so then the TD would haveto keep some trophies around in case a 965 player won the event, but what would he do with the trophies if a 960 player won?

whatever happened to the KISS method?



that's simple, just KISS. just give the trophies to the places that they're supposed to be awarded to. the cost of the trophies would come out of the cost of what would otherwise be paid in plastic. isn't that simple enough?

Are you saying not all events have trophies or plaques for first and sometimes lower in am divisions? Whether they do or don't, the T.O. discounted fee is more of a Can't Win Prizes/Cash than it is Can Win Trophies option. Loriella just had an event with several pro T.O. players and it appeared to go well. The new TD report worked just fine and handled the payouts as expected.

Nick, that was just a response to Chuck and Pat. Just appeared to be a shift in who gets "pushed out" in the Prize/Pro divisons.

Chuck, the trophy only option for 965+ seems like a clever way of forcing someones hand when you consider the players motives. Somehow I got the impression that forcing = Bad.

I realize that Pro and current Ams are basically the exact same. You need to have a Real Amatuer structure added and then in the Pro/Prize class you can just make hard breaks at each ratings level all the way from top to bottom and forcing is not an issue.

Nick, that was just a response to Chuck and Pat. Just appeared to be a shift in who gets "pushed out" in the Prize/Pro divisons.

Chuck, the trophy only option for 965+ seems like a clever way of forcing someones hand when you consider the players motives. Somehow I got the impression that forcing = Bad.

I realize that Pro and current Ams are basically the exact same. You need to have a Real Amatuer structure added and then in the Pro/Prize class you can just make hard breaks at each ratings level all the way from top to bottom and forcing is not an issue.



Precisely!

BTW, I also like the alternative of having a higher Expert prize division like Bruce has suggested. It would automatically be smaller than Advanced so the prizes wouldn't be as big relative to lower finishers in Open. I would place the break at 955 where the current Am/Pro crossover point is located. You would have to have a rating of 955 or above to enter Expert. The entry fee would be above Advanced and perhaps equal to Open.

We'd have to think this thru but what if there were a 1000 rating cap on this division but no restrictions on pros between 955 and 999 entering? In other words, once you went above 955, you could enter Expert or Open at the same entry fee. (If you were below 955, you could still enter Open, not Expert.)

If McCaine wanted a chance to restock with some DGA or Lightning plastic :Dhe could enter the Expert division that day. It would be interesting to see the kind of choices players made. Expert could be played by any pro over 955 including older divisions. Not sure what would happen but I'm thinking a lot of players under 40 would just say I might as well enter Open. The main thing though would be why would a player remain Am once they went above 955 when they could move back and forth between cash and prizes other than retaining the right to play in their last Am Worlds?

Any flaw in this thinking? I think what would also happen, which would help the players in the 955-999 range stay involved, is they could enter Expert at an event that had no Pro divisions and have the opportunity to win/place once in a while and continue working on their game. Then, enter Open/Master at pro only events. They could even play both days of split weekend events, especially if TDs were smart and had the Experts play on the day opposite the Pros.

Chuck, what you are suggesting is that we have only "ONE" classification of player(prize and cash) but two classifications of events (prize or cash), is that right?

This is posted on behalf of Brian Hoeniger:

Below please find the same chart thru 2005. Note our retention rate improved by >5% in 2005 (from 71 to 74.6%). More significantly current memberships as of end March 06 are up a whopping 20.1% from end March 05 (7613 vs 6339), although we expect this to slowly decline to overall growth in 2006 of a very healthy 12-15%. Personally, as someone for whom the glass is half full, I will see these most recent trends as positive evidence that the PDGA is on the right track in terms of attracting and retaining members until someone PROVES otherwise.

Also the Memberships Manager has had an e-survey of lost members on her to-do list for a while. This will probably happen in a few weeks when high renewal season is ending and she has the time to do this important task justice.

In the meantime, for those who are convinced that the PDGA membership retention rates appear to be unacceptable or cause for concern, our hope is that one of you will seize the day. Specifically, we are looking for someone to agree to take the initiative, on behalf of PDGA, of gathering data that will enable PDGA to compare ourselves with other secondary or tertiary sized sports related membership affinity associations, not only in terms of membership retention rates, as this could also go further to include membership price structure, membership benefits, tour/event related benefits, etc.

If you are interested in taking on this interesting voluntary task please contact me at HQ.

Thanks

BDH

<table border="1"><tr><td> Year</td><td>New</td><td>Prev Sep-Dec</td><td>Renew</td><td>RenewLost</td><td>Total</td><td>Growth </td><td>PrevCurrent</td><td>Rate of
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>New-Renew</td><td>Standard</td><td>andFound</td><td>Members</td><td>Rate</td><td>MembersLost</td><td>Attrition
</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>1531</td><td>266</td><td>3602</td><td>255</td><td>5654</td><td>12.7%</td><td>1149</td><td>22.9%
</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>1689</td><td>319</td><td>3955</td><td>267</td><td>6230</td><td>10.1%</td><td>1380</td><td>24.4%
</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>1964</td><td>395</td><td>4308</td><td>365</td><td>7032</td><td>12.9%</td><td>1527</td><td>24.5%
</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>2135</td><td>337</td><td>4752</td><td>414</td><td>7638</td><td>8.6%</td><td>1943</td><td>27.6%
</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>2222</td><td>500</td><td>5091</td><td>491</td><td>8304</td><td>8.7%</td><td>2082</td><td>27.3%
</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>2212</td><td>475</td><td>5370</td><td>518</td><td>8575</td><td>3.3%</td><td>2409</td><td>29.0%
</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>2565</td><td>570</td><td>5832</td><td>662</td><td>9629</td><td>12.3%</td><td>2176</td><td>25.4%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Notes
Rate of Attrition: % of previous year currents who did not renew.
In recent years between 25% and 30% of current members have not renewed the following year.
This trend improved in 2005.

In 2005 the PDGA grew slightly in terms of current members with #s <= 8000 - these are the "hardcore" members who had joined in 1993 or earlier.
In 2005 PDGA lost 5% of current members who joined 1994-1998 (7-11 yr members), 10% of current members who joined 1999-2002,
20% of current members who joined in 2003, and 35% of members who joined in 2004.

Chuck it would make your life much simpler if you just add in an Am structure then have hard breaks from top to bottom in the Pro/Semi-Pro/Prize class. Of course it would work so well that you would have to retire from writing mile-long proposals, but I am sure we can live with that cause then we would have your full attention on the course design threads ;) :D

Here are a couple of examples of having everyone >900 playing Open....The $ figures are $50 entry fee for everyone and the cash totals is what it would be according to a 45%
payout.

1st is 2005 Chandler Tornado 71 players with a rating > 900. 32 cash spots with 14 of those CURRENT AMS

Div Rating Total Score $
O 1018 174 $410
M 970 184 $300
O 1011 185 $225
O 1017 189 $190
O 980 189 $170
M 1001 189 $160
O 974 191 $150
A 952 193 $140
A 969 194 $130
O 983 195 $120
M 957 195 $115
M 946 197 $105
MM 912 197 $100
O 939 198 $95
M 951 198 $90
A xxx 198 $90
M 973 199 $85
A 970 199 $80
O 971 200 $80
I 922 200 $75
O 983 201 $70
M 950 201 $65
A 952 201 $60
A 955 201 $60
M 944 202 $55
M 986 202 $55
A 929 202 $50
A 936 202 $45
A 940 202 $45
I 932 203 $45
GM 943 204 $45
I 944 204 $45
M 922 205
GM 934 205
A 990 205
A 946 205
A 956 205
A 952 205
MM 928 205
I 922 205
MM 912 206
MM 931 206
GM 932 207
A 948 207
A 960 207
I 935 207
A 944 208
I 916 208
A 937 209
I 935 209
A 929 210
A 913 210
I 911 210
A 957 211
MM 916 211
A 921 212
A 940 213
I 906 213
I 915 213
MM 931 214
M 906 215
A 929 217
A 934 217
MM 905 217
I 901 217
I 919 218
M 904 219
MM 912 219
A 934 221
MM 904 221
MM 908 222

2nd is the 2006 Duncan Hillclimber (which is a tough course with lots of wind) 57 players > 900 rating. 29 cashing spots 8 current AMS would have cashed.
Div Rating Tot Score $
M 1001 204 $355
O 985 205 $265
O 974 207 $200
O 976 210 $170
O 952 210 $145
O 968 215 $130
O xxx 215 $120
O 983 217 $115
A 935 218 $105
O 969 221 $95
M 970 221 $90
A 934 221 $85
O xxx 222 $80
G 934 223 $75
O 990 224 $75
O xxx 227 $70
M 946 228 $70
M 973 228 $65
G 932 228 $65
A 944 228 $60
O 980 229 $55
MM 937 229 $55
O xxx 231 $50
O xxx 232 $50
O xxx 232 $45
A 916 232 $45
MM 931 232 $40
A 943 233 $40
A 913 233 $35
O 972 234
M 986 234
A 929 235
A 949 235
A 924 236
A 924 236
A 944 237
M 944 239
M 950 239
A xxx 239
A 919 239
A 913 240
A 922 242
O 934 243
M 908 243
A 957 243
M 922 244
MM 944 244
MM 931 244
A xxx 245
A 942 246
M 906 248
A xxx 249
A 934 254
A xxx 254
MM 912 254
A 901 255
MM 911 268

Chuck it would make your life much simpler if you just add in an Am structure then have hard breaks from top to bottom in the Pro/Semi-Pro/Prize class. Of course it would work so well that you would have to retire from writing mile-long proposals, but I am sure we can live with that cause then we would have your full attention on the course design threads ;) :D



Said better than I could.

(Do I detect a "cold shoulder"?)

Well go for it and tell us how it works out. This is not "reformation" more than it is "tinkering".

I like it because it drops any pretense of a 2 classification competitive system and puts everyone in the same class (even division), thereby freeing up the discussion, once and for good, for the creation of a "new" and completely different classification of player.

This may not have immediate importance to you, but if successful it will certainly have long term benefits for both prize and cash competitors.

Chuck it would make your life much simpler if you just add in an Am structure then have hard breaks from top to bottom in the Pro/Semi-Pro/Prize class. Of course it would work so well that you would have to retire from writing mile-long proposals, but I am sure we can live with that cause then we would have your full attention on the course design threads ;) :D



Said better than I could.

(Do I detect a "cold shoulder"?)



Yes but only meant in humor. I respect Chucks opinions greatly.

I just respect them even greater when it comes to course design ;) :D

Chuck, what you are suggesting is that we have only "ONE" classification of player(prize and cash) but two classifications of events (prize or cash), is that right?



For some reason, you wish to categorize people rather than events. These are events that reward prizes or cash for performance. Some people choose to enter these events. There can be such things as Trophy Only events and some people will enter those if offered. Some of those people are the same ones who enter prize and cash events. Seems to me the only elements that categorize people are gender, age and skill level, not the type of rewards they choose to play for because there are some who will enter all types of events if allowed to.

I may be wrong but I believe it's only an incremental amount of people who, given the choice, will EXCLUSIVELY play trophy only events. And they are still looking for value for their dollars in amenities and experience. All T.O. TDs would be doing from some of your explanations is selling "vacation packages" instead of plastic. At least with disc merchandise, the sales are helping our industry. I believe most of your so called amateurs in other sports are forced into playing for no prizes because the structure in which they play disallows it, the culture developed that way (so far), or can't afford to provide it.

Schools are the one big example. If colleges were allowed to gift or pay players, I see very few players rejecting those rewards. If Penn State offers rewards and bonuses, then Ohio State better not have a "holier than thou" approach and not do it because the handful of players they recruit will drop them to Division III status.

I don't see this as cynical but just observing human nature and our culture. The value better be there or it either won't be successful or a competitive alternative that offers a better value will replace it.

Using the 2005 Chandler Tornado stats.

<table border="1"><tr><td>Div</td><td>Field</td><td>Place</td><td>Pct Paid
</td></tr><tr><td>O</td><td>9</td><td>9</td><td>100.0%
</td></tr><tr><td>M</td><td>12</td><td>9</td><td>75.0%
</td></tr><tr><td>GM</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>33.3%
</td></tr><tr><td>A</td><td>25</td><td>9</td><td>36.0%
</td></tr><tr><td>MM</td><td>10</td><td>1</td><td>10.0%
</td></tr><tr><td>I</td><td>12</td><td>3</td><td>25.0%
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

Don't you think that this system is too biased? It would be hard to retain any advanced masters or intermediates with those odds. The field would get smaller and soon it's just the advanced players financing the open and masters players. Then advanced players will drop out too once field is so small that they're not competive in the new format. Eventually you'd end up with the same group of players in that newly named cash division.

And don't ever believe that good players of amateur sports in college don't get "paid" for their amateur performances. It can't be official, and maybe not in cash, but they get paid.

The bigger the school, the bigger the pool of alumni....

The Best Score = The Best Play for the weekend. If the Open Player has SCOREBOARD, how the hell can you justify paying someone else more?



Sorry, I am still on like page 50 something

Kevin, What about MitchMac. Look at how he finishes in most of the tournament he plays. He shot better than Clint last weekend and won less money.

How do you feel about that???

I have seen him do that all the time. (including at the Carrollton Open)

I have a general question, why did the PDGA lower the required added cash for tiered events? I am not sure I understand why that was done. It seems to me, that if a TD wants to run a higher teired event then they may have to work harder to get the added cash required. Just asking.



Agree 10000000000000% with you Jerry.

$250 minimum added for a B-tier?????

That is a JOKE in my book.

Bad PDGA for this move.

As someone who has NEVER added less than $500 CASH to the Open division, I am insulted by this rulling.

If someone can make a convincing argument why there absolutely needs to be any individual amateur performance prizes in excess of $100 at a given event, I'd love to hear it.



Reason #1 - because "I" like to give away baskets to the winners of each Am division.

Reason #2 - because "I" feel the winner should get something for it other than another borring trophy. (Ok some trophies are pretty cool, specially those Carrollton Open trophies :D)

Reason #3 - ahhh, just because..............

However, I do like the idea of capping the winning to 3X entry fee.

How about this

2X Rec pay out 60-75%
3X Am pay out 50-65%
4X Adv pay out 40-50%

But then when I first started, every division got paid out top 30%.

Those were the days :D

Who has said that the AMS should support the PROS? I haven't seen it on here.



I will say it

One reason I am NOT for small Am entry fees, is that some of the profit from the Am's can be added to the Open pro field. therefore, the more Am's, the better added cash to the Open field.

But then again, I am old school.

The Best Score = The Best Play for the weekend. If the Open Player has SCOREBOARD, how the hell can you justify paying someone else more?



Sorry, I am still on like page 50 something

Kevin, What about MitchMac. Look at how he finishes in most of the tournament he plays. He shot better than Clint last weekend and won less money.

How do you feel about that???

I have seen him do that all the time. (including at the Carrollton Open)



I'm for the best score taking home the most money, although I would say that its a little easier for him to shoot "way" low when your thumpin your division by 5-10 strokes. It might end up diferent if on the last 10 holes he's either up by 1 or down by 1.

Chuck,

First of all, those Intermdiate players would probably have been in the AM division then but they're rating has gone up since then. I would also incorporate bonus structure for the age divisions. Top 5 Adv Masters get prize, Top 5 (or top 1/3) Masters would get a bonus check.

And something that I didn't add was, that most of the guys who had ratings under <900 had PDGA numbers that showed they were new members within the last 5 years.

I think I would do great if the PDGA were to adopt Kev's >900 Play Open format. The PDGA would cease to exist in two or three years but I'd do great running unsanctioned stuff!

I think I would do great if the PDGA were to adopt Kev's >900 Play Open format. The PDGA would cease to exist in two or three years but I'd do great running unsanctioned stuff!



You may think you would but I feel that the AVERAGE PDGA member likes to see his stats and would rather play in a PDGA event.

SO your one of the ones that enjoys the current system?

Or your in the 900-940 range?

Chuck,

First of all, those Intermdiate players would probably have been in the AM division then but they're rating has gone up since then. I would also incorporate bonus structure for the age divisions. Top 5 Adv Masters get prize, Top 5 (or top 1/3) Masters would get a bonus check.




I don't know what this is in reference to? Perhaps it was someone else?

We all look alike. :D

Ever Since I have been playing they have been adding more and more am divisions to get people out of playing OPEN. So basically the PDGA has been catering to the AMS ever since the game started taking off.



Not true to a point Kevin.

When I started playing in1988, I played Novice. After 3 tournaments (my second tournament I was forced to play Am because there was no Novice offered) I moved up to Am.

I played Am for a full year in 1989. This year the PDGA added Advanced. Hardly anyone played this division at the time. (Mike Sayre did, he was winning by several stroke to keep up his Am status till Nationals at Bolyn farm)

I moved up to Advance in 1990.

The only other Am division ever added were Masters. But then a few years ago, the PDGA stopped Rec Masters and Am Masters, but left Adv Masters.

So in 18 years that I have been playing, there are 2 new Am divisions. (Adv and Adv Masters)

The Ratings were done to stop Sandbagging in the lower Am divisions. These have worked.

Now if they would only cap the Adv so a 1000 rated player can't play Advance just because he never cashed.


(Ok, I just realized there is Adv GM and Adv SGM and Adv Legends, but those are rairly offered outside of Worlds)

I think I would do great if the PDGA were to adopt Kev's >900 Play Open format. The PDGA would cease to exist in two or three years but I'd do great running unsanctioned stuff!



You may think you would but I feel that the AVERAGE PDGA member likes to see his stats and would rather play in a PDGA event.

SO your one of the ones that enjoys the current system?

Or your in the 900-940 range?



Like I said in an earlier post, anyone can do ratings/rankings. All you need is a dataset to start from.

Anyone can have a website and publish a magazine.

As someone else said on one of these threads a while back, anyone with between $500K and 1 mil that wanted to could take over organized disc sports.

How many Pros wouldn't jump ship if someone came along with a series of events with $20-25K added cash for the Open division at all events ? Ams would be cheaper cause the same value costs only half as much.

I think I would do great if the PDGA were to adopt Kev's >900 Play Open format. The PDGA would cease to exist in two or three years but I'd do great running unsanctioned stuff!



You may think you would but I feel that the AVERAGE PDGA member likes to see his stats and would rather play in a PDGA event.

SO your one of the ones that enjoys the current system?

Or your in the 900-940 range?

i love my stats and ratings. but i dont believe there is only one group that could provide those bennies.

heck, if the PDGa did say >900 played Pro, then i could prolly cash in some "Pro" events and tell all the girls at the bar that i was a "Pro" athlete!

hmmmm.... maybe it IS a good idea :D

Come on Sandalman get on the >900 bandwagon! :D

You want people on the bandwagon, run some events to show that it works. Run a PDGA C-tier with Open, Intermediate, Rec and Advanced Masters for guys and whatever you get for women. All guys over 914 except for a few Advanced Masters will have to enter Open to play. Pay out 50% of the field.

I can't really pay out the AM players because they're AM elgibility would be lost.

I think it should be unsanctioned first to get a real judgement

I can't really pay out the AM players because they're AM elgibility would be lost.

I think it should be unsanctioned first to get a real judgement

DO IT!!!

The Ams could enter as Trophy Only for discounted fees and at least get ratings with higher rated players. You could also make sure to mix the top players with the lower rated ones in the first round.

Actually I know someone who is running Kev's format in a couple of weeks unsanctioned. If I can get any results, like if he posts them on the local message board, I'll let you know how it went.

Chuck, what you are suggesting is that we have only "ONE" classification of player(prize and cash) but two classifications of events (prize or cash), is that right?



For some reason, you wish to categorize people rather than events. These are events that reward prizes or cash for performance. Some people choose to enter these events. There can be such things as Trophy Only events and some people will enter those if offered. Some of those people are the same ones who enter prize and cash events. Seems to me the only elements that categorize people are gender, age and skill level, not the type of rewards they choose to play for because there are some who will enter all types of events if allowed to.

I may be wrong but I believe it's only an incremental amount of people who, given the choice, will EXCLUSIVELY play trophy only events. And they are still looking for value for their dollars in amenities and experience. All T.O. TDs would be doing from some of your explanations is selling "vacation packages" instead of plastic. At least with disc merchandise, the sales are helping our industry. I believe most of your so called amateurs in other sports are forced into playing for no prizes because the structure in which they play disallows it, the culture developed that way (so far), or can't afford to provide it.

Schools are the one big example. If colleges were allowed to gift or pay players, I see very few players rejecting those rewards. If Penn State offers rewards and bonuses, then Ohio State better not have a "holier than thou" approach and not do it because the handful of players they recruit will drop them to Division III status.

I don't see this as cynical but just observing human nature and our culture. The value better be there or it either won't be successful or a competitive alternative that offers a better value will replace it.



I'll take that as a "yes".

And don't ever believe that good players of amateur sports in college don't get "paid" for their amateur performances. It can't be official, and maybe not in cash, but they get paid.

The bigger the school, the bigger the pool of alumni....



So Gary, this is proof positive that there is no such thing as truly amateur competition?

Seems kind of like a stretch to me. Why is this such a vital thing for you do argue? Why is it so important for us to give up on having it as an option?

Is there some threat to our cash/prize classification we are missing? If so what is it?

hey, here's an idea, nick. run a year's worth of "true am" events and report back on how it goes. seems to make more sense than forcing the entire pdga to adopt a untried formula that uses a definition of "amateur" that no one else uses in any sport. if it works, great, and we all can adopt the approach. if not, then the rest of the organization will be spared the disruption.

All three event options are fine: cash/prize/trophy and we already have all three options which TDs can offer. There's no need for any changes or a separate organization for those who prefer Trophy Only. Perhaps there's a significant section of the population we're missing who will exclusively play trophy only events. What you need to find are TDs who want to offer those events. Current TDs are allowed to do it, but they're not doing it, with the exception of the Mainers to some extent.

That's like saying the US is a democracy because it is an available option regardless of whether we are or are not.

If there is no need for changes then what are you talking about Chuck... more of the same?

Who has said there needs to be a separate organization? The only mention I have seen is from folks defending the status quote of the cash/prize/trophy only mish mosh. I want the PDGA to create a little separation. Separation is not a bad thing. Most sports have it, including our big brother: ball golf.

I WILL be running these events. Though without an organized understanding and movement it will be next to impossible to build any momentum in isolation. And yes, OF COURSE current prize cash players aren't going to be as interested in the option (maybe), that is why this option shouldn't be a threat to them.

You say just go ahead and run them and it will happen. Chuck, without the PDGA approving the experiment and the MADC taking the lead on Player Ratings we would either not be where we are today or; would not have happened at all. All I am asking for is that the PDGA allow the experiment by setting some standards (and I'm not talking about side notes or patches) and then allow me and other TDs interested in building it to start building it.

Will I work on it anyway? Absolutely, but you should know well, from the Ratings experiment without the PDGA support as well as TDs to try it out you would have gotten nowhere, or certainly your progress would have been greatly hindered.

I don't want this vital and unrecognized demographic just to get tersery consideration. They need direct engagement, they deserve it.

I WILL be running these events. Though without an organized understanding and movement it will be next to impossible to build any momentum in isolation.



The Maine crew went ahead and did it without any prodding or special support from the PDGA because it was always an option. In addition, the PDGA has "blessed" the Trophy Only option which wasn't there before. We're launching a series for ams in northern Wisconsin at pay-for-play facilities similar to the Maine option. It will include a one round beginner division that's less than $10 and unsanctioned to get locals trying events.

That's like saying the US is a democracy because it is an available option regardless of whether we are or are not.

If there is no need for changes then what are you talking about Chuck... more of the same?

Who has said there needs to be a separate organization? The only mention I have seen is from folks defending the status quote of the cash/prize/trophy only mish mosh. I want the PDGA to create a little separation. Separation is not a bad thing. Most sports have it, including our big brother: ball golf.

[...]And yes, OF COURSE current prize cash players aren't going to be as interested in the option (maybe), that is why this option shouldn't be a threat to them.

You say just go ahead and run them and it will happen. Chuck, without the PDGA approving the experiment and the MADC taking the lead on Player Ratings we would either not be where we are today or; would not have happened at all. All I am asking for is that the PDGA allow the experiment by setting some standards (and I'm not talking about side notes or patches) and then allow me and other TDs interested in building it to start building it.

Will I work on it anyway? Absolutely, but you should know well, from the Ratings experiment without the PDGA support as well as TDs to try it out you would have gotten nowhere, or certainly your progress would have been greatly hindered.

I don't want this vital and unrecognized demographic just to get tersery consideration. They need direct engagement, they deserve it.



Chuck, I addressed every part of your post, please don't just ignore the questions you are uncomfortable with. How well do you think ratings would be doing without PDGA and MADC backing? Some things need organized support, a new classification of player is definitely one of those things...

How well do you think ratings would be doing without PDGA and MADC backing?



Ratings were created with one goal, and that was to solve a problem in the PDGA Competition structure. That problem was that the Am1, Am2, Am3 divisions had no criteria for when a player should advance. There were a few progressive clubs who had a variety of bump rules that weren't consistent from region to region.

This was a known problem for the PDGA and we had a solution with ratings. It shouldn't be any surprise that we had PDGA interest but the support was not financial. When the first idea to do a video for Pro Worlds occurred, it got funded. Why that and not ratings is the nature of how volunteer based organizations emerge economically.

We did the process on our own for 7 years before receiving any PDGA compensation beyond reimbursements for travel expenses to several meetings. Emerging from this practical support were several other things that the ratings brought us but recognize that first they helped solve a problem for the PDGA.

The Competition Committee has recognized that not everyone who might want to play is enamored of high entry fees or might not be able to afford them. The Trophy Only option allows higher entry fee events to address that market. In addition, the Mainers recognized that there hasn't been anything in the structure that required charging high entry fees so they tested and were successful with lower entry fee, high value, low prize reward events. I don't see how the PDGA has either blocked or not supported efforts toweard the people you feel would play if they had the opportunity?

And don't forget the PDGA initiatives to work with the EDGE program, STEAM for colleges, and the Disc Golf Foundation which helps plant baskets at education locations. These also support new players who are not in our competitive structure.

I am aware of all of that Chuck, but none of it answers my questions. Would it have gotten as far as it did without PDGA and MADC initiative?

I'd prefer you acknowledge it and answer the question. But if you are unwilling I'll be glad to do it for you. Again, I'd prefer a dialog. I know we can do it, we've managed it many times before, usually with fruitful results.



That's like saying the US is a democracy because it is an available option regardless of whether we are or are not.

If there is no need for changes then what are you talking about Chuck... more of the same?

Who has said there needs to be a separate organization? The only mention I have seen is from folks defending the status quote of the cash/prize/trophy only mish mosh. I want the PDGA to create a little separation. Separation is not a bad thing. Most sports have it, including our big brother: ball golf.

[...]And yes, OF COURSE current prize cash players aren't going to be as interested in the option (maybe), that is why this option shouldn't be a threat to them.

You say just go ahead and run them and it will happen. Chuck, without the PDGA approving the experiment and the MADC taking the lead on Player Ratings we would either not be where we are today or; would not have happened at all. All I am asking for is that the PDGA allow the experiment by setting some standards (and I'm not talking about side notes or patches) and then allow me and other TDs interested in building it to start building it.

Will I work on it anyway? Absolutely, but you should know well, from the Ratings experiment without the PDGA support as well as TDs to try it out you would have gotten nowhere, or certainly your progress would have been greatly hindered.

I don't want this vital and unrecognized demographic just to get tersery consideration. They need direct engagement, they deserve it.



Chuck, I addressed every part of your post, please don't just ignore the questions you are uncomfortable with. How well do you think ratings would be doing without PDGA and MADC backing? Some things need organized support, a new classification of player is definitely one of those things...

Would it have gotten as far as it did without PDGA and MADC initiative?




I did answer your question. PDGA support came after it was shown to work. All that was provided initially (and essentially all they could afford to provide) was encouragement, access to the results and we fortunately had some volunteers to help enter info in addition to Roger and I, like Rodney and later yourself. About 4 years later, primarily Jason and also Steve along with Theo did a great job getting the ratings info posted online.

MADC support was helpful to test the ratings event option but that has turned out to be unsuccessful as a regular weekend format.

PDGA support has already been there for any initiative you're proposing for the "exclusively" Trophy Only group. I don't think you should expect more than you've got which is more than sufficient to test it further. Here's your encouragement, "Get out there and go for it!"

i dont understand the point of saying any particular club was or wasnt a help in makeing ratings, or anything else, happen. except for bragging rights maybe. even if one club could come out with the winning formula to one of our problems, would that give it some sort of advantage that allowed its next idea to be adopted organization-wide, especially if the activity was already allowed?

if there's nothing stopping you, then just do it. let us know how it works. if it works good, pass it on. while you are finding out, let everyone else do what they think will work for them, and is also inside the boundaries. why does it even need a discussion?

Kelsey and I went to a C-tier today. It was a split-day format, and because it was a C-tier no pros were allowed, either day. They had something like 54 divisions today and they will have about that many tomorrow. Most players entered two or four divisions.

The entry fees were like $18 per division entered plus another $65 in fees. The payout was ribbon-only except all of the blue ribbon winners got to compete in the final medal round. They did ribbons to the top six, and since it was pre-reg only, they knew in advance which divisions would have less than six.

There were a lot of complicated rules for divisional eligibility. In the lower divisions you could only win three times and then you had to move up, but for some divisions you could not play up unless you had won at least one time in the division below. There were also divisions restricted by age and size.

It was a Michigan Hunter Jumper Association horse and pony competition.

Would it have gotten as far as it did without PDGA and MADC initiative?




I did answer your question. PDGA support came after it was shown to work. All that was provided initially (and essentially all they could afford to provide) was encouragement, access to the results and we fortunately had some volunteers to help enter info in addition to Roger and I, like Rodney and later yourself. About 4 years later, primarily Jason and also Steve along with Theo did a great job getting the ratings info posted online.

MADC support was helpful to test the ratings event option but that has turned out to be unsuccessful as a regular weekend format.

PDGA support has already been there for any initiative you're proposing for the "exclusively" Trophy Only group. I don't think you should expect more than you've got which is more than sufficient to test it further. Here's your encouragement, "Get out there and go for it!"


Thanks, I'll take all that as a "No".

Well, I am looking for the same sort of support and organizational push from the PDGA. They don't have to actually go out and run the events, just include the option and support TDs giving it a try. It is a perfect task for the PDGA. Precisely what they are designed for.

Like I said I will be trying it myself out at my local course, approaching the YMCA and local schools and community groups for competitors, but will welcome prize/cash players for the time being as well.

554 AMS at Bowling Green! Where does the pros even get a quarter of that that kind of turnout?

Chuck, Can I tank for about a year and get my rating down to 970 so I can go play in a field like that?

Chuck, Can I tank for about a year and get my rating down to 970 so I can go play in a field like that?



No need to tank your rating. Just run an event like that and you could make more money than you do winning a weekend :D

More money than I could win in a weekend?

I would be lucky to beat have those baggers in the top 50 at Bowling Green.

284 MA1-Adv Ams at BG while there were a HUGE
24 Open players at the Gator Country Classic

AWESOME! Gotta love the diversity

out of the 11 tournaments accross the country this weekend, there were a total of 153 TOTAL Open players this weekend just a little more than half of what was in one AM event in KY.

Nah there isn't any problems with this?

You mean like the 500 rounds of pro golf at the Bellsouth versus the 200,000 amateur rounds on golf courses around the country last week?

I'm going down to the courthouse today to change my idenity to Rumple Foreskin just so I can come back and play Amatuer.

Why would I want to stay in this current system and play Pro when I can play with all the "cool" baggers oooooorrrr kids in ADV.

Did you see one of the 554 with your rating?

You should be thrilled there's a huge crop of folks coming along to eventually boost the pro ranks. It's your job to figure out how to attact those few who might eventually be able to hang with you and your 1000+ buddies. (Hint: Stepped Entry fees or Second Chance)

Coming to boost the PRO field....YEAH RIGHT! We'll see about 4 of them next year

I've decided if I can't beat them (well I can) I'll just join them.

McCoy Died in a tragic pillow fight accident at a slumber party saturday night! I wan't to cancel his membership!

Rumple Foreskin is getting a membership today and hes shaved his hair off and working on my two-finger, cuz thats the shot the girls like.:D I'm sending in my dues today. Can you get me on the waiting list for AM WORLDS ;)

Yeah, I suppose it Kevin's job to figure it out. The PDGA bears no burden at all in your mind. Just create a system that attracts the bulk to the mid-levels, then entice them to stay there, then leave. "Our work here is done."

You are on the competition committee, correct?

I'm just wondering how thick the wall is.

Stepped entry fees and Second Chance. Haven't seen any ideas from anyone else that don't require force.

With an attitude like this, let me rush and start playing MPO right now! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

And by the way I counted 210 true MA1 players (915+). You can thank them on BG Pro Weekend for helping fund that purse.

Stepped entry fees and Second Chance. Haven't seen any ideas from anyone else that don't require force.



Well both of those ideas are like HOOVER VACUMS....THEY ____ for the current OPEN players...Descrimination AGAIN

I hear ya TBender, Why would ANYONE want to play OPEN. I give up ....I'm trying to join the MA1! Thats where all the action is at. It's AWESOME to be a Junior Varsity player...I want to be one!

You want some of my 820 rating competition Big Dog? :mad:....Well you got it. I'll cast my BIG SHADOW around you and you'll never see the sunlight again. :D;)

(A certain amount of credibility for arguing to boost Open turnout is lost by someone who sometimes hides out in the Master division)

I dislike both of those ideas. However, I don't see how either would push away Kevin's targeted group (940+) from playing MPO. On the other hand, his idea--900+ in Open--that forces players, who are giving up 11 throws per round to him, into MPO will push away more players than those that disappear already.

I dislike both of those ideas. However, I don't see how either would push away Kevin's targeted group (940+) from playing MPO. On the other hand, his idea--900+ in Open--that forces players, who are giving up 11 throws per round to him, into MPO will push away more players than those that disappear already.



So you think Disc Golf should be more like Special Olympics and let (*almost) everyone win?

The 940 golfer becomes a regular cashing player in 900+ = open...sure the 912 golfer doesn't win, but there is a reason that golfer is 912, its becasue he's not very good yet, why should someone "not very good yet" worry about what he/she is taking home? They need more expierience, and I'm the guy to give them an experience :D

If the 920-970 golfer is going to quit because he/she is not winning anymore then don't let the door hit your ___ on the way out. The mentality that the PDGA created that everyone should have a chance to win is LU - DA - CRIS!

Hey Kev, I've been playing for 18 years and touring for 5 now, How much more experience do I need to be 1000+ ?

Please quit trying to say I'm just trying to pad my pockets....I don't even play anymore, and I'm trying to make the Open division WORTH PLAYING, cuz it sure isn't worth it! ;) and I totally understand why MA1 players LOVE staying in AM.

GARY you just need to quit getting older :D

and I'm not really talking to you because the AGE divisions have little to do with this.

Players with 920-970 ratings is about 1/3 of PDGA membership. If they're out our door they're gone or knocking on the Southern Nationals door.

Given all the animosity you express towards amateurs, why should any of them expect you to be running a good Am Worlds for them this summer? If I were on the fence about Am Worlds, this would definately make up my mind for me.

CHUCK,

Not 100% of those 920-970 golfers are playing only to win? Do they not go to tournaments for the expiereince, the good times? They would fit in very well in OPEN and I think they would enjoy seeing greenbacks when it comes to 5PM on Sunday evenings.

Bruce,

WELCOME TO TROPHY ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!! well sort of

Trust me THE AMS WILL LOVE their PLAYERS PACKS....Its already over 100% of their entry fee.

&amp; I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST AMS!!!!!!!!

I have a problem with the current system that keeps them AMS

Kevin,

I understand your angst, but there are a lot of players that will never progress beyond 920. Sometimes it is because they don't have the talent to, somtimes they don't have the time to, and sometimes they have both, but they hit a level beyond which they may never get better. Sometimes someone with natural talent (that includes you) does not understand that others don't. I know several players that cannot break out of the range they have hit. If all are made to go to open, they WILL quit playing. I know, because I quit for years. I think I had the talent, but not the time. I would love to become a better player, but at my talent level, and my age, I doubt I could ever get to 960. And 960 does not cash in Open. PERIOD. So if you want to kill disc golf then by all means let us force players to do something they do not want to do.

On the other hand, if you want to grow the open fields, then let us strive to build up the amateur ranks, so that the truely talented can complete. Not everyone can be a Tiger Woods (and lately, neither can he)


If the 920-970 golfer is going to quit because he/she is not winning anymore then don't let the door hit your ___ on the way out. The mentality that the PDGA created that everyone should have a chance to win is LU - DA - CRIS!

Let's make all players over 920 play open.

The idea that 920-970 golfers will play event after event with no chance of winning anything when they could just stay home and play minis on the weekends is a bit misguided. Especially with gas knocking at $3 a gal.

You do not have a captive audience, and their attention span is very short. If you do not give them what they want, they will walk and you will really have a PDGA of just Pro Members fighting for each other's money with no chance of gaining enough members to ever attract any sponsors cash. Meanwhile a competing DG organization founded by Amateur (prize definition as the top level) players for Amateur players will start up. TDs recognizing the reality of running tournaments for Pro only events will move over to the new schedule at least part time to help raise funds to pad their pro only purses.

It won't take long for the Amateur players to figure out which TDs are returning value for their entries instead of transferring all that they can to the struggling Pro association, and the attendance at those events will probably drop drastically.

With the loss of 80% of their Am membership and the lack of am players at their events. the PDGA is forced to raise membership dues drastically to try and keep up. All but a handful of the reaming Ams drop out, and third of the existing Pros no longer see a benefit in being a member.

Four years after the change, the PDGA closes it doors for good.

So you think Disc Golf should be more like Special Olympics and let (*almost) everyone win?

The 940 golfer becomes a regular cashing player in 900+ = open...sure the 912 golfer doesn't win, but there is a reason that golfer is 912, its becasue he's not very good yet, why should someone "not very good yet" worry about what he/she is taking home? They need more expierience, and I'm the guy to give them an experience :D



Thanks for comparing the Amateur ranks to the disabled/handicapped. You're really winning points this morning. But that aside, yes. I see no problem with ratings based divisions. However, I personally believe that all Amateurs should be playing for minimal fees and minimal payouts. I also believe that there is one winner per event. If I win MA1, it doesn't matter because I was in a protected division.


I guess it all comes down to one philosophical question: Are tourneys for all golfers or just the best?

BRUCE, here is a good analogy for ya.

This whole DISCussion is like

I'm a <font color="red">PRO-LIFER</font> at a <font color="red">PRO-CHOICE</font> MEETING! Sure I want it a way that may help my people, but there are so many PRO-CHOICE people out there, I'm the VILLIAN for trying to make something better to my people (aka the OPEN players).

Given all the animosity you express towards amateurs, why should any of them expect you to be running a good Am Worlds for them this summer? If I were on the fence about Am Worlds, this would definately make up my mind for me.



I understand why you might think that way based on the comments made here by the Puli mon. But trust me if you knew the time and effort that he and the crew are putting into worlds (and I don't even know the 1/2 of it) there would be no way you would miss it. I expect a great worlds not a good one.:D

Like I said earlier, I would enter Open at 946 occasionally if my fee was only $30 versus your $50 and Master was also $50, especially if I see other players around my rating also taking advantage of the stepped entry fee. But with no chance of cashing, I will rarely enter an event. Even the one time I played Open at the Memorial four years ago, I thought there was an outside chance I could cash plus I knew I could pick up huge points for GM the first year our multiplier point system came online. I don't think my choices are that much different from the 25-year old other than I have more division options due to age.

Tony,

I mostly agree with your comments, but if the events go to minimal fees and milmal payouts, you will also loose players and TD's. It is to expensive to run an event without amateur prize payouts.



So you think Disc Golf should be more like Special Olympics and let (*almost) everyone win?

The 940 golfer becomes a regular cashing player in 900+ = open...sure the 912 golfer doesn't win, but there is a reason that golfer is 912, its becasue he's not very good yet, why should someone "not very good yet" worry about what he/she is taking home? They need more expierience, and I'm the guy to give them an experience :D



Thanks for comparing the Amateur ranks to the disabled/handicapped. You're really winning points this morning. But that aside, yes. I see no problem with ratings based divisions. However, I personally believe that all Amateurs should be playing for minimal fees and minimal payouts. I also believe that there is one winner per event. If I win MA1, it doesn't matter because I was in a protected division.


I guess it all comes down to one philosophical question: Are tourneys for all golfers or just the best?

Hey my nephew rides the short bus too school and I am cool with with having a special needs kid in my family. Kolby, my nephew is AUTISTIC and I love him more than any healthy little brat out there.

I WASN'T MAKING FUN OF THE SPECIAL OLYMPICS! I love the Special Olympics, but DISC GOLF shouldn't be like it.

Kevin,

I understand your angst, but there are a lot of players that will never progress beyond 920. Sometimes it is because they don't have the talent to, somtimes they don't have the time to, and sometimes they have both, but they hit a level beyond which they may never get better. Sometimes someone with natural talent (that includes you) does not understand that others don't. I know several players that cannot break out of the range they have hit. If all are made to go to open, they WILL quit playing. I know, because I quit for years. I think I had the talent, but not the time. I would love to become a better player, but at my talent level, and my age, I doubt I could ever get to 960. And 960 does not cash in Open. PERIOD. So if you want to kill disc golf then by all means let us force players to do something they do not want to do.

On the other hand, if you want to grow the open fields, then let us strive to build up the amateur ranks, so that the truely talented can complete. Not everyone can be a Tiger Woods (and lately, neither can he)


If the 920-970 golfer is going to quit because he/she is not winning anymore then don't let the door hit your ___ on the way out. The mentality that the PDGA created that everyone should have a chance to win is LU - DA - CRIS!





Jerry, you and others fit into the Age divisions. I'm not against having a REC division for those out there that can't progress their skill level past 900...Of course my REC division would pay out randomly or by drawing so that we are not rewarding the winner so greatly that there becaome bagging to win the REC division. My ideal pay out in the REC division would be by drawing names out of a hat for prizes and giving the winner a $4 trophy.

By the way I'm not angry, just getting everyone blood pumping this early monday morning ;)

I did not say angry, I said angst :p


By the way I'm not angry, just getting everyone blood pumping this early monday morning ;)

If the 920-970 golfer is going to quit because he/she is not winning anymore then don't let the door hit your ___ on the way out. The mentality that the PDGA created that everyone should have a chance to win is LU - DA - CRIS!



Amen.

That appears to be the PDGA's target audience. The one they expect to built a Competitive SPORT around. Let's make that the ethic in our sport and be scared that they will abandon us. :confused:

Hey Pat,

Is it possible to get a number of how many players dropped out around the 920 range ?

you mean how many players were about 920 (say 910-930)when they did not renew?

Actually,

It's not even that people will just quit. If we actually did what Kevin proposes what would happen is that some sharp player would start the ADGA and they would basically run the PDGA and the few Pros we have out of business. Kev's wearing rose coloured glasses. I've worked with a number of guys like Kevin (I still do). They are convinced that their way is the only way and all to often their way is the only wrong way. Kevin has a vision of the sport that just can't exist at this time. It's not a bad vision, it's just unrealistic.

A more realistic question should be - do we want to support the Pro ranks at this time? While this is very important to Kevin and to the other Pros out there, it seems to me that we spend an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out ways to put money in Pros pockets for what... cache? The people who financially support this sport are the little guys who are out there buying plastic and playing tournaments. I admit, I get a thrill watching the top guys play, but the last thing I want is a mechanism that pushes lower ranked guys up where they can support the top Pros... period....

Lyle, you've filled out the question I asked upthread:


I guess it all comes down to one philosophical question: Are tourneys for all golfers or just the best?



I still haven't seen anyone's answer to this.

There should be some tournaments for the SUPER competetive players (USDGC, Players Cup, MSDGC)

There should be some tournaments for the SUPER recreational players (Octoberfriz, Chandler Camp-Out, MSDGC)

Hey there is one tourney on both those lists.

^*^*^*^*^dreaming of 15 tournaments like MSDGC^*^*^*^*^*^

you mean how many players were about 920 (say 910-930)when they did not renew?


Yes.

I've worked with a number of guys like Kevin (I still do). They are convinced that their way is the only way and all to often their way is the only wrong way.



Gotta love the irony in this statement, or is it just "pot, meet kettle."

btw, I'm not supporting Kevin's idea of forcing people up, but I support all ideas that eliminate the current encouragement to hang back.

There should be some tournaments for the SUPER competetive players (USDGC, Players Cup, MSDGC)

There should be some tournaments for the SUPER recreational players (Octoberfriz, Chandler Camp-Out, MSDGC)

Hey there is one tourney on both those lists.

^*^*^*^*^dreaming of 15 tournaments like MSDGC^*^*^*^*^*^



Yes, but why do any of those tournaments have to have anything to do with Pros? Everyone (except the Pros) would make a lot more money if those tournaments weren't Pro based.

I have a question....
do T.D.'S have to follow the PDGA payout or is that a suggesed.
This flat pro payout thing is horse droppings

I've worked with a number of guys like Kevin (I still do). They are convinced that their way is the only way and all to often their way is the only wrong way.



Gotta love the irony in this statement, or is it just "pot, meet kettle."

btw, I'm not supporting Kevin's idea of forcing people up, but I support all ideas that eliminate the current encouragement to hang back.



That's the problem James, I've argued all sides of this, ways to move guys up fairly, leaving them where they are, and elimination of the Pro ranks. I'm even willing to support trophy only.

I don't came at this from the perspective that Ams who won't play up are slackers who should be forced up. I come at this from how do you grow the sport? You, and Kevin have one path to grow the sport. Your view of growth is grow the Pro ranks. Either force Ams up, or eliminate the incentives that keep them down so we can have more Pros. For me growth is growth, whether that involves Pros or not doesn't much matter to me.

Pros don't pay period. As a group, they take out more than they put in.

I have never said I had the perfect solution, but the only ones I have heard on here is just as bogus. Letting people pay less to get into the OPEN division, while I pay the same is absurd and this 2nd Chance thing that is taking money from the people who cashed on the course and giving it to someone that didn't doesn't make sense either. The one thing I have agreed with is Trophy Only

Lyle, maybe you got into this thread late and haven't read everything, but some of my other comments like making ADV and OPEN the SAME entry has gone over well with everyone. I've wanted to drop OPEN entry fees all together so more people could afford to play OPEN.

Maybe you haven't read all of that before but I'm not just for making all 900+ golfers play OPEN. I'm for anything that will help our division grow. Not financially, but with numbers of players. Honsetly I think we are making more than we should be considering the amount of players there is in OPEN.

I have never said I had the perfect solution, but the only ones I have heard on here is just as bogus. Letting people pay less to get into the OPEN division, while I pay the same is absurd and this 2nd Chance thing that is taking money from the people who cashed on the course and giving it to someone that didn't doesn't make sense either. The one thing I have agreed with is Trophy Only

Lyle, maybe you got into this thread late and haven't read everything, but some of my other comments like making ADV and OPEN the SAME entry has gone over well with everyone. I've wanted to drop OPEN entry fees all together so more people could afford to play OPEN.

Maybe you haven't read all of that before but I'm not just for making all 900+ golfers play OPEN. I'm for anything that will help our division grow. Not financially, but with numbers of players. Honsetly I think we are making more than we should be considering the amount of players there is in OPEN.



Actually, I've read the thread; IMO making the entry fee for ADV and OPEN the same won't move players into open. It will drive some players out and leave the rest where they are.

Lowering prices per sey will help and will bring some ADV into PRO but not at high enough levels to solve the initial problem you posted.

I understand what you are saying Kevin, you want more guys in Pro and money has nothing to do with it. Great, here's your solution. Make Pro trophy only. Lots of guys will play up, I myself will. :D

Lyle, you've filled out the question I asked upthread:


I guess it all comes down to one philosophical question: Are tourneys for all golfers or just the best?



I still haven't seen anyone's answer to this.



Best comment of the day! I'm here for the AMS and I wonder, why don't we spend more time worrying about making those guys happy? :D

Vinnie,
The sanctioning agreement says you will, but there are still tons of TD's that are not. You can petition the PDGA for a release.


I have a question....
do T.D.'S have to follow the PDGA payout or is that a suggesed.
This flat pro payout thing is horse droppings

TDs can payout 40%, 45% or 50% of the field. It's their call.

Lyle, it's not that easy. I agree with McCaine that the incentive to play down needs to be removed/reduced. We need to find other ways to make them happy without the piles of merchandise.

Thanks I will....... ams can be flat.
but the pros should be top 3rd

Lyle, it's not that easy. I agree with McCaine that the incentive to play down needs to be removed/reduced. We need to find other ways to make them happy without the piles of merchandise.



I wasn't trying to say anything is easy, I'm simply asking the question, where should our efforts best be spent if growth of the sport is high on our priority list? I also strongly greet your comment, who is the sport for. I don't disagree with the idea that it should be for everyone, but I don't find a whole lot of difference between the top guys playing for plastic and the top guys playing for cash. Each is acting in his own self interest. Neither is going to step back and act for the "good" of the sport. So, how do you structure things so that everone wins?

As hard as it is for Kevin and James to accept, Chuck's initial proposal is a great one. While it feels unfair to them, it will actually work. Yes, they won't make as much as if those Ams played up at full cost but it will work with very low risk for the guys at the top.

Combining Chuck's proposal with a trophy option is my choice but I recognize that isn't the best. If you remove those big plastic payouts, then what incentives do TDs have to promote?

This flat pro payout thing is horse droppings



I disagree big time with this sentiment.

IMO, the payout should be 50%, AT LEAST. This should not be an option, all TDs (regardless how cool their programs are) should be required to pay a realtively flat payout. The added money can then be used to add to the very top, to reward the top guys.

This would keep a lot more of the marginal guys involved. If they cash once in a while, and are close most of the time, they are much likely to compete more often.

Will this punish the top guys? Relative to the way it is right now, the answer is "yes," but it will be much healthier for the sport.

James,

We are DISCussing how to change the AM fields to AMs, we are NEVER going to win this.

Next option

One AM division and pay out in FLIGHTS
1st-7th gets paid
15th-22th gets paid
35th-42th gets paid
55th-63nd gets paid
75th-83rd gets paid
so on
so on
so on
zzz
zz
z
zz

**** THE CUBS ARE ON! I'm OUT!

Running a league like that is how Gotta Go Gotta Throw launched their business in the mid-90s. Run an Open division like that and maybe you've got a chance to really boost the fields.

James,

We are DISCussing how to change the AM fields to AMs, we are NEVER going to win this.



Not true. Specifically, this Am agrees with y'all on several things. (But then, I am not the typical Am.)

James,

We are DISCussing how to change the AM fields to AMs, we are NEVER going to win this.



Not true. Specifically, this Am agrees with y'all on several things. (But then, I am not the typical Am.)



Yeah, a typical Am would probably post a pic of a putt they actually made :D

You can lump me in there on the same line of thinking as Mr. Bender.

I made that putt. It just was for 6. ;)

So let me get this straight. Let us change a current policy that has resulted in growth every year for the PDGA? By the way, that is growth in both the Am and Open divisions.




James,

We are DISCussing how to change the AM fields to AMs, we are NEVER going to win this.



Not true. Specifically, this Am agrees with y'all on several things. (But then, I am not the typical Am.)



Yeah, a typical Am would probably post a pic of a putt they actually made :D

You can lump me in there on the same line of thinking as Mr. Bender.

yeah, we better think this thru. 10-15% growth ROCKS dude! in three more generations our great-great-grandkids might make a living doing this. 40% Did Not Renew rates in the Am ranks are AWESOME too! lets keep that up! success is right around the corner, you can almost smell it! :D

Jerry, did you go to the Chuck school of statistics? When I first started playing open tournaments in the late eighties, the average field size of local tournaments was bigger than it is now. The am fields were way smaller than they are now. Meanwhile, there are now a ton more courses and casuals than there were in 1988.

This policy of top-heavy merch payouts started in probably the early nineties and I've read many times on this thread that this payout strategy is a great way to attract ams, and the growth in ams will naturally rise the pros. I say that roughly 15 years of data says otherwise. Most rational people would view that evidence/feedback as troubling. Some around here keep the faith though: any minute now the large growth in ams will start to swell the pro fields.

I also think it is questionable whether merch heavy payouts have even been good for ams. That is just an assumption. In an era of rapid growth of disc golf as a casual sport, one would also expect rapid growth in those that play competitively. Unless someone can clearly show me evidence that merch heavy payouts has resulted in a faster am growth than the growth of disc golf as a whole, then I maintain the sport organizers should be scratching their heads in dismay rather than trying to convince everyone of their successes.

In an era of rapid growth of disc golf as a casual sport, one would also expect rapid growth in those that play competitively.



Foolishness. That will never be the case in a sport with healthy growth. If someone asks me to go snowboarding for the first time, I'm not even remotely thinking about organized competition. I've done both types of skiing and not once thought about competing other than maybe racing a friend down the hill on the last run. If the growth of competitors matches the growth of the sport, it's time to start thinking about when to sell stock in companies selling equipment in that field.

Pat, so should we increase the dropout rate? Is this whole conversation about keeping our drop outs? No the current drift is to force more players into the open ranks. Am I wrong in assuming this will increase the dropouts?


yeah, we better think this thru. 10-15% growth ROCKS dude! in three more generations our great-great-grandkids might make a living doing this. 40% Did Not Renew rates in the Am ranks are AWESOME too! lets keep that up! success is right around the corner, you can almost smell it! :D

Chuck, I am open to the possibility that there might be different phases in a sport's growth. However, I strongly suspect that for every 100 people that throw their first disc today, X % have a competitive desire and will be naturally attracted to competition. I also strongly suspect that out of 100 people that threw their first disc two years ago, the % of those who were competitively inclined was also X. Same for 10 years ago and so on.

Why? It's just a natural trait that would be equal throughout the years. I would be surprised if it changed much over time. Therefore, if that % stays the same, competitive growth rates should match the growth rate of the disc golf as a non-competitive activity.

That's not how it works though. There may not even be a PDGA presence where the course is located. Even if there is, some special thing has to occur to get over the hump and get more PDGA members. It's a chicken or egg scenario. You'd like a PDGA event but why do it unless you have PDGA members nearby? You'd like to join the PDGA but there are no PDGA events in your area so why join? There are hundreds of small town courses and even larger areas like this. I was part of the D-tier initiative to break thru on this. But there are places with 20 years of active local activity with little or no PDGA activity (Montana is one BIG place).

yes, cuz if you force me into the "pro" ranks, i'll give up ratings and go unsanctioned. i suspect a lot others will also.

dont take me wrong - you're having the correct discussion. just at least 15 years ahead of time. imo.

of course the dropoff rate should be reduced. anyone who is satisfied with the current rate cannot effectively participate in leading this organization.



Pat, so should we increase the dropout rate? Is this whole conversation about keeping our drop outs? No the current drift is to force more players into the open ranks. Am I wrong in assuming this will increase the dropouts?


yeah, we better think this thru. 10-15% growth ROCKS dude! in three more generations our great-great-grandkids might make a living doing this. 40% Did Not Renew rates in the Am ranks are AWESOME too! lets keep that up! success is right around the corner, you can almost smell it! :D

I played disc golf about 2-10 times a year for years and years and years before I heard about actual tournaments.

But if the quest is for bigger Open Pro fields, why don't you look at consolidating the Pro fields into fewer divisions first. I don't believe that there were so many Masters, Grandmasters, and Senior Grandmasters competing in their own age-protected pro division back in the romantically remembered hay-day of those giant Open Pro field days that James and Kevin are so fondly remembering.

Why do you need so many Pro divisions anyway? What is this, the Special Olympics for Pros where everybody has to win? Why not just two pro divisions: Men and Women? Look at any tournament and figure out how big the Open Pro division would be if you did that!

thats a great idea, RheTT, but Kevin is skeered of Mitch Mac andGinelly and Wisecup! :D

its sooooo much more fun, not to mention easier, to take the candy from the babies. :cool:

While I couldn't agree more, that decision would be the most unpopular in PDGA history. Masters and Grandmasters have been weaned on thier protective divisions for more than decade now. They would raise holy hell.

They would raise holy hell.




They already raise a lot of the money for Open either as sponsorships or as TDs converting from Ams.

How about the following proposal:

$1 from every entrant of every PDGA event (regardless of tier level) goes into a fund that becomes added cash for the professional divisions at PDGA Worlds.

that way we as PDGA members all pitch in to help our top players earn decent cash. i guess there would need to be a cut-off date for events a few months prior to Worlds so that TD's would have adequate time for completing their reports and turning in the funds to the PDGA to go into the "bonus cash" account. Any events after the cut-off date would pay into the fund for the subsequent year's Worlds event.

... just throwing the idea out there ... about how much cash would that likely add to the pro Worlds payout?

There were 51,000+ paid entries in 2005. The PDGA already supports Pro Worlds with probably $12K-$15K (maybe more) in manpower and services with about $6K-8K paid in cash. And why would our Am members think this $1 tax was an appropriate plan? Frankly, it would help us boost the purse for 2007 Pro Worlds at Highbridge.

I sent some ideas to a few peoplea week or so ago. One of the ideas was to just have the PDGA require TD's to have a check box on the sign up sheet for those who want to donate to the Pros in an amount of anywhere from $1-5. It would be optional so it could only be viewed as a good thing. TD's could just send that in with the rest of the fees.

Why would Am.s want to pay a measley one dollar tax to help top pros earn a decent living and make our sport look more like a sport where the Pros make money? that's self-explanatory isn't it?

One idea would be to make it a fund that goes to 4 big Pro tournaments (Pro Worlds, the USDGC, and 2 others). taxes do great things like get roads built and public parks funded. We already subsidize a great magazine with our membership dues, why not subsidize the top pros and 4 biggest events as well? (it would only be one buck out of pocket per entrant per event, and it would do great things)

having that amount of money to add to the cash payout might actually help get sponsors too...

Here are some facts:

26.2 million Americans played a round of golf last year
840,000 joined or renewed with the USGA
28,000 are in the PGA.
191 are eligible to compete on the PGA Tour [The big money tour].
186 are eligible to compete on the PGA Nationwide Tour [The good money secondary tour.]
120 are eligible to compete on the PGA Champions Tour(The over 50 tour)

So roughly 800,000 USGA members represent enough golf fans to support roughly 500 touring pros. By those numbers, the PDGA should be big enough to support about 5 touring pros.

[edited to remove extraneous Ds!]

Oh, could also have the same box on PDGA membership apps. Seems worth it and easy enough to try.

can i put you down then as supporting a $2 per event per entrant tax? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :p

Here are some facts:

26.2 million Americans played a round of golf last year
840,000 joined or renewed with the USGA
28,000 are in the PGA.
191 are eligible to compete on the PDGA Tour [The big money tour].
186 are eligible to compete on the PDGA Nationwide Tour [The good money secondary tour.]
120 are eligible to compete on the PDGA Champions Tour(The over 50 tour)

So roughly 800,000 USGA members represent enough golf fans to support roughly 500 touring pros. By those numbers, the PDGA should be big enough to support about 5 touring pros.



I think they are ALL eligible for the PDGA tour. Why havent I ever heard of the PDGA Nationwide and Champions tour??? :D

A 15% per annum growth rate means that the number doubles approximately every five years. If you were to project 15% per annum growth for the PDGA it would take about 35 to 40 years to have the kind of membership numbers that the USGA has currently.

Why does everyone feel a need to sidetrack this debate?

It is not a debate about adding money to pros.

It is not a debate about whether the sport can support top players like other sports.

It is not about making masters play open, because the same problem exists for the pro masters division. Typically, older ams do the same thing as their younger counterparts: they stay ams because that's where the financial incentives are.

In my mind, this sport is way to young to support pros financially, but that is hardly a rebuttal to the charge that something stinks badly in the competitive system.

Once again why are y'all so opposed to injecting equity into the system?

Oh yeah, just to anticipate the time-honored response. It is hardly equitable to purposely create a system that financially encourages people to not-improve their skills. I can't think of any SPORT (I need to capitalize it just so that y'all remember that the PDGA isn't in the business of creating a mini socialist state) that is riddled with the characteristic of lesser skilled players reaping more financial rewards than better skilled players.

ok, so i got the "decades" part right, but the "generations" (at least the "three") part wrong.

thanks for the numbers Bruce.

there is an obvious problem: not enough real players
there is a hidden problem for today's pros: unless you get more real players its gonna be a long time til you get an annual salary.

unless you dramatically reduce the dropoff rate. USGA members do not simply pop up out of the woodwork.

Once again why are y'all so opposed to injecting equity into the system?



I have heard nothing from the Ams that negates equality. What they want is equal consideration for all divisions, and the right of all divisions to compete as they see fit.

What I keep hearing is to remove the only reward system most of the current players have ever known. It is dramatically flatter this year than it has been in the past. Let it soak in for a little while and see if the new lower top payouts are low enough to convince a few of the better players to move up ?

If you want to see low entry no payout events, run one, or talk a TD you know into running one. Chris and Mace are 2 I know in Texas that are running tournaments with very unusual payout structures taht are just barely performance based. Ask them how it's going.

It is hardly equitable to purposely create a system that financially encourages people to not-improve their skills.



First of all, you have no proof that this is the case. We have few players that have been amateurs with ratings over 960 for more than a few years but I'd have to verify that. Our competition system doesn't allow them to play pro from January to Am Worlds and retain their am status. I've fought for that and have gotten rejected but that would solve both bagging in Am for that period and boost pro pools.

It's apparent that we can't support the top pros we have as well as desired and certainly not "pros" under 1000. The obvious solution is that these players (under 40) should be recognized as the ams that they are and we should eliminate pro status until you hit 1000. That's the line being used for tour cards as it is. Create a higher level Am division. The current and future amounts of sponsor added cash will go to fewer players at the top which will boost the total income per player. We can promote them better and create media stars like other sports. Any of our guys have an agent yet? The players under 1000 will strive to hit that 1000 mark. And, in the mean time, they will help produce merch conversion for the 1000+ guys while still winning prizes to keep them in the game.

I have heard nothing from the Ams that negates equality. What they want is equal consideration for all divisions, and the right of all divisions to compete as they see fit.



That's a funny response. The thing you don't get is that this is supposed to be a SPORT. SPORT has always been a way for people to compete, to vanquish opponents. It's a socially acceptable avenue to play survival of the fittest without all those nasty social effects. A basic human instinct. You know, to the victor goes the spoils. It's really a common ethic in all sports, and many other aspects of life. It's just been turned on its head in disc golf by the masses.

Chuck, I would have lots of "proof" if y'all would publish "amount invested," "amount returned," and performance at every tournament and include this in all y'alls published data. I do know that it happens at just about every tournament however; so why on earth would it not play out in the aggregate?

Save me the argument that we can never create a perfect performance/reward system. I understand that. However, it hardly means we should not try.

james, name another sport that has only a 30 year history, less than 10,000 members in its worldwide organization, less than 10,000 registrants in its sanctioned events each year, is played almost entirely on public shared-use land, and in which a single 20 dollar bill can get you started.

bonus points if you can name a sport with just 3 of those characteristics that is supporting a True Pro base.

i'm not knocking our sport - it has a lot going for it. first on that list is the low cost to get started. second is a group of players who are maturing from their playing days into TD and leadership roles. some of those folks understand that nothing you do with payouts or entry fees or "Pro taxes" is gonna take the sport to the top.

some of our strengths are our biggest weaknesses. public land crimps our courses and constrains how we can market our sport. low entry cost makes it easy for players to walk away to try something else.

we need more players and the momentum they will bring. to get those we need a high quality image - and a Hi-Def image would be even better.

I can tell you right now that the Pro ratio of payout to entry fees will be positive every year going back at least 10 years and the Amateur payout "at cost" to entry fees will be negative. That's a no brainer.

here's an interesting fact. the number on the left is how many players we had in 1970. the number on the right is the average annual growth rate that would have gotten us to 2005's registrant number:

2 - 26%
100 - 13%
500 - 8.5%

anyone have any idea whats the earliest year with actual tournament player numbers? if so what are those numbers? (i cant even find the year the PDGA was founded on the website.)

For us to continue growing at the rate Brakel projected will require a high percentage of that growth to occur on private pay for play courses. I'm sure a lot of you in major metro areas still know of enough suburbs that still could use or have property for courses in public parks. But if you think about what it means to expand the number by a factor of 5 or 10, it becomes mind boggling. In the Twin Cities greater metro we have around 30 courses. I can't even imagine what 100 courses would seem like let alone 200-300. That transformation to private courses will dramatically change the dynamics and raise our profile immensely (if it actually happens). It will be interesting to see how that will shift the competition perspective.

james, name another sport that has only a 30 year history, less than 10,000 members in its worldwide organization, less than 10,000 registrants in its sanctioned events each year, is played almost entirely on public shared-use land, and in which a single 20 dollar bill can get you started.

bonus points if you can name a sport with just 3 of those characteristics that is supporting a True Pro base.




Damnit, there you go again. Who said anything about "supporting a true pro base?" For the umpteenth time, that is not my argument.

That's not how it works though. There may not even be a PDGA presence where the course is located. Even if there is, some special thing has to occur to get over the hump and get more PDGA members. It's a chicken or egg scenario. You'd like a PDGA event but why do it unless you have PDGA members nearby? You'd like to join the PDGA but there are no PDGA events in your area so why join? There are hundreds of small town courses and even larger areas like this. I was part of the D-tier initiative to break thru on this. But there are places with 20 years of active local activity with little or no PDGA activity (Montana is one BIG place).



Two months ago I travelled to Santa Cruz and played De LaVega. I wore my PDGA shirt and was surprised when numerous players commented on it (BTW - I played 6 rounds out there at different times and never once saw fewer than 30 players). Most of the people that commented were obviously skilled long term players, they just weren't PDGA members and didn't seem to be interested in becoming members. It was a different culture not centered on tournament play.

1970 is too far back. First PDGA Pro World Championship was 1982. Not sure there was any such thing as sanctioned events for some time after that but we need some older timers here.

****, Mark Twain is probably grinning in his grave.

While I won't attempt to dispute your statistics, you miss the point. Badly. It is clear that the system encourages people to migrate towards, or remain in lower divisions. It's a better bet. People aren't stupid.

Your statistic has absolutely nothing to do with the financial incentives layed before people making decisions on whether they should move up. That is what the argument is about.

the 1970 came from the PDGA information page, altho it did say "1970s" not 1970 specifically.

but it also says we have 16,000 members. maybe as we clean up the language onthe message board we couldclean up the inaccuracies on the official Information page.

Why does everyone feel a need to sidetrack this debate?

It is not a debate about adding money to pros.

It is not a debate about whether the sport can support top players like other sports.

It is not about making masters play open, because the same problem exists for the pro masters division. Typically, older ams do the same thing as their younger counterparts: they stay ams because that's where the financial incentives are.

In my mind, this sport is way to young to support pros financially, but that is hardly a rebuttal to the charge that something stinks badly in the competitive system.

Once again why are y'all so opposed to injecting equity into the system?

Oh yeah, just to anticipate the time-honored response. It is hardly equitable to purposely create a system that financially encourages people to not-improve their skills. I can't think of any SPORT (I need to capitalize it just so that y'all remember that the PDGA isn't in the business of creating a mini socialist state) that is riddled with the characteristic of lesser skilled players reaping more financial rewards than better skilled players.



There's a simple enough solution, take the money out of the equation. Have everyone play for trophy and recognize the top guys for being the best. Point is, no one, including you I suspect, is going to go for that. Point is that it is about money. Point is that making things fair ( and you're right, on a philisophical level it's not fair) will actually hurt the sport. So what's the solution? Somewhere James, you have to compromise.

james, i really wasnt trying to confuse the issue. just surfing one of the many tangents.

but why would you care about making people move up or how Ams get paid or what motivation we create for them if supporting a True Pro base wasnt the reason? it is clear that its Kevin's reason.

its Nick's goal to create a True Am base. the only other organization i can think of in the entire world that has a True Am base is the Seventh Day Adventists. those guys are the true True Ams!!! they dont seem to be growing so quickly either.

James,

Why do you care what they do ? Do you think that taking away their incentive to play where they are at will magically make them good enough to want to play in Open ? They can still play for nothing where they are, and it will cost them less.

The problem I see is that instead of playing for nothing in either the Am or Pro divisions, they will stop playing tournaments altogether.

Maybe we can get an influx of "pure amateur" players to take their place and maybe it will be strong enough to be bigger than we were with the prize grubbing Ams, but why make it one or the other ?

Why can't both exist. I agree with Chuck on hiw latest point. The PDGA needs a tour card that must be earned before you can compete as a Pro player at a tour event. Just like Q-School (http://www.pgatour.com/qschool) in the PGA. You can't play unless you meet the requirements. You drop below the requirements, you go to the nationwide tour.

Maybe Chuck is correct, we need a limbo division between Adv and Pro called Open. This would be for all of the players that would like to play Pro, but can't earn a card. Perhaps it could be a cash/prize division for Rookie players that wish to maintain their eligibility for Am Worlds. After that, they are playing Open in Limbo until they can earn a card. Passing the officials test would have to be part of earning the card as well.

earning a Pro Tour card has been floated for at least a couple years. the problem is not enuf Pro level players. but we could still issue them and use them at only the biggest events. earning a Pro card is a great goal and some method of making it happen should be pursued.

Passing the officials test should be mandatory to even get a PDGA membership (i know this wont happen because it would cause some to not want to go through the triouble of having to take a test to get a membership..regardless if it makes perfect sense to require it)

It means something to "cash", the amount is quickly forgotton, but it does mean something. You take away that part of it, you're taking away part of the fun. I want to win more than the person I beat, but the amount really doesn't matter. A small players pack IS nice, but that isn't what I really came for. I believe the payout should be flat in Adv and even flatter in Int, but there should be a payout based on performance. Why does Open have a performance based payout?

The amatuer name should be taken away and reserved for what Nick proposes because there will eventually be a need for it. Just leave the names as is minus the "amatuer."

Why does everyone feel a need to sidetrack this debate?

It is not a debate about adding money to pros.

It is not a debate about whether the sport can support top players like other sports.

It is not about making masters play open, because the same problem exists for the pro masters division.

This is one of those threads that has more sidetracks than the Chicago switchyards. But if you re-read the first post, I think you'll see that this thread is about all these things. Certainly the first post addressed the first and last issues directly. The second issue is implied by the others.

554 AMS at Bowling Green! Where does the pros even get a quarter of that that kind of turnout?



Why, because outside of Am Worlds, Bowling Green has been the biggest Am tournament around. I know of several Texas players who went.

554 AMS at Bowling Green! Where does the pros even get a quarter of that that kind of turnout?



Why, because outside of Am Worlds, Bowling Green has been the biggest Am tournament around. I know of several Texas players who went.



Just imagine how big it could be if it offered the recreational divisions.

I have a question....
do T.D.'S have to follow the PDGA payout or is that a suggesed.
This flat pro payout thing is horse droppings



Vinnie, I agree with you almost 100%.

But then we are both old school. I think we should go back to paying the to 30% of the field.

Finally caught up with this thread. :D

Why is the Pro field seem so small now compaired to years ago.

Well for one, the Am fields are MUCH larger nowdays.

I truely feel that the Raitings are working. They stop sandbaggin in the lower divisions. They also tell a top Advance layer that it may be close to time to move up.

Most of the Advanced players will never more up. Not because they are money grubbing, but because they will never get any better than they are now.

This is not because they are not playing with better players, but because they just can't get any better.

As for me, I was playing my best disc golf 10 years ago. It has been downhill ever sense. If it were not for the new discs these days, I would not be throwing farther than I was 10 years ago.

The thing no one is considering, or only a few, is that there is NO significant difference between any of our divisions and more importantly, our classifications.

The important thing is not necessarily to get it right for now, in our current sponsorshipless state, but to focus on getting it right for when we have sponsorship in the future.

You know "Band Aid" would fit perfectly as a sponsor for disc golf ;)

I have given up, there is no way I can keep up with this thread.

James, I understand what you are saying now. I did try and go back and read your posts. I strive to make the open payouts at my tournament, significantly higher than the am payouts. I went back and reviewed the payouts and the last paid Open player did receive a higher payout than the highest Int/Rec players. This was not true in the advanced field, but it was close. However, the advanced fields also had a higher number of players than open. So sometimes they will overlap.

WARNING, SHAMELESS PLUG!!! (Please remember the Piney Woods Pro-Am is a benefit to the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and your attendance helps to raise money!)

Generally, I do this by busting my b**t to get a high amount of added cash for the open players. Added merchandise is generally distributed in CTP's, this does not pad the amateur payouts. By the way, the past two years has seen $750 in CTP's handed out to all cards. Amateurs receive sponsorship in the form of reduced player pack costs. Instead of charging $10 for t-shirts that cost me $7.50, wholesale (five overlay front and one on back) I charge the amateurs $3. This is not bragging, I just think that amateur sponsorship should come in the form of reduced player pack cost first. Just me. If I made one mistake, it was in buying to much of one manufacturer's tourney stamped plastic. I could not return it and unfortunately the am payouts had a disportionate ly (sp?) high amount of that manufacturers plastic. This year I will not be doing that.

This added cash and reduced player pack is a lot of work for only one tournament a year. I don't think I could do it if I was running multiple tournaments and that may be part of the problem. There was a time that TD's spent a lot of time developing sponsorship and it appears to me that has changed over the last decade. I could be wrong, it is just my perception.

Now with a better understanding of your concern, I will keep more of an eye directed towards making the open payout, with better players, higher than their counterparts in the amateur ranks. To accomplish this I don't think we need to strip prizes from the amateur ranks, as TD's we need to work harder to bump up the open payouts. Of course this will be hard to do. If I have $1000 of extra cash, it is a lot easier to fill an event by promising a huge ace pot than it is to put that into the open payouts. I am not attacking anyone. A tournament floats based on the am players that show up, not on the open players. No offense meant, it is just the way it is. If I had over $1000 of sponsorship for the open division, I would consider putting the extra cash into the ace pot. It just draws more players. One thing open players could do is to remember which tournaments follow these guidelines and push other open players to show up to that tournament.


Damnit, there you go again. Who said anything about "supporting a true pro base?" For the umpteenth time, that is not my argument.

That's a funny response. The thing you don't get is that this is supposed to be a SPORT. SPORT has always been a way for people to compete, to vanquish opponents. It's a socially acceptable avenue to play survival of the fittest without all those nasty social effects. A basic human instinct. You know, to the victor goes the spoils. It's really a common ethic in all sports, and many other aspects of life. It's just been turned on its head in disc golf by the masses.



Think about football. For years and years and years, a college scholarship was worth far more than any "pro" football player's salary could hope to be. The college game was huge and the pro game was tiny. Tens of thousands of people went to college games and only tens or hundreds went to pro games. I guess that wasn't fair either. The pro players we re more skilled, but they also had to have side jobs to survive.

I guess the pros were playing for the love of the game.

That's kind of where pro disc golf is now.

I can tell you this James, pro football didn't get big because the colleges started reducing eligibility in order to save them. It got big because the pros kept working at promoting their chose sport until they figured out something that John Q Public liked and was willing to pay for.

I agree with Chuck on hiw latest point. The PDGA needs a tour card that must be earned before you can compete as a Pro player at a tour event. Just like Q-School (http://www.pgatour.com/qschool) in the PGA. You can't play unless you meet the requirements. You drop below the requirements, you go to the nationwide tour.


Wow, if you want to kill the Open Pro division fast and effectively, then just implement this plan and prevent unqualified players from donating.

I agree with Chuck on hiw latest point. The PDGA needs a tour card that must be earned before you can compete as a Pro player at a tour event. Just like Q-School (http://www.pgatour.com/qschool) in the PGA. You can't play unless you meet the requirements. You drop below the requirements, you go to the nationwide tour.


Wow, if you want to kill the Open Pro division fast and effectively, then just implement this plan and prevent unqualified players from donating.



Just passing along another point of view. It would make more Ams to support fewer Pros.
If you only had 5 Pros competing you could pay out 100% with the added cash. :cool:

Not so fast Rhett, he may be on to something

What about if our PDGA dues at sanctioned events goes up for MA1 from $3 to $10, then the MA1 isn't playing for the stacks of merch they are now, they still get paid out in merch like they do now, but the purse isn't as big to draw from.

Then the PDGA can use that $10 as a marketing tool or add it to advertising for the pro events to make it an amazing accomplishment to be able to play in a pro only event.

I agree with Chuck on hiw latest point. The PDGA needs a tour card that must be earned before you can compete as a Pro player at a tour event. Just like Q-School (http://www.pgatour.com/qschool) in the PGA. You can't play unless you meet the requirements. You drop below the requirements, you go to the nationwide tour.


Wow, if you want to kill the Open Pro division fast and effectively, then just implement this plan and prevent unqualified players from donating.



IMO, if the plan is to continue to rely on "unqualified players" to donate to the purse, the future of the Pro divisions is pretty bleak and they definitely won't grow much beyond where there are now anyway. Maybe the idea of earning your way onto the "pro tour" is a bit premature at this stage, but the primary reason for rejection of such a concept should NOT be about how many "unqualified players" will be left out of the pro divisions at our events.

--Josh

Why not charge the evil sandbagging MA1s $100 to play, AND SEND ALL OF THAT CASH TO THE MPO PURSE!!!!!!!!!

**** King-o-sob-bee I think that is a GREAT IDEA!

:D:D:D:D:D

Use that $10 as a marketing tool or add it to advertising for the pro events to make it an amazing accomplishment to be able to play in a pro only event.


Well, it would really only be $7, and the MA1s would be easier to convince if say $2 of that went toward EDGE to help develop the future so it would really only be $5.

It would have to include the new MA0 division as well.

Then we could add the $2 to all divisions for new player development.

Forget trying to get more players in Open,

TELL ME what I have to do to move back to ADV cuz its mucho grande ;)

How long do I have to go without cashing? A year?
All I have to do is get my rating under 955? Hell I don't even have to do that.

so 1 year without cash???

seriously, I need to know

I think you would just do it at events where there was significant added cash like A and NT. Not sure about B-tiers whose amounts of added cash have a wide range. Might have to separate those into two categories. For example, you have a B-tier with a Pro day with conventional Open and an Am day where the Expert division is available where any player under 1000 could enter. Some of the prizes in Expert could include paid entry fees into the Open division on its day like qualifying.

I had been thinking about this where the number of 1000 plus players determined the number of paid places. Let's say it's an A-tier with only 20 players from 1000 up and $5000 added cash. You pay 10 players. This is a good deal for the 20 players because even with $2000 in entry fees, they're playing for $7000 purse among players they can compete with. Most players from 955-1000 are playing Expert let's say. However, a few want to play with the big dogs. One more paid place would be added for every two players under 1000 who enter. No matter how many players enter Open, the number of paid places is never more than the number of players with 4-digit ratings.

What this does is keep the added cash for those who are pro 1000+ players. Provides a place for the 955-1000 players to both play, produce more revenue and added cash. They may be more inclined to enter Open at the lower tier events when Expert wouldn't be available and added cash would be low for the 1000+ pros anyway. The 1000+ guys might be less inclined to even play the C-tiers making it more likely for under 1000 players to enter Open at those events.

seriously

If I were to happen to play OPEN and cash, if I donate that money to charity will that ruin my Amatuer status?

If I get another Social Security # can I get a new membership?

Seriously.....Seriously

http://www.chuck.thechiefsource.com/hello/804228/640/cartman-2005.05.11-21.27.45.jpg

Rhett,

You know the REAL reason I want to play with the AMS is because my AM career got cut prematurly and I missed out on my AM playing days. I only got to play Novice 5 times, AM once and ADV 3 times

PLEASE PLEASE let me play AM again I really missed out on those great times in my life.

CHUCK, my game has went David Duval I can't be any better than a 940 golfer anymore, how long do I have to wAit before I can go play ADV?

It will be more anticipated than a Masters player that turns 39

Not so fast Rhett, he may be on to something

What about if our PDGA dues at sanctioned events goes up for MA1 from $3 to $10, then the MA1 isn't playing for the stacks of merch they are now, they still get paid out in merch like they do now, but the purse isn't as big to draw from.

Then the PDGA can use that $10 as a marketing tool or add it to advertising for the pro events to make it an amazing accomplishment to be able to play in a pro only event.



Am I really reading this? Kevin, how long is this going to last before the MA1 howls so loudly they can here it at SN? It's a great idea but the AMS will never tolerate it. You don't want to offer AMS a cut price to play up, you want to pick their pockets when they register. :cool:

I've completly changed my view on the entire subject

If you can't beat them join them. We should keep things exactly the same, cuz in 12 months i should be eligible to play ADV

Forget trying to get more players in Open,

TELL ME what I have to do to move back to ADV cuz its mucho grande ;)

How long do I have to go without cashing? A year?
All I have to do is get my rating under 955? Hell I don't even have to do that.

so 1 year without cash???



Kevin,

You keep saying this like it means something. It doesn't. Your position as a Pro only has relevance if the market feels it does. Pro Ball Golfers make a lot of money because the market says they should. They don't make it because they are good. Being good is required to make money or get recognition, but doesn't make it so. You and James have this mistaken notion that because people are good at disc golf, that should be recognized and rewarded. The reality is that in any sport good means nothing unless a) the public is willing to pay, or b) sponsors are willing to pay. Neither exists here. Until you recognize this fact of life, you're not going to be able to help the Pro pool.

I have a suggestion for you Kevin. Go and read up on market economics. The guys that are really good at this all have secondary degrees in psycology. Sometime in the 60s some guy realized that what drives economics and markets is human emotions. You guys are trying to look logically at the situation and the problem is that people very rarely act logically.

IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT YOU AND JAMES ARE RIGHT.

The market/people don't care. They act in their own self interest. The question Kevin is how can you make that work for you to help your cause? Chuck has suggested the only viable way I've seen yet to do that. What you need to do is figure out a way to get the AMS to play up because they feel it is in their best interest to do so. That doesn't include the better competion, that already exists and it ain't workin' boy. If you can come up with a mechanism that does that, you'll win and it will be 100% evident.

Here is one way to accomplish the above stated goal. I've not thought much about it so I may be wrong but try this:

Mix the AMS and Pros together in one category. Make a shallower Am payout, i.e. about 2/3rds of what it is now. The cash goes to the top guys as it would; the Am payout starts where last cash ends. It doesn't matter if you're a Pro or an AM you get cash or plastic depending on where you end up. Replace the AM bracket with a trophy only option and allow any Ams that want to play there to play there. I know there are some flaws here but I thought it would be fun to watch people tear it up. :D

One addition, you might want to think of a mechanism to kick that plastic payout down to the "true" AMS.

Kevin,

You would not like it, the payouts are a lot flatter now :cool:

But, you could play only left handed at several tournaments. I bet within two tournaments you could get to under 955.

The proper procedure for tanking your rating down is

(a) take an entire year away from sanctioned tournaments
(b) tank one tournament
(c) wait for the next ratings update.

Playing lefty won't do it. Either the rounds will be so low they don't count, or they will just affect your rating a little because you have so many other rounds. I know. I played lefty for a while last year.

Playing lefty won't do it. Either the rounds will be so low they don't count, or they will just affect your rating a little because you have so many other rounds. I know. I played lefty for a while last year.



You are probably right, he would probably only get good with his left hand anyway.

I agree Lyle thats why there is no more hope for the open division, I'm trying to set myself up to be able to play where all the action is. ADV

how come all the 1000 rated players want more entrants in the Open fields and the 950 and unders are mostly telling them to take a hike? is there some inverse correlation between ratings and brains? :D

there is a problem in that though Kev.

#1- you would have to not play any tourneys for the next year

#2 you would have to tank your next 8 rounds back after that year.

#3 it would last one, maybe 2, ratings update because your rating would raise back over 955 real quick ..unless of course the year layoff made you forget how to play.

#4 You have to start that process all over again.

The upside is that you could time it out to where you could play BG Ams every other year.

I think you should form an alliance with an AM player. Both of you wear masks at ALL times, like Mexican Wrestlers. You play the events you want to play, such as BG Ams, AM worlds etc....And the am can play a dream tourney for him like USDGC. Thats freakin genius right there!!

Sandalman, I take back everything I have said about getting people to move up to OPEN, I'll just go back and play with the ADV. Thats where its at! I just need to find out how many rated rounds get thrown out, cuz it may take a while to get it down, but it never says that a 1000 rated player can't play adv, just that it is suggested that >955 plays open.

So I should be able to make my ADV debut at World DUBS next year.

What you need to do is figure out a way to get the AMS to play up because they feel it is in their best interest to do so.



Though this is absolutely correct, there are two problems with it, both the same thing.

1) There are no amateurs in disc golf only prize and cash players with identical motivations for participating; so if protection is offered, it will be used based on the only available motivation.

2) Since there is no meaningful difference in motivation between these classifications or divisions there never will be the given "motivation" (greed) to move up until our sport reaches mainstream acceptance and gains significant sponsorship.

"3") Our sport will never reach mainstream acceptance or gain significant sponsorship without a much more vast and strong player base. What we currently call amateur is naturally bigger because the protection and entitlement is a tangible fact. But it is also limited by those very aspects, JUST AS THE CASH DIVISIONS ARE. They become top heavy and eventually, one way or another, crush themselves leading to exodus from the sport.

"4") To reach mainstream recognition and gain major sponsorship we don't need more prize or cash players, we need 100% growth of something we don't yet have, an Amateur Class. One not motivated by profit or any kind of compensation. One where there is a clear and definitive line between IT and the cash prize classification. This classification will be the foundation of our sport; not what we currently call amateur, but a REAL Amateur Classification.

Playing the "Nutshell Game" to attempt some contrived motivation to move up to divisions where you have less advantage, or just remove the entitled/protected divisions is fools errand. It will never yield the significant and permanent benefits a True Amateur Class will. Never. And even incremental improvement just further entrenches our misconceptions and makes it that much harder to peer outside the box we have created for ourselves.

the entire fallacy of your argument, Nick, is contained in your point #4.

the PDGA does NOT have an "True Am" class, according to your defininition.

but the SPORT does - its called casuals, and hey play just about every course on the planet every day. WHY would those players every think of joining the PDGA? joiningthe PDGA kinda implies an interest in competition, and ultimately for many, profit of some sort.

your desire to remake the PDGA as the "True Am" organizing body is misguided, in my opinion. "True Ams" dont need or want to be organized. they wanna get together with their bro's and go goof off on the disc golf course.

there's plenty of True Ams out there. but they dont belong in the PDGA. the do belong in the PDGA's ancillary activities like EDGE and so on, but not as participating Members. their goals and objectives run contrary to those of the PDGA.


someone please quote this so Nick sees it. he has me on micro-ban again :D

Casuals are not ams. They are not interested in organized competition, while ams are.

Nick's ams are interested in organized competition, but they are not motivated by financial returns. They ARE clearly distinct from the what the the PDGA assumes ams are. This is pretty much irrefutable.

Ams in other sports are actually prize players just like disc golfers whose sport either prevents them from winning prizes, or hasn't evolved to disc golf's competition structure, or their expenses of running an event (field reservation & officials) eats up what might available for prizes. There are no True Ams, just frustrated prize players who wish they could win stuff like disc golfers.

1) There are no amateurs in disc golf only prize and cash players with identical motivations for participating; so if protection is offered, it will be used based on the only available motivation.



Nick, i have not followed this thread in its entirety, let alone have i been thinking about this topic as long or as thoroughly as many here. i am trying to decipher what exactly you are saying, so let me state what i am hearing you say:


we really don't have a true amateur division, we only have pro divisions in which the prizes are plastic or cash.


that since many players play at a level that leads to an almost guaranteed return for their entry fee if they play in the plastic prize division, and almost a guarantee of not getting any return for their money if they play in the cash prize division -- there exists in the very structure of our PDGA competitve system a disincentive to 'move up'?


further, that the conventional wisdom that the way to grow the cash division in terms of both participants and payouts is to get more of the existing prize pros (aka: "advanced baggers") to move into the cash pro ranks is fundamentally flawed (it is a sink or swim scenario in which only a small percentage will be able to keep from sinking and dropping out of PDGA disc golf or back down to the plastic prize ranks)


finally, that creating a true amateur division (trophy only) has much greater potential in doing what will really help the touring pros: it will increase participation and will grow the membership which in turn will attract greater corporate sponsorship leading to greater media coverage and cash payouts for the very skilled few?


- - - -

if the above re-statement of your position is correct -- i think you are onto something. the rub appears to be how do you attract interest on the part of event TD's to open events to trophy only participants. Player packages plus PDGA fees seems to offer some incentive... Would you support the PDGA creating a "trophy only" amateur membership option which would be say $30 per year? (and would yield ratings, DGWN subscription, etc.)

also, i as a 946 rated 44 year old, am about to play my first big Pro Event (Bowling Green). after reading your &amp; Kev's comments -- i am beginning to wonder if i signed up for the wrong BG weekend(?) :D fortunately for me i can play in the Masters division where i optimistically have an outside (longshot) chance of cashing (and a much better chance of having a great time and learning what i need to do to raise my game to compete at a Pro level).

Ams in other sports are actually prize players just like disc golfers whose sport either prevents them from winning prizes, or hasn't evolved to disc golf's competition structure, or their expenses of running an event (field reservation & officials) eats up what might available for prizes. There are no True Ams, just frustrated prize players who wish they could win stuff like disc golfers.



That is just wrong. Ams in other sports play for competition, its a motivation thing, they are not motivated by stacks of easily resellable merch. near equal to the elite of the sport.

Why do you think orgs cap prizes??? Dont look far, your answers are all around you.

the entire fallacy of your argument, Nick, is contained in your point #4.

the PDGA does NOT have an "True Am" class, according to your defininition.

but the SPORT does - its called casuals, and hey play just about every course on the planet every day. WHY would those players every think of joining the PDGA? joiningthe PDGA kinda implies an interest in competition, and ultimately for many, profit of some sort.

your desire to remake the PDGA as the "True Am" organizing body is misguided, in my opinion. "True Ams" dont need or want to be organized. they wanna get together with their bro's and go goof off on the disc golf course.

there's plenty of True Ams out there. but they dont belong in the PDGA. the do belong in the PDGA's ancillary activities like EDGE and so on, but not as participating Members. their goals and objectives run contrary to those of the PDGA.


someone please quote this so Nick sees it. he has me on micro-ban again :D



Give the Man a cookie! Although there are some that have posted later that Pat is wrong, in terms of this discussion he is correct! We are talking about sponsorships and recognition with the realization that numbers means money.

Even if we don't recognize these guys, the parks departments do. You don't think they're building those courses for the 8-9000 PDGA members do you?

The question is what can we do with this peice of information. Remember, we are bragging that there are 500,000 playing (by now it's 1,000,000. What can we do with that?

Chuck, your insistence that every successful sport is envious of disc golf is comical. We have had this debate before, but I'm sure major league baseball would be twice what it is now if those 7 year olds were playing for a loot of aluminum bats.

Quintessential Protectionist Misconception: <font color="red">Ams in other sports are actually prize players just like disc golfers whose sport either prevents them from winning prizes, or hasn't evolved to disc golf's competition structure, or their expenses of running an event (field reservation & officials) eats up what might available for prizes. There are no True Ams, just frustrated prize players who wish they could win stuff like disc golfers. </font>

It should come as no surprise here or elsewhere that folks that have never experienced, or have forgotten, true amateur competition think that the only motivation for participation is to �gamble�.

I don�t care if they never get it. I do care if the PDGA never gets it.

The caps are to keep players from earning a living winning Am events.

Please show me an individual sport with a national competitive stucture outside of academics or youth sports that has a true amateur class. I have been trying to think of one, and I just can't come up with one. I can think of a few team sports that work like that, youth sports, and scholastic programs, community organized leagues, but no adult individual sports that are for competition only.

Have you seen the payouts recently ? The adv winners are no longer walking out with the rumored "miles of plastic" anymore. Each place wins a few bucks more than the next. In the rec divs, several places often win the same amount without ties.

I don�t care if they never get it. I do care if the PDGA never gets it.



Nicely said!

Why do you think orgs cap prizes???



The organizers/TDs are the controlling entities in any organized sport. Hard to get around that. If they are running things, they are doing it for a living (all school athletics). They can't afford or won't afford to pay participants because they can't afford to. If players are willing to pay higher entry fees, why would the organizer give part of that back to the players unless forced to do it by competition from other organizers? The current pseudo amateur structures are maintained because they are monopolies. Or, it's a case where the organizer goes out of business if they give away too much.

Our organizers were all volunteers in the beginning. Then, the merchandise strucuture came along and made players happy and generated money for pros and helped cover expenses but TDs were still volunteers and many times lost money.

Here's the most telling situation. Why is it that few park departments run DG events? It's not that the rec supervisors don't understand how to run events or leagues. It's because they can't afford to do it like other sports they run where the money they take in pays salaries for park people. Any park run disc golf event or leagues I've ever seen, and they are very few, are not well attended because they don't match the economic expectations of the players.

How many leagues do you know where you pay for 10 weeks in advance? (I'd really like to hear of any) That's how all park programs usually run. You pay in advance for the program. Let's say our sport completely evolved from the True Am perspective and park leagues and events for DG were like other park programs with trophies or ribbons for prizes. How long do you think they would survive if an independent organizer came along and started offering leagues and events with our current prize model? I'm pretty sure it would destroy the park programs. The only thing that might save the park programs is that they could talk amongst themselves and prevent non park sanctioned events from being run in their parks or charge such high fees that the cost was prohibitive. That's a form of monopoly and similar to the current strangehold the school "amateur" sport structure has today. If alternatives were allowed, I'd be willing to bet that prize based systems would replace what's currently there.

Casuals are not ams. They are not interested in organized competition, while ams are.

Nick's ams are interested in organized competition, but they are not motivated by financial returns. They ARE clearly distinct from the what the the PDGA assumes ams are. This is pretty much irrefutable.



I disagree, a number of these Ams come to the unsanctioned minis that I hold on Saturdays. They aren't PDGA members and they are quite interested in prizes. You are correct in saying they are not what the PDGA assumes AMS are but only at the level that you represent the PDGA. The Board thinks about these guys all the time and tries to figure ways to induce them to join and play.

Please show me an individual sport with a national competitive stucture outside of academics or youth sports that has a true amateur class. I have been trying to think of one, and I just can't come up with one. I can think of a few team sports that work like that, youth sports, and scholastic programs, community organized leagues, but no adult individual sports that are for competition only.






Check this out. http://www.usms.org/about.php

It should come as no surprise here or elsewhere that folks that have never experienced, or have forgotten, true amateur competition think that the only motivation for participation is to �gamble�.



I can't remember any, because I have not come across any since leaving school. The motivation in school had nothing to do with being competitive, it was a social thing. Pee Wee football had nothing to do with competing, it was where your friends were. Intramural ultimate was fun, but the reasons for being there were social more than competitive. I have never been exposed to adult individual true amateur competition.

Scott,

I am not meaning to be argumentitive, but your statements below contradict each other. First you talk about other sports playing for competition sake only and then you point out that other sports cap their prize totals. Either they payout prizes or they don't.

The only sports that I know of that cap their amounts are Ball Golf and Disc Golf. In ball golf it is $750 worth of prizes. In Disc Golf it is capped by the payout tables and is effectively 3 times the entry fee. This changes if there is added merchandise as sponsorship, but for the most part it is right around 3 times the entry fee.

Also, please list any sports, played Nationally by adults that don't compete for prizes and I will list one that does. I have offered this challenge before and did not get any takers. I am even willing to give two that do for one that you provide.

I don't see the problem as amaterus getting paid out, but tend to lean toward the problem as James has explained it. Amateurs should not be taking home more winnings than their counterparts in the Open division. I feel this can be mostly overcome by TD's working harder to up the cash to the Open division. The am payouts seem very flat and are fairly deep in payout.



That is just wrong. Ams in other sports play for competition, its a motivation thing, they are not motivated by stacks of easily resellable merch. near equal to the elite of the sport.

Why do you think orgs cap prizes??? Dont look far, your answers are all around you.

Yes Rob, that is essentially it.

All I ask is that the PDGA officially include them in planning and our competitive system and set standards that protect them from the influence of prize/cash competition/motivations.

I don't want any forcing of directors to run events for these players. The motivation for running such events should be self-evident to folks that "get it". Those that don't, shouldn't necessarily feel threatened by them.

PDGA Membership should be very similar to our prize/cash divisions. I'd set dues the same as it is for what we currently call amateurs, with full benefits. True Amateurs are not poor, they can and will want to support the PDGA fully, not begrudging their dues based on the same "for-profit" motivations many prize/cash players obviously hold.

One thing I don't want is for these folks to be forced into the same old merry-go-round ride the prize/cash divisions are in providing new "meat" (or added cash) to their protected/entitled divisions only to be spit out the other end. They must be on their OWN competitive track. Separate, protected and free to grow and expand without fear of being used as a direct cash cow for the prize/cash divisions. The reason I use the word "direct" is because though I don't want direct skimming of their resources, the truth is that they will provide 80% to 95% of sponsorship dollars for prize/cash divisions down the line as they buy the products and services that will bring our sport to mainstream attention, and that in turn will be the mechanism ingaining significant and major sponsorship for the prize/cash divisions.

Who is arguing that more casual disc golfers is not a great thing? Everyone agrees that in the long term, efforts like EDGE and getting new courses are far more important than payout structures. This is just more of y'alls diversion: "there is not enough money, players, spectators, etc. to support pros, there should be a concerted effort to grow casuals, etc."

Well, of course these are true. Do we really need reams of pages to agree on those observations? This is about having a competitive structure worthy of a SPORT, having an organization that cares about the SPORT more than it cares about the desires of its majority, having an organization that will honestly look at the results of its policies, and make changes, and having an organization with real insight and foresight.

Please show me an individual sport with a national competitive stucture outside of academics or youth sports that has a true amateur class. I have been trying to think of one, and I just can't come up with one. I can think of a few team sports that work like that, youth sports, and scholastic programs, community organized leagues, but no adult individual sports that are for competition only.






Check this out. http://www.usms.org/about.php



I checked on the results of a few competitions, it is an organization of clubs or teams. All of the competitions are between teams. Yes, individual swimmers acting as part of a team.

Try again.

So maybe disc golfers should establish teams of "true ams" and compete against other teams.

Can't beat em, join em.

BTW - I'd like to make a comment on Neon's often supported Prize division. While I support this, I do so out of self interest. I'm flat out not interested in winning stacks of plastic at any level. What I am interested in is trophies. However, we often make this assumption that with some effort and pain, we could convert a lot of the "Ams" over to trophy only. I think this is incorrect. It sort of like saying we could convert the guys playing poker in Las Vegas to playing go fish, a highly competitive structured game.

The reality is that we are assuming that people play disc golf for the love of it and that the "gambling" aspect is secondary. We may be fooling ourselves. That isn't to say that people don't come to the sport for play, but that the ones who stay with it and play at the higher level may be there as much for the gambling as for the sport if not more so. It's called natural selection for those from Kansas and other states that don't believe in this kind of thing. Basically, we've set up a system that has selected a certain type of player. Those who love the sport more than the "gambling," they are Pat's Ams. They are the guys I met at De LaVega. We might just be clueless about them and don't even realize it. Perhaps we really should consider an ADGA that is seperate from the PDGA to appeal to them.

I'm getting really sick of this "show-me-another-sport-that-defines-ams-like-this" argument.

Show me another sport, or any activity outside of a socialist state, that is set up to financially encourage people not to improve.

btw Gary, if you were playing pee wee football and intramural sports solely because others were playing and presumably cared nothing about your performance, or the outcome of the game, then it doesn't surprise me that you don't understand the concept of "competition for competition's sake."

The caps are to keep players from earning a living winning Am events.



Kinda... they are to keep Professional motives and the things that come with it out of the amatuer part of the sport. It is there to ensure that Amatuers are competing for competition, prizes in other sports are after thoughts for the most part.

I would like for you to list me the Adult Amatuer sports that the Amatuers have the same motivations and over-compensation for mediocrity. Why aspire to be in the elite if you can kick back and stay mediocre and get near the same rewards.


I know there are multiple factors here, but the lack of amateurism is one of them and needs to be delt with since its growth can/will lead to growth in other areas that need it.


The Prize/Am payouts have become "better". I just cant help but think that there is something harmful about Amatuers even scratching the surface of the elite. Yeah some say "What does the Am payouts have to do the Pro payouts"....if they are equal then nothing, since being equal they should get the same return and be motivated by the same thing. The problem is that they are equal to begin with.

One solution...get more money into the Pro ranks and you get seperation.....but that is not so simple since the structure is set up to make sure no one cares about Pros cause they are nothing special, they are equal to everyone else.

Nick, i have not followed this thread in its entirety, let alone have i been thinking about this topic as long or as thoroughly as many here. i am trying to decipher what exactly you are saying, so let me state what i am hearing you say:


we really don't have a true amateur division, we only have pro divisions in which the prizes are plastic or cash.


that since many players play at a level that leads to an almost guaranteed return for their entry fee if they play in the plastic prize division, and almost a guarantee of not getting any return for their money if they play in the cash prize division -- there exists in the very structure of our PDGA competitve system a disincentive to 'move up'?


further, that the conventional wisdom that the way to grow the cash division in terms of both participants and payouts is to get more of the existing prize pros (aka: "advanced baggers") to move into the cash pro ranks is fundamentally flawed (it is a sink or swim scenario in which only a small percentage will be able to keep from sinking and dropping out of PDGA disc golf or back down to the plastic prize ranks)


finally, that creating a true amateur division (trophy only) has much greater potential in doing what will really help the touring pros: it will increase participation and will grow the membership which in turn will attract greater corporate sponsorship leading to greater media coverage and cash payouts for the very skilled few?

- - - -

if the above re-statement of your position is correct -- i think you are onto something. the rub appears to be how do you attract interest on the part of event TD's to open events to trophy only participants. Player packages plus PDGA fees seems to offer some incentive... Would you support the PDGA creating a "trophy only" amateur membership option which would be say $30 per year? (and would yield ratings, DGWN subscription, etc.)




Yes Rob, that is essentially it.

All I ask is that the PDGA officially include them in planning and our competitive system and set standards that protect them from the influence of prize/cash competition/motivations.

I don't want any forcing of directors to run events for these players. The motivation for running such events should be self-evident to folks that "get it". Those that don't, shouldn't necessarily feel threatened by them.

PDGA Membership should be very similar to our prize/cash divisions. I'd set dues the same as it is for what we currently call amateurs, with full benefits. True Amateurs are not poor, they can and will want to support the PDGA fully, not begrudging their dues based on the same "for-profit" motivations many prize/cash players obviously hold.

One thing I don't want is for these folks to be forced into the same old merry-go-round ride the prize/cash divisions are in providing new "meat" (or added cash) to their protected/entitled divisions only to be spit out the other end. They must be on their OWN competitive track. Separate, protected and free to grow and expand without fear of being used as a direct cash cow for the prize/cash divisions. The reason I use the word "direct" is because though I don't want direct skimming of their resources, the truth is that they will provide 80% to 95% of sponsorship dollars for prize/cash divisions down the line as they buy the products and services that will bring our sport to mainstream attention, and that in turn will be the mechanism in gaining significant and major sponsorship for the prize/cash divisions.



Nick, would you characterize the major difference between your idea and those that disagree with you? Is it that they are not trying to figure out what would attract casual players into the flock (and keep them here)?

One thing I don't want is for these folks to be forced into the same old merry-go-round ride the prize/cash divisions are in providing new "meat" (or added cash) to their protected/entitled divisions only to be spit out the other end. They must be on their OWN competitive track. Separate, protected and free to grow and expand without fear of being used as a direct cash cow for the prize/cash divisions. The reason I use the word "direct" is because though I don't want direct skimming of their resources, the truth is that they will provide 80% to 95% of sponsorship dollars for prize/cash divisions down the line as they buy the products and services that will bring our sport to mainstream attention, and that in turn will be the mechanism ingaining significant and major sponsorship for the prize/cash divisions.



You are contradicting your own arguments. Name a method that could be used to "force" these players into the "same old merry-go-round ride the prize/cash divisions are in".

Explain how they are in danger from the existing amateurs that are addicted to winning prizes ? If they offer no bait, why would the big bad prize players pounce ?

They are in no danger of becoming no other divisions "cash cow", though they could make quite a bit of money for a savvy TD. Their competitive structure would keep them separate without any artificial boundaries.

And they will never pay 85%-90% of anything for anybody else. They will pay for 100% of what they want (either directly or thru the attention of sponsors) and if anyone else gets a free ride, so be it.

There is nothing preventing you from proving your points in the real world right now. There is no need to prevent participation of the prize needy current ams because the prize needy won't be at your true am events.

Who is arguing that more casual disc golfers is not a great thing? Everyone agrees that in the long term, efforts like EDGE and getting new courses are far more important than payout structures. This is just more of y'alls diversion: "there is not enough money, players, spectators, etc. to support pros, there should be a concerted effort to grow casuals, etc."

Well, of course these are true. Do we really need reams of pages to agree on those observations? This is about having a competitive structure worthy of a SPORT, having an organization that cares about the SPORT more than it cares about the desires of its majority, having an organization that will honestly look at the results of its policies, and make changes, and having an organization with real insight and foresight.



Any organization, company, sport, or political body that doesn't acknowledge and at least pretend to cater to the desires of it's majority will fail fast. That is a fact. You're being altruistic with other people's lives James. While you might be willing to do that (by the way, you benefit from that altruism, being a Pro) most people don't. Even the most celebrated altruist of all time, Gandi, acted in his own self interest. Somehow, you expect a large number of people to act in a way that is inconsistent with that. To make it doubly hard, the evidence doesn't support the position you are taking, that those guys being altruistic for Pros... excuse me, the best interests of the sport... is in the best interests of the sport.

lyle, i will grant you that, good point. i would call those transitional players, or even potential PDGA members.

the entire fallacy of your argument, Nick, is contained in your point #4.




Someone actually read that far?

Lyle, that true amateurs are just casual players is the single greatest, and most harmful, misconception out there.

Here are some aspects of a "True Amateur"
1) A True Amateur plays disc golf for the love of the game.
2) A True Amateur competes for the love of competition.
3) A True Amateur has a singular passion for the sport.
4) A True Amateur gives no consideration to compensation for performance.
5) A True Amateur is the finest sportsman.
6) A True Amateur values fair play and plays by the rules from the correct motivation (because it is the RIGHT thing to do, not because they might loose money).
7) A True Amateur wants to play within an untainted environment, meaning with similarly motivated players.
8) A True Amateur values camaraderie over winning.
9) A True Amateur values community over winning.
10) A True Amateur values friends over winning.
11) A True Amateur values giving over taking.
12) A True Amateur values fun over winning.
13) A True Amateur is glad to see you because you share their passion, not because you are additional payout.
14) A True Amateur is not threatened by professional players because he is secure in who he is and why he is playing the sport.

You may be reading these aspects and thinking, �Hey! Some of these seem pretty familiar!� Yes that�s right. There may well be a few �True Amateurs� among us here in the PDGA.

Now it is imperative, for us here today and for all of those who come after us, that a place be set at the table of organized disc golf for us. Exclusive, separate, and protected with every ounce of effort we can muster from the corruption of motivation that has denied us our place to this point at that table.

I don�t want any apologies, excuses or any other rationalizations. I just want it to happen! And sooner rather than later, due, as discussed, to it becoming ever more difficult to do as we further entrench ourselves in one (and only one) way of thinking.

The reward to all of us is simply to great for us to miss this most important opportunity. Tinkering just isn�t going to git �r� dun.

I'm getting really sick of this "show-me-another-sport-that-defines-ams-like-this" argument.
<font color="blue">I still have not seen one mentioned. The biggest problem we have is that our Pros and Ams compete side by side at the same venue so comparison between Am adn Pro is much more difficult to avoid. If we had any real Pros, they would have their own tour and you could not compare one to the other.</font>

Show me another sport, or any activity outside of a socialist state, that is set up to financially encourage people not to improve. <font color="blue">Any sport that has divisions and no true Professional class, like disc golf.</font>

btw Gary, if you were playing pee wee football and intramural sports solely because others were playing and presumably cared nothing about your performance, <font color="blue"> No one asked if I cared about winning, they asked what my motivations were. I would not go out in the cold or wet to play just for the fun of competition, but I would to support the team. We played competitively as a team, but we were motivated by the comraderie. If you were not, I'm not sure I'd want you on my team.</font>or the outcome of the game, then it doesn't surprise me that you don't understand the concept of "competition for competition's sake."

Here are some aspects of a "True Amateur"
1) A True Amateur plays disc golf for the love of the game.
2) A True Amateur competes for the love of competition.
3) A True Amateur has a singular passion for the sport.
4) A True Amateur gives no consideration to compensation for performance.
5) A True Amateur is the finest sportsman.
6) A True Amateur values fair play and plays by the rules from the correct motivation (because it is the RIGHT thing to do, not because they might loose money).
7) A True Amateur wants to play within an untainted environment, meaning with similarly motivated players.
8) A True Amateur values camaraderie over winning.
9) A True Amateur values community over winning.
10) A True Amateur values friends over winning.
11) A True Amateur values giving over taking.
12) A True Amateur values fun over winning.
13) A True Amateur is glad to see you because you share their passion, not because you are additional payout.
14) A True Amateur is not threatened by professional players because he is secure in who he is and why he is playing the sport.


so according to this, an Open player could be a True Am!

even with #4 (i think points #4 are Nick's achilles heel :) ), since some Open players actually do not give consideration to compensation for performance - they are playing with their buds or just playing up, or whatever.


ps gonna need a quote here, or nick wont see it. niock, just take me off ignore and save us all some messageboard space. the servers are gagging enough already. :D

Scott,

I am not meaning to be argumentitive, but your statements below contradict each other. First you talk about other sports playing for competition sake only and then you point out that other sports cap their prize totals. Either they payout prizes or they don't.

The only sports that I know of that cap their amounts are Ball Golf and Disc Golf. In ball golf it is $750 worth of prizes. In Disc Golf it is capped by the payout tables and is effectively 3 times the entry fee. This changes if there is added merchandise as sponsorship, but for the most part it is right around 3 times the entry fee.

Also, please list any sports, played Nationally by adults that don't compete for prizes and I will list one that does. I have offered this challenge before and did not get any takers. I am even willing to give two that do for one that you provide.

I don't see the problem as amaterus getting paid out, but tend to lean toward the problem as James has explained it. Amateurs should not be taking home more winnings than their counterparts in the Open division. I feel this can be mostly overcome by TD's working harder to up the cash to the Open division. The am payouts seem very flat and are fairly deep in payout.



That is just wrong. Ams in other sports play for competition, its a motivation thing, they are not motivated by stacks of easily resellable merch. near equal to the elite of the sport.

Why do you think orgs cap prizes??? Dont look far, your answers are all around you.





Jerry, I cant help but think you are just being argumentitive since you take it upon yourself to put words into my mouth. I have never said other amatuers sports dont give prizes...please show me where i said that????

I have clearly (or atleast i think clearly) stated it is a motivation thing. Sure they win prizes, but that is NOT why they are there. They are there for competition sake. Caps are there to help ensure that.

And all of those things shine best in a team enviroment.
We need an organized team/season structure. The competitive structure will provide your ams with the protection you feel the need. The Team aspect will provide the comraderie and motiviation to get them out more than once.


Lyle, that true amateurs are just casual players is the single greatest, and most harmful, misconception out there.

Here are some aspects of a "True Amateur"
1) A True Amateur plays disc golf for the love of the game.
2) A True Amateur competes for the love of competition.
3) A True Amateur has a singular passion for the sport.
4) A True Amateur gives no consideration to compensation for performance.
5) A True Amateur is the finest sportsman.
6) A True Amateur values fair play and plays by the rules from the correct motivation (because it is the RIGHT thing to do, not because they might loose money).
7) A True Amateur wants to play within an untainted environment, meaning with similarly motivated players.
8) A True Amateur values camaraderie over winning.
9) A True Amateur values community over winning.
10) A True Amateur values friends over winning.
11) A True Amateur values giving over taking.
12) A True Amateur values fun over winning.
13) A True Amateur is glad to see you because you share their passion, not because you are additional payout.
14) A True Amateur is not threatened by professional players because he is secure in who he is and why he is playing the sport.

You may be reading these aspects and thinking, �Hey! Some of these seem pretty familiar!� Yes that�s right. There may well be a few �True Amateurs� among us here in the PDGA.

Now it is imperative, for us here today and for all of those who come after us, that a place be set at the table of organized disc golf for us. Exclusive, separate, and protected with every ounce of effort we can muster from the corruption of motivation that has denied us our place to this point at that table.

I don�t want any apologies, excuses or any other rationalizations. I just want it to happen! And sooner rather than later, due, as discussed, to it becoming ever more difficult to do as we further entrench ourselves in one (and only one) way of thinking.

The reward to all of us is simply to great for us to miss this most important opportunity. Tinkering just isn�t going to git �r� dun.



I would also rephrase #7. True Ams want to play against similarly skilled players and be protected from professionals.

Here are some aspects of a "True Amateur"
1) A True Amateur plays disc golf for the love of the game.
2) A True Amateur competes for the love of competition.
3) A True Amateur has a singular passion for the sport.
4) A True Amateur gives no consideration to compensation for performance.
5) A True Amateur is the finest sportsman.
6) A True Amateur values fair play and plays by the rules from the correct motivation (because it is the RIGHT thing to do, not because they might loose money).
7) A True Amateur wants to play within an untainted environment, meaning with similarly motivated players.
8) A True Amateur values camaraderie over winning.
9) A True Amateur values community over winning.
10) A True Amateur values friends over winning.
11) A True Amateur values giving over taking.
12) A True Amateur values fun over winning.
13) A True Amateur is glad to see you because you share their passion, not because you are additional payout.
14) A True Amateur is not threatened by professional players because he is secure in who he is and why he is playing the sport.


so according to this, an Open player could be a True Am!

even with #4 (i think points #4 are Nick's achilles heel :) ), since some Open players actually do not give consideration to compensation for performance - they are playing with their buds or just playing up, or whatever.


ps gonna need a quote here, or nick wont see it. niock, just take me off ignore and save us all some messageboard space. the servers are gagging enough already. :D



<font color="blue"> for Pat/Nick </font>

To make it doubly hard, the evidence doesn't support the position you are taking, that those guys being altruistic for Pros... excuse me, the best interests of the sport... is in the best interests of the sport.



Evidence????? The evidence brought forth in this thread amounts to nothing. For either side of the debate. It is just misleading stats brought forth by someone with an agenda.

Besides, I don't need any evidence. Mine is a simple ethical claim, based on the nature of SPORT itself:

If disc golf is truly a SPORT, then the SPORT should be structured to reward people as they improve their skills. Alternatively, if this is not possible, then the SPORT should be structured in a way that does not encorage people not to improve their skills.

Btw, I am a firm believer that if you are philosophically sound in your understanding of what a SPORT is, and make decisions based on that understanding, then over time, "evidence" will naturally follow.

Basically, I don't think any of y'all can honestly call what the PDGA runs a SPORT. In fact, if I were to logically follow y'alls theory, I would have very top-heavy rec payouts (actually, it might be a bottom-heavy payout), and progressively flatten them up the ladder.

Gary, is this the premise upon you base the idea that there need not be one? i.e. because you yourself have never experienced it?



It should come as no surprise here or elsewhere that folks that have never experienced, or have forgotten, true amateur competition think that the only motivation for participation is to �gamble�.



I can't remember any, because I have not come across any since leaving school. The motivation in school had nothing to do with being competitive, it was a social thing. Pee Wee football had nothing to do with competing, it was where your friends were. Intramural ultimate was fun, but the reasons for being there were social more than competitive. I have never been exposed to adult individual true amateur competition.



Did you ever play on a winning team Gary? The fire of competition still burns within my heart based on the experiences of my amateur play in middle and high school sports, as well as college intramurals, adult softball and basketball.

I played 4 years on 3 "True Amateur" adult basketball teams, and I can report though they were some of the best times of my life, there was no lack of intense competition. These leagues were all part of local/regional/national system.

I also played in essentially "True Amateur" competitions in all but the "Japan Open" disc golf competitions in Japan, and the battles were just as intense and vivid as they ever were back here with Craiger, Jim, Mela, Kady and others.

How do I know that such True Amateur competition is "REAL"? Because I experience it on a weekly basis out at doubles, tags, and Sunday morning rounds.

Now I want to bring that form of competition, Officially, to the PDGA; where it ALSO rightly belongs.

Scott,

The tables are not equal. Ams are limited to around 3 times their entry fee, open is over 9 times at 33 payout and with the extended tables under review it is as much as 25 times.


One solution...get more money into the Pro ranks and you get seperation.....but that is not so simple since the structure is set up to make sure no one cares about Pros cause they are nothing special, they are equal to everyone else.

<font color="blue">Everything you have said is backing up my position.</font>

Gary, is this the premise upon you base the idea that there need not be one? i.e. because you yourself have never experienced it?



It should come as no surprise here or elsewhere that folks that have never experienced, or have forgotten, true amateur competition think that the only motivation for participation is to �gamble�.



I can't remember any, because I have not come across any since leaving school. The motivation in school had nothing to do with being competitive, it was a social thing. Pee Wee football had nothing to do with competing, it was where your friends were. Intramural ultimate was fun, but the reasons for being there were social more than competitive. I have never been exposed to adult individual true amateur competition.



Did you ever play on a winning team Gary? The fire of competition still burns within my heart based on the experiences of my amateur play in middle and high school sports, as well as college intramurals, adult softball and basketball. <font color="blue">Yes, I have played on winning teams. and for me the motivation was more toward the team than the competition itself. Of course being motivated for the team meant you had to perform at your best helped the team to win, it also meant looking out for the other players and helping them improve.</font>

I played 4 years on 3 "True Amateur" adult basketball teams, and I can report though they were some of the best times of my life, there was no lack of intense competition. These leagues were all part of local/regional/national system. <font color="blue"> Again you speak of these things called teams. I think it is what a "true AM" structure needs to truly succeed.</font>

I also played in essentially "True Amateur" competitions in all but the "Japan Open" disc golf competitions in Japan, and the battles were just as intense and vivid as they ever were back here with Craiger, Jim, Mela, Kady and others. <font color="blue"> When I have time in the summer, I play true amateur competitions every week. No cash, no tags (tags are prizes), just a bunch of guys playing golf. Come to think of it there is not a lot of emphasis on competition either. Yeah, you brag for a few minutes about your score, but most of the talk relates to specific shots on specific holes more than overall score. More comraderie than competition.</font>

How do I know that such True Amateur competition is "REAL"? Because I experience it on a weekly basis out at doubles, tags, and Sunday morning rounds. <font color="blue"> I haven't really seen much organized doubles competitions where money or prizes didn't come up. Ee have one, but money still keeps getting mentioned.</font>

Now I want to bring that form of competition, Officially, to the PDGA; where it ALSO rightly belongs.



<font color="blue">Technically, why should a true amateur structure rightly belong within a professional organization ? I'm not saying it doesn't belong there at this time, but it isn't where any amateur organization should be in a perfect world.</font>

Nick, i have not followed this thread in its entirety, let alone have i been thinking about this topic as long or as thoroughly as many here. i am trying to decipher what exactly you are saying, so let me state what i am hearing you say:


we really don't have a true amateur division, we only have pro divisions in which the prizes are plastic or cash.


that since many players play at a level that leads to an almost guaranteed return for their entry fee if they play in the plastic prize division, and almost a guarantee of not getting any return for their money if they play in the cash prize division -- there exists in the very structure of our PDGA competitve system a disincentive to 'move up'?


further, that the conventional wisdom that the way to grow the cash division in terms of both participants and payouts is to get more of the existing prize pros (aka: "advanced baggers") to move into the cash pro ranks is fundamentally flawed (it is a sink or swim scenario in which only a small percentage will be able to keep from sinking and dropping out of PDGA disc golf or back down to the plastic prize ranks)


finally, that creating a true amateur division (trophy only) has much greater potential in doing what will really help the touring pros: it will increase participation and will grow the membership which in turn will attract greater corporate sponsorship leading to greater media coverage and cash payouts for the very skilled few?

- - - -

if the above re-statement of your position is correct -- i think you are onto something. the rub appears to be how do you attract interest on the part of event TD's to open events to trophy only participants. Player packages plus PDGA fees seems to offer some incentive... Would you support the PDGA creating a "trophy only" amateur membership option which would be say $30 per year? (and would yield ratings, DGWN subscription, etc.)




Yes Rob, that is essentially it.

All I ask is that the PDGA officially include them in planning and our competitive system and set standards that protect them from the influence of prize/cash competition/motivations.

I don't want any forcing of directors to run events for these players. The motivation for running such events should be self-evident to folks that "get it". Those that don't, shouldn't necessarily feel threatened by them.

PDGA Membership should be very similar to our prize/cash divisions. I'd set dues the same as it is for what we currently call amateurs, with full benefits. True Amateurs are not poor, they can and will want to support the PDGA fully, not begrudging their dues based on the same "for-profit" motivations many prize/cash players obviously hold.

One thing I don't want is for these folks to be forced into the same old merry-go-round ride the prize/cash divisions are in providing new "meat" (or added cash) to their protected/entitled divisions only to be spit out the other end. They must be on their OWN competitive track. Separate, protected and free to grow and expand without fear of being used as a direct cash cow for the prize/cash divisions. The reason I use the word "direct" is because though I don't want direct skimming of their resources, the truth is that they will provide 80% to 95% of sponsorship dollars for prize/cash divisions down the line as they buy the products and services that will bring our sport to mainstream attention, and that in turn will be the mechanism in gaining significant and major sponsorship for the prize/cash divisions.



Nick, would you characterize the major difference between your idea and those that disagree with you? Is it that they are not trying to figure out what would attract casual players into the flock (and keep them here)?



Please see my post where I defined a true am. A true am is not just a "casual player", they are similar in some ways to PDGA members, but give no consideration for renumeration for their competitive play.

One thing I don't want is for these folks to be forced into the same old merry-go-round ride the prize/cash divisions are in providing new "meat" (or added cash) to their protected/entitled divisions only to be spit out the other end. They must be on their OWN competitive track. Separate, protected and free to grow and expand without fear of being used as a direct cash cow for the prize/cash divisions. The reason I use the word "direct" is because though I don't want direct skimming of their resources, the truth is that they will provide 80% to 95% of sponsorship dollars for prize/cash divisions down the line as they buy the products and services that will bring our sport to mainstream attention, and that in turn will be the mechanism ingaining significant and major sponsorship for the prize/cash divisions.



You are contradicting your own arguments. Name a method that could be used to "force" these players into the "same old merry-go-round ride the prize/cash divisions are in".
<font color="blue"> #1 Trophy Only Option. </font>


Explain how they are in danger from the existing amateurs that are addicted to winning prizes ? If they offer no bait, why would the big bad prize players pounce ?
<font color="blue"> For the same reason NBA players may not play college basketball. And Kenny isn't allowed to play in the Prize Worlds. </font>

They are in no danger of becoming no other divisions "cash cow", though they could make quite a bit of money for a savvy TD. Their competitive structure would keep them separate without any artificial boundaries.
<font color="blue"> Maybe, but I want to make sure they don't. They, unlike the prize divisions are worth the time and effort to protect. </font>

And they will never pay 85%-90% of anything for anybody else. They will pay for 100% of what they want (either directly or thru the attention of sponsors) and if anyone else gets a free ride, so be it.
<font color="blue"> That is why I explained "direct". They will certainly dwarf the pro and semi pro divisions in size and product purchases. </font>

There is nothing preventing you from proving your points in the real world right now. There is no need to prevent participation of the prize needy current ams because the prize needy won't be at your true am events.


<font color="blue"> Yes, I could reinvent the wheel all by myself, but why? When the PDGA is in a perfect position to just add it as an option and oversee its relation to the other classifications. And again, true ams need protection for better reasons than prize players need protection from cash players. Again, you seem to lack basic understanding of Amateur Sport and Sportsmanship Gary. It is not a flaw, it just simply precludes you from getting what I am saying, seemingly. </font>

Gary, I know that you are a well thought out and reasonable guy from other discussions, but in this you simply are refusing to see some very crucial aspects of this topic. I am willing to continue discussing this with you in good faith, but we need to accept that perhaps we just have fundamental differences of opinion and fact.

Scott,

The tables are not equal. Ams are limited to around 3 times their entry fee, open is over 9 times at 33 payout and with the extended tables under review it is as much as 25 times.


One solution...get more money into the Pro ranks and you get seperation.....but that is not so simple since the structure is set up to make sure no one cares about Pros cause they are nothing special, they are equal to everyone else.






No one is "limited" to anything.

On the payout tables(which doesnt limit anything since I could give a brand new car to the top 3 if i wanted to) it is not 3 times their entry for the winner, as you know since you got more then that this weekend (5 times your entry after fees and counting player pack, not including what you won in skins).

You are a prime example of what our system promotes. Why playMasters when ADV masters is easier even though you can obviously compete in Masters. Financially it doesnt even make sense for you to try Pro masters when you can get double with less risk.

And please don;t think I am knocking you becasue I am not, you are just playing the system that you are offered and I dont blame you at all. Thats just one of those harmful side effects of our system I was talking about.

One thing I don't want is for these folks to be forced into the same old merry-go-round ride the prize/cash divisions are in providing new "meat" (or added cash) to their protected/entitled divisions only to be spit out the other end. They must be on their OWN competitive track. Separate, protected and free to grow and expand without fear of being used as a direct cash cow for the prize/cash divisions. The reason I use the word "direct" is because though I don't want direct skimming of their resources, the truth is that they will provide 80% to 95% of sponsorship dollars for prize/cash divisions down the line as they buy the products and services that will bring our sport to mainstream attention, and that in turn will be the mechanism ingaining significant and major sponsorship for the prize/cash divisions.



You are contradicting your own arguments. Name a method that could be used to "force" these players into the "same old merry-go-round ride the prize/cash divisions are in".
<font color="blue"> #1 Trophy Only Option. </font>
<font color="brown"> That does not follow your own logic. A true amateur would not be competing in a tournament where a prize amateur was competing. They would have a completely separate competitive structure. If you are merely asking that we include more divisions within the existing structure, then there seems to be a real problem. With many events filling with existing divisions, where are the true ams going to play ?</font>


Explain how they are in danger from the existing amateurs that are addicted to winning prizes ? If they offer no bait, why would the big bad prize players pounce ?
<font color="blue"> For the same reason NBA players may not play college basketball. And Kenny isn't allowed to play in the Prize Worlds. </font>
<font color="brown"> I thought that one of the key reasons that NBA players could not play college basketball was because they were not students. Besides the NCAA rules on eligibility. Kenny might have some incentive to play in Am Worlds, but what incentive would he have for playing in a tournament with no financial return ? Especially if the true ams were organized as team competitions ?</font>

They are in no danger of becoming no other divisions "cash cow", though they could make quite a bit of money for a savvy TD. Their competitive structure would keep them separate without any artificial boundaries.
<font color="blue"> Maybe, but I want to make sure they don't. They, unlike the prize divisions are worth the time and effort to protect. </font>
<font color="brown">I think you will find that they will need nor want your protections. Unless you percieve them as never being able to reach competitive levels with the existing players.</font>

And they will never pay 85%-90% of anything for anybody else. They will pay for 100% of what they want (either directly or thru the attention of sponsors) and if anyone else gets a free ride, so be it.
<font color="blue"> That is why I explained "direct". They will certainly dwarf the pro and semi pro divisions in size and product purchases. </font>
<font color="brown">My point is the same. They will pay for what they want, not what other groups want them to pay for. They will not stand being abused for someone elses benefit anymore than the current Ams will.</font>

There is nothing preventing you from proving your points in the real world right now. There is no need to prevent participation of the prize needy current ams because the prize needy won't be at your true am events.


<font color="blue"> Yes, I could reinvent the wheel all by myself, but why? When the PDGA is in a perfect position to just add it as an option and oversee its relation to the other classifications. And again, true ams need protection for better reasons than prize players need protection from cash players. Again, you seem to lack basic understanding of Amateur Sport and Sportsmanship Gary. It is not a flaw, it just simply precludes you from getting what I am saying, seemingly. </font>
<font color="brown">I'm lost with this one. Are you now saying that they should be competing side by side with the current players, and yet be segregated from them ? I envisioned inter-scholastic competitions and community sports organizations using this class. If in a PDGA type event (open to all comers) then in a separate event, not mixed with the enemy.</font>

<font color="blue">Gary, I know that you are a well thought out and reasonable guy from other discussions, but in this you simply are refusing to see some very crucial aspects of this topic. I am willing to continue discussing this with you in good faith, but we need to accept that perhaps we just have fundamental differences of opinion and fact.</font>
<font color="brown">I don't think I am refusing anything except the fact that the new class is the only class deserving of the name amateur. I am startled to discover that you intend for them to be competing at events along with other classes. They already have that option at the current events. I thought you had in mind separate competitions and a different competitive structure. As to our fundamental differences, mine allows both ideas to be used and tested without much interference with each other, yours requires fundamental changes in the current organizational and competitive structures.</font>



<font color="brown">In my mind a true amateur class should be team oriented to promote being there every week. This would shut out most of the current AMs and prevent poaching. It would work similar to most scholastic sports, so it would not be anything new to the school atheletic departments. It would fit well within community run sports departments for the same reasons. They could run the schedule just like the softball schedules they run now.

And for those unable to dedicate the time required for team or league schedules, there would be the trophy only option at existing events and the soon to be started (when there is a demand) trophy only tournaments.

How is this in any way a danger to your vision ?</font>

Scott,

You certainly can give a car, it will just violate the agreement you make with the PDGA when you get sanctioning with the PDGA. So don't say there is a fault with the PDGA on that, it would be your responsibility.

Secondly, John did not use the correct payout percents, if he had there would have been 9 paid out in my division not 8 (50% of 18) and I would have only taken home $120 worth or merchandise. I did not even realize it until you brought it up. Now of that $120 that I would have been paid, I paid a base entry fee of $48. $6 should have been taken out for series fees and PDGA fees. That leaves $42. Of the $42, John could have charged another $10 for the players packs, but he only charged $2 meaning that he donated $8 per player for merchandise. Guess what, $40 into $120 is pretty darn close to 3 times. Trust me on this, I currently know these tables better than just about anyone else, excluding PDGA BOD.

Now, if you want to suggest strict enforcement to PDGA guidelines, I am all for that, but as I have stated before. Know your facts. No offence meant, but I get the idea you were trying to force that point.



Scott,

The tables are not equal. Ams are limited to around 3 times their entry fee, open is over 9 times at 33 payout and with the extended tables under review it is as much as 25 times.


One solution...get more money into the Pro ranks and you get seperation.....but that is not so simple since the structure is set up to make sure no one cares about Pros cause they are nothing special, they are equal to everyone else.






No one is "limited" to anything.

On the payout tables(which doesnt limit anything since I could give a brand new car to the top 3 if i wanted to) it is not 3 times their entry for the winner, as you know since you got more then that this weekend (5 times your entry after fees and counting player pack, not including what you won in skins).

You are a prime example of what our system promotes. Why playMasters when ADV masters is easier even though you can obviously compete in Masters. Financially it doesnt even make sense for you to try Pro masters when you can get double with less risk.

And please don;t think I am knocking you becasue I am not, you are just playing the system that you are offered and I dont blame you at all. Thats just one of those harmful side effects of our system I was talking about.

Thats just one of those harmful side effects of our system I was talking about.



Scott,

Is it more harmful to keep players in the system by alowing them to feel competitve (that they could win) or putting them where they will lose interest and leave the sport ?

Jerry and I have been playing against each other for several years now. We are competitive with each other and though he has a more consistent game, either of us could beat the other on any given day.

That is what makes it interesting. In our division, If you have an outstanding day/weekend you can win or at least be on the top card going into the final round. I don't think either of us would still be playing if we knew going in that we were not going to get anything back. We are old, we have bills, we have to see a return (or reasonable chance of one) on our investments. If that return is trophy only with great amenties, then that's fine. If that return is playing all weekend without so much as a handshake, we'll probably stay home and spend time with the family.

What do you consider "clearly competitive" ? Having a chance at winning back less than your entry fee on a good day with no chance of winning or holding your own with the best in your division ? Of course it also applies that playing in a division where you are in no danger of being beaten is equally unsatisfying. There is no sense of competition there either.

One note on how I feel about competition. If there is no reasonable expectation that you can win a contest, then it is not a competition. It becomes an exhibition. You have a few favorites who are competing and a bunch of spectators that are playing along behind them.

One of the problems we have now is that the "Pro" spectators are not getting enough return on their investment to continue to show up and support the few Pros that are competing. If you could find an non-financial incentive that they could feel the value of, then maybe they would not be staying at home. We need a reason for players to show up other than winning if we are going to grow a division with such a wide range of talent.

Why do you keep implying that team sports are the only sports people will play without financial incentives?

That may be your experience or your belief, but it is hardly a fact.

Regardless, whatever the hell a true am is or is not, or whatever the hell other sports do, you never address the nagging question in front of you. Why is our sport set up to oftentimes reward those that perform worse, when compared to those that performed better. Why? Why? Why? Answer the freaking question. Quit avoiding it.

Nevermind, I think you previously answered it by saying that there are more people in those divisions. Beautiful logic and wonderful rationalization for the inequity you benefit from.

By the way, someone asked me if this is truly your attitude about competition and not just a defense of a system that benefits you, why on earth did you enter the USDGC? Might it be that someone can really play a disc golf tournament for something other than an expected financial reward?

he's the TX rep and wanted the braggin rights. but a one time daliance doesnt make him a full time ladies man, if you get the analogy.

Now that I have said that, I believe that Advanced players should be paid out at a steeper % than the current tables allow. They are more competitive and should be playing with a more competitive payout.

Barring that, the same tables could be used but only payout 45 or 40% instead of 50% at NT/World events. Why? Because these events, generally, are not competing against Open players, they are competing against like minded competitive players. They are not the occasional tournament player, they are actively seeking out events to compete against the best, in their divisions. Should I ever run an NT event, I will petition the PDGA for the use of either a steeper payout or a 40% versus 50% payout.


.....Now, if you want to suggest strict enforcement to PDGA guidelines, I am all for that, but as I have stated before. Know your facts. No offence meant, but I get the idea you were trying to force that point.

No, I think Alex Hughes was the Texas Representative. I thought Gary was a sponsor. Regardless, he paid money to get there, paid money to stay, and paid money to return; all with little expectation of a financial return. Just like the true am he claims does not exist.

By the way, more power to him. I'm glad people are attracted to competition without expectations of financial return.

I guess I was stuck in 05' like it appears Gimp was at PPO. I stand corrected.

Now, since I cant sem to find where it says it: how would i be breaking the sanctioning agreement by giving out cars (or baskets since that actually happens) as trophies to the top three as long as i give the payout percent on the chart? Where does it say that I cant add 9 million dollars in AM payout merch if i want to?

This is a real question that I dont understand.

BTW, nice move on missing my point completly and harping on my obvious lack of knwoledge of the new tables. It appears you wish to just discredit anything i ever say then to actually pay any attention to what I am really saying and trying to discuss. It won;t hurt my feelings if you just completly ignore me, so feel free.

Why is our sport set up to oftentimes reward those that perform worse



I have never avoided the question.
I don't know why our sport is set up the way it is, but I have a few ideas of why it is this way.
1) Because there is no real money in the sport and every one is playing for pooled entry fees. In other words gambling.
People don't gamble when they know they are going to lose their money. They need reasonable odds to keep showing up.
2) Players that don't feel competitive have historically quit playing. The changes to the divisional structure were made to retain lower skilled players (the majority of players in all sports).

If you accept these reasons, the rest is easy.

Because disc golf started doing organized tournaments with the emphasis on prizes, not the events themselves, current tournaments are structured to maintain the status quo. TDs know that formula A works and will draw in x number of players. They are afraid to put up the time and money required to run an event with formula B until there are some results out there to prove it's a viable formula.

I don't think either formula (prize value versus event value) is better, just that the existing player base has shown a preference for the prize value system (except in Maine where the event value system rules). I think that with some effort a signifcant player base for both can be built up in most areas, and they will draw from distinctly different pools of players with very few players choosing to play in both.

Since the current system is based on prizes, and the prizes are funded by the players, the players that bring in the most support for the TD are the ones that are playing for the biggest purse. Unless other divisions are artificially inflated by much higher entry fees.

Under the current system, these players are not paying to see the top players perform, they are paying for the opportunity to compete for prizes among similarly skilled opponents. It would be nice if there were also tournaments that rewarded players sufficiently for attending so that no prizes were needed to attract the players, but then there would be pretty no real incentive to improve.

Now for the real question. Why are our top players being rewarded so poorly compared to our lower skilled players ?

No one wants to pay to see them play and not enough of their peers want to pay to compete with them. At least, there are very vocal players that don't want to pay to see them play. If it becomes clear that a TD is short changing the Ams to pad the Pros, there are loud and persistant complaints.

The reason the Ams do well is that even though no else wants to pay to see them play, they are willing to pay to compete against each other in large numbers. Our current system pretty much keeps the playing field fair, and players feel that they have a chance of getting a reasonable return on their investment. The return on investment does not have to be financial for the formula to work. Theme parks or concerts are examples of recreational spending where there are no financial rewards for attending, yet people still pay for the event/experience.

Short answer: Because someone is willing to pay more into the purse of the lower rated players than are willing to pay into the purse of the top players.

I think you deserve more, and personally contribute a couple of thousand dollars out of my pocket each year to certain pro purses around the country. Most of it goes to the USDGC since I believe that is the best opportunity for media exposure, but smaller amounts go to other events in and out of Texas. If you ever see anything done by the LSDGA, it's out of my pocket. The LSDGA has no source of income.

To make it doubly hard, the evidence doesn't support the position you are taking, that those guys being altruistic for Pros... excuse me, the best interests of the sport... is in the best interests of the sport.



Evidence????? The evidence brought forth in this thread amounts to nothing. For either side of the debate. It is just misleading stats brought forth by someone with an agenda.

<font color="red"> WOW! So you're saying Bruce's experience doesn't count and that your gut feelings are more important than what he has observed in his tournaments. </font>

Besides, I don't need any evidence. Mine is a simple ethical claim, based on the nature of SPORT itself:

If disc golf is truly a SPORT, then the SPORT should be structured to reward people as they improve their skills. Alternatively, if this is not possible, then the SPORT should be structured in a way that does not encorage people not to improve their skills.

Btw, I am a firm believer that if you are philosophically sound in your understanding of what a SPORT is, and make decisions based on that understanding, then over time, "evidence" will naturally follow.

Basically, I don't think any of y'all can honestly call what the PDGA runs a SPORT. In fact, if I were to logically follow y'alls theory, I would have very top-heavy rec payouts (actually, it might be a bottom-heavy payout), and progressively flatten them up the ladder.



<font color="red">James, you're defining sport in a fashion that fits your agenda. For all I could care we could call ourselves a knitting circle. We participate in an activity that has a certain structure. Envisioning it is being something other than what it is is a waste of time. This is what galls you and Kevin. You want to view it and the situation as something other than what it is. I personnaly like your view, I'm just not willing to tell myself that things are other than what they are. It's sort of like telling yourself there are WMD. You can believe it all you want but it doesn't make it so. </font>

Actually, I never had Bruce in mind at all with that statement. :D

You would have to shoot a lot of sub 955 rounds, but not too low, because the lowest rounds are not counted. My rating is high right now because I have a few sub 900 rounds that are not counted. The main problem with that is that I was really trying.

No, I think Alex Hughes was the Texas Representative. I thought Gary was a sponsor. Regardless, he paid money to get there, paid money to stay, and paid money to return; all with little expectation of a financial return. Just like the true am he claims does not exist.

By the way, more power to him. I'm glad people are attracted to competition without expectations of financial return.



When I went to the USDGC, it was as a sponsored player. I sponsored myself. I also sponsored either Mike Olse or Mike Grider that year. I don't recall which one won the event I held, and which won the sponsored spot.

I have never said that there are no players that play the sport with no expectation of a financial reward, I have said that there are no players that will play any sport without some value received in return for their payment. For some, just being out with a large field is reward enough. Most feel that they have a chance at cashing (not the actual reward, but the status of having cashed), and a few truly feel that they have a good chance to win.

And to argue your point, what I received in return for the few thousand dollars I spent on having a chance to play in the USDGC as a competitor (in the broadest sense of the word) was worth every penny. Having your name called on the first tee, meeting the players I was grouped with, just walking the course as a player, plus having the chance to play in my home state and have my parents walk one round with me was an experience that I will cherish and never forget. It was very much worth the cost of the event, and was very much a reward worth more than any stack of plastic I have ever won.

Oh yeah, I agree with the whole knitting circle thing. If you add the provision that each week, the second-best knitter gets has to pay $60 to enter and gets nothing for their work, while the third-rate knitters pay $30 and get paid $90 in yarn, then there is a real parallel.

By the way, I bet that over time, that knitting circle on average, produces crapier and crapier work, and to think that circle purports to guide the activity of knitting into the future.

That is entirely appropriate if the 3rd best knitter is making trendy little ankle warmers that are all the rage, and the best knitter is making mittens.

And I must also stand corrected. There is nothing that limits the amount of added cash to the Am divisions. My mistake and I apologize for not catching the point of your argument. I guess the only thing I can say, is that there is no financial motivation to reward the Ams in that manner. Have you ever seen an extravagant payout like that? I am asking seriously.

If a TD can get extra merchandise do you think the PDGA should limit the amount? Once again, I am asking seriously. I know that if a TD advertised a huge amount of added merch that it would increase the am attendance. A good example of that is the $1600 ace pot at Pecan Park. That drew a ton of people, both Ams and Open, that may not have come. If you want to consider a max % or entry payout, I could possibly see that. You are limiting local company sponsorships though. By this, if I cannot convince a local business to supply cash, which is added to the open divisions, then I try to convince them to provide merchandise. Some of that goes to CTP's open to all divisions and some of it goes back to the am divisions. Would the Open players be willing to take merchandise, beyond cash payout, to sweeten the pot? I do use this with free hotel rooms to some open players, but that translates almost directly into cash for a traveling player.

I also have provided 3 to 4 times the required cash to open divisions, for a B-Tier event. I don't know if I will always be able to do that, but I will always try to. This does make the open payouts much sweeter than the am payouts. I make this choice to push higher payouts for open divisions. I could easily put it somewhere else. So this gets back to my earlier question, should the PDGA impose sanctions on TD's to meet a max % of entry fee payout? Say not to exceed 300 to 600% based on Tier and added cash to Open divisions? Just asking guys and gals.


I guess I was stuck in 05' like it appears Gimp was at PPO. I stand corrected.

Now, since I cant sem to find where it says it: how would i be breaking the sanctioning agreement by giving out cars (or baskets since that actually happens) as trophies to the top three as long as i give the payout percent on the chart? Where does it say that I cant add 9 million dollars in AM payout merch if i want to?

This is a real question that I dont understand.

BTW, nice move on missing my point completly and harping on my obvious lack of knwoledge of the new tables. It appears you wish to just discredit anything i ever say then to actually pay any attention to what I am really saying and trying to discuss. It won;t hurt my feelings if you just completly ignore me, so feel free.

Oh yeah, I agree with the whole knitting circle thing. If you add the provision that each week, the second-best knitter gets has to pay $60 to enter and gets nothing for their work, while the third-rate knitters pay $30 and get paid $90 in yarn, then there is a real parallel.

By the way, I bet that over time, that knitting circle on average, produces crapier and crapier work, and to think that circle purports to guide the activity of knitting into the future.



LMAO :D

I hate to tell you, but there are no ams making trendy little ankle warmers. While there is little public demand to see pros, there is absolutely no public demand to see ams.

Face it, you've engineered a system that benefits you and people with similar motivations, and you are not about to drop it over any concern over justice, or health of the sport. You've earned it with all those hard hours you put into perfecting your craft.

But the public isn't paying to see the am or the pro knitters. Instead, 10 of the 'am' knitters are kicking in $10 each to see who of them knits best while 5 pro knitters are doing the same. They aren't competing aginst each other, so the top pro knitter will get $25, and the top am knitter will get $50.

Since they are competing as two totally separate pools or bets, it doesn't matter that the more skilled got less than the less skilled. Only that the more skilled in a particular pool got more than the less skilled of the same pool.

Until you change this thing from competing for each other's entry alone, you won't change this. Comparing payouts between groups has no relevance as the participants in each group are insulated into their own private bet with each other.

I hate to tell you, but there are no ams making trendy little ankle warmers. While there is little public demand to see pros, there is absolutely no public demand to see ams.
<font color="brown">Yes they are, and the demand for them is from other similarly skilled players.

It's really like this, The Ams have figured out a system that seems to keep a lot of them happy and playing. It's not perfect, but it seems to work. The Pros have tried the same system, but it doesn't work as well for them, but the problem is with the Am system.</font>

Face it, you've engineered a system that benefits you and people with similar motivations, and you are not about to drop it over any concern over justice, or health of the sport. You've earned it with all those hard hours you put into perfecting your craft.

<font color="brown">We earned it by making the money and choosing to gamble for it amonst ourselves. No one is giving us anything, and we are the ones providing the TD with a chance of breaking even and maybe giving a little cash to the Pros. Just because the Pros can't come up with a system that adequately rewards them for their skills, there's no reason to be jealous of the Ams that are playing for each other's lunch money.</font>

Warning: Extreme Conclusion ahead.

The best player at a given tournament should get the highest reward at that tournament even if they are competing in a different division.

So the best player at a given course should get the highest reward at that course even if they are competing at a different event.

Therefore, since Kevin McCoy and Seth Lawhead are the course record holders at Pecan Park, no one should ever win more than they did, and they should somehow have access to moeny they were not even playing for.