I need to start a new thread because I am no longer a Board member, but want to continue discussing important PDGA policies. On my "Board Member" thread I was developing aspects of the Golden Goose theme, but that is somewhat in limbo because the last Board recently removed the NT Agreement, which it had never approved. That Agreement is now pending consideration by the new Board.

I had raised two main objections, both here and to the Board. One is that it is not healthy for the NT Committee to have a monopoly on PDGA Tour recommendations. The other is that more support for programs for the other seven-eighths of the membership is overdue. Until the Board acts I do not know the extent to which my objections are still valid, so I'm setting aside the main thrust of my arguement, at least temporarily.

In the meantime there are two peripheral issues worth examining. One is a closer look at the current PDGA mantra, which is that Open players are the only ones worth watching, promoting and marketing. The other is the situation for the Pro Masters, who are shaping up to be the biggest losers in the developing PDGA philosophy.

I will comment on those issues soon.

In the meantime there are two peripheral issues worth examining. One is a closer look at the current PDGA mantra, which is that Open players are the only ones worth watching, promoting and marketing. The other is the situation for the Pro Masters, who are shaping up to be the biggest losers in the developing PDGA philosophy.

I will comment on those issues soon.



Please don't...

In the meantime there are two peripheral issues worth examining. One is a closer look at the current PDGA mantra, which is that Open players are the only ones worth watching, promoting and marketing. The other is the situation for the Pro Masters, who are shaping up to be the biggest losers in the developing PDGA philosophy.


fortunately there is an easy, two-part solution:

1. practice
2. play in Open

Maybe it is time for a"Seniors" Tour, Championship, etc.,apart from all the rest.
What would a Seniors Only Worlds be like (includes Masters)?
Probably not as crowded?

Maybe it is time for a"Seniors" Tour, Championship, etc.,apart from all the rest.
What would a Seniors Only Worlds be like (includes Masters)?
Probably not as crowded?


Yeah that would be awesome! I thought the NTs were started as Open only and I feel that it should either go back to that way or find another way to make the NT structure flow better.

I personally do not feel that Masters and GMs should get the same amount of added cash per player as Open but about 1/2 as much per player.

Tom,

You say, "Maybe it is time for a"Seniors" Tour, Championship, etc.,apart from all the rest. What would a Seniors Only Worlds be like (includes Masters)?"

It is time. But there is one big problem, which is that the NT Committee drives tour policy for important events. Take Pro Worlds, for example. Right now Pro Worlds is a shared event in which all divisions are supported fairly. If we split, the Open Pro Worlds would become like a super NT, and the PDGA would pour money into it. The Age-protected Worlds would become like an A-Tier, quite possibly totally unsupported, and we would continue to lose.

It would be a lot easier to get clubs to run Senior Tour events (with Masters) than NT's, because our requirements are far lower. But we'll never get the PDGA to support it unless we have representation like the Open players have, or unless the PDGA is reorganized so that we have more control of our programs.

"It would be a lot easier to get clubs to run Senior Tour events (with Masters) than NT's, because our requirements are far lower."

requirements might be lower, but does that really make it "a lot easier"? most of the clubs i know would rather host top Open players than top GM players.

you want to know the fastest way to get the PDGA re-organized more in line with what you are talking about? do those things yourself. put it together. make it happen. i'll bet ya if you do that then the PDGA will be a lot more responsive.

My question is , have you resigned for real this time or does it resemble this:

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=738659&page=0&fpart=18&v c=1

That's a link to his Feb 10th post about resigning and running again.

This is getting to be a soap opera. And I don't watch those either.

If the PDGA received a bid for one of the future Pro Worlds that was for hosting Open only or for hosting Masters and older only, it would have to be considered for years when we don't have another bidder.

Tom,

You say, "Maybe it is time for a"Seniors" Tour, Championship, etc.,apart from all the rest. What would a Seniors Only Worlds be like (includes Masters)?"

It is time. But there is one big problem, which is that the NT Committee drives tour policy for important events. Take Pro Worlds, for example. Right now Pro Worlds is a shared event in which all divisions are supported fairly. If we split, the Open Pro Worlds would become like a super NT, and the PDGA would pour money into it. The Age-protected Worlds would become like an A-Tier, quite possibly totally unsupported, and we would continue to lose.

It would be a lot easier to get clubs to run Senior Tour events (with Masters) than NT's, because our requirements are far lower. But we'll never get the PDGA to support it unless we have representation like the Open players have, or unless the PDGA is reorganized so that we have more control of our programs.




You act like the payout at worlds is good Peter! You pay $230 in entry and have to finish in the top 35 in open to get that back. What other events do you beat 80% of the field and just get your entry back?

Until eight years ago you became a Master at age 35. Then some people started saying, "Some of those Masters could compete with Open players", and, "Why should we protect 35-year-olds from 34-year-olds?", so they raised the age to 40. Now some people say, "Some of those Masters could compete with Open players", and, "Why should we protect 40-year-olds from 39-year-olds?"

So the heat is steadily turned up on the Masters division. Various schemes have appeared to force them to play in the Open division, especially in big events. The most direct of these is to not offer the division. The reason is simple: If you can force a lot of less talented (on the average) players to play against current Open players, the current Open players will profit in two ways. First, the Open division will have more players and more entry-fee money, and qualify for a larger portion of the overall added cash. The pot will be larger. Second, there will be a larger number of players that current Open players can beat.

Many who argue thus would prefer to eliminate age-protection altogether, or to increase the discrimination against such players. That is what it means when people say, "Age-protected players should not get any added cash", or, "It is shameful that you hide in an age-protected division", or, "How dare you criticize the PDGA Open-driven policy? As penance you should be forced to play in the Open division yourself". At age 67, no less.
Elimination of the Masters is the first step to eliminating age-protection altogether. If Masters go, we would soon hear, "Some of those Grandmasters could be competitive with Open players", and, "Why should we protect 50-year-olds from 49-year olds?" And so on.

At the last Fall Summit, one of the options I proposed was to eliminate age-protection. That shocked people. Why would I, of all people, propose such a policy? It is because, even then, I foresaw a possible future in which age-protected pros would slowly but steadily be humiliated, passed by, and eventually eliminated. That future is coming to pass.

If it happens, better that it happen quickly.

Fortunately, there's a statistical basis for retaining the 40-year age level for starting age protection. We looked at the first 10 years of rating data and ratings start declining by one throw every 5 years on average once you turn 40 and continues at that rate up to age 60. Up to age 40, there's no indication age has any bearing on rating.

Has a bearing on attendance. When I became a Masters player at 35 and then not when the age changed to 40, I didn't play any sanctioned events until I reached Masters age again.

fortunately there is an easy, two-part solution:

1. practice
2. play in Open




Awesome advice for a 67 year old.

sure, there's good reasons why it wont/cant happen. but the wisdom that comes with 67 years should overcome the need to the whine incessantly about not getting paid as much as the Open players, doncha think?

but the wisdom that comes with 67 years should overcome the need to the whine incessantly about not getting paid as much as the Open players, doncha think?




I don't agree that Peter is "whining incessantly" and I am glad he has brought this to the attention of the general membership.


How does eliminating age protected divisions from the NT further the sport or the NT? While it may force a handful of players to the Open division, it will likely eliminate the participation of the rest. The average NT event had over 30 age protected players with the Memorial having 80.

The current NT agreement already requires Open Men and Women to get a higher percentage of the payout. See 4.5.5
2008 NT Agreement (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2008/08NationalTourAgreement.pdf)
Now the NT committee wants events to raise more cash and put it solely into these already preferred divisions.


Again, please explain what is gained with the elimination of age protected divisions from the NT and how this is good for the sport of disc golf. Please do so without using ad hominem tactics.


FYI -

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

I actually think the age divisions should be eliminated from A B and C Tiers and should be promoted in the bigger events, opposite of what they are doing now.

its good for the sport and the NT because it will showcase full fields of top players vying for higher purses.

I think we should turn all the old people into Soylent Green...

its good for the sport and the NT because it will showcase full fields of top players vying for higher purses.


As long as efforts are made to get people to come watch. It's unlikely there will be anyone watching to see those full fields playing if we can't even get them to watch the feature Final 9. And if they do come, it will look so much better to not have all of us wrinkly old folks playing out there... but then we likely won't be there watching either.

work on the video more than the galleries. the galleries will happen, but the last thing we need is a herd of 5000 people shredding a forest. our future comes faster is we get top quality video that can play well on TV. i think 10,000 tv viewers is better than a 10,000 person gallery at virtually all of our galleries

I think that critics of the age-protection do so because of the statistics (tournament results, round ratings and player ratings, etc.) which show the continued overlap between divisions. While there are years of data to prove this point, one need only look at the recent World Championships (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7276#Open). While the courses played were different, for the most part the Grandmasters would still have been ultra-competitive in Masters, and the best Masters would have been top 20 or so in Open.

However, there is no need to fear the age-protection system ever going away because it has been in place far too long and they're all weaned on it. We're always going to stick with this system because that's what the membership asks for and makes them happy. People can argue about the competition system until they are blue in the face, but the facts are that the Masters-aged players who have funded the PDGA for decades now would cry bloody murder if the system were ever changed. And since no sane organization would do anything to jeopardize its membership or income and basically take measures that might bite the hand that feeds them, we're stuck with this. From the standpoint of the spirit of true competition, even if it makes all the sense in the world to make changes, it just ain't happening. Ever.

This is always an entertaining discussion, but until there are major sponsors providing outrageous monetary incentives to play Open, nothing will change. Ultimately, this is always just spinning our wheels in the sand.

jeff is right. age protected aint going anywhere, for the reasons he mentioned. i'd like to make the point that arguing against fat money in age protected divisions is NOT being anti-age-protected divisions. when applied to a very select handful of top events, it is more like being pro-Open.

just out of curiousity... what other sports can make this claim about their world championships: for the most part the Grandmasters would still have been ultra-competitive in Masters, and the best Masters would have been top 20 or so in Open.

Chess :p

He said "sport".

Chess :p

chess has age-protected divisions??? do they protect the young from the old?

...

wow, just looked it up... yes they protect the youngins from the old. ages 7,8,9...18 and under, 21 and under... then 65 and up. from 21 through 65 you are on your own.

Chess - Its tougher than disc golf!

Perhaps shouldn't have expected some to get the humor in that chess has Grandmasters who are better than Masters, who are better than Experts, etc.

There's nothing wrong with separating the age bracket tours like other sports. Greg Norman just showed he could hang in the British Open and the Senior Open. Peter's concern among others here is the allocation of too much PDGA resources in the Open direction.

I suspect that the administrative cost allocation in the PGA is probably proportional toward the Champions Tour versus the regular PGA Tour. The difference in payouts between events on those tours comes from sponsors and partly spectators, not because more admin resources from the PGA are applied to one tour versus the other. If someone initiated a disc golf Champions NT series, I would hope that the PDGA would apply proportionate resources to those events. But since there isn't one currently, the NT we have is where the resources are being applied in 2009 to see if it's viable which could prove helpful for all ages.

It's a good thing most of our NT TDs are under age 40. I mean there's Timmy Gill and, and, and... Look's like some youngsters may need to step up since running these things is still mostly a volunteer effort, not something you could justify as a paid job for someone of any age.

jeff is right age-protection is here to stay (thank god). this stuff will only become a non-issue when events can fill on a regular basis with open players only (which may or may not ever occur). i am probably going to run my event next year with a one day am tourney (adv and int only), a one day age protected tourney (am and pro), and a full weekend for mpo and fpo. this gives the ams and oldsters the chance to double or even triple dip while leaving the full weekend hawk hollow experience only to those willing to test the waters in open.

Pat,

I believe that you are a highly intelligent man, and you contributed much as a Board member. I learned quite a bit from you there. But your comments on this issue are, quite literally, beyond belief.

You say to me, <font color="red"> "the wisdom that comes with 67 years should overcome the need to the whine incessantly about not getting paid as much as the Open players, doncha think?" </font>

I have never, ever, said that I should be paid as much as the Open players. The support I ask from the PDGA for age-protected (and amateur) programs is a small fraction of the support that Open players are getting, and for which I voted.

Here's another example. Last Friday you said, <font color="red"> "Bruce, this Pro Master applauds both your announcing it <font color="black"> [added cash philosophy]</font>, and what you are doing. if we (Pro Masters) want to play for the gold ring, we will play in the gold ring division." </font>

This gives the impression that you are a Pro Master who would boldly step up to play for "the gold ring", happy to forfeit your entry fee if you fail. But the truth is that you are a Pro Grandmaster, who has never once stepped up to the gold ring division this year, not even when you played as an amateur.

With your experience, you could offer much in a dialog like this one. I would enjoy debating issues of substance with you. I would take you seriously if you would actually debate the issues, and offer material of substance and credibility.

From my perspective, this discussion, from the beginning, has been Peter's attempt to keep added money in his division. To achieve that goal, we first heard that the open players are the preferred and subsidized class. Try to stir up some resentment to bolster the case. Now, we have an attempt to enlist the masters on his side, not by arguing that they too will lose out on added money and that is unfair, but that they will soon lose their division. "You will be the first to go, so join my forces."

If you really want to be convincing, do the following:

1. Provide an honest portrayal of the numbers which convincingly shows that the open division is robbing the other divisions. If the claim is even true, these numbers will allow us to see the magnitude of this subsidy to judge the inequity for ourselves;

2. If you are going to argue equity, go the whole mile. In other words, talk about equity within divisions. Is it equitable for PDGA funds, even if apportioned fairly by division, to go to the top of the division. In other words, I want an answer to why senior grandmaster PDGA fees should be funneled through NTs to the top of the division. I would think the equity police would also be investigating this crime scene.

3. If it turns out that some minor figure in the budget is being used to showcase the sport's best, why is this so troubling. Convince me that putting some very minor amount towards the sport's best is such a terrible move. I mean, if the PDGA decided that $1 of your $75 member fee should go to the best performers, is this really highway robbery?

peter fair enough. i dont know about the support you are asking for, but until we see some detailed numbers from you that show us how you come up wirth your figures, there is not much point in arguing.

i have played Pro Master many times. not this year, no, but how does that negate anything? i played Open at the MSDGC last year (for practical purposes, an open-only field), and played up to Masters (even though GM qualified) more times than not. why should i take my 940ish rating to Open in most current events? it is a bit premature to diss me for noty playing Open when i am saying players (like me) mighyt play Open more if they had bigger Open divisions instead of the fragmentation we have now. (again, only at top events). in fact, i HAVE done just that when i had the opportunity. its just that the MSDGC was not a PDGA event.

I think we should turn all the old people into Soylent Green...



"It's people....the discs are made out of people!!!" :eek:

like those headrick discs- sick.

James,

My responses in red:

From my perspective, this discussion, from the beginning, has been Peter's attempt to keep added money in his division. <font color="red"> My goal is FAR broader than that. </font> To achieve that goal, we first heard that the open players are the preferred and subsidized class. Try to stir up some resentment to bolster the case. Now, we have an attempt to enlist the masters on his side, not by arguing that they too will lose out on added money and that is unfair, but that they will soon lose their division. "You will be the first to go, so join my forces." <font color="red"> They are already losing their division. Some big events (e.g., Vibram Open, the upcoming Seneca Creek Soiree) did not/will not offer their division. </font>

If you really want to be convincing, do the following:

1. Provide an honest portrayal of the numbers which convincingly shows that the open division is robbing the other divisions. If the claim is even true, these numbers will allow us to see the magnitude of this subsidy to judge the inequity for ourselves; <font color="red"> Good point. I haven't provided the detailed numbers yet. I have only invited everyone to look at the detailed budget themselves, so they would have numbers they believe. The Board meets tonight. I would feel like an idiot if I had published my numbers, and the Board took corrective action. I have just come off the Board that should have considered these matters, and I feel that I owe the current Board the benefit of the doubt. Stay tuned. By this weekend I will either fold my tent or publish my numbers.</font>

2. If you are going to argue equity, go the whole mile. In other words, talk about equity within divisions. Is it equitable for PDGA funds, even if apportioned fairly by division, to go to the top of the division. In other words, I want an answer to why senior grandmaster PDGA fees should be funneled through NTs to the top of the division. I would think the equity police would also be investigating this crime scene. <font color="red"> MPS fees should not be funneled through NT's. Fees from all divisions should go to the PDGA, just like all dues and all other income. The PDGA should then allocate to programs. This is how it has worked, although it will likely change with the advent of the NT Committee. My problem is with the allocation. </font>

3. If it turns out that some minor figure in the budget is being used to showcase the sport's best, why is this so troubling. Convince me that putting some very minor amount towards the sport's best is such a terrible move. I mean, if the PDGA decided that $1 of your $75 member fee should go to the best performers, is this really highway robbery? <font color="red"> It certainly isn't a minor figure, but I'll go with your example. It isn't troubling at all. But if it allocates $1 to Open programs, it should allocate something like $0.25 to Age-protected programs, and another $0.25 to Amateur programs. And it should have appropriate committees to recommend how those allocations are used. </font>

funneled...allocated...same thing. So, I'll ask again:

I want an answer to why senior grandmaster PDGA fees, when allocated back to the senior grandmaster division in NT events, should only be distributed to those at the top of the division? Given your equity concerns about allocation between divisions, I would expect you to be concerned about equity in allocation within divisions.

James,

My responses in red:

From my perspective, this discussion, from the beginning, has been Peter's attempt to keep added money in his division. <font color="red"> My goal is FAR broader than that. </font> To achieve that goal, we first heard that the open players are the preferred and subsidized class. Try to stir up some resentment to bolster the case. Now, we have an attempt to enlist the masters on his side, not by arguing that they too will lose out on added money and that is unfair, but that they will soon lose their division. "You will be the first to go, so join my forces." <font color="red"> They are already losing their division. Some big events (e.g., Vibram Open, the upcoming Seneca Creek Soiree) did not/will not offer their division. </font>



Since you seem to be convinced that there are inequities in the distribution of PDGA resources, perhaps you also have an opinion on the inequities of rewards in the current PDGA divisional structure. from where I sit (PDGA Open player since 1987, A Tier TD - 44 years old and I've never played a sanctioned event as a Master) - I see a large %age of MPM players shooting the same scores as their MPO counterparts, and being rewarded with greater amounts of prize money. How is this fair? Because they are over 40? I'd be curious if that is the only justification you can offer.

My attempt to draw players together in a single division at the Seneca Creek Soiree is multi-faceted. I am attempting to show that MPM players and M10 players do indeed have a decent chance at cashing in the MPO division when the division is structured to be inclusive. It also attempts to address the perceived financial burden vs skill disparity that so many of those "protected" players espouse when shunning participating in MPO. If those things (by necessity) eliminate a players choice to be protected - well so be it. The ultimate choice (that is by far a more appropriate choice to have - and to have to make) is whether or not to enter the competition in the first place.

I believe that you are so accepting of the existing divisional structure - that you give no consideration or even acknowlegement to the inequities in rewards that are at the heart of our divisional structure. This gives you the gift of ignorance - that which you know nothing about - or do not acknowledge - play no role in the forming of your opinions.

"They are already losing their division. Some big events (e.g., Vibram Open, the upcoming Seneca Creek Soiree) did not/will not offer their division. "

a) thats up to the TDs. if it is terrible, no one will come.
b) they are NOT losing their division. the PDGA still sanctions those divisions, and there is absolutely ZERO talk of abolishing those divisions for good.

Dave Devine shot a 218 at the WVO. he won $350 in Masters. Brad Schick shot a 215 and took home only $305. why? because he played in Open! now thats the kind of inequity that you dont need spreadsheets, assumptions and subjectivity to see. how much more do you want to give Dave for staying out of Open?

They did play different courses (although SSAs were close).

darn it! i was hoping they were the same. well, the point is the same anyway. it is NOT that hard to find examples of same courses played and Masters getting paid more for the same score than the showcase, creamofthecrop Open division.

They did play different courses (although SSAs were close).



CK - While you are correct in this instance - that MPO and MPM played different course -I doubt that Pat realised that.

The point is not lost however. Pick virtually any event where the divisions played the same courses, and you will see a similar disparity / inequity. It happens every weekend in PDGA world - some of us see it and don't like it. Others see it and don't care. Others see it and embrace it. Others still just refuse to see it.

What I think many refuse to see is that there are separate divisional events being played in a weekend almost like separate employee groups having events at a ball golf course the same afternoon. They have separate wager/entry fee pools and likely different skill levels among those competing. If one group has lower skill but higher ante and a player in that group happens to shoot the same score and win more than a player in the higher skill group who wins nothing, is that unfair?

We're not big enough to have regular events where the age divisons don't play at the same venue like ball golf. But if we did, these situations that might appear unfair to some wouldn't arise. The fact there is fluidity between divisional choices on the spot for some players is a nod toward better participation among what is essentially our amateur divisions who play for cash and those who play for merch.

so you are saying we have geographic restrictions regarding overlapping events, unless they are put on by the same TD under the same name, then its ok? count me among those who cannot see they are seperate events, chuck. its a nice mental trick, though :)

besides, a lot of the example-makers do this repeatedly. it doesnt seem like they say "drats, no one at all in Open, i guess i'll have to play Masters."

I'm saying that ball golf has a PGA event and Champions event on the same day and both fill. Several of the Champions could still play the PGA event. One of the Champions might shoot par and win more than a PGA player who shot under par. Yes, they are different courses but if par in BG is meaningful then... If anything, our TDs should have the older divisions play different courses and/or tees so this comparison of who shot better and won more would happen less often to better indicate that our weekend events are actually separate events for each division but "under the same roof."

James,

My answers in red:

I want an answer to why senior grandmaster PDGA fees, when allocated back to the senior grandmaster division in NT events, should only be distributed to those at the top of the division? <font color="red"> First, there are no "MPS funds". There are only PDGA funds. Second, no funds should be allocated for the MPS division at NT's; I'm fine with NT's being Open-only. Third, no PDGA funds should distributed directly to any players in any division. And none are at present, except the NT Points Series Awards in the Open divisions.

I have not yet formally argued for "MPS funds" or "Age-protected funds" or "Amateur funds", although I am very close to it. I would prefer to have the PDGA allocate all funds. I am agitating because it appears to me that the PDGA does not care very much about Amateur and Age-protected players. </font>

Given your equity concerns about allocation between divisions, I would expect you to be concerned about equity in allocation within divisions. <font color="red"> Absolutely not. No pro would want equity within divisions. Within any professional division, the top players win more -- that's what makes them the top players. Equity saps the vitality and the competitive spirit to excel. You wouldn't argue for equity within the Open division. If you did, you'd have to go through Kenny and Barry and David and Val et al. It would be similarly pointless to have equity within other professional divisions. </font>

...If anything, our TDs should have the older divisions play different courses and/or tees so this comparison of who shot better and won more would happen less often to better indicate that our weekend events are actually separate events for each division but "under the same roof."


i'll bet money that such an arrangement would see some of the more qualified masters go ahead and play in open. you might even end up with just as many masters players in some events, as it opens up to a different, more populous, demographic.

Preaching to the choir. But many of the TDs are also Masters or older so it's less likely to see the shorter tee/other course option used.

One way to keep all the money in it's own division, is to have only those divisons. Like Seniors Only. Then all that money would stay right there. If there is no Seniors Division at the Open event, then all the money stays in the Open.
We have enough Senior TD's to have our own Tour and World or National Championships. (With all due respect to the Masters in CA )
It's really not about the money. How many Seniors have felt a little "left out" at the big events? How many have felt that they just let them in a division because they had to?
How many of you Seniors would rather play with 30-50 other Seniors with no open players in the event? How many of you have been to a WFDF Senior event? Notice anything?
Don't answer unless you have been a Senior for at least 5 years.
We are growing and getting older. We have to consider what is best for everyone.

Peter, I'm gald you embrace the competitive concept that rewards should go to those who excel. Now what was all the original fuss about? Money going to those who excel the most.

Tom said "We are growing and getting older"

Tom, I've known you for 30 years, and I contend that this is false... you are already old (as dirt) and you sir are shrinking...

And why were you not in K'zoo to take that title from Peter?

Pardon the interruption...Please resume...

"How many of you have been to a WFDF Senior event? Notice anything? "

i have not, but i'd like to ask what i would have noticed. are those events something we could model after?

Everyone,

In the past I have done unsophisticated accountings that just gave rough totals of funds spent on programs, because that was all I had time for and because the people who saw those accountings are informed enough to make the necessary allowances. I didn't use income data. I tried to get others to do accountings, so I would have other data to use. I didn't break out sums that should be broken out.

This time I'm doing it much more carefully and thoroughly, and I probably won't finish until Sunday. I'm working toward a number I call the "Contribution Factor". It is the ratio of the income provided by each of the three major groups (Open Pro, Age-Protected Pro, and Amateur), divided by the amount that each group receives in dedicated services. This number tells you how many dollars that group pays the PDGA for each dollar it gets back in dedicated services. If the numbers were the same for all three groups, that would mean that the PDGA was allocating funds evenly. Larger Contribution Factors mean that the group is subsidizing other groups. Smaller numbers mean that the group is being subsidized. Different numbers mean that there is bias, and a comparison of the numbers is a measure of the extent of the bias.

Dollar amounts must be calculated on the way, and you will see those, with a full explanation of where they come from. Dollar amounts by themselves don't tell the whole story because the groups are of different sizes. Only the ratio of (income)/(dedicated expenses) is a fair measure for a group.

This isn't as complex as the ratings formula, but it is certainly not trivial. In some cases the PDGA office could make more precise computations, and I will invite them to do so because I would like an independent check.

I envision the following schedule:

Part 2: Income by groups (tomorrow or Saturday)
Part 3: Expenses for dedicated programs (Saturday)
Part 4: Contribution Factors, and interpretation (Sunday)

coolio! i started on yesterday also, and have the same kind of issue in making the allocations.

for the spending side, do you plan on leaving some percentage out, as the "Good of the Sport" (GOTS) role? ie, IDGC, rules, EDGE, etc. also, i'm wondering if you are using income from just players fees and other event fees, or are gonna look at the members fees also. i've been kinda thinking whole-picture up til now instead of just looking a the competition tracks.

How do you also quantify the fact that people sometimes go to events or hang around to watch Doss, Feldberg, Climo, etc play (especially younger players and noobs who likely are spending money on discs, refreshments, merch, etc to help fund events) and nobody goes to events to watch "Easy Money" Shive or Raymond Carr play?

I can tell you that I do not expect my fees to be used to in a proportional fashion to benefit my division, nor do I expect it to benefit my classification directly. I expect it to be used to further the sport in the places the organization deems appropriate.

In my opinion, that would be in the EDGE program and developing competitive structures that are easily implemented scholastically and for community league play. We need a package we can hand to a municipality with courses that they can run as easily as a softball league. It must depend on team participation to be successful at bringing in and holding new players for the season.

I can tell you that I do not expect my fees to be used to in a proportional fashion to benefit my division, nor do I expect it to benefit my classification directly. I expect it to be used to further the sport in the places the organization deems appropriate.



Post of the year, imo.

We have a publicly elected Board of Directors along with an Executive Director and paid PDGA staff (all together, a collection of some 10-12 people) whose role it is to determine how the PDGA budget should be spent and in what proportions.

I can think of no bigger waste of time than to try and figure out what the ratio of the income provided by each of the three major groups is, or where those dollars get allocated. It is all used to promote and grow the sport of disc golf and that is all that matters.

I can tell you that I do not expect my fees to be used to in a proportional fashion to benefit my division, nor do I expect it to benefit my classification directly. I expect it to be used to further the sport in the places the organization deems appropriate.



I agree with this statement.


That being said, I am not comfortable with the PDGA spending additional money on NT events if they do not include all the pro divisions. I wouldn't mind if the PDGA left it up to each NT event to decide what divisions to offer, I just feel it shouldn't be a requirement by the PDGA.

thasts exactly why it IS important, at least to some. if we are gonna consider, seriously or just-for-fun, splitting into three or four functional units, this kind of figuring is precisely what we'd need to do.

Dollar amounts by themselves don't tell the whole story because the groups are of different sizes. Only the ratio of (income)/(dedicated expenses) is a fair measure for a group.



The whole story should factor in the benefit or growth factor of having many of our sports top players playing at events outside of their local area. I don't know how you factor these intrinsic traits to allocating money to Pro programs.

Not an NT, but a SuperTour this weekend in Northern Wisconsin. Des and I signed autographs and talked at length to no less than twenty amateur players during the weekend. All of these folks seemed to be pretty stoked to spend some time with us and we are more than happy to do so to help strengthen and grow the sport. We didn't have a free moment the entire length of time we hung out around the awards cabin after the last round. This may be why sponsors sponsor players, but I would hope the PDGA sees EXTRA value that comes back to the sport and sanctioned events when this occurs.

The tournament had A.M. and P.M. Am/Pro starts which allowed Des to follow each of the AM Women's groups for some holes. They were crazy appreciative and many came to watch Des' next round mostly because she made them feel comfortable. All left feeling even better about disc golf.

There were twenty-four non-PDGA players there, will any sign-up due to there experiences or interactions? Who knows, but meeting and watching Barry Schultz, John Drummond, Des and Jay sure have to help.

truth from the good for nuthin' ambassador of the sport. nice shooting by the missus last weekend too!!!

Jay,

This is wonderful, and I am well aware of your (and Des's) fine contributions as ambassadors of the sport. However, many older players, and many amateurs, also have stories in which they effectively promoted the sport.

The current PDGA mantra is that the top Open players are the only ones whose performance is capable of interesting and exciting people who do not yet play disc golf. That is a silly attitude. It is certainly a lot easier for the Open players to do it right now, because they receive much support to do it.

In reality, disc golf and the PDGA are marketed to the public by a wide spectrum of the membership. The insistence that only the Open players should be supported to carry this flag is insulting and counterproductive.

I will look more closely at this mantra soon. But first, I want to get the numbers out.

I can tell you that I do not expect my fees to be used to in a proportional fashion to benefit my division, nor do I expect it to benefit my classification directly. I expect it to be used to further the sport in the places the organization deems appropriate.



Post of the year, imo.

We have a publicly elected Board of Directors along with an Executive Director and paid PDGA staff (all together, a collection of some 10-12 people) whose role it is to determine how the PDGA budget should be spent and in what proportions.

I can think of no bigger waste of time than to try and figure out what the ratio of the income provided by each of the three major groups is, or where those dollars get allocated. It is all used to promote and grow the sport of disc golf and that is all that matters .



I don't disagree with any of the above but... Then why are the fees different depending on your status as am or pro?

they shouldn't be...

...because the org plays a semantic trick on them

In terms of semantics, you mean making pros believe they are actually pros?

In terms of semantics, you mean making pros believe they are actually pros?


Yes, all but 3-5 people are not pros. Especially people who hide in protected divisions thrice removed from the one-true competitive division and beat their "competition" by 20 strokes to take advantage of a backwards entitlement system.

Pat, you left off "because they get their name in the title of the organization." That's my choice!

thasts exactly why it IS important, at least to some. if we are gonna consider, seriously or just-for-fun, splitting into three or four functional units, this kind of figuring is precisely what we'd need to do.



The problem is that the number of people with this attitude is in the minority. While you might be willing to play in a category where you will not win, and I might be willing to do the same, a large number have shown they are not willing to do that. They've shown this in polls and by removing themselves from the membership.

Part of that is cost. Even I would balk at the cost of a pro tournament unless it was very special.

The point being made is fine, and a simpler structure would be great, but there has to be a plan to keep people involved. You mentioned Steve and his abilities. And I say yes. Well, isn't it about time that someone presented a plan?

Dollar amounts by themselves don't tell the whole story because the groups are of different sizes. Only the ratio of (income)/(dedicated expenses) is a fair measure for a group.



The whole story should factor in the benefit or growth factor of having many of our sports top players playing at events outside of their local area. I don't know how you factor these intrinsic traits to allocating money to Pro programs.

Not an NT, but a SuperTour this weekend in Northern Wisconsin. Des and I signed autographs and talked at length to no less than twenty amateur players during the weekend. All of these folks seemed to be pretty stoked to spend some time with us and we are more than happy to do so to help strengthen and grow the sport. We didn't have a free moment the entire length of time we hung out around the awards cabin after the last round. This may be why sponsors sponsor players, but I would hope the PDGA sees EXTRA value that comes back to the sport and sanctioned events when this occurs.

The tournament had A.M. and P.M. Am/Pro starts which allowed Des to follow each of the AM Women's groups for some holes. They were crazy appreciative and many came to watch Des' next round mostly because she made them feel comfortable. All left feeling even better about disc golf.

There were twenty-four non-PDGA players there, will any sign-up due to there experiences or interactions? Who knows, but meeting and watching Barry Schultz, John Drummond, Des and Jay sure have to help.



Yeti,

Let me begin with an apology for the question I'm about to ask. While I would spend as much money in the world on your and Dez' appearances, how does that pay off across the entire Pro spectrum?

I'm happy to have 100,000 go to the Pro purse (regardless) but if we're going to argue we are getting a benefit, then the PDGA needs a Pro guideline that defines what Pros are going to pay back (other than participation). Beyond the fact that I think this is responsible, I think it is unfair that some, say Yeti and Dez, give so much and others might not give anything.

p.s. Just a point of clarification. At one time I wrote Brian H. a note about the Pro addition. Frankly, I didn't think it was fair. Time gives perspective, I don't mind this (at least under our current structure) but I do want to know that it pays for the organization. Jay makes the best point I've read here, seeing the Pros out there is a rush, one I'm willing to pay for.

In terms of semantics, you mean making pros believe they are actually pros?



i mean making them believe there is any difference in the two in services provided by the org. even something such as giving $ directly to the NT only directly benefits a few pros, the vast majority of us gain no more from it than the ams do (basically marketing of the sport). please note that this does not mean i oppose the org supporting the NT, i merely think it benefits ams as much as it does 99% of pros.

I worked with the 2008 detailed budget because I am familiar with it, and because it is the best measure of PDGA intentions and expectations. Actuals would be slightly better, but we won�t know them until well into 2009, and although the PDGA released such information this year, we don�t know if it will in 2009. I only considered income from �membership income� (mostly dues) and from player fees ($5, 4, 3, 2 for NT, A, B and C-tier respectively). The total income from those two sources is budgeted at $870,000 ($610,000 from �dues�, and $260,000 from fees, of which $90,000 is from the $10 temp fee).

Partitioning �dues� income between the three major groups is easy. Using the $50/75 split, and sssuming that the PDGA is 74% Amateur, 14% Open Pro, and 12% Age-protected Pro, the breakdown is:
Amateur $400,000
Open Pro 113,000
Age-protected pro 97,000

Fee income is much harder. I don�t have the time or resources to look at all the tournament reports, so I chose a subset. I used all the data from the five weekends in June, and assumed that those statistics would be reasonably representative for the year. For income from the $10 nonmember temp fee, I just used the first two of those five weeks, because the trend was instantly obvious.

For straight fee income the breakdown is:
Amateur $102,000
Open Pro 47,000
Age-protected Pro 21,000

For temp-fee income, it is:
Amateur $ 82,000
Open Pro 6,000
Age-protected Pro 2,000

The grand total for income from all above sources is:
Amateur $584,000
Open Pro 166,000
Age-protected Pro 120,000

We can draw some interesting conclusions from this study, not all of which relate to my purpose:
1) Amateurs provide more than twice the income from these sources as all professionals combined. I suspect this would still be true if I could have corrected for �Pros playing as Amateur�.
2) Players who play in the Open division provide 58% of all �Pro� income. Open players actually provide less because Age-protected players may play in the Open division, but I had no way to correct for this.
3) For those who are interested, the fee income (not including temp fees) by Tier breaks down as follows:
NT: 6.8%
A: 15.2
B: 43.6
C: 34.4
This surprised me a lot. There were three NT�s in my five-week sample, an unusually high number, so I had expected a higher NT income percentage. I hadn�t expected that B- and C-tiers would provide almost 80% of the total. It would be more like 90% if temp fees are included. The larger number of events more than makes up for the lower fees.
4) The PDGA collected about $5,000 in temp fees in that two week period. I used to think that the budgeted amount of $90,000 for 2008 was a �pie in the sky� number, but now it looks about right.

this is nice Peter! one question about "sssuming that the PDGA is 74% Amateur, 14% Open Pro, and 12% Age-protected Pro"... is that a guess, or founded on something? it looks in range to me, just wondering.

Pat,

It's just the best assumption I can manage at this time. Let's call it an educated guess -- I'd bet it's within a couple percent.

An error bar of a few percent is probably typical for the study, because of other assumptions as well. One is obviously the assumption that June gives fee breakdowns that are typical for the whole year. I picked June partly because it had three NT's (out of the eight for the whole year). I worried that if I picked a time period in which NT's were underrepresented people would claim my study is biased against the Open players. I didn't use Ace and Birdie Club income, partly for the same reason. Also, I assumed that the percentage of "without magazine" memberships is about the same in all three groups.

The PDGA could do it better, because they have more complete information and it's easily ported to spreadsheets. I assume that they are aware of my study, and will jump in with appropriate comments if I'm wrong in a significant way.

Again, working with the 2008 detailed budget, I looked at expenses for dedicated programs for each of the three major groups. I did not include programs that are shared by divisions on a fairly equitable basis, like this year�s Worlds. I also did not include dedicated programs for women like the US Women�s Championship, because it is Pro/Am and because I do not have a problem with some extra support for women�s programs, especially when all women are included.

The 2008 NT�s are partly shared, but not equitably. In previous accountings I had assigned all support for NT�s to the �Open� column because I didn�t have time for a more refined analysis. For this study I generated a factor that measures the extent to which 2008 NT�s are �for� Age-protected players. I used a combination of the added cash difference (one to three) and the number of players in the eight NT�s (368 vs. 830), so that the overall factor is 14.8%.

This part of the study has greater uncertainty than the income analysis. My estimate for the value of on-site Staff assistance at events in the US, Japan and Europe is a rough guess, and could go either way. Some items may overestimate Open support. I�m not sure whether �Marketing sponsorships� belong entirely in the �Open� column. I couldn�t find the tour reports for the foreign majors on the website. The Japan Open is basically Open-only, but the European majors may have an Age-protected and/or Amateur component. Some omissions may understate it. Contracts for majors are confidential, and may contain items I don�t know about. PDGA consultants (and accountant) make almost $80,000; some of the consultants may perform Open-only functions. As before, the PDGA could do this better. If they provide better numbers I would be happy to revise my findings.

With these thoughts in mind, here is the accounting of PDGA support for dedicated programs by group.

AMATEUR
US Amateur &amp; Marshall $3000
US Masters and Marshall (Am share) 1500
World Doubles &amp; Marshall 3000
TOTAL $7,500

OPEN PRO
NT sponsorships ($10800)x.85 = $9180
Players clinics 3150
NT points awards 6500
USDGC and Players Cup 4000
Tour program/spectator guide 10000
Tour poster 2000
Marshalls (NT and Open-only share) 21000
Marketing/publicity campaign 20000
Marketing sponsorships 9000
International events 5000
On-site staff assistance 5000
TOTAL $94,830

AGE-PROTECTED PRO
NT sponsorships ($10800)x.15 = $1620
US Masters &amp; Marshall (Pro share) 1500
TOTAL $3120

Within the next day or so I will publish the �Contribution Factors� (see Part 1 of this series) and discuss their significance.

A final comment. The 2008 "numbers" are not the most important data, because they refer only to a single year. If you disagree with my accounting, any one of you can redo it easily using your own system. If you do, you should do it again, using your system, when the 2009 budget is published. The key information is how these numbers change with time, because that provides the best barometer for the future of the PDGA.

OPEN PRO
NT sponsorships ($10800)x.85 = $9180
Players clinics 3150
NT points awards 6500 <font color="red"> Why is this almost as much as the total NT sponsorship? </font>
USDGC and Players Cup 4000
Tour program/spectator guide 10000 <font color="red">What the heck is this? </font>
Tour poster 2000
Marshalls (NT and Open-only share) 21000 <font color="red"> No offense but I don't think we need marshalls because we don't even use them </font>
Marketing/publicity campaign 20000 <font color="red"> Are you kidding me? </font>
Marketing sponsorships 9000
International events 5000
On-site staff assistance 5000
TOTAL $94,830 <font color="red">could be put to MUCH better use! </font>

Matt,

I don't justify it, I only report it. You and I probably would agree that much of the money spent on Open programs could be spent in a way that is more directly beneficial to Open players. I suspect that the NT Committee will address this issue, and that it will suggest a more effective redistribution of Open assets.

At the same time, Amateurs and Age-protected players should have more in the way of support, and Commitees to suggest effective use of that support.

What kind of support do Ams need? Most of them have plastic coming out of thier ears.

I remember when I was in AM I felt like I had way more support than I do as a Pro.

Hey Pete what is wrong with having a $1 "worlds fee" on every entry the PDGA takes in so that we can actually have significant added cash?

Southern nationals does this and the outcome is a C-tier that pays $2500 for 1st in open and $1700 in masters! Also not too bad is the $700 for the women.

I thuink the PDGA should take note as that event was better than 95% of the PDGA events I have played.

The fact is at worlds you can beat 80% of the field and you only get a 20% gain on your entry when you get payed out which is worse than most C-tiers.

Worlds is not about the payout despite what many might think.

Worlds is not about the payout despite what many might think.




I agree which why everyone still goes knowing the payout is WEAK! So what is wrong with making it not only a great event to meet those from around the world but an event which has GREAT payout as well?

$100,000+ in added cash all from $1 per entry. Also it would be something we could actually SEE our money going too!


If local series see this as a good money generator for a final event why can't the PDGA? I may just move to Mississippi so I can play the higher quality SN events.

$100,000+ in added cash all from $1 per entry. Also it would be something we could actually SEE our money going too!


Yes, you can see the money from 2500 pro members subsidizing 120 players which is that much less money going for services to all pro members. Now maybe pros could raise money for Worlds in other ways like running bake sales.

if they do it $1 at a time and everyone knows it, then whats the problem with the subsidizing?

if they do it $1 at a time and everyone knows it, then whats the problem with the subsidizing?


If they know it and have the choice not requirement to donate the $1 then fine.

I think a better idea might be to give each Pro Worlds entrant five all week passes and they need to sell four for $25 each. They get to keep one ticket for a friend or family member. The all-week pass is needed to spectate at the event and access information on the PDGA website during Worlds.

That would provide proof, possibly for the first time, to future media and sponsor contacts that over 1000 people paid to watch the Worlds in person and/or online and the pros help their own effort by bringing $30K added to the event.

$100,000+ in added cash all from $1 per entry. Also it would be something we could actually SEE our money going too!


Yes, you can see the money from 2500 pro members subsidizing 120 players which is that much less money going for services to all pro members. Now maybe pros could raise money for Worlds in other ways like running bake sales.




Chuck what are you talking about?


Southern Nationals does it and not only are there no complaints everyone loves it!

How is it unfair if anyone who qualifies for worlds would benefit? I guess you wouldn't but all the players would and you wouldn't have so many people talking about how worlds is overrated!

$1 from every entry to Worlds would be the deal with the money being split among the % of players from each category that attend worlds.

I bet that Nobody would complain (well maybe the loopy folks guys like Chuck) and that that more than doubling the purse at woulds would bring a lot of good for our sport!

There's simply no benefit. The Southern Nats is strictly a tour. Doing what they do with the $1 makes sense if they have no other mission. Leagues are the same way collecting money for final awards but then everyone playing in league has a shot at the payoff. Not everyone can afford the cost and time to enter Worlds. The PDGA is more than just a tour. If those on tour wish to contribute the extra $1, then fine. But no one should be forced to do it. It's like forcing a company to sponsor the Worlds. It doesn't happen.

In Part 1 of this series I introduced the �Contribution Factor�, which is the ratio of money paid to the PDGA divided by the value of dedicated services provided by the PDGA. Equal Contribution Factors would mean that each group was sharing equally in the resources. Larger Factors denote groups that are �contributing� more than their share; a smaller factor means that the group is being subsidized.

Using the results from Part 2 and 3, the Contribution Factors are:
Amateur 77.87
Open Pro 1.75
Age-protected Pro 38.46

If every group shared equally the overall Contribution Factor would be the total income divided by the total expenditure for dedicated services. This number is 8.25, which shows that both the Amateurs and the Age-protected pros are subsidizing the Open Pros. Well, we already knew that, so what�s the big deal?

Now we have a way to quantify the bias, or inequity. This study shows that the bias in favor of Open players over Amateurs is about 44:1. The bias in favor of Open players over Age-protected players is about 22:1.

This is out of line. I believe that an Open bias of 10:1 over Amateurs, and 3:1 over Age-protected players, is justifiable.

Now here�s the good news. To achieve this kind of �biased balance�, there is no need to decrease Open benefits at all. If the PDGA added just $20,000 each to dedicated programs for Amateurs and Age-protected players, the Open bias would drop to 12:1 and 3:1 respectively. Where would the $40,000 come from? I believe that there is enough fat in the budget to provide it without cutting any support for Open programs.

There is of course another way to move toward more reasonable bias, which is to dramatically cut dues and player fees for amateurs and age-protected players. This lowers the Contribution Factor for those groups by decreasing the numerator, rather than increasing the denominator. I doubt that the PDGA would want to do this, because it would enormously decrease its operating revenue, and it would heighten the perception that the PDGA would do anything to avoid allocating more support for the �other seven eighths�.

There's simply no benefit.<font color="red"> You mean increased excitement and a larger purse which helps bring spectators isn't a good thing? </font> The Southern Nats is strictly a tour. Doing what they do with the $1 makes sense if they have no other mission. Leagues are the same way collecting money for final awards but then everyone playing in league has a shot at the payoff.<font color="red">Everyone with points has a shot!</font> Not everyone can afford the cost and time to enter Worlds.<font color="red"> your right and if you double the purse and quality of the event it will make the choice easier. Right now it really isn't the best investment! </font> The PDGA is more than just a tour. <font color="red"> We have a tour? </font> If those on tour wish to contribute the extra $1, then fine. But no one should be forced to do it.<font color="red"> We are forced to give the PDGA $3-$5 per event on top of all other costs. </font> It's like forcing a company to sponsor the Worlds. It doesn't happen.<font color="red">No its called the PDGA finally doing something with the players' money which we can actually see and directly benefit from. I need someone other than Chuck to tell me this is a bad idea before I drop this issue which I feel will give our WORLD championship a better standard! Considering The average Pro entry is $75 I think $1 an awesome investment in our largest event. </font>




Would anyone here complain about putting $1 to make our Worlds Championship the most important event to attend?????

Contibution factors??????????

Go back to your step 3 and be honest with the numbers:

why are "players clinics" included? This doesn't benefit open players, it benefits the people who attend the clinics, usually non-open PDGA members.

why are USDGC and Player's Cup allocated solely to open? There are age-protected players at these events. Probably some amateurs also.

Tour programs??? Spectator guides??? Once again, in this budget, age-protected classes competed in those events, and more importantly, those expenses are designed to showcase the sport. That money doesn't go into any open player's pocket.

It is basically ditto with all the other expenses you list. You are confusing a PDGA choice to invest in the tour with subsidies of open players. Once again, almost all of the money you list DOES NOT make into any open player's pockets.

I could just as easily take all the added money paid by open players through membership fees and compare it to the actual added money they receive and then claim some injustice. Is that slanted? Sure, just as your entire presentation is.

All you have established is that the PDGA invests a lot of money into the NT tour. Rather than asking if each expenditure is wise, and fashioning an argument that the tour is not a good investment, you turn it into an "open players are getting a great deal" argument. Additionally, I like the way you avoid saying "the top open players are getting a great deal relative to all open players" argument. That might not suit the real purpose of the entire endevour: to persuade us that the "the NT should have age-protected divisions."

In sum, you've turned an observation that "supporting the NT tour costs money" into a war between the divisions. Instead, it seems a more useful observation should be: Is this a wise investment on part of the PDGA? or Can the tour be run more efficiently?

I hope the PDGA is looking into these questions, rather than being distracted by spurious equity arguments.

Would anyone here complain about putting $1 to make our Worlds Championship the most important event to attend?????


You have to persuade those on the Competition Committee and then the Board. Lobbying here does little to help your cause.

The mantra that has driven PDGA thinking the past several years is, �Only the Open players are worthy of being watched, promoted and marketed (and thus, respected)�. This mantra has been responsible for many knee-jerk decisions, and also for strong emotional reactions when it is questioned. It is time for a more sober inspection of its three props.

WATCHABILITY: Chuck Kennedy has often commented on this. I would agree that most PDGA members would prefer to watch Open players, but the edge is less clear with the general public. In either case, the preference is orchestrated so as to become a self-fulfilling prophesy. At most big events the Open players are the only ones still playing while everyone else is sitting around waiting for the awards ceremony. If the Grandmasters were the only division to play at that time, everyone would say, �Look at the size of those Grandmaster galleries!�

When other divisions do have final nines (like at Worlds), the Open players go last, as they should. But the other divisions have surprisingly large galleries, given the size of the division and its place in the rotation.

PROMOTABILITY: When the PDGA controls the media, you would think that it was the �Open Disc Golf Association�. Gail came to Highbridge last year, when I won my eighth title. After I showed her the PDGA front page story she laughed and said, �I was there. Weren�t you?� I didn�t even bother to show her this year�s story.

It is quite different when the media acts in its own interest. Newspaper reporters often interview me when they cover events I play in. They walk with my foursome, sometimes for an entire round, and write about older players. I am sure that the same is true for many other �over 40�s� and perhaps even for some Amateurs. The reason is clear � the general public is interested in many aspects of players, not just how far they can throw.

MARKETABILITY: The PDGA has done a superb job of marketing the Open players to its own membership. But this is pointless � it is preaching to the choir. Its efforts at marketing to the general public have largely failed. Look at the marketing expenses for 2008 alone. I suspect that less money has been raised than was spent in the effort.

Disc golf manufacturers, on the other hand, are far more successful at marketing. Take Innova, for example. The �Team Champion� categories represent Innova�s most coveted sponsored positions. There are thirty-three �Team Champion� players in all. Fifteen of them are over 40, and nine of that fifteen are over 50. Think about that.

SUMMARY: The PDGA�s marketing strategy is misdirected and counterproductive. There is no need to market Open players to its own members.

The correct strategy is twofold. First the PDGA should market its services to players who are not PDGA members. Second, it should market the GAME to people who do not yet play it. It is obvious that older players and amateurs are important assets in both parts of that strategy.

Need to target baby boomers who have the money, are in positions of power in the community, are already joining the PDGA at a nice clip and have participated and volunteered more than any age group older or younger than them throughout their lives.

www.getinvolved.gov/pdf/boomer_vol.pdf (http://www.getinvolved.gov/pdf/boomer_vol.pdf)

Need to target baby boomers for what?

Face it, any excitement generated by disc golf, however small or within small groups, has always been focused on the best players. "Wow, he is good for an old guy" isn't an appealing storyline, not even to me, someone in a demographic presumably sympathetic to such sentiments.

Need to target baby boomers for what?


Membership and participation in general. They will watch both the best and their own age, that is if the product in general is worth watching, and the jury has been out on that for quite a while now.

random link (http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/8500388/Final-Four-brought-in-$47M-to-San-Antonio)

seems as good a place as any...

The mantra that has driven PDGA thinking the past several years is, �Only the Open players are worthy of being watched, promoted and marketed (and thus, respected)�. This mantra has been responsible for many knee-jerk decisions, and also for strong emotional reactions when it is questioned. It is time for a more sober inspection of its three props.



It's curious that you have come up with this as the PDGA mantra - but maybe not surprising - as I have been watching for a much longer period of time than you have. A more accurate mantra might be along the lines of - "If we don't make it so that everyone has a chance at winning, people will stop competing!" And hence the ever expanding and bloated divisional structure.

At the heart of your concern is an acceptance of this structure. This negates any legitimacy in your argument for me personally. For without a comprehensive acknowledgement of the elements of the organization (both the attributes and the flaws), legitimate critique is not plausible.

Craig,

You may not want to consider my argument, but I'll consider yours. You say, <font color="red"> A more accurate mantra might be along the lines of - "If we don't make it so that everyone has a chance at winning, people will stop competing!" </font> I'll assume that your sliding entry fee at Seneca is your suggested implementation of that philosophy.

I claim that entry in the Open division at Seneca under those terms is a sucker's bet for any lower rated player. In reality, it is just another attempt to lure players into accepting hopeless odds and donating their entry fees to the top Open players.

Specifically, I state it this way. Assuming at least 50 players, and equal numbers of entries into each of your 20-point rating intervals, the chance that any player under 970 (and with a typical standard deviation) could win back even as much as his entry fee is vanishingly small. Furthermore, if you wanted a fee structure that would give reasonable odds (say, 30%) of winning back the entry fee, you would have to make that fee so small that there would be no point in playing for it.

I haven't made the exact calculation because the details are complicated. Chuck Kennedy could do it best because he lives and breathes ratings, and could probably give us a rough idea of those odds without taxing a computer.

It's tricky to calculate ahead of time because of the interaction of a set of players with different ratings and expectations making actual choices. So we'll find out what actually happens. However, based on the chances of cashing, my estimate is that there may be no reason to have a lower entry fee for players down to 975 and have them still participate. Most at that level are willing to pay at regular A-tiers anyway so I'm thinking that's money left on the table that could have been part of the entry fee pool. However, I think the entry fee probably would need to drop twice as fast per 10 rating points as the sliding scale Craig is using to reflect the true chances to cash. But you have to start somewhere and Craig is giving it a shot and we'll see how it turns out.

if additional players entered at the same rate and in the same proportions ratings-wise, then Peter you might be right. but experience shows this is not true. having a 50% entry fee for 940 players does not increas the number of "top pros" registering - it fills the field with 940 players. it is that dilution of median or average rating that increases the chances of the 940 player actually cashing in Open. the only way you are right in this instance is if reduced rates for lower rated players results in more top rated players showing up.

In defense of Craig's idea, sometime back I td'd a tournament with over 80 players, I was curious how the players would have done in one giant division so I sorted all the scores from best to worst. 5 different divisions were represented in the top 50% of the field: pro open, pro master, adv, adv master, and intermediate. The only divisions to not crack the top 50% that were offered that day? Pro women, adv women, legends, and juniors. I gotta agree with Craig on the "let's make everyone a winner" mantra.

Another story, I td'd another event and 2 gentlemen signed up for adv. grandmasters and 2 signed up for pro grandmasters. I told the two "ams" that there were not enough to make a division but there were 2 pro GMs, they could play pro and have a 4 man division. They declined and had me put them in intermediate, the 2 pros were thrown in the pro masters pool. At the end of the day the 2 "ams" tied each other for 3rd place in intermediate and beat both "pros." Both of the "pros" did not cash in masters and finished last and second to last in that division. Wanna guess which 2 players I keep seeing at tournaments? Go figure...

Pat,

You say, "if additional players entered at the same rate and in the same proportions ratings-wise, then Peter you might be right. but experience shows this is not true. having a 50% entry fee for 940 players does not increas the number of "top pros" registering - it fills the field with 940 players."

What experience? Please, show the data that supports your contention. I would love to see it, but doubtless Craig would be even more interested. It is not likely that he wants to run an A-tier in which the Open field is "filled with 940 players".

Pat,

You say, "if additional players entered at the same rate and in the same proportions ratings-wise, then Peter you might be right. but experience shows this is not true. having a 50% entry fee for 940 players does not increas the number of "top pros" registering - it fills the field with 940 players."

What experience? Please, show the data that supports your contention. I would love to see it, but doubtless Craig would be even more interested. It is not likely that he wants to run an A-tier in which the Open field is "filled with 940 players".




Or any 940 rated players! :eek: Especially when they walk away with a bigger check than the open guys.

Craig,

You may not want to consider my argument, but I'll consider yours. You say, <font color="red"> A more accurate mantra might be along the lines of - "If we don't make it so that everyone has a chance at winning, people will stop competing!" </font> I'll assume that your sliding entry fee at Seneca is your suggested implementation of that philosophy.

I claim that entry in the Open division at Seneca under those terms is a sucker's bet for any lower rated player. In reality, it is just another attempt to lure players into accepting hopeless odds and donating their entry fees to the top Open players.

Specifically, I state it this way. Assuming at least 50 players, and equal numbers of entries into each of your 20-point rating intervals, the chance that any player under 970 (and with a typical standard deviation) could win back even as much as his entry fee is vanishingly small. Furthermore, if you wanted a fee structure that would give reasonable odds (say, 30%) of winning back the entry fee, you would have to make that fee so small that there would be no point in playing for it.

I haven't made the exact calculation because the details are complicated. Chuck Kennedy could do it best because he lives and breathes ratings, and could probably give us a rough idea of those odds without taxing a computer.



isn't this why it's called and entry "fee" as opposed to an entry "wager"?

low rated players must certainly be ignorant to the odds of winning so they must be lured in. i applaud peter for trying to protect our wallets, our egos and our ability to compete. if we can't think for ourselves, peter will do it for us.

v v v did he really just say this? :confused: v v v


you would have to make that fee so small that there would be no point in playing for it.



on the flipside, peter prefers to make divisions so small everyone has a chance to win. you'd also have divisions that are so small there would be no point in playing in them. but everyone can be a winner! group hug!

Craig,

You may not want to consider my argument, but I'll consider yours. You say, <font color="red"> A more accurate mantra might be along the lines of - "If we don't make it so that everyone has a chance at winning, people will stop competing!" </font> I'll assume that your sliding entry fee at Seneca is your suggested implementation of that philosophy.

I claim that entry in the Open division at Seneca under those terms is a sucker's bet for any lower rated player. In reality, it is just another attempt to lure players into accepting hopeless odds and donating their entry fees to the top Open players.



Peter - it's not that I won't consider your argument - it's that I find it incomplete. The numbers you present say what you want them to say - which is a pretty easy thing to do. You ask for numbers to back up Pats assertion - since you're a numbers guy - take a couple set of event results where Advanced, Open, and Masters were all known to play the same course, and go through the exercise Rayman described. I think you will find across the country that the ability to cash in a larger field is much more open to the mid level rated player than you would like to acknowledge.

See this is where we depart from one another in the fundamental approach to what competition is. Your calling entrance at a reduced fee a sucker bet, or a lure - is at its root, founded in the notion that indeed everyone is entitled to being able to cash just by entering (this is in large part the current PDGA mantra). It's founded in the entitlement arena that has permeated our competitive environment, and is perhaps THE most detrimental attitude that could possibly exist if promoting COMPETITION is the goal.

See I believe that no-one is entitled to be a winner, ever. Only their play on tournament day gives them that right, not their age, not their rating, only their score. I also believe that rewards should be commensurate with that score - and that no player should be rewarded more for the same score than another player - ESPECIALLY if such rewards are determined by "protected status" such as what exists for M10 and MPM players.

So while you think Seneca's low entry for lower rated players is a suckers bet, the players who are signing up are thrilled just to have the opportunity to participate. They are thankful for that opportunity and love the notion of being able to compete against (and play in the same groups as) higher rated players without feeling the financial pinch. In fact - the most avid responses I have gotten from pre-registrants so far is from the sub 920 rated players.

So in terms of filling the field with 940 rated players - I think that would be awesome. I would have no problem with it at all. The Soiree has always been a regional powerhouse - attracting players from a fairly wide area - and was even an inaugural NT event. I fully expect the event to fill at 90 players. And I fully expect 940 rated players to cash. I hope more than anything - to dispell the very attitude you have espoused above - and return to the players "an event" worth playing in - where the experience is primary, and the rewards secondary, which is (IMO) as it should be.

Craig,

Very good points. I misunderstood your "mantra" post. When you said that the mantra might better be stated, "If we don't make it so that everyone has a chance at winning, people will stop competing", I thought that was "your" mantra. I didn't realize that it was a mantra that you disagree with. You make it clear in your latest post, and now I understand.

And to some extent I agree. In answer to an earlier question I said, "No pro would want equity within divisions. Within any professional division, the top players win more -- that's what makes them the top players. Equity saps the vitality and the competitive spirit to excel. You wouldn't argue for equity within the Open division. If you did, you'd have to go through Kenny and Barry and David and Val et al. It would be similarly pointless to have equity within other professional divisions."

Whether 940-players will cash at the Soiree will depend mostly on how much added cash you put into the Open division. If you put a lot in, more top-rated pros will come and they are less likely to cash. But they will be thrilled, which is nice. If you don't put any in, more will cash, but they won't be as thrilled. It does have a nice balance to it.

The 2008 Soiree eliminates the Masters, Senior Grandmasters and Legends. It will not protect 40-year-olds from 39-year-olds, but it will protect 50-year-olds from 49-year olds. This is inconsistent, given Chuck's findings about the decline of skill with age. More consistent would be to have one big Open division, with entry fees based entirely on rating, and get rid of the divisions altogether.

This would work fine if all lower-rated PDGA members are like the ones that are signing up for the Soiree -- thrilled to be able to rub shoulders with the top pros and contribute varying amounts to the purse. My guess is that there are plenty of PDGA members over 40 who would prefer a different kind of experience. In the end, the market will decide.

You wouldn't argue for equity within the Open division.



I am arguing for equity in rewards across the entire divisional structure. Protected status divisions inherently disavow this. This to me is a greater concern - and in need of addressing - than your concern of allocation of PDGA resources to those divisions. And I believe if you address the structure first - that the "make up" of the membership in the various categories would change significantly and provide a very different picture of how resources are/should be allocated.

there are no findings that conclusively link age and skill. other than the obvious aging process, which does not need numbers to back it up, one could just as easily conclude that having kids, not practicing, etc etc etc is the real root cause.

"It will not protect 40-year-olds from 39-year-olds, but it will protect 50-year-olds from 49-year olds. This is inconsistent,"

any protection is inconsistent. protect every age and someone will ask for protected months. a 49-50 break at least makes more sense than the 39-40 break, imo.

any protection is inconsistent. protect every age and someone will ask for protected months. a 49-50 break at least makes more sense than the 39-40 break, imo.


It just depends on how much of a decline on average justifies a division break. It's one throw per round every five years from 40 to 60 based on actual PDGA data over 5 years and probably more after that age but we don't have enough data to draw that conclusion yet.

A couple weeks ago Chuck Kennedy asked how the NT Proposal would negatively impact Age-protected players and Amateurs. The obvious answer is that it would slant the Contribution factor even more in favor of Open, by increasing Open support and simultaneously decreasing support for age-protected players.

But there are other effects, best seen if we consider the concurrent A-Tier event that NT's are "encouraged" to run. First, you might wonder why, if the purpose of the NT is to showcase Open players, the club is encouraged to run a sideshow tournament at the same time. You would think that the extra effort would detract from the main objective.

There are two reasons why a club may well want to run at least an Amateur A-Tier event at the same time. First, since it has to raise $8000 for the Open players it would be very helpful to have a lot of Amateurs, since it can turn a large part of the Amateur entry fees into Open purse money. Secondly, it needs a large captive audience for its final nine so that the Open players will be considered highly watchable. This is probably not a problem. Amateurs are used to this and are not likely to object, even if they are more fiercely sheared than at other events.

The club is less likely to want to include Age-protected players in the "sideshow" event. Those players would add to the captive audience, but they would subtract from the potential Open purse because, unlike amateurs, they require a net cash outlay. Even though the added cash standard has been reduced for these special "A-tiers", the club would have to add $750 to the purse, and this might be hard to find on top of the $8000 that is required for the Open purse. Let's consider both possibilities.

Case 1 (A-Tier is Am-only): Because of geographic protection protocols, no age-protected events will be available within 1000 miles of the NT. This is a particularly senseless restriction. There is no need to protect events from each other when the divisions they offer do not overlap.

Case 2 (A-Tier is Pro-Am): That event would be a problematic experience, because the club would be putting every spare dime into the Open (NT) purse, because the PDGA isn�t supporting the A-Tier, and because there isn�t any PDGA Committee whose special mission speaks for the interests of the "other seven-eighths". The structure and format of the non-Open A-Tier will be driven mainly by the interests of the Open players.

this is easy to fix. scrap the associated A tier.



"The club is less likely to want to include Age-protected players in the "sideshow" event. Those players would add to the captive audience, but they would subtract from the potential Open purse because, unlike amateurs, they require a net cash outlay."

there ARE am age-protected platers also. no need to assume that all age-protected players require a net cash outlay.

Peter,
I've still not seen any comment from you on the inequity of rewards in the existing divisional structure.

How can you rail against supporting Open players (a division open to ALL) for a whopping 10-15 events a year, when there are another 800 or so events where age protected and choice protected players reap untold benefits in rewards compared to their MPO counterparts who are shooting THE EXACT SAME SCORE, on the exact same course, at the exact same time.
From your lack of comment, I can only assume that you think that condition is perfectly acceptible - and that there is no problem with the existing divisional structure whatsoever.

Your complaint seems very unbalanced.

Peter,

Your notion that Craig's fee structure is a sucker's bet is actually quite wrong. A different way to view it (and a better way) is, what is the value of winning? Let's assume that a 930 rated player will finish in the money 20% of the time. He gets a certain boost when that occurs. What cost is that boost worth? In a perfect situation, a marketer would try and determine what that value is worth and charge that player that exact amount he is willing pay to participate and achieve that good feeling. For each player there is a different formula based on their perceived value for the amount of "wins" (where "wins" is equal to finishing sufficiently in the money to satisfy that player's notion of winning) they can get vs. how much they are willing to pay for those "wins". The marketer would thus charge each player the amount they would be willing to pay to achieve the amount of "wins" they are capable of winning.

To restate it simply, how much fun does a given player get if that player wins 20% of the time, and what is that fun worth?

Essentially, what Craig is doing by lowering the entry fee is roughly adjusting the amount the player has to pay to match the value they get from their "wins." He is matching what a player has to pay, to the value they get from that occasional win thus keeping them playing when they might actually quit.

I suspect, without knowing, that the reality is that the money a player wins is inconsequential to the value of finishing in the money, i.e. winning. The perceived value, that 20% winning frequency, has a fairly static relation to the cost. If this is true then what Craig is doing should work well, that is, adjusting the amount one has to pay to one's rating (a fairly accurate prediction of one's ability to achieve "wins"), should prompt players that normally bug out of big events due to the cost, to consider playing.

Steve Dodge will point out that if you raise the value or the perception of a win at the event, you can raise the amount you charge. If I perceive the package and food I get as a win, then I'm willing to pay more even if I don't finish in the money.

Craig, next year if you continue this format, contact me for a small sponsorship. Can't afford much, but I know a good thing when I see it.

Lyle,

In a field with as many players over 950 as under, a 930 player is not going to cash 20% of the time. Not even close. If there are as many players over 970 as there are cashing slots, the 930 player has almost zero chance of cashing unless he has an astronomically high standard deviation on his rating. The only way the 930 player has a decent chance of cashing is if Craig adds so little cash to the Open purse that the top Open players stay home.

Craig,

What you are describing is an inevitable consequence of age-protection. It sometimes happens, although "untold benefits" is a bit much.

It also sometimes happens that the age-protected player makes less than if he had played Open. I could say that that is just as unfair.

If age protected players could never earn more than an Open player who shot the same score, many Masters, half the Grandmasters and all the Senior Grandmasters and Legends should not be allowed to win a penny. We'd have to donate even our entry fees entirely to Open players.

We just disagree fundamentally on age-protection. You don't want it, and I do. Your fundamental concern is for Open players, while mine is (at this time) for older players, because right now the Open players are being treated royally at the expense of other divisions. As I said before, in the end the market will decide. Now it only remains to be seen whether there are enough PDGA members who want age-protection, and whether they have the ability to do anything about it.

peter, thats true, but a 930 player entering a field with enough 970s to cover the cash spots is looking for two things to happen:

1. he's gonna overperform at the top of his standard deviation; and
2. a couple of those 970 guys to have an off weekend.

on item 1, overperforming could reasonably get him to 950-965. on item 2, a bad weekend will drop those guys to 945-950. our 930 hero has a serious chance of cashing!

so, whats the probability of item 1? depends on the players STDEV, but lets say it is 15%. this means 15% of the time, the dude outperforms measurably.

probability of item 2 is near 100%. and more nearly to 100% if the bottom of the cashfield is at 970. lets use 90%.

since our hero needs both items to happen in order to cash, we know his odds of cashing are 15% * 90% = 14%.

i submit that many/most 930 players entering a 970 cashfield are up-n-comers who have shot those rounds previously, but are not there any where consistently yet.

peter, thats true, but a 930 player entering a field with enough 970s to cover the cash spots is looking for two things to happen:

1. he's gonna overperform at the top of his standard deviation; and
2. a couple of those 970 guys to have an off weekend.

on item 1, overperforming could reasonably get him to 950-965. on item 2, a bad weekend will drop those guys to 945-950. our 930 hero has a serious chance of cashing!

so, whats the probability of item 1? depends on the players STDEV, but lets say it is 15%. this means 15% of the time, the dude outperforms measurably.

probability of item 2 is near 100%. and more nearly to 100% if the bottom of the cashfield is at 970. lets use 90%.

since our hero needs both items to happen in order to cash, we know his odds of cashing are 15% * 90% = 14%.

i submit that many/most 930 players entering a 970 cashfield are up-n-comers who have shot those rounds previously, but are not there any where consistently yet.



Peter,

Pat hits the nail on the head! While numbers are very important, and with time we could work out the numbers for this scenario, it is the model that matters. For a 930 rated player there is a probability of winning and a perceived benefit. The greater question is what is that benefit worth? Craig is exploring that and may even be off, but what he is doing is correct.

BTW - this isn't something Pat or I came up with, it's marketing 101 and very well defined. An understanding of this basic principal and how we, as an organization, could apply it to entry fees would solve a lot of problems. It would allow the simpler division structure so many clamor for, and it would keep middle of the road players not only playing but wanting to play up. One scenario to keep in mind is that you could even do the age calculations. That is, as has been argued a 930 masters player is not necessarily equal to a 930 open player. You could determine that difference and adjust the entry fee making it worthwhile for that old guy to take on the young guys.

yeah! and if the course favors short, technical throws, the younger big arms could get the discount! i like where this is heading :)

This search for how money should be allocated and for who is ridiculous. Marketing our top players for the sponsorship of all down the road seems like a pretty sound strategy to me. Few people want to watch mediocrity and older people, sorry it's true. Arena football is not watched like NFL, the PGA minor league (I don't know what the name is this year) and Senior tour aren't televised, the NBA developmental league isn't even listed in my newspaper standings, minor league baseball is awol on tv, etc.... People want to see the best of the best, and that is regardless of age, no one cares how old anyone playing sports is as long as they are doing it well.

The real crime of the PDGA structure system is players that have some talent and could be good get discouraged and quit. The 950ish to 970ish pros who go out each week and may jus miss cashing get nothing, even though they shot better than 90% of the overall field. How encouraging it is to watch dozens and dozens players get rewarded, and some very handsomely, for scores much worse than their own. It baffles how mediocrity is not only encouraged but also rewarded. Disc Golf is the only athletic endeavor I have ever participated in that:

1) everyone feels they should "get something" simply for being at a tournament

2) everyone feels they should "get something" even when their play does not deserve it

I honestly feel that these attitudes stagnate the potential talent pool. "Why should I practice and strive to get better when I can pick and find a division I can win lots of stuff in?" If the only carrot being dangled were in the Open division, and at least 50% of the field were going to get paid, I am pretty certain tournaments would still be played by all levels of players. Check out the Vibram Open, it had a deep payout, awesome player's pack, and a full field with players rated from under 900 to over 1030, even with a $150+ entry fee.

Craig,

What you are describing is an inevitable consequence of age-protection. It sometimes happens, although "untold benefits" is a bit much.



It happens at however many events there are that are PDGA sanctioned, minus the number of NT events that we have. It's not just age protected players, its "competition protected" players. It's an across the board competition deficit disorder.

I've made this argument before, maybe you haven't heard it. Take the average scoring range from top to bottom of any event where there's over 15 MPO players - and average how many strokes difference there are per round. I have found it ranges from about 9 on the low end to about 15 on the high end. Do the same thing for the MPM players, and then for the M10 players. MPM ranges from 8-12 strokes per round, and M10 players range from 10-18 strokes per round. If (for general arguments sake) 10 ratings points equals approx one stroke per round, we should be having divisions based on about 120 point ratings swings. Instead, we build them on a third of that.

So while you may think I'm against age protection, that's not entirely true (as is evidenced by the divisions offered at the Soiree).

Back to the numbers - take that same set of event results and look where the top and the bottom scores are for MPO, MPM, and M10 - 90% of the time this is what you'll find. All but one or two MPM players finished better than the last place MPO players, and 60-80% of the M10 players did too.
Better check multiple events to see if I'm telling the truth. If this is the common pattern, and this many guys are shooting within the same given scoring range, why are they divided?

You say I'm exagerating by saying "untold benefits" let's just fathom that for a second. If at each of the 973 non NT events, the CUMULATIVE benefit to protected players over their MPO counterparts is a mere $100 - that's $97K, more than the amount you're so upset about the PDGA allocating to "benefit" MPO players at the expense of the rest of the membership. Now I think if you average all those 973 events together, a more realistic figure of entitlement might come to $2-400 per event and sometimes much more than that. That's between 195K-390K a year - and that's money directly into players pockets - not "programmatic investment" from the organization. That makes that 90K your griping about look like little more than affirmative action.



It also sometimes happens that the age-protected player makes less than if he had played Open. I could say that that is just as unfair.

And why do you feel that way? The player chose to (probably) pay a lower entry fee, and to play in a "protected" status. Why then is the same score worth the same money?


If age protected players could never earn more than an Open player who shot the same score, many Masters, half the Grandmasters and all the Senior Grandmasters and Legends should not be allowed to win a penny. We'd have to donate even our entry fees entirely to Open players.



See that's where you and others in the past take the argument too far. My stance for more all inclusive divisions does not negate the PDGA's ability to structure it's sanctioned events to offer protected divisions, it urges the organization to provide more structure to it's sanctioning practices. There is no exclusivity, but instead, diversity and creativity (not all events should be the same format and divisions). Currently, 98% of all sanctioned events are the same - singles competition - eleventeen divisions offered at every one of them. This has become a rather stagnant offering in my view - and doesn't really offer much motivation to travel and discover all the wonderful places there are to play. The fact is - is that the PDGA favors less structure (i.e. total choice) in what they will sanction, than more (i.e. a given # of available events of XYZ types available for sanctioning). And this is where I believe they can provide both leadership, and benefit to the members - but mostly I think they are afraid to try.


We just disagree fundamentally on age-protection. You don't want it, and I do. Your fundamental concern is for Open players, while mine is (at this time) for older players, because right now the Open players are being treated royally at the expense of other divisions. As I said before, in the end the market will decide. Now it only remains to be seen whether there are enough PDGA members who want age-protection, and whether they have the ability to do anything about it.



Actually Peter, I think we are coming from two whole different directions. You see and accept all the divisions as part of the way things are and always should be. I see the organization as having the potential to develop, create, foster, and govern a great sport - and is caught up in catering to this year's dollar in order to stay alive. In their (our) plight, they try to make everyone happy, everyone a winner - and that's how we arrived at the (split 90 people into 12 divisions) divisional system we have now. And that's just not ok with me. My focus isn't on the Open players, it's on ALL THE PLAYERS.

This search for how money should be allocated and for who is ridiculous. Marketing our top players for the sponsorship of all down the road seems like a pretty sound strategy to me. Few people want to watch mediocrity and older people, sorry it's true. Arena football is not watched like NFL, the PGA minor league (I don't know what the name is this year) and Senior tour aren't televised, the NBA developmental league isn't even listed in my newspaper standings, minor league baseball is awol on tv, etc.... People want to see the best of the best, and that is regardless of age, no one cares how old anyone playing sports is as long as they are doing it well.



This is from an IL forum after the SuperTour in Rockford this weekend:
"On a more serious note, one of the best results of the tournament was allowing players from Illinois to watch some amazing disc golf players (like Jay and Nikko and Avery) for the first time. Those of us who stayed at Motel 6 (just about the cheapest in town, if a drive) were lucky enough to spend some time with Avery in particular. Josh Younkin (Home Course: Steamwood) had brought his practice basket so a few of us locals were outside at about 10 pm on Saturday night playing HORSE, throwing discs between our legs and challenging each other to make turbo putts from the third floor balcony. While we were screwing around Avery Jenkins came out on the second story balcony with a few of his friends and drank their beers and admired our putting Grin . Then they came down and Avery challenged us to a game of HORSE. What a cool and down-to-earth dude. He putted with us and gave us putting tips (looks like I'll be changing my style after he disparaged it graciously). With his help we finally made a turbo putt from the third story (must be one of those skills you need as a professional). He signed a couple of our discs and we cheered him on for the remainder of the tournament."

This is a special time in the sport. Des and I and others signed another 20 or so discs each and were more than happy to do so. Myself and Chris Sprague were giving amateurs playing tips after our rounds. I took a caddy in the last round from one of the finished pools because he said I was one of his favorite players. He got to watch me shoot a course record and explain all the while how I was going about it. I think it is safe to say his outlook on disc golf is on cloud 9.

Peter, I have given examples at just two tournaments over the last two weeks of the hard to pin down value of having top name touring players at events. It does require more resources and funding to support events that make folks desire to travel the country in pursuit of top competition and great events. I am saying it is worth it and believe the majority of our paying membership would agree. I do agree that the allocation of monies to support our top professionals has some fat to be trimmed (Marshalls, marketing focus, publications). I also think that like many others on here that our competitive structure is the fracture. I too have competed in sports all my life and have never witnessed the entitlement that amateur disc golfers have come to expect. In most sports Amateurs participate in competition for the experience and expect nothing more. If the experience (well run, nice course, maybe food, side games, chance to meet some top pros) is positive, then they will return.
I would support more Amateur money going to growth instituted programs such as EDGE, tour clinics, sport demos. I have always said that the PDGA would have been way better off having started with these types of programs than developing and continually trying hone its competitive structure. Two divisions become four, four become eight and now we officially have twenty-five according to the divisional grid.
It is obvious we are a participation sport which leads to more than just a coincidence that most of our spectators actually are participating that same weekend prior to spectating. The real question becomes how do we grow our spectator base. No sport has done this without top players that players can identify with or root against.

This search for how money should be allocated and for who is ridiculous. Marketing our top players for the sponsorship of all down the road seems like a pretty sound strategy to me. Few people want to watch mediocrity and older people, sorry it's true. Arena football is not watched like NFL, the PGA minor league (I don't know what the name is this year) and Senior tour aren't televised, the NBA developmental league isn't even listed in my newspaper standings, minor league baseball is awol on tv, etc.... People want to see the best of the best, and that is regardless of age, no one cares how old anyone playing sports is as long as they are doing it well.



This is from an IL forum after the SuperTour in Rockford this weekend:
"On a more serious note, one of the best results of the tournament was allowing players from Illinois to watch some amazing disc golf players (like Jay and Nikko and Avery) for the first time. Those of us who stayed at Motel 6 (just about the cheapest in town, if a drive) were lucky enough to spend some time with Avery in particular. Josh Younkin (Home Course: Steamwood) had brought his practice basket so a few of us locals were outside at about 10 pm on Saturday night playing HORSE, throwing discs between our legs and challenging each other to make turbo putts from the third floor balcony. While we were screwing around Avery Jenkins came out on the second story balcony with a few of his friends and drank their beers and admired our putting Grin . Then they came down and Avery challenged us to a game of HORSE. What a cool and down-to-earth dude. He putted with us and gave us putting tips (looks like I'll be changing my style after he disparaged it graciously). With his help we finally made a turbo putt from the third story (must be one of those skills you need as a professional). He signed a couple of our discs and we cheered him on for the remainder of the tournament."

This is a special time in the sport. Des and I and others signed another 20 or so discs each and were more than happy to do so. Myself and Chris Sprague were giving amateurs playing tips after our rounds. I took a caddy in the last round from one of the finished pools because he said I was one of his favorite players. He got to watch me shoot a course record and explain all the while how I was going about it. I think it is safe to say his outlook on disc golf is on cloud 9.

Peter, I have given examples at just two tournaments over the last two weeks of the hard to pin down value of having top name touring players at events. It does require more resources and funding to support events that make folks desire to travel the country in pursuit of top competition and great events. I am saying it is worth it and believe the majority of our paying membership would agree. I do agree that the allocation of monies to support our top professionals has some fat to be trimmed (Marshalls, marketing focus, publications). I also think that like many others on here that our competitive structure is the fracture. I too have competed in sports all my life and have never witnessed the entitlement that amateur disc golfers have come to expect. In most sports Amateurs participate in competition for the experience and expect nothing more. If the experience (well run, nice course, maybe food, side games, chance to meet some top pros) is positive, then they will return.
I would support more Amateur money going to growth instituted programs such as EDGE, tour clinics, sport demos. I have always said that the PDGA would have been way better off having started with these types of programs than developing and continually trying hone its competitive structure. Two divisions become four, four become eight and now we officially have twenty-five according to the divisional grid.
It is obvious we are a participation sport which leads to more than just a coincidence that most of our spectators actually are participating that same weekend prior to spectating. The real question becomes how do we grow our spectator base. No sport has done this without top players that players can identify with or root against.



second.

well said (again) good for nuthin' abominable one...

i do agree that the marshall program is the first bit of fat to be trimmed...

Jay,

I fully honor the status of Open players as chief ambassadors, and you and Des are wonderful examples. And I am an admirer of all the great stars you mention in your anecdotes. But you act as though older players have never signed a disc, given a clinic, excited a PDGA member or nonmember, or made sacrifices to tour (you stay in inexpensive motels, I often camp in a tent).

Of all the anecdotal evidence I could offer to support the importance of older players in the "grow the sport" mission, I will choose only two, because you know of them and because they illustrate some of the inconsistencies in our efforts.

1) If older players are largely irrelevant as ambassadors, why on earth would you ask me to be part of the NT Teaching Clinic at the Minnesota Majestic?

2) At the Des Moines Worlds, I had been asked to be part of a disc golf demonstration at a semi-pro ball game. When the Open players (and I believe that you were one) got wind of this, I was uninvited so that another Open player could take my place. Now, given the family-oriented nature of that audience, which do you think makes more sense -- adding one more guy in his twenties to throw one over the fence, or including a guy in his sixties to throw one over the fence?

To grow the sport we must market the GAME, to players who are not yet PDGA members, and to people who do not yet play the game. Open players are not the only ones who are worthy of support in that effort.

Do you have grandkids?

2) At the Des Moines Worlds, I had been asked to be part of a disc golf demonstration at a semi-pro ball game. When the Open players (and I believe that you were one) got wind of this, I was uninvited so that another Open player could take my place. Now, given the family-oriented nature of that audience, which do you think makes more sense -- adding one more guy in his twenties to throw one over the fence, or including a guy in his sixties to throw one over the fence?



adding one more guy in his twenties to throw one over the fence

Craig,

You say that age-protected players are taking as much as $390,000 (and possibly even more) in prize money away from more deserving Open players. The Masters are the chief villains in your illustrations, so they must be getting most of this.

Think about what you are saying, Craig. The Masters have made a TOTAL of about $300K so far this year. You are assuming that the Masters will make another $90K in 2008, that Masters never played in Open events, that every penny they made was undeserved, and that they owed the Open players not only all their added cash but also all their entry fees. This is an extravagant vendetta for sure!

Now suppose I were even willing to take your $80K value seriously. You would institute policies that would extract this from the shameful Age-protected pros and from some wretched skulking Amateurs, and in the end it would enrich the average Open pro by about $46.

And for this you would dismantle age-protection, under the banner of Champion of "ALL THE PLAYERS". Yes, we are indeed on different pages.

Craig,

You say that age-protected players are taking as much as $390,000 (and possibly even more) in prize money away from more deserving Open players. The Masters are the chief villains in your illustrations, so they must be getting most of this.



No Peter that's not what I said at all. I tried to illustrate that there is an identifiable value to the "benefits of protection" enjoyed by M10 and MPM players. When one of those players gets rewarded more for the same score as one of their MPO counterparts - that is a financial benefit of their protected status. It doesn't say those players shouldn't be rewarded for their score - it says they are being rewarded more for the same score as someone else.

This is a common, identifiable, and quantifiable condition. I just don't find it justifiable if what you're trying to promote is COMPETITION with anything that resembles an equitable reward system.

Your claim of inequity in allocation of PDGA resources fails to recognize the inherent financial beneifits of protected status, which are quantifiably much more substantial than the amounts you are concerned about.

Also - I don't recall calling anyone shameful, wretched, or skulking, please refrain from attaching negative connotations to my words. Those are not my characterizations at all.

Everyone,

I have said all that I need to say on this thread until the PDGA announces its position. It had officially posted the 2009 NT Agreement in early August, and then withdrew it. I don't know whether they have not yet decided on a 2009 Protocol, or whether they have in fact passed one but do not wish to post it. I suspect the latter.

There is no point in my going forward until I know what is happening. The major decisions will be known, or can be inferred, when the NT schedule is announced.

In the meantime I encourage everyone to review the major arguments on this thread. The Masters should pay particular attention, in view of the number of events this year in which the Masters Division is not being offered. When Age-Protection disappears, the Masters Division will be the first to go.

The Masters should pay particular attention, in view of the number of events this year in which the Masters Division is not being offered. When Age-Protection disappears, the Masters Division will be the first to go.



By my count only 1 NT event out of 8 didn't offer MPM, 2 Majors, and my event. That's 5 out of 995 events or 5/10ths of 1%.

I'll bet there were 10X more events that didn't have MPM due to no players.

If all 8 NT events eliminated the MPM division, that still wouldn't reach even 1% of all available sanctioned events.

Tut Tut - looks like rain.

not to pick nits, but if your numbers are correct... the other 7 NTs removing the MPM division would result in 12 out of 995 events... exceeding 1%.

personally I'm fine with any division being offered (although sometimes I don't offer MA4). I just don't agree with adding cash to age-protected divisions. That cash comes from sponsors, and sponsors usually aren't interested in anything but the most competitive division. I try to take care of all my players, but it is unrealistic to expect the big money (laff) to exist in any but the most unrestricted division.

Adding money to MPO isn't just about giving more money to the players in MPO. It attracts bigger names, better competition, and therefore increases the value of the event as a whole. The sport grows when people show up to just get someone's autograph or possibly get lucky enough to play a round on his or her card. With few rare exceptions, the people who generate this sort of growth in the sport are in MPO and FPO.

Yeah I thought there were more NT's than 8 - but looking through again, I'm still only coming up w/9. No biggie - the point is still the same - drop in the bucket.

Craig,

I'm not just talking about NT's. Look, for example, at the tournament reports for the first week of July. Twenty-five of them report Open scores, but only twelve of those report Masters scores. I can't tell whether some of those events offered Masters and none signed up. Still, some of them report Grandmaster scores.

I do not believe it is a "drop in the bucket".

It's not a matter of it not being offered - don't you see? When there aren't even enough guys to separate, the few 40 yo's join the larger group. Happens all the time. That's what I meant when I said 10Xas many events w/out MPM because there were no players.

Just another testament to NOT having protected divisions, when you're scrapping for three of four to make a division, and they are all shooting (largely) in the same scoring range - why separate them?

Twenty-five of them report Open scores, but only twelve of those report Masters scores.

that close enough to half to call it 50%. and the Master make up ... what your number ... 12.5%. sounds like your masters are being overrepresented by a factor of 4.

ill certainly accept a pro masters signature if i could get one.
such as mitch mack or others with the same expieriance.
i am an over 40 player my rating is 919 i could play intermediate and compete well in that division but i enjoy playing with the older generation as there is a different attitude and professionalism there.
in the intermediate fields there doesnt seem to be the knowledge of the masters field of the rules or the play etiqite of the masters field either

The Masters should pay particular attention, in view of the number of events this year in which the Masters Division is not being offered. When Age-Protection disappears, the Masters Division will be the first to go.



By my count only 1 NT event out of 8 didn't offer MPM, 2 Majors, and my event. That's 5 out of 995 events or 5/10ths of 1%.

I'll bet there were 10X more events that didn't have MPM due to no players.

If all 8 NT events eliminated the MPM division, that still wouldn't reach even 1% of all available sanctioned events.

Tut Tut - looks like rain.

Oh, no, there were a lot more than that. There were several am-only events this year that did not offer MPM or any of the cash paid divisions. Big D Doubles doesn't have any age protected divisions, pro or am.

Age protected divisions are a thing of the past. They were a way of handicapping the old guys before we had ratings to do that. Now that we have ratings, the majority of the IOSeries' old guys just play where their rating puts them. I'm sure when they get ratings in texas, they'll do the same. ;)

the odd thing about all of this is that restricting divisions has been allowed since time began. or at least as long as i remember. as long as the TD announces it, no problem. peter's issue is with TDs who have started doiing what the guidelines have always allowed them to do. the most fundamental thing peter is saying is that the pdga policy is flawed because it allows TD to select which divisions to offer. this is precisely the sort of strong armed federalism that is stunting our growth.

Isn't Peter actually complaining about TDs doing this in events with significant PDGA financial underwriting (NTs)?

Otherwise, agreed that TDs are doing what they're allowed, and should be allowed. Can't wait to see how the one-division/graduated-entry-fee experiment works out.

Add to the list of events with no age-protected divsions: March Madness (Columbia, SC). One pro division, one am division.

<font size=5>Age protected divisions are a thing of the past. They were a way of handicapping the old guys before we had ratings to do that. Now that we have ratings, the majority of the IOSeries' old guys just play where their rating puts them. </font>



Good to see that at least some people get it.

as long as one believes that there should be more than one (or 2 if you support gender based) division age based divisions are at least as legit as ratings based (imo moreso). they are BOTH arbitrary. some people just don't get it.

Bruce, you know I respect your tournaments.

Sheila and I will never play another Big D Doubles. The reason is simply that the format and the course favors distance over all other skills. Age relates quite strongly to distance and that means that we cannot compete. (We didn't even do the second round this year, altho that was due to the lack of carts and our tiredness to be able to walk a second ball golf course-distance round in one wet day.)

A major failing of the arguments here is the lack of acknowledgement that the length of the course determines the competitiveness of older players who cannot throw as long.

If you accept distance on the drive as *the* major factor in disc golf, then that doesn't matter.

I think distance is a single factor among many. And that it is disproportionately represented in the major events - to the detriment of the other facets of disc golf skill.

Pro Open rewards distance (as does Advanced Ams; as do the ratings, I think, too). If you think that distance is the be-all and end-all of disc golf, then that's fine. If you don't, then it's not.

Why should distance outrank shot variety, fairway positioning, putting, multi-factor consideration-on-the-fly?

I guess if ball golf went that way, then we should too?

Or, we could run the NTs on courses that include distance as only one of many *equally* important skill variables. And the 40- and 50-year old guys could beat the 25-year olds.

as long as one believes that there should be more than one (or 2 if you support gender based) division age based divisions are at least as legit as ratings based (imo moreso). they are BOTH arbitrary. some people just don't get it.



BOTH arbitrary? One is based on skill the other on the year you were born. How can divisions based on skill be arbitrary when you are competing against players to see who has the most skill to shoot the lowest score on a golf course?

There should be only 4 divisions based solely on skill. And call 'em whatever you like: bad, good, better, best; white, red, blue, gold; or novice, advanced, expert, world class. It doesn't really matter.

Check out the scoring for the women's national event being held right now. Why on Earth are there 7 different divisions. The amount of overlap among all the divisions is mindboggling. All those ladies could have been separated into 4 divisions based on skill/ratings and been very competitive.

The most unfair thing about age protected divisions is that very often the master and open division are equal in talent but a player can decide which one he plays in merely because he is over 40. As a TD I hated having masters linger around the table waiting to see who showed up and where they played before they decided which division to sign up in. I can't tell you how often I've heard the words "open looks easier than masters" uttered at tournaments. That was the reason I lowered the master entry fee and declared little or no added cash for that division. The amount of griping I heard was not worth it so I quit TDing.

It blows my mind that with all the advances made into disc technology, course design, promotion, and everything else, we, as an organization, cling to the archaic model of "Let's make everyone a winner!" It makes victories meaningless and belittles those individuals that are really good.

An anecdote, I came home from a tournament once and told my significant other there were 80 people at the tournament and only 8 guys beat me, she said "That's terrific! You must have won something!" And I said "No. But most of the guys who shot worse than me did." For a woman who had participated in collegiate athletics and rec leagues she could not understand how that could be, and as I explained how tournaments work, it began to make much less sense to me as well.

Or, we could run the NTs on courses that include distance as only one of many *equally* important skill variables. And the 40- and 50-year old guys could beat the 25-year olds.



Why does fair mean being able to beat guys that are better than you because you're older than they are? It's no coincidence that professional sports aren't crawling with 40+ year old guys. No other sport tweaks it rules and structure to allow EVERYONE or ANYONE to compete and succeed. Why should disc golf be any different, let everyone go out and compete against each other and see what happens.

No offense, but being old does not entitle you the oppurtunity to be able to beat 25 year olds, having skill and talent does. Check out the A tier held last weekend, The Champions Cup in PA, Joe Mela lead it from start to finish, and beat some talented golfers while doing it. By your argument he should have had no chance at all. And what about the Champ? I haven't seen him hiding out in an age protected division yet. Remember when Dr. Rick was on the lead card of the final round at the USDGC, I think he was close to, if not over 50 at the time.

Age may be correlated to distance, but scoring and ratings are more correlated to skill than they are to age or distance. Not having the time to devote to disc golf and practice is not a crime, but getting a free pass to not practice and work on your game to compete with guys that do just because of your age, that's a crime.

how can you set divisional breaks that are not arbitrary?? literally an impossibility.

actually i would support players having to register with the pdga as one age-based division or another and only be able to swing back and forth if one division or another were not offered. it seems that the "picking and choosing" is an issue to many.

i would also not offer anything but open and women's open at NT events.

The most unfair thing about age protected divisions is that very often the master and open division are equal in talent but a player can decide which one he plays in merely because he is over 40.



there is also the added challenge that comes with age -- endurance, physical resiliency, can mean a lot when you get to the 4th round of an event. Clearly a younger guy has a physical advantage. That guys like Climo still clean up in Open only emphasizes the amount of skill they wield. What incentive does Climo have to play Masters?


As a TD I hated having masters linger around the table waiting to see who showed up and where they played before they decided which division to sign up in. I can't tell you how often I've heard the words "open looks easier than masters" uttered at tournaments. That was the reason I lowered the master entry fee and declared little or no added cash for that division. The amount of griping I heard was not worth it so I quit TDing.



lowering entry fees for Masters (and thus payouts) and adding less cash to protected divisions (age/gender) makes sense if the Open field is meager in number. if people complain they can run their own event or simply choose not to attend.



It blows my mind that with all the advances made into disc technology, course design, promotion, and everything else, we, as an organization, cling to the archaic model of "Let's make everyone a winner!"



i think it has to do with maximizing participation. if we get rid of the non-Pros we shrink the PDGA 75% (?) if we only have an Open field then we shrink it a lot further. 1000-rated Masters players avoiding Open for easy cash are a very small minority that hurt Masters players as much as Open players - but it is their right and they have a lot more body wear and tear and endurance issues then those younger than they. If you want to create disincentives for that small minority to bag -- great. But don't punish the Masters players who have no chance of cashing in Open just because there aren't enough young guys coming out and playing Open.


It makes victories meaningless and belittles those individuals that are really good.



Are you kidding? A win in Open is far more prestigious than a win in Masters: as it should be. The sponsors pay bigger bonuses for Open wins than they do for Masters wins too -- do they not? A win in Open is completely different than a win in Masters.

I think there's something important being missed here.

If there was no demand for a masters division (or any of the other protected divisions) then nobody would play in them. We should never force our players to donate to a division if they would prefer to play in an age-protected one. I think withholding the added cash is enough. If they want to play for the big money, they play in the big money division. If they'd rather compete with people more like them (meaning protected by the same qualifiers), then why would we want to stop them? How could our sport ever possibly benefit from pissing off our elders?

Those who qualify for Masters can still play in Open. They know that. If you have 3 40-50 year olds show up for a tournament and they all want to play in their own division... let them. But let them play for their own money.

petty basic when stated that way isnt it?
leval feilds for play are not a given , because each of us have a different skill package.
the players at a pitch and putt tend to congregate in the open division from all other divisions not just masters.
on long courses you will have less congregation at the top division from all the remaining divisions.
some players play for the hobby of playing but look forward to the opportunity to support their hobby by their winnings.
as long as the primary focus is on winners the player will want to play on difficult length courses in an age protected div but onthe other hand on a technical course with less long throw opportunities the players will compress again.

Why does fair mean being able to beat guys that are better than you because you're older than they are? It's no coincidence that professional sports aren't crawling with 40+ year old guys. No other sport tweaks it rules and structure to allow EVERYONE or ANYONE to compete and succeed. Why should disc golf be any different



Rainman, I think if you re-read my post I did not use the word "fair." Nor did I say or imply anything about "anyone" and "everyone." Fairness is not my point.

My point is that by the selection of courses for top events, and the design of those courses, we "design" competition in a way that I feel over-values long distance driving. This is mostly happening without conscious understanding or discussion. Essentially, "unintelligent design" of top level competition.

*Is* the ability to throw 450' important enough to what players consider to be the essentials of the game so that in most top-level competitions on a course like, for example, The Toboggan, a 450' thrower has an 8-10 stroke advantage over a similarly skilled competitor who can only throw 350'?

As for other sports, why would we necessarily want to be just like them? For example, it could well be that one of the reasons most disc golfers don't particularly care for following the Final Nine around a course is that they're going to see the competition decided by a skill they don't have and can't get.

OTOH, if that Final Nine is decided on holes where course management, variety of shots, putting, intelligent understanding of the effects of wind, and driving distance were equally important, maybe in 9 holes distance makes a difference of a stroke or two but spectators will mostly see the difference being made by skills they have or can train for.

My point is that there is no reason that distance has to be so disproportionate. Some want it to be, some don't. I think the sport would be better off if it was not. One, just one, consequence might be a broader age range of players competitive in Open and Advanced.

http://discgolfer.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=1809917%3ABlogPost%3A49272

Age may be correlated to distance, but scoring and ratings are more correlated to skill than they are to age or distance.



It's been fairly proven, with a few expected outlier exceptions, that age does dramatically affect distance. Scoring and ratings are correlated to skill.

My point is that they are correlated with disproportionate weight given to distance as one of those skills, primarily due to course design and the selection of courses for top level events.

We deliberately design competition and through it ratings in a way that over-favors distance. If we didn't, then age would matter far less in competition. Maybe that would be a good thing. Why should it be that the one thing younger people are on average better at is the most significant factor in competition and ratings? We didn't "design" that on purpose.

Example, the Toboggan Course. My son, Ben, competing against me. Due to distance alone, he has the potential for 11 strokes that I simply do not have the potential for.

If we compete on such a course, he wins (probably by 8-12 strokes) and if ratings are based on that his are much higher than mine.

If we compete on a similarly challenging course in every other way but where his advantage from the get-go due to distance is only 2-3 strokes, then *all* of our other skills come into play and I often can beat him - and over time our ratings would be similar.

Competition on which course is "better disc golf?" We decide by course design and the selection of courses for competition. It does not have to be that way and it might even be more competitor and spectator friendly if it weren't.

I wonder why PGA pros dont play par 3 shootouts every weekend.
'because people dont want to see it'
People like things fast, big, far, and shiny. Just the way it is.

Has anyone ever heard of Justin Leonard? Not a big hitter by any means, yet he consistantly shows up near the top of the PGA's statistic sheets and near the top of some tournaments. I don't think I've ever read about him crying that the courses today are too long for guys like him. No, he just tries his hardest to prepare for the event, participate to the best of his ability, and let the results happen as they will. I'm sure he knows that there are going to be several guys that smack the ball farther than he does, but he lets his over-all game speak for itself. And he continues to be a fierce competitor despite his lack of huge distance off the tee.

Quit crying and overcome!

You're missing my point, JohnRock, I'm not crying; I love competition even when I play on a long course against big guns. It'd be nice if we could stick to the ideas and facts, not personal criticisms.

It has just been "accepted" (social fact) that long driving distance ability should be the major factor in top competition, but there wasn't a discussion or a conscious decision, it just happened.

I'm pointing out that it needn't be so.

Yeah, some people like "big, shiny' fast" - but should those people's likes have such a strong hold on the game?

By and large, we pick more open and longer courses for top competitive events. That's a bias in favor of distance and against precision. Should we? I know that when those who like that face a course like Coldbrook (Worlds 2008) we do hear about it . . . I don't call it "crying," but we certainly do hear about it. Hmm.

If you really want to think about other sports, how about basketball. What if instead of the 3-point line, there was also a 4-point and a 5-point line. Would it be the game you want to watch if players developed who could sink 'em regularly from the 5-point line?

If you really want to think about other sports, how about basketball. What if instead of the 3-point line, there was also a 4-point and a 5-point line. Would it be the game you want to watch if players developed who could sink 'em regularly from the 5-point line?

Thats has no relevance. We dont use lids, so why play courses that are made for them. Discgolf has evolved into a BIGger, FASTer, SHINier game. Athleticism being the ruling factor. The athletic will out play the out of shape people on BIG courses.

Discgolf has evolved into a BIGger, FASTer, SHINier game. Athleticism being the ruling factor. The athletic will out play the out of shape people on BIG courses.


If you want to talk athleticism and throwing discs, think Ultimate, Self Caught Flight and Discathon. Big time disc golf can be primarily fast twitch power on less challenging open courses (for the few spectators we have so far), not conventional athleticism. Tighter, more technical courses provide a better overall challenge (think Maple Hill, Renny, Jackson) and require more complete athletic skills.

The athletic will out play the out of shape people on BIG courses.


Now that's funny. There isn't a month goes by that I (a fat old guy) don't beat athletic young guys - on any kind of course. (Like last month at a3disc's Birthday Classic.)

Still missing the point. It's about defining what the game is.

Hummers are big, shiny, and fast.

"Swoosh . . . another 5-pointer from 450 feet!"

I have been on the message board for years, and I have a harder time relating to you as every year passes. Are you JOKING. You make points that dont relate to discgolf in modern terms. Is that what your trying to do....bring discgolf into the "i'm not athletic, Ill just play frisbee" idealism? Please, I will out play any 'out of shape golfer on a real(renny) course any day! Dont. Dont. Dont imagine that because you cant handle TIGER at sawgrass that you are deserving of chance at Myrtle Beach Putt Putt adventure.

I agree with skaZZirf Ive played some long courses in my short amount of time as a disc golfer (the web, renny, winthrop, the casTTle) and I have noticed that as the rounds move on the less athletic not only seem to lose physical energy, but mental energy as well, but "out of shape" has many levels of variance like a skinny guy with a poor diet who appears "in shape" but what is going on in their body is completely different. I know that some think that determination is the biggest factor, but I think that a big part of it is endurance, how many rounds of disc golf you play on a weekly basis, how you pace yourself, and knowing how your body will behave over time. I know that playing 5 rounds of the the castle in one day in the middle of summer was possible for me a few times and I shoot more shots over time than the pros, usually 10-15 more a round, but when I first started I would play a round and be exhausted. I have also been in a few lead groups in a tournament and noticed how the last round plays an affect on the less athletic some falling from top card to not cashing because of fatigue and lack of endurance. so, scientifically speaking, the more athletic and healthy will DOMINATE the less athletic or less healthy on a long course any time any day under any condition regardless of how old they are. where I play there is a guy named rudy dixon who has to be pushing 60 and he runs like 3 miles every day and plays a few rounds of disc golf and he shot the same score as david wiggins jr at azalea this year.

I have been on the message board for years, and I have a harder time relating to you as every year passes. Are you JOKING. You make points that dont relate to discgolf in modern terms. Is that what your trying to do....bring discgolf into the "i'm not athletic, Ill just play frisbee" idealism? Please, I will out play any 'out of shape golfer on a real(renny) course any day! Dont. Dont. Dont imagine that because you cant handle TIGER at sawgrass that you are deserving of chance at Myrtle Beach Putt Putt adventure.


If important decisions were made on this discussion board, I'd stick around. As it is, I'm outta this discussion for now. Cya in a couple of weeks. I think I made my point for those willing to listen and think, and - surprise, surprise - a thread is once again sinking into implied ridicule and personal bias instead of open exchange of ideas. Not gonna engage in a battle of disparagement in a place where it really doesn't matter much.

so, scientifically speaking, the more athletic and healthy will DOMINATE the less athletic or less healthy on a long course any time any day under any condition regardless of how old they are.


Where are those scientific results? I have actual data that doesn't show this has to be true on fairly designed courses. A pool of young pros with the same rating average shot the same as a pool of women and older players with the same average rating on a Worlds course half in the open and half in the woods. Looking at individual holes, the youngsters did a little better on the more open holes and the oldsters and women who don't throw as far did a little better in the woods. So, it's possible that a less balanced course that's more open will favor longer throwers of the same rating but that doesn't mean the course is necessarily fair.

There's also no rating info that indicates older players throw worse in the final round of a four round event. Since some of them are out-of-shape (as are some youngsters), that has already been accounted for in their rating by the scores they have shot in all rounds. When looking into heat index issues, players under 21 are more susceptible to heat exhaustion than those over 50. It's partly due to surface area to weight differences and also a higher tendency for youngsters to not hydrate themselves properly during exertion. That's why there are more stringent guidelines for youth athletics regarding when to stop play when the heat index hits a certain value.

I agree with skaZZirf Ive played some long courses in my short amount of time as a disc golfer (the web, renny, winthrop, the casTTle) and I have noticed that as the rounds move on the less athletic not only seem to lose physical energy, but mental energy as well, but "out of shape" has many levels of variance like a skinny guy with a poor diet who appears "in shape" but what is going on in their body is completely different. I know that some think that determination is the biggest factor, but I think that a big part of it is endurance, how many rounds of disc golf you play on a weekly basis, how you pace yourself, and knowing how your body will behave over time. I know that playing 5 rounds of the the castle in one day in the middle of summer was possible for me a few times and I shoot more shots over time than the pros, usually 10-15 more a round, but when I first started I would play a round and be exhausted. I have also been in a few lead groups in a tournament and noticed how the last round plays an affect on the less athletic some falling from top card to not cashing because of fatigue and lack of endurance. so, scientifically speaking, the more athletic and healthy will DOMINATE the less athletic or less healthy on a long course any time any day under any condition regardless of how old they are. where I play there is a guy named rudy dixon who has to be pushing 60 and he runs like 3 miles every day and plays a few rounds of disc golf and he shot the same score as david wiggins jr at azalea this year.



while your general point makes sense -- suggesting it is true "any time any day" is going way too far. And there is that little thing called heart that is just as important as physical athletic ability. Their are plenty of professional athletes who don't look that athletic who dominate guys who look a lot more athletic than they. Larry Bird was kind of fat. While Ken Climo has very little body fat -- he smokes.

And then even a guy like Tiger's knee gives out (how old is he?)

effortless and smooth seems to be the best way -- being in great shape does help when you play long courses or multiple rounds --especially as you age. Top age-protected competitors like like Stan McDaniel and Deano (to name a few) are in great shape!

"The less effort, the faster and more powerful you will be" -- Bruce Lee

I have been on the message board for years, and I have a harder time relating to you as every year passes. Are you JOKING. You make points that dont relate to discgolf in modern terms. Is that what your trying to do....bring discgolf into the "i'm not athletic, Ill just play frisbee" idealism? Please, I will out play any 'out of shape golfer on a real(renny) course any day! Dont. Dont. Dont imagine that because you cant handle TIGER at sawgrass that you are deserving of chance at Myrtle Beach Putt Putt adventure.


If important decisions were made on this discussion board, I'd stick around. As it is, I'm outta this discussion for now. Cya in a couple of weeks. I think I made my point for those willing to listen and think, and - surprise, surprise - a thread is once again sinking into implied ridicule and personal bias instead of open exchange of ideas. Not gonna engage in a battle of disparagement in a place where it really doesn't matter much.



WOW... implied ridicule? Disagreeing vehemently gets me borderline personal attack...I think you are being a little sensitive due to past bantering with other discussion board members. I should have made my point without planting my foot so solidly. I was under the impression that my points were valid. I apologize if I hurt any feelings, but I believe we are moving in the right direction. I see less and less competitive golfers attending events on short deuce-or-die courses.

"It's been fairly proven, with a few expected outlier exceptions, that age does dramatically affect distance. "

age and distance are CORRELATED. you are vastly overstating the causal linkages.

btw, if worlds was won at more than 100 under par, i guess at least worlds course are not too long.

If important decisions were made on this discussion board, I'd stick around. As it is, I'm outta this discussion for now. Cya in a couple of weeks. I think I made my point for those willing to listen and think, and - surprise, surprise - a thread is once again sinking into implied ridicule and personal bias instead of open exchange of ideas. Not gonna engage in a battle of disparagement in a place where it really doesn't matter much.

in other words, not everybody agrees with me, so i am outa here :)

since this is now a physical fitness discussion.... one one day events do not separate on athleticism. while they are fun and convenient, one day events - as a truly competitive sporting event - are weak.

I wonder why PGA pros dont play par 3 shootouts every weekend.

Actually, it is just that golf evolved slower. Wev'e gone from the frisbee to the Destroyer in 35 years and our courses, course designers and course owners have not kept up. Golf took several hundred years to get from the feather stuffed ball and hickory shaft club to what they are using today. If golf was hitting feather stuffed leather balls 35 years ago, most of their courses would be par 3 courses today.

stop making sense -- it gets my hopes up everyone will :p