Bruce Brakel wrote on the 2005 Sanctioning Agreement thread:


I was only present for about half of the Summit, by teleconference, and I kept losing my connection. It is a problem with my government issue phone.

If they agreed to keep the wraps on the changes until some later date, I was not present for that, and no one has updated me by e-mail on that. Here are some hints:

The two meters above the playing surface rule is going to work more like the out of bounds rule. It will be incumbent on the TD to declare two meters o.b. just like we do with ponds, roads, yellow rope lines and the rock gardens in Bill's front yard. Water currently is in bounds; you can play it where it lies, unless the TD says otherwise. The two meter rule will work like that.

PDGA active member pros with a rating below a certain number will be free to play in amateur divisions for prizes. The exact wording on this has yet to be decided too, but that is the general concept. I think Pro 2, to the extent that it was ever here, goes away with this plan. I think the entire R-tier format goes away too, but I will defer to the minutes when they are published. Some of this was put to a formal vote and some of it was just understood from the context of the presentation and discussion.

We might publish something somewhere making it clear that trophy-only formats or trophy-only entry fee options are allowed, so long as tier payout standards are met with the trophy and player pack values.

I'm being intentionally fuzzy here so don't start parsing my words looking for specific meaning. I was in and out of the meeting with a bad connection, did not take extensive notes, and was not able to be present for some of this.

For those few of you who previously were informed that I was lingering somewhere between denial and acceptance, but not on grief, posting this has been cathartic.



I seriously question the logic behind a future competitive system that allows Pros to compete in amateur divisions for prizes, eliminates the Pro 2 division, as well as the R-tier format.

We've finally got a system to evaluate player ability and break down players into divisions of the same ability by using player ratings. Why return to the seemingly arbitrary age-based divisions which feature enormous variances in ability among players of roughly the same age?

Also, if I'm a professional and I'm trying to better my game, why would I want to return to an amateur division and compete against golfers who are more than likely of lesser ability? If I really want to compete against amateurs, why don't I just petition to regain amateur status? Is the thought that allowing PDGA active member pros with a rating below a certain number to play in amateur divisions for prizes will attract pros out of the woodwork?

I'm most excited about trophy-only formats/trophy-only entry fees. Make participation the number one priority. Allow those older or uncompetitive pros the chance to play alongside their comrades without forcing them to donate increasingly outrageous entry fees. Give them the option of playing alongside their peers in their chosen division, instead of an amateur division which they may have "graduated" from years ago!

We've finally got a system to evaluate player ability and break down players into divisions of the same ability by using player ratings. Why return to the seemingly arbitrary age-based divisions which feature enormous variances in ability among players of roughly the same age?



I would wait until you see what the final plan is. Pros playing in Am will only be allowed in the MA1, MA2 and MA3 divisions which are ratings, not age or gender based. It's an extension of the Pro 2 from this year but pros can only earn merch not cash and don't earn points there.

Give them the option of playing alongside their peers in their chosen division, instead of an amateur division which they may have "graduated" from years ago!



That's where you need to move forward into the new paradigm of ratings. A non-cashing pro with a rating of 920 is playing against his peers in Advanced! :)

Chuck,

Do you know who came up with this plan? Was it the BOD, the PDGA Competition Committee or who?

Thanks,
Nick

The two meters above the playing surface rule is going to work more like the out of bounds rule. It will be incumbent on the TD to declare two meters o.b. just like we do with ponds, roads, yellow rope lines and the rock gardens in Bill's front yard. Water currently is in bounds; you can play it where it lies, unless the TD says otherwise. The two meter rule will work like that.

i'll call this idiotic because i cant spell asinine. i hope all TDs will state the following at all events: "above 2 meters is OB. in the water is OB. play smart, play good golf".

on the other hand, i predict a surge of sandalwearing. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Pretty easy to invoke the 2m penalty when there aren't too many trees :D

Nick, the Board looked at our proposals and liked some of the concepts. With the short time frame and Chap just coming on board, they felt it was too much to do at this point for next year. I suggested the Pros playing in Am option as an easy to implement extension and modification of the Pro 2 initiative, and Brakel suggested promoting the low entry fee, trophy only option to other TDs since he'd had some success with that option. Members will likely be surveyed mid-2005 on going farther along the lines of our proposals.

i'll call this idiotic because i cant spell asinine. i hope all TDs will state the following at all events: "above 2 meters is OB. in the water is OB. play smart, play good golf".




The water thing i agree with but the 2 meter rule is just idiotic in itself. DOWN WITH THE 2 Meter Rule :D

Nick, the Board looked at our proposals and liked some of the concepts. With the short time frame and Chap just coming on board, they felt it was too much to do at this point for next year. I suggested the Pros playing in Am option as an easy to implement extension and modification of the Pro 2 initiative, and Brakel suggested promoting the low entry fee, trophy only option to other TDs since he'd had some success with that option. Members will likely be surveyed mid-2005 on going farther along the lines of our proposals.



Chuck,

I do agree with you that I should wait until the final plan before passing judgement. But you also wrote in another thread:


The changes for next year will make it less painful to turn pro since you'll always have the option to occasionally play Am until your rating exceeds 954.



Which leads me to believe that this plan is already finalized and will be enacted next year. I still question whether the ramifications of this plan have been thought out thoroughly, and wonder if there would be benefit to discussing future proposed competitive structure changes before they are enacted.

The head of the Competition Committee, John Chapman, is in charge of the next steps which I assume may involve the Committee. Then, the plan still needs to be approved by the Board. So, no final plan has been put into action yet.

Any idea as to the content of what they are discussing Chuck? "Rumor has it" type of stuff...

I still question whether the ramifications of this plan have been thought out thoroughly, and wonder if there would be benefit to discussing future proposed competitive structure changes before they are enacted.



Before they can analyze a competitive structure, they probably need an idea of what they want to achieve. I bet the answers to your questions are "kind of" and "Why?"

Sorry, not intended to be a slam on the BOD, but from my neck of the woods, the decline/decay is obvious. Is anyone up there aware? or the least bit interested?

I still question whether the ramifications of this plan have been thought out thoroughly, and wonder if there would be benefit to discussing future proposed competitive structure changes before they are enacted.

Before they can analyze a competitive structure, they probably need an idea of what they want to achieve. I bet the answers to your questions are "kind of" and "Why?"

Sorry, not intended to be a slam on the BOD, but from my neck of the woods, the decline/decay is obvious. Is anyone up there aware? or the least bit interested?

No member of the Board can speak for the Board except for Terry when we let him. We are not a Borg subcollective that acts as a single mind with seven bodies.

We were looking at Nick's and Chuck's respective proposals for 2005.

I ran an R-tier with Jon and Brett. I like the R-tier concept that players compete against similarly rated players, regardless of age or gender. The concepts which have been adopted for next year allow a TD to advertise in advance that he is not going to offer certain divisions and that leaves him with something that closely resembles an R-tier. The few other TDs who like the R-tier concept can do something like this if they want to. I have a concept that generates the ultimate merger between the standard and r-tier formats, but it was too late to be tossing something new out there.

When we ran that R-tier I did not like the concept of the TD not having any idea where he stood on the event until the final scores came in. There is a big difference in the bottom line if Silver is won mostly by amateurs or pros, and that difference impacts what we can do with CTPs and added value. So if pros want to play down, I think they should play down as a "what-we-call-amateur" rather than as a pro taking cash in a mostly amateur division.

I like the trophy-only entry fee concept. But I don't think we need anymore parallel divisions. Any TD who likes the trophy-only concept, or any TD who is afraid of the idea but is aware that our payout format is illegal in his state, should be free to offer that. The thing is, they are already free to offer that. I am not the only one who offered a trophy-only option or who ran a trophy-only event in 2004. If there is a need for trophy-only options or trophy-only events, the marketplace will step in.

I have never understood why we need a wall of separation between those who play for cash and those who play for what they are immediately going to advertise for sale (http://discontinuum.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=1401&st=0) on the internet for cash. Hey, I remember when those were my discs. :D

I think more "bagging" amateurs would move up if the decision was not irrevocable. And more pros would play, period, if they could play where their declining rating has put them. Allowing free movement between pro and am divisions is as logical as allowing free movement between advanced and intermediate. That was not such a radical concept when it was implemented and neither will this, provided it is implemented appropriately.

I agree it would be better to vette controversial ideas with the membership before voting on them. It is seems more consistent with our Constitutional obligation to conduct our affairs in the open. I think I'm in the minority on this. I like the unseemly rough edges of open democratic processes. I think some of our board members are more French in this respect.

That's what I think, but I'm just one vote, one voice. The Board does not think anything. We are not Borg. Resistance is not futile. It often makes us duck and run. :D

What of the Pros playing for 60% cash in AM divisions ?

would a pro be allowed to play am worlds , sounds pretty **** unfair. lower entry fees please. $60+ entry fees for ams is silly!!! :D

Bruce,

Love the Trek allusions.

I think the new moves are good ones for a bunch of reasons already discussed on the board and hopefully by the Board.

Theo's avatar does look a little like Jean Luc. ;)

Regards,
Nick

PS You are long over due for a bored mess PITM. :D

Good points from your point of view but I disagree if I a 53 year old 929 player have more opportunities to cross divisions and play with player's of similar ability I think it is a good thing. I really have it OK now because I can play Grandmasters in the big events and Masters (both pro) in other events. But if I was a 929 30 year old that was pro I would be in trouble. I still aspire to raise my rating with 950 or higher a possibility, but until then the option of playing am in certain tournaments works for me. I guess the 955, and 960's of the world would have it tough .....
(sorry about the .... ending someone finish this up for me.)

Eliminating the 2m rule would be great. The bottom line is that it comes down to luck when dealing with trees. 90% of the baskets in our sport have a tree within 30 feet. If four players all throw great shots, each of them hitting the tree in front of the basket and it just so happens that one guy sticks above 2m that this guy should be penalized for it. I don't think so. This takes away from the skill factor of playing.

Pros playing in the Adv division is weak. When I decided to go pro I renewed as a pro so that I wouldn't have the option of playing Adv again. A lot of the players renew as Adv and play in both divisions the next year. This is a mistake because they continue to have success in Adv while they strugle in open. They never make the comitment and therefore never get the rewards of fighting it out. I learned more in my first year of pro then I did my in two years of Am.

While the chatter on Pros playing in Am will be focused on those sliding over to occasionally play Advanced, the real beneficiaries and primary focus of this rule change is for older pros and women pros, many who will occasionally play in Intermediate or even Rec. World Legend Champ Ted Williams has a division to play in pretty much once per year at Worlds that might get to 6 players. He can now play in Rec or Int and perhaps have the largest division he's ever entered of people at his skill level.

Outside of NT and A tiers, Pro Women rarely have a division with more than 2 or 3 that is truly competitive. There are many Pro women with ratings under 900 who were 'forced' into pro because they were 50 points better than other women in their area. But they are not competitive at the A-tier level. This new option will allow them to play in perhaps the largest division of similarly skilled Int. Am players they have had the chance to enter.

I'm glad to hear about your success story about going Pro.

What happens when those Advanced players make the jump to Pro & their skill level does not progress? They are then stuck in a division they cannot compete in & quit playing sanctioned tournies. I wish I had more background information but i'd guess that there are many players that used to play a lot of Advanced tournaments, turned Pro, could not compete, then quit playing tournaments because they dontated every week.

If they didn't cash then they can petition to move back down. Making it easier for players to move back forth is only going to make the problem worse. I don't have a problem with players staying in Adv in their skills aren't good enough for open.

The bulk of the pro division is actually "Advanced" Advanced players. Only the very top 'pros' come close to a definition of pros in other sports where more than half of their income is based on their performance in disc golf. And pros with signature discs net more from that than they do from playing. It makes no sense to provide a barrier beyond a rating break for movement between what we call Pro and Advanced at this point in our development. If/when real money comes in, we can have a real break.

The bulk of the pro division is actually "Advanced" Advanced players. Only the very top 'pros' come close to a definition of pros in other sports where more than half of their income is based on their performance in disc golf. And pros with signature discs net more from that than they do from playing. It makes no sense to provide a barrier beyond a rating break for movement between what we call Pro and Advanced at this point in our development. If/when real money comes in, we can have a real break.



I'm not sure I am comfortable with this. What would make me completely at ease with it is if "What We Currently Call" Amateur Class was renamed "Prize Class" or just absorbed into the Pro Class of protected divisions.

At some point our sport is going to need a true "Amateur Classificiation". I know that they have proven invaluable in other sports... ;)

I just want to comment that I'm all for proposed competitive structure changes. I'm intrigued by the idea of removing the somewhat meaningless and arbitrary Pro/Am barrier, because less than 1% of us are true professionals as in the commonly defined sense of the word. I'm all for anything that increases player retention in our sport.

I guess my only point is that we here on the message board continually float ideas off each other all day long, all week, all year. I am somewhat taken aback that a new competitive structure change can just materialize out of nowhere and be agreed to, without taking advantage of the valuable resource we have here. While it sounds like this proposal has plenty of merit, I really think that its ramifications should be thought out long and hard before enactment.

Nick, just for you I should have phrased it, "The Advanced players are really 'semi-pro' pros" /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Jeff, there has been a huge discussion here regarding elements of competition changes so don't think that hasn't helped spur the need for change and what those changes might mean. Several Board members have read these threads regularly to understand the issues involved. The one shift that will become more evident as future plans unfold is Board intiatives and support will become a little less top pro and a little more amateur oriented than it has been in the past few years.

If they didn't cash then they can petition to move back down. Making it easier for players to move back forth is only going to make the problem worse. I don't have a problem with players staying in Adv in their skills aren't good enough for open.

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is that is being made worse. From my perspective the problem is retaining players who move up, can't cut it, and then quit.

Allowing these players to play advanced takes nothing away from you or the pro purse. For every 929 pro who decides to move down there will probably be a 949 advanced player testing the waters in pro. By making it easy to move down we have also made it easy to move up.

If there is a problem that is made worse by this rule, we'll change the rule when the problem is made worse. The only "problem" I see being made worse is that intermediates will find it harder to compete in Advanced if the division has more top. They, of course, could play intermediate.

Every time I've played Silver or Pro 2 this year I've beaten pros. I don't think I'm bagging in Advanced with a 930-something rating. This rule is for those pros, and for your top amateurs who are not ready to make an irrevocable decision to move into the pro ranks, but would like to test the waters.

don't think I'm bagging in Advanced with a 930-something rating.



DUCK!

Until there is a reason for protecting Advanced Players from Similarly Skilled Pros the entire Advanced Division will be generally viewed as "Sandbaggers".

Shame really. What protects them is what makes them the brunt of ill-will.

On the bright side the new competitive structure should relieve some of this...

If they want to test the waters then renew as advanced and play in pro tournaments. That way you can still play advanced, as long as you don't accept cash. Once you accept cash you can no longer play Adv, unless you petition the PDGA and they agree.

If I was an adv player and someone who played pro moved back down to advanced for a tournament just because a few players entered in pro that he didn't think he could beat, i would be ******. I think this will cause adv players to drop back to intermediate (as long as their rating allows it). We already see this happening in the three Am divisions right now. One Adv player drops to Int and then three Int players drop to Rec.

Again if you want to test the pro waters then play pro tournaments while registered Adv. If you cash and accept, then you are Pro. If you cash and don't accept, then you are still Adv.

If I was an adv player and someone who played pro moved back down to advanced for a tournament just because a few players entered in pro that he didn't think he could beat, i would be ******. I think this will cause adv players to drop back to intermediate (as long as their rating allows it). We already see this happening in the three Am divisions right now. One Adv player drops to Int and then three Int players drop to Rec.



And this is a problem how? Players playing where their rating allows and competing against other players with similar ratings/skill-level. Isn't that the whole idea of using ratings to define divisions?

What exactly would **** you off as that advanced player who has to play against those pros who are allowed to move down? Obviously, it ain't Barry Schultz moving down to play with you, it's more likely going to be a player rated in the 930-950 range. And how would a 940-rated pro be any different than a 940-rated am to compete against? Does that word pro carry some kind of mystical power that makes his putts go in more often?

I'd really like to read and hear what some of these "ramifications" are that concern some of the posters on this thread. To me, this new structure proposal is institutionalizing the ratings-based format, just without the colorful names for the divisions. I can't say that's a bad thing.

--Josh

If an Advanced player can drop down to Intermediate, he/she is not an Advanced player. They are playing up by their own choice.

I think this will cause adv players to drop back to intermediate (as long as their rating allows it).



I don't see a problem with players playing in a division where their rating indicates they should play. If their rating allows them to play intermediate, then they aren't advanced players, they're intermediate.

I think this will cause adv players to drop back to intermediate (as long as their rating allows it).



I don't see a problem with players playing in a division where their rating indicates they should play. If their rating allows them to play intermediate, then they aren't advanced players, they're intermediate.



WORD

I think that every tournament should just have a Pro 2 division. That would solve the problem of the lesser rated pros right there. I dont think that if you excepted cash at a tournament and turned pro you should be able to move down and play advanced. If that is they case then what is stoping me from playing and cashing and accepting at C and maybe B tiers then when i go play the A Tiers i enter in advanced so that i can cash there too??? There is no risk in turning PRO if that is the case. Even though it would be nice it just doesnt seem very fair.

I think if you turn pro and it wasnt the right time then thats too bad. You shouldnt have accepted cash if you didnt think you were going to be able to improve to the point where you could compete. That or stop playing sanctioned tournaments for a while and try to get back your am status. Other then those 2 options i dont think pros should be able to move down and play with ams. Thats just my opinion.

Pros will not be moving down, just sideways, to play with their semi pro (Advanced) comrades with the same rating.

I remember the discussions that we had in the original thread about the competitive structure. I'm glad to hear that some good came out of it and that our opinions were listened too. That goes to show that PDGA members can change the way the PDGA works and not just the BOD. I for one love this idea. I brought it up in the original thread. I just need some clarification. Can a person that has accepted cash still move back down to Advanced? I think they should be able to but a safety net of some type needs to be in place. Something like if you cash and accept at a 'B' tier, then you can't move back down during that calendar year. Or if you accept at 2 'C' tiers, you can't move back down.

I think if you turn pro and it wasnt the right time then thats too bad. You shouldnt have accepted cash if you didnt think you were going to be able to improve to the point where you could compete. That or stop playing sanctioned tournaments for a while and try to get back your am status. Other then those 2 options i dont think pros should be able to move down and play with ams. Thats just my opinion.

[/QUOTE]


Wouldn't that be totally against the PDGA philosphy. Why would you want someone quitting & not playing PDGA Events? Steve, In the near future you will have to make this decision. I hope your own words don't come back to haunt you.

If an Advanced player can drop down to Intermediate, he/she is not an Advanced player. They are playing up by their own choice.



Exactly, same for pro. THEY ARE PLAYING UP BY THEIR OWN CHOICE.

Once ratings are updated at real time then this could work. I know people who have rated up to 980, but don't get to play that much for a year or two and when they started playing again were rated around 940. So you are saying these players (once top local pros) can play Advanced now. This is BS. The system we have now between Pros and Adv is fine the way it is.

Maybe David Duvall should be able to play in Amauter Ball Golf tournaments because he hasn't played well lately.

Their is no other sport in the world that lets you accept cash and then drop down and play in Amateur tournaments.

Well said cbdiscpimp

Deciding to go pro is a big decision and should stay that way. Not having a real amateur class will hurt our sport in the future.

I'd really like to read and hear what some of these "ramifications" are that concern some of the posters on this thread. To me, this new structure proposal is institutionalizing the ratings-based format, just without the colorful names for the divisions. I can't say that's a bad thing.

--Josh



Josh,

In case this is directed at me, my answer is that I think we haven't had the opportunity to think about these implications and come up with them yet! Again, Lord knows there are enough people around here who have the time and energy to give serious thought to these ramifications. Furthermore, Nick and others have actually come up with Adobe Acrobat presentations that outline proposed competitive structure changes; were they considered? Frankly, that board members supposedly read these discussions here and then come up with a new system that will be enacted shortly, without any discussion, bothers me.

All I'm saying is that these ideas need to be kicked around. Maybe there will be no ramifications. But what if there is a mass exodus of Pros who return to amateur play, decimating the Open divisions? What if that in turn causes a ripple effect of amateur players moving down divisions? (which, as you pointed out, may not be a bad thing) But what if there are other effects that nobody has even thought of yet? All I'm asking for is the opportunity to discuss these changes, or proof that the Competition Committee has "done their homework" themselves. Among other things, the overwhelming failure last year of the idea to restrict high-caliber golfers from smaller tiered tournaments leads me to believe that isn't always the case, and that these discussions are necessary.

Essentially, our competitive structure is the backbone of the PDGA and any proposed changes need to be tread cautiously!

Good point Jeff. It seems that sometimes we change things just to change them.

Their is no other sport in the world that lets you accept cash and then drop down and play in Amateur tournaments.



And there is also no other sport in the world that lets you accept gads of merchandise week after week while playing AM. You're comparing apples and oranges. Our AMs are paid out in cash in the form of plastic. Not really ams.

Who cares what they do with their winnings. In ball golf am players win a club or someballs. Do you think they don't sell the club if they don't need it. Not all Ams sell their plastic.

I don't care what they do with their winnings, I'm only saying that they aren't truly ams. At least as defined in the dictionary. We pay our ams EXACTLY the same as our pros, actually better, except the currency is different. It's merely a protected pro division that gets penalized (if you can call it that) by not receiving cash.

Jeff,

What if your aunt had a pair?

We could, and did just about, play "What ifs" til dooms day, at some point we just need to step up and see "What is" the affect of altering the system, particularly when there are clear indications that it will better serve our sport and membership.

This message board, though entertaining, is not a good place for serious discussions let alone serious decisions to be made. If any good at all comes from any of it we should just count our blessings.

Regards,
Nick

. I dont think that if you excepted cash at a tournament and turned pro you should be able to move down and play advanced. If that is they case then what is stoping me from playing and cashing and accepting at C and maybe B tiers then when i go play the A Tiers i enter in advanced so that i can cash there too??? There is no risk in turning PRO if that is the case.

Nothing would stop you from cashing in pro at C-tiers and then playing Advanced at A-tiers other than your rating. That is the whole point of this change. You might be disqualified from playing Am Worlds or Am Nationals after taking cash, depending on the specific wording of the rule. Otherwise there would be open movement from pro to am where allowed by your rating. Why does there need to be risk in turning pro? You are merely choosing to play for cash rather than what you will sell for cash.
All I'm saying is that these ideas need to be kicked around. Maybe there will be no ramifications. But what if there is a mass exodus of Pros who return to amateur play, decimating the Open divisions? What if that in turn causes a ripple effect of amateur players moving down divisions? (which, as you pointed out, may not be a bad thing) But what if there are other effects that nobody has even thought of yet? All I'm asking for is the opportunity to discuss these changes, or proof that the Competition Committee has "done their homework" themselves. Among other things, the overwhelming failure last year of the idea to restrict high-caliber golfers from smaller tiered tournaments leads me to believe that isn't always the case, and that these discussions are necessary

What if there is a mass exodus of low rated pros from the pro divisions and intermediates from the advanced division? We have kicked the ideas around for some time. Now we will see what if. I don't see any disaster that could come of this that would end disc golf as we have known it. If this format does not work well for our TDs and members, that is why we are putting it on paper for now and waiting a bit before ordering it carved on granite tablets. I think this board is committed to the idea though, and would not change the format in a year or two in a way that would screw a bunch of advanced amateurs who did take some pro cash.

I would look at this decision as a giant philosophical win for those who think playing for a $300 basket is philosophically no different from playing for $250 in cash. Beyond that, it will only impact a small slice of pros who ought to be allowed to move down and a small slice of ams who are almost ready to move up. It will be a benefit to the sole pro woman or pro senior who otherwise might not have a division that day.

It is MY division that these pros can move down to. I say, "Bring it!"

www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)
definition #2 - Sports. An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a competition.

Since discs aren't considered currency in any country I guess they meet the requirements for Amateurs.

Pretty much ALL other amature tournaments you win gift certificates or prizes or something along those lines. In amature ball golf you can get up to 500 dollars in a gift certificate which is basically like the funny money we win at tournaments to spend in the course pro shop. Believe me these ams sell what they get and they get ALOT more money for clubs and balls then we do for DISCS. 1 Club could sell for 400 bucks i would have to sell 40 discs to make 400 bucks.

In reply to Bretts comment about me having to make the decision about movin up to OPEN. Your right i will have to make that decision but the words cannot haunt me because if i dont think i will be able to compete then i wont move up. I would test the waters first and play and decline cash many times before i actually made the decision to turn pro because anyone can play hot once and cash but its doing it on a regular basis that matters. If i play in 15 pro tournaments and only cash in 2-5 of them then its not time to turn pro. If i cash in 8 -10 of them then that would show me i have the abiity to compete on a regular basis and it wasnt just a fluke that i shot 3 hot rounds and made cash playing OPEN. If this change goes into affect though i wont have to make that decision at all i will just play OPEN at all the B and C Tiers and Advanced in all the Super Tours and A Tiers that i attend. Doesnt really sound right to me but hey if the system allows it why not. Its pretty much like Hammock playing in the master division. The system allows him to clean up time an time again so if they system is going to let me win cash at small tournaments and play Advanced at big ones then why not do that till i think i can cash at the big ones in OPEN.

I still dont think its fair to let a PRO that has accepted cash at ANY sanctioned event to play with the ams. They made the decision to accept cash and become a proffesional. If it was a bad decision then like i said before that TOO BAD you should have put more thought into it before you accepted cash and became a PROFESSIONAL.. Plain and simple. In life sometimes you make bad decisions and you should have to deal with them unless there is some EXTRAORDINARY circumstances. Like say you shatter the wrist in your throwing arm or you get your throwing are bitten off by a shark or you break or lose one of your legs. Then maybe you could move back down to a lower division but i still think you should have to petition to do so. Thats just the way it is.

Nick, I'm not saying that the discussion board should EVER be a decision maker. And of course the last thing I want is to talk endlessly and never make a change.

<font color="red"> But at least give the PDGA membership an opportunity to weigh all the merits of a proposed system and provide feedback/opportunities for improvement. These changes are coming out of left field!
</font>

Nick, I'm not saying that the discussion board should EVER be a decision maker. And of course the last thing I want is to talk endlessly and never make a change.

<font color="red"> But at least give the PDGA membership an opportunity to weigh all the merits of a proposed system and provide feedback/opportunities for improvement. These changes are coming out of left field!
</font>



You got me Jeff. I agree with that, unfortunately they do not, and really, as I see it, I can not fault them for what I myself am unwilling to do.

At least we have Bruce to fill us in on what one BOD member's thoughts are.

(Having some admin experience in DG I can understand the need to move on certain things without making it into a giant public circus, I'm not sure if this is one of those things though.)

Why does there need to be risk in turning pro?



It makes being a Pro that much less of an accomplishment if there is no risk. When you are deciding to turn Pro you should have the skills needed to compete at that level. If you turn PRO and cant hack it there should be no just going back to being an AM unless you petition and follow the guidelines needed to do so. Even though it would prolly benefit me as an individual to play for cash in B and C tiers and then play all the A Tiers and SuperTours as an Advanced Amature i just dont think that its very fair. If you want to play for cash then become a Pro and play for cash but dont just say hey ill play pro and accept cash and then if i suck later ill just move back down. I think it takes away from the title of being a PRO. Again thats just my opinion. If thats going to be the case then why dont we just have tournaments with the divisions called CASH and Prizes and ANYONE can enter ANY DIVISION.

What's the point? Do you Adv players ever look at the Pro scores and see how many Pro's you would have beat?

It doesn't mean that the big bad pros will be coming down to Advanced to whip up on the little amateurs, it means that low rated pro players (probably on the decline in ratings) will be coming down to play with up and coming Advanced players (probably playing in advance of their ratings) and getting their butts spanked more often than not.

Especially if the ratings requirements for the pros are lower than the ratings requirements for the Ams in the same division.

I will wait and see the wording before I get too upset. Anything that gets players playing where their rating says they belong is probably a good thing.

Anything that gets players playing where their rating says they belong is probably a good thing.



So a 1035 rated pro playing with a 1000 rated amateur in Advanced would be a good thing?

Why would the standard for pro ratings be any different than for am ratings? Would that be fair?

Personally I hope never to play in any skill protected divisions again. I want to play in Masters, then Grand Masters, and so on. But if I ever went to an event and there was no one else in my division, then I would be very thankful for skill based divisions so that I'd have some folks to compete against.

The Amateur/Pro aspect of this is moot.

A difference of maybe 5-10 points in the divisions to offset the Pros more consistent play. It looks good, and carries almost no real weight in determining the outcome.

�I think it takes away from the title of being a PRO.�

Any hack can send in $50 and call them selves a disc golf pro. Perhaps this is a step in the right direction to make you EARN that distinction. When there is a lot of added cash one day (yes this could actually happen), you may have to �Qualify� to play for that money.

Right now IMO calling your self a disc golf pro really means very little if you don�t have the game to back it up� I say lets see how it works and move on from there. I am impressed that the PDGA is tacking steps to make the game better. If this is not the right step, they will try something else. I have two people in particular that can play in events I run now that really did not have a place to play before this change. They will now have a place to work on their game, make improvements and play against like competition. Sounds like a move in the right direction to me!

I just do not see a mass exodus to the AM divisions for all these lower rated pros. The ones that have no chance to cash EVER will likely consider the move though. I think that would be the RIGHT thing for them to do. You can send in cash to become a sponsor, no need to be FORCED to be a donator in your division when you have no chance for various reasons.

A difference of maybe 5-10 points in the divisions to offset the Pros more consistent play. It looks good, and carries almost no real weight in determining the outcome.



Is that statistically verifiable? And after a few years of this system will it remain valid?

Nick, I'm not saying that the discussion board should EVER be a decision maker. And of course the last thing I want is to talk endlessly and never make a change.

<font color="red"> But at least give the PDGA membership an opportunity to weigh all the merits of a proposed system and provide feedback/opportunities for improvement. These changes are coming out of left field!
</font>



These decisions are definitely not coming out of left field. Between our Executive Director and some of the board members that are in their second terms (me, Terry Calhoun, Steve Wertz) and Chuck Kennedy, who has been at almost every board summit I've attended, these topics have been discussed many times over the last few years. I was the one responsible for pushing the ratings system and getting it built in to our amateur competitive system, and I regularly follow the discussions going on here about the pros and cons of various systems and alternatives.

We don't have any private forums for discussion of these topics with current members, and we never have had any (and using a completely public forum wouldn't be appropriate). What we do try to do to get input from the membership at large is to send out periodic surveys. We also communicate, via private mailing lists, to our various committees, state coordinators, etc. and get feedback on certain topics during our decision-making process (although because of the timing of meetings, deadlines, etc., we aren't always able to do it). Note that our constitution doesn't require us to do this - we do it so we can make the best possible decisions.

If you don't approve of the PDGA's decision-making process with regards to various issues, including rules, the competition system, discipline, etc., then it's up to you to change it. Feel free to run for the board and change the constitution (we're about to do a major rewrite, by the way, which you will be voting on next year). If you don't want to run for the board, then find some candidates who support your views on how decisions should be made.

-Theo Pozzy
PDGA Commissioner

Perhaps this is a step in the right direction to make you EARN that distinction.



How is this a step in the right direction to make you EARN that distinction???????????????????


The problem is not with the Pro Divisions. The problem lies in the Am Divisions. But now we are going to let a sub 950 pro player play in Adv so he can get beat by 980 rated Adv player. Why can't a 980 rated Pro player drop down and play against that same 980 Adv player? According to you all they are at the same level.

The reason is because that player decided to play pro. Nobody pushed him into the pro division.

Bruce said earlier that if this goes into affect and i play and cash in Pro then play advanced i may not be able to play in Am Wolrds or Am Nationals. That doesnt make sence to me at all. Are you going to be able to play in SOME am tournaments if you have cashed in Pro. If they are going to say pros can play in Am Division how can they Exclude them from ANY am tournaments. And he also said something about your rating as a Am. I hope that this new system doesnt have a cap on Advanced making a high rated Advanced player play Pro. Now that I DONT AGREE WITH AT ALL. You cannot FORCE anyone to become a professional in ANY sport. That just isnt fair period.

I wont come out and say this wont work untill i see it all written up on paper and see what the specifics of it are but from what i have heard right now i dont think its going to work very well :confused: but i reserve the right to change my opinion when i see it on paper.

John,

Do you think this will have any effect on Majors, NTs or Super Tours Open turn out?

Chuck,

Can a 972 Pro Master Play in Advanced? ;)

I think once some of the restrictions on free travel between divisions are lifted and the disc golf world doesn't come to an end, the idea that players can play pro or am at any given tournament will be seen similar to the option now to play in an age protected divsion or an open division. They are just choices--there will be some casual ribbing in some circles, but people will accept it just the same. IMHO, of course.

In the Am divisions, the difference of one putt per round is not something that a rating will reveal. If you are having good rounds, you are playing well above your rating, if you are not playing up to your rating.

If it was statistically telling, your round by round ratings would never vary by more than 10 points. Mine generally vary by at least 50 points in a single event.

If I play at the upper end of my range for most of an event, I will do very well.

It all comes down to who plays the best for the most holes on any given weekend. If you are playing within the proper division, everyone else's skill level is within 5 strokes per round on average. If you can play 5-8 strokes above your rating for the tournament, you will do well.

Bruce said earlier that if this goes into affect and i play and cash in Pro then play advanced i may not be able to play in Am Wolrds or Am Nationals. That doesnt make sence to me at all. Are you going to be able to play in SOME am tournaments if you have cashed in Pro. If they are going to say pros can play in Am Division how can they Exclude them from ANY am tournaments. And he also said something about your rating as a Am. I hope that this new system doesnt have a cap on Advanced making a high rated Advanced player play Pro. Now that I DONT AGREE WITH AT ALL. You cannot FORCE anyone to become a professional in ANY sport. That just isnt fair period.

I wont come out and say this wont work untill i see it all written up on paper and see what the specifics of it are but from what i have heard right now i dont think its going to work very well :confused: but i reserve the right to change my opinion when i see it on paper.



That argument only works if we actually had an true amateur division now.

WHOOPS!!! I was channeling Nick there for a second. Sorry about that! :D

"Nobody pushed him into the pro division"

Just because you were not "forced" up does not mean there are not many many others who were.

Just because your skills are on the way up and you are young, does not mean others are on the way down and getting old...

Why not have a place for all these players????

Remember, this does not JUST address pros. This specifically helps the non-MPO "small" divisions.

In the Am divisions, the difference of one putt per round is not something that a rating will reveal. If you are having good rounds, you are playing well above your rating, if you are not playing up to your rating.

If it was statistically telling, your round by round ratings would never vary by more than 10 points. Mine generally vary by at least 50 points in a single event.

If I play at the upper end of my range for most of an event, I will do very well.

It all comes down to who plays the best for the most holes on any given weekend. If you are playing within the proper division, everyone else's skill level is within 5 strokes per round on average. If you can play 5-8 strokes above your rating for the tournament, you will do well.



Perhaps Event Ratings are actually more telling than Round Ratings concerning this issue. But I seriously doubt whether there is a difference of note between the scoring trends of Pros vs WWCC Ams.

How can anyone be forced up? They can't.

If they played in a tournament where the winner won his/her pro card and they didn't want to move up, then they shouldn't have played in the tournament or shouldn't have won.

I need examples....

There is a division. It's called masters. If someone thinks the age limit needs to be changed then that is another issue, but opening up the Am division is not the answer.

Hey Daniel, are you coming from any personal point of view, or just arguing the point in general.

This format is already in effect in PDGA sanctioned R-Tier events and has been for a while. There hasn't been any explosions about Pros and AMs playing together in the same rating levels in R-Tiers. Why is it such a big deal to give it a try here ?

Point in general. I just don't feel that it is fair to the Adv players that Pro players will have the ability to drop back down with out formally petitioning the PDGA or allowing Adv players to cash in pro and still play adv.

Theo,

Thank you for your prompt response.

Though I agree with all your points, I still maintain that the idea of allowing Professionals to compete in amateur divisions is something entirely new and foreign. If my "left field" comment was inappropriate because I am "out of the loop," then I apologize. Furthermore, the jury is still out as to whether this change is radical, a non-issue, or something in between. But while this topic may have received attention, discussion and feedback in various other forums, it still seems strange to me that the pros and cons as it relates specifically to allowing pros to compete in amateur divisions, to my knowledge, have not been broached. I still contend that there is merit in having these discussions in order that the BOD can truly "make the best possible decisions."

Does anyone know the pro rating cut off for playing down?

Does anyone know the pro rating cut off for playing down?

No. Not yet.

It looks like there would be no reason for Advanced players to turn down cash in Pro except to retain elibility for Majors. As long as their rating allows them to play Advanced, then they can play where they wish. Only those players that are above the rating limit for Pros to play down are restricted to not accepting cash in Open.

Anyone have a guess??? If 915 is still the Advanced cut off, how about 940 for pros dropping down?

If they played in a tournament where the winner won his/her pro card and they didn't want to move up, then they shouldn't have played in the tournament or shouldn't have won.




Thats not true. They can decline the prize and remain an amature. JJ CASHED in USDGC for god sakes and he denied the cash so he would WIN Am Worlds. He even won a pro tournament and declined so your CANT force anyone to move up that doesnt want to.

I think it would be great to let the Open Women or the Advanced Women or the Master or whoever its is that wouldnt have a division play in the division where their rating puts them but to let OPEN players move down into the Am Divisions for no other reason then they turned Pro before they should have is just NOT a very good idea.

Pros of proposed change:
1. Gives a place for profesional women, masters and seniors who otherwise wouldn't have a division a chance to compete competitivly against players of the same skill level.
2. It may attract players who moved up to quickly back onto the tournament sceen by allowing them to return to the amateur ranks.
3. It may encourage players to play according to their rating thus making each division more competive from top to bottom.
4. (Plays off of 3) It may create a need to create a true recreational division (trophy only - true ams) due to players competing according to their ratings.

Cons to proposed change:
1. ???

I can't come up with any cons, someone fill them in.

Using the logic that everyone should play where they can cash/compete, why not take the average rating needed to cash at each tour level and allow everyone below that rating to drop to a lower level?

For example, at NTs you figure the average last cash rating. Anyone below that rating can play advanced at NT events.

...but to let OPEN players move down into the Am Divisions for no other reason then they turned Pro before they should have is just NOT a very good idea.



Why? How does this change the game that we play? How is this different from the R tier that I helped run this year? This isn't that big of a difference from what we are already doing. It is not an earth shaking change.

If I had to guess, my guess would be that it will encourage more people to play up (because if they might win, they could keep the cash) on occasion than it will promote people to play down. And the people that play down will probably be people who wouldn't have played otherwise.

Point in general. I just don't feel that it is fair to the Adv players that Pro players will have the ability to drop back down with out formally petitioning the PDGA or allowing Adv players to cash in pro and still play adv.



On the contrary, I don't think it's unfair to Adv. players. Those people "playing down" would be in the same skillset, so you're effectively broadening the field and the competition.

Cons to proposed change:
1. ???

I can't come up with any cons, someone fill them in. v



Even as a strong supporter of this plan I must admit that there surely will be some "cons", but they will only serve to be points for further development of solutions and unlikely to amount to any significant challenge to our sports continued growth and prosperity.

Wow - I'm away from the board for a week and 1/2 and I come back to lower rated Pro's being allowed to play back down in Adv :eek: I love it! I love hearing we are going to try something new.

We are still a very young sport and this is the time to try out different things. I am in favor of anything that lets simarly rated players play together. I am a 930 rated Adv player and I welcome some of the guys in pro to come back down.

Some have mentioned that this may bring some of the old donating pro's back out to tourneys and I agree, but I also think it will bring out some of the Adv guys that can't make the commitment to play pro and didn't feel right playing Adv anymore because all the similarly rated players had moved up to donate. It would be nice to see the Adv field full of Adv rated players.

To be consistent with current Am breaks, the likely cutoff will be 955 which is 40 points above the 915 for Adv/Int which is 40 points above 875 for the Int/Rec break. No 'Advanced' Advanced will be playing 'down', only sideways so just get that downer phrase out of this discussion. As pointed out, a 950 Am on the rise is probably underrated and a 950 pro, especially Master or older is potentially overrated.

As far as negative consequences, it's likely that Master Pro fields will go down, especially at lower tiers and GM Pro may disappear except at Majors. As a 942 MPG, I'll probably lean toward playing Advanced rather than with the few MPG that might come out except maybe for State titles and Pro only events. Open fields may be lower in some areas and higher in others depending on whether the Master Pros either play Open or sit out. Once Advanced players get more comfortable with the fluidity of this option, I believe more will take the plunge into Open, and Open is likely to benefit in the long run.

cbdiscpimp - I understand what you are saying. I am talking about an annual tournament in our area called Your Last Amateur Tournament in which the winner in each Am division receives his/her card for the next division up. They know about it up front yet a few times the winner has complained saying he/she didn't want to move up. My sugestion was if you don't want to move up then don't play in the tournament.

Is this new structure something the membership will be able to vote on?

Is this new structure something the membership will be able to vote on?


Do you really want 2.3% of the membership making that decision? I'd rather have the BOD make this decision because I believe they will at least research it and think about it before voting. Sure, 2.3% elect the BOD... :)

Their is no other sport in the world that lets you accept cash and then drop down and play in Amateur tournaments.





Hardly an accurate statement. For example, bowling allows great flexibility in this regard. Weekly sanctioned leagues award cash prizes based on performance during the season. There are all kinds of "amateur" tournaments which award cash - including statewide championship tourneys - without requiring recipients to give up their status as non-professionals. Players of a certain status (touring card? I'm too busy to check just now) are not allowed to bowl in such "amateur" events, but bowlers don't define the first dollar received in the sport as emblematic of a player being a Professional.

On another topic, one complaint I've heard from a few players who have tried to get their "am" status back, is that the PDGA has been very reluctant to reclassify folks. Maybe my impressions are inaccurate, but such a process should be easier now since Ratings have been developed.

Joe

Their is no other sport in the world that lets you accept cash and then drop down and play in Amateur tournaments.





Hardly an accurate statement. For example, bowling allows great flexibility in this regard. Weekly sanctioned leagues award cash prizes based on performance during the season. There are all kinds of "amateur" tournaments which award cash - including statewide championship tourneys - without requiring recipients to give up their status as non-professionals. Players of a certain status (touring card? I'm too busy to check just now) are not allowed to bowl in such "amateur" events, but bowlers don't define the first dollar received in the sport as emblematic of a player being a Professional.

On another topic, one complaint I've heard from a few players who have tried to get their "am" status back, is that the PDGA has been very reluctant to reclassify folks. Maybe my impressions are inaccurate, but such a process should be easier now since Ratings have been developed.

Joe

...but to let OPEN players move down into the Am Divisions for no other reason then they turned Pro before they should have is just NOT a very good idea.



Why? How does this change the game that we play? How is this different from the R tier that I helped run this year? This isn't that big of a difference from what we are already doing. It is not an earth shaking change.

If I had to guess, my guess would be that it will encourage more people to play up (because if they might win, they could keep the cash) on occasion than it will promote people to play down. And the people that play down will probably be people who wouldn't have played otherwise.




Exactly! I would love to try to play Pro in some smaller events in the area. I'm not ready for Pro but i'd like to test the waters. At a few smaller tournaments i've shot well enough to cash in Pro. I however am not going to do it under the current structure & decline cash & donate $ every week. If this changes I would think about playing Pro in some events next year but there is no way i'm going to give up playing bigger events when i'm an advanced player & have an advanced rating. I would hate to emabarrass myself at an A-Tier like so many of the donating 950 players do. I am also going to make 100% sure i'm ready to turn Pro if I ever get to that playing level.

I think you guys caught up in this Am/Pro discussion are missing the point of this new plan. Essentially it is saying:

There are no longer any "classifications of players" only "divisions".

Basically institutionalizing what has been obvious for years now: We are all just disc golfers within divisions of varying amounts of protection. Some substantiated, some not. The "Amateur" one not. "Age" and "Skill Level" substantiated. "Skill Level" definitely substantiated.

Until there is a true "Amateur Classification" turning pro or going back to what we currently call amateur will remain a meaningless exercise, with mainly psychological implications only.

Just for the record, unless a number of potential cons are identified, no one stands to benefit more from these proposed changes than me. I'm a 944-rated professional player who is well below Masters age and has cashed only sparingly over the last few years. I tend to avoid most higher-tier events for their high Open entry fees, and my PDGA tournament participation has dwindled greatly.

A trophy-only entry fee allows me to play in my chosen division, and emphasizes that tournament participation is the number one priority. Furthermore, I'm excited at the opportunity to play in the Amateur Worlds again. One of the best times I've ever had in my life was playing in Pro Worlds 2003 in Flagstaff, AZ. I've already talked to my buddy who is a graduate student at Northern Arizona University and made arrangements to stay with him again for the week.

-Jeff

I don't see any cons to allowing people to go back to ams. I mean, if it allows some people to play again/more often, I'm all for it. However, this proposal is no substitute for the kind of visionary leadership the sport requires.

"I'm excited at the opportunity to play in the Amateur Worlds again."

Has it been said that players who accepted cash could play AM Worlds?

PDGA active member pros with a rating below a certain number will be free to play in amateur divisions for prizes



is all that has been said.

In the past when someone petitioned to move down the were never eligible for AM Worlds again�

I don't want to move down. I want to play in Open next year with other golfers of my caliber or higher. But the proposed 2005 competitive structure changes will supposedly allow PDGA active member pros with a rating below a certain number the freedom to play in amateur divisions for prizes, which I assume doesn't exclude Amateur Worlds. I want to experience Flagstaff again - from the sublime red hues of Sedona to the exhilarating altitudes and awe-inspiring views at Arizona Snowbowl, it's a truly unforgettable experience!

I hope the new structure DOES let you play. I think this will help increase participation in the Open division in smaller events if you can take cash without ANY repercussions at all�

I think it is going to hurt the Open division turnout.

It's all in what you believe.

If you really believe that 925 to 940 rated Advanced players are pure sandbaggers that shouldn't play advanced, then you will believe that the these guys will jump to Open because they can always come back.

If you really believe that 920 to 940 rated golfers should be playing playing Advanced, then you will believe, like I do, that a whole bunch of "donator" players currently playing Open will jump to Advanced. That will hurt the Open turnouts. But it will probably help the Advanced turnouts.

Think about the 935 rated guy who took cash in Open 4 years ago. Where should he play?

I don't want to move down. I want to play in Open next year with other golfers of my caliber or higher. But the proposed 2005 competitive structure changes will supposedly allow PDGA active member pros with a rating below a certain number the freedom to play in amateur divisions for prizes, which I assume ...

I wouldn't assume anything. I have no idea how the particulars will be worked out. I don't know if anyone was thinking about Am Worlds or Am Nationals when this was discussed.

So Rhett, let's assume that this rule change does reduce the open pro field somewhat and increase the advanced field somewhat. For example, let's assume at the Auburn Open the three open players rated in the 940s dropped down to Advanced, or at the Frying Pan Johnny Kitchen decided he could not take the heat.

From the TD's perspective is this a good thing or a bad thing at a typical California B-tier? Did the TD need those one to three guys to make his B-tier requirements? If we are going to let a few of these donor pros drop down, do we need to make the B-tier pro purse requirements a little easier to meet?

From the TD's perspective is this a good thing or a bad thing at a typical California B-tier? Did the TD need those one to three guys to make his B-tier requirements? If we are going to let a few of these donor pros drop down, do we need to make the B-tier pro purse requirements a little easier to meet?


I think the movement (regardless of these new rules) should be for TDs to become less dependent on that handful of "donor pros" to be able to meet tier requirements. A past step in that direction was the requirement for a minimum amount of the purse to be "added" cash.

To me, the probability of 2-4 "donor pros" not being there to pad the payouts should be further motivation for TDs to find sponsor cash for those payouts. And that, in and of itself, is a positive for the PDGA.

--Josh

This wont hurt the Pro turn out i dont think. I think the Am and Pro turnout at the B and C Tiers will be just about that same. There will be alot of High Rated Ams that will want to play and try and cash in Open if they can take the cash and still play the A Tiers as AMs. I think the A Tiers and SuperTours will have higher Advanced turnouts because all the lower rated pros dont like going to A Tiers because then they KNOW FOR SURE that Barry or Kenny or Cam or one of the super pros are going to take their money and they have no chance to cash. But if they can play Advanced in A Tiers i think they will start coming out to them more.

I KNOW if this is put into affect then i will play OPEN at the C Tiers and Advanced at the A and B Tiers this year..

From the TD's perspective is this a good thing or a bad thing at a typical California B-tier? Did the TD need those one to three guys to make his B-tier requirements? If we are going to let a few of these donor pros drop down, do we need to make the B-tier pro purse requirements a little easier to meet?


I think the movement (regardless of these new rules) should be for TDs to become less dependent on that handful of "donor pros" to be able to meet tier requirements. A past step in that direction was the requirement for a minimum amount of the purse to be "added" cash.

To me, the probability of 2-4 "donor pros" not being there to pad the payouts should be further motivation for TDs to find sponsor cash for those payouts. And that, in and of itself, is a positive for the PDGA.

--Josh



I am in 1 Million Percent Agreement with this. To do otherwise is to just bone the few remaining Open players with no chance of cashing to an even further degree.

Nothing makes me madder than seeing a Super Tour that hasn't raised any significant money and has to instead rely on the entry fees of a vast number of medium to low level Open players to make up for their lack of work at securing sponsorship.

This will absolutely be the main factor in deciding which PDGAs I go to and which I do not next year.

I want my entry fee to be entry fee not "make-up" sponsorship.

Required added cash for tier levels should go up every year. It is a sin that events continue to call themselves Super Tour or even B Tier when they are nothing of the sort. It's false advertisement!

Hows about A Tiers must have $5000 in Sponsorship, B Tiers $2500, C Tiers $1000, etc....? Before the PDGA will approve them. :D

Depends on the cutoff rating. If it is 940 or something, it won't mean much at A tier or higher. There are not that many 940 open players who play those high dollar tourneys. In fact, people speaking of donor pros at 940 are behind the times. Look at the NT events, you are probably a donor pro at 980-990!!!!!

Bruce, why not consider retooling the tier requirements? Put the focus on number of participants rather than purse. Why is "purse" such a big deal anyway? I can't imagine the purse amount attracts sponsors and it's not like many people are making a living disc golfing. Competitive disc golf should step back, realize it has a long way to go before being a "pro disc golfer" is a reality, and simply try to increase the number of players.

Put the focus on number of participants rather than purse.



I agree.

Rather than min added cash why not just have a required ratio. 1:1 would be good enough. It would probably out perform 99% of all events currently run!

$1 added cash for every $1 of entry fee.

90 person event projected $10,000 payout $5,000 in added cash, entry fees $56 each.

90 person event projected $20,000 payout $10,000 in added cash, entry fees $110 each.

If no added cash, then the PDGA should require entry fees be set at minimum levels (say $20).

No, my point is that purse is not that important. I don't even care how much a TD adds, I just care how many people show up and play. Throw out the whole purse mindset and think numbers, not just to attract sponsors, but simply to "just grow the sport."

No, my point is that purse is not that important. I don't even care how much a TD adds, I just care how many people show up and play. Throw out the whole purse mindset and think numbers, not just to attract sponsors, but simply to "just grow the sport."



Don't you think that lower entry fees in general, and clearer and more substantial added value would help in "just growing the sport"?

Obviously, more sponsorship and lower entry fees are good, and if that can be accomplished, that is great. However, I have seen tourney's with a lot of sponsorship and big purses and it has not necessarily translated to big fields. By the way, I certainly don't have the answers for achieving larger numbers, I just know that the historical focus on purse size is not increasing the numbers.

Anyway, kudos to the board for making a sensible decision and I hope they start making more of them on much tougher issues.

Obviously, more sponsorship and lower entry fees are good, and if that can be accomplished, that is great. However, I have seen tourney's with a lot of sponsorship and big purses and it has not necessarily translated to big fields.



James,

Did they also have entry fees below $35?

And I am not saying that low entry fees, more added cash and big purses necessarily equal large turnouts, certainly there is more to it than just that, but they are probably in the top 5 or 10 factors in deciding to attend an event.

Regards,
Nick

All those things you mention are good, but it goes way beyond the special efforts and wisdom of a certain TD or group. We have created a system that for a variety of plausible reasons, just does not perform well when compared to the true potential of competitive disc golf.


Maybe, I've just got a negative mindset, or maybe I just live in a region on the decline, but it certainly doesn't feel like we're growing much. I would love to hear reassurance from the leaders using convincing stats that this system is working. Alternatively, I would love to hear them admit that we could be doing better.

I strongly agree with James on this. I think the biggest problem in getting increased turnout is the very nature of a structured event. The more structured and intense the event becomes, the less likely you are to attract casual players. The guys I talk to say they don't want the hassle. They don't want someone telling them what to do, they don't want the tenseness of the situation, and they don't want to pay a lot to do something they like doing for fun. One guy I know plays Worlds Greatest every year. It's just fun to go out and throw with no pressure, and yet it feels like just enough like a competitive event for him to enjoy it. Remember, a lot of players come to this sport because they don't like the hyper competitiveness of other sports. Our tournaments take that away.

I strongly agree with James on this. I think the biggest problem in getting increased turnout is the very nature of a structured event. The more structured and intense the event becomes, the less likely you are to attract casual players. The guys I talk to say they don't want the hassle. They don't want someone telling them what to do, they don't want the tenseness of the situation, and they don't want to pay a lot to do something they like doing for fun. One guy I know plays Worlds Greatest every year. It's just fun to go out and throw with no pressure, and yet it feels like just enough like a competitive event for him to enjoy it. Remember, a lot of players come to this sport because they don't like the hyper competitiveness of other sports. Our tournaments take that away.



Is this because we're too organized and rules-oriented? I don't think so. Almost by definition, a tournament has to be that way, else it's a potential free-for-all situation.

Lyle, not digging at your statement, but I'm wondering if those casual players will ever become even occasional tourney players if things were a little looser. It takes a little competitiveness and initiative to enter a tourney, let alone play multiple events.

And being in Texas, to hell with people telling us what to do. :)

Hey Tony!

You are absolutely correct. The question is where do we want the sport to go? Do we want a competitive structure or an all inclusive one. At one time I posted that we had lost a lot of players, probably due to their dissatisfaction with the rules and hassle. Chuck posted back that he doubted it. He stated it was probably due to normal attrition. It just wasn't some people's bag. They tried it and they didn't like it. I think Chuck is right for the most part. If you think about the total number of players that have belonged and remain, 20,000 and 8,000 remaining active, that is probably what you would expect in any sport.

However, this doesn't mean we can't include both types of players. Nick's amature stucture is one attempt to do this, an even more casual set of tournaments built along the lines of World's Greatest might also help. The idea being to introduce those casual players and see if they might want to move on to the "more competitive" tournament structure over time. But also, to allow those players who tried and hate the competitive structure a venue in which they can remain active and involved.

BTW - of all people, you're allowed to dig at my posts. That's how I learn.

My concern is not related to those who don't like competitive situations, but those who just find that the disc golf tourney is no longer a desirable option. That may be normal attrition or it may be a failure of the system. I suspect it is both.

I thinks Nick's true amateur tournaments may one day become quite successful. I didn't at first, but I think that over time, it will be an important component to competitive disc golf. However, I would still love to see many more large "professional tournaments" with 100+ entrants. I don't think this is even possible under our current setup and mindset.

The clock is ticking on your time to submit any comments to the competition director before the proposed 2005 Competition Structure becomes final. We are now no longer talking about hints. The document is published in the PDGA Announcements area of this message board.

The ratings point where a pro can play X are Y:
<table border="1"><tr><td> X:</td><td> MA1</td><td> MA2</td><td> MM1</td><td> MA3</td><td> MG1</td><td> FW1</td><td> FW2</td><td> FW3
</td></tr><tr><td>Y:</td><td> <955</td><td> <915</td><td> <915</td><td> <875</td><td> <875</td><td> <850</td><td> <800</td><td> <750</tr></td></table>
If you play over to an amateur division you are playing for prizes, trophies, ratings, but no PDGA points. Pros cannot play in amateur divisions at Majors. If you are playing over to am you are not allowed to take a reduced entry fee trophy-only option, even if one is being offered.

The new B-tier purse requirement is minimum 110% payout, $1500 total purse of which minimum $250 is sponsor added cash.

Pro 2 is dead. The R-tier format is dead, except that a TD could advertise in advance that he is not offering age restricted divisions and have something similar to an R-tier for everyone except sub-recreational male rated players.

They are requesting that B-tiers observe the NT Code of Conduct, which includes collared shirts.

If you are running a two-day event of any tier where some players play one day and some the other, you have to submit two sanctioning agreements, but you only pay one sanctioning fee.

Oh, and juniors: you know how Masters all get to have their PDGA birthday on January 1? Juniors now all get to have their birthday party on December 31. This way no junior gets bumped from his or her division mid-season. Maybe we could call this Megan's Law? Sorry, Megan.

That is most of the new stuff. If you are a TD you definately should read the entire document and then re-read the parts that apply to your events.

They are requesting that B-tiers observe the NT Code of Conduct, which includes collared shirts.



Thanks Bruce. Hadn't noticed that one. I don't like it. A-tiers & above would be fine. I think any event that allows non-members to play shouldn't abide by the dress code. Especially when there are enough good non-collared shirts (Under Armor, Nike ACG, Columbia, etc.) that fit better into disc golf than the Polo shirts.

I also don't think the 2006 goal of requiring membership to play in B-tiers is good either at this time. Eventually, yes--but I don't think we'll be there in two years.

I can't wait for this to hit the proverbial fan! :eek: Hopefully this will remain a "request"...
I nearly always wear (collar-less?) scrub shirts and find them to be quite 'dapper'! :cool:

I also don't think the 2006 goal of requiring membership to play in B-tiers is good either at this time. Eventually, yes--but I don't think we'll be there in two years.



The info is located in the very last line of the 2005 PDGA Tour Standards document. I agree that we are not there yet. I can envision scenarios where recreational players are invited to a 'C' tournament, show up, and are told they must become PDGA members; add $30 to your entry fee. At which point, they get in their car and drive down to the course across town.

They are requesting that B-tiers observe the NT Code of Conduct, which includes collared shirts.



Also for A tiers, but what does this language "player code of conduct is requested" really mean? Are they requesting the TDs to require it or are they requesting the players follow it?

I read it earlier in the week and I feel more confident in their leadership, even though I think they fall far short on some very important issues. Case in point about the goal of "make PDGA Tour events affordable for more players." That's a smart goal that they attempt to address by "strongly urging" TDs to follow the entry fee table. However, a couple of issues still remain: The purse requirements may still be tough for a TD to reach if they follow the suggested entry fees (which puts them in a quandary) and are those suggested entry fees based on any solid data concerning supply/demand.

I'm not being real critical here since they do seem to recognize some problems and have set some coherent goals that I assume reflect their perception of the problems. That is certainly a positive step. However, I would love to see them provide more info on what they percieve to be their biggest goals; why they are their biggest goals; what strategies they considered to achieve those goals; and why they chose the particular stragey they did. I suspect they do this in some form or fashion, but greater elucidation would create more support or at least result in some more useful input.

http://www.pdga.com/documents/05TourStandardsPreFinal.pdf

So the way that is written you can count CTP's and PP's toward pro purse correct?

2005 PreFinal Standards (http://www.pdga.com/documents/05TourStandardsPreFinal.pdf)

The very last bullet point, Jeff.

... I think any event that allows non-members to play shouldn't abide by the dress code. Especially when there are enough good non-collared shirts (Under Armor, Nike ACG, Columbia, etc.) that fit better into disc golf than the Polo shirts.

I also don't think the 2006 goal of requiring membership to play in B-tiers is good either at this time. Eventually, yes--but I don't think we'll be there in two years.

The collared shirt rule may be expanded to include lots of different shirt styles. The last I heard, the list was getting so long, I could never enforce it without first hiring a metrosexual consultant from a finer menswear store. :D I have no idea what a Henley is. I thought the Henley was that move in wrestling that was banned at the high school level. Or was that the Herringbone?

As to that 2006 concept, please remind me to talk to Chappy about that in mid to late 2005. That seems to be the kind of rule that is based on an idealistic view of how the universe ought to be, rather than on economic realities. It seems to me that there are many regions that simply could not run a PDGA event under that kind of restriction. For example, the Richmond Rumble just could not hapen as a PDGA tournament if we went members-only for C-tiers. In areas where disc golf is established but PDGA tournaments are not, it would be impossible for the PDGA to get moving there. You are sticking the TD with an impossible chicken-egg catch-22.

That idea should be tried at the B-tier level, I think, before it is tried at the C-tier level. But 2006 is a long way off.

What IS a Henley again?

The clock is ticking on your time to submit any comments to the competition director before the proposed 2005 Competition Structure becomes final. We are now no longer talking about hints. The document is published in the PDGA Announcements area of this message board.




2005 PDGA Tour Standards

Changes for the better:

1) Making PDGA tour events more affordable. The trend of increasing tournament entry fees has been slowed, if not halted altogether. Reduction in pro purse requirements. Reduced entry fees stress participation over just having a large purse, which should come from sponsor donations, fundraisers, club money, etc. anyway. While a table showing recommended entry fees was available in the past, this year’s table appears earlier in the document, is highlighted, and strongly urges TDs to use it.

2) “True Amateur” entry fees. Again, stresses event participation. It may help to develop the scores of recreational players who typically have avoided organized competition in the past. Existing PDGA members and tournament players who were quite active in the past but soured in recent years may return to organized competition.

3) Punishment to events that fail to meet 2005 requirements by being demoted one tier in 2006.

4) Clarification of use of illegal substances. Previously there were too many ambiguities, loopholes, and unanswered questions about enforcement with regards to these rules. No ifs, ands, or buts, people! Go take a “nature walk” during lunch. Crack open a beer after your round is over. Do whatever you want, but NOT DURING COMPETITION, it’s that simple!

Concerns:

1 ) Abandonment of the Pro 2 option, which was never even given a chance. Abandonment of ratings-based events, the smartest and fairest way to organize divisional play that was ever created. The change to allow Pros to play down in amateur divisions. This idea seemingly came out of nowhere and will be enacted with little to no input from the PDGA membership. While the jury is still out and this change may be prove to be quite beneficial to our competition system, there is still the worry that unforeseen consequences may be detrimental to the system. I know of dozens of competitors that enjoyed ratings-protected divisions where they could play for cash against their peers. I wonder how many people will take advantage of the opportunity to play down in amateur divisions for prizes only, and no PDGA points! Personally, it feels like the PDGA is “shaming me” into either donating to the professional division, or dropping back down to amateur.

2) Why are Amateur Majors excluded, what is the logic behind that?

3) Eventual requirement in 2006 of PDGA membership for B and C Tier events. This idea will certainly fail in many “small market” cities and for many clubs. I can envision scenarios where recreational players are invited to a 'C' tournament, show up, and are told they must become PDGA members; add $30 to your entry fee. At which point, they get in their car and drive down to the course across town.

1 ) Abandonment of the Pro 2 option, which was never even given a chance. Abandonment of ratings-based events, the smartest and fairest way to organize divisional play that was ever created. The change to allow Pros to play down in amateur divisions. This idea seemingly came out of nowhere and will be enacted with little to no input from the PDGA membership. While the jury is still out and this change may be prove to be quite beneficial to our competition system, there is still the worry that unforeseen consequences may be detrimental to the system. I know of dozens of competitors that enjoyed ratings-protected divisions where they could play for cash against their peers. I wonder how many people will take advantage of the opportunity to play down in amateur divisions for prizes only, and no PDGA points! Personally, it feels like the PDGA is �shaming me� into either donating to the professional division, or dropping back down to amateur.

Jon, Brett and I gave Pro 2 six chances at six different tournaments in six different towns. The concept never caught on with the Pro 2s.

I'm not sure where that pros-play-over concept came from but it worked for the R-tier proponents at the meeting and the people representing pro-TD points of view. As a TD it works fine for me. My TD support group seems to be fine with it.

We are trying to reach out to the moved-up-moved-out pros in a way that did not quite reach with the optional Pro 2 concept. We are trying to make it possible for all four of the R-phile [or R-curious] TDs to still do something R-ish. I think this works. I think we can try it and see if it works.


2) Why are Amateur Majors excluded, what is the logic behind that?

We never vote on the logic behind our decisions so I cannot really say. Maybe we are saying that we are not abandonning entirely the concept that if you take cash you are a pro. What would be the logic in having the Am World or Am National championship be won by a pro? If you want to get into Am Worlds or Am Nationals, and in a rash moment of weakness you took pro cash somewhere, you still have to petition for your am status and then wait the required period of time.


3) Eventual requirement in 2006 of PDGA membership for B and C Tier events. This idea will certainly fail in many �small market� cities and for many clubs. I can envision scenarios where recreational players are invited to a 'C' tournament, show up, and are told they must become PDGA members; add $30 to your entry fee. At which point, they get in their car and drive down to the course across town.

That scenario is not related to the rule. Read the document.

The scenario that the proposed 2006 rule creates is that all the advanced and intermediate level players who are not members will be playing recreational, thus destroying recreational as a rating protected division. Currently 99% of those players have the character to play in a division appropriate for their skill. Under the 2006 concept they will have no choice except to play Rec. I think Advanced should be the non-member default division if there is going to be one. Then, if they want to play in a ratings protected division, they will have an incentive to join.

I think the implementation of that rule should go hand-in-hand with a trophy-and-player-pack only mando for those players. Then we are saying, "Look, if you want to play for a graduated payout against similarly skilled players in a protected division, join. If you just want to play, support the event, and get something for your entry fee, you can play in the advanced division."

I'm not too hot about that idea either. We need to be reaching out to non-members, not forcing them away.

[QUOTE]
I'm not being real critical here since they do seem to recognize some problems and have set some coherent goals that I assume reflect their perception of the problems. That is certainly a positive step. However, I would love to see them provide more info on what they percieve to be their biggest goals; why they are their biggest goals; what strategies they considered to achieve those goals; and why they chose the particular stragey they did. I suspect they do this in some form or fashion, but greater elucidation would create more support or at least result in some more useful input.



If you want to review the goals with the board, come to one of our Summit meetings. They are generally open to the PDGA membership (except a small handful of sensitive topics). Terry Calhoun and I regularly write articles for DGWN and discuss board opinions, views, decisions, etc., but there is no history of formally trying to document these things. That would be a lot of extra work. As it is, we do our best to summarize the meetings themselves and what we talk about and vote on. Those reports are available on pdga.com (something we just started doing in the last 12 months).

So if you want more info than you're getting now, plan on joining us for our next Summit in Phonex (right before the Memorial).

-Theo Pozzy
PDGA Commissioner

I am very against requiring membership for AMS in events lower than A-tier. I have a large contingent of players who are not members and pay the non-pdga membership fee for various reasons (not typically including sandbagging). I would like to see a continued push to offer more with your membership to gain members, not a strategy that will ultimately push them away.

If sandbagging is the issue they are trying to address with this, lets look at other ways of doing it. As we are expanding our PDGA staff, lets use some of these new resources to tack non-members by their drivers� license number (not a public rating of course). Yes, it is MORE work for overworked staff and volunteers, but realistically you are going to have TD�s seriously considering going unsanctioned over this membership requirement if it is put into effect IMO.

I am surprised that none of the Advanced Masters crowd in Texas has piped up about the change in Advanced Master. I think it is a GREAT move capping that division at 915. It makes sense to have the players over 40 that have 915+ rated skills play against the other 915+ rated players. This should help to beef up the advanced division.

I am surprised that none of the Advanced Masters crowd in Texas has piped up about the change in Advanced Master. I think it is a GREAT move capping that division at 915. It makes sense to have the players over 40 that have 915+ rated skills play against the other 915+ rated players. This should help to beef up the advanced division.

Am Masters is not capped at 915. That is a cap for pros who want to play am masters.

I am surprised that none of the Advanced Masters crowd in Texas has piped up about the change in Advanced Master. I think it is a GREAT move capping that division at 915. It makes sense to have the players over 40 that have 915+ rated skills play against the other 915+ rated players. This should help to beef up the advanced division.



I think you are misinterpreting the new rules.

Professional golfers who otherwise would qualify for Advanced Masters (are 40 years old or older) can play in the Advanced Masters division if their rating is below 915. Currently registered amateur golfers who qualify for Advanced Masters (are 40 years old or older) can have any rating.

I think you are misinterpreting the new rules.

Hah! Beat you to the post button by a full two minutes.

I think you are misinterpreting the new rules.

Hah! Beat you to the post button by a full two minutes.



You foiled me again, Bruce! ;)

I see that now... Am I missing something or are ratings breaks not addressed in here for the AM divisions this year????

Am breaks same as 2004.

Chuck is there a table that explains the new competitive system structure you could share with us? Thanks.

There's nothing more than was in the sanctioning document they wanted people to comment on. The new stuff is there and the existing Am ratings break chart for 2004 continues into 2005.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Am Divs</td><td>MA1</td><td>MA2</td><td>MM1</td><td>MA3</td><td>MG1</td><td>FW1</td><td>FW2</td><td>FW3
</td></tr><tr><td>Pros In Ams</td><td><955</td><td><915</td><td><915</td><td><875</td><td><875</td><td><850</td><td><800</td><td><750
</td></tr><tr><td>Ams</td><td>Any (Required 915+)</td><td><915</td><td>Any</td><td><875</td><td>Any</td><td>800+</td><td><800</td><td><750
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Chuck, how was the 955 decided upon?

This plan makes sense for events that has an Open division, but for one that does not why allow only pros with ratings of below 955 in, why not anyone, they don't get pdga points, right?

Considering the likelihood of Open players with ratings between 955 and 975 cashing at Super Tours, National Tours and Majors is next to zero, was it just decided that that demographic (the 2nd largest in the PDGA) should just tough it out and remain "sponsors" for the 990 and up Open players?

Seems like the sooner we come to a decision about whether or not to bring the prize divisions into the pro classification the better, and allow all pros to play for prizes if they want.

This plan makes sense for events that has an Open division, but for one that does not why allow only pros with ratings of below 955 in, why not anyone, they don't get pdga points, right?




Who else would that be? Anyone with a rating below 955 can enter Advanced. That's men and women, Pro and Am of all ages. Of course, Ams above 954 can continue to enter Advanced, too.

The 955 is 40 points above the 915 Adv/Int break which is 40 points above the 875 Int/Rec break. It was also a compromise for those who wanted to retain the 960 Pro 2 break and those who thought it should be 950.

This plan makes sense for events that has an Open division, but for one that does not why allow only pros with ratings of below 955 in, why not anyone, they don't get pdga points, right?




Who else would that be? Anyone with a rating below 955 can enter Advanced. That's men and women, Pro and Am of all ages. Of course, Ams above 954 can continue to enter Advanced, too.

The 955 is 40 points above the 915 Adv/Int break which is 40 points above the 875 Int/Rec break. It was also a compromise for those who wanted to retain the 960 Pro 2 break and those who thought it should be 950.



And...

Was any consideration given to pro players rated from 955 to 980 or above?

One stat I'd be very interested in seeing is what is the average rating of Advanced Players turning Open. I doubt it is as low as 955.

And this does nothing for Open, Masters, and Open Women showing up at events who will have no one to play against who are above your cut offs.

I know one of our goals is to keep as many folks as we can in organized disc golf, but if we sacrifice encouraging excellence too much then I think we will equally be prolonging our arrival as a legitimate sport. It has to be balanced.

And how can we say it is when now the only people left out in the cold (still) are many of our most skilled and long time players, 990 to 955 Open and Masters players.

The only solution I can think of to ALL OF THIS is the creating of a TRUE AMATEUR CLASSIFICATION and throwing out this contrived and false idea that prize divisions are somehow different from cash divisions. Once that falls away we will just all be "Disc Golfers".

Here in Canada I dont see to many pro 2 and all these different divisions, just Am1, 2, open, master,,, so on.

I do know the rating system is a good idea, but how correct really is it?

You have guys that play 1 tourney, shoot great and bam!!! they have the best rating. Or folks that play tourneys, dont practice at all beforehand and end up shooting terrible!

I did this myself that is how I know, yes it is my own fault.

What I am saying is that the rating system needs a little touch up! overall i would say, not a bad idea for those who are about " RATINGS" and good luck fixing it.

Here in Canada I dont see to many pro 2 and all these different divisions, just Am1, 2, open, master,,, so on.

I do know the rating system is a good idea, but how correct really is it?

You have guys that play 1 tourney, shoot great and bam!!! they have the best rating. Or folks that play tourneys, dont practice at all beforehand and end up shooting terrible!

I did this myself that is how I know, yes it is my own fault.

What I am saying is that the rating system needs a little touch up! overall i would say, not a bad idea for those who are about " RATINGS" and good luck fixing it.



I think it needs a systemic overhaul. To be far more accurate and up-to-date. It does need to remain centralized, but far more results need to be included for it to really take a foothold. How this will happen is that we must first decide that it MUST happen, then we can work out the details.

Big picture, little picture thing...

"Who else would that be? Anyone with a rating below 955 can enter Advanced. That's men and women, Pro and Am of all ages."


Let's see-

Jeff Ash
Current Rating: 953 (as of 15-Dec-2004)

Hmmmm....... :D:D:D

Mr Ash is still out there ?

Where have you been ?

Yes Mr.Ash

You can play Advance right now.

So can I.

If I had played Advance at the PIO this weekend in Grapevine. I would have saved $5 in entry fee and won 1st place.

Instead, I paid my extra $5 and was 1 stroke out of the money.

Chuck,

I really think that if you want folks to try out the new Ratings format (if that is what it can be called), you'd better get busy promoting it. Here in the MADC, many of the Directors who have used it over the last 5 years are confused about whether or not it is still available.

If you don't want to lose the ground you have made here, you would do well to really be aggressive in contacting them and assuring them that it is still possible and how.

It may seem simple to you and I, but any change at all tends to throw folks off for a time at least...

Seems to me like this whole discussion should be about growth. Being concerned about 955 golfers playing against 990 golfers demonstrates that there are not enough 990 golfers. Growth, growth, growth.

The goal should be to grow the sport, grow the number of PDGA members (yes, I'll send my renewal check in soon). Someday different levels of Pro events will emerge (National/World top level events, regional CBA type events, and local pro events). The top level entrants will have to qualify to play at these events, payout will be big and deep and there will be no concern about 955 players making it to this level, they will be at home watching it on TV.

It is wonderful that we have made it to this painful inbetween time, and the focus should be on growth to get us through it as quickly as possible.

Growth for disc golf means more World's Biggest type events to draw in the casual player and newbys.

Growth for A-Tier, B-Tier, NT, and Majors means getting corporate sponsorship and returning value for that sponsorship.

Growth for the PDGA means lessening restrictions for players to enter events and lessening restrictions on TDs running events. Keep it simple.

Once a non-member has played an event, send them a postcard saying thanks, with their round ratings, and invite them to the PDGA site to find more local events and to see how they rank. Get them excited about the PDGA and the fact that it exists for the sole purpose of growing the sport that they love. No hard sell, no you-have-to-join, no unnecessary restrictions on TDs or players.

Grow the sport, all of this will iron out quicker.

Growth, growth, growth.

Seems to me like this whole discussion should be about growth. Being concerned about 955 golfers playing against 990 golfers demonstrates that there are not enough 990 golfers.



The only people I see being concerned with 950 golfers are 950 golfers. This rule change helps so many more golfers than the 950 rated player.

I think the PDGA is doing the right thing here, promoting growth from within (retired golfers), while giving exsisting golfers something to work with.

Once a non-member has played an event, send them a postcard saying thanks, with their round ratings, and invite them to the PDGA site to find more local events and to see how they rank. Get them excited about the PDGA and the fact that it exists for the sole purpose of growing the sport that they love. No hard sell, no you-have-to-join, no unnecessary restrictions on TDs or players.




That is one of the best ideas I have ever seen on this board.

Seems to me like this whole discussion should be about growth. Being concerned about 955 golfers playing against 990 golfers demonstrates that there are not enough 990 golfers. Growth, growth, growth.

The goal should be to grow the sport, grow the number of PDGA members (yes, I'll send my renewal check in soon). Someday different levels of Pro events will emerge (National/World top level events, regional CBA type events, and local pro events). The top level entrants will have to qualify to play at these events, payout will be big and deep and there will be no concern about 955 players making it to this level, they will be at home watching it on TV.

It is wonderful that we have made it to this painful inbetween time, and the focus should be on growth to get us through it as quickly as possible.

Growth for disc golf means more World's Biggest type events to draw in the casual player and newbys.

Growth for A-Tier, B-Tier, NT, and Majors means getting corporate sponsorship and returning value for that sponsorship.

Growth for the PDGA means lessening restrictions for players to enter events and lessening restrictions on TDs running events. Keep it simple.

Once a non-member has played an event, send them a postcard saying thanks, with their round ratings, and invite them to the PDGA site to find more local events and to see how they rank. Get them excited about the PDGA and the fact that it exists for the sole purpose of growing the sport that they love. No hard sell, no you-have-to-join, no unnecessary restrictions on TDs or players.

Grow the sport, all of this will iron out quicker.

Growth, growth, growth.


These are great points, even the one or two that I don't completely agree with.

The grow, grow, grow that I want to see is in a NEW (and yet to be created) amateur classification dedicated to providing organization for educational and community groups and based on the most noble of amateur sport principles. This is a completely untapped demographic that simply dwarfs the "Gambler/Carney" one we currently have that is diverting our attention away from the possibilities right in front of our noses.

Can we do things better with what we have and under a purely "for-profit" competitive system? Sure, and I think that we are; but the only way we are going to be able to make a quantum leap (as far as vast numbers of new players, courses, organizers and sponsors) is by creating a new more open competitive system that encorporates a broader demographic of players (specifically from educational and community institutions).

The rest as I have described elsewhere is simply moving the deck chairs around on a sinking ship.

Once a non-member has played an event, send them a postcard saying thanks, with their round ratings, and invite them to the PDGA site to find more local events and to see how they rank



Great ideas require execution by the TDs. This has been done for years if the TD collects the address info from those who pay the $5 non-member fee. Here's the quote from the TD report:

"It is suggested that TDs ask these players to print their names and addresses on this sheet when they pay the $5. Please submit these details to the PDGA together with the fees collected. The PDGA uses this information as a means for increasing our membership, and will send a letter to these players encouraging them to join."

His suggestion takes it alittle further though Chuck. The PDGA sends a package to sign up and thats about it. His suggestion actually would make the players feel like they are already a part of the PDGA by giving them a prelim player rating for that event and stuff.

I sent his suggestion in to the BOD. Hopefully they consider it.

Again it will fall to the TDs to enter the results online so a player gets an unofficial rating and that will have to be handled manually instead of automated. Otherwise, the postcard/letter will have to go out several months later when official ratings are done. Not saying the idea isn't good but there are practicalities regarding the ratings part of it.

Since these would be ratings for non-members, the unofficials would work for the purpose of introducing the PDGA.

2 problems I see on the TD side:
1 - Chuck's note of having these players give the info.
2 - The TD who doesn't enter results into the website correctly.

Yes, it does fall on the TD to get the info, which they are already asked to do.

An unoffcial rating would work fine in this instance.

While sometimes it will happen where things weren't turned in properly and some poeple didnt leave there home address with the TD, it won't hurt anything really. Just send these letters out to those that it is possible to do so, the others get what currently gets sent.

This could be automated pretty easily, and if the PDGA likes the idea, they should automate it. The TD report is in Excel. TDs can enter newby data into it. Excel could probably even figure a rough rating. Word can pull data out of Excel, plug it into a form letter (mail merge). Print this out, fold it, tape it, put a stamp on it. Next.

But that was not my point. My point is that the PDGA should be more worried about growth and maintaining membership (it is much easier to get a repeat customer than to find a new one). And the way to grow is to remove all barriers from getting people to come to PDGA events, and to remove all barriers from TDs running PDGA events. Keep is simple, limit the rules. Let players and TDs do what they want.

Steve, I didnt mean to steer the discussion away from your point.

I just saw a great idea that would be relatively easy to implement in your post and wanted to make sure it was heard.

If, if there were a true Amateur Class, containing ONLY true Amateurs (even some with ratings of 1000+), playing only for competitions sake; with NO regard for financial gain (cash or cash-value); THEN there would be far less need for oodles of protected professional classes. Which it could be reasonably argued that ALL CURRENT CLASSES AND DIVISIONS ARE protected professional divisions.

(If you simply can not hang with the above statement, then spare me and you the headache when you misinterpret the following because you can't fathom a day with a True Amateur Class.)

It would also provide a REAL starting point for our divisional system. A polar opposite to Open Pro, rather than just lesser and more lesser versions of Open Pro.

A Pro 2 may well be an option IF we introduce a REAL Amateur Class of Divisions. Where the skill breaks would fall would depend on just how many more Professional golfers we end up getting. If the inflow is great, something like 70% of what we currently call amateurs, then there will likely be more skill breaks, and plenty of competitors for each level competing for cash and prizes. If it is smallish, like only 30% of what we currently call amateurs, then there will likely be far fewer skill breaks, because there wouldn't be enough players to populate them.

The argument concerning Age and Skill protection though outwardly similar is really quite different. I have been through this issue inside and out over the past 7 years and conclude that there are appropriate uses for each. Are my views currently self-serving, yes, certainly, to a degree; but not completely. One thing is clear though; within the same event they do not seem to work well together (having both Skill and Age Protections), and that is why I don't think they really should be mixed or that caps should be place in the traditional age based Professional Divisions.

At most during a Pro Only Event, with no skill protection, there should be the following Divisions:
Open
Masters
Grand Masters
Senior GMs
Womens
Womens Masters
Womens Grand Masters
Womens Senior GMs

If a TD wants to run a Skill Based Pro Only Event, with no age protection, there should be the following Divisions (Skill breaks to be determined by new Professional Demographis):

Open
Womens
Advanced
Womens Advanced
Intermediate
Cruiser
And never the twain shall meet.

All players not playing for cash or prizes would enter single Open Am Men or Womens divisions at these events or have their own events with the following Divisions(Skill breaks based on new demographic):

Amateur
Amateur Women
Amateur 2
Amateur 3
Amateur 4 (if a specific region needs one)

Or for educational institutions based on grade levels:

Collegiate
Senior High
Junior High
For each grade 8th thru 6th

I would also very much like to see the PDGA get directly involved in local league (handicap) or course team competitions. At least the organizational and administrative side of it. (Something like $1 per player to track local handicaps and team stats, post them and support organization efforts (not to be placed on the plates of existing staff or BoD members)).

In all instances TDs would set the divisions offered, entry fees, players package (am or skill protected pro divisions) and payout. Adjusting to regional and knowledge of local needs.

PDGA Amateur Basic Membership is automatically provided for just playing in a PDGA event (no magazine, card, though online privileges will be extended as well as keeping track of points and invitations to regional, national and worldwide PDGA Championships (things that do not involve a considerable financial burden). And Hey! This is all NEW money anyway so don�t knock it!

I�m sure there are other considerations that need to be included, but none that deal this plan the death Nell, well other than folks pre-existing bias that is�

Regards,
Nick Kight

i'm 35, i want to play in the masters division. can i play in the masters division? my rating fits snugly in this classification. we have pros playing ams, monkeys and dogs mating. come on? can i please?

i know the age argument, but that doesn't necessarily fly. most 40 year olds are in much better shape than me. i've had 4 knee surgeries on one knee and dislocated my elbow on my throwing arm a few years back. (i have a very "prominent screw in my knee that i'll let you touch) i'm carrying around about 20 extra pounds. i have a 7 month old...teething. so, pdga, can i?

Nick,

Maybe you've provided an explanation previously - I just don't recall the answer. If a true Am class is all new money - WHO will populate this division?

Are you suggesting there are a sufficient number of current tournament players who would rather pay to play for no reward of any type? And that this division of players will fit into the current event structure?

Or are you suggesting that this class of player will magically appear in droves as soon as the venue is made available for them to play?

Or are you suggesting a whole other approach to organizing events that is separate and distinct from WWCC DG tournaments be pursued to encourage participation in organized play - so that the "true am" culture can be cultivated?

These are all very different scenarios that deal with player base, TD base, event culture, etc. None of which can be ignored if your expectations are to be realized. On the contrary - they need to be dealt with in depth, be highly detailed, and have what might be referred to as a "good business plan" - including identifying revenue and personnel resources - if it is to be successful.

Like I said - maybe you've explained it all before - but I don't ever remember any specifics about the practical application of your ideas.

The true amatuer field will be populated by players that are tired of paying higher entry fees and not cashing. or that have no need of additional plastic and want to play for less money. Then the casual players that don't want to gamble, but will play for a reasonable entry fee and no expected payout will start showing up. Once leagues and team competitions are started it will grow.

The true amatuer field will be populated by players that are tired of paying higher entry fees and not cashing. or that have no need of additional plastic and want to play for less money.


Under this scenario then Gary - the players will come from the current player base. Will this division fit into existing event structure? Or will it require a whole new set of events?


Then the casual players that don't want to gamble, but will play for a reasonable entry fee and no expected payout will start showing up.


Sorry - but casual players who won't even play inexpensive mini/local events aren't going to suddenly change their attitiudes just because the entry fee goes down. To those players - paying to play is just that - and changing the fee structure won't change that perception.


Once leagues and team competitions are started it will grow.

This I can agree with - but like the rest of your post - is pretty general and lacks much in the way of depth.

I'm not bashing the idea guys - just looking for clarification on the realities of how to make it work - and where it can take it's place in the current event environment. Failing to think it through will result in just that - failure.

Once leagues and team competitions are started it will grow.


Don't league and team competitions already exist?

I'm still of the mind that all those rec players don't play tourneys because they don't want to play tourneys. There is that one guy on here who keeps saying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that all those rec players don't play tournies because they have all these high ideals about amateurism and stuff. I think that is all bull. I don't think the rec players think about that. They just like playing for fun. I myself like the competitive outlet that tourneys offer.

I'm still of the mind that all those rec players don't play tourneys because they don't want to play tourneys. There is that one guy on here who keeps saying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that all those rec players don't play tournies because they have all these high ideals about amateurism and stuff. I think that is all bull. I don't think the rec players think about that. They just like playing for fun. I myself like the competitive outlet that tourneys offer.




Sort of what I meant when I said:

Sorry - but casual players who won't even play inexpensive mini/local events aren't going to suddenly change their attitiudes just because the entry fee goes down. To those players - paying to play is just that - and changing the fee structure won't change that perception.



If Nick - or anyone else who finds merit in the notion of a "true am class" believes that these players exist within the ranks of current event participants - I encourage them to re-consider.
Also - like I said above - I'm not bashing the idea - only encouraging a realistic approach to making it a reality. I believe that if a "true am class" were to be introduced - it would need it's own set of events, it's own set of tournament directors, additional personnel resources to draw players in from community groups like Boys and Girls Clubs, schools, scouts, church and other youth groups, etc. Believing that all this stuff can be "handled" by the people who currently volunteer their time for running WWCC DG tournaments - is not very realistic IMO.

I agree that a true am class won't be largely propulated from the current ranks of the competing players. There will be a few, but not a dramatic number. What could start it off is a format for team competitions that could cross over to interscholastic or city run league competitions.

Once it is in the schools and city leagues, it will feed into the current structure as well.

I am just going to ramble for a sec so bare with me....

We have a pretty small player base where I live. If i were to guess I would say that roughly 50 poeple play disc golf on a semi-regualar bases in this 3 18 hole course area. Of the 50 we get roughly 25 players on average for our league $20 per league. Our league runs for 6 weeks : 2 weeks at one course ,2 weeks at another, 2 weeks at the third so that location is not an issue. Of the 25 players that play league regularly about half of them play just to play with no expectation of winning, they just play because it is a cheap way to compete while hanging out and being apart of something. I'll break that down:

12.5 players play to win something. A couple of these players never play PDGA events. Entry fee is the #1 reason given.

12.5 players play because it is a cheap fun way to compete and be apart of something.A couple of these players DO play PDGA events sometimes.

25 players just occasionally play DG and for whatever reason have no desire to compete. All these players do not play PDGA events.

So, roughly 20% of the areras players do play in PDGA events while 40% of the area do wish to compete as long as it is cheap and fun.

My beleif is that with a true amatuer class that has low entry fees and the focus is on fun competition, that we could pull 20% more PDGA tourney players to our local PDGA events. They have already shown that they DO want to compete, we just need to create a place for them.

If other areas numbers are the same as these or close, then you can do the math and see that a true am class could likely survive mainly off of new PDGA event attendents.

Dear Craig and All,

Great discussion and I don�t want it to end, but a few questions were directed my way so I thought I�d answer them as best I can. What I leave out or forget I believe others here have the knowledge, skills and capacity to fill in. A source of tremendous relief to me, considering how very alone I used to feel way back in the day when I first started discussing this with others here. Anyhoo, here they are�

True Amateurs will mainly come from outside our current membership. Perhaps not immediately, but certainly down the road.

Yes, TDs and events will likely need to be geared specifically towards them, like the Boston or New York Marathons, March Madness, High School State Championships, and such. I can't say whether many current TDs or clubs will be interested in developing events for True Ams or not, some will, some won't (as it should be). I am pretty sure that I will be interested in running such events. As I reach the end of my player career I am looking and thinking all the time about "legacy". About how to really impact the future of disc golf. I have concluded that the only way to swell our player/member ranks, courses installed, gain larger sponsors for our premiere events, and provide a decent living for our top players IS TO CREATE AND DEVELOP A TRUE AMATEUR CLASSIFICATION. The resources necessary to staff and run organized events for this classification will eventually come from this group of new player/members. A �Build It And They Will Come� plan.

Do I have a plan worked out to the nth degree? No. I don�t operate that way and you know it Craig. If the basic concept is sound then the way will be made clear as we go. It involves a degree of faith.

I know that folks here have said that I should just do it on my own and leave the PDGA out of it, and I will if I have to. But as I see it this fits exactly within the PDGA�s real mandate: To organize and promote. It won�t cost them a red nickel to realign our classifications and divisions. And I would prefer that when I am ready to devote my full energies to developing this new classification in my local area that the mechanism is already there, and has already been developed at least to some degree. I bet that there are already folks out there who have a ton of expertise in developing such new demographics of players (EDGE, Disc Golf United, Gateway, etc) that could be put to immediate and direct use in the development of a strong, valuable, and has a non-competitive relationship (with our Prize and Pro classes) Classification. And I don�t think anyone including them would lose any money over such a development.

One thing should always be kept squarely in mind: The introduction of a new Amateur Classification is a �long-term� plan, whose dividends at worst would be some noble but failed ideas and any new players who happened to find their way into our existing Pro/Prize Class; and at best this new class of players could dwarf the Pro/Prize Class similarly to how other sports classification of 7-12, Collegiate and Community Group player/members do their Pro/Prize Class.

Unlike the current, what I would call, unhealthy relationship that exists between the Divisions of the Pro/Prize Class, this NEW class would fuel the Prize/Pro Class while maintaining a strong and necessary independence (philosophically and actual) from the Pro/Prize Class Players and Competitions. A distinction we currently lack that, in my estimation, has severely limited our player/membership retention and growth.

I don�t have all the answers (another reason this needs to be an organized effort), I believe however that the premise is sound and that we have all the evidence we need in the form other sports, that such a classification can bring the much needed progress for which we have yearned so long: Mainstream Acceptance and Major Sponsorship.

Funny how we have to seemingly concentrate so intently on what seems like the EXACT OPPOSITE end of our competitive system, to get the results we so desire for the top end.

Sum it up like this:

�You get out of it what you put into it.� Makes sense.

Best Regards,
Nick Kight

The one idea is that I don't play softball or bowl, except for league play with co-workers.

If we have a format that we can take to the city activity managers that scehdule league play for the city rec departments, maybe it will catch on there and the true amateur class will be born.

The one idea is that I don't play softball or bowl, except for league play with co-workers.

If we have a format that we can take to the city activity managers that scehdule league play for the city rec departments, maybe it will catch on there and the true amateur class will be born.



Good one! And one of nearly infinite possibilities.

What are we to do?

1) Create a true Amateur Class within our competitive system based on age/gender divisions, include leagues.
2) Change the name of what we currently call amateurs to Prize Class with divisions based on skill level and gender.
3) Make the Professional Class something for which you must qualify AND DECIDE to play in.

I am open to a transitional period where "current" PDGA members can move up and down the classifications, but this should have a set end date that everyone is aware of and preparing to make the appropriate choice.

Who would offer the events?
You and Craig would NOT be required to offer the classification at your events, they would go on unchanged. I will likely run exclusively amateur events when I retire from play. I suspect some TDs will move to amateur only events and some will stay with prize/pro events. I am fine with leaving that choice up to each TD.

Who will attend these events?
Middle, Junior High, High School and College Students, also community groups such as civic groups, leagues, boys and girls clubs, etc. We would compete directly with other amateur sports.

Why the PDGA?
Because it is a perfect fit for why they exist: TO ORGANIZE! It won't cost them a red penny to set this up, and what it brings to the sport will be resources never before tapped.

What does the PDGA have to give up?
Nothing more than the inappropriate use of the word "amateur" by the prize class.

Will the prize class have to eventually give up the Amateur Worlds?
Yes, but they will have the Mid-Nationals in there place, so they aren't really losing anything.

Why will the Pro and Prize classes benefit?
More players, courses, mainstream acceptance and recognition will equal greater sponsorship and more full events.

Why would manufacturers and venders benefit?
I hope I don't need to answer that, it should be self-evident.

Regards,
Nick Kight

Previous to this weekend I had no opinion about a true am class. I played in a gateway tour this Saturday where there was a nice players pack & only a trophy for first place. After finishing in a tie for third I've got to say that I'm all for it.

Rather than getting a stack of plastic that I probably wouldn't throw, I got the satisfaction of 3rd place. I didn't shell out big bucks and worry that if I didn't "cash" it wouldn't be worth it. Instead I played two enjoyable (yet competitive) rounds of golf and left feeling as if I accomplished something.

Food for thought as pertains to our competitive system: (Read last night)


We all make choices as we go throught our daily lives. When we choose to do what we believe is the "right thing," we feel good about ourselves, and when we do what we know is wrong, we often feel guilt, embarrassment, and shame. These emotions tear away at our self-respect and eat away at our self-esteem.
...
Notice that we say choose to do what is right. In order to choose, you must be independent, meaning that you must be able to exercise your free will and not be forced to do the right thing. This is why any situation that robs us of our freedom in effect harms our self-esteem, because when our freedom is restricted our ability to choose is as well. Therefore we find that our sense of independence and self-esteem are intertwined. And that's the key. ... it is the loss of independence that sparks all conflicts and holds the secret to solving them.



Is there a true choice in our current competitive system? Is there an alternative to gambling for each others entry fees?

they are not entry fees.

they are mini-sponsorships!


and the alternative is to gamble for some outside sponsor's money. only the scale and source are different.

we often feel guilt, embarrassment, and shame



I never feel guilt, embarrassment, OR shame when I'm playing disc golf.

Ams rule ... pros drool...

we often feel guilt, embarrassment, and shame



I never feel guilt, embarrassment, OR shame when I'm playing disc golf.

Ams rule ... pros drool...



I'm not talking about those ams, I'm talking about true amateurs. I agree that PDGA Tournament Players both rule and drool on varying occasions, unrelated to classification though...

. . . there was a nice players pack & only a trophy for first place . . . I didn't shell out big bucks and worry that if I didn't "cash" it wouldn't be worth it. Instead I played two enjoyable (yet competitive) rounds of golf and left feeling as if I accomplished something.



well put. i definitely agree that at the amateur level we should focus on keeping entry fees low and phasing out the plastic-mania mentality.

i thank nick for addressing this important topic, but strongly disagree with the contention that we need yet another classification of player. i think a better approach would be to have PDGA set maximum entry fees (excluding greens fees) for each tier of event.

what nick refers to as a "true" amateur already has a classification as an intermediate or novice player. although i want to see entry fees lower at the amateur level, i do not think that the prizes they currently receive constitute something not "amateur" in nature. amateur ball golfers take home lots of merch too at many events. i heard recently of an "amateur" club championship where first prize was $160,000. (although that event wasn't governed by any official body)

the way to grow sponsorship and make the sport attractive to national sponsors is by growing the amateur ranks, which fuel the mass of spectators. i strongly agree with all efforts to promote recreational (nick's "true" amateur") disc golf. these are the folks that, in the future, will sit on their couches on sunday afternoons to watch the playoffs at usdgc and players cup live and will have some spare change to buy the stuff the sponsors are selling.

Notice that we say choose to do what is right. In order to choose, you must be independent, meaning that you must be able to exercise your free will and not be forced to do the right thing. This is why any situation that robs us of our freedom in effect harms our self-esteem, because when our freedom is restricted our ability to choose is as well. Therefore we find that our sense of independence and self-esteem are intertwined. And that's the key. ... it is the loss of independence that sparks all conflicts and holds the secret to solving them.



This is not an indictment of our current amateurs, it is something to consider in light of no option for true amateurs. Certainly no widely available option.

I have no challenge with Prize Class Divisions, only that they are generally accepted as some proper alternative to a Real Amateur Class.

Why? :confused:

The USGA allows amateurs to receive up to $750 in prizes per event. Also, they may receive a prize of any value for a hole-in-one made while "playing golf". In 2006 amateur players of any age may receive reimbursements through their state or regional golf associations. These expenses include transportation, lodging, meals, the entry fee, and caddie fees.

The amateurs these rules apply to would parallel our advanced division. Most disc golfers fall into the intermediate or novice categories that constitute Nick's "true amateur".

In golf there are many different formats to appeal to golfers of different abilities. One such format that I have enjoyed is where two rounds are played and then the field is split into flights where everyone is within 6 strokes of the lead in their flight. During the final round everyone has a chance to win their flight. The problem of sandbagging is minimal because the prize is "only" a trophy for each flight. The point of the competition is to play your best, attempt to beat your peers, and be a good sport.

Good stuff.

Answering your true-am post from the 1000 mile wide AREA thread, I played football and golf in an organized true-am manner, and did some karate as an amateur too. In none of those sports was I charged an inflated fee to play so that profits on the event could be funneled to the Lake County Rifles or any other group of minor league pros. We don't do that at the tournaments Jon, Brett and I run either. [I suppose Sensai Donahue was making some money, but it was his full-time job.]

We do offer the opportunity for philosophically inclined true amateurs to compete as such at all levels of play at our tournaments. Our junior divisions are run trophy-and-player-pack only, and for $14 any amateur can get the $15 player pack and play for points, ratings and trophies only. Our best deal is for true-am pros: $10!

I don't think the merchastravaganza system is holding back the sport at all. It is not holding back Mid America Carnivals (http://www.carnivalfun.com/index2.html) any. What is holding back the sport is bleeding the merchastravaganza players for the benefit of the cash paid gamblers. Our tournament attendance proves this. We quit bleeding the amateurs and now we have more lower division players than we can accomodate. And we have fewer pros than anyone who is drawing 120 amateurs to an average tournament.

For all you Illinois/Wisconsin pros out there, it is looking like we may have real added cash for the Rockford leg again this year. Watch tier designation for that one.

What is holding back the sport is bleeding the merchastravaganza players for the benefit of the cash paid gamblers.



Brilliant. "It's the people who get the most for risking the least who should get rewarded."

Let's make **** sure mediocrity is the pinnacle of our sport. We'll be the envy of sportsmen everywhere.

The Legend strikes aqain :D

James,

You must take this to it's logical conclusion.

We all know that real money for Pro players will never come from playing for each other's money. It is going to have to come from sponsorship dollars (or TV contracts). The only to attract those dollars a is to increase participation. There is not much promise in building the player base by designing events to reward only the top pros, but by designing a series of events that is aimed at rewarding the newer players, you increase the player base in general.

I think there needs to be greater emphasis on organizers and clubs building series or league events that get more rec players into organized competition, members into the PDGA, and money into the manufacturers (to feed back into the sport).

After it grows enough to noticed by major sponsors, the money for the top pros might come, but for now the focus needs to be on growth of the competitve base.

There is not much promise in building the player base by designing events to reward only the top pros


That's hardly the step I'm advocating, or have ever advocated. I simply believe that if we are going to have a sport (competitive arrangement), I should be able to explain to a new player that it makes sense to improve. You know, that the sport's governing body has created a system that encourages people to get better. You know, a sport. It's comical and embarassing that I have to keep restating this.


but by designing a series of events that is aimed at rewarding the newer players



Talk about logical conclusions. Let's just raise money to give away to least skilled, or first timers. You play for the first time, we give you money. Bizzare.


but for now the focus needs to be on growth of the competitve base.



"competitive base." This is rich in irony.

I should be able to explain to a new player that it makes sense to improve.


Like in ball golf, city league Football, or any other sport an average joe can jump into ? Explaining to me how well Tiger gets paid doesn't inspire me to spend my days on the driving range.

I do support lower payouts fueled by lower entry fees and greater amenities given to all players, but that's a different topic.


You play for the first time, we give you money. Bizzare.


Bizarre, but possibly effective. I would prefer that we just show you a great time without money having to be a bif part of it.

"competitive base" as apposed to "amateur" which would bring about a "true amateur" branch to the discussion. There are largely 2 groups of players.

Recreational players that play nothing more organized that minis, and often not even those.

Competitive players that often play in organized events.

We need to grow both groups, but the recreational player is largely unorganized by choice and very difficult encourage. The beginning competitive player is a much more targetable audience that could have a big impact on the sport in a short time (3-5 years) if courted properly.

You missed a doosey James...

We all know that real money for Pro players will never come from playing for each other's money.


Well, it sure as ship isn't going to come from Am players playing for each other's money either now is it?

Our current am class is incapable of providing the growth our sport needs to move us away from playing for entry fees. It suffers from the same glass ceiling the pro class does.

We don't need to get rid of either, just create a new one so that we have a more natural top to bottom competitive system:

Pro
Prize
Am

Where terrific players can and should be in all 3.
3 options.
2 motivations.
1 player base to grow a sport.

if courted properly



Meaning taller stacks of plastic?

If you want to be effective, one strategy is to do what works. Jon and I have a formula for attracting large numbers of lower division players and large numbers of non-members to sanctioned events. That's good for the pdga in a ch-ching sort of way, so hopefully it is good for disc golf.

I played a few unsanctioned golf tournaments as a kid. Not one penny of my entry fee was skimmed to pay off Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus or a local pro. Has any sport grown successfully on that model?

But this is the only argument Jon and I need: it is the way we want to run our tournaments.

Bruce, I am not trying to rain on any parade. As I have said many times I do not want to see the Prize Classification die or deminish. It has a limited but proven record of attracting new and (now) many old players to the sport.

It has no similar track record of attracting scholastic or community groups. Nor corporate sponsors. Nor gain the mainstream attention disc golf deserves to gain.

I don't want to see money skimmed from these prize players up to the cash players any more than I would want true amateur players to have their entry fees skimmed to pay for taller stacks of plastic for prize players.

And that is exactly what is happening.

We are closing our doors to true amateur competition by stopping short on our competitive system at the prize level. Using all of our organizational energies to attract what are essentially a limited "for-profit" demographic of person. (There are signs that these are changing, and I am both encouraged and optimistic about them.)

I've heard folks say, you do it first. And I intend to, work is underway. Still, please don't be offended as I discuss it here also.

In short, I have no issues with what you and Jon are doing, in fact I have often praised it; what I am concerned with is that it seems so very clear to me that we are cutting ourselves off organizationally from the disc golfers that have the potential to reach our stated goals: True Amateurs.

Nick, I think you need to see the low entry fees Bruce charges before you call his events merchoramas. They may not be 100% trophy only but the payouts are not over the top compared to many Am events. Click on his link.

Chuck, I am very aware of what they do and as stated immediately prior to your post approve of it. Greatly in fact. My concern is with no overall organizational plan or forethought to build a player base based on something other than playing for each others entry fees (no matter the million ways you slice it).

There is a basic difference in motivation, and that other motivation is given no official place at our table. This, as I believe, to the detriment of our efforts to reach our ultimate goals.

if courted properly



Meaning taller stacks of plastic?



No, I mean something very much different.

A good time had by all. Entertainment value received for the dollars paid. I play for the competition. I only worry about the prizes when I pay for more than I get out of the event.

IF the TD puts forth the time and effort to make sure there is water onthe course, there is food available, the OBs are clearly marked, the course is groomed and ready to play, there is an event handbook with course details and sponsor information (so I can give them my business), then I have no problem with a higher entry fee.

When the TD shows up with a bunch of prizes, does little more than saying start, collecting score cards, and handing out prizes, I have a hard time justifying high entry fees, and want to see the value in the prizes.

I certainly enjoy the first type of tournament more. To me a well run event is worth $10-15 a round regardless of payout.
If every thing runs on time, there is food and entertainment on site, a player's party, Player's pack vouchers, a good host hotel deal, and plenty of sponsors (evidence the TD is working for the event in advance), then the event is worth more.

I think there are others out there that would be interested in a low cost/low payout series of events, league play, ladder play, or team play. Something that lasts more than one day or weekend and brings the same general group of players together, but doesn't have you playing with the same players every time. Something where you are paying to play, but not investing a lot of money in the experience.

This is in no way related to B-Tier and above sanctioned tournaments. This is a completely different thing that is aimed at getting the casual player more involved in organized competitive events. There needs to be a system that exposes new players to organized competition that does not require them to attend large events until they have a real desire to compete in them.

Nick,

I think I understand where the true am division fits in with schools and such but does the national or world organization have to recognize the division before there is a venue to play it? I think it will happen more organically as more and more schools offer disc golf as a sport, there will be more of a need for recognition from the PDGA.

If there were a bunch of disc golf players out there waiting for the opportunity to play a tournament without gambling then they would be flocking to our tournaments and play trophy-only. But they aren't. The people who play trophy only in our tournaments do so for economic reasons, not philosophical reasons.

Once there are some organized school disc golf conferences with disc golf meets, then it would make more sense to me for the PDGA to offer a true am division that the kids could compete in. But until there is some kind of structure out there for true ams to play in then I don't think it makes sense to make a division for them.

If I felt that we needed to have a true am division in disc golf, I'd just run it as part of my IOS tournaments. The division would either be unsanctioned or some kind of x-tier. But I'm not going to do that because no one wants to play in the true am divison. The demand needs to be built at the school level. Once there is a demand, someone is going to supply the tournament services.

Jon,

I am going to take issue with the points you raise, please do not view this as some personal attack.


Nick,

I think I understand where the true am division fits in with schools and such but does the national or world organization have to recognize the division before there is a venue to play it? I think it will happen more organically as more and more schools offer disc golf as a sport, there will be more of a need for recognition from the PDGA.



A disc golf example that proves you are mistaken is our current Prize class. Before it was incorporated into our overall competitive system, there were no players at PDGA events wanting or (obviously) knowing about it.


If there were a bunch of disc golf players out there waiting for the opportunity to play a tournament without gambling then they would be flocking to our tournaments and play trophy-only. But they aren't. The people who play trophy only in our tournaments do so for economic reasons, not philosophical reasons.



Yes, I agree that current PDGA players play for profit not for amateur motivations (the majority anyway). "Trophy Only" as a one year side show is not going to accomplish anything meaningful. I respect the effort, but it actually proves my point that a more concerted wider effort is needed for it to gain momentum. Tournament players, particularly PDGA tournament players, are naturally not going to gravitate towards such and option. Why would they? In 30 years they have known nothing but playing for each others entry fees.


Once there are some organized school disc golf conferences with disc golf meets, then it would make more sense to me for the PDGA to offer a true am division that the kids could compete in. But until there is some kind of structure out there for true ams to play in then I don't think it makes sense to make a division for them.



Jon, like I said, we need to set a fitting and prioritized place at the PDGA table for them. They will come, as sure as soccer, bowling, pool, football, basketball and every other kind of sport flourishes at the true amateur level. Why fool around with it and just "hope" that something good happens? Why not "make" it happen and on our terms and towards our goals?


If I felt that we needed to have a true am division in disc golf, I'd just run it as part of my IOS tournaments. The division would either be unsanctioned or some kind of x-tier. But I'm not going to do that because no one wants to play in the true am divison. The demand needs to be built at the school level. Once there is a demand, someone is going to supply the tournament services.



I wouldn't offer it at your IOS's either. Those events are for a specific demographic of player, something quite (obviously) different from a true amateur competition. I'm not even saying that you "should" run a true amateur event, as Bruce says do what you want. What I am saying is that as an organization we might want to think about preparing a place within our competitive system and organization for these group of players. Why not have programs ready and waiting for schools to utilize, where the PDGA's role is advisatory and perhaps provides administrative support at a reasonable price? These programs would have to be fully and completely protected from pro/prize competitors to ensure fairness and that it does not become corrupted. Who better than the PDGA to administer such a program.

I hope that I have been clear.

One last note: Folks keep harping on rec and casual players being the source of this new demographic of golfers. IT IS NOT.

True Amateurs don't suck skill wise. They don't take the game any less seriously. In fact their passion likely surpasses that of the average protected prize/cash players. They are not worse atheletes. They do not have weaker mental games. They are not less students of the game.

It is just that their engines are fueled exclusively on competition, with little to no regard for reward or even recognition. I bet that there are one or two of these folks mixed in with the PDGA tournament players. At least one I know of for sure; ME!

Gary,

I think we are in agreement and it sounds like your motivation is very similar to my own.

Don't huge payouts (when you know they are fueled by other players entry fees) make you uncomfortable? That feeling of it not being quite right comes from a deeper amateur sportsmen motivation and approach. Why can't we include an alternative to that in our organization and competitive system?

Nick,

I would not and did not take your response as a personal attack. I think you and I understand the circumstances of disc golf equally well. However, I tend to dwell in the here and now and you talk of the what could be. I do well in the here and now but have trouble seeing the what could be. Or sometimes I see it and can't figure out how to avoid it! :D

However, I will stand by my main point. *Someone* has to build a demand for a true am division before it will be offered. It's probably not going to be me because my disc golf energies are already allocated to other endeavors. Even if the PDGA BOD were to make a true am division tomorrow, it would die quicker than Pro 2 if no one goes out banging on doors and creating demand.

If we then have 3 classes of players with Pro, merchastravaganza and true am, then pretty much everyone who currently plays tournaments will fall into pro and merch. If the PDGA were to retire the merch division, most of those players will go unsanctioned.

Someone needs to create the demand for true am whether they do it before or after the PDGA creates the division.

OMG I dont even want to say this but I think that Nick finally said something that made sense (yes I learned how to spell sense). We cant pitch this True Am class to the PDGA Tournament players that we already have because most if not all of them are going to say "Why should I play for nothing when I have been playing for discs the past 5-10 years???"

I think if we go into places where people dont know about disc golf yet or into the school and say you can play tournaments for cheap and you can win trophys alot more players would be willing to try tournaments because I know lot of guys who are pretty good at my home course but dont play tournaments because they dont wan to RISK 40 or 50 not know if they are good enough or if they will even like the TOURNAMENT SCENE. I would never go back to play for nothing unless it because an issue of I couldnt afford the regular entry fee so I went trophy only, but I know there are alot of players out there that come to our leagues and play with us at the course that would love to try out a tournament for 10 bucks and play for a trophy and if the TD does a good job 10 bucks is nothing to play a tournament. I mean hell I have no problem paying 90 dollars for the DGLO every year in AM because it is a great expierience that the tournament is 1st Class so if a TD put on a good event and it was only 10 bucks im sure alot of "Casual" players would flock to it and try it out to see if they like tournaments and then from there they can choose to continute playing as a "Nick Kight AM" or move into the prize and cash divisions if they so choose to.

Oh and im not drunk while posting this so dont think thats why I am agreeing with Nick :eek:

Keep those players in mind, Steve. The Waterford Junior Girls Club might do three cheap trophy-only tournaments this summer. We aren't having our meeting until January so I don't know what they are doing yet. I'm Dictator General President for Life of the club, but that just means I get to drive them around. It does not mean I'm in charge of anything.

I started running "True Am PDGA Events" in 2004 and the AM attendance at my events keeps growing. Check out the History of the DDGC here http://www.mainediscgolf.com/ddgc/history.php
2004 &amp; 2005 were AM Trophy Only as will be the 2006 DDGC
All ams get Player Packs valued higher than entry fees and the top 3 or so in each division receive trophies. I also pay out 50% or better in the PRO divisions
Most AMs just want to play so if TDs would just run "True AM Events" the AMs would show up to play.

I believe that quite a few of the current prize players would be interested in a cheap trophy only type tournament. maybe not enough to opt for trophy only as opposed to "normal", but not enough to run away from a trophy only event. I just don't see them as replacing PDGA events.

I would play trophy only events, but I would not travel for a trophy only event unless it had a remarkable record and reputation. I think the true am venues are still going to be leagues, schools, team, and community (city run sports series) type events. Almost all of my true am experience is team related.

Gary,

I think we are in agreement and it sounds like your motivation is very similar to my own.

Don't huge payouts (when you know they are fueled by other players entry fees) make you uncomfortable? That feeling of it not being quite right comes from a deeper amateur sportsmen motivation and approach. Why can't we include an alternative to that in our organization and competitive system?



No, Huge payouts don't make me uncomfortable. As long as the players know going in what they are competing for I'm fine with it. If the entry fees are above $200 a person just to generate a big prize and enough players sign up to make it add up, that's fine. The only problem I have with it is that <u>I</u> don't want to spend that much money because the total purse amount isn't a high priority for me. I have no emotional or moral objections to it.

I started running "True Am PDGA Events" in 2004 and the AM attendance at my events keeps growing. Check out the History of the DDGC here http://www.mainediscgolf.com/ddgc/history.php
2004 & 2005 were AM Trophy Only as will be the 2006 DDGC
All ams get Player Packs valued higher than entry fees and the top 3 or so in each division receive trophies. I also pay out 50% or better in the PRO divisions
Most AMs just want to play so if TDs would just run "True AM Events" the AMs would show up to play.



And Bob, you are operating in relatively new waters up in Maine, right? What I mean is that you likely get first time players (tournament players) more than the rest of us, so they don't have all the preconceived notions of stacks of plastic as the ultimate competitive goal yet, right?

Again, their is nothing wrong with wanting to win tons of plastic, just that it is different from what we are discussing here.

I don't see True Am PDGA Events as cheap-o events, but as super events with tons of amenities, players packages, meals, possibly lodging, entertainment and major amateur titles. They will just not have profit as a motivating factor at all.

Yes, there can be True Am Mini's too with minimum expendatures and budgets, but they do not need to be limited to that alone. Prime examples abound: High School Cross-Country Meets are the one I run into all the time out at dg courses near me. Some of them have close to 1000 kids at them. And the sense of excitement and intense competition is palpable. The awards ceremonies are off the chart as far as enthusiasm.

And Jon, certainly it will take a great many folks, organizers and volunteers to get this to the point of critical mass. But once it is in place, prize and cash classes need never worry again about sponsors or player base, nor the PDGA for a steady source of members or volunteers. The same, in my opinion, will never, or not for a very very long time, happen with the competitive structure we currently have and support exclusively.

Besides who is in a better position to design and impliment such a plan, where concerted and broad cooperation and coordination will be essential to success?

Bruce, Jon, Bob and I doing our thing in tiny pockets around the country is not "nothing" but it is not going to build the momentum necessary to launch what I am confident will be a classification that will absolutely dwarf our current two classifications.

One last note: Folks keep harping on rec and casual players being the source of this new demographic of golfers. IT IS NOT.

True Amateurs don't suck skill wise. They don't take the game any less seriously. In fact their passion likely surpasses that of the average protected prize/cash players. They are not worse atheletes. They do not have weaker mental games. They are not less students of the game.


[/QUOTE]It is just that their engines are fueled exclusively on competition, with little to no regard for reward or even recognition. I bet that there are one or two of these folks mixed in with the PDGA tournament players. At least one I know of for sure; ME!

[/QUOTE]

I am one of the sucky ams who have played in a bunch of the IOS events run by the Brakelbros.

It seems to me that disc golf, like just about any sport, has class divisions. There are pros, excellent playing sub pros, decent club level players and complete hackers. The decent club level players drive the game of ball golf. They spend money on equipment, join clubs, take trips, go to watch the pros. These are essentially the int and rec players at the IOS tournaments. We can't compete with Tiger Woods or with Nathan Doss. We go to our local course and play our middling game and the local kids go, "oh wow" and get excited by the sport. We spend money on equipment because we rarely win equipment at tournaments. Some of us will eventually become excellent playing sub pros and some of us will stay where we are. We are the base level of interested and serious golfers.

If and when the sport ever grows to the point where there is outside money because somebody wants to watch tournaments live or on ESPN 8 (the Ocho for you Dodgeball afficiandados) the pros will finally get their due. Until then, it aint gonna happen. Why will the sport grow to that level? Because players like me are excited about disc golf and want to watch the top players. Hey, it might elevate our game. If disc golf ignores us, if it costs me $50 to enter a tournament and if I get treated like dirt because nobody cares about rec players, the bottom falls out.

No, growth will come from the bottom up. Jon and Bruce, thanks for running tournaments that get new players involved in the game. (and thanks for withholding the laughter when some shots are just unexplainable)

[/QUOTE] And Bob, you are operating in relatively new waters up in Maine, right?

[/QUOTE]
Well that depends what you call new, I have been running about 20+ events a year since '96. I have run the gambit of events any format you might think of I have probably ran it along the way I have Paid AMs in Cash,Prizes & Trophies. My PDGA Sanctioned Events will be "True AM" Events
. Good value Player Packs for all AMs is a much better attraction than Stacks of plastic for a few.
Check out
http://mainediscgolf.com/ddgc/players/guarantee.php

http://www.mainediscgolf.com/dragan/



Nice web site. That's the best virtual tour I've seen - I'm ready for summer time in Maine!!

[/QUOTE]

Nice web site. That's the best virtual tour I've seen - I'm ready for summer time in Maine!!

[/QUOTE]

Thanks, a new updated version is being worked on - Contact us if you make the trip to Maine, first weekend in June would be a good time to be here
http://www.mainediscgolf.com/ddgc/

I like your approach. I especially like your approach to Masters vs. Open. It enables Masters who aren't playing Open level golf to enter affordably and have a nice chance to cash. It also would seem to encourage the really good Masters to play Open, since there's so much more to be won.

$25 entry fee for Masters, Women, and AM.s with $70 for Open seems like a good idea, although it might discourage top Pro Women from travelling to your area ...

If we could get more than one pro woman to come out at all (last year the only pro woman to show ended up playing Intermediate), we'd concern ourselves more with trying to attract the bigger names. As it stands though, we're trying to make it attractive for the local ladies first, thus we pay 100% of the field at nearly 200% payout. You do make a good point though. Perhaps when the demand is there, we'll have to raise the women's entry fee to meet it.

--Josh

If we could get more than one pro woman to come out at all (last year the only pro woman to show ended up playing Intermediate), we'd concern ourselves more with trying to attract the bigger names. As it stands though, we're trying to make it attractive for the local ladies first, thus we pay 100% of the field at nearly 200% payout. You do make a good point though. Perhaps when the demand is there, we'll have to raise the women's entry fee to meet it.

--Josh



i know what you mean about trying to keep Pro Women entry fees low enough to encourage participation of women who aren't as accomplished (yet) to enter verses making the payout decent for the ones that finish on top. Maybe added cash to the top 2 would be an answer, while still maintaining lower entry fees. :confused:

I mention recreational and casual players as a type of player, not as a skill level. There are quite a few pro level players that either play no organized competitve golf, or at least nothing more than league or minis.

They do not attend sanctioned or non-sanctioned organized tournaments. It has nothing to do with their skill level. Hopefully these players will join organized competition when the entries and prizes are more in line with casual golf.

Yes, very nice tour of the course.