The Association is considering (in smoky backrooms) adding yet another division to the Amateur structure as part of their ongoing quest to make everyone a winner. This raises two questions:

Thanks for setting up this poll Hawk.

You're welcome Fan.

I think we should have age protected divisions.....but not the ones we have now. For NTs and A-tiers, I think there should an under 16 division, an over 50 division, and a Women's Open. All the rest should be ratings based.

Thanks Hawk!

Very interesting results so far!

How about keeping the age protected divisions and making a rule that all added cash go to the Open.

Thanks Hawk!

Very interesting results so far!



You're welcome...fan. Yes I agree.

I think we should have age protected divisions.....but not the ones we have now. For NTs and A-tiers, I think there should an under 16 division, an over 50 division, and a Women's Open. All the rest should be ratings based.



I'd agree with these :D

I would go as far as saying 17 and under. The more in the youth field the better.

I like the concept of 50+, youth, and women. But I think that money should be equally distributed by player ratio for men and women. If there are 45 Open players and 5 women, it would be a 90/10 split. but a 45 and 15 ratio would make it a 75/25 split. They are all pros. The women of tennis have similar sponsorship levels in sports like tennis. We should be no different. Hold yourself to a higher standard.

I'm not sure why you'd want to set up the divisions with 50 points spreads everywhere but in the top division or why you would not want to have a division appropriate for the ratings of most of our women members. Otherwise, I'd have no problem with eliminating redundant and overlapping divisions.

Would you stop competing in PDGA tourneys if there were only four divisions based on ratings?



This is a misleading question if you are after meaningful results. The real question should be, "Would your attendance at PDGA tourneys remain the same or increase if there were only four divisions based on ratings?"

I think if such a model were put in place, tons of people would be apt to pick and choose where and when they play and over all attendance would drop pretty dramatically. BUT.....almost everyone competing now would probably still compete at some time or another.

Those are nice round numbers, but I thought the current ratings breaks were picked to divvy up the players into similar sized fields. I'm probably wrong.

I would prefer the Am0 through Am4 model with Am0 being >=955 and Am4 being <825. Keep one track of age protected divisions, the Am0 Track with no ratings ranges, and only have two divisions that play for cash: MPO and FPO. And yes, do the same for the women with appropriate ratings ranges.

This plan gives us fair rating spreads, does not force anyone to pay $100 entry fees in MPO or quit, preserves age-based divisions for those that truly mean it when they say "I prefer to play with the old guys" (they would have to really mean it to play for prizes, and that option is there), and eliminates the the multiple redundant cash divisions that currently split up our most skilled players and divide our paltry added cash.

only have two divisions that play for cash: MPO and FPO.



I couldn't agree more, but Pro Masters and Grandmasters would never consent to this. They would cry bloody murder.

I agree with Matt.
I think the rating spread should be
>975, 974-925, 924-875,874-825, <825

I play pro masters because I can be competive there and it's currently allowed. But I do believe that we shouldn't allow anyone rated <975 to play as a pro.

Prorate added cash based on participation, with the exception that added cash in the age protected Pro fields is limited to double the entry fees.

As long as we are still basically playing for each other's money, it's not a big deal. When we start getting big sponsors, the old guys that prefer playing old guys can continue. The ones that are there because it's easy money will follow the money.

i kind of like rhett's idea except 2 things.

a. don't call the divisions am or pro. but i like the general idea of everyone over a certain rating playing with the big boys.

b. age protected divisons are not needed. if people can play with people of their own skill level, their buddies will likely be in the same division anyway. that old familiar whine about playing with their peers is an excuse. i like seeing my old friends at events as much as the next guy. if we lose a coupe whiners because they only want to play with certain people, that's ok. in the end they will see that their friends are all silvers ro whatever and come back and play. trust me. how do you feel when you are injured and can't play for a while? if you have the desire to play, you will be back soon enough.

ok, instead of a firm line for divisional breakout, how about basing it off the top rated player registered.

If the top rated player is 1015, then PRO would be 966-1015, other divisions would cascade down from there. TDs could enforce tighter or wider spreads to better equalize the players. So basically, if you know that the top rated registered player is a certain number, you can probably figure out the breakout from there, which would impact what division you fall into. Points would now be based on the entire field, not only players in your division, because basically, you are playing against all players, not just those who impact your particular chance at a trophy or cash.

Adding flexibility in allows a TD to adjust the cutoff line for different divisions, allowing for more equal distribution of players.

That's how they do it in other sports, base it off the top team and cascade down from there.

A tournament with a top player rating of 986 will have a completely different makeup than one that has a top player that is 1024. Having a limit for the pro division gives top players a smaller pool, but also a more skilled pool. The cream rises.

Would you stop competing in PDGA tourneys if there were only four divisions based on ratings?



This is a misleading question if you are after meaningful results. The real question should be, "Would your attendance at PDGA tourneys remain the same or increase if there were only four divisions based on ratings?"

I think if such a model were put in place, tons of people would be apt to pick and choose where and when they play and over all attendance would drop pretty dramatically. BUT.....almost everyone competing now would probably still compete at some time or another.



I think this is an important point. Gary Duke and I looked at tournament participation in Texas a few years ago. Most players only play one to three tournaments a year. I wonder if the motivating factor isn't more "that (those) special tournament(s) I like to play in" rather than exactly where you play?

When I started playing there was 2 divisions, men or women, I will not cry bloody murder and there are more than you think like me. :D

Just do it already!!

i kind of like rhett's idea except 2 things.

a. don't call the divisions am or pro. but i like the general idea of everyone over a certain rating playing with the big boys.

b. age protected divisons are not needed. if people can play with people of their own skill level, their buddies will likely be in the same division anyway. that old familiar whine about playing with their peers is an excuse. i like seeing my old friends at events as much as the next guy. if we lose a coupe whiners because they only want to play with certain people, that's ok. in the end they will see that their friends are all silvers ro whatever and come back and play. trust me. how do you feel when you are injured and can't play for a while? if you have the desire to play, you will be back soon enough.



While personally I agree with you, the votes don't. However, even a 4 tier system with one or two age brackets would still be better than what we currently have. It could be structured so that it was more profitable to play in your ratings group so that you'd find out if the old guys really wanted to play with other old guys... :D

A tournament with a top player rating of 986 will have a completely different makeup than one that has a top player that is 1024.



Around here, I call that the "Steve Brinster" division. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

There's Stevie, and then there's everyone else.

maybe for over 50. but no protection is needed for 40+. it is quite obvious that being 40 doesn't affect ability to play that greatly. look at craiger, jim myers, brad hammock, etc...

why look at those guys- they are exceptions, many of us are in decline at age 40.

maybe for over 50. but no protection is needed for 40+. it is quite obvious that being 40 doesn't affect ability to play that greatly. look at craiger, jim myers, brad hammock, etc...




Already have stats on this looking at rating loss in five year periods tracking all players in an age group over five years who remained members. No loss until age 40. Then, players lose one throw per round (10 rating points) every 5 years on average. Forcing Master players as a group to play with Open in A-tiers will put them at 3-5 shot disadvantage in 4-round events. Grandmasters have the same disadvantage when forced to play with Masters.

ok, instead of a firm line for divisional breakout, how about basing it off the top rated player registered.

If the top rated player is 1015, then PRO would be 966-1015, other divisions would cascade down from there. TDs could enforce tighter or wider spreads to better equalize the players. So basically, if you know that the top rated registered player is a certain number, you can probably figure out the breakout from there, which would impact what division you fall into. Points would now be based on the entire field, not only players in your division, because basically, you are playing against all players, not just those who impact your particular chance at a trophy or cash.

This is a really cool idea because no one would be the perpetual bagger or donator in any division. But it would have a cascade effect on the format. Everyone would have to pay the same entry fee. The TD would have to have some kind of colored sticker system for identifying the divisions after everyone registered. Cards would have to go on the leaderboard after divisions were identified.

You could do this within the current PDGA standard format, too. Well, I could, anyway. I might, even! If you wanted to run this format sanctioned, you'd have to ask me how.

maybe for over 50. but no protection is needed for 40+. it is quite obvious that being 40 doesn't affect ability to play that greatly. look at craiger, jim myers, brad hammock, etc...




Already have stats on this looking at rating loss in five year periods tracking all players in an age group over five years who remained members. No loss until age 40. Then, players lose one throw per round (10 rating points) every 5 years on average. Forcing Master players as a group to play with Open in A-tiers will put them at 3-5 shot disadvantage in 4-round events. Grandmasters have the same disadvantage when forced to play with Masters.



ummm... forcing a 40 point spread in ratings based division puts the player at the low end at a 16 stroke disadvantage when forced to play in the assigned division... so what is the point about a 3-5 stroke disadvantage that a 40+ player faces when playing against a younger rival?

It's not a disadvantage in ratings based divisions. Just pointing out there is a declining skill level on average after 40. If 40 year olds should play with Open, then the same logic applies to players up to 59 who are "only" 4 shots per round lower on average than they were at age 39.

Good discussion!


Those are nice round numbers, but I thought the current ratings breaks were picked to divvy up the players into similar sized fields. I'm probably wrong.

I would prefer the Am0 through Am4 model with Am0 being >=955 and Am4 being <825. Keep one track of age protected divisions, the Am0 Track with no ratings ranges, and only have two divisions that play for cash: MPO and FPO. And yes, do the same for the women with appropriate ratings ranges.

This plan gives us fair rating spreads, does not force anyone to pay $100 entry fees in MPO or quit, preserves age-based divisions for those that truly mean it when they say "I prefer to play with the old guys" (they would have to really mean it to play for prizes, and that option is there), and eliminates the the multiple redundant cash divisions that currently split up our most skilled players and divide our paltry added cash.



I like this idea. I also like pure ratings based divisions like mid-nats plus a gold division. I've always thought it'd be a blast for me to get to play against Juliana and Dr. Rick in the same division.

I also like a golf tournament format that is common and used for the Ann Arbor city championship. 2 rounds of 18 are played and then the field is split into about ten flights that are created so that no one (except possibly in the last flight) is more than a set number of strokes (i think they use 4) going into the final round on Sunday. Everyone's got a chance to win their flight.

why look at those guys- they are exceptions, many of us are in decline at age 40.



If you're going to use my opponent as an example of this please feel free to cite him specifically.

maybe for over 50. but no protection is needed for 40+. it is quite obvious that being 40 doesn't affect ability to play that greatly. look at craiger, jim myers, brad hammock, etc...




Already have stats on this looking at rating loss in five year periods tracking all players in an age group over five years who remained members. No loss until age 40. Then, players lose one throw per round (10 rating points) every 5 years on average. Forcing Master players as a group to play with Open in A-tiers will put them at 3-5 shot disadvantage in 4-round events. Grandmasters have the same disadvantage when forced to play with Masters.



Then their rating drops and they play in the next rated division down. If each division was playing for money instead of pla$tic it wouldn't matter.

I hear on an adjunct thread that Am's may already be selling thier plastic prize for cash as we speak :eek:

That's shocking!

well... then, they must not be True Ams

who said anything about forcing masters to play open? chuck, all masters can easily fit into a ratings based division. why do they need to be double protected? and if they are rated over 955 or 970 or whatever the lower end of the top division is, i'm sure they can hold their own!;. have you ever played with dean pfiefer?

My comment had nothing to do with fairness in a ratings division, although 950 is too low. Maybe 975-980 bottom. I was just commenting on the facts of a player's skill declining starting at 40, on average. Every individual is different. My rating is higher than it was 8 years ago. But the inflation factor from 2005 hasn't worked it's way out of my rounds yet.

When I started playing there was 2 divisions, men or women, I will not cry bloody murder and there are more than you think like me. :D

Just do it already!!



Matt, I know there are 990+ rated masters golfers like yourself and Gangloff that compete in Open and "get it." Trust me, I have the utmost respect for you guys. My comments are not directed at you at all.

It seems to me that any discussion about the re-structuring of divisions needs to include a discussion about event tiers as well. I don't believe that its sensible for the same divisional structure to apply for an NT event as for a C-Tier event, for example.

The purpose of the National Tour, for example, is to provide a very small number of events that cater to the "showcase divisions" (MPO and FPO). How we accommodate players rated 950-980, for example, should be different for an NT event than for lesser-tier events. Out of 800+/- PDGA events we're talking 10-12 events where perhaps Pros rated 950-980 or those in age-protected divisions may feel as though they are merely cash contributors.

As we continue to establish and cultivate relationships with major corporate sponsors, we will be in a better position to fund the MPO and FPO purses at NT events with corporate dollars more than from the players' pockets.

There is a need to help grow the sport from 2 different perspectives: from the top down and from the bottom up. NT events, and perhaps A-Tiers to a lesser degree, should be designed more for the sake of the top players. Perhaps B-Tiers and below should be geared more for Amateur divisions. This way we're helping to make it a reality for the top touring players to make a living off the sport, as a result of sponsor dollars rather than from players self-funding the event. The lower tier events offer a competitive tournament experience for Amateur players, Pros that aren't at a skill level where they can regularly be competitive with the touring Pro, and age-protected geezers like myself that don't have the time to practice but enjoy the comraderie and still have a competitive fire.

The Sugarbush Resort Open, to be held in Warren, Vermont Sept 21 thru 23, will be a combination National Tour and B-Tier event. Our goal is to bring some major corporate sponsors on-board in order to make our event appealing to the showcase divisions, while also coming up with some interesting ideas to make the event equally appealing to all Amateur players.

It's difficult to establish divisional structures that adequately address inherently conflicting agendas and priorities. By having different structuring for the various tiers perhaps we get closer to providing event experiences that offer appeal to almost every tourney Disc Golfer.

Dan Doyle
PDGA #310
Warwick, NY

I AGREE to a degree , catering to ams at lower tiered events but I have said this idea once before that allows you to DO BOTH cater to TRUE AMS ( ratings wise ) and since it is a PDGA event give to the pros ( ratings wise ) at lower tiered events . This would all be allowed if players can slide up and down the pro / am scale based upon RATINGS .


Caps per division per tier event
A/NT all players rated over 1000 must play open
B tiers all players rated 980 and over play open
C tiers all players rated 955 and over play open
Combine that with the possiblity of limiting top players take home at lower tiered events and limiting the entry fee at lower events . Also have very little if any added cash at C tier events .
Example 1
a C tier event that would normally have ( in our area ) 10 or so open and 10 or so masters and 25 advanced ( all paying about 30 dollars give or take to play )
in my idea almost all these players would be in the same division and by capping what the top pro can win you can pay WAY deeper in the field and at the same time charge less to enter to get the same payout ( pro ) of the original tourney
would now have .

Example 2
B tier event would have about 15 open , 15 master , 40 advanced
my way there is about 30 open players , and then about 15 TRUE MASTERS and 25 TRUE Advanced players who are DUE the protection they deserve based upon the ratings breaks .

Example 3
A tier event
ALL the best of the best ( 1000 rated players ) play against each other with no limit on age .
All others would then be afforded the protection they need .


This is a very plain and simple version of ideas but if you look at them they can be tweaked to allow EVERYONE AT ANY PDGA EVENT a fun yet challenging tourney .

It seems to me that any discussion about the re-structuring of divisions needs to include a discussion about event tiers as well. I don't believe that its sensible for the same divisional structure to apply for an NT event as for a C-Tier event, for example.

bee eye en gee OH!

why look at those guys- they are exceptions, many of us are in decline at age 40.



I'm not even 40 yet, my game is going to pot, and I still think the Masters age should go to 50. My game is going to pot because I sit here and type rather than practice my putting.

why look at those guys- they are exceptions, many of us are in decline at age 40.



I'm not even 40 yet, my game is going to pot , and I still think the Masters age should go to 50. My game is going to pot because I sit here and type rather than practice my putting.



In light of the current debate I find this phrasing ironic.

I think 50 is the proper age for masters....I probably catch some heat since Im still many years away from forty.

Why shouldn't there be 5-year age brackets all the way down like other sports? There are many examples where their 35-39 winner will have a better performance than the 30-34 winner. If you're going to have age brackets, then they should cover our full range, even if we only add a 30-39 year bracket for starters. That would protect the youngsters like Nate and Avery from those old poachers like Kenny and Barry. This would only be for higher tier events where the field sizes could be decent. No one has given a good reason why disc golf needs to narrow down to no or minimal age divisions compared to virtually every other sport. Even other sports that have some form of skill measurement like our ratings, they still have age divisions.

Because the fields are so small Chuck. Dividing the typical 60 players at a B or C tier into 10 divisions is lame, small time and weak.

chuck, are you being facetious or serious???

most other sports have many times our participation, so comparisons to them is not entirely realistic.

i started playing when i was 40. i've improved every year in most every aspect of the game, including distance. i am grandmaster eligible this year, and can now choose from SIX divisions. and no matter which one i pick, guess what... there's not many players in any division - making it sometimes worthless to bother playing an event.

I have no problem with Age based but combine it with Ratings based divisions .
If you are over 1000 you can compete with anybody .
However , as has been proven in the past , if you are 956 and cashed years ago at a hometown event you cannot compete TO WIN against a 1000 rated player no matter what age specifics .

If all events were ratings based, there would be no need for age protected divisions. It would not bother me to play in a division with like rated players instead of like aged players. Under the current divisional setup, I'm looking forward to playing GM next year at 50.

As far as age causing rating drops, my age (and others I know) did not cause a ratings drop, 2 torn rotator cuffs in 4 years along with other serious health issues = no play = ratings drop. After recovery from torn rotator cuff = 65% - 75% of previous distance and much frustration from loss of distance = not much of a ratings change.

So, I welcome no age protection, just play ratings based.

I'm sure that they have similar small divisions in other sports but they retain them as an appropriate option. With the proposed plan, all traveling state championship plaques and traveling trophies would disappear for potentially Masters and older. All annual series that are age based would disappear. With rating based events, things like the NEFA series would not have annual Intermediate or Advanced winners. No one would have State Championships in any division similar to current divisions except Open. I'm looking at the Grandmaster MN State Championship traveling plaque right now. Legends would be forced to enter Master or even Open at Pro Worlds under this plan? If you propose to retain the traditional age divisions at Worlds, you might as well have them as a regular option.

TDs have the right to not offer a division with less than 4 players as it is right now. But it's rare that they don't host a smaller division. Why? It's a business. It's customer service.

The PDGA should be casting a wider not narrower net. If we could figure out a way to rate and sanction bocce disc or wolf, we should be doing it, IF members want to participate that way. If they don't then fine. We look for other ideas to increase participation, not jam a format down people's throats because we are the sanctioning body for the sport.

TDs have the power to restrict divisions if they wish. But most don't. Players in smaller divisions have been given the option to play in larger divisions either at the same skill level or higher. Some do but most don't. Our primary constituents, the TDs and players don't seem to be clamoring for fewer choices, what can possibly be the rationale that tops this for why fewer divisions should be required?

Small fields is just not a good excuse. We all enjoy playing rounds every day with 3-5 buddies in our group. At the personal level that's all you really interact with during competition is 3-5 people in a round. Isn't competition about enjoyment as much as fair competition, or why do it?

Small fields is just not a good excuse. We all enjoy playing rounds every day with 3-5 buddies in our group. At the personal level that's all you really interact with during competition is 3-5 people in a round. Isn't competition about enjoyment as much as fair competition, or why do it?

thats your opinion, chuck. in a four round event, i'll play with as many as 10-12 different players. for me, its a waste of time and money to play a sanctioned event with 5 guys in my division. i can go to any number of local parks and find people to go thru a round with.

jeez, with one day events all the rage and mini-divisions propogating like rabbits, we are moving away from competition, not towards it. granted, we are moving towards sanctioning friendly play, but around here we call that a weekly mini.

if you want ultimate flexibility, just let the TD set divisions however the heck they want. whats wrong with one event going 930-970 and another going 915-955 for Advanced if they want. or using the heritage divisional structure. for that matter. but not for the top of the line, pinnacle events.

I want to play against players who were born on the same day as me. regardless of year. Can we do that?

less divisions=more competition
less divisions=less decisions
less divisions=less division

The *only* reason for the current system is that it's the most profitable for the pdga in the short term. The pdga doesn't want to lose a single player for fear of losing that $2/event + membership fees. Chuck even alluded to it on another thread saying why should the pdga risk their income on an *experimental* system. This clearly indicates to me that our governing body is not doing what is best for the sport, but what is best for their pockets.

prove your way works.

What is the purpose of ratings?

prove your way works.

**yawn**

What is the purpose of ratings?

I don't know who this question is directed at, but I'll answer it. They are designed to group players into divisions that have as little disparity in skill levels as possible. This is so that everyone has a chance to win so everyone feels warm and fuzzy about themselves. It's the adult equivalent of participation medals.

84% of voters have said they'd keep playing if there were a clean four division split. There's always the chance that viewers of this website might start seeing large 20 person divisions and deciding they want a piece of that action, as opposed to seeing tourney results like this. (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5809#Masters) What would happen to those beloved age protected rotating trophies...they'd be gone as the worthless piece of junk they are. Somewhere in America there's a 50 year old player who is man enough to enjoy punking some 20 year old kid more than winning a thrice removed divisional win. The only age protected players who don't want this change are those who can't hang, and want to cling to being in the top group ("pro" masters/grandmasters etc.) instead of being in the second or third division where they belong based on their skill. Chuck's points paint the PDGA more as a club than a professional sport. If it's going to be a club fine, then stop the fraud of being a professional sport and stop whining about not being on ESPN etc.

Think of the time saved at awards ceremonies when announcing 4 divisions instead of 13!

I might even hang around...well probably not, but I might.

Clue, thanks, and anybody, do you expect the PDGA to say "Oh, you're right. Let's do it!"

Hawk, personally I don't see anything wrong with it. It is an inclusive type format.

Chuck's points paint the PDGA more as a club than a professional sport. If it's going to be a club fine, then stop the fraud of being a professional sport and stop whining about not being on ESPN etc.



When there's more money coming to the players from the outside in a year than the PDGA annual budget, then we might be on our way to competition models like other professional sports. However, even our nearest neighbor, ball golf doesn't restrict competition formats to include rounds in your handicap. Whether you play casually, in a scratch league, handicap league or handicap events, those rounds are all sanctioned to be included in your handicap.

My daughter's gymnastics meet last weekend had it's awards ceremony last over an hour and my daughter brought home 9 ribbons. I don't know how that applies exactly, but it shows that there is a place for multiple division events, especially on the "AM" side of things.

Is it not possible to have both formats?

For example, for B-tier and lower you could have strictly a ratings structure, 4 divisions.

For A tier tournaments you could have age/gender protected divisions, but have no basis of ratings. You could have Open, Open Master, Open Women, etc...

Those people, like myself, that can't compete with the open field would just have to stick to AM only A-tier events if I wanted to play A-tier.

I think that A-tier should say that this is the top of tournament play, and that only offering open divisions would make sense. The lower tiers seem like more of a training ground, and ratings divisions makes sense to me.

thats your opinion, chuck. in a four round event, i'll play with as many as 10-12 different players. for me, its a waste of time and money to play a sanctioned event with 5 guys in my division. i can go to any number of local parks and find people to go thru a round with.



If people are happy to just play with a handful of others, we should be embracing that option. The strength of USGA handicapping from an economic standpoint is it includes every validly completed round whether casual or in competition. The weakness of USGA hanidcaps is that they include every round, even those played casually. We should be finding ways to include more valid rounds in players' ratings, especially if we're using them in the competiton scheme even more in the future.

i'm all for it also, maybe even more than you are... but only for B tier and lower.

The concept of shifting ratings brackets for different tiers has been in some of my proposals to the Competition group and the Board a few times since the beginning of ratings. On the surface, it makes sense but the implementation is challenging. It also messes with any kind of local, regional or national series where players are accumulating points toward a series prize in a particular division.

At least if the rating breaks are fixed by tier, a series could have only that tier level included in their series events so players would be able to enter the same division the whole time. The other issue which, at the time, seemed to be a barrier was the complexity for TDs to handle this shifting scenario. That may not be the case now that TDs have had to deal with ratings breaks for several years now with different breaks for Am men & women plus breaks for pros crossing over to Am at several levels.

you're right, TD can probably handle it now, given the experience we have gained with aratings. forcing all ratings breaks to be the same gives less freedom to TDs. reasoning that such a restriction makes it better for "series" is a bias that comes at the expense of solo events.

I'm doing four-division tournaments in Michigan this year. Does not seem to have affected attendance any. I've seen pro women, pro grand masters, am masters, all those players from redundant divisions, slide into a division that was appropriate for their rating.

I figure, if the tournament is lightly attended, there is no point in splitting the divisions further. If the tournament is well attended, but high maintenance players who *need* micro divisions stay home, then I have a day blissfully short on high maintenance players.

Somewhere in America there's a 50 year old player who is man enough to enjoy punking some 20 year old kid more than winning a thrice removed divisional win.



Thanks for the recognition Hawk, but I'm actually 59, not 50 :D

Somewhere in America there's a 50 year old player who is man enough to enjoy punking some 20 year old kid more than winning a thrice removed divisional win.



Thanks for the recognition Hawk, but I'm actually 59, not 50 :D



But you can pass for 45 Hot Tub and that's what matters.

reasoning that such a restriction makes it better for "series" is a bias that comes at the expense of solo events.




With Minnesota having the oldest running state series with traveling trophies back to the early 80s, I can potentially see the 15 event state series going completely unsanctioned along with other long running state or regional series and state championships to retain traditional divisions with archival history either in state Halls of Fame like MN & WI or just traveling trophies.

Is it not possible to have both formats?

For example, for B-tier and lower you could have strictly a ratings structure, 4 divisions.

For A tier tournaments you could have age/gender protected divisions, but have no basis of ratings. You could have Open, Open Master, Open Women, etc...




While not ideal this is better than the mess we have now. Either have divisions (the fewer the better) with some age protection, or have divisions (the fewer the better) simply based on ratings, but to have age protected and ratings protected divisions at the same time is silly.

Chuck seems to acknowledge that we're not a sport so all this fretting about the legitimacy of the Disc Golf Club might be for naught. Let's just drop the Professional part and call it a day.

BTW, I agree that for doubles and team match play events, using ratings divisions like Bruce is doing is a better way. We've done ratings divisions for our state doubles series with both caps for team rating and individuals on a team.

Team match play would be much more fair, eliminate sandbagging and make it easier to field teams if ratings were used. So that women and older players would remain involved, each team of 9 would have to have at least one woman, two players over 40 and one player over 50. However, they could fill any of the 9 slots based on their rating. Dr. Rick might be playing the 2nd rated slot on a KY team and Terry playing the 6th rated slot on the MI team. Terry's wife Sheila could be extra valuable by meeting both the woman and over 40 requirement.

Chuck seems to acknowledge that we're not a sport so all this fretting about the legitimacy of the Disc Golf Club might be for naught. Let's just drop the Professional part and call it a day.



At this point, we're trying to operate professionally to support all skill levels and striving to eventually have sufficient players earn professional caliber incomes.

Clue, thanks, and anybody, do you expect the PDGA to say "Oh, you're right. Let's do it!"


No, I expect them to keep banging their heads against the wall to the tune of 700 meaningless weekend get togethers per year waiting for some magical sponsor. I'm disappointed that their short term financial goals have been counterproductive to the growth of the sport. I'm positive had things been done differently that mulitple touring players would be making in excess of $100,000/year just in tournament earnings.

That's a rather baseless statement given that only outside sponsorship would have resulted in what you are confident would have happened ($100K players).

I could maintain just as easily (or baselessly if you will) that we are closer to what you desire as our Am player base has increased due to the current format. Get enough people involved, and sponsors will come. Heck, give away enough 'stuff' so thousands of people play in hundreds of ' meaningless' tournaments each weekend, and sponsors will see a need/benefit to get involved in supporting a true Pro Tour.

Probably more realistic in regards to the long term goal you mention than propping up a few pros with more of each other's money.

Somewhere in America there's a 50 year old player who is man enough to enjoy punking some 20 year old kid more than winning a thrice removed divisional win.



Thanks for the recognition Hawk, but I'm actually 59, not 50 :D



But you can pass for 45 Hot Tub and that's what matters.



I'm sorry but this is just way too good to pass up. I've always thought that Hawk had it for either Eric E. or buxom women, but this fascination that he has with Terry and hot tubs has got me wondering. :D

With Minnesota having the oldest running state series with traveling trophies back to the early 80s, I can potentially see the 15 event state series going completely unsanctioned along with other long running state or regional series and state championships to retain traditional divisions with archival history either in state Halls of Fame like MN & WI or just traveling trophies.

who said anything about disallowing heritage divisions? keep em! i think they are great and SHOULD be sanctioned. except for NTs.

So what events would only be four ratings divisions and exclude age and gender divisions? I'm all for NTs just being Open Men & Women as originally intended.

whatever events that want to do four tier ratings could do them (cept NTs of course). if an event wants 2,4, or 20 ratings bands, cool. if it wants heritage divisions, cool. it all works.

actually, the beauty of ratings is that they can be determined even for events using heritage divisional structures. the last 7 years have proven that (or however long ratings have been around). the structure of the event wont change the ratings of the rounds thrown.

Is it not possible to have both formats?

For example, for B-tier and lower you could have strictly a ratings structure, 4 divisions.

For A tier tournaments you could have age/gender protected divisions, but have no basis of ratings. You could have Open, Open Master, Open Women, etc...

Personally I think this is TOTALLY backwards .
AT the higher tiered events you would want the BIGGEST protection , which would allow the best players to compete against one another on a BIG SHOW .
AT lower events you would want more divisions due to the ability to cater to ams .( MORE 1st place winners )

With Minnesota having the oldest running state series with traveling trophies back to the early 80s, I can potentially see the 15 event state series going completely unsanctioned along with other long running state or regional series and state championships to retain traditional divisions with archival history either in state Halls of Fame like MN & WI or just traveling trophies.

who said anything about disallowing heritage divisions? keep em! i think they are great and SHOULD be sanctioned. except for NTs.



This has probably been said a number of ways already, but I think Pat is correct. If you want to roll out a change like this, NTs are a great place to do it. However, there is that issue of what is too much control over the NT structure and how will TDs respond. It would be interesting to know what the NT TDs would think about a change like those being discussed here

This has probably been said a number of ways already, but I think Pat is correct.

yes, that has been said many times, and in many languages.

This has probably been said a number of ways already, but I think Pat is correct.

yes, that has been said many times, and in many languages.



I think you may have missunderstood; the concept that you could have different structures, applying a ratings format to NTs, and a more traditional structure to non-NTs was what I was referring to.

On the other hand, I would also agree with your interpretation of my comment.

How about you get points for every person you beat, not every person in your particular division.

Here's my concept for 2009 which incorporates current and proposed options. We eliminate any Amateur division designations for the core track played mostly by guys under age 40 and switch to our PDGA color names which are already set up in the database (for Mid-Nats) and match our tee color guidelines. Color divisions are neutral with respect to Am or Pro.

TDs have the option to just use the color track divisions at an event and strip away the branch legacy divisions if they wish. Other TDs can have whatever branch divisions they have players for. Pros who play in the color divisions below Gold have the option to receive their prizes as cash at 50% merch value. Open/Gold is all cash. Ams with ratings over 979 cannot play in the Blue division any more but can retain their Am status by playing trophy only in Open/Gold where offered if they refuse to go Pro.

http://publish.hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/pdga%20div%20tree.jpg

chuck, how many players are rated under 830 and what is the percentage of players that represents? also for under 775?

just curious. i don't see too many players out here with those kind of ratings, usually beginners or jrs, and mostly they improve so fast ratings can't keep up. i wonder if 830 could just be the bottom divison.

Interesting. I'm a fan of ratings-based divisions. I also think the the player rating cut-off points are good.

Could use a little clarification on:

TDs have the option to just use the color track divisions at an event and strip away the branch legacy divisions if they wish. Other TDs can have whatever branch divisions they have players for.



Does that mean players could choose between Advanced and Blue or Pro Women and Blue or would the TD just offer the traditional divisions, but not the ratings-based divisions or vice-versa?

Could you spell out a couple different scenarios and which options each group of players would have? Would the TD set in stone the divisions to be offered prior to tournament day or leave it open to last minute shuffling?

Maybe Bruce will pipe up with what he's seeing. I think he may have more active players under 830 than anyone. The other thing to consider is whether that rating range is where our sport will grow. I could easily see eliminating Junior divisions and just having those be the color brackets.

The only downside is that women don't appreciate being babysitters at events because unfortuantely, there are a lot of juniors, Advanced and Intermediate Women in the same range. Of course if the juniors are forced to play colors, the women could remain in their own divisions and dodge the babysitting issue. Older guys would then be with the juniors. That presents a different issue.

Does that mean players could choose between Advanced and Blue or Pro Women and Blue or would the TD just offer the traditional divisions, but not the ratings-based divisions or vice-versa?



There's no Expert, Advanced, Intermediate or Rec with this system. They are merged Am/Pro divisions with color names to eliminate the Am definition. Players would still be allowed to enter the color division as Trophy Only if the TD allowed. Pro Women could play Blue or White or play their own division. Under this system though, Pro Women and other divisions smaller than 4 players might be persuaded to play their color division, now that pros would be able to take any merch prizes at 50% cash value. I would think that would be more appealing to Pro Women and GMs than it is now. They typically have less than 4, especially at C-tiers.

Using the midwest 2-day event, 1-day per division system, the smart way to do this for players and TDs would be to have the Blue, Red, Green and any other Advanced age/gender division play on Saturday. Then, have the Open/Gold, White and other Pro divisions play Sunday. This way, merch sales and conversions on Saturday could help with Pro purse on Sunday. In addition, several players would be likely to play both days which would help the Open, Blue and White division participation.

just curious. i don't see too many players out here with those kind of ratings, usually beginners or jrs, and mostly they improve so fast ratings can't keep up. i wonder if 830 could just be the bottom divison.



It's a regional issue. The thing is, the same rules would be in place for color divisions as current divisions. If you only have 2 green level players show up, it's the TD call whether to offer the division or have them play up in Red.

Somewhere in America there's a 50 year old player who is man enough to enjoy punking some 20 year old kid more than winning a thrice removed divisional win.



Thanks for the recognition Hawk, but I'm actually 59, not 50 :D



But you can pass for 45 Hot Tub and that's what matters.



I'm sorry but this is just way too good to pass up. I've always thought that Hawk had it for either Eric E. or buxom women, but this fascination that he has with Terry and hot tubs has got me wondering. :D



Wow what a vicious personal attack. Where's a moderator when you need one?

Here's my concept for 2009 which incorporates current and proposed options. We eliminate any Amateur division designations for the core track played mostly by guys under age 40 and switch to our PDGA color names which are already set up in the database (for Mid-Nats) and match our tee color guidelines. Color divisions are neutral with respect to Am or Pro.

TDs have the option to just use the color track divisions at an event and strip away the branch legacy divisions if they wish. Other TDs can have whatever branch divisions they have players for. Pros who play in the color divisions below Gold have the option to receive their prizes as cash at 50% merch value. Open/Gold is all cash. Ams with ratings over 979 cannot play in the Blue division any more but can retain their Am status by playing trophy only in Open/Gold where offered if they refuse to go Pro.

http://publish.hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/pdga%20div%20tree.jpg



Nice work Chuck you've created the potential for a tourney with 29 divisions. Why don't we all just play against ourselves and everyone gets a ribbon? It's ratings or age protected, but having both is just dumb.

The color divisions appear to be okay (curiously I note the 50 point spread you've crafted...hmmmm) but I'm a little unclear about what you're saying about payouts. Gold is ca$h, and everyone else continues to bow to the plastic pipe with players having the choice of taking the plastic or ca$hing it out at half retail value? Why do the first part of eliminating the Pro/Am charade but continue to payout differently down the chain?

Whatever changes you want players to become comfortable with will take time if you expect any chance the transition gets approved. The 29 division thing is a red herring. Very few events have more than 7 or 8 divisions with many just 4 or 5.

Right now, the Am Worlds is king so we need to provide the mechanism for players to remain Am similar to what we call them now. Logically, the Mid-Nationals (with Gold added) might replace the Am Worlds as THE big event. The Am Worlds would continue but it might be for real purists and school age players who have not played for merch. That's all specualtion of course.

You can never go 100% cash payouts in the lower divisons or TDs won't run events. Or, perhaps a new model will emerge where half the entry fee goes for paying TDs and event expenses. So, payouts would be calculated in merch value but pros would take cash at 50%.

how come <13 girls play higher than int women?

looks like a good representation of how the ratings and heritage structures work together and overlap. (i think payout for lower divisions should be left to the market to decide rather than mandated, but thats a whole different discussion.

Highest rated girl under 13 is 778. Int Women is under 800. I think I've shown Int Women high point a little higher than under 13 on the tree.

Maybe Bruce will pipe up with what he's seeing. I think he may have more active players under 830 than anyone.

Most players would have ratings down there if most players were rated. Go to any course on a Saturday afternoon and watch the chuckers play! If you offer a format that encourages those players to play, they play and they join. We had about a dozen players with those ratings at Lombard and another dozen non-members hanging with them on scores.

Int Women cut-off might be <800, but as soon as a chick gets close to having an 800 rating she is harassed into playing pro.

i think you have also... i just dont know how to read it. to me it looks like branches join the trunk to define the range... ie Jr Girls and Adv Mstr W are from around 800 thru 830 or so. i dont see whhich surface is the range for the jr girls < 13

It's not a surface but the highest point of each trapezoid to the lowest point if you draw a straight line from the tips over to the center pole. It's only approximate on the low side but I tried to get the high point fairly close on the higher divisions. Not sure it matters since players would either choose their gender/age group or play where their actual color rating is located. Several divisions straddle up to three color ranges.

Maybe Bruce will pipe up with what he's seeing. I think he may have more active players under 830 than anyone.

Most players would have ratings down there if most players were rated. Go to any course on a Saturday afternoon and watch the chuckers play! If you offer a format that encourages those players to play, they play and they join. We had about a dozen players with those ratings at Lombard and another dozen non-members hanging with them on scores.



Broadening our appeal and providing a non-threatening, low-cost point of entry to these folks is what will really fuel the growth of the competitive sport.

My first PDGA event was the DGLO, playing Am2. My whole view of the sport changed overnight. It went from a fun excuse to walk around the park, chuck discs, and take a break in the woods after the front 9 to being just blown away by the distance and shots and touring culture. Prior to that we were aware of other people on the course, but really had no idea who they were and how well they could play. Once a player has made that transition they are ripe to become part of the audience that wants to spectate at live events and/or on TV, which will drive real sponsorship.

If it weren't for the very friendly, welcoming folks that were out at Hudson Mills and invited us to come for the Summer Solstice to get spoonfed on disc golf competition I may never had joined to PDGA to get to play a sanctioned event.

I hope to get the chance to play a tourney in Illinois at some point. It appears from here that Bruce and Co. are producing quality events up that way.

Highest rated girl under 13 is 778.

Go, Kira! She's been playing through the winter too, so look out all you Am IVs.

I think the highest rated amateur junior girl under 19 is rated 886. She has to play Intermediate Men when she plays by rating. The highest rated pro junior girl under 19 is 915!

something like this? (different looks on left and right)

http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/pdga_div_tree.jpg

I've done exact graphics in the past for more precise analysis. I just got the tree concept in mind and wanted to do something more organic looking.

how about losing all that redundant stuff on the sides and concentrate on ratings based divisons. it would be much better.

BTW, without all the redundant age based stuff, i think you have something real close to workable. i do think 970 would be a much better break for the gold division thoughso few players are rated over 1020 as to make it a pretty small divison. i think the very most the bottom of gold should be is 970. maybe even 965.

If that's the way you want to run yours, you can do it.

Broadening our appeal and providing a non-threatening, low-cost point of entry to these folks is what will really fuel the growth of the competitive sport.

What we did that started drawing those players in was offer a trophy-only option where their player pack equals their entry fee. In 2007 we're baiting the hook with an optional side game for PDGA members rated less than 835 to play for prizes, <835 CTPs and Am IV trophy discs. By using this trophy-only Rec + side game up charge formula, we can create an Am IV division at the tournament level. At the PDGA/DGW level they will be trophy-only Rec players. We are going to limit participation in the Am IV side game to PDGA members with ratings, so it will be a bagger-free competition.

I hope Chuck is successful with his Christmas tree format. It is just another way of bringing back the R-tier as an option. Although the R-tier seemed to be less popular than the gazillion division format, by 2008 the IOSeries is going to *need* a less popular format!

Did some recon this morning to see how we're doing with our division structure compared with other sports. Here's what I found for tennis. They have 8 Junior divisions like the PDGA. For Adults sanctioned competitions, they have 26 men & women age divisions from 30-90 in 5-yr increments plus Open for both. In addition, for leagues, they have a ratings system that blends skill and ages in the following chart that's more complicated than ours: http://www.usta.com/adultseniorleague/

OK, tennis is much, much bigger than disc golf so here's another sport that's probably less known, at least in the U.S., than disc golf. It's a sport I did in the 80s called Orienteering where you run thru the woods finding checkpoints specified on a map to complete the course as quickly as possible. When I competed, the prizes were ribbons for first thru third or fifth and entry fees ranged from $2-$5 in 1985. Apparently, they now have bigger prizes at their A level events.

They have age levels and "skill" levels based on specific length and difficulty of the courses that are color coded from White up to Blue with seven color levels. Their color levels are more like different color tees on our courses than a definition of a player's skill level. At this point they have 43 adult division combinations and are trying to consolidate to 32. In addition they have 8 school age divisions for boys and girls.

Here's a document that shows how their current scheme and how they are trying to consolidate divisions. http://us-o-team.us.orienteering.org/USOF/rankings/structure.htm Within a color class, they still separate men's & women's scores unlike our proposal. Here's a member survey that was used to help guide some of their decisions regarding improvements. They certainly have issues familiar to our situation. www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=classes&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.us.orienteering.org&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.us.orienteering.org (http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=classes&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.us.orienteering.org&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.us.orienteering.org)

Publicly admitting to playing disc golf and orienteering makes one a two time loser. If you also do that GPS treasure hunting thing we'll have to ask you to stop posting.

Considering I'm at least 10 years older with a rating almost 40 points higher than you, I'm wondering where that "loser" level starts? Nothing like stooping to personal attacks when you're outfoxed in the debate, eh?

Dont worry Chuck , he has already admitted that Dr Evil is better than him and that is about as low as you can GO /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif :o
To admit you are lower then Dr Evil is at least a human accomplishment , well almost human LOL

Not at all. Perhaps you should report me to a moderator. I think comparing tennis with it's various satellite events and junior levels is bogus because of this:

When people think of tennis tournaments they think of the pros and just having mens and womens divisions. The only event we have like that is the USDGC. Even the Worlds is division ridden. You're trying to compare the entire tennis structure with our individual events. Now if you want to say (again) that we're not really a sport and so small time that we have to have all of our events combine all of the developmental and recreational cheesy levels into one happening that's fine. Everyone just needs to stop walking around with their chests all puffed out and realize that this is a z level situation and either start having different level events like tennis (and your old chestnut golf) does or accept it for being a recreational hobby for pot smokers.

Oh and congratulations on that disc accomplishment. Sorry I have a career and a life.

Oh and congratulations on that disc accomplishment. Sorry I have a career and a life.



I have two careers and played less DG competitively than you last year if that's your point. As far as that GPS treasure thing, our Board member Jon Lyksett is into that.

Are you counting your role as PDGA apologist as one of them?

I actually admire the strategy you all employ here. It's the classic rope a dope where you just keep taking the blows and weakly reponding until your opposition gets bored and walks away. I've seen it employed against other gadfly's on here, and to be honest I'm losing interest in talking to the wall you and Hot Tub represent after just three days.

Please keep in mind that I was planning on being out of here by now, but your colleagues kept me around. What does that say about their thoughts on the status quo?

Chuck - Didn't your Momma teach you not to feed the trolls? As long as you keep taking the bait, Hawk will keep fishing.

BTW, I am a two-time loser as well. I used to set courses and run Orienteering meets until I discovered Disc Golf.

No shock there.

Considering I'm at least 10 years older with a rating almost 40 points higher than you, I'm wondering where that "loser" level starts? Nothing like stooping to personal attacks when you're outfoxed in the debate, eh?



Not that I'd ever support Hawk... but I'm not sure you outfoxed him. Your post indicated that Orienteering has many of the same issues we have, including an effort to clean up their divisional structure. That seems to support Hawk's point of view.

I do think it would be hard to mix women and men, you essentially need a standard measure in order to put people in the same class. Disc golf ratings give you that. It's much harder to do that with a more free form sport like Orienteering (not that you couldn't).

I'd be careful about making the same mistake that others have, comparing too much between two sports. I do think it can be done, but only carefully.

BTW - I don't think Hawk was attacking you, at least not effectively, I've been a dork all my life, and proud of it. Orienteering rocks!

Not that I'd ever support Hawk...



Thanks Fan.


I've been a dork all my life, and proud of it. Orienteering rocks!



I admire your pride and shame.

Not that I'd ever support Hawk...



Thanks Fan.


I've been a dork all my life, and proud of it. Orienteering rocks!



I admire your pride and shame.



Anything for your amusement... :cool:

Or Chuck's for that matter.

What may have been lost in this sports comparison is the primary point which is that other sports, including the individual ones I highlighted, don't eliminate or even reduce their age divisions despite having some form of skillbased/ratings system and competition format in their sport. Craig and Hawk want skill based competition ONLY at the exclusion of age and gender divisions. As logical as that might seem, humans make choices and decisions emotionally then justify them with logic. Maybe Craig and Hawk haven't lived long enough yet to get that about human nature or maybe haven't run businesses to see that.

Considering my efforts helping develop our ratings system, my commitment to using them in competition formats should be unquestioned. But the realities of member preferences for age and gender divisions shouldn't be set aside or discounted. Both options can coexist for TDs and players to choose. As the saying goes, "Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't." Maybe some folks are nuts only? (too harsh? Moderator?)

You're correct Chuck, I did miss that.

While a purist might argue that ratings based is all that is needed, (yes, I just called Hawk a purist) a compromiser/realist would realize that some combination of the two, as proposed by Chuck, is inevitable in order to move forward.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Today, nut, tomorrow, non-nut!

[QUOTE]
Please keep in mind that I was planning on being out of here by now, but your colleagues kept me around. [QUOTE]


I'm sure a person of your celebrity status realizes that free will and personal choice doesn't get lost just because someone else offers to foot the bill.

I actually admire the strategy you all employ here. It's the classic rope a dope where you just keep taking the blows and weakly reponding until your opposition gets bored and walks away.



Why 'Thank you' except that the weak arguments seem to be coming from your side. Your core argument is that having 4-6 skill divisions is simple and logical on its own merits independent of any other condition. You expect all to bow to this logic without proof that it will be acceptable for TDs and players. On the other hand, we've provided data analysis, actual tournament history, and comparisons with other sports that supports a broader set of options. No one seems to disagree with your core concept of ratings based competition, just not as the only option.

I'd love to see an example of a sport that has only skill based divisions without age or gender being considered. Having played competitive chess as a teenager (3-time loser now?), the USCF player ratings competition system is as close as I'm aware of, although it's not exactly a sport. Even then, they definitely have junior divisions and gender divisions. Here are their ratings categories with only 5 age brackets: under 13, under 16, under 21, Open and over 65 for men and women.
http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/section_288.php?month=February&directory=0702

In theory, they could have close to 80 divisions if players in each age, gender and ratings category show up. But like DG, I would guess only 12-15 divisions get enough players at any local event or regional event except maybe NYC.

[QUOTE]
Please keep in mind that I was planning on being out of here by now, but your colleagues kept me around. [QUOTE]


I'm sure a person of your celebrity status realizes that free will and personal choice doesn't get lost just because someone else offers to foot the bill.



I'm fulfilling a mission from a higher power. Higher has several applications here.

Having played competitive chess as a teenager (3-time loser now?),



All the cool kids moved from the chess club to the backgammon boards. More money to be made.

...and more luck versus skill regardless of age or gender...

I'm fulfilling a mission from a higher power. Higher has several applications here.



he's on a mission from GOD

http://www.maximumeyewear.com/productfolder/designer-sunglasses/ray-ban/wayfarer/dan-akroyd-blues-brothers-sunglasses.jpg

Your core argument is that having 4-6 skill divisions is simple and logical on its own merits independent of any other condition. You expect all to bow to this logic without proof that it will be acceptable for TDs and players. On the other hand, we've provided data analysis, actual tournament history, and comparisons with other sports that supports a broader set of options. No one seems to disagree with your core concept of ratings based competition, just not as the only option.

I'd love to see an example of a sport that has only skill based divisions without age or gender being considered. Having played competitive chess as a teenager (3-time loser now?), the USCF player ratings competition system is as close as I'm aware of, although it's not exactly a sport. Even then, they definitely have junior divisions and gender divisions. Here are their ratings categories with only 5 age brackets: under 13, under 16, under 21, Open and over 65 for men and women.



I haven't seen anyone advocating that we eliminate youth or female divisions. I think that everyone understands that golfers in those categories, which may typically be new to the sport of disc golf, will endear themselves to the game by playing alongside thier counterparts. Why 25-year old and 45-year old grown men of exactly the same skill range can't compete against other is something I'll never understand though. :confused:

Bottom line is that there are many among us here who feel that having 4-6 skill divisions is indeed simple and logical, and should be explored as an option to see if it is acceptable for TDs and players. And for whatever reasons, our governing body has been so far very reluctant to put any support into these measures. From what I saw, they were unveiled with little fanfare and support from above, and tournament directors were never fully educated about them or urged to choose to run them.

I agree that it would be good to allow TD's to use either system and let players choose which events to play. (As I've said earlier, I'd prefer to play in ratings based events.)

I do see a lot of confusion happening if events offered both types of divisions. There's no way I'd want to run one that way, just imagining all the last minute requests to change divisions for a million different reasons. It could also result in more unsatisfyingly small divisions.

I would think you'd have to choose beforehand to offer the current divisional structure, or a ratings-based structure at each individual tournament.

The last time I did any serious orienteering, it was with a 70 lb. pack and an M-16, I wonder if you consider military time a plus or minus.

Poeple that give a portion of their lives to serve in our military and defend our freedom are always positives in my book. :cool:

I do see a lot of confusion happening if events offered both types of divisions. There's no way I'd want to run one that way, just imagining all the last minute requests to change divisions for a million different reasons.



Ahem, my proposal is a simpler version of the system we have already been running for the past several years. Just replace Blue, White, Red with Adv, Int, Rec and Green, Purple, Orange with Adv W, Int W and Rec W. Gold is Open. You couldn't run an event with just age and gender divisions because the under 40 divisions ARE the color divisions. Other than getting away from Am/Pro distinctions by using color, the other enhancements would be that the lower color divisions from Green on down would allow male players who currently can't play in the Female Am divisions at those rating levels.

Just to clarify, would Pro Women, PM, PGM, etc. with appropriate ratings have the choice between their traditional division and blue?

Would anyone else have a choice between a color and traditional division?

Unless restricted by the TD, women and players older than 39 (or under 19) would have the option of their "native" division or their color division. TDs could still disallow divisions of less than 4 players as they can now. In addition, just as today, TDs can disallow any divisions they wish as long as it's announced well in advance, especially on event flyers. The only players with little choice would be men between the ages of 19 and 39. They would have to play in their color division or higher.

A sticky detail is still how to handle Am players who are "better" than the pack of players in their age/gender group. For example, should an Am over 979 in this color model be allowed to continue to play in Blue? Or, would we force them to play in Gold as long as the TD was required to let them pay a discounted rate and play for Trophy Only?

A similar issue remains for older Ams. Should Adv Masters over say 929 rating in this model be forced to play Blue once they get to that level, at least for regular weekend events? However, perhaps allow them to still play Adv Master just at A-tiers and Worlds or just Worlds?

"Considering my efforts helping develop our ratings system, my commitment to using them in competition formats should be unquestioned. But the realities of member preferences for age and gender divisions shouldn't be set aside or discounted. Both options can coexist for TDs and players to choose."


her's my problem with your whole logic, chuck. The PDGA eliminated ratings based sanctionig a while back very quietly. SO, no, i can't choose what divisions to offer, at least not at a pdga event. though i can just go unsanctioned from here on out i guess. the pdga sanctioning doesn't really buy much except ratings and points. and you really don't need points to go to am worlds, you just sign up on the waiting list and find some way to get into the outback or wherever that place is. ;)

here's my problem with your whole logic, chuck. The PDGA eliminated ratings based sanctioning a while back very quietly. So, no, i can't choose what divisions to offer, at least not at a pdga event.



When the R-tiers were eliminated, it was partly due to ratings finally getting incorporated into the Am tracks. Each year, ratings have been steadily getting infused in our structure so that now you can come pretty close to a pure ratings event just like 4 years ago.

If you host only Open, Advanced, Intermediate, Rec and the Am Women's divisions, you've got something only a little more clunky than the color proposal I posted for 2009. I wouldn't be surprised if Dave approved your X-tier request for pros playing in those Am divisions being allowed to get 50% cash for merch winnings if they wish. You can also do it the tricky way Bruce is doing it. Contact him for the details but it works.

Pure ratings events were never going to compete as an alternative for conventional divisions for several reasons. The biggest incompatibility was the inability to incorporate results from ratings events into the 40-50 series in the country that had traditional divisions. That was the #1 stumbling block. A TD would want to do a single ratings event and then found out it couldn't be part of the state series. I couldn't get any traction right here in Minnesota for that reason. I ran a five event ratings series with final prizes as a way around it. However, there are so many conventional events in the regular state series that there's no room for another one.

Now that ratings have infused the core Am competition divisions, they are now at the root of our system. All we need to do is finish the rest of the levels that haven't been done yet and we'll have what we couldn't have going at it as a parallel option 4 years ago. If we can move toward the tree structure I proposed by getting approvals from the Competition group, we'll finally have emerged with compatible options for either pure ratings events and/or age/gender events, without any incompatibility for points or series awards.

should an Am over 979 in this color model be allowed to continue to play in Blue? Or, would we force them to play in Gold as long as the TD was required to let them pay a discounted rate and play for Trophy Only?


Seems reasonable to bump up 980 rated players.


Should Adv Masters over say 929 rating in this model be forced to play Blue once they get to that level, at least for regular weekend events? However, perhaps allow them to still play Adv Master just at A-tiers and Worlds or just Worlds?


I think you answererd your own question:

Unless restricted by the TD, women and players older than 39 (or under 19) would have the option of their "native" division or their color division.



I'd like to add one suggestion to this whole process:
A permanent amnesty provision whereby any pro who drops below a certain rating threshold during a year could register as an amateur the next year without having to petition. #'s could be something like 980/970/960 for male open/masters/gm and 950/940/930 for women open/masters/gm. If enacted, this permanent amnesty could remove the need for allowing pros below a certain rating to play down.

A permanent amnesty provision whereby any pro who drops below a certain rating threshold during a year could register as an amateur the next year without having to petition. #'s could be something like 980/970/960 for male open/masters/gm and 950/940/930 for women open/masters/gm. If enacted, this permanent amnesty could remove the need for allowing pros below a certain rating to play down.



I don't think this would be needed. If this proposal goes forward, there would be little reason to revert back to Am status other than playing in Am Worlds, or if you're a player over 39 whose rating has really dropped down back into the Am range for your age bracket. In fact, if a player doesn't care about ever going to Am Worlds, they could turn pro with a 910 or 885 rating so they could take the 50% cash conversion when they play White locally.

OK, just to be thorough, I created a potential 4 division tournament with some TD "give and take as to the size of each field. All divisions are based on the highest rated player. So the splits go down from 1025.

This is the Buckhorn Open.

GOLD
Brian Schweberger 12989 Yes Tarboro NC USA 1025 Open
Walter Haney 6001 Yes Raleigh NC USA 1025 Open
Justin Jernigan 22284 Wendell NC USA 1013 Open
Mike Hofmann 17402 Raleigh NC USA 1008 Open
Greg Williams 3153 Clayton NC USA 1003 Open
Larry Leonard 3832 Yes Raleigh NC USA 1002 Open
Chris Lee 14817 Raleigh NC USA 1000 Open
Brent Mabry 12880 Yes Burlington NC USA 992 Open
Jack Schmalfeld 25378 Yes Raleigh NC USA 991 Open
Carlton Howard 2300 Yes Raleigh NC USA 987 Mas
Scotty Faison 14844 Greenville NC USA 984 Open
Eddie Ogburn 23102 Yes Raleigh NC USA 982 Open
Matt Smith 24663 Yes Chapel Hill NC USA 980 Open
Scott Anderson 12585 Raleigh NC USA 980 Mas
Steve Johnson 21066 Raleigh NC USA 980 Open
Robert Leonard 21676 Yes Raleigh NC USA 975 Open
Jeff Keirn 15902 Newport News VA USA 973 Open
Jason Land 20353 Raleigh NC USA 970 Open
Kirk Yoo 6161 Yes Knightdale NC USA 970 Mas
David Brittle 10750 Yes Mebane NC USA 968 Open
Logan Sheets 23780 Lexington NC USA 967 Open
Neil Myers 13325 Raleigh NC USA 966 Mas

SILVER
Jeff Yahn 20914 Yes Raleigh NC USA 965 Open
Matt Dollar 26045 Loganville GA USA 964 Open
Carter Allen 12486 Yes Raleigh NC USA 963 Open
Dustin Fee 24562 Yes Dunlap IL USA 962 Adv
Michael Watson 10324 Yes Raleigh NC USA 960 Open
Mandi Hofmann 19328 Louisville KY USA 955 Wom
Dana Vicich 26228 Yes Ottawa IL USA 954 Adv
Brian Picker 26343 Fletcher NC USA 951 Adv
Miles Dunn 23587 Durham NC USA 951 Adv
Larry Whitson 5659 Durham NC USA 950 Mas
Brian Spencer 19223 Raleigh NC USA 948 Adv
Kevin Heathcock 15333 Yes Raleigh NC USA 948 Adv
Ben Hailey 11834 Yes Fayetteville NC USA 947 Adv
John Sheffield 23694 Yes Chapel Hill NC USA 946 Mas
Ron Kirik 22090 Yes Ferrum VA USA 944 Open
Joseph Noble 26332 Yes Kinston NC USA 941 Adv
Bobby Carr 23139 Fayetteville NC USA 938 Adv
Chris Benson 14764 Durahm NC USA 937 Mas
Steve McLean 28653 Fuquay Varina NC USA 937 Adv
Gary Carmichael 15877 High Point NC USA 936 AdMas
Robert Martinez 9113 Yes Virginia Beach VA USA 936 Adv
Jeff Baldwin 31020 Yes Pittsboro NC USA 935 Adv
Dave George 27189 Yes Wilmington NC USA 933 Adv
Robbie Dunn 23585 Durham NC USA 932 Mas
Alex Wells 28148 Yes Burlington NC USA 931 Adv
Andy Shaffer 27251 Downingtown PA USA 931 Adv
Jason Clark 24160 Angier NC USA 931 Adv

BRONZE
Maxwell Crotts 25901 Greenville NC USA 925 Adv
Kevin Burgess 29815 Cary NC USA 924 Adv
Peter Lockamy 25675 Yes Norfolk VA USA 924 Adv
Whit Baker 28508 Raleigh NC USA 924 Adv
Joshua Friend 29343 Yes Hillsborough NC USA 923 Adv
John Roy 15925 Yes Williamsburg VA USA 920 adMas
Alex Keil 28272 Yes Chapel Hill NC USA 919 Adv
Billy Leonard 25579 Apex NC USA 919 Adv
John Lockamy 25320 Yes Norfolk VA USA 919 Open
David Wiggins Jr. 24437 Yes High Point NC USA 917 Adv
John Genter 28087 Yes Downington PA USA 916 Adv
David Monteith 28558 Yes Charlotte NC USA 915 Adv
Forrest Callaway 18913 Roswell GA USA 915 Open
Mike Norris 17390 Yes Raleigh NC USA 915 Adv
Jeff Kozak 23037 Yes Apex NC USA 911 Adv
Chris MacLeod 23156 Yes Raleigh NC USA 910 Adv
Tom Poplawski 26140 Yes West Chester PA USA 910 Adv
Chris Honeycutt 31021 Yes Burlington NC USA 909 Int
Conor Boing 30052 Yes Raleigh NC USA 909 Adv
Mike Vitanza 17922 Yes Raleigh NC USA 907 Mas

COPPER
Chris Temple est 900 Adv
Dan Clompus 28736 Yes West Chester PA USA 900 Adv
Dave Wiggins 25755 Yes High Point NC USA 900 adMas
Eric Linney 5168 Raleigh NC 900 Adv
TJ Murray est 900 Adv
John Walker 31180 Yes Fayetteville NC USA 898 Int
Sarah Stanhope 30397 Yes Clemson SC USA 896 Wom
Frank Murray 24062 Yes Durham NC USA 885 Int
Mark Joslin 28315 Yes Chapel Hill NC USA 880 Int
Arnie Smith 30031 Knightdale NC USA 878 Adv
Greg Wells 31188 Yes Burlington NC USA 878 Int
Danny Hill 28026 Yes Hillsborough NC USA 875 Int
Brant Meyer 31257 Yes Stanardsville VA USA 868 Int
Patrick Miller 31026 Yes Raleigh NC USA 867 Int
Greg Ramirez 19510 Yes Downingtown PA USA 859 adMas
Bryan Knight 30116 Yes Cary NC USA 858 Int
Jerry Roach 21217 Yes Durham NC USA 855 Int
Jason Snapp est 850 Int
Michael Toomes 31891 Yes Raleigh NC USA 850 Int
Stephen Mallinson 29348 Yes Raleigh NC USA 824 Int
David Williams 28673 Yes Durham NC USA 789 Int


I used metals because I have trouble knowing the order of Chuck's color system. It was either Platinum or Copper... I figure Gold being the second tier is more confusing than Copper being the bottom division.

While the last division may comprise a wide range of players, it's no wider than most intermediate divisions we are used to. I feel lower rated divisions should play together as it exposes them to wide ranges of play, which helps them grow as a golfer.

Ferrite was the bottom division in the original pro scheme

I figured Pot Metal would be a bit too biting a sarcasm on our sport...

OK, just to be thorough, I created a potential 4 division tournament with some TD "give and take as to the size of each field. All divisions are based on the highest rated player. So the splits go down from 1025.

This is the Buckhorn Open.

GOLD
Brian Schweberger 12989 Yes Tarboro NC USA 1025 Open
Walter Haney 6001 Yes Raleigh NC USA 1025 Open
Justin Jernigan 22284 Wendell NC USA 1013 Open
Mike Hofmann 17402 Raleigh NC USA 1008 Open
Greg Williams 3153 Clayton NC USA 1003 Open
Larry Leonard 3832 Yes Raleigh NC USA 1002 Open
Chris Lee 14817 Raleigh NC USA 1000 Open
Brent Mabry 12880 Yes Burlington NC USA 992 Open
Jack Schmalfeld 25378 Yes Raleigh NC USA 991 Open
Carlton Howard 2300 Yes Raleigh NC USA 987 Mas
Scotty Faison 14844 Greenville NC USA 984 Open
Eddie Ogburn 23102 Yes Raleigh NC USA 982 Open
Matt Smith 24663 Yes Chapel Hill NC USA 980 Open
Scott Anderson 12585 Raleigh NC USA 980 Mas
Steve Johnson 21066 Raleigh NC USA 980 Open
Robert Leonard 21676 Yes Raleigh NC USA 975 Open
Jeff Keirn 15902 Newport News VA USA 973 Open
Jason Land 20353 Raleigh NC USA 970 Open
Kirk Yoo 6161 Yes Knightdale NC USA 970 Mas
David Brittle 10750 Yes Mebane NC USA 968 Open
Logan Sheets 23780 Lexington NC USA 967 Open
Neil Myers 13325 Raleigh NC USA 966 Mas

SILVER
Jeff Yahn 20914 Yes Raleigh NC USA 965 Open
Matt Dollar 26045 Loganville GA USA 964 Open
Carter Allen 12486 Yes Raleigh NC USA 963 Open
Dustin Fee 24562 Yes Dunlap IL USA 962 Adv
Michael Watson 10324 Yes Raleigh NC USA 960 Open
Mandi Hofmann 19328 Louisville KY USA 955 Wom
Dana Vicich 26228 Yes Ottawa IL USA 954 Adv
Brian Picker 26343 Fletcher NC USA 951 Adv
Miles Dunn 23587 Durham NC USA 951 Adv
Larry Whitson 5659 Durham NC USA 950 Mas
Brian Spencer 19223 Raleigh NC USA 948 Adv
Kevin Heathcock 15333 Yes Raleigh NC USA 948 Adv
Ben Hailey 11834 Yes Fayetteville NC USA 947 Adv
John Sheffield 23694 Yes Chapel Hill NC USA 946 Mas
Ron Kirik 22090 Yes Ferrum VA USA 944 Open
Joseph Noble 26332 Yes Kinston NC USA 941 Adv
Bobby Carr 23139 Fayetteville NC USA 938 Adv
Chris Benson 14764 Durahm NC USA 937 Mas
Steve McLean 28653 Fuquay Varina NC USA 937 Adv
Gary Carmichael 15877 High Point NC USA 936 AdMas
Robert Martinez 9113 Yes Virginia Beach VA USA 936 Adv
Jeff Baldwin 31020 Yes Pittsboro NC USA 935 Adv
Dave George 27189 Yes Wilmington NC USA 933 Adv
Robbie Dunn 23585 Durham NC USA 932 Mas
Alex Wells 28148 Yes Burlington NC USA 931 Adv
Andy Shaffer 27251 Downingtown PA USA 931 Adv
Jason Clark 24160 Angier NC USA 931 Adv

BRONZE
Maxwell Crotts 25901 Greenville NC USA 925 Adv
Kevin Burgess 29815 Cary NC USA 924 Adv
Peter Lockamy 25675 Yes Norfolk VA USA 924 Adv
Whit Baker 28508 Raleigh NC USA 924 Adv
Joshua Friend 29343 Yes Hillsborough NC USA 923 Adv
John Roy 15925 Yes Williamsburg VA USA 920 adMas
Alex Keil 28272 Yes Chapel Hill NC USA 919 Adv
Billy Leonard 25579 Apex NC USA 919 Adv
John Lockamy 25320 Yes Norfolk VA USA 919 Open
David Wiggins Jr. 24437 Yes High Point NC USA 917 Adv
John Genter 28087 Yes Downington PA USA 916 Adv
David Monteith 28558 Yes Charlotte NC USA 915 Adv
Forrest Callaway 18913 Roswell GA USA 915 Open
Mike Norris 17390 Yes Raleigh NC USA 915 Adv
Jeff Kozak 23037 Yes Apex NC USA 911 Adv
Chris MacLeod 23156 Yes Raleigh NC USA 910 Adv
Tom Poplawski 26140 Yes West Chester PA USA 910 Adv
Chris Honeycutt 31021 Yes Burlington NC USA 909 Int
Conor Boing 30052 Yes Raleigh NC USA 909 Adv
Mike Vitanza 17922 Yes Raleigh NC USA 907 Mas

COPPER
Chris Temple est 900 Adv
Dan Clompus 28736 Yes West Chester PA USA 900 Adv
Dave Wiggins 25755 Yes High Point NC USA 900 adMas
Eric Linney 5168 Raleigh NC 900 Adv
TJ Murray est 900 Adv
John Walker 31180 Yes Fayetteville NC USA 898 Int
Sarah Stanhope 30397 Yes Clemson SC USA 896 Wom
Frank Murray 24062 Yes Durham NC USA 885 Int
Mark Joslin 28315 Yes Chapel Hill NC USA 880 Int
Arnie Smith 30031 Knightdale NC USA 878 Adv
Greg Wells 31188 Yes Burlington NC USA 878 Int
Danny Hill 28026 Yes Hillsborough NC USA 875 Int
Brant Meyer 31257 Yes Stanardsville VA USA 868 Int
Patrick Miller 31026 Yes Raleigh NC USA 867 Int
Greg Ramirez 19510 Yes Downingtown PA USA 859 adMas
Bryan Knight 30116 Yes Cary NC USA 858 Int
Jerry Roach 21217 Yes Durham NC USA 855 Int
Jason Snapp est 850 Int
Michael Toomes 31891 Yes Raleigh NC USA 850 Int
Stephen Mallinson 29348 Yes Raleigh NC USA 824 Int
David Williams 28673 Yes Durham NC USA 789 Int


I used metals because I have trouble knowing the order of Chuck's color system. It was either Platinum or Copper... I figure Gold being the second tier is more confusing than Copper being the bottom division.

While the last division may comprise a wide range of players, it's no wider than most intermediate divisions we are used to. I feel lower rated divisions should play together as it exposes them to wide ranges of play, which helps them grow as a golfer.



Golly this makes too much sense. Obviously it is unacceptable.

they could turn pro with a 910 or 885 rating so they could take the 50% cash conversion when they play White locally.




that'd go a long way towards breaking our public image of hippies playing with frisbees in the park when someone's first encounter with an actual disc golfer is with a 900 rated player who introduces themselves as a "disc golf professional". :confused:

At that point, the player would be playing in the White division which is neither am nor pro by conventional definition. Cash versus merch player, nothing more.

Golly this makes too much sense. Obviously it is unacceptable.



Essentially fine by the PDGA, too, IF the TD prefers to offer a format something like, but currently not exactly like this, at least yet. All of those players might not have signed up though and maybe some others would. Personal choice for TDs and players.

I've got no problem with giving players the option of 50% cash instead of merch. I would like to have us move towards having the terms "pro" or "professional" be earned designations. Amateurs play for the love of the game at a variety of skill levels. Pros are the best of the best as they've demonstrated in competition.

Yeah, but since the tournament is overfull, the amount of players doesn't matter. It's a good tournament and there are plenty of players.

I tend to think that a lot of the tournaments that pull in 40 or less players are not suffering from a lack of interest, but either an overload of local tournaments, or the tournament simply isn't compelling to anyone but locals. Of course, there could simply be not enough tournament players within a reasonable driving distance. Most of the tournaments I see that don't fill are 1 days, and usually the kind that don't have another event tied in. You simply don't attract out of towners with a 1 day C or D tier.

Look at the distribution of players at the Buckhorn Open too. there are people from Illinois, Virginia, Georgia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania. This tournament doesn't suffer from low attendance. No need to cater to the whims of every player when there are players ready to take the place of those who don't like the format.

Even if someone discovers some magic format that 85% of members would be happy with, it's still worth it to have the alternate format for the other 15% and the significant percentage of the 85% who would sometimes like to play in the divisions of the other singles format. It would be just as foolish to restrict options for TDs to sanction doubles or match play. If a TD wants to run these events, it's in the best interest of the PDGA to offer sanctioning as a member service.

How about AR, BR, CR, and DR tiers? seriously.

No difference in points distribution, EXCEPT every player you beat is points for you. Regardless of division, since it's all just a big division broken up by logical splits.

Another reason I don't like many divisions. You should get points for every player you beat. Maybe you should get MORE points for beating higher ranked players.

Imagine you get 10 points for every player you beat at or below your rating, PLUS the difference in points plus 10 for each player you tie/beat above your rating. You should get a bonus if you beat someone better than yourself.

I'm digging this format, Matt. You got my vote -- for what that's worth...

Another reason I don't like many divisions. You should get points for every player you beat. Maybe you should get MORE points for beating higher ranked players.




How do you do that with players in other divisions playing other course layouts? Higher divisions do earn more points in the multiplier.

good point on different layouts. OK, so you get points for everyone who plays the same layout/format as you, not just those in your division.

there are 4 players that were unrated, they have est in front of their 900 and 850 ratings. I put them in at those numbers because the 900s registered in advanced, and the 850s registered in Int. I figured unrated get stuck in the low end of the division... but as it turned out, they both landed in the Copper division.

The ratings spreads are:
60 points for Gold 1025-966
40 points for Silver 965-926
25 points for Bronze 925-901
105 for Copper 900-796

The divisions are based on logical distribution of players. While the Copper division may seem like a wide spread, it's also the "cutting your teeth" division.

Gold: 22 players
Silver: 27 players
Bronze: 20 players
Copper: 21 players

There are some issues with our points system for the long haul, so ideas in this area are being collected. But it's not a pressing issue to deal with now compared to some others. I'll make sure to recon this area or get our memories refreshed when that comes up. I think the #1 issue with the points system right now is the huge amount players earn at events like The Memorial and the BG Ams making it almost a requirement to play these to get a chance at yearend points awards and Worlds invites. I also feel there's no reason players shouldn't get points at other championships except Worlds since qualification for Worlds is one of the stated reasons for awarding them.

Or you could just throw the whole points system out, and establish some other reasonably simple criteria to award slots at select invitee only events:

Minimum number of events played
Rating
Wins
etc.

Let's ditch Pro and Am Worlds and Have Gold Worlds, Silver Worlds, Bronze Worlds and Copper Worlds.

Each has a maximum of 300 participants. Everyone registers for "Worlds". At a certain point in the year, there's a freeze. Players are then distributed by ranking to the various Worlds, with the top ranked at Gold, next at Silver etc. Whatever the cutoff for said worlds becomes the maximum rating to register for that worlds. That allows other players to register regardless of rating, but there should probably be a minimum rating of say, 50 points below the cutoff.

I keed, I keed.... sorta. Just exploring possibilities. I mainly write this stuff as brainstorming.

Let's ditch Pro and Am Worlds and Have Gold Worlds, Silver Worlds, Bronze Worlds and Copper Worlds.




Blue, White, Red, Green, Purple: Mid-Nationals - St. Louis, Sept 7-9
Gold: USDGC - Rock Hill, Oct 3-6

Or you could just throw the whole points system out, and establish some other reasonably simple criteria to award slots at select invitee only events:




Points are much more than a mechanism for Worlds qualification. There are annual touring awards for several divisions. And members have indicated they like them. For many players, earning points adds just a bit more satisfaction even when they don't end up in the merch or cash. That's not to say the process to award them can't be improved.

Points promote the brand. The PDGA should do more with points. A lot of people don't realize the PDGA runs two point systems right now. One of them pays out in marble obelisk trophies and pins; the other, cash! :D

Let's ditch Pro and Am Worlds and Have Gold Worlds, Silver Worlds, Bronze Worlds and Copper Worlds.

Each has a maximum of 300 participants. Everyone registers for "Worlds". At a certain point in the year, there's a freeze. Players are then distributed by ranking to the various Worlds, with the top ranked at Gold, next at Silver etc. Whatever the cutoff for said worlds becomes the maximum rating to register for that worlds. That allows other players to register regardless of rating, but there should probably be a minimum rating of say, 50 points below the cutoff.

I keed, I keed.... sorta. Just exploring possibilities. I mainly write this stuff as brainstorming.


Aha! After following this thread for a while, I was wondering when the issue of Worlds would be addressed under the proposed rating-based divisions. Just for my own understanding; are you suggesting four separate "Worlds" tourneys/venues or or "Gold/Silver Worlds" at one time and "Bronze/Copper Worlds" at another?

nanook

I was joking.

The whole concept of ratings based worlds makes sense, but I think it's not as attractive as Am and Pro worlds.

I was joking.

The whole concept of ratings based worlds makes sense, but I think it's not as attractive as Am and Pro worlds.



ahhh....but maybe even though you were joking you actually hit on something that would let 1000 rated masters and grands play with the open men, and could still be paid in cash.....use 975+ for gold....dividing the pools is already done somewhat along these lines already(you would still have 150+ players in gold,like open men is now), and everyone 974 and under would be silver(instead of 50 masters, 40 grands, 20 senior,etc you would have 120+ all together.... everyone can still get paid in cash, everyone still getting to hang with their friends for a week and similar skill levels playing together...pay 50% of the fields in both silver and gold and everyone is happy :)

ditto for am(blue/white) worlds except they get plastic cash and have side tracks for women in both worlds with the ratings skewed to the women's track(i think that's what chuck used to call it)

it could work!!

ahhh....but maybe even though you were joking you actually hit on something that would let 1000 rated masters and grands play with the open men, and could still be paid in cash.....use 975+ for gold....dividing the pools is already done somewhat along these lines already(you would still have 150+ players in gold,like open men is now), and everyone 974 and under would be silver(instead of 50 masters, 40 grands, 20 senior,etc you would have 120+ all together.... everyone can still get paid in cash, everyone still getting to hang with their friends for a week and similar skill levels playing together...pay 50% of the fields in both silver and gold and everyone is happy :)

ditto for am(blue/white) worlds except they get plastic cash and have side tracks for women in both worlds with the ratings skewed to the women's track(i think that's what chuck used to call it)

it could work!!


That's why I asked regardless if it was a joke or not. I have to admit there is an allure to a division structure blind to everything except how well you play as compared to other players. I think it would help encourage the image of DG as an inclusive sport, a sport anyone can play throughout their lifetime.

nanook

agreed. rating based division just make sense. changing the status quo of entitlement is going to be the problem.

agreed. rating based division just make sense. changing the status quo of entitlement is going to be the problem.



If it makes too much sense, obviously it is unacceptable. :D

rating based division just make sense. changing the status quo of entitlement is going to be the problem.



Ratings-based divisions are used to prop up entitlements in disc golf. More of the same hardly changes the status quo.

Another reason I don't like many divisions. You should get points for every player you beat. Maybe you should get MORE points for beating higher ranked players.



Matt, there is a system that already does this, albeit we don't intermix divisions:

World Rankings (http://www.marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/discgolfinfo_ranking_2007.html)

rating based division just make sense. changing the status quo of entitlement is going to be the problem.



Ratings-based divisions are used to prop up entitlements in disc golf. More of the same hardly changes the status quo.



I think that four ratings based divisions is less of a disc golf welfare program than the current ratings and age based divisions. Yes ideally everyone should be in one big pool, but since this a high school level club instead of a professional sport there needs to be some safety net to keep everyone under 970-950 from leaving.

spoken like a true gold class player. obviously you don't care about ratings based. especially since you will be at or near the bottom of the heap. give me a break james, are you really saying a sub 900 player should be in the same division as you?

agreed. rating based division just make sense. changing the status quo of entitlement is going to be the problem.



If it makes too much sense, obviously it is unacceptable. :D



But my question would be does this completely eliminate the Am division? If not what seperates the 936 Am learning the sport and the 936 grandmaster taking third at worlds now?

Here's a twist on the four ratings divisional structure (probably already proposed).

Split each division, except for the bottom one, with a Cash, a Merch, and a Trophy payout. The bottom would be Trophy only.

The reality is that the bottom division is essentially recreational, and also for learning so it really should not be for Cash, Trophy only would include a players pack with discs for as many players as possible down there. That is really where you want to be spreading the wealth.

The three higher divisions all have people who are starting to develop some skills and are looking to play competitively. By including all three options, Cash, Merch and Trophy, you are allowing room for each type of player in each division. You take all the merch out of the Advance and Im classes and spread it equally between three classes. For the "Gold" or Pro division, you give the lower level guys a reason to stay with the sport, you've got a shot at the cash, but if you don't get it, you just might get the Merch option.

Most importantly, you keep the merch driver going, and at the same time you admit, we are the PDGA, not the ADGA.

But my question would be does this completely eliminate the Am division? If not what seperates the 936 Am learning the sport and the 936 grandmaster taking third at worlds now?




Nothing but youth vs. experience as they are both 936. They would be competing head to head.

spoken like a true gold class player. obviously you don't care about ratings based. especially since you will be at or near the bottom of the heap. give me a break james, are you really saying a sub 900 player should be in the same division as you?



No, what James is saying is that if it's a lower level player, he should be forced to play up with James, but if it's a higher level player, James should not be forced to play up. :D

I don't think we should be keeping the merch driver going. Lower level players starting out who currently win discs can go buy discs with their winning$ is they are so inclined. If I understand your proposal Lyle that leaves a TD with 12 payouts to keep track of. I'm not a TD, but I know one, and I think that smells like a hassle. The debate here seems to be that the vast majority is in agreement that changes need to be made, but some people (Chuck etc.) are trying to keep the same lame system, and just remodel it and call it new while other people want to strip it down to a more simple model.

But my question would be does this completely eliminate the Am division? If not what seperates the 936 Am learning the sport and the 936 grandmaster taking third at worlds now?




Nothing but youth vs. experience as they are both 936. They would be competing head to head.



But what would they be playing for cash or plastic? I don't think someone who has been playing for two years and is still learning should be playing for cash (unless the are willing to jump in the ocean with the big fish) while at the same time someone who has been in the sport playing for cash for 20+ years should be reduced to play for plastic. Also as for Lyle's idea who would decided if they get cash, merch, or a throphy? I do not like the idea of people playing in the same division but get paid in different ways.

I like the way the system set up now (and I realize I am one of the few that does). It may be set up to favor the top pro but that just gives me inncentive to better my game. I am planning on going pro this year and I do not expect to cash all that often. I will be playing in a few a-teirs and thats fine (I realize that realistically I will have a very low chance at cashing at these). I just want to put myself on a fast track to being one of the elite top pros. I feel it the divisions were changed it might take some of the inncentive out to get better faster if you have the chance to win cash in a lower division.

I just stumbled on this thread, but please add me to the list of people who feel that, for the sake of competition, there needs to be a split in what is now called the "advanced " division. Currently that division goes from 915 to infinity and creates a situation where players just beginning to play well and presumably seriously at a rating of 915 or so, are forced to enter a division where they are likely to get a thorough shellacking for some time to come.

At that point they enjoy the game and are beginning to get attached to it, but might not yet have a do or die trying attitude towards disc golf. I wonder how many 915 +/- players say to themselves, "Gee I thought I was liking this but I'm just not good enough and it doesn't seem as much fun as it used to and tournaments cost money and maybe I'll just play for fun and avoid the tournaments."

give me a break james, are you really saying a sub 900 player should be in the same division as you?



Yes, and no. If we both intend to play for monetary gain, then yes; if we each wish to play for non-monetary goals, then no, we can each play within divisions divided by ratings. In this system, there would be no entitlements.

If you just change to four ratings based divisions, without changing the motivations/payouts, then we basically have the same system with fewer divisions, with people at the top of the lower three divisions being the priviledged class, enjoying the "entitlements" of a random rating threshold.

No, what James is saying is that if it's a lower level player, he should be forced to play up with James, but if it's a higher level player, James should not be forced to play up.



Hey, if I choose to play for profit, I'd have no problem being forced into one division. In other words, I'll take my chances against the great players, as long as I'm in the same boat as everyone else playing for financial gain.

I agree Hawk, long-term. However, you're going to meet great resistance eliminating that Merch division. Again, I agree, I hate the Merch division, but you've got a huge incentive for TDs, and the manufacturers. Now, I will grant you that on the part of the manufacturers that is simply perception. I can make it clear that which-ever system you use, the manufactures will do fine, i.e. no loss (even with the discs that go in the closet). But, it's hard to argue there isn't a benefit to merch payouts for the TD unless you let them take a % of the proceeds as their payment.

the beauty of the "basing divisions off the highest rated player" is: any player can end up in the top or bottom of a division, except of course the top rated player. So, if you are 925 rated, you might end up in the middle of the pack, at the bottom of the pack, or at the top. It's your tournament to fight for. You don't really know where the line in the sand will be. This is essentially how it is with a lot of tournaments that use a pyramid tournament structure... if anyone is familiar with these, please share.

But for those who feel that jumping from one division to another is merely throwing yourself into the kettle to be cooked, having a more fluid way of breaking up divisions would tend to make sense. If you are the top rated Master, and there are 30 Pros with higher ratings than you, you may be at the top of the Second division.

I still feel that Worlds should be divisional the same way they currently are. I think the only struggle would be creating a true Am Worlds. It's hard to do with this set up, since there really are no true Ams anymore, everyone is simply playing golf with friends in a system that rewards those who perform well in play against players of like rating.

No, what James is saying is that if it's a lower level player, he should be forced to play up with James, but if it's a higher level player, James should not be forced to play up.



Hey, if I choose to play for profit, I'd have no problem being forced into one division. In other words, I'll take my chances against the great players, as long as I'm in the same boat as everyone else playing for financial gain.



But you're not, you play in Pro Masters. I'd think if you really believe that it should be head to head, you'd be all for a ratings based system?

the beauty of the "basing divisions off the highest rated player" is: any player can end up in the top or bottom of a division, except of course the top rated player. So, if you are 925 rated, you might end up in the middle of the pack, at the bottom of the pack, or at the top. It's your tournament to fight for. You don't really know where the line in the sand will be. This is essentially how it is with a lot of tournaments that use a pyramid tournament structure... if anyone is familiar with these, please share.

But for those who feel that jumping from one division to another is merely throwing yourself into the kettle to be cooked, having a more fluid way of breaking up divisions would tend to make sense. If you are the top rated Master, and there are 30 Pros with higher ratings than you, you may be at the top of the Second division.

I still feel that Worlds should be divisional the same way they currently are. I think the only struggle would be creating a true Am Worlds. It's hard to do with this set up, since there really are no true Ams anymore, everyone is simply playing golf with friends in a system that rewards those who perform well in play against players of like rating.




BTW - this is an excellent format Matt! Can you tell me what post number you first proposed it on? I want to see how you set the spread on the divisions, is it fixed or variable?

That's my point: I have no problem with eliminating the masters option, just follow your principles and eliminate the incentive for all but the top two divisions (men and women) while you are at it. We would have the for-profit division, with no age protections, and the not for profit divisions, divided by ratings.

That's my point: I have no problem with eliminating the masters option, just follow your principles and eliminate the incentive for all but the top two divisions (men and women) while you are at it. We would have the for-profit division, with no age protections, and the not for profit divisions, divided by ratings.



This still kinda shafts the older players who have put so much into this sport and have been playing for cash forever. Just because they are older and have lower ratings does not mean they should have to play for plastic or a trophy.

BTW - this is an excellent format Matt! Can you tell me what post number you first proposed it on? I want to see how you set the spread on the divisions, is it fixed or variable?




#649903 (page 2) where I first propose the idea of breaking it into 4 divisions based on logical breaks based on player ratings of registered players.
#651572 - a mocked up divisional breakdown - using the BuckHorn Open as the propogators
#6XXXXX - Where I will compare the divisions proposed vs the actual results of the Buckhorn Open

Tonight if I'm feeling peppy.

And there lies one of the problems with eliminating the age based divisions, at least at the pro or 'cash playing' level. You would be moving the women's and men's age protected pros into the plastic paid Am ranks in almost all instances excepting the small percentage that could still compete in Open. Taking it a step further, you would be forcing Senior Grands and the like to be babysitters as their rating drops into the 'Ferrite' or whatever level.

Eliminate the age based divisions, and the attendance of the over 40 crowd will decrease accordingly. But, on the positive side, it could be a start of the 'Seniors Tour'. Given our demographics, a couple of savvy TDs could probably do well with it.

I'm an old guy who plays tournaments and runs tournaments. I would not have a problem eliminating old guy divisions. If the IOSeries continues to grow the way it has been, I'll be proposing we eliminate redundant division in 2008. The SPINOs will just have to deal with it, or pre-register for some other tournament.

Of course someone will always be the highest and lowest rated player in a division - no avoiding that. The question is, for the sake of competition, what is a reasonable "gap" between the highest and lowest rated player in a division?

IMHO it should be something small enough so that the lowest rated player, with a hot tournament or a reasonable amount of practice, could reasonably hope to compete at the rating of the highest rated player in the division for 4 rounds.

The current "advanced" division has an infinite gap which makes the typical 915 or so rated player pretty much a no hoper against pro-calibre players. I'll leave it to the experts to decide where the best cutoffs should be.

One more point, I think two issues are being discussed here. I think there needs to be a split in the "advanced" division. A seperate but related issue is whether or not this makes age graded divisions unnecessary. It appears here that most agree on the first issue. The second issue could be split off and discussed further without confusing, or impeding action on the first.

I used to race bicycles seriously. In those events there were skill and age related divisions, but there was always that caveat that the promotor reserved the right to combine "fields" if the situation warranted it due to time, number of participants, etc.

Just because someone is rated 915 or so does not mean they cannot compete with top rated AMs. The reason most AMs are still Ams is because they are inconsistant. I won an a teir in the Advanced division with a rating of 927. There were at least two Am rated over 975 at the tourney. Ratings don't mean a whole lot and having divisions based on them is a bad idea IMO.

I'm an old guy who plays tournaments and runs tournaments. I would not have a problem eliminating old guy divisions. If the IOSeries continues to grow the way it has been, I'll be proposing we eliminate redundant division in 2008. The SPINOs will just have to deal with it, or pre-register for some other tournament.



Of course, you have been playing for plastic for quite awhile, so perhaps your situation doesn't apply.

I would say that was an exceptional performance on your part, the key word here being exceptional. I don't think divisions should be based on what is possible - the logical end to that discussion would mean no divisions at all - but should be based on what is a "sporting chance" because that is what attracts players to competition and keeps them coming back for more.

And there lies one of the problems with eliminating the age based divisions, at least at the pro or 'cash playing' level. You would be moving the women's and men's age protected pros into the plastic paid Am ranks in almost all instances excepting the small percentage that could still compete in Open. Taking it a step further, you would be forcing Senior Grands and the like to be babysitters as their rating drops into the 'Ferrite' or whatever level.

Eliminate the age based divisions, and the attendance of the over 40 crowd will decrease accordingly. But, on the positive side, it could be a start of the 'Seniors Tour'. Given our demographics, a couple of savvy TDs could probably do well with it.



Would there be that great an outrage to move the women's and men's age protected pros into the plastic paid Am ranks? It's more than a small percentage of currently cashing Pro Masters and Grandmasters that could still compete in Open. Heck, as it is, it will usually take 975+ rated golf in many areas of the country to cash in Pro Masters and Grandmasters divisions at most tournaments, which would absolutely still be competitive in Open.

Other than at Pro Worlds, is there really a strong need for Pro Senior Grands and the like at most tournaments during the year? Is there a huge desire for cash divisions for Ferrite level golfers?

At that level, why not just put everyone of the same ability together at tournaments, pro or am, and offer Masters and Grandmasters side bets for the pros amongst them if there is enough interest to warrant it?

the beauty of the "basing divisions off the highest rated player" is: any player can end up in the top or bottom of a division, except of course the top rated player. So, if you are 925 rated, you might end up in the middle of the pack, at the bottom of the pack, or at the top. It's your tournament to fight for. You don't really know where the line in the sand will be.



I too like this approach a lot....me being a numbers sort of guy who is comfortable bringing a laptop with Excel to tournaments.

HOWEVER....this approach is a TD's nightmare as far as getting things going in a timely fashion since you have no idea of how to set fields up until the last registration is in.....and you know what stragglers certain disc golfers can be.

Another related drawback is to properly assign correct divisions to people without ratings. This could get contentious at times if not handled right....and the TD would usually be trying to settle this in the midst of the time-critical last minutes before the players' meeting.

$0.02

Would there be that great an outrage to move the women's and men's age protected pros into the plastic paid Am ranks?



Yes, I think there would be.

There would probably be a pretty good level of outrage with the older players that already play for plastic.

Even if someone discovers some magic format that 85% of members would be happy with, it's still worth it to have the alternate format for the other 15% and the significant percentage of the 85% who would sometimes like to play in the divisions of the other singles format. It would be just as foolish to restrict options for TDs to sanction doubles or match play. If a TD wants to run these events, it's in the best interest of the PDGA to offer sanctioning as a member service.


This paragraph is exactly what is wrong with your way of thinking. In all facets of life, if we left decisions up to the popular vote we would never get anywhere. If the NBA dress code were left up to the players would it have ever been implemented? Would NASCAR be using their current points system? Good decisions are often not very popular. The pdga needs to be much more restrictive, not less restrictive. At some point they need to do what is best for the sport.

Here is where the system is set up for failure. The pdga is trying to draw sponsors through participation numbers. In other words, as many tournaments with as many players, thus as many members as possible. Quantity instead of quality. Yet the most successful thing in disc golf is far and away the most exclusive event in the country. One division, one champion.

I believe *pdga* tournaments should not be nearly as inclusive as they currently are. The majority of tournament players really have no business playing tournaments. I play a lot of games/sports, but you don't see me playing PBA, PGA, or USTA events. I don't qualify. We are always asking why we don't have more fans at tournaments. It's an easy question to answer. All our fans are playing the freaking tournament. There are 700+ tournaments. All the fans are too busy.

This is a classic less is more argument. Less tournaments+less amateur participation=more fans, larger pro fields, and more focus on tournament quality. If there was a tournament at least every other weekend with the field quality and sponsorship of the usdgc, there would be pro players actually making a living and drawing crowds that would in turn draw big sponsorship dollars. I could go on trying to preempt all of the inevitable short sighted arguments, but I'll defer to your responses now....

I have no problem with a separate track for women, but honestly, if there are 2 women, are they really competing against each other? Do we need to treat them like their own group? If it's all ratings based, do they want that? I agree that they could be grouped together, regardless of division if they requested it. And again, if a filed of 4 or more women show, I would give them the option of their own track.

Another solution to last minute ratings shuffling is that there isn't a need to get people into their exact division before the first round. Once the players start playing, and before scores are written on cards, all of the players have officially entered the event. It is at this time that utilizing the ratings breakout could apply.

No rush to do it before the first tee. Those who do not have ratings can give the track they feel best suited for. If they are playing their second tournament, preliminary ratings from a previous tournament should help decide what track they belong in.

I believe you are using anectodotal eveidence to draw an unwarranted conclusion. The USDGC has a ton o' Candy Roc money in the payout, and that makes all the pros want to line up for a piece of the pie. As it should be.

It's not the "one division" thing, it's the money. The Memorial has a ton of support from Discraft to supplement the payout plus impeccable timing in the year and is just as popular even though it is a traditional format and not one division.

Check out what divisions the top amateur women actually play at their local tournaments:

Kelsey Brakel (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=16007)
Marie Schwinn (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=21297)
Karen Jaskolka (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=25797)

Women who are not serious competitors have women-only divisions by default. How many 720 rated men are there? Women who are serious competitors are there to compete. They'll play against whoever they are competitive with.

Y'all are just responding to a problem which has already been addressed: how can we make divisions so anyone can theoretically win?

six of one, half dozen of another. It is simply the status quo in a different dress, ready to dance the same old dance, attracting the the same type of people, and turning away people at the same rate.

What am I missing?

[Edited for personal attack.]

I have a question for all of you that want to do away with prize payout. Not only does the plastic that is given away help with local clubs, and a little bit with the payout of pros. But it also helps out the disc manufacturers which are the biggest(almost only big) sponser of disc golf period. They are not going to manufacture for no profit. I would like to know how much of the big three's anual revenue comes from tourney payout discs. I mean come on how nice is it of Dave to take what would probably be the biggest seller he has premium Rocs and only offer them as fund raisers to help Pro players make a living.

I think that although your thoughts are correct and your thinking is logical for 5-10 years down the road. You have to be aware that we are not NASCAR or the other sports you keep trying to compare us to, they can make a mistake and lose 10% and still make a profit. By the way the reason for the points change was to make the end of the season more exciting and cause more people to watch at the end of the season and increase profits for sponsers and that actually supports my point of paying in plastic better than not paying out in plastic.

Right now there are a ton of reasons to keep paying ams in plastic, but the only reason I keep hearing for not doing is the 3rd grader complaining about who got the most tater tots. Mom the ams are getting more profit than me and thats not fair. Why does it matter what the ams are getting how does that effect you in one way or another?

I believe you are using anectodotal eveidence to draw an unwarranted conclusion. The USDGC has a ton o' Candy Roc money in the payout, and that makes all the pros want to line up for a piece of the pie. As it should be.

It's not the "one division" thing, it's the money. The Memorial has a ton of support from Discraft to supplement the payout plus impeccable timing in the year and is just as popular even though it is a traditional format and not one division.


This is the classic shortsighted answer I was waiting for. There are two other significant reasons that tournament does so well. One is that most of the qualified players from around the country play in it, and the second is the focus on one large event.

If the state of Michigan only had 1-2 tournaments/year instead of 140 they could probably come up with that sort of purse as well. If there were usdgc style tournaments at least twice/month, there would be a lot more players that could play full time thus increasing the base of quality players.

Keep defending the status quo, you know the one where the very best player in the world made, count 'em, THIRTY SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!!! Impressive. After expenses are factored in he should be eligible for food stamps.

The fundraiser Rocs are not used for payouts. They are sold at a Pro only event as a fundraiser. Events would still sell fundraiser discs, you would just take away the immediate avenue to get rid of left over discs. I do not think that eliminating merch payouts will have as big as impact on disc manufacturers as you think.

I have a question for all of you that want to do away with prize payout. Not only does the plastic that is given away help with local clubs, and a little bit with the payout of pros. But it also helps out the disc manufacturers which are the biggest(almost only big) sponser of disc golf period. They are not going to manufacture for no profit. I would like to know how much of the big three's anual revenue comes from tourney payout discs. I mean come on how nice is it of Dave to take what would probably be the biggest seller he has premium Rocs and only offer them as fund raisers to help Pro players make a living.



Plastic payouts are actually counterproductive to manufacturers. If discounted frisbees weren't so readily available and easy to win, some of us would actually have to go buy discs, get this, retail. I for one have not bought a disc at retail price since.......

I'm not sure I've ever bought a disc at retail price, and the reason is that I'm part of the tournament disc factory and I don't even play amateur. Sometimes I buy discs that other people have won at discounted prices or trade stuff I have for new stuff.

There's another reason not to do something popular. Most people are stupid. So why would we want to do something that most stupid people think is a good idea?

I deal with Discraft and Innova every month. I see the guys at Discraft face to face. No one has ever even hinted that tournament sales were a drag on their bottom line. Quite the contrary. They always seem very happy to see my checkbook.

Tournament players might not pay retail individually, but at most tournaments you pay retail collectively. And Discraft and Innova don't give a fig what you pay for your discs* because they don't sell discs at retail. They sell at wholesale whether to me or to stores.

--------------------------
* Innova pretends to give a fig, but actually they don't. But I'll keep pretending that they care so long as they keep pretending that they care.

This is the classic shortsighted answer I was waiting for. There are two other significant reasons that tournament does so well. One is that most of the qualified players from around the country play in it, and the second is the focus on one large event.


I know for certain that my words will be twisted and I'll be accused of being a USDGC Hater, which is definitely no the case, but here goes anyway.

The top pros go out of their way to qualify, and failing that beg for the state rep spot, because there is a ton o' added cash and they want some. The qualified players now go to the event because they went out of their way to qualify so they could get part of that cash, so they typically follow through and actually go. Other players who volunteer to run the qualifiers and get the TD exemption go because it is an excellently run awesome tournament.

But I believe you are making too much out of one single aspect of complete tournament package. You say the "One Division One Champion" format is what is the big draw.

Why not the miles of yellow rope? I know of no other tournament that uses so much artificial OB, but people are lining up to get into the USDGC and play the yellow rope. It must be the yellow rope that is the draw.

Maybe it is the home-made ice-cream at the clubhouse? Nothing like celebrating or consoling yourself with some fantastic home made ice cream after the round. It must be the ice cream.

Maybe, just maybe, it is the whole experience. The tourney didn't sell out the first year or two, so I do not believe that everyone everywhere was waiting for One Division/One Champion, yellow rope, or ice cream as the salvation of disc golf. It built steam. The one division format was stuck to, the yellow rope increased, the payout increased significantly with the CE Rocs, and the ice cream is awesome.

First I know that Rocs are Fundraisers I at no time intended to say that Dave was giving out Rocs to Climo and Schultz :). I am saying that it is nice of Dave to cut his profits and sell them at a discount and allow the USDGC to sell them at a markup that the tourney (and in turn the competitors) could make the profit instead of himself.

Second I am not a businessman just a lowly math teacher. But I believe I had rather sell 200 discs at $1 profit than 50 at $3 profit. And you would have to admit that the amount of discs given out are more than the amount most disc golfers are going to buy. The discs given out in players packs and as prizes are also beneficial in that they allow people to try discs(and hopefully buy them later). :D I just find it hard to believe that the disc manufacturers are against giving away discs at tournaments. If they didn't want to then they wouldn't offer such good deals to do so or tourney fundraising discs to help out the tournaments.

To combine everything giving out discs as prizes in players packs and as prizes benefits TDs and local clubs, disc manufacturers, and also by promoting growth. Some people actually give the discs to new disc players to get them started.

All I am saying is what is it hurting, and please don't tell me it's not fair ams are getting more payout for discs than I am getting cash. Well if you feel that way I am sure you can probably work with your local TD to get a tourney where the pros get paid in plastic too.

If the state of Michigan only had 1-2 tournaments/year instead of 140 they could probably come up with that sort of purse as well. If there were usdgc style tournaments at least twice/month, there would be a lot more players that could play full time thus increasing the base of quality players.

Keep defending the status quo, you know the one where the very best player in the world made, count 'em, THIRTY SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!!! Impressive. After expenses are factored in he should be eligible for food stamps.



Can somebody please explain to me how fewer tournaments will increase payout for anyone. Guys here is a hint in order to have big payouts you have to have big sponsors. That is why PGA players make more money that is why even profesional bowlers make more money. They have TV contracts and Bowling even has Dennys sponsoring them that is where the money is coming from. Golf during the summer I can find a tournament every weekend closer than I can find a disc golf tourney but that doesn't seem to be hurting Tiger Woods payout. The top bowlers make about 3-5 times as much as the top Disc Golfer and there are a half a dozen leagues in Bowling Green alone so are they slowing them down. Big money comes from big sponsors and until we get that no change in the world will make a big difference, at this point the only thing we can do is promote growth to get the big sponsors.

20 or 30 IQ points?



In your socialistic utopia, this is probably a competitive advantage.

But I believe you are making too much out of one single aspect of complete tournament package. You say the "One Division One Champion" format is what is the big draw.


I can't believe how bad you are missing the point. The point is the focus on *a* quality tournament. I just also happened to point out the lack of an outcry that it's an exclusive tournament. Most of Chuck's arguments revolve around including every possible age/sex/skill. This tournament is very successful for the opposite reason.

The larger point I was trying to make is the focus on raising money and making it a must play event. If an entire state *only* ran 1-2 tournaments/year they would be premier events.

Rhett, you are one of the people I count on to *get it*. Everything you say is backwards. Of course the pros make sure they make it to the usdgc because they can count on the payout. Imagine if that were the case at 30-40 tournaments/year. They could actually play full time. If they played full time they'd be better. We'd have many more 1020+ rated players. The only difference between me and a 1020 rated player is that I choose to work because there is no money in disc golf. There's no money because there are 700+ tournaments instead of 40. We need to consolidate. We have an incredibly small player base and it's spread so incredibly thin.

The most tragic aspect of all is that in the long run (or now if anyone had any foresight) is that everyone would be making tons more money than in the current system. Nevermind, the trickle down theory is so far over your heads I'm not even going to bother.......alright one quick try:

Tiger Woods = unprecedented rise in youth/minority golfers = unprecedented growth in manufacturing and equipment sales = USGA membership rise = more youth programs......blah blah blah. Quote and insert reason this would never equate to disc golf here:

Right now there are a ton of reasons to keep paying ams in plastic, but the only reason I keep hearing for not doing is the 3rd grader complaining about who got the most tater tots. Mom the ams are getting more profit than me and thats not fair.



This is a sport, if you want more than the next guy, earn it; don't cry when someone wants you to pay for your lunch.

Ok even if that is a good reason what are the other reason for wanting ams to not get discs? What is it hurting?

How will stopping it help 1)disc golf grow 2)increase pay among pros.

Can somebody please explain to me how fewer tournaments will increase payout for anyone.



Yes. In Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Wisonsin, Kansas, and Missouri there are in upwards of 200-300 tournaments/year. I live in Iowa and there are at least 40 tournaments around here so there is no reason for me to play anywhere else, as is the case for pro players in those other states. My point is that if Iowa and Wisconsin *couldn't* host a tournament when there was one in Minnesota, where do you think we'd play? Uhhh, Minnesota. So instead of the usual 25 pro players there would be 75-100. What happens when you get more players? You get a bigger purse. With bigger and more elite fields comes interest from recreational and amateur players that would likely come watch. Now you have bigger purses to advertise, you have a fan base, and now you have something to sell. Local hotels and restaurants are more interested because you are bringing in travelling players.

Ok even if that is a good reason what are the other reason for wanting ams to not get discs? What is it hurting?

How will stopping it help 1)disc golf grow 2)increase pay among pros.


I'm going to go out on a limb on this one. If we didn't just give away plastic at all of these tournaments then people would be forced to buy plastic retail. Now the local vendors are doing far more in disc sales thus profiting enough to turn around and sponsor events. Tournaments are essentially the Wal-Mart of disc golf. They put all the local guys out of business because it's cheaper and easier to get discs at your local tournament at direct from the factory prices. Yeah more discs are in more players hands in the short term, but you are killing your local disc store.

Concentrating the pros at fewer tournaments would result in a larger pot going to fewer players. That might or might not be a laudable goal. It is not a solution for attracting big sponsorship. Big sponsorship will come when we have big demographics. Bowling, golf and tennis have big demogrphics. Disc golf, croquet and badminton don't.

There are two ways a sport can get big TV demographics: it can be visually interesting like freestyle snowboarding or it can be a game that millions of people play. At 15% per annum growth, a million players grow to 64 million in about 30 years.

I'd say, worry about more important things, like global cooling, and let nature take its course.

OK I have to honestly admit your point about the local disc golf retailer is the first really good reason I have heard in several months of reading hundred of these posts. I honestly cannot think of a very good rebutal to that. But as stated earlier by someone I still believe that manufacturers for the most part had just as soon sell them at wholesale to TDs as anybody else.

Ok even if that is a good reason what are the other reason for wanting ams to not get discs? What is it hurting?

How will stopping it help 1)disc golf grow 2)increase pay among pros.



I don't think it will really increase pay in the pros, and I don't that should be a fundamental goal. I agree with Bruce that ultimately, payment for pros is a function of how many people both play the game casually, and how many play it competitively.

I do think it would help the sport tremendously. First and foremost, it would put the sport on sound philosphical footing. This sends the right signal to potential players who are used to real sports. They realize that the only way to earn more is to improve their skills. It honors those with ambition and discourages those without. This might sound corny, but I see it as an underlying flaw in our system: we often reward people for taking little risks and punish those that embrace risks. Over time, this has led to an anti-competitive culture in disc golf, and not surprisingly, weeded out those we should seek to keep, while keeping those who really aren't sportsman. Basically, it takes a lot of sportsman to make a sport healthy, and attract other like minded folks.

A healthier system would also allow the organization to focus on more important matters than merely tweaking an inherently weak system, and instead focus on more productive ways to grow the sport.

Rhett, you are one of the people I count on to *get it*. Everything you say is backwards. Of course the pros make sure they make it to the usdgc because they can count on the payout. Imagine if that were the case at 30-40 tournaments/year. They could actually play full time. If they played full time they'd be better. We'd have many more 1020+ rated players. The only difference between me and a 1020 rated player is that I choose to work because there is no money in disc golf. There's no money because there are 700+ tournaments instead of 40. We need to consolidate. We have an incredibly small player base and it's spread so incredibly thin.


I still say you are trying isolate individual pieces of the USDGC and draw unwarranted conclusions.

First off, little ole 939 rated am "Me" won't spend between $100 and $450 each year buying fundraiser discs from 30 to 40 tournaments per year. I do that for one tournament only, the USDGC. I did it originally because it was an awesome concept with a candy version of the best disc ever. I continue to support the USDGC because the awesome concept has been pretty much flawlessly executed. I'm sure Harold won't say it's flawless, but as far as disc golf execution goes, it practically has been. It's the United States Championships, it is extremely well done, and I can get some sweet candy/SB/Star Rocs. (The Rocs become less important as years go by.)

Sorry, but I won't do that for the Des Moines Challenge, and the MDGO, and Texas States, and....and...and... Not because they aren't great tourneys, but because I can only do one and it's the USDGC. I am certain that I am not alone. And that Roc money goes a long ways in Rock Hill.

And this whole "only one tourney to focus on thing" is a bit weak, too. Sure, you can look up the PDGA stats for South Carolina and only see one big tourney. But I've been to Rock hill. It's 25 minutes from Charlotte which, if I'm not mistaken, has fairly active disc golf scene.

That was joke. Charlotte is extremely active.


So back to my point: USDGC is a "whole package" deal. I don't believe you can isolate little pieces of it and point to them as The Answer.

I do agree with you somewhat about less tourneys, though. The National Tour was suppose to be exactly what you are talking about. The biggest tourneys were recruited to join, and the original plan was to offer only MPO and FPO, and to focus on those divisions and those limited tourneys in order to build a brand. Well, being disc golfers and all, that hasn't worked out so well. Not that it can't. But first it was the big tourneys that weren't selected crying and whining about how they were great tourneys and deserved to be on the NT. Then everybody just had to offer Masters divisions. After that it was Grands. Now it's every division and the NTs are just like any other big A-tier.

Hey, nothing against the age protected divisions, but the NT was suppose to focus on pro Open for the exact reasons you put forth here. And it didn't happen for Bruce's favorite reason: it didn't appeal to the TDs and they didn't want to do it.

Where does that leave us? I don't know. Maybe we should focus some of this energy on getting the NT back to the original plan. The National Tour would probably have to shrink as TDs flexed their muscle and dropped out, but maybe that is the path to the promised land. I'm pretty sure the Golden State Classic would go along with that plan. I have no idea who else would. You'd absolutely have to eliminate the concurrant am A-tier stuff, though.

I agree that there is tremendous potential for growth by offering a series of events along those lines. I tried to get Chris to move more towards that style for the Rec divisions in the TX10, but he resisted.

I strongly believe that it is a bad move to force everything to be either one way or the other. Trophy only/flatter payouts/low entry events have strong selling points and should do very well in places with a strong non-tournament player base.

I also believe there is a strong market for large payout/substantial entry fee events for Ams. I agree with Vinnie that there are too many events that offer Pro divisions. More and more I think that the majority of the events should be Am only with strong subsidized Pro support. I also think that every event that does not offer pro divisions should financially support the local event that is Pro only or Pro-Adv.

The current am system is healthy and growing. It should be supplemented with low entry/flat payout local events to bring a greater number of players into tournament golf. It should not be supplanted just because some lesser skilled players can earn more as ams than pros. What needs to happen is to jack up the Pro events so that there is no comparison to the lowly entry fee fed am events.

i would have to agree that NT events should only be allowed to offer mpo and fpo.

yes. NT should be Open and Open Women. dats it. limit registration to 985 and up. if there are spots left two weeks out, start filling with lower rated players. charge $200 minimum entry, and offer a minimum $50K purse.

i would have to agree that NT events should only be allowed to offer mpo and fpo.



...there should also not be corresponding A tiers events for Ams on the same weekend effectively taking away any potential spectator pool.

It can be done, as the Golden State Classic is a true Pro Only NT event. No Am event is run in connection with this event, either on a different course or a different weekend.

These last few posts are the exact kind of discussion that needs to be had if you want to increase Pro payouts. How do we make Pro divisions more attractive, not how do we make Am divisions less attractive. I am actually glad that the am weekend for BG Ams is on a seperate weekend because I am really looking forward to watching the Pro NT two weeks after. So I think most people should have little or no problem with having two seperate weekends for pro and ams during the NT events and some of the big A-events may even have to go to that in the next 5 years if the growth continues at this rate and they don't have enough courses to have them on the same weekend.

yes. NT should be Open and Open Women. dats it. limit registration to 985 and up. if there are spots left two weeks out, start filling with lower rated players. charge $200 minimum entry, and offer a minimum $50K purse.



We're going to need some help meeting a $50k purse. It will have to get beyond playing for each others entry fee. Unless you get 200 people (pro only remember) willing to pony up $250 each (more like $275 - $300 if you add expenses and a reasonable return for those organizing the tournament) at every stop, entry alone won't make it.

Add to it that we have less than 400 current people rated above 985, and you would be looking at a 50% attendance rate at each and every stop.

Having a Pro event in conjunction with an Am event is probably best for local sponsors.

Not the same weekend, but making the sell that your sponsorship of the pro event will get spread to cover both pro and am events. What this does is, increase exposure, especially to the more local am base, but to more eyes than the pro event alone. Ams should not feel slighted by sponsors that are primarily giving to the pro purse, for the simple fact that, these days, Ams are pretty much restricted from getting huge rewards. That's a key motivating factor that I went pro as early as I did.

If the Bowling Green Pro folks get Budweiser as a sponsor of the Pro event, do you think they would boost their sponsorship if they also knew their message was getting out to 600 hungry amateurs? Hells yes.

Separating the weekends, but combining the sponsorship only makes our sponsorship raising easier. Consequently, other sponsors who are giving goods to the Ams for say, players packs, can also be listed and bannered and announced as sponsors at the Pro event. I see no problem with this. It's in the best interests of our sponsors to be seen by as many eyes as possible.

thats why you open it up two weeks out.

its not supposed to be entry fee only. $200 x 144 players (36 foursomes) = $28,800. thats more than half way there. a $25K sponsorship gets you marginally there. $35K or up makes it attractive to run and allow some actual marketing to occur.

i'm betting 144 players are willing to pay $200 for a shot at a 50K purse in a well organized and well run event. the best players would tour for the chance and end up making a decent living at it. the local pros would play and could come out ahead if they shoot well.

$400K from an outside source plus entry fees from 10 events gives me $188,000 for marketing, logistics and management. for a $1M committment, the tour could likely be guaranteed for least three years.

a million is not that much. we'll either do it as the PDGA or someone else will do it. but it will happen, and whoever does it first will capture control (at least temporarily) of the professional aspects of the sport.

All fine goals ($25K sponsorship, etc.) that I hope we reach and exceed some day. But the current reality (i.e. the 2007 event schedule) is that limiting NTs to Pro only with a minimum $50K purse isn't possible.

As for $200 entry fees, a look into consumer behavior might be needed before trying this. I think that the traditional 'donors' would opt out at this level, making it hard to attract the necessary numbers to make it work. Especially if the other $25K of sponsorship prize money isn't yet there.

and all fine points. you are correct, the extra money needs to be there first. looking at consumer behavior is also warranted, and smart. in an informal poll around these parts, 985+ players expressed a real interest in such a proposition.

So true.

Pat, that is so unrealistic. NTs are struggling right now at $125 a pop. Change it to $200 a pop and you would see poorer results than you already have. It's like taking our lousy ideas, watching them fail, and instead of learning why it fails, you just add steroids to the bad ideas. Kind of like Bush in Iraq.

In fact, y'all should require it, see how it works. If it doesn't, next year make it $400.

I also think Open women when faced with a small field who choose to play Int. men or Adv. men should be able to accept plastic... which I don't believe they can. It's a tough choice for a lot of women b/c the Open division especially is so small. It's nice to get paid in cash, much more so than plastic IMHO.. but not enough women play and the division is usually under 4 people in most cases. So if they choose to play with the men and actually have a competetive field they can't get anything back in return if they do well. It's like throwing their money away. PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong here but that's always the impression that I've been under.

james, just to be clear... i am not suggesting that the PDGA should take the path i outlined.

All fine goals ($25K sponsorship, etc.) that I hope we reach and exceed some day. But the current reality (i.e. the 2007 event schedule) is that limiting NTs to Pro only with a minimum $50K purse isn't possible.

As for $200 entry fees, a look into consumer behavior might be needed before trying this. I think that the traditional 'donors' would opt out at this level, making it hard to attract the necessary numbers to make it work. Especially if the other $25K of sponsorship prize money isn't yet there.



'07 is here, so the earliest we could make any changes would be for '08. I'd like to see the NT reduced to 6 events, including the Players Cup moved to spring and ending at the USDGC. Offer divisions for pro men/women and pro men/women over 50. 4 divisions total. Players must have a certain player rating to register for each division. If the event isn't full 2 weeks out, then open registration to all with a $30 bump in the price. All rounds played on 18 hole courses, par 62+. Open Men play from Gold tees, everyone else from Blue. Minimum 50% of field payout.

I'd love to see the PDGA budget money to add to the NT purses, require TD's to secure a minimum in outside sponsorship, and raise the entry fees. The PDGA could come up with a plan that gradually raises all these numbers each year.

I'd suggest (year, added pdga cash (per event), outside sponsorship, entry fee, total minimum purse with 144 player events)

2008 - $7500 - $7500 - $200 - $43,800

2009 - $10,000 - $10,000 - $225 - $52,400

2010 - $12,000 - $12,000 - $250 - $60,000

or whatever numbers you want to plug in. Maybe someone with a few minutes could post what the payouts would look like for what I've suggested. Gotta get to class.

I deal with Discraft and Innova every month. I see the guys at Discraft face to face. No one has ever even hinted that tournament sales were a drag on their bottom line. Quite the contrary. They always seem very happy to see my checkbook.

Tournament players might not pay retail individually, but at most tournaments you pay retail collectively. And Discraft and Innova don't give a fig what you pay for your discs* because they don't sell discs at retail. They sell at wholesale whether to me or to stores.

--------------------------
* Innova pretends to give a fig, but actually they don't. But I'll keep pretending that they care so long as they keep pretending that they care.



I'm not sure that Innova and Discraft have the correct perspective on this. Don't get me wrong, I don't know. But, there are many cases where companies do this logical thing that seems to be the best thing. Then when they actually do a study or crunch the numbers what they were doing was very stupid.

There is no question that Innova and Discraft are invested in the merch mechanism. Whether or not it is the best way for them to make money is a whole nuther question.

First I know that Rocs are Fundraisers I at no time intended to say that Dave was giving out Rocs to Climo and Schultz :). I am saying that it is nice of Dave to cut his profits and sell them at a discount and allow the USDGC to sell them at a markup that the tourney (and in turn the competitors) could make the profit instead of himself.

Second I am not a businessman just a lowly math teacher. But I believe I had rather sell 200 discs at $1 profit than 50 at $3 profit. And you would have to admit that the amount of discs given out are more than the amount most disc golfers are going to buy. The discs given out in players packs and as prizes are also beneficial in that they allow people to try discs(and hopefully buy them later). :D I just find it hard to believe that the disc manufacturers are against giving away discs at tournaments. If they didn't want to then they wouldn't offer such good deals to do so or tourney fundraising discs to help out the tournaments.

To combine everything giving out discs as prizes in players packs and as prizes benefits TDs and local clubs, disc manufacturers, and also by promoting growth. Some people actually give the discs to new disc players to get them started.

All I am saying is what is it hurting, and please don't tell me it's not fair ams are getting more payout for discs than I am getting cash. Well if you feel that way I am sure you can probably work with your local TD to get a tourney where the pros get paid in plastic too.



Some of what you're saying is not true. Math is good, business has some advantages too.

It's supply and demand. There is a volume of discs out there needed, i.e. demanded. However that supply gets filled, it gets filled. That supply includes the discs I have in my garage and in my closet.

The cost of discs determines the volume out there. That is, the higher the cost, the fewer discs in circulation. Cost isn't just what is charged per disc. The notion that discs are given away is just that, a notion. There is a cost structure involved. That cost structure includes tournament fees, getting adequate numbers of players to play, and a number of other factors no one thinks about.

The question that has to be asked, and never is: What is the actual cost per disc, to players? That includes what the manufactures charge and all the other costs not accounted for. The real question is what is the cost per disc with merch payout, vs. trophy only? No one really knows. It is entirely possible that the cost to players is higher with merch payouts than without. It is entirely possible that the cost to the player per disc might go down with the elimination of merch. That would mean more discs sold and more profit for Innova et. al.

Now, I'm not saying this is true, but we don't really know. We instinctively think that having merch payouts helps to move more discs and therefore is good for manufacturers and the sport. Again, that isn't necessarily true.

BTW - I'd be unsurprised to find that as many discs go to organizations and newbies from the out-right paid pool as from the I won plastic pool.

I don't think I'd have a problem playing with other 913 rated players, regardless of age (I'm almost 47). Of course, my rating is based on the two or three PDGA events I play a year and NOT the remaining 10-12 Southern National events I also compete in. But that's a regional issue that many don't have to deal with. rWc3523 :cool:

If the state of Michigan only had 1-2 tournaments/year instead of 140 they could probably come up with that sort of purse as well. If there were usdgc style tournaments at least twice/month, there would be a lot more players that could play full time thus increasing the base of quality players.



But, they already do have a big "National Tour" tournament every year called the Great Lakes Open. I would love to see the state coordinators start coordinating the statewide tournaments to each become a spoke in their states "Big Wheel" tournament.

Example: The Moonlight Monthly Mini in Tulsa, OK takes a buck or two per player all year long to sponsor the Oklahoma Open SuperTour. This year they sponsored $1600..........Imagine :p

One step further, I would link the state's big SuperTour or National Tour and take the first $1,000 or so of sponsorship and actaully qualify and give paid entry to the winner of ten of these in-state tournaments that are focused on helping the state's "Big Wheel". Paid entry would go to state residents only and pass down if the first state resident has already won. That would be at least 10 state representatives at the big show.

Absolutely brilliant! I love it, Yeti. Biscoe does something similar to that in VA.

I try to stay away from Am tournaments supporting the pro tournaments, but that's essentially what I had in mind. A friend of mine thinks that all pro events should be preceded by a corresponding am event to *help* with the pro weekend. The biggest upside besides cash is that half of your player base is available to help run things. Pros run am weekend and vice versa.

Good to hear from you Jay. You gonna be in Iowa for the Rumble?

I try to stay away from Am tournaments supporting the pro tournaments, but that's essentially what I had in mind. A friend of mine thinks that all pro events should be preceded by a corresponding am event to *help* with the pro weekend. The biggest upside besides cash is that half of your player base is available to help run things. Pros run am weekend and vice versa.

Good to hear from you Jay. You gonna be in Iowa for the Rumble?



If we had more tournaments that were very local to me I would love this idea. Play one weekend and help the next (and get to watch some great DG). I see no problem with money from the AMS going to the Open as long as the AMS get 100% retail value returned (because unless you have connections, retail value is what you can expect to pay).

I'm interested... how do the ideas that we all discuss on these boards get handled by the people in charge? Can we expect to see any changes in the future, or is this just the same old discussion? I ask because I have really only been posting on these boards for less than a year and I have not seen the previous trends on these topics.

You will be ignored, and your free thinking ideas will have you placed on a watch list.

There is nothing new about these ideas.

Absolutely brilliant! I love it, Yeti. Biscoe does something similar to that in VA.



i do?? odds $ collected is paid out to the series winners- we aren't propping up our big events with it. actually, i think i disagree with the whole concept of propping up the big events with hard earned from the others. that just generates more payout to fewer people.

I didn't state that all of that propping of your state's "Big Wheel"
goes to the purse, everyone would benefit. It would add a nice influx of cash to our larger tournaments besides what is gained in entry fee or beating the street for small-midsize sponsors.

What does Virginia have (2) SuperTours?

--Virginians would benefit by getting a chance for paid entries
--Money put into ammenities (porta potties, lunch, side games)
--Cash added to the purse as well

Why are you against some cash to the few at your state's LARGEST and BEST tournaments?
Don't you want to promote your state and best courses by having pros travel in from the region even the country?

Maybe your motavations at the Virginia Open are different, but the guys over in Bayville stated that they wanted to run a SuperTour event to bring in the big name players, show off their courses and hospitality. Too me, that sounds like some quality reasons to throw an A-Tier or NT.

I am all for our larger, more organized disc golf states filling C-Tiers and catering to our AM base. Let us grow the competitive side of the sport this way. (IOS in Illinois)

If the state of Michigan only had 1-2 tournaments/year instead of 140 they could probably come up with that sort of purse as well. If there were usdgc style tournaments at least twice/month, there would be a lot more players that could play full time thus increasing the base of quality players.



But, they already do have a big "National Tour" tournament every year called the Great Lakes Open. I would love to see the state coordinators start coordinating the statewide tournaments to each become a spoke in their states "Big Wheel" tournament.

Example: The Moonlight Monthly Mini in Tulsa, OK takes a buck or two per player all year long to sponsor the Oklahoma Open SuperTour. This year they sponsored $1600..........Imagine :p

One step further, I would link the state's big SuperTour or National Tour and take the first $1,000 or so of sponsorship and actaully qualify and give paid entry to the winner of ten of these in-state tournaments that are focused on helping the state's "Big Wheel". Paid entry would go to state residents only and pass down if the first state resident has already won. That would be at least 10 state representatives at the big show.



You guys would find out if everyone listened to Yeti on MANY subjects things would be GREAT in many different places, the kid has a good noggin attached to his shoulders. :p

Our Full Moon Mini that is played once a month on the wed. during the Full moon gets $5 for 5 mulligans and all proceeds go into the Oklahoma Open. This was the idea of Billy moody who now lives in Austin. The first year we didn't quite make $1000 but ever since it has been over $1200 of sponsorship, we now branched out and are offering the same package for our Friday Night Flights so we expect to see over $2500 in money raised throughout the year to support our A-Tier.

We even have Fool Moon Poker Club that is raising money. We play poker every Wed that we don't have Full moon Golf. $6 buy in $1 goes to the ACEpot (4 of a kind or better is an ace) $1 for every buy in goes to the fund raising, and you can buy in as many times as you want for the first hour. We raised just about as much money playing poker as we did playing golf. Just a couple more ideas you can use to help raise funds for your event.

I am against ( in part ) what Jay is saying ONLY cause I never have liked the idea of a local tourney taking money away from players entry fees and putting them towards a larger tourney for PROS to devour . Especially when it comes to Jrs and Kids and beginners playing in local organized events .

Now for those of us who have been around for a while and see the need to " foster " a good tourney with added cash this is not a bad idea .

I have even run tourneys where I have taken money straight out of the PRO -2 division ( when there was one ) and put it in the OPEN division .
( I said this for a reason , I know there are alot of people out there who think this is wrong ( taking money from one division at a tourney and putting it to another ) .
BUT if you look at the reasons stated above I think taking money from potential baggers ( pro 2 division , which included mostly advanced and pro masters ) is better then taking money from all divisions ( local events that include beginners and Jrs who are just learning the sport at the competitive level )
Just my opinion but it is what it is .

Taking money from one division to put it in another division seems wrong now because we have been paying out AM's.

Receiving merch at a price is the same as paying them, and Ams will never be for something that has been so good to them in the past. If they were true am's playing for a trophy, which is TRUE AMATEURISM then it wouldn't be that big a deal but I don't think we will ever break that mold.

The Minnesota Majestic gets funds every year from local leagues that collect an extra buck from the player entry fees. The overall winner of the winter league wins free entry into the Majestic as well. It is a great way for the strong local player base to help support the biggest event in the area.

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.