OK-there has been some GREAT discussion on the thread regarding adv and pro ranking that mandated stepping up. So-how about we talk about restrictions-there were a good number of comments regarding raising the bar and public perception of exactly what 'pro' involves...

so....

edit: OOPS...the second B tier question should be for C TIER...sorry

Interesting...keep 'em coming!

The problem with the pro divisions is that the purse depends heavily upon "donators" with no chance of winning and only a tiny wisp of hope of cashing to be present to pad the field. These players are expected to play "for the love of the game" with no realistic chance of getting anything out of the event except the opportunity to play, and to give their inflated entry fees to the same few top guys over and over again.

Hey now....."love of the game".....compete for competition's sake with no thought or chance of winning....aren't those things we associate with being an amateur??? :eek:

In any event, I think a minimum rating for the MPO division is a great idea, but it rob the MPO division of players and payout so I don't think it is workable at this point in time. The cashing pros will call you all sorts of names for suggesting this because they know it will lower their paydays.

I think the only discussion you're going to have on here is whether there should be a minimum for open at NT events. In my opinion, those that have lower ratings are not going to play open anyway, unless they are a local that knows the courses well and wants to play.

Right now, there isn't major media coverage for these events. Will they care if there are lower ranked players or not? I don't think so. I doubt that they would withhold coverage because of a lack of a threshold for those events. They would focus on the top pros, and a hot amatuer round. Basically WSOP style.

i dont think anybody is complaining about the ratings of individuals playing in pro or open divisions. i believe the complaints stem from higher ratings/greater skill package playing down divisions. if a lower skilled player wants to pay to play with pros they should have that option as long as the field size is not reached with qualified pros

I personally agree that it is not about Ams playing up, but about pros playing down. If a player with tons of experience is playing "just ok" in the pro divisions and regains amatuer status and competes there, they have what I consider to be an unfair advantage when it comes to tournament pressure, decision making etc.. The current policy of accepting cash or registering as a pro seems to work for declaring Pro-status.


It's my opinion that If you make a decision to move up to pro and maintain a 955+ rating, a career and gain that level of experience you should not be allowed to regain amateur status again unless a more realistic policy for regaining Am-status is created.

So what is a realistic policy? It's got to be out there somewhere in the minds of the thousands of Ams and Pros that are currently members. It could be ratings based (but how low do you go?), or based on a points earned threshold or something. I just don't believe that what we "the PDGA" did with amnesty was a good policy. Maybe I just don't understand the logic behind the decision. They say you can't please everyone, and that life is not fair, so what do I know?

someone else [posted that the amnesty was ok, but allowing Pro-turned-Ams into Worlds was a mistake. i can go along with that statement, especially the second part.

whats really tastes bad is that someone who "applied" for reinstatement as Am could NOT play in the same worlds that an Amnestee could play in! how ridiculous is that?

Agreed...all the discussions I saw were aimed at Pros moving back down for AM Worlds. In my opinion once you cash, and accept that cash...you are voluntarily choosing to play open for the rest of your PDGA career. Also I think they should have a rating benchmark (960-975) where you can't turn down cash in an open event you voluntarily played in. I personally don't care if someone wants to bag it but it makes the sport look extrememly UN-PROfessional when pros and ams are moving back and forth all the time

amnestee and re-Am'ing is such a part of our modus operandi that the most common thing i hear when i ask talk to lower-rated players who just turned pro is "hey, i'll just ask to be an Am again".

such a part of our modus operandi



I think not.

Modus operandi: "The term is also commonly used in English . . . to describe someone's habits or manner of working, the method of operating or functioning."

Maybe the office could provide the specific numbers, but we have had one general amnesty which was taken by slightly more than 100 out of 12,000+ members. That and a handful of approvals on a case by case basis is hardly a habit or "manner of working."

OTOH, if you say it is often enough, the 33% or thereabouts of people who don't often dive below the nuance may start to believe it. Worked (for a while) for another Texan but, thank goodness, that seems to be almost over.

I don't really care how many people took amnesty out of every single PDGA member. 100 is still way too much!! I thought amnesty is for specific instances...I bet only 1000 of the 12000 even know that amnesty is possible!! And 100 of them are doing it...It blurs the lines betweens divisions and makes it seems as if PDGA and its tournies are un-official and un-professional when there isn't even an official constituent to the division in which you play in...

Can't you guys argue this on the other 10 hijacked threads about amnestied pros playing am?

This thread was started to discuss putting a lower rating limit on the Pro division so that any ole yahoo can't sign up as a "pro".

all i know is that i have heard of MANY people allowed to return to Am status, and have yet to hear on anyone being denied. if it happens on request, then it most certainly is a method of operating. hence "modus operandi" even after using your definition.

I work with a guy who was denied twice.

name? pdga number?

did you get turned down? did you take amnesty?

I agree with that whole heartedly. To me taking amnesty without true justification is sort of a violation of etiquette. I just can't warrant a pro with a consistent, healthy tounament history moving down. You might not be the in the top 100, but you are still a touring pro. On the other hand, if you used to play pro and stopped playing and practicing for five years or something that another thing. But why move down when you can obviously beat most of the current Am competition?

Can't you guys argue this on the other 10 hijacked threads about amnestied pros playing am?

This thread was started to discuss putting a lower rating limit on the Pro division so that any ole yahoo can't sign up as a "pro".



OK.....I think it's an interesting question. Is there a problem if I, an aging, 900-rated duffer, want to sign up in the open division? Should the open players, top-of-the-class, have to spend a round with me, endure my 250' drives and regular disc searches, or should they have an expectation of reasonable quality of play in their group? Is it different if it's a 780-rated rec player with 2 discs and a sketchy idea of the rules? (Of course, this torment would only last for 1 round).

I've thought about entering an NT just for the experience. Is it fair to those who are entering to win?

The other consideration is whether this is much of a problem, anywhere. Are any open divisions plagued with hapless ams? While it's true that tournaments want as many registrants as possible to boost the purse, would excluding those under 925 or 950 cut enough to make a significant difference?

Can't you guys argue this on the other 10 hijacked threads about amnestied pros playing am?

This thread was started to discuss putting a lower rating limit on the Pro division so that any ole yahoo can't sign up as a "pro".



Don't you mean "higher" ? because currently there is no limit.... right?

the reason Open pro is called open is b/c its open to anyone...

I see a connection here... That is between the amnesty issue and the pro level ratings requirement issue..... I bet most touring pros don't want or appreciate Am hacks getting assigned to their group at some point no matter who they are, and messing with their Ju-Ju. Likewise, Ams don't like being out classed, and out played by some ex-pro amnesty bagger.. Seems like we need some serious distinction between classes?? What we have now is anything goes flip-flop golf... :D

I've never seen a pro get upset with any "added cash" signing up to play, no matter how low they were rated. Top pros like the added payout, mid-level pros like being pushed up one spot closer to the cash-line, and donator-pros like having someone to beat. :)

I'm sure they don't mind the added cash, who wouldn't. But what about the pro saying "Dang, I got stuck with a junior" or "that guy was a real green-horn and would'nt stop talking" I think I have heard those and other things being said after a round or two, and it wasn't because they played great in those situations.....

Regardless of that, I don't thing a ratings requirement would be good. I want to start playing open/masters events next year and I am looking foward to it. I think I have enough experience to handle myself accordingly and I wouldn't want to be kept out because of my lousy rating.....

Hey Rhett, when are you stepping up? You have been playing some awesome golf this year... Are you ready to join me in pro masters at the Tahoe Pro/Am next year?

Hey Rhett, when are you stepping up? You have been playing some awesome golf this year... Are you ready to join me in pro masters at the Tahoe Pro/Am next year?


I've been pretty happy playing MA1. (I'm not sure why I signed up for MM1 at Tahoe this year.) In MA1 I have a shot at the leader card if I play well the first round, can merch if I play well for the weekend, and I miss the pay-line completely if I don't play well. I'm not sure I'm in a position where I need to double my entry fees yet, or where my wife and I can't both play on the same weekend. :eek:

It's also kind of cool to be on a card with a teenager and two 20-somethings that can each throw a friggin' mile, and when we add 'em up the ole man's score is right there with 'em. :)

No doubt... It really does cause scheduling issues.. I myself am going up for the experience, but I will maintain my Am status... My son and I plan to hit some events in your area next year too. I plan to be ready when my kid goes open so we can tour together. I figure I will need more time than he will. So for now I'm happy there are no restrictions for going open. It really makes disc golf a special sport when you have the chance of playing a tournament with the top pros.... It definately cuts back on the amount of events you can attend once you go pro though.. Something I hope will change as we move forward with the PDGA.

Completely agree...I just wish that people couldn't so easily go from a cashing pro to a bagging am ...but from am to pro...GO for it :D


Regardless of that, I don't thing a ratings requirement would be good. I want to start playing open/masters events next year and I am looking foward to it. I think I have enough experience to handle myself accordingly and I wouldn't want to be kept out because of my lousy rating.....

when ever i decide to play in the open divisions at the local minis i realize i may be buying lessons from the better players, my goal usually. it is always a good feeling to not end up dfl in a superior division. i have not had a single pro act like they were disappointed i was there. i definatly do not let my emotions show when playing up as not interfere with the better players. i do however enjoy when the other players say great shot

senior, question for ya... thinking about divisions, protection, pro, am topics.. how wouild you feel about leaving what we have now completelyintact, but forming a Pro program alongside with Masters starting at 50?

name? pdga number?


I don't share personal information about others.


did you get turned down? did you take amnesty?


You already know the answers to those questions.

that leaves me with the perception that you made it up.

i dont know the answers to those questions. did you get turned down for re-classification? i have no idea if you did or not, thats why i asked.

Hey Rhett, when are you stepping up? You have been playing some awesome golf this year... Are you ready to join me in pro masters at the Tahoe Pro/Am next year?


I've been pretty happy playing MA1. (I'm not sure why I signed up for MM1 at Tahoe this year.) In MA1 I have a shot at the leader card if I play well the first round, can merch if I play well for the weekend, and I miss the pay-line completely if I don't play well. I'm not sure I'm in a position where I need to double my entry fees yet, or where my wife and I can't both play on the same weekend. :eek:

It's also kind of cool to be on a card with a teenager and two 20-somethings that can each throw a friggin' mile, and when we add 'em up the ole man's score is right there with 'em. :)



Is that mile message board distance or real distance? :D

name? pdga number?


I don't share personal information about others.


did you get turned down? did you take amnesty?


You already know the answers to those questions.



Ut Oh! Did you make this up Terry? Naughty Boy... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Honestly is this really that big of an issue. The reality is that once we remove the money incentive, whether people go down or not won't much matter.

"Trophy Only!"

Nick Knight

ROFL. Sounds like PDGA board member Pat Brenner could be projecting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection).

lets not make this about me, terry. you should know better.

you claimed a stat and cannot provide the proof. given how rich this board is with fake data, unless you can provide proof, your statistic is highly suspect. if you would rather make this about me, please do so via PM and spare the board users.

name? pdga number?

did you get turned down? did you take amnesty?

If Terry isn't giving you his name, I won't post it. He did take the amnesty. He has played very well in Am Masters and is now rated 30 points higher than me.

senior, question for ya... thinking about divisions, protection, pro, am topics.. how wouild you feel about leaving what we have now completely intact, but forming a Pro program alongside with Masters starting at 50?



I think what we have now works quite well but could work better. The idea of having certain requirements or restrictions for players to become a pro has some valid points.

1) Having player take a PDGA rules questionaire in order to become a proffesional
2) Having a certain minimum open entry level ratings for each different event type (major, NT, A tier etc..) or qualify somehow...

These are ideas I have heard batted around here and seem
like they would be good for enhancing the level of competition. But I am sure many other players have input that would fine tune these types of policies and make them realistic in terms of the entire PDGA.

As for making masters age 50, I don't think that makes sense. This is because I have personally seen the physical effects breaking 40 has on a disc golfer. 40 is old enough to me. However, I do think there could be a ratings cap just like the intermediate division has at 915. For example, if a Adv. Master reaches a 960+ rating he will have to go to advanced, open, or pro masters. These would of course be guide lines. If a player is active in a local series and has played something like 60% of the series events for the year they would be exempt from the bump rule until the next season. Majors would be excluded. A similar bump rule could be put on advanced at 980 or something.

I think the majority of belly aching I hear is about players who have dominated a division, or a particular event and never bump themselves, plus in the mean time their rating has increased to a point that they would easily compete a level up. Eventually they get bumped but its like pulling teeth! In the mean time they are called baggers, and in some cases rightly so. Players tend to make a Am career in certain divisions, and thats fine (Am forever some say!). But a ratings bump rule ( that is enforced) would force these players to move on when they reach a level that is above and beyond all the others around them and would possibly stop the name calling.

Bruce, be careful, since he still doesn't have a name and a PDGA number, Pat may "perceive" that we're both liars instead of just me.

ROFL. Sounds like PDGA board member Pat Brenner could be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection">projecting</a>.



WOW! Counter Projection, Obsessive Compulsive, Dr. Sid, boy there's a whole lot of psychoses in that article! :D

I restate, this is only an issue because there is something of value at stake.

Now if it were me, I'd go for the you can play down but have to play trophy only option for a year or so. That would soften the blow for those who don't want to loose their plastic to those bagging Pros... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

senior, thanks for the thoughtful reply. we could use more ofthat around here. i also dont see anything wrong with keeping what we already have - but i think we need something additional that is a truly Open (open/women/masters) tour/series/event. there is no way we're ever gonna settle these open-protected and open-protected dilemna within the confines of our current structure. it might be better to simply admit that and move on. what we have works for a ton of people and has a lot of value. but what is missing is becoming more important as we grow.

oh, btw... "This is because I have personally seen the physical effects breaking 40 has on a disc golfer". i would love to see the numbers. chuck says that there is a decline in ratings after 40 and proceeds to conclude the decline is related to physical issues associated with aging. but that is just one of a huge number of possible causes. there are plenty of players who have improved during their 40s - more than enough to dispute the claim that aging is The Reason for ratings decline.

Chuck has also previously posted statistics showing about a 50-foot, on average, decline in driving distance off the tee between Advanced Ams and Advanced Masters (top half of the field at an Am Worlds). Sorry, I don't know all of their names and PDGA numbers; please don't perceive me as lying.

An age-based 50-foot difference on driving distances would definitely affect ratings.

These kinds of averages, of course, describe groups not individuals, and it would be expected that there would be overlaps and outliers.

that distance difference could also be the result of factors OTHER THAN AGING. have you considered that possibility? think it through for more than a half second. wikipedia may be able to offer guidance on both ""research and "correlation"

that distance difference could also be the result of factors OTHER THAN AGING. have you considered that possibility? think it through for more than a half second. wikipedia may be able to offer guidance on both ""research and "correlation"



Yep, hundreds of times, and for years; even posted on it a lot here. Age happens to have been the somewhat controlled variable in Chuck's little study, Pat. Unless you've got a more likely causative agent than age in mind, then Occams Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor) rules, at least temporarily. In fact, my working conclusion is that distance is the primary factor responsible for the difference in ratings (on average) between age divisions.

And gender: If my wife could throw as far as I do, there is no doubt in my mind that I would never again be able to outscore her on the course.

Although not without controversy, the masters track and fields age-graded tables (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_athletics_%28track_and_field%29) are also somewhat suggestive. Someone better than me at calculations might want to play with those tables (http://jick.net/~jess/track/mtf/AGT.php) and see what they show about discus and javelin throwing.

(Ya know, even if you say that someone is lying or imply that he doesn't think things through, that doesn't mean that anyone except maybe George Bush's 28 percent is ever going to think you're describing reality.)

occams razor is more likely to select "not practicing as much". thats true regardless of age and is therefore even more simple. hows that for a causitive agent?

Can you show statistics that support that masters players who compete at the top half of worlds competition fields practice less often than advanced players? I wouldn't be surprised if they practice more, since many younger players don't think they need to practice at all. That's one reason why I get to beat so many of them :cool:

If you can, then you still would need to find a causal relationship between practice and distance improvement in already experienced players.

I don't know about other older players, but if I do get to spend time practicing, it's going to be in expectation of improving my accuracy or putting, not distance. If I get more distance some day, I think it's more likely to be from losing weight and getting more strength back in my legs than from driving practice.

LOL, I see the age factor up close and personal at every event I play in :eek:

However, I think that some players are not the normal avergage over 40 player. They are typically the Adv. Masters who's rating is pushing the 950's and up and they are in my opinion taking advantage of the rest of the field because of there age. I know they have earned the right to play, but it gets old seeing the same guys on the top of leader board year after year. And to top it off, more and more Advanced players with high ratings see the oportunity when they become of age, enter there first Am Masters event and whamo, instant title. These guys may never win in advanced, but usually place high and cash. This has been an issue in the Pro division as well. Some of the Masters have 1000+ ratings and basically dominate that division. They could play open, but why when they can get a win and get a few hundred more than if they cashed in the open division?

But when we are talking about Amateur Masters, it seems a bit sad when a handful of 950+ players, many of which:
- have played disc golf a long long time,
- have a ton of experience,
- are ex-pro's
- can drive a long way
are in that division and are bagging all of the others in the field when they could probably win or place in the advanced division and definately compete in pro masters. Once and awhile you see an Intermidiate masters division offered along with an advanced masters division, but that is rare. Most of the time many guys end up donating and we play for the love of the game. So I personally think something needs to be done to stop the bagging in the Adv. Masters divsion. I think that statistically speaking, the majority of Adv. Masters players are below a 950 rating, so a 960-ish cap could be the answer....

good, now you are getting the idea! thank you for allowing that shrinking your belly and strengthening your legs could help your distance and/or rating. those are indeed two more factors that influence rating. notice that neither are "age".

btw, i am not trying to prove practice is the sole determinant. i think there are a lots of factors involved. i am just trying to stop the unjustified conclusion that age is the primary cause of ratings decline after 40.

While I think some of what Senior says is important I don't think I agree that most complaining is about one player who dominates or even a couple. Most of the belly aching I see is non-specific. I've never seen or heard of a complaint about a specific player taking advantage with the exception of Matt Hall, and then only after he made an issue of it and someone went and looked at what he had done.

Keep in mind that I'm referring to what happens here and not what happens on the course. In Houston, every time I've heard the bagger call it's been when someone absolutely dominated the division they were in. Typically, some research showed the domination was a one event fluke.

Finally, this gets stated all the time, the numbers indicate that forcing players to play where they don't want to is counterproductive. Them's the facts and wanting them to be different doesn't make it so. Yes, making the bump conservative will help but you will still effect membership. Soooo, what's the solution? Well a minor bump isn't going to really solve the problem but it won't ruin the sport either. The real solution is to remove the "financial incentive" to play Am. Oh yeah, no one wants to do that, they just want to force players to play up...

Senior,

There used to be Adv/Int/Novice Masters divisions, but the lower age protected divisions of Int Masters and Novice/Rec Masters were eliminated so you shouldn't see those offered at any PDGA events any more since they are not legal divisions.

I think they were eliminated for good reason because there really isn't a need for Int Masters since a 901 rated Advanced Masters player can play regular Intermediate and be very competitive. The choice for such a player is a pretty good one: play Int and compete for the win, or play Adv. Master and play with the old farts.

For me personally, I had some good success in Advanced Masters and eventually (and finally) won a SoCal Series title in that division. Since I wasn't ready to double my entry fee to play pro and quit playing tourneys like so many before me who moved up to pro, I moved up to regular Advanced and I have fun playing with the young guns. At out of town tourneys I've been playing MM1, but I think that's going to change.

Whenever I see a 950-960+ rated player in the Advanced Masters division, I'm just glad they chose to play there instead of MA1 where they would bump me down a place. :)

On this one I have to go with Terry. It is much more likely, IMO, that the improvement in older guys is more about guys who didn't reach their potential while young and hit it at an older age. I'm a classic case. I went from a 770 rated player to 870 between 43 and 46 and while I haven't played a rated round in a year or so, I'm probably closer to 920 or so now. That improvement wasn't because I drank from the fountain of youth, it was because I learned a lot about playing, began lifting weights and did a number of other things.

What it comes down to is we're comparing apples an oranges. Why a 20 year old player improves vs. a 45 year old, may have some things in common, but there will be some big differences that are age dependent.

"I�m throwing twice as hard as I used to, but the ball isn�t going as fast." ~ Lefty Gomez

<blockquote>i am just trying to stop the unjustified conclusion that age is the primary cause of ratings decline after 40.</blockquote>
ROFL, even at my age, I can still get down and ROFL. :D

good, now you are getting the idea! thank you for allowing that shrinking your belly and strengthening your legs could help your distance and/or rating. those are indeed two more factors that influence rating. notice that neither are "age".

btw, i am not trying to prove practice is the sole determinant. i think there are a lots of factors involved. i am just trying to stop the unjustified conclusion that age is the primary cause of ratings decline after 40.



I'm not sure this is 100% accurate. What are the numbers of 20 year olds with big bellies vs. 45 year olds? How easy is it for a 20 year old to lose weight and strengthen their legs vs. a 45 year old?

Please read my old by-line. It seems you are making a sophist argument and a good one at that! But, given all else, the major differences between a 20 year old and a 45 year old are all age related; loss of testosterone leading to less drive and competitiveness not withstanding.

keep your head in the sand all you want, and ignore the possibility that something other than age might be at work. i'm saying a 90 year old is the same as a 20. i'm just saying that there are plenty of other reasons for skills decline. go ahead and belittle that side of the argument, and attack me all you want. that doesnt change the facts.

keep your head in the sand all you want, and ignore the possibility that something other than age might be at work. i'm saying a 90 year old is the same as a 20. i'm just saying that there are plenty of other reasons for skills decline. go ahead and belittle that side of the argument, and attack me all you want. that doesnt change the facts.



I'd bet a gentleman that there isn't a doctor this side of the 1700s that would agree with you Pat. You will be able to find individual cases that are consistent with things other than age playing a role, but the major cause will be age.

keep your head in the sand all you want, and ignore the possibility that something other than age might be at work. i'm saying a 90 year old is the same as a 20. i'm just saying that there are plenty of other reasons for skills decline. go ahead and belittle that side of the argument, and attack me all you want. that doesnt change the facts.


Unless you meant to write "i'm NOT saying a 90 year old is the same as a 20" then you just blew your credibility a few more parsecs into outer space.

My first poll. I am so excited!

keep your head in the sand all you want, and ignore the possibility that something other than age might be at work. i'm saying a 90 year old is the same as a 20. i'm just saying that there are plenty of other reasons for skills decline. go ahead and belittle that side of the argument, and attack me all you want. that doesnt change the facts.


Unless you meant to write "i'm NOT saying a 90 year old is the same as a 20" then you just blew your credibility a few more parsecs into outer space.



I could never figure out why I couldn't get a date in my 20s. Now I know, they were going out with the 90 year old guys. Darned codgers, stealing all the women!

yes that was a typo. for anyone with any honest interest in actual facts, my credibility is a lot closer to home planet than you might think. again, though, please feel free to keep up the attacks. it is so much easier than focusing on the topic.

you are saying:

ratings tend to go down after 40.
therefore
age is the primary cause of ratings decline for players over 40.

this is absurd logic. there could (and are) sooooo many other causes. no one has ever done any kind of study to prove or disprove your hypothesis. representing it as fact does a disservice to the sport, the association, and to fact-based decision-making.

representing it as fact does a disservice to the sport, the association, and to fact-based decision-making.


First of all, PDGA board member Pat Brenner, I have never made the specific representation that you just formulated; and I wouldn't, in my opinion it is poorly worded.

Second of all, PDGA board member Pat Brenner, go back over my posts. I have never represented what I think is "most likely" or what is my "working conclusion" as a "fact," either. It is reprehensible, but typical, of you, to state that I have.

(Convenient how making that up lets you link me with negative phrases like: "disservice to the sport, the association, and to fact-based decision-making" though, isn't it?)

yes that was a typo. for anyone with any honest interest in actual facts, my credibility is a lot closer to home planet than you might think. again, though, please feel free to keep up the attacks. it is so much easier than focusing on the topic.


you are saying:

ratings tend to go down after 40.
therefore
age is the primary cause of ratings decline for players over 40.

this is absurd logic. there could (and are) sooooo many other causes. no one has ever done any kind of study to prove or disprove your hypothesis. representing it as fact does a disservice to the sport, the association, and to fact-based decision-making.



Com'on Pat, name one that doesn't have it's actual base in age differences. BTW - there is no personal attack here, I just disagree with you on this point. If you think about a 20 year old and a 40 year old, the only differences between them, on average, are age and age related ones. Even if you argue that it's exposure to the sun, on average an older player will have had more exposure.

amount of practice, lyle. not age related, but (probably) affects ratings.

ok, terry , how does "An age-based 50-foot difference on driving distances would definitely affect ratings." not imply you attribute the 50 foot decrease to age?

I know that age is a factor for me, but that is something I can control if I put my mind to it (and some pain pills). This is not the case for everyone over 40. I play advanced masters because I qualify, I like the friends I have made over the years, and I can be somewhat competitive. I personally believe that it is simply a matter of time, experience and practice, and I will lift my game to pro masters level, as I get older. I am going open next year for that reason. Most of the 30 something top open players played for many many years before they saw success. Not everyone is a over night success. I started PDGA tournament play a few years ago at age 40 and can now consistently drive 50-75 feet farther than I could when began and I now shoot 3 out 4 rounds between 900-950 instead of 3 out 4 below 900 at 850-899, and as such my rating is going up....

So, I somewhat agree that ups and downs in ratings is mainly skill related, not age related, but age can be a factor if one does not counter it's affects with practice and exercise, and the best equipment money can buy!.(like a jogger thingy to carry my bag)

amount of practice, lyle. not age related, but (probably) affects ratings.



So, you're willing to say that on average older players for no reason at all practice less than younger players on average? What's more, why wouldn't you say that's not age related?

i'm talking direct causes, not some sort of linkage. no, i'm not willing to say older players practice less... i have not measured it. i am however suggesting that amount of practice is an input that influences rating/skill.

ok, terry , how does "An age-based 50-foot difference on driving distances would definitely affect ratings." not imply you attribute the 50 foot decrease to age?


It does imply that I attribute such a decrease to age-related factors. But not that I believe that it is established fact.

If I had meant to state that as a fact I would have said: "The age-based 50-foot difference on driving distances definitely affects ratings." (Changing "An" to "The" and removing the "would" while changing "affect" to "affects.)

Chuck's statistics certainly support that there is an age-related 50-foot driving distance, but I did not state it as a fact. I think it probably is, and that it is likely a big reason for the ratings decline, but I've carefully refrained from stating those things as facts.

It is a fact, though, that if my wife could throw as far as I do I would have a difficult time ever outscoring her again. :D

And that if I could throw as far as my son, Ben, he would have a difficult time ever outscoring me. :D And next year I would compete at Worlds in Advanced Ams. :cool:

i'm talking direct causes, not some sort of linkage. no, i'm not willing to say older players practice less... i have not measured it. i am however suggesting that amount of practice is an input that influences rating/skill.



I agree with that hypothesis, that is old guys may practice less, but every reason I can come up with for why an older player would practice less is age related. So, I agree with the premise that the difference might be something like less practice for old guys, but I'm still going to have to say that my best guess would be that the causative agent is age. Can you come up with a none age related possibility as for why older guys might practice less?

Can you come up with a none age related possibility as for why older guys might practice less?


We're fat and lazy. :)

Hey, I resemble that remark! :eek:

given the data you have so far, its more likely that the difference is because of right-handedness than it is cuz of age.

A recent scientific study's top ten reasons:

Why old disc golfer guys don't practice much, because,

10) they are too busy working at online discussion boards
9) they are too busy nursing their latest "pulled something" injury
8) I'm just going to DFL anyway...
7) We don't need no stinking practice!
6) to busy Working
5) Driving their kids around
4) Paying the bills
3) don't feel like it going outside while judge judy is on.
2) Have a flat on there jogger bag carrier
1) Taking a nap!
:D:D:D

Can you come up with a none age related possibility as for why older guys might practice less?


We're fat and lazy. :)



Hey that works us non older guys too!


(9 years from Masters...)

Why old disc golfer guys don't practice much, because,
.
.
.
2) Have a flat on there jogger bag carrier
.
.
.


Ding! Ding! Ding! :D

given the data you have so far, its more likely that the difference is because of right-handedness than it is cuz of age.



Somewhere in here there's a joke about older guys being more conservative, i.e. to the right, but I'll leave that to Senior who wins the top 10 post of the day!

BTW - I agree with Rhett in principal, however, what if you've got one of those carts with the hard rubber wheels that won't go flat?

[QUOTE]
what if you got one of those carts with the hard rubber wheels that won't go flat?



You still can't get in much practice because your caddy only works on tuesdays.....

The Physiology of Aging as it Relates to Sports (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NHG/is_2_17/ai_n6210225) is a useful article from the American Medical Athletic Association Journal.

Summary: Although some effects of aging on athletic performance can be slowed by intensive training, there is inevitable erosion in aerobic capacity, cardiovascular function, strength, and body composition.

Also, from the Encyclopedia of Sports Medicine and Science (http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/agingex/agingex.html), the following. Note the authors' inherent acceptance of an age-related peak performance point in athletics. There is some pretty good stuff about how certain body systems decline over time, and why.

<blockquote>The age of peak athletic performance depends upon the key functional element required of the successful competitor. In events where flexibility is paramount (for example, gymnastics and brief swimming events) the top competitors are commonly adolescents. In aerobic events, performance usually peaks in the mid-twenties, as gains from prolonged training, improved mechanical skills and competitive experience are negated by decreases in maximal oxygen intake and flexibility. Because of a longer plateauing of muscle strength, performance in anaerobic events declines less steeply, and in pursuits such as golf and equitation, where experience is paramount, the best competitors are aged 30-40 years.</blockquote>
I would argue that disc golf requires more flexibility than ball golf, and that it is also more demanding of aerobic capacity.

yes, good article on the general affects of aging. it has more to do with endurance and cardio capacity than disc golf does, but does have a lot of good stuff, including the slow/fast twitch info. not much in here to suggest 40 as the Masters age cutoff tho

Finally, for this set of posts anyway, from a nifty website called SportsGeezer.com, The Long Slow Slide of Age and Performance (http://www.sportsgeezer.com/sportsgeezer/2007/02/the_long_slow_s.html).

<blockquote>It's not a bad thing, but it is a true thing: athletic performance declines with age. How much and how fast depends on a host of factors, but a handy road map of the long inevitable way down can be found in this piece in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201125.html).</blockquote>

And, here's an interesting quote from that newspaper article:

<blockquote>Athletic performance declines with age -- it's the one other thing that's inevitable besides death and taxes. But how does that happen? What is it that slips? And why is it that, sooner or later, when you try to roll the rock of physical conditioning up the hill, you can't get it as high as you once could?</blockquote>

considering the overwhelming research regarding acl reconstruction and a decrease in athletic performance, will we soon see the development of a "r-acl" division in the pdga?

Perhaps the "r-acl" organization if the BOD is serious about screwing around with the age protected divisions again!

In answer to the question posed in the quote that Terry posted. Here's what we know about aging resulting in loss of function (based on lectures I attended while still doing research). Some of this you may know but I like to waste time typing.

The world we live in is essentially poisonous. If it isn't sun rays, it's free radicals. That doesn't even count the man made garbage we live with. That poison goes through our cells and does damage. When we are young, our cells have a high ability to repair and fix themselves. That is because our DNA can code for all the tools we need to do the repairs. It's sort of like a brand new factory. As we age, the poison doesn't just damage our cells, it also damages the factory, the DNA. Over time, our ability to make the repair tools decreases and thus damage increases, i.e. we age.

What's more, even the repair mechanisms aren't perfect. Scar tissue baby! We repair, but it is not as functional as it was. Over a lifetime you lose functionality until eventually you just can't do what you used to be able to.

Now, if you accept the "fact" that aging impairs our athleticism, and if you accept that we should cut the age handicapped some slack, it isn't hard to figure out how. Chuck has told us a number of times indirectly. It's called statistics. Chuck has told us about the 10 point difference, is it per 5 years? Then you decide what is a reasonable spread that you could expect the aged to overcome and when that spread becomes to great, that's where you make your age handicapped split.

i play golf . i started playing at 38 years old. my rating is still below 900. i play in the adv mast division as im now 40. my skills have improved playing in this division. i often compete at or near dfl. when i play in the non age related division of intermediate am i dont find much chalenge there.pdga would say im allowed to play sanctiond events as an intermediate. why should i?

i play golf . i started playing at 38 years old. my rating is still below 900. i play in the adv mast division as im now 40. my skills have improved playing in this division. i often compete at or near dfl. when i play in the non age related division of intermediate am i dont find much chalenge there.pdga would say im allowed to play sanctiond events as an intermediate. why should i?


I'm in a similar boat, just been playing a bit longer...and if it's tourney points you want for a World's invite then playing Int may get you more.
I may play some Int just because I (still!) can... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif