The new PDGA policy allowing pros to play as amateurs creates a new class of player, the fair-weather pro, who feasts on the rest of us. Fair-weather pros will try to score some cash when it is to their advantage; otherwise they will try to take prizes and cash away from amateurs. You may not know how many of them there are in any given tournament until the last minute, because they will discover that they can maximize their advantage by registering late or making strategic shifts after they scan the most current registration information and consult the player rating list.

No matter how many there are, when fair-weather pros play as amateurs, bad things happen to both pros and amateurs. If you are a pro, their absence makes it less likely that your division will make. A division might even unmake at the last minute as they switch categories. Whatever division you do play in, it will have fewer players (and thus a lower proportion of added cash), and the remaining players will have a higher average player rating.

If you are an amateur, they occupy slots that could have gone to other amateurs. You might even get frozen out of the event if your division fills, as has already happened at this year�s Memorial. If you do get to play the experience may seem surreal. While they are telling you how privileged you are to be able to play against pros, and how it will build your character if they get your prizes and trophies, you will be thinking that you have seen some of these people somewhere before. Finally it will come to you � they are the same people who, only last year, were yelling �Move up, bagger!� at other amateurs.

Rather than respect, this policy inspires jokes. Here�s the latest:

The new PDGA member, confused by policy verbiage, asks his more experienced buddy, �Say, help me out here. How do I figure out whether to play as an amateur or a pro?�
The wily vet responds, "Don�t worry about it. It's easy. Be a pro."
"A Pro?� says the newbie. �OK. Awesome! And what about you."
"That's easy too", replies the vet. "If I can beat you, I'm a pro. But if you might beat me, I'm an amateur."

There is only one part of this policy that should be kept. That is to allow pros to play as amateurs if their division does not make. This is particularly helpful to women, who must face a huge ratings differential if they have to play in the equivalent men�s division. The rest of it must go. I propose the following revisions.

1) A pro rated below 955 (or whatever) may play as an amateur at any event at which his/her division is not offered.

2) In all such cases, the pro might receive points, but not merchandise or trophies. Pros must never deprive amateurs of the chance to cash.

3) If the PDGA wishes to resurrect the tournament careers of inactive pros, it should bring them back as amateurs. This is best done by allowing 2005 to be an amnesty year during which any pro may freely return to the amateur ranks. Thereafter the PDGA should clarify, publicize and enforce the differences between amateurs and pros.

If I am a low ranked Am, what's the difference between loosing to a 954 ranked Am, or a 954 ranked Pro? Furthermore, what is to keep a low ranked Am from dropping down and taking a high ranked Intermediate's winnings? Saying that a group of Pros are going to drop down and win someone else�s money introduces the notion that the top guys in Am have a right to win; this seems like nonsense to me (but then again, so does eating rocky mountain oysters :)). Essentially, those players are going to play up when they have a chance to win, when they are evenly matched with the top guys. What could be bad about that? Shouldn�t every match be about evenly matched players going head-to-head?

As has been pointed out before, a large number of players are playing higher than their rating justifies. My guess is that this rule change is going to drive players down to the class where their rating puts them. I don't see this as bad. I support an open market where one is allowed to play where one wants to. If the end result is that we end up pushing players down and wiping out the Pro division, so be it. That simply proves it existed only because of a rule. Forcing people to play where they don't want to can't help us to attract and keep more players. That can only occur if we construct divisions that will support each type of player and then allow them to play there.

2) In all such cases, the pro might receive points, but not merchandise or trophies. Pros must never deprive amateurs of the chance to cash.




If they really were amateurs they couldn't "cash" anyway. You're just talking about pros taking prizes away from other pros.

Very well stated, Peter.

I personally find the petty whining on this topic to be quite humorous! :D :p :cool::) /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif :o:eek:

I agree with what Lyle said.

I would add that there is another group of players that needs to be considered, and that's the group of experienced stable golfers from 915 to 925. They are stuck in Adv, and have to have a smoking round or two to cash at an event. They will still be 3-4 strokes per round behind the migrating Pros.

I think the cutoff may be just a little high. I don't think the Pros moving down should be competing for the victory with a just a little better than average day, but maybe competing for a cashing spot with an average day.

Tell us your story, Mr. Shive, so we can understand your true argument. Doesn't go like this:

"I'm a 941 rated World Champion Senior Grandmaster. Last year I was 100% in the cash playing Pro Master, Grand Master and Senior Grand Master, with wins in all three divisions and eight first place finishes in 15 tournaments. Now when I sign up to play Senior Grand Masters the seniors with under 900 ratings go play in other divisions and I don't have a division."

I think that was a foreseeable, intended consequence of the format change. We intended to create options for players to compete against similarly skilled opponents. Clearly sorting by age alone does not acheive that. Neither does sorting by past preference for cash or plastic.

The 955 rated open pro player has little chance to cash in C and B tiers and virtually no chance to cash in A or NT level events. It is kind of laughable to portray these players as some kind of predator licking their chops as they survey their possible kill in the open division.

I agree with what Lyle said.

I would add that there is another group of players that needs to be considered, and that's the group of experienced stable golfers from 915 to 925. They are stuck in Adv, and have to have a smoking round or two to cash at an event. They will still be 3-4 strokes per round behind the migrating Pros.


I think we should be getting close to the time where we can take a second [third, fourth, whatever] look at Chuck Kennedy's longstanding proposal to have different ratings caps at different tiers. When Chuck first proposed it only a few players knew what a rating was or what their rating was or what it meant. Now we have rec players joining specifically to get a rating and almost everyone seems to be ratings conscious.

I don't think we need a solution for the 854 rated player who gets trounced in Advanced every time, but if the Int cap was A-925, B-915, C-905, or something similar, that would be a fair way to deal with Gary's issue. Included would be corresponding shifts in all the other caps and floors.

Bruce is fond of saying "Throw a rock at a pack of dogs and the one that yelps is the one that you hit." This often applies when someone posts an opinion on this board. Right away you know who you "hit" with that post.

I'm working on another analogy to apply to this thread and others like them. It's not quite perfected yet but here it goes, "If you tear down a fence and let some cows loose, the guy that hits you over the head with the milking stool is the guy that was planning on milking those cows."

I'm from California, so these little farm-saying don't really hit home, but are you two brothers trying to say that the original poster has other motives besides his claimed outrage for the "real" amateurs behind his dislike of the new "pros playing am" rules?

I'm from California, so these little farm-saying don't really hit home, but are you two brothers trying to say that the original poster has other motives besides his claimed outrage for the "real" amateurs behind his dislike of the new "pros playing am" rules?



First off "real" amateurs is not correct.

Secondly, because this change has a direct negative effect on the original poster it is not far fetched to think that he has other motives behind his post

Are you calling <955 rated pro players "cows" (since the higher rated pros will not be able to milk them)?

Or are the lower-rated advanced players the "cows", and the higher-rated advanced players who will be beaten by the division-swooping pros now the guys with the stools?

I just want to know who to expect to hear mooing from, as well as who might be wielding a dangerous stool.

Love the analogy, BTW.

Now, I'm sure there are lots of lonely golfers who might want to be mil... I mean like to wear leath... wait, like gras... oh man, watch out for the monitors!

The analogy kind of breaks down when you realize that some of the cows are not merely wandering off to look for greener pastures, as cows will do, but are marching off towards the sheep pen with fleecing shears and a wicked grin!

I'm from California, so these little farm-saying don't really hit home, but are you two brothers trying to say that the original poster has other motives besides his claimed outrage for the "real" amateurs behind his dislike of the new "pros playing am" rules?



I've seen the "Happy Cow" commericials touting California cheese so I know that there are cows out there!

Seriously though, when comes down to it pretty much everyone has a self-serving motive when they post. But it is easier to poke fun when that self serving motive is in their wallet.

Bruce wants to know my story. By that I presume he means the way in which my self interest connects to the issue. He�s got my stats almost correct, but not my concern. SGM�s wouldn�t play amateur to get away from me � there are plenty of ams and even am masters rated above me. It�s not going to affect my division. In fact, we�ll probably have more SGM play this year than ever before, because we have organized for it.

The effect will be far greater on the younger divisions, and that does affect us indirectly. It�s stupid for us to play down if the under 955�s in the lower pro divisions have all split. That�s why we�ve organized, so we can play in events where we know in advance that our division will make.

Knowing the SGM�s as I do, I suspect that, even with this new policy, we�ll have satisfying professional play in my division during the rest of my competitive lifetime. In the other divisions, however, it will be seriously eroded for the reasons I noted in my initial post. In a larger sense I regret this, because I have loved the struggle to become successful, and would like to believe that others will have a chance to feel the way I do when they are in their 60�s.

It is easy to mistake cynicism for whining. I wrote in a deliberately cynical style, to match the system I was describing. However, if the membership truly does prefer the new system I will have no complaints. Nor would I criticize any player for taking full advantage of what the new policy allows, any more than I would criticize a falling putt if the rules of play were changed to permit it. I just wanted to point out, in a hopefully entertaining way, some of the major consequences of the change.

Are you calling <955 rated pro players "cows" (since the higher rated pros will not be able to milk them)?

Or are the lower-rated advanced players the "cows", and the higher-rated advanced players who will be beaten by the division-swooping pros now the guys with the stools?

I just want to know who to expect to hear mooing from, as well as who might be wielding a dangerous stool.

Love the analogy, BTW.



Sometimes the milkees become the milkers or vice versa...it all depends on which fence is knocked down on which parallel division(s)!

My parents were from North Dakota, and we went there every summer. So this city kid has actually driven tractors and milked cows and jumped off the top of the barn into haystacks and all kinds of neat stuff. :) I just couldn't resist the city-kid angle.

I like the cow analogy because, as a 921 rated am, I'm just looking for whoever it is that has the pail and the three legged stool. Pro or am don't really matter much.

But if TFO has a shot of getting on the leadercard once in a while now, I have no problems with format at all. :)

It's still early in the year and many pros who might opt to enter an Am division may not know they have that option yet. But at least at the Memorial, the only two pros who have entered am are myself (MPG) and Pete May (MPS), third ranked in the World behind Peter Shive. Granted, we know about and were part of developing the new option, but none of the young guys Peter was concerned about have chosen it at this high powered event where they would have the most benefit to play Am. The top rated Advanced is only 949 but all male pro divisions including MPG have several to many more higher rated players than that. There's no reason for the Women Pros to slide over to Am at this event since the ratings of the top women in their 12 woman field are essentially the same as the top Advanced guys.

We're not even two months into the implementation of this new rule and it's already being widely panned and derided. I knew this would happen. (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Ratings & Skill-based Competition&Number=246008&Searchpage=0&Main=244839&Search=true&#Post246008) It really seems like this rule change was not thought out as extensively as it could have been and without enough feedback from the membership, and now we're suffering the backlash because of it.

All I have seen is a lot of talk, not much action.

Someone else said that if it scares all the players that are playing up in divisions above their ratings and expecting to win back to the proper division, thy're all for it, and so am I.

I hope some Pros take advantage of the change, and that they have a hard time in the AM divisions, and they enjoy the game again.

I hope the MA2 division gets filled with players that belong there and on down the line.

I really hope Nick organizes a pure amateur league framework (not protected from WWCCA players, but with no incentives for WWCCA players) that can develop into a model for inter-scholatsic play.

And I think this like any other divisional change requires a minimum of 2 years to see if it starts having the desired effect.

We're not even two months into the implementation of this new rule and it's already being widely panned and derided. I knew this would happen. (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Ratings & Skill-based Competition&Number=246008&Searchpage=0&Main=244839&Search=true&#Post246008) It really seems like this rule change was not thought out as extensively as it could have been and without enough feedback from the membership, and now we're suffering the backlash because of it.



Widely panned and derided? 10 or so vocal people on the message board is widely? Even if it were 50-100 people on the message board complaining, that would not be a good metric for how it is working.

Wait 9 months and see how many <955 'retired' Pro's come back out of the woodwork. That is be a much bettter metric.

It really seems like these loud complainers have not thought it out as extensively as they could have been and without enough feedback from the leadership.

I think this is a good rule change. I'm looking forward to a competitive advanced field if these 950 rated Pros, I mean advanced players come back to play advanced.

The Greater Peoria Open is a perfect example. There were 26 Pros that played. Most of the IL lower rated pros stayed home.

I think this is a good rule change. I'm looking forward to a competitive advanced field if these 950 rated Pros, I mean advanced players come back to play advanced.

The Greater Peoria Open is a perfect example. There were 26 Pros that played. Most of the IL lower rated pros stayed home.



I have never put much stock in ratings, but it only seems logical that a 955-rated Advanced player would look forward to playing against "pros" who, at best, would have an equal rating.

On a side note, the Peoria Open is not a perfect example of anything, other than the fact that some people hold grudges for a long time. I know the "lower-rated pros [who] stayed home," and I also know why they stayed there. Maybe Illinois' new state coodinator would like to know the reason? If so, send me a private message.

[/QUOTE]
I have never put much stock in ratings, but it only seems logical that a 955-rated Advanced player would look forward to playing against "pros" who, at best, would have an equal rating.


[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is logical. 955 rated players are not pros. The are advanced players.

I'll use these examples. We ran 3 events in the Illinois Open Series.

Streamwood-> 12 Pros, 3 rated under 955 of which 0 cashed.
Crystal Lake-> 10 Pros, 2 rated under 955 of which 1 cashed.
Round Lake-> 10 Pros, 4 rated under 955 of which 0 cashed.
Total-> 32 Pros, 9 rated under 955 of which 1 cashed.

I ran the DISContinuum Blast which was a ratings event.
Waukegan-> 9 Pros, 3 rated under 955 of which 1 cashed.

The one Pro that played Silver with a 949 rating finished 4th VS advanced players winning $36.00. He would have not cashed in Gold.

Final total
42 Pros, 13 rated under 955 of which 2 cashed.

Check out the Lumber Cup results.
Out of the 18 Open players, all 4 players under 955 finished at the bottom of the field.
18 Pros, 4 rated 955 or below, best finish 14th.

Check out the 17th Channahon Classic.
Out of the 19 Open players, all players under 955 finished at the bottom of the field.
19 Pros, 6 rated 955 or below, best finish 12th.

Dave Gentry, our new PDGA Tour Director, told me the other day that the positive remarks about the new Pro in Am option have been running at least 30 to 1 in favor as he hears from players either in person, email or phone.

Brett is from Gridley. He knows the difference between a cow and a milking stool! Any 955 rated TD playing advanced is probably also collecting cash payments from the government for not growing beans. :D

But his stats make the point well. And when you go look at the non-master <955 Illinois pros, you see a bunch of guys who played one tournament last year. You see this in a lot of states.

Logical is in the mind of the beholder.
Or not. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I believe one of Peter's original underlying points is that players will start playing "down" more consistently.
If those 955 players play Adv or Am, that squishes the lower players and decreases payouts in the Pro division.
Those lower Ams will then be pushed down to play Rec, when available, etc.

However, the IL Open Series seems to be offering players some options at each venue. If you guys will keep stats of all these (including tracking which players switch divs throughout the year), you will have some solid factoids when the year is done.

I'll keep hammering it until it stops but there's no playing down in disc golf. Players can play 'more up' by choosing Open or Master Pro versus Advanced. But no one is playing down with a rating under 955 by entering Advanced or Intermediate with a rating under 915.

I understand what you're saying, Chuck, but I'll believe it when I see results from this current season.
But thanks for saying it again. :D

I'm a tester.

I tested the waters as an advanced player playing up in the Pro2 division last year. I thought it was worth my time to investigate it. I thought it was a good option to get players to step out of the advanced field and into a pool of lower pros and top ams who weren't afraid to take cash if they did in fact, win.

I cashed in both tournaments. The first one I took merch, in the second I took cash. This was before any of this pros playing as ams rule was in effect.

Since then, I have only played pro, I was a stroke out of last cash at my first event, then I was not even in Advanced cash at my next event. But I turned around last week and took 6th in Pro last week. My first cash. That was at a D Tier though.

This weekend I'll be playing at Buckhorn, a course that is known for it's righty favoring long water shots. I've never played there. I will be going to the course with hopes ofdoing well, but the reality is, any righty can hyzer a shot over the water, where I have to throw a controlled anhyzer on these shots. There are three of them. One miscalculated shot is worth 2, and I have 12 shots that I need to execute perfectly.

I am rated 946 and I am going to play am. It's $20 cheaper (a consideration as I have a wife and 2 kids) and I have acceptedthat I will potentially lose some plastic. I think I am playing against a level field playing against mostly right handed Raleigh boys at this event.

I'm testing the waters. That's what people need to do to this new rule. If we don't test the waters, who is to say that this is a good or bad decision by the PDGA.

Your divisional guinea pig, Matt Peckham

If you go back to the 2002 GPO historical stats and look at the bottom of the pro division, where you are looking at the 950ish rated non-cashing pros, you see that a bunch of them have quit the PDGA. A bunch of them play one event a year. There is one guy whose rating has fallen 80 points. I don't know what his story is, but I don't see any value in keeping these players on the sidelines if they want in the game.

If every one of these guys currently playing one tournament a year as deep donor pro were to play three tournaments a year as an advanced player, there is no difference in the amount of cash available to the pros at those tournaments where TDs create added cash from advanced amateur profits.

Time will tell, but I don't think we will see a lot of players dropping out of Open to play Advanced. I think we will see more players dropping out of painting the garage or fixing the slow drain to play Advanced.

xterramaTT: Would you have played Open at that tournament if that were your only option, or would you have made that a "family weekend" so you could play Open an other week at another tournament where the course was less lefty unfriendly?

You're a wimp, a whiner, a wuss, a weakling, and a wierdo. You made the decision to go Pro for life and never again compete for plastic coins again. You are a theif, a bagger, a gutless wonder, a cheater. And you are all the other bad things I could not think up on short notice. You are the kind of person that is bad for the PDGA.

There, I said it so that DiscPimples and the other likeminded folks out there wouldn't have to.

And, I would do the same thing if I was in your shoes. Oh, yeah....I am basically in your shoes - close to your rating and age, have wife & kids, and...am a lefty. But, I will have another layer of protection available to me next year - I will be able to play MPO.

You see, this is just another example of the leadership not consulting the masses. Did they even stop to consider the poor wives/girlfriends/partners who will now have to put up with slow drains and unpainted garages?
I demand a vote be distributed to all members partners... ;)

...there is no difference in the amount of cash available to the pros at those tournaments where TDs create added cash from advanced amateur profits.



Hmmm. How often does THIS happen?

Matt - good post and good luck this weekend.

I am possibly the lowest rated pro in the nation.
I willingly play Open in sanctioned events.
Yep, I'm a donor and am fine with paying a few extra bucks in order to:
-get educated by higher-ranked pros and improve my game/knowledge
-enjoy the higher level of professionalism

It has nothing to do with payouts.
If my game revolved around levels of reward, I'd get divorced, sell my kids, and play the lottery.

In my 13 years of playing and TDing [mostly unsanctioned] events, I have seen MANY more players "play down" after seeing that event's competition or seeing the expected payouts listed for a certain division. That's the main reasons for my cynicism.

when people say that someone will play down they are probably talking about guys like me Chuck. I have an 864 rating but play INT. I have won a tournament at INT even though it was reported wrong and put me in the ADV division for some reason. There is no reason for a guy like me to play down to REC but by my rating I am allowed to do so.

What people are trying to say is that these pros playing down will push those guys who's rating just hasn't caught up to their ability that will start playing down a division.

...there is no difference in the amount of cash available to the pros at those tournaments where TDs create added cash from advanced amateur profits.



Hmmm. How often does THIS happen?



As far as I know every event that adds cash to the pros but doesn't have a cash sponsor. The cash comes from somewhere. Moo. That is why you didn't see "added cash" in the IOS Events (www.brasscash.com) last year. We took the profit from those tournaments and turned them into CTPs with Am payouts around 150%. This year we have talk from one of the club sponsors for cash sponsorship of the IOS. If that money pans out it will go to the pro purse.

Chuck's point was the an 864 rated player is playing up in INT, and should be playing REC. In some places, those players are competitive because their ratings are lagging, but in most places it is because all of the INT players are playing up in ADV.

Now instead of players playing where their rating says they should be playing most players are playing up. When the Pros are allowed to play in ADV (if their rating says they should be in ADV and not Pro), then the INT players in that division are going to be outclassed. Now they will have to "play down" to the division they should in before they will be competitive.

I have pushed players playing where they belong (according to the ratings) from the very beginning because the PDGA won't be able to accurately evaluate the division separations unless the players actually use them.

M M OO OO
MM MM O O O O
M M M M O O O O
M M M M O O O O
M M M O O O O
M M O O O O
M M O O O O
M M OO OO
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I looked at all the 2004 Illinois tournament results for the open division.

Tournament-- # of Pros / # of Pros rated less than 955/ 955 rated or below that cashed
by the * is the lowest rated player that cashed

Olympia Fields--10/6/1 *942
Shorewood--11/3/0 *966
Peoria--26/2/0 *1001
Joliet--16/3/0 *963
Streamwood--12/3/0 *963
Sinnissippi--18/2/0 *972
Lumber Cup--18/4/0 *970
Crystal Lake--10/2/1 *947
Round Lake--10/4/0 *970
Lockport--13/5/0 *966
Waukegan--10/4/1 *947
Channahon--19/6/0 *964
Springfield--6/4/2 *947

Totals
179 total pros played
48 total 955 rated or below pros
5 total 955 rated players that cashed

Now I see why all those 950 rated Pros quit playing. Great job by the PDGA to do something to get those players back in the game.

Cool of you to work those numbers, Brett.
The results surprize me, though the >955 pros did pretty well in Crystal Lake and Springfield. But I'd still like to see those who are willing to play up.

Here are the stats from NC events. Note these rankings are based on the December update.

Event - Number Pros - Number Pros < 955 - Number Pros < 955 Cash

Mookies Cup - 25 - 9 - 2
Buckhorn - 19 - 3 - 0
Coastal Plains - 14 - 5 - 0
Azalea - 24 - 7 - 0 *
Tarheel - 12 - 0 - 0 **
Dogwood - 63 - 18 - 1 ***
Mountain - 20 - 9 - 1
Big Valley - 14 - 5 - 0
Farm Life - 14 - 8 - 3
Horizons - 10 - 3 - 0
PB 1 - 12 - 4 - 0
PB 2 - 11 - 3 - 0
PB 3 - 14 - 4 - 1
PB 4 - 13 - 4 - 0
ChaChing - 13 - 3 - 0
Alamance - 21 - 4 - 0
Oak Hollow - 32 - 19 - 2 ****
NC FDCs - 18 - 5 - 1 *
Hickory - 8 - 3 - 0
Sneeky Pete - 27 - 2 - 0
ECU - 9 - 2 - 0
Fall Classic - 13 - 3 - 1 ****
Bull City - 22 - 6 - 0
One Moe - 12 - 5 - 1

* Player with rating < 955 was registered but DNP
** Pro 2 was offered
*** NT event
**** People with ratings < 955 cashed but did not accept

also...

"pros > 955" means pros that are rated higher than 955

.....sorry...that is the math teacher in me

One thing I did not include on my stats were the Open Masters and Women.

I did not use pro master or pro women either. Just the open division.

Thanks for running those #'s.

I'd like to continue to see more. What you don't see with those #'s are where those players >955 cashed. After looking at the IL results it looked like you needed to be rated around 965 to have a legit shot to get into the cash consistently. I'm sure this varies from state to state but i'm guessing states like NC, WI, & MI are tougher to get into the cash.

Also, one thing you cannot see in those stats are all of the pros with ratings under 955 that Bruce mentions who have dropped out of active tournament play.

I looked up all IL Pros. There are only 43 pro players on the website from IL. 25 of those are rated under 955. I checked every name and the majority of them were Pro Masters.

However, this player was not. http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=18901 I do not know him or his story.
2001 he played 9 events. 8 Advanced & 1 Int
2002 he played 17 events. All Advanced
2003 he played 8 events. 4 Advacned & 4 Open
2004 he played 1 event. 1 Open
Again, I do not know his story. I wish I had his contact information so I could talk to him and find out why he did not attend events in 2004. He did not cash so he could have played advanced. Maybe the PDGA needs to isolate these types of players and send out a poll with new 2005 information.

He has the typical "move up, move up, move out" ratings curve too. In 12 months time he improved his rating from 870s to 940s. With that kind of improvement, in 12 more months he'd be on the tour. Just as he made the move to pro he plateaued.

Speaking as a TD and a player, this is not a guy I need the system to discourage from playing tournaments. This is a guy who fits in with the skill level we now call advanced.

Ha, I knew who Brett was talking about before I even checked the stats...

Andy Rivers is cool as heck! He developed into a good Advanced player while he was still in high school, and he hasn't played much since he went away to college. I don't think seeing that type of trend is uncommon, as I went through a phase where I didn't play many sanctioned events for a few years. Whether the <955 scheme would influence his decision to play sanctioned events, I really can't say. I know that when I was in that situation it wouldn't have influenced my decision.

You know what would be a much better solution to this whole issue? If all those 955-rated golfers would go out and actually practice with the intent of improving into 970-rated golfers. On second thought, that requires work. It really is much better to come up with complex divisional structures, rating systems, and rule changes to ensure that everyone has a chance to be a winner!

He has the typical "move up, move up, move out" ratings curve too. In 12 months time he improved his rating from 870s to 940s. With that kind of improvement, in 12 more months he'd be on the tour. Just as he made the move to pro he plateaued.

Speaking as a TD and a player, this is not a guy I need the system to discourage from playing tournaments. This is a guy who fits in with the skill level we now call advanced.


[QUOTE]

Also, one thing you cannot see in those stats are all of the pros with ratings under 955 that Bruce mentions who have dropped out of active tournament play
[QUOTE]


both these statements fit me just after a turned pro master i was rated at 940 and i took a couple of last place cash and my game has plateaued and has gone down hill ever scene then.

and as chuck states i have stop being a active tournament player because it's no fun always being on the last card and although now i can play adv.am with a rating of 928 i would have to listen to a bunch of crap from the local golf scene

there's really only a couple of tournaments that i would like to play that require me to be a pdga member so i'll prolly just skip those and just play a couple of local tourny's this year.

funny thing is i used to play every local socal. tourny and a few up in norcal. and even would hit a couple of out of state tourny's and now i hardly play in tourny's at all

Got that player rating under 9-fifty-five
Playing JV cuz the PDGA lets me get by
Gonna stack that plastic til it gets sky-high
selling winnings for the bread and I'm not talking Rye
So why lie, I'm am til I die, so no need to cry
just dry that eye and watch me pimp this drive.

But if TFO has a shot of getting on the leadercard once in a while now, I have no problems with format at all. :)



what you talking about willis :D

Thanks for agreeing with me Rev! I can identify with your experience, as I too went through the "last card" phase, and now I am trying to break out of the "playing for last cash" phase.

I know that if the "Pro playing Am" option had been available to me, I would not have taken advantage of it. I have spoken with other sub-955-rated pros, and I know that it has not influenced their decision to play an event if for no other reason than the simple fact that playing with pros is a much more enjoyable experience. As it pertains to my own situation, it would have been much more beneficial if someone had explained, "You are now playing pro. These guys are good. You can't go a week without practicing and expect to beat these guys like you used to do when you played Advanced."

Since Brett, Bruce, and Jon are so fond of looking at stats, they might notice that the majority of Illinois pros with ratings below 955 were good Advanced players who had a great deal of success in the Advanced division. Most of these golfers didn't have immediate success when they moved to the Open division, so they either stopped playing sanctioned events or stopped playing entirely. I suppose you can keep looking at stats of players who were around before your time and trying to use them as an example to support your claims. Don't worry guys! It really isn't important to know the full story about people before you post, and I am more than willing to fill in the missing details for you!

i know a lot of people might not agree with this new thing of letting pro with <955 ratings play adv am again and in some cases i would agree that some players should stay in the pro div. for the play who truely can't compete in the pro div. you would think that people would inbrace the fact that they are seeing more people coming back to the tournament play,who knows it may spark thier competitive juices and get them back in the hunt again.

one should always remember that they were your friend long before they were your competition on the course and you should be encourageing them not call them loser's who couldn't cut it as a pro.

just a thought

Hey Rev,

Are you implying that I am calling people losers if they can't compete as a pro? If so, please point out where you are getting that idea.

In the most simple terms, here is my position: I would love to see more people playing more events. I simply do not want this to be at the expense of the pro divisions in terms of participation or money.

i was in no way implying that of you and i'm sorry if you took it that way.
all's i was trying to say is that people are going to give those players who decide to play down a bunch of crap. thats all

actualy i liked your post and i was going off another thought i had that had nothing to do with your post

sorry
TFO :)

So far from what I see in NC(2 tournies), there are not many pros rated < 955 moving down to play advanced.

Probably because they know the competition in ADV is tight here in NC and it won't mean an automatic win.

I simply do not want this to be at the expense of the pro divisions in terms of participation or money.




Too bad you missed the speech at Channahon. Hey 930 rated advanced players. Thanks for stepping up and playing pro. Thanks for the extra money. That was funny.

I am more than willing to fill in the missing details for you!



Those missing details are great. If that player had ever cashed he could come back and play advanced if he chooses instead of playing Pro. Nothing like trying to compete with pros after beeing gone for a while.

I remember at the Tarheel Tourny last year, that some pros weren't too happy when people started to move down to Pro 2 the day of the tourny.

TFO,

No problem! I just wanted to clarify, that's all. I agree with you that players who play down (or "laterally" as Chuck calls it) will get a lot of crap from both the amateurs and the pros. I would like to see more people play in the Open division, but I will respect the decision of anyone who comes back after an absence and plays Advanced.

Here are the two main problems that I have with the "Pros playing Am" rule: If all of the <955-rated golfers opt for the Advanced division, it will lead to a smaller field of Open pros. If the size of the pro field is reduced, the payout will be reduced, and the 955--980 rated pros will become the donor pros at the bigger events.

The only people who have a legitimate reason to move down are the ones who were forced to move up back in the day when they did that and people who have gotten injured and can no longer compete at the level they once did. If you move down simply because you choose accept cash and turn pro but now you cant hack it your a complete sissy and coward and you should have thought about this kind of thing before you turned pro in the first place.

Thats about all there is too it.

I cant wait to compete against these 954 rated pros and then laugh at them when I mop the floor with them. This season is going to be great. Plus playing those guys will make me even better for USADGC and Worlds where i wont even have to play against them :D

I completely agree with your first paragraph, but how would mopping the floor with them make you better?

Well it will make me feel better :D

I just want to laugh in the face of the cowards that move down and get smoked. I think ill get a chance to do that next month in AZ when i play the Memorial :D

In the most simple terms, here is my position: I would love to see more people playing more events. I simply do not want this to be at the expense of the pro divisions in terms of participation or money.



Moo. :D

So, your answer to more money in the pro division is to force people that can't compete in the pro division to stay in the pro division. I disagree with that because of how many people it forces out of sanctioned disc golf. Not everyone will continue to get better at disc golf no matter how much they practice. I firmly believe that the only way to get better is through practice, but not everyone is capable of playing 970 golf ever. I'm sure that I could be a 920-930 disc golfer if I practiced every day, but I don't think I could ever be a 1000 rated disc golfer. I'm just not that athletically gifted. I will also never be a ballerina, I will never throw a 100 mile an hour fast ball and I will never be able to hit a major league curve ball.

I would argue that if DG was like many other sports where there were standards that had to be met before becoming a Pro, then these sub 955 players would never have been Pros in the first place. All it takes is a few bucks and a desire to be called a professional and you're in.

If there was a minimum rating requirement that had to be met and maintained for a couple of years before you could get a tour card and be eligible for Pro play, then this discussion would be different.

I would argue that if DG was like many other sports where there were standards that had to be met before becoming a Pro, then these sub 955 players would never have been Pros in the first place. All it takes is a few bucks and a desire to be called a professional and you're in.

If there was a minimum rating requirement that had to be met and maintained for a couple of years before you could get a tour card and be eligible for Pro play, then this discussion would be different.



If that were the case, divisional competition would have unravelled long ago because there would have been very low Pro purses, hence little incentive to play Pro.

I think anyone that can't compete in a division has a legitimate reason for changing divisions.

And they can petition the PDGA to do just that. :D

Hey CB_Big_Pimpin_jagbag,

I hope those last two posts were among the 98% of your posts where you are "just joking." Thanks for posting though, as you just proved TFO right.

Although I put almost no stock in ratings, I would put my money on a higher-rated golfer with pro experience playing against a loud-mouth who brags about how far he can throw. Speaking of which, Chris Heeren and I had a funny conversation about "message board distance" this past weekend at Cracked Plastic Classic. Your name might have come up.

Thats funny because the only time Chris has seen me throw is Distance at worlds and then in Indiana when is was about 15 degrees outside and i wasnt trying to throw far anyway becaused we were playing at OXBOW. Super woods and jail course.

Who do you want to put your money on at the Memorial??? I know there are a few guys that are playing down out there. Ill take your bet. What do you want to bet???

No, Jon. My solution is not to force people who can't compete in the pro division to stay in the pro division.

The simplest solution is to offer only one division. Everyone shows up the morning of the event, pays their $20-$30 entry fee, receives a player pack (t-shirt, disc, whatever), and plays golf. I suppose some random CTP, longest putt, and farthest drive prizes could be incorporated at the tournament director's discretion. At the end of the day, the best golfers (top 1/3 of scores?), regardless of age, height, weight, or eye color would be rewarded with a cash payout after tournment expenses have been deducted. What a unique concept! Actually rewarding the best players at an event, regardless of the division in which they chose to play!

So far from what I see in NC(2 tournies), there are not many pros rated < 955 moving down to play advanced.

Probably because they know the competition in ADV is tight here in NC and it won't mean an automatic win.



i'm not in it for the win , well ok it would be nice to be on a leader card again but mostly i would be in it for the fun the game used to bring when i was competitive as a adv am player.besides i only won one event as a am.it's not fun always being on the last card as a pro master

if i'm lucky i get to play one round a week,sometines a don't get to play for long as month due to work , family , honey do list and stuff i'm involved in with my church.truth is i just don't have the time to put in for the practice it takes to play at a competitive level

If there was a minimum rating requirement that had to be met and maintained for a couple of years before you could get a tour card and be eligible for Pro play, then this discussion would be different.



Until there is a lot of sponsorship, a minimum rating threshold of say 980 would simply shift the financing burden to the 980 players, making them the donator who will eventually drop out. The whole issue of open player retention runs much deeper than merely drawing an arbitrary line.

I worked up the stats for Iowa from last year.

Event / Pros / <955 Pros / <955 Cashed / Lowest Rated Cash

OPC Open / 5 / 1 / 0 / 968
Graceland Open / 21 / 8 / 0 / 965
Worlds Warm Up #1 / 12 / 4 / 0 / 968
Worlds Warm Up #2 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 948
Legion of Doom / 21 / 9 / 0 / 972
Des Moines Challenge / 22 / 9 / 1 / 968
Worlds Warm Up #3 / 4 / 2 / 0 / 968
Worlds Warm Up #4 / 4 / 2 / 1 / 938
Osky Challenge / 11 / 7 / 2 / 932
Madrid Labor Day / 26 / 14 / 2 / 951
Newton Open / 15 / 7 / 2 / 938
Ottumwa Fall Challenge / 9 / 6 / 1 / 928
Cool Weather Classic / 17 / 9 / 2 / 904
Des Moines Open / 13 / 5 / 2 / 938

Totals: 14 tournaments / 182 / 84 / 13
Avg. Lowest Cash Rating: 949.00

I obviously didn't include Worlds. I also didn't figure in any of our 4 doubles tournaments or our 1 am only tournament. I also find some of these numbers misleading because most of the lowest rated cashers were local players on their home courses. That was especially the case in Iowa City. Also, the tournaments in Madrid and Ottumwa were on smaller courses that give almost anyone a chance of placing well. The Des Moines Open was played at Ewing from the short pads which put it in the same boat as Madrid and Ottumwa. The average lowest rated casher did come as a surprise to me though.

The only people who have a legitimate reason to move down are the ones who were forced to move up back in the day when they did that and people who have gotten injured and can no longer compete at the level they once did. If you move down simply because you choose accept cash and turn pro but now you cant hack it your a complete sissy and coward and you should have thought about this kind of thing before you turned pro in the first place.

Thats about all there is too it.

I cant wait to compete against these 954 rated pros and then laugh at them when I mop the floor with them. This season is going to be great. Plus playing those guys will make me even better for USADGC and Worlds where i wont even have to play against them :D



those are kind of harsh words there pimp
so are you calling me a sissy and a coward ? :(

Until there is a lot of sponsorship, a minimum rating threshold of say 980 would simply shift the financing burden to the 980 players, making them the donator who will eventually drop out. The whole issue of open player retention runs much deeper than merely drawing an arbitrary line.



James gets it! I don't feel like I am wasting my breath anymore!

I'll tell you, like I told xterramatt:


You're a wimp, a whiner, a wuss, a weakling, and a wierdo. You made the decision to go Pro for life and never again compete for plastic coins again. You are a theif, a bagger, a gutless wonder, a cheater. And you are all the other bad things I could not think up on short notice. You are the kind of person that is bad for the PDGA.

There, I said it so that DiscPimples and the other likeminded folks out there wouldn't have to.

And, I would do the same thing if I was in your shoes.

No, Jon. My solution is not to force people who can't compete in the pro division to stay in the pro division.

The simplest solution is to offer only one division. Everyone shows up the morning of the event, pays their $20-$30 entry fee, receives a player pack (t-shirt, disc, whatever), and plays golf. I suppose some random CTP, longest putt, and farthest drive prizes could be incorporated at the tournament director's discretion. At the end of the day, the best golfers (top 1/3 of scores?), regardless of age, height, weight, or eye color would be rewarded with a cash payout after tournment expenses have been deducted. What a unique concept! Actually rewarding the best players at an event, regardless of the division in which they chose to play!



As a player and especially a TD, in theory, I like that idea. I played my first tournament in 1983 and it was pretty much run like that as I recall. I came in 3rd to last just in front of two guys who didn't know there was a second round. The problem is that I think we'd lose too many players to maintain the competitive sport. I don't know of any other competitive sport that uses this model successfully. If the PDGA were to change to this format it wouldn't take long for the PDGA to become an organization for the pros only and for someone to start the ADGA for lesser rated disc golfers. If that is what we want for the PDGA then it would be a plan to make it happen.

Until there is a lot of sponsorship, a minimum rating threshold of say 980 would simply shift the financing burden to the 980 players, making them the donator who will eventually drop out. The whole issue of open player retention runs much deeper than merely drawing an arbitrary line.



James gets it! I don't feel like I am wasting my breath anymore!



I think several of us "get it" we just don't agree as to the consequences. I don't think we are going to have a bunch of <955 pros leave the pro ranks to go play Advanced. Some of those pros are continuing to improve while some think that on any given day they have a good chance of cashing. The hope is that some <955 rated pros who have dropped out will come back to compete in Advanced. They might not. At the end of the summer we might look back and see that this rule changed absolutely nothing. Most likely a few guys out there will hear about it and might come back to play a couple tournaments. A couple of guys might decide to start playing Advanced who previously played pro. But for the most part I think the cows will stay in the pen even though the gate is open. Moo. ;)

And they can petition the PDGA to do just that. :D



Or the PDGA could make a rule allowing players of similar skills to play in the same division without having to do all the paperwork...oh wait, they already did! Nevermind! ;)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against this rule, I just feel that it is irrelevant to the problems we face. If it can be accurately measured, I would bet that we are starting to see declining participation at all open-level rating levels. If this continues to happen, will it then make sense to say "Now all 980 and below open players can play advanced"?

I think several of us "get it" we just don't agree as to the consequences. I don't think we are going to have a bunch of <955 pros leave the pro ranks to go play Advanced. Some of those pros are continuing to improve while some think that on any given day they have a good chance of cashing. The hope is that some <955 rated pros who have dropped out will come back to compete in Advanced.


WORD!

You greedy bastards that are so worried about the pro purse going down should realize that the pro players who are expected to play Am are the ones who aren't playing tourneys anyways. So you aren't "losing any money".

Check TFO. He said he used to play every SoCal event, some NorCals, and out of state once in a while. Now he plays maybe one or two tourneys a year. And he is so tired of paying the big bucks for a freaking pro entry and always being on the last card that he is ready to juts play monthlies and "forget it" to all PDGA tourneys.

Looks like you already lost out on his money, mister cashing pro.

So why shouldn't TFO get to play PDGA tourneys where he can enjoy himself again? It's not costing you any money. Maybe if he regains some fun and confidence he'll start winning and chase some new meat up and out of Advanced so you can get your payday again.

dave
scene i don't know you nor judging by your post do i care to know you,your comment or opinion does't mean anything to me

as i do know the pimp aka steve mills i do somewhat value his opinion of me.

so in the future inless i'm responding to one of your post which i doubt i would because of your lack of tact or respect for people you don't know i would ask that you kindly speak when spoken too.

thank you
TFO

The primary problem with the 'Pro in Am' concept as I see it is the name itself. As Peter Shive points out, it sends a terrible message to those looking at our sport from the outside and to those on the inside who haven't yet caught on that most of our Pros are really semi-pros and our Ams are also really semi-pros. These equally rated players should really be playing together, but I'm afraid the stigma for a 'pro entering am' will greatly reduce the number of players, both current and those we might regain, who will be willing to actually do it this year.

My more comprehensive proposal before the Board had a new undetermined division name for bringing these players together that didn't have pro or am connected with it so that players would join together playing for merch without any traditional naming stigma attached. Unfortunately, just like the non-change of the 2m rule due to timing issues, it was also determined that the 'pro in am' option as you see it was as far as they would be willing to go in such a short time frame for communicating changes to the competition system. Whatever happens down the road, the naming issue needs to be addressed if we want the psychology issues to also be dealt with successfully.

What "greedy bastard" pros are posting on this thread?

Anyways, so what if someone doesn't think highly of this rule, does that make them a greedy bastard?

THANKS RHETT FOR THE KIND WORDS ;)
after reading dave's opinion of me i was heading for the closet with my 38 cal. :D

dave
scene i don't know you nor judging by your post do i care to know you,your comment or opinion does't mean anything to me

as i do know the pimp aka steve mills i do somewhat value his opinion of me.

so in the future inless i'm responding to one of your post which i doubt i would because of your lack of tact or respect for people you don't know i would ask that you kindly speak when spoken too.

thank you
TFO



Forgive Dave TFO, he was joking. You can't read sarcasm?

TFO your a good guy and i see where your coming from with wanting to move back down. The people i am specifically directly this comment at are the your guns who just moved up in the last year or so and now that they havent cashed and have been gettin smacked around are now going to move down while their game is still improving just so they can start cashing again. So no im not calling you a sissy and a coward.

When i move up to pro i know im not going to cash right away. Its called paying your dues and developing some consistency and getting used to play up at that level. These young guns like myself who have moved up in the last two or 3 years are still improving their game yet they are not cashing in the pro tournaments so now this rule allows them to just move back down ontop of the guys in Advanced that belong and are staying there for the rest of their disc golf lives and i dont think thats fair. Its not even fair to me even though it most likely wont affect me that much because i am improving and my goal is to one day become a 1000+ rated player so i dont play on being in Advanced for more then this year and next year but its just KILLING the guys who are 930-940 rated players that have peaked and cash every now and then in advanced and have fun. Now these guys are just going to move down and steal the cash from the guys who only get it now and again.

I just dont think its fair to alot of people.

Forgive Dave TFO, he was joking. You can't read sarcasm?



Word

TFO - sorry to ruffle your feathers. I was busting on Mills and the 'you ought to be too proud to ever consider moving down' crowd. I am on the same page as you in this discussion.

I hope I can become 'a forgiven one' in 'the forgiven one's' book. :D

It seems like a number of assumptions were made about declining levels of semi-pro attendance, and this rule change was put in to address that. I don't like the change, and here's why:

1 - A lot of pros stop playing when they 'plateau' around 950 or so
-- Let's take this as a given

1a - The reason they stop playing is because they can't compete in Open any more.
-- While this might be the case for some, how do we know it is for all of them? Or most of them? The guys that I know that fit this demo that have pretty much stopped playing because they had other priorities in life, i.e. they got married, had kids, moved away, etc. Was some kind of survey taken that said the reason these people left/stopped playing tourneys was because they felt like donators?

1a.1 - Letting them compete in Advanced will bring them back
-- Another assumption, based on the previous assumption.

1a.1.1 - They know about the new rule change, or will somehow find out about it.
-- Without some form of mass mailing to non-renewed/non-tournament-playing members, how will they find out about this? Word of mouth? If they aren't members any more then they most likely don't get DGWN. Even if they do, where will this be, in small print in the 4 pages the PDGA gets in the back of each issue? They could have found out here, but that's assuming they read the message board (and can weed through 600 of Nick's posts to find it).

I don't really see much of a difference between this and Pro2, other than the fact that the higher rated pros that beached and moaned about Pro2 haven't beached and moaned about this as much. It could cost them just as much, since some of the donators will move down, but considering hardly anyone played Pro2 to begin with it should be barely noticeable. Jeff LaGrassa's comment about not wanting to be called a 'bagger' for playing down is telling.

Maybe this will work, only time will tell. Will it be given a better chance than Pro2 got? I guess we'll see.

Oh, and regardless of your rating, if you moved 'up' to Pro, then playing in Advanced can only be considered 'playing down'.

You cant be on the same page as TFO because you NEVER cashed in pro, HE DID. LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!

Come on down and play against me there Dave. Ill be glad to show you whats up ;)

The 955 rated open pro player has little chance to cash in C and B tiers and virtually no chance to cash in A or NT level events. It is kind of laughable to portray these players as some kind of predator licking their chops as they survey their possible kill in the open division.


this 948 rated player just took first at an event with team champion members in the line up at Mookies cup..

What player was that???

[/QUOTE]

Word

TFO - sorry to ruffle your feathers. I was busting on Mills and the 'you ought to be too proud to ever consider moving down' crowd. I am on the same page as you in this discussion.

I hope I can become 'a forgiven one' in 'the forgiven one's' book. :D

[/QUOTE]

OK I FORGIVE YOU :)

I agree with most everything you said.

However, I take exception to the claim that it was the higher rated pros whining that killed pro 2. I have no idea why pro 2 was killed. At the time, I think I was eligible for pro 2 (and have certainly never been "a higher rated pro") and still thought it was a bad idea. It's a minor point, but just like Rhett's greedy bastard comment, it is possible that people think it was a bad idea, not because it will hurt their pocketbook, but for more defensible reasons.

What "greedy bastard" pros are posting on this thread?



I'm as greedy as they come! :D

:D

Did that happen to have anything to do with my ryhme?

Got that player rating under 9-fifty-five
Playing JV cuz the PDGA lets me get by
Gonna stack that plastic til it gets sky-high
selling winnings for the bread and I'm not talking Rye
So why lie, I'm am til I die, so no need to cry
just dry that eye and watch me pimp this drive.

You cant be on the same page as TFO because you NEVER cashed in pro, HE DID. LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!



What does his $90 winnings in the last 4 years have to do with me agreeing with his point of view?


Come on down and play against me there Dave. Ill be glad to show you whats up ;)



Looking at your ratings history (you've been smokin' the last 8-9 months), you well may beat me and beat me pretty good. But, you also have a good chance of throwing some blow-up rounds and loosing pretty handily to a more consistent player like me. I think I'll pass on your offer to come 'down' to MI from NC - especially this time of year :D

Congrats, but based on the data presented here so far, that is more the exception than the rule.

Congrats, but based on the data presented here so far, that is more the exception than the rule.



And, if that FriZZack keeps that kind of play going, he won't be a <955'er much longer. :)

I can vouch for the friZZacks, they are the real deal. At some point in the future I will be bragging to my kids that I played in the same group as Bard in the 2nd round at FDR once. :D

Moving down to NC was the best thing for their game (and the worst for everyone else's).

Looking at your ratings history (you've been smokin' the last 8-9 months), you well may beat me and beat me pretty good. But, you also have a good chance of throwing some blow-up rounds and loosing pretty handily to a more consistent player like me. I think I'll pass on your offer to come 'down' to MI from NC - especially this time of year



Thanks for the compliment but i dont think i have been smoking at all yet. Im working on it though. The consistency got alot better toward the end of last year and thats what i have been working on alot. My thoughts love to make my bad rounds worse and they also like to get in the way of what could be my really good rounds. If only i didnt have a brain :p :D

It is my understanding that this whole thing about being able to move down was made to get people to move up, not to get people to move back down. The problem is that there are not very big fields in a couple of the pro fields: grandmaster and women for example. Knowing that you can go back down if your rating warrants it, will allow some women with ratings in the 700's to move up and play the pro field and then move back to play advanced women. Same with grandmasters, there may not be enough to make a field of grandmasters, so a grandmaster with a rating in the mid-800's for example can move down and play with Advanced, rather than with his son that cashes in pro. When you look at why it was done, it makes sense. I don't really think it was done so that some whiney pro can decide he wants some plastic instead of paper. I could be wrong, but it is not like at the grocery store where they ask you paper or plastic at the register. I would think a pro with a rating in the 900's would feel bad about himself if he decided to move back to the Am field.

quote]

What does his $90 winnings in the last 4 years have to do with me agreeing with his point of view?

[QUOTE]


pretty sad if i wasn't laughing right now i'd be crying :D:( :confused:

I agree with most everything you said.

However, I take exception to the claim that it was the higher rated pros whining that killed pro 2. I have no idea why pro 2 was killed. At the time, I think I was eligible for pro 2 (and have certainly never been "a higher rated pro") and still thought it was a bad idea. It's a minor point, but just like Rhett's greedy bastard comment, it is possible that people think it was a bad idea, not because it will hurt their pocketbook, but for more defensible reasons.

Pro 2 and Pros Playing Am are the exact same concept except with the latter concept (a) there is not a mixed cash/merch payout and (b) the latter does not involve additional parallel skill divisions, and (c) the latter is not a rarely offered option but is fully incorporated into the standard format.

Pro 2 does not work well for TDs who spend their tournament profit on the tournament process. It does not work well for TDs who give their profit to the pro purse nor for TDs who give their profit back to the players they got it from. It does not work well for TDs who have unavoidably high overhead, like high park use fees.

Pro 2 died suddenly and unexpectedly in my arms last October. My hands were wrapped around its neck; maybe I was applying a little pressure. I think most of the blame for killing Pro 2 should be given to me, whereas all the credit should be given to the other six members of the board.

950 pro player managed to shot a good round and only get 2nd place today. (that is 2nd in Advance)

Plastic coins? I took a personalized shirt for $40 and an Orc (I did not own one)

I agree with most everything you said.

However, I take exception to the claim that it was the higher rated pros whining that killed pro 2. I have no idea why pro 2 was killed. At the time, I think I was eligible for pro 2 (and have certainly never been "a higher rated pro") and still thought it was a bad idea. It's a minor point, but just like Rhett's greedy bastard comment, it is possible that people think it was a bad idea, not because it will hurt their pocketbook, but for more defensible reasons.

Pro 2 and Pros Playing Am are the exact same concept except with the latter concept (a) there is not a mixed cash/merch payout and (b) the latter does not involve additional parallel skill divisions, and (c) the latter is not a rarely offered option but is fully incorporated into the standard format.

Pro 2 does not work well for TDs who spend their tournament profit on the tournament process. It does not work well for TDs who give their profit to the pro purse nor for TDs who give their profit back to the players they got it from. It does not work well for TDs who have unavoidably high overhead, like high park use fees.

Pro 2 died suddenly and unexpectedly in my arms last October. My hands were wrapped around its neck; maybe I was applying a little pressure. I think most of the blame for killing Pro 2 should be given to me, whereas all the credit should be given to the other six members of the board.



So when can we expect you to give birth to little Missy Realproamdistinction? It's been a 25 year pregnancy hasn't it? You gotta be ready to pop by now. I mean duct tape can only hold it together for so long, even as inventive as this new further clouding of any pro am distinction, the fundamental flaw lingers like a little devil on the left shoulder.

Nick, while I agree fundamentally with this point, it is getting really old that you post on so many threads about your feelings of our current pro/am status. I think everyone who reads these boards understands your position on this. It doesn't seem necessary to continue to post the same arguments over and over or to bait every thread to turn the discussion to the same topics.

If only i didnt have a brain :p :D



Don't you mean if only I HAD a brain? sorry, couldn't resist, Mills.

I think the PDGA should work on creating a true-pro class before creating true-am class. Somewhere, a few days ago, before the fever broke, I had a great idea for creating a true pro class using our current primary source of pro purse sponsorship...

Bruce, I agree. It needs, though, to be the meeting of some minimum standards before *qualifying* to be a "pro" - no self-declaration, IMHO.

Ugh!! 957 I am screwed :D You know if I played to make money I might care. I like to play to play. Even if I am not close to the cash I still play my hardest.If we get caught up in this for profit mentality you might as well kiss the majority of us goodbye. I did like silver when I qualified though.

Ugh!! 957 I am screwed :D You know if I played to make money I might care. I like to play to play. Even if I am not close to the cash I still play my hardest.If we get caught up in this for profit mentality you might as well kiss the majority of us goodbye. I did like silver when I qualified though.

Brooke is Chuck's #1 poster child for the concept of different ratings breaks at different tiers. Except, I don't know that Brooke would play Advanced if given the choice. If some kind of true-pro system locked him out of open, I bet he would play whatever division was left.

And when Brooke says he plays just to compete, he is unimpeachable. He was the only pro who bought a Metropark Am tag last year even though he probably would not qualify for overall prizes because of his rating. He was the only pro who played the tag finals which was a trophy-only tournament. He's the closest thing I know to a true-am!

Thanks Bruce....... :D Darn Scooter that was a cool trophy. Hey I did get the $5 :p + the $45 from the side bet so I cashed pretty well !

Well, Brooke will get an invite to the Mid-Nationals (played in 2004 R-tier) where he'll have all he can handle with a rating in the middle of the Blue division.

Chuck don't get me wrong I think Mid Nationals is a great idea but for a married guy with a 2 year old I have to pick and choose the big ones and I will probably pick Pro worlds. Pro worlds is a blast. Its great to have 10 days when disc golf is what I do :D :D

hey last year I almost broke 100 (103) and in Flagstaff I hit a 400 ft ace sooooo it ain't all bad being a low ranked pro.

Ugh!! 957 I am screwed :D You know if I played to make money I might care. I like to play to play. Even if I am not close to the cash I still play my hardest.If we get caught up in this for profit mentality you might as well kiss the majority of us goodbye. I did like silver when I qualified though.

Brooke is Chuck's #1 poster child for the concept of different ratings breaks at different tiers. Except, I don't know that Brooke would play Advanced if given the choice. If some kind of true-pro system locked him out of open, I bet he would play whatever division was left.

And when Brooke says he plays just to compete, he is unimpeachable. He was the only pro who bought a Metropark Am tag last year even though he probably would not qualify for overall prizes because of his rating. He was the only pro who played the tag finals which was a trophy-only tournament. He's the closest thing I know to a true-am!



Back when Mark Ellis was turning down all his winnings at sanctioned events and wouldn't even get into ace pools, he was the only true am that I knew.

The problem with ratings based events is that the divisions are based on arbitrary lines. If a player happens to be near the top of the division it is all good. Imagine being the top rated player in a division. If the top rated player plays decent they cash. If the top rated player plays good they win or are at least in the hunt for first place.

If a player is at the bottom of a division (although just a few points lower this same player would be at the top of the next lowest division and in the prime position described above) then they are screwed. If they play decent they lose handily. If they play good then they lose, likely in the middle of the pack but still far from cashing. If they play great and lucky then they might take last place cash.

The more skilled the players involved the more these general rules are true. At the amateur levels, players are less consistent and their best and worst rounds will vary a lot. At the pro levels the players are more consistent and their best and worst rounds will vary less. This creates a special problem for low rated pros. The top rated pros may have an off day. They might get unlucky. On rare occasions a top rated pro may actually tank and stop trying. But these things happen rarely and will not happen to the entire pro field, just an occasional competitor here or there. Thus, in a field crowded with good players the lowest rated pro in a division is almost guaranteed to be a donator. How many rounds will a low rated pro play both great (for them) and lucky? A handful a year and no more. The same situation exists to a somewhat lesser degree in a big Am I/ Advanced field.

As a pro with a handicap rating in the 970's for the past few years, playing in Michigan where there are a bunch of 1000 rated players, I know that my chances in the Open division are not good, statistically speaking. In a given tourney I might play hot and some of the big boys may not but there is little chance that all of the big boys have an off day. Do I really expect Scott Martin, Al Schack, Todd Branch, Javier Kowalski, Larry Labond, Darren Harper, Ken Gill, Marty Peters, Mike Raley, Kirk Haggadone, Joe Giebel, Gary Laura, Peter Wyngaard and John Bentling to all suck simultaneously? And these are just some of the established pros! There is a host of the up-and -coming hot kids ready to crash the party.

So if ratings based events are inherently suspect, is there anything which actually works fairly? Sure, two things. The first is age divisions. You cannot fake age. It takes its toll on everyone. To the extent that anyone seems to defy the limitations of age, they deserve it and they have earned it. Young folks may argue about this. You will not find many old folks who do-and they are in a position to know. One day, if you survive, you will know it too.

The second concept that should work-and I do not know if it has been tried- is a ratings based tournament with a handicap adjustment. The general rule is that every 10 points in a handicap rating represents one stroke per round. So If my rating is 970 and someone else is 960 I should spot him one stroke per round. I think this is too great a spot. For example, Scott Martin has a 1020 rating compared to my 970. If I get 7 strokes per round it forces Scott to play too well to beat me. Say I have a better than average round of 1000. It is not my best round, just a solid, few mistakes and decent luck kind of round. So Scott has to shoot a 1070 round to tie me!! C'mon, 1070 is a phenominal round. To win he has to shoot 1080!! 1080 is a career round. 1080 is a dream-about round. The spot is just too great to be fair.

What if the spot equalled one stroke for every 20 points? Now rather than 5 strokes i got 2 strokes. In my opinion, this is much fairer. 2 strokes a round is a lot. I have to play really well to have a chance. Scott does not have to play a perfect round to beat me.

If we both play an average round Scott wins. If I play well and Scott has an off round then I win. But shouldn't that be the definition of fair competition? You only win if you play well based on your talents. If you play bad you lose. If you play well you are in the hunt. Unless, of course, someone just lights it up, then they win. And they deserve it.

Back when I was a young kid, keeping score in my Dad's bowling league, they used handicap adjustments. It forces the lower rated players to play well to win. This seems fair to me. A low rated player should not play marginal and win unless the top rated player plays poorly. As we know, top rated players seldom play poorly. This is why they are top rated players.

We also know that as a player gets better each level of improvement is harder than the last. It is relatively easy to go from 880 to 890. It is awfully hard to go from 980 to 990. Barry Schultz is around 1038. How hard is it for him to improve that rating by 10 or 20 points? Darn near impossible. It is near impossible to miss no putts. It is near impossible to have no unlucky bounces. It is near impossible to not encounter a poorly designed course that provides no fairways and leaves everyone to throw and hope.

In a rating based tourney with a handicap adjustment anyone could win. The biggest upsets would come from the lowest rated players because a low rated player could shoot 100 points over their rating far easier than any pro could. But if a low rated player won it then they would have to shoot great for them, so they earned it.

Again, looking at the fairness issue, pros should be paid in cash and ams paid in merchandise. That way the tournament makes roughly a 50% profit for every am who cashes. That same am will eventually turn pro, given talent and motivation, and take home cash as well.

As far as >955 pros playing amateur divisions, I agree that the bar is set too low. Maybe 940 or 930 but 955 constitues the top of the Am 1 division. Anyone who drops down should be forced to play well to cash. A 955 rated pro could play poorly and still cash. That is not fair.

And for all those think that Steve Mills, aka Disc Pimp, is a loud mouth punk who lies about his driving power, I would say this: Millz is a good guy in person and he throws a ton. I wouldn't bet against him becoming a top pro. Now whether he surpasses Scott "Scooter" Slater is yet to be seen.

I'm not sure Harold himself could have made a better case for handicap competition using the DGU www.discgolfunited.com (http://www.discgolfunited.com) individual and league handicap service. What Mark is proposing is pretty much the way they do handicap competitions in ball golf. They group people into handicap ranges and players compete with their scores adjusted with handicaps.

The calculations for how many throws a player's score should be adjusted are already handled by DGU based on the SSA of the course- less adjustment for lower SSA courses and more adjustment for higher SSA courses.

Excellent post! I like the handicap approach although, as you alluded to, the lower rated players have the advantage due to a typically less consistent game. I run a handicap league and it works pretty well.

One of the keys to a handicapping system is finding the right compression factor. It seems to me that a compression multiplier of 0.8 works well. It punishes those with a high handicap to a point that it dampens their inconsistency. And it rewards the guys with a negative handicap (scratch needs to be defined as some sort of par - not a 1000 rating), since those guys have a harder time picking up a stroke compared to the guys with high handicaps.

A 3rd approach that I am working on developing is a hybrid tournament format with a traditional tournament on day 1 and a skins tournament on day 2. The skins groupings are seeded by finish on day 1. And, the top group gets lots of added cash and the low group gets no added cash (they simply play for the $1/hole each person in the foursome has contributed).

Click here (http://www.charlottedgc.com/renny_mules_05.htm) for the inaugural Renny Mules Tournaments explanation. As it stands now, it is a C-Tier followed by an unsanctioned skins event. But the two events are closely linked. I had to add a bunch of cash to make it attractive and to meet the PDGA requirements for the C-Tier.

We�ll see how it goes and how it goes over with players, but I think it is a cool way to compensate players for how they shoot despite the (artificial) divisional breaks in day 1.

It is the best way I can think of to make a "one division" (one pro and one am division) structure that will keep everyone happy because, over the course of the weekend, everyone is "in the cash". And everyone is also proportionally rewarded for their raw scores.

Your 3rd approach is the way Jay and Des ran the EDGE tournament in Texas a few weeks ago. First round scores determined groupings for the second round skins action.

As far as >955 pros playing amateur divisions, I agree that the bar is set too low. Maybe 940 or 930 but 955 constitues the top of the Am 1 division. Anyone who drops down should be forced to play well to cash. A 955 rated pro could play poorly and still cash. That is not fair.




I resemble that remark. Today I shot 9 over in the first round. That put me in 2nd to last place (out of 7). For the 2nd round, I shot 3 down. That moved me all the way to 2nd place.

So I had a **** poor round and still got 2nd in Advance. In pro I would have not even been close to cashing.

BTW, nice post Mark, good to read you hear.

I like the handicap idea, but would have to be worked on to make it national, but would be very cool. A friend of my which is a well respected pro who has played for over 25 years put it so perfect-(short version)-"935 to 960 am player has been playing well to get to the upper 1/3 of ams in the nation/area and have learned a lot along the way. Now the plateau, where we have been for a minute at the top of ams, and now is the time to start at the BOTTOM--just like we did when we started in ams, to proceed to the the next learning phase of our game and make room for the rest to do what we did"--if we stay in ams our game will only get stale. We will never get better if we are content sitting at the top of ams squashing the peeps below us-- when we should be trying to be at the top 1/3 of the world as a pro learning from them, the epitome of our sport. Why anyone would want to back track once they've stepped up is beyond me. I think the new rule sucks, they shouldn't have the option to--pro's playing am--that just sounds so redundant!!! How many NEW people does the pdga think are going to want to play hearing pros are playing am--not to many--even if they're not playing against them in tournys.... yet. And--what ever happen to once you have CASHED and relinquished your amateur status that U are Pro forever?!! In every professional sport in the world once you're pro and accepted cash U can't go gack, why would this be any different? Just had to *putt*, he, he, my two cents in on the subject, sorry for the long post--peace

Chuck, the Edge setup was very fun.

I'm not sure if these ideas are being floated around as alternatives for our current structure or not. However, IMO, the setup at the EDGE Icebowl in Live Oak and any handicap setup are hardly a substitute for a top level competitive system in any sport. One could argue that we already have enough of a handicap system as it is and all it accomplishes is to stunt our growth as a true SPORT.

Terry and Bruce, would either of y'all eloborate on why the PDGA needs a true Pro qualifying system before we can have a true am system? It seems much more likely the other way.

Besides the obvious fact that creating an am class is doable at the moment and creating a pro class is years/decades away (in my estimation, at least); besides the fact that a greater potential for growth exists in the am class than the pro class; besides the fact that one is currently riddled with inequities and one is not; and besides the impression that one seems like a foundation to build the other on, why should the organization create a true pro class before it creates a true am class?

I'm not sure if these ideas are being floated around as alternatives for our current structure or not.



The 'Seed4Skins' format is not being considered as a foundation for the competition structure. It looks like a fun alternative format. When Jim Challas was our Commissioner, he was pushing for a handicap system. I told him I didn't believe tournament players wanted a system where their scores were adjusted but one where players were grouped in skill divisions where each player has a chance to cash once in a while. That's why we went toward ratings and not handicaps. I still believe this player orientation is true today for tournament play. For league play, using handicaps works well and the DGU format addresses this in an organized way.

Looks like if you use Mark Ellis' name in vain his clipping service sends him the post!

A fun and more fair way to work a handicapped format is to divide the pot in half and pay half on the handicap and half on straight score. The number of points per stroke needs to be determined relative to the course by checking past ratings generated by that course. For example, on a hard course, like Monster Black Champion at Hudson Mills, it is 6 ratings points per stroke. At a relatively easy course, like Original Shorts Hudson Mills it is 10 ratings points per stroke. On some park-like deuce-or-die courses the adjustment can be as high as 12 points per throw.

The winners on the handicap side will be predominantly rec rated men who are rapidly improving. The winners on the scratch side will be the top pros and advanced players. This format works for top pros because the pro field is rarely half the players. The one issue is how to sort the field between rounds. It would probably be more fun to sort by handicap adjusted scores simply because it would be weird. You could have Mark Ellis, Scott Martin, Steve Mills and Kelsey Brakel all on the fourth card losing badly to Jenny Fox and Gabriel Rudolph (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=24052)!

It's easier to just offer a 'scratch' division and a handicap division which was done at our Kaposia league for 8-10 years. The top players got disenchanted with pure handicap play when they were always adding back throws to their scores, so the scratch option was added. The ams loved the handicap play. This format worked well and a few pros sometimes played on the handicap side and up and coming ams would sometimes play scratch.

It's easier to just offer a 'scratch' division and a handicap division which was done at our Kaposia league for 8-10 years. The top players got disenchanted with pure handicap play when they were always adding back throws to their scores, so the scratch option was added. The ams loved the handicap play. This format worked well and a few pros sometimes played on the handicap side and up and coming ams would sometimes play scratch.



I think this is a great idea. The "what we currently call pros" would be the scratch division and "what we currently call ams" would be the handicap division. When/if real cash comes to disc golf we could then create a real pro division. As a TD I would love to run a tournament with two divisions that could be enjoyed by all levels of play.

I think this is a great idea. The "what we currently call pros" would be the scratch division and "what we currently call ams" would be the handicap division. When/if real cash comes to disc golf we could then create a real pro division. As a TD I would love to run a tournament with two divisions that could be enjoyed by all levels of play.

Blast 2006!

One other point, Under ratings based divisional play, a player with a stable rating at the middle of the range is likely to sometimes cash while a player at the top or bottom will likely cash or likely not cash. They could be locked into those postions for extended periods of time.

With a handicapped system, all of the players should have an equal chance of winning at any event. The same few won't be the ones winning everytime, though the most consistent will settle more towards the bottom of the scale more often.

With a handicap system, how do you set a handicap for someone's first tournament or has only played a couple events?

btw, I like the scatch/handicap dual setup.

If someone does not have a rating there are only two things you can do:

1. BAN HIM!

2. If he has played rated tournaments and the TD is energetic and prepared, you calculate a rating from previous events. Jon, Brett and I ran one or more lightly attended handicapped events at some unspecifiable time in the past.

Jon, what did we do about unrated players? Tell them to stay home?

ok i'll ask the dumb question
how does a person get a rating if you ban him from playing
or tell him to stay home.
isn't that how you get a rating in the first place ? :confused:

If someone does not have a rating there are only two things you can do:

1. BAN HIM!

2. If he has played rated tournaments and the TD is energetic and prepared, you calculate a rating from previous events. Jon, Brett and I ran one or more lightly attended handicapped events at some unspecifiable time in the past.

Jon, what did we do about unrated players? Tell them to stay home?



We gave them a handicap based on how they played the course recreationally. Or if they said well, I'm better than Jon but not as good as Brett, we just gave them a handicap in the middle.

I think for sanctioned events they could play without a handicap for the first tournament and then have a provisional handicap for the next event. It is another good reason for a true am division though, because someone without a rating/handicap could play true am until they get a rating/handicap. Of course in this system they would also be welcome to play scratch if they are some kind of unknown phenom.

ok i'll ask the dumb question
how does a person get a rating if you ban him from playing
or tell him to stay home.
isn't that how you get a rating in the first place ? :confused:



I think that was humor, TFO.

If someone does not have a rating there are only two things you can do:

1. BAN HIM!




Thats the bestest idear i had ever hearded before. :confused: ;)

ok i'll ask the dumb question
how does a person get a rating if you ban him from playing
or tell him to stay home.
isn't that how you get a rating in the first place ? :confused:



I think that was humor, TFO.



ok everyone should know by now i have a hard time detecting humor so please forgive me so in the future please add the happy face icon

thank you very much :D

I can't give you a job because you don't have any experience.

i would ask another dumb question but i already used my dumb question pass for the day :p

I understand the argument made against the Mid-Nationals system of having the arbitrary ratings lines drawn to make the divisions. However, how is age a better way to do the divisions? You are still drawing an arbitrary line and the person closest to the young side of the division will have an advantage. And with the handicap system, there will be a big advantage for players whose ratings haven't come close to catching up to their skill level. So nothing is perfect. At any rate, I can't wait for Mid-Nationals anyways even though I'm toward the bottom of the arbitrarily determined division :) And my rating isn't going to stop me from placing highly anyways.

For a one-day tournament, like the Blast, you could rate unrated players off the first round. The problem is that they could bag their scores in the first round to get a low rating. That is why the 50/50 works so well.

The PDGA would probably want the pros run as a separate pool.

To get back to whatever topic this thread may have once had, for pros you could let them elect scratch or handicapped or 50/50 payout and divide the payout accordingly. [Someone electing 50/50 is paying a half share to both pools and has a half share in both pools.] This definately gives something to the <955 pro. You'd need help from your brother the Rainman to calculate this and help from your "other brother" the Professional Lier to explain it.

For a one-day tournament, like the Blast, you could rate unrated players off the first round. The problem is that they could bag their scores in the first round to get a low rating. That is why the 50/50 works so well.

The PDGA would probably want the pros run as a separate pool.

To get back to whatever topic this thread may have once had, for pros you could let them elect scratch or handicapped or 50/50 payout and divide the payout accordingly. [Someone electing 50/50 is paying a half share to both pools and has a half share in both pools.] This definately gives something to the <955 pro. You'd need help from your brother the Rainman to calculate this and help from your "other brother" the Professional Lier to explain it.



That's the problem with you and your underutilized brain cells...you always make things so complicated! I'd like three divisions: scratch, handicapped and true am.

Not true, grasshopper. In that "Over 19 Division" that you and I played in last year you must be 15 to 20 years closer to the age line. Checking stats now. Fat Broken Down Old Man 5-1-2 versus Northwest Suburban Putting Champion, with an average advantage of 2 throws.

[True that we let juniors play up but you get my point]

50/50 payout and divide the payout accordingly. [Someone electing 50/50 is paying a half share to both pools and has a half share in both pools.] This definitely gives something to the <955 pro. You'd need help from your brother the Rainman to calculate this and help from your "other brother" the Professional Liar to explain it.


We've been running these Handicap/Scratch tournaments here in Maine for going on 10 years and we've been keeping handicaps on our players since 1996. This year I am running some events that are two division Open & Handicap at least one of these will be a XC PDGA event. Pro's rated 955 and above have to play Open.

Peter,

What are your thoughts about our 2004 Amateur Class?
Do you think that playing for cash value is significantly different enough to substantiate the "Amateur" label?
If you do or don't, what impact do you think the "Bruce Brakel Competitive System" will have on the actual nature of "Amateur" competition?

Lastly, do you believe that if Amateurs played for "no profit", this option to move back would be less objectionable? Particularly if they couldn't move back and forward, but had to stay within their chosen classification?

What message does this new system send about disc golf amateurs to members and non-members?

Thanks in advanced for your consideration.

Peter,
What are your thoughts about someone spamming the same rhetoric repeatedly throughout the message board? Do you think anyone will care? Will they care more after they have read it the thousandth time? Does posting the same spiel across multiple topics get the point across better?

i would ask another dumb question but i already used my dumb question pass for the day :p

It is a new day!

i would ask another dumb question but i already used my dumb question pass for the day :p

It is a new day!



maybe later in the day Bruce,i've spent the whole night storing up brain matter just incase my boss comes in and asks me one of those hard questions like were are those reports i asked you to give me yesterday :eek:

This letter or post is to address the PDGA and the governing body of the PDGA.

I will make no bones about the fact that I do not agree with the �pros playing am divisions� in the sense that it is set up now. The basic fact that a person who chose to commit to play the pro division is in itself a decision that has to be upheld by the individual and the PDGA Board. That person knew that he/she would be making a commitment for the rest of their career to have to play by the set rules and regulations of the PDGA. That person, whether or not they were winning or just �cashing� in the highest level of the AM divisions, made a willful choice to do what they did. That person and the PDGA Board must honor, accept and enforce that decision. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about that decision, that person made it and it must be accepted.

Now with that said, I would suggest that the Board go back and look at many of the previous post on the DISCussion board and come up with a compromise to this action. There needs to be a new plan that takes into account the �pros� that want to be allowed to play am again and the AMS that will play the AM division for most if not all of the rest of their careers. I also think that is should be a vote not by just the board but by the whole membership of the PDGA.

I will agree that the AM division is not a true Amateur division because we play for �prizes� that can be valued at hundreds of dollars, but, this is the structure that the PDGA set up and it is the structure that needs to be adhered to for now. This discussion should not be about the �prize� structure of the divisions, but about the meaning of, or in this case the meaning as it has been set forth by the governing body of the PDGA.

One of the primary reasons of the PDGA is to help the sport grow by getting more casual players to play and to encourage more participation in tournaments at the local level which in turn helps the state level and ultimately helps the national level. It is called growing from the �grass roots� up. What has happened in the past couple of months has been in effect a �yard job� or the cutting of the grass at too low of a level. This is my opinion and several others. When you allow the pro�s to come �down� and play the AM division, then you have the AM�s who do not have the ratings of the division they are �trying� to play in move back down to their �rating� division, and thus you have a domino effect backwards. This means that true intermediate�s will now play intermediate and the recreational players that play intermediate will move back down and play the recreational division. And thus you now have new players playing once or twice only because they don�t want to get beat by �seasoned� rec�s. I do understand that the �PRO�s� in this case might have the �rating� of the AM player, but that is not the reason for them to play that division. This was the reason that the PDGA set up the PRO 2 division. This was a division for those that could not yet compete with the upper echelons of the pro ranking. The reason that I heard and saw that this division did not work was not that players did not want to play it but that TD�s did not offer it because it meant more work. I do not play many tourney�s, I am more of what people call a weekend warrior, but in all of the tourneys that I did play in, not one of them offered the Pro 2 division, these were A,B, and C, tiers. So now we have �pro�s who cannot compete and it is not that they are at fault here, but the PDGA in not enforcing a division that should be offered. I do know of some tourneys that did offer this division, but they were few and scattered throughout the country.

Here is my suggestion on how the PDGA compromises on this issue:
1. Allow �pros� to play in the AM division only if the division that they qualify for does not �make�.
a. If they play the AM division then they can only play for trophy, ratings and points only, no prizes.
b. Their entry fee is returned by at least �, ie..deduction of PDGA fees, players pack, trophy cost, misc. expenses.
c. They retain their �PRO� ranking and thus can work on bettering their rating without compromise.
2. Allow �pros� to regain their AM ranking by following these steps:
a. If they play the AM division then they can only play for trophy, ratings and points only, no prizes.
b. Their entry fee is returned by at least �, ie..deduction of PDGA fees, players pack, trophy cost, misc. expenses.
c. If, following one year of playing as an AM, no pro divisions, they then have won an automatic petition for regaining AM status from the PDGA board.

These are my thoughts, I believe that this issue will not go away. I also look back at some of the threads and posts and see more posts against this new rule then for it. If this is the case then you might, and I say might, see more of a back slide of the membership leave then come in.

I have worked days on this post as not to offend anyone in anyway, I am sure that I will, but I have tried not to. I also write this and ask the following, to not to try and berate this post or my thoughts. It is not here for your amusement but for you to ponder the possible outcomes of what might be or could be.

I am going to post this on a couple of threads, so please understand that I want as many people seeing this as possible.

We had 2 pros take advantage of this rule this weekend. They both finished in the plastic with one finishing 5th and the other finishing tied for 18th.

Getting people to play in their correct rated divisions is a good thing, not a bad thing. Often people who are playing in a division way above their rating only get out to 1 or 2 tournaments per year...even if they don't realize the reason.

You keep saying in your post, Paul, that the PDGA can not change who is eligible to play amateur or can not change the payouts for PDGA events. In reality the PDGA CAN change these things and already has. This is what the PDGA does, it regulates our sport by creating/changing rules and policies.

I would suggest that the PDGA does not pay attention too much the chatter on the message board as it does not represent very many members. It MIGHT represent their opinion, but only by coincidence.

We had 2 pros take advantage of this rule this weekend. They both finished in the plastic with one finishing 5th and the other finishing tied for 18th.

I think the guy who finished fifth is actually an amateur. I am not seeing where he took pro cash. The guy who finished 18th played two tournaments last year.

Matt turned pro but perhaps hasn't cashed yet. He posted about how, because he was a lefty, on a tough righty biased course, he was going to move sideways to play Advanced for that event, but indicated he's back to playing pro at his next upcoming event.

Matt took his first "real cash" the weekend prior at Mooky's Cup where he finished 6th only one stroke behind Schweby.

Ah, o.k.

If you look at the ratings for that tournament where two pros played advanced, every Advanced amateur who played Advanced finished in the prizes except for two. If the two pros had not played over it would have been every Advanced amateur except for one.

If these two players cause a dominoe effect, the rec players have somewhere to go. Currently the TD does not offer a rec division. I suspect he will offer it rather than have his tournaments go half full.

Matt turned pro but perhaps hasn't cashed yet. He posted about how, because he was a lefty, on a tough righty biased course, he was going to move sideways to play Advanced for that event, but indicated he's back to playing pro at his next upcoming event.




Matt said during his speech during the awards ceremony that this isn't as hard for a lefty as he thought. What makes this course hard for a lefty is that holes 10 and 11 are better suited for a righty because of water. Also the par 4s from the longs were also difficult for a lefty.

From either tee I count between 9 and 11 holes that are neutral handed or better suited for a lefty.

Ah, o.k.

If you look at the ratings for that tournament where two pros played advanced, every Advanced amateur who played Advanced finished in the prizes except for two. If the two pros had not played over it would have been every Advanced amateur except for one.

If these two players cause a dominoe effect, the rec players have somewhere to go. Currently the TD does not offer a rec division. I suspect he will offer it rather than have his tournaments go half full.



The BO paid out to the top 18. If Matt and Mark played pro, Chris McCloud would have finished 18th which would mean that 2 advanced ams(based on ratings) still would not had cashed.

There are a lot of people in NC that will not be happy if they are forced to play in their rating's bracket. A lot of the lower rated people that play advanced(myself, Doug Branscom, Mike Norris, and others) play advanced because we want to play with the better competition and there are more people that comply with the rules.

I like to have fun when I play. That is why I play advanced even though I will finish near the bottom for a while. I don't want to play INT and have to deal with players that don't respect the rules. I don't want to have to police everyone's actions because that doesn't make it fun anymore. Yesterday I was in the last full card of advanecd players both rounds and we were rooting and cheering each other on with every great shot and jeering when any of us had a bad bounce. That wouldn't be happening in the INT field.

If I was forced to move back to the INT division, I would probably quit playing PDGAs.

We've been very adept at setting "inappropriate" expectations for years...

Matt said during his speech during the awards ceremony...



Wait a minute.


His speech?!?!!


Didn't he finish 5TH!!??!!


In ADVANCED??!?!!?!!!


What did the CTP winner in Intermediate Women Senior Grandmasters have to say during HER speech??!?!

What happens to the Am who plays pro and cashes if this rule is rescinded at the end of the year?

Matt said during his speech during the awards ceremony...



Wait a minute.


His speech?!?!!


Didn't he finish 5TH!!??!!


In ADVANCED??!?!!?!!!


What did the CTP winner in Intermediate Women Senior Grandmasters have to say during HER speech??!?!




Wait a minute there buddy. His "speech" was just in response to people raggin' on him for playing down to advanced. It was 5 seconds at most.

We start fresh all over again. :D

BTW, I am dropping down to intermediate now. :o

I was very surprised that I played better than my player rating. I hadn't seen the course, and on playing the water holes the first round, I went 4, 4, 2, 5. I then was so frustrated that I proceeded to 5 the lefty hole that followed it. That was after not taking a bogey on the rest of the course. I always play better blind...

Now, 4th round, after a little practice after round 3, I went 2, 2, 2, 3 on the water holes, and from the harder pin placements. That set me on track to shoot an over 1000 rated 54 from the longs, playing smart and not overthinking the tough holes. I even went for it on the pond hole from the longs. Missed my line but saved a 3.

I threw an Orc 4 times all weekend. all on the same hole.

Had I played pro I would have bumped not 1, but 2 people out of cash. there was a tie for 9th place.

We had 2 pros take advantage of this rule this weekend. They both finished in the plastic with one finishing 5th and the other finishing tied for 18th.

As many know, I was one of the "pros" who took advantage of the rule and played advanced placing in the cash at 18th. Last year I played two events, finishing in one because of a mental implosion at the first event. I would have to say that had I been playing pro, I doubt that I would have shot the scores that I did. I felt I played poorly all weekend, but knew that I still had a chance to win something--that kept me competitive and wanting to improve during the final round. On another note, I had a lot of fun playing in the advanced division (although the bagger pro references when I am shooting sub 900 rated rounds were annoying as well as the constant reference to my being a Marshal). I had much more fun than I have had in the past playing pro. I will continue to play pro and advanced throughout the course of this year. However, once I play at the level I believe I am capable of, I will play strictly pro.

I believe that this rule is beneficial to players like me. However, I do believe that the ratings are way to high. For a pro to play advanced, the rating should be 935 at the highest. To play intermediate, the rating should be 900 at the highest.

Chuck, PDGA BOD, Competition Director,

You should listen to Mark in regards to ratings breaks. He is very wise.

The extension of Mark's idea would be that ALL players above 935 should be playing for cash with the Advanced division being from 900-935? Hope the BOD and Competition Director are NOT listening. Maybe if a superpro division were added for players over 975 at B-tiers or higher.

I find a strange pattern in our tournaments in NC. We have lots of folks that move up from intermediate to advanced with sub-900 ratings, and few (if any) that stay down until their rating forces them to move up. Many of our advanced players have little chance of cashing, but continue to play in a division with some 940-950 rated guys. So, our intermediate divisions are filled with players that have rec-level ratings, and the rec division, when offered, has no one in it.

I don't agree with the rule change, but don't blame Matt, Mark and others for playing in a division where they have a better chance to be competitive. As a sub-915 player myself, if I was more concerned with winning something, I would move back down to intermediate.

I agree with Chuck that it would only make sense to drop the cap on intermediate ratings if we had somewhere for the 940-960 crowd to go (besides donating to Schweb, LL, Walt, etc. week after week).

The extension of Mark's idea would be that ALL players above 935 should be playing for cash with the Advanced division being from 900-935? Hope the BOD and Competition Director are NOT listening. Maybe if a superpro division were added for players over 975 at B-tiers or higher.



No - not at all. Mark is suggesting that he likes the new "Pro Playing Am" rule/allowance. His suggestion is to simply move the cut-off line from <955 to <935 for Adv Am.

I like the new rule in concept, and I too had suggested a cutoff in the 935-945 range here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&amp;%20Standards&amp;Number=30 7150&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Main=306401&amp;Search=true&amp;#Post307 150).

I do not believe that he is suggesting any extension of the current setup to be a ratings based competition with hard ratings limits per the division. I believe that is you putting words in his mouth.

If in fact our pseudo-pros can play with our pseudo-ams at all, i.e. the competition is fair, then the ratings range of each should be the same. What's the rationale for only 915-934 'pros' to play with 915-975ish 'Ams'? None. So, the extension I was proposing is legit in that context.

while i see what you're saying chuck that the rule must be enforced in the opposite direction for it to have complete integrity... but then why not require >955 players to play pro and >915 adv masters to play pro masters?

you cant argue for it to happen at 935 if you dont wanna argue for it at 955.

Chuck, PDGA BOD, Competition Director,

You should listen to Mark in regards to ratings breaks. He is very wise.



This is Craig's old argument that ratings ranges should be large. It has little to do with the whole Pros Playing Am bruhaha.

What Craig always fails to address is that with ranges that large the bottom people in the range have almost 0 chance of ever cashing. :eek:

That's fine if you are playing for nothing. But in this crazy mixed up prize structure with high entries and high rewards, you better keep those ranges small enough that the bottom of each range has a reasonable chance to cash.

That's a hard thing for Craig to see from his 1005. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

The extension of Mark's idea would be that ALL players above 935 should be playing for cash with the Advanced division being from 900-935? Hope the BOD and Competition Director are NOT listening. Maybe if a superpro division were added for players over 975 at B-tiers or higher.

So all players above 955 should be playing for cash and not allowed to play advanced? The logical extension of your interpretation...

Players who have registered open should not be allowed to play advanced unless their rating is under a 930-940 range. Right now a pro player with a rating of 954 would be eligible to play advanced (and probably playing for the win), but this same player would be close to cashing if not cashing in open.

I don't have any problems with that in concept, but I would have three options. There would be pro divisions like today. There would be true Amateur low entry fee divisions with the same age/gender options as Pro. Then, there would be the semi-pro merch divisions which would be based on ratings breaks that might shift at different tier levels. In the ratings zone where we have the most members, 875-960, players might decide to play in all three of those tracks sometime during a year depending on the event, their wallet, their age, their gender.

The interesting benefit for the PDGA would be to make membership mando to play in a merch division since you need a rating. Non-members could play in the budget Am divisions or Pro divisions for the usual $5 non-member fee where sandbagging isn't an issue. That would be a low cost and fair way for new players to get exposed to competition. Those who want to stay on the budget track can do it and decide whether to join the PDGA. Those who want to board the merch train would need to join the PDGA so they had a rating to guide their move up the merch ladder toward pro.

[QUOTE]
Chuck, PDGA BOD, Competition Director,

You should listen to Mark in regards to ratings breaks. He is very wise.



This is Craig's old argument that ratings ranges should be large. It has little to do with the whole Pros Playing Am bruhaha.

What Craig always fails to address is that with ranges that large the bottom people in the range have almost 0 chance of ever cashing. :eek:

Where you are wrong Hank is that players from 930-950 have no chance of cashing. Last year I took a random sampling of B&C Tier events from every region in the country and found that players in that range cash at a huge percentage of tournaments. Increasing the numbers of players in those divisions to be more inclusive of those skill ranges only increases the number of available cashing spots - and serves to eliminate the inequities of dissimilar rewards for the same score which is rampant in our current system (this is what you seem to either ignore or just discount out of hand). This is directly tied to this pro vs am bruhaha - as the skill overlaps I have documented include Open, Masters, and Advanced division players. Do some of your own statistical analysis and tell us what you find.


That's a hard thing for Craig to see from his 1005. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


I don't appreciate the accusation that my rating is a reflection of my attitude towards setting up a fair venue for competition. That is very presumptive and an unfair and inaccurate stereotype. (No smirk required) I have been runing tournaments since 1989 - and have witnessed players of all levels come and go from competition - and the majority of them leaving had nothing to do with rewards - and had everything to do with personal choices and other life priorities (how often do you see Jeff Malton or Steve Valencia's name anymore?)

This whole situation of 955 pros playing am is merely another form of pandering and a step away from offering a true and pure competitive arena for our sanctioned events. The whole attitude of "everybody should have a chance to cash" or "everybody should have a chance to win" - is total BS. The players who go out of their way to play at the highest level deserve everything they get. The way we have it set up - the people "wishing" they could be that good are pandered to and rewarded, regardless of their ability. Often these rewards are overly inequitable - hence so much dicussion about how to change the status quo. As long as we have this divisional structure broken into little bits (as CK would have it), we will never come close to being able to offer a pure competitive atmosphere or venue in DG. What a shame.

I don't have any problems with that in concept, but I would have three options. There would be pro divisions like today. There would be true Amateur low entry fee divisions with the same age/gender options as Pro. Then, there would be the semi-pro merch divisions which would be based on ratings breaks that might shift at different tier levels. In the ratings zone where we have the most members, 875-960, players might decide to play in all three of those tracks sometime during a year depending on the event, their wallet, their age, their gender.

The interesting benefit for the PDGA would be to make membership mando to play in a merch division since you need a rating. Non-members could play in the budget Am divisions or Pro divisions for the usual $5 non-member fee where sandbagging isn't an issue. That would be a low cost and fair way for new players to get exposed to competition. Those who want to stay on the budget track can do it and decide whether to join the PDGA. Those who want to board the merch train would need to join the PDGA so they had a rating to guide their move up the merch ladder toward pro.



Now that is a very good idea.
How many total divisions do you supposed would be offered at one of these set-ups?

What if you let the lowest 'rec' division play for next to nothing say $5, offered a trophy for the winner, and told them that $2 of their entry would be banked toward a future PDGA membership. Downside is that it would be more work for the TD... not a lot though... Just type the guys name into the computer and count how many events he played rec in. Next year when he want's to join he'll have $20 or $30 bucks banked up towards it and he'll get to try the PDGA out for free for one year. If we retained 50% after that then we might grow faster.

The pro, merch and am tracks would all be available but TDs would have the option to restrict divisions like they do now when specified in advance. For example, I could see many TDs choosing to offer the Pro and Merch tracks only which would look like our typical events today. Or, to develop new players, you would see events with the Merch and Am tracks only. The Merch track would be popular to include most of the time because there are lots of players in that range and it helps finance events in the way TDs are used to. The Merch divisions would only need to go down to a rating of maybe 850 because below that, the entry fees today for Rec are low enough to essentially be the same as what a true Am entry fee might be anyway.

i cant think of any reason not to agree with that outline. it certainly solves the (misguided imo) calls for low-entry/low-no-prize events as the only option for "am" players.

if the ratings ladder for the semi-pro (merch) division went all the way up then i'd have no problem forcing players into the top division.

now throw some sort of qualifying task to join the ranks of the "pro" track and we'd really have something! altho i'm not sure that the sport is quite ready for it, it would still make sense to start developing the concepts/mechanics of what it means to qualify now rather than wait until we do have 500 tour-quality and more than a thousand 970-980 rated players out there.

I don't have any problems with that in concept, but I would have three options. There would be pro divisions like today. There would be true Amateur low entry fee divisions with the same age/gender options as Pro. Then, there would be the semi-pro merch divisions which would be based on ratings breaks that might shift at different tier levels. In the ratings zone where we have the most members, 875-960, players might decide to play in all three of those tracks sometime during a year depending on the event, their wallet, their age, their gender.

The interesting benefit for the PDGA would be to make membership mando to play in a merch division since you need a rating. Non-members could play in the budget Am divisions or Pro divisions for the usual $5 non-member fee where sandbagging isn't an issue. That would be a low cost and fair way for new players to get exposed to competition. Those who want to stay on the budget track can do it and decide whether to join the PDGA. Those who want to board the merch train would need to join the PDGA so they had a rating to guide their move up the merch ladder toward pro.



Through the myriad of ideas, complaints, praises of the current and the other proposed competative systems, this is by far the best, all inclusive idea I have seen to date. I see this proposal as a VERY feasible solution.

I like it too. It does an excellent job of bridging the gap where PDGA membership is required to play PDGA events. If gives new players a chance to see if they like it before they join, and forces all merch players to get a rating.

It seems to have good potential.

This is basically Nick's idea. I give Nick credit for his vision of a true amateur class. However, I never understood why he didn't want to tackle the more difficult problems. Like Nick's system, this proposal is basically the same siren with a different song. She will continue to lure professional disc golf away from the promised land.

Pat or anyone, please explain how a test to beome a pro helps anything, at least at this point in time. Sure, it will definately be needed some day, but right now, it would be simply one more policy that leads to a declining/stagnant professional class, while disc golf as a whole continues to grow.

james, it doesnt do anything (except get in the way) at this point in time. i was ruminating that it might be helpful to start talking about what that test might consists of, in anticipation of the day that it is needed.

What's the rationale for only 915-934 'pros' to play with 915-975ish 'Ams'? None. So, the extension I was proposing is legit in that context.



You say there is no rationale. But there is. Here is mine: A 945-955 Pro is stepping into the very upper echelon of Adv players.

According to the PDGA Membership pages, there are 1180 Pro's <955. But, there are only 50 ams >954 in the entire world! Probalby less since I imagine at least 10 have gone Pro and the site does not reflect that. In NC there are 4. In MI there are 8. In MN there are 0. In CA there are 10. In TX there are 2.

If what has been said (can't remember who at this point - Bruce maybe?) is true that a Pro rated at 954 is actually 10-20 points lower in skill level than an 954 Am, they should have plenty of time getting back into tournaments and regaining their form before their rising player rating disqualifies them from competing as an Am.

I think we are building a consensus of approval on this idea Chuck. Perhaps some TD could apply a trial run in non-sanctioned events to feel it out.

I was always against a forced promotion to Open. It has always been my thought that if a player was percieved to be sandbagging in a divisions... say advanced... then the Open players in the area should present that player with a signed framed certificate that states "For demonstration of acceptional disc golfing abilities and professionalism NAME is hereby officially invited and welocmed to join the Open division for this day hense". Frame it and present it at the next tournament.... signed by as many open players as they can get. How could someone continue to sandbag after that?

Where you are wrong Hank is that players from 930-950 have no chance of cashing. Last year I took a random sampling of B&C Tier events from every region in the country and found that players in that range cash at a huge percentage of tournaments.



Craig that doesn't cut it. :p

Players from that range may cash (in Open) at many/most tournaments, but only a very small % of players in that range are cashing. In other words, if 10 players 930-950 are playing Open in every tournament, and 1 of them is cashing in EVERY tournament, then your statement above is very true == One is cashing in every single event. But any given player in that range is only cashing 10% of the time.

By the way, go ahead and find your stats from last year and we'll do real numbers instead of your "players in that range cash at a huge percentage of tournaments" hyperbole. :cool:


Increasing the numbers of players in those divisions to be more inclusive of those skill ranges only increases the number of available cashing spots



Craig craig craig. Yes, this is true. The number of cash spots is greater. HOWEVER, the range of skill between the bottom of the range and the bottom of the cash is much wider in a larger overall division. Therefore, in a larger overall division, the bottom people have a far lesser chance to cash. :eek:

Why does this matter? Because of the stupid entry fees and payouts. Get rid of those and I couldn't care less how often somebody cashes.

As for the rest of your post, I hate the skill overlap more than anyone. I just disagree with you on the size of the skill ranges GIVEN THE CURRENT FEE/PRIZE STRUCTURE.

Craig that's a large number of words by me and the meaning gets lost. :D Let me summarize the 2 key points.

1. In a large division the difference between bottom guy and cash line is maybe 4 strokes per round. In a small division this difference is maybe 2 strokes per round. Therefore the bottom guy has a much smaller chance to cash in the bigger division.

2. This main reason this matters is that you are charging a lot and giving away a lot.

Oh well you've been through this before. I should just let your little flyers go. Sorry.

Chuck and others is this the system you are talking about? (in general at least):

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

The sad thing is the proposal I put forth above was my proposal at the September Summit. The details are posted somewhere here but I didn't search for it. Nick had a similar proposal but was adamant that those who play for merch, even if they never accepted cash, would not be allowed to play in Am Worlds. I didn't see any reason the folks who played in the merch divisions that weren't pros couldn't play in Am Worlds. The Board liked the proposal but felt it was too much to communicate in time for this season. Thus, we ended up with the ill-named 'Pro in Am' for this year as an interim step.

James, I have 'bone' for you I've been pondering for a while but I'm not ready to explain it yet. It's a way to have added cash directed toward all top players over 1000 and those who wish to play against them.

Nick, can you track down my proposal online? I think it's easier to see without as much detail as yours.

Nick, you had to come on this thread and screw it up didn't you. :p No, not with your message, but with that picture that now makes me scroll back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and........... :D

Here it is. At least one thing I would change from this chart is that if you play in the Merch divisions, you only get merch prizes even if you are a pro. Simplifies payouts for the TD and reduces incentive for players to slide over from playing in a pro division.

Competition Proposal (http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/2005%20comp%20chart.jpg)

So basically all you guys want to do is rename the divisions and force people to play where their rating puts them??? I mean thats all i saw in the above proposal.

I also have a question. If the above proposal is completed and sent threw next year how many people do you actually think are going to play in the amateur divisions??? Do you even think you will get enough people to fill a division??? Are you going to hold seperate tournaments for the AMATEURS or are they going to be the same as the pros???

I love it! I assume Pro's (anyone who has ever accepted cash) would not be able to play in the Am division. Right?

I am sure some will complain that it will suck $ from the Pro purse with your cutoffs as high as they are. I would counter that this will in the not-so-long run entice more players so that TD's can go to multiple courses and/or separate Pro and Merch/Am weekends.

edited to add: Oh, and what is MB1 in the Am column?

I would think they would hold all the "PRO" divisions either on 1 day or weekend and all the "AM" divisions on another day or another weekend.

Looks like a good idea, and I agree that the merch column should be all merch (no cash option).

I would also like to see the Am Divisions go to more like $15-$20 with a premium disc or voucher in return for their entry. They get to play in the tournament for the price of a disc, and the TD still gets something to offset expenses instead of just collecting entry fees for his expenses.

Hank - your meaning was not lost on me - and I concur that a driving factor in trying to amend the divisional structure would necessarily include a new approach to both entry fees and payout structure. The models I have used basically lump all players together over 935 - and pay 50% of the field. What this does is takes the masters field (or most of it) - and the upper 1/2 to 2/3 of the advanced field - and place them with their brethren that make up about 3/4 of the Open field. By expanding the payout to 50% - the number of places expands even more over just 1/3 of a bigger field. And more importantly - eliminates the inequities in rewards that exist currently. Just for kicks - I went and pulled 3 events from last year, one from NC, TX, and IN (all B Tiers) In each case - there were at least 2 players who would cash with ratings under 945, low cashspot was a 921 (I left him in the mix because he would have placed 6th in a field of over 30 players).

Your statement that increased pool size = lesser overall chance to cash just doesn't jive with the numbers of actual event results. If players in those ratings ranges are already in a "cash" position - wouldn't their chance remain just as good when there are more cashing places available? I don't suggest to others to go evaluate event results as much to prove a point as to encourage discovery and inquiry as to actual trends for themselves. If more people actually took the time to look at the numbers - perceptions about where ratings breaks should be would be very different I think.

I'm not sure why Chuck ignores this line of thinking - it seems pretty simple to me.

There's no forcing in this system except you cannot play below your rating. If your rating is say 950, you could play in Open Pro for cash, EM1 for merch or MA1 for a trophy. If the weekend is split up with different divisions each day, you might be able to play both days.

Remember that non-PDGA members can only play in the Amateur or Pro divisions, not the merch divisions. So, the Am divisions will automatically include non-members, newbies, players on a tight budget that week, and beginners whose rating isn't high enough yet to jump in the merch track.

The merch track also has no gender or age divisions, just ratings based. So master age players either play in the budget Am Master division, the merch division at or above their rating with men and women of all ages or the Pro Master division. Even though the current Adv Master and Adv GM divisions with merch prizes would not exist in this new system, my thinking would be that those older Ams who really want to play with their age group, but win something more than trophies, would just enter the Am Master budget division and make their own side bets where they win cash amongst each other not merch. The geezers are a strong force so we want to make sure the system would work within social expectations.

MB1 is just a beginner Open Am division (could also be restricted to a lower rating level, too) in addition to MA1 which is the primary Open Am division in this system.

no nick its not. yours has only two tracks, where chucks has three - a pro, a merch, and an am.

That idea makes some sense. I can't infer from your post if you would allow those over 935 to play in a division of no financial rewards. Personally, I would, if they so choose, but I doubt there would be a lot of takers. A deeper payout with a creative entry fee option available to low level players is key IMO.

By creating a structure where the competitors are encouraged to look forward rather behind and giving them reasoable bet/entry fee options, this strategy (played out over many years) would probably inject some life back into professional disc golf.

Pat, in my understanding, Nick's has alway's had those same tracks, he merely called the merch track "pros" as they obviously are.

If the model for players with ratings down to 920-930 playing Open was successful, there's nothing stopping TDs from doing it right now. It would be so much easier to just have an Open division and skip the Advanced division where players over 915 have to play Open. The current system allows that if you specify it in advance. Just say you'll offer Open, Intermediate, Rec and a few women's divisions and maybe Advanced Master. If the model works, I'm sure the PDGA will take notice by observing the success in your TD report. It doesn't even have to be an X-tier although I guess it would have to be unsanctioned so those Ams in the 915-945 range who cash could accept it.

I like your plan Chuck, but I'd like to think about combining it with a handicap system. Instead of the Merch track, I'd like to see that track be one division that all plays for merch with handicaps. Since all those players would have ratings, they could also all have handicaps.

I think most competitive players prefer playing straight up scores without adjustment for 'normal' competition. But handicap competition can be done now or in this proposed system just like doubles or match play is an option for events. I see they are using ratings for seedings in the Match Play Championship coming up in CA, for example.

Here's another interesting twist with the three track system. You would earn Am points toward Am Worlds invites only by playing in Am divisions. You would earn Pro points toward Pro Worlds invites only by playing in Pro divisions. And, you would earn Merch points toward Mid-Nationals invites only by playing in merch divisions. Players in our core rating range might earn points in all three categories and would have to figure out where they want to focus to get an invite or risk the waiting list(s).

Actually Chuck, that was my proposal, not yours. They are rather similar though. (Great minds think alike! :p)

And we still DO STRONGLY DISAGREE about letting Professional Class players swing up and down throw the Prize and Amateur Classes. Basically it continues the tradition of looking at them as the "ugly sister" or "trash can" of the Pro divisions; A characterization and methodology I categorically refuse to accept.

NO PROS in either the Prize or certainly the Amateur classes. Perhaps that seems funny thinking solely along the lines of our present demographic and breakdown, but I am sure that the Prize divisions would grow quickly, populated by a majority of WWCC amateurs and lower skill level pros, only a few of either pro or prize players would opt into a pure Amateur division (why would they?), it will be populated by an entirely "Alien" demographic to organized disc golf: AMATEURS. (Sorry, there simply is no other way of saying it�)

Under such a plan, only the best of the best would be in any of the Pro Class divisions. Folks committed to competing at the highest level.

Prize Players would not qualify for the Amateur Worlds, they would qualify for the Mid-Nationals though. Pros would not qualify for the Mid-Nationals.

"Classification" is a "decision" not a "feeling of luck" when you show up to an event. It must have REAL meaning or our competitive system will continue to face the same challenges it does now just with a slightly different packaging.


The sad thing is the proposal I put forth above was my proposal at the September Summit. The details are posted somewhere here but I didn't search for it. Nick had a similar proposal but was adamant that those who play for merch, even if they never accepted cash, would not be allowed to play in Am Worlds. I didn't see any reason the folks who played in the merch divisions that weren't pros couldn't play in Am Worlds. The Board liked the proposal but felt it was too much to communicate in time for this season. Thus, we ended up with the ill-named 'Pro in Am' for this year as an interim step.

James, I have 'bone' for you I've been pondering for a while but I'm not ready to explain it yet. It's a way to have added cash directed toward all top players over 1000 and those who wish to play against them.

no nick its not. yours has only two tracks, where chucks has three - a pro, a merch, and an am.



You're kidding right?

Pat, in my understanding, Nick's has alway's had those same tracks, he merely called the merch track "pros" as they obviously are.



Zactly

wasnt kidding but now i see on your chart there are three divisions. sorry... colors for pro and merch look the same on my compiuter, so my eyebalkls didnt pick up the diff.

regardless, if you are forbidding pros from dabbling in the merch ranks, isnt that a fundamental diff from what chuck is describing?

That is the fundamental difference.

I think if the incentives are not there (flatter, deeper payouts) in the merch divisions, the competitve pros will not wander there. More precisely, the pros that would wander to the merch divisions might be the same ones that would otherwise stay home.

Any of those playing in the Am divisions would almost certainly would be staying at home.

The Am division with no performance based payout would need no protection from greedy WWCCA players.
The merch divisions with flatter payouts would need no protection from the cash divisions.
The Pro divisions would need added cash to make them more attractive.

why would the payout have to be flatter?

That is the fundamental difference.


Yes, it is.


I think if the incentives are not there (flatter, deeper payouts) in the merch divisions, the competitve pros will not wander there. More precisely, the pros that would wander to the merch divisions might be the same ones that would otherwise stay home. Any of those playing in the Am divisions would almost certainly would be staying at home.



Why rely on incentives, flatter, deeper payouts, cash over prizes, wandering pros and prize class players, or disc golfers that would rather stay at home than play in the pro or prize class; when you can just make a competitive classification suited for and exclusive to each?

Seriously! Changing classification should be similarly as difficult as it is now (more so).


The Am division with no performance based payout would need no protection from greedy WWCCA players.



I didn�t say �greedy� and I don�t mean �greedy. Prize players are prize players, no different, better or worse, than Pros other than they play for Prizes rather than Cash.


The merch divisions with flatter payouts would need no protection from the cash divisions.
The Pro divisions would need added cash to make them more attractive.



Other than Cash, Prizes and Amateur reward there is no reason to worry about some kind of entry fee/payout scale between classifications, each would be free to do what is in the best interests of their own classification: Pros could set their own standards for qualifying and work their tour for big sponsors and venues. Prize players would do much the same but based on prizes and event amenities. Amateurs could go as far as they can push event amenities, prizes not based on performance and trophies that you could live in ;) .

Oh, yeah, and the Amateur Class DOES NEED PROTECTION from Pro and Prize Classes, precisely because it IS an Amateur Class. Of the three classes, IT is the one that is the most significantly different and worthy or protection of them all.

If there are no performance based prizes, what are the Ams losing when a pro or merch player plays with them ?

I would agree that major events should be protected from such intrusions, but I don't see the need for normal tournaments. Allow the players to play in the divisions that best fit their current situation.

You know what I mean, why twist it ?

If there are no performance based prizes, what are the Ams losing when a pro or merch player plays with them ?

I would agree that major events should be protected from such intrusions, but I don't see the need for normal tournaments. Allow the players to play in the divisions that best fit their current situation.



Gary,

Yes, I do know what you mean. But it is simply inappropriate. It is not like �competition� is not important to these new Amateurs. He11 it is all they have!

Imagine there is this guy, he�s been working hard all year to beat this guy who keeps beating him by one stroke event after event. He finally gets his game to where he can lick this guy and win the Amateur Master Title at his local course.

Day of the event, he shoots his best game all year only to see on the scoreboard that 5 Pro Master players strapped for cash or just wanting an easy ride decided to play Amateur so he is in the second group with no chance of even placing in the top 3rd let alone the ultimate amateur goal of winning.

Again, just because you are an amateur doesn�t mean that winning and competing is not important; IT IS ALL THERE IS.

There are many other reasons why pros should not compete with amateurs and I find it nearly hilarious that I even have to bring them up. Only in disc golf�

The Amateur Class should not be the waste bin for washed up Cash and Prize players. Being an Amateur should be a point of pride, not a scarlet letter.

Nick, you're losing this one. I'm not sure I've heard one voice agreeing with you that it makes a difference except for major competitions. None of those reasons you've cited have persuaded anyone that I've observed. I'm pretty certain the Board doesn't see a problem and I'll soon find out how the new Competition Committee sees it. At least in the short term, if something like what we've proposed moves forward, the bulk of the players in the merch track will be the ones who have been planning to attend Am Worlds in the next few years. So, I can't see a barrier being set up between merch and am tracks for a while, regardless of the merits. I could envision a sideways ratings cap on players over 1000 or maybe even 975 being prevented from moving over from pro or merch to am to provide some protection.

Imagine there is this guy, he�s been working hard all year to beat this guy who keeps beating him by one stroke event after event. He finally gets his game to where he can lick this guy and win the Amateur Master Title at his local course.



Of course I know what you mean, and I disagree. If all there is is trophies, it will really be about the bragging rights. He will still be able to beat the same guy by one stroke, and that's all that matters. Those other guys are just snipers and aren't important in the long run. It's the personal battles that matter to the ams (at least to me).

This is the nice way to say what I think of Chuck's concept:


I like a lot of Chuck�s concepts. I don�t think we need to radically rework our format to incorporate them.

I like different ratings caps for different tiers. It solves the �move up, move out� problem potentially created when we tell a stable, not improving cap+5 rated player, �Now you always have to get your butt kicked in your division.� I know several WWCCAms in that situation and for them it is worse than the 950 pro who now has an option.

I like allowing players to play as true amateurs if they want but don�t see why we need to take all those players out of their skill appropriate divisions. Mandating the trophy-only optional entry fee would accomplish the same thing.

I like that Chuck offers a division for Super-Am Women. Chuck�s format offers a prize division for women which currently would have almost no players. I think the ratings of the very top pro women show that the Women�s divisions need another level.

I appreciate that Chuck is concerned about the non-member bagging issue, but I think that that issue is better handled by TDs at the local level than by taking those player out of the competitive format. Most of those unrated players are playing up or in the appropriate division.

This is the somewhat harsher way to say many of the same things. I'm not attacking Chuck here but just talking about his ideas:
This is my laundry list of issues with Chuck�s proposal:

It is embarrassingly silly to call my brother Jon and his discing peers Pro Recreational players or a Pro Red players. There is nothing professional or semi-professional about the recreational division or the intermediate division in any sense of the word �professional.� There is absolutely nothing professional about Jon�s disc golf experience. He will back me up on this or I�m telling mom.

Calling those players professionals has adverse consequences for our junior players who may have athletic scholarship opportunities in other sports but are not well informed regarding NCAA and AAU eligibility requirements.

I see no reason why the Open Amateur division needs to be a separate division. If we want to mandate that players be allowed to compete as traditional amateurs, we can do that within the existing skill-based divisions. All we have to do is require that TDs offer a trophy-only option.

We don�t need a solution for non-member bagging other than allowing TDs to enforce local non-member bagging rules. If some non-member wins Rec at one of Jon�s tournaments shooting 900 golf, I�ll him he has to play Intermediate next time and he will.

I don�t think our TDs want to take all the non-members and Am Masters out of the normal entry fee divisions. I don�t think that those players will play sanctioned tournaments if they are pulled out of the prize divisions.

I have nothing to say to the Am Masters when they ask, �Why do Pro Masters get an age protected division where they can play for each others entry fees but we don�t?� If we are removing age protected divisions from the prize divisions we should also remove them from the cash divisions. Either you are good enough to play for cash, or you can play for prizes.

I don�t think that the top prize division needs a hard cap. Cash will pull most good players into the cash paid divisions. WWCCAms who want to stay WWCCAms in order to compete at WWCCAm Worlds and US[WWCC]ADGC should have that option. And they should have the option of earn ing the points they need to get into Am Worlds also.

O.k., I'm doing the three consecutive posts thing, maybe, but I want these different ideas out there separately.

I think our format only needs three things:

A. A True-Pro division.

B. A prize division for most of our WWCCPros who would never be able to get into a true pro division.

C. A true-am or trophy-only option that is not discretional with the TD and is neutral as regarding the profitability of the event.

I think I was onto something with my fever induced post of a week ago. It would not be popular with all the hustlers who just use the PDGA as an alternative to driving to Gary or Mount Pleasant where they can play other games for each others cash at worse odds and a bigger house rake. But it would work for our current true pros and that would be a start.

I have nothing to say to the Am Masters when they ask, �Why do Pro Masters get an age protected division where they can play for each others entry fees but we don�t?� If we are removing age protected divisions from the prize divisions we should also remove them from the cash divisions. Either you are good enough to play for cash, or you can play for prizes.



Tell them what Chuck suggested to tell the GM's: Play in the MM1 division and do some side betting. Create your own little wagering pool AND play with your social group.

I think having the Merch division being a ratings based division is a super idea. IMO, it would muddy the waters too much to have divisions in those divisions.

I just wanted to get 4 Brakel posts (darn, too late) in a row here and even with the risk of being accused of being under the influence of little brother syndrome, I share Bruce's feelings on most of these points.

It floors me that Nick feels he has a leg to stand on when even the Olympics have true professionals and true amateurs playing side by side in an amateur event. Although I agree that someone who plays a sport as a pro is no longer an amateur, I don't think there's any reason to say that they can no longer play in an amateur event.

I like the idea of using handicaps based on ratings, but I also agree with Chuck that probably most of our current players aren't looking for that change at this time.

2 Classes: Scratch - Handicap.

Scratch is current Pro divisions, separated by sex and age. Similar to the PGA/LPDG/Masters/Seniors, whatever they call it. Except for disc golf, we all wrap it up into one (PDGA that is). Pay higher fees... play the bigger tournaments, play for cash. (For now, ANYONE can play these events, but later [who knows how much later] have qualifying required.)

Handicap: Current Amateur... there are two divisions. Men and Women (No age separation... that's what the handicap is for). Anyone can play here as well. Portion of entry goes to Handicap winners. Portion goes to Scratch winners. Don't have to figure out who plays in what division, no such thing as sandbagging (and for the person that is sitting there knowing they can blow a tournament to get their handicap adjusted to make it easier to win their next tournament not only is drawing bad Karma, but there exist formulas to reduce that type of sandbagging), don't want to go pro because you aren't good enough, can't continue to play pro because you lost your job, now have other (more important responsibilities.) Great players packages... playing for the experience (whether it be for 'the experience' of the day or the experience of how to play.) If the 'Cash' players want to play in the Handicap division... well let them. They'll still be handicaped (probably giving strokes back, so it's unlikely that they'll be taking prizes), but they can pay reduced entry fees, still play in PDGA events and be part of the organized scene.

For you the blind, who once could see...

For those that think all players should eventually be able to move to the professional ranks and compete have a serious misunderstanding of how the world really works. Not all players can be good enough to compete at that level. As much as "I" would like to compete there, I know it isn't possible without significant sacrifices to me and my family (and even help from a near and dear friend hasn't helped my rating [843 (and dropping) for those that are fishing].) And even if I make those sacrifices, there is no guarantee that I have the 'ability' to rate that high... you people do realize what 'ability' is, right? Not 'expectations', but 'ability'.

I do not think that a wide-spread handicap league will ever fly.

One of the biggest problems with handicap leagues is that they reward erratic players and punishes consistent players. I have run about 12 months worth of handicap leagues on a small scale (see here (http://www.charlottedgc.com/cya_winter_2004_scores.htm)). They are fun, especially when playing with the same friends repeatedly.

Another problem that you will observe is that over the long run as averages play out, the majority win most of their money back. So, IMO, a trophy league with many divisions that is low cost to enter is better. People can spend their $ saved on their own merch or run side bets with buddies.

It floors me that Nick feels he has a leg to stand on when even the Olympics have true professionals and true amateurs playing side by side in an amateur event.


Well, get up then, because you know that that is no more right than it would be to have Kurt Engle show up at a AAAA High School State Championships wrestling tournament and walk with the title. You can point out examples of the intrusion of Pro sport into Am sport all you want; it still doesn�t make it anything but intrusion of Pro sport into Am sport or anything but completely wrong.


Although I agree that someone who plays a sport as a pro is no longer an amateur, I don't think there's any reason to say that they can no longer play in an amateur event.


To paraphrase: It is totally wrong to beat your dog, but we can no longer say it is wrong to beat your dog because so many people already do it.

Jon, either it is wrong or it is not. Seems like we agree that it is, you just use examples of that broken trust as a concrete reason to completely undermine amateur sport while I do not.

If, as I plan now, to run Amateur Only events, when I retire from playing, for community groups and educational institutions, there is no way that I would allow Pros or Prizers to participate in them. To do so would be a gigantic undermining of the trust between my participants and the principles upon which Amateur Sport is based.


I like the idea of using handicaps based on ratings, but I also agree with Chuck that probably most of our current players aren't looking for that change at this time.


Adding value to what the PDGA provides in services to our membership, particularly when it doesn�t cost us more than a little volunteer time, is exactly what we should do. I agree that handicapping should not become the main mechanism for competition at PDGA events, but as a value-added service to local and regional leagues I think the idea has merit.

Chuck and Bruce,

I would support this �Nomadic Pro/Prize/Am� day of the event pick a class option ONLY AS A TRANSITIONAL Competitive System. There simply is no �integrity� in it as a long-term solution, for many reasons, but for the primary one of continued infighting over players/entry fees/organizers/sponsorship. It would simply be better to allow each class to (annually) gauge its resources and get at the business of making its domain as great as they can possibly manage with the resources it has. The PDGA mainly just sets the standards and rules then allows each Class to work for the betterment of their own.

Gary,

I have some experience with this having played in True Amateur Class divisions, 3 times, here in the MADC as an Open Pro Player. I had fun, as did the other competitors, mostly WWCCAms; but even the WWCCAms were a little perturbed that I, an Open Pro Player, would come in and get an easy win, regardless of the fact that there was NO PAYOUT, not even a trophy� Competitors, whether True Amateur or not still have an innate desire to compete in �fair� competitions where they have a �chance of winning�. (I know that in a True Amateur Division, established over many years, I would likely have a lot more stiff competition.)

There are practical aspects that make running handicap events versus leagues a problem. With leagues, you can do the calculations and post awards the following week. If you're running an event with handicaps, to do it fairly, TDs would have to adjust the scores each round by generating an SSA for each layout being played that round. Do you have enough propagators and know who they are for each layout to properly do the calcs? Will TDs be required to have a laptop and do the math with a template and know how to drop certain players from propagating that round based on deviation from their norms? Then, you'd have to post the adjusted scores for that round before groups were made for the next round. At the end of the event, you'd have to do those calcs before you could determine if there were a first place tie so players could do a playoff. How does a final 9 work with handicaps? Is it fair to do that as scratch scores when the top four might have widely different handicaps? Who is winning as that progresses? How do new players who might only play a few events a year get to compete? They need at least two events worth of data to get a reasonably fair handicap. So they enter events one year so they can then have a chance at prizes the following year? It works in the compressed time frame of a league but not in the dispersed structure and timing for our event system.

Jon, you're a TD. I'm pretty much just a merch man anymore.

How do you think Chuck's concepts of taking non-members and Am Masters out of the prize divisions works for TDs? How does it work for a rec member who used to have a division of eight players and now does not have a division at all? How does it work for the intermediate division that is reduced from 16 players to a foursome? I'm actually looking at Northern Waters #3 but i'm sure there are other examples.

If we shut non-members out of the prize divisions will they join or just go play all the tournaments in Joliet?

Do we care?

That is the fundamental difference.

I think if the incentives are not there (flatter, deeper payouts) in the merch divisions, the competitve pros will not wander there. More precisely, the pros that would wander to the merch divisions might be the same ones that would otherwise stay home.

Any of those playing in the Am divisions would almost certainly would be staying at home.

The Am division with no performance based payout would need no protection from greedy WWCCA players.
The merch divisions with flatter payouts would need no protection from the cash divisions.
The Pro divisions would need added cash to make them more attractive.



Brilliant! Has any of the BOD addressed this yet? Numerous people seem to agree with this idea.

Jon, you're a TD. I'm pretty much just a merch man anymore.

How do you think Chuck's concepts of taking non-members and Am Masters out of the prize divisions works for TDs? How does it work for a rec member who used to have a division of eight players and now does not have a division at all? How does it work for the intermediate division that is reduced from 16 players to a foursome? I'm actually looking at Northern Waters #3 but i'm sure there are other examples.

If we shut non-members out of the prize divisions will they join or just go play all the tournaments in Joliet?

Do we care?



This is under the presumption that "being a member" is the same as it is now (understandable). But I'd very much like to see a new form of membership just for occasional PDGA event players, where the $5 gives them full membership rights short of anything that actually costs money (i.e. membership card, DGWN subscription, mailers including ballots), so that their results can be tracked and their ratings calculated. It would surely double or triple our membership ranks in a single year and at no additional cost. These players would continue to pay the $5 or similar fee at each PDGA event until they sent in their full membership.

Chucks, stipulation about requiring membership to play in the Prize Classes would be an incentive to play in more than one PDGA event (since you couldn�t play in the Prize Class in your first one of the year without full membership), and it would be incentive to get a full membership to get full benefits and play in the Prize Classes.

Some minimum level of commitment towards the PDGA is not an unreasonable request of participants at PDGA events, is it?

If you're running an event with handicaps, to do it fairly, TDs would have to adjust the scores each round by generating an SSA for each layout being played that round.



You make a lot of good points about the logistics, but I do not get this point. If someone has a blowup round their first round, you are in essence penalizing the rest of the field for the rest of the tournament (and visa versa).

Like you point out the other problem is that of establishing meaningful handicaps for new players and infrequent players. NBD since I doubt a handicap league is in our future - either across the PDGA or even in a club like Charlotte's that has lots of members and lots of courses.

If entry fees are high enough and payouts are weighted, I don't think that ratings are accurate enough to divide people up by divisions or handicap. I contend that they simply aren't accurate enough.

If a player plays two tournaments a year, they are given a number that doesn't change for months/years at a time. A few rounds a year isn't enough data to accurately rate a player's skill. It seems that everyone views Player Ratings as truth, because everyone's model contains ratings as the divisions/handicaps.

There are practical aspects that make running handicap events versus leagues a problem. With leagues, you can do the calculations and post awards the following week. If you're running an event with handicaps, to do it fairly, TDs would have to adjust the scores each round by generating an SSA for each layout being played that round. Do you have enough propagators and know who they are for each layout to properly do the calcs? Will TDs be required to have a laptop and do the math with a template and know how to drop certain players from propagating that round based on deviation from their norms? Then, you'd have to post the adjusted scores for that round before groups were made for the next round. At the end of the event, you'd have to do those calcs before you could determine if there were a first place tie so players could do a playoff. How does a final 9 work with handicaps? Is it fair to do that as scratch scores when the top four might have widely different handicaps? Who is winning as that progresses? How do new players who might only play a few events a year get to compete? They need at least two events worth of data to get a reasonably fair handicap. So they enter events one year so they can then have a chance at prizes the following year? It works in the compressed time frame of a league but not in the dispersed structure and timing for our event system.

It would not work for the default PDGA format but I think Jon and I could work it for an X-tier. You can base your handicap system on the past data for the course. Bevier, for example, is 12.5 to 13 ratings points per throw no matter what day and what year you look at. So you give the better player the benefit of the spread and set the handicap at one throw per 13 ratings points under 1000. Players who do not have ratings but have played the series can have an unofficial rating calculated off the series. Players who do not have ratings are playing in the scratch division, trophy-only if they want.

For the calculational stuff, when players show up in the morning we are checking their rating and writing their handicap next to their name at the top of the leaderboard card: "Dot.com -3" or "Knickerboy -4." The leaderboard card will show the adjusted score above the true score so everyone can see that the proper adjustments were made. If 100% of the payout in the handicap division is going on handicap, you sort the field by adjusted score between rounds.

I'm not certain I would want to play that format unless the entry fee were cheap. I prefer to get my asterisk kicked by players shooting ten strokes better than me, not by players shooting ten strokes worse. Having peaked and now declining due to injury, I'd have no chance.

I would run my tournaments unsanctioned before I gave some of the payin from one division as the payout in another. Although I know some TDs do this as a regular way of doing business, I do not and will not.

It seems that everyone views Player Ratings as truth, because everyone's model contains ratings as the divisions/handicaps.



They are the truth. It's just that they are more true for some people that for others, based on frequency of play, etc. Since the resources that run the ratings system are volunteer, and the player base is relatively low (compared to millions in the USGA handicapping pool), it's what we have to work with. That is unless you can come up with a better, quicker, more fair way to align players into similarly skilled groupings, that accommodates both the frequent and the occasional (and even new) player.

Nick keeps using the analogy of a pro athlete showing up at the HS game and taking the cake as a bad thing. I think that throwing people to the wolves just because they aren't yet as skilled is just as bad. There is nothing wrong with skill-based divisional play, because I don't think that the guy that wins the recreational championship sees himself as any more than that.

Jon, either it is wrong or it is not. Seems like we agree that it is, you just use examples of that broken trust as a concrete reason to completely undermine amateur sport while I do not.



I do not think it is wrong. A professional skater skates in the Olympics. This does not make her an amateur, but it does not make it wrong either. She is skating in an amateur event because all she will get is a player pack and if she skates well, a medal. She has the drive to skate for competition alone, but needs to skate for Disney to pay the bills.

I do think we need to develop a standard trophy-only policy in order to cater to people who need to keep their amateur eligibility for other reasons.

The cool thing is the ratings 'truth' gets better the more important it becomes. If a player only plays one event per year and their rating is based on a slowly changing 4-round average, who cares? It's not like they're racking up piles of ill-gotten loot due to bagging. They play one event a year! A player who enters 10 events per year will have a more accurate rating based on 20-30 rounds that regularly includes new rounds. This is a person we want to have a more accurate rating since they impact many more members. So, the system automatically has better ratings where better ratings are needed. The changes being made for 2005 will reduce the current time lag on fast improving player's ratings even more.

i agree that while handicapping may work for the needs of a local event/series, it is totally opposite where the pdga should be going. i doubt that i would play in a sanctioned, handicapped event. simply because like bruce i want to be beat by people playing better than me - not worse but better than their average

Lowering entry fees and flattening payouts in ALL but the highest gender/age divisions would eliminate the need to protect against bagging. Will someone refute this?

I've said before that I applaud the efforts of those that make PRs happen... I'm simply saying it's best used in flat payout/recreational/local tournaments.

If a player plays two tournaments a year, they are given a number that doesn't change for months/years at a time. A few rounds a year isn't enough data to accurately rate a player's skill. It seems that everyone views Player Ratings as truth, because everyone's model contains ratings as the divisions/handicaps.



I would contend that player ratings are extremely accurate. And they become less accurate when fewer rounds are factored in.

If you are looking for a method that will predetermine on paper how players will perform on an event by event basis, you will never get that. I'm not sure if YOU want that, but lots of people imply they want that - in our sport and lots of others. As they say, the game is not played on paper. How did Virginia Tech beat Duke last night?! It is their first win against a top 10 team since 1986! But, that's why they play the game. Same deal with DG and our ratings.

Jon, you're a TD. I'm pretty much just a merch man anymore.

How do you think Chuck's concepts of taking non-members and Am Masters out of the prize divisions works for TDs? How does it work for a rec member who used to have a division of eight players and now does not have a division at all? How does it work for the intermediate division that is reduced from 16 players to a foursome? I'm actually looking at Northern Waters #3 but i'm sure there are other examples.

If we shut non-members out of the prize divisions will they join or just go play all the tournaments in Joliet?

Do we care?



This is under the presumption that "being a member" is the same as it is now (understandable). But I'd very much like to see a new form of membership just for occasional PDGA event players, where the $5 gives them full membership rights short of anything that actually costs money (i.e. membership card, DGWN subscription, mailers including ballots), so that their results can be tracked and their ratings calculated. It would surely double or triple our membership ranks in a single year and at no additional cost. These players would continue to pay the $5 or similar fee at each PDGA event until they sent in their full membership.

Chucks, stipulation about requiring membership to play in the Prize Classes would be an incentive to play in more than one PDGA event (since you couldn�t play in the Prize Class in your first one of the year without full membership), and it would be incentive to get a full membership to get full benefits and play in the Prize Classes.

Some minimum level of commitment towards the PDGA is not an unreasonable request of participants at PDGA events, is it?



This is a Nick Kight point that I can get behind. We should deliver more value to the PDGA day member. A PDGA number and rating would be a good idea and this could solve part of the problem with Chuck's plan. If we don't do something like that I could not support a plan to remove non-members from the merch divisions.

I think the age protected divisions should be given the same choices as non-age protected divisions.

That is the fundamental difference.

I think if the incentives are not there (flatter, deeper payouts) in the merch divisions, the competitve pros will not wander there. More precisely, the pros that would wander to the merch divisions might be the same ones that would otherwise stay home.

Any of those playing in the Am divisions would almost certainly would be staying at home.

The Am division with no performance based payout would need no protection from greedy WWCCA players.
The merch divisions with flatter payouts would need no protection from the cash divisions.
The Pro divisions would need added cash to make them more attractive.



Brilliant! Has any of the BOD addressed this yet? Numerous people seem to agree with this idea.



Answer the question, BOD! We CAN handle the truth!!!

This is why I have absolutely no problem with WWCCPros playing in WWCCAm divisions. Our sport has no pros. Our sport has no ams.

In golf there is a name for a guy who plays for his opponent's $50: a hustler. In the carnival business they have a name for a guy who plays a $1 game 50 times to win a prize they bought for $25: a sucker. In a perfect world all the hustlers and suckers would be paired up because they need each other to continue to exist.

There are probably about nine to a dozen real pro sports that have pro players with six, seven and eight figure incomes: baseball, football, basketball, hockey, golf, tennis, soccer, cricket and a few obscure ones someone will fill me in on. In none of these are the pros playing for each other's money.

Historically, the difference between playing for $50 to $100 out of your opponent's wallet versus playing for a sponsored purse is the difference between the hustlers and the pros.

Currently we have no pros. We have a few tournaments that use a mixed pro/hustler format but we don't have a single tournament where the player's entry fees are not a substantial part of the pro payout.

i wont attempt to refute it, but i will state my preference for higher entry (50-75) and steeper payout (max 40%) in the adv/adv master divisions. in the am division i think i support the values that we're using this year.

I'm not sure that it passes the TD test. We can impose any format we want, but if players won't play it and TDs won't run it, we're screwed.

I just thought of this a few minutes ago thinking about some upcoming tournies....

Beginning of March we have the AM Dogwood Crosstown. There have been some rumors that some lower rated pros would play the tourny as an advanced player. More than likely, they will finish in the plastic.

Fast Foward a month...

In April we have the Pro Dogwood Crosstown which is a NT event. These same Pros that moved down to AM to play the AM crosstown and finish in the plastic could theoretically finish in the cash in the Pro Crosstown. Since they are pros, they would of course accept the cash...

So it is possible that a pro player that moves down to play advanced could cash/finish in the plastic at both tournies.

That is a little unfair to the people that normally play advanced, are rated above 950 and have never accepted cash by playing pro in a PDGA.

Pro that moves down: Can accept both payouts without penalty
Advanced with rating above 950 that moves up and plays pro: Can accept the plastic without penalty, but if he accepts cash at the pro tourny, he is stuck playing pro until his rating drops below 950.

Does that make sense? Can someone explain it better?

So, it seems that the TDs are more important to the PDGA than the health of the sport. The PDGA supports the gouging of am players and they fear the TDs will quit running PDGAs? Let them!!!
They would run unsanctioned am tournaments and continue gouging ams. Finally, some bright am would say "What are we getting out of this?" and "Why are we fattening this TDs pocket." They would cry "Why aren't we playing for money?"

Desire arises from the need for material possesions. Take away the fat payout, and the baggers will naturally disappear.

That is a little unfair to the people that normally play advanced, are rated above 950 and have never accepted cash by playing pro in a PDGA.

Pro that moves down: Can accept both payouts without penalty
Advanced with rating above 950 that moves up and plays pro: Can accept the plastic without penalty, but if he accepts cash at the pro tourny, he is stuck playing pro until his rating drops below 950.

Does that make sense? Can someone explain it better?

well, there's only 6 am players in NC with a rating above 950. 3 of which play pro, and 1 plays about 1 tourney per year. that only leaves 2 players, who probably should be playing pro anyhow.

and, their rating has to be below 955, not 950.

Desire arises from the need for material possesions. Take away the fat payout, and the baggers will naturally disappear.

Desire begets striving and striving leads to suffering. Take away the fat payout and before long we will all be Bodhisatva.

That's the usual smug, smart-assed response you give people that actually have a point.