i had a hearty laugh at the "pittance" the pro2s were playing for...$250 for "first?" that ain't no small potatoes. i propose january to be reshuffling, amnesty month for disc golf. anyone can return to amateur for the year...anyone.

i agree that an amateur division is essential to the sport, however since that seems to be unpopular, i propose a protection tax. 50% of protected entry fees goes into the competitive fields...open men and open women (open being the important word there.) protection costs money in real life, why not disc golf?

any pdga member that hasn't played a pdga for one full year automatically is returned to amateur status. he or she may still choose to play pro...but a choice is there.

yes, masters is protected--all fees apply. look, they're old, they'll probably forget it happened anyway.

the tax could easily be made into a cap on what a particular division can make depending on how big the field.

if you want to play a disc golf competition, enter a competitive division. if you want to play against people of similar age, skill, smell, whatever...you pay for the privilege.

any thoughts on that?



Seems like a good way to enrich the professional disc golf gambler at the expense of the women, juniors, beginners and life long hacks. I don't see how it grows the sport. It would certainly be the type of rule that would drive all fair, reasonable TDs out of the PDGA and motivate them to form some kind of amateur organization to promote amateur disc golf for amateurs.

Sounds like a very good proposal in the long run but might be a little bumpy in the short run.

i had a hearty laugh at the "pittance" the pro2s were playing for...$250 for "first?" that ain't no small potatoes. i propose january to be reshuffling, amnesty month for disc golf. anyone can return to amateur for the year...anyone.

i agree that an amateur division is essential to the sport, however since that seems to be unpopular, i propose a protection tax. 50% of protected entry fees goes into the competitive fields...open men and open women (open being the important word there.) protection costs money in real life, why not disc golf?

any pdga member that hasn't played a pdga for one full year automatically is returned to amateur status. he or she may still choose to play pro...but a choice is there.

yes, masters is protected--all fees apply. look, they're old, they'll probably forget it happened anyway.

the tax could easily be made into a cap on what a particular division can make depending on how big the field.

if you want to play a disc golf competition, enter a competitive division. if you want to play against people of similar age, skill, smell, whatever...you pay for the privilege.

any thoughts on that?



I started running tournaments so that there would be more tournaments that didn't take money from the am divisions and feed it to the pro divisions as "added cash".

I would not run a tournament with a 50% tax on the Ams.

I don't know if I completely agree that this is the best way to fix our system, but kudos to offering ideas that both deviate from the status quo and are aimed at rewarding the best performers. The competition committee should seriously entertain more off-the-wall ideas like this instead of beating the same ole drum (pro 2).

I hope that, somewhere in the irony and dry humor, everyone can see that Jon and I are saying the same thing. :D

I keep saying that the only way to resolve the issue with divisions and ratings is through the venue. You guys seem to be approaching it - but never seem to really go there. What if we had a structure that worked like this:
1) Have single division ratings events that are exclusive. Tier 1 would be for players 900+ (this is arbitrary - pick any starting point you like) No gender or age protection. Fees based on ratings - on a sliding scale. Special bonuses for Old guys, ladies, etc. So we don't necessarily eliminate recognizing the old divisions - just cast them in a different light. Hell throw in a HC option for a different tier.
2) Do the same for ratings of 900 and below.
3) Any club wishing to sanction a Tier 1 event would be required to offer a lower tier also - thereby catering sanctioned events to all level players, and having sanctioned events available to all levels in all locations.

I just see the whole argument of protection and divisions broken down into 3 strokes per round differential from top to bottom as just ludicrous. a division for 930-960 - come on - that is just stupid.

If you find the need for more divisions in sanctioned play - offer more events 850 and below, 850-950, whatever. The point isn't so much in the numbers as in the EVENT STRUCTURE. It shouldn't be that hard to get MORE people in each division being offered.

I'm with the guy who said pro3, pro4, and pro5 - I say have a division for everybody so everyone can get first place - that's truly the only fair way - geez.

i think in order to make a legitimate competitive structure in the long run it would retain a good amount of players. juniors would be protected for free (just like in society). women and hacks? how would they be detered from playing?

i'm a hack and have donated my fair share (probably more)...if i was interested in my own gain or glory i would have tanked the last three rounds of animalfest, have my rating drop below 960 and then gear up for the next stretch of as many pro2 tournaments as possible. that ain't right.

with low entry fees, would this tax deter many players? remember, they can drop to an amateur division where there's no tax at all...maybe i left that out...sorry (prize-winners aren't ams in my world). use the ratings for professional divisions, but charge for the protection privilege (organized side divisional bets are then voluntary not mandatory as is the case now).

as far as the amateur organization is concerned...bring it on! i don't think the pdga is willing to let that gorilla out of the cage. however, the pdga could be the driving force for an amateur organization if it was so inclined. lots of fruit in them labors methinks.

bruce and jon, i believe we have different definitions of "tournament" is all.

thanks! i think...

I�d like to Thank Dan for stepping up to host Pro 2. It�s likely I wouldn�t necessarily have planned my course review trip with attending Animalfest. Wolfe Woods is shaping up very nicely. I hope more volunteers in the area step it up to help Dan complete that potentially very special course to �bookend� the already awesome Animal course.

Regarding Pro 2, TDs who have run a ratings event (Dan hadn�t yet) might have avoided a less than optimum payout scenario at Animalfest. Likewise, those in the PDGA who created Pro 2 for this season might also have avoided some missteps in the way it was structured. In ratings events, no added cash is to go to any division but Gold/Open. That should also be the �price� for divisional protection with Pro 2. Dan added cash to Pro 2. However, I don�t believe the PDGA guidelines actually suggest that no added cash goes to Pro 2 when offered.

Second, the 2004 PDGA Silver/Bronze payout table is the same as Advanced/Pro 2 which pays out about 45% on a flatter curve than the Open table. With no added cash and paying the recommended 10 players in Pro 2 instead of 7 at Animalfest would have significantly flattened the payouts which is, of course, the reason the tables were done that way.

Third, there�s no competitive reason that ratings brackets have to be just 30 points apart as Craiger and others have pointed out. However, the reason the Silver/Bronze divisions are only about 30 points each has to do with numbers. Almost half the PDGA has ratings from 900-960. The reason for splitting this group in half is to reduce their division sizes. This has already been another way that�s been tested in ratings events to reduce payouts relative to Open.

Fourth, it�s probably good that the PDGA didn�t require the Advanced and Master Pro divisions to not be hosted when Pro 2 was offered because then Pro 2 and the resulting payouts would have been that much bigger based on the number of players with those ratings.

Personally, I�d prefer a mix of events in the long run with roughly half of them with traditional age divisions and half in a streamlined ratings and/or improved Pro 2 format. Master Pro makes more sense at larger events like A/NT. At C-tier events, the Pro2/ratings style divisions would provide larger and more fair divisions. At B-tiers, the TD/club could make a choice based on prevailing mixes of players in the area expected to play.

i guess i'm already the "sour" voice in this thing so i'll add my opinion once again. let the record show that i will never, ever play in a pro2 division for the fear of winning the tournament outright and not getting the credit. it's not like it has happened yet, but i hold onto a thread of hope.

on that note, i would like to set the record straight that i harbor no ill will toward dan or anyone involved in the animalfest tournament no matter how others may couch their replies...i had a wonderful time as i always do regardless of my finish in the standings. i love disc golf as a life-long, something-to-do-while-i-wait-to-die activity. i just wish that it would be a real competition and not a psuedo-competition.

chuck, it was a pleasure to meet you during your tour of the 2005 worlds courses...i wish we had more time to discuss course design in theory; i know i've always had fun trying to understand the math behind ratings...lord knows i don't get it still. anyway, one day i may see the light until then i'll torture you with stupid questions.

one thing i hold dear to me in other aspects of life that seems to apply to disc golf is local control. i hate to see top down directives that may make sense for a select few but not for everyone. this is what i see with pro2. it might work some places but not all. let people decide for themselves. personally, i'll choose to avoid such tournaments in the future simply because i have a choice and can decide for myself how i want to spend my time.

peace,

kevin

Kev,

Why would you avoid an event with Pro2 and not one with Masters? Same thing, just one is new and the other is slightly older (pun intended).

Sometimes I wonder what an event like Animalfest would be like if it was a one division (or 2 with a women's division) event with lower than average entry fees and ratings based sidebets included. That way the winner would win and rightfully get the championship and the bigger wad of cash, but folks incrementally less skilled would have appropriate performance goals and rewards all the way down.

The challenge with leaving this local Kevin is that undoing years of begging folks to come out with the lure of prizes needs to be an across the board effort. There is a place for coordinated efforts, this is definitely one. Though not speedy it is happening, and that is encouraging.

N

i'm a hack and have donated my fair share (probably more)...if i was interested in my own gain or glory i would have tanked the last three rounds of animalfest, have my rating drop below 960 and then gear up for the next stretch of as many pro2 tournaments as possible. that ain't right.



Well, you could win the ratings-based silver division at the Jersey Jam next month for a hundred bucks, and then the Pro 2 division at Warwick again in October for maybe another hundred.

That's a real stretch of tournaments right there! :D

Even if the Pro 2 format or ratings-based tournys catch on, strong play in those tournaments will bump you back up again. Ratings are now updated every three months. Nobody is going to be able to purposely tank from Open and then win a bunch of tournaments and not get bumped back up again, at least not for very long.


bruce and jon, i believe we have different definitions of "tournament" is all.



It seems like there is still an 1985-era mentality prevalent that a tournament is where the best golfer wins and that's it. As long as the system is designed where sandbagging isn't possible, can't we move out of that old school mentality? There's absolutely no reason why golfers under 960, who are professionals because they took cash long ago and their abilities have degraded, or those who don't desire to play for merchandise, can't play for low stakes in our own division if we want to.

First in Pro 2 at Warwick was $250. Bronze last year at the Jersey Jam was $235 and Silver $255! Those events alone nearly equal my total winnings for 2003 in Open Pro.

Maybe there is nothing wrong with this, or anything we can do about it, I don't know, but it doesn't seem quite right.

Shouldn't Open division be a priveledge, rather than the monkey on our back it seems to be for more than half the players in it? Players with better skills, having worked harder, and having put in the time and paid their dues?

It doesn't seem right, but maybe it's just me.

BTW, there was a tie for 6th in Open, so in theory only 6 paid spots were available out of 15.

Being the only Master Aged player in the Open Division was interesting. I had a blast hanging with the LVDC folk and seeing Jamey King shred. :D

I have a problem with only using ratings for the Pros and not for the Ams. :confused:

So where does a 980 Master Player who plays once a week compete fairly? With the younger guys who play every weekend? If that's the case I'm done with PDGA sanctioned events. I do not have the time nor the money to waste, so I'll go away quietly or I can **** and moan that it's not fair and maybe there will be a new division next year just for me! :D

If I have anything to do with it you certainly will Matt. Being in the same boat but .7 rating points lower (and going down).

I plan on just playing over the next couple of years, but I can forsee running an event for Masters only. It'd be just like 1987 again, when that was pretty much it, only we called it Open.

Nick - I already run that event. Every Saturday morning at Kennett. I'm the current champ by the way with a 61 Saturday crushing the field by 3. (Schoettle had a 64.)

Nice shooting, but that there is apples, we're talking about oranges...

hey jeff who's "we?" i think you might be putting a bit too much faith in the ratings as a cut-off guideline. the almighty 960 line. jason's rating is 938 and he won the pro2. go figure.

i'll ask again, does a 959 rated player need protection from a 961 rated player?

i like the side bet idea that nick stated above, i think that would provide a better usage for the ratings system.

matt and i have discussed alternatives to the same old, same old pdga formats. maybe it's time to try something different that's competitive and fair.

matt and i have discussed alternatives to the same old, same old pdga formats. maybe it's time to try something different that's competitive and fair.



What do you have in mind?

So where does a 980 Master Player who plays once a week compete fairly? With the younger guys who play every weekend? If that's the case I'm done with PDGA sanctioned events. I do not have the time nor the money to waste, so I'll go away quietly or I can **** and moan that it's not fair and maybe there will be a new division next year just for me! :D



Why is this unfair? There were only five guys at that tournament with ratings higher than a 980, and the highest was 988. That's less than one stroke per round advantage. Why does a 980 golfer need protection in the Masters division from other golfers of the same skill level?

Matt, you have always been and continue to be a highly skilled and competitive disc golfer and someone who I have always attempted to emulate. Your last round of the weekend was nearly a 1000-rated round and you missed cash by one stroke. How fair is it when you compete in a Masters division which is almost exclusively composed of (with the exception of only a few others in the region) golfers of ratings and a skill level significantly lower than yours?

Fairness: We're old. We play (maybe) one time a week. We are in the thick of life (providers). We play far fewer events (typically).

Some do choose to remain in the Open division, particularly those with ratings above 1000. This however does not make them unwelcome in the Masters division. My guess is that unless there is a new influx of players into the Open division the Masters division will be better attended than the Open in our region within 3 to 5 years. Truth is, I kind of tire of playing in the Open division. Sure I have friends there and dg is dg, but after 15 years I'm very excited to finally have another option. An option to play with other players in similar life situations to myself and folks I've known for just about that long.

That is why I came up with the divisional proposal I did, so that there would be the traditional age/gender divisions with a big catch-net formed by 3 to 5 skill based divisions for players seeking larger more diverse fields for when their skills are less than competitive in the top divisions.

Hearing very similar things coming from the current am Masters players makes me think that they would like similar consideration. Masters players with ratings below 930 or 900 would still be within 4 or 5 strokes per round of above average Masters aged players, and if they really are mainly concerned with hangin' with the boys (in similar life situations) then they should probably play in the top Masters division. If they are after PDGA points then the skill based division would be best, if they want to preserve their competitive place among Advanced or Intermediate players is where the plan would have to get complicated (which is not necessarily a problem, but it would necessitate more divisions).

i have a question for kevin, jeff, nick, and other pro golfers with "pro 2" ratings (well- nk doesn't really count- he's too good)-

have you ever competed in an open event, played well (by your own standards, not the arbitrary ratings system), and NOT cashed? this 950 rated player has not. play well=cash. play well more=cash more. practice more=play well more, etc,etc. imo pro 2 rewards those who play slightly above mediocre golf.

i have a hard time seeing why i deserve protection based upon the fact that other players may be more dedicated, healthier, or god forbid more talented than myself. on the other hand next year i will be masters age and happy to compete in a protected division based on a static, non-arbitrary parameter- age. some of the players in that division will be better than i and take my money on a regular basis, that's fine too.

pro2 seems to me to just shift the level of play at which one's chances of economic return are minimal upwards from the 930-960 pros to the 960-975 or so.

i would like to see ALL current pro players given a one time op to drop back to amateur status and elimination of the socalled transitory division. this, of course would create an open ended top am division for the bobby jones's out there.

oops- more thoughts, but gotta go.

Let's be real for just a moment, my rating has dropped 13 points in 3 years and it only dropped that little due to limited PDGA rated rounds.

I do not mind having to play Open, I do mind having little chance of being competitive in a small field that is diluted by a protected division just as Masters is protected. :confused:

Jeff look who finished ahead of me, they were much younger and play tournament golf every week. I know I had the choice not to play but I love playing Warwick and Wolfe Woods. :D

With that said I will not play NY States in the same format....

have you ever competed in an open event, played well (by your own standards, not the arbitrary ratings system), and NOT cashed?



Yes, 2 years ago NT Soiree. I played some of the best golf in years, practiced hard, and kept my head in the right place but did not come close to cashing. 2 Players shot 1000 golf over 4 rounds and did not cash!

But I know what you mean, I believe that our elite players deserve to be rewarded for their hard work and dedication, but after 15 years of paying for their hotels and gas, this one-time a week golfer wants off the back of the bus. If it is unfair for a player with a 944 rating to play against a player with an 884 rating, where score swings are generally greater, then what the heck is a guy who averages 973 golf doing playing against players who average 1020 golf?

Perhaps they should, perhaps it is fair, perhaps those 884 golfers should also pay their dues to the 1000+ golfers.

Where should protections then be offered and why? We really need to nail this down and then test it out over a 2 to 5 year period then adjust appropriately. I am willing, ready and able to be a part of that process.

Feathers are ALREADY ruffled, the sooner we get these things resolved, the better we will all be and the more prepared we will be to provide a logical secure environment for the millions of future players wanting to compete in organized disc golf.

And this IS something that needs to be coordinated on a larger than local scale.

imo pro 2 rewards those who play slightly above mediocre golf.




All "winners" at all levels but the very top in any sport �play slightly above mediocre levels' (by pro standards) to win titles. Pro 2 is no different from a minor league pro level. Not too many athletes ascend to the minor league level in any sport so that's still pretty special. The Pro 2 winner at Animalfest played at a 956 level which is about 2 throws above his current rating. That is an accomplishment for four rounds.


on the other hand next year i will be masters age and happy to compete in a protected division based on a static, non-arbitrary parameter- age.



Must have been an incredible miracle to be able to "non-arbitrarily" select your genes, eh? I haven't formally analyzed the data but observations and discussions indicate that practice can only take you so far beyond an inborn skill level once you have ascended to your level of incompetence (peter principle). Think enough practice would allow Tiger to handle Shaq one-on-one in B-ball or vice versa?

Top GMs like Greenwell, Voakes or McDaniel aren't going to drop to play at an 800 level even if they don't play for awhile. Likewise, my rating has been within a narrow zone from 935 to 953 for 5 years now (1.8 throws difference) regardless whether I practiced extensively or exercised with lots of chainsawing and prep for the 2001 Worlds with less play for about 18 months.

So, I would say that on balance, genes are more relevant than age to determine your native skill level potential. That's why skill level makes more sense than any other type of method for divisional protection. Learning the game can get you up to some maximum native skill level. Then, practice can help you grind up a little higher. Then, age eventually grinds you downward.

i have a question for kevin, jeff, nick, and other pro golfers with "pro 2" ratings (well- nk doesn't really count- he's too good)-



Just a note - of those you mentioned, I am the only one who qualifies for the Pro 2 division. Nick is a 973, Kevin is a 964.



have you ever competed in an open event, played well (by your own standards, not the arbitrary ratings system), and NOT cashed? this 950 rated player has not. play well=cash. play well more=cash more. practice more=play well more, etc,etc. imo pro 2 rewards those who play slightly above mediocre golf.



Your "mediocre golf" is in comparison to those 980-1000 rated players. At the Warwick Animalfest, cashing Pro 2 players played above their player ratings, while non-cashing Open players played 15-20 points below their 970-980 ratings. Pro 2 allows the 930-960 player who has played above their ratings in Open events and still not cashed to finally have a chance to do so. play well=cash. play well more=cash more. play well often= your rating goes up, and you get bumped up to Open.



pro2 seems to me to just shift the level of play at which one's chances of economic return are minimal upwards from the 930-960 pros to the 960-975 or so.



Which is why there is a furor. Now we may have 960-975 rated Pros who play below their rating in Open not cash, and 930-960 players who play above their rating in the Pro 2 division will win money. The former has always statistically had a good chance at winning money, while the latter, even with exceptional play that is well above their rating, has had statistically no chance, and the new Pro 2 division affords them that opportunity. Why is that so wrong?

Which is why there is a furor. Now we may have 960-975 rated Pros who play below their rating in Open not cash, and 930-960 players who play above their rating in the Pro 2 division will win money. The former has always statistically had a good chance at winning money, while the latter, even with exceptional play that is well above their rating, has had statistically no chance, and the new Pro 2 division affords them that opportunity. Why is that so wrong?



Jeff, I would have to play 2 to 4 strokes per round better than my average to cash in Open. To win I'd likely have to shoot 3 to 6 strokes PER ROUND better!

If I play at my rating I will usually sneak in at last place cash. Is that competing? Thinking purely on a selfish level: If we move to a pure ratings based event system, I will not only continue to be stuck in the top competitive division, but I will have any chance of cashing cut out from under me with the Pro 2 or Silver division.

Where I will have to sit smiling as players who do not work as hard as I do at my game and have not paid as much in long term dues win $40 to $250 while I get squat for beating most or all of them.

Selfish mode off: I know that we have to set divisions so that we serve the needs of the greatest number of players in our association, (selfish mode back on) but no one appears to be getting more screwed than the 960 to 980 golfer. (Unless they happen to be WWCC Am.)

no one appears to be getting more screwed than the 960 to 980 golfer.



Golfers at this level still do well at leagues and C-tiers. Also, even though it's been 4 years since we had a ratings based A-tier, the Silver division goes up to 969 in A-tiers and Pro 2 probably should also. In theory, players up to 970-975 should be able to remain Advanced where they are protected.

well said nick, john (hi john), and matt...not you jeff and chuck. :D

jeff, as long you use ratings as justification it's hard to have a decent conversation about this. while i respect the vast amount of work and effort that goes into ratings, i hardly think they are accurate or concrete enough to justify a classification line.

john wrote: "i have a hard time seeing why i deserve protection based upon the fact that other players may be more dedicated, healthier, or god forbid more talented than myself."

i have no problem with it either...why do others have a problem with this?

jeff, as long you use ratings as justification it's hard to have a decent conversation about this. while i respect the vast amount of work and effort that goes into ratings, i hardly think they are accurate or concrete enough to justify a classification line.

i'll ask again, does a 959 rated player need protection from a 961 rated player?



It's all we have, Kev, and you've got to draw a line somewhere. You're a teacher. When you assign grades, the student at 90.001 gets an 'A' while the student at 89.999 gets a 'B' right? The PDGA has determined that 960 is the dividing line; you've got to draw a line somewhere.

what about at pro or am? that's a pretty good line, eh?

not you jeff and chuck



I suspect debate and critical thinking are not topics you teach Kev. Refute the arguments with rational commentary and not feelings and tradition. As I've pointed out despite my affiliation with ratings, age and gender should still have a place in the competition scheme. Just recognize that now we have a way to ongoingly evaluate skill, it has an equal place in the competition system and with more validity than age or gender. I also agree the Pro/psuedo Am thing still needs to be resolved.

no you're right chuck i don't teach those. humor on the other hand was something i thought we all understood...thanks for clearing that up for me chuck. that's what the grin was for...sorry if i came across wrong-like.

as far as rational commentary, wasn't my criticism of ratings as a divisional line rational? or wasn't it commentary?

isn't pure competition traditional (open divisions)? if so, why can't i use tradition as an argument?

what about at pro or am? that's a pretty good line, eh?



So, basically what you are saying is that there should only ever be one division for all professionals. That anyone who has ever accepted cash should play in the same division against Barry Schultz and Ken Climo. That older players that were once dominant twenty years ago but now struggle to shoot par should play in the same division against those guys. That there should NEVER be another professional division that plays for cash? Even if it is for lower entry fees, and right now offered only a few times per year?

Is that really your line of thinking?

if so, why can't i use tradition as an argument?




Because we would be having this conversation using "traditional" writing on paper using couriers instead of something that is newer and more effective like electronics, computers and the internet. Traditon has its place but recognize that it exists only because newer and more effective options (like ratings) were not available when the tradition started.

not at all jeff. go back and look at the suggestions i made. i think everyone should have the option of competing as a pro or an am on any given weekend.

i think the pro or competitive field should be a traditional competition that doesn't exclude really good guys from winning my money.

i think the ratings should be used as a side bet option, while your (and mine and anyone that wants to compete for a cash prize) entry money goes into the pot for any human to win...not just a few humans that aren't as good as the excluded ones.

chuck i don't get it. are you saying that soon the nba will be using a ratings system where one player's jump shot from behind the line is worth 5 points but for another's it's worth 3?

the tradition of humans competing on a level playing field is not going away anytime soon.

the tradition of humans competing on a level playing field is not going away anytime soon.



Exactly. Ratings divisions provide that level playing field in disc golf.

You don't see the nonlevel playing field in other sports because HS, college, semipro, pro and senior players don't play at the same event or in the same league. Stats on players are ubiquitous in most sports and provide the tools for owners/coaches to recruit, hire or promote players from one level to the next. For example, Lebron James went from HS to Pro because his "ratings" indicated he could do it.

every example that is brought up like this deals with a sport that is established to the point where the best are quite handsomely rewarded. baseball, basketball, golf, etc. you name it, all of the elite of these sports get their "just desserts" (ugh) but this is not the case in disc golf.

it's hard to justify paying out a worse performance over a better performance when the governing body of the sport recognizes the individuals as being in the same league and the same division.

Would players having to declare the one and only division they will play in for that year make any difference in this?

It would be a know brainer for me next year: Pro Masters.

Truth is I've never had a choice so it doesn't make any difference to me, but for the folks that have 4 or 6 choices it would make a huge difference.

NO MORE DANCING AROUND TRYING TO GAIN DIVISIONAL ADVANTAGE.

I'm sure this will be a popular suggestion... ;)

With that said I will not play NY States in the same format....



I can't speak for the tournament directors that are running the Pro 2 format, but I have a feeling that if the general sentiment of 22 or more Pro 2 competitors is that they liked the format, considered it a success, provided positive feedback, and indicated that they came to the tournament SPECIFICALLY because of that format, would do so in a heartbeat again in the future, and maybe wouldn't come if the format wasn't offered, the tournament directors aren't going to be too upset about losing a few highly skilled Masters-aged players that choose not to come because they would be forced to play in Open against competitors of their exact same skill level.

TD's should remember that those "highly skilled" Master players pretty much made what the PDGA is today. Look around and see who runs tournaments, not many young guys or gals. :D

My reward for playing 22 years and running events for 16 years is to play against younger more active players?? :confused:

Thanks but No Thanks. I'll pass on this format, but you enjoy your rewards for crappy golf. :cool:

Kevin, the time has come for more local golf, why travel, pay high entry fees and get dissed. See ya at doubles.

Maybe the solution then is to offer both a Masters division AND a Pro 2 division so that everyone's ego can be stroked. :confused:

And remember, "crappy" golf for you can be excellent golf for me and many, many others. That is an insult to literally thousands of other PDGA members.

I see no reason why a masters division could not be offered at the same time as Pro 2. The division that could logically be removed is the advanced division considering it is the same skill range as Pro 2 (930 to 960).

I heard that at the Animalfest there were only 3 guys that actually were in the advanced skill range playing in advanced and they pretty much creamed everyone else anyway. The rest were actually intermediate level golfers.

The other thing that really needs to be done is the payouts greatly flattened and spread in the Pro 2 division. The Philly Open 2 years ago was R-Tier and I won the Silver division and got $90 in a pretty sizable division. Our division loaded up on cool players package stuff, and it was announced that a portion of our entry fee would go to the Open division, which no one to my knowledge had any problem with, particularly in light of the very cool players package we got (collared shirt, premium disc, lunch, etc.).

If there are masters players wishing to avoid throwing their money at Matt and Ray then they have the option of Pro 2.

That is the option I would consider.

If the shoe fits......Not looking to stroke my ego, just looking for consistent divisions, either use the ratings for everyone or not at all. :p

Sorry if you can not improve your game, practice can do wonders. It's amazing to me that we water down being a professional by inventing divisions to reward everyone!! Now if all the Pros and Pro 2's were combined for the Animalfest I think you probably would have cashed anyway!! :D

It all comes down to who we want to protect and why. For more than 15 years, we've had a Masters division. As it currently stands, it includes golfers with abilities that range from Dan Ginnelly, a 1020 and the 8th highest rating in the world, down to guys with ratings below 900. When a Masters division is offered, it is usually populated by a boatload of 920-950 guys who get crushed by a few 980+ guys.

Now isn't it obvious that age alone is clearly not the way to break into divisions? The PDGA is piloting a format where we break the division in half, at 960, and all the lower-rated guys battle each other and all the highly skilled golfers battle each other. This concept shouldn't be amazing, it should be common sense!

Nick, I'll agree that all of the bottom half of the Advanced division at Animalfest was populated by golfers with Intermediate ratings or even no ratings at all. If they want to play Advanced, what can you do?

So what are we going to do?

Masters want their division.
Advanced want their division.
Now, Pro 2s want their division.

If you were in charge of setting up our divisional system, and had final authority to decide, what form would you make it?

Seems like it is a battle between the Age vs Skill based divisions.

If I had the power and had to decide between one or the other I would have to go with the Skill based criteria (though perhaps not in it's current form). It is simply fairer to set up divisions according to skill rather than age. I mean after high school what sports increment divisions by age?

Yes, there are some, but the majority are driven by skill and financial considerations. Well, we don't have the financial considerations (sponsorship) yet, so what we are left with are skill considerations, which though our system is not perfect it is substantial enough to create general parameters for divisions.

Nick, I'll agree that all of the bottom half of the Advanced division at Animalfest was populated by golfers with Intermediate ratings or even no ratings at all. If they want to play Advanced, what can you do?



As a player or a TD, I just say, "Thank you."

It's stil the same solution. Find a way to play for more than each other's entry fees and put all or most of that additional money into the MPO purse. Then everyone else is playing for the competition and the big dogs are playing for the real money. Then the Pro's scan stop whining about watered down divisions (and payouts).

I agree that if you aren't in the top division, then the only complaint about payout you are allowed to voice is that it didn't meet the PDGA standards.

at least give out trophys, who cares about payout.Most compettitive ams have tons of plastic !!!!!!

We talked (debated actually) about it, and we've decided to offer the Pro2 division at States this year. We'll see how well received it ends up being...

"not at all jeff. go back and look at the suggestions i made. i think everyone should have the option of competing as a pro or an am on any given weekend."

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

as some of us "old Geezers" try to keep up with the younger whipper snappers, we find ourselves playing more with

injuries. It would be nice to go out and play as an AM in a tourney when you can't throw a backhand because of a pulled muscle.

Last year I had a good year with no injuries, now I'm nursing torn ligaments. :p Is there a way to factor this into ratings?

When the MAD-C started thinking about doing ratings, I was involved in it. One point I had was if it is truly ratings, then there shouldn't be a women's division. I was told by a woman that she would not compete if she had to compete with men. She is a good player that won a lot of tourneys. I see no difference with that then with Masters!

Maybe the NBA outta make a league for the teams that cant hang with the Lakers,Spurs,Pistons,Pacers,and Timberwolves.


I believe you are talking about the Eastern Conference. :)



How bout them LAKERS?!!!?!?!?!?!

Now there's some b itche$ for you.

I was told by a woman that she would not compete if she had to compete with men. She is a good player that won a lot of tourneys. I see no difference with that then with Masters!



Yeah! There's no difference between men and women or should I say masters and women... ;) :p :D

[/QUOTE]
Yeah! There's no difference between men and women or should I say masters and women... ;) :p :D

[/QUOTE]

so are you saying i play like a women? :o:confused: :p

so are you saying i play like a women?




If I was saying that - would you take it was a compliment or an insult? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

so are you saying i play like a women?



If I was saying that - would you take it was a compliment or an insult? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


I would take it as very poor grammar, and tell you that you need to learn to talk gooder. :D

so are you saying i play like a women?




If I was saying that - would you take it was a compliment or an insult? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


i take the 5th :cool:

There have been many tournament where I wished I played like a girl. Or at least certain girls. :cool:

There have been many tournament where I wished I played like a girl. Or at least certain girls. :cool:



Pretty soon I'm going to wish I played like Kelsey Brakel. She just got into the prizes playing men's Rec.

Pretty soon I'm going to wish I played like Kelsey Brakel. She just got into the prizes playing men's Rec.



5th of 11.

Jon is offering Pro 2 on Saturday at the Illinois Open Series.

Thank you Texas States!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This just became my #1 priority tournament to try to play!!!!!

BTW, I have already commited to offering Pro2 at the Carrollton Open.

Thank you Texas States!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This just became my #1 priority tournament to try to play!!!!!



A guy came from North Carolina to play the Animalfest at Warwick, NY last weekend because a Pro 2 division was offered. The opportunity to be competitive again is making these tournaments a priority for some - when was the last time that happened?

There's a little more to it than just that Jeff.

I am excited that you guys are excited, but I hope that you guys can appreciate at least on some level the degree of sour grapes this looks like to the 960 - 980 golfers who have been taking it on the chin for years and years and years. It just digs them an even deeper hole, particularly with added cash going to the Pro 2 division (!?!).

sounds like the complaining (whining?) of a 960 golfer who is more interested in "getting his" than in coming up with an equitable competitve structure.

or a 960+ Pro that had a chance to cash in the recent past now being at the very bottom of the pool with no-one below him.

True enough Gary. It's a tough pill to swallow to work for years and years to get your skill up to that level only to have it made more or less meaningless "cash-wise", while folks who have put in far fewer years and effort get paid handsomely. Like I said, perhaps it is just sour grapes, but it is definitely discouraging for them.

But it doesn't matter where you draw the line, there are going to be those that are newly at the bottom of the new split.

Not newly at the bottom of the new split. Always at the bottom of the split, just further now than before.

Hey, I'm at the top of the split, just not the top of the split for where I play. I'm within 2 points of the top of MA2.

No top for MM1, but most of the top players around here are below 940. It all comes down to who has the hot round with no melt down.

A very fun way to play golf.

After reading some of the debates that rage on this site, I felt I had to pipe in with my two bucks. (there�s a lot more than 2 cents worth here�consider yourself warned)

There are obviously a lot of issues our sport is trying to overcome--image, misperceptions, lack of information, monetary and land use concerns, etc., but for the moment, I�ll focus on the tournament structure.

We've debated for years about sandbaggers, but there's another problem undermining the tournament evironment. The OPEN/PRO field. (hang with me, here)

I know the PDGA is trying to grow at a sustainable rate, and allowing anyone who wants to play OPEN/PRO is in their best interest at this time (more players adding money to the division makes up for a lack of sponsorship dollars)--but in the long term this practice actually hurts the legitimacy of the sport. If we�re ever going to attract real sponsorship dollars to our tournaments, we have to insure these sponsors that the so-called �PRO� field is truly made up of elite players. (I�ll save my diatribes about �professional behavior� and �building a fan-base so sponsorship makes fiscal sense� for another time.)

My point is, if anyone with $60 and a masochistic streak can play PRO, what does PRO really mean? I could enter most tournaments in the PRO division and call myself a pro, but anyone that�s seen me play knows I shouldn�t be there. The effect this has from outside our ranks is to make �professional disc golf� look like a joke. The only qualification you have to have to be a �PRO� is enough money to enter the division? Anyone who thinks about this notion for even a moment quickly realizes this is no way to run a �professional� sport.

The truth is, every other sport I can think of requires its players be qualified to become a professional, and whether that assessment is made by a panel of judges, or a player�s accomplishments, there is some qualifying structure in place.

The same should be true for Disc Golf. Do I have a fool-proof solution? Of course not. Will the idea of having to qualify to play PRO chase away some tournament players? Probably. But ultimately the only way for our sport to be taken seriously, and to achieve the respect and popularity it needs to become a viable professional sport is for the OPEN/PRO division to be limited to the truly elite players.

The fact is, if our sport is EVER going to be taken seriously, WE, as players, have to start taking it seriously.

Below is just one set of ideas that might help revamp, and in turn, legitimize the current PDGA tournament system.

1. Require all participants in PDGA tournaments to be PDGA members. The only way to eliminate �sandbagging�, as much as it�s possible, is to make this move. Followed by--

2. Set up a PDGA qualifying school--whereby players are required to participate in both a qualifying tournament AND a series of skill exercises that measure each player�s distance and accuracy in driving, approaching, and putting. Based on the qualifying tournament and �skill tests� all members should be issued an INITIAL player rating. All players MUST re-take the qualifying school/skill tests each year as part of their re-enrollment in the PDGA.

3. Results from each PDGA sanctioned tournament that each player participates in will be used to augment their player rating. (Just because one qualifies well, doesn�t mean he/she will compete well, and vice versa.)

4. Make all PDGA tournaments ratings based events--and enforce those ratings strictly�with the higher divisions having the smallest variation in player rating. (thereby insuring a more elite field in the higher divisions, and increasing the integrity of the competitive environment.)

As long as people are allowed to play "up" into any division they want, our sport will always suffer from a lack of professionalism. And as long as the PDGA stands for �Professional Disc Golf Association� that should be the goal�make PRO really mean PROFESSIONAL. (If the organization does change its name to Player�s Disc Golf Association I�ll pipe back in with some ideas on how to better expand our player and fan base.)

This is, of course, just one man�s opinion, and I want to make it clear that I both value and respect what the PDGA is trying to do.

Kyle Art
#22549

I favor requirements to play pro. As a 944 player, I should not be allowed to play an A-tier or higher as a pro. Now B or C tiers could be different.

There should not be any added money to Pro2.

i disagree with that because of a few things...

first if you CAN play in a pro division and have paid you're pdga fees to be registered as a "pro" you should be allowed to
i cashed in an nt event last year rated as a 911(YES 911 RATED) player at the time of the event

alot of higher rated "pros" act as(or MORE)childish as i do when making a bad shot because ratings don't equate to whining or not whining about bad shots

there are not enough travelling higher rated players to even consider a national tour without low rated players to help out with their donating entry fees paying the others...remember in nt events there usually aren't ams playing at the same time to help "subsidize" payouts

you must be staying up too late making pizza's to be thinking rationally again :D:D
keith

Keith is correct about the economics of it. Requiring a certain PDGA PR to compete in the Open Class would severely reduce the purse considering the numbers of players with ratings above say 960. It also seems to contradict the very concept of �Open� to restrict who may participate. Open is supposed to be that, open to all players no matter what. But as we all know words and concepts do not always follow generally accepted definitions in disc golf (i.e. Amateur).

With that in mind, another fact needs to be considered; Namely that we, our disc golf association, have mostly made up the economic reality out of whole cloth due to the lack of significant sponsorship. So it is conceivable that we could re-create it in just about any fashion we choose. We just need to make sure that if we do it does 2 things:

1) Serves the needs of current players and our sport.
2) Serves the needs of future players and our sport.

I think it is clear that our current set up, though not terrible, has some obvious glitches that could be reformulated to better accomplish the 2 things listed above.

Kyle�s point�s are on the tip of a lot of disc golfers involved in tournament play, they are on mine. I guess that if you step back and really look at the PDGA from the inside or the outside you would not conclude that it really is an organization of Professional Disc Golfers. It would be equally unlikely to conclude that we are an organization of Amateur Disc Golfer. Four years ago or so someone characterized us most accurately as �Carneys and Gamblers. And similar to our ability create an economic set up I really believe that we also have the ability to recreate our divisional system exactly as we choose; so far that means remaining Carney/Gamblers but moving slowly and carefully towards having both a more professional and a more amateur standard of disc golf division (i.e. National Tour, Flatter Payouts). In my opinion a great deal rides on the success of these two ends of the organized disc golf experience that we provide, both for current and future players.

Kyle�s ideas are perhaps ahead of their time, but that is fine; we have to have a clear idea of where we are going if we ever hope to get there. The limitations of the Carney/Gambler competitive system are very apparent and their limiting effect on our growth documented. Going from a Carney/Gambler system to a Professional/Amateur system will involve some hard work and patience, but the rewards will be quickly self-evident.

Of all topics in disc golf, this is the one that must be played out and acted upon on a worldwide organizational level.

Every professional sport in this country has a league where paid players (professional athletes) compete to try and improve their skills to reach the top division. As for the statement made about the NBA creating a league for players who can't hang with the Lakers, well they have. It is called the developmental league. The NHL has the CHL, IHL, etc. MLB has A, AA, AAA baseball leagues, MLS has project 40, and the NFL has NFL Europe. Do I need to proceed. Your argument is void. Every professional sport in the world has some form of minor league or developmental league that encourages and gives good players an opportunity to compete at a higher level than amatuer. They are rewarded by competing well and eventually earning the opprotunity to play against the best competition, but they have to earn that chance. I am an amatuer player, but I can't imagine just signing up to play pro because I want to. I would make an A** of myself. So why bag on the PDGA. If it wasn't for them you wouldn't have the structured events to play in that you have today. Think for a second before you hammer on them for trying to improve the sport. How much time have you spent promoting and helping this sport grow!

Everyone wants to bash the PDGA, but most of those people spend no time helping disc golf grow or even take the time to introduce the sport to someone new. Get involved and don't just get on the board (which was created by the PDGA by the way) and bite the hand that feeds you.

Every professional sport in this country has a league where paid players (professional athletes) compete to try and improve their skills to reach the top division.



In addition, every professional sport has a division where "amateurs" are paid $10,000 to $30,000 per year in room, board, college tuition, and do-nothing employment. The college level is the main farm system for pro basketball and football.

Also, in pro sports money flows from the top down rather than the bottom up. For example, when the Cubs pay a top recruit a signing bonus and then send him to Triple A to hone his skills, that signing bonus is not coming off the books of the Triple A team, but from the Cubs. The NFL donates money to college scholarship programs. Colleges do not donate to the NFL payroll.

High school and college level play developed before professional level play in most sports, including big money sports like football and basketball.

When soccer tried to develop a professional league in the late 70s or early 80s, before the sport was entrenched at the junior, high school and college levels, it never gained any traction.

Should we emulate success or failure?

It also seems to contradict the very concept of “Open” to restrict who may participate. Open is supposed to be that, open to all players no matter what. But as we all know words and concepts do not always follow generally accepted definitions in disc golf (i.e. Amateur).



Still hung up on semantics, Nick? Shouldn't you be lobbying the PGA (or is it the USGA?) because you couldn't just plop down your entry fee and play in the U.S. Open last weekend? I guess it wasn't open to all afterall, was it?

High school and college level play developed before professional level play in most sports, including big money sports like football and basketball. When soccer tried to develop a professional league in the late 70s or early 80s, before the sport was entrenched at the junior, high school and college levels, it never gained any traction. Should we emulate success or failure?



True enough! We should emulate success certainly! But that means that we must first create and amateur class before we can hope to ever develop it. Right now we just have a mix of carneys and gamblers in semi-pro divisions none of which are likely to be embraced by amateur sports associations or educational institutions. We need to start at the beginning, with a real amateur class.

And please don�t embarrass yourself by now saying they don't really have an amateur class right after you just stated how important it is to have one in order to develope and succeed as a new. It�s one or the other. Either we need a solid amateur class, worthy of the name and built to succeed, or we do not.

"Right now we just have a mix of carneys and gamblers in semi-pro divisions"

which by tautology means we dont have a true pro class.

so how is creating a true am class gonna create a true pro class, which is the bottomline real goal?

if we are all basically carnies and gamblers, why do you want to call so many of us "pros"?

Can someone please tell me which one I am?

A carney or a gambler?

(I prefer circus promoter, but that's just me.)

Can someone please tell me which one I am?




LOL. That's easy! You're a carney - where other category could describe your skirt-wearing self? :D;)

Can someone please tell me which one I am?

A carney or a gambler?

(I prefer circus promoter, but that's just me.)



Um...Bearded Lady?

:D

"Right now we just have a mix of carneys and gamblers in semi-am divisions"
which by tautology means we dont have a true am class.
so how is creating a true pro class gonna create a true am class, which is the bottomline real goal?
if we are all basically carnies and gamblers, why do you want to call so many of us "ams"?



Such statements and their counterparts arise from a lack of any clear understanding of what Amateur is. If you really want to understand what I have been getting out take a little time and study what "amateur sport" is really about; not it's obviously grossly misused form but the fundamental premise of "amateur sport".

Since you can't have one without the other, I say we start by creating an Amateur Class. Once that is in place the Professional Class will become more clearly defined as will the Amateur Player from the Professional Player (as the US Open just proved so very clearly skill level has little to do with it... payout does.).

You are somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd guy from the left in your avatar. ;)

If you pay out the top 1/3 of a divison and only have 10 players and $5000 added compared to 100 players, who wins more money??????

More players win money with 100 players, but you don't get as much return on your investment.

The top pro purse should not be made up from entry fees, it should mostly be added money.

If you pay out the top 1/3 of a divison and only have 10 players and $5000 added compared to 100 players, who wins more money??????

More players win money with 100 players, but you don't get as much return on your investment.

The top pro purse should not be made up from entry fees, it should mostly be added money.



Bryan, I'm not sure if that was to me but here is my response:

I sent out over 100 invitations to folks that qualified. To qualify you had to show a minimum commitment to our regional disc golf community by being a member and placing well at one of our regional series events (of which I think there were about 12 or so in 5 states). I would of course liked to have had a full field, but after running day-of events for a few years and the undertaking being big enough as was, I committed myself to allowing only players that qualified and pre-registered to enter. Sort of like a reciprocal commitment to the event. The players that were there deserved to be there and had earned the right to compete for the titles of MADC Champions and for the sponsorship dollars and merchandise I gathered for them. In truth, my original plan was to not ask for any entry fee, but I was talked out of it for the reason that some amount would work better at locking folks in to coming, so we set the registration fee at $25 for all participants.

As far as the top pros purses not being largely made up of entry fees I am in 100% agreement with you on that. The challenge is that you have to raise a significant amount of sponsorship to accomplish a higher than 200% payout (which is what I would define as "significant".

I really like the PDGAs move towards requiring more added cash to meet tier guidelines. It stops TDs from just charging outrageous entry fees while doing little if any work to raise sponsorship; relying on entry fee and payout differentials between divisions in an attempt to create the appearance of difference in payouts between pro and am divisions.

I would strongly support a move even further in that direction. For events that raise zero or below say $250 in sponsorship that they shall be required to use minimum entry fee and payout tables for all divisions. Make entry fees completely defined by the amount of added cash or merchandise sponsorship secured.

Besides the benefit of moving away from reliance on entry fees to build purses, it will clearly delineate the TDs that are really "DOING SOMETHING" from those who are basically running minis or pro/am events with a PDGA Tier slapped on there. It will also, I hope, further efforts and make clear the need to, bring more folks into helping in the process of securing sponsorship; which accomplishes an equally important task of getting disc golf known more widely in the communities in which the events are run and also in the development of greater numbers of capable volunteers.

The only drawback is that it is new and different and folks tend to squirm in those situations. "Well, I never had to do this before...." Do what? Build wide and strong support for your event? Talk to local businesses? Build a team? Coordinate sponsorship and logistical issues with a team? Be a TD?

Yes, times are changing, TDing is changing, but no one forces anyone to be a PDGA TD and even now, and likely into the future, there will be options within the tier structure to do shuffle the entry fee tournaments, but those tournaments are becoming increasingly more obvious to a more discerning player base, now more than ever, forced to decide between one event and another (or even just to skip it and play with a group of friends at the best courses in your region).

Maybe limit entry fees to a total no greater than the added money. If you raise $5000 in sponsorship, you can charge $5000 in entry fees.

Yes. I think I had a formula worked out for this a while ago similar to that here on the discussion board. I'll see if I can find it.

There are already rules in place for different tiers and the amount of sponsorship required for each tier. The problem is that these rules are not enforced, nor do they remain consistent for any period of time. One year it's a requirement, the next it's a goal, then it's changed and back to a requirement.

Year after year - events which are unable to meet the "goals" for sponsorship or total purse dollars are allowed to maintain the same level of sanctioning the next year. In effect, no enforcement of the tour agreement exists unless something really egregious takes place that causes a bunch of complaints.

So your idea of establishing a formula is just pisssing in the wind guys. Idealistic yes, reasonable financially yes, practical /pragmatic - no.

I choose to believe that this time the standards will be enforced. We won't know until sanctioning requests for next year are approved, though. But the current BOD is making things happen, and since they said they were going to enforce the new standards I choose to believe them.

Yes this has never happened in the past. But the current BOD has never said it would happen and then no followed through.

Sorry, I can't see that happening.

Let's say Joe Blow runs a popular sanctioned tournament every year, which generates income for the PDGA. Just because he fails to meet the "goals" or "requirements" for sponsorship or total purse dollars this year, is the PDGA gonna make a big stink and possibly risk losing that income for next year?

I can see his A-tier being dropped to B or his B-tier being dropped to C.

I can definitely see that happening. The current BOD spent some energy defining the new requirements for this year. I believe they will do something about them.

You can believe they won't. We'll see what happens next year.

I can see some events that missed the cutoffs being allowed to maintain the current tier status if they are able to demonstrate adverse conditions (weather ?) contributed to the low turnout.

mr. rhett, help me out here. i've been in rehab for a while and can't figure out why you say that the BOD is making things happen. what exactly have they done other than change this bbs so that it takes ten minutes to load a page for dial-up users?

Well, for starters they kept you out of office. :D

*** You are ignoring this user ***



I love this feature! :D

*** You are ignoring this user ***



I love this feature! :D



Me too! I had 2 in a row! Sweet! :)

Is that picture you???

*** You are ignoring this user ***



I love this feature! :D



me too :D

how do you know what you are missing if you use that feature? i never tried it, so i dont know.

how do you know what you are missing if you use that feature? i never tried it, so i dont know.



somethings you just know arn't worth reading,take the hemorrhoid weve all had one but it's not likely that will go out of our way to get another one just because we miss the feeling.you know what i mean :D

ROFLMAO... very good TFO! :D

not to be the dissenter (hah! perish the thought /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif), i kinda like assclown's comments. at least he keeps them short and to the point. yes, i wish i didnt have to see that pic all the time but he (she?) is kinda like a combination of the big red killa and discgolfdude.

...take the hemorhoid weve all had one but it's not likely that will go out of our way to get another one just because we miss the feeling.you know what i mean :D



There will probably never be a better hemorrhoid analogy than that.

i agree that picture has to go :D

So, that is you?

Long live Assclown...he's one of the Beastie Boys.

Hey Kenny its Joe just sent my waitlist $$$ to worlds and found you will be there....its worth playing up already!!!!!! :cool:

email me your itenerary.

well i see little has changed around here...still the same boring old hacks blindly spouting the party line. ah well, one of these days rhett, you'll actually be able to point to something the BOD has done besides get re-elected.

They are keeping the faith, which is difficuly to do in this sport.

The ratings are a huge success.

Access to your personal disc golf data and historical data is pretty big, and that's all a by-product of the ratings work.

The NT experiment is going forward. Personally, I'm not sure how that's turning out. The big focus on the very very very few touring players is debatable, to me, abotu whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. But it is bringing it to the fore-front and, methinks, also bringing it to lot more people's immediate attention. This will be good thing in the long as we all will decide that focusing on the few touring players is a good thing or a bad thing. To me that decision will be a good thing as it helps decide exactly who/what the PDGA really is.

The National Disc Golf Center looks like a pretty good thing.


I don't know, Mikey. The PDGA really is a "small potatoes" organization and I am thankful that the BOD members basically work for free for disc golf. As such I don't have grand illusions of what those volunteers should do for me. I am thankful that they are doing what they are doing. $30/$50 a year for membership ain't sqaut so I don't expect tremendous thing to be accomplished, but the steps that we the PDGA are taking are pretty impressive to me for that price.

The BOD isn't going to get us on TV since we aren't really "made for TV". The BOD isn't going to bring in million dollar sponsorship since we aren't a "made for TV" sport. I can't see blaming them for a lack of either.

On the TV subject, Reality TV shows dominate the airwaves in primetime, so a DG reality TV show could be pitched to an TV executive. Here's my idea, Put 6-8 touring pros in a RV, pick some golfers that don't get along so well, and tape every minute. Could be good exposure.

well heck rhett, if that's all you want from the BOD, i guess anyone will do! ah, when all else fails, lower your expectations. ;)

i see i can still count on you for a good laugh :D

for the record--NDGC: not the work of the BOD...please give all the future credit for that to where it is due: mr. brian graham. i wish we had a couple guys like him on the BOD.

if you think the ratings are all that, i guess you actually might be satisfied with the ol' status quo too.

thanks for the update. glad to see that almost nothing's been done since i went into rehab!

What is it, exactly, that's not being done? I mean besides the obvious answer of "everything".

So tell us Mikey,

Did you enter rehab before during or after the election? Do you feel you would have been able to live up to your own (let alone the PDGA memberships) expectations had you been elected?

Mike, sorry to hear you were in rehab. Hope everything is looking up for you.

I'm not quite sure why you are so down on our PDGA Board Members. It's like folks coming into your house with food, preparing a meal, serving it to you, all for free, you gobble everything up and then blanching say, "Man! That food sucked and all you folks are ripping me and everyone else you've served off!" And start throwing the dishes at them.

At least that's the way it appears to me.

rhett, i can't give you a good answer on that since i've been out of the loop, and don't really know what the BOD has been up to (you know you have to dig pretty deep to discover their secret plans).

i also haven't been around the National Tour to see how that's going this year, since i've been injured and attempting to rehab my back. so craig, what does my injured back have to do with it? ;) although, now that i think about it, if i didn't do anything at all, and kept the faith, rhett would say i was doing a pretty good job.

It's like folks coming into your house with food, preparing a meal, serving it to you, all for free, you gobble everything up and then blanching say, "Man! That food sucked and all you folks are ripping me and everyone else you've served off!" And start throwing the dishes at them.



or, it could be like, "If you want to play with us, you have to send us your money, which, of course, we won't tell you exactly how we'll spend it, no matter how many times someone requests that we do. we'll waste your funds subsidizing a fluffy magazine, fluffy ratings, fluffy video magazines, and other stuff that we won't even tell you about! we'll take the message board and make it load really slow and let everyone put up offensive avatars and give people ratings to show snobbish we can be, and even let nick have a special green color to show that his ideas are somehow better than everyone else's. and then we'll take credit for everything any volunteer has ever done for disc golf as if we did it ourselves."

or, it could be like, "If you want to play with us, you have to send us your money, which, of course, we won't tell you exactly how we'll spend it, no matter how many times someone requests that we do. we'll waste your funds subsidizing a fluffy magazine, fluffy ratings, fluffy video magazines, and other stuff that we won't even tell you about! we'll take the message board and make it load really slow and let everyone put up offensive avatars and give people ratings to show snobbish we can be, and even let nick have a special green color to show that his ideas are somehow better than everyone else's. and then we'll take credit for everything any volunteer has ever done for disc golf as if we did it ourselves."



Underparmikey's profile is configured so that he does not accept private messages, so I sent him an e-mail. The more evil he spews, the more I'm thinking that I just should have put that message here for everyone to see.

Mike,

It was nice meeting you and playing a round with you at PDGA Worlds in Flagstaff last August.

You used to be such a valuable contributor on the PDGA board and I missed your presence within the last 9 months while you were out on rehab.

Apparently, either that time off and/or your Southern Nationals buddies have brainwashed you into anti-PDGA sentiment. Your recent bashing of the PDGA is not productive.

If all you are going to do is bash, please retreat into the shadows again.

Regards
-Jeff

now really jeff, are the ad hominem attacks really necessary? is sarcasm lost on you, or did you feel that the comment about offensive avatars was personally directed at you(well maybe it was :) )?

jeff, were you asleep during the election? wasn't it obvious that i was only running to get my hands in the membership kitty? that's not evil, that's monkey see, monkey do. :)

Hi, back the the Pro 2 thing�..

I think Chuck Kennedy said to very well. How to provide enough division so that more people have a chance to win a little something, without diluting the events? It�s a tough thing to do, and I�m glad he has that balanced perspective.

It's true that you can progress your skills to where you should/could play Open (and not be called a bagger) but not really have much of a chance when the NT comes to town and the top 30 of 90 guys are really, really good. And I think it's true that it would be more likely for say an 850 player to beat a 900 player once in a while, than for a 950 player to beat a 1000. It's exponentially tougher the nearer you reach the top. Example, In Advanced I could look back and think, well I didn't win because I had this bad stretch of holes. In Open, I look back and realize, I didn't do well because of 1 bad hole, and I didn�t cash because of 1 bad shot. ONE.

The thing is this. I have had the pleasure of learning and becoming reasonably competitive at Delaveaga my entire beveled edge disc golf career I have watched some kids grow up around here, you may have heard of them? Nate Doss, I remember when he got his first ace on hole 21 at 11 years old. I remember when Miles Harding used to throw a forehand 4 finger because his hands were still too small to hold the disc. Now these young men can throw a disc some 100-300 feet further than a pushing 40 guy like me. I still love to play with and against them, but lets face it, on long courses like home, and NT events that tend to be even longer, I�d have to have a short game as good or better than a Lissaman to have a chance to cash. This does get a little disheartening at times, I pretty much know that the odds are very low that I am going cash anywhere, and in fact I have not, other than doubles in the last 2.5 seasons. To me it's not so much about the money, it�s about the experience, and to me I learn more, and see better behavior in the open division,

�Time waits for no Man�
I will turn 39 this September, which means technically I can play Masters division starting in 2005. I will be the new young kid on the Tee, who can drive about as far as most of the people in my division, instead of being out driven by literally 85+ % of the field. I will have my first real opportunities to make the leader card(s) {with guys like Kenny Lee}:eek: since I left AM 2. I�m sure all of you who have reached Masters understand what I mean. *I�m not trying to make excuses, believe me my mind is fully convinced that I still have the durability and elasticity of a 16 year old, but try as I may, I can not convince my discs of this?

I think the Pro 2 division seems like a good idea, if I was 30, or 35, I�d probably like it even more. I think it will keep more players like me playing tournaments, and PDGA current. Also, it may capture some of those guys who win their local major tournament as an AM, and then stop plying because they no feel as competitive. It could be a great heaven for rookies

A lot of tournament golf is experience, and ultimately how to handle pressure. This would provide another forum for aspiring Pros to get leader card experience, that could propel them to the top divisions. You would get bumped when your time came I�m guessing.

It does of course create another wrinkle for a guy like me. Maters? Pro 2? Masters? Pro 2?

I�m wondering what effect you think this may have on people in my position?

:confused:
PS Who says we�re not made for television or million dollar sponsors? That is not the mode I�m operating under, and certainly not the boys in Texas! Chris Himming is fast becoming a organizing legend, I hope I can work some more with you some time Chris! Aim high Rhett, we may be in a tail wind at the moment, but it can�t last forever at this growth rate. : )

Mike,

Are you sure it was your back they were working on? You might want to check around under your couch for some loose marbles.

I find it hard to believe that you are involved in organized disc golf in any way other than a taker with the chit you purge. The only thing you are more than you are clueless is ungrateful.

This man has some serious issues people. Save yourself venom and exercise your right to use the "Ignore" feature of this awesome new tool brought to you by the PDGA BOD AND PDGA Members. I know I am.

I think Chuck Kennedy said to very well. How to provide enough division so that more people have a chance to win a little something, without diluting the events?



I see this as a crux of the problem. In my mind, a competitive system should be set up to reward the best. A system designed to give everyone a chance to win is OK in itself. However, when you couple that system with a payout structure (financial incentives) which treats all skill levels equally, you have a system that rewards the mediocre as well as the best.

By the way, I'm old, weak and generally can't compete with the best open players, but I still can't support a system that divides the open field into two and pays out the same way. If pro 2 was designed as a flat payout, it would easier to digest.

Additionally, while I'm blabbering, the PDGA should really look at a phenomenon I think is occuring: looking at many of the big events this year, it appears that the fields are getting smaller and stronger. These guys have to be exceptional to cash all the time and even when they do cash, it is often just barely above the entry fee. Many of these good players (very good frankly) will soon be financially discouraged from entering as many tourneys and the fields will get yet smaller and stronger. etc..... A slow death of the open division.

Is it fair to criticize the PDGA board if this occurs on their watch? or is this bad form also?

Save yourself venom and exercise your right to use the "Ignore" feature of this awesome new tool brought to you by the PDGA BOD AND PDGA Members. I know I am.



Too bad he can't return the favor! :eek:

Too bad he can't return the favor! :eek:

sure he could, and the board would load in 1/3 the time :D:D:D

Too bad he can't return the favor! :eek:

sure he could, and the board would load in 1/3 the time :D:D:D



Try ignoring Nick before you post.

Nick who?

I'm inclined to believe the folks who argue that the Pro2 division will keep many of the older players active in participating in tournaments. I think I can see where a lot of the "old school" guys who might not play otherwise, might be enticed to come back and enjoy some competition if a Pro2 division was offered.

Many of those guys adhered to the old un-written rule of "win a division and move up" and suddenly found themselves in the Pro division. Those guys that might've won a bigger A or B tier once or twice moved up into Pro division where they've never been particularly competitive, and they can't move back into the amateur ranks any more...

Is the alternative to lose those players to the sport entirely the only option? I hope not...

I'm convinced that offering it could be a good thing...yes, it might hurt the Master division a little bit, but I don't expect that it will make that much of a difference in the Pro division. The trade-off (as I see it) is that we'll have some more players around that we probably haven't seen in a while...

We added cash to every single division (am and pro) last year, and it's gonna be hard to run one that we won't add cash to, but that is the only way I'd accept offering it. :(

James,


I see this as a crux of the problem. In my mind, a competitive system should be set up to reward the best. A system designed to give everyone a chance to win is OK in itself. However, when you couple that system with a payout structure (financial incentives) which treats all skill levels equally, you have a system that rewards the mediocre as well as the best.



After 15 years of playing Open I am inclined to agree with you. I�ve seen events go from offering 3 divisions (Pro, Women and Amateur) to offering 5 (Pro, Master, Women, Advanced and Amateur) to one where we now offer about 11 Pro and 15 Amateur divisions.

All of which have been from the beginning based on attracting folks out by offering a cash payout to the top 25%/33%/35%/40% of various age/gender/arbitrary and now skill-based divisions. Sure, there have been a great many of us playing for the joy of the game through these years, even those winning stacks of plastic and thousands of dollars. Still, the name of the game has been to place in those various percentages within an open and increasing numbers of protected divisions; and never based purely on the joy of pure competition.

This history has lead many of us to believe that �competition� equals �cashing�. In my opinion this is inappropriate in both Professional and Amateur Classifications as a sole motivation to compete and participate for the young sport that we are. Also, in my opinion this has been THE leading direct cause of ill-will between these divisions as each naturally fights for their slice of the pie.

The result is that, as you point out more succinctly than I, the BEST have not been treated entirely fairly by the competitive system in that they are not rewarded appropriately; while at the same time those that compete for the pure joy of competition have also not been fairly treated by that same competitive system in that they were rewarded inappropriately. I know that these two things are difficult for many who have known no other option, but none the less I have found them to be absolutely true.

And here I present a declaration in agreement with your above statement that it is not only not fair, but damaging to the well-being of our organized sport to reward inferior play greater than or equal to superior play. In this way our payout structure (not to mention our entry fee structure) has become an utter abomination to good/fair sportsmanship.


By the way, I'm old, weak and generally can't compete with the best open players, but I still can't support a system that divides the open field into two and pays out the same way. If pro 2 was designed as a flat payout, it would easier to digest.



And here again I am in full or great part in agreement with you.


Additionally, while I'm blabbering, the PDGA should really look at a phenomenon I think is occuring: looking at many of the big events this year, it appears that the fields are getting smaller and stronger. These guys have to be exceptional to cash all the time and even when they do cash, it is often just barely above the entry fee. Many of these good players (very good frankly) will soon be financially discouraged from entering as many tourneys and the fields will get yet smaller and stronger. etc..... A slow death of the open division.

Is it fair to criticize the PDGA board if this occurs on their watch? or is this bad form also?



There is some truth in this as well, but I think that it masks a certain ignorance as well. James, do you think that all of this harm can be undone in a single stroke? Do you think that folks would just smile and go about their business if suddenly they are, seemingly, forced to play for just the joy of competition (true amateur class) or against statistically superior players (reduced number of divisions)?

Our board is aware of these challenges and far more complex ones. The difference between us and them is this:

They are taking direct action (perhaps not fast enough for you and I but direct action non the less) to address these worldwide challenges facing organized disc golf, we are not (regardless of our involvement on a local or regional level). Incrementally. Many of the steps; flatter payouts in ams, mandatory players packages, Pro 2, the new Amateur divisional system, PDGA Player Ratings, hiring promotional agencies, building new relationships with local clubs, etc. are not an end game, they are steps in a direction. The right direction in my opinion, even though they may appear superficially as steps in the wrong direction.

Lot�s of folks think we should either go back to the beginning or stop where we are or were. The beginning, as I discussed, is not a solution, it put things in motion that to this day we are still trying to overcome. The present would leave too many things half way and do perhaps more to solve the problems of the past but animosities, quite apparently, would remain.

We have to press on. We have to understand the benefits of moving forward. We have to stay focused on the end game and the resolution to these challenges we now face.

Do our PDGA Board Members have the absolute master plan? Are they ethereal beings floating among the clouds with all of the answers? Hell no. But they are doing there best and it is pretty dam good. Will it be enough? Hell no.

THAT IS WHERE WE COME IN!

Best Regards,
Nick Kight

ok i give up. you guys are totally right! i've got some serious issues and, in fact, i am pure evil incarnate. i've obviously never done anything to promote the sport...do you think you wonderfully clear-minded folks can talk the PDGA into sending back my membership fees and all the sanctioning fees from the tournaments i've run over the years, since i was obviously faking my interest in this wonderfully transparent organization?

and really, if one of y'all actually has a copy of the 2004 PDGA budget, i'd like to see it, since guru still hasn't sent me the copy i requested over five months ago. oh but i digress...sorry for the thread drift people.

Pro 2 is silly. it's not minor league. C- and D-tiers are the equivalent of a minor league. Pro 2 is simply another unneeded division. what does that make, 89 divisions now? no wonder the fields are getting smaller all the time.

Better skill or play doesn't necessarily mean you deserve higher rewards in our economic system. People have to WANT to see you play in order to boost your justification for higher reward.

An example would be the Senior golf circuit. Even though their purses are smaller, the top players take home more than younger tour players who finish at the back of the cut or even miss the cut on the PGA Tour and would shoot better scores than the geezers on their shorter courses. Of course, many 50+ players make more in endorsements than younger and currently better players.

Anna Kournikova makes piles of cash for factors unrelated to the level of her tennis play.

So far, there's no indication that spectators want to regularly watch our top pros let alone pay for it. If disc golf was compelling to watch, I believe it would have happened by now without major efforts like Harold's made at the USDGC. So, unless something changes, the top players will need to rely on the goodwill and support of the roughly 500-1000 players out there huckin' the disc for each top pro hoping the purses get larger.

That being said Chuck; since we are in the process of contriving a system out of whole cloth, why not make one that makes more sense and will work well when and if we ever do attract spectators and sponsors?

I am not against protected divisions, but when the system is so obviously off target, rewarding mediocre play way and above superior play, then we have a system that does not support a natural and logical progression of increasing skill.

Better skill or play doesn't necessarily mean you deserve higher rewards in our economic system.


For various reasons, better skill may not get you higher rewards if you factor in endorsements, popularity, etc., but it certainly should (and usually does) within the sport itself. I'm hard pressed to think of any sport where people of the same gender and similar ages get paid more for demonstrating less skills. If it happens, the stewards of that sport should correct it.

Also, I am not envisioning top players making lots of cash, nor am I advocating a system that subsidizes top players, I simply think that better play should get you more of our small pie than inferior play. I also realize that like Nick says, we are essentially gamblers and given that fact, it seems clear that the PDGA should try to offer divisions without gambling and offer more attractive bets within the divisions that are gambling.

Our current system does reward higher skill within each division- first place wins more than second, who wins more than third, etc. Also, the top division gets most or all of the added cash. Beyond that however, unless a less popular redistribution process is used, the rewards will strictly be based on field size and entry fees. Fortunately, that can reasonably be controlled by using ratings brackets to equalize division sizes and by recommending a descending structure of entry fees. In addition, flattening payout percentages in lower divisions is another way to enhance the rewards for better skill. These options just need to be used.

With regard to other sports, the only reason you don't see the disparity where there are higher rewards for less skilled play is that events with different divisions aren't held at the same time. Four rich hacker ball golfers play $100 skins and four top HS golfers play quarter skins. Who's better? A promoter hosts the AA division in some sport and the field size is only half the A division event he hosted two weeks earlier because there are more players. The A participants got larger payouts for less skilled performances strictly due to numbers.

If I were into running events, I would consider running just a single division Pro 2 event with added cash/merch based on the body count within that ratings range and knowing that players as low as 875 seem to be fine playing up with that level of player. That way, the top player at that particular event would receive the highest reward without question. USDGC Lite

Our current system does reward higher skill within each division- first place wins more than second, who wins more than third, etc. Also, the top division gets most or all of the added cash. Beyond that however, unless a less popular redistribution process is used, the rewards will strictly be based on field size and entry fees.



We seem to be banging our head against a wall.

You basically said "this is our current structure and it will be unpopular to change it."

I say "our current structure is broken. It oftentimes culls out those who strive to excel. It must be changed for the health of the sport."

I know it is easy for me to say, but I don't care if it is unpopular because it is absolutely necessary for the long term growth of disc golf as a SPORT, not just an activity with many participants. But hell, I'd change it on principles alone.



With regard to other sports, the only reason you don't see the disparity where there are higher rewards for less skilled play is that events with different divisions aren't held at the same time. Four rich hacker ball golfers play $100 skins and four top HS golfers play quarter skins. Who's better?


This is apples and oranges. These are not events sanctioned by the sport's governing body.

I say "our current structure is broken. It oftentimes culls out those who strive to excel. It must be changed for the health of the sport."

I know it is easy for me to say, but I don't care if it is unpopular because it is absolutely necessary for the long term growth of disc golf as a SPORT, not just an activity with many participants. But hell, I'd change it on principles alone.



The only see two viable options of accomplishing the goal of "top scores get best payout", unless there is some sudden and miraculous influx of magical sponsor cash:

Only pay out in the top division of Open Pro (men and women)

Subsidize the Open pro division with money taken out of every other division.


Neither of these would be very popular. "Who cares if it's popular?!" it seems you would shout. Well, it's pretty darn easy to run a disc golf tournament that is not PDGA sanctioned so the popularity of the format is inherintly important! If we devise the perfect scheme and no wants to play it, we simply wither away.

We are neither dudes playing skins nor the U.S. Open of ball golf; we are the Professional Disc Golf Association and our events and tier structures have been created and modified to increase participation first and foremost with fair competition a distant second and Amateur Competition not even in the race.

Skill level is superior to other methods of delineating divisions, but it runs the same risk of unfairly (or illogically) overly rewarding inferior play as age/gender divisions and certainly WWCC ams/pro classifications.

What I am saying is that while we are in this stage of our development, where we can pretty much decide for ourselves entry fees/divisions/classifications/payouts that we try to get it to make logical sense and be as fair as possible. And though vastly improved in recent years certain aspects of it are still blaringly out of kilter.

Example:
A player plays PDGA events regularly for 10 years slowly but surely improving their skills. Let�s say they are about a 980 golfer. For 8 years they have played in the Open pro division cashing only on rare occasion and then only in the money-back spots. They�ve paid higher entry fees, traveled further, and paid dues longer. Only to watch folks who have not (or cannot) worked at raising their skill level (rated at 940) move from protected division to protected division (Advanced to Masters pro or Pro 2) and take home between $150 to $300 in cash and prizes every week all while playing about 2 to 4 strokes worse a round against lesser competition year after year.

Does this really make any sense? Are we not essentially promoting inferior play while at the same time leaving folks who have brought their skill level up (or are just naturally better) out to swing in the dry air?

There is seemingly no cost what so ever for getting institutionalize protection!

As I have said many times; I have no problem with having protected divisions, but if you are going to seek and receive that protection then there should be a price tag for it. Whether that price tag is simply having significantly lower entry fees and far flatter payouts, giving up added cash, or having the option to pay for �Entry Fee� and compete for the joy of competition, some form of concession is in order.

Protected divisions have had their cake and eat it too for too long and though on some level it appears to maintain our player base, I would, based on 15 years of participation and observation submit to you that it is actually the cause of far more instances of players dropping out of the sport or never joining in the first place than it has to do with retention or growth. With all of these steps of various protections most everyone has been on the short end of the stick at one point or another and knows that �sucka� feeling. It�s been a game of trying to jump from one unfair and illogical protected division to the next as best you can in order to stay in the sport.

Ever seen someone essentially drop out of the sport when they turn pro from adv, then suddenly reappear when they are Masters age? And I'm talking about 970+ golfers!

THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED! While we still can.

You basically said "this is our current structure and it will be unpopular to change it."

I say "our current structure is broken. It often times culls out those who strive to excel. It must be changed for the health of the sport."




Popularity converts to dollars. Less popularity. Less dues. Organization folds. Southern Nationals caters to popular formats and their events seem to be thriving.

Not sure what world you're living in but since when does excelling always get rewarded fairly? Who's usually more popular, the star athlete or the 4.0 student? Who gets paid more, Lebron James who just came out of HS or say Derek Fisher (Lakers) who's demonstrated greatness for those game winning shots?

The health of lifetime sports comes from the bottom not the top. All players above 1000 rating could disappear (except those contributing back to the sport) and disc golf would be just as healthy, and some might say even more so. The phrase, "Most fun wins" still rings more true for a sport's ongoing success.

You mean that if Tiger Woods had to compete for his and other players entry fees, someone else would actually show up to play ?

If the Pro's want bigger payouts for better competition, they need to recruit and train more players of similar caliber. I try to increase the size of my division whenever I see players out there that are not competing in tournaments.

There are just more players out there in the lower divisions and they should not be playing in the same tournaments with the Pros. It is just that the Pro players could not support a tournament without the AM players.

It is not that I am anti-Pro, just tired of hearing some pros whine about Ams winning anything of value.
I am very much in favor of flatter payouts and lower entry fees.
Competing for bragging rights only works well in the case of a very large annual event or an organized series of events.

There are just more players out there in the lower divisions and they should not be playing in the same tournaments with the Pros. It is just that the Pro players could not support a tournament without the AM players.



WORD!!!

Too bad he can't return the favor! :eek:

sure he could, and the board would load in 1/3 the time :D:D:D



How did your "Ignore User" experiment with Nick go? :)

I hear what you are saying and I realize that I am promoting an ideal that may not be fully realized in practice. I simply wish we would attempt to realize it.

Flat payouts are a start, Nicks true amateur division is a start. Both of those concepts would still get good turnouts. Eventually, if these events were the only events for non-pros and the TDs gave good value for the entry fee, everyone would be OK. The ones who would be ****** can always play open.

Offering more reasonable "bets" within the open division would also have to be part of the equation. Also, I'm not after a system that is set up to create a class of people who can make a living (that might happen in the future), I'm simply after a system that is equitable and offers reasonable incentives to get good.

It is not that I am anti-Pro, just tired of hearing some pros whine about Ams winning anything of value.



Or Open pros whine about Master Pros winning any added cash.

Or Open pros whine about Pro 2 winning any added cash.

Or Master pros whine about Pro 2 winning any added cash.

Or WWCC Advanced Ams complaining about WWCC Advanced Masters winning anything of value.

Or WWCC Advanced Ams complaining about WWCC Intermediate Ams winning anything of value.

Or WWCC Advanced Ams complaining about WWCC Recreational Ams winning anything of value.

Or WWCC Advanced Ams complaining about Pro Divisions winning anything of value based on event income.

I'm tired of it too Gary. We should do something about it don't you think?

Just trying to find a way to offer value to the player and still allow a professional TD a chance to make a living.

I want to be a professional TD when I grow up.

Just trying to find a way to offer value to the player and still allow a professional TD a chance to make a living.

I want to be a professional TD when I grow up.



I don't get what you are saying in relation to the topic Gary. Please explain.

Popularity converts to dollars. Less popularity. Less dues. Organization folds.


Read Nick's post above yours where he describes the "get good enough to drop out" scenario. That is how you lose members.

Y'all talk about the sport being better without the 1000 plus players. WTF!!!!!!! I hope this is not the policy of the Professional Disc Golf Association. The other argument I hear is that people move up too soon. In a system that rewards mediority, that is probably true, but in a system that didn't reward mediocrity, noone would ever consider "languishing" to be a good career move.

Y'all talk about the sport being better without the 1000 plus players. WTF!!!!!!! I hope this is not the policy of the Professional Disc Golf Association.



I didn't say it would be better. But many lifetime sports are not hurt when top players are unknown. Can you name the top croquet, badminton, horseshoe or Putt-Putt players out there? Does it make any difference to the popularity of those sports? Does it make any difference in how much fun you have playing them? Participants could care less whether those top players are well rewarded.

Perhaps sad but true, I suspect that celebrity endorsements like Matthew Perry actively promoting disc golf would go farther than a player who excels like Barry Schultz to increase interest in our game. It's just the way things are.

Our current system does reward higher skill within each division- first place wins more than second, who wins more than third, etc. Also, the top division gets most or all of the added cash. Beyond that however, unless a less popular redistribution process is used, the rewards will strictly be based on field size and entry fees. Fortunately, that can reasonably be controlled by using ratings brackets to equalize division sizes and by recommending a descending structure of entry fees.



Wow CK, for a guy as smart and dedicated as yourself - you sure are in denial on a big piece of this equation. To even suggest that there is an equitable distribution of prizes in our competitive structure ignores TOTALLY the overlap of skill level between the top competitive divisions. Oh but sure you said within divisions - a nice PC way to skirt the issue ENTIRELY.

Then you go on to say that ratings based divisions could solve some of these problems by creating similar sized divisions - which does not jive with your own proposed division structureusing ratings. On top of that - the pDGA has not currently chosen to apply ratings requirements to anything but so called am divisions. So to use that thought process to back up your assertions is pretty empty.

Pro2, Masters, and Advanced division players (largely not totally) occupy the skill range of roughly the bottom 2/3 of the current open division. The fact that we sanction these as separate divisions follows with your stated approval of soliciting a greater chance for more people to be winners. All the while basically telling players like myself - that it doesn't matter how long you've played, how good your skills are, you have to work even harder to get ANY reward because we're going to make it so that the bottom half of your division is going to be split off and given a better chance to win a prize (regardless of time playing or skill developed).

I keep saying it OVER and OVER and OVER. Fewer divisions (not more), bigger ratings breaks, and a change to the COMPETITIVE VENUE will solve the problems of inequitable distribution of prizes. Be damned with popularity. If the PDGA's mission is to promote fair and equitable COMPETITION - then GET ON WITH IT.

Base your divisional breaks on identifiable existing scoring trends. It's pretty easy - here I'll run you through it again. The average Open division scoring trends for a 4 round event have a difference of between 12-18 strokes PER ROUND from top to bottom. Masters tighten up a little - 9-15 strokes PER ROUND w/many cases having the top 5 in Masters placing in the top 1/3 of Open. Advanced has a similar trend to Masters, w/top 5 placing in the top 2/3 of Open. This suggests that a fair division would offer a rating break for open of about 100 ratings points or a little more. From the top at 10thirty something down to 920/930/940. This would by far be the biggest division, reflect the most active and avid players, and allow for THE MOST equitable distribution of prizes possible. With so many people in the same division - the same #get paid - but without the disparity we enjoy today. You want to offer special bonuses for folks within smaller ratings brackets - FINE - hey nothing wrong with a little incentive. But hanging your hat on what we've got in place now is getting more bogus all the time. And with guys like you CK - promoting smaller and smaller divisions (930-960 puhhhlease) - it's only gonna get worse.

And with guys like you CK - promoting smaller and smaller divisions (930-960 puhhhlease) - it's only gonna get worse.



Who ever said there will be a division for 930-960 golfers? The Pro 2 division is for anyone with a rating under 960. Theoretically, that is professionals from 600-960!

A player plays PDGA events regularly for 10 years slowly but surely improving their skills. Let's say they are about a 980 golfer. For 8 years they have played in the Open pro division cashing only on rare occasion and then only in the money-back spots. They've paid higher entry fees, traveled further, and paid dues longer. Only to watch folks who have not (or cannot) worked at raising their skill level (rated at 940) move from protected division to protected division (Advanced to Masters pro or Pro 2) and take home between $150 to $300 in cash and prizes every week all while playing about 2 to 4 strokes worse a round against lesser competition year after year.



How do you know that the 940 player has not been busting his [*****] since 1996 (8 years, coinicidentally) and working to raise his skill level up to a 940?

Your statement also seems to imply that after said 980 player paid all the high entry fees, traveled further, and paid dues longer, he deserves his own Masters division where he can beat up on fifteen or so other 920-950 Masters and take easy cash.

How is that any more fair?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Craig on this one.

Ratings was a golden opportunity to unite players of every gender and age into competitive divisions based on skill. What it seems to be doing instead is justifying the arbitrary divisions we had before while doing NOTHING AT ALL to shift from an "everyone wins cash" to a venue where folks gather for a fair fun competition.

I mean we talk about folks needing to cash to feel a sense of accomplishment rather than folks needing to enjoy competition and community.

The truly odd thing about it is this:

If everyone in the 26 current divisions were to play in a 4 day event they would ABSOLUTELY play disc golf with MORE PLAYERS OF EQUAL SKILL than they do now in the old system or even in the ratings based system. Why? Simple no division (separation) of like skilled players would exist in any form. As it stands now, we have at least 6 divisions with serious overlap of skill level (within 100 ratings points): Open, Masters Pro, Advanced, Advanced Masters, and Pro2.

And if you are going to roll out the argument that players in the bottom 2/3rds of a larger pro division are going to drop out, then what exactly is the difference between that and 2/3rds of the more divisions dropping out. The emphasis has to be shifted from cashing to enjoyed performance. Besides what are all of our attempts to spread the wealth (players packages, event services, wider payouts) all worth anyway if they can't be applied to a competitive system that makes logical sense at it's very foundation.

Your statement also seems to imply that after said 980 player paid all the high entry fees, traveled further, and paid dues longer, he deserves his own Masters division where he can beat up on fifteen or so other 920-950 Masters and take easy cash.

How is that any more fair?



Jeff - it seems like he's saying quite the opposite. The statement you quoted seems to be saying that the protected divisions of Advanced/Pro2/Masters are a detriment to the player who has progressed (in the open division) slowly but deliberately purely because they exist as protected divisions. At least that's how I read it.

This suggests that a fair division would offer a rating break for open of about 100 ratings points or a little more.



Uhhh no it doesn't. This actually merely suggests that the CURRENT divisions have about 100 points difference in ratings. What is CURRENT has NOTHING to do with what is FAIR.

Again what is being done CURRENTLY is in NO WAY indicitive of how things SHOULD be done. :D

Oh and I'm not disagreeing with your stance, only with your messed up way of trying to justify it. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

New PDGA Format Proposal

M/NT/A:
986+ = Division 1
931-985 = Division 2
871-930 = Division 3
801-870 = Division 4
-800 = Division 5

B:
976+ = Division 1
921-975 = Division 2
861-920 = Division 3
791-860 = Division 4
-790 = Division 5

C:
966+ = Division 1
911-965 = Division 2
851-910 = Division 3
781-850 = Division 4
-780 = Division 5

TD has the OPTION to offer parallel divisions for Women, Masters, and Juniors for all divisions BELOW Division 1.

Anyone can play up if they choose.

I'll leave the "how deep to pay" question up for debate, but I assume not so deep at the top and deeper at the bottom.


There you have it. It's so simple. Why don't we do it? Who gets hurt here? Who doesn't like it? Craig, if it's you, then how much bigger divisions do you need before you stop crying? Or how much money would we have to swipe from the lower division and pump into Division 1 (a practice I fully support) before you stop crying?

:D:D:confused: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :o:cool::) :cool::D

Can someone repeat the question?

Is it fair or logical that you are 40 and I am 39, you have a rating of 980 and I a rating of 973, you play in a protected division and I in Open, I beat you at that event and you get $250 and I get to say, "I own you!".

Bad example. That IS fair. :D

hyzer, you let nick beat you? :confused: :D

How is it messed up to say that existing scoring trends indicate where people already willingly CHOOSE to play - and that that is a legitimate starting point to evaluate where ratings breaks should start? I suppose you could look at it like the ratings must be all wrong!! If there are 18 points (in an extreme case) per round difference from top to bottom in an open division - but there's only 60/80 points differential in ratings of participants - something must be off. I choose to look at it like the folks at the bottom of the current open division have some guts. They are out there striving to be the best they can under competitive circumstances. They BELIEVE that when they play well - they will reap some reward and some satisfaction from that performance. And when they do perform - they usually will. It's the people that CHOOSE a protected division that don't share that belief - and resort to an easier way out to reap some form of satisfaction.

The fact that people have certain CHOICES that leads to inequitable distribution of prizes is the subjective element of our current structure which I have a problem with. I'm not crying about anything - just trying to enlighten those that haven't bothered to think about what an equitable system would entail. You guys keep all your choices for all I care - the one choice I now am "eligible" for (I just turned 40) - I don't plan on taking advantage of. I will continue to strive to be the best - wherever I compete. I feel sorry for those that don't share that motivation.

I beat him every time he plays Masters.

well... he is old

True that...

Sounds good to me. :cool:

Then again, I think the Master's should have their own tour.

But even with todays AM divisions, what difference does it make what someone else wins ?

You are playing in your division, and have to beat those in your division to cash. What is wrong with that ?

It is just more of a challenge for those that can play in multiple divisions to decide what is more important. Is a better chance at cashing and gaining points more important or is playing with others of the same age/sex more important. I have played Advanced Masters golf consistently even when there were only 3-4 at an event. Yes it appears that I am hiding here just to get the easy cash.

although i am the devil, i think that craig is totally right on this one. well put craig.

less divisions please!

Very interesting. Craig never says that he won't play masters. Way to keep your options open. Nick always implies that the M is a lesser division but is quick to point out that he will be there soon. I like you guys and can't wait to play a tournament with you if you aren't scared to lower yourselves to my level.

BTW, I'm not scared to play in the open. There are some times when playing masters is a smart financial decision. Do you actually think that I play M just for an easy tournament? No way. I try hard no matter what. There are just some courses where my abilities keep me from being competitive with the big boys. It would be a total lie to say that I don't want to win. I want to win every time.

and proudly whup up on as many yunguns as possible - whenever I git the chance :) Yeah - I may be old - but I don't use it as an excuse to escape competition - now do I?

Escape competition? Was that directed at me?

It's all about me. I couldn't care less about another soul at tournaments. I want what is best for me. Me Me Me.

I feel better.

I like this. It's fun.

Excuse? I don't need an excuse. The PDGA gives me the right to play where I want.

Hi Craig. We can still be pals.

They BELIEVE that when they play well - they will reap some reward and some satisfaction from that performance. And when they do perform - they usually will. It's the people that CHOOSE a protected division that don't share that belief - and resort to an easier way out to reap some form of satisfaction.



I'm a 930ish rated player and I've never finished first in a DG tourney in any division (I think I have only played ADV and Open in my 5+ years). I do BELIEVE that I can compete if I perform. I was sure I was going to cash at this past weekend's C-tier in the Open division. Unfortunately, I did not perform. I actually played worse than I have in quite some time. Oh well, I will try harder next time and soon I will cash in the Open division. When I first heard of Pro-2, I thought "This is for me!" ... but I have been thinking long and hard about protected divisions and my conclusion is to agree with Craig. Less divisions is good for disc golf. I have no resentments about paying higher entry fees to truly COMPETE and have the chance to gain real satisfaction. At this point I think winning ADV would be like getting an ace during warm-ups - a wasted performance.

I don't blame the playa in this, I blame the game.

Though I am always open to workin' the playa as much as is humanly possible...

Still, it is interesting to consider what disc golf would be like with 90 person fields of Open players at every event. Then the next week have 90 person fields of Masters Players. Then Amateurs, Women and so forth.

This has been some pretty decent food for thought. When and IF I run another event or series of events things might be a little different than in the past. I've got this year to steal candy from some Open Players then next to switch the hemoroidal cream with ben *** for some Masters, then maybe I'll run some events.

I know you fellas are racing to point out how much of an idiot and user I am. Just check out my stats. I could have won M at some events where I played open. I play where I have a chance to win. And I still win in the open. Perhaps the open players should ban me from playing in their division.

I feel the love pouring in. Plus my post number is climbing.

Yup we can be pals - I don't look down on those who exercise their right to a choice. I just don't think certain choices should be offered ALLTHE TIME. This is what I mean when i harp on the VENUE - certain types of competition should offer fewer divisions, period. Certain other categories could offer more - gee - the word tiers comes to mind :)

I believe Chris - that on courses with an SSA under 50/52 - that you are a demontrated skilled golfer that needs no protection. You playing Masters at the Grange - or any Richmond course is an escape. In fact - most of the places I see you play (with very few exceptions), you are pure and simple an open caliber player.

I will not disagree that on certain courses (WHERE SKILL LEVEL IS THE DETERMINING FACTOR) that an age protected division may be appropriate. But if the choice is a purely financial one - well I guess I do have a problem with that. Because what you're saying is that you have less pressure put on you to play your best game - and still have a good chance for the same or better reward. That's what I call inequity.


Oh Chris - just for you - I won't be playing Masters any time soon with one caveat, unless it is the sole division being offered - I may play (Like the US Masters) - where you have to be 40 to enter. But they're not hosting that event this year - and I haven't heard any plans for the future.

I've changed my mind - I think separate events for separate divisions should be the norm. Age tournaments - one male/female division - 40 or 45+, open tournaments 930+ w/sliding entry fee scale, Am tournaments 929- cap on total entry fee @$50

Still, it is interesting to consider what disc golf would be like with 90 person fields of Open players at every event. Then the next week have 90 person fields of Masters Players. Then Amateurs, Women and so forth.





I've changed my mind - I think separate events for separate divisions should be the norm. Age tournaments - one male/female division - 40 or 45+, open tournaments 930+ w/sliding entry fee scale, Am tournaments 929- cap on total entry fee @$50



Sorry, worst idea yet. What TD is going to have two spare weekends to run a tournament for one division one weekend and another division the next weekend?

And then you'll have the Masters division tournament with 40 or 50 competitors, not 90, just because there aren't that many Masters. Why run a tournament and have open spaces?

Why restrict a tournament to Masters only, and have golfers under 40 who would otherwise be willing to play that weekend, kept out from playing?

Craig, thanks for this thought provoking debate. I will tell you that it has been my history that I play in divisions where I think I can win. Since getting the option to play in an open or masters event, I have picked and chosen where I felt I should. Nowhere have I blown away the competition in either. When the master's age was 35, I played masters in an event and won by 2 strokes. Had I played open, I would have won by 5. I still play in open events where I can win and have to beat 1000 rated players to do this. Examples are Pohick, Newport News and Bluemont. All short courses. Sorry but that's my game. I will never be able to compete with you big arms but will you guys be able to compete with me on a putting course? I play to my strengths.

Thanks pal.
See you soon.
Play M with me at Patapsco.

I think I am with Craig on this as well ... I could see playing in the ADV division at the Mid-Atlantic AM Championships. Uh-oh, I am starting to sound like some kind of yes-man for Craig. I better remind you guys that I would vote to get rid of 2-meter penalties :D

Gee Jeff, where could this work? Let's see - Sedgely hosts what 14 events a year? You don't think they have room for different stuff like this.

You don't think that catering to more specific groups might entice folks who haven't run events to become more interested in serving their own peer group?

How many events are on the PDGA Tour schedule this year? Probably up around 400 I would guess. There are so many events in any given region - that attendance suffers at many of them because travel has been discouraged by proximity. I think catering to more limited specific groups could have merit. But as is the status quo - people don't like to be told what to do - they assume you're trying to do something TO THEM, instead of something FOR THEM - so nothing will change - until a collective steps up and provides a working example. Gee TX sounds like a good potential test area :)

"The emphasis has to be shifted from cashing to enjoyed performance."

thats pure BS! Nick, who are you to say what others' motivations are???

another topic - if 2/3 of the "open" or "masters" players stand no chance at all of cashing, then maybe they should not be allowed to play in those divisions.

sorry, i lost track of who i am agreeing or disagreeing with on that one :D this thread is making my head hurt :eek:

Please, folks. I implore you to start posting more incendiary comments. I need something to make me laugh. I like it when people get mad discussing something as inconsequential as throwing frisbees.

Chuck says it again.

Where is it written that the Top Pros have to get more than the Ams?

Consider a few things.

Ball Golf is some 507 years old by my account, and yet some people seem to think we should have as much money as the PGA floating around by next tuesday? The PGA has Ninety some odd years on Disc Golf, so if you ease up a bit, you realize this is a very young sport, which has done a lot better then most new sports in the 20th & 21st centuries.

If you can not appreciate the remarkable achievements of the PDGA, and that all sports must start this way, I don�t know what to tell you? You have no idea how lucky you are to be involved in a sport where enough hard working dedicated people give countless hours of their lives to make this discussion board, these tournaments, all of it possible. Think about that for a minute. A new sport is born and enough people have to be passionate about it to give huge donations of their energy, fully knowing that they are the martyrs and the groundwork of what could become a very big thing.

It was bearely 20 years ago that professional football players started getting paid enough to not have a second job. Television had a lot to do with that, but more of it was the people who laid the groundwork, and convinced television it was worth the gamble. Now look what it�s become.
The television opportunity has not �come and gone�. This is the ground work stage, not the end of the line. Some of you could be legends some day, or we could all be forgotten, either way it doesn�t really matter except that we do try to create an opportunity and a better place for the future.

�Leave the place better than you found it�

So back to the pay out thing. I get confused when people talk about is the pay out fair at such and such event? It�s real easy, You add up all the entry fee�s and then you add up all the payouts, including the players packages and resources to run the event, cause guess what? They cost money. Typically the event report the payout percentage. Typically for an NT it�s 100% What is so hard for you guys to figure out about that? That means all of your entry fee�s went back to the players, and sponsors who got nothing in return, but a little promotion paid for EVERYTHING ELSE. All the time was donated. I Personally put about 60 hours into last years Masters Cup performing a minor role. I raised some thousands of dollars for the event to help cover costs so that we could pay out MORE THAN 100%. I did get my entry paid for. That�s 125$ for 60 hours of work and thousands raised. I�m sorry but my take is that we are all lucky to have any of this. I can not believe any one complains about any payout anywhere. That�s just ignorance. You�re lucky people keep doing it when so many of you have to complain about things you obviously are to selfish to understand. The primary reason to have any tournament should be to play golf with your fellow golfer who love the game in an organized atmosphere of like people. It is not to support your local hustler. If you need the money that bad, you have picked the wrong game, try pool, and check back in 20-30 years.

If you hold an event and 1500 Ams show up, and only a dozen Pros, you�re **** straight the payout should be more for the Am field.. Should a disproportionate amount go to subsidize the Pro field? I don�t think so, perhaps to support the over all event costs and promotion, that why Ams get players packs. I there isn�t enough money in the Pro filed for you, sorry, no ones forcing you to play. Disc Golf being more or less self funded (as explained above) at this point, you don�t have much room to complain. That is why money from the larger fields, whatever they are goes to promotion of the whole event, so that maybe some day all of us will be good enough to play on TV.

Funny how it always comes back to sponsorship? And how we need to be organized to attract sponsorship. Well sponsorship starts at home. Join the PDGA, buy every disc golf media item you can. Try in every way to support the people who are taking a risk on the future of your sport and help get the ball rolling. Disc Golf has already outlived it�s Father. Most games never even get to do that. The foundation already started will obviously survive at least a few more generations beyond us.

What has the PDGA done for you? Literally, more than you�ll ever know�

JS

"The emphasis has to be shifted from cashing to enjoyed performance."

thats pure BS! Nick, who are you to say what others' motivations are???



It's opinion Pat. Something you should know all too well. There are a million different motivations, there is only ONE system: Play for each others entry fees within various groups of protected divisions. No other option is available regardless of "motivation", other than quitting organized disc golf or collectively adding a new one.

I remember being like you Pat, reading through posts and finding one little thing to react negatively too. As an exercise, which I have found increasingly enjoyable, read through a post and see if you can find one or more things to agree with and tell us why. I'd be interested to hear your take on it, rather than just your negative reaction to minutia.

since you have several times asserted that playing for fun/pleasure/etc should be/is the primary motivator for the amateur divisional system, it can hardly be considered minutia. if the initial premise is flawed, then whatever follows is necessarily flawed as well. Logic 101. (and i took that at a pennsylvania college).

if you read any other threads you will notice that i agree on lots of things, sometimes even with you. re-read this thread (or one of the innumerable threads on the same topic) and you just might find a few words about what i agree with and why regarding this topic.

i liked the divisional structure proposed by someone earlier today. it was ratings-based and simple. sorry, i forgot who it was. i favor the idea of developing a PRO class, and feel we already have a huge and growing true am class. again this is a fundamental departure of opinion for you and i, so fundamental that it renders your ears deaf to my explanations

in the current system or any derivitive thereof, i want the right to play up, even if it means i will be DFL or close to it until i develop better skills. if and when we ever get a TRUE PRO class complete with entrance requirements, then i'll bust my *** trying to make the grade.

no amount of tweaking the current ratings based system is gonna change anything. basically the current system is serving the current pdga membership just fine. it is offering a nice selection of divisions, and opportunities for serious, hardworking TDs to make a living.

i believe we already have the basics in place. i believe that although your intentions are 10000000000% in the right place - to make the future of disc golf better - you are attempting to fine tune a system that is already functioning pretty darn well. i believe we should be trying to develop the sponsorships, public awareness, and public desire to see more disc golf. i believe we should be looking for a formula that will allow 20-50 top PROs make an above average living by playing. i do not believe that calling 800 rated players (or even 925 or 935) pros because they get "paid" in plastic will do anything to further the sport. i like your basic idea of doing something organized according to school level. i do not agree that developing inter-high school disc golf leagues should be the function of the Pdga, (but its still a good idea). i like the idea of trying different formulas for the AMs, but not forcing them down our throats.

in short, i believe what you are trying to do is great - just not the role for the Pdga. i dont agree that the window has closed and it would have happened by now if it was gonna happen. i believe we should be emphasizing the P in pdga.

and i believe that jeff_l has the best avatar EVER! :D

and i believe that jeff_l has the best avatar EVER! :D



FO' SHEEZY!!!!!!!!!! Talk about hypnotizing....

Thank you. I'll take closer look later, but would you mind clarifying the following for me?


since you have several times asserted that playing for fun/pleasure/etc should be/is the primary motivator for the amateur divisional system, it can hardly be considered minutia. if the initial premise is flawed, then whatever follows is necessarily flawed as well. Logic 101. (and i took that at a pennsylvania college).



Don't forget that I have mentioned competition just as much as enjoyment. I have asserted that this needs to be made primary in pro divisions as well.

Do you honestly believe that our amateur class is "amateur"? Do you have no inkling that a different classification of player could be of benefit to the growth and well being of our sport (never mind current adv, int and rec players which can go on much as they do now).

This is a little goofy doing this here.. I'll shoot you an email.

Sandalman you confuse me?
"opportunities for serious, hardworking TDs to make a living."

What are you talking about? Who are these TDs who are making significant money at PDGA tournamnets? Perhaps you're thinking of non sanctioned, AM appeal tournaments where there is money to me made, if that's you're knida thing.....

"I believe we should be looking for a formula that will allow 20-50 top PROs make an above average living by playing."

I'd re consider because your current formula would look like this:

98% of ALL disc golfers give there money to the top 25 guys? Gee, that sounds like fun? Should I bother to play, or just send them a check?

Here's an idea, give up golf, get a second job and send your money to the Innova Team.


The way it stands now, we're simply no that big, and in my opinion, you are way ahead of yourself.

The idea is this, grow the game by addding players, (divisions) more players in turn add more awareness, and start to become their own fan base if it goes well sposnsirs start to pay attention. The real money comes from sponsors not players.All we can do is grow the game, and if the money follows, it follows, wecan not make it happen.

This is why people try to stress playing for the enjoyment of the game first, because the money may never come. Peop;e who linger around the sport trying to eek out a living by bending rules and hstling make your local course less fun. And, if you think about it, sponsors are more likely to be attracted to people who look like they are having fun,than they are to a bunch of whiney hustlers looking for a free ride.

The PDGA's job is to grow the game form the sake of the game, and for the many, not for the few. The few will never get major sponsorship, without many followers.

"What are you talking about? Who are these TDs who are making significant money at PDGA tournamnets? Perhaps you're thinking of non sanctioned, AM appeal tournaments where there is money to me made, if that's you're knida thing....."

there are a couple/few folks out there whose fulltime job is TD'ing. my point is that those are the ONLY people coming close to making a living in the sport.

"I believe we should be looking for a formula that will allow 20-50 top PROs make an above average living by playing."
I'd re consider because your current formula would look like this:
98% of ALL disc golfers give there money to the top 25 guys? Gee, that sounds like fun? Should I bother to play, or just send them a check?
Here's an idea, give up golf, get a second job and send your money to the Innova Team.
The way it stands now, we're simply no that big, and in my opinion, you are way ahead of yourself."

that why i said we SHOULD be looking for ... because your description of the current state of affairs is accurate. i totally agree with you on this.

the rest of it i kinda half agree with, half disagree with... what did borderline non-mainstream sports like windsurfing, skaeboarding, etc do to get on espn and enable the top competitors to make a living? its not because bazillions of people partake in the activity. i'd bet there are as many casual disc golfers as there are participants in any of those sports. yet they've succeeded to some degree.

Oh Chris - just for you - I won't be playing Masters any time soon with one caveat, unless it is the sole division being offered - I may play (Like the US Masters) - where you have to be 40 to enter. But they're not hosting that event this year - and I haven't heard any plans for the future.






you don't read the board much huh craig?????
the us masters IS on this year...it is a national tour event(the last one actually)

november 13-14th in los angeles....
i hope to see you AND hyzell both there
keith

the us masters IS on this year...it is a national tour event(the last one actually)



Actually, it's a PDGA Major. Contact Tim Selinske at Innova Discs for info.

Cool - last I heard the organizer had backed away from it. Guess I just missed that it was back on :) No harm intended. Wow - November 13/14 ay - might have to give that some consideration!

the us masters IS on this year...it is a national tour event(the last one actually)



Actually, it's a PDGA Major. Contact Tim Selinske at Innova Discs for info.



yes but it is also on the nt schedule.....with the majors included(or was) haven't looked at it in a while....either way get your butt out to l.a. in november craig,so i can give you the beating on the course you so richly deserve :D:D

....either way get your butt out to l.a. in november craig,so i can give you the beating on the course you so richly deserve :D:D



What course is it being held at? La Mirada? Or someplace else? Didn't see a flyer attached to the schedule. Bring it on Keith :) If I can make it - there will definitely be a side bet buddy :)

Nick, I know a person or two in the disc golf world.

Could you please put names on those full itme TDs who are maing a living at tournamnets? Ya know some facts to back you up?

There is more money in saktebaording apparel and windsurfing gear, hence there commercial curve is shorter.

The serious money does not come from within the game itself, it comes from the fan base who buys asssociated hats, shrits and sport drinks that the players endorse, and not tournamnet entry fee's.

I�m sorry, I don�t see what you are getting at, could you rephrase?

Must have been an incredible miracle to be able to "non-arbitrarily" select your genes, eh? I haven't formally analyzed the data but observations and discussions indicate that practice can only take you so far beyond an inborn skill level once you have ascended to your level of incompetence (peter principle). Think enough practice would allow Tiger to handle Shaq one-on-one in B-ball or vice versa?



no, but i bet either of them could play dg at a pro 2 level within a year with good instruction.

harold duvall's current player rating is in the 930's and he won a thing or two. harold attributed his success to ferocious practice habits. the piddling amount of success i have had is due to the same thing- hysell will vouch i'm sure that i was terrible when i started. now, i have progressed to mediocre. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Durn, I thought that JB might actually give his thoughts about the whole Pro2/TrueAm shtuff. He's too smart for that, though... a true diplomat.

As for me, I'm trying to learn from his lead and leave the rant button off.

no, but i bet either of them could play dg at a pro 2 level within a year with good instruction.




Exactly. And who's to say that wouldn't be their "natural" level.



harold duvall's current player rating is in the 930's and he won a thing or two. harold attributed his success to ferocious practice habits.



It would be interesting to see what Harold's World Championship round ratings were, or for that matter any other World champions round ratings were before ratings started. If we had good distances on those courses, I feel pretty confident we could get within 10-15 points just off of SSA formulas. (Sounds like a project for DGWN's crack stats team)

The interesting thing is Harold currently plays about the same level whether he practices or not, which is my point about some natural level one attains after a certain point of learning and can only make modest changes above that point with extra practice.

The interesting thing is Harold currently plays about the same level whether he practices or not, which is my point about some natural level one attains after a certain point of learning and can only make modest changes above that point with extra practice.

I missed this thread entirely, having been busy with disc golf. Chuck is correct that once you have mastered a skill, a lot of practice on that skill won't change your level. But there are so many skills you could add that will change your level. I moved up when I added a forehand. I moved up again when I learned good distance technique. I moved up again when I added additional putting skills and moved back down when I got lax on practicing them before they were well ingrained.

I've moved up in my tournament running skills at the expense of my tournament playing skills recently. : (

....either way get your butt out to l.a. in november craig,so i can give you the beating on the course you so richly deserve :D:D



What course is it being held at? La Mirada? Or someplace else? Didn't see a flyer attached to the schedule. Bring it on Keith :) If I can make it - there will definitely be a side bet buddy :)



according to rhett it is going to be at la mirada
it is a pdga major and i don't know if there is a schedule yet....i'm going to call tim at innova next week when things are slow at my work and get the info so i can get signed up.
it would be good to see you again

if you can make it i'm in for your side bet :eek:

There was an 'A' Tier event last weekend in my region with only 53 entrants, on a National Tour quality, world class course. While the holiday weekend may have still kept away some, how many more entrants would there have been had a Pro2 division been offered? For those with ratings under 960, with a $40 entry fee? Maybe the tournament would have filled!

How would the divisions have been populated, and what would the results have looked like? (I don't buy into the "you can't compare" crap because scores are scores, no matter what division you are in or whom you are playing against) All but two of the non-cashing Open players would have qualified for Pro2, but the number of players lost in Open would have been nearly balanced by all the cashing Masters and two non-cashing Masters with ratings above 960 forced to play Open. <font color="blue">All the cashing Masters would have still cashed in the Open division!</font> The winning Master would have won Open by 7 strokes instead of the ridiculous 14 stroke winning margin in Masters.

The bottom Open guys would have actually had a chance instead of donating their $86 entry fee. The guys that just missed cash in Open played above their ratings and would have won money in Pro2. The bottom four finishers in Open played below their rating, some well below, and still cashed - if Open was populated by the strong Masters players, those four guys likely would not have.

<font color="red">Play well (above your rating) and get rewarded. Play poorly and you don't. Isn't that what it is supposed to be all about?</font>

How many more would their have been if "Advanced", "Intermediate" or "Recreational" had been offered? How about a 990 to 960 division?

Here's the real question Jeff:

How many people would have been there if there were no other divisions but Open/Masters offered at PDGA's from the beginning?

More divisions is not the answer. It is the problem.

The real question should be how few, not how many if we only had Open and Masters divisions.

I know that I would never have started playing tournaments had that been the case.

All hypotheticals. You say that Gary because you never experienced any other alternative. And I'm not proposing cutting any divisions, just that we not further weaken our divisional system with even greater delusion of the elite divisions.

There should be a place for every skill level within our competitive system, where I draw the line is when their are 3 or 4 divisions for the same skill levels.

Pro2 and Advanced are a clear case of overkill. If you've played in an event with both you know that they are 100% redundant. The only thing keeping us from facing the music is our warped idea of pro/am (cash/prize). That abomination causes way more harm than just this though...

Question. If a tourny is run on consecutive weekends, one for the Ams, one for the Pros, where does Pro2 fit into this structure? I'll explain. During the am weekend, can a 960+ Adv player play Adv if the Pro weekend is offering Pro2 and then play Pro2 during the Pro weekend also? Does having split weekends change when and where the 960+ Adv rated players play?

My guess is that the tourny being on different weekends, A 960+ Adv player can play in both. The two weekends are seen as two tournies. Does this give an 960+ rated Adv player 2 chances in the same tourny to win prizes?

If you have a PRO2 field, would it be offered at both events ?

Thats my question.

Is this rewarding a 960+ rated player to stay Adv. if the player can play both weekends? One weekend (am) playing in the "premier" (highest) division. Then the next, play in a protected division, where the Adv players rating can be 20+ points higher than the registered Pros.

I am in fact for the Pro2 division.

Speaking of that, isn't Pro2 a SUPER-Protected division for the 960+ Ams.

They are assured that any Pro players that show up are below their own rating.

I need a division where Pros can play, but they have to be over 40 and have a rating below 900. We'll call it Pro2 Masters.

There are no other players with the opportunity to play in two divisions, in the same tournament, receive winnings in both divisions, and retain their original divisional status but the 960+ rated Adv player. This is a split weekend Pro/Am and Pro2 is offered.

Did I post about the Illinois Open yet? I'm not going to go look. I'll just risk double posting:

We offered Pro 2 on Saturday with the lower divisions and Advanced and Pro Master on Sunday. Doing so made it possible for a couple of advanced players to play Saturday when they COULD play, and it allowed a pro master to play the tournament with his junior and recreational sons. That was nice.

As the merch man it did nothing for me because the pros took all the cash. No -- wait -- I think they spent all that cash too!

Pro 2 is great!!! Well, it worked for me that time. :D

I like the concept of skill ranges, but all Pro2 does is make 4 divisions with similar skill levels where before we had a slightly less objectionable 3 divisions.

all Pro2 does is ...

Clearly Pro 2 does a little more than that Just ask Bart!

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Maybe I'd love pro2 too if the cut off was 975. ;)

If Nick's point is that it does not make abstract logical sense to design a competitive system with three or four overlapping divisions, I agree. Ditto if it is his point that it does not make sense to add another overlapping division.

My point is, now that we have this illogical competitive system with three or four overlapping divisions, we'll work it in a way that works for the players. Offering Pro 2 on Saturday did not cost us anything, it did not take anything away from anyone who played on Sunday, and it worked for a handful of players.

But the whole amateurs over 960 must play Pro 2 is soooo weird! I'm glad we did not have to deal with that issue.

Bruce, right? It has an impact, a negative one, on the Open players just above the 960 mark, by even further solidifying their low chances of ever cashing. I'm not ready to say that it is a 100% bad for the sport, but it clearly does seem to undermine the concept of getting ALL of the best players at an event to play within the same division, does it not? I think that that is a worthy goal, no matter the level of the event (tier).

There needs to be a cost associated with recieving "Protection", and a clear benefit for competiting against the very best. That does not happen under our current system and there are even signs that we are headed in the opposite direction.

What are your thoughts on this?

Bruce, right? It has an impact, a negative one, on the Open players just above the 960 mark, by even further solidifying their low chances of ever cashing. I'm not ready to say that it is a 100% bad for the sport, but it clearly does seem to undermine the concept of getting ALL of the best players at an event to play within the same division, does it not? I think that that is a worthy goal, no matter the level of the event (tier).

There needs to be a cost associated with recieving "Protection", and a clear benefit for competiting against the very best. That does not happen under our current system and there are even signs that we are headed in the opposite direction.

What are your thoughts on this?



I see it as a program pilot, Nick, and not a permanent solution. As so many have eloquently pointed out, it's a Band-aid on the arterial wound that is our competitive division. By all means, anything that adds multiple overlapping divisions of the same skill level is counterproductive.

The pilot program is identifying issues to be addressed in a future system. Clearly there is the need to associate a cost for protection and still reward the higher skill golfers with the the highest value and provide an incentive for advancement. I still contend however that if the divisionable boundaries are set accordingly, protected division entry fees are kept as low as is reasonable, and all added cash goes to Open, demographics may still make for larger protected divisions and payouts. Nick, you're just going to have to get used to it if you come in 10th place out of 20 in the Open division and win nothing while a protected golfer beats 30 other competitors and wins $200, but shoots a score worse than you.

If anything, this pilot program is allowing people to get used to ratings-based divisional breaks in the professional level that have already been successfully in use in the amateur divisions for years. This could be a logical stepping stone to a system someday that is entirely ratings-based.

Nick, you're just going to have to get used to it if you come in 10th place out of 20 in the Open division and win nothing while a protected golfer beats 30 other competitors and wins $200, but shoots a score worse than you.




I don't think so. What I am going to have to do is lobby for a competitive system where a logical entry fee/payout relationship exists between each skill level and where protection has some cost associated with it. Without that there is no incentive to improve your game.

Something along these lines (with nice big trophies mandatory all the way down the line for Pro2)

<table border="1"><tr><td> OPEN PRO DIVISION</td><td></td><td>PRO 2 DIVISION</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td># Paid</td><td>Field Size</td><td># Paid</td><td>Field Size
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>21</td><td>20</td><td>31
</td></tr><tr><td>Enter Added Cash (or deduction) here* &gt; </td><td>1500</td><td>Enter Added Cash (or deduction) here* &gt; </td><td>0
</td></tr><tr><td>Total Fees: </td><td>1000</td><td>Total Fees: </td><td>600
</td></tr><tr><td>Net Purse: </td><td>2500</td><td>Net Purse: </td><td>600
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Round</td><td></td><td>Round
</td></tr><tr><td>Place</td><td>to $5</td><td>Place</td><td>to $5
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>840</td><td>1</td><td>70
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>505</td><td>2</td><td>60
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>335</td><td>3</td><td>50
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>245</td><td>4</td><td>45
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>195</td><td>5</td><td>40
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>150</td><td>6</td><td>35
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>125</td><td>7</td><td>35
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>110</td><td>8</td><td>30
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>9</td><td>25
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>10</td><td>25
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>11</td><td>25
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>12</td><td>20
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>13</td><td>20
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>14</td><td>20
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>15</td><td>20
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>16</td><td>15
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>17</td><td>15
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>18</td><td>15
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>19</td><td>15
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>20</td><td>15
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Or something along these lines.

Nick, I agree that the 960 break line could have the effect of discouraging the 960+ pro from playing. On the other hand, it would have an equally strong effect to encourage the 950s pro to play. Any break line drawn anywhere will have this effect.

So far Jon and I have not seen this effect. The only effect we have seen is that it allows some players to play on Saturday who otherwise could not have played at all.

These are my facts:

At The Kensington MDGO three Pro 2 eligible pros played on Sunday in Open and did not play Pro 2 on Saturday. Both of the Saturday Pro 2s said they could not play on Sunday so they were playing Pro 2. One of those two has a sabbatarian issue with Sunday tournaments and the other I'll take at his word.

At Flip City I offered an incentive to play Pro 2 on Saturday -- extra chances to qualify for USDGC. No one played Pro 2. On Sunday NINE Pro 2 eligible players played open!

At the Illinois Open #1 all four of the Pro 2 players indicated that they could not play on Sunday. They were a mix of Advanced, Master and Open Pros. Then on Sunday we had four other Pro 2 eligible pros filling out the bottom of the Open division.

These are my tentative conclusions:

Pro 2 takes nothing away from the Open division. All of the 940, 950 rated players who play Open prefer to play Open even when Pro 2 is available. Moreover, Pro 2 does nothing to encourage the moved-up-moved-out player to play. I specifically promoted Pro 2 to those players in Michigan and they did not show.

The main effect of Pro 2 so far is that it has given us something to talk about where we could agree on enough points that neither one of us has yet had to resort to calling the other an ignorant slut. So Pro 2 is a good thing. :D
-------------------

This is something like what I would like to see for our next baby step in the standard format. The break lines are negotiable:

Men's Divisions

Open -- Open
Pro 2 -- <965
Advanced <925
Intermediate <885
Recreational <845

Pro 2 would work like it does now, as a blended division where ams can take prizes, but eliminate the rule of whacky weirdness for super-ams. I'd be fine with letting ams take prizes in open. That works for the TD every time and takes nothing away from the open pro. I'm not suggesting eliminating the age protected and gender protected divisions. I'm just suggesting that we wedge Pro 2 in as a division between open pro and adv as a blended pro/am division. Non-designated sponsor added cash should go to Open.

I would also like to see flexible cut lines, either by tier or by TD pre-publication. But that might be a another baby step away. With flexible cut lines, the rare player who actually is discouraged from competing by the cut line could shop for the tournaments where he is on the other side of the cut line.

The one thing I'm not sure of is whether am players should be allowed to take cash and go pro in pro 2. I like the idea of Pro 2 as a place for pros who cannot compete but I don't think we need to be minting new pros who cannot compete!

In order to fully understand the effect of pro2, it is not enough to say "well, it simply allowed some people to play that normally would not have." Yes, maybe so, but after many iterations, will it have undesired effects also?

It is pretty much a no brainer that the PDGA obviously did not consider (or considered and decided that 950 players were more valuable than 970 players). Imagine a series of 20 tournies that offer pro 2, the effect on all open players will be generally as follows (depending on the tourney, the brackets will change:

the 960-980ish now can expect a negative Return on Investment (ROI). Over time, this will cause some to drop out.

the 980+ players will also have a lower ROI due to the fact that their cashing frequency has dropped and total tourney purses are lower.

The end result is to hurt the sport's best players. Another healthy competition strategy? First, the PDGA institutes this higher-entry-fee/top-pro-subsidy strategy that hammered away at the lower open players, now in response, they institute the pro2 strategy that will hammer the top players. Oh, the foresight.

Bruce,

I am in agreement with your next baby step for the most part. I appreciate you sharing your experience with Pro2, though I do not agree 100% with your interpretations.

Things that need to be considered:
How does a competitive system affect current PDGA Members?
How does a competitive system affect future PDGA Members?

For the most part our system has been dictated to us by trying to hold onto current players thinking that the future will be much the same as the present and past. The result is that our present is like our past and our future is likely to be the same as our past and present.

For some this is an OK situation, for me it is unacceptable and I'll tell you why; no children, no women, and no open door policy for educational participation.

Back to Pro2: Basing our competitive divisional skill ranges on current demographics and monetary considerations will leave us ill prepared to handle a more diverse and larger player base. We are in essence chasing our own tails. We need a system that makes logical sense now AND will make just as much sense when we have 10 times the players, events and sponsorship. I�m guessing that we would agree on this.

The challenge of slicing and dicing these divisions appropriately to achieve that goal is that we have neither a top professional division and without a doubt we have no classification of players that could be correctly termed amateur. The result is that things get all bunched up in the middle with everyone just trying to play the system to their best advantage (and I�m not saying these folks are unscrupulous, they are just doing the best with the only options open to them). Folks that gamble are either catered to (in most cases) resulting in high entry fees and narrower payouts, or we try to do the opposite and the result is that our gamblers ***** and moan while our amateur sportsmen thrive. You have attempted to remedy this somewhat with your players package opt out, and I have heard folks talk about offering an opt out of gambling but still competing.

I think that these are half-measures when full-measures are necessary. Amateur Sportsmen need their own classification for their own interests and to not cut into the purse of our gambler classification (all current divisions).

Creating further space needs to be accomplished on the top end as well. I am convinced that we need to start delineating minimum qualifications for competing in the top competitive divisions at A-Tiers, Majors, and NT events. That top division must be not only exclusive but offer enough reward that gamblers have it as the destination of choice.

By creating an new classification of competition based on an entirely new motivation, catering entirely to that motivation, and a top competitive division that is actually sought rather than avoided, we will create enough space in the middle to not only keep current players happy but also players well into the distant future.

Nick

In order to fully understand the effect of pro2, it is not enough to say "well, it simply allowed some people to play that normally would not have." Yes, maybe so, but after many iterations, will it have undesired effects also?



Well, so far I only have three iterations to go by. If Pro 2 or any other format wrinkle turns out to be counter-productive we can change it. "We are the PDGA," after all.

So far, Pro 2 is nothing. The pros for whom it is offered won't even play it unless it is their only choice. They would rather donate in open than have a chance to cash in Pro 2.

Which is fine. If it remains nothing then there will be no pressure to make it be something else. And Bart can continue to find an occasional tournament that he and the boys can all play. :D

I'll have another iteration to talk about in a week. http://home.comcast.net/~illinoisopen

(or considered and decided that 950 players were more valuable than 970 players).



It's very rational. There are more players/members the lower you go in the ratings so it makes economic sense and also serves more members for policies that support lower rated players. Fewer players in the highest division actually means higher payouts when you have added cash because it's spread among fewer players, especially if you don't have a Master division when you offer Pro 2. A case can be made to have ratings breaks change by tier level so every level of player has opportunites. If Pro 2 break is at 970 for A-tier, 960 for B-tier and 950 for C-tier, it would offer options for those in the 950-970 range. And, if Pro 2 is offered at NTs instead of Masters, that break could even be set at 975 or 980.

If TDs struggle getting added cash, it's one indication that society at large seems to care less whether some people can play disc golf better. So, what's the justification for our sport's competition system to finance better play versus more participation? One might argue that those whose event rating is highest above their rating should be rewarded the most. Isn't excelling above your current level one of the goals many strive for?

One might argue that those whose event rating is highest above their rating should be rewarded the most. Isn't excelling above your current level one of the goals many strive for?



Yes, unfortunately the PDGA does not supply a handicap system and you yourself have said that that would be an inappropriate use of PDGA PRs. Plus, handicapping is no way to compete at the highest level of any sport.

I think the question we want to take a look at, among many, is do we want to promote excellence and prepare ourselves for the future or do we want to simply cater to the tiny incestuous demographic we already have?

I think you know where I am on that question.