Do the following statements describe you?

1) You are at least 39 years old.
2) You would much rather play disc golf competitively than watch somebody else play it.
3) You do not believe that your major purpose as a PDGA member is to provide galleries and/or financial support for Open players.
4) You would occasionally travel regionally, perhaps nationally, or possibly even internationally to play in an event that offered good value to your division.
5) You wish that there were some way to identify such events well in advance.

If so, please send an e-mail to me ([email protected]), and I will add you to the mailing list of our newsgroup. Our major goal will be to identify, promote and support important PDGA-sanctioned events that offer good value to older players. These events will make up the Divisional Tour, a sort of "National Tour" for age-protected players.

I respect confidentiality, and will not provide your contact information to any third party without your express permission. Also, I will remove you from the newsgroup at any time upon your request.

To give you a better idea of how this Newsgroup will work, here is the letter I am sending to new members:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Newsgroup Member,

I've added your name to our newsgroup mailing list. For the last several years I have coordinated a "Senior Tour" for MPS players, which has been surprisingly successful. Because of changes in PDGA philosophy during that time, I now feel that it is essential to extend this program to all PDGA members 40 and over, and define a "Divisional Tour" that would include all age-protected divisions. Here's a short take on how this will work:

Later in the fall, after the PDGA posts the 2009 event schedule, I'll ask newsgroup members to nominate events they would like to see be part of the Divisional Tour. These events should be big enough to attract touring players. This usually means A-Tier, but there are also a number of events now that sanction as B-Tier (or maybe even C-Tier) events but offer A-Tier amenities, and we should also identify those. They should also be "senior- (ie, over 40) friendly", which we can measure using several criteria, the most important of which is payout philosophy.

I'll prepare a spreadsheet of the nominated events, and then we will gather information about them, especially the sort that doesn't always appear on event flyers. We need to know the payout philosophy, the format, final-nine policy, tee-times vs shotgun starts, and who has to start at dawn or finish in the dark if tee-times -- stuff like that. We will gather this information from TD's, and from our own newsgroup members who are also members of the sponsoring club.

We will also need to get a rough call from newsgroup members about whether they might attend, would attend if their division made, or definitely will attend. There's no point in keeping an event on our tour if not enough would go.

At that point (January, probably) I'll refine the spreadsheet, and start sending regular "updates" to newsgroup members as new information becomes available. These spreadsheets may be accompanied by a newsletter that discusses issues of general interest to age-protected players. The updates may be almost weekly during the early part of the season. Once we have a list of Tour events, we will promote them. I also want to look into the possibility of supporting them financially, something the MPS group has done for "senior-friendly" events the last few years.

Please feel free to send any questions to [email protected]

Take care,
Peter

My preference would be to call it the "Masters Tour" instead of the "Divisional Tour".....I think "Masters" has a much better ring to it. :)

Looks like the first steps towards our own National and Worlds Championships?

What is the plan to handle the hordes of PDGA members who demand to play, yet refuse to step up to the high level that this tour is trying to promote? Are you going to have to divy up the entry fees and sponsor money to appease these players as well? Will this group eventually have 10 - 15 divisions (PRO / AM), each demanding that more money should be added to their division because they have more players at a specific event?

to Jerry: We considered both "Masters" and "Senior", but both terms have such specific meanings. We didn't want to confuse people into thinking that this Tour was just for MPM or MPS.

to Tom: Perhaps the time has come for us to have our own Tour and Championships. Certainly we need to consider it. Whatever we do, we will need to be organized to do it, and this is a first step in that direction.

to John:

What is the plan to handle the hordes of PDGA members who demand to play, yet refuse to step up to the high level that this tour is trying to promote? <font color="red"> The "handling" of entries would be done by event TD's, in the same way as it is now. </font> Are you going to have to divy up the entry fees and sponsor money to appease these players as well? Will this group eventually have 10 - 15 divisions (PRO / AM), each demanding that more money should be added to their division because they have more players at a specific event? <font color="red"> The current PDGA divisional structure is fine, as is a payout philosopy that allocated added cash proportional to the number of players in each division. We would not argue that any of our divisions is more important than another.

We are not trying to change the current system. We only want to identify in advance those events that offer good value to age-protected divisions, so we can each better plan our season. Once we have done that, we will promote them and (if we can) support them financially.</font>

to Jerry: We considered both "Masters" and "Senior", but both terms have such specific meanings. We didn't want to confuse people into thinking that this Tour was just for MPM or MPS.

to Tom: Perhaps the time has come for us to have our own Tour and Championships. Certainly we need to consider it. Whatever we do, we will need to be organized to do it, and this is a first step in that direction.




Maybe we should worry about the one we already have in place.

So would this just be an everyone else event? Oh wait everyone else who is 40+. Masters tour would be a good name under that circumstance.

to Jerry: We considered both "Masters" and "Senior", but both terms have such specific meanings. We didn't want to confuse people into thinking that this Tour was just for MPM or MPS.



And use of the name "Divisional Tour" would be less confusing?

I think a "Masters Tour" can easily encompass Masters, Grandmasters and Senior Grandmasters and not be too difficult for the old folks to figure out (not to mention prospective sponsors). :) One of my favorite tournaments is Masters at Idlewild where tournament director Fred Salaz offers only age-based divisions for players over 39. Each year there has been a decent mix of pros and ams in their respective divisions.

Perhaps the tour could be called the Antiques Roadshow? We might even get some additional spectators by accident... :cool:

now dats FUNNY! :)

what about the "Entitlement Tour"? then at least everyone will know what its really about

As if the Open players don't feel entitled. Give me a break.

they should. they play in the division that takes all comers and lets the best player win.

They should be "entitled" to not contribute to the tournament expenses versus ams? They should be "entitled" to more percentage of the added cash than "antiques" when no one is watching? They should be "entitled" more than "antiques" who have run many more events free for 25 years than non-antiques?

On the main topic here, Peter is just trying to get a group who will identify existing events to attend so the field sizes of geezers might be a little higher at them. It's not intended to be a tour with separate events. And we already have the US Masters so no new Championships need to be created. Drdisc's comment relates to the possibility that if no one wants to bid for Pro Worlds, which is an ongoing issue, there's no reason a Master and older Pro Worlds might not be hosted and let the Open players have their own Worlds if someone will do it at another location.

They should be "entitled" to not contribute to the tournament expenses versus ams?
<font color="green"> now you are talking about percent payout, not necessarily payout allocation. how the events pays its bills should not be the concern of the player. </font>


They should be "entitled" to more percentage of the added cash than "antiques" when no one is watching?
<font color="green"> no easy answer on that one. if no one is watching, then no one is likely to get paid much beyond their entry fees. imo, sufre they should get more no matter how many are watching live. show me the gallery for hte antiques and the gallery for the big boys and if they are at the same time at the same event, the gallery for the antiques will be smaller. </font>


They should be "entitled" more than "antiques" who have run many more events free for 25 years than non-antiques?
<font color="green"> look, a BIG thank you to all the folks who have offered events for the last 25 years! seriously - THANK YOU! but i am sorry - that does not mean you are entitled to a bigger slice of the payouts. these are two very different things. </font>

show me the gallery for the antiques and the gallery for the big boys and if they are at the same time at the same event, the gallery for the antiques will be smaller.


Of course, the small galleries will be larger for Masters and even GMs than the Open Women if we're talking about skill here and definitely for watching more interesting routes and types of throws like rollers.

Regarding tournament payouts, it's the sense of entitlement, and eventual griping, that pressures TDs to not retain any pro entry fees to cover event expenses or money for their efforts. For those antique TDs who run the events and acquire the added cash for events under NT level, it's the least we can do to allocate the added money proportionally when there are few spectators. And in fact, that's one of the items Peter and the group will be looking at for selecting events.

yay let's promote division

my desire to post nasty words is only trumped by general disgust

entitlement s&amp;&amp;ks

yay let's promote division

my desire to post nasty words is only trumped by general disgust

entitlement s&amp;&amp;ks



Did you even READ what he posted?
It only asks for info on Events for people to play in from the existing tour, not starting another tour.
Sort of what Juliana used to/ still does for Women's Events.
I always plan my travels around Events that I like, courses I like, Td's and players I like, and places where there ususally are larger fields of Masters players.
Everyone of the top Pro Open guys does the EXACT same thing.
Very few will "travel" to an Event if there are not going to be other competitors there. Common sense Craig, pure common sense. If anyone wants to play in 3-5 person fields, they'll do it at local Events, not Events they have to travel to, no matter what the "PAYOUTS" are.

Stop hating on everything Pete says, because of your past battles. Look at WHAT HE WROTE, not what you think he wrote, and then you'll see what he's saying.
I'm sure this stems from, and could lead to other things, but "as posted" is nothing more than trying to see where there are going to be larger fields of old guys at quality Events.

keith, you are partially correct. i agree that one shouldnt blast someones posts just because of who wrote it.

but...

"We need to know the payout philosophy, the format, final-nine policy, tee-times vs shotgun starts, and who has to start at dawn or finish in the dark if tee-times "

this is not trying to find the larger fields. its more than that. its about finding events that add acceptable amounts to the age-protected purses, dont make age-protected players have all of the early/less-desireable tee times, etc.

and there is nothing wrong with that.

this is not about finding the best competition at all. if anything its about finding the most lucrative hideouts away from the best competition. and again, nothing wrong with that. we all have our preferences for what we want out of the sport.

yay let's promote division

my desire to post nasty words is only trumped by general disgust

entitlement s&amp;&amp;ks



Did you even READ what he posted?
It only asks for info on Events for people to play in from the existing tour, not starting another tour.
Sort of what Juliana used to/ still does for Women's Events.
I always plan my travels around Events that I like, courses I like, Td's and players I like, and places where there ususally are larger fields of Masters players.
Everyone of the top Pro Open guys does the EXACT same thing.
Very few will "travel" to an Event if there are not going to be other competitors there. Common sense Craig, pure common sense. If anyone wants to play in 3-5 person fields, they'll do it at local Events, not Events they have to travel to, no matter what the "PAYOUTS" are.

Stop hating on everything Pete says, because of your past battles. Look at WHAT HE WROTE, not what you think he wrote, and then you'll see what he's saying.
I'm sure this stems from, and could lead to other things, but "as posted" is nothing more than trying to see where there are going to be larger fields of old guys at quality Events.

I don't think you're really Keith............Keith types like this....It's very annoying..........You aren't being annoying at all............. :D

it's "calm keith"- he's off the pepsi while typing...

I read what he wrote Keith - I understand it perfectly.

What was written is an attempt at collective subversion of competition through the use of entitlement. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't hate Pete - I just don't agree with what he promotes.

You say it's common sense - sure common sense to try and maximize your return by avoiding having to compete for your reward. Because after all - it's all about the reward, instead of the competition - and thus my general disgust.

Peter wrote:
"The current PDGA divisional structure is fine, as is a payout philosopy that allocated added cash proportional to the number of players in each division. We would not argue that any of our divisions is more important than another."

This is the entitlement mantra - don't make me play against the best players - and oh by the way - I deserve to be paid more than a guy I don't have to play against that just shot the same score as me. I find it a weak substitute for actual competition. And I am generally disgusted by the open promotion of it as "fine".

I am starting a Halloween Newsgroup so we can find out which houses are giving the "good" candy so we don't have to go knocking on every door only to end up with candy corn and tootsie rolls. We want to find out which houses are giving bags of money, snickers, and gobstoppers and coordinate our efforts to only going to those houses. This way, we can get the best handouts, and not just any mediocre handouts.

Nice turn of phrase :)

"collective subversion of competition through the use of entitlement"

To be sure, other than disc golf I have not been much of an athletic competitor. I ran cross-country in high school and played water polo when I was with UDT-13. And I also played in some slow-pitch coed softball and bowling leagues.

I would be fairly surprised to find that there are a lot of sports where you can actually find people ranging all the way from 18 to 70+ years of age competing against each other in the same division.

Are there 70-year-old competitive NASCAR drivers, golfers, football/soccer players, basketball players, baseball players?

If so, are they even allowed to play in the same division with those who are 18? 24? 30?

Is there any sport at all where there is only an Open division and everyone, regardless of skill or criteria like age or gender, plays Open?

NASCAR has not been seen recently pimping the efforts of the 70 year old drivers. but then again none have showed up asking for fatter paychecks. at least not while sober. those NASCAR guys, ya know. what a hoot. you'd think that the sponsors woulda dropped em by now, what with all the beers and boobs flying around. maybe their sponsors are different from our sponsors. but thats for another time.

in golf, the older guys who can still compete in the PGA events still do. either for the prestige or the fat cash that is nopt offered on the senior circuit. fortunately for ball golf, players play their way onto the tour. unfortunately for disc golf, (most) players pay their way onto the tour.

football and soccer players would play in the NFL and WOrld Soccer if they could. the cowboys QB is 40 at the moment. retired NFL'ers dont usually ask for the local flag league to pick up their retirement tab.

same as above for basketball and baseball.

so, regarding your question "Is there any sport at all where there is only an Open division and everyone, regardless of skill or criteria like age or gender, plays Open?" it turns out that your question is incorrectly structured.

NO sport has ONLY an Open division and everyone plays Open. i think the point is that the recent efforts are seen as disc golf barely has an open division because "old" players will do anything to avoid the top competition.

I'm not sure I understand????

Are you saying 40 and older players dodge the "competition" because they play in PDGA age protected divisions? If so, it sounds like your beef should be with the PDGA and NOT with what Peter is trying to do.

Sounds to me like what Peter is trying to do is to communicate with like minded people to organize BIGGER fields and thus INCREASE the competition.

Are you suggesting because you don't agree with age protection you don't want anyone to be able to play in these divisions?

Here is a tip. Sign up for the newsgroup so you can be informed on all the "Divisional" tourneys that likely will draw plenty of age protected players so you can be sure NOT to play in those.

Regardless of your motives, and I agree it sure looks personal and has nothing to do with what Peter is doing, people choose which tourneys to play in for lots of reasons.

Age protected friendly is as legitimate a reason as many others.

Don't like it? Then don't go to these tourneys.

"Sounds to me like what Peter is trying to do is to communicate with like minded people to organize BIGGER fields and thus INCREASE the competition"

i agree. but these like minded people seem to miss the pointthat there are BIGGER fields and INCREASED competition in the OPEN division. there does not need to be a "thus". "thus" is already here. you just need to join the, already existing, bigger division.

it would be better to say it this way " we want to play with our age group and thats more important than open competition". not many people would argue with that sentiment. the arguing seems to start when the age-protectors assert that they are increasing competition. its competition, but with an asterisk.

x

I thought the short-lived "Senior League" in baseball (Florida) was cool. I still have my Ft. Myers Sun Sox sweatshirt.

"Sounds to me like what Peter is trying to do is to communicate with like minded people to organize BIGGER fields and thus INCREASE the competition"

i agree. but these like minded people seem to miss the pointthat there are BIGGER fields and INCREASED competition in the OPEN division. there does not need to be a "thus". "thus" is already here. you just need to join the, already existing, bigger division.

it would be better to say it this way " we want to play with our age group and thats more important than open competition". not many people would argue with that sentiment. the arguing seems to start when the age-protectors assert that they are increasing competition. its competition, but with an asterisk.



I don't disagree with Craig's philosophy at all either, in fact I lauded him for doing what he wants in the Events he runs, just like I laud any TD that does things their own way and makes it work.
I like the fact that I can play all over the country in Events I like in the division that allows ME to be the most competitive. I have nothing against the Open division and if you check any of the stats of ALL the Events I've run in 13 years of being a TD you'll see OVERWHELMING support of the OPEN divisions cash wise, as well as the fact that all pros also got players packages.
I just disagree with wishing that everyone played open or else, even though in my area, it hurts my chances of cashing with my 950 rating, as most of the ~thousand rated players in my area almost always choose Masters instead of Open because of the "easy money".
Search Georgia/South Carolina by points in Masters age players and you can see what I mean.
I'm pretty sure I'm aware of what I assume Pete's "real" plan is, but it still seems to me like a good way to maybe boost fields of like minded players.
To Bruce: Yes, for most of the last year or so (before Calm Keith - who is only 3 weeks old), I have been using proper lawyerly posting skills, but you might not have noticed it until now. :D
Either way, I have respect for Craig and his skills as a player and a TD, and even though I disagree vehemently with how Peter handled my probation on this board, I still respect him and what he is looking to do also with this idea.
I try to never let how I feel about anyone, or how they feel about me, persuade me from seeing the ideas presented by those people and judging them solely on the ideas merit, and NOT who posted it.

Keith

I'm not sure I understand????

Are you saying 40 and older players dodge the "competition" because they play in PDGA age protected divisions? If so, it sounds like your beef should be with the PDGA and NOT with what Peter is trying to do.



You are correct Pete, my beef is not with Peter per se. It is most definitely with the divisional system. The current system allows players who shoot the same score to be rewarded differently - which I think degrades the whole concept of competition.

Do I think players over 40 dodge the competition? Frequently.
Do I fault the player for their choices? No - I fault the system that allows such a choice.


Sounds to me like what Peter is trying to do is to communicate with like minded people to organize BIGGER fields and thus INCREASE the competition.



The beef I have with what Peter is promoting is that it takes what I view as untenable and just plain wrong - and seeks to further expoit it. He's not looking to increase competition - he's looking to expand exclusivity and entitlement and call it competition.


Are you suggesting because you don't agree with age protection you don't want anyone to be able to play in these divisions?


No - I have a simple belief that dividing people when they all shoot in the same scoring range is an illegitimate means of promoting competition. This doesn't mean there isn't room for some forms of age protection within a competitive system. Only that the current form is bogus.


Here is a tip. Sign up for the newsgroup so you can be informed on all the "Divisional" tourneys that likely will draw plenty of age protected players so you can be sure NOT to play in those.



Keep your tip. It's pretty easy to figure out without the help of a newsgroup.


Regardless of your motives, and I agree it sure looks personal and has nothing to do with what Peter is doing, people choose which tourneys to play in for lots of reasons.

Age protected friendly is as legitimate a reason as many others.

Don't like it? Then don't go to these tourneys.



We'll have to agree to disagree, because age protection for a majority of MPM players is simply not legitimate IMO. And you're right - I don't like it, and you're right - I don't go where it is embraced - especially at the expense of other players. It'd be different if there was an identifiable skill break at 40. But there simply is not. The fact that MPM players feel they should be rewarded equally or greater than their MPO counterpart for shooting the same score is ego driven entitlement. Organizing a newsgroup to promote it earns my disdain.

I'm too old to read these longwinded posts and actually comprehend.

Hi Craig

I got old and I can no longer devote my life to disc golf like I did in the past. No matter what tour an event is in I will play it if I like the course and I don't have anything else going on. Since I don't cash, I no longer worry about money, tiers and all of the other things that used to matter to me. You'll see me in the last group smiling, laughing and quite often saying that disc golf is stupid. It's one of my hobbies and no longer a job.

Hi Chris,
Yeah I'm getting old too. :(

me too. can i get in on this gravy train before they up the age?

Everyone,

A number of people have asked me if the Divisional Tour newsgroup is open to women and/or amateurs. The answer is, "Of course, as long as the statements in the first post on this thread apply to you".

Age-protected women have the same concerns as the men, and some additional ones as well. Amateurs may be more satisfied with the status quo. Still, some of the attributes that make an event valuable to a professional are also likely to appeal to an amateur.

will your newsgroup also announce events that meet your criteria but are not pdga sanctioned?

will your newsgroup also announce events that meet your criteria but are not pdga sanctioned?

Pat,

I can only give you my take now, because we won't start working as a group until the 2009 calendar is mostly complete.

1) I would prefer that we form the Divisional Tour using only PDGA-sanctioned events.
2) It is possible that we might not announce events on this site. If we do, it will be well after we announce them internally. Newsgroup members will be doing the work of researching the events, so we want to give them the first chance to sign up.

Everyone,

The 2009 NT schedule is out and some NT's are soliciting registrations. Apparently the 2009 NT tour standards will be similar to the 2008 standards. Given that assumption, I will offer some tips for older players who would like to play in NT's and who also care about payout.

The important consideration in NT's is the "triple (or greater) shares to Open" protocol. Let's consider a NT that adds $4000 and has 100 Open players and 50 older players. Of the $4000 added cash, at least $3429 would go to Open, and $571 or less would go to all older divisions combined.

It is easy to see that older players will do better at NT's that:
1) raise more than the minimum $4000. The disparity would be the same, but the percentage added would be greater for all players.
2) do not raise the Open multiplier above 3.0.
3) have a ratio of older/total players higher than the 1/3 of the above example. This would result in a lower percentage of players drawing triple shares.
4) have a lower total number of players. In this case the added cash is split fewer ways.

Older players need to be careful. Any NT is free to raise the Open multiplier without limit. In addition, it is not clear whether the protocols are firm, or whether they can be considered to be "guidelines". I will analyze the 2009 NT payouts after they are posted, and report to the Divisional Tour Newsgroup. The results will help us decide whether NT's offer good value to older players.

So are you saying that they should stop bagging and move up? I made $300 less than the 1st place in masters this weekend and beat the score by more than 10.

I don't care about being good now as long as I'm good when I get to the protected fields.

The results will help us decide whether NT's offer good value to older players.


NT's are a great value is you play in the Competitive Division and not hide in protected divisions. Why should you get paid just because you are an "older" pro? The PDGA and everyone else at the event doesn't owe you anything. If you want to get into some of that "3x" cash, then play Open. If you don't place in Open, then guess what, you join the other Open players that didn't get paid. You shouldn't get a handout just because you (60-something) and 25 year old "joe schmoe" shoot the same score. If you think you should, that's discrimination.

Everyone,


It is easy to see that older players will do better at NT's that:
1) raise more than the minimum $4000. The disparity would be the same, but the percentage added would be greater for all players.
2) do not raise the Open multiplier above 3.0.
3) have a ratio of older/total players higher than the 1/3 of the above example. This would result in a lower percentage of players drawing triple shares.
4) have a lower total number of players. In this case the added cash is split fewer ways.

Older players need to be careful. Any NT is free to raise the Open multiplier without limit. In addition, it is not clear whether the protocols are firm, or whether they can be considered to be "guidelines". I will analyze the 2009 NT payouts after they are posted, and report to the Divisional Tour Newsgroup. The results will help us decide whether NT's offer good value to older players.



Collective subversion of competition through the use of entitlement does not promote competition!! It promotes division - our community is too small for such selfishness.

There are two things which are highly valued in this world: excellence and rarity. The top Open players get paid well due to their excellence and the top old guys get paid well because of their rarity. Most old guys can no longer play well.

Gold is valuable because it is rare. If hunks of gold lay in every street no one would pay for it. Once some of you naysayers get adequately old you will appreciate just how valuable your remaining athletic skills are. Getting old aint easy. Jim Kenner explained to me on my 50th birthday that you fight to keep what you have over 50.

To be pretty good at 30 is no big deal. Do it when you are 60 and it is darn impressive. So you can fight the old guys but you will lose. Age and treachery beat beats youth and ideals every time. One day this will make perfect sense to you.

There are two things which are highly valued in this world: excellence and rarity. The top Open players get paid well due to their excellence and the top old guys get paid well because of their rarity. Most old guys can no longer play well.

Gold is valuable because it is rare. If hunks of gold lay in every street no one would pay for it. Once some of you naysayers get adequately old you will appreciate just how valuable your remaining athletic skills are. Getting old aint easy. Jim Kenner explained to me on my 50th birthday that you fight to keep what you have over 50.

To be pretty good at 30 is no big deal. Do it when you are 60 and it is darn impressive. So you can fight the old guys but you will lose. Age and treachery beat beats youth and ideals every time. One day this will make perfect sense to you.




Yeah it will make sense when I am the one winning more money for lesser play because of my age.


Why aren't Jrs protected as pros? Maybe they should give the younger players some strokes to help balance out the lack of experience.

hey matt, reverse discrimination has arrived at disc golf! :) get your own demographic going, dude.

i say let them do it, and more power to them. i honestly hope it works. at least two of the possible outcomes are good: the age-protected players are happy; there's more time and energy the association to actually focus and develop the competitive track.

there is also the other side of the coin: if you want NTs to focus more on competition and less on divisional play, then play the ones that arent on peter's list. i bet he wouldnt begrudge anyone that.

The inaugural event of the Divisional Tour will be the Las Vegas Gentlemen's Club at the end of this month.

The Divisional Tour events are selected by a newsgroup whose goal is to "identify, promote and support important PDGA events that offer good value to older touring players". We are currently in the process of nominating, researching and selecting other events of the Divisional Tour. If you would like to join our newsgroup, and you meet the criteria outlined in the first post of this thread, please let me know ([email protected]) and I will add you to our mailing list. There is no cost to join.