now the problem would be people without a rating or with a lack of enough rated rounds to establish a "real " rating.maybe a low cost entry,players pack ,trophy only for new players or ones without a rating established.

yes i know this will never happen and wouldnt work.
but the real "pros" can look at the sign up for open and tell you 1/2 to 2/3 that dont have a chance of winning any given tourny.tell me im wrong

I tried this once. What I found was that at some point (my guess was somewhere in the mid 800 rating range) the straight HC breaks down and becomes unfair. It's possible that a weighted HC system could put more players on more even footing - but it would take more events to figure out. Or possibly just an extensive evaluation of scoring trends - either way - it was more work than I wanted to do, so I moved on to other things.

As one of the biggest naysayers CK - you are consistent in another way. You consistently believe and try and convince others that by instituting/espousing change - that means there is no room for more than one format. That it's all one way or another. That's certainly not what I espouse. I think a regional quota system for a variety of formats would be more effective in promoting the options - and would even create some competition for those spots - and decrease the scheduling conflicts that are so common right now. When vintage and 150 class first came out - I advocated that those formats be designated for all SERIOUSLY low SSA courses. But no-one was interested in that idea. <!-- / message -->
I've been in your camp for a long time regarding raising standards for minimum course SSAs and other factors for certain tier events but with spotty support even for Worlds. You can't seriously expect anyone to believe I'm not open to alternative formats. I doubt there's more than a handful of people who have ever created or run as many different format events as I've tried over the past 20 years. So my comments are based on actually running them and observing player behavior, not just analyzing formats from the peanut gallery. There's no one format that is right for everyone, especially since the majority of our members do not have the desire to be king (queen) of "THE HILL," just sometimes king (queen) of "A HILL."

As far as forcing formats or some format quota system, the PDGA does not have the leverage nor would really be able to manage such a system. If put to a vote of the members, I doubt this quota/forcing system would be approved.

The only place the PDGA has been relatively powerful enough to force a format is for a few majors. They have yet to successfully do it for NTs. Innova has demonstrated its power by forcing the invite system and one division format for the USDGC by primarily using more money and labor than any other one course event along with the excellent way they've learned to run it.

However, if a hypothetical company came along and offered a pro purse triple what Innova was offering on the same weekend, say $30,000 for first and all pro divisions would be hosted, I suspect that other than Innova sponsored players, the older pros and many of the younger ones would enter this more standard format pro event instead of the USDGC. Essentially it's another form of, "He who has the gold makes the rules."