The Waterford Junior Girls' Club teamed up with the Discontinuum Disc Golf Club to run an R-tier this past weekend. I thought I'd share some impressions.

1. We had great attendance in "Red" where it seemed as if most of the players did not understand that anything was any different from a normal tournament. "They are calling the Rec division Red, whatever." Attendance in White, Bronze and Silver was weak. It could be that more experienced tournament players are resistant to change. That is what I've been told. Could be that watching the Bears get beat by the Lions took higher priority.

2. The amateur presidents of both host clubs played in Silver on Sunday. [Actually, I'm Dictator-for-Life, but it's like being president without all the fussy details attendant to democracy] We figured out early on that it behooved both our clubs for us to beat the Silver pros. We outperformed! :D

3. Normally when we run a tournament we do the financials in the morning and figure out how many CTPs we can afford for the afternoon. With pros and ams mixed in Silver it was impossible to know exactly where we would be at the end of the day. We did our financials based on the assumption that the pros would win because they had the highest ratings and that was the least profitable scenario. The assumption was false and our clubs should thank Brett and I for making it false!

4. I appreciated that there were fewer divisions and fewer trophies and no zero-player divisions.

5. Since I normally have been playing Advanced this year I did not miss not having a Am Masters division. But, it did seem like the Pro Masters and Am Masters were not in attendance, other than Adrian Sr., who did very well in his rating indicated division.

Jon thought #3 was a big negative against running another R-tier. I think Brett and I would both be fine with the uncertainty. We would probably also want to think about whether master-age resistance to the concept matters to us. Our basic philosophy is to run tournaments that we and our club members would want to play. The ones who played seemed satisfied by the event.

#3 is not a problem under the revised proposal where all payouts are based on merch with pros being allowed to convert to cash at 65% if desired. I agree that under the current plan, it adds to payout uncertainty.

If the Silver cash deal is changed, I am in for running one of these in Texas... I like that it gives pro women, pro grand masters, lower rated pros etc a place to compete.

#3 is not a problem under the revised proposal where all payouts are based on merch with pros being allowed to convert to cash at 65% if desired. I agree that under the current plan, it adds to payout uncertainty.

That would certainly make it financially less worrisome, especially if we were in a situation where pros could take all, none or any amount of the Silver payout.

If the Silver cash deal is changed, I am in for running one of these in Texas... I like that it gives pro women, pro grand masters, lower rated pros etc a place to compete.

If the deal in Silver an below was that pros could play there, but that these are prize-payout divisions, Jon would be fine with that. And most 955 and under pros are paying cash for their equipment, so they it is not like they don't need prizes.

If TDs raised a minimum amount of added cash proportionate with entry fees 100% payouts would not be a concern for TDs, even at R-Tiers.

It is TDs relying solely on entry fees who face financial difficulties IMO.

Players need to start being far more discerning about which events REALLY provide value for the entry dollar and which events REALLY just use them as pure sponsors. This year I played in about 18 PDGAs of those, I suspect only about half have earned my patronage in 2005. That is not to say that I don�t appreciate the efforts of ALL of the TDs whose events I have participated in this year, when I say thank you I mean it, it�s just that I could be a sponsor for far less entry fee and equal disc golf experience at many non-sanctioned events; so why should I have to pay for the lack of effort on the organizers part. Players should gladly want to pay their entry to participate.

In short, entry fee should be Entry Fee, not Sponsorship. TDs that know this are the true gold mines of this sport.

Bruce, you seriously need to edit that post into English. :D

Bruce, you seriously need to edit that post into English. :D



Based on Chuck, Nick and Gary's responses, I think I'm communicating with my target audience. Which post? Which non-English parts?

Nick: Jon, Brett and I use the amateurs to sponsor the amateur divisions and we pay them back 130-150%. I think this last event will come out towards the high side. When we have cash sponsorship we give it to the pros. Otherwise we just keep their money safe while they play a couple of rounds, and then give it back to them. The ones who aren't fine with that have figured out where to find the Pro B, A, NT events, and everyone seems happy.

I've been Klemmerized!!!

O.k., I've never been to Jon's workplace, and I don't know the first thing about building computers, upgrading telecommunications systems, or resolving office place software compatibility problems, but I would like to say a few words about what I think about his job performance...

I like that it gives pro women, pro grand masters, lower rated pros etc a place to compete.



Excellent point but I think it goes even deeper. It gives all players a chance to compete with players of similar skill levels.

The North Dakota State Championship was an R-tier event and went off pretty well. It took some time for the concept to sink in but most people got the hang of it after a while. There were only two negatives:

1) The Silver & Bronze cash payout system that has already been mentioned and I do believe the 65% will solve that problem.

2) The Masters didn't openly embrace the system and had difficulties not playing directly against each other. I had a trophy for the top master and tried to squad them together when possible but still received a large amount of complaints. Hopefully there is a better impression now that the event is done.

The Pro Masters are the ones who have taken the most advantage of their protected status in the traditional structure (Hammock for example). So, it's not surprising they would feel entitled to their position and be the biggest detractors. Many times they are or have been movers and shakers in their neighborhoods. Fortunately, they can't avoid their march toward GM status, their ratings will slide below 960 and join those who think bringing everyone together with similar skills is a good thing.

Bruce, you seriously need to edit that post into English. :D



Based on Chuck, Nick and Gary's responses, I think I'm communicating with my target audience. Which post? Which non-English parts?



The post that I "Re:" 'd to. If you had clicked on the Re: Bruce Brakel soon enough you could have edited it and since I didn't quote your post it would have been like it never happened. Oh well.

The irony!
Jon thought #3 was a big negative against running another R-tier. I think Brett and I would both be fine with the uncertainty. We would probably also want to think about whether master-age resistance to the concept matters to us. Our basic philosophy is to run tournaments that we and our club members would want to play. The ones who played seemed satisfied by the event.

The PDGA takes care of #3 and abolishes the R-tier, both!

I never thought much about Ratings Based events because I was never in one. A couple of weeks ago was my first, and I am now just starting to read about them. Unfortunately,I don�t have as much time as I would like to do that, so I would like to ask some Q�s on them, even though they might be redundant to these message boards. Sorry. My initial opinion on them is that I think it is the best way to go, and I realize that, no matter how you do it, someone will get the s**ty end, and not like it.

Before the tourney I was in, I asked how things worked with points. I asked if I would get 4.5 points as I would have if I played Am Woman B Tier. I was told yes, but now after checking, I see that since I was in the Green division, I get 1.5. The results haven�t come out yet, so I don�t know where I would have been better off playing, Green or White (I don�t play for prizes, I play for points). I am wondering how much this is going to effect the women. It is already difficult enough for us to get points, since there are so few of us. Are the required points to be invited to the Worlds going to be reduced? Or should they be?

I guess I should also first ask if the goal is to move towards all ratings based events, and when they are going to try to accomplish this by, if that is the case?

Hey Jeannie -

I think the R-tier events will be a moot point once the 2005 touring season is upon us due to changes in the sanctioning agreement and the exclusion of R-tier events (or rather the inclusion of the ratings more intimately mixed to determine divisions within all tiers of sanctioning).

And don't you worry, just keep on playing - yow WILL be invited to AM worlds in AZ 2005! :D

Hope to see you out on the course soon. :cool:

The point standard for women to get into Worlds is set low enough to be very inclusive. It looks like you are #1 in New York and have nothing to worry about. Also, since the women's pool does not fill, it is very easy for women to get in off the waitlist.

The PDGA is not, and never has been, of one mind about R-Format versus Traditional Format competition. I think the R-promoters represent a small portion of the membership but a vital portion of our volunteer base, so that has been a delicate issue.

As the PDGA has gotten better at getting ratings updates done, and as the leadership has become more comfortable with the validity of ratings to sort most players by skill, there has been a gradual movement towards incorporating more R-features in the standard format. However there is serious resistance to the R-concept among some players who currently enjoy the social aspect of their protected division. Also, there is precedent throughout sports of having protected competition for women, children and players of a certain advanced age.

In 2003 the PDGA adopted hard caps on intermediate and recreational divisions and in 2004 the PDGA tweaked them to better fit. For 2005 we've added an escape hatch for lower rated pros, which is really quite revolutionary in the context of how we have treated lower rated pros in the past. [I.e., "You took cash. Too bad."]

I would not be surprised to see 2006 bring some sort of soft cap on some more divisions, not the sort of thing that forces an amateur to play pro, but the sort of thing that gently encourages more players to compete against similarly skilled players at lower tiered events.

The PDGA is not, and never has been, of one mind about R-Format versus Traditional Format competition. I think the R-promoters represent a small portion of the membership but a vital portion of our volunteer base, so that has been a delicate issue.

As the PDGA has gotten better at getting ratings updates done, and as the leadership has become more comfortable with the validity of ratings to sort most players by skill, there has been a gradual movement towards incorporating more R-features in the standard format. However there is serious resistance to the R-concept among some players who currently enjoy the social aspect of their protected division. Also, there is precedent throughout sports of having protected competition for women, children and players of a certain advanced age.



Except that the age breaks in these other sports usually do better to break out ability. For the most part, 50-year old golfers on the Senior Tour would not be competitive on the PGA Tour. Also, the breadth of abilities on the Senior Tour is not too wide; there isn't one or two stronger players that win every event.

Compare that to disc golf where the number of over 40 golfers near or above a 1000 rating and who can compete in the Open division is quite numerous, and one guy in particular wins the Masters division in nearly every event he enters!



In 2003 the PDGA adopted hard caps on intermediate and recreational divisions and in 2004 the PDGA tweaked them to better fit. For 2005 we've added an escape hatch for lower rated pros, which is really quite revolutionary in the context of how we have treated lower rated pros in the past. [I.e., "You took cash. Too bad."]



The thought and intent is indeed revolutionary and appreciated, but consider where we were before, with Pro 2 and Silver ratings based divisions for those lower rated pros who enjoyed playing for each other's cash and the social aspect of THAT protected division. To some, that removal and the "escape hatch" option of playing for prizes/merchandise and no PDGA points is like a slap in the face.

Except that the age breaks in these other sports usually do better to break out ability.

Golf may have gotten it right, or it might just be the smaller Masters purses keep the better golfers on the regular tour.


consider where we were before, with Pro 2 and Silver

Six tournaments this year offered Silver. Six. Half of the disc golfers reading this right now are saying, "Silver?" At the ten tournaments I played but did not run, spread across six states, Pro 2 was not offered ten times. When we offered Pro 2 multiple times at our tournaments, we never had more than a foursome. We were nowhere with these concepts. They were not getting traction, except maybe in your region, at events Jon, Brett and I were running, and a few scattered other locations.

I'm not sure what a Pro would do with Am points. We're talking about points, not ratings. <955 pros will still get ratings when playing Am. If the <955 pro wants to earn Am points for Am Worlds, nothing has changed: he has to petition for his am status. If you want to get pro points, you have to play pro.

Instead of having a privilege to play Silver or Pro 2 for cash on the rare occasion it is offered, the <955 player now has a right to play Advanced. The issue is not left to the TD's discretion. The number of tournaments which do not offer advanced is kind of limited to a few NTs and Majors.

This change is not going to strip pros from Open. Look at the tournaments you played: at every one there were about three or four players rated under 955 in Open. Most of them prefer to play Open. Now look at the Texas database of pro members. About 3/4ths of the pro players rated <955 have played less than 4 tournaments this year.

I'm not thinking I'll convince you, but I'm hoping most of the people reading this can see the point. We're moving slowly toward the concept of encouraging and allowing players to compete against similarly skilled opponents. We're trying to do it in a way that works for our TDs and volunteers who have to implement the change. We're hoping to create viable competitive options for a large number of pros who aren't playing much anymore.

If this does not work for our TDs, I'll be the second person to know. I co-TD a lot of tournaments.