So a pro man can take cash and continue to play advanced events if their rating is under 970, but a women who takes cash can only play advanced women events if their rating is under 850. That is 120 points diifference. Seems kind of harsh to me. I know their are quite a few women out there in the 850 -900 range who can compete in some pro women events, but cannot compete in the larger events where you have pro women with ratings well over 900.

I think this is alienating some women from trying to play Open who are in the 850-900 rating range. I can imagine that a 860 rated women who cashes in Pro, will find it hard to continue to succeed in the pro level. I think it would be more fair to allow a women who is under 900 rating to still be allowed to play in the advanced womens division.

I think 850 is way too low of a number. If a man can be rated 969 and still play advanced, I really think that the women should be allowed to play as an advanced women until they reach 900.

What do you all think? Seems more fair to me. If we want to encourage morewomen to play, we should give them the opportunity to play as an advanced women or a pro women until they reach a 900 rating. If not, I believe that the women rated between 850-900 who cash in a pro event, will quit playing PDGA events because they either cannot compete against the higher-level pros or because they just don't find it economically feasible to continue donating money to the 900+ rated pros.

I think this rating level should be reconsidered and I think the number should be re-adjusted.

????????

Any women in the 850-900 range that enter Women Pro sometimes and possibly cash, then sometimes want to play in the amateur ranks, will get better and more fair competition in the Men's Rec division versus the Advanced Women division. Several women in this range (Brakels?) even up to 915-920 ratings (playing Men's Intermediate) have been following this strategy over the past few years once this option was available. It's also true that Men's Rec and Int are more likely to exist at more events, especially compared with Advanced Women, and have more players.

Part of the problem is there aren't enough women in Advanced in general so their ratings range essentially goes over the very wide range from 800-900, putting the 850-900 women in a tweener zone with few players. The Competition Committee did look at this when the division ratings ranges were set up but at least the women have the option to cross over and get some fair competition in the men's divisions if they wish. It's unfortunate the women just don't yet have the numbers to narrow the ranges.

I understand they can play INT MEN, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to have the women play together, instead of force them into the Open division? I know in our area, we have 3 girls in the 850 -900 range. 2 of which are now pros, 1 as recent as this weekend with a win at the Southwest Florida Open.

But at an 860 rating, I think it will be hard compete in the Pro Womens division? Maybe I am wrong, but it seems sad that these girls will be forced to play with INT men instead ofplaying with Advanced women who are in the 800-900 range.

I know they can take merch instead.....I'm just thinking that 850 is too low. If you look at the top level pros, they are at 950+ ratings. The top men are at 1030. It just seems off that the men can be only 60 points lower than the top men and still be allowed to play ADV, yet women who are 100+ points lower than the top Pro Women are forced to play Pro if they take cash.

Just an observation....think it might discourage women from playing. Even though they can play Int men, I think some women would rather be able to play with the women. If the ratings break was moved up even to just 875, that would allow the women more room to play in divisions with women depending on the competition present at the event.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it just doesn't add up. Either the womens break should move up, or the mens should move down to 950 and below to play ADV men.

In this case, you have to discard the gender issue and look at it as it pertains to playing with fair competition in the same ratings range. Advanced men is the only amateur division option for the Pro men to slide over to play in an amateur division. Women pros and older pro men have the option to slide over to mens amateur divisions all the way down to 850. And then the pro women under 850 can slide over to Adv Women or Novice Men. From a practical standpoint, I would think the Advanced Women in the 800-849 range would be glad that Pro Women in the 850-899 range can't play in Adv Women and have to enter Women Pro or Rec Men. And there are more of them than women in the 850-900 range. Suzette is actually in the 850-899 range and is on the Competition Committee regarding these ratings breaks scenarios for women and maybe will see this thread.

Where can I find this info? I didn't think my 880 rated wife could take cash and still play MA3. I assume this is for B tiers and lower?

http://www.pdga.com/documents/player-divisions-grid

I didn't think my 880 rated wife could take cash and still play MA3. I assume this is for B tiers and lower?
A-tiers are included. The only pros of any age, male or female, who don't have the option to enter an am division, if it's offered at their rating level, are those with ratings of 970 or higher.

IMO, lack of women players is the biggest problem - not how to better divide up the women players we currently have.

That being said - I can see both sides of the issue.

Chris makes an excellent point that compared to the breaks for the men, the rating breaks for the women seem wider. Perhaps the ratings break could be moved up to 875. I don't think it should be 899. For example, I have never been rated above 900. While I am not very competitive with the top pro women, I have many years of playing experience that makes it unfair for me to play against the vast majority of Advanced Women.

From a practical standpoint, I would think the Advanced Women in the 800-849 range would be glad that Pro Women in the 850-899 range can't play in Adv Women and have to enter Women Pro or Rec Men.As Chuck pointed out, there are still competitive options for Pro Women in the 851-900 range. They just don't necessarily include competing with other Women players. If a woman player is truly competitive and interested in improving her skill level, playing in a men's division can provide that challenge. If she wants to play with other women, she may have to travel and be willing to donate to more skilled players for that privilege.

I do wish there were more women players. We all need to continue working to bring more women players to the sport and do our best to keep the women already playing around for many more years.

I agree with Discette on this one.....the biggest issue is the lack of women. So, here we all are trying to find strategies to get more women involved. But it seems the more we do- like the division/rating breaks only discourages them more. I think a big problem also depends on where some women are playing. I took cash in 03- I figured if I ever wanted to get good, then I need to get my butt kicked by the best of the best. Good theory, however it turned more into me being discouraged. I have played less and less sanctioned events every year since then. Lets face it- I am no match up for some of the ladies out there. However, I do think it would be unfair of me to go back and play am 7 years later. So to remedy this, I do have the option of playing in the men's rec division, as someone said above. Yes, this does provide a different challenge but it is not always something positive. I would really like to hear what other women think about this. I have tried this. It was by no means enjoyable- not due to the company by any means, but due to their lack of knowledge and inexperience. I felt as if I was playing with people who have never played a tournament, didn't know the rules (as far as tournament play goes) and that I was only there to coach them on how to play by tournament rules. Yet for some men they cannot hear this stuff from a woman who can throw farther then them. Some were nicer then others about it. So now I am faced with a decision- do I want to play with inexperienced players and have a chance at cashing (but this would only be merch), or do I want to play with experienced ladies who know the game and are a pleasure to be around yet I will have ABSOLUTELY NO chance at gold? Well, being faced with this, I pretty much don't play tournaments anymore. I really miss it. To counter all that I miss about tournaments I started a woman's league. In the long run I truly believe that most of these women will play tournaments down the road. And in time the numbers will grow.
Sandalbagger- you mentioned it would be tough for an 860 rated woman to play in the pro division- I think the biggest issue is where they are at and where they play tournaments. This might be tough for the NT events, but it could also be good to be pushed. There are some women out there who once they started playing pro, their games skyrocketed. Here most of the women are pretty close in ratings, and then there is the one who blows all of us out of the water. But it pushes everyone in the division. If we could actually get all of these chicks out to the same place at the same time, it would be worthwhile to get out there. But, that rarely happens.
Lets also face it that the rating system is somewhat skewed. The numbers shouldn't matter quite as much- I know a lot of people out there are better then what their rating classifies them as. I do think that the break in divisions should be a smaller gap. For the men it is easier to cater to these situations- the numbers are there. I do think if the men are able to take cash then go back and play am, then the rules should be the same for the women. Though I am guessing that most would not go back and play am, but it would be nice to have the option.

the ratings differ but the problem is the same for men and women. The problem is hubris. the ironic name of the problem is machismo. I cannot not understand why an 860 rated woman or a 940 rated man would go pro in the first place. Lots do. They are good players but not thaaat good. They become donors. Fortunately the PDGA has in recent years created ways to let these players compete as an amatuer. In the past they were stuck giving money to better pros. I guess if you have enough intestinal fortitutde to ignore the exclamations that you are a sandbagger in the first place you should be able to avoid a lot of grief. If you want to play with the pros (and that can be a good idea) play as an AM and get the experience. I know a lot of women play pro around Chicago so they can play with Barrett White. They like her game and they like her company. However, they are smart enough to remain Ams and avoid being her sponsors. This way when Barret wins she thanks Discraft but doesn't have to thank Carla or Lauren or Kelsey or anybody else.

[QUOTE=chainmeister;1409742]The problem is hubris. the ironic name of the problem is machismo. "

hubris makes plenty of sense. However, machismo? Aren't we talking about women here?

you say "I cannot not understand why an 860 rated woman or a 940 rated man would go pro in the first place. Lots do. They are good players but not thaaat good. "

I probably took cash when I was somewhere around 860- I did this because I played pretty well, and wanted an opportunity to shoot with the Des's of the world again. It was my first time playing with someone who is that good- and what do you know- I played better- her game pushed me to play better. I thought if I could continue to play with ladies of this caliber, my game would do nothing but improve.

There are probably a lot of people out there who are not baggers and do not enjoy winning tournaments when they play badly. However, I am sure we all know at least one bagger out there who may win by 20 strokes, and still have the nerve to complain about how poorly they shot..... even if their rating is not as high as some of the top pros out there, they still should move up and give others a chance at that same glory, especially if this is a reoccurring "problem" for them.

There are also a lot of people out there who may not have quite as high of a rating, but their potential for that higher rating is definitely there. I know a couple different people that when they play for fun, they could very well shoot 15 strokes better then they would in a tournament. It is more important to do it when it counts- and that is why they are playing pro, so they can have that opportunity.

As for others with a lower rating who decide to play pro, who knows, they could be the best in their area and that may have something to do with their decision.

Barrett White is one of my favorites to shoot with- great example!

I think what Chuck, Suzette, and Erin (is that you Erin?) have said is great!
Here's my 2 cents:

I turned pro when I was 870 rated. Why? Because I had spent the end of the 2008 season up through May of 2009 playing Intermediate Men's in tournaments. In MN, even though we have a large DG scene, Rec or Novice men isn't typically offered at tournaments, so I did play with a lot of beginning tournament players in the MA2 division. I too got tired of coaching guys on rules (as well as how amazingly grumpy SOME guys are thanks to their competitive nature). I loved the ladies I played against in the Advanced Women's field, but I think they can agree that I was blowing them out of the water at local tournaments. I had been stuck around 870 for a year, and I wasn't improving. I started playing MA2 in hopes that this would help bring up my rating. It didn't. There was no point in me playing FW1 anymore.

I played the Majestic A tier in FW1 and would have placed 3rd in FPO had I played FPO. I didn't need any more merchandise, and it wasn't fun to be constantly winning more merch or go to tournaments knowing I was a shoe-in. It was time to move on. I entered my first tourney in FPO in July of 2009. An A tier in Ohio. Their were close to 20 ladies in the division- nearly half of them well known sponsored touring pros. I shot the best rated rounds I have shot, and I attribute that to being pushed to step up my game since I was stepping up divisions. Since then my rating has jumped 20-25 points. (BTW- I did cash at that event and accept it, beating out one player that was rated nearly 60 points higher than me).

The only thing that is hard about making the jump is the lack of women in the sport period. In MN, there are 5 pro women, myself and Katy Schreder being the only two that regularly play tournaments. This means we have to travel more if we want to find competition. But, I knew that before I made the decision to make the jump. It just made sense to move up even though I wasn't 900+ yet. I'm excited to travel and play, and I did a little bit of it in 2009 getting to Ohio, Iowa, South Carolina twice, Illinois, and Wisconsin a few times. I'm excited to travel and play more as soon as I save up some money (poor unemployed December 2009 college graduate looking for work).

I also started a women's league here in the Twin Cities. All of the women that regularly came in our first season (2009) were beginners, and that's great! I think we all need to do what we can to get more women into the sport to help the sport grow AND to help our competition grow.

I think if someone is borderline about whether they should move up or not, they really do have to weigh their options and make their own decision. I can't say that everyone should move up to FPO like I did. I can't say that every female that makes the jump like I did will have the same story or same results as I did. There isn't really one set answer. In general, I think if you have been stuck at a rating for a year or more but KNOW for sure that you can play better golf and shoot better ratings, AND that moving up would push you to shoot better golf, then make the move up. If you think you are maxed out on your ratings, then stay Am and just play appropriate divisions whether that be a Rec men's division, Int men's, or adv. women's.

dischick is my pal Jen Dombrowski

Lots of good comments.

My girlfriend has played INT men and has said that it was not much fun because most of the guys don't know the rules, some have even taken mulligans during a round!!! She does not want to babysit them.

Also, have you ever seen a group of girls playing together? They have fun. Way more fun than playing in the INT division will ever be for them.

Also, the tournaments where you have 2 or 3 women show up, all rated about 850, yet 1 has taken cash and has to play pro, you have the problem that the TD usually makes the ADV women move up and play pro. Which stinks for the women, because it costs them more money to play. If the ratings break was more fair, the pro who is just slightly over 850 could move down to play advanced and have a fun group of 3 women and a cheaper cost.

There are many more sides to the story. But in the end, I think 850 is much too low for the women to be forced to play Pro Women. I imagine most Pro Women in the 850 -880 range end up quitting the PDGA within 2 years. But if the ratings break was moved up to 875, then you would see those women stick around longer and play more events.

Also, have you ever seen a group of girls playing together? They have fun.

That depends entirely on who is in the group! Just ask my wife....

There are many more sides to the story. But in the end, I think 850 is much too low for the women to be forced to play Pro Women.
No woman is forced to turn pro at any rating. They make the choice based on their goals and local situation. If they decide they made a mistake going pro, they can apply to return to amateur status.

Sandalbagger- amen to your girlfriend- I was hesitant to say that because I didn't want to be the only person who has experienced it.

I have never heard of a TD making someone play in a division that they didn't want to- like forcing the am ladies to play pro. That is awful, and I can see why that would be very discouraging. Typically what I am more used to is if I am the only female pro, and there is a group of am women, we all get put on a card together. we have a lot of fun, but at the end of the day we reap the benefits of our own division. I think a good idea for that situation when there is one pro woman, and a couple am women that IF the am women do decide to move up and play pro, then if they cash, they should be offered the option of a merch payout, that way their amateur status can remain and there is still some sort of benefit for them.

I tried get a new PDGA number as a lefty under a new name and was denied. I thought that playing with the awesome Am women in my area opposite-handed would make PDGA events fun again. Tree-nied

Perpetually
Denying
Gaiety &
Amusement

She doesn't count Jerry, she only plays 1 round a year!! But if there was a Pro division for Cooking, she would win every event.

lol....

Marie's PDGA # 10210. She used to play nearly every tournament with me back in the 90's (I think the last sanctioned event she played was '01 PFDO).

Anyway, she moved up (prematurely) to Open Women simply to escape several of the whiny amateur females she often had to compete against during that time. Marie said the open women competitors were much more fun to play with even though she usually finished last in nearly every event. Of course, she's played with some whiners in the open division, too!

Virtually
Every
Gripe
Annoyingly
Negative
Really
A
Yawn

Fun game this :p

Bruce,

Speaking of anagrams, do you remember the one that started out

David
and
Maureen
Faulkner

I won't finish the rest, but once upon a time it was my fav frisbee acronym. The Faulkners were frisbee people in the UK in the 70s-early, so I thought you may know of them.

Bruceuk literate? Outstanding! Worth my energy? Doubt it.

Cheers, kid…

Devilishly used message board? Antagonistic, silly, stupid.

I tried get a new PDGA number as a lefty under a new name and was denied. I thought that playing with the awesome Am women in my area opposite-handed would make PDGA events fun again. Tree-nied
I thought of asking about that at some point in the future - at least I'm saved that effort. I'll stick with local leagues. :P

Lots of good comments.

My girlfriend has played INT men and has said that it was not much fun Obviously this varies from woman to woman. My wife and daughters prefer to play in men's divisions except when they can play with Barrett. They say men know how to compete and have fun. The women are too much drama. Men never cry when their disc is out of bounds. They joke about snowmen. When we travel south, the men are such gentlemen when there are women in their group.

I sign them up to play with the pro women sometimes. But they say no more of that in 2010. They'll tell me when they want to play with women. I think it is in a month with no vowels on a day that does not end in Y.

Obviously this varies from woman to woman. My wife and daughters prefer to play in men's divisions except when they can play with Barrett. They say men know how to compete and have fun. The women are too much drama. Men never cry when their disc is out of bounds. They joke about snowmen. When we travel south, the men are such gentlemen when there are women in their group.

I sign them up to play with the pro women sometimes. But they say no more of that in 2010. They'll tell me when they want to play with women. I think it is in a month with no vowels on a day that does not end in Y.


Yes- it DEFINITELY depends. Where I am, the ladies definitely know how to have more fun and the Intermediate guys are left complaining and creating drama.

Bruce,

Speaking of anagrams, do you remember the one that started out

David
and
Maureen
Faulkner

I won't finish the rest, but once upon a time it was my fav frisbee acronym. The Faulkners were frisbee people in the UK in the 70s-early, so I thought you may know of them.

Given I was born in 77, I doubt it! I do recognise the names though, from some old articles I read once upon a time.