If amateurs want to raise money to add it to the pro purse so they can get the touring pros to come to town, people should feel free to spend their money any way they want. I think if amateurs really wanted this, they'd also show up as spectators at those big tournaments. The fact that they don't is telling.

I really think that the main reason a few amateurs and middling pros work their butts off to raise money for the touring pros is low self-esteem. I'm not going to name names, but when I think about the people I see doing this, most of them seem to get self-esteem from their role in the big tournament. I think the reason why their players go along with this is because they aren't exactly clear on what's going on. When was the last time you saw a B-tier advertising, "$500 will be skimmed off the amateurs and added to the pro purse." If amateurs really like this concept, why aren't more TDs honest about what they are doing?

And I really have no problem with that either. It's none of my business how a TD somewhere else spends the money he makes on the amateurs.

I think it is really no different for Jon and I on a psychological level. I think we just draw more self-esteem from being popular with the masses than by being popular with the elite. I think for us it's an "of the people, by the people, for the people" kind of thing, whereas for someone else it might be a "Barry shook my right hand so now I'm not going to wash it for a month," kind of thing. :D

Self-esteem issues aside, it seems to me that the generous-to-the-ams format has the effect of building big tournaments which in turn pumps a lot of cheap secondhand merch into the marketplace which grows the sport at the pre-tournament level. I see this happening where we run tournaments. Half the casuals on the course are throwing one of my discs that they got from one of my players.

I'm not sure what beneficial effect the skim-the-ams format produces, other than a decent supplemental income for a few weekend warrior pros. To me, based on where I've seen it applied religiously, it just runs the local club and tournament scene into the ground.



BINGO!

Now I might not say it as harshly as Bruce, but the essence of what he is saying is very true.

The question arises, what is best for the growth of the sport? We all get focused on this notion that it has to be growth of the Pro game. I'd have to say that from my view, Bruce has done as much if not more for growing the sport as any NT has... :eek:

Bruce has done as much if not more for growing the sport as any NT has...



Surely you jest, or were you just embracing his low self esteem theory?

The most popular best run tournament in Texas over the past 5 years was Texas 10. The payout wasn't spectacular, no one would say that it was "for" the Pros, but it always played like Bruce's events do. One day format, lots of food, beer and fun. It was just a great play and it helped a popular charity. It was actually a lot of fun! Oh my God, a fun tournament...

People are way to caught up in payout and growing the Pro side.

if you only knew what Amateur really meant.

When was the last time you saw a B-tier advertising, "$500 will be skimmed off the amateurs and added to the pro purse." If amateurs really like this concept, why aren't more TDs honest about what they are doing?



I'd have no problem if $2 from every FFT event was put towards Florida's NT (. . . oh wait, we don't have one anymore) as long as that fact was clearly disclosed upfront with the rest of the fee breakdown.

Let tours/TD's do whatever they want with the money as long as there's transparency upfront and they actually do what they promised. Let players decide whether or not to play events as they see fit, given what's offered.

This is where I really get confused.

If a tournament pays out 100%+ retail to the players it is not taking money from anyone.

If the TD/club takes some of the money it made at an event and donates it to a larger event, then the money is coming out of the TD/club's pocket, not the Am's pockets.

if you only knew what Amateur really meant.

I'm posting on a PDGA message board. I'm using PDGA terminology. I don't think it is necessary to type "WWCC amateur" every time I want to refer to WWCC amateurs. So read my posts that way. I know the PDGA does not really have any amateurs or hardly any pros. We have people who have different gambling preferences driven by their expectations of where they will get the highest return. But the PDGA calls them amateurs and pros and it is easier when talking on a PDGA message board to use PDGA terminology.

I won't even suggest that your confusion is related to an IQ deficiency because I'm on probation for that! :eek: Besides I know you to be a thoughtful, intelligent person. [I'm angling for good time early release here. ;)]

At my tournaments I take $25 to $50 from everyone who plays. And if I only do 100% PDGA payouts to [wwcc]amateurs, the accountant says I have 50% of their entry fee left over to spend on whatever I want.

For me its not an issue of what we take from the players, but how we spend it after we take it. It works best for Jon and I if we spend most of it on the people we took it from, and spread the rest of it around to the people who worked their butts off making the tournament happen. It works for us emotionally and financially. It has to work both ways if we are going to keep running tournaments. And that works for the people who play our torunaments.

I wonder why there isn't any good pro's coming out of a state as large in population as Illinois?

Maybe it has to do with their tournament structure that you guys have put together. You have your own ideology of how disc golf ought to be and it's hurting your region. No one in Illinois has any aspiration of greatness because you have spoiled them with mediocrity. You believe the structure of your tournaments are well perceived due to attendance but are any of your players getting better, or even have any desire to?

It works GREAT for you cuz if you don't have any pro's that you have to fork over cash to, then the Tournament Directors are there to see the riches. We all know that you can make good money flipping wholesale discs and merch at retail prices.

sounds like a simple disagreement as to how to measure success. Bruce uses player base and event attendance. Others count the winnings of the top few dozen Pros.

Bruce, do you happen to know what your "churn" rate is? ie, the percentage of players who join/enter/whatever one year but not the next?

This sport is not going to get any bigger or better until we eliminate amateurs making cash. We will be in this continual cycle of mediocrity. People have been saying wait 5 years, well I have waited 5, then 5 more, and what has happened?

We have grown but with baby steps, sure attendance is up but where? In the AM divisions. Why because we have spoiled them so much they don't have any reason to get better.

The Pro's entry fees are way to high and their return is way to low for any AM to ever want to reach any level of greatness.

Change is necessary, it may be ugly taking the silver spoons out of the mouths of Am's, which is feeding the TD's, but we aren't going anywhere until we stop paying the AMs

We seem to have really good retention, but no one has ever run the numbers on that. But I see advanced players now and it's like, "Oh, I remember when he was a baby rec player! Now he's all grown up. Soon he'll be leaving us to go look for added cash."

The other thing I've noticed is the large numbers of Am III and Am IV players joining the PDGA because we offer their division. Before the IOS, there were not many opportunities for an Am III or Am IV to play sanctioned disc golf in Illinois or Wisconsin. We showed that they will play even more if their division is sanctioned [because of the bagger controls we enforce too] and now other nearby TDs are starting to sanction the lower divisions.

You can see those players if you sort ratings by amateurs and state=Illinois. You can see from their PDGA numbers that they have been joining in the last few years when the IOS has been offering them PDGA sanctioned, bagger protected divisions.

At the IOS tournaments the Rec and Int divisions are limited to PDGA members eligible to play in that division, and non-members we deem eligible. We have elves who calculate ratings for non-members and we don't allow bagging. I think using PDGA ratings this way has helped a lot to encourage lower division players to play and to join.

Pat, it is way too convenient to fall back on some relativistic philosophy that states "it depends on your measure of success." Not all measures are equal.

For instance, why don't we just take %50 off every division and put it towards the recs. Once that division starts growing rapidly and the PDGA is populated by recs, one can say "see how successful we are." Are you going to conclude that this measure of success is actually valuable?

Bottom line, all "successes" are not equal, some measure a real sport moving forwards and upwards, others measure a weekend activity.

Be carefull what you ask for Kev. While I agree the PDGA does not have a true am division, if todays ams are changed to a trophy ony, as other sports, then TDs will not have the money they use now to boost the low payouts you are talking about. Are you prepared to have the pro payouts go lower than they are now? Are you prepared to have fewer tournamnet choices becuse TDs have no incentive to run a tournament because there is no profit?

It is truley a double edged sword. Are you prepared to wait until TDs figure out they need and have to go out and get outside sponsorship in order to make up for the lost income from the Ams?

To get where you want it to be and have the sponsorship that is needed to support that could take several years, are you ready for that?

it was only a few months ago that I played for that plastic, did I enjoy the winnings? YES!
Did I at that time believe that Ams should be playing for trophy only? Yes. But the Am entries will have to me much lower for the Ams to buy off on that type of change. ;)

isnt that what i said? it sounds like what i meant to say anyway :cool:

Another question for you Kev.

Do you think we would have been able to pull off 06 Am Worlds for trophies only?

Would we have even bid on it?

This sport is not going to get any bigger or better until we eliminate amateurs making cash.



I don't like having big am payouts because it means higher entry fees. But if tournaments are selling out because that's what the players want, then that's fine. Whether a tournament charges $30 for trophy only or $50 for a traditional plastic payout has NO EFFECT on the potential for outside sponsorship. I believe you're saying that if we eliminate the big plastic payday, then more am's would have an incentive to practice more and play pro. Say that happened and our pro ranks grew by 10-20%, would that have an effect on the potential for outside sponsorship? NO.

Incremental increases in our number of pros won't fuel sponsorship growth. What will fuel sponsorship growth is increasing the number of people that are interested in spectating, whether in person or on tv. Initially, this audience will be made up primarily of amateur players, but will expand to a wider audience because it's sweet to watch a pro throw a 400 ft. S-curve around some trees and then hit a 50 footer for birdie to gain a stroke on the field.

To grow the pro purses in the medium and long run, our top priorities have to be focusing on growing the recreational ranks of players and turning our big tournaments into true spectator events. I think the IOS guys absolutely have it right for making a real impact on the future of pro purses.

It may take 5 years to reprogram the minds of all the current players but who said change was easy. I think the game would take an immediate hit for 2-3 years before we would see people start coming back, or new faces that don't know how we use to spoil our AMs would start replacing those who left.

DISC GOLF is FUN! Our game is strong enough to get over the need of greedy ams that want to stack their plastic to the ceilings.

I'm just saying that if we keep digging this hole we will never get out of it. It would be a major reconstruction change and who really wants to be the one that tells all these am's that they are going to be TRUE AMATEURS from here on out.

There is no doubt in my mind that Hitler would be more popular guy than the person that finally steps up and says AM's your no longer going to play for merch.

its almost like the supposed "pros" feel that the supposed "ams" represent meaningful sponsorship.

do the math... lets just say the 151 players rated 1000 and up "deserve" $50,000 annual earnings. thats $7.55M. if we have 12,000 Members rated less than 1000, we need a shade more than $629 from everybody to support the Pros. good luck with that.

why not grow the player base as fat as possible in order to attract eyeballs and then sponsor dollars? is $5000 better used to sweeten a single Pro purse in 2007, or to get three portable baskets into five elementary school for use in their PE classes?

Another question for you Kev.

Do you think we would have been able to pull off 06 Am Worlds for trophies only?

Would we have even bid on it?



NO it wouldn't have worked in '06 because AM's are accustomed to playing for merch.

I would have still wanted to bid on it, because having a Major like Worlds helps your community much more than it helps the local club running it. Cuz I sure didn't see a dime of the profit myslef, hell I put way too much of my time and money into it and got little out of it financially. The only money i have got from it has been eBay'ing off Ken Climo INNcolors :D

Be carefull what you ask for Kev. While I agree the PDGA does not have a true am division, if todays ams are changed to a trophy ony, as other sports, then TDs will not have the money they use now to boost the low payouts you are talking about. Are you prepared to have the pro payouts go lower than they are now?


<font color="red">Nearly 80% of the tournaments we are just playing for each others money any way. </font>


Are you prepared to have fewer tournamnet choices becuse TDs have no incentive to run a tournament because there is no profit?

<font color="red"> AM's should be just like running. You pay your $30 you get a disc and a tee-shirt and you have a good time your top 3 winners get a trophy. If you want to be competitive then get better and play in our PRO divisionS. You did see that I said divisionS of PRO's. There needs to be SUPER-PRO division and Semi-Pro Division and all the Age based divisions </font>

[/QUOTE]

The ADV division would slide right into the Semi-Pro division and would still be competing with the same crowd they are already.

DISC GOLF is FUN! Our game is strong enough to get over the need of greedy ams that want to stack their plastic to the ceilings.



I agree and I agree that it will be harder to change later rather than now.

I want to see TD's be able to take a fee for themselves upfront and disclose how entry fees are spent in advance. That would allow them to run sanctioned events that don't require a big am payout to make profit. (and when I say profit, I really mean a partial recovery of expenses and time.)

BUT, if players want to pay more for the chance to win some plastic, then who are you or I to tell them they can't. There are plenty of other sports where am's gamble for cash and prizes. Look at every bowling league. Grandma and Grandpa put their money in the "strike pot" week in and week out.

And in golf:

An amateur golfer must not accept a prize (other than a symbolic prize) or prize voucher of retail value in excess of $750 or the equivalent,


oh, and it's permissible to win thousands of dollars for a hole-in-one and retain amateur status.

i agree that coordination needs to take place between levels of tournaments. however, i disagree that cash is what needs to be added to the "big" events. rather, players need to be added to the "big" events in the form of earned or won entry fees from local events or series. if the purses suffer due to too many free players, so be it.

Another question for you Kev.

Do you think we would have been able to pull off 06 Am Worlds for trophies only?

Would we have even bid on it?



NO it wouldn't have worked in '06 because AM's are accustomed to playing for merch.

I would have still wanted to bid on it, because having a Major like Worlds helps your community much more than it helps the local club running it. Cuz I sure didn't see a dime of the profit myslef, hell I put way too much of my time and money into it and got little out of it financially. The only money i have got from it has been eBay'ing off Ken Climo INNcolors :D



Yes, it did give the sport much needed local recognition within the community. But how would we have pulled it all off without the profit from the merch payout?

I agree, the sport would take a major hit for the first few years and the new ams would only know trophy only but I don't think it will accomplish what you are after.

In order to boost Pro purses it will have to become a spectator sport, as mentioned above. If you have the spectator base, the sponsers will line up at the chance to be a part of it. And when the sponsors and spectators are there, you WILL have more ams trying to get their game to the pro level.

I guess, I don't understand your logic on how changing the am payout structure is going to effect the pro payouts, other than lower them. And if you think trophy only will force all the top ams to pro, I disagree. But then again, I'm not trying to make my living at it. ;)

AM's should be just like running. You pay your $30 you get a disc and a tee-shirt and you have a good time your top 3 winners get a trophy. If you want to be competitive then get better and play in our PRO divisionS. You did see that I said divisionS of PRO's. There needs to be SUPER-PRO division and Semi-Pro Division and all the Age based divisions

^^^^^^^^^
Now that statement make a lot more sense.

I guess, I don't understand your logic on how changing the am payout structure is going to effect the pro payouts, other than lower them. And if you think trophy only will force all the top ams to pro, I disagree. But then again, I'm not trying to make my living at it.



Example 50 ams at $30 = $1500 - $250 for players pack discs - $250 for players pack t-shirts = $750 added to the OPEN (Men and Ladies) &amp; $250 to the Age Divisions...Semi Pro's would play for their money unless the local club raises money to spread out throughout the divisions

I believe you're saying that if we eliminate the big plastic payday, then more am's would have an incentive to practice more and play pro. Say that happened and our pro ranks grew by 10-20%, would that have an effect on the potential for outside sponsorship? NO.



Play that out over ten years, and you are talking about changing the demographic, and changing the demographic will do wonders for our sport, imo.

Whether through conscious analysis, or subtle observations, people that enter our competitive landscape see that disc golf is drastically different from other sports. Many of the competitive ones are either turned off, or eventually wear down. The non-competitive ones thrive. In some ways, this defines our sport: it's like the sport's character, and the sport's character certainly has a significant bearing on its future.

In your final analysis, you correctly note that amateurs will be a bulk of the spectators. I'd argue that (a very general statement at best) our sport fails to attract and retain the kind of amateurs that have interest in spectating. And the types of ams that would form an eventual spectator base, are the same types of ams that are not opposed to playing as true amateurs. They have the proper motivations and values, and are more likely to value the skills of the very best.

I think a lot of intelligent people just assume this paradigm works, not only in the sense that Denny describes, but as a vehicle to grow the ranks of both ams and pros. The paradigm deserves closer scrutiny.

I believe you're saying that if we eliminate the big plastic payday, then more am's would have an incentive to practice more and play pro. Say that happened and our pro ranks grew by 10-20%, would that have an effect on the potential for outside sponsorship? NO.




Can you honestly say it wouldn't be more appealing when you going to a potential sponsor and tell him that there are 140 pro's going to be there instead of 20 pros and 120 ams?

i disagree that cash is what needs to be added to the "big" events. rather, players need to be added to the "big" events in the form of earned or won entry fees from local events or series.



added cash attracts the best players. having the best players compete head-to-head is what makes for great spectating. the best players know they will cash and are willing to pay the entry fee, so granting them a "free" spot doesn't add to the event.

when you watch the final round of a golf tournament of sunday, do you enjoy it more if it was a full field of 144, but no one in the top 10, or if it was a limited field at the players championship with only the best?

there is a good reason for a series to grant it's winner a free entry into the "big" event and that's to get more players to commit to playing the entire series for that chance. It helps the series, and it's a concept that I'm in favor of, but it doesn't do much to make the big event better. As I already said, the best players are going to play, regardless of whether their entry fee was paid by a sponsor, another tournament series, or themselves.

AM's should be just like running. You pay your $30 you get a disc and a tee-shirt and you have a good time your top 3 winners get a trophy. If you want to be competitive then get better and play in our PRO divisionS. You did see that I said divisionS of PRO's. There needs to be SUPER-PRO division and Semi-Pro Division and all the Age based divisions.



That way, when a tournament has a bigger Semi-Pro vs. Pro turnout, the Pros will have someone else's payout to covet. ;)

Sorry, but this just keeps coming back to people thinking that you can look to the lower divisions to boost pro payouts. It's not going to happen at a large scale beyond small time involuntary 'sponsorship' and Ams picking up the majority of a tournament costs. Even in the instance you mention (runners), the 'ams' aren't having their entry fees siphoned off to support the 'pros'.

Am ball golfers aren't supporting Tiger Woods. Am runners didn't support Edwin Moses. The kid in Double A isn't supporting Derek Jeter. And the person who plays local DG tournaments isn't going to support 1000 rated pros.

I'm not sure people are paying enough attention to what Bruce is doing. Bruce uses his money very well, again because he isn't focused on the Pro game. Compare his turnout to some of the big Pro events, he always talks about numbers in the 100 to 200 player range. That's a darn good tournament. Texas 10 was the same.

The notion that growing the sport requires Pro players may be flat wrong. Look at softball; does anyone out there think there are pro softball players? Yet relatively speaking, in terms of participation, there's no comparison.

If our goal is to have Pro players, then, well, maybe we're going down the right path. If our goal is to grow the sport, I have to opt for what Bruce is doing, you'll get more players with longer retention (that's not speculation, that's what Bruce sees, and that's what happened at Texas 10, a series with a similar philosophy).

To reitterate, Bruce pays 100% merch, but also pretty much 100% of cash back to his ams. They get plastic, food, fun and games. They come back because of that.

BTW - someone commented that there's no Pros coming out of Illinois. Holy Cow Batman, who cares! If they have more people playing and playing for longer, I'd say they've won.

I believe you're saying that if we eliminate the big plastic payday, then more am's would have an incentive to practice more and play pro. Say that happened and our pro ranks grew by 10-20%, would that have an effect on the potential for outside sponsorship? NO.




Can you honestly say it wouldn't be more appealing when you going to a potential sponsor and tell him that there are 140 pro's going to be there instead of 20 pros and 120 ams?





Neither would be appealing to a sponsor. He'd want to know how many spectators are going to be there.

This sport is not going to get any bigger or better until we eliminate pros gambling for each others cash and do something with that money that will grow the sport. Until then we will be in this continual cycle of mediocrity. People have been saying wait 5 years, well I have waited 10, then 10 more, and what has happened?

Nothing. Why? Because we have made no effort to make anything happen. This sport has no fans, no spectator base. Every year hundreds of thousands of school kids play organized football and become fans for life. Are we spending our money making fans for life out of high school kids? No. Every time the club has $500 extra kicking around we throw a B-tier and throw that money at ten pros no one has ever heard of!

US soccer made an intentional effort to grow their sport to the place where they could get a TV contract. They finally succeeded this year. ESPN is paying them money for the rights instead of them buying air time for a vanity production. The way they did it was by abolishing the pro division entirely and focussing on school kids for several years.

Schools are so strapped for cash these days, if you were to go to your local school and offer to buy them a nine hole temp course if they'd use it in the curriculum, they'd jump at that. It would cost less than what our TDs spend on added cash and PDGA fees for running a B-tier.

Our TDs gave away $1.5 million last year to pros. Our TDs have given away over 6 million to the pros over the five years. What do we have to show for that? Nothing.

Imagine if we had spent 6 million over the last five years buying disc golf equipment for schools. 9,000 schools would have disc golf programs. We'd have three million more players today than we do otherwise. Imagin if we had spent nine million over the past ten years.

I see absolutely no reason to throw money at pros. It does nothing to grow the sport. It does nothing to make my tournaments more fun. It does nothing for my fragile self-esteem. Your self-esteem boosting strategies may differ.

The notion that we are going to grow this sport through spectator participation is farfetched. Don't get me wrong, I used to think it could be done. How? BG gets watched by people who play and there are millions. But casual people just don't watch it unless it's Tiger.

Disc Golf doesn't lend itself to watching. Yes, we're jazzed about that great putt but for a casual observer, forget it. Our future isn't going to be in a huge fan base. It has to be in internal growth of players. Guess what, that's how skateboarding, and snowboarding grew and became megasports.

Then why don't you take all the entries, from ams and pros alike, and give them to the schools? or why do you continually argue for a system that gives nothing to schools?

Why? And where does course fees, permits, and other costs get covered?

In the example provided, if the costs are only $500, why not earmark the last $250 for the TD and staff (or club) to have a pizza party or whatever else they see fit after the tournament is done? It could be argued that encouraging their efforts would go a lot further in growing the sport than putting it in Pro pockets.

BS, disc golf is great to watch, especially when played by top players. Whenever I can, I always look forward to spectating. Why, cause I value what they can do, because I have tried to do what they do and can't. Most of our players could care less about those guys, because they are non-competitive guys. That is why we see few of our base at events spectating. Most don't care. Most of those that would care left a long time ago.

I believe you're saying that if we eliminate the big plastic payday, then more am's would have an incentive to practice more and play pro. Say that happened and our pro ranks grew by 10-20%, would that have an effect on the potential for outside sponsorship? NO.




Can you honestly say it wouldn't be more appealing when you going to a potential sponsor and tell him that there are 140 pro's going to be there instead of 20 pros and 120 ams?





Neither would be appealing to a sponsor. He'd want to know how many spectators are going to be there.



To tag onto that, if it is a local business sponsor (like most are at this point), they would be concerned with how many 'local' participants or potential customers are there. Touring Pros who leave on Sunday do nothing for him/her.

Am ball golfers aren't supporting Tiger Woods. Am runners didn't support Edwin Moses. The kid in Double A isn't supporting Derek Jeter.



Sure they are, by allowing advertisers to come into their brains in 30 second chunks via the tv. pros have jobs because we want to watch them play.

You guys that are disagreeing with me have no desire to compete at the highest level so how would I ever be able to convince you guys that what is going on now isn't working.

Why wouldn't you want the PDGA to be featured on ESPN or the Outdoor Network? Why wouldn't you want a update of who won the USDGC on SportsCenter?

Just because you guys can't throw a disc out of your shadow, or you can't profit if the AMS playing for merch goes away, is no reason to hold us players that want to see our game on the big stage like the GREAT OUTDOOR GAMES or the Olympics

You are a member of the PROFESSIONAL Disc Golf Association....I say if you don't want to be associated with the PROFESSIONAL Disc Golf Association then start a Am Association but I as well as many others signed up for the PROFESSIONAL Disc Golf Association

Disc Golf doesn't lend itself to watching. Yes, we're jazzed about that great putt but for a casual observer, forget it. Our future isn't going to be in a huge fan base. It has to be in internal growth of players. Guess what, that's how skateboarding, and snowboarding grew and became megasports.




Compare watching a white ball track across a blue sky to a much bigger, slower moving disc that curves one way around a bunch of trees and then slows down and curves past another set of trees and lands within putting range of the basket. (Of course, on the other hand, our disc golf greens have a long ways to go evolutionally before they even begin to approach the shot variety and touch required around the golf green.)

Skateboarding went through several waves of popularity and then bottoming out before it finally exploded "for real". The catalyst for the final "big" explosion was the "Bones Brigade" videos produced by second generation skateboard hero Stacey Peralta that introduced Tony Hawk to the world that would soon be playing his video games. Today, waaay more people skateboard on the computer than on the pavement.

Just as the Dogtown articles in Skateboarder magazine was the catalyst behind the second wave of skateboarding's history and the Bones Brigade ws the third wave, Tony Hawk's video games are the catalyst for the fourth wave.

That's the reason that I think DGW shouldn't come with PDGA subscriptions and we should have to go buy it at Borders. Slick pictures, good writing and cool video (Cool/Hot Shots, Snap, Chains, etc.) can transform a cult fad into a cultural phenomenon.

Lyle, you are definitely right about one thing, though, it all starts with a growing player base.

BS, disc golf is great to watch, especially when played by top players.



View this video clip (http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/crowd_5_1017.wmv) (5.7MB Windows Media file) and tell me why then there is such a small gallery watching the best players (lead card, final day) in the world watching the most competitive and most prestigious event (its a USDGC 2004 video clip I had on hand)?


Whenever I can, I always look forward to spectating. Why, cause I value what they can do, because I have tried to do what they do and can't.



I think you answer the question well: You need to appreciate the game to appreciate the skill to appreciate spectating. That is why I enjoy watching golf on a lazy afternoon: I have played maybe 8 times and have yet to break 100. :o The only equipment I have is shoes....that I bought at Good Will. OK, I suck....but I have a benchmark to compare what the PDGA guys are doing. I enjoy seeing athletes perform under pressure, and so I watch. They have my eyes and the sponsors do too.

That is why we need to build a HUGE player base so that eventually it will make sense for sponsors to shell out some bucks and get a return on their investment. 100-200 people watching live and 100-200 people watching the blow-by-blow coverage on their PC's isn't going to attract the sponsorship money it will take to change the SPDGA (Semi-Pro) to the PDGA.

Kudos to Bruce who is doing something about this....and to all the TDs and local Club participants and EDGE-type activities that are moving things in the right direction!

First some people seem to think that everyone can be a 1000+ rated pro. I am sorry guys some of us are just mortals, I keep saying this maybe I am wrong but I don't see a lot of ams staying ams just to fill up a second closet with discs or so that they can run around town selling discs out of their trunk.

Ams are ams for two reasons, first they have topped out at what ever level, If practicing and wanting to get better is all it takes then why doesn't every disc golfer have the same rating as Climo and Schultz and we all turn pro and then whoever gets lucky wins that weekend. Second they are on there way to pro but haven't been playing long enough, be patient they will be there soon enough.

I am not very good, but I truly love disc golf, and am proud to try to help in anyway that I can. And my biggest contribution in my opinion is talking about it as school because I am a teacher. I have probably over 30 discs and 2 disc golf DVDS. I also want to try to support the pros in anyway that I can. I just bought a fundraiser for the BG ams where the money is probably going to the BG open, and have decided to buy a USDGC Roc to support the pros(I don't even throw them but want to help). I never win so where my money goes does not effect me at all. But I can tell you now that if you charge me $30 give me a $5 disc and a $5 t-shirt and my whole division is playing for a trophy, I will never play another tournament. It would be like telling me OK you get to play in the World Series of Poker for $1000 and can have a t-shirt win a trophy and the other $985 goes to the main pot. Sure you have no chance of getting it back but you should be honored to be in the same casino as Johny Chan. True you can't actually set at the table with him, but don't worry about that now if you play hard enough some day you will. I don't care what you take past the 100% payout after the markup, I don't care what % you distribute it down to or where the breakdown comes from the players pack or payout. But don't tell me that I shouldn't at least have some chance to get something back for MY money, even though I am not going to win it in the near future. There are just too many free or cheap alternatives. I love tournaments, I have already pre-registered for 4 and will probably be pre-registered for 8 by the middle of March.

Lets get back to ways to try to make the Pro ranks more attractive, not ways to make the Am divisions less attractive. We have had 3 or 4 good ideas from take a buck or two from every body in the smaller tournaments and putting it into one big tournament. And making NT for Pros only and scheduling Ams for the weekend before and using all of the added money for the Pro weekend. These are good ideas that need to be explored why because they promote growth. Making anything in disc golf less atractive does not make sense to me.

http://i.cnn.net/si/2004/golf/specials/masters/2004/04/07/gp_palmer0406/p1_palmer.jpg

PLUS

http://www.oldschoolskateboarding.com/galleries/jimGoodrich/tonyalva_1977.jpg

EQUALS

http://www.playerscup.org/gallery/sun/images/plc06_sun_288.jpg

Skateboarding went through several waves of popularity and then bottoming out before it finally exploded "for real". The catalyst for the final "big" explosion was the "Bones Brigade" videos produced by second generation skateboard hero Stacey Peralta that introduced Tony Hawk to the world that would soon be playing his video games.




Don't forget Gleaming the Cube and T&C Surf Design (http://www.everyvideogame.com/nes.php?file=TandC_Surf_Design_(U)&savefile=9932)!

First some people seem to think that everyone can be a 1000+ rated pro. I am sorry guys some of us are just mortals, I keep saying this maybe I am wrong but I don't see a lot of ams staying ams just to fill up a second closet with discs or so that they can run around town selling discs out of their trunk.



I think this is the key to many problems. Too many players are playing for too many different reasons at the same *one size fits all* tournaments. This is why there needs to be more specialization. The NT was a push in the right direction, but there is way too much competition when there are 30 other tournaments offering pro divisions on the same weekend. I think the pdga needs to disallow pro divisions anywhere within a 2 day's drive of an NT. I don't think it will kill the sport to dedicate maybe 10 weekends to such strict provisions.

Palmer + Goodrich = Jenkins might not be a valid equation. Maybe Palmer :: Goodrich :: Jenkins ("::" = "is to") is better.

If that is what you mean I get your point (I think) but I disagree. I do not think there is an equivalent participant base now as to golf in Palmer's early years or to Goodrich's heyday. But, I am not a sports historian, so I am open to being wrong.

One thing that would help DG get to the next level is some sort of catalyst (compelling personality), to raise consciousness of the sport in the public's eye.

Just thought I'd jump in here real quick and throw out an opinion that hasn't even been mentioned: not all ams are in it for the "gravy train" and want huges piles of plastic, and that seems to be the assumption in this discussion.

Some of us just want to play golf. I could care less about payout, I just want to compete. I have played in pro events, including NTs, because I wanted to compete. I don't play Pro regularly because I like to be competitive with those I'm playing against, and I'm not there yet. But I'm not a "greedy am" hanging out collecting "giant piles of plastic." I find it insulting actually, when that is the assumption...

One thing that would help DG get to the next level is some sort of catalyst (compelling personality), to raise consciousness of the sport in the public's eye.



That's basically what I was getting at. I wasn't saying that the analogy was perfect on every level, just that I see players like Avery being able to break beyond the perception that we're just guys throwing frisbees in the park.

Honestly, watching the trailer for "Chains" got my blood pumping more than anything else I've experienced in disc golf, except for being able to walk with the group as Ron Convers and Barry battled for the first Players Cup.

here's an idea. hopefully to increase the competitive side of disc golf and possibly increase the fields in the most competitive divisions.

at all C tiers, the top three in the mpo and fpo divisions receive a 50% discount to any B tier.

at all B tiers, the top five in the mpo and fpo divisions receive a 50% discount to any A tier.

at all A tiers, the top 8 in the mpo and fpo divisions receive a 50% discount to any NT event.

or instead, the 3 lowest scores of any division rather than from the open division.

maybe an initial move toward a true competitive structure within the pdga without taking away from the growth divisions. so, what's wrong with it?

Then why don't you take all the entries, from ams and pros alike, and give them to the schools? or why do you continually argue for a system that gives nothing to schools?

Because I don't care about growing the sport for the benefit of pros. Just because I've noticed how another boring sport did it successfully doesn't mean its anything I want to do. Think about the consequences. It would suck for the rest of us in every way I can imagine. Our game would become like golf.

Ams who play for the love of the game are what I would consider true ams.

I had one tournament where I got to see the craziness of the Am Merch parade. It was the 2003 Cross Canyon. I got 11th, and I got $95 in merch. Yeah, some of it (most) was unsellable stuff, but I was able to trade up for some Q Omegas. It definitely made me want to go back. After that, I never really got to see much of the am plastic debauchery.

I went back to the Cross Canyon the next year, and everything had changed. It was mainly due to the change in am payout. First place got $114, and the tournament cost $10 more. I got a Moray for 30th place, someone actually got a mini behind me. That was the beginning of the end.

A few months later I played in probably the first Pro2 division in the country. I had fun playing against others. I cashed, but chose the plastic. In the fall I played Pro2 again, and went for the $135 and said goodbye to ams. I was maybe a 945 rated player. But I wanted to play against pros, not ams. I was all about the game, and the competition.

Most would say I moved up too early. But I stuck with it. I played am once at the Buckhorn Open, since I was a lefty and was playing it blind. I surprised myself in that I would have cashed in Open, I took 5th in advanced. No longer would I grace the am ranks.

I don't think of disc golf as a way to supplement my income, in fact, it's just the opposite. For most ams and pros, it's a losing battle. Between expenses, gas, lodging, plastic, water, shoes, etc, we just don't make enough to be anything but hobbyists. One day, we'll have a system that a few pros can actually profit from the golf part of this game, and hopefully, it won't JUST be at the expense of lesser golfers. Sponsors will happen. It'll take time, but it'll also take people changing their philosophies about a lot of the things we currently consider the norm.

If ams aren't playing for the competition, then I think the merch parade is to blame. Most can not compete for the cash at the pro level. We need to make tournaments about more than "getting paid". If we get players back on the "we play because we love the game" track, where players are satisfied with good play, not just good payouts. An am playing a $39 tournament should simply not expect more than $20 of that to come back to them. Likewise, a pro should not expect 100% payout. It's simple math. Give some to the organizers. If you can't donate some of your tournament money to the organizers, maybe you shouldn't be playing.

Now, if TDs are getting sponsorship, they should be allowed a cut of the PLAYER registrations. I see nothing wrong with a promoter taking a fee for running a tournament. The PDGA gets a fee, and the promoter should easily get double to triple what the PDGA gets. The amount of work is massive in comparison for most tournaments.

Not all tournaments should have the goal of making disc golf profitable at the higher levels. But some should. I like the idea of a bunch of smaller tournaments pooling some amount from each tournament or local event to create a single bigger event. Not to go to the pro purse, per se, but to create a better experience for all players. The PDGA should be getting in roads with larger sponsors to start supporting bigger tournaments, from the top down. Not all for Worlds or NTs, those should be run by TDs or organizations that should be rather skilled at raising funds themselves, plus many of them utilize plastic "sponsorship". But The A Tiers of the world, around the country should be where the PDGA attained sponsor dollars should be invested. These are the NTs of the future and present. NT'ness is itself sponsorship in a way, a gift for all the hard work.

OK, I'm done hyposthelizing. Yes, I just made that word up.

This sport is not going to get any bigger or better until we eliminate pros gambling for each others cash and do something with that money that will grow the sport. Until then we will be in this continual cycle of mediocrity. People have been saying wait 5 years, well I have waited 10, then 10 more, and what has happened?
<font color="red"> You can always use EDGE as a tournament charity. I would think the IOS could have many schools rolling with disc golf by now </font>
Nothing. Why? Because we have made no effort to make anything happen. This sport has no fans, no spectator base. Every year hundreds of thousands of school kids play organized football and become fans for life. Are we spending our money making fans for life out of high school kids? No. Every time the club has $500 extra kicking around we throw a B-tier and throw that money at ten pros no one has ever heard of!
<font color="red"> I think that is why we want to look at making B and C tiers sport growing zones and A' and NT's feature what we have already built on for 25 years</font>
US soccer made an intentional effort to grow their sport to the place where they could get a TV contract. They finally succeeded this year. ESPN is paying them money for the rights instead of them buying air time for a vanity production. The way they did it was by abolishing the pro division entirely and focussing on school kids for several years.
<font color="red"> Maybe because they have spent $250 million on bringing in the sports #1 SuperStar David Beckham to the states. All sports become popular because they have stars. Sure we have some stars right now, let's use them. </font>
Schools are so strapped for cash these days, if you were to go to your local school and offer to buy them a nine hole temp course if they'd use it in the curriculum, they'd jump at that. It would cost less than what our TDs spend on added cash and PDGA fees for running a B-tier.
<font color="red"> E-mail me I'll help your tournament benefit the schools within your state </font>
Our TDs gave away $1.5 million last year to pros. Our TDs have given away over 6 million to the pros over the five years. What do we have to show for that? Nothing.

Imagine if we had spent 6 million over the last five years buying disc golf equipment for schools. 9,000 schools would have disc golf programs. We'd have three million more players today than we do otherwise. Imagin if we had spent nine million over the past ten years.
<font color="red"> I asked these same things when I first got into the sport. Hey you know what got me into regular COMPETITION? Going to my first SuperTour in Madison and spectating Al Shack and Jeff Harper throwing amazing shots and sinking huge putts for skins money </font>
I see absolutely no reason to throw money at pros. It does nothing to grow the sport. It does nothing to make my tournaments more fun. It does nothing for my fragile self-esteem. Your self-esteem boosting strategies may differ.

<font color="red"> That is too funny because I live this. I watched Barry and Des talk to and sign discs for player after player this last weekend at Z-Boaz. Des signed 140 discs at AM Worlds in Tulsa this year(we actually counted, how's that for self-esteem) I would love to see a top Pro show up at one of your events Bruce. I would hope you might be able to see THAT benefit along with the good your series does for the player base. Des and I haven't played a new course yet around the country in the last couple of years and not be noticed. It really is a cool thing, but not always welcomed. But believe us, we are very giving in that step of promotion as are most other Big Names. Don't shun us, use us</font>

Oh yeah, most AMs aren't spectating because they are playing. Their focus is me, me, me as it should be when you are competing. If we had a marketing and promotion machine in place(no knock to Duesler), we might be able to actually get the casuals out to watch. 90% never even know there is something going on of disc golf importance that weekend :confused: ;)

Some of us just want to play golf. I could care less about payout, I just want to compete. I have played in pro events, including NTs, because I wanted to compete. I don't play Pro regularly because I like to be competitive with those I'm playing against, and I'm not there yet. But I'm not a "greedy am" hanging out collecting "giant piles of plastic." I find it insulting actually, when that is the assumption...


I'm sure I come across as implying all ams are "greedy" and if so, I apologize. Most ams I know are in the sport because they love competition, comraderie, etc. That is why the resistance/gloom and doom from the PDGA is so baffling. Making an exclusive am class would hardly be the end of the sport, just as having a true am class in every other sport hasn't ended their existence either.

Two things: Read up on US soccer. Bloomburg.com did a nice article not so long ago and my numbers come from other writers attributing their story.

What US soccer did is very clear. First, in 1985, the NASL went belly up and the US Soccer Federation decided it was because they did not have the fan base. They made an intentional decision not to attempt to reorganize a pro league. Instead they spent 9 years building the amateur, little league and school side of the sport. Then in 1994 they got the World Cup to come to the US with the agreement that they would start up a pro league again in a couple of years. This was more the International Soccer Federation trying to lure them back into the pro side and them thinking maybe with the World Cup they could make it happen. In 1996 they reinstated the pro side but they paid for their own TV exposure like the disc golf TV guys did a few years ago. Then they recently signed the deal with ESPN where ESPN is paying them, and another deal with Adidas. The Adidas deal was for 150 million. Then they made salary cap exceptions for a few big name Eurostars to be paid for with Adidas' money. Adidas got in with 150 mil because now every kid plays soccer at school. They figure the TV ratings will be there eventually and they have renewal options. Adidas does something like 300 million a year in soccer gear, so this is truly the amateurs supporting a big time sponsorship deal. If you want in, a franchise only costs 30 million. The Oakland As and the Toronto Argonauts just bought franchises.

There are 18 million people in this country playing organized soccer. I don't know how many more million people there are just kicking the ball around in regular kinds of "unorganized" stuff. It takes 18 million serious players to have a demographic big enough to get TV coming to you. It takes TV coming to you to get the sponsors coming to you too.

Now I've forgotton the other thing. We disc golfers may all find disc golf on TV to be appealing, but objectively it is as slow moving as golf or baseball, it has all the bone crunching physical contact of tennis, and is played seriously by about as many people as croquet or badminton. Croquet and badminton are not bringing home the bacon for their pros for the same reason we aren't: no fan base. Slow, non-contact, non-acrobatic sports need a huge player base to get on TV.

Our pros really need to make a hard choice, whether they want to goof around with piddling purses indefinately, or whether they want to actually do something effective to build a future for professional disc golf. I only know of one model for success for building a fan base for a slow moving, non-acrobatic kind of sport. If you can come up with some other model that has worked anywhere with a slow moving, non-acrobatic sport, fine. Either way, in order to skim enough money off the ams to build something truly professional, you need 18 million organized amateur competitors buying 300 million dollars worth of stuff per year, and all the rest of the casual players that go with that.

If you've got your 18 and your 300, it does not matter whether they buy their stuff as prizes or get their stuff as really big player packs. You won't need a bunch of TDs kicking it back to the local A-tier. Nike and Adidas [or maybe Innova and Discraft if they could compete the cheap Mexican and Chinese golf discs] will do that.

Great post Bruce, I love great sports stories. I started playing soccer when I was nine. A great sport of speed and endurance, I hope it does well. Mia Hamm also gave Women's Soccer a crazy shot in the arm. Just think what disc golf in schools could do for growing that demographic up from its current 8%. Gotta have some role models though. ;)
I am very with you Bruce on growing the base of the sport. On a competitive level though, an organization founded by organizing competitive play, the PDGA needs to keep that boat afloat.
What you are talking about is the strengthening of the relationship needed between the PDGA and the EDGE program. Let the EDGE program pay our top pros to be ambassadors for the sport and teach schools how to teach disc golf. If the PDGA were structured more to grow our competitive ranks at lower Tiers and creating True Pros we would have had the Amateur ranks overswelling many times over. True, some will never want to take the game that seriously, but the draw of disc golf being a sport will propel the game into something worthwhile to spectate.
Having students learn and play the game of disc golf in schools is EDGE's goal all the way to the promise land. Having students learn that the game can be a competitive sport by watching Avery Jenkins crush a huge high helix with pinpoint accuracy should be the PDGA mission.
I hope soon that the two shall allow Pro's to contribute and reap rewards at the same time. :D

Let's get this party started, right, quickly.........................Peace

Great post, Jay. ;)

Nail hit on head. These last few posts mixed with a compelling personality - or a couple dozen compelling personalities doing the school demo / affordable baskets &amp; discs thing would boost participation. And these folks might start to develop a fan base that would come out to watch them.

Perhaps they could go to schools near the next big tourney and encourage the kids to come and watch. And don't forget to bring your parents - here's three free tickets! Grow the sport.



One thing that would help DG get to the next level is some sort of catalyst (compelling personality), to raise consciousness of the sport in the public's eye.



That's basically what I was getting at. I wasn't saying that the analogy was perfect on every level, just that I see players like Avery being able to break beyond the perception that we're just guys throwing frisbees in the park.

Honestly, watching the trailer for "Chains" got my blood pumping more than anything else I've experienced in disc golf, except for being able to walk with the group as Ron Convers and Barry battled for the first Players Cup.

too bad that "growing the sport" isn't the PDGA's stated mission. growing the pro tour is, at least from my reading of our mission statement. not that growing the sport wouldn't be a good idea in my opinion. not sure management feels the same way though. if we keep charging more and more, we'll have less and less players.

we should be focusing on lowering fees, increasing membership and increasing sponsorship. with those 3 things, the rest likely will fall into place.

if we keep charging more and more, we'll have less and less players.


That's not true. The game will grow in spite of the pdga. That's what drives me crazy about the success they constantly claim as theirs. Virtually any plan would have the participation and success it does now because everyone loves to play that much. No matter how bad the system is or it's governing body the players and the game remain constant. If the system dictated whether I played or not I would've quit a decade ago. I can't even tell you how much money this game has cost me over the years, but I continue to play because I enjoy the courses and the game itself.

There are any number of ways to divide up the pool of players and the pool of money or merchandise. There are all sorts of ways to build the player base. There are any number of suggestions about how to build PDGA membership. Most all of them have merit, to some degree. Some are more doable than others. Getting disc golf into the schools and getting the 'compelling personalities' in our sport out front are a couple of those good ideas.

The fact of the matter is that to provide the affordable discs and baskets (and a tested curriculum, which is what EDGE really offers), and to get the 'compelling personalities' to the schools takes something. And that is MONEY. For the past five years I've spent time making explorations with major corporations, government agencies, parks and recreation organizations, and charitable foundations, trying to find additional funding for EDGE from outside the disc golf community. In the age of 9/11 and Katrina, and as much as the issues of childhood obesity and decline in fitness have been touted in the press, money for programs is in short supply and hard to find, unless you are researching post-modern three-toed frogs in sub-saharan climates. Thanks to the support of our primary corporate sponsor, generous contributions from a few individual disc golfers, fund raising programs at tournaments, and the continually growing interest of the schools community, EDGE is growing. It would be nice if more of the disc golf industry would get on board, as that would help the program grow at the pace needed to fund the 'clinic' model that we would like to present.

I have a list as long as my arm of disc golfers that want to help EDGE. I see people touting EDGE as the future of disc golf all the time here on this message board. I know a lot of people believe in the mission of the program, but the strange politics of our sport has kept some top players away from assisting with our goals. EDGE is an incorporated, independent non-profit educational organization, recognized by the IRS as a 501 (c) 3 charitable entity. The past few years, EDGE has paid to put a flyer in the PDGA renewal package, in the hopes of getting some contributions, but that has yielded few dollars, overall. We certainly appreciate the donations that have been made, but it's been a bit disappointing, considering all the positive talk that goes on about the program.

Now, how could a tournament model be constructed that would benefit these four components: the players, the tournament promoter, the community, and the sponsors?

Let's say we followed a model based loosely on what the PGA Tour does. Let's use conservative numbers, say 100 players, each paying $100 entry fee. Of the $10,000 raised, $5000 is set aside for administrative expenses (more on this later) and $5000 is contributed to a charity. Let's say the charity is EDGE. EDGE then supports a schools clinic program during the week preceding the tournament, giving a number of players a stipend and provides the equipment and materials to teach a clinic at schools that are recruited by the tournament director. At the clinic, the players also distribute promotional materials about the tournament, including tickets, plenty of tickets. (More on tickets later.)

Now for the other $5000. This is used by the Tournament Director to support administrative expenses, including course fees, staff expenses, and promotional materials that he/she can use when approaching corporate entities for cash sponsorships. The plan is to give the sponsors the exposure they are looking for to the spectators that would come from the distribution of tickets at the schools, as well as distribution of tickets at the sponsors' business locations. A large percentage (let's say 50%) of the sponsorship money goes directly to tournament payout, with some (10%) being used by the TD for tourney expenses (banners, tents, staff apparel and meals, etc.), some (15%) going to the TD for his hard work, and some (25%) to the charity (In this case, EDGE, who would put disc golf programs in a number of schools in the area). The sponsors would also be asked to be a source of volunteers for the event. Other than actually being rules officials, lots of areas can be covered by non-disc golfers.

Let's look at some various scenarios, based on the 100 player, $100 entry fee example:

<table border="1"><tr><td> Entries</td><td> For Clinics</td><td> For Admin</td><td> S-ship $ Raised</td><td> Payout Share</td><td> Payout %</td><td>S-ship Expenses</td><td>TDs Share</td><td>EDGE Share</td><td>EDGE Provides to local schools
</td></tr><tr><td>10000</td><td>5000</td><td>5000</td><td>20000</td><td>10000</td><td>100%</td><td>1000</td><td>1500</td><td>5000</td><td>10 Basic Packages
</td></tr><tr><td>10000</td><td>5000</td><td>5000</td><td>30000</td><td> 15000</td><td> 150%</td><td>3000</td><td>4500</td><td> 7500</td><td> 1 9-hole course + 5 Basic Packages
</td></tr><tr><td>10000</td><td>5000</td><td>5000</td><td>50000</td><td> 25000</td><td> 250%</td><td> 5000</td><td>7500</td><td> 12500</td><td> 2 9-hole courses + 5 Basic Packages
</td></tr><tr><td>10000</td><td>5000</td><td>5000</td><td>100000</td><td> 50000</td><td> 500%</td><td> 10000</td><td>15000</td><td> 25000</td><td> 4 9-hole courses + 10 Basic Packages
</td></tr><tr><td>And</td><td> on</td><td> and</td><td> on</td><td> and</td><td> on</td><td> and</td><td> on</td><td> and on!</tr></td></table>

And yes the TD gets 15%. They have phone bills, gas, printing, taking a sponsor out to lunch to discuss the event, all the things that business people do. After all, this IS a business. And for that 15% they are going to get out there and sell the event so YOU, the pro, can come and play and hopefully make some money too. The more incentive you give someone the more potential for them to build the sponsorship pool.

As to sponsorships, just at the $10,000 level you could sell the naming rights to the tournament for $2500, a couple of $1250 presenting sponsor slots, several $500 supporting sponsorships, and a whole lot of $100-$250 sponsorships. Something for everyone. And the more money you raise, the more the players win and the more sponsors get exposure. Give each sponsor one ticket for each $1 of sponsorship. (Yes, I know, tickets don't mean a lot at this point in time, but its something you put in someone's hand to serve as a reminder to come out to the course and watch. And maybe you could put a discount voucher on the back for your tournament 'pro shop.') Sponsors get banners, tee signs, logos on staff shirts, tents and tables to promote product.

What works about all of this is that everyone is a winner. The players get a good payout, the tournament director gets paid for his work, the sponsors get exposure, the charity leaves a lasting impression on the community, thanks to the disc golf tournament, and people are encouraged to come out and watch. (Don't rail on about the lack of spectators unless you do something to try and get them there) With an EDGE charity tie, hundreds and hundreds of kids get to play disc golf, and their parents and the school faculty and staff get to meet top level players at the clinics and then come and cheer them on at the tournament.

I know that Yeti, Des, K-Mack, Kenny, Barry, Avery, Brinster, Burl, Angela, Juliana, Shawn S., and lots of other pros would be right there to support the allied events in the community. If every player that registered for a tournament like this was committed to not just playing their best, but doing everything they could to give the community a positive impression of disc golf, this is a win-win-win situation. Clinics, personal appearances, sponsor meet-and-greets are all ways that players could support the TD's efforts. After all, he's working for you, right?

Just to show that I'm on-topic with this :), I'd support the promotion of an AM-Only tournament a week or two previous to this PRO-only event. I'm not going to recommend how the TD would run that event. Whatever divisional structure, whatever economic plan that would work in that particular community is fine with me. Encourage the Am's to come out and support the pros the next week. Give them jobs or other service opportunities. Let them help the pros with the school clinics. Ask them to give leads for sponsorship and take them along when a professional presentation is made to a potential sponsor. Give them tickets to hand out to their friends and family and coworkers. If the TD wants to move any profit from this tournament to the PRO event, great. If it just serves to promote community and sponsor support, great too.

There's been a lot of "why doesn't the PDGA do this, or why doesn't the PDGA do that" on this thread. It's really not the PDGA's doing. It's up to the promoters to make anything happen in this sport. It's up to the players to support what the promoters do. Promoters that are comfortable with the merchandise model will continue to do that, and players will come. Promoters that are into a sponsorship model will figure out ways to make that work...and the players will come. Promoters will run trophy-only formats, and the players will come. If you have a problem with a particular method, then either support someone that does it the way you like it, or make it happen yourself. Just don't demean all those people out there that work so hard to run events so that lots of people get an opportunity to experience our sport. I don't think you'd ask the local golf courses to quit running USGA format tournaments, just because the PGA Tour is successful. The Nissan Open is going on in Los Angeles right now. And there are 14 local club tournaments going on within 50 miles of Riviera. Heavens!

If the model I've described above would work for someone, please contact me and I'll work with you to develop it. Schools would benefit, EDGE would benefit, the players would benefit, the community would benefit, the PDGA would benefit, the sport would benefit, and hey, the tournament director might just come away without having to sell the farm to support the event.

Jon Lyksett
Program Director, EDGE


PS: Next time you think about how EDGE could benefit your local school or disc golf in general, please go to PayPal and make a contribution to "donations at edgediscgolf dot org" (remove the quotes and substitute @ and . for the at and the dot).

There's been a lot of "why doesn't the PDGA do this, or why doesn't the PDGA do that" on this thread. It's really not the PDGA's doing. It's up to the promoters to make anything happen in this sport. It's up to the players to support what the promoters do. Promoters that are comfortable with the merchandise model will continue to do that, and players will come. Promoters that are into a sponsorship model will figure out ways to make that work...and the players will come. Promoters will run trophy-only formats, and the players will come. If you have a problem with a particular method, then either support someone that does it the way you like it, or make it happen yourself. Just don't demean all those people out there that work so hard to run events so that lots of people get an opportunity to experience our sport.



Good post, Jon.

True, but I also believe it's up to the PDGA to provide guidance to the promoters on the divisional structure and merchandise model.

Here's a litmus test for you.

Pull up the results from any recent 'C' Tier or 'D' Tier PDGA-sanctioned event, such as this one (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6451&year=2006&includeRatings=1#Intermediate). I don't mean to pick on this particular tournament - I'm sure the organizer(s) and tournament director(s) did a fabulous job with it - but it typifies what our competitive system today will produce.

Observe that 80 competitors were split into a whopping thirteen divisions for a simple one-day event. Nine of those thirteen divisions had six competitors or less. That's not even two full cards of golfers in each division! Observe the player ratings of the competitors in each division, and how many of them overlap, as well as the overlapping scores they produced in the tournament.

If this looks all fine and dandy to you, then you probably don't have an issue with the PDGA Divisional Structure.

But if this looks like one of the silliest things you've ever seen, then it's time for a new PDGA Divisional Structure.

What Jeff said.

Jons model is both realistic and achievable. It doesn't necesarily address the whole divisional issue at hand, but it gives a ready answer for it anyway. That answer of course would also address the issue Jeff brought up.

I would love to be doing EDGE stuff, and pursuing schools - I've done several demos in the past. But never really had much opportunity for either follow up, or actual course development at school sites (which is obviously essential).

But the whole notion of tieing in to the community, and charity, and corporate America all simultaneously seems like a no brainer.
What the PDGA could do would be to provide a model document, or a summit/training seminar, or some other resource to/for promoters to get them all utilizing the same all-inclusive model. Someone with presentation skills (say like John Houck) would be a worthy investment as a paid position to train our TD's and promoters to make the most of our events. If it's successful in one region, it should be in another.

True, but I also believe it's up to the PDGA to provide guidance to the promoters on the divisional structure and merchandise model.

Here's a litmus test for you.

Pull up the results from any recent 'C' Tier or 'D' Tier PDGA-sanctioned event, such as this one (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6451&year=2006&includeRatings=1#Intermediate). I don't mean to pick on this particular tournament - I'm sure the organizer(s) and tournament director(s) did a fabulous job with it - but it typifies what our competitive system today will produce.

Observe that 80 competitors were split into a whopping thirteen divisions for a simple one-day event. Nine of those thirteen divisions had six competitors or less. That's not even two full cards of golfers in each division! Observe the player ratings of the competitors in each division, and how many of them overlap, as well as the overlapping scores they produced in the tournament.

If this looks all fine and dandy to you, then you probably don't have an issue with the PDGA Divisional Structure.

But if this looks like one of the silliest things you've ever seen, then it's time for a new PDGA Divisional Structure.




I look at it and see a wonderful D Tier event full of ages from junior to Senior Grand, a great women's turnout, and a format (Ice Bowl) that was probably more geared towards some of the more non-tangible rewards than just division payout (charity raising, increasing sport awareness and the like). From my perspective, it looks like a great tournament with a wide range of competitors in regards to skills and backgrounds. I would bet that most people who played really didn't give a rip concerning how many 'cards' their division had, and that limiting the divisions may have actually taken away from the event.

Perhaps my 'litmus' was placed in a glass half full?

I look at it and see a wonderful D Tier event full of ages from junior to Senior Grand, a great women's turnout, and a format (Ice Bowl) that was probably more geared towards some of the more non-tangible rewards than just division payout (charity raising, increasing sport awareness and the like). From my perspective, it looks like a great tournament with a wide range of competitors in regards to skills and backgrounds. I would bet that most people who played really didn't give a rip concerning how many 'cards' their division had, and that limiting the divisions may have actually taken away from the event.

Perhaps my 'litmus' was placed in a glass half full?



Don't get hung up on this one example and the fact that it was an Ice Bowl which are typically less competitive and geared towards raising food / funds for charity. It was chosen as representative of our tournament divisional structure today. Again, pull up the results from any recent 'C' Tier or 'D' Tier PDGA-sanctioned event and you'll find a wide range of competitors in regards to skills and backgrounds, but with exactly the same player ratings and tournament scores. If tournaments with multiple overlapping divisions and with over 2/3 of the divisions containing less than two full cards seem like one of the silliest things you've ever seen, then you don't pass the litmus test and agree that it's time for the PDGA to get serious about our divisional structure and provide some appropriate guidelines to TDs and promoters.

If all this seems fine and dandy to you, then you pass the litmus test. Feel free to ignore these threads, and carry on with business as usual.

If the alternative is smaller, less diverse fields, then yes, this looks fine to me. I'd rather have the 80 players than 50 in four divisions, and I feel that future sponsorship will be aided by more of the former than the latter.

A great demographic for a potential sponsor would be mom, dad and the kids all participating in the tournament. Heck, bring the grandparents. Its a C or D tier, not a job site. Who cares what division they are in. If the kids want to play with the kids, let them. If moms want to play with moms, let them. If 100 of these were held every weekend in the US, you would have your sponsorship to create a 'job site' (true professional tournament).

Moms should play with moms if they want to. Kids should play with kids if they want to.

55-year old men with a rating of 945 who play for cash, and 45-year old men with a rating of 945 who play for merchandise, should not have to be coddled in their own divisions from 25-year old men with a rating of 945.

if its a C or D tier, who gives a flyin' fahooty? let them do what they want as far as structure goes. get progressively more serious for B and A tiers, and dictate the deal for NT.

You call it 'coodled', I call it providing a more attractive event for your customer base. Since 2/3rds of the division are donating anyway, why not let them donate to people they understand, know and are in a similar situation with? Why not let them play for cash as they get older as opposed to forcing them into an Am division? Why not let seniors play together instead of throwing them down into Intermediate when their physical skills decline?

Why would the average Grand Master who still wants to play for cash shell out $60 just to hear a 25 year old without a job once again declare that he is still out? Coodled? Really now. Save it for the few high rated over-40 players that are taking advantage of the system. For the majority, it isn't the case.

You call it 'coodled', I call it providing a more attractive event for your customer base. Since 2/3rds of the division are donating anyway, why not let them donate to people they understand, know and are in a similar situation with? Why not let them play for cash as they get older as opposed to forcing them into an Am division? Why not let seniors play together instead of throwing them down into Intermediate when their physical skills decline?

Why would the average Grand Master who still wants to play for cash shell out $60 just to hear a 25 year old without a job once again declare that he is still out? Coodled? Really now. Save it for the few high rated over-40 players that are taking advantage of the system. For the majority, it isn't the case.



It's coddled, not coodled. One 'o' and two 'd's. To nurse or tend indulgently; pamper.

And that's exactly what it is - unnecessarily indulging older golfers. It's a disc golf tournament. The idea is to compete against people of similar ability as you in a game of disc golf. Why is it important that you play with people of the same age who "understand, know and are in a similar situation with?" Isn't there ample opportunity to do that in the 50+ casual rounds you play with these guys each year? If golfers of all ages and ability are grouped together, won't you more often than not end up playing in tournaments against these same old guys anyway?

And if they are all the same ability, that average Grand Master will often beat "the 25 year old without a job." (btw, do you think most 25-yr olds are unemployed? what kind of stereotyping is that?)

Golfers of the same ability playing against each other - what a revolutionary concept. If it makes too much sense, obviously it is unacceptable.

Golfers of the same ability playing against each other - what a revolutionary concept. If it makes too much sense, obviously it is unacceptable.


I think there is room for all manner of tournament formats, including a radical one like that! :)

Jeff, you should run a tourney and restrict the divisions to only the following: MPO/FPO/MA1/MA2/MA3. Let us know what the turnout is like and how the players liked it. Maybe it will catch on.

Jeff, you should run a tourney and restrict the divisions to only the following: MPO/FPO/MA1/MA2/MA3. Let us know what the turnout is like and how the players liked it. Maybe it will catch on.



Good idea.

You can play where you like, currently, I can play where I like.

If I am unable to play where I like, I have many other things that I would like to do to fill my weekends.

You may find that trying to force players to play where you think they should will likely force them to play at courses where tournaments aren't being held.

You may say good riddance, but in many areas, the master age players are the ones that are carrying the disc golf scene on their backs. If they leave, there won't be much left.

You may say good riddance, but in many areas, the master age players are the ones that are carrying the disc golf scene on their backs. If they leave, there won't be much left.



I know this is true, and I don't want to knock Masters players and all they've done for the sport. But with that said, I'm getting tired of hearing that line.

If they leave, you won't.

You call it 'coodled', I call it providing a more attractive event for your customer base. Since 2/3rds of the division are donating anyway, why not let them donate to people they understand, know and are in a similar situation with? Why not let them play for cash as they get older as opposed to forcing them into an Am division? Why not let seniors play together instead of throwing them down into Intermediate when their physical skills decline?

Why would the average Grand Master who still wants to play for cash shell out $60 just to hear a 25 year old without a job once again declare that he is still out? Coodled? Really now. Save it for the few high rated over-40 players that are taking advantage of the system. For the majority, it isn't the case.



It's coddled, not coodled. One 'o' and two 'd's. To nurse or tend indulgently; pamper.

And that's exactly what it is - unnecessarily indulging older golfers. It's a disc golf tournament. The idea is to compete against people of similar ability as you in a game of disc golf. Why is it important that you play with people of the same age who "understand, know and are in a similar situation with?" Isn't there ample opportunity to do that in the 50+ casual rounds you play with these guys each year? If golfers of all ages and ability are grouped together, won't you more often than not end up playing in tournaments against these same old guys anyway?

And if they are all the same ability, that average Grand Master will often beat "the 25 year old without a job." (btw, do you think most 25-yr olds are unemployed? what kind of stereotyping is that?)

Golfers of the same ability playing against each other - what a revolutionary concept. If it makes too much sense, obviously it is unacceptable.



Pardon my spelling.

As for the 50 casual round thing, no, I do not get a chance to play with 'these guys' during these. I get to see many of the older players in our area (300 - 400 mile radius) only at tournaments as we all travel a couple of hundred miles for the event. That is a big part of the event for many of us. I wouldn't make the drive without it and instead would stick to a local mini or league if I want to meet new players and shoot with the youngsters.

Concerning the 25 year old, no I don't feel that they are all unemployed. But around our area, unemployment seems to do wonders for a person's 'game'. The playing field is not equal (remember, I stated the Grand Master who want to play or cash which leaves only Open, not 'same ability' players as you state), and I don't feel any responsibility at all to donate to the group. Sorry. Unless your ratings based event plays for cash at all levels, it will never be a true level field for older players who don't want to play for plastic.

It's customer service, not coodled (mispelling intentional). Try it, you may like it. Or then again, try it the other way and fill us in on how many older players show up.

You may say good riddance, but in many areas, the master age players are the ones that are carrying the disc golf scene on their backs. If they leave, there won't be much left.




Or then again, try it the other way and fill us in on how many older players show up.



And there's the problem right there. Because it's been this way so long, there's no chance of ever changing it. Even with a fairly accurate ratings system, even if ratings-based play makes all the sense in the world, it will never fly because of the threat that master aged players would boycott.

Discussion on proposed changes to our competition system always ends here.

Why do we bother discussing it in the first place? Nothing will ever change.

Actually, Dave and I have discovered a possible way out of this Master box but haven't developed a proposal to share it yet even with the Comp Committee. More to come in March but this might even make Hawk happy.

Golfers of the same ability playing against each other - what a revolutionary concept. If it makes too much sense, obviously it is unacceptable.


I think there is room for all manner of tournament formats, including a radical one like that! :)

Jeff, you should run a tourney and restrict the divisions to only the following: MPO/FPO/MA1/MA2/MA3. Let us know what the turnout is like and how the players liked it. Maybe it will catch on.

If the IOS continues to grow, I'll propose running something like that. We already have a lot of Masters age players in the divisions indicated by their ratings.

I like the option of offering lots of divisions because it brings in more players. Once we are maxed, there is no reason to split the field into multiple overlapping divisions.

For the record, I am pleased to see Tournament Directors starting to take advantage of the half-priced trophy-only entry options. By offering half-priced entry, they encourage participation from competitors who statistically have a low chance of placing, and increase the odds that tournaments fill to capacity and don't leave empty spots. These competitors get all the perks and benefits of tournament participation, without the despondant 'donator' feeling. It's essentially taking the 'gambling' aspect out of it by charging only enough to cover tournament expenses, and encouraging participation and a full field from those who want to play with elite golfers but aren't as competitive. Imo, it's the smartest idea in years, and directly responsible for me playing in my first sanctioned event in three years. The PDGA would be wise to publicize the benefits of this option to let more TDs know that it's out there, and encourage them to offer it.

If they leave, you won't.



More of the same.

I have nothing against Masters divisions or anything, and I completely respect those who have built this sport into what it is. I'm sorry that I was born the year the Aero came out, and that I've only been playing for 5 years. I wish I coulda been there helping in the beginning.

The thing is, I give tons more to this sport than many of the Masters players I know, and I'm just tired of the assertation that the sport will crumble and fall if the old guys can't play with their buddies.

The sport won't crumble but I would suggest a new organization will be formed for those over 39 and there might be a temporary leadership crisis in the PDGA. Baby boomers have historically been the most politically active, outspoken and volunteer oriented population group that should never be underestimated. They are now "the new 30".

Not that eliminating the masters division is gonna happen anyway, but to be persuasive, y'all need a sounder argument. Y'all completely discount the fact that age distinctions have legitimate merit. In other words, a 1020 rated 48 year old is arguably far different than a 1020 rated 24 year old, similar to the fact that a 960 rated female is different than a 960 rated male.

I for one see the gender distinction as "inarguable" and some age threshold (maybe more than 40, maybe not)as "pretty tough to argue". These distinctions in sport are commonly held in our society and not surprisingly, age and gender distinctions are alive and well in many sports. Why? Probably because they make inherent sense.

Unless you are making an argument that everyone should play together in ratings brackets (male and female together), which would be down-right foolish, your argument lacks persuasiveness imo.

Unless you are making an argument that everyone should play together in ratings brackets (male and female together), which would be down-right foolish, your argument lacks persuasiveness imo.



Well, I wasn't trying to make a persuasive argument, so I'm not too upset about my argument lacking persuasiveness...

I have no problems with there being Masters divisions. All I'm saying (for the third time) is to please stop playing the We-built-this-Sport card as a way to justify having a Masters division.

If your post was not directed at me, I apologize, but you replied to my previous post.

Not that eliminating the masters division is gonna happen anyway, but to be persuasive, y'all need a sounder argument. Y'all completely discount the fact that age distinctions have legitimate merit. In other words, a 1020 rated 48 year old is arguably far different than a 1020 rated 24 year old, similar to the fact that a 960 rated female is different than a 960 rated male.

I for one see the gender distinction as "inarguable" and some age threshold (maybe more than 40, maybe not)as "pretty tough to argue". These distinctions in sport are commonly held in our society and not surprisingly, age and gender distinctions are alive and well in many sports. Why? Probably because they make inherent sense.

Unless you are making an argument that everyone should play together in ratings brackets (male and female together), which would be down-right foolish, your argument lacks persuasiveness imo.



I disagree completely. There have been countless numbers of threads on why women play in their own divisions, and women golfers have been surveyed and polled numerous times and the answer has always been that they prefer to play in their own divisions in PDGA tournaments. That's not rehash that whole discussion again - the basic reasons are that they are a minority group in disc golf that everyone wants to see grow, and the bonding aspects of playing together and avoiding the testosterone in male divisions cannot be understated. The same arguments can be made for junior divisions - playing against other similar golfers is going to endear the sport to them and help their small number grow.

Old men do not need to be catered so, and a 1020 rated 48 year old is EXACTLY the same as a 1020 rated 24 year old. They have exactly the same rating and shoot exactly the same scores averaged over all their tournaments, and they are not a minority group in disc golf that needs special protection.

Other than one might be the father of the other...

The PDGA would be wise to make this option required for all divisions



Problem solved Jeff. :)


Doing that will open the door for moving towards a system that makes "Am for life" a legit committment not based on finances.

What about the sub-950 rated 48 year old? Let's talk about the majority of the group here as opposed to your 1020 rated exception.

What about the sub-950 rated 48 year old?



What about them? Same deal. Why there needs to be a separate division for 4 guys (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6493&year=2006&includeRatings=1#Advanced Masters) whose player ratings and tournament scores completely overlap with Advanced and Intermediate golfers is something I'll never understand.

Because up here they play for cash and almost always have over 10 people in the division. Pro Grand Masters is getting close to being consistently in the double digits as well, and will be in a year or so. Are you proposing kicking these people back into the plastic divisions (in many cases, Intermediate) as well?

I'm not proposing anything; it's useless to do so. I just think multiple overlapping divisions of the same player ratings and score ranges because of 10-year age differences is the silliest thing in disc golf. That, and the little two-finger handshake thing Sedgley golfers do when everyone on the card gets a deuce. :D

In the case of a 45 vs. 25 year old, 20 years. Grand Master, 35 years on average. Senior Grands, 45 years on average (and probably a Rec rating). Where do you cut it off, or do all get thrown into Am divisions, eventually with all the newbies.

And let's face it, most of us old guys just won't get what that 2 fingered handshake (or anything else the kids are doing) is about ! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

That, and the little two-finger handshake thing Sedgley golfers do when everyone on the card gets a deuce. :D



I agree with that completely. I go play a tourney down there and then they start doing that. Like, whoa man, I'm from Jersey, simmer down.

I don't know how old you guys are, but as you age, your game on a particular day depends on how you are that particular day...how's the back? how's the elbow? how's the shoulder? how're the knees? how're the hips? how's the vision? did you remember to bring the muscle relaxers, the pain killers, the anti-imflammatories? . . . did the old guy in the hotel room across the hall bring enough to share?
Most the old guys that play together understand it and like to be coddled together with other old guys that understand.
Your rating may remain somewhat constant, but the joints, aches and pains do not. They seem to find new ones every day.
of course, it's just my opinion and I'm just a young, hot babe. :eek: :D /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif ;) /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

I'm just tired of the assertation that the sport will crumble and fall if the old guys can't play with their buddies'.


My intent was to respond to your not wanting to hear the old guys' complaints. I was not contending or threatening that they would leave. Note that I said "If." I don't know if they will. I surely won't. But to the point . . .

I would gladly play, sometimes, in ratings-based events. I've tried mightily to get to the Mid-Nationals but something has come up every single year. The kinds of things that come up more frequently for older players than for younger ones. There are such things, you know. :D

However, I believe that I would find it immensely unsatisfying to compete regularly if my only opportunities were in ratings-based events. That might cut down my competition frequency, but not my membership in the PDGA or my dedication to disc golf.

A 942-rated player who is 59 years old does not play the same game as a 942-rated player who is 19 years old. (Even putting aside that the 19-year old may well be competing at a higher level than his most recent official rating, while the 59-year old is likely struggling to maintain the 942 rating.)

You might want to note my perceptions about this. I am an older player who already competes against younger guys much more frequently than against players my own age. I know from experience that it is a qualitatively different experience from competing with just older players. Let's talk about one difference: distance on the drive.

I can not throw a drive longer than about 325 feet. How does that make ratings-based competition unfair? Ann Arbor examples: When I play a short round at Hudson Mills, either side, my rating for a round can go up to 960, 980, or even higher. When I play the Monster longs, my rating for a round can easily go under 900. Bowling Green examples. At Hobson's Grove I can kick Advanced Am butt. Put me with those guys at the White course and I am dead meat.

In a field of 942-rated players, (not so) like myself, I kick butt on the short courses but get my butt kicked on the long ones. There's nothing competitively equal about that.

Bigs, my response was to the idea in general, not your specific post.


and a 1020 rated 48 year old is EXACTLY the same as a 1020 rated 24 year old.


No they aren't. One is close to a complete anomaly within his age peers. The other is just a fantastic golfer amongst his age peers. Age breakdowns at some threshold make logical sense. That is why there will continue to be master-type divisions, and that is why their should continue to be master-type divisions. It seems like one could discuss the age threshold and how the incentives are structured, rather than maintaining they shouldn't exist.

ps. The women divisions are not offered because we need to grow the womens side, they are offered because they make complete sense as a breakdown. That is why every sport that I can think of has womens divisions.

I don't know how old you guys are, but as you age, your game on a particular day depends on how you are that particular day...how's the back? how's the elbow? how's the shoulder? how're the knees? how're the hips? how's the vision? did you remember to bring the muscle relaxers, the pain killers, the anti-imflammatories? . . . did the old guy in the hotel room across the hall bring enough to share?
Most the old guys that play together understand it and like to be coddled together with other old guys that understand.
Your rating may remain somewhat constant, but the joints, aches and pains do not. They seem to find new ones every day.
of course, it's just my opinion and I'm just a young, hot babe. :eek: :D /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif ;) /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif



46, and looking to move to Grand Masters in 2010.

Yes, the back gives me trouble, one knee is occasionally an issue, and an elbow can complain at times. On a two day tournament, I tend to walk about a bit stooped early that second morning. But I do still try to stand up straight, suck in the gut and look cool when a young hot babe like yourself walks by. :D

:D
.
.
.
.
.
ok, I'll admit. I have hot flashes and a baby and a husband that regularly plays adv master div rated 947 age 43
so not exactly a young hot babe, but you never know what you are going to get when you meet online :D

In a field of 942-rated players, (not so) like myself, I kick butt on the short courses but get my butt kicked on the long ones. There's nothing competitively equal about that.



Averaged over all their tournament rounds, they are exactly competitively equal. Ratings are produced by tournament scores on all courses, both short and long, tight or wooded. No matter how far you throw on the drive, it's how you finish the hole and your final score at the end of the round.

Even amongst two 942-rated players of exactly the same age, one guy may have better accuracy than the other. Or one may throw rollers better. Or one may putt better. Those differences have absolutely nothing to do with age - that's just the natural difference between golfers, regardless of age. But if golfers have the same rating they will average the same scores and are competitively equal.

maybe we should have Length-Protected divisions in order to accomodate players like Terry who have problems with their length.

The facts do not support that along the lines of what Terry says. I have taken Worlds data from a pool of Open players who average 950 ratings and compared their scores to a pool of women plus Master and older players with the same 950 average rating on a hole-by-hole on a course that has half open and half wooded holes. The overall average scores of each pool were the same. But the younger guys scored better on the open holes and the older group plus women scored better in the woods. If the courses being played in an event are balanced, then it's a fair battle. Otherwise, one or the other group will have an advantage on their type of course.

BTW, Jeff, in the example that you use at the Vic Open, the first place Adv Master would have been 20th place in Advanced.

Age breakdowns at some threshold make logical sense. That is why there will continue to be master-type divisions, and that is why their should continue to be master-type divisions. It seems like one could discuss the age threshold and how the incentives are structured, rather than maintaining they shouldn't exist.



I disagree completely. Age breakdowns at any threshold will never make logical sense. There will always be that guy who is a "complete anomaly within his age peers" or groups of guys who would destroy the competition. The current Pro Masters age starts at 40; if you set the Pro Masters age at 50, think of 1000+ rated guys like Voakes, Pierson, Greenwell, Sias, etc. who would be shoo-ins at most tournaments throughout the year. If you set the Pro Masters age at 60, think of how easily 1000-rated Tom Monroe would win because almost all current Senior Grandmasters aged 60 and over are rated 960 and below.

Where do you set the age threshold at? There's no good answer because of these fantastic golfers amongst their age peers. Which is why the objective measures we have such as ratings and tournament scores are the logical choice to set divisions. But that all makes too much sense, so obviously it is unacceptable.

In a field of 942-rated players, (not so) like myself, I kick butt on the short courses but get my butt kicked on the long ones. There's nothing competitively equal about that.



Averaged over all their tournament rounds, they are exactly competitively equal. Ratings are produced by tournament scores on all courses, both short and long, tight or wooded. No matter how far you throw on the drive, it's how you finish the hole and your final score at the end of the round.

Even amongst two 942-rated players of exactly the same age, one guy may have better accuracy than the other. Or one may throw rollers better. Or one may putt better. Those differences have absolutely nothing to do with age - that's just the natural difference between golfers, regardless of age. But if golfers have the same rating they will average the same scores and are competitively equal.



Actually Jeff, I think you're wrong. On average , a 1000 rated 55 year old is equal to a 1000 rated 25 year old. You said this and then turned around and said that they were Competitively equal. The two things aren't the same in my eyes.

The fact that the players have the same rating simply means that on whatever courses they played, under what ever conditions, and with whatever other players played, they have the same ratings. In order for those ratings to have the same exact meaning, every throw and every tournmanet for the two players would have to be identical. That is, how they got to those ratings is in all likelihood, very different.

Ratings have a great use as a general purpose tool for placing people in categories, but as an absolute determiner of skill for comparisons, they are average to good at best.

I do not support age based divisions, I do enjoy playing with guys my age, in general they are more patient, more understanding, and they like to talk about things other than drinking, smoking and sex. But that isn't a good enough reason to have an age protected bracket.

Terry's point that there are real differences in strength and agility is correct. The flip side is that older players, have better ratings because on average they are more patient, more learned, and pay closer attention to detail. That is why all to often athletes don't reach their peak when their physical skills are at their highest, but rather when their maturity matches their skills.

The reality is that we all are rated differently, depending on the course we play. As Terry pointed out, on a boomer course, a young guy is going to, on average, have a higher rating than an old guy. On a short technical course, the older guy will have the advantage. Should either player be protected in the environment in which they perform more poorly? Whether or not we have a rule that forces them to play each other, they likely will not, on average. If you put them together, the old guys will migrate to tournaments where their skills dominate, and the young guys will do the same.

In a field of 942-rated players, (not so) like myself, I kick butt on the short courses but get my butt kicked on the long ones. There's nothing competitively equal about that.



Averaged over all their tournament rounds, they are exactly competitively equal.

D'oh! That's how we get ratings. In essence, ratings are a year-long competitive event that lets us see our overall skill levels relative to other players even though we don't play the same tournaments or courses. For that year-long event, it's fair as heck.

For a single tournament, which is generally all that I compete in at one time, it is simply not fair to know that I am going to get my butt kicked, going in, due to a single specific skill difference - distance - that is in fact age related.

Chuck, I know you have stats - from Miami Worlds if from nowhere else - that prove the relationship between distance and age.

BTW, Jeff, in the example that you use at the Vic Open, the first place Adv Master would have been 20th place in Advanced.



The first and third place guys in Advanced Masters, rated 937 and 938, would not have cashed in Advanced, but they shot below their rating.

The second and fourth place guys in Advanced Masters, rated 910 and 882, shot above their rating and would both have cashed in Intermediate.

In Advanced Grandmasters, the top three finishers, rated 898-892, would have cashed in Intermediate.

Tell me why again these two groups of four competitors each need their own divisions? :confused:

Because what I said above, you can force a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. If you put them in the same class, they'll figure out a way to segregate themselves, it's human nature.

Chuck, I know you have stats - from Miami Worlds if from nowhere else, that prove the relationship between distance and age.



Those stats aren't online anywhere right now. They used to be on Houck's site. If a course is truly designed for a particular skill level, it will be tough for a group of 25 year old guys to consistently beat a group of 50 year old guys of the same rating (or vice versa) regardless whether the course is short, long, open or wooded. Unfortunately, most of our courses haven't been designed for a specific skill level, and even if they were, players usually don't get to play their skill level course every round. My guess is that the skill level design aspect is more relevant to the difference Terry noted on his local courses than their overall length in particular.

As a side note, it will be fascinating to see the reactions to players trying Houck's gold+ course at the IDGC. The scale is beyond all but the best players.

The first and third place guys in Advanced Masters, rated 937 and 938, would not have cashed in Advanced, but they shot below their rating.

The second and fourth place guys in Advanced Masters, rated 910 and 882, shot above their rating and would both have cashed in Intermediate.

In Advanced Grandmasters, the top three finishers, rated 898-892, would have cashed in Intermediate.

Tell me why again these two groups of four competitors each need their own divisions? :confused:



You canNOT judge the division structure by taking the best from one group and seeing how they would have placed in the next division up. otherwise you give all the other guys who finished below them no consideration. for example, if the top Advanced Master would have been 4th in Advanced, that is not sufficient to argue against an advanced master division. key here is whether the guys who finished in the middle or near the bottom felt they had a chance and had fun trying to cash in advanced masters. do away with advanced masters and the three guys at the top may feel they have a shot in Advanced, but the rest of the field is going to see little reason to compete in PDGA events since they will just be donating. granted, there are those folks who will support the PDGA regardless, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

to compare two divsions you really need to compare the average scores for each division, not whether the top performers would have been alright in the next divsion up.

Juliana Korver cashed at the USDGC in 2001. are you going to use that feat to argue there should be no Pro Womens division? :confused:

I still have the same question as always.

Why do you care ?
No one says anybody has to play in a protected division.

I like playing with the old guys whether I am winning or losing. There really isn't much difference between the top and bottom cards (often they are the same card) as far as attitude and behavior are concerned. The few times I have played in the general divisions, that was never the case.

As a side note, it will be fascinating to see the reactions to players trying Houck's gold+ course at the IDGC. The scale is beyond all but the best players.



And by that you mean that the overall hole lengths, distances to landing areas, forced water carries, and determining pro pars were set for 1000+ rated players, right? But are you afraid that it won't still be enjoyed by blue, white, or red level (950, 900, 850-rated) players?

okay, Jeff, I got confirmation from Craig that my old man is signed up for the Soiree in April for the trophy only division with ya'. We can discuss further whether you think he needs to be in his own division after that. ;)
(of course, being from TX should probably warrant his own division anyway. :D)

I still have the same question as always.

Why do you care ?
No one says anybody has to play in a protected division.

I like playing with the old guys whether I am winning or losing. There really isn't much difference between the top and bottom cards (often they are the same card) as far as attitude and behavior are concerned. The few times I have played in the general divisions, that was never the case.



If you're directing this to me Gary, well, I don't care. I agree with you, I like playing with the older guys for exactly the reasons you posted. But, there is a large group of people (at least 10 :D) who post here and feel the divisional structure is all out of whack (i.e. there are too many divisions so that players don't have to play us) and that is bad for disc golf growth.

I do think the point has merit, there are to many divisions, but as I pointed out, whether they like it or not, some segregation is going to occur.

Juliana Korver cashed at the USDGC in 2001. are you going to use that feat to argue there should be no Pro Womens division? :confused:



No, we established long ago why it is important that minority groups such as Womens and Juniors will always be encouraged with their own divisions.

I agree that some tournaments in some places need larger divisions, which would be accomplished by having less divisions. However, in tournaments where there are plenty of people (the example of Vic Open) in each division, why not make more divisions available?

okay, now I really need to get some work done. I'm really gonna try not to get back on the board for the rest of the day.
ha ha

okay, Jeff, I got confirmation from Craig that my old man is signed up for the Soiree in April for the trophy only division with ya'. We can discuss further whether you think he needs to be in his own division after that. ;)
(of course, being from TX should probably warrant his own division anyway. :D)



Awesome news! :cool:I'll volunteer to pick him up at the Metro station near Gaithersburg on Saturday and Sunday morning.

No, it was not directed at you, I don't view the board in a conversationally threaded view. Your's was merely the last post in the thread.

It was directed at those who can not relax and allow a few old guys have fun amongst themselves.

then when houck's newest course opens up in Rockwall, TX you can come play it with us. :cool:

It was directed at those who can not relax and allow a few old guys have fun amongst themselves.



My complaint is I'm not old enough.

[And by that you mean that the overall hole lengths, distances to landing areas, forced water carries, and determining pro pars were set for 1000+ rated players, right? But are you afraid that it won't still be enjoyed by blue, white, or red level (950, 900, 850-rated) players?

Interesting question, Jeff. I think that I would enjoy playing such a course once or twice, but that as a 942-rated player it would not become a regular for me. I know for certain that most of the Advanced Ams here in Michigan that I can often compete with in a meaningful sense would kick my butt on that Gold+ course. I learned that playing against them on the Toboggan Course at the USADGC. I would not want to play in the Advanced division or in a ratings-based division on a course like that.

Your question stimulated this question: Do 1000+ rated players enjoy courses designed for 900-rated players? I don't think so, not from complaints I have heard.

The Am players with 942 ratings at our Ann Arbor tournaments groan and groan if the TD makes them play the short tees. So much so that it is a standing April Fool's joke to tell them at the players meeting that that is what they are to play at our annual No Foolin' tournament. I think that some of the top Pros would just up and leave in a huff if they were required to play the short tees. (If there wasn't an obvious need for quicker play, such as weather and length of daylight in the day.)

Jeff, if every course were balanced in a way that made distance just another skill among many, I might be closer to agreement with you on age-protected divisions. But they're not.

And most multiple-course tournaments also are not. The closest we come to in Ann Arbor is when a two-round tournament plays the shorts on the Monster and the longs on the Original.

The only tournament I know of that balances that well is the year-long ratings tournament, and as Chuck knows I still think that ratings are a little too easily biased by distance as compared to other skills. (Which is not to say I don't admire the ratings system. I do!)

It was directed at those who can not relax and allow a few old guys have fun amongst themselves.



My complaint is I'm not old enough.



And not that you can't have fun amongst yourself? :D

No, it was not directed at you, I don't view the board in a conversationally threaded view. Your's was merely the last post in the thread.

It was directed at those who can not relax and allow a few old guys have fun amongst themselves.



That's the problem with being obsesive compulsive, you just have to respond to anything with your name on it... :D

And by that you mean that the overall hole lengths, distances to landing areas, forced water carries, and determining pro pars were set for 1000+ rated players, right? But are you afraid that it won't still be enjoyed by blue, white, or red level (950, 900, 850-rated) players?




It will likely appeal to many when alternate tees are set. You can see it's going to be more brutal than any of several gold level courses I've played (Renny, Winthrop, Highbridge, LaMa, Vista), even when it gets groomed much better than its current roughed out condition. For example, hole 1 is a par 5 with the first throw 370' slightly downhill down a corridor to the dogleg landing area. Don't reach the dogleg and your next shot is a 50-70 pitch to the dogleg (if you're not too far off the fairway) before advancing. It will really show the difference in gold skill/distance versus other levels more than any gold course and will be obvious next to the blue level Steady Ed course.

It was directed at those who can not relax and allow a few old guys have fun amongst themselves.



If I'm 38 years old, 940-rated, and have accepted cash in a pro division, I'm only eligible to play in one division: Open.

If I'm 50 years old, 940-rated, and have never accepted cash, I could walk up to the next PDGA tournament and play: <ul type="square"> Pro Grandmasters Pro Masters Open Advanced Grandmasters Advanced Masters Advanced. [/list]

That makes zero sense to me.

It was directed at those who can not relax and allow a few old guys have fun amongst themselves.



If I'm 39 years old, 940-rated, and have accepted cash in a pro division, I'm only eligible to play in one division: Open.

If I'm 50 years old, 940-rated, and have never accepted cash, I could walk up to the next PDGA tournament and play: <ul type="square"> Pro Grandmasters Pro Masters Open Advanced Grandmasters Advanced Masters Advanced. [/list]

That makes zero sense to me.



Yes, but are you relaxed?

Yes, but are you relaxed?



Relaxed enough to fall asleep in the hot tub. :D

That would still be true for players with 815 ratings who could play in 5 ratings divisions if those were the divisions offered.

I know, imagine my delight when I joined the PDGA at age 52 years old and had all of those choices in front of me. Until I got better, I also had Intermediate and Rec open for me, too :cool:

But for some odd age-related reason I mostly played against Pro Grandmasters and turned down the cash when I played well enough.

Then I discovered that I could play Am Masters on Saturdays in the MDGO series, and turn around and play Pro Grandmaster on Sundays. Kul!

Yes, but are you relaxed?

Relaxed enough to fall asleep in the hot tub. :D

Maybe you are older than you think. I thought that was an old man's prerogative.

It's interesting to see the discussion shift back and forth from the TYPES of choices one can make. When it comes to competing - it makes more sense to me to choose what sort of course to play - based on your knowledge of the course and your own skill level - than it does to choose what division to play in. If it's competition - compete!! If it's a social gathering - hang out with your buds! Splitting 90 players into 13 divisions is just stupid.

That would still be true for players with 815 ratings who could play in 5 ratings divisions if those were the divisions offered.



Yes, but at least the 815-rated golfer knows he is playing up in higher divisions against better golfers.

The 50-year old 940-rated golfer would have no idea where he stands. He would likely play against better golfers in Open and Pro Masters, be right around average in Pro Grandmasters and Advanced, and maybe be one of the favorites in Advanced Grandmasters and Advanced Masters. It's multiple overlapping divisions, and it makes zero sense to me.

It was directed at those who can not relax and allow a few old guys have fun amongst themselves.



If I'm 38 years old, 940-rated, and have accepted cash in a pro division, I'm only eligible to play in one division: Open.

If I'm 50 years old, 940-rated, and have never accepted cash, I could walk up to the next PDGA tournament and play: <ul type="square"> Pro Grandmasters Pro Masters Open Advanced Grandmasters Advanced Masters Advanced. [/list]

That makes zero sense to me.



If you are 38 years old and 940 rated and have accepted cash, you can play in Open or MA1.
You don't mention that option, maybe because you have no interest in playing in an AM division.
I agree, players should not be able to play in any Pro division just because they want to. They should have to qualify for a pro card. That would make the number of options the same for Ams and Pros. Would that help ?


If you are 40, 940 rated, and have accepted cash, you can play MA1, MPO, and MPM.

If you have accepted cash, you have voluntarily decided that you don't want too many choices. If you want choices, you have to make sacrifices.

I don't want choices either, I have played in one division for 6 years except for one tourneament in 2004 where MM1 was not offered, but I really wanted to play the event for other reasons. I was very happy to not finish DFL in MPO.

If I was considerably better than anyone in MM1, I would probably only play in MA1 or staff. I have no interest in pretending to be a Professional player.

If it's competition - compete!! If it's a social gathering - hang out with your buds! Splitting 90 players into 13 divisions is just stupid.



LOL, looks like Craig also doesn't pass the litmus test. Welcome to our (small) club.

That would still be true for players with 815 ratings who could play in 5 ratings divisions if those were the divisions offered.



Yes, but at least the 815-rated golfer knows he is playing up in higher divisions against better golfers.

The 50-year old 940-rated golfer would have no idea where he stands. He would likely play against better golfers in Open and Pro Masters, be right around average in Pro Grandmasters and Advanced, and maybe be one of the favorites in Advanced Grandmasters and Advanced Masters. It's multiple overlapping divisions, and it makes zero sense to me.



But by your example, the 940-rated 50 year old golfer knows very well where stands in multiple situations and is able to weigh the good and bad points of each situation in making the decision of where to play.

But back to the real question.

Who does it hurt ?

Does it hurt the legitimacy of disc golf as a sport that our tournaments normally have 7+ divisions ?
Will having only 6 make any real difference ?

Or is the real propblem with legitimacy that we can't fill a field with Professional level players at most events.

Why is it ridiculous to split 90 players up into a dozen divisions when that's what the player's want ?

Are you suggesting that all of those players are competitive as a single division ?
Once you start splitting the field, it's really just a question of who you aren't willing to accomodate.

which club am i in if i agree that splitting 90 players into 13 divisions is silly if you are talking about top-level competition, and totally OK if you are talking about lower-level sanctioned play?

Does it hurt the legitimacy of disc golf as a sport that our tournaments normally have 7+ divisions ?



Yes. Not that we are all that 'legitimate' to begin with. And it's not 7+ divisions, it can be 13 or more for a 90-person field, which is silly.


Why is it ridiculous to split 90 players up into a dozen divisions when that's what the player's want ?

To an (obviously) small number of people, it makes zero sense. To everyone else, it's what they've been weaned on, and people like being catered to. Let's give everyone a prize!


Are you suggesting that all of those players are competitive as a single division ?

Not a single division, but much fewer.


Once you start splitting the field, it's really just a question of who you aren't willing to accomodate.



So instead, let's stick with the status quo and strive to accomodate EVERYONE. :D

Yes, at a C tier or D tier, let's try to accommodate everyone. Absolutely! It's for the promotion of the sport. The more participants, the more attention potential sponsors will pay to us.

I'll agree that in a perfect world (i.e. the field will fill), an NT event should be Pro Only. Even better would be a separate Pro tour, a Women's Pro tour, A Seniors tour, and as many Am only tournaments as the demand will allow. Not much different than the current stick golf model. But until then, what purpose does it serve to restrict choices and drive away potential participants in a C or D tour? Besides, of course, limiting the potential payout to 'pseudo pros'?

Short sighted at best as increased participation and a good demographic mix may be the main drivers towards getting the sponsorship needed to reach the overall goal of having a true professional tour.

As stated before, I'd prefer fewer, ratings-based divisions. I'd love to have a chance to compete head to head with the ladies and Pro GM's as well as 16 year old kids. I don't understand the desire to play in a small division just to be with people of the same age. BUT, I do think TD's should be able to select tournament/division formats as they see fit and let the market dictate which fill.

I do see the problem, however, with putting a 55 year old and a 20 year old in the same division without regard to the particular course. I've suggested before and here it goes again: Ratings should have two components: "distance" and "accuracy". Courses can be given a distance and an accuracy "rating", based on which components influence score more. i.e. A short, tight course like North Watertower Park in Sarasota might be 35% power and 65% accuracy, while a big-dog Fly-18 could be 90% power and 10% accuracy.

If player A had a 1000 power rating and a 900 accuracy rating they would have a composite rating of 935 at Watertower and 990 at the Fly.

Conversely, player B has a 900 power rating and a 1000 accuracy rating. They would have a 965 rating at Watertower and a 910 rating at the Fly.

The composite rating would be used to determine ratings-based divisions and would do a better job at putting players in the right division competitively.

The reality of the great differences in "type" of course make the actual variance in scoring ability for each particular course greater than what player ratings drawn from a more-or-less balanced variety of courses might suggest.

The past two seasons while playing "pro" Masters I got to play fairly regularly with a local Master named George. I didn't really know George much before then. He's a great guy, and one of the things I've missed putzing around in "Am"ville so far this season is playing with George. Our ratings are close (936 for him) that it's generally back and forth for who finishes ahead. Now George has no interest in playing for plastic, and actually was one of those Masters who sat out for several years when the Masters age went from 35 to 40. So he's playing Masters, and I'm playing Adv. Masters (until I retire out of Disc Golf Club events this summer) which is silly. If we had a ratings based structure with ca$h down the line George and I would be competing against each other like we should be instead of waving at each other during the round.

As for the 942 isn't the same 942 issue that Hot Tub brought up...if you can't hang then don't try and bang. Simply pick your events on the type of course. Many players do this now. As Craig says it's supposed to be about competition, and that means sometimes getting your head handed to you. The Disc Golf Club needs to accept the fact that sometimes players are going to lose, and lose badly, and that they'll have to live with it. I learned this in Pee Wee football in Texas long ago when a middle aged fat guy in polyester shorts suggested to me that if I was going to pout after a loss that the cheerleader squad was always looking for boys to hold the other girls up.

Does it hurt the legitimacy of disc golf as a sport that our tournaments normally have 7+ divisions ?



Yes. Not that we are all that 'legitimate' to begin with. And it's not 7+ divisions, it can be 13 or more for a 90-person field, which is silly.

<font color="blue">You know that's as rare as a 2 division tournament. The possible divisions will never be much less unless you take away the women and Junior divisions. I haven't heard any serious suggestions along those lines. That will always leave you with at least 12 divisions (16 if you have junior girls divisions)</font>


Why is it ridiculous to split 90 players up into a dozen divisions when that's what the player's want ?

To an (obviously) small number of people, it makes zero sense. To everyone else, it's what they've been weaned on, and people like being catered to. Let's give everyone a prize!

<font color="blue">Again, players are there to enjoy the event in the way that they see fit. When there is a true PDGA tour and true Pros, then limit the fields to the ultra competitive players, until that time, be glad for any support you can get.</font>


Are you suggesting that all of those players are competitive as a single division ?

Not a single division, but much fewer.


Once you start splitting the field, it's really just a question of who you aren't willing to accomodate.



So instead, let's stick with the status quo and strive to accomodate EVERYONE. :D

<font color="blue">exactly</font>



You left out the first question in your quote.

I haven't seen any real answer to that question. Once you convince me that there is a real problem that needs to be addressed, and what the true nature of that problem is, then I can start thinking about how to best address the problem.

Who/what does a large number of divisions hurt ?

Some of the issues I have heard that aren't really caused/fixed by divisional changes:

1. Players of the same ability aren't forced to compete against each other.

Who really cares ? TDs can pick and choose what divisions to offer now, try it and see how it goes. The more options in events that are available, the better the players will like it.

2. People that play worse than some Pros win more than some of the Pros.

This is because there are no real sponsors and everyone is playing for each other's entry fees, multiple divisions do not cause this problem and single divisions will not fix this problem. Well, it would fix it by making sure that no one except the pros show up for an event. They wouldn't make anymore, but there wouldn't be any ams to win anything either.

3. Too many small divisions split the purse up too much.

Similar to the above solution. If you eliminate the desired divisions of niche players, you are likely to dirve away those niche players as well. It won't increase the purse, just reduce the number of divisions and players.


Just describe what solution you really want, and then let's work toward that solution.
The answer will most likely have nothing to do with the number of divisions allowed at regional events.

It's interesting to see the discussion shift back and forth from the TYPES of choices one can make. When it comes to competing - it makes more sense to me to choose what sort of course to play - based on your knowledge of the course and your own skill level - than it does to choose what division to play in. If it's competition - compete!! If it's a social gathering - hang out with your buds! Splitting 90 players into 13 divisions is just stupid.



IMO, the older one gets, the more the joy of cameraderie increases and the joy of pure #$*&$! competition decreases. It might have a direct correlation to testosterone levels. :eek: ;)

The reality is that our culture and our events reflect BOTH a social element AND a competitive element.

Up-thread Lyle said:

I do not support age based divisions, I do enjoy playing with guys my age, in general they are more patient, more understanding, and they like to talk about things other than drinking, smoking and sex. But that isn't a good enough reason to have an age protected bracket.



I disagree - I think those things are absolutely enough reason for age protection.....at D and C Tier events. Maybe B's too.

How much thought has been given to reducing the allowable divisions the higher the Tier level goes?

IMO, the higher the Tier, the more serious and more prestigious the competition is. And by default, the less important the cameraderie factor becomes.

IMO, the higher the Tier, the more serious and more prestigious the competition is. And by default, the less important the cameraderie factor becomes.



I've been considering the same thing, and can't decide where I fall on the subject. My initial reflex was that higher tiered events should be more limited in focus (less divisions), but that also makes them more limited in drawing ability. I strongly support Pro only or Pro/Adv events event down tot he B-Tier levels, but not exclusively.

There is room for all types of events, TDs should have some format that allows them to run an event where players are grouped by skill alone as well as traditional formats.

The unfortunate thing is that the higher tier events are where you finally get a foursome in some of the divisions older than Master like Sr. GM.

what are some possible erasons for that Chuck? it cant simply be that those guys only want to pay big dollars and therefore avoid cheaper events (i'm guessing)

Less of them overall, so you have to draw from a wider geographical area (i.e. have a bigger event) to have the numbers.

which club am i in if i agree that splitting 90 players into 13 divisions is silly if you are talking about top-level competition, and totally OK if you are talking about lower-level sanctioned play?

My club. You can be treasurer.

Having lots of overlapping divisions is a sensible thing for the TD if he wants to draw more players, or if wants more players to play both days at a split-weekend tournament.

It is not a sensible thing for the TD if the TD has more players than he can accomodate, or has very few players, or the tournament is for the purpose of "proving something important."

And that's really the bottom line. It is the TD's tournament, not the players'. If he thinks about what he is trying to accomplish, he is going to do whatever to get that done.

On the women's separate divisions thing, I've seen this happen so many times, it is sad that only I've been noticing. Women think they want women-only divisions rather than divisions open to anyone with a legit rating the same as theirs. Whenever you get enough of them to play together for a half a dozen tournaments, sooner or later most of them realize that they don't really like all of each other, and "if I have to spend all day with so-and-so, I'd rather not play." And then the division implodes.

I've seen Michigan disc golf go through two or three cycles of this. I'm not naming names.

In Illinois, Barrett's personality seems to keep the "pro" women's division cohesive, but that division tends to be Barrett, another pro, and three ams playing trophy-only. In the lower divisions I've seen women deal with not wanting to play with so-and-so by playing up, playing over, swapping the volunteer day with the play day.

Diana and Kelsey have moved up to the mens' divisions, because they saw the growth-implosion thing back when we played Michigan tournaments and started to understand it at a personal level.

On the women's separate divisions thing, I've seen this happen so many times, it is sad that only I've been noticing. Women think they want women-only divisions rather than divisions open to anyone with a legit rating the same as theirs. Whenever you get enough of them to play together for a half a dozen tournaments, sooner or later most of them realize that they don't really like all of each other, and "if I have to spend all day with so-and-so, I'd rather not play." And then the division implodes.

I've seen Michigan disc golf go through two or three cycles of this. I'm not naming names.

In Illinois, Barrett's personality seems to keep the "pro" women's division cohesive, but that division tends to be Barrett, another pro, and three ams playing trophy-only. In the lower divisions I've seen women deal with not wanting to play with so-and-so by playing up, playing over, swapping the volunteer day with the play day.

Diana and Kelsey have moved up to the mens' divisions, because they saw the growth-implosion thing back when we played Michigan tournaments and started to understand it at a personal level.



When they are surveyed, they all still would rather play together. I think you have to trust these polls. The advantages of women playing together far outweigh having them all spread out in men's divisions, imo. As women's disc golf grows in popularity, I bet you'll see less of this fighting. I think the increased peer pressure will force the ones that are being negative and causing the problems to knock it off.

My $.02

what are some possible erasons for that Chuck? it cant simply be that those guys only want to pay big dollars and therefore avoid cheaper events (i'm guessing)



The Sr GMs in particular, lead by Shive, put their heads together and plan their events for the year based on how Sr friendly they are. Shive meticulously tracks the numbers and payouts and they rank the events from the previous year on several factors and decide. That's the most organized planning I'm aware of. But I'm sure that Adv GMs plan to go to the BG event like every other Am that can because there are lots of players in their division.

I don't trust the polls. They are answering that question ceteris paribus, but it isn't. The decision to give them their own little micro divisions has an effect that they are not considering which ultimately negates the purpose of giving them their own division.

It is not a women's thing. It is a micro division thing. I've seen grandmasters choose to play masters for the same reasons.

But again, I'm the only one noticing this [and Kelsey and Diana now that I've pointed it out to them], so its not like I'm going to get anywhere by talking about it.

I've made divisional choices for those kinds of reasons. I'll make those kinds of decisions in 2007 too. Someone else was just telling me the other day that that is basically why he quit playing Am Master when he did; he got tired of playing with certain loudmouth drunks.

So another valid reason for having divisional choices is to have the option to avoid players as much as join with peer players...

That's not a reason for having them. That's what they are in fact used for.

to add to the discussion, some points to ponder:

participation in disc golf is growing, it MUST be because of the divisional structure. please.

a golfer attends a disc golf event; surely he must have weighed all of the potential options for event structure and decided that this particular event structure was superior to others and chose to attend. right.

the pro and am division is killing the pdga. remove the labels please. all of the "free market" guys should be on board with this. all the "grow the sport" guys too. increased participation is good right? let the players decide if a tournament is right for them.

the whole go and run a tournament in that way and get back to us is a lame argument.

our ice bowl was well attended...70 players, around. almost as well as the ice bowl in los angeles. at a fraction of the population...not bad. we had three divisions. pro, am, women.

yes, thats why the men's division are s ocohesive and overtly friendly :)

hey, there's no such thing as Mens divisions anyway. what we call "mens" really means "not gender-protected". changing our vocabulary could do a lot towards changing the feelings of potential participants

another point to ponder:

losing in a disc golf competition does not make one a victim of the winner.

how does the ratings-based divisional structure keep all the old guys from playing together? assuming players can always play up.

i would wholeheartedly support ratings-based events if the ratings were more player controlled, and more dynamic. i envision a pdga website where i can punch in my most recent scores, choose the course from a drop down menu (layout even), and generate a rating. i can then enter an event in the appropriate division. chuck, get on that already. geez. (i'd put the appropriate smiley here, but i'm emoticon free...276 days and counting.)

Even if we could do that, I will fight that initiative as adding inappropriate churn to the player ratings. We already don't have enough round information for the bulk of PDGA members who should get updated even less frequently than we do now. The average PDGA member has a rating based on about 15 rounds in 12 months. Stat profs laugh at averages based on fewer than 30 values. But it's better than nothing at all.

If we waited until players had 30 rounds, the numbers would be too old. Updating ratings live would really mess with TDs and advance registrations more than it does now. The 2-week grace periods would be all over the map for when each person's new rating is active. Likewise, without oversight from the ratings committee, we still can't count on TDs getting the more complicated course assignments input properly.

I still think players should have a whole year to play in a division so I'd be fine if whatever rating you had at the beginning of the year was good for determining your division for the whole year.

I should add that we are looking into ways players can estimate their future ratings update with either an online tool or a downloadable spreadsheet. These would just be unofficial ratings but allow active players to feel like they were keeping up with their progress a little faster.

why do they have to be pdga tournament rounds? why couldn't i punch in my casual rounds?

That's a good one. These same 500-foot "message board distance" throwers would magically jump from 920 to 1050 rated in weeks!

why couldn't i punch in my casual rounds?




You can. There's a service called Disc Golf United that allows you to track all of your rounds online. I adapted the PDGA calculations to determine personal handicaps and league handicaps. It does all of the adjustments for course SSA values just like our ratings process. www.discgolfunited.com (http://www.discgolfunited.com)

good, they'll be playing up then.

thanks chuck, i'll check it out when i have time. ray, obviously there is room for lying about one's abilities, but ultimately he or she will eventually have to face the sandbag music. and, as it is, with 13 divisions and 90 players, the take isn't all that much. and, if it's about fun and comraderie and not about competition then who cares if someone lies about his or her rating?

On the women's separate divisions thing, I've seen this happen so many times, it is sad that only I've been noticing. Women think they want women-only divisions rather than divisions open to anyone with a legit rating the same as theirs. Whenever you get enough of them to play together for a half a dozen tournaments, sooner or later most of them realize that they don't really like all of each other, and "if I have to spend all day with so-and-so, I'd rather not play." And then the division implodes.

I've seen Michigan disc golf go through two or three cycles of this. I'm not naming names.

In Illinois, Barrett's personality seems to keep the "pro" women's division cohesive, but that division tends to be Barrett, another pro, and three ams playing trophy-only. In the lower divisions I've seen women deal with not wanting to play with so-and-so by playing up, playing over, swapping the volunteer day with the play day.

Diana and Kelsey have moved up to the mens' divisions, because they saw the growth-implosion thing back when we played Michigan tournaments and started to understand it at a personal level.



When they are surveyed, they all still would rather play together. I think you have to trust these polls. The advantages of women playing together far outweigh having them all spread out in men's divisions, imo. As women's disc golf grows in popularity, I bet you'll see less of this fighting. I think the increased peer pressure will force the ones that are being negative and causing the problems to knock it off.

My $.02



Pssst. (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=653607&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=7&fpart=1)

there's also earthoffice.net/discgolf/ its kinds rough looking but it works great. email me and i can help you set up the courses in your area

I don't know how the poll is going because for some reason it won't show me the results. But Sara's posts illustrate my point.

how does the ratings-based divisional structure keep all the old guys from playing together? assuming players can always play up.



Playing together means as a group, not as a competition. You play with other old guys on your card. Being in the same division isn't the point.

As for the 942 isn't the same 942 issue that [Terry] brought up...if you can't hang then don't try and bang. Simply pick your events on the type of course



So nice of you to so clearly agree with one of the major arguments of those who support age-related divisions.

In essence, you just told me that I should choose not to compete in events that are on long courses. That would reduce the number of events at which I compete. Not a happy result for TDs - fewer competitors. Further, in my experience older players like me tend to both spend more money on merch and be more eager to help out during the event

Personally, I'd rather have the choice, as I do now, to play in younger divisions when there is a short course and older divisions when there is a long course.

It ain't broke and doesn't need fixed.

thats really sad terry. around here our younger players are involved in every aspect of the DG scene, from running clubs to organizing events to community outreach and Parks Dept relations... the whole gamut.

perhaps something the older, entrenched "establishment" is doing in your area is driving younger players away?

thats really sad terry. around here our younger players are involved in every aspect of the DG scene, from running clubs to organizing events to community outreach and Parks Dept relations... the whole gamut.

perhaps something the older, entrenched "establishment" is doing in your area is driving younger players away?

Pat Brenner, I believe that you have finally and unequivocally revealed that your interest is in making me look bad, not to respond to the content of my posts. The only thing I wrote (and it was a really minimal portion of my post) that even relates to what you responded is:
Further, in my experience older players like me tend to both spend more money on merch and be more eager to help out during the event.

From this general observation, with which I think any neutral and experienced TD would agree, since it was (a) only a statement about tendencies, and (b) not at all geographically focused, you managed to fabricate a finding that my local clubs have a sad problem with motivating younger volunteers? Then you slipped in an extra negative and false assertion that TDs and clubs here might even be "driving younger players away"? OMG! :D

Meanwhile, nothing in your post had anything to do with the point that I made in mine. Nothing.

I hope this makes it obvious to most DISCussion denizens why it is difficult for me to carry on any discussion with you.

yes, thats why the men's division are s ocohesive and overtly friendly :)

hey, there's no such thing as Mens divisions anyway. what we call "mens" really means "not gender-protected". changing our vocabulary could do a lot towards changing the feelings of potential participants



Bruce's point on women's divisions has huge relevance but it needs to be looked at in context. The reason why the issues in men's divisions are tolerable is because there are so many more options, ummmm, that would be there is enough divisional structure to keep the antagonists separate (not to mention enough men to support enough tournaments that the antagonists can avoid each other.

There aren't enough women to do this. So, what Bruce is saying holds true, until you attract enough women to overcome the "I'm tired of playing every week with Julie" syndrome.

thats really sad terry. around here our younger players are involved in every aspect of the DG scene, from running clubs to organizing events to community outreach and Parks Dept relations... the whole gamut.

perhaps something the older, entrenched "establishment" is doing in your area is driving younger players away?

Pat Brenner, I believe that you have finally and unequivocally revealed that your interest is in making me look bad, not to respond to the content of my posts. The only thing I wrote (and it was a really minimal portion of my post) that even relates to what you responded is:
Further, in my experience older players like me tend to both spend more money on merch and be more eager to help out during the event.

From this general observation, with which I think any neutral and experienced TD would agree, since it was (a) only a statement about tendencies, and (b) not at all geographically focused, you managed to fabricate a finding that my local clubs have a sad problem with motivating younger volunteers? Then you slipped in an extra negative and false assertion that TDs and clubs here might even be "driving younger players away"? OMG! :D

Meanwhile, nothing in your post had anything to do with the point that I made in mine. Nothing.

I hope this makes it obvious to most DISCussion denizens why it is difficult for me to carry on any discussion with you.



The average age of guys volunteering for TS is about 45. We do have some young guys, but most are older. I should point out that we have had some younger guys step up, but usually in lesser roles and they don't come back year after year. Our youngest regulars, I believe, are Gimp and Scott Rozanski, whom I'm guessing are in their late twentys to mid thirtys.

We beat our younger guys to keep them away. We like the long hours and hard work.

Maybe it's just Dallas where those young guys are so willing?

As for the 942 isn't the same 942 issue that [Terry] brought up...if you can't hang then don't try and bang. Simply pick your events on the type of course



So nice of you to so clearly agree with one of the major arguments of those who support age-related divisions.

In essence, you just told me that I should choose not to compete in events that are on long courses. That would reduce the number of events at which I compete. Not a happy result for TDs - fewer competitors. Further, in my experience older players like me tend to both spend more money on merch and be more eager to help out during the event

Personally, I'd rather have the choice, as I do now, to play in younger divisions when there is a short course and older divisions when there is a long course.

It ain't broke and doesn't need fixed.



You played three PDGA events each of the last two years Hot Tub. How much more can you cut back?

One of the coolest things to happen in the Ann Arbor area recently is the formation of Local 101, a group of youngsters who are now managing several tournaments a year in this area, and who have taken over the a3disc Saturday doubles. I enjoy their tournaments very much, tying for third place in Advanced in the last one. The board of directors of a3disc has been very supportive of this group's efforts.

"perhaps something the older, entrenched "establishment" is doing in your area is driving younger players away?"

that was a question or possibility... neither a finding nor an assertion.

if you want an example of an assertion, try the one you wrote yourself: "...revealed that your [pat's] interest is in making me [Terry] look bad". i have no such interest, therefore your assertion is not only unfounded but also incorrect.

i am confused about one comment you made, though... did a portion of my post relate to a portion of yours ("The only thing I wrote ... that even relates to what you responded is") or not ("nothing in your post had anything to do with the point that I made in mine. Nothing").?

as far as "...why it is difficult for me [Terry] to carry on any discussion with you [pat]." gosh i wasnt aware MOST denizens gave a flyin' fahooty about that question. had i known i could have explained it very clearly long ago. perhaps JaLober could initiate a poll.

You played three PDGA events each of the last two years Hot Tub. How much more can you cut back?



Another ad hominem thrust from the folks who apparently can't muster a real argument. Thanks, Hawk. You guys keep this up and you'll destroy any credibility you have left. :D

As previously noted, I have had a serious chronic illness for several years, which is why if you go back five years my PDGA-sanctioned events numbers look like this: 16, 13, 8, 3, 3.

We've got the symptoms, but not the illness, under control now, so I'm gearing back up into competition this year. For those who like good news, I've already played 132 competition holes of disc golf in 2007, I'm doing 48 more this weekend, I'm already pre-registered for another 102 in the next month, and the decline in my ratings during this time is reversed to the point that my rating is currently higher than it ever has been! :D:D:D

cool.

must be short courses :D

oh.. would that be ad hominem circumstantiae or argumentum ad personam ? i believe the latter would justify your submitting the post to the Moderators for review.

"perhaps something the older, entrenched "establishment" is doing in your area is driving younger players away?"

that was a question or possibility... neither a finding nor an assertion.

if you want an example of an assertion, try the one you wrote yourself: "...revealed that your [pat's] interest is in making me [Terry] look bad". i have no such interest, therefore your assertion is not only unfounded but also incorrect.

i am confused about one comment you made, though... did a portion of my post relate to a portion of yours ("The only thing I wrote ... that even relates to what you responded is") or not ("nothing in your post had anything to do with the point that I made in mine. Nothing").?

as far as "...why it is difficult for me [Terry] to carry on any discussion with you [pat]." gosh i wasnt aware MOST denizens gave a flyin' fahooty about that question. had i known i could have explained it very clearly long ago. perhaps JaLober could initiate a poll.



Yawn!

Can we go back to talking about women's divisions now, our for that matter our divisional structure per sey?

Kul. Okay. It ain't broke, don't fix it.

Kul. Okay. If it's broke, please don't talk about it.

:cool:So, I begin to understand. A philosophy reveals itself: "If you haven't got something to complain about, why post?" Explains a lot.

Kul. Okay. If it's broke, please don't talk about it.



Seems to be the way things work around here.

I remember someone saying that decreasing the # of divisions would drive people away and we should try to make everyone happy but there are many people who are unhappy with the current structure and nobody seems to want to accomodate them.

C-tiers are fun though when te biggest division has 12 people and the course is full. :confused:

Kul. Okay. It ain't broke, don't fix it.



I didn't say that, but I would say that some of what's broke is unfixable. ;) On the other hand, we might be able to do something to fix/modify our divisional structure while still supporting age related divisions.

Sounds reasonable, Lyle. R U sure you're in the right place? :cool:

The primary complainers are pros who want more compensation based on playing better which the divisional structure can do little to solve in terms of making our pros compensated like real pros. And there are those who want the PDGA to forcibly restrict TD and member choices. Hawk and others who are suggesting changes aren't adding any new ideas to what already exists in the structure, only subtracting, and that's somehow better.

I think the pros who want more compensation are mistaken to think the sport can support it. I have always thought so - I remember saying as much when the Winnicrew first went on tour in the late 90s, and the sport still hasn't grown all that much since then. Not even Barry Schultz should expect to make a comfortable living off disc golf.

I also remember one of the first tournaments I ever played: it was around 1997, and I didn't cash in Intermediate. But one of the local guys who I always beat won a bunch of merchandise in Advanced Masters with a score a few strokes worse than me, which struck me as very odd.

From the beginning, age protection and multiple overlapping divisions didn't make sense to me, and they still don't.

The average PDGA tournament in February of the 26 tournaments currently reporting results had less than 5 women playing in 1.5 divisions, very close to three women per division. If you throw out the four highest and four lowest to get more of an average of the average tournaments, 4 women played in almost 2 divisions.

You can pick your curve breakers and pretend the system is working if that brightens your day.

I'm stuck on the distance thing here, as it applies to age-based divisions. If someone wants to argue that distance is not an age-related skill, then I'm ready to argue that. I just did a hole-by-hole mental walk through the Toboggan course, using my (59) distance drives and my son's (22) distance drives. He has an absolute 9 hole advantage on me there, based purely on distance.

Hypothetical: Suppose that there was a scale on which tournaments offered fewer and fewer divisions, as the courses being played were shorter and shorter.

We're playing the Toboggan course or La Mirada when it's stretched out? Okay, the age-based divisions we have now would sort out well there, I think.

We're playing the Original course long tees at Hudson Mills, or La Mirada in a normal configuration, maybe only a couple of age-based divisions: Advanced and Advanced Masters (at age 45+).

Put us on the Original course short tees, or the Hotel America course in Flagstaff - okay by me if we throw away the age-based divisions entirely - I can compete there with anyone.

i completely agree, BDH. advertise the plan and let the market decide which structure it wants for each event. as so many others have pointed out, one size fits all satisfies few. we actually have the best of all worlds already - if we decide to leverage it.

that being said, have1002 rated players in the grandmasters division at an NT event is kind of baffling to me... it really tends to obscure the line between NT and the rest of the schedule.

.016694 usd

jeff, one difference could be that your view seems more of DG as a professional sport, while the other view is more towards DG as something to do with your buds on weekends. i believe ther eis room for both in the Association , as long as we understand the difference and apply structures appropriately.

I'm guessing Snapper couldn't be persuaded to follow the other 1000+ GMs (Voakes, Greenwell, Wisecup) into the Master Division. Why do it if the GM division and added money is there?

exactly

I believe there is room for both in the Association, as long as we understand the difference and apply structures appropriately.




There was a survey done around 2001 to see if members wanted a more competitive streamlined Pro Worlds versus the more convention and annual gathering event it had become. Members overwhelmingly supported the latter. The USDGC has emerged as what the Worlds might have become if members supported that competitive direction. Now we have two major events to support both views. And the competitive bar has been raised at Worlds with increasingly more challenging and appropriate courses at Pro and Am Worlds while retaining the convention structure.

thats a good example of both in action. if i were to guess about the future, i might predict that USDGC will eclipse worlds as the pre-eminant professional championship event - because of the reasons you listed. i am thrilled that some events are focusing more on competition and less on the heritage structures. both have a lot to offer.

Terry, here are the results of the driving distances from Pro and Am Worlds in 2002. These are the top 30-50% of players in each division and would provide the guidelines for what tees should be considered for each group. This is reflected in the PDGA chart here: www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf)

It looks like I didn't get data for MG1 and MS1.

Distances in feet:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Longest</td><td>Shortest</td><td>Average</td><td>Div</td><td>Tees
</td></tr><tr><td>477</td><td>300</td><td>378</td><td>MPO</td><td>Gold
</td></tr><tr><td>381</td><td>276</td><td>330</td><td>MPM*</td><td>Gold
</td></tr><tr><td>393</td><td>285</td><td>348</td><td>MA1*</td><td>Gold
</td></tr><tr><td>390</td><td>279</td><td>339</td><td>MJ1-2</td><td>Blue
</td></tr><tr><td>366</td><td>282</td><td>321</td><td>MPG</td><td>Blue
</td></tr><tr><td>363</td><td>276</td><td>312</td><td>MPS</td><td>Blue
</td></tr><tr><td>363</td><td>234</td><td>298</td><td>MM1*</td><td>Blue
</td></tr><tr><td>321</td><td>231</td><td>279</td><td>FPO*</td><td>Blue
</td></tr><tr><td>324</td><td>231</td><td>281</td><td>MA2</td><td>White
</td></tr><tr><td>267</td><td>225</td><td>249</td><td>FPM</td><td>White
</td></tr><tr><td>315</td><td>171</td><td>236</td><td>FW1</td><td>Red
</td></tr><tr><td>249</td><td>201</td><td>223</td><td>MJ3-4</td><td>Red
</td></tr><tr><td>216</td><td>213</td><td>216</td><td>MPL</td><td>Red
</td></tr><tr><td>213</td><td>213</td><td>213</td><td>FPS</td><td>Red
</td></tr><tr><td>225</td><td>201</td><td>213</td><td>FJ1-2</td><td>Red
</td></tr><tr><td>213</td><td>186</td><td>204</td><td>FW2-3</td><td>Red
</td></tr><tr><td>183</td><td>156</td><td>171</td><td>FJ3-4</td><td>Red
</td></tr><tr><td>135</td><td>135</td><td>135</td><td>MA3</td><td>Red
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>
* all contenders in these divisions aren't fully at the level for this set of tee standards so tees on some holes should potentially be adjusted for fairness as needed.

This chart is what resulted in what has been coined the "Peter Shive" rule that the MPS division at Worlds should play the same or equivalent course lengths as the MPG division.

The primary complainers are pros who want more compensation based on playing better which the divisional structure can do little to solve in terms of making our pros compensated like real pros. And there are those who want the PDGA to forcibly restrict TD and member choices. Hawk and others who are suggesting changes aren't adding any new ideas to what already exists in the structure, only subtracting, and that's somehow better.



Yeah because the PDGA effed up when they decided to add so many divisions.

For c-tiers it should be like this

MPO
FPO
MA1
FA1
MA2
MA3
MJ1
FJ1

That is 8 divisions and ther most likely won't be many juniors (if any) so really there is 6.

if i were to guess about the future, i might predict that USDGC will eclipse worlds as the pre-eminant professional championship event



I think many would say that it already has.

Champions Tour and PGA Tour don't have events at the same location on the same weekend.

The NT was intended to be our first step at emulating the PGA tour which has one division, not even Women at the same event. It couldn't even get past the first few events without bending to the pressure to have more divisions. It has failed in several ways. If the time is too early to do the NT as intended, it should be scrapped since those same events have always been healthy A-tiers and will continue to be so without the hassles of NT sanctioning.

If the Board feels we need to have NT format events as a showcase for potential sponsors, who have yet to materialize, then do them "right" even if it's just one or two. Don't show them a massive event in a public park with temporary holes and pedestrians pushing strollers or on skateboards bounding thru the course while the TD who's playing is trying to manage the event by cell phone in-between throws.


In this context why should the PDGA system deny our MPGs any slice of the added money at an NT event today, in the absence of similar/better separate event/Tour opportunities for them today ?



Look how well our older players support the U.S. Masters Open. Maybe if they didn't have several NTs, the turnout would be better and possibly additional regional events for oldsters would appear. After all, the comprehensive structure in our system supports age limited events.

The primary complainers are pros who want more compensation based on playing better which the divisional structure can do little to solve in terms of making our pros compensated like real pros. And there are those who want the PDGA to forcibly restrict TD and member choices. Hawk and others who are suggesting changes aren't adding any new ideas to what already exists in the structure, only subtracting, and that's somehow better.



While what you're saying is true, it isn't the end all. I'm not a Pro, in fact, like Tony Bender, I'm committed to Am for life. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a change. I've seen some good ones proposed here, including more than one by you. What I've not seen is consensus nor an implementation proposal.

Personally I have no problem with an event that offers women FPO FW2 and FJ3. And with minimum 3 women required for a div to be held, if thats what a particular event wants to do. If theres only 1 FW2 & 1 FJ3 they can jump in with the FPO or do what Kelsey Brakel does ... and take home obelisks ....

Maybe what the proponents of alternative formats, that work within the current FLEXIBLE "one size fits all" system (which by the way also works AOK now in Europe/Asia/Australasia), are really saying is ... we need the PDGAs help in disseminating information about other formats that we have proven or believe will work better ... ie the IOS system.

It seems that a part of the frustration is the ingraining of the current predominant system (where most events accomodate/offer several+ divisions) in the minds of TDs and members, without tried and proven alternatives having the same opportunity that is fostered by broader dissemination of knowledge.

Maybe a paper with detailed examples of other formats and their logic including how the current system does (and does not) accomodate them? Something that with review, ie by the Competition Committee, the State/Province/Country Coordinators etc, could be posted in the TD resources section at the website and distributed in the annual TD support packages ...

Anyone out there interested in taking such a paper on, on behalf of all of us ? The ability to relate various formats equally well, regardless of personal preference, would be an asset ...

BDH



I hate to be dumber than I have to be but I need some clarification Brian. If I understand what's being said the idea is that a possible solution might simply be that TDs step up and limit the options they offer. Or alternatively, what are the ways the current system could be used to limit the number of divisions?

Is that correct?

Terry, here are the results of the driving distances from Pro and Am Worlds in 2002. These are the top 30-50% of players in each division and would provide the guidelines for what tees should be considered for each group.

Thank you for the extra unpaid work, Chuck.

The average drive length figures for MM1, MA1 describe a de facto age effect on length of drives off the tee:

Average driving distance for the top 30-50% of players at worlds in Masters and Advanced Open:

MA1 = 348'
MM1 = 298'

That, right there, is a 50-foot-per-drive, age-related bias against older players.

It may be hard for you young guns out there to mentally put yourself into an older body and resonate with this, but try this: Imagine yourself forced into a division where the average player out drives you by 50 feet per drive even if his putting, approach, and course management skills are the equal of yours.

That is not fair competition. But it is precisely what would exist if age-based divisions did not exist.

What you see here are the various tradeoffs involved in our competition structure and what has to be considered when changes are proposed. There are always several proposals being vetted within the Competition Committee with some percolating for years so don't assume when I post devil's advocate positions, it's not necessarily my personal opinion as opposed to providing the various sides we have to consider in the Committee.

The goal I would say is being pursued by the committee, as a reflection of the PDGA and the membership, is to provide the most options to serve members with the least complicated system for TDs to follow. There's no benefit to the PDGA administratively to have more divisions, rules and formats than necessary from a management standpoint. One division would be easy for the PDGA to manage, especially when only a few hundred players might continue being members.

Pure ratings divisions doesn't sufficiently answer the various tradeoffs but we are working on some concepts that could reduce the number of divisions. Understand that we would like to make it simpler. But sometimes we can't get there without going thru some transitions and learning processes for our TDs and members. Figuring out how to do the transitions is more difficult than figuring out where you would like to go.

A lot of where we are today in the competition arena or ideas being proposed wouldn't have been possible until we had TDs and membership familiar with ratings. So ratings concepts are becoming more viable just due to the learning process with the systems we have had for the past several years when am divisions were first separated by ratings breaks.

That is not fair competition. But it is precisely what would exist if age-based divisions did not exist.



I'm still wondering how any of this matters if players have exactly the same rating. What does it matter if they outdrive you when you both get up and down and record the same scores? With the same player rating, on average you'll record the exact same total over an 18-hole course. On average, you'll record the exact same total over all your tournament rounds. So maybe some will shoot better on some courses that favor their game, and some will shoot worse on the courses that don't. But on average, everything will equal out - that's how a player rating is derived.

Age means nothing. Player rating and ability mean everything. Golfers of the same ability playing against each other - what a revolutionary concept. If it makes too much sense, obviously it is unacceptable.

On average, you'll record the exact same total over all your tournament rounds. So maybe some will shoot better on some courses that favor their game, and some will shoot worse on the courses that don't. But on average, everything will equal out - that's how a player rating is derived.



I think we have a "word" issue here that is affecting our communication and perception on this issue. I don't think this posting will fix that, but I'll sleep on it.

Ratings are fair in ratings-based events if they are on courses appropriately designed for the ratings divisions. But that's not what we are talking about, I think.

I think we're talking about whether there should be age-protected divisions at regular events on real courses, not a hypothetical year-long virtual course that exists to make ratings possible.

At regular events, on long courses especially, due to an inherent, age-related skill difference in driving length that an older player cannot train to overcome, he cannot fairly compete with a much younger player.

Example: Earlier I estimated that on the Toboggan course, my son, due entirely to driving distance, starts out with a 9 stroke advantage over me on 18 holes, regardless of our ratings! If he and I pay $75 each to compete in a tournament on that course, then I am basically donating, and we both know it up front.

That is not fair competition. But it is precisely what would exist if age-based divisions did not exist.



I'm still wondering how any of this matters if players have exactly the same rating. What does it matter if they outdrive you when you both get up and down and record the same scores? With the same player rating, on average you'll record the exact same total over an 18-hole course. On average, you'll record the exact same total over all your tournament rounds. So maybe some will shoot better on some courses that favor their game, and some will shoot worse on the courses that don't. But on average, everything will equal out - that's how a player rating is derived.

Age means nothing. Player rating and ability mean everything. Golfers of the same ability playing against each other - what a revolutionary concept. If it makes too much sense, obviously it is unacceptable.



Question Jeff. Do you dissagree with the idea that the performance of different players will vary depending on their strengths and how those strengths play to the course.

Thanks Chuck. Gee all that and you didn't even sound like an apologist.

With the same player rating, on average you'll record the exact same total over an 18-hole course.


That would hold true if all courses had the same accuracy to power difficulty ratio, but they don't.

My concept of having separate player ratings for accuracy and distance is possible and would do a better job of assigning players to ratings-based divisions, if a TD decided to offer them. It would also be useful for allowing players to play competitively handicapped casual matches with their friends on a variety of types of courses without having to have an established average on that course.

The downsides are
1) It would require work to get up and running and
2) As Chuck has pointed out: our current system is already "handicapped" in most cases by not having a big enough sample of recent tournament scores.

Note on point 2: It's a shame that we couldn't, as someone else suggested earlier, incorporate casual rounds into player ratings. I suspect that the vast majority of players would be happy to have posted a better indication of how they really stack up ratings-wise against other players from around the country. The reality that a few people wouldn't turn in their best rounds in order to "bag" in ratings-based competitions to win a few more frisbees, unfortunately, would make such an idea a tough sell.

I still like the amateur alternative format of having everyone that plays from a particular set of tees be in the same "pool". After the second to last round, the pool would be to put them all (except in the last flight) within a certain # of strokes of the lead. All flights play for one trophy and everyone's (except possibly for the last flight) have got a chance to win.

There are some courses that don't favor your game, and some courses that do. I know that when I attend certain tournaments and certain courses that I may be competitively at an advantage or a disadvantage. Some courses I will get beat by the guy with the exact same rating because it's an open course and he throws farther. That's what makes golf fun! I competed in several Ice Bowls recently against the same guys and it was fun to see where we would end up. Our standings actually flip-flopped.

I fail to understand how age-based divisions changes any of that. Even within age-based divisions there are still going to be guys that throw considerably farther than you and are favored at some courses. I'd be willing to bet that there are a few guys within your age-based division that throw almost as far as your son. I fail to understand how age-based divisions do anything to eliminate the differences between golfer throwing distances, or the vagaries between courses, and how each individual course will favor some golfers over others. That's just part of the sport.

And if tournaments ever went ratings-based only and age-based went away (which they won't, ever) and this really bothered you so much, then you could to choose not to play in the $75 tournament at the Toboggan.

But all this is a moot discussion anyway. Age-based divisions are here for eternity.

There are some courses that don't favor your game, and some courses that do. I know that when I attend certain tournaments and certain courses that I may be competitively at an advantage or a disadvantage. Some courses I will get beat by the guy with the exact same rating because it's an open course and he throws farther. That's what makes golf fun! I competed in several Ice Bowls recently against the same guys and it was fun to see where we would end up. Our standings actually flip-flopped.

I fail to understand how age-based divisions changes any of that. Even within age-based divisions there are still going to be guys that throw considerably farther than you and are favored at some courses. I'd be willing to bet that there are a few guys within your age-based division that throw almost as far as your son. I fail to understand how age-based divisions do anything to eliminate the differences between golfer throwing distances, or the vagaries between courses, and how each individual course will favor some golfers over others. That's just part of the sport.

And if tournaments ever went ratings-based only and age-based went away (which they won't, ever) and this really bothered you so much, then you could to choose not to play in the $75 tournament at the Toboggan.

But all this is a moot discussion anyway. Age-based divisions are here for eternity.



I think I now understand the problem. You play because it's fun and the experience is more important than the win. It would be awesome if all players worked that way but they don't. The idea of playing in a situation that always favors your (Jeff's) game would make many competitors nuts.

I used to play a casual round every Saturday with a friend. He regularly whipped up on me. BTW - he was a highly skilled short game player. Over time my distance improved to the point where I could beat him on the long courses here in Houston. For some reason he only wanted to play on the short technical courses after that.

Eventually, my short game caught up with his and then he started having other things to do on weekends.

Human nature is human nature. The notion that we should build an altruistic structure, one that is "good for the game" is great. But it ignores human nature. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything; as Chuck wrote much more elegantly, we need to do something that is both good for the sport and that accommodates human nature.

I fail to understand how age-based divisions changes any of that.



So, someone should have to explain it again ?!

I fail to understand how age-based divisions do anything to eliminate the differences between golfer throwing distances, or the vagaries between courses, and how each individual course will favor some golfers over others.



I think the issue is that divisions can't always play on courses that are balanced for their skill level. I remember playing in the Waco charity event in MPG around 1998-99 and there was a stretch of 6-8 holes that all eight MPGs took a 3 on. The holes were just out of everyone's range even with rollers. The holes were poor for our division in terms of separating scores. On the other hand, better that we were all in the same boat rather than half of us being similarly rated younger players.

What Terry is saying is that if we can't count on balanced courses for our skill level (and it's getting better due to design guidelines), that at least we get a little more fairness via age brackets. Most players in MPG who out throw me have higher ratings. Those at my rating throw about the same.

Thanks Brian!

Terry, here are the results of the driving distances from Pro and Am Worlds in 2002. These are the top 30-50% of players in each division and would provide the guidelines for what tees should be considered for each group.

Thank you for the extra unpaid work, Chuck.

The average drive length figures for MM1, MA1 describe a de facto age effect on length of drives off the tee:

Average driving distance for the top 30-50% of players at worlds in Masters and Advanced Open:

MA1 = 348'
MM1 = 298'

That, right there, is a 50-foot-per-drive, age-related bias against older players.

It may be hard for you young guns out there to mentally put yourself into an older body and resonate with this, but try this: Imagine yourself forced into a division where the average player out drives you by 50 feet per drive even if his putting, approach, and course management skills are the equal of yours.

That is not fair competition. But it is precisely what would exist if age-based divisions did not exist.


Chuck, is there any way you can give us the average rating to match those distances, just to make sure we're comparing apples-to-apples.

The average rating for the top 71 MA1 (out of 131) included in those distance measurements was 941.4. The average rating for the top 22 MM1 (out of 55) included in those measurements was 941.5. So I'd say we have a close comparison.

I'm stuck on the distance thing here, as it applies to age-based divisions. If someone wants to argue that distance is not an age-related skill, then I'm ready to argue that. I just did a hole-by-hole mental walk through the Toboggan course, using my (59) distance drives and my son's (22) distance drives. He has an absolute 9 hole advantage on me there, based purely on distance.

Hypothetical: Suppose that there was a scale on which tournaments offered fewer and fewer divisions, as the courses being played were shorter and shorter.

We're playing the Toboggan course or La Mirada when it's stretched out? Okay, the age-based divisions we have now would sort out well there, I think.

We're playing the Original course long tees at Hudson Mills, or La Mirada in a normal configuration, maybe only a couple of age-based divisions: Advanced and Advanced Masters (at age 45+).

Put us on the Original course short tees, or the Hotel America course in Flagstaff - okay by me if we throw away the age-based divisions entirely - I can compete there with anyone.



That's sounds an awful lot like What's In It For Me Hot Tub.

That's sounds an awful lot like What's In It For Me Hot Tub.



Of course that has nothing to do with whining to get your way or not renew...

That's sounds an awful lot like What's In It For Me Hot Tub.



Of course that has nothing to do with whining to get your way or not renew...



This is where the fraud of your positions are revealed. I'm Masters eligible. I could spend the next nine seasons hiding out in Advanced Masters racking up plastic, selling it on EBay and actually making money from playing. So what I propose doing by limiting divisions and going ratings based would hurt me. I'm 920 so I'd be in the bottom half of a 900-950 division. This benefits me how? On the other hand you all want to continue to have age protected divisions so that you perpetuate the scam of being Pros and winning money when in actuality all of us are mediocre Am's. My position seems to be in favor of what I intellectually believe would be for the long term betterment of the game whereas you all want a system that favors you while dishonoring the concept of sport.

Terry, here are the results of the driving distances from Pro and Am Worlds in 2002. These are the top 30-50% of players in each division and would provide the guidelines for what tees should be considered for each group.

Thank you for the extra unpaid work, Chuck.

The average drive length figures for MM1, MA1 describe a de facto age effect on length of drives off the tee:

Average driving distance for the top 30-50% of players at worlds in Masters and Advanced Open:

MA1 = 348'
MM1 = 298'

That, right there, is a 50-foot-per-drive, age-related bias against older players.

It may be hard for you young guns out there to mentally put yourself into an older body and resonate with this, but try this: Imagine yourself forced into a division where the average player out drives you by 50 feet per drive even if his putting, approach, and course management skills are the equal of yours.

That is not fair competition. But it is precisely what would exist if age-based divisions did not exist.



Hey Terry that is right! The top 30-50% of MA1 players out drove the top 30-50% of MM1s. Unfortunantly that really doesn't prove what some people are trying to say. I bet that the average ratings of the MA1s was about 30pts higher as well.

I would be willing to bet that when compared by rating the driving distances are MUCH closer(30ft at most).

Hey Terry that is right! The top 30-50% of MA1 players out drove the top 30-50% of MM1s. Unfortunantly that really doesn't prove what some people are trying to say. I bet that the average ratings of the MA1s was about 30pts higher as well.



You lose the bet. The average ratings were equal as I posted already.

This is where the fraud of your positions are revealed. I'm Masters eligible. I could spend the next nine seasons hiding out in Advanced Masters racking up plastic, selling it on EBay and actually making money from playing.



Having your way doesn't mean the reward you seek is plastic. Sometimes it's just power tripping that you force others to your tune. You claim your ideas are better for the sport with no rationale to back it up other than simplicity. I and others don't necessarily disagree that simplicity can be better. But participation, plus TD and member satisfaction are more important, especially when the bulk of our players are weekend warriors and not seeking professional glory.

This is where the fraud of your positions are revealed. I'm Masters eligible. I could spend the next nine seasons hiding out in Advanced Masters racking up plastic, selling it on EBay and actually making money from playing.

You could make money. You couldn't make a profit.

I fail to understand how age-based divisions changes any of that.



So, someone should have to explain it again ?!



We're having some good-natured discussion here, Bill Cary, and trying to understand each other. I'm sorry that offends you.

I fail to understand how age-based divisions changes any of that.



So, someone should have to explain it again ?!



We're having some good-natured discussion here, Bill Cary, and trying to understand each other. I'm sorry that offends you.



You fail to convince me, Jeff La Grassa, that you (and many others for that matter), are trying to understand anyone else.

You don't have to take responsibility if I take offense. And anyway, I'm not offended.

brian,

how do you know that 15-20% of the membership would leave? where are these studies?

i would be willing to bet that the pdga loses that many people BECAUSE of its divisional structure. people tire of dinky divisions, high entry fees, etc.

do you really believe that attendence at tournaments is due to the divisional structure? really?

kevin

the sun comes up everyday, that's because i brush my teeth every morning. really.

ding, ding, ding. what comes to mind is, "have you no shame?" i can't fathom how i could argue that someone who is better than me shouldn't have the opportunity to beat me. is "winning" that important?

You fail to convince me, Jeff La Grassa, that you (and many others for that matter), are trying to understand anyone else.



Trust me, I want to understand Terry's point. But I'm still not getting it - perhaps I am just daft. I'm okay admitting that.

ding, ding, ding. what comes to mind is, "have you no shame?" i can't fathom how i could argue that someone who is better than me shouldn't have the opportunity to beat me. is "winning" that important?



Not sure who you are responding to, but yes, I would argue that someone who is unquestionably better than me and will beat me 100 times out of 100 will have very few opportunities to do so that I pay for.

However if you allow me to compete with a dozen or 100 players that I may beat 2 times out of 100, then I may pay to play.

There is a big difference between competition and a whupping.

Here's some good discussion from another thread:

Rich Myers wrote:

and to say two people regardless of age with the same 940 rating will not normally shoot about the same is an insult to the ratings. my experience, they are pretty close. people of the same rating usually are of very similar skill level in terms of scoring. some may throw farther, some may approach better, some may putt better, some may manage the course better. each person has different strengths. but similar rated players have demonstrated a similar overall skill based on overall scoring. period.



Chuck Kennedy wrote:

I think your opinion might be shaded by living along the east coast where the courses can be and are more balanced due to terrain variety. I believe you'll see more age differences among similar ratings in areas with more wide open courses like Texas. In my view, the technical difference in distance that might occur among those of different ages with the same rating is not as large as the perception of the difference per Terry's remarks. The average distance facts are valid. But how that converts into actual differences on the typical course is not as pronounced.



Exactly.

Despite differences in throwing distances, people with the same ratings throw the same scores almost unilaterally with no exception. Maybe you have a special course like the Toboggan which is long and open and results in some favoritism to those who throw farther, but that's a rarity. Which makes more sense: age-based divisions where golfers of the same age may have ratings that differ as much as 80-100, or skill-based divisions where golfers of all ages have all ratings within 30-40 of each other? The latter is a no-brainer. (With the caveat that it may result in an occasional course or event with predominantly long open holes that favor younger golfers who can throw farther)

What makes sense to me is to provide both and allow the competitors to choose which they wish to use. The larger more competitive ratings only based divisions (which should have larger payouts) or the friendlier smaller age based divisions.

from a 893 rated player most folks around here believe im under rated. that being said i also believe i can play over my rating. i know without a doubt that i play for an opportunity to place well. but i also play for the comradery that exist accross the board of demografics. i can fellowship with whom ever may be there, but i cannot compete for good place finish amung the eleit players. by the way i currently play in the advanced masters division.if it were not available to do so i probably would play more rec golf and less tournament golf until my skills were fine tuned enough to finish well in the non age protected advanced division

by the way i currently play in the advanced masters division.if it were not available to do so i probably would play more rec golf and less tournament golf until my skills were fine tuned enough to finish well in the non age protected advanced division



If you're an 893-rated player, why wouldn't you compete in the Intermediate division with golfers rated 875-915?

For example, hole 1 is a par 5 with the first throw 370' slightly downhill down a corridor to the dogleg landing area. Don't reach the dogleg and your next shot is a 50-70 pitch to the dogleg (if you're not too far off the fairway) before advancing.



Chuck, it looks like one of us needs to get his rangefinder checked.* I measured 330' to the point where the landing area widens.

I also see the concept a bit differently. The fairway is about the same width the whole way, but it pinches down a bit a 330'. I'm hoping players will have to decide whether to throw a driver or a midrange. If you throw a 350' drive, two good shot will get you a four. If you throw a safe 300' drive, it'll take two really good shots to get a four.

I do believe that a short drive will still have plenty of room to throw up the hill to the "field." You won't need to pitch a 70-footer.

Of course, that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.

I do agree that players of all divisions will enjoy the South Course when it has shorter tees.

* (I was actually using the PDGA's rangefinder -- I left mine at home. I may have to jump off a bridge if it was set for meters, not yards.)

PS: Not to confuse anyone who makes it to the IDGC, the hole in question is now #10, not #1.

I had my rangefinder but didn't check it since Matt told me it was 370 and it looked like it from where we threw from. I had a good drive and it hyzered out about 40 feet before the turn so it could have been 330. It's still quite a bit longer than our guidelines for length to doglegs for gold so we'll have to see how it plays out.

The fact that the field would be cleared as an option to throw wide past the corner wasn't mentioned nor obvious so that's good to know.

It's still quite a bit longer than our guidelines for length to doglegs for gold so we'll have to see how it plays out.



I know it took quite a bit of work to develop the above-mentioned guidelines and they're a great tool for both new and experienced course designers. IMO, however, some of the #'s look like they were written thinking of Aero's as long range drivers.

These are part of the GOLD guidelines:

The lengths for open approach throws ranges from 150-
290 feet with a maximum of 320 feet from the desired
landing area.

Players should ideally be given the option to throw around
water. However, if the terrain forces a throw across water,
the far side of the water should be no more than 250 feet
(effective length) from the tee/mark.

A player should not
be forced to throw over 275 feet (effective length) from
the tee to the corner of a dogleg where a shorter throw
will not allow the player to reach the basket (or next
landing area) with a good next throw."

If at least 2/3 of the designed skill level cannot reach a sharp dogleg then the length is too long. The standards have been validated several times for all skill levels despite the perception that they are too short for how far discs are being thrown. They still aren't being thrown any more accurately.

The 275 ft. guideline doesn't say anything about being applied to a tunnel situation where less than 2/3rd's of the field makes the "corner". It's written in absolute terms.

GOLD players shouldn't have to carry more than 250 ft. of water?

Maximum of 320 ft. for an OPEN shot for GOLD players?

By no means is this an indictment of the guidelines as a whole or any of the many, many positive contributions you've made, but these #'s need some tweakage. For once, just suck it up and say, "you're right, the numbers could use a little adjusting, thanks for pointing that out".

A maximum of 320 feet on an OPEN shot for the GOLD players? - Total crazy talk. ;)

Every one of our numbers has been validated for the player levels involved. If it wasn't accurate, the Hole Forecaster we use for design wouldn't be so accurate in predicting the scores actual players make on actual holes.

Is there any doubt that Tiger and the boys can consistently drive near 300 yards? If so, then why aren't par 3 golf holes more than about 220 with most in the 180-210 range for PGA? It's accuracy and scoring that are more important.

You also don't see many sharp doglegs in ball golf. If you did, they would also not be 280 or more to the corner. Likewise, water carries might be over 250 in a straight line, but the option to go shorter along the shoreline would be available. In fact, when the winds were over 30mph at one event on the coast, they played shorter tees so everyone had a chance to reach the landing area across the canyon.

The lengths for open approach throws ranges from 150-
290 feet with a maximum of 320 feet from the desired
landing area.




320, where did that number come from? How many holes on Winthrop Gold violate this guideline? The Red Hawk? - oh bad example, that'd be circular logic. I wouldn't do that anymore than I'd try to make a point by avoiding acknowledging clear facts by attempting to distract with related, but non-parallel facts.

Shall we pick apart the Highbridge courses to see how many of your holes violate this guideline? Maybe you can just admit that you too have not followed it because it doesn't make any sense.

The clear fact is that there is absolutely no reason to set an arbitrary limit for GOLD players on OPEN shots at 320 ft.

I'm not sure where your indignation is coming from on this but there aren't any holes on any of the courses I've designed that violate the guidelines, once they were developed and then validated. I'm comfortable that these guidelines will be proven appropriate time and again with actual data or we would have modified them by now. Longer distance discs have only slightly increased the appropriate length of par 4s and 5s.

The top 36 MPO players after the shuffle in Houston threw a wide open drive an average of 378 under tournament conditions with a low of 300 and a long of 477 which included 14 rollers. Average foliage would reduce that as would a corridor like wooded hole at the IDGC. Since it's also the top 36 players, the group is beyond the gold average level where the standards are set. All of these lead to the guidelines which Houck and I developed and I've been testing for 5 years. I'm open to anyone who can counter that development with better information and analysis.

so you're saying that none of your courses require a shot of over 320 feet from the gold tees?

i think if all pro major's were required to follow that guideline there'd be a unanimous outry against it.

for an OPEN par 4 for the gold level to be an appropriate challenge, i'd say it needs to be at least 650 ft. long. the guidelines would dictate a maximum of 640 ft.

Just a reminder on a few #'s:
The 2006 Masters: 16% birdies/eagles - 61% pars - 23% bogeys/worse
The 2006 PGA: 16% birdies/eagles - 63% pars - 21% bogeys/worse
The 2006 Players Cup: 20% birdies - 58% pars - 22% bogeys/worse

The Players Cup winner: -18 (-6 per round)
Worlds winner: -70+, (-9.something per round)

Do we want par to mean something or do we want to continue to perpetuate a "standard" where a good pro shoots half birdies and half pars?

Someone please remind me what the topic of this thread was.

The 320 relates to the max for an approach throw, not a drive if you look at the guidelines. An effective distance of 360 is the max for a reachable par 3. Not because many gold players can't throw farther, but because that's how far they can throw accurately to get a good scoring swing on the hole and not make it a mostly 3 hole with few birds.

well, i think we can both agree that it's good to keep developing low-cost methods of creating greater score variation around the "green" to add more depth to our "short game" and not rely so heavily on adding distance to spread scores.

And we have definitely done that on the IDGC courses on several holes.