The PDGA needs to do something about their rating system in comparison to divisions. At Bowling Green this weekend REC Champions shot -9 down and would have finished 3rd place in BOTH INT and ADV. COME ON PDGA...it's going to get to the point the ACTUAL Rec players don't play in tournaments because of ALL of the sandbagging. Or it may already be there.

Just an opinion!

It is tough when you are at the very bottom of the division. I'm there right now in MA1 and I understand. But there is no reason to take anything away from the guys at the top who had a good weekend.

The Rec winner had a rec rating based on 24 rounds over the past year, none of which were advanced rated. Second place had a rec rating with even more rounds in the database. There is absolutely no evidence of bagging whatsoever.

The victor's -9 may have been the result of some serious work on his game at Lemon Lake over the wintertime, or maybe he had a protracted spell of tree love, but there is no reason whatsoever to detract from his win by suggesting he has been sandbagging.

Congratulations to Jackson Buzea #46153, of Schererville, IN, for getting it done in the fourth round when you needed it most and then holding off your closest competitor in the Final 9. Congratulationa also to Mark Hoffmann #27718, of Elmhurst, IL, and to all of the other Rec players who have taken their game to the next level.

Did they play the same layout as the other divisions? Looks like he needed every bit of -9 to win, why don't you call out the runner up as well.

Did they play the same layout as the other divisions? Looks like he needed every bit of -9 to win, why don't you call out the runner up as well.Rec men and Intermediate men played the same courses as each other, but different courses at different times in four pools. Advanced men, masters and grandmasters played a different set of four courses. Right now the ratings don't indicate much because the pools and divisions are not sorted by courses played. But -9 at any of the Rec courses would be a fine round.

Thanks Bruce, my response was actually to PITTS original post. I really dislike when players are called out on this MB without any research being done & using the sandbagging term. Nobody can have a good event any more w/o grief. Congrats to all the top finishers, BG was a great memory for me when I played in '07.

Thanks Bruce, my response was actually to PITTS original post. I really dislike when players are called out on this MB without any research being done & using the sandbagging term. Nobody can have a good event any more w/o grief. Congrats to all the top finishers, BG was a great memory for me when I played in '07.
Don't forget called out based on faulty or incomplete data too. There's no way of knowing if the courses are assigned properly in the unofficial results, so the ratings are surely off and that -9 might not even be true if the pars listed don't match the courses that were actually played. Thanks to Bruce, we know for sure that Jackson's score can't be compared to the Advanced men, at least.

Sounds like the guy practiced really hard, played really well, and won by a single stroke to pick up his first career PDGA sanctioned win in what was probably the biggest and deepest Rec division assembled to date. Congrats, Jackson.

I realized a FLAW in my opinion and would like to strike all comments and finish by saying "Senator, I do not recall!" It wasn't my intention in calling this player a sandbagger as it was to the rating system. For this I apologize!

For those that I have offended you'd be happy to know that I have relinquished my balls and they are back in my wife's purse where they belong!

Sorry again!!!

I realized a FLAW in my opinion and would like to strike all comments and finish by saying "Senator, I do not recall!" It wasn't my intention in calling this player a sandbagger as it was to the rating system. For this I apologize!

For those that I have offended you'd be happy to know that I have relinquished my balls and they are back in my wife's purse where they belong!

Sorry again!!!

That was funny. I appreciate your ballsmanship & willingness to rethink how you expressed an opinion. Most people just restate it as if no one understood it the first time. The system is not flawless & players players don't always shoot at their rating, especially in the lower divisions, so I applaud break out rounds and events. There will be baggers but they always get weeded out and end up where they should be eventually. LOL

Take a look at the Denison Parks and Rec Open last weekend. Unrated players and players with old ratings in Rec throwing 1000 rated rounds. Guy who won rec would have placed second in Open.

I'm not calling anyone a bagger, but it's been pretty discouraging stepping up into the men's divisions as my rating has gone above 800. It seems like the norm for there to be someone in rec throwing at least 920 rated rounds consistently, and not just becasue they are having a good day. It's because they've improved or have recovered from an injury and either have a lot of old rounds from the previous year dragging their rating down, or haven't played a tournament in a while. It's difficult for me to understand why the average player shows up for tournaments. I can see why many drop out after a year or two.

To adequately address the problem, I think the PDGA would have to do two things:

(1) Calculate two ratings, one using rounds over the past year, and one using rounds over the last three months, and take the highest as the player's rating for division qualification purposes (the one-year rating could still be used for propagation purposes if desired);

(2) Have an inexpensive, trophy only, "Unrated" division, and require all players who don't have a rating, or any rated rounds from the last three months, to play either in Open or in the Unrated division (which would encourage and reward current PDGA membership and regular tournament play).

TDs already have the option of requiring non-members to play in any division that they so choose. Your second option with regards to members that don't have any rated rounds in the last three months makes no sense in some climates where disc golfers do not play any rated rounds over the winter.

TDs already have the option of requiring non-members to play in any division that they so choose. Your second option with regards to members that don't have any rated rounds in the last three months makes no sense in some climates where disc golfers do not play any rated rounds over the winter.

What's the TD going to do? Force all new players to play open at your average C tier? There's no way that will happen. The current model encourages TDs to cycle through the next crop of players who fall for the false promise of ratings protected divisions. And TD discretion regarding non-members does nothing to address the issue of rated players having highly inaccurate ratings ( for any of the reasons discussed above). We have a local player who was previously int rated but played injured last year, and now brags and laughs as he plays at an intermediate level in rec now that he has recovered from his injury. But the TD's hands are tied. As for players who take the off season off, I say it's better for most everyone to have a test tournament on the unrated division at the start of the season than what we have now.

Having a test tournament means that it is a non-consequential seeding event. That will make the problem worse rather than better.

Not knowing what happened in Denison, but these cures are worse than the very rare disease of (alleged) sandbagging.

Not knowing what happened in Denison, but these cures are worse than the very rare disease of (alleged) sandbagging.

I did not accuse anyone of bagging. In my view, bagging is intentional misplay to lower ones rating. I'm talking about a problem of unrated players or vastly improved players being permitted to dominate ratings protected divisions for which they would not qualify if they had ratings that reflected their true skill levels. Maybe that isn't common in your experience, but around here, it's an every tournament occurrence. If ratings protected divisions are intended to provide everyone a fair chance to win, then changes need to be made. If they are just intended to be stepping stones for players who eventually improve to open or advanced levels,while those who peek in skill at int or rev levels drop out and stop competing, then nothing needs to be changed. Carry on.

The ratings breaks for the am divisions are set to statistically give players with established ratings a reasonable chance to cash, not to win that division. The chance to cash usually does not disappear if one player is misplaced in a division.

I did not accuse anyone of bagging. In my view, bagging is intentional misplay to lower ones rating. I'm talking about a problem of unrated players or vastly improved players being permitted to dominate ratings protected divisions for which they would not qualify if they had ratings that reflected their true skill levels. Maybe that isn't common in your experience, but around here, it's an every tournament occurrence.

Fair enough.

No, it's not common around here. I once researched two years of tournaments in my state, and couldn't find a case of an unrated player winning more than one event, in any division. Nor have I seen a player whose skills have so greatly exceeded his rating that he dominates his division. Though I presume any such player's rating would catch up with him quickly.

What I have seen is a player shoot way over his head for a tournament, or even a couple of tournaments, before the magic wears off and his game, and thus his average results, end up agreeing with his ratings.

If the problem is localized, a system-wide solution seems like overkill to me.

If the problem is localized, a system-wide solution seems like overkill to me.

THIS!

As far as unrated players go, they have no recourse if a TD tells them they must play a certain division. If someone signs up for Rec, for example, and the TD has reason to believe he doesn't belong there, he can tell him he must play intermediate or advanced if that's more appropriate. So it's really on the TD(s) to "fix" the problem if it persists in a particular area.

It's partly for this reason that I always charge the same entry for all am divisions...so that there is no incentive to play down to "save" a few bucks on registration fees and no one can feel they're being forced to spend money they don't want to spend if they're not allowed to play the lower division that they are overqualified for it.

I can say that my experiences mirror David's in terms of observing unknown/unrated players and the frequency with which they enter and dominate a particular division. When it happens, it is almost always someone playing their first event or if not their first event, the first time they're playing a tournament on what they'd consider their home course. And the situation is rarely repeated as the player moves up in his next event or comes back to reality after a really lucky/good day.

Changing the system to address isolated incidents would be overkill.

THIS!

It's partly for this reason that I always charge the same entry for all am divisions...so that there is no incentive to play down to "save" a few bucks on registration fees and no one can feel they're being forced to spend money they don't want to spend if they're not allowed to play the lower division that they are overqualified for it.



I've done it both ways, not sure which is best. A lower entry fee for lower divisions means lower payouts, which could be a disincentive to those likely to dominate those divisions.

On the other hand, a single entry fee is easier on the TD.

I've done it both ways, not sure which is best. A lower entry fee for lower divisions means lower payouts, which could be a disincentive to those likely to dominate those divisions.

I guess the other key is to not worry about payouts at all. Low entry fee for all divisions with minimal to no payout (i.e. player packs and trophies). That does even more to discourage any sandbagging and encourages players to play where they're most competitive.

I should probably know this, but.....

Does the spreadsheet the PDGA sends TDs include players who've never been PDGA members? Or just current and former PDGA members?

If the former, it would allow the TD to assign some, though not all, of the non-members to an appropriate division. Those that slip through would only be able to do so for a couple of months, at the most.

I should probably know this, but.....

Does the spreadsheet the PDGA sends TDs include players who've never been PDGA members? Or just current and former PDGA members?

If the former, it would allow the TD to assign some, though not all, of the non-members to an appropriate division. Those that slip through would only be able to do so for a couple of months, at the most.
No, the PDGA does not track non-members. It's apparently an arduous enough task to handle the members and former members it already does track, can't imagine having to quintuple the database to track non-members as well (and that's just a conservative low estimate of non-members to members). And even if they did track them, it would still be incumbent on the TDs to collect information about the non-members playing in their events and submitting it to the PDGA. I know they ask for it, but rarely are my non-member players interested in filling out address and contact info so the PDGA can send them what amounts (to them) to be junk mail. Have to imagine it's the same elsewhere.

It has to be the initiative of the local scene, be it TDs or clubs, to monitor instances of unrated/non-member players taking advantage of the divisional system. They're closer to the action and are in a much better position to identify potential abusers than an international governing body ever would be.

I've been tracking non-members in Northern Illinois for a number of years. My database for these non-members is just slightly larger than the PDGA database for members.

I've been tracking non-members in Northern Illinois for a number of years. My database for these non-members is just slightly larger than the PDGA database for members.

Wow...should I be worried about joining tournaments here in NE Illinois, then? I've read this whole thread and I was good until the end here...most seemed isolated, but not in my neck of the woods, until the above post. Are these recurring non-members that are dominating, or are they just recurring non-members that are just showing up to events?

Wow...should I be worried about joining tournaments here in NE Illinois, then? I've read this whole thread and I was good until the end here...most seemed isolated, but not in my neck of the woods, until the above post. Are these recurring non-members that are dominating, or are they just recurring non-members that are just showing up to events?At IOSeries tournaments and tournaments Krupicka is associated with, non-members have to play according to their unofficial rating. At other northern Illinois tournaments, there is not much bagging by unrated non-members.

At IOSeries tournaments and tournaments Krupicka is associated with, non-members have to play according to their unofficial rating. At other northern Illinois tournaments, there is not much bagging by unrated non-members.

I figured as much, but had to ask.

Typically there is only one or two non-members per tournament where I've had to tell them that they needed to pick a different division.

Here is a solution.... Don't offer anything below intermediate when running a tournament... Tell me... what sport have you ever heard of a Recreational player traveling to play in tournaments??? In addition to this, Charge the same amount for both MA1 and MA2 with a higher payout in MA1.

Just my 2 cents...

Here is a solution.... Don't offer anything below intermediate when running a tournament... Tell me... what sport have you ever heard of a Recreational player traveling to play in tournaments??? In addition to this, Charge the same amount for both MA1 and MA2 with a higher payout in MA1.

Just my 2 cents...I'm guessing that when you and your brother fought over toys, your mother threw them out.

I will concede that the names of the divisions are poor, but that doesn't mean we should not run divisions for lower rated players. If we called the divisions:
Top Amateur (MA1)
Advanced Amateur (MA2)
Intermediate Amateur (MA3)
Novice Amateur (MA4)
would that make you feel any better about running the lower divisions?

I run all divisions with the same entry fee, same payout structure. We do not have a problem with people bagging. The couple that I had to bump were just unaware that they should play in a higher division since they only play once a year or so in tournaments.

Other sports where "recreational" players travel for events? Running and chess both come immediately to mind. I've known plenty of B volleyball teams (Rec division equivalent) that have traveled for tournaments.

It's kinda ironic that they changed the name of the bottom division to Recreational way back when due in part to the stigma associated with the term "novice". The idea being that a division like "novice" was for first time tournament players only, and not a division a player lingers in because his/her skills aren't good enough for the next level. And to emphasize Rec as a legit division and not a "beginner" division, they added Novice back in underneath it. Now the term "Recreational" gives people the wrong impression of the intent of the division.

Personally, I'm a fan of just going with the numbers. Whether you call it MA1 or AM2 or Amateur 3, it's more clear and easy to understand the heirarchy intended than calling it Advanced, Intermediate, etc.

Because the men's am divisions are really non-gender divisions, the Competition Committee did not want the best Am women to feel bad playing in a non-gender division labeled 3 or 4 if numbers were used as the division names. I've always preferred colors for divisions that matched the PDGA skill levels: Blue, White, Red, Green, Orange, Purple covers the amateur ranges and were used at the ratings based Mid-Nationals. Gold and even Super Gold (or Platinum?) for our pros.

I don't really understand the numbers comment with regards to women. Is that from a misguided notion that women don't play MA1 or MA2?

Let's say the unisex divisions were A1, A2, A3 & A4. It indirectly disses women when the best Am women can barely compete in A3, and A4 is considered equal to FA1. With words, it probably feels better for women to be called Advanced even though that may be equivalent to Rec or Novice in mens/unisex divisions.

With color divisions, TDs could host both Red Men and Red Women divisions or just the Red division and women would be treated the same as men with all at the same skill level.

Historical note:

When the Board adopted the current divisional names it was split three ways between numbers, names and colors. The feelings of women about being mostly 3s, 4s and 5s were not considered.

Let's say the unisex divisions were A1, A2, A3 & A4. It indirectly disses women when the best Am women can barely compete in A3, and A4 is considered equal to FA1.

Actually the best Am women can't compete in A3 since they are rated over 900.

Let's say the unisex divisions were A1, A2, A3 & A4. It indirectly disses women when the best Am women can barely compete in A3, and A4 is considered equal to FA1. With words, it probably feels better for women to be called Advanced even though that may be equivalent to Rec or Novice in mens/unisex divisions.

With color divisions, TDs could host both Red Men and Red Women divisions or just the Red division and women would be treated the same as men with all at the same skill level.

If the divisions are truly supposed to be unisex and determined strictly by skill level, then there shouldn't be a concern about anyone's "feelings" with regard to what the divisions are called. I don't see how calling the division by a number disses the women, directly or indirectly, any more than it disses the men in the division. The division breaks are determined strictly on objective skill-based criteria, and players simply fit where they fit regardless of gender. Whether you call it A3 or Rec or Red or whatever, your top am women (presuming that they're rated under 900) are still playing in the third best unisex amateur division. It is what it is regardless of what you call it.

The connotations almost matter more than the denotations of the division names. Wonder why most if not all of the state HS divisions based on school size have an A in them going from Class A up to Class AAAA or 6A rather than F thru A? The connotations of the names is partly why I dislike the Rec and Novice names as much or more than many members but haven't been able to persuade the CC that it was important to change them.

I didn't know anyone had a problem with the rec name. It's "novice" that everyone hates around here. As an 807 rated player, it's apparent to me that there really is a black hole in the divisional structure with the only division capped at 850 bearing such a stigmatizing label that no one is willing to play it. My spouse is also rated below 850, and he won't even form the division with me. We've been playing for 7 years. We're not novices. No one wants a trophy with "novice" on it.

I suggested changing "novice" to "casual" or "coed" or something like that, and no one liked it. I don't think colors will ever catch on. If we could do it over, I would suggest naming the am divisions:

MA1 - Expert
MA2 - Advanced
MA3 - Intermediate
MA4 - Recreational

But doing that now would essentially retroactively demote all the trophies that have ever been awarded for those divisions. What's needed is a name for MA4 with a more positive connotation, and that recognizes that the rating may be due to athletic ability, rather than the idea that the player is inexperienced.

Expert has been set aside partly because some have felt it seemed better than "pro." And, it's possibly the name for the division above current Advanced that would start around 970-980 in the future. Colors have already caught on among the many who discuss course design and skill level issues, so that would be an easy transition.

How will you explain that you are blue champion to someone not playing?

Colors have already caught on among the many who discuss course design and skill level issues, so that would be an easy transition.

That might be an argument for not using colors for division names. Since few courses have tees for all skill levels, I can imagine announce "White division will play red tees on Saturday and blue tees on Sunday. Blue division will play blue tees on Saturday and gold tees on Sunday...."

Which leads to "I'm a red-level player competing in the white division from the blue tees."

I didn't know anyone had a problem with the rec name.

I do. I even know people who take offense to being called "Intermediates".

"Rec" / "Recreational" has a connotation that you're not serious; you're just playing for fun. I'm a Rec-rated player, and I'm quite serious about my game---just not very good at it. (Fortunately, the ill-named Masters and now Grandmasters divisions give me refuge and, in fact, the opposite issue of a connotation that I might be good, even have "mastered" disc golf).

But none of this is a big deal, since no one's getting a "Rec" tattoo. Any division naming system is going to have its flaws and critics. Even the MA1-MA2-MA3-MA4 that I prefer, which has a has a kind of Soviet dryness. How does "I'm the MA2 Champion" sound to at outsider?

Why is that any better/worse than, "I'm a red level player competing in the Advanced Women division from the blue tees?"

Consider that having divisions by color would help course developers lobby Park Depts to install more and better tees to handle the skill levels or at least identify which of the red and blue tees play best for white (which is already being done) and gold, even if temp positions for tournaments.

Orienteering has been using a color division and course color system for longer than disc golf has been around. When I competed in the 80s, I started in the white division and eventually competed for orange division titles running the orange course route. They don't have many spectators either. So winning the U.S. Orange orienteering title is no better or worse than winning a U.S. White DG title. It only matters to those in the sport as a stepping stone and in reference to whatever the top title is called, typically Open.

Using colors for divisions might be simpler but a bit more abstract, kind of like using the metric system. But wait, we do use the metric system for every official measurement, although inexplicably not for hole and course lengths like they do outside the U.S. for disc golf.

Why is that any better/worse than, "I'm a red level player competing in the Advanced Women division from the blue tees?"



Only in that, in the absence of using the colors to define divisions, people aren't defined themselves as a "red level player competing in Advanced Women". They're saying, "I'm an Intermediate Woman competing in Advanced Women."

I like the color system. I like it defining skill levels. I like it defining tees. I have mixed feelings about it describing courses. I could live with it naming divisions---not great, but preferable to the current division names.

But using it in several contexts? The problems might come from the fact that people have a color rating but play in a different color division. Tees have different colors but TDs don't assign the proper divisions to the proper tees, color-wise, especially where they like changing tees from round to round, as they do around here.

Establishing definitions will lead to uniformity. It won't happen the other way around. If the PDGA establishes the division colors, then more courses and TDs will fall in line over time. Just having color skill levels for sets of tees has only gone so far toward consistency at least for new courses. Many will never be updated to the color standards because of money and lack of an experienced designer prodding the Parks to change what they have. But wouldn't you agree that the gold level at minimum has worked its way into the common lexicon of the sport to define both the top courses and players?

I'd certainly agree that about the "gold".

And the color scheme as far as courses, course designs, tees. Taking root, but slowly.

I have doubts about length of time for TDs to fall in and match division colors to courses and teepads (if they have them). Sure it won't happen without PDGA using colors to define divisions, but I doubt it'll happen, to a widespread degree, if they do, either.

Anyway, that's one drawback to the color scheme for division names. Each of the possibilities has its drawbacks. As I said before, I don't think it's a real big deal, either way.

Colors might be good for the designers' guild but they make no sense to the general disc golfing population.

They don't make sense because they aren't used as division names. Simple as that. If you're going to have skilled based divisions it only makes sense that the division names match the skill levels sets of tees are designed for. Why would you do it any other way if you were starting from scratch?

If we renamed the divisions by the color scheme, what confidence do we have that the division structure will stay unchanged, or at least for how long?

The number of amateur divisions and threshholds, as well as the age threshholds, have changed several times over the years. If we adopted the color scheme for divisions, and it became widely adopted for courses and tees, any concern that the next jiggling of the ratings breaks, addition or subtraction of a division, would require a change of tee locations, signage, etc.?

As long as they're separate, the course designers can use and even fine-tune the skill-level principles, and the divisions can be changed without one impacting the other.

Of course, it could solidify the divisions for a while, too. Or might make no difference at all.

If division names were changed to colors, we would align them with the skill levels at that time. Five throws statistically works for each range to allow those at the bottom to occasionally cash. There's no reason that would change. So if any changes would be made down the road, there would be little reason for skill levels to not remain tied to the division names.

If division names were changed to colors, we would align them with the skill levels at that time. Five throws statistically works for each range to allow those at the bottom to occasionally cash. There's no reason that would change. So if any changes would be made down the road, there would be little reason for skill levels to not remain tied to the division names.

What I was thinking was not just a change in the threshholds. What if you've got divisions in order (If I have this right) Gold-Blue-White-Red-Green. PDGA decides to split Ams into 6 divisions, one squeezed between Blue & White, one between Red & Green? Or backtracks from 4 Am divisions to 3?

Easy to change the division names. Harder to re-color a bunch of tee signs.

Maybe it's not a problem at all. But it's certainly not a problem if the division names aren't tied to the course design color scheme.

If the change were made to tie division colors to skill level colors, and it was done properly, there likely would not be a reason to ever change division breaks. Or if there were a reason to change, both the skill levels and division breaks would logically change together. The purpose for skill based divisions in the first place is to get players of similar skills competing together. Why would you not want to have course challenges designed to match the defined skill level groupings as a baseline reference, not that you couldn't also play up knowing what the increased challenge meant?

If we were starting from scratch without any history, tying the division names with the skill levels whether using words, colors or numbers would be obvious. It's only because our history involved a certain way that we're challenged to straighten things out due to historical inertia.

Why would you not want to have course challenges designed to match the defined skill level groupings as a baseline reference, not that you couldn't also play up knowing what the increased challenge meant?



In part, it's the 3rd option I'm thinking of---don't want to play up, want to play with players of my skill level, but want to play a tougher course (for above my skill level). That's the "White division playing blue tees" scenario.

A lot of events around here has us playing different tees for different rounds. So you get:

Round 1 Gold Division and Blue Division play Gold Tees. White Division and Red Division play Blue Tees.
Route 2 Gold Division plays Gold Tees. Blue Division and White Division play Blue Tees. Red Division plays red tees.
....and so on. It's like moving pin placements, but some places don't have multiple pin locations. They still want to shake things up. Maybe that will change over time, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Plus, though a course can designed for a single color skill level, lots of color divisions will play.

*

My point about long-term PDGA changes wasn't about changing the breaks. If, for simplicity, we've got 4 divisions with 50-point ratings spans, and tees and courses to match. One day they decide they want 7 divisions with 30-point ratings spans. Regardless of where the breaks are set, it will no long coordinate without a wholesale change on the courses. Maybe it won't happen; the initial breaks will be so well chosen as the endure. Maybe.

*

I completely agree on the force of historical inertia. The argument that "we should have done it this way to begin with" has validity, but it would need an even more compeling argument to push against the tide of historical inertia. Not just because people don't want to change, but because for the effort of changing an existing structure means the new structure must present a significant benefit to justify itself.

Maybe the color scheme does. But if I had to vote, I think I'd code with a code scheme (MA1, MA2, etc.).

Just because you have color divisions doesn't mean TDs would be required to have divisions only play on their color tees for every round if available. There would be no reason to change the ratings breaks if they are set properly in the first place. A 50-rating point range is right where players 50 points below players at the top have a chance to cash in that division every so often. That's why the PDGA skill level colors for course guidelines were set 50 points apart. That won't change unless the game itself changes significantly.

The groundwork has already been done, but not enough members of the PDGA CompCom have yet been persuaded or are willing to pull the trigger to officially synchronize what already is almost in sync.

Here's what it boils down to:
1. If there's agreement that courses should either consistently be designed for a particular skill level if they only have one tee or address different skill levels with multiple sets of tees, then...
2. You need to define what those skill levels are and identify them in some way, then...
3. If you agree there should be different competition divisions based on some mechanism to define skill levels, and we already have defined course skill levels in step 2 above, then...
4. Why would you not use the same names for your divisions as whatever names you called the skill levels in step 2 so you had a unified competition system that tied everything together, especially for new players and eventually the media? It's really that simple.

Now, if you believe courses don't need any skill based guidelines for design of any set of tees and any hole that is competitively good for the best players is also good for average players and also for beginning players, then you have relegated what could have been a sport to simply a game because you have not defined the fundamental playing environment well enough.

The devil's in the compliance.

Not every course designer is in compliance with the standards, or committed to multiple tees, each properly positioned for the designated skill levels. Barring a mandatory certification program, they won't be. Courses without multiple tee pads aren't good for all skill levels, but they typically span a couple of skill levels with holes that play reasonably well, if not ideally, across them. Or with a mix of holes (a few golds, a few blues, a few whites?).

It's a fine argument if we're starting for scratch. The historic inertia stuff is still out there, though.

The TDs' non-compliance (using certain tees/courses for certain divisions) is also a consideration.

I'm not saying it's not a good idea. I'm not saying it's not the best idea. I'm just saying the unifying the colors in theory, if not done in practice, might muddle things.

It really doesn't matter if some of the courses played consistently match the guidelines or whether the divisions only play the course layouts for their skill level. The point is the system for the sport would be in sync with clear guidelines so TDs and course owners can see what they could do to improve. If you don't set simple guidelines, it will never get in sync on its own.

Leaving aside whether "locking in" the divisions is an issue or not, the historic inertia and the future as a sport,

(1) Do you believe we'd have the situation I described: "White division will play blue tees. Blue division will play gold tees." etc.?

(2) Would the benefits of naming divisions by colors outweigh that cumbersome, perhaps confusing, verbiage?

(1&2) Yes, although my experience would be a statement by the TD more like "Pros, Advanced Masters plus Whites and above play the longs. All Am women divisions, Juniors plus Red and below play shorts." Substitute Intermediate for White and Rec for Red in the above statements and you have what TDs would currently say. Not any more nor less confusing.

Good point, probably true most places with only 2 sets of tees (and of course, moot if only 1 tee). Even more so if the division names catch on better than the course design principles.;)

Out of curiousity, how would you name the age-protected divisions in this scheme?

We've been able to hold the line for the age divisions with "Advanced" being the only prefix used for the am level. Just need to continue to hold out and not create divisions like Intermediate Grand Master or Rec Master.

Another benefit of color divisions is making it a little more inviting for those in small divisions to enter their color level division when they don't have enough for a division. We already know there are several "pioneers" among the women and older men who regularly cross over to their appropriate skill division whether Adv, Int or Rec. But I also know some dislike entering Rec or even Novice if offered due to the name, especially when they've played for years.

I think TDs in well developed markets would prefer offering Red, Green and Orange for the lower level divisions rather than having the randomness whether one or two Adv Sr GM, Int Woman, Novice Am (beginner) or Junior under 13 enters. All of those players and several other small divisions like them could all compete in Green or Orange and save the TD from losing money on unused trophies or not having the right ones and sending them later.

Well, if using ratings for handicapping truly catches on, then we could do away with ratings based divisions, and just have the age and gender protected divisions like ball golf.

However, I tried doing handicapping as a side game with just added cash at my league, and there was so much resistance to it that I gave it up.

The one big problem with color divisions, Chuck, is when you highlight that the amateur women will get stuck playing with the junior boys. :D

And the boys say, "What problem?" ;)

There's no reason you couldn't have Green male and Green female divisions if you have enough players. I think our sport has evolved to overly cater to small divisions (1 or 2) at the expense of TDs hosting events compared with some other amateur sports ranging from softball to orienteering to ball golf (handicapping) to tennis to chess that have skill levels to bring together males and females of all ages based on skill. It's true those sports also have competitions restricted by age and/or gender, but only because there are enough players nationally or regionally in those specific categories to support that.

I'm kind of ambivalent about some junior divisions being needed at our weekend events. Many junior players at the Under 19 and Under 16 ages who decide to compete in our regular events already have skill levels/ratings in the range of our existing divisions both male and female. I'm not sure those two junior divisions need to be hosted in weekend events but simply at National or World Championships and ideally in "Juniors only" competitions as disc golf continues to develop in the school arena to generate middle school and high school competitions.

Why is there no age groups in the Intermediate level?

Thanks

John R.

1. Because the four Amateur divisions and three women Am divisions pretty much cover the ratings range of most players over 39 below the Advanced (top) level of their age/gender qualifications.
2. If one Intermediate level were allowed in age based divisions, then every age bracket for men and women would expect to have one which increases the number of potential small divisions for TDs to manage by eight. Then, older pros would say why can't we have Pro 2 divisions for our age and it becomes even less manageable.
3. The current division structure already has more choices for older players than younger players. A 50-year old woman with an 825 rating can enter around 10 divisions, not necessarily contend in all of them but she does have choices younger players do not.

I think you can make the explanation even simpler, Chuck. Either you play in a ratings protected/defined division or an age protected/defined division. You can't have both.

Ditto Josh's last comment.

For devil's advocate's sake, "age" IMO is a 'purer' split-out than is "ratings" as your age is your age (and you can't do anything about it). Every 10 years (IF that's the age breaks one chooses to use...although T&F has gone to every 5..) you get to "be the young dog in that dog pound", but it only happens every so often. With "ratings breaks" not only can they be "tweaked" (by a player bagging their rating) but they're "forever" (if you stay the same). And THAT "same" may be just under a ceiling (yielding "good") or just over a ceiling (yielding "get beat up every tournament"). Combine that with the (as an example) arbitrary split-outs coming 935/934, 900/899, 850/849, etc. (why not 927/926, etc.?) and it reeks of less than it could be.

And as for players / designers playing / designing courses "for their ability level(s)", I contend that there are virtually as many "ability levels" as there are players (as different 'abilities' - distance, accuracy, putting, etc. can't "have a number assigned to them" regarding how a course is set up / made for them)...or certainly as many as there are numbers (rating numbers). And while 50 pts (per course 'color') seems to be "accepted" the number is 1) somewhat arbitrary, and 2) different, say, 940 players will do differently on any 1 950 course. Add in that most players want variety in the courses they play and they play "not on THEIR ability course" more times than they'll play "where the designer wishes them to play" anyway.

Karl

So basically just scatter those tees and baskets anywhere and go play :rolleyes:

Try not to exaggerate my stance TOO much Chuck (by stating it in silly words)...

So, not quite "...scatter those tees and baskets anywhere..." but they certainly don't have to be 'set up for' certain 50-rating point groupings!

In those situations where a course is fortunate to have the land to create many options (Warwick's and Borderland's long-to-short, short-to-long, short-to-short, and long-to-long or Maple Hill's 4 sets, etc.) I don't think I've EVER seen / did / heard of a player playing the same 'set up' twice in a row. I'm SURE it HAS happened but that would be the VAST minority of times (maybe to satisfy some personal goal, happenstance, etc.). People WILL choose variety.

And in those cases where the land only provides for one set (of tees / baskets), it's better to do your "courses for certain 'abilities' of players" thing on a hole-to-hole basis; for if you DO try it for "a certain ability" (whatever that is), you'll only do "justice" (if you DO believe it can happen this way) to one group. Making it sucky for everyone else?!? NG.
Better to have several holes "perfect" for a group and the rest just "OK"...at least then EVERYONE can have something! Again, IF you believe you CAN set up courses / holes for "abilities".

Karl


Karl

And Karl, you rarely give us credit for knowing what some of us are doing as designers based on actual data versus your assumptions. The 50-point range was chosen based on statistical modeling so players at the bottom of the range have the potential to sometimes cash in events against those at the top of the range. That has proven to be the case when we have been able to check division results where there's a 50-pt range in established player ratings.

A good sign a system has any validity is its ability to correctly forecast what players of a particular skill level will shoot, not only for the whole course, but on each hole. Our designer's group has extensive data since 2003 or so showing that you can design for a skill and have the scoring results confirm the design. It's not always correct for each hole. But at least you have the tools to make the proper corrections to fix those aberrant holes and learn why the forecast may have been off. And we then improve the forecasting system accordingly.

Course layouts should be designed for a specific skill level. Not doing so would be similar to having a basketball court with a 3-pt line at one end of the court set for NBA distance and the other end at HS distance or zigzagging the home run fence closer and farther over a 150 ft range on a ballfield. But simply adding a second set of tees can cover the main four PDGA skill levels pretty well because there's some overlap, even though that usually means some of the holes will be the dreaded par 2s for gold. They're still legitimate easy, challenges. We just don't call them par 2s.

"Not doing so would be similar to having a basketball court with a 3-pt line at one end of the court set for NBA distance and the other end at HS distance or zigzagging the home run fence closer and farther over a 150 ft range on a ballfield."

Chuck, stick to the topic (and don't muddy the waters with terrible analogies that are not applicable).

I'm not arguing that a 50pt divisional rating spread is not "statistically correct", I'm saying that WHERE you put those divisional breaks is / are random.

It is my opinion (everyone has one ;) ) that there are a couple of points that kind of torpedo this:

1. If no courses are designed for a 925 player, where does s/he play? Oh, half the time on the red and half the time on the white you say? Well they're going to play there, yes...and on the green, and on the blue, and on the gold, and on the black, and on whatever other 'color' is out there. Because they want to! Not because someone said that THAT course is "the best one for them".
2. If your argument is that there is need for maximum scoring "spread", I'll say that there is need for SOME scoring spread (maybe not maximum) and that the PGA has a LOT less scoring spread than does the PDGA (for analogous tournaments / same-ability levels) and they're doing "OK" ;) . So to pigeon-hole someone into a certain ability and design courses for them, IMO, makes little sense...especially because there are WAY more abilities than types / 'colors' available. If you can design enough courses so that you actually cover each and every ability, fine (and you must have a LOT of land) but designing A course that EVERYONE can play (and have fun) is a lot more practical than designing a course for a certain small groups of people.
3. And any person of a certain "rating" can TOTALLY vary in "ability" due to the former is made up of a compilation of scores and the latter is due to numerous different facets in a player's game...and rarely are they equal to any other's (i.e. distance = great but putting = poor can = a 968 player as can the reverse). Are you telling me that "courses made for a certain rating number" can accomodate such?

And wish I could talk further with you about this topic but I'll be away from internet access for quite a while. Yeah (reprive from humanity) - isolation is a good thing sometimes!

Karl

I realize (because I recall you saying it before, Chuck) that the reason the women's rated division caps are relatively lower than the men's with respect to the highest rated men and women is because it would be really difficult to field an advanced women's division if the women's divisions tracked those of mens. In other words, the highest rated men are rated about 1045, and int men caps out 110 points lower at 935, while rec man caps at 900, and novice at 850. So if one were to do the same for women, who peak around 970, int women would cap at 860, rec women at 825, and an additional novice women category at 775.

What I'm seeing is that it is still all but impossible to field an advanced women division at your average tournament, but then when we go to majors and women only tournaments, the advanced women's field is packed with ladies having ratings that are 100 points or more apart. That would be unheard of in men's divisions. Plus, women's advanced filelds are filling up and overbooking at worlds this year.

Is it maybe time to consider adjusting the ratings caps for divisions to provide more fairly competitive experiences for women competitiors, at least at majors and women only tournaments, where fielding a division is not such a concern? Has any study ever been performed to analyze the distribution of women's ratings for all women in the PDGA under 40?

If the Women's Committee approached the Competition Committee to reassess the breaks for women, that could be done. However, consider that Am women have the right to play in the appropriate (men's) amateur rating break divisions. So there really isn't a competition structural need to manipulate the breaks for women above 800 since those options are available. Women above a 799 rating have the choice to be competitive or play with women and many times get both, a choice which the men don't have.

Chuck,

In general, I think disc golfers can have somewhat of a poor understanding and often really unrealistic expectations about the ratings system, and give you a hard time that you just don't deserve. However, all the excellent points you made and goodwill you earned in post #70 and your response to the uber-argumentative Karl were thrown out the window with that response to Jennifer.

Just like for the men, the original ratings breaks & ranges for amateur women were based on actual data and statistical modeling. In the same manner that the men's ratings breaks & ranges have been adjusted over the years after looking at more real world data, the women's can be examined and adjusted too. I know for a fact that the men's advanced and intermediate breaks weren't initially 935 and 900, respectively, and were tweaked several times. There's no reason that the data for women can't be re-evaluated and re-assessed, and I think it's fairly lame to dismiss Jennifer's claim by essentially telling her to either a) have the Women's Committee approach the Competition Committee about it or b) if you don't like it, play with the men.

Bottom line is that I just don't think that those answers are the kind of good customer service which should be given in response to a very valid question.

My $.02

You may have devalued my original $.05 answer to $.03 but it's still the same one with no sarcasm, no sugar and no apologies. JB had a reasonable question and I gave her the current PDGA protocol for addressing it if she wishes to pursue it. Now, the Ask Chuck Kennedy thread is where you can always find my trademark sweet, sensitive, customer service responses.

If the Women's Committee approached the Competition Committee to reassess the breaks for women, that could be done. However, consider that Am women have the right to play in the appropriate (men's) amateur rating break divisions. So there really isn't a competition structural need to manipulate the breaks for women above 800 since those options are available. Women above a 799 rating have the choice to be competitive or play with women and many times get both, a choice which the men don't have.

I'd agree if it were possible to field a novice division, but it never happens around here. The realistic availability of a men's division that caps at 900 is little consolation for the am woman rated a few points over 800, and the supposed, but actually non-existent, availability of a men's division that caps at 850 doesn't change that situation. I've literallyseen a novice division form exactly once around here over the past 18 months.

Even if you tried to balance things perfectly from an aggregate statistical standpoint and tweak the ratings breaks, the problem is there will still be pockets where there aren't enough players, men or women, for good competition in several divisions. There are parts of the country where Novice is one of their biggest divisions (IL, KY). But if you can't get your local TD to run it, it's hard for the PDGA to force it to be offered, especially if the players play up and don't support it.

One concept related to what JB was suggesting is to have different breaks depending on the tier. That way players with established ratings wouldn't permanently be stuck at the top or bottom of a division. At an A-tier they might be at the top, B-tier middle and C-tier bottom. While in theory the concept would help solve some of these problems being discussed, putting it in actual practice might be an insurmountable challenge for TDs and players.

And thus one of the inherent problem with divisional breaks based on ratings instead of age. So while the 'different divisional break lines for different tiers' has merit (actually a rather interesting concept) one could, if they chose to, just sit back and envision all the possible ways of "circumventing the system" to their benefit, i.e. attending only tournaments where they'd be "at the top...", etc. And TD's have enough headaches without adding to their quantity. Age breaks, while not perfect, just seem more 'perfecter' to me, as they're based on an unalienble fact that YOU can't control / mess with.

Karl

Division breaks using ratings ranges are superior to age divisions for this simple reason: The only time you are playing the best player in the World in an age division is if he or she lives or plays in your area. With ratings break divisions, much of the time you are playing the best in the world in that division if someone with a rating within a point or so of the top rating in your bracket is playing. By definition, if you win that division against one or more players with the top rating in the bracket, you have beaten the "best" in the world in that division that day on the assumption that everyone in the world with that top division rating play equally well. That's true competition in terms of winning a division that's in essence mostly the same everywhere.

It's already been debated thousands of times by thousands of folks, but age protection is essentially nothing more than ability protection. And the wild, wild swings in ability between golfers of the same age and the seemingly arbitrary choice of both a) 10 year breaks between divisions and b) that those divisional breaks happen at ages 40, 50, 60, 70, etc. are far from "perfecter."

On the contrary, to my knowledge there's never been any tournament data processing or statistical modeling done to prove that the divisional age breaks should be exactly 10 years and not 8 or 9 years or even 11 or 12 years except for pure convenience. Furthermore, to my knowledge there's never been any tournament data processing or statistical modeling to prove that those divisional breaks shouldn't happen at, for example, ages 38, 48, 58, 68, etc. I am quite sure that the Masters age was moved from 35 to 40 in the late 1990s without any tournament data processing or statistical modeling whatsoever, and based primarily on intuition and the overall ease of use and convenience of a system based on 10s.

For all we know, the statistically best age-based divisional system might be 42, 51, 61, 69, and 74 for Masters, Grandmasters, Senior Grandmaster, Legends, and Senior Legends respectively, with age breaks of 9, 10, 8, and 5 years between respective divisions. But in order to do the analysis required for such a system, you get the no sugar, no apologies Chuck answer that you'd have to approach the Competition Committee about it. And in the meantime, if you don't like it, then play Open. :D

I'd still like to know if a statistical analysis of ratings has been done for am women, in particular. You know, before asking the women's committee to ask the PDGA pretty please to perform such an analysis, it would be nice to know if the data is already available.

I'm gearing up to graph the am women's ratings that show up in the statistics search feature, but we know that only includes ladies who are both current, and have also played a tournament in the past calendar year. So just the past 5.5 months. If there's an analysis of more comprehensive data, that would be better.

This was the last ratings distribution analysis done in 2008:
http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PlayerRatingDistribution2008YearEnd.pdf

Fun thread, interesting read on an otherwise slow Friday waiting for work to end so I can head out to a tournament and get a practice round or two in. :)

First, I'd like to say, I've only been playing about a year now and I'm really loving this sport but I don't have years and years of experience to speak as intelligently on the subject as I'd like to.

I do have a few small opinions though:

1) Please don't the division to color names... I'm colorblind; colors and I don't get along too well. Yes I can read the words that signify what division would be what... but there's just bad blood there.

2) A definite restructure of the divisions is needed.

The way ratings are calculated is an ok, and a sound system (at least enough to deal with the ever changing courses, foliage, wind conditions, tournament formats, etc...). If 2008 was the last time the statistical data was compiled(which I doubt) and published, it might be time for that to happen again. From my understanding the sport has grown IMMENSELY over the past few years. The population data is much larger and should provide more accurate information (/rude outliers).

2.5) Along with a restructure I just would like to say that the Intermediate division Point range is too small.

It seems that to be Intermediate, you're either a lucky Recreational player, or an unlucky Advanced player. I understand that because of statistical compilation methods the middle division of anything will usually be the smallest gap. I have a feeling though, changing this gap might help weed out 'baggers' which is what this thread was originally started about.

As a player who consistently has been accused of sandbagging this thread really caught my interest. Like I said before, I have been playing about a year and obviously as one would hope, my skill level has improved during that time. So much so, that I'm consistently placing top 10% in MA2. I have toyed with moving up to MA1, and I know that's one of the ways of getting better. But that brings me to my point 2.5.

When you average my 4 rounds together on every tournament, except 1 (out of 10), the rating comes out to 915 (which is also my rating). Right in the heart of the Intermediate field. As Chuck stated before, the ratings split was designed for everyone to have a chance to 'cash out'. Well, so far playing in the middle of MA2 has been taking 1st, 2nd, 3rd place. I think expanding the division to maybe 890-940 will take care of a few 'Baggers' in both MA2, MA3. Bumping up the maximum for Int might also give the lower rated MA1 players more of a chance to 'cash out'.

But as I stated earlier, it might be time to recalculate all the statistical distribution data.

Anyways, thanks for reading a "new to the sport, bored guy at work" opinion on the subject.

If you are taking the top spots with an average round rating of 915, you must be playing in an area of the country were a lot of intermediate players think they need to play in the advanced division.

At the event I ran last weekend, you needed to play 960 rated golf to win MA2.

If you are taking the top spots with an average round rating of 915, you must be playing in an area of the country were a lot of intermediate players think they need to play in the advanced division.

At the event I ran last weekend, you needed to play 960 rated golf to win MA2.That's generally true, that in regions where intermediates play Intermediate you need to play 960 golf to win. There are many regions where many intermediates play Advanced and then the recreationals playing Intermediate call the intermediates playing Intermediate baggers. :p

I play rec and yes I travel good distances to take part in certain events. There will always be local baggers who wont get PDGA numbers so they have a chance at winning. Who cares. It should push people to get better so they can move up. You can't take rec division out of tournaments. All that would do is discourage people from even playing the sport. I'm not always playing to win but when j place it is a confidence boost.