so what does everyone think about players that are rated 1000 or higher playing in the age protected divisions?

what would happen to the PDGA if they made a rule where if you are rated 1000 or higher you have to play with the OPEN PRO player. would this hurt the PDGA? just curious

I think the rule that says you have to play Open if you are under 39 years old is good enough. :)

I would think that someone was upset because they got beat by someone older then them.

he could be upset....he used to it by now :D

Not Upset at all. All the guys that beat me this weekend IN THE REAL DIVISION are all Younger than I .. actually got to talking to a touring pro this weekend and it seems like playing masters is a way to HIDE from the better Open players. But if you have a rating of 1000 than you should be able to compete so why play in a PROTECTED DIVISION??? and V if you look I beat your [I'm a potty-mouth!] this past weekend. maybe not often but go take a look :o

.. actually got to talking to a touring pro this weekend and it seems like playing masters is a way to HIDE from the better Open players.


This is completely and unequivocably true. What's the problem?

I think the rule that says you have to play Open if you are under 39 years old is good enough. :)

I think we should call it the Brad Hammock Rule and deal with it that way. The rule has an impact on about a half dozen players. I certainly hope the rule does not apply to majors. That would be dumb.

I think it should apply to all B-tiers and below which most of the effected players would play MPO anyways.

We don't need a rule, just more sponsorship that goes into the MPO payout so that it makes economic sense for the 1000+ rated MPMs to play MPO.

Making MPM be 39 and over and rated under 1000 will just end up giving the 999 rated guys an easy payday. Same problem, different rating.

Except it's not really problem, so it doesn't need a solution.

And also asking sponsors not to reward their sponsored players more for wins in Master versus say 5th in Open might also help.

I think the rule that says you have to play Open if you are under 39 years old is good enough. :)

I think we should call it the Brad Hammock Rule and deal with it that way. The rule has an impact on about a half dozen players. I certainly hope the rule does not apply to majors. That would be dumb.

I posted that thinking that there actually was such a new rule in the pipe. I think what is actually being discussed by the Board is to remove the Tour Bonus from the Master division.

I think it should apply to all B-tiers and below which most of the effected players would play MPO anyways.



unless it is Waterloo an XC tier witha stacked masters and up div in all skill levels!! That was absolutely pathetic , around 23 mpm vs. 6 mpo..

so what does everyone think about players that are rated 1000 or higher playing in the age protected divisions?

what would happen to the PDGA if they made a rule where if you are rated 1000 or higher you have to play with the OPEN PRO player. would this hurt the PDGA? just curious



I don't know about the PDGA but Joel Kelly would be poorer.

At Waterloo (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5345#Masters) he would've been forced to play in a smaller field and his money for 1st place would have been less had he shot the same. (Only one of the Open scores would've cashed in the Masters field. :o)

At Texas States (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4720#Masters), if shooting the same score, he would've gotten less for 3rd in Open than he got for 1st in Masters.

make master's age 50 like the PGA.

[QUOTE]
We don't need a rule, just more sponsorship that goes into the MPO payout so that it makes economic sense for the 1000+ rated MPMs to play MPO.[QUOTE]


Rhett is exactly right. I have never faulted Brad Hammock or any other Master for making sound financial decisions. The PDGA really has two top divisions Open Men and Open Women. Add the lion's share to these and see where the top Masters gravitate.

Also, tend to agree with Schwebbie. 50 is more of the Masters age mark in sports. This time, however, we should throw down a Grandfather clause. Some of the guys got screwed last time they changed the age.

I can't wait until i'm 39. Not too far away now! :D

I can't wait until i'm 39. Not too far away now! :D


I'll be a Grandmaster in 425 days!
<font color="white"> not that I'm keeping track, or anything... </font>
:D

hey, i'll be grandmaster-eligible in 431 days! see ya there, jeff!

make master's age 50 like the PGA.



I agree totally. It is time to look into this and make a decision based on data. As usual, NEFA is on the cutting edge of these discussions:

http://www.nefa.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=449

hey, i'll be grandmaster-eligible in 431 days! see ya there, jeff!

;) :D;)

I can't wait until i'm 39. Not too far away now! :D


I'll be a Grandmaster in 425 days!
<font color="white"> not that I'm keeping track, or anything... </font>
:D



Nice white Text! I l almost went blind trying to read it! Thank God for being able to "highlight" text! :)

Another option could be considered, akin to what was at one time at least used on the Sr. golf circuit. They paid out for all players in one division, but also had a bonus for top finishers among those of a certain age and beyond (an older old guys payout, super seniors or something like that).

Since the geezers are less likely to place too highly in the overall standings, they received additional cash payouts as the top finishers in their age group.

Such an approach might work for DG. A player could be rewarded for being old and playing well, receiving in fact more money than an equally scoring (but too young) fellow competitor.

Haven't thought through all the particulars or looked at any scenarios, but it might be considered. I think its important to keep all the top players competing one way or another, and hope changes to current practice don't really sting any particular group.

Joe

Beleive you me I have argued for this for sometime .
WE do need player ratings caps or we need one division with special props going out to people who finish first in their class .
IT is crazy to go to a tourney and watch people ask who's playing this , whos here whos where .
YEA I know more money in the open division will fix the problem to a degree but REALLY ...
ALSO to fix problem .... Since the PDGA has allowed 955 players to jump back and forth you could use that to make cuts .
AT C tier events if you have a player rating above 955 you should play in open ONLY ( no matter what age ) YES THIS INCLUDES ADVANCED TOO .
I know this makes alot of people mad but they should play open too , with this being said there has to be a stipulation that IF an adv player accepts cash and he wants to retain AM STATUS he can only collect as much cash as he paid in to play in the tourney .
AT B tier events it should have a cut off of 975 .
AT A and NT and what not 1000 and up plays in open .

WE do need some type of system, UNTIL SPONSORSHIP $$$ are there to get the people where they belong, to get people of the same caliber playing together and LEAVE the old man and ADV. divisions for people who really belong there .

Another note on this topic , I AM about 60 some odd days from being masters age . I would love to compete in the masters division ( and rightfully should AND WOULD ) if there are some caps on divisions .

Another option could be considered, akin to what was at one time at least used on the Sr. golf circuit. They paid out for all players in one division, but also had a bonus for top finishers among those of a certain age and beyond (an older old guys payout, super seniors or something like that).


I think the WFDF Overall tourney does this. Let's see if I can remember how it goes:

There is a "base entry fee" that everyone pays. That fee gets you in the tournament and enters you in the Open division. Everyone competes in one big division and is sorted by score. On top of the base entry fee, you can pay extra to be entered in the Masters or GM or whatever other divisions. That extra money is used for the protected division payout.

This makes the Open division huge and still allows for the old farts a protected division to play in.

But you and I will still be losing to Wisecup and Hammock in Masters. In fact, Wisecup could take first in Open, Masters, and GM with this setup. But heck, he's old and frickin' great golfer. He should win. :)

But you and I will still be losing to Wisecup and Hammock in Masters

not if their rating is over 1000 hence the discussion on why 1000 rated players are allowed to HIDE in Age protected divisions!!! :p

But you and I will still be losing to Wisecup and Hammock in Masters

not if their rating is over 1000 hence the discussion on why 1000 rated players are allowed to HIDE in Age protected divisions!!! :p


Please read my post. The comment you quoted has nothing to do with a 1000 cap. It has to do with an alternate way to do divisions.

Arbitrarily restricting 1000 rated players just makes an easy payday for 999 rated players, who will still whoop you. Same problem, different rating level.

If you are a pro competing for cash, you don't need protection from other pros your age who are better. Do you?

who will still whoop you

is this a challenge?? I might not win often around here but I can sure BEAT YOU!!!!!!!!!!!

:D

I have to admit I like this topic. Due to my eligibilty to play the old man's division starting Jan 1. While my rating is only 955 currently, I plan on seeing it rise slightly when the next round of ratings are released.

This is the very issue I have going around in my head; do I play Adv or Adv Master or do I go for broke and play in Open or Open Master next year?

That wasnt a question for anyone to answer (looking to avoid all the flak from everyone telling me to 'MOVE UP, BAGGER!') :D

955 should crush in OMB (Advanced Master).

Me and my 927 rating are going to either play MA1 or MPM next year.

I am in the same boat Dweller . I am master age on Jan 1st
I have a 936 player rating bound to go up and I have a real problem on where to go both to be fair and to challenge myself .
Open Master would be where I want to go IF there was some kind of cap where I was not playing around 1000 rated golfers where I stand no chance ( however I do have a chance there to cash )
Advanced is good and that is where I have been playing however , I dont travel much so when I do I get my but kicked by the local players who know the course much better .
Which leads me to advanced masters but around here I would ( along with one other guy ) crush in that division and that would be no fun .
SO the answer is get caps on the divisions and let me play open master and get some money ( knowing full well I dont stand a chance in HELL against the top pros or masters who are rated 1000 )
Otherwise I will probably stay advanced and stay am for the rest of my life .

Hmmmm. I feel like I have had my chances to win, even though I have more 2nd place finishes than 1sts. I believe that I can be competitive in MA1 and in MPM, although I do not believe that I have any legitimate chance at 1st place or even leader card in either. But what the hey, I realize that I am a decent player and not a great one so that it okay.

If you think you should be in the hunt for 1st every time, then you should stay in MM1.

MPM is a pro division for old farts. I see no reason for any other old farts to be excluded because they are good. They are old, so they qualify. That's life. We can't all be #1. It's no big deal, really.

If it's really that important to get all the 1000 rated players playing Open, then we need to either get more money into Open so that it makes sense for those guys to move over, or else we need to re-structure the MPM payout so that it makes sense for those 1000+ guys to move over. Setting a rating cutoff is not, IMHO, the answer. It just changes who takes the money. 990 rated MPMs are probably good enough to be playing Open, too. Should the limit be 989? How about 975? 955?

I don't like any of them. I say take your lumps fighting for the cash line or else stay am.

Just my opinion.

This is quite a delema, but fortunately we have options. In our area if you're not at least a 960 player you probably have no hope of cashing in open master, but do you really want to go back and have to compete against the kids again? Most of the Advanced Masters in my area were so glad to get out of the kids divisions in the first place, but the jump to pro master is so huge almost nobody makes it. NORCAL used to have a bump which forced players up to the next level, but all it did was force most of them out. Two years later the top of the Advanced Master field is getting fat, while the under 900 players are dropping away. How about reserecting the Int Master field and using 915 for its cutoff, then Adv Master for the 915 to 955 range, like the lower age divisions. Then all skill brackets can expand together. Just a thought.

I guess Ill wait to see if I get an invite to AM Worlds this year before I make a decision. I may actually hold off till the end of 2006 which will upset my local adv players. I took 1st in a B tier this last weekend and when I went up to recieve the hardware and payout all I could hear was 'MOVE UP!'

I agree with Rhett in the respect that since we are old men we get the benefit of choosing where to play that best suits or needs. I think Yeti said the same thing. How can you blame someone for going where they get more bang for their buck?

I am also one of those being eligible for age protection on 1/1. One thing I do not see being discussed here is that it seems a lot of masters aged players play tournaments as much (or more) for social reasons than for the pure thrill of competition.

While I usually enjoy playing with the young rising whippersnappers, there are times I am in the mood for a more mellow level of competition. So, maybe the protection is not only from higher skilled players......

My argument about this is plain and simple .
IT is not about protecting players , it is about having the LOWEST SCORE win the most money !!!!
IF there are 22 masters at one tourney and 15 open and they pay the same entry fee and the added cash is not large or sent mostly to the open field then the master is going to win the most money BUT WHAT IF HE DID NOT SHOOT THE LOWEST SCORE THAT DAY .

DOES NOT IN MOST EVENTS the WINNER ( whether it is lowest score in golf , highest score in DARTS , the last player standing at a TEXAS HOLDEM TOURNEY , or whatever you do competitivly against other people ) get the most money ????

what if the lowest score was an Advanced player?

They'd surely get the most prizes, but a less amazing score would win the most money. I agree, in small tournaments, when it's 1 1000 rated master against a bunch of 960 rated ones, it does seem that the 1000 rated one should move into open.

1000+ rated masters would play up if the entry fees for masters were much less than pro. As most of the purse comes from the entry fees, the 1000+ masters interested in the cash would be more inclined to play open. If they decided to stay in masters, the donation for everyone else would be less. Another way to deal with it is much flatter payouts with the same entry fees. More places paid and much less to the top spots.

This may be slightly off topic but I have an issue with people playing in the Masters division being able to qualify for USDGC which is purely a non age protected tournament that is trying to attract the very best players. I was fortunate enough to qualify at The Master's Cup this year, but was surprised to learn that I almost did not qualify due to some excellent masters div. players who shot a total score for the tournament that was better than my score. My concern is that they played in a different pool which played the course at different times each day. It is a 3 rounds of 27 holes format with the masters playing 2 morning rounds and 1 afternoon round while the Open players play 2 pm rounds and 1 am round. No big deal if the course plays exactly the same am and pm but here in Santa Cruz there is a predictable wind pattern that is far more windy in the afternoon (though my point is that they COULD be DRASTICALLY different wind conditions). So now we have guys who may not even want to go to USDGC playing perhaps easier conditions, in an easier field, beating out guys who are in the top division who are doing all they can to get to the ONLY TOURNAMENT that does NOT have an age protected division and which serves as the biggest showcase for our sport. I guess what I think should happen is anyone who wants to qualify for USDGC should HAVE to do so playing in the open division. A > Does this seem like a valid idea? and B > Would it benefit disc golf? By the way Dave D., I had a great time playing with you in the final round, you played some great golf and that put on 9 was sweet!

-Jon Baldwin

Say Dave, I've heard that sponsor bonuses come into the Master/Open decision process. Is that the case or just hearsay?

Thanks Jon. A, Yes it is valid. B. I don't know. I do think that playing the same course at the same time should be the minimum requirement. I am not sure if playing against masters comp as compared to open comp would make a difference. I supposed Chuck Kennedy could answer that if there was a round rating difference on the same course at the same time, but propagated with the masters as opposed to the open. There is a psychological difference, but I'm not sure that helps or hurts.

Chuck, that's true. We give more bonuses for open.

I do not know whether your premise is correct, but I do know that USDGC is NOT about only qualifying the very best players from the Open Division. Harold Duvall and Jonathan Poole like to qualify a lot of good players a lot of different ways and even some not so good players. That is why they have sponsor exemptions, TD exemptions, state coordinator exemptions, qualifying tournaments in foreign countries where the competition is so thin even Mikey Kernan can qualify, etc. [Hi, Mikey. :D]

When you are giving up the profits on your most expensive and most overhyped discs to support an $11,000 payout to first, you can run it your way.

Point well taken Bruce. Innova should be able to do it however they wish. But if I am not mistaken this is a call that the tournament director of the qualifying event makes, not Innova. That was the way I remember reading the qualification guidlines this year anyway (which I pointedly brought up with Marty Hapner when my qualifying was in question due to this whole masters issue ;) ). Basically my main point is that it would be the most fair if the masters play the stipulated course under the same conditions as the open. And then, like you brought up, if there are players Innova still wants in, they have other ways of making that happen. Does that make sense?

Perhaps what I am asking could be handled in other ways. One scenario would be to have the TD announce on the registration form that masters division players must play in the open pool to get the USDGC qualification. Now one question I bet he would get asked is, can I still be "in" the masters field for the tournament, but play in the open pool. In other words if the masters play am and open pm, can I play pm for qualification reasons but have my score and payout be in the masters field. So say all his divisional competitors play in the morning with each other and he plays in the open in the afternoon (say for example in a group with Steve Rico, Nate Doss, and Micah Dorius) I don't think you would find many people saying this was fair and I am sure it would create mass chaos and controversy. But IF having age protected divional scores compared to non age protected divisional scores when the two groups play the course at different times is fair in terms of qualification for USDGC then the scenario I just created would raise some valid issues. Do you agree?

I just question the logical integrity of the current system as it relates to my best chance to qualify for my new favorite tournament. :D If I make it again I am going to make sure I don't miss the cash by 3 lousy OB's!!!!!

I also know that in areas where there is built in controversy, like the state coordinator's exemption, Mr. Duvall enjoys that controversy. A TD can exclude the Masters or other divisions by assigning them just one different tee, but that is their discretion. I bet he enjoys that controversy too.

Anyway, I didn't mean to sound too snippy with that last post. Having someone else tell me how I should run my event is just a pet peeve of mine. I think Jonathan Poole and Harold Duvall should run their tournament anyway that makes them feel good about spending all that money on it.

Having someone else tell me how I should run my event is just a pet peeve of mine.



amen.

Hmmmmmmmm..............if or when my ratings reach 1000+ , I should probably play open. Even when I turn 50 , if I'm still playing. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif That's only a few more years !!!! :eek:

And also asking sponsors not to reward their sponsored players more for wins in Master versus say 5th in Open might also help.



Which of those gains more exposure for the sponsor?

1000+ rated masters would play up if the entry fees for masters were much less than pro. As most of the purse comes from the entry fees, the 1000+ masters interested in the cash would be more inclined to play open. If they decided to stay in masters, the donation for everyone else would be less. Another way to deal with it is much flatter payouts with the same entry fees. More places paid and much less to the top spots.



Both are very intriguing ideas, DD. I don't know to what extent they have been tossed around (pun, get it?) by the BOD or relevant committee in the past... but they deserve to be.

955 should crush in OMB (Advanced Master).



That's it! I'm petitioning for a change to AM status.

C'mon Rick , you have always been Pro.