Jerry,

As we are looking at this as an international sport (not limited to the Americas), the needs of the international community needs to be dealt with. The one thing to remember is that although the basis of the rules for the players on the PGA tour is the USGA, the PGA is a completely separate organization with some additional rules (pants vs. shorts for caddies, as an example). The same thing with the R&A for the other sanctioning bodies involving professional players.

BTW, I am not necessarily against your thought process, I just believe that with the size of the organized part of the sport at this point in time may preclude the ability to do this.

Thanks,

Steve

BIG BEG TO DIFFER HERE now on with the expert division the higher rated advanced master 935 and up is FORCED TO PLAY with 970 rated ams of most likely much younger age and obvious much more " game " , or is going to play in a protected pro division of OVER 970 rated players for the most part , cause the expert division will siphon some of those " lower masters away "




Not true. PDGA Am Master members are not forced to play anywhere else but Adv Master if it is offered, regardless of their rating. Those over 934 may play Pro Master and take merch prizes instead of cash to retain Am status. They can play Expert or they can play Open and accept merch in place of cash. That looks like four options depending on the event. Adv Masters under 935 can dodge the high rated Adv Masters if they want by playing Advanced or stay in Adv Master or even try Pro Master and win merch if they cash. These options of course are contingent on what's offered at the event and who shows up. Now what's the problem, Bill?

There is no ratings cap on the age protected divisions.

They are still the same as before, but the names were not changed to expert.

Ok maybe I misunderstood since I was just reading the summary of changes .
I dont understand however what you are saying about being able to play as an advanced master if my rating is over 935 . I thought that is a cut off to expert ???
If it is NOT then my apoligies .
If that is not a cut off then what is the 970 cutoff I read about ???

The 935 cutoff is only if you happen to be a Pro Master or GM between 935-974 trying to slide over to play Adv Master. Those players can't enter Adv Master but could enter Expert. If you are an Am, there are no ratings breaks in any of the divisions for players over age 39.

Ok so where does the 970 cutoff happen and for whom ???

No pro of any age over 974 rating can enter any Am division.
No pro over 39 with a rating from 935-974 can enter Adv Master but can enter Expert.
No pro over 49 with a rating from 900-934 can enter Adv GM but can enter Advanced or Expert.
No pro over 59 with a rating from 850-899 can enter Adv Sr. GM but can enter Int, Adv or Expert.

No pro of any age over 974 rating can enter any Am division.
No pro over 39 with a rating from 935-974 can enter Adv Master but can enter Expert.
No pro over 49 with a rating from 900-934 can enter Adv GM but can enter Advanced or Expert.
No pro over 59 with a rating from 850-899 can enter Adv Sr. GM but can enter Int, Adv or Expert.



Actually, Chuck, it would have to be called Expert Masters to get the age-protected division that has no ratings cap. Advanced Masters would have to be capped at 934, similar to how currently Int. Masters would have to be capped at 914. Basically, Adv. Masters will virtually disappear under the new system, to be replaced by something called Expert Masters.

I'm glad I didn't vote for this in committee.

Chap

John , Now I have been wrong before but IF I am getting the idea right , Expert will have NO age brakets as advanced divisions do .
EXPERT DIVISION is for those good ( over 935 rated ) but not great players , under 40 , who have in the past had no real home . They were either donaters or baggers . Now they can all compete against one another .
If what chuck says is right , Advanced master will be offered and has no cap but it might not be offered at some events .

My original complaint was that the way I originally understood the system they were making a cut at 935 for all people ( over 40 and under ) . And I want to reiterate that I am in no way agaisnt that IF there is a CUT for the pro master division also .

Chuck had made a comment in another thead about the wide spread in ratings in the advanced master division and I agree .( if i am not mistaken the low advanced masters sit about 825 ish and high ones are 960 )
HOWEVER there is just as much a dispearity in the PRO MASTER RANKS ( 875 to 1020 ) and it would be really good for a CAP there too . I really dont like when a 895 rated player over 40 , plays in advanced masters when he could play in intermediate and compete very well .
ON the flip side if there was a cap on PRO master divisions , alot of us over 40 higher rated players would step up I know it .

Basically, Adv. Masters will virtually disappear under the new system, to be replaced by something called Expert Masters.




Nope. I believe if you look at the chart for next year, all age divisions over 39 will still be called Advanced _________.
Expert and Expert Women are the only 'Experts' on the chart.

I really dont like when a 895 rated player over 40 , plays in advanced masters when he could play in intermediate and compete very well .




Just curious why you don't like it when an 895 rated +40 player plays in Adv, Master? I was checking out your past Adv. Master divisions and if that were the case your division would be made up 3 players on average? Not much of a competition. Did you ever consider that many of us lower rated Adv. Masters know that there is way less chance of being sand-bagged by a non-rated, non-member in this division (most adv. masters are current, rated players)? There is also way less bag kicking, newby types in our division (we like the mature level of play).

Just seems like a funny position to take when the majority of the events you attended had an average of only 8 players in Adv. masters, with half of them being under your standard? :confused:

Let me change what I was trying to say alittle . I was referring to a few posts on here that have changed my look on some things to a degree .
I like the fact that I have the over 40 protection for competive reasons ( lack of throwing distance compared to the younger kids )
You like the protection from the bag kickers and the like , which is fine but you have the ability to be at the top of your ability and dont do it ( which is commendable but as I have said on here some people have proved to me it is NOT WORTH IT )
There are IMPO many players who play UP in divisions when they probably should not . OR as you said there are some players like myself who should play " up " .
Being a 934 rated player I feel stuck in a position of BAG or Donate and being a human will normally choose to BAG unless the monitary loss is worth the loss . ( you can read other threads of mine about the subject if you would like )

Depending on the tourney depends on my wanting to play where . AT a PDGA event , at this time with the rules the way they are , I will play in MY division ( which is advanced masters ) , if it is offered .
I dont mind being challenged but do not want to be a donater either . I will NOT pay HUGH fees to donate to some pro 75 ratings points better then I . Unfortunatly the only other division that suits me is advanced masters and that is sometimes a wide spread in player ratings also .

I was not in the least trying to belittle a 895 rated player , if that is the way it came off I am sorry .

Actually I have and I understand now. I myself have been increasing in ability over the years and I expect to start breaking into the 900-930's by next year if I continue to improve like I have. That siad, I like the Idea of an intermidiate division that is now capped at 899. I know I will probably stay in Advanced Masters or play advanced because my rating will be at 904 by next update if my rating estimator was right.

It will be much more likely for me to cash in advanced as opposed to Adv. Masters as it has players in the high 950's in my area that dominate our division and never go pro. Now that Adv. is capped at 934, I think I have the ability to play that level and higher on average for an event and with a bigger field of experienced players I should do OK.

OH and by the way I was thinking about this and I have to differ from most people on this subject .
I dont really care how many people are in my division for one main reason . I would MUCH RATHER play against 3 people who are very close to me in playing level ( rating ) then play against 25 people who I can dominate or who can dominate me .
Another reason I dont care how many people are in MY division is cause I am an AM and dont really care about PROFIT or winning plastic .I have , as an advanced master , donated more of my winnings back to the club or the course then I can imagine .

It will be much more likely for me to cash in advanced as opposed to Adv. Masters as it has players in the high 950's in my area that dominate our division and never go pro .

I can almost guarentee the reason that is is cause the 950 rated player stands viturally no chance against the 3-5 1000 rated pro masters in your area and the advanced masters have no where to go .
I agree with you it is not fair to you to have to compete against those 950 rated players either .
The whole solution to the problem is to CAP all divisions except for OPEN and cap the divisions based upon tier levels .
Will this ever happen , NO we all know it but it should .

Basically, Adv. Masters will virtually disappear under the new system, to be replaced by something called Expert Masters.




Nope. I believe if you look at the chart for next year, all age divisions over 39 will still be called Advanced _________.
Expert and Expert Women are the only 'Experts' on the chart.



Wow, I'm now REALLY glad I didn't vote for this in committee in the hastily called teleconference where it was voted on by barely a quorum (if that). I can't believe the BoD actually approved this. The top division should consistently named all the way across the age/gender divisions, whatever you feel like calling them.

"Enthusiast" actually sounds a lot like the word "Ecdysiast". Now that would be an interesting division, but I think the player ratings system would go under some adjustments to make that work. :eek:

Chap

The top division should consistently named all the way across the age/gender divisions, whatever you feel like calling them.




They still are. Expert is not the same as the age/gender divisions since it's open to both genders and all ages plus pros under 975 ratings. In fact, as others have pointed out, only pros with ratings over 974 can't play Expert. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Advanced
Intermediate
Novice
Recreational

Discette is a voice of reason again.

The top division should consistently named all the way across the age/gender divisions, whatever you feel like calling them.




They still are. Expert is not the same as the age/gender divisions since it's open to both genders and all ages plus pros under 975 ratings. In fact, as others have pointed out, only pros with ratings over 974 can't play Expert. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



The top amateur men's division is "Expert"

The top amateur masters-age division is "Advanced"

Any other logic can be confusing, whether intentional or otherwise. Let's keep it as simple as possbile.

That's not consistent all the way across the top throughout the age/gender divisions, as I have just shown.

By the way, the current Advanced Men's divsion is open to all amateur players (regardless of age or gender), and all pro players rated 954 or lower. Yet we still have an Advanced Masters division.

Chap

Maybe for 2009 we can leave the divisions alone and work on the names.

I am an Advanced Master Amateur, and yet my game is not advanced, nor have I mastered it, nor am I really an amateur.

dont have time to read all 27 pages, but what are Am Worlds going to be like next year? Expert and Jr. divisions, or Expert, Advanced, and Jr. divisions?

If the line for Intermediate had moved up from 915 to 935, you wouldn't be asking this question. But it did and the division was renamed Advanced.My guess is just like this year, an unrestricted Am division (aka Expert), plus the usual gender and age protected Am divisions.

1. points are meaningless
2. eh, whatever (no point in sanctioning charity events anyway)
3. flexibility=yes, but i could see this leading to serious controversy over payouts
4. & 5. eh, whatever (this probably affects less than 5% of all events)
6. more divisions = stupid, division name changes = retarded
7. worst decision ever: I really hope an Am (waiting for Am worlds before he goes pro) cashes really well at an A-tier or major and gets a voucher for like $1,000 in merch so that there is no merch for anyone else to pick from just to show how stupid this decision is.
8. eh, whatever



Your use of the bold word above is offensive.

Stop me if this has been brought up before but what will happen with Worlds? Will there just be a '2008 PDGA Amateur Disc Golf World Championships Expert' winner (for each division of course)?

Sorry, double post.

Stop me if this has been brought up before but what will happen with Worlds? Will there just be a '2008 PDGA Amateur Disc Golf World Championships Expert' winner (for each division of course)?

Dude, just read back two posts. :D

expert is the new advanced

1. points are meaningless
2. eh, whatever (no point in sanctioning charity events anyway)
3. flexibility=yes, but i could see this leading to serious controversy over payouts
4. & 5. eh, whatever (this probably affects less than 5% of all events)
6. more divisions = stupid, division name changes = retarded
7. worst decision ever: I really hope an Am (waiting for Am worlds before he goes pro) cashes really well at an A-tier or major and gets a voucher for like $1,000 in merch so that there is no merch for anyone else to pick from just to show how stupid this decision is.
8. eh, whatever



Your use of the bold word above is offensive.


If you feel that way, then you should notify the moderators.

1. points are meaningless
2. eh, whatever (no point in sanctioning charity events anyway)
3. flexibility=yes, but i could see this leading to serious controversy over payouts
4. & 5. eh, whatever (this probably affects less than 5% of all events)
6. more divisions = stupid, division name changes = retarded
7. worst decision ever: I really hope an Am (waiting for Am worlds before he goes pro) cashes really well at an A-tier or major and gets a voucher for like $1,000 in merch so that there is no merch for anyone else to pick from just to show how stupid this decision is.
8. eh, whatever



Your use of the bold word above is offensive.


second

1. points are meaningless
2. eh, whatever (no point in sanctioning charity events anyway)
3. flexibility=yes, but i could see this leading to serious controversy over payouts
4. & 5. eh, whatever (this probably affects less than 5% of all events)
6. more divisions = stupid, division name changes = retarded
7. worst decision ever: I really hope an Am (waiting for Am worlds before he goes pro) cashes really well at an A-tier or major and gets a voucher for like $1,000 in merch so that there is no merch for anyone else to pick from just to show how stupid this decision is.
8. eh, whatever



Your use of the bold word above is offensive.


second


If you feel that way, then you should notify the moderators.

When used as a noun, this word is often offensive and is a slang term for those with a mental handicap. When used as a verb or adverb, it means relatively slow.

Let me use it in a sentence for you-- While admiring his player rating history, Whorley noticed that his progress had become stagnant and retarded.

BTW I notified the monitor. Thanks for the suggestion.

Thanks for the English lesson. I think most people knew that already.

(btw, if your example was a jab at me, you see what happens to your rating when you tear a knee ligament)

Here's where the changes will cause some upset stomachs. Mine anyway. I've been planning for the '08 Am Crosstown. Since the division changes were announced I've had a hard look at the ratings from our last two.

I can't tell if Expert will have much turnout.

Historically, Adv. Men (the uppermost men's am division) always was the largest followed by Int., Men's Masters and Adv. Women. However, redoing the divisions with the new rating breaks the Crosstown may look like this. (all men's divisions combined. No women added in)

"06=what divisional numbers were. '08= what '06 would (could) have looked like with the new ratings breaks.
'07= "" '08= ""

'06
Adv 57
Mast. 10
Int. 17

'08
Exp 26
Adv 62

'07
Adv 58
Mast 9
Int 41

'08
Exp 25
Adv 80

If Expert (Pro 2, again?) Is to be the elite am. division, will it be hurt by smaller fields?

I will only have about five event in this area before the Am Crosstown to see how (and with whom) the new divisions fill. We will probably have to go to a Friday check-in so we can tell the players what course they will be playing the next day.

My stomach hurts...

Craig

You will still have an Am Masters ("Advanced Masters") in 2008, reducing your Advanced fields.

Any reason you wouldn't offer the lower AM divisions? You could even offer only Expert and Intermediate (<900) if you wanted to keep your upper am division larger.

what if TDs could set their own ratings boundaries for their event? theres nothing wrong with the pdga setting division boundary standards, and there is nothing fundamentally inconsistent with allowing TDs to tune ratings events for their market

I feel the need to break my silence. Chuck and Chap have voiced many of their opinions and have taken a lot of abuse.

I am one of the members of the much-maligned Competition Committee. I'm not a new kid on the block. I've been involved with Disc Sports for 33 years.

I think the volume of discussion, especially with the wide range of suggestions about what divisional structuring would be "best", speaks for the difficult task we had as a Committee.

The difficult task we have / had was to come up with the "best" structure. Define "best" please. Best for which level of player? Best for which agenda? Even if we were able to define best for a given level of player we have read numerous opinions about what structure would work best.

In my opinion we have a great group of passionate Disc people on this committee, with various degrees of experience and of various ages and skill levels.

I don't see that there is a divisional structuring system that will appease an overwhelming portion of the Disc Golf membership. There are a ridiculous number of perspective permutations.

One thing I feel very strongly about is that as long as the overwhelming majority of Open division payouts come from the entry fees themselves, or from sponsors within the existing Disc Golf community, I have a difficult time understanding how and why lesser-skilled players should continue to fund the Open division. If you're an Open division player you can definitely make many of the arguments Mr. Gangloff has presented. Pony up and the heck with all these divisions that attempt to offer customer service to those unwilling to play with the big boys (Sorry if the paraphrasing wasn't quite 100% accurate). If you're a lesser-skilled player that defines competition as playing against players relatively close in skill level to you and you view a tournament as a chance to play a fun event that brings lightness to your life and you travel and see friends then I understand your perspective as well. These two perspectives are completely at odds with each other.

When we begin to reach these two perspectives from the top down and the bottom up many of the disparate opinions will be minimized. When your child comes home from school after an E.D.G.E. presentation in gym class, and your cousin's kid has the same experience 10 states away, and multi-million-dollar "XYZ" company builds a course on their corporate campus and sees the promotional value associated with sponsoring the local A-Tier or NT and 5-digit payouts for first place start happening it'll make structure decisions more clear-cut. At that point the B-Tiers and C-Tiers may not be as appealing to the 7% of Pro players with 980+ ratings (or whatever the statistic is) and there'll be a home for multiple divisions of Amateurs. And those 980+ players won't need to have those Amateurs populate the Open division in A-Tiers and NT's because their dollars won't make a significant difference at that point as far as boosting the pro payouts.

Until that time I think we'll continue to have these huge differences in opinion. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference what structuring we come up with. This is Disc Golf. It should be fun. No matter our opinions we're all taking time in our lives to voice an opinion about a common passion.

Go for grins. Fondle Plastic.

Dan Doyle
Warwick, NY

what if TDs could set their own ratings boundaries for their event? theres nothing wrong with the pdga setting division boundary standards, and there is nothing fundamentally inconsistent with allowing TDs to tune ratings events for their market



Wouldn't doing so affect points awarded for Worlds invites?

I apologize if this has already been answered...I did a quick browse through (and the search function was useless as usual).

What will the new division codes be for Expert and Enthusiast? Will MA1 transition from advanced to Expert, MA2 to Advanced, MA3 to Intermediate, and a new MA4 to Enthusiast?

Or will Advanced and Intermediate remain the same with MA4 and MA5 going to Expert and Enthusiast?

It seems like the first option may mess up the historical records if a player was previously associated with MA1 as advanced...or maybe the player's scores are associated with a division, not just a division code. I know it's not a huge issue, but I've been learning database structure and was wondering how that would be handled.

Thx

DH

Having TDs set their own ratings boundaries is really unnecessary. Besides points, you no longer know what advanced or intermediate divisions mean. Are you a Michigan intermediate player or a Illinois advanced player. Or maybe you're in Indiana and it varies by county and which timezone you are participating in. Ugh. There's really no value to it.

There are some things best left to the TDs and there are just a couple of things that the PDGA dictates. Rules and divisions are a good thing to dictate as part of sanctioning.

David- We will continue Adv. Masters. I put them into the mix since the 10 of them are only a blip divisionally.

Krupicka- We could have only Expert and Int. That would almost be like this year's divisions. That would be easier. I want to offer the uppermost Am divisions only.

I don't mind change, I just don't have much time to determine what the changes will mean. The Am Crosstown in early March and there are not many (certainly not many am only events) in Jan. and Feb.
In 2009 I'll know what the changes mean.

I believe the divisional changes will shake out like this.
Old system- average Pro/Am field: Open- not so big, Adv.- bigger, Int.- not so big.
Old system- Am only: Adv- big, Int.- not so big, Others- not so big (for the Am Crosstown anyway)
New ratting breaks: (Am. only) Expert- not so big, Adv.- bigger, others- not so big

Dan- Was a (potentially) smaller "elite" division of upper ranked Ams and lower ranked Pros the idea behind the making the top Am divisions rating break 935+ ?
I am not looking to beat up any of the Comp. Comm., but I think that many of us (certainly the TD's) would like to know what the Committee wanted to see as an end result.

It will be interesting to see how it shake out.

Craig

So which division has the worst name? Enthusiast or Expert?

Enthusiast. Recreational was fine.

Enthusiast. Recreational was fine.

I agree with that and it is a lame name but expert may be worse due to the fact that they aren't freaken experts. :confused:

All of the Am names. For simplicity, names could match the PDGA skill level colors for which tees have already been identified. Blue, White, Red and Green. I you're a White division player on a Blue course, you'll have a tougher time shooting par than on a Red level course. How much easier could it be for players in the long run, especially newcomers, to know that our division skills tie directly to how courses are designed? You go to a course and know what to expect in terms of challenge based on the sets of tee colors there. Colors have no misleading connotations like Rec or Novice for those who have been at that level for a long time.

All of the Am names. For simplicity, names could match the PDGA skill level colors for which tees have already been identified. Blue, White, Red and Green. I you're a White division player on a Blue course, you'll have a tougher time shooting par than on a Red level course. How much easier could it be for players in the long run, especially newcomers, to know that our division skills tie directly to how courses are designed? You go to a course and know what to expect in terms of challenge based on the sets of tee colors there. Colors have no misleading connotations like Rec or Novice for those who have been at that level for a long time.



Speaks the man who brought expert to the game. I wonder how many experts will beat me at the next event. I hope the majority of them do because they are experts right?

Is it too late to make that change? I prefer the color coding to the new division names.

I hope the majority of them do because they are experts right?




Not to be immodest but as a regular teacher of new players, I feel I'm seen as an "expert" by many despite my rating of 946 which is in the range for that division. Maybe once players get past the 935 mark, they need to get trained as EDGE instructors to qualify as experts?

Is it too late to make that change? I prefer the color coding to the new division names.




Too late for 2008. I'm just potentially gathering support for a push toward those names in the future. It's been my thought all along since we established the player skill levels and matching tee colors several years ago that it made sense to eventually tie it all together with the division names also matching and unify the whole structure to make it easy to understand both inside and outside the sport.

I agree. It would make more sense to tie the divisions to colors. And, the division breaks would follow the ratings breaks?....no age protection?

what if TDs could set their own ratings boundaries for their event? theres nothing wrong with the pdga setting division boundary standards, and there is nothing fundamentally inconsistent with allowing TDs to tune ratings events for their market



Wouldn't doing so affect points awarded for Worlds invites?

do points really matter? i'm tired of hearing "points" as the reason some ideas cant be tried. its like one program that serves no purpose is preventing other programs that might.

color names are lame also, cuz a) they mean nothing inherently, and b) as we've seen this year, the color boundaries get changed. AM1, AM2, etc.

believe it or not, one of the reasons given for the name changes was that "recreational" just wasnt cutting it. just goes to show that what makes sense to one is silly to another.

color names are lame also, cuz a) they mean nothing inherently,



Of course, that is EXACTLY the point isn't it? Neutral associations interlinked with other elements of the sport, rather than potentially less desireable connotations with no connection.

/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

color names are lame also, cuz a) they mean nothing inherently,



Of course, that is EXACTLY the point isn't it? Neutral associations interlinked with other elements of the sport, rather than potentially less desireable connotations with no connection.



Chuck and I have had this argument ad nauseum, and neither one of us is going to budge on it, so I'll only say this, and leave it at that.

Chromatic divisions do not imply a hierarchy. It is difficult for a new person or an outsider to know what division is what by using colors. That's why I prefer descriptive names.

Also, Chuck is attempting to fit the competition system around what he's doing with course design. That's one big reason why he wants colors. While those two ideas influence each other to a point, I don't believe they don't fit together real neatly, either.

Chap

Orienteering is a related sport considering that their courses need to be designed and players compete in different age and skill levels. They have been around as sport about three times as long as DG and have adopted colors as an internationally sensible way that doesn't require language to define both their course skill levels and their skill based divisions. Their colors have no natural hierarchy. Guess what the division order is among these: Red, Blue, White, Green, Brown, Orange?

http://empo.us.orienteering.org/publications/obasics/o-courses.shtml

Of course orienteering is referred to as a thinking person's sport sometimes called "cunning running." I'd like to think players in our sport of comparable intelligence to orienteers could handle division and course layout colors interlinked with our own hierarchy.

i think we should just adopt the rainbow flag as the official flag of our divisional structure :)

Why not return to skill classification names linked to the old IFA skill tests. Pass the skill test - that's your division for competitive play. I don't recall the exact list - but it was something along the lines of Grandmaster, Master, Expert, etc. Anybody have any old IFA reference material? I think tieing skill based divisions to actual skill classifications via passing a skills test is more realistic than tieing it to courses via colored tees - as there are very few courses actually accommodating that scenario - or if they are they are not doing it in a consistent fashion.

i think we should just adopt the rainbow flag as the official flag of our divisional structure :)


Yeah, unfortunately, there aren't enough colors in the rainbow to cover all our divisions. However, it would represent another aspect of our division structure.

passing a skills test is more realistic than tieing it to courses via colored tees - as there are very few courses actually accommodating that scenario - or if they are they are not doing it in a consistent fashion.




Consistent tee design by skill and color coding is part of your responsibility to pursue in your area when the opportunities become available for upgrading and/or new courses. It's going to take time but the guidelines are there and more and more designers are getting on the bandwagon to follow them. What you might not realize is that Park Depts have been reading those guidelines and are using them in many cases for course and sign graphics without designer or club involvement.

Even if we would eventually have eight player skill levels but retain only four skill levels defined for tees, colors are still a more internationally recognized and communicated way for identification that doesn't require language and allows for representative graphics to be used for scorecards, leader cards and signs to enforce the connection. Orienteering has more divisional skill colors than the number of course layouts at a competition.

do points really matter? i'm tired of hearing "points" as the reason some ideas cant be tried. its like one program that serves no purpose is preventing other programs that might.



I have previously proposed that we do away with the points system. I think it would free us up a lot. But you asked what the drawbacks would be and, since we're still using the points system, this would be one drawback of allowing TDs to determine division threshholds.

chuck , as long as there is any chance that the skill levels of each color can change, its risky to design to color-skill level. what was Blue last year is not Blue next year. try explaining that to someone who spent hard earned cash on designing according to the numbers :(

passing a skills test is more realistic than tieing it to courses via colored tees - as there are very few courses actually accommodating that scenario - or if they are they are not doing it in a consistent fashion.




Consistent tee design by skill and color coding is part of your responsibility to pursue in your area when the opportunities become available for upgrading and/or new courses. It's going to take time but the guidelines are there and more and more designers are getting on the bandwagon to follow them. What you might not realize is that Park Depts have been reading those guidelines and are using them in many cases for course and sign graphics without designer or club involvement.

Even if we would eventually have eight player skill levels but retain only four skill levels defined for tees, colors are still a more internationally recognized and communicated way for identification that doesn't require language and allows for representative graphics to be used for scorecards, leader cards and signs to enforce the connection. Orienteering has more divisional skill colors than the number of course layouts at a competition.



I've got no problem with using colors as a course design standard. red white blue gold? - We're even doing this for the redesign at Seneca. I doubt we'll have gold tees - and it'll take some time before the blue tees are in. But the reality is that some 1000+ course (or more) don't currently have colored tees either properly marked - or have them "correspond" to the skill level intended to be conveyed by the color.

Are you advocating perhaps only that many skill divisions for sanctioned competition (4)? Not likely. From that standpoint - having divisional names correspond to skill level works as well as colors. Desiring a heirarchy in a naming system is neither unusual or inappropriate.

The skill level groups have not significantly changed since we started. The bottom of the top am division has bounced from 925 to 915 to now 935. Course design is not so precise that it can differentiate between 10-20 pts. 50 pts though is a large enough difference with 5.4 shots per round or more as courses get longer and 0.33 shots per hole or more. A 10 rating pt shift falls in the 0.06-0.08 range per hole which is mostly insignificant.

The 40-50 pt ranges we have for our divisions is one of those parameters that is pretty fixed for our sport. That's the range where the lowest rated player in the division still has a shot to cash enough to hopefully not be discouraged. I'm not sure I see a reason that would drive the PDGA to narrow the ratings ranges any further since there's a counter force not to make more divisions than are necessary competitively, at least for the spine of our competitive ladder.

Remember that even though our main am sequence might have divisions with 35-50 pt ranges that shift every so often, there are other divisions like Adv Master and Adv Women that provide players in the 50-pt ranges we have identified for course design tee colors. They will still be there regardless how the ratings breaks slide around for the main am divisions.

Are you advocating perhaps only that many skill divisions for sanctioned competition (4)?



Certainly for ratings events should TDs plan to run them next year now that it's easier to do.


Desiring a heirarchy in a naming system is neither unusual or inappropriate.



Here's the other benefit of the colors. We use our (male) Am divisions as places for players in our gender and age divisons to play when they don't have enough players or choose to do so. Many Adv Masters have the ratings to play Advanced. Most Adv Women and Sr. Grands barely have the ratings to be competitive in Rec. If they were playing in color divisions, it would be less of a constant psychological stepdown for our women and older groups. You might consider it a small matter. But small matters can make the diference in member satisfaction, participation and renewals. Ask any customer service rep or even marriage counselor and the seemingly little things usually turn out to be the pivotal things in the end.

Hierarchal words in English may not be as easily translatable into other languages nor have the equivalent meanings. Colors work everywhere although we know they have different connotations in some cultures.

Hierarchal words in English may not be as easily translatable into other languages nor have the equivalent meanings. Colors work everywhere although we know they have different connotations in some cultures.



We're talking mainly about words that have been used before, and our smart European counterparts have wonderfully translated the Rules Book into many languages. I'm sure they could handle our current hierarchical words just fine.

What do they call the different divisions now? And what have they been calling them for the last 10 years?

i think we should just adopt the rainbow flag as the official flag of our divisional structure :)


Yeah, unfortunately, there aren't enough colors in the rainbow to cover all our divisions. However, it would represent another aspect of our division structure.



I think we would be covered (http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_colornames.asp)

Why not return to skill classification names linked to the old IFA skill tests. Pass the skill test - that's your division for competitive play. I don't recall the exact list - but it was something along the lines of Grandmaster, Master, Expert, etc. Anybody have any old IFA reference material? I think tieing skill based divisions to actual skill classifications via passing a skills test is more realistic than tieing it to courses via colored tees - as there are very few courses actually accommodating that scenario - or if they are they are not doing it in a consistent fashion.



Craiger.

The IFA levels were:

Expert
Master
World Class Master

I only got to Master, but Lavone Wolfe, Tom Monroe, Victor M, Kirkland, et al, were WCMs.

Our hierarchal skill levels are already messed up unless you think an Open player sounds better than a Master who sounds better than Grandmaster, etc.

It could be worse...we could have weight-segregated divisions like "Clydesdale" or "Featherweight."

It could be worse...we could have weight-segregated divisions like "Clydesdale" or "Featherweight."



Hey, one classification system I can consistantly keep climbing upward!

Hummingbird and Hippo at opposite ends???

Our hierarchal skill levels are already messed up unless you think an Open player sounds better than a Master who sounds better than Grandmaster, etc.



Open does sound like the best players to me. Open to all players.

I agree with you on the Masters and Grandmasters, but I think we're probably stuck with that nomenclature. FWIW, swimming uses the term "Masters" as an age distinction as well, but it's basically for all swimmers 18 and over, to distinguish it from youth age-group swimming.

It seems to me that this is y'alls chance to get it right. Why pay homage to existing names, if we can think of better? Colors don't cut it, imo. Other than black, I still can't remember the the ladder of belt colors in tae kwon do. Again, what is wrong with a numbering system? Numbers are universal, easy to recall and most importantly, a numbering basis easily conveys meaning.

It seems to me that this is y'alls chance to get it right. Why pay homage to existing names, if we can think of better? Colors don't cut it, imo. Other than black, I still can't remember the the ladder of belt colors in tae kwon do. Again, what is wrong with a numbering system? Numbers are universal, easy to recall and most importantly, a numbering basis easily conveys meaning.



Hear Hear!

It seems to me that this is y'alls chance to get it right. Why pay homage to existing names, if we can think of better? Colors don't cut it, imo. Other than black, I still can't remember the the ladder of belt colors in tae kwon do. Again, what is wrong with a numbering system? Numbers are universal, easy to recall and most importantly, a numbering basis easily conveys meaning.



We're actually talking about going with Am1, Am2, Am3, and Am4 (or A1, A2, A3, A4) to go along with the descriptive names....the terms could be used interchangably. I agree, the numbers work for me.


And you can find your tae kwon do belt system here:

Tae Kwon Do Belt System (http://www.natkd.com/belt_system.htm)

If TDs generally think using numbers rather than names makes more sense in promoting their tournament, there is nothing to stop them from doing so. I suspect the Illinois Open Series will use numbers next year. The TD report uses numbers.

I think we're going to call Am 1, "Am 1," and Am 4, "Am 4." Enthusiast is too long to fit on the trophy.

colors and numbers
<font color="orange">G1 </font> Open
<font color="blue"> B2 </font> Expert or whatever?
<font color="white"> W3 </font> Intermediate
<font color="red"> R4 </font> Rec or mavin, or dillitante, or devote, or even enthusiast

Chap,

Of minor importance, but different organizations have different corresponding belts. As an example, this is the rankings for within the dojo I attend:

White
Yellow
Purple
High Purple
Green
High Green
Brown
High Brown
Red
High Red
Black

Stenky

I seem to remember a "tape" system as well. I remember, when I was a brown belt, no tape meant low brown, and (i think) 1 piece of white tape meant brown, and 2 pieces meant high brown? Maybe. Or maybe it was brown and high brown (white tape).

My opinion ... I haven't really seen any players that are in support of the change, maybe there are a few, but not very many. Most people think it is a bad idea that will result in smaller fields. It sounds like the PDGA is pulling a Bush and just doing what they want without regard for what the public wants.

It sounds like the PDGA is pulling a Bush and just doing what they want without regard for what the public wants.


More analogous than you think. One man making decisions with no clue of what the public really wants.

Most people think it is a bad idea that will result in smaller fields.



The naysayers have the option to flood the Expert division with everyone playing up so it's as big as the Advanced division was this year. However, if players stay in their divisions and don't move up, it looks like the adjustments were appropriate. Players vote with their actual choices not their posts. We expect some will play up and some will remain where their rating is currently located.

The ratings break changes can't be "wrong" because we don't force players to stay within their rating ranges and we also allow TDs to selectively not offer divisions if they feel we either made a mistake or the thin distibution of players in their area means divisions need to be combined. The beauty of the system is that players may play up that feel they can handle the challenge and those whose skills have leveled out or stabilized can remain in the division where they are competitive. The only losers with the changes are some "predators" that want more lower level competitors forced to contribute to their purse.

Predators. :confused:

This spin could only arise from a highly slanted and inconsistent viewpoint. The slant is obvious. The inconsistency is that your continued creation of more artificial ecosystems produces way more "predators per event" than existed in the previous system. To further add to the unnaturalness of it all, the redrawing of divisional boundaries, or change in individual ratings instantly changes prey to predators or predators to prey.

James, you beat me to the punch. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Chuck, I suppose in your view Climo would be the ultimate predator in the sport?

Chuck, I suppose in your view Climo would be the ultimate predator in the sport?



No. Because Climo is one of those who can truly operate as a pro in this sport like a handful of others. He gets paid primarily based on sponsor contributions to events, being sponsored by Innova and royalties on his signature discs. That's true pro income that doesn't require predation of your buddies' entry fees and money added by the TD by any means other than outside sponsorship.

My comments above were also focused on amateur competition. Both you and James should recognize that dividing ams into appropriate skill divisions can reduce large payouts. And payouts in your world should not even happen in amateur competition so the term predator wouldn't even be needed since players would be competing for compeition's sake and not for significant payouts. Unless of course the gold medals were really made of gold and could getcashed out on eBay.

Players vote with their actual choices not their posts.


Great thinking. Players will vote on what they like best based on what you tell them they can choose from.
A: You can choose Vanilla or Chocolate.
B: But I don't like either.
A: Oh well, those are your choices.
B: OK, chocolate.
A: See, I told you they prefer Chocolate. And now we have evidence to support it.

Brilliant! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Chap,

Of minor importance, but different organizations have different corresponding belts. As an example, this is the rankings for within the dojo I attend:

White
Yellow
Purple
High Purple
Green
High Green
Brown
High Brown
Red
High Red
Black

Stenky



No problem...I have no martial arts training. That's just something I found in a 5-second Google search.

Great thinking. Players will vote on what they like best based on what you tell them they can choose from.





Tell me where TDs and players don't have a wide range of choices? If all Ams wanted to play with all ams, they can do it. Ams are allowed to play with pros any time and now win merch. If older Ams and women in small divisions want or need to play in a bigger one, they can play pro or play with younger players at their rating level.

I think what you are looking for is for the PDGA to force members so they don't even have the choices of Chocolate and Vanilla, not more choices...

So then this has still yet to be voted on!?!

Only with your dollars by what division(s) you enter in 2008.

Chap,

Of minor importance, but different organizations have different corresponding belts. As an example, this is the rankings for within the dojo I attend:

White
Yellow
Purple
High Purple
Green
High Green
Brown
High Brown
Red
High Red
Black

Stenky

I don't think disc golf needs high divisions.

On the chocolate versus vanilla thing, you can get tuti-fruity, tin roof, and neopolitan at unsanctioned tournaments. If the PDGA were to do stuff that truly did not work for its players, they'd play unsanctioned tournaments that offered what they want.

Meanwhile, anyone remember Pros-Playing-Am? That was the end of disc golf as we know it, according to the change-averse message board posters. Two years later, has it had any real impact? None at the tournaments I play.

are you saying that any action taken by the PDGA is unlikely to produce much of a tangible result?


If the PDGA were to do stuff that truly did not work for its players, they'd play unsanctioned tournaments that offered what they want.

i play in about 100 unsanctioned events every year, but only 4-15 sanctioned events. many players are the same. (i'd say most, but i cant back it with actual data, just observations.) in SN and MSDGC land, most players ONLY play in unsanctioned events. the 800 events we sanction are impressive indeed, but not anywhere near the overall marketshare that some would have us believe.

I average about 70% unsanctioned/30% sanctioned each year since I became an active tournament golfer. Unsanctioned tounaments are mostly one-day fun events where stats are limited to specific geograhic areas. I have been playing for the past 5 years in a unsanctioned series that has alot going for it. But I still participate in the PDGA events. One thing that attracts me to the sanctioned events is the ratings, the excellent competition level, adhereance to the rules, and the tour stats that are compared on an international level. I also strive to earn an invatation to Worlds... Most unsanctioned events always use the PDGA as the standard to live up to. Rules, format etc.. These are things that the disc golf community takes directly from the history and ongoing competition structure set by the PDGA and it's members....

are you saying that any action taken by the PDGA is unlikely to produce much of a tangible result?


If the PDGA were to do stuff that truly did not work for its players, they'd play unsanctioned tournaments that offered what they want.

i play in about 100 unsanctioned events every year, but only 4-15 sanctioned events. many players are the same. (i'd say most, but i cant back it with actual data, just observations.) in SN and MSDGC land, most players ONLY play in unsanctioned events. the 800 events we sanction are impressive indeed, but not anywhere near the overall marketshare that some would have us believe.



Sandals, out of those 100 unsanctioned events, how many of those are more than one round. I don't think 1-round minis, weeklies, and monthlies are comparible to a 2 round or more tournament. I don't see those as events in competition with each other.

true Lou, few were two. mission statement points #4 and 2 do bring those events into the PDGA's view.

Great thinking. Players will vote on what they like best based on what you tell them they can choose from.





Tell me where TDs and players don't have a wide range of choices? If all Ams wanted to play with all ams, they can do it. Ams are allowed to play with pros any time and now win merch. If older Ams and women in small divisions want or need to play in a bigger one, they can play pro or play with younger players at their rating level.

I think what you are looking for is for the PDGA to force members so they don't even have the choices of Chocolate and Vanilla, not more choices...


More choices does not necessarily equal better choices.

....Just look at the upcoming presidential elections....lots of choices, no good ones.

....Just look at any presidential election....lots of choices, no good ones.



Fixed.

:)

More choices does not necessarily equal better choices.



No player has worse choices and many have better choices. Some Ams may earn lower payouts, which for some, even having Am &amp; payout in the same sentence is oxymoronic anyway. Open may be slightly larger in some areas and not likely smaller despite what some "Chicken McLittles" may think. Explain otherwise.

I have read all the talk and discussed it as well so I thought I would do a little number checking. Now while using Bowling Green Am as a base may not be the norm as we have higher numbers and the change probably will effect smaller tourneys more I do believe it still gives the competitive side of the story.

The new system would cut the advanced field in half but it would allow for 2 champions instead of just one and as you will see with the numbers below that would probably make more players happy.

Based on current ratings if the same players came here the breakdown would go as follows:
Expert - 167
Adv - 212
Int - 160 &lt; 204 actually as I wouldn't offer the enthusiast
Eth - 44

I as a TD would look at what I want for the players and my event and offer the divisions that would best draw them. If all 4 is your cup of tea then I say go for it. I do believe most events will offer the top 2 or 3. If players are really in it for the competition and not the prizes then they should play where they think they can win instead of where the bigger number of players are.

The question I would have is there going to be a bumping rule in other words if you have max 90 players per division and one is a 930 rated player signed up as expert and you have a player sign-up that would have to play expert in order to play should they have the right to knock out the lower rated player. I know this will come up at events somewhere. It might be advanced versus intermediate more than expert but you can see the point.

Larry, I really think you may see the Adv and Exp numbers almost equal with players playing up like they do now. No bump rule is officially available. First come, first served. If some 935+ players don't get in, remember they can also play for merch in Open this year. Some might find that a more attractive option anyway to get better scheduling and maybe play with the top pros in the first round. Heck, maybe some in your area will play both weekends.

OK stupid question but, that's normal right?

Will the new class divisions adopted change the following;

"Turning Pro
A player relinquishes amateur status by registering in a professional division with the PDGA, or by competing in a professional
division at a PDGA Tour event and accepting prize money (cash) based on place of finish. A player also relinquishes amateur
status by accepting prizes in lieu of prize money (cash) for placing in a professional division at a PDGA event."

Allowing for an Adv or Exp to cash in the Open division of any event, does this classify them as a Pro Player for the rest of the 2008 season?

if they take cash, yes. if they take the cash equivalent in plastic or other stuff, no.

Will the new class divisions adopted change the following;



Yes. That definition will have to be updated.

...been out of town for a few days...

And payouts in your world should not even happen in amateur competition so the term predator wouldn't even be needed since players would be competing for compeition's sake and not for significant payouts


...so it would seem that you do, in fact, understand my basic point of view (I cannot speak for James) or at least this much of it. What I can't understand is why anyone would even want a system that, in practice, pays amateurs. To me, this is obstacle #1 for the PDGA. It is the principle of the thing. It is as plain as the nose on your face--it is black and white. Why does the PROFESSIONAL disc golf association condone paying amateurs for their efforts on the course? I just don't get it. Subjective truth is believing our sport knows the difference between the meanings of the words amateur and professional.

Most of our players who play for cash are not professionals in the traditional sense (i.e. making their living from outside sponsor or spectator money). With our amateurs receiving large merch prizes our Ams are not like traditional ams. However, our model that has evolved has worked from a financial standpoint to grow organized competitions and allow non-pros to play for cash and non-ams to play for merch with most being happy to do so including TDs and clubs willing to run events under this model. So what if our sport has become successful with this model versus traditional definitions? It seems to be working.

The traditional pro-am model has had minimal success regardless of efforts to try it. We do not yet have traditional am league competitions within more than handful of school systems (I don't know of any but I'm hopeful there are some). We do not yet have enough spectatorship that could result in more significant outside sponsorship to support pros. The claim by some that it's the fault of the PDGA to not have forced this to happen belies the efforts of many local players and promoters along these lines, but still finding limited success.

The PDGA sets the table with a buffet of competitive options. But TDs and promoters drive the sport into the future based on what works for them and their player base. If it was easy to get spectators, charge fees to watch and easily acquire outside sponship, they would be doing it. It's not that people aren't trying. If it was easy to get leagues going in the schools, it would be happening but it's going slow. Hopefully EDGE will make this easier at some point but that could be years away. In the mean time, the naysayers should try to enjoy what we have and work to change things if possible at their local level because that's where it will happen, just like our current system evolved from local efforts, not some PDGA master plan hatched twenty years ago.

Most of our players who play for cash are not professionals in the traditional sense (i.e. making their living from outside sponsor or spectator money). With our amateurs receiving large merch prizes our Ams are not like traditional ams. However, our model that has evolved has worked from a financial standpoint to grow organized competitions and allow non-pros to play for cash and non-ams to play for merch with most being happy to do so including TDs and clubs willing to run events under this model. So what if our sport has become successful with this model versus traditional definitions? It seems to be working.

The traditional pro-am model has had minimal success regardless of efforts to try it. We do not yet have traditional am league competitions within more than handful of school systems (I don't know of any but I'm hopeful there are some). We do not yet have enough spectatorship that could result in more significant outside sponsorship to support pros. The claim by some that it's the fault of the PDGA to not have forced this to happen belies the efforts of many local players and promoters along these lines, but still finding limited success.

The PDGA sets the table with a buffet of competitive options. But TDs and promoters drive the sport into the future based on what works for them and their player base. If it was easy to get spectators, charge fees to watch and easily acquire outside sponship, they would be doing it. It's not that people aren't trying. If it was easy to get leagues going in the schools, it would be happening but it's going slow. Hopefully EDGE will make this easier at some point but that could be years away. In the mean time, the naysayers should try to enjoy what we have and work to change things if possible at their local level because that's where it will happen, just like our current system evolved from local efforts, not some PDGA master plan hatched twenty years ago.


This whole tangent requires the definition of professional be strictly limited to "makes a living at." It is the meaning most commonly used to describe doctors, lawyers, attorneys, etc. as professionals. If you were to expand your definition (as dictionaries have) regarding sports and pastimes to include the meaning "plays for pay," would you then limit the definition of the word pay to mean only monetary compensation?

The meanings of the words amateur and professional do not change with context. This is what you do not understand. If you did, you would not attempt to redefine them as you did in your post. There is no theoretical economic model to consider. The words are antonyms, by the way. ;)

P.S. I think the player rating is the #1, coolest, most awesome benefit the PDGA has to offer an amateur member, and I sincerely appreciate all Chuck's hard work in that department. I just disagree on the whole pro/am/payout thing...

If you were to expand your definition (as dictionaries have) regarding sports and pastimes to include the meaning "plays for pay," would you then limit the definition of the word pay to mean only monetary compensation?



Who is paying our pros? If they were really being paid by beginners to learn how to play, by sponsors to promote their products (like Climo and a few others with sig discs), by spectators paying to watch them, publishers producing written or video content, then they would be pros in the conventional sense. However, our pros are primarily being paid by swapping the entry fees from others in their pool and sometimes some tournament income generated from the non-pros in attendance, and there's no qualification to enter our pro divisions. That makes them/us only marginally different from players competing in events like the Wide World of Poker. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't meet the test of being a professional in other sports where their pros are paid by financial resources primarily from outside the sport.

Let me get this straight....you are saying something like: "Since we have already misused the term professional , we shouldn't worry about misusing the term amateur." ? ROFL :D

....I thought all PDGA events had "added cash"....could someone please tell me what percentage of the prize purse has to come from where to make words mean what they actually mean? :p

"Since we have already misused the term professional , we shouldn't worry about misusing the term amateur."


Each one happened independently and various local efforts are trying to change that. But they are still having limited success. Success with one won't necessarily produce success with the other. On the other hand, our current definition of ams and pros ARE interconnected thru our typical financial format for events with pros more dependent on ams than vice versa.

our current definition of ams and pros ARE interconnected thru our typical financial format for events


I understand perfectly, Chuck. I'm just saying this is precisely what is wrong. You are using a description of the issue to justify its existence. It's exactly like "These go to eleven."

with pros more dependent on ams than vice versa


Those ungrateful bastards. :DWouldn't "with TDs more dependent on ams than vice versa" be equally irrelevant?

I'm just saying this is precisely what is wrong. You are using a description of the issue to justify its existence.



QWERTY keyboards and the English measurement system are "wrong" also but they have evolved to work in free society where people can make choices.

TDs aren't dependent on either pros or ams since few TDs earn anything let alone minimum wage for their efforts. If any TDs were trying to make a living off disc golf events, they wouldn't run pro events and ams would likely get less than they do now even in events for ams only.

QWERTY keyboards and the English measurement system are "wrong"


Do you even know what you are arguing, Chuck? Do you have a point? Surely your point isn't that every word's meaning is purely subjective......is your point simply that every rhetorical question must be answered? :D

Bottom line: Conventional pro and am structures haven't yet gotten traction although people are still trying. Whatever you call our system of am and pros, it has been working. Except where it may not be legal (per Brakel), it can't be "wrong" in a free society.

Bottom line: Prizes are awarded for place of finish at the Amateur World Championships. The best amateur wins the biggest prize. Prizes are awarded for place of finish at the Pro World Championships. The best pro wins the biggest prize.

Posting something that matches reality...

Rob:

Is your contention that
(1) We shouldn't use the terms "professional" and, especially "amateur"; or
(2) Our Ams shouldn't win prizes out of principle; or
(3) Our Ams shouldn't win prizes because we call them "amateurs", but would be okay if we just changed the name?

If your position is #2, as I suspect, then why argue over the names? Both are inaccurate but they serve us reasonably well.

The short answer to why the PDGA has a system that "pays" amateurs is that this is what the PDGA membership wants. Not unanimously, but by majority, as infered from their actions.

Rob:

Is your contention that
(1) We shouldn't use the terms "professional" and, especially "amateur"; or
(2) Our Ams shouldn't win prizes out of principle; or
(3) Our Ams shouldn't win prizes because we call them "amateurs", but would be okay if we just changed the name?

If your position is #2, as I suspect, then why argue over the names?


#2 is closest to the mark.

If you look up the words, you will find that they are antonyms. What makes them antonyms in the case of sports/pastimes (i.e. golf) is the specific difference of playing for prizes or not playing for prizes. I am merely pointing out that in the PDGA's little world, they can be used interchangeably. I find that confusing.

Disc golf wouldn't be the only sport that would have to change it's definition. The implication that ours is the only sport that Ams win prizes is not the case. Ams in ball golf can receive/win up to $750 in prizes at an event for starters which is more than most top "am" prizes in our sport. A while back, someone did some recon on this and posted that Ams in most individual sports win/receive prizes. I know Orienteering is similar to DG in that players compete in skill levels on courses. However, everyone is an amateur with no one winning cash, just ribbons or medals. Where you don't see much in terms of prizes is teams sports where the cost of field reservations and officials uses up most of the entry fees.

It's easy to argue against either or both names, but there are some benefits in using them:

#1 They delineate between our upper and lower levels, in a way that even non-players can understand. Who would doubt that "Pros" are generally better than "Ams"?

#2 Calling our play-for-cash players "pros" gives them an aura of credibility. You can tell a casual player than you're a "pro" and he's more likely to be impressed than if you admitted you won $35 last year, and essentially bought the title.

#3 "Pro" &amp; "Am" are nice short words.

Any idea when the the 2008 Competition Manual and 2008 Tour Standards documents (not just the summary at the top of this thread) will be made available?

Haven't heard. First draft hasn't been circulated among committee folks yet. I can't imagine any earlier than mid-November for release until after the Nov Board meeting (whenever that is) at the earliest.

the only problem I have is calling an Amateur an EXPERT. Isn't that what a professional is??

An expert is really good at something. A professional gets paid by others (not those who they're competing with) for being really good at something. We have several professionals and lots of experts, some who compete for cash and some who compete for merch.

We have several professionals and lots of experts, some who compete for cash and some who compete for merch.


RHETORICAL QUESTION:
So if you are in the Expert division you can compete for either cash or merch?

Non-rhetorical answer: Yes. "Pros" under 975 rating can compete for cash in a pro division and merch in Expert.

you can compete for cash or merch in Open also... another option for Am players

...and this doesn't help blur the differences between divisions and skill levels?

Expert doesn't bother me at all. The full title of the division is "Expert Amateur" so it's appropriate for the players in that group.

Enthusiast, on the other hand, does not describe a skill set. It describes how much something is enjoyed. I would hope that even pro players are still disc golf enthusiasts.

Beginner or novice are much better terms to describe an introductory skill set division.

you can compete for cash or merch in Open also... another option for Am players



Maybe only once as an Am if you take cash.

Beginner or novice are much better terms to describe an introductory skill set division.



That's the problem though. We have more long term than short term players in this ratings range with most women and almost half of the PDGA membership over age 39 now. Baby boomer power.

...and this doesn't help blur the differences between divisions and skill levels?



The skill level overlap at this ratings level has been there for a long time. At least now it's been recognized so the distinction between what we call ams and pros comes into focus. If we had good alternative names for them, I think they would have been adopted.

If many long term players have only reached novice levels, why is that a problem?

If our men's am divisions were truly am men only then leaving the Novice name would be adequate. But novice implies not a skill level but a person who is just starting regardless of skill. Cale was a "novice" pro in his first event even though shooting around 950 level. Unfortunately, with so few women and in some older divisions, on a local not national basis, top women ams and top older ams might still just be at am mens novice level even though they are some of the best ams in the world in their age or gender. Seems demeaning that they must play in a division called Novice in areas where they don't have enough players for their own age/gender division. Viva la colors!

The skill level overlap at this ratings level has been there for a long time. At least now it's been recognized so the distinction between what we call ams and pros comes into focus. If we had good alternative names for them, I think they would have been adopted.


OMFG. The distinction goes OUT OF FOCUS! The disctinction between am and pro AS FAR AS THE PDGA IS CONCERNED is whether or not you accept cash. If you don't accept cash you may become the PDGA Am World Champion. If you do, you can't. That much is clear. The term Expert has to do with skill level. How does it help clear up whether or not a player has accepted cash? It's too bad the terms am and pro didn't catch on.....

I think the reluctance to change is the that PDGA Am World Champion sounds better than the PDGA Merch World Champion. Find a better name someday then we might have the PDGA ??? World Championship AND a PDGA Am World Championship that would be for those who have been playing in schools and Trophy Only divisions, should that (hopefully) arise.

An expert is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion. Historically, an expert was referred to as a sage. The individual was usually a profound philosopher distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment.

I don't know. What was wrong with the classifications now? How about beginner/intermediate/advanced and then pro.

Cale was a novice pro? Are you saying that the word novice has another meaning of "first-time" and that is why we cannot use it to mean those with beginner-level skills. If so, "wow." It is just more of your same strategy: when posed with a real question, point out that a word has multiple meanings, all as an odd form of rebuttal.

for example: Claim: "Our competition structure misplaces it's rewards, which results in incentives to play down"

Chuck rebuttal: "Well, that is because no one wants to pay to watch our pros."

Claim: "novice" is a better description for that skill level than "orange."

Chuck rebuttal: In his first pro tournament, someone might have called him a novice professional, therefore, orange is more accurate than novice.

No one finds names of other divisions perjorative until it's their division. Why did most sports teams move to remove ethnic stereotype names and mascots? I suspect the Chief Wahoo logo will go within 5 years. Even though few are pros as in traditonal sports, our cash players prefer to be called pros versus the more accurate "g" word used for poker players. I think Grandmaster is inaccurate but cool so I'm not fighting to change my division. However, several guys over 60 don't like the fact that the word "Senior," which implies age not expertise, is part of their Sr. Grandmaster name. All we're saying is if there are better words, then let's find them. If not, then colors or numbers can be the fall back and simpler. What a concept.

Enthusiast is really a silly moniker. I thought Novice or Recreational was just fine. I am in this group. The most accurate word would be Hacker. I have no problem with that.

"No one finds names of other divisions perjorative until it's their division."

not true. some of us have the ability to empathize.

btw, we had better words already!

some of us have the ability to empathize.




That's my point that the Competition Committee and Board have to see the bigger picture. I should have started that sentence: "Seems like no one..."

fixing something that wasnt broken....Awesome...spend the time finding major sponsors instead...
An easy way to get our sport national coverage is to create one single icebowl...
If all the money raised at icebowls went to one organization, in one huge payment, we might get media coverage...Also, we could hand the cash in through the PDGA and they could use it as a massive write off....

fixing something that wasnt broken....Awesome...spend the time finding major sponsors instead...
An easy way to get our sport national coverage is to create one single icebowl...
If all the money raised at icebowls went to one organization, in one huge payment, we might get media coverage...Also, we could hand the cash in through the PDGA and they could use it as a massive write off....



I agree with the first sentence. But the last one is completely wrong regarding tax treatment. If the PDGA received thousands of dollars of ice bowl donations, they'd have to report it as contributions revenue. Then they could deduct all of the money that was passed on to charities and food banks. Net effect = back where you started. No offense, just don't want anyone to run out and try that and wind up in tax court!

Even hacker does not work. There are a lot of reasonably good players rated 800-849, mostly women and juniors, but reasonably good for how far they can throw.

fixing something that wasnt broken....Awesome...spend the time finding major sponsors instead...
An easy way to get our sport national coverage is to create one single icebowl...
If all the money raised at icebowls went to one organization, in one huge payment, we might get media coverage...Also, we could hand the cash in through the PDGA and they could use it as a massive write off....



I agree with the first sentence. But the last one is completely wrong regarding tax treatment. If the PDGA received thousands of dollars of ice bowl donations, they'd have to report it as contributions revenue. Then they could deduct all of the money that was passed on to charities and food banks. Net effect = back where you started. No offense, just don't want anyone to run out and try that and wind up in tax court!



I've already commented on this on Ska's other thread. While the amount of money coming in seems a great deal (and to us it is) to real charities it's rather small, and completely insufficient to give us any real recognition.

"No one finds names of other divisions perjorative until it's their division."

not true. some of us have the ability to empathize.

btw, we had better words already!




YES! I vote for this division. The empathist division. I'd play there.

The winner gets all the money but has to empathize with everyone that he/she beat.

"Oh, I'm so sorry I took all your money!"

Post deleted by Solstice_Disc_Sports

Someone probably has covered this but...I'll ask anyway. So, will there be an Expert Masters division or any age protected Expert division? Or, will current Advanced Masters rated 935+ be forced to play in Expert?

In my opinion there should be NO age or gender protected divisions in AM except at Worlds........Hopefully with these new better ratings based division they will eliminate the age and genger protected divisions except for at the Worlds Championships!!! Atleast thats what they should do.

Just my 2 cents

Advanced Masters and any other older division or Juniors will not have any ratings cap. Expert will be an option not a requirement except for those under 40 with ratings over 934.

Advanced Masters and any other older division or Juniors will not have any ratings cap. Expert will be an option not a requirement except for those under 40 with ratings over 934.


So Advanced Masters is really Expert Masters? An updated divisional structure chart would be nice.

I think the document approved by the PDGA had no rating cap for amateurs playing Am Masters but it had an Advanced cap for pros playing Am Masters.

Advanced Masters and any other older division or Juniors will not have any ratings cap. Expert will be an option not a requirement except for those under 40 with ratings over 934.




Let me get this straight.....So, If your 18 yrs old and you have a player rating of 999...you are not forced to play in any Am Division and you may play in Juniors 19&gt;?

And if you are over 40 with a player rating of 999 you are not forced to play Expert, you can stay in Advanced Masters?

That is correct. Just the same as it has been. However, the TD has the option to not offer those divisions, especially if there are fewer than 3 trying to enter it. In addition, TDs may run ratings based events which would require those players to play in a division based on the rating (or higher).

Advanced Masters and any other older division or Juniors will not have any ratings cap. Expert will be an option not a requirement except for those under 40 with ratings over 934.




Let me get this straight.....So, If your 18 yrs old and you have a player rating of 999...you are not forced to play in any Am Division and you may play in Juniors 19&gt;?

And if you are over 40 with a player rating of 999 you are not forced to play Expert, you can stay in Advanced Masters?



As long as you have not CASHED...of course...

Cant think of a 999 rated player that would still be AM, but all is possible.

Thanks Chuck. Is there Expert Women? ...and if so what is the ratings cut-off between Advanced and Expert Women?

As long as you have not CASHED...of course...

Cant think of a 999 rated player that would still be AM, but all is possible.



True.

Is there Expert Women? ...and if so what is the ratings cut-off between Advanced and Expert Women?



Yes, with the break between them at 850. Intermediate Women is under 800 and there's no Enthusiast Women for 2008 below that.

Is there Expert Women? ...and if so what is the ratings cut-off between Advanced and Expert Women?



Yes, with the break between them at 850. Intermediate Women is under 800 and there's no Enthusiast Women for 2008 below that.


[...must...resist...urge...to make...sexist...double entendre...comment]

See, Alan, with age comes at least a little bit of wisdom!

Is there Expert Women? ...and if so what is the ratings cut-off between Advanced and Expert Women?



Yes, with the break between them at 850. Intermediate Women is under 800 and there's no Enthusiast Women for 2008 below that.


[...must...resist...urge...to make...sexist...double entendre...comment]



As my wife would say, all women are experts, it's only men who make them look bad. :D

See, Alan, with age comes at least a little bit of wisdom!



Probably should emphasize the "little bit?" ;)

That is correct. Just the same as it has been. However, the TD has the option to not offer those divisions, especially if there are fewer than 3 trying to enter it. In addition, TDs may run ratings based events which would require those players to play in a division based on the rating (or higher).



What about if a player doesn't have a PDGA rating but I know he/she is around a 930 golfer? Can I force that person to play in the White Division?

TDs can place players without ratings in an appropriate division regardless whether they are members or not. However, usually new members without ratings shouldn't be forced to play in the highest divisions unless they are OK with it.

Next year, is this an acceptable divisional format for a B/C Tier event?


Pro Divisions:

Open Men
Open Women

Am Divisions:

Blue = 935+
White = 900-934
Red = 850-899
Green = &lt; 850

???????????

Yes. Although you might as well just call it a Ratings event and say Gold is for 970+ instead of Open and just add Open Women. Blue would be 935-969.

Are the price breaks in the entry fees for a Ratings based event compared to a Age/Gender event similar, and enforced in the Competition Guidelines? Or could you just charge one price for Am Division entries in a ratings event?

Gary Duke is working on the updated entry fee tables for 2008. However, you can always charge less than the guidelines so it would be easy to set a price that works for all divisions. However, I would suggest that the Gold be higher than Blue which would be higher than White. But White, Red and Green could be the same. The main reason would be to keep the White prizes from being larger than the Blue division which may be the same size or smaller based on normal distributions of those ratings out there.

Thanks for the answers Chuck! I'm running three C-Tiers in early '08 and it sounds like doing Am Divisions on a ratings basis would work well.

I'm not so sure about doing it for the Pro Divisions. It would draw un-necessary attention to the Pro Womens division that doesn't "fit" within the ratings based divisons, unless the Pro Women are willing to accept plastic for playing against the Advanced/Expert rated Ams. It looks like there is no place for the Pro Women when it's structured like this:

Pro:
Gold = 970+
Pro Women

Amateur:

Blue = 935-969
White = 900-934
Red = 850-899
Green = &lt; 850

AHHH! After I read my own post I see the light..I think.

So, Advanced/Expert players with ratings above 970 would be forced to play in "Gold" but not forced to accept cash. Correct?

For the time being, Ratings events will ideally be the color divisions you've shown with pros entering Gold getting cash prizes (Ams merch) and pros entering Blue and lower getting merch prizes. By offering the Pro Women division as an option, those women who normally play for cash can play there. Or, if they aren't truly competitive as Pro Women (with others who have entered), they can play in the appropriate color division based on their rating and play for merch. At Mid-Nats, we've let pros convert their prizes into cash at 50% merch value the past two years. My preference would be to allow that at all ratings events. It's not out of the question as an option in 2009 if people like yourself offer more ratings events in 2008 and it works out well.

So, Advanced/Expert players with ratings above 970 would be forced to play in "Gold" but not forced to accept cash. Correct?



Yep.

So, Advanced/Expert players with ratings above 970 would be forced to play in "Gold" but not forced to accept cash. Correct?



Yep.



Forcing ams into Pro divisions. Ouch...I hope that's not a trend that continues.

Chap

So, Advanced/Expert players with ratings above 970 would be forced to play in "Gold" but not forced to accept cash. Correct?



Yep.



Forcing ams into Pro divisions. Ouch...I hope that's not a trend that continues.

Chap

With the new Ams Taking Prizes Playing Pro rule, there really isn't such a thing as pro divisions anymore. I hope this isn't turning on any harsh lights in anyone's darkenned understanding. :D

It's up to the TD. If they want to allow "bagger" ams over 969 to play in Blue, they can just call it an Expert versus Blue division which allows that. However, most of these lower tier ratings events are going to have very few if any pros over 1000 rating so forcing ams over 969 to play Gold isn't exactly a penalty.

It's up to the TD. If they want to allow "bagger" ams over 969 to play in Blue, they can just call it an Expert versus Blue division which allows that. However, most of these lower tier ratings events are going to have very few if any pros over 1000 rating so forcing ams over 969 to play Gold isn't exactly a penalty.



Exactly.

How many tournaments have you been to where the winner of Intermediate is shooting just as good as the top 3 players in Advanced who are shooting as good as the Open players hovering around the cashing line? I bet it's alot.

The ratings based way is much more fair of a system.
You're not forcing those 970+ ams to play for cash, just to "earn" their plastic! :o

On the new 2008 Division Grids Chart that is shown on the PDGA Announcents thread there is no Expert Division. Did I miss the whole drama of losing a division that's caused such a disturbance before even being tried?

The division is still there, just the name is gone. Top AM division is Advanced, then Intermediate, Recreational and Novice. 4 AM divisions, plus the age protected divisions: Adv. masters/ grandmasters/ senior grandmasters...
The ratings requirements are the new levels, as recently seen on this MB.

Is the following still in place for 2008:

"7) Allow amateurs to accept merchandise in lieu of cash when playing in Pro divisions."

Yes. After much discussion on which way to go with division naming, the main thing different from what was posted a while back is the Competition Committee and Board finally deciding to retain the existing am division names and adding Novice as a new division below Recreational versus using the proposed new names that included Expert at the top and Enthusiast at the bottom. The upward adjusted ratings breaks are still where they were posted before except the one for pros playing in Advanced was lowered to a rating under 970 instead of 975.

Are there ratings caps for who can play in Adv. Masters, Adv. Grand Masters, and Adv. Senior Grand Masters?

Say there s a 55 year old player with a rating of 931. Is he allowed to register as an Adv. Grand Master? I can't remember if the 5 year breaks are in place for the older divisions, isn't it still 40 -49 Master, 50 - 59 Grand Master, 60 - 69 Senior Grand, then Legends?

The caps are only for older pros wanting to play in an am division. There are no ratings caps in any age based am division for older ams. The only times older ams have to play in their ratings range is when they play in the divisions for ams under age 40, either because they choose to or the TD isn't hosting the older divisions at that event, and when a TD runs a ratings event with no age divisions. It's all on the chart posted on the Announcements link.

Well done CC and BOD, Expert and Enthusiast were horrible names for divisions.

Agreed!

The names didnt bother me so much, but I think it will save a lot of confusion to keep division titles the way they have been. And since Novice was used once upon a time, it will be recognizable as well.

All this talk about Pros playing AM/ Am playing Pro has gotten me a little confused...so I need to make sure I still have things strait for '08:

1. Am's that "cash" in Pro divisions can take merchandise...do they take merchandise at 100% of the value?

2. If a player (with current membership) accepts or has ever accepted cash in a Pro division, he must play in a Pro division (regardless of his rating) unless he applys for re-instatement as an Amateur. Still True?

It's not that way now.

I'm not sure either of these are formalized anywhere.

1. Ams cashing in a Pro division and choosing to accept merchandise instead of cash should do so at 100% retail value. Which still leaves the TD with the profit from wholesale to retail.

2. Card carrying pros can play in Am divisions today if their ratings are low enough. The new changes only raise the ratings cutoff.

With the new breaks in divisions will it be likely that the players in the new intermediate division play the same layout as the advanced and pro?

With the new breaks in divisions will it be likely that the players in the new intermediate division play the same layout as the advanced and pro?



That would be entirely up to the tournament director. If you're sure, call the TD before the event to see what layouts will be used for which divisions.

Chap

Just a little complaining here in regards to the PDGA's decision to rescind the division names after making an anouncement and posting a PDF on-line... Which, BTW has been removed with out a trace on this site......

I play in a series each year based on divisions and the corresponding PDGA points earned. Our first three events for 2008 season fall in September and October of 2007. My son played in advanced instead of intermidiate in light of the new division structure and names. Now his points will be listed in the wrong division and we will have to appeal to the series TD and who knows what will happen. It may not mean a thing, but I wish that the PDGA would not jump the gun on this sort of thing. If you make an annoucement about something stick with it, or just don't say anything until you are 100% sure of the structure.... It really grinds my gears... :confused:

It is also very confusing that the PDGA has competition information for 2003 listed on this web site listed under tour stats information??? I really don't understand why that link is there? Are we not refering to 2008 changes? I don't get it....

Just a little complaining here in regards to the PDGA's decision to rescind the division names after making an anouncement and posting a PDF on-line... Which, BTW has been removed with out a trace on this site......



THE DOCUMENT (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2007/2008CompetitionChangesSummary.pdf) is still there. It still says "Proposed" also.

If you also knew the NoCal points system you only get points for your top 7 events and NorCal Championships. So there are plenty of events left. It was PROPOSED NOT IN STONE. Let him use it as a good experience.

Question:

Does an Am that accepts cash have to renew membership as a Pro the following year if their rating is below 955? (increasing to 970 in 2008)

That is something that is not a problem. The kid will be playing within his rating range (now intermidiate), but was planing on playing advanced, which is now actually int. based on the ratings separations. I myself did not read anywhere in the annoucement that is now null and void was a proposed sytem.

http://www.pdga.com/documents/2007/2008CompetitionChangesSummary.pdf
This was made in the PDGA annoucements link here, and likewise says nothing about being a proposed change...

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=PDGA Announcements&amp;Number=738837&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Main=7388 37&amp;Search=true&amp;#Post738837

I made the point that it probably wouldn't matter, but that does not change the fact IMO that the PDGA made an annoucement and made it sound like it was going to happen. Then after listening to people whine about the names later changed it. That is what the complaint was about. The reference to the series was to show how it can cause problems... FYI, if we had known the competition changes were not definate he would have played AM2 and would have earned points for his correct division... We already discussed the possibilty of losing points happening when he made the decision to move up. But that was in relation to his rating changing, not the PDGA rescinding the annoucement :eek:

I now see where is says proposed in the chart... But I remember some posts from some of the board members saying was going to happen... So if I seem a little off-base it is because the level of clear commincation is lacking and that is my entire point.....

I now see where is says proposed in the chart... But I remember some posts from some of the board members saying was going to happen... So if I seem a little off-base it is because the level of clear commincation is lacking and that is my entire point.....



It wouldn't have taken effect until 2008 anyway, so any series that had events in both 2007 and 2008 would have had to figure out what to do with the 2007 events that only had the 3-tier instead of 4-tier system. I'd suggest you talk to your series director and figure out what to do. This really doesn't fall in the purview of the PDGA, IMHO.

Chap

I now see where is says proposed in the chart... But I remember some posts from some of the board members saying was going to happen... So if I seem a little off-base it is because the level of clear commincation is lacking and that is my entire point.....



I agree that it is a problem when Board members decide to put information out on the discussion board before the office has the chance to make an official announcement.

Agreed, but still it sure did seem to me based on the discussion, that the structure and names were a done deal...

I'm not sure what you are complaining about. If he played MA2 when it was called Intermediate or played MA2 thinking it might be called Advanced next year big whoop. MA2 is still MA2, the ratings limit has just been slid higher (i.e. more qualify for MA2 than before.)

He played in advanced (MA1) in anticipation of the 2008 season ratings adjustment. Our series assigns points based on division and has 3 event post 2008. Now that the top division is back to being adv. and not expert, he will drop back to AM2 based on ratings. Essentially there will be no change for our series based oon this. He could have picked up more points if he played in AM2 instead of AM1, that will now be lost entirely because he will play in AM2 now until he breaks a 935 rating. What I was complaining about was the tone of certainty expressed here on this board regarding the now rescinded division titles which had adv in the middle between expert and intermediate.... But it really isn't complaining as much as it is constructive critism on paying attention to details. Nowhere that I saw was there ever an announcement that stated there would be an up-coming vote on these names and when it would happen. If there was during all the banter about the names I missed it.

He only played one tournament and it was the smallest NorCal event he will only lose 36 points with all the other big tournaments in NorCal I think he can make it up.

I agree that it is a problem when Board members decide to put information out on the discussion board before the office has the chance to make an official announcement.



Brian, the post was made by David Gentry in the PDGA Announcements section.

Brian, the post was made by David Gentry in the PDGA Announcements section.



I wasn't talking only about this subject and thread. A mention was made on the discussion board prior to Dave's announcement.

Dave's post was the first I read of it. I can definitely see how that makes your job harder. I still think y'all handled it well by titling it proposed and giving us an opportunity to complain about the division names before making it official.
Thanks.

Sean, I have already said that it probably won't matter. It is not really about the points, and I already said that too.

So please , if you don't mind, try to understand me and my constructive critism.

I am simply pointing out that playing games with division names and making a big thing about what ended up being nothing, here on this board where it counts, is not a good thing.

If the PDGA makes an annoucement here on this board stating a new division structure with new names, they should stay with it, or be sure they make it clear that it is announced that a vote will be taken and the system is still preliminary.

It is easy for you to look up JR's stats and see that he only played one event with a small turn out. We only usually end up playing the minimum of seven events.

You of all people should know how close the points end up in NorCal. In 2006 you were only 80 points or so out of Adv. 1st place with exactly seven events leading into the champs. So to assume you know in advance if it will or will not make a difference is impossible. I am not here discussing this becuase I want JR to get points. I am here discussing out of principle.

He will end up going into adv. anyway, but it still dosen't remove the issues I mentioned above regarding communication. Much ado about nothing..... :eek:

PS.. Your Seahawks played great monday night... LOL...The crowd noise was ridiculous. Hassleboy was on fire... :D

Brian, thanks for your input. Bellieve me I am not against what has been decided, I am just tired of seeing misinformation and dead links, and outdated links. you name it it is here.


Dave's post was the first I read of it. I can definitely see how that makes your job harder. I still think y'all handled it well by titling it proposed and giving us an opportunity to complain about the division names before making it official.
Thanks.



The title of the PDF is "Summary of 2008 Competition System Changes" the word proposed only appears in a chart and based on the tone and content of the discussion it was clear the commity had already voted on it. So "proposed" and where it was referenced in the PDF could be understood to be in reference to the past tense... Am I the only one here who made this assumption ( I know, never assume anything... )

I also understand that it can't be perfect. But when it comes to things that have far reaching implications I think we as the PDGA need to make clear and concise announcemnts.

For example, the title of the PDF could have read: " Summary of 2008 Proposed Competition System Changes" with a little note explaing the up-coming voting process.

Not much trouble to clearly convey the issue IMO...

That's all I have to say about it, no point in beating a dead horse... :D

Okay it's been a while since I've read this thread, and Ive gone back about a dozen pages so let me see if I have this figured out. Expert is no longer happening. Instead the divisions are still Adv. Int. Rec, and the new Novice but with each division having their ratings guidlines tweaked?

The ratings breaks are almost the same as previously announced when Expert was mentioned. Just the names were changed back to the original series with Novice added. The 975 top end for pros entering Advanced was also adjusted down to 970 from 975.

John Ahart (Former Open World Champion)
Rivers Sherrod
TJ Lawrence
Dave Dunipace
Fred Salaz
Tim Kady
Marcus Cisneros
Kurt Karlsson
Kevin Stewart
Rick LeBeau
Ben Botte
J Gary Dropcho
Steve Maerz
Ricky Snapp
Don Olow
Tommy Donelson

Any of these names strike you as familiar? These are the caliber of player that the new divisional ratings breaks claim to be "Advanced" or "Expert" level players. You guys must be blind or something - whoever thought this up didn't do much actual thinking.

Best of my knowledge, none of them currently make their living playing as "pros." I don't think Dave even has his own signature disc. The point is they have the choice if they wish to crossover to Advanced, not that they might choose to. However, several of them can also play in pro divisions for their age level.

Weak - very weak defense there CK. Might even classify that one as a non argument. If the point is to offer another choice - then you just reinforce the reason NOT to adopt this scheme.

Of course all of our top Women Pros and Sr. GM Pros and many GM Pro and many Master Pros are all below 970. There's no shame in that. They happen to also be competitive with those we call amateurs in the same rating range. That's just the way it is.

Ahhh I understand the need for the constant smokescreen now. Behind it is a large flashing neon light that says
CLUELESS!!

These guys will likely play Pro anyway. Why does that make CK or the Competition committee clueless? Unless your a 970+ Pro under 40, your not forced to do anything. I think they do have a clue and they addressed one of the problems in our current advanced Am division - too wide a ratings range. I think all the ratings breaks will now be more fair. We will see how much this hurts or doesn't hurt the Pro division.

Of course all of our top Women Pros and Sr. GM Pros and many GM Pro and many Master Pros are all below 970. There's no shame in that. They happen to also be competitive with those we call amateurs in the same rating range. That's just the way it is.

shouldnt you include the disclaimer that they'll be competitive only if the course if the correct length and the terrain is the correct type? you've pushed the idea that a 970 rated 20 year old is measurably different in skill that a 970 rated 65 year old.

If a course is well balanced in terms of hole types, it won't matter if one player is 45 and one player is 25. In fact, the variance in performance of any player on any day is wider than the variance due to the terrain between tow at the same rating - no more than say a 920 and 940 player competing on a course both would play well on. The 920 player can still win any given round.

John Ahart (Former Open World Champion)
Rivers Sherrod
TJ Lawrence
Dave Dunipace
Fred Salaz
Tim Kady
Marcus Cisneros
Kurt Karlsson
Kevin Stewart
Rick LeBeau
Ben Botte
J Gary Dropcho
Steve Maerz
Ricky Snapp
Don Olow
Tommy Donelson

Any of these names strike you as familiar? These are the caliber of player that the new divisional ratings breaks claim to be "Advanced" or "Expert" level players. You guys must be blind or something - whoever thought this up didn't do much actual thinking.



Well - apparently, someone associated w/the CC considered this post as a personal attack. If I were a long time pro like any of the people on this list, I would consider the action of being told I am not a "pro" caliber player (even though the label is meaningless as such) as a personal attack.

Whatever thought process or discussion ensued that led to the most recent divisional structure is flawed, is short sighted, is biased against the top 7.5% of the membership, and should be repealed immediately.

Ignorance is not stupidity.
Ignorance = someone who just doesn't know or understand something.

Stupidity = someone who doesn't know or understand AND does not care to change that condition given the opportunity.

New topic:

Can a TD that is having a Pro/Am event NOT offer an Advanced division?

New topic:

Can a TD that is having a Pro/Am event NOT offer an Advanced division?



Yes if it is announced ahead of time, but don't expect Advanced players to show up and play Open.

Can a TD that is having a Pro/Am event NOT offer an Advanced division?


Yes. But consider what they're doing for the IOS series. They are offering alternating divisions on opposite days. One day is Open, Intermediate and Novice. The other day is Advanced and Rec. Players can play one or both days and try playing up.

New topic:

Can a TD that is having a Pro/Am event NOT offer an Advanced division?



Yes if it is announced ahead of time, but don't expect Advanced players to show up and play Open.

More than likely they will show up unaware and be a little bit "urinated" off.

But if you are filling your tournaments and need to "urinate"off some players to make room for the rest and have decided to urinate off the players you make the most profit on, could you at least choose to do that somewhere like 50 to 150 miles from where I run tournaments? :D

Can a TD that is having a Pro/Am event NOT offer an Advanced division?


Yes. But consider what they're doing for the IOS series. They are offering alternating divisions on opposite days. One day is Open, Intermediate and Novice. The other day is Advanced and Rec. Players can play one or both days and try playing up.

We looked at the attendance numbers and figured we could evenly split the field for our split weekend tournaments if Open, MA2 and MA4 played one day, and all the rest of the divisions played the other. So we're still going to offer all the gender and and age restricted divisions.

I think with this formulation we'll also get a lot of Advanced players voluntarily playing pro for half the entry fee and half the payout. Several say they will, anyway.

I'm probably just going to play intermediate. My game is in a tail spin.

More than likely they will show up unaware and be a little bit "urinated" off.

But if you are filling your tournaments and need to "urinate"off some players to make room for the rest and have decided to urinate off the players you make the most profit on, could you at least choose to do that somewhere like 50 to 150 miles from where I run tournaments? :D



A MB Classic right there... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Of course all of our top Women Pros and Sr. GM Pros and many GM Pro and many Master Pros are all below 970. There's no shame in that. They happen to also be competitive with those we call amateurs in the same rating range. That's just the way it is.

shouldnt you include the disclaimer that they'll be competitive only if the course if the correct length and the terrain is the correct type? you've pushed the idea that a 970 rated 20 year old is measurably different in skill that a 970 rated 65 year old.

If a course is well balanced in terms of hole types, it won't matter if one player is 45 and one player is 25. In fact, the variance in performance of any player on any day is wider than the variance due to the terrain between tow at the same rating - no more than say a 920 and 940 player competing on a course both would play well on. The 920 player can still win any given round.



Indeed, and as course design progresses it should be increasingly rare to find courses of all one type that favor a younger player who may throw farther than an older one of exactly the same rating. There's probably 100 courses within a 3-4 hour drive of me and I can only think of one or two where I would not attend an event there because it is mostly open, and as a weenie arm, I would be at a competitive disadvantage. Brandywine in Delaware is about the only one that comes to mind and only the A-tier would be the event there that I would skip - I'd likely still play a low-entry C-tier or unsanctioned monthly event there.

colors are still a more internationally recognized and communicated way for identification that doesn't require language and allows for representative graphics to be used for scorecards, [etc]



One of the arguments against colors is that they have no inherent meaning. However, we could use the universal order of ROYGBIV, Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Indigo Violet, since the color specturn is the same in any language.