Can I play both divisions, Pro Open and Pro Masters in one tournament?

Same tee pads, same everything.
Paying entry fees for both divisions.
C-Tier Event

It totally depends on the TD - I asked this question last year and several people tried to shoot down the idea. But the bottom line is - is that the tour requirements do not forbid it. I even had one TD send me info from an event in OK, and said he'd be happy to let me play both.
The people that will stand in your way, will use these excuses
1) not supposed to mix divisions (but the reality is that this happens at the majority of events so that excuse is BS)
2) That multiple div requires posting of multiple scores - but this is also not addressed anywhere in the tour docs
3) That the tournament report form is not set up to handle it (which to me is hardly a reason at all)

Talk to your TD

Scenario:
Harry Hyzer enters both Masters & Open in the Falcon Valley Open, a 4-round event. He shoots red hot & is on the lead card of both divisions after 3 rounds. With whom does he play in the final round, Masters leaders or Open leaders?

Are the leaders in the division with which he does <u>not</u> play in the final round at a competitive disadvantage by not being able to stare down the immediate competition for the final 18 holes?

it's been done a number of times when different divisions were not on the course at the same time and the players played separate rounds for each division.

if you want to play one round that counts for more than one division there is nothing specifically precluding it as craig says. were i the td i would turn you down for it however and offer the reason "because i said so".

Scenario:
Harry Hyzer enters both Masters &amp; Open in the Falcon Valley Open, a 4-round event. He shoots red hot &amp; is on the lead card of both divisions after 3 rounds. With whom does he play in the final round, Masters leaders or Open leaders?

Are the leaders in the division with which he does <u>not</u> play in the final round at a competitive disadvantage by not being able to stare down the immediate competition for the final 18 holes?



The only scenario this thread should be addressing is a tournament where Open and Masters play at separate times the entire tournament. Ron Russell did this, I believe, at a Master's Cup in the late 90s.

If at any point in the tournament the two divisions were to play at the same time, then entering both divisions would obviously not be allowed.

Two Divisions, One Tournament

(well, sort of....)

I'm refering to last year's Canadian Open. Technically, it was only one division, but masters-aged players could pay an additional entry fee as a "side-bet" against the other masters. Once the tournament was completed, there were masters-aged players who cashed in the open division as well as the "old-men's" side-bet division.

The only scenario this thread should be addressing is a tournament where Open and Masters play at separate times the entire tournament. Ron Russell did this, I believe, at a Master's Cup in the late 90s.


If an "old man" wanted to put himself through that much grueling play, who am I to stand in the way?


If at any point in the tournament the two divisions were to play at the same time, then entering both divisions would obviously not be allowed.


How so obvious? Please point me to the rule/regulation that obviously prohibits it.

side pools are not part of the tourny calculations or responsibilities

side pools are not part of the tourny calculations or responsibilities


Sidebets at the CO got reported in the official PDGA payouts.

does the nfl handle all the funds that are bet in peoples homes on superbowl sunday? if a td wants to act like a bookie for a side pool it is no longer a side pool ,the fund become tourny funds goverend by pdga and rules ofplay

The side pool becomes a part of the tournament if the TD turns in the results of that pool. If the division is not sanctioned and not turned in, then it does not fall under the control or responsibility of the PDGA.

its a good way to boost the tour's payout numbers. sidebets are cool for on the side, imo. competing in divisions but not playing at the same time/ same group /etc, seems kinda funky. as a sidebet, why not. for pdga pioints and payout, i am not so sure.

If you are talking about having your rounds count towards more than one division, I don't think the PDGA can process that. If you are talking about a tournament where different divisions play at different times, the PDGA can process that if it has been sanctioned as two tournaments and each of your divisions is in a different tournament.

When I first started running split-weekend tournaments the PDGA discovered they couldn't process them for ratings if anyone played both days. It is just something about how they have the computer programmed for the TD reports.

Scenario:
Harry Hyzer enters both Masters &amp; Open in the Falcon Valley Open, a 4-round event. He shoots red hot &amp; is on the lead card of both divisions after 3 rounds. With whom does he play in the final round, Masters leaders or Open leaders?

Are the leaders in the division with which he does <u>not</u> play in the final round at a competitive disadvantage by not being able to stare down the immediate competition for the final 18 holes?



If at any point in the tournament the two divisions were to play at the same time, then entering both divisions would obviously not be allowed.



To adress Ray's scenario - is it a competitive disadvantage to a player in any lead group to be beaten by a player shooting lights out from the 2nd or 3rd group? Bottom line is that demanding the right to be able to see all the people you are competing against is neither realistic or practical - even within a single division. So I see no difference between that and multiple divisions. To me this is a non issue.

To address Jeff's asssertion that playing multiple divisions should "obviously" not be allowed. I would also request a reference to where it says so. Here let me help :)

From the 08 Tour standards documents - here are the relevant passages:
Section 1 Tournament Procedures
Item 1.1 Player Eligibility - All members in good standing of the PDGA are eligible to compete in any division for which they qualify........ No mention of being able to enter only one division.
Section 1.2 Tournament Registration
Item B. A player is officially "entered" in the event when the entry fee is received..... I interpret this to include the scenario of paying for whatever divisions you are eligible for. Wanna pay twice? 3 times? Why not? If you are eligible - and you pay the fee - there's nothing saying you have to post multiple scores.
Section 1.6 Grouping and Sectioning
A. Pro and Am players should not be grouped together, and players competing in different divisions should be segregated from each other AS MUCH AS PRACTICABLE.

This is the kicker - that supports both sides of the argument. I say it happens at every event - some mixing of divisions is inevitable. SO WHAT - if someone wants to pay twice - why should it matter?

Those that want to squawk about double dipping, and inequitable rewards, don't seem to have a problem with rewarding people in protected divisions with higher rewards for lesser performances. This to me is a double standard.

So Hammock or someone comes by your little C-tier, signs up for Pro and Masters takes first in both and runs all the way home. Maybe not addressed in the rules, but probably should be.

td can just say no which is what i would do- no justification provided, simply no.

It makes no sense to me to allow it at all. Where would the limit be? If we started something like this, then what if 75% of the entrants decided to pay 2 to 3 extra fees and be listed that many times. What is this, win, place or show? Seems like a game of crapshoot.... Common sense is saying, one person, one place, one group, one division..... I would say no too....

Common sense is saying, one person, one place, one group, one division..... I would say no too....



Common sense would also say best score = best prize. Common sense would also say 50 people doesn't equal 5 groups of 10 with each division overlapping the other in score.

There is very little common sense in the PDGA divisional structure.

True, the divisional structure has issues and is very spread out. But to allow someone to pay and play in multiple divsions makes no sense to me.

Suggesting it is my way of highlighting the lack in common sense of the things we DO accept. The status quo is worse than this suggestion IMO.

So Hammock or someone comes by your little C-tier, signs up for Pro and Masters takes first in both and runs all the way home. Maybe not addressed in the rules, but probably should be.



The rules can't address every silly notion someone may come up with. That's how the tax code got to 80,000 pages (or whatever). Save the space in the rulebook, and let the TD use his or her common sense on the very rare, very unusual requests. Which this strikes me as.

If the competitors are "divided" into "divisions"....and isn't that what "divisions" means?....how do we divide one player?

ahhhh... the wisdom of solomon

I think two divisions in one tournament is NOT fair at all.

Think of someone like Jeremy Koling here in NC. He has been playing open and taking merch. He could sign up for both open and adv. and almost garuntee the win in adv and then take home more stuff in Open.

You can also look at a pro below 970 doing the same thing taking cash and merch the same weekend.

Pick one division and stay there. More than likely if you are floating between 2 divisions you are too good to compete in one of them.

Im not sure if anyone said this yet but:

803.01 General B. Practice Throws. A player who throws a practice throw or an extra throw with any disc any time after the start of his or her round and prior to his or her finishing the last hole of the round (except for throws that must be re-thrown in accordance with the rules, provisional throws made pursuant to 803.01 C and 803.01 D (3), or throws during a suspension or postponement of play) shall receive one penalty throw. The practice throw or extra throw must be observed by any two players or an official.

someone count the penalty throws on a score of 54. (for both rounds)

Kozak

I don't see a problem with it if the schedule allows. Pay two entry fees and take your chances. If you can't beat the guy over 40 that is playing 6 rounds to your 3 then you need to practice more.

I don't see a problem with it if the schedule allows. Pay two entry fees and take your chances. If you can't beat the guy over 40 that is playing 6 rounds to your 3 then you need to practice more.



He's not talking about playing twice like the Ironman days of DELA, he's talking about PAYING twice and PLAYING once for TWO divisons (Pro open and Pro Master) and I say why not 3 divisions for a lower rated Pro like myself who can afford it and is eligible for Pro open, Pro masters and Advanced, and in a couple more ratings updates in Georgia i'll also qualify for adv Masters - in 14 months I'll also be able to play Pro Grandmasters - WHERE DOES IT END IN YOUR scenario Craig?

Common sense and rule of fairness is all I need as a TD to tell you or anyone else who would try that- sorry, but NO!

Keith

Wow! Who would allow that? That's completely wrong. A player needs to play their rounds with the players in their own division. Heads up play is a different dynamic.

so it boils down to this
it is ok to bag in one division by paying one entry fee ( over 40 years old playing master but being able to WIN in open ) but it is not ok to bag in more then one division with paying multiple entry fees ( over 50 years old and being able to WIN in 3 divisions ; grand masters , masters and OPEN )
sorta seems backwards too me

Bill is the only one who gets my point.

The rest of you have become so complacent to the inequities of the status quo, that you defend them as if they actually contain some "common sense". Which they do not.

Where does my scenario end Keith? With fewer divisions based on skill. Instead of 10 or more divisions for 90 players all shooting within easily identifiable ranges of maybe 2 or 3 groups.

If it should be deemed common sense to award a lesser score with greater reward based on the arbitrary choice of the player as to where to "compete", then any player should be able to pay for any and all categories for which a prize is being offered.

If those of you who so vociferously claim this to be inequitable, you should hold the current inequities to an equal standard.

Bill is the only one who gets my point.





I think most people get it, they just don't agree.

...............Like a brick wall..............

I fully agree that any player that wishes to pay multiple entry fees and play complete tournaments for each entry fee should be allowed to do so. I have a problem with one score counting in multiple competitive divisions. As many people like to point out, playing in Open is a different dynamic than playing in Masters.

I fully agree that any player that wishes to pay multiple entry fees and play complete tournaments for each entry fee should be allowed to do so. I have a problem with one score counting in multiple competitive divisions. As many people like to point out, playing in Open is a different dynamic than playing in Masters.



I really think the crux of issue here is defining the question. Are we talking about paying two separate entry fees for two separate divisions and having one score counting for both, or paying two separate entry fees and playing twice at totally different times during the tournament?

To me it is fairly intuitive and obvious that the former should not be allowed, and the latter is open for debate.

I think it has been made plain Jeff.

My opinion may be an extreme - but it is only so because the existing divisional system is so extremely distasteful to me. We are too divided for too small a community. It's competition people - having a division so everyone can be a winner is what is counterintuitive to me.

Bill is the only one who gets my point.

The rest of you have become so complacent to the inequities of the status quo, that you defend them as if they actually contain some "common sense". Which they do not.

Where does my scenario end Keith? With fewer divisions based on skill. Instead of 10 or more divisions for 90 players all shooting within easily identifiable ranges of maybe 2 or 3 groups.




I get it Craig, but until it changes from the top down, your scenario can NOT be played out in the current PDGA Structure, unless YOU AS A TD run that type of event and get it sanctioned. IF you can do that, then I will fly to the Event, and play all my eligible divisions with 1 entry fee and 1 score.

Until then I'll just pay for, and count for score in, 1 division at a time, and hope I keep my head out the way long enough that I might tie for last cash and feel somewaht not as bad as if I don't win anything. :eek:

[QUOTE]
Bill is the only one who gets my point.

IF you can do that, then I will fly to the Event, and play all my eligible divisions with 1 entry fee and 1 score.





Almost Keith - but you would have to pay an entry fee for each division you want your score to count for. Multiple fees, multiple divisions, one score. No free rides for multiple divisions (just equal opportunity), just pay the fee for the categories being offered for which you are eligible.

[QUOTE]
Bill is the only one who gets my point.

IF you can do that, then I will fly to the Event, and play all my eligible divisions with 1 entry fee and 1 score.





Almost Keith - but you would have to pay an entry fee for each division you want your score to count for. Multiple fees, multiple divisions, one score. No free rides for multiple divisions (just equal opportunity), just pay the fee for the categories being offered for which you are eligible.



OK 3 entry fees 1 score, same Crap, Do it and I'll be there, you are the proponent of TD's doing what they want with their events as I am, but we either have to do them the PDGA way, or do them the unsanctioned way.

According to what you are saying you can do it the way you want AND still have it sanctioned.
DO IT and myself and other will probably play it. Until then we'll never know.

Keith

1) We are an association based on rules.
2) There is nothing in the rules that say you can't. Maybe there should be.
3) We sometimes leave to much power in the hands of TD's to make whatever decisions they want. The "because I said so reply" should have some basis or precedent on Why? This forum posts some ideas that may help set those reasons.
4) I think the major issue is that we continue to set tournament guidelines based on a Divisional Structure that should no longer be adhered to. We need to move toward a ratings/skill level divisional format so that everyone one is competing with people of the same skill level regardless of age. I think the ratings formula is working and we need to start using that to start setting up divisions. I am a 36 year old 3-5 tournament per year player with a current rating of 970. I have played 4 tourneys this year in the Pro Open division. (13th, 9th, 9th, 7th = $180) Those same rounds in Masters would be (3rd, 4th, 9th, 1st = $925) I understand that this rings true for everyone; however, I have been playing for 11 years and all the guys I am used to competing with are now "protected" eventhough we have the same skill level. Moving to ratings based formats also eliminates the bagger scenarios. If you are a 14 year old kid with a rating of 920 there is no reason you shouldn't be in the same division as a 55 year old with the same 920 rating. I certainly don't want to finally hit Masters age and then still have to compete against Kenny and John E. because they paid two entry fees for both divisions.
5) If playing in two divisions at the same tournament should you also have two PDGA cards? One that says Pro Masters and One for Pro Open?
6) GET AWAY FROM AGE PROTECTED DIVISIONS!

In ratings based divisions - where the range cut-offs are totally arbitrary - one can potentially "bag" (if near the cusp), virtually ensuring success. Success therefore goes to the lucky (who just happens to be high in the range) and/or the one who can "manipulate" the system (which COULD be done).

At least in age-type divisions, you can't fake your age. You're either in a division or you're not. Success is predicated by being "better for your age than other similar-aged people"; in my mind a truer / more noble challenge than either being lucky or throwing points to "drop down".

Karl

i agree with Karl.

1) We are an association based on rules.
2) There is nothing in the rules that say you can't. Maybe there should be.
3) We sometimes leave to much power in the hands of TD's to make whatever decisions they want. The "because I said so reply" should have some basis or precedent on Why? This forum posts some ideas that may help set those reasons.




i agree on points 1 and 2 but couldn't disagree more on point 3. td's should have the right to run their events as they see fit as long as they fit some minimal criteria (such as adhering to the rules of play, etc). - to attempt to force them to do otherwise merely discourages innovation and improvement.

since there is no precedent on this particular question "because i say so" is perfectly valid, while i may have philosophical reasons for ruling that way (or may not) there is no obligation for me to grant the player an explanation.

I like John Biscoe &amp; not just because we won my Worlds caddy auction! ;)

i agree on points 1 and 2 but couldn't disagree more on point 3. td's should have the right to run their events as they see fit as long as they fit some minimal criteria (such as adhering to the rules of play, etc). - to attempt to force them to do otherwise merely discourages innovation and improvement.

since there is no precedent on this particular question "because i say so" is perfectly valid, while i may have philosophical reasons for ruling that way (or may not) there is no obligation for me to grant the player an explanation.



I am sort of on the fence on the issue of allowing TD's free reign. While I agree in principle that TD's should have a fair amount of latitude to improve and innovate to make their event better, I also believe that the sanctioning body's standards should be more rigid. Believing that would on some fronts - impose some limits on TD's (and I guess I'm OK with that).

Currently our competitive standards have very little to do with actual competition, and more to do with the "customer service" approach of retaining event participants by ensuring the highest possible number of winners (i.e. buttloads of divisions for very few participants). We choose to justify this through bogus labels like Am and Pro - which - with the extensive amounts of merchandise being distributed - is basically meaningless. We further this charade we call competition by adding a strata of age based divisions to the Pro vs Am system - further diluting the competitive pool without actually identifying a group of players that have a different skill level.

So here's what we got - it's not divisions based on skill - it's categories of players - each slated to receive a prize after completing some # of rounds of golf. They don't compete separately - they play the same courses under the same conditions at the same time (the majority of the time). Groups are often mixed between categories for convenience so the notion that the "competitions" are separate or independent of one another is nothing more than a semantic convenience. The most "competitive" categories all seem to overlap heavily in the scores they produce - so the notion that some measure of skill is reflected by the categorical label is also plainly false. So why should it be any big deal if the inequity of reward we foster so heartily now is approached from a different vantage point? It's perfectly fine for some of our best players (Hammock, Myers, Mela, Oates, Tannock, Schack, McClellan, Leonard, etc., etc.) to be awarded twice as much for their 1st place MPM finish as they'd be paid for what would be a 3rd or 4th place finish for the same score in MPO - but it's not ok to enter both divisions and get a 2nd and a 10th place? If they pay the fee to enter -what could be the possible harm? Money in money out right? I think I understand why people are against this idea - it's because allowing this would be admitting what we do now is also inherently wrong.

It seems that "innovation and improvement" is entirely subjective.

It's perfectly fine for some of our best players (Hammock, Myers, Mela, Oates, Tannock, Schack, McClellan, Leonard, etc., etc.)



Thanks for inlcuding me in your list Craig, but I'm not masters age. :D

Well, I certainly don't expect to have many players that are all ready "age protected" to agree with divisions based on ratings. In a couple years I will be more than happy to have an option of playing Masters. Especially since my winnings this year would have increased by 400%. Any system can be manipulated if you want to try hard enough. Heck, there is someone with a 986 rating in the advanced division at the World's. I would certainly throw this into the argument of bagging to ensure success and this is under our current system. There are 83 players in the Open division with a rating lower than this. Who should be playing where? Would he have a chance of winning the Open Division? Absolutley not. Does he have a chance to beat all players in Advanced plus those 83 players in Open? Yes. A rating system would have people of equal/comparable skill levels playing with each other regardless of age.
(Side Note: I know nothing of the player rated at 986 nor the circumstances. This was just used as an example regarding my thoughts on ratings based divisions.)

It seems that "innovation and improvement" is entirely subjective.



of course a large part of it is... how could it be otherwise? i'm not getting drawn into debating the competition system with you- we've been through it before, we agree on some points but not on others, and on those we will have to agree to disagree. :D

What seems counter-intuitive to me is that a system based on customer service and player retention is in error. It would seem that a system that strives to keep the customer happy and coming back is doing something right.

It would be different if the PDGA tour had millions of dollars and could define how players had to compete to get a share, but we are depending on those customers we are trying to retain to fund the payouts. We have no carrot to hold in front of them. If we do something they don't like, they are likely to leave and play where they can do what they want.

As far as age protected divisions, some players really do need the protection. On a park course that is relatively flat, a two day event isn't much different based on age. A two day or longer event on challenging terrain makes quite a difference based on age. Two players may start the event at 950, but by the last round only the young guy is still at that level. There are exceptions where older players are still in great shape, but that is not the rule. At least not in the amateur ranks.

Well, I certainly don't expect to have many players that are all ready "age protected" to agree with divisions based on ratings. In a couple years I will be more than happy to have an option of playing Masters. Especially since my winnings this year would have increased by 400%. Any system can be manipulated if you want to try hard enough. Heck, there is someone with a 986 rating in the advanced division at the World's. I would certainly throw this into the argument of bagging to ensure success and this is under our current system. There are 83 players in the Open division with a rating lower than this. Who should be playing where? Would he have a chance of winning the Open Division? Absolutley not. Does he have a chance to beat all players in Advanced plus those 83 players in Open? Yes. A rating system would have people of equal/comparable skill levels playing with each other regardless of age.
(Side Note: I know nothing of the player rated at 986 nor the circumstances. This was just used as an example regarding my thoughts on ratings based divisions.)



As a Masters player myself, I am interested in a ratings based divisional structure. I began playing in Adv. Masters division, and I have seen many very good advanced plays who were playing very good advanced golf, move up to adv. masters and win a big event. Prior to that they were placing top 10 in large A tiers. Step up and win. Some of the top adv. players could also step up to masters and do very well there too. It is hard for me to compete against these types of players because there is no limit on ratings and some are ranging from 950 to 980 coming in. So me being a 926, a ratings based stucture could help me compete.

Pro tour 980+ cash
Semi-pro tour 950 to 979 cash
Advanced tour 925 to 949 cash
Intermidiate tour 899 to 924 merch
Tour Beginner 850 to 898 merch
Recreational &lt;849

Well, I certainly don't expect to have many players that are all ready "age protected" to agree with divisions based on ratings. In a couple years I will be more than happy to have an option of playing Masters. Especially since my winnings this year would have increased by 400%. Any system can be manipulated if you want to try hard enough. Heck, there is someone with a 986 rating in the advanced division at the World's. I would certainly throw this into the argument of bagging to ensure success and this is under our current system. There are 83 players in the Open division with a rating lower than this. Who should be playing where? Would he have a chance of winning the Open Division? Absolutley not. Does he have a chance to beat all players in Advanced plus those 83 players in Open? Yes. A rating system would have people of equal/comparable skill levels playing with each other regardless of age.
(Side Note: I know nothing of the player rated at 986 nor the circumstances. This was just used as an example regarding my thoughts on ratings based divisions.)



As a Masters player myself, I am interested in a ratings based divisional structure. I began playing in Adv. Masters division, and I have seen many very good advanced plays who were playing very good advanced golf, move up to adv. masters and win a big event. Prior to that they were placing top 10 in large A tiers. Step up and win. Some of the top adv. players could also step up to masters and do very well there too. It is hard for me to compete against these types of players because there is no limit on ratings and some are ranging from 950 to 980 coming in. So me being a 926, a ratings based stucture could help me compete.



There is a ratings based division in which you could compete against like rated players. It's called Intermediate. Is there some reason you do not play there now?

Yes. lately I would rather play in Pro masters for many reasons. But I would like the advantage a 950 cap would give me. I would be able to expect some fair competition. That is if we were strict about caps. Playing down should always be an option if you wish, but I like the more experienced groups than what you sometimes get in intermediate

Pro tour 980+ cash
Semi-pro tour 950 to 979 cash
Advanced tour 925 to 949 cash
Intermidiate tour 899 to 924 merch
Tour Beginner 850 to 898 merch
Recreational &lt;849



No

You can't require someone to compete as a pro. Bobby Jones is on of the greatest golfers of all time and never went pro.

GNDUKE said :

As far as age protected divisions, some players really do need the protection. On a park course that is relatively flat, a two day event isn't much different based on age. A two day or longer event on challenging terrain makes quite a difference based on age. Two players may start the event at 950, but by the last round only the young guy is still at that level. There are exceptions where older players are still in great shape, but that is not the rule. At least not in the amateur ranks.

Amazingly enough this is my opinion on why age and ratings protection could be fused with Tier requirements

At a local C tier event ( which are normally one day events)
you could have divisions like this
980 up OPEN
935 - 979 split 2 ways
Advanced and PRO MASTERS
900 - 934 split 2 ways
Intermediate and Pro Grand Masters
etc , on the way down

B tiers use 980 rating to break things up but add more divisions
980 and UP open
935 to 979
Advanced and Pro Master
900 to 934
Advanced Master , Intermediate and Pro Grand Master
Etc on the way down

At A tiers 1000 would be the open cut off

The point is Gary is right there are lots of people as they get older need the protection from those who can compete at the highest level but it seems more and more as we get to the point where Kenny is about to turn 40, something needs to be done about who can play where against whom , instead of it being just a whimsical choice based upon some arbitrary age limitation. Just maybe we should be thinking about it being based upon REAL ABILITY .