For your consideration:

http://www.madisc.org/05DivisionalProp1.jpg

Where would you fit within this system?

You didn't provide enough options for the vote, and hid the biggest changes in the small print.

Payout is in cash or prizes for all am divisions as the TD wishes.

To remain an AM players must turn down all prizes except for trophies.

Players must play where their age or rating qualifies them.


Big changes.

You submit your new plan for division breakdowns and then take a poll to see if people like it. So far so good.
The choices you offer in the poll are, Yes, Yes, and Yes.
I predict the results of your poll will be....YES.

By saying "Players may only compete.......", does that mean if I normally play Master I'm not allowed move up and play open unless my rating is high enough?

I guess I didn't hide them well enough! You found them... :D

Don't worry. Similar to the presidential poll it is of little significance. Consideration and discussion is the intended goal, not some evidence of support.

(I just can't help myself when starting a new topic that little "add a poll" checkbox just calls to me like sirens on the rocks.)

Just to get this straight for those of us who ain't too swift. Everything in yellow is non-cash and everything else is cash?

I think that everything in light blue is required cash.

Everything in Yellow is age related and TD option whether cash or merch.

Everything else is rating related and TD option whether cash or merch.

Players play for trophies if AM, cash/merch if Pro.

Wonder how much the entry fees are for each and
how you keep straight who is in it for the money/merch and who isn't.

too confusing to even vote or have a comment on it.

Gary,

The way I read it is this:

Everything in light blue is required cash and rating/age/gender related. Just like Pro divisions now except the ratings part.

Everything in Yellow is age related and only Trophies/momentos are allowed. Most likely low entry fees.

Everything else is rating and possibly gender related and TD option whether cash or merch. Probably like current tournies with the exception that the TD could pay the lower divisions cash.

What's the advantage to the TD and staff running the show? :confused:

I see your point. Amateur means trophies only.
The yellow is age based AM only.

What's the advantage to the TD and staff running the show? :confused:



C'mon Ray, you're not supposed to ask that question. :)

Nick, you know (if you have a decent memory) that I've always supported your efforts to both define and kickstart a "true Am class." Get started and let us watch, k?

My prediction is that it won't be able to be supported because the answer to Ray's question is "there ain't one."

Its the organizers and promoters of this sport that are moving it forward by constantly striving to offer their players fun events that give them value for their entry fee dollar while at the same time not going broke doing so.

I don't really need to finish that line of thinking out for you do I?

Let's see Pro players paying $30 a head to play in an event with only 2 prizes.

Besides the free beer and food.

Guess it needs higher entry fees and bigger payouts.

It looks like you have to play pro if you want skill-based divisions.

When did "The True Am Class" turn into a "One Division Per Age Group/One Champion Per Age Group" thing?

Yes, that needs clarifying:

Pro divisions in blue must be paid out in cash.
The Pro Skill-Based divisions in cash or prizes according to TD preference.
Amateurs play for trophies.
Amateur events can be as expensive as other events but the value of the event services must substantiate the price tag (similar to the NY Marathon and other first rate amateur events) and merchandise must be given out to all equally according to participation not performance.
Gender options in the Pro Skill-Based divisions are also at the TDs discretion.

Rhett, as discussed earlier, this is not something one TD operating independently can do effectively. It needs to be an across the board endeavor.

Again, the one major plus is that all for-profit players (pros) are on ONE TRACK, so they can move up and down the skill ladder without dropping out of the sport (as is the case for bottom end pros and (worst of all) up and coming amateurs.

The other major plus is that we create a venue in which schools and community groups can more easily plug into. One which is more in line with other amateur organizations guidelines.

One last point, Gary, since this is a one track pro classification for all for-profit players, you do not need the ol' highjinx of trying to manage entry fees and payouts to entice folks to "MOVE UP". They should all be exactly were they qualify or choose to be. I'd leave them completely in the TDs hands.

Thank you for your comments. Keep 'em comin'!

So True Ams that suck can only get their heads kicked in by the same high caliber True Ams, over and over and over again? The only other option is to "go pro" where you can get some ratings protection?

Sorry Nick. To me that sounds completely backwards!

What exactly are you being protected from in a True Amateur Class Rhett?

Someone taking everyone elses entry fees?

It could be set up similarly to the Pro classification, but why? Particularly in the beginning, when most current ams will more than likely make the jump to the pro skill-based divisions so they can keep on competing for each others entry fees. The ones that remain in the Amateur Class will be thankful to see all of those pros go!

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the educational divisions replacing the much neglected and nearly forgotten Juniors divisions. Don't you think it would be more likely to draw physical education teachers interest to have divisions ready for and named after the educational level of their students? This I see as working directly with the EDGE program and the process of building new generations of disc golfers. Kind of like cigarette companys do only slightly more healthy.

Sorry Nick. To me that sounds completely backwards!



And that suprises anyone?

I think we can get a better divisional structure, but I still think Nick is taking things a bit too far....

Sorry Nick. To me that sounds completely backwards!



And that suprises anyone?

I think we can get a better divisional structure, but I still think Nick is taking things a bit too far....



Care to elaborate? Or you are just hoping folks will accept your overly general one-liners?

What exactly is a �bit too far�.� for starters?

Automatically classifying all players that accept prizes as payout as Pros is a bit too far IMO.

Not that it is a bad thing in general, just a bit too far from how things are now.

This plan will also hurt the profits of the few professional TDs that are starting to have an impact on the sport now.

If there was some sort of interim plan, and a differentiation between the current AM/ADV levels and the new pro levels then it might be more palatable to the general playing public.

I think the events that are currently offering an option at sign up for playing prizes at regular entry fee levels or playing for trophies at reduced levels might be a better way to get this started. We don't need a new divisional structure now, just a shift by the TDs in how events are held.

Are people still allowed to play "up"? There are a lot of "must" in the lingo. Is it really that rigid?

So, Nick, is your chart saying that anyone who takes prizes or cash is a pro, and the TD can decide what the lower pro divisions take?

I think we should avoid changing from one format that many outside out sport think is strange to one that is even stranger. Calling grown men with an 800 rating "pros" is bizarre. No offense intended to grown men with 800 ratings -- I think they would mostly agree that "pro" does not describe their disc golf attainments in any sense of the word. Calling anyone a recreational pro seems goofy.

Eliminating skill based divisions for amateurs would be a big step backward.

By the way, under AAU rules a player is not disqualified for having accepted prizes. He is disqualified if he sells his prizes.

Are people still allowed to play "up"? There are a lot of "must" in the lingo. Is it really that rigid?



Yes please clarify.

Sorry Nick. To me that sounds completely backwards!



And that suprises anyone?

I think we can get a better divisional structure, but I still think Nick is taking things a bit too far....




Automatically classifying all players that accept prizes as payout as Pros is a bit too far IMO.



I do not. And you are slightly twisting my proposal. Amateur players may accept tons of prizes and event amenities and not lose their Amateur Status; JUST NOT BASED ON PERFORMANCE.


Not that it is a bad thing in general, just a bit too far from how things are now.



Yes, I appreciate this fact, but in discussing where we want to be and where we are, I want to offer an example that is as progressive as possible, figuring that somewhere in the middle is where folks will be most comfortable.

The challenge with this specific issue is there really is very little middle ground. Someone either is an amateur or is not, and in the case of our current divisional structure, nobody is. So what I propose is setting a place (familiar and similar) at the professional competition table for the players who love to play for prizes remaining protected from better players, while creating an entirely new classification for amateurs.


This plan will also hurt the profits of the few professional TDs that are starting to have an impact on the sport now.



I do not agree, and this is why. Besides TDs being free to choose which divisions they offer, they also choose whether the Skill Based ones are paid out in cash or prizes under this plan. Chris Himing could run events almost exactly as he does now, with all of the Professional Skill Based Divisions competing for prizes and only the top ones for cash (in light blue) IF he wants to include them.

Now, throw in the NEW Amateur Class divisions and even more money will be raised. Why? Because his events (from what I hear) are first-rate well-run �fun� events that folks would likely pay a premium price to participate in (particularly with the �charity� aspect of it). Have you ever seen how many participants� charity walks get? And they aren�t winning ANY THING AT ALL! He could charge them between $30 and $60 to play I�d wager and still have full fields.

I also happen to know that Chris makes most of his money from direct sales at these events. You think he�d like to have a couple different middle school and high school student bodies show up with all of their families in tow? $$$$$$$$$$$

Also Pro Worlds would become the cash cows that what we now call the am worlds are.

Truthfully, I see this as a far more profitable competitive structure for TDs and local clubs than what we currently have.


If there was some sort of interim plan, and a differentiation between the current AM/ADV levels and the new pro levels then it might be more palatable to the general playing public.

I think the events that are currently offering an option at sign up for playing prizes at regular entry fee levels or playing for trophies at reduced levels might be a better way to get this started. We don't need a new divisional structure now, just a shift by the TDs in how events are held.



I am all for interim plans, but our end game needs to be planned out. Just happening upon success is a poor way to go about planning something. And creating a true Amateur class is not something that can be done incrementally. It takes a leap of faith to some degree and a significant break from how our current competitive system currently works (though not really when you consider the players we currently call ams would continue to play in the same way they currently do, just without the false amateur status or name).

Yes, it really is that rigid. You would have to earn the chance to play for cash, or against better players.

I found that I play better when I play with better players....
I think that my game is closer to 880 players at this point than it is to 830 and 840 players.
So, I would probably not play in a tourney if I couldn't play up one division.

Your logic is lost on me. But you are welcome to it.

Perhaps I am just envious never having the choice to play up...

In general though, I have to say that I have more fun competing against players of similar skill than with players that I have no mortal chance of competing with.

So, Nick, is your chart saying that anyone who takes prizes or cash is a pro, and the TD can decide what the lower pro divisions take?



I am saying that anyone who takes cash or anything of cash-value other than achievement mementos based on their performance in competition is a professional. Yes the TD can determine the ratio of cash-value prizes to cash in all pro divisions other than the top ones (in blue) which must be paid out in cash.


I think we should avoid changing from one format that many outside out sport think is strange to one that is even stranger. Calling grown men with an 800 rating "pros" is bizarre. No offense intended to grown men with 800 ratings -- I think they would mostly agree that "pro" does not describe their disc golf attainments in any sense of the word. Calling anyone a recreational pro seems goofy.



I would like more appropriate names myself; ones with more universal meaning; ones that need no clarification; ones that will quickly adopted by our player base.

That process of creating more meaningful names starts with our classifications:
A Professional Disc Golfer is one who competes to win cash or cash-value.
An Amateur Disc Golfer is one who competes to win.

This is the basic foundation from which to build. If you would feel more comfortable with �Semi-Pro� than �Pro� for these skill based divisions that is fine with me; but it is crucial that they not be mislabeled �Am�.


Eliminating skill based divisions for amateurs would be a big step backward.



Why? Will someone be taking advantage of you in the Grand Master Amateur Division? Or your daughter in the Middle School Division? Or in the White Division for that matter? Will some rationale remain for making them play in the next division up?

You are still thinking of this in terms of current amateurs playing in the new Amateur Classification. Now you might remain and your daughter might remain, but probably the majority of them (particularly the good ones with profit on their minds) will be moving to the skill-based semi-pro divisions, leaving you to compete against others with a similar interest in competition for competitions sake and the great tournament experience and amenities.

Where is the step backwards?


By the way, under AAU rules a player is not disqualified for having accepted prizes. He is disqualified if he sells his prizes.



Again, amateurs are more than welcome to accept prizes of every shape, size, and value, but they may not do so according to competitive performance. If that is their motivation then they are more than welcome to join the semi-pro skill based divisions.

I think that Nick's system has merit. Personally I would change a few things -- mainly have everyone play in divisions based on skill (ratings) and have the age/gender winners decided using a concurrent event. I feel that by forcing Masters, or Int Women, etc into their own little divison we are removing them from the overall competition. In smaller events playing against two other people in a small division is silly.

I am also confused as to why a player who wins a $300 basket is consider an amateur while a player who wins $20 in cash in considered a pro. I agree with Nick that having merchandise for ams as part of a players package is not a problem but it's the reward for performance that is troublesome.

What is the reason behind prohibiting players from playing up?
Nick, I don't get your logic there :D

What is the reason behind prohibiting players from playing up?



A. They need to earn it.
B. It is fairer for all involved.
C. The quality of play in each level can be more consistant.
D. Obviously it would work to motivate you to get better so you could play with the better players...

Soooo,
e.g. Jason, Amy and I couldn't play in the same division even though at a recent tournament we were separated by only five strokes after 40 holes???

I don't know. Would ratings put you all in the same skill based division in the proposal (or now)? The TD has the option of offering gender divisions or not. So it is possible I suppose.

The option for playing up is based mainly on the premise that we MUST entice folks to play up in an effort to free up lower divisions from more skilled players. In a one track top to bottom skill based system this is simply not important. Everyone simply plays where they qualify. If they want to play against better players then they need to improve their game and get their PDGA PR up. So instead of a motivation simply to "MOVE UP" there is a motivation to "PLAY BETTER".

So....I propose that you have the option of moving up one division...

Think of it this way...A 874 player can't play his 876 buddy under your system. But the 874 player has to play against a 825 player, while his buddy faces a 899 player.

Also, playing up may award players that step up and play above their rating.

Rob(?),

It's an idea worth considering, as many are at this stage. I am just not in support of it at this point. Besides, if a player is playing in the wrong division then their rating will show this and they will be moved to the correct one.

Moving towards skill based competition is an end game goal for me, but it is not one of the 2 main goals this proposal is intended to accomplish. They are:

1) The creation and inclusion of a true Amateur Class.
2) A single divisional track for all professional and semi-professional players. (That it is mainly skill based is icing on the greater cake.)

Nick,

You are putting a lot on the ratings of the PDGA. These are only updated 4-5 times a year. To be truly fair, in a ratings only environment, these updates would need to occur much more frequently, i.e., every 2 weeks.

With the volunteer staff that reviews and works on the ratings system, that is not currently possible. Any suggestions for this area since your system hinges on ratings?

I just think that the added rigidity may not be as helpful as you think...
Another question....965 and up are open players....
How would that affect, let's say a C-tier and a Supertour?
How many pros would there be in each?

Is there a place for 965, 975, 980 players in a Super Tour event? Or would a overlap of some sort make more sense, similar to ProII?

Would you play a SuperTour event and donate?

Nick,
I haven't digested this long enough to form a solid opinion yet, but I have to give you credit. You keep beating your drum about the True Am Class AND you actually try to do something about it.
BTW - I think you are on the right track...

i like it :D

Hoi polloiI have run amuck, I abstain.

So....I propose that you have the option of moving up one division...

Think of it this way...A 874 player can't play his 876 buddy under your system. But the 874 player has to play against a 825 player, while his buddy faces a 899 player.

Also, playing up may award players that step up and play above their rating.



How about you can move up one division if you are within so many points, like you can play up 10 points. Also, you should always be allowed to play up to the lowest division offered, like "pro rec" Jon should be allowed to play "pro advanced" in Joliet if Gary does not offer a sanction the "pro intermediate" or "pro rec" division.

Maybe if I say "pro rec" often enough it will quit sounding so silly. :D :D :) :cool: O.k., maybe not.

Since I appreciate Nick's hard work and dedication, I won't comment on his proposed system. I will say that I doubt it would go over very well in the South.

The PDGA, if they are even considering something like this, should think long and hard about how it would affect tournament sanctioning.

Good luck Nick. rWc :cool:

Hee-hee-hee! I really like Brackel's Pro Rec division! :D What a hoot! :D (Thanks for the laugh Bruce!)

Nick - I think there are WAY too many divisions already and I shudder to think about how many details a TD would have to keep track of, or current on in order to pull something like this off. TDs have enough on their plate already without complicating it with a structure like this...it doesn't simplify their job. It seems like it's only self-serving from an aging Pro that probably should've stayed amateur instead.

How about you can move up one division if you are within so many points, like you can play up 10 points. Also, you should always be allowed to play up to the lowest division offered, like "pro rec" Jon should be allowed to play "pro advanced" in Joliet if Gary does not offer a sanction the "pro intermediate" or "pro rec" division.

Maybe if I say "pro rec" often enough it will quit sounding so silly. O.k., maybe not.



That is not a bad idea, though hopefully (down the road), it will be a priveledge to get into an Top Pro Division that will not be so dependent on entry fees to create a purse.

These incremental steps are well worth considering, but again, having the end game and the main goals in mind throughout the process is the most vital part of this.

Russ,

Can you be a little more specific? Why wouldn't this fly in the South?

Nick

Nick - I think there are WAY too many divisions already and I shudder to think about how many details a TD would have to keep track of, or current on in order to pull something like this off. TDs have enough on their plate already without complicating it with a structure like this...it doesn't simplify their job.


Actually Larry I think it would greatly simplify their work. Have you ever run a Ratings Based Event? Nothing could be simpler (or fairer). And there are actually the same number of divisions in this proposal as in our current system and due to the skill based divisions TDs could actually look forward to reducing the number of divisions offerred while at the same time offering far more fair and inclusive divisions.



It seems like it's only self-serving from an aging Pro that probably should've stayed amateur instead.



How about for the better cash-value players facing the jump? Does it serve them in any way?
How about all of the age groups who have 0 to 2 other folks to play with and would now have the option of playing in divisions of 10 to 40 people of similar skill level?
How about for the women players in a similar boat?
How about for the current and future players from educational institutions looking to join in?
How about serving the interests of true amateur players with no available amateur option within our competitive system?

Does this plan serve them as well?

Nick,


How about serving the interests of true amateur players with no available amateur option within our competitive system?


It sounds like Bruce and Jon are doing something like it right now. Sounds like they have that option at some of their tournies. So your statement is misleading at best.

I generally am not the type to stick my neck out too far on these types of things. I've seen how the people around here get rewarded with low turnout when they do something different, i.e., 150 class, State Overall Championships. I want to hear more how the Brakel tournies with the options are doing.

So your statement is misleading at best.



Is that so. Yes, Bruce and Jon have figured out a way to offer a division or 2 that might fit within our current PDGA Competitive Structure, but is it misleading to say that there is no classification stipulated within our PDGA Competitive Structure for true ams? Do true amateurs recieve any systematic protection from semi-pro players? Or are they essentially forced to gamble their entry fee away like everyone else?

There is nothing misleading at all in stating the very fact that our association does not provide a true amateur option. Are they moving towards it? Sure. But much to the chagrin of the semi-pros. It's like fitting a square peg in a round hole, it just won't work, and in the mean time they cry like babies wanting their bottle back (Read any thread about Amateur Payouts...).

No! The only way to stick the pacifier back in their mouths AND make room for true amateurs is to create a real amateur class and bring these semi-pros into the professional class. Going half way doesn't solve either the semi-pros or true amateurs concerns, nor does it position us for inclusion in other mainstream amateur associations.

Misleading? I think not.

????What's wrong with the current divisional breakdown? It seems to be working fine.

Is that so. Yes, Bruce and Jon have figured out a way to offer a division or 2 that might fit within our current PDGA Competitive Structure, but is it misleading to say that there is no classification stipulated within our PDGA Competitive Structure for true ams? Do true amateurs recieve any systematic protection from semi-pro players? Or are they essentially forced to gamble their entry fee away like everyone else?



What Jon and I did with our last two MDGOs was to allow everyone in every division the option of paying an entry fee of 1/2 to 1/4th the normal entry fee and then opt out of gambling for cash or prizes. We didn't offer any new divisions or player classifications. We offered a reduced entry fee option for anyone in any division who was willing to pay their fair share of the tournament expenses but did not want to gamble for cash or prizes. In the pro divisions, those players also are donating a little added cash to the pro payout. These were PDGA sanctioned tournaments.

It is not fair to say that the PDGA format requires ams to gamble their entry fee. The PDGA has never had a problem with what I'm currently doing. I feel certain that the PDGA would also sanction player-pack-only amateur events if the value to the players met tier sanctioning criteria. Basically, if you can fit it on the PDGA TD report, and it does not violate the written rules, you can be creative with entry fees.

In order to fit what Jon and I are doing on a TD report, I had to calculate an average entry fee for the entry fee value. For example, my Intermediate entry fee turned out to be $26.5833 on the TD report. No one paid $26.5833 but that was the average of the full fees and trophy-only fees in intermediate.

For most of the players most of the time our format looks and feels like any normal mostly well run tournament.

Nick - that I know of, nobody in Houston area has run a ratings-based event. I'll have a talk with a couple of other local folks and see if maybe we can't host one next year in the earlier part of the season. I've wondered about doing one long enough but have been hesitant to try it because I feel it's important for me to focus mostly on Texas States. (I still dabble in the local club scene some too, but my commitment to States seems like a more important one.)

It might be fun to see what a ratings-based event is really all about. I'll write you and get some advice and contacts from you.

1. i like playing up sometimes. it shows me how much improvement i truly need to make.

2. i like taking plastic when i play in an "am" division (as currently defined).

3. i like the concepts of ratings events, but only as an option to the current system.

4. the current ratings system seems to be having a positive effect on competition already, and has not been in place long enough for such a major overhaul.

those are my opinions; i am not gonna elaborate more fully on them.

i think nick's proposal is silly and unnecessary, because of the reasons listed above.

Thanks for your thoughts Pat.

Without elaborating on things already stated, are you really comfortable with the PDGA's definition of amateur?

Do you see no compelling reasons to provide an option for including educational and community groups within our competitive structure?

PS: I don't want anyone to give up their motivation to play for cash or prizes, just their notion that such motivation is in the interest of amateur sport.

Without elaborating on things already stated, are you really comfortable with the PDGA's definition of amateur?



yes, completely


Do you see no compelling reasons to provide an option for including educational and community groups within our competitive structure?


there are excellant reasons for such an objective, none of which require the concepts contained in your proposal


PS: I don't want anyone to give up their motivation to play for cash or prizes, just their notion that such motivation is in the interest of amateur sport.


funny thing about sports - they're driven by motivation. motivation comes in lots of forms and should not be restricted.

funny thing about sports - they're driven by motivation. motivation comes in lots of forms and should not be restricted.



Wait a moment. What am I restricting in my proposal? Again, don't get caught up on the skill level requirements, that is just an idea worth considering. The main point of the proposal is to offer a place for players motivated to competing for competitions sake and not for plastic or cash (profit).

In that regard, my proposal is significantly LESS restrictive than the current system.

Or were you talking about restricting professionals from playing in the amateur class? Yes, in that way I would certainly be more restrictive. Though it wouldn't affect you in any way other than your classification name.

...competing for competitions sake and not for plastic or cash



So, lets just have one division for Amateur men. Gosh I would love that...One division, pay 20 bucks, get a disc or a shirt, and one day maybe a trophy. That would be simple and sweet. Am I alone with that opinion???

At first it would likely turn out that way Rob. It might take some time to make the unwelcome feel welcome, particularly schools and community groups.

I know Nick, just bustin' your chops...keep up the good work. I just wish I had more time :mad: to get stuff done myself.

See you at the Jam?

In that regard, my proposal is significantly LESS restrictive than the current system.


sorry i dont get it then... because when i read your proposal it looks like to stay AM i cant take plastic, and if my rating is below some threshold, my available divisions are restricted.

please correct me if i am wrong

Hi Pat,

Again, the restriction on playing above your skill range is not a priority goal, it was an idea brought up by someone here (or another thread) that I thought had some merit (it can be changed).

Other than that, the only restriction is that you would not have Amateur Status if you accepted prizes or cash based on performance at a PDGA event. To remain an amateur you can only play for competitions sake (ALTHOUGH - Prizes and Event Amenities may be given out ad nauseum based on participation - i.e. meals, party entrance fees, gift certificates, discs, bags, shirts, bottles, stickers, even baskets, bikes, etc through players packages or raffles- BUT NOT BASED ON PERFORMANCE). The only item that can be awarded based on performance in the amateur class are trophies, medals, or other specific symbols of acheivement (I think invitations to major pro events would be ok as well, not paid though.)

Are we now understanding each other? (Not agreeing, but on the same page?)

This new Amateur Class is based on a NEW premise that we do not need to bribe amateur enthusiasts to participate with stuff or essentially force them to play for similar (gambler) motivations as professionals.

The experience for current amateur players would remain much the same as it is, they just would not have amateur status.

if this becomes the only AM configuration for the PDGA, i would not participate in another pdga event until i am able to be somewhat competitive in the pro ranks (if that ever happens). i would most likely become a non-renewer, and just play local minis.

Talking about "True Ams"....
July 17th Jersey Jam (ratings-based B-tier) ...899 and under "True Am" class. Cheap entry fee and players packages... :D

Brought to you by the department for shameless self-promotion :D

if this becomes the only AM configuration for the PDGA, i would not participate in another pdga event until i am able to be somewhat competitive in the pro ranks (if that ever happens). i would most likely become a non-renewer, and just play local minis.


Why is that Pat?
Is having the "Amateur" label that important to you? If so why?
Do you really think of yourself now as an "amateur" in it's truest sense?
You would still be playing with many of the same players you currently play with (plus a couple current open, masters, grand masters, women open that fall within your skill range and choose to play in the skill division rather than smaller protected age/gender divisions).

You would still win piles (probably larger piles) of plastic and maybe a little cash even.

You would still participate in much the same manner in events almost exactly the same as they are now.

The only difference is that you would be semi-pro, leaving the amateurs to have their own brand of fun. Or do you want to deny them that? To RESTRICT it?

where does your chart say anything about "semi-pro"??? You show only two classes - Professional, which is ratings based, and AM which according to your chart is either age-based or educational level based. Your professional classes include things like "Professional Red Unisex" and "Professional Recreational".

whatever or whoever you call "amateurs" can play anywhere they want to under the current structure.

"Is having the "Amateur" label that important to you?" not at all
"Do you really think of yourself now as an "amateur" in it's truest sense?" yes i do, because i have played with the real pros and know just how wide the gulf is between my skills and theirs.
"You would still be playing with many of the same players you currently play with (plus a couple current open, masters, grand masters, women open that fall within your skill range and choose to play in the skill division rather than smaller protected age/gender divisions)." who i play against doesnt matter a hoot.

if someone wants this kind of system, they can use it. its a free country. why do you want to RESTRICT me from playing in the current "Open" class, even if i get my arse handed to me by doing so?

to me your proposal is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem.

where does your chart say anything about "semi-pro"??? You show only two classes - Professional, which is ratings based, and AM which according to your chart is either age-based or educational level based. Your professional classes include things like "Professional Red Unisex" and "Professional Recreational".

Minutia Pat. You know exactly what I mean by semi-pro; players in all but the top pro divisions. They are still in the �Professional Classification�.

whatever or whoever you call "amateurs" can play anywhere they want to under the current structure.

More minutia. They can play anywhere they want in this proposal that there rating qualifies them for as well. But if they cash (note: a word currently used for both classifications, but in the proposed one only <properly> in the pro class) and accept the payout they may no longer play in the Amateur Classification divisions.

"Is having the "Amateur" label that important to you?" not at all

So this proposal should fit you perfectly. You will compete with the same dudes plus a few and still win plastic with a little cash splashed in here ant there.

"Do you really think of yourself now as an "amateur" in it's truest sense?" yes i do, because i have played with the real pros and know just how wide the gulf is between my skills and theirs.

You are (understandably) locked into our current definition of amateur. An inferior less skilled player playing in skill/age/gender protected divisions for as much stuff as everyone�s entry fees can buy.

A true Amateur Sportsmen is not inferior or less skilled or seeking protection from anyone in competition. They live to compete! They love kicking arse as much as anyone! Skill is not an issue that demarks amateur from professional.

<font color="purple"> What separates them is Professionals have a need for material compensation for their performance and amateurs are compensated with the pure joy of competition for its own sake. It is a HUGE difference.</font>

One we do not yet have in disc golf.

"You would still be playing with many of the same players you currently play with (plus a couple current open, masters, grand masters, women open that fall within your skill range and choose to play in the skill division rather than smaller protected age/gender divisions)." who i play against doesnt matter a hoot.

Then we are left without an explanation as to why you would quit PDGA competition.

if someone wants this kind of system, they can use it. its a free country. why do you want to RESTRICT me from playing in the current "Open" class, even if i get my arse handed to me by doing so?

For the fourth and final time. Restricting divisional participation by minimum skill level is just one idea (one with some merit in my estimation), BUT it is not even in the top 20 most important goals of this proposal. I would not hesitate to remove it if the other 2 or 3 top goals could go through.

to me your proposal is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem.

That is a mean spirited and inappropriately rude response Pat. Summed up succinctly as possible, this proposal is an attempt to solve (or at least address) the following two major challenges facing the growth and success of organized disc golf:

1) Create a place within our competitive structure for �Amateur� play, which if other sports are any indication of, will absolutely dwarf our current Pro and Semi-Pro divisions.
2) Create a single skill based track (top to bottom) for �Professional� play to relieve the hemorrhaging of our top semi-pro (currently called amateurs) and our aging professional players experiencing a downturn in their skill level.

I have found the challenges, as have countless TDs, organizers and even our PDGA. There is no debate whatsoever that they exist in these circles, only debates on how to best address them.

This is my proposal, based on my experience as a player, volunteer, TD, promoter and organizer. It is not perfect, but it is a reference point for folks to form their positions, AND HOPEFULLY LEARN A LITTLE SOMETHING. (I know I am.)

On a funnier note, after 3 or 4 more posts than your first, I want to thank you for �not elaborating� as you promised. Just kidding Pat, I really do appreciate most of your insights here and your position is an important one. You are part of the demographic that would have to adjust the most in any such transition. I don�t ask that you agree with me, but that you consider it fairly and with an open mind.

"More minutia. They can play anywhere they want in this proposal that there rating qualifies them for as well. But if they cash (note: a word currently used for both classifications, but in the proposed one only <properly> in the pro class) and accept the payout they may no longer play in the Amateur Classification divisions."

hmmm... seems like fairly important minutia.

"You are (understandably) locked into our current definition of amateur. An inferior less skilled player playing in skill/age/gender protected divisions for as much stuff as everyone�s entry fees can buy."

not entirely true. i've certainly never played in a gender protected division. i have though played in divisions in which i have no bidniss and received real whoopings. i'm not locked into anything. while we're on the topic, review your own chart and see how many skill/age/gender protected divisions you are proposing.

"Skill is not an issue that demarks amateur from professional."

if you had said "not THE ONLY issue", then i could agree. but as stated, this is one of the most absurd notions i have ever seen expressed, including everything Dubya has ever said about WMD's.

"What separates them is Professionals have a need for material compensation for their performance and amateurs are compensated with the pure joy of competition for its own sake."

says you. and thats fine for you to say. we are all allowed to be wrong sometimes. by your definition, someone who teaches primarily because they receive a great emotional reward for the teaching experience is an "amateur" teacher. in reality, that teacher is quite possibly superior to the one who is in it for the financial reward - the one who is a "pro" in your view.

"Then we are left without an explanation as to why you would quit PDGA competition."

because i couldnt play "up" anymore.

"That is a mean spirited and inappropriately rude response Pat."

sorry to have offended you. i actually thought it was a polite way of expressing what i think of the idea. and the only time i get mean is when my neighbor's dog barks all nite... then i wanna kick the liitle bltch into the next county.

"It is not perfect, but it is a reference point for folks to form their positions"

and i've formed my position. your mission is accomplished.

"On a funnier note, after 3 or 4 more posts than your first, I want to thank you for �not elaborating� as you promised."

i have not elaborated on any of my original points. we have however talked about lots of other things.

"I don�t ask that you agree with me, but that you consider it fairly and with an open mind."

i did. so please stop trying to get me to agree with you. i will be completely against it until the restriction on playing up is removed. after that time, i will reassess how i feel about my orignal points.

now go take your blood pressure medicine. :cool:

in reality, that teacher is quite possibly superior to the one who is in it for the financial reward - the one who is a "pro" in your view.




HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Having been a teacher for over 30 years, I can say I've never met a one who was in it for the financial reward. There's NO SUCH THING. :D :D :D

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Having been a teacher for over 30 years, I can say I've never met a one who was in it for the financial reward. There's NO SUCH THING. :D :D :D

[/QUOTE]

As a "rookie" teacher of 10 years, I couldn't agree more! :D

So if I dropped the no playing up rule you'd be on board then?

Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of amateur? I mean is there some broader concept of "amateur sport" bigger than all of it's separate embodiments in various sports? What is the primary value of having "amateur" status? Who does it protect you from and why?

Don't say "From better players." that is already covered with divisions. Why does it deserve it's own classification? Why is it worthy of the name "amateur"?

Why should players that play on weekends and receive plastic as payout deserve to be called Professionals ?

"So if I dropped the no playing up rule you'd be on board then?"
probably. i know for sure i'd give the whole thing much more serious consideration. i've embraced the concept of ratings-based play from the start, although i would prefer to see both the current system and ratings-based systems survive because both have merit. augment the current system if you wish... just dont replace it - it is not broken.

"Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of amateur?"
someone who is not being paid for their success/skills purely in money/cash/currency.

"What is the primary value of having "amateur" status?"
to give those of us who arent good enough to be competitive, or close to it, in the money division a chance to compete. not just for the psychic reward, but for lots of reasons, including plastic. (btw, playing for plastic allows TDs to survive, or at least gives them a chance to survive. plastic aint money, cuz $1 worth of plastic in a payout is probably really worth between $0.33 and $0.50)

"Who does it protect you from and why?"
nobody, nor am i looking for protection. most people who bag in the upper levels of the am divisions sooner or later find the appeal of playing for cash more attractive than stacks of plastic. our current ratings system sems to be accomplishing its goal of providing tiered competition.

"Why does it deserve it's own classification? Why is it worthy of the name "amateur"?"
i dont know how to answer that question. shoulda asked the olympic committee back when those athletes were all amateurs. they must've had a definition then.

now just to be fair, tell us why "Pro"? why "Pro Rec"? why "Semi-Pro" and not "Uber-Am"? :p

Please, it's �ber-Am, with an Umlaut :D

"So if I dropped the no playing up rule you'd be on board then?"
probably. i know for sure i'd give the whole thing much more serious consideration. i've embraced the concept of ratings-based play from the start, although i would prefer to see both the current system and ratings-based systems survive because both have merit. augment the current system if you wish... just dont replace it - it is not broken.

<font color="green"> This essentially is an augmentation of our current system. Here are the 2 main augmentations:

1) Create a true amateur class.
2) Move players from our current amateur class interested in �cashing� according to performance to the professional classification within skill based (gender optioned) divisions nearly identical to the ones in which they presently compete. </font>

"Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of amateur?"
someone who is not being paid for their success/skills purely in money/cash/currency.

<font color="green"> How about those being paid for their success/skills purely in easily converted to money/cash/currency? Are they not more pro-like than am-like? </font>

"What is the primary value of having "amateur" status?"
to give those of us who arent good enough to be competitive, or close to it, in the money division a chance to compete. not just for the psychic reward, but for lots of reasons, including plastic. (btw, playing for plastic allows TDs to survive, or at least gives them a chance to survive. plastic aint money, cuz $1 worth of plastic in a payout is probably really worth between $0.33 and $0.50)

<font color="green"> So you really DO believe that amateurs are inferior in skill, and you do not seem to comprehend at all the concept of amateur competition motivation, or whatever you want to label competition for competitions sake. This is a seemingly insurmountable obstacle for many players brought up through our current system;

�If you are not competing for each others entry fees in the form of cash or prizes you really aren�t competing at all.�

This for me is the primary indicator of a lack of any amateur motivation or competition within our current system. �

As far as TDs and local clubs being able to make money, there will be no drop off what so ever. They are free to create any mix of cash/prizes they choose in the skill/gender based pro divisions. And the amateur class can be run much as Bruce Brakel runs his now, or with far more services and amenities thereby increasing the value of the event and making higher entry fees substantiated.</font>

"Who does it protect you from and why?"
nobody, nor am i looking for protection. most people who bag in the upper levels of the am divisions sooner or later find the appeal of playing for cash more attractive than stacks of plastic. our current ratings system sems to be accomplishing its goal of providing tiered competition.

<font color="green"> This contradicts your preceding statement. Either you are or you are not seeking protection. Your position is similar to 3W saying any protection is wimpy, and then playing in the Masters division.

There is no motivational difference between wanting to step up and play for cash rather than an equal value of prizes than there is for a Master or Women pro wanting to step up and play for more cash in the Open division. The motivation is the same: �PROFESSIONAL�. And therefore is not deserving of that added arbitrary protection beyond those created by the more fair method of skill ranges.</font>

"Why does it deserve it's own classification? Why is it worthy of the name "amateur"?"
i dont know how to answer that question. shoulda asked the olympic committee back when those athletes were all amateurs. they must've had a definition then.

<font color="green"> I�ll take you at your word; that you do not know how to answer this question.

Well, I am not in that position. I know how to answer it. The reason they do not deserve any additional protection and are not worthy of the name �amateur� is because they ARE PROFESSIONALS. Not based on skill, not based on gender or age, not based on cash or its equivalent, but based on sharing the SAME EXACT MOTIVATION FOR COMPETING.</font>

now just to be fair, tell us why "Pro"? why "Pro Rec"? why "Semi-Pro" and not "Uber-Am"?

<font color="green"> �Pro� or more properly �Professional Classification� is not based on skill level or age or gender it is based on a basic motivation to compete for profit. Divisional names should make some sense according to skill level since there is a single track (at least in the proposal that is). This is not the case concerning classifications only that delineates basic inherent motivation.

Folks with the motivation to play for the pure joy of playing DESERVE protection from those who would corrupt such competitions. This is not my opinion it is a historically validated principle of sport. Most folks DO know this. I suspect that even you know this, indications from the PDGA are that they know this. The time is drawing near when we acknowledge it and move on. The upside far surpasses the discomfort of a few folks with mistaken concepts of "amateur sport".</font>

"Folks with the motivation to play for the pure joy of playing DESERVE protection from those who would corrupt such competitions."

so i guess the next step is to rename the organization to PADGA so that the Professional disgolf assoc can start taking care of the AM players who are only in it to throw discs the sheer joy of it all and who count stokes for no particular reason.

"Folks with the motivation to play for the pure joy of playing DESERVE protection from those who would corrupt such competitions."

so i guess the next step is to rename the organization to PADGA so that the Professional disgolf assoc can start taking care of the AM players who are only in it to throw discs the sheer joy of it all and who count stokes for no particular reason.



Thus clearly demonstrating your lack of any understanding of the concept of "amateur play". It's alright, you can rest easy that your preferred motivation for playing organized disc golf will continued to be offered and very much in the form you like: Professional.

For the record: I very much support the proposal to change our name to "Players Disc Golf Association". It is far more accurate (particularly if we create an amateur class someday).

Ratings ceilings have been removed:

What do female disc golfers think about this proposal? (And I'm not talking to you Mark. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif)
http://www.madisc.org/05DivisionalProp2.jpg

so, according to this ams cannot except "payment or its equivalent in prizes", but yet they can accept "Event Mementos". Isn't this term rather vague? What exactly is an Event Memento? Could it be a discatcher with the tourney stamp on the yellow belt?

i got paid US$102.00 for an ace this last weekend. since an ace represents performance, and i got paid for it, i guess i got paid for performance and am now officially a Pro.

wooooohooooo

Some kind of limit to value would have to be determined, but the idea is that it would not be easily converted to cash, i.e. a polehole or a stack of discs, etc.

I'm not sure about ace pools. Whether winning one or a ctp would be considered "awarded according to performance against the rest of the feild". It's more like a raffle due to its extremely random nature. (It probably should be kept separate from any pro ace pot and not be awarded in cash though).

But in your case Pat, under the new system, you'd already be a pro anyway so it wouldn't matter.

Ace pools are side bets. They are (or should be) considered as the equivilent of betting your buddies some money on the side. The only problem i see is when TD's make the acepot mandatory but the easy solution to that is to outlaw a mandatory acepot fee.

I'm not sure about ace pools. Whether winning one or a ctp would be considered "awarded according to performance against the rest of the feild".

that you would even gave this enough thought to respond convinces me of your lunacy. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif




(It probably should be kept separate from any pro ace pot and not be awarded in cash though).

that you would even come up with this idea, let alone express it, convinces me you have acheived that which Timothy Leary sought (although {presumably} without the drugs)




But in your case Pat, under the new system, you'd already be a pro anyway so it wouldn't matter.

and thats why i like you nick - you think of ME as a PRO. :D:D:D

I appreciate your good will Pat. No matter the form it may come in.

No matter the form IN WHICH IT may come.

ah, such an easy target today. :cool::cool::cool:

Dam! You really are on your game Pat.


Still haven't offered any reasons for your strong opinions yet.

I think I could sum them up in a simple but accurate phrase:

" <font color="red"> I WANT MY BANKY!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! HE TOOK MY BAAAAANKY!!! BOO hoo hoo!! </font> :p

well that started my day out with a laugh :)

offering explanations for opinions for Nick is, as has been proven repeatedly, an invitation for War & Peace length responses.

let me say this at the risk of confusing you even more:

1) i totally love the idea of a PGA style tour that has some sort of qualification criteria. but the simple fact is that disc golf, and the money in it, is simply not big enough to do that yet.

2) ratings are great. events based on them are great also. chuck kennedy on another thread stated quite eloquently his opinion that both the current structure and some other ratings-based structure should survive concurrently. i wholeheartedly agree.

btw, based on item 1, i do not believe there are more than 5 or 6 truly "Pro" disc golf players on this planet. rather than worrying about purifying "Am" status, it might be more important to create true Pros in our sport. cuz right now, regardless of division, we are ALL basically recreational players. we're not a lot different from thursday nite poker players. its fun and theres some money/prizes, but aint nobody making a living at it.

Pat,

How does this substantiate your statement that �nick's proposal is silly and unnecessary�?

Or �to me your proposal is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem�?

When quite clearly there are challenges (even you have discussed them) and my proposal is not far from the steps we have already taken towards resolution of them.

I think your dislike or distain for my proposal would be more clear if we placed you within it to see what options you would have or not have that you currently enjoy:

Pat Brenner #10403
PDGA Points Information
Class # Tourn. Points Prize
Pro 1 16
Player Rating Information
Current Rating: 925 (as of 15-May-2004)

Within our current competitive structure you can play in the following divisions:
Open Pro (Which is Gold)
Pro 2 (Which is not Silver � Advanced players with the same rating have their own division???)
Gold
Silver

Under my proposal you could play in:
Open Pro (Which is Gold)
Advanced/Silver (Which is Pro 2)

Basically no difference for you other than you would likely have a larger division to compete in within my proposal in Advanced or Silver.

How about a current Advanced Am player with a similar rating:

Currently:
Open Pro
Pro 2
Advanced
Intermediate
Gold
Silver
Bronze

Under my proposal:
Open Pro
Advanced/Silver
Intermediate/Bronze

There is no need to have separate R-Tier events. Our structure essentially WOULD BE ratings based with traditional age/gender protected divisions at the top.

Where in this is your challenge? I have not seen a direct connect the dots explanation of your objections yet. I am interested in hearing them.

under our current system i can play Open, Pro Master, Adv Master and Advanced.

plus whatever the "rating-based" competition provides.. to which i have yet to be exposed in my geographic area.

Our traditional structure ALREADY IS ratings based with traditional age/gender protected divisions at the top.

So why change it? We already have it. Thats why it is silly and unnecessary. And thats why it is a solution in search of a problem. Isnt there already the purely rating-based thing happening at least in some places? There are so many divisions and systems and ideas for new ones flying around i feel like its part of Innova's disc of the month club.

all i know for sure is that regardless of how you wish to view things, i am NOT a Pro disc golfer. my glasses are more realistically colored than yours.

I just saw in your results that you played in Pro Open is all.

I was just at an event, that used Pro 2, and there were several challenges. The current system, even with these new initiatives, just cannot address the actual problems of:

1) NO TRUE AMATEUR CLASS
2) EXCESSIVE NUMBER OF DIVISIONS WITH THE SAME SKILL LEVEL
3) ARBITRARY PROTECTION
4) ILLOGICAL ENTRY FEE AND PAYOUT STRUCTURES

These are PROBLEMS that very much need SOLUTIONS.

Apparently, regardless of the color of your glasses, you are incapable of seeing any of this.

I just saw in your results that you played in Pro Open is all.

you looked at 2004 is all. not like you to not thoroughly research what you are talking about is it???


the actual problems of:
1) NO TRUE AMATEUR CLASS
2) EXCESSIVE NUMBER OF DIVISIONS WITH THE SAME SKILL LEVEL
3) ARBITRARY PROTECTION
4) ILLOGICAL ENTRY FEE AND PAYOUT STRUCTURES
These are PROBLEMS that very much need SOLUTIONS.


1)the real problem is no TRUE PRO CLASS
2) your system increases number of divisions, doesnt reduce it
3) your system retains it, and expands it - protected by current educational activities - come on!!!
4) thats the TD's thing, not Big Brother's
these are problems in your mind, not mine.

oh wait, i must be insane. i dont agree with you.


Apparently, regardless of the color of your glasses, you are incapable of seeing any of this.


capable of seeing, not capable of agreeing.

whatever... this is getting nowhere

1)the real problem is no TRUE PRO CLASS



Yea! Somebody else said it.

You need to check the current divisions available vs my proposal. Even with the addition of an entirely new class of players the number of possible divisions is exactly the same, and with the option to only offer one division for M/F in the Silver � Green divisions, far fewer divisions would be potentially necessary.

And either way you slice it, no true pro or no true am, distinction is very much needed beyond cash-value cashing and cash cashing, players of similar skill need to be brought together not divided, and we need to prepare ourselves for a huge influx of new players.

I agree with you that much of this is in the hands of TDs, but TDs and organizers rightfully have some reliance on our association for leadership concerning issues that cannot possibly be resolved on a local level. That is where this proposal should be considered.

I argue adamantly about these issues. I see these challenges as clear and present dangers to our well being. I want to work towards resolving these challenges as quickly as possible. I do not believe that I have all the answers or that my proposal is perfect, that is why I present it for discussion. I present it in strong terms because I want to fire people up about it. It�s not arrogance its conviction and a sense of urgency mixed with an honest interest in the future of our sport. Certainly you are welcome to disagree with it, I am just trying to glean why exactly you are.

Furthermore, I think that the PDGA is doing VERY WELL, more so now than in any point since I have been a member. Issues are getting addressed, decision makers are communicating, and tangible progress is being made. I am thoroughly impressed, especially because I have some taste of what is involved in making such policy changes (though on a much smaller level). We definitely are moving in the right direction and the commitment to get it right has never been stronger.

under our current system i can play Open, Pro Master, Adv Master and Advanced.

plus whatever the "rating-based" competition provides.. to which i have yet to be exposed in my geographic area.

Our traditional structure ALREADY IS ratings based with traditional age/gender protected divisions at the top.

So why change it?



Why is Advanced Master in the current system such a great idea?

From my experience there are usually two to six players in this division that are removed from competing with the Advanced division. I have also seen it where the winner in Adv Master would have won or placed in the top four spots in Advanced.

It's a headache for the TDs to worry if there is going to be enough players to even offer the division and I can't imagine that the Advanced Masters consider it a large accomplishment in beating one to five other players.

my current options are: Open, Pro Masters, Adv Masters, Advanced.

under your plan they would be: Open, Pro Master, Advanced Male, Intermediate Male.

so thats the same number in my particular case.

please explain the unisex divisions.... you say Adv = Silver = required for ratings higher than 929/799. so an 801 rated female MUST play against a 935 rated male in a color-coded event? i know for sure i am not reading that correctly, but i cant figure out what the correct interpretation is.

You should refer to us as the Adv Master's Disc Golf Club.

We only want to play with other players with similar life experiences and aches and pains. We are not in it to win anything more than bragging rights over the other OMBs we always play with every event.

Those that are playing for prizes will be playing in the other divisions, if the division goes away, most of the golfers in it will probably go away as well. Meaning that the division does not pull players from Advanced, but adds players that probably wouldn't be playing at all without the OMB division.

I say this because toward the end of last year when the INT and REC master divs were being recognized as available, I saw players at the course I haven't seen in several years playing in those divisions. When the INT and REC masters divs went away, so did those players.

david, here we get 15-20 adv masters on a regular basis. a field of 10 is kinda of a crappy turnout. at waco last weekend we had 16 and the winner would have taken 6th in adv. the winner did better prize-wise in adv master than 6th place adv did.

but definitely is a local/regional thing, no argument there. we just have a bunch of over 40's down here that are reasonably competitive with each other.

From my experience there are usually two to six players in this division that are removed from competing with the Advanced division. I have also seen it where the winner in Adv Master would have won or placed in the top four spots in Advanced.



Not like that here. Advanced Masters usually get trounced in Advanced and rock in Intermediate. It's a nice place to be if it's bigger than 4 people. We had one year of good turnouts and then we went back to 4 man divisions. I don't know why that is.

From my experience there are usually two to six players in this division that are removed from competing with the Advanced division. I have also seen it where the winner in Adv Master would have won or placed in the top four spots in Advanced.



Not like that here. Advanced Masters usually get trounced in Advanced and rock in Intermediate. It's a nice place to be if it's bigger than 4 people. We had one year of good turnouts and then we went back to 4 man divisions. I don't know why that is.



In areas where people want to go to Worlds, they might play in the larger divisions. advanced or intermediate, for the opportunity to earn more points. For the last two years the rule has been amateur points are generic, so the points you get beating your old guy buddies at a half a dozen tournaments might not get you in, but consistantly beating 2/3rds of the field in Advanced or Intermediate will do it.

That's why I am playing MA2. Not for the merch, but for the PDGA points.

Why not have simply an Amateur class with each Amateur having a handicap, generated and maintained by the PDGA (based off rating) and when you sign up for a tournament as an Amateur, that is the only division? Prizes are given out based out handicap scores, instead of scratch. Now, for all amateurs, regardless of age or ability, you don't get prizes for scoring better than someone else, you get prizes for playing better than you usually do, regardless of true (scratch) ability.

Interesting Jason, but that sounds more fitting for a local league than a worldwide competitive system.

If it were to become larger, it would likely be one of a few major options for amateur players, and not necessarily a PDGA involved option.

Very interesting idea though.

PS: Don't expect many WWCC Ams to appreciate it though. You're talking about pros afterall...

You should refer to us as the Adv Master's Disc Golf Club.

We only want to play with other players with similar life experiences and aches and pains. We are not in it to win anything more than bragging rights over the other OMBs we always play with every event.

Those that are playing for prizes will be playing in the other divisions, if the division goes away, most of the golfers in it will probably go away as well. Meaning that the division does not pull players from Advanced, but adds players that probably wouldn't be playing at all without the OMB division.

I say this because toward the end of last year when the INT and REC master divs were being recognized as available, I saw players at the course I haven't seen in several years playing in those divisions. When the INT and REC masters divs went away, so did those players.



The possibility for increased attendance is the only semi-good argument in my opinion. I really don't like the idea of protected divisons based on age and gender. If we have a division for players over 40 then why not a division for left handed players? I guess I could become the world champion for left handed, red header players over the age of 30 that has two kids under 12 west of the Mississippi.

I do see a good reason to have protected divisions based on skill though.

david, here we get 15-20 adv masters on a regular basis. a field of 10 is kinda of a crappy turnout. at waco last weekend we had 16 and the winner would have taken 6th in adv. the winner did better prize-wise in adv master than 6th place adv did.

but definitely is a local/regional thing, no argument there. we just have a bunch of over 40's down here that are reasonably competitive with each other.



I will try not to repeat myself as I have posted on the same suject this morning but why do players of a certain age group deserve exceptions or special treatment?

Would grouping players by age group but still having divisions based on skill be a possible solution? Did the player who won advanced masters deserve more than sixth place in advanced? If so why? It dosen't appear he was the better golfer.

deserve more than sixth place in advanced?



By that argument, did the winner in advanced deserve to win anything ? He wasn't the best golfer at the course that day. Only pay the Pros.

It is not protection, it is playing among friends and players of the same age, experience, and ailments. I would not object to low entry fee, trophy only competitions in the protected divisions. Those that want to play for big prizes can play in the appropriate skill division, those after bragging rights can play in the age protected divisions.

I would still play in MM1 whether there was stacks of plastic on the line or not. The TDs in TX do not offer trophy only options, so I play what is offered.

Gary and Dave,

What about an event that had only one official division, everyone competing against everyone, with a portion of the entry fee removed per player and awarded to players according to winning their skill or age range. Say 50% of purse to the top players and 50% to the other skill and age ranges. To have a range qualify they would need at least 4 players.

Women, for me, are outside this equation, due to such low turnout numbers at this point in our development, so they can play in their own division or among the rest, their choice. Such an option would be COMPLETELY up to the TD.

These events could be MO-Tier (LOL!) for Modified Open Tier.

Mo-tier would still be divisional except for card order.

You are competing within your own divisions, you just are not playing on a card with the other players within your division specifically. That could be rather interesting.

I'm not sure but I think the Japan Open and USDGC do something like this with the Masters players.

MO-tier. Hah! That's funny. Let's change it to the OM-tier.

Om Mani Peme Hung-Tier

What about an event that had only one official division, everyone competing against everyone, with a portion of the entry fee removed per player and awarded to players according to winning their skill or age range. Say 50% of purse to the top players and 50% to the other skill and age ranges. To have a range qualify they would need at least 4 players.



Well Nick you beat me to it. I didn't mention it because I was stressing competition by skill level instead of gender, age, and skill level. Here would be my proposal and the details are definitely not set in stone.

Have six divisions < 800, 800 - 849, 850 - 899, 900 - 929, 930 - 974, 975+. The entry fee for the event is $25. $15 of that fee goes for tournament expenses (insurance, sanctioning fees, printing, etc), the player's packages, and trophies for both the overall winner and for class winners.

The remaining $10 is split 50/50 to the champions purse and the class purse. The exact payout of the purse (# of places to pay out and percenteage) would be determined by the number of entries.

Amatures would pay only the $15 and it would work well with Nick's proposal regarding payout for performance. We could also offer optional side purses for those willing to play for additional money.

Finally your bragging rights based on age, gender, etc could be another side purse.

I know that's a lot to digest but I think it's worthy of consideration.

By that argument, did the winner in advanced deserve to win anything ? He wasn't the best golfer at the course that day. Only pay the Pros.



In theory I agree with you but unfortunately we have too large of a skill level range out there. A system based an ratings would be fair for all involved.

I never argued the fairness of the division. I argued the desirability of the division. Even among those that normally finish out of the cash within the division. They are not complaining about it being offered. Those who are eligible but want the fairness of ratings based competition have that option. As I have said in the past, many OMB players would rather switch than fight. Remove the division, and they will spend the weekends at minis and casual rounds. You will not get all of them to migrate to the other divisions.

Leave the masters alone, and let them have their own fun. When you reach that age, you will be glad there is somewhere for you to go and have fun competing.

Truth is, I'm not completely sold on the rationale behind our current skill-based divisional breaks (even though I was involved in the process of determining them).

Quite a bit of this would be resolved if significant sponsorship could be secured. Another giant portion of it could be relieved by the creation of a true amateur classification (making divisions much larger in the prize classes). Perhaps patience is in order. 15 years worth of patience is wearing a little thin though.

Time will tell and the truth I suppose needs no defense.

OK, I am now physically nauseous. I just added the feature to view MADC Lifetime Average Event Ratings and Winnings at the MADC Website.

Looking at a couple of the winners search results from the recent GE Champ Cup, I see where over 3 or 4 years these guys have already won $800 (reported, most events do not even report payout in WWCC am class divisions)!

There is no other way than to describe this as sickening. WHAT EXACTLY ARE THESE FOLKS BEING PROTECTED FROM!?! AND WHY!?!

These guys are professionals, I don�t care how you slice it. There is no worthy reason to protect them from other professionals. NONE!

We have got to move to a more simplified divisional system, a more logical and fair one.

Ideas? Comments?

Check it out! Go to the HOME page at www.madisc.org (http://www.madisc.org) enter a PDGA number and at the bottom you can see these lifetime ratings and winnings.

PS: Now I have some understanding of why the PDGA does not include such "CASHING" in their online or printed results. It is a complete and total abomination!!!

Nick, I entered my number - PDGA #15117 - and got no results at all.

Seriously, I'm not as excited as you are about $800 of "Am" winnings in 3-4 years. I expect that I have won maybe $2k of "winnings" as an Am in the past 3-4 years. But I have also spent more than $40k (really low, informal estimate) on the sport in the same time frame.

A "Pro" - by my analysis - wants to make a living at disc golf. Not try to live on a negative $9k a year.

I think there's a really large, inevitable, gap between people who've played for 15+ years and people who've played, maybe, 5 years - in terms of their perception of the sport.

Looking at a couple of the winners search results from the recent GE Champ Cup, I see where over 3 or 4 years these guys have already won $800...



What does that mean? Her's what it means: that over the past 3 or 4 years there was an additional $400 in wholesale/retail markup available to cover tourney expenses where these players were playing.

I hold nothing against current Amateur players, but I will never again offer traditional amateur divisions again at any of my events. They will be welcome to play in the skill based divisions for prizes, but against pros of similar skill.

I'll offer them again when the PDGA decides to include them in our competitive system in more than name alone.

ie at nick's tourneys you'll have to play in skill based divisions instead of ratings based divisions :p

seriously though, it might provide a good real-world baseline for what the market thinks

I say skill based rather than ratings based for two reasons:

1) I may use different divisional and ratings ranges than are currently set by the PDGA.
2) So long as we do not provide PDGA Player Ratings to non-members, even those who have played in PDGA events, there is likely to be a large number of unrated players, so as TD I'll be trying to determine skill ranges of players unrated (similar to what goes on in WWCC am divisions now.

Here�s my proposal for the divisional system.

Pro (Cash purse)
Open
Masters +40
Grandmasters +55
Women
Women Masters +40

Amateur (Trophy only, low entry fees, nice players packs,and other amenities)
Open
Masters +40
Grandmasters +55
Women
Women Masters
Junior -16
Junior -12

Let me start by addressing the problems with this plan.
First, no, I am not related to Nick Kight.
Second, this system must provide a way for lower-skilled pros in the current system to drop down to amateur status. Once a player accepts cash in pro division, he may no longer play am ever again at a PDGA.
Third, this system would run better if am and pros tournaments (except for d-tiers) were separate and on different weekends. This would further the distinction bewtween ams and professionals and would also encourage ams to come and watch the pro tournament, patronize sponsors, buy discs, volunteer etc�
Fourth, this system ends quasi-professionals from receiving any type of payout anymore. The term �AM Payout� is laughable, and in the age of eBay is bordering hysterical.
Fifth, entry fee need to be lowered across the board. This would encourage a larger tournout. My example would be c=20-35, b=35-50, a=50-75, major=75+. I think am entries should be very low, 10-25.
Sixth, I don�t mention ratings anywhere. I do like PR and especially WCP, however.

Concerning Pro2/TrueAm/Prize class� There is either pro or not pro. You aren�t and am if you get paid out, period: Whether you�re paid out in discs, bags, baskets, pesos, traveler�s checks or gold bars. This am payout is a phenomena of the short-sighted fear of losing current tournament players. Tough [*****]� that still doesn�t change the fact that they are quasi-professionals playing in protected divisions for easily-converted-to-cash payout. You can�t have skill-based protected pro divisions. You are then rewarding mediocre play. That�s like taking all of the sprinters at a track meet, dividing them up into a faster group and a slower group and giving medals to the top three finishers in each heat. It makes no sense, and it�s not competitively fair. If you want to play for money/prizes and keep am PDGA status, then that�s what local non-PDGA tournaments are for.

I�m trying not to go too deep into detail here, but I truly stand by these ideas. How do we get there? Two words come to mind� Cold Turkey.

Please don�t label me as a dissenter, because I pay my dues and I respect the efforts of the PDGA and those who run it.

He's right. He's not me. Though I agree with much of what he says. My system is a transition to this proposal. Though I do see room for skill-based or handicapped competitional systems as well.

whorley, you're a genius.

i hope your proposal is adopted.

Four different threads, one answer. :)

Still waiting for a reason why we don't just switch over to this: :confused:

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.

All added cash to Division 1, and Women Division 2 if offered, which it almost always would be.

Prize payout for all divisions except Division 1, and Women Division 2 if offered, which it almost always would be.

Use these or similar ratings breaks the first year, change the next year if needed.


I'll submit this to the competition committee but I thought I wouldn't waste their time if I can find out it is stupid right here. So is it? Why?

Concerning Pro2/TrueAm/Prize class� There is either pro or not pro. You aren�t and am if you get paid out, period: Whether you�re paid out in discs, bags, baskets, pesos, traveler�s checks or gold bars. This am payout is a phenomena of the short-sighted fear of losing current tournament players. Tough [*****]� that still doesn�t change the fact that they are quasi-professionals playing in protected divisions for easily-converted-to-cash payout. You can�t have skill-based protected pro divisions. You are then rewarding mediocre play. That�s like taking all of the sprinters at a track meet, dividing them up into a faster group and a slower group and giving medals to the top three finishers in each heat. It makes no sense, and it�s not competitively fair. If you want to play for money/prizes and keep am PDGA status, then that�s what local non-PDGA tournaments are for.

I�m trying not to go too deep into detail here, but I truly stand by these ideas. How do we get there? Two words come to mind� Cold Turkey.



By the way, I totally agree with this. In the perfect world, this would be integrated into my system, and the prize divisions wouldn't actually get prizes, but I thought that might be a little too much to swallow all at once. :D:D:p

Four different threads, one answer. :)

Still waiting for a reason why we don't just switch over to this: :confused:

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.

All added cash to Division 1, and Women Division 2 if offered, which it almost always would be.

Prize payout for all divisions except Division 1, and Women Division 2 if offered, which it almost always would be.

Use these or similar ratings breaks the first year, change the next year if needed.


I'll submit this to the competition committee but I thought I wouldn't waste their time if I can find out it is stupid right here. So is it? Why?



Not bad, but you may want to find a transitional proposal that is a little more easy to swallow. Something that won't make all the little piggies go Wee Wee Wee all the way home.

The likelihood, no matter how well thought out, of doing away with the traditional pro divisions completely is realistically at or near zero.

Any proposed divisional system that fails to break amateurs into different skill levels is bound to fail. Even with a system that features a flat payout, trophy only, low entry fees, nice players packs, and other amenities, no newbie is ever going to enter a tournament where they are competing against seasoned veterans, who although may not have professional skill levels, still seriously outrank the novice golfer. Are you actually suggesting that the current Recreational <875 amateur golfer competes in your Amateur Open division against those highly skilled Advanced amateurs with ~950 ratings?

And then there's the whole age thing again. Take a look at the Masters and Grandmasters results from last weekend's Pittsburgh Flying Disc Open. In the former, the winner outrated his nearest opponent by 27 points and his next closest opponent by 39 points going into the tourny and won his division by 14 strokes. In the latter, the winner outrated his nearest opponent by 76 points! going into the tourny, and ended up winning his division by 28 strokes. By design, a ratings-based divisional system would place these competitors in groups of their own skill level and of all ages. Why develop a new PDGA divisional system that retains age divisions and continues to allow such lopsidedness in the competition?

I'll submit this to the competition committee but I thought I wouldn't waste their time if I can find out it is stupid right here. So is it? Why?



I'm not saying it is stupid. Because of the natural bell curve of ratings distributions, your Division 2 and Division 3 are going to be huge compared to Division 1. The current R-tier format splits your Division 2 into Silver and Bronze so that the Silver winner is not winning three times as much as the Gold winner from having played in a field three to six times as large.

I like using different ratings breaks at diferent tier levels. A player who has no hope of ever winning from the bottom of the ratings range for his division at an A-tier could be at the top at a C-tier. That is interesting.

I'm not saying it is stupid. Because of the natural bell curve of ratings distributions, your Division 2 and Division 3 are going to be huge compared to Division 1. The current R-tier format splits your Division 2 into Silver and Bronze so that the Silver winner is not winning three times as much as the Gold winner from having played in a field three to six times as large.



This is a really important point to be aware of. As it currently stands, one of the main points of contention with Pro 2 or Ratings-based formats is that the size of the fields that are not Open result in bigger payouts in those other divisions, and even when all the added cash goes to the Open division. Open division competitors, especially non-cashing ones, seem to get all bent out of shape when they see a large purse in those other fields, and for relatively poorer golf in comparison.

But by demographics alone those are larger fields!

[QUOTE]
Any proposed divisional system that fails to break amateurs into different skill levels is bound to fail. Even with a system that features a flat payout, trophy only, low entry fees, nice players packs, and other amenities, no newbie is ever going to enter a tournament where they are competing against seasoned veterans, who although may not have professional skill levels, still seriously outrank the novice golfer. Are you actually suggesting that the current Recreational <875 amateur golfer competes in your Amateur Open division against those highly skilled Advanced amateurs with ~950 ratings?[QUOTE]


I would disagree. When I was a ball golfer I played some golf tournaments where I had no chance of winning. The entry fee was reasonable in light of the normal green fees and the value of the dinner and door prizes, and other amenities. A couple of weeks ago I played an A-tier where the player pack, meals and other amenities were pretty much worth the price of the entry fee. I would play that tournament regardless of my chances of winning, if I knew in advance that there were great player packs, meals and other stuff for the players.

I like the idea of breaking amateurs into skill levels, but when you are getting a fair return for your entry fee regadless of your performance, you don't need to be protected from a player who is five strokes better than you per round.

I'm not saying it is stupid. Because of the natural bell curve of ratings distributions, your Division 2 and Division 3 are going to be huge compared to Division 1. The current R-tier format splits your Division 2 into Silver and Bronze so that the Silver winner is not winning three times as much as the Gold winner from having played in a field three to six times as large.



This is a really important point to be aware of. As it currently stands, one of the main points of contention with Pro 2 or Ratings-based formats is that the size of the fields that are not Open result in bigger payouts in those other divisions, and even when all the added cash goes to the Open division. Open division competitors, especially non-cashing ones, seem to get all bent out of shape when they see a large purse in those other fields, and for relatively poorer golf in comparison.




Good points.

That's where the "no prize payout" comes in. And this points out the unfortunate truth that it's impossible to discuss Divisions and Payouts seperately. They always come together.

Like I said, "no prizes" is tough to swallow at first. If we don't go Cold Turkey, we could at least cut the entry fees somewhat in the prize divisions and spread the wealth a little more in the prize divisions. Then a year or two down the road eliminate the whole prize thing a la whorely.

To me it all comes back to people expecting way more for their entry money than they should. It's not their fault...it's just the way it has always been done. And at the root of that is the requirement for TD's to pay back a certain percent of tangible goods.

The likelihood, no matter how well thought out, of doing away with the traditional pro divisions completely is realistically at or near zero.



I understand this point, but I just don't get the idea of being forced to run net-loss divisions for protected players...other than the obvious exception of the top women's division. :confused:

It's a tough pill, just like the others being discussed here, but it's the truth, at least in my very humble opinion. :o:)

Are you actually suggesting that the current Recreational <875 amateur golfer competes in your Amateur Open division against those highly skilled Advanced amateurs with ~950 ratings?



Your question has the answer. They are 'Recreational' by definition and should not be able to compete with the best amateurs in the region. Just like in any other sport. So I don't think they should play in a PDGA tournament, that's what local mini tournaments are for. You want to coddle the present players, regardless of ability. That is a recreational mindset (which has it's place.)

Your view is statistically flawed from a lack of data. You see the PDGA as it is presently, with generally weak Pro tournouts. Disc golf is growing by leaps and bounds. In 5 years, if the current PDGA membership doubles, there will be a respective increase in Competitive Open, Women, and Master divisions because there will be a larger talent pool. In 10 years, if current membership triples or quadruples, the competitive Open, Women and Maters will increase. OK... What about in 25 or 50 years? We're not going to be drawing from a small pool anymore. Same argument goes for the amateur side of things.

Furthermore, you look at a few tournaments and make broad generalizations. This is statistically flawed as well. In statistics I believe you need a huge data pool to extract real results; you also throw out the highest and lowest numbers in the data pool to come to more accurate conclusions.

I believe that most if not all of the troubles concerning our competitive system stem from the guiding principle that everyone deserves to be competitive and cash (or have a shot at it). This is true whether it is our lack of a true amateur classification, or our constant attempts to spread the wealth to less and less skilled players based on whole cloth theories stemming from �well, if we don�t pay them out they�ll stop coming to our events�.

The problem with our current PDGA Ratings Based System and our current Amateur Classification Divisional System (besides it not being Amateur in any way) is that instead of using Ratings to separate significantly different skill ranges into divisions, it got into the game of trying to divvy everything up into nice round numbers of folks. Worse than that, instead of taking a fresh look at the situation and how best to address it, we ended up forcing the round peg into a square hole: We simply used Player Ratings to substantiate our traditional divisions rather than base our divisions on Player Ratings.

Sure! We have to transition from one place to another. It would be ill-advised to just jump from here to their cold turkey (I�ll let you figure out why). But at the same time we do not want to further back ourselves into an even deeper corner, where our future options are greatly reduced.

I like Pro 2 as a concept in and of itself. But when placed within our current competitive system it makes about as much sense as a division for 960 to 990 golfers. It�s not like this skill group isn�t already broken up already as was with Advanced and Masters, but HEY let�s break it up even more! No. It is an atrocious idea in light of our overall competitive system. I am not against protection for players within this skill range, but within our current system it just blows up the middle without really making any progress on the two most important ends.

keep it simple...

keep it simple...



We need fewer divisions with more significant differences, not more divisions with less significant differences.
We need 2 classifications of players with more significant differences, not 2 classifications with no discernable differences.

Simple enough?

keep it simple...



We need fewer divisions with more significant differences, not more divisions with less significant differences.
We need 2 classifications of players with more significant differences, not 2 classifications with no discernable differences.

Simple enough?



really!!!! we have multiple divisions with similar ratings.. whats the purpose?

Nick, as I stated in my first post on this laborious and often twisted and confusing thread (and as Mr. Duke more directly stated), this plan has the potential to lessen the incentives for Pro TDs, thus eliminating the good things they are doing for the sport.

I know you disagree with this, and I know you think you know where the money comes from (I read that post), but the simple facts are you are wrong and you don't know.

Don't even bother asking me what I would propose in its stead. I think things are fine the way they are. Not perfect, but fine. Give the current system and the sport a few years to find out exactly where the bugs are, before you going trying to fix them.

And it would be a mistake with dire consequences, which could set tournament golf back years, to do anything that could even remotely hinder what Pro TD's are currently doing for the game and its players.

That's just my opinion, and I know you don't see it that way. Just thought it merited being typed.

Sir Atwood :D, I'm not sure what this thread is about and am too lazy to read it all again. However, two common themes are the "true amateur/parallel pro divisions" Nick line and flat-payouts for non-pros intrinsic to other ideas. How does either of these hurt the pro TD and their cut? Flat payouts is a wash if entry fees are the same. The true am thingy could also support a large merch turnover. However, even if the total merch turnover was reduced, pro TDs would adapt and find other means to make it worth their while.

Secondly, I don't mean to be offensive because I do appreciate what you and other pro TDs do for the sport. BUT, supporting TDs should not be the primary goal of a competitive structure. Keeping an inequitable and flawed structure alive simply because it supports TDs seems like the tail wagging the dog.

Sir Atwood :D, I'm not sure what this thread is about and am too lazy to read it all again. However, two common themes are the "true amateur/parallel pro divisions" Nick line and flat-payouts for non-pros intrinsic to other ideas. How does either of these hurt the pro TD and their cut? Flat payouts is a wash if entry fees are the same. The true am thingy could also support a large merch turnover. However, even if the total merch turnover was reduced, pro TDs would adapt and find other means to make it worth their while.

Secondly, I don't mean to be offensive because I do appreciate what you and other pro TDs do for the sport. BUT, supporting TDs should not be the primary goal of a competitive structure. Keeping an inequitable and flawed structure alive simply because it supports TDs seems like the tail wagging the dog.



James, like you this thread is a bit of a headache for me to read as well. Just re-reading page 1 was an instantaneous migraine. I have neither the time nor the desire to go through all of Nick's early suggestions here, but look me up in Waco and I'll be pleased to answer your first question to the utmost best of my ability.

Secondly, no offense taken. And, I agree that "supporting" TD's as you put it, should never be the motivation for bringing about positive change, sport-wide. I just would hate to see things changed in the competitive structure that lessened the incentive of these people to do what they do, thus taking more of them out of the act and not inspiring new ones. People that do that and do it well, with their focus on the game and the players are making great strides for the game in general. I don't think they should be catered to at all, I'd just hate to see a cavalier attitude adopted regarding the important impact some of them are having and could have on the game as a whole in the future.

This is a touchy subject for a lot of people, and to be honest, I really don't want to banter it about on this board. If that makes me a wuss then, so be it. :)

I'll be happy, as always to discuss in person with you, anything you'd like. I do enjoy talking, as you may have noticed. :D

A) Chris' tournaments started out non-PDGA.
B) His events would attract huge participants even if his payouts were flat or much flatter to WWCC amateurs. Same coming in, same going out, just to more folks.
C) The folks you guys make a living at would still be playing for making the cut Prizes under my plan, they just wouldn't have the "Amateur Class" label.
D) I think you DO need to go back and reread this if you are going to comment, because quite obviously you are mistaken on ALL of these points that would directly effect you and Chris.

E) A real amateur class would do more to help you than you are (now) capable of comprehending. Reshuffling entry fees as a competitive system's foundation has taken our sport as far as it can. It has turned into the great revolving door system now (Move in, Move up, Move up, Move up, Move out.).

Updated in lieu of recent discussions:

http://www.madisc.org/05DivisionalProp4.jpg

A) Chris' tournaments started out non-PDGA.
B) His events would attract huge participants even if his payouts were flat or much flatter to WWCC amateurs. Same coming in, same going out, just to more folks.
C) The folks you guys make a living at would still be playing for making the cut Prizes under my plan, they just wouldn't have the "Amateur Class" label.
D) I think you DO need to go back and reread this if you are going to comment, because quite obviously you are mistaken on ALL of these points that would directly effect you and Chris.

E) A real amateur class would do more to help you than you are (now) capable of comprehending. Reshuffling entry fees as a competitive system's foundation has taken our sport as far as it can. It has turned into the great revolving door system now (Move in, Move up, Move up, Move up, Move out.).



A - Chris uses the PDGA division model for his tournaments whether sanctioned or not so sanctioning has no bearing on this discussion.

B - I am in favor of a flatter payout in most divisions, and almost completely flat for the Rec divisions. If not that, then a pure beginner division where payouts are completely flat (much like worlds biggest) where your entry fee is returned in merchandise at sign-up or sometime before the end of the tournament (so as to not interfere what the payout for other divisions).

C - What label would you give them. Having the "Ams" competing strictly in Age brackets doesn't seem workable in the long run unless school districts start having competitions against each other working toward division/state/national champinoships. What we have now in the "am" ranks is a choice of players to compete for rewards (MA1, MA2, MA3) or for older players to compete in much smaller pools for friendly competition. Yes the winners may win more than some others for "inferior" performance, but who does that hurt? Many would not bother to come if they were not allowed to compete with each other.

D - I think that the current system with ratings defining where a player is allowed to play is a very different than the ole move up, move up, move out model. Just because you win a tournament or two while you are playing well, there is no need to move up.

What we need is a way to address the Pros that were pushed into the Pro division under the old system that find themselves non-competitive and then drop out of the tournament scene.

E - A real amatuer class is a noble goal, and will likely help the long term growth of the sport tremendously. But it is something that I think should be developed alongside the current competitive structure, not as a replace for the current structure.

At the general level it should be more team oriented and involve short to year long schedules that culminate in local or regional championships. If this were to get going it would almost by definition get more people playing (we gotta round up 2 more players to complete our team) and feeding into the current system. It would also provide a place for those that are uncomfortable with the current system a continuing competitive environment in which to play.

Now come up with a workable scheme to get that started, and you will get my full support. I think you would also get a lot of support from the disc providers (pro TDs ?) for those programs.

Did you mean to say "100% of total entry fees "Retail" value? :confused:

I hope so.
Doesn't wholesale value vary depending on the size of the order ?
What's the wholesale value of donated merchandise ?

Yes, retail.

Gary,

Is it just me that sees ams winning thousands of dollars in merch year after year while pros with superior skills and commitment to the sport barely skim by?

Is it just me that sees ams as not ams at all but a protected professional division?

I guess the next few years will tell (unlike the past 25 years).

I know that was directed at Gary but I do agree with you on that.

Amatuer players of a sport are not responsible for directly supporting the top players of that sport.

Players of lesser skills should not compete directly against the Pros of a sport.

The payout formula for all AM divisions is way too narrow and top heavy.

The AMs will continue to compete for each others money whether at a tournament or casually. They are the largest demographic and the largest source of potential income.

But it is the same as any other sport. Those good enough to make the team, but never play don't see the big dollars. The top semi-pros might make more money.

Or if you are good enough to make the PGA tour, but not cash, you'd be better off on the Nike tour or Senior tour.

Don't think of them as different divisions, think of them as different tours. They are not competing for the same pot of money, what one wins has nothing to do with what the other wins. Why should it.

All sponsorship dollars should go first to the MPO/FPO pool. That is where the money needs to come from.

[QUOTE]
Is it just me that sees ams as not ams at all but a protected professional division?[\quote] YES! all have is Ams. We have no TRUE Pros.

That is sidestepping the question. One could easily grant your claim that this sport has no pros. The question would merely be rephrased to state

"Is it just me that sees lesser players winning thousands of dollars in merch year after year while players with superior skills and commitment to the sport barely skim by?"

Gary, as you can tell, I'm no fan of our current structure, but I have never advocated that "Amatuer players of a sport are responsible for directly supporting the top players." At any rate, that notion is a misconception in disc golf, since it is typically the other pros that support the top players, not the ams.

Your view is statistically flawed from a lack of data.




Furthermore, you look at a few tournaments and make broad generalizations. This is statistically flawed as well. In statistics I believe you need a huge data pool to extract real results; you also throw out the highest and lowest numbers in the data pool to come to more accurate conclusions.



Oh really? Why don't you go look at the Masters division results from any National Tour or 'A' Tier event from this year or the last few years. There's usually one, or in some tournaments a few, 1010-1020 rated guys who stomp on dozens of other 940-970 rated Masters.

Statistically flawed your left butt cheek!

Amatuer players of a sport are not responsible for directly supporting the top players of that sport.



No, not directly. Indirectly. But then we don't have any amateurs in disc golf so it is a certainty that they do not support the top players... What we have are enthusiasts outside organized disc golf that buy products that give profits to manufacturers that sponsor players and events, and so on. Prize players also do this.

Again, my main objection is to our excessive pandering to for-profit-players to the tremendous detriment of our divisional competitive system's effectiveness in promoting organized disc golf for it's own sake. We have gone so far to one end of what is possible, logical, natural that most of us cannot even fathom any other possibility or motivation. So far to one end that the very meaning of words like "fair" and "amateur" and "natural" no longer have any meaning other than the contrived ones we have invented in defense of this exclusive mamoth.

hmmm.... makes one wonder why we invented it, built it, and like it so much if it sux so bad !?!

That's why it so difficult to debate an issue with you. You know full well that when I used the term Amateur it was in reference to the current PDGA definition and not part of the "True Amateur Class" discussion, yet you insist on reminding me there are no amateur players in disc golf.

You also know that I am aware of your points and position, and don't need to be reminded of them in a general sense as a non-response to my points.

If you would read my previous post, I am not in disagreement with you on many points or things that need to be addressed. I just don't agree that a massive change to the current system is required.

IMHO:

We do need to remove some of the financial incentive from the non-pro ranks.
We do need to flatten the payout curve so more players will get something for coming out.
We do need to find venue for "true amateurs" to be able to go out and compete in a tournament environment.
We do need to come up with a format that school disrticts and city leagues can utilize to get more players in the competitive side of Disc Golf.
We do need to come up with a way to encourage and support more R-Tier events.

We do not need to completely trample the current system in order to start acheiving these goals.

Please forgive typos (no time to proof read)


Amatuer players of a sport are not responsible for directly supporting the top players of that sport.



Directly, WWCC amateur players are a miniscule fraction of the cash for which the pro players play for. Most comes from their own entry fees, added direct cash sponsorship, and funds raised through club disc sales and other fundraisers.

Indirectly, Amateur players AND fans are responsible for the great majority of the cash that pro players play for. The products they buy and the TV and media they receive pay the owners that pay the pros. Or manufacturers of the sports gear directly pay the players, endorsements, based on product the players name is able to sell.


Players of lesser skills should not compete directly against the Pros of a sport.



WWCC Amateurs ARE NOT �Players of lesser skills�, they are arbitrarily protected professionals. And I disagree with the direction of your statement Gary. I believe it is more appropriate to say the following:

True Amateurs SHOULD BE PROTECTED from Pros of the sport.

Meaning that if a player is playing purely for the joy of competition and play, that they should not be forced into a situation where a professional can take advantage of them by winning a stake/entry fee/or any part of the events value that was intended for the True Amateur players according to participation or in an honorific capacity (titles, trophies, medals).


The payout formula for all AM divisions is way too narrow and top heavy.



I respectfully disagree, as you probably already know. WWCC Amateurs have nearly or exactly the same payout formulas as professionals. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE PROFESSIONALS AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN DEFINED AND TREATED SO. There should not be �payout formulas� for amateurs at all. Such concepts are outside the bounds of True Amateur Sport.


The AMs will continue to compete for each others money whether at a tournament or casually. They are the largest demographic and the largest source of potential income. But it is the same as any other sport. Those good enough to make the team, but never play don't see the big dollars. The top semi-pros might make more money. Or if you are good enough to make the PGA tour, but not cash, you'd be better off on the Nike tour or Senior tour. Don't think of them as different divisions, think of them as different tours. They are not competing for the same pot of money, what one wins has nothing to do with what the other wins. Why should it.



In this regard, disc golf is unlike other sports; we have created our competitive and economic systems out of whole cloth. There is nothing natural or common sense about it, and certainly there is nothing closely resembling an Amateur/Professional relationship. Should our sport have a single-track skill/reward level system for our professionals? ABSOLUTELY! But it is an impossibility so long as we lack a genuine amateur classification and allow 3 or 4 elite skill/payout divisions to coexist at the same events.


IMHO:
We do need to remove some of the financial incentive from the non-pro ranks.


I disagree, we need to remove ALL of the financial incentive from the non-pro ranks (as soon as we create a non-pro ranks).

We do need to flatten the payout curve so more players will get something for coming out. [\quote]
I disagree, we need to REMOVE �payouts� for a future True Amateur Class, and increase event value for all Amateurs evenly based on participation.
[QUOTE]
We do need to find venue for "true amateurs" to be able to go out and compete in a tournament environment.


I 100% agree. And would add that we need to provide a similar, though less overly divisive place for WWCC amateurs to compete within the Professional Classification. You want to play for profit/each others entry fees in the form of cash or prizes? GREAT! Here is your division, with a reasonable amount of protection from significantly superior players. You want to play for the joy of competition and the sense of greater community based on True Amateur principles of sportsmanship? Great! We, the TDs, are ready to oblige with the best event we can manage to put on with all of the services and activities possible to make your experience unforgettable! You will feel like a winner weather you place first or last!

We do need to come up with a format that school disrticts and city leagues can utilize to get more players in the competitive side of Disc Golf.


I absolutely 100% agree and have provided divisions specifically for primary school students participation at PDGA events in my proposal. They are the REAL future of our sport, not attracting the same ol� type of prostyle gambler disc golfer who passes through the PDGA digestion system.

We do need to come up with a way to encourage and support more R-Tier events.


Yes, BUT if these R-Tiers only perpetuate or prop up the same old limited divisive one classification system based on �CASHING� within overly divisive divisions, then they will do little more than point out more clearly our traditional systems faults.

We do not need to completely trample the current system in order to start achieving these goals.


Depends on the goals. If your goals are:

A) To establish a logical competitive system with fewer divisions but more significant differences in skill level between them. Positioned for the future growth and mainstream acceptance of disc golf. Where all disc golfers are simply disc golfers and any protection from significantly superior players is easily and logically substantiated and the entry fees and payouts logical from top to bottom.
B) To establish a True Amateur Classification within our sport. Ready to take on a much more vast demographic of disc golfer, from casual player to lower, middle, high school and collegiate level championship competitions, with NO PROFIT consideration other than for the sport itself and the manufacturers supplying huge amounts of sports related gear to ALL participants.

If these are our goals, and they are mine, then we need to greatly change the fundamental principles upon which our current system is based. Once those changes are in place, the superficial surface of our system will naturally and logically fall into place.

There are currently 102 Open players registered, if they payout 40% of the field the ratings cut would be around 988.

Consider the following:
1) IF all of the added cash went to the top Open divisions M/F.
2) IF the top Open division paid out 100% of the field.
3) IF players with 990+ ratings were required to play in the top division.
4) IF players between 990 and 960 had the option of their own division.
5) IF 25% of entry fee for players that chose the 990 and 960 division went to the top Open division.
6) IF players between 960 and 930 had the option of their own division.
7) IF 35% of entry fee for players that chose the 990 and 960 division went to the top Open division.

A. Would more professional players participate in the World Championships?
B. Would top Masters be more likely to play in the top Open Division?
C. Would we need an Advanced Division World Championship?

Something to think about�

We are not supposed to use that last word in my household, but the keeper of the vocabulary is still at camp.

The logic of that concept utterly escapes me, but so did the logic of Soviet Socialism, and they were all about sucking the lifeblood out of the common man in order to support the ruling and non-producing class at a higher standard of living. And then if you go read Nick's posts on the political threads, the circle is completed.

I'm shouting now, on purpose: IF WE DON'T HAVE GENUINE SPONSORSHIP FOR THE TOP PROS, WE SHOULD QUIT PRETENDING OTHERWISE AND GO TO WORK ON THAT ISSUE. How many other successful sports tax the little leagues and pony leagues and college players so they can transfer that money to the pros?

I'm shouting now, on purpose: IF WE DON'T HAVE GENUINE SPONSORSHIP FOR THE TOP PROS, WE SHOULD QUIT PRETENDING OTHERWISE AND GO TO WORK ON THAT ISSUE. How many other successful sports tax the little leagues and pony leagues and college players so they can transfer that money to the pros?




I don't know how you run your events Bruce (perhaps there is a guilt factor in there) but clubs selling merchandise at retail and using the profits after shipping, crating around and efforts to market (which basically makes those profits so tiny that the labors of the TD and organizers are actually what are paying for it) IS NOT stealing from the weak and giving to the strong. IT IS PROMOTING THE SPORT THE ONLY WAY AVAILABLE AT THIS POINT IN OUR DEVELOPMENT.

Let's say your postulation is valid: Here's a shout back at you-

IF WE DON'T HAVE GENUINE AMATEUR CLASSIFICATION, WE SHOULD QUIT PRETENDING OTHERWISE AND GO TO WORK ON THAT ISSUE. How many other successful sports have ONLY different levels of protected gamblers and NO pony leagues and NO organized college play?

But back to the topic at hand: If the sponsorship is not there (yet), then do we do nothing to even attempt and make a competitive system that makes more intuitive sense? Our hands didn't seem to be tied when we made it this bribefest system we have now, why should they be to undo it and get us positioned for the future (when sponsors will actually have an interest in sponsoring our events).

� �True Amateur�: At the option of the event TD, Pro or Am players may play for trophies only in any Amateur division offered by an event, that their player rating, age and gender qualifies them for, by paying a reduced entry fee. TDs are encouraged to set this entry fee between 1/3 to 1/2 of the event entry fee, plus the PDGA, regional and/or local player fees. For example, if an event offers an Advanced division entry of $30, of which $5 covers the PDGA player and local club/series fees, then the recommended True Am entry fee for this division will be ($25/2) + $5 = $17.50.



Ha-------lle--lujah!
Ha-------lle--lujah!
Ha-------lle--lujah!
Ha--------
lle--------
lu------
jah!

It's a start!

and now the TD gets to jump thru fire rings to explain the payout numbers. X number of full paid AM1, y number of half (or third) paid AM1.

what nonsense.

the people who have a chance to be competitive will pay full price. the rest will pay half. leaving even LESS incentive for the better players to compete in their ratings-based divisions. they might as well move up into a Pro division where they can play for 1/2 price of that fee.

what this does is create Fake Pros, not True Ams.

Pat, I think in this scenario, the people paying half price are not competing for cash, so the complex payout argument is moot.


the people who have a chance to be competitive will pay full price. the rest will pay half. leaving even LESS incentive for the better players to compete in their ratings-based divisions. they might as well move up into a Pro division where they can play for 1/2 price of that fee.




I really don't understand this argument, but if if gives people options, keeps them interested, enables them to challenge themselves, then it seems like a great idea to me. I only wish the PDGA would encourage/allow the same basic idea, but with the option for the reduced entry fee people to compete for money.

Anyways, I agree with Nick (but for slightly different reasons): this is progress and kudos to the PDGA for moving in a positive direction.

and now the TD gets to jump thru fire rings to explain the payout numbers. X number of full paid AM1, y number of half (or third) paid AM1.

what nonsense.

the people who have a chance to be competitive will pay full price. the rest will pay half. leaving even LESS incentive for the better players to compete in their ratings-based divisions. they might as well move up into a Pro division where they can play for 1/2 price of that fee.

what this does is create Fake Pros, not True Ams.



This isn't something new. Same rule as last year with a slight change in the suggested pricing. We offered it at every IOS for 2005 and promoted the idea also. Only a few people took advantage of the option. It was used mostly by players that were lower rated ams playing in an advanced division. They were either playing both days for fun and experience on the upper day or they couldn't play on the lower day because of work, family wedding, etc. so they came on the upper day. In any case, 99% of these players would not have played had there not been a trophy only or true amateur option.

The one problem I see with it....

"At the option of the TD..."

Make it mandatory to offer the option. The XLS sheets could be adjusted to make the calcs simple enough for TDs do so without taxing their brainpower.

Responding to Pat, very few players actually exercise this option except in tournament markets that are thoroughly saturated with plastic when the trophy-only fee is very low. I've been offering this as an option since 2002 and I have some experience with it. Like Jon said, it is mostly players who are hopelessly noncompetitive and otherwise would not have played. Those players are "added cash" in their division, so there is no reason why any player in that division should mind.

Responding to the poster who would like it to be mandatory, I would like it to be mandatory once the PDGA understands it. Last year they "allowed" it with out really understanding it. The spreadsheet and payut formula were not properly programmed for it.

bruce, understoood.

so now i will play Pro Masters for one half price (maybe one third). so will a bunch of my equals (MM1 players)

the strong MA1 players are gonna be pizzed cuz tehy wont be winning near as much plastic due to entry fee dilution as MA2 players move up and many other strong MA1 players move up to play at half price.

the only thing that stays the same (MAYBE) is that the PDGA gets their same $5.

and, as i said before, we have strengthened the FAKE PRO class, not created a true am class.

this will confuse the bejesus out of hte ratings sytem which was becoming stronger

I don't think it should be mandatory, rather I'd like to see there be an explosion of True Am Only Events that target school children and community groups. With the retail/wholesale margin where it is, an event could return 100% monetary value right away and meet PDGA and local fee burdens. Toss in a little sponsorship cash for a decent lunch and trophies and you have the makings of a serious amateur atheletic event.

Next time you are at a park that has a cross country course, try to be there when their is a big meet. Watch what happens. Feel the excitement and extreme sense of competition during the race, then watch how totally into the awards ceremony everyone is.

Disc golf can have that. Disc golf should have that. Disc golf will have that.

I really don't think you will see much effect from this. It is not mandatory that TDs offer it. TDs who are going to offer it are mostly the ones who have been doing so previously. Most players won't know it exists, and when they do, most players prefer to play for stuff at good tournaments.

I really don't think you will see much effect from this. It is not mandatory that TDs offer it. TDs who are going to offer it are mostly the ones who have been doing so previously. Most players won't know it exists, and when they do, most players prefer to play for stuff at good tournaments.



Correction: Most players that prefer to play for stuff at big prize tournaments won't know it exists, and when they do, they'll naturally prefer to play for stuff at big prize tournaments, where the prizes are paid for by the entry fees of other players in their divisions and the TD makes a decent profit between the retail/wholesale costs of the prizes.

yeah, you are prolly correct bruce. i just hope it is applied in the areas where it helps, and it is forgotten about in the areas where it would hurt.

I had seen a tournament , where a brand new car , was a prize !!!!! :eek: