Everyone,

Many PDGA members have criticized my motives and my vision, as I work in various ways to improve conditions for older players in our association. I do this work because I have both short- term goals and a long-term dream. I want to briefly explain these, because I feel that it is important for people to understand where I am coming from, and why I am doing these things.

The short-term goal is to identify, promote and support a series of exciting events that offer good value to older touring players. I call this the "Divisional Tour", which I intend as a sort of "National Tour" for age-protected divisions. This is a job that must be redone each year because tournaments and tournament philosophies change every year, and because the PDGA does not believe in formalizing or stabilizing this concept the way they do the NT Program for Open players. Obviously there are selfish motives involved, because I love to tour and can and will take part as a player. But I am only one of many, as my past work with the "MPS Tour" and the current response to my "Divisional Tour Newsgroup" has shown.

The long-term dream is much the same as the one I described in an article (For Love and/or Money) in DGW about three years ago. It was the third part of my "Someday You'll be Old Too, and Then What?" series. I outlined a future model in which 225 pros under 50 would make their livings playing disc golf, averaging $50,000 a year in purses. In addition, 100 pros over 50 would cover their touring expenses, averaging $10,000 a year in purses.

This dream will not be realized during my playing career, nor likely even in my lifetime. Still, I am driven to work toward it. I did not start playing until I was over 50. I have experienced indescribable thrill as a fierce competitive older player. It has reenergized my life, and I understand the passion and the synergy that can result from it. I am quoted in the Denver Post saying, "I am convinced that I will live longer because I have disc golf in my life". Finally, I need to believe that, long after I am gone, others will have the opportunity to do what I have done and feel what I have felt.

Unfortunately, this puts me at odds with the recent drift of PDGA philosophy, which is that older players should not feel entitled to dreams like these, and that they should instead be encouraged and channeled to become watchers and financial supporters of young players. I just live on a different planet. I am a player, not a watcher. And I believe that all members should receive a level of support that at least remotely reflects what they have contributed. Not only am I driven to work toward this dream, it would be impossible for me not to work toward it.

This work has nothing to do with my own playing career. I do it now, even as I feel the changes in my body that will soon put an end to my run as a skillful player. I will work even harder toward this dream, mind willing, after my body can no longer compete on the field of play, because I will then have more time for it. And when I die, I will leave as big a pile of money as I can to help fund it, in hopes that it may someday come to pass.

Right on Peter. As another player who just turned pro at 50 ... I'm all for it. Keep on pushing on!

John McMullen
Carbondale, CO

The dream is an admirable one and god-willing, one that will come to fruition. Some day when disc golf is as popular as ball golf, we'll have both a pro tour *and* a senior tour that can support touring professionals with million dollar purses.

In the meantime, without title sponsors and the sport still in the infant stage, disc golf is barely able to support a dozen or so real "professionals." The NT program at least showcases the very best players in our sport in the hopes of growing it.

When nearly every division is still playing for each other's entry fees, make for a divisional system that makes sense, reduces multiple overlapping divisions of almost the same skill set, and promotes healthy competition. We need skill protection, not age protection. Age protection was founded decades ago on the premise of breaking out ability because very few quantitative measures of ability existed at that time. Now with player ratings we have the ability to quantitatively measure ability with some degree of accuracy.

A 930-rated player should be able to play in a protected division separate from those who are 100 rating points above him. It does not matter whether that 930-rated player is 25 years old or 65 years old. A 65 year-old does not deserve protection simply because he is old.

if one player deserves it for one reason, the other deserves it for the other.

the question is more about why you play. if you are looking for the best competition, OPEN is the only choice. if you are looking for the most comaraderie, to flock together with birds of a feather, whatever... then divisionals are wonderful.

in the strictest possible view, an org focused on top competition would not worry about anything else, and another that focused on the divisionals would not worry too much about being an OPEN tour.

perhaps much of the problems come from a single entity dividing its efforts across objectives that are sometimes diametrically opposed to one another.

Good job, Peter Shive! I want to play in your tour and see your vision become reality.

For me the payout issue is not important, it's the competiton.

The best divisional structure would allow any competitor the opportunity to play in a tournament where, if they play well (based on their skill level) they have a chance to win and if they play poorly they donate. We all have been in that situation. If is fun. It is invigorating. It is truly fair competition.

No such divisional structure exists. But I know that ratings based divisions do not create this scenario. My experience is that age protected divisions come closer and are more inspirational for old folks like me.

Ratings based divisions are great if you happen to have a handicap rating at the top end of the rating cut-off. If you are at the bottom of the division you have no realistic chance. Come live in my world for a moment. My rating in the 970's puts me in the highest division of any ratings based tournament I have played in. But to cash I need to average over 1000 rated rounds and hope the top boys have off days. Unless the tourney has only a handful of players I have no realistic chance of winning.

If ratings tourneys had hundreds of total competitors and each division was only 30 points wide, then bring it on. That does not and will not happen.

If there is more than a single division offered in a tournament then all the lower divisions are protected. They are protected from the higher divisions.

One protection that is intrinsically fair is age. We all age. We can quibble about where the age divisions should fall. Few would argue that age protection is unwarranted for players over 50. Few would argue that age protection is unwarranted for players under 15. Extra protection within age is also warranted based on gender (Womens Grandmasters, for example.

What age protection does is create hope and therefore motivation. Peter Shive thinks he will live longer and better due to disc golf. If he had to compete against the Open players he has no reason to practice, to cross train and to push himself as hard as he does. Me too. I hope to live longer and better. I am in better shape than I would be if had no hope of competing in my division (just because I am fat does not mean I wouldn't be fatter. I was a fat kid and have been fighting weight every second of my life since).

The fight against age is not so much about becoming a better athlete than we were in our prime. In my mid 50's I will never run as fast or jump as high as I could in early adulthood. It is about retaining as much of our youthful vitality as possible. It is about finding ways to overcome our declining power with fewer mistakes in other areas. It is about fighting laziness and getting off the couch and going to the gym. It is about eating better and doing smart things to improve our health.

What confuses me is why age divisions are offensive to other players. If you want old people's money that bad just stick up the senior citizen's center. :)

The old guys like to play with each other. It is fun. It is congenial. When we say, "Nice shot", we really mean it. The atmosphere in the Open Division is ruthless. I have lived too many years to hate someone just because they might beat me.

Ratings based divisions have an inherent flaw. There is motivation to get to the top of a division and stay there. Why improve? You are at the top of this food chain. Improve your handicap rating by a point or two and now you are the bigger dog's lunch. There is no such flaw with age divisions. The harder you work and the better you play the better off you are. You cannot sandbag age.

I think it should be up to the players to organize something like this. and not the PDGA that can barely handle the NT(and can't even get the new website up!).


One thing I think a group like this should do is make a list of things that appeal to them compared to the average open player. what kind of % of added cash, accommodations near the course(since i don't see many camping or sleeping on couches like Peter), tournament amenities. Maybe older players like having mementos of a tournament like a players pack shirt, while many open players do not.


I am personally against giving masters aged+ players the same % of added cash as open, but I think there are other ways a tournament could appeal to these players without a huge payout.

Well put Peter and Mark.

Mark,

That is about the best statement I've ever seen about the comparison between ratings-based and age-protected play. That last bit, "You can't sandbag age", is an absolute classic.

I would add only one point. If you are serious about an extended career as a player, you need an identifiable and stable cohort of competitors. These are the players who set the bar by which your own accomplishments will be measured, and you want them to be inspired to play with passion and determination because you want them to set that bar high. An age-based division automatically provides that cohort. Ratings-based play does not.

The money is probably more important to me than to you. Many of us could not tour if we could not defray at least part of our expenses. In addition, I donate at least half of my total winnings to support purses in various events. Some of this money even goes to augment Open purses. I want it to amount to something I can be proud of.

Just like ratings based breaks are arbitrary, so are age based breaks. We know that starting at age 40, players lose about one throw (10 rating points) on average every five years making the theoretical range over 10 years about 20 ratings points (for those who start with the same rating at age 40) versus either 40 or 50 rating points as typically set as the range for am divisions. However, the fallacy of age divisions is that if you randomly select 20 male PDGA members between the ages of 40-49, the range of skill level within that group can be over 150 rating points. Whereas, you randomly select 20 PDGA members of either gender from the pool of players with ratings between 850-899, that range will never be more than 50 points. So much for age based divisions being inherently more fair.

Mark's claim which is valid is that with a rating barely over 969, he's forced to enter a ratings division with players up to 70 points higher. The "unfairness" isn't the rating break but that fact we haven't made a higher break so his range is more like 35-40 points. Interestingly, he gets that range by playing MPG because the highest rated player that actually enters MPG at Worlds is rarely more than 1010.

Ratings based divisions have an inherent flaw. There is motivation to get to the top of a division and stay there. Why improve? You are at the top of this food chain. Improve your handicap rating by a point or two and now you are the bigger dog's lunch. There is no such flaw with age divisions. The harder you work and the better you play the better off you are. You cannot sandbag age.



There is only an inherent flaw with ratings based divisions if there is an inherent flaw in logic that players will 'sandbag' once they reach the top of their ratings bracket. In my 13 years in this sport, I have never seen another player during any PDGA sanctioned event, unsanctioned event, monthly, Ice Bowl, Ace Race, BYOP partner doubles, random draw doubles, etc. compete with the intention of sandbagging, or intentionally playing below their capabilities, in order to stay in a lower division. Every competitive disc golfer I've ever met in my entire life has had the intention of lowering their score and improving their game, even if ultimately it leads to moving up to a higher competitive division.

Sorry for the thread drift, Peter, but I responded to Mark's argument on discgolfersr.us and it was the thread killer.

The only inherent flaw in the ratings system is the requirement that the ratings breaks be known and be the same at every tournament. It would be very easy to design a system where the ratings breaks are based on the lowest rated player at the tournament, giving every flight a 40 point wide sweep. The 934 rated highest intermediate in the country would never know whether he was going to be highest, lowest or somewhere in the middle of his flight. Not every TD would want to run this system, but I'll probably run it next year somewhere, and I might sanction it.

Nonetheless, I do think age based divisions are cool and I look forward to receiving your e-mail updates on good tournaments for the over-50 players. I play in the age based divisions from time to time, but for the most part I find myself too good for Am Masters and not good enough for Pro Masters. Also, the pro entry fees tend to be ridiculously expensive.

I'm all for folks getting organized beyond what organization already exists. That's what made many regional tours viable. Peter, maybe you can encourage someone in your corner to put something on video together about your season's plans.

Bruce notes his "bagger / donator" position in masters divisions, and this is the case with a lot of others, too. Flighted play is the answer. I hope some variations on that theme get tried.

Joe

The only inherent flaw in the ratings system is the requirement that the ratings breaks be known and be the same at every tournament. It would be very easy to design a system where the ratings breaks are based on the lowest rated player at the tournament, giving every flight a 40 point wide sweep. The 934 rated highest intermediate in the country would never know whether he was going to be highest, lowest or somewhere in the middle of his flight.


The issue under this structure and one of the main reasons ratings based events have been slow to catch on is it's incompatible with series events where players enter the same division to try and win the series prize for that division whether Open, Master, Advanced or Intermediate. With shifting ratings duringthe season and ratings ranges under this proposed structure, local and regional series wouldn't work.

The other issue is where to make the breaks. If the idea is to make the break at every 40 points from the top player on down, that might make a 2 person division at the top. Another way to do it might be to just say your going to make the breaks so you have four roughly equal sized divisions. That might make one division 80 points wide and two that are 20 points wide and another that's 80 points.

Unfortunately, this puts me at odds with the recent drift of PDGA philosophy, which is that older players should not feel entitled to dreams like these, and that they should instead be encouraged and channeled to become watchers and financial supporters of young players.




Recent drift of PDGA philosophy????? Didn't the plan to have open-only NT tours get scuttled? What PDGA actions support this "drift" you are talking about?

Sorry to snuff out the violins, but imo, the discussion is better approached with cold-hearted reason. In other words, where should an organization with limited resources focus it efforts? Some argued that the efforts should be used to promote the best. It is a sport afterall. Others argued for some "to each what he put in" philosophy. We are a democratic club after all.

Alas, it appears that no changes were made and the age-protected divisions remain on par with the open division in the PDGA's eyes. Very short-sighted and pandering to the most vocal, but not surprising, imo.

The only inherent flaw in the ratings system is the requirement that the ratings breaks be known and be the same at every tournament. It would be very easy to design a system where the ratings breaks are based on the lowest rated player at the tournament, giving every flight a 40 point wide sweep. The 934 rated highest intermediate in the country would never know whether he was going to be highest, lowest or somewhere in the middle of his flight.


The issue under this structure and one of the main reasons ratings based events have been slow to catch on is it's incompatible with series events where players enter the same division to try and win the series prize for that division whether Open, Master, Advanced or Intermediate. With shifting ratings duringthe season and ratings ranges under this proposed structure, local and regional series wouldn't work.

The other issue is where to make the breaks. If the idea is to make the break at every 40 points from the bottom player on up, that might make a 2 person division at the top. Another way to do it might be to just say your going to make the breaks so you have four roughly equal sized divisions. That might make one division 80 points wide and two that are 20 points wide and another that's 80 points.


The problem with series points can be solved with Excel pretty easily. If you want to have series awards for players who keep their rating below arbitrary ratings breaks, sort by those arbitrary ratings breaks and assign points.

I addressed the second problem on the discgolfersr.us thread as follows: If the remaining players at the top comprise less than a 20 point spread, combine them with the last previous forty point wide flight.

If I can find a place in the Michigan schedule where I want to run this, the entry fee will be $5, and that will go towards sanctioning, insurance and PDGA fees. The sidebet will be $20, and that will go to the cash payout. Amateurs will be reported as having played advanced and pros will be reported as having played Open.

What I like about this format is that it is merchless. I'd like to get off the merch-wheel.

What I like about this format is that it is merchless. I'd like to get off the merch-wheel.



Is that so you can give your TD services away even "more free" than you do now? ;)

I've been giving away my TD services for free most of the time ever since I started being a TD. What little we skim off the IOSeries just pays for gas and shoplifting. The nice thing about merchless tournaments is there's no shoplifting. I can't do the IOSeries merchless because i'm just one vote. But stuff i do around here where gas is not an issue, I'm going merchless in the future.

If there is any TD in the frisbee world who can run an event and break close to even and not be universally hated, you have my respect and amazement.

If there is any TD in the frisbee world who can run an event and break close to even and not be universally hated, you have my respect and amazement.



I currently run around 25 events a year. I'm definitely not doing it for monetary gain. Every tournament I play in I fight to keep from finishing last. I think disc golf is stupid now but I continue to play and run events. It's not about the money anymore. It's honestly about the happiness and the joy that the other participants are getting out of playing. And yes Mark, I do come close to breaking even and some times I make money.

And yes Mark, I do come close to breaking even and some times I make money.


But I suspect not if you placed any value on your time and that of your volunteers.

If there is any TD in the frisbee world who can run an event and break close to even and not be universally hated, you have my respect and amazement.



I've been running events since 1988 - the only time I lost money was when I made a mistake in counting. I'm not sure where the difficulty is? Last I checked I wasn't UNIVERSALLY hated :) In fact - last I checked - I've only ever had one complaint about a tournament purse - and that was from an MPM player who thought they were entitled to a bigger chunk of the added cash (go figure).

CK - value is not not always monetary. Giving your time for other people is its own reward. There's nothing wrong with placing a monetary value on a TD's/volunteers time - but saying that not getting paid for giving ones time somehow makes the effort a financial loss is a pretty derogatory and degrading statement.

And yes Mark, I do come close to breaking even and some times I make money.


But I suspect not if you placed any value on your time and that of your volunteers.

Ever since I started running tournaments I've kept a page in the budget book for tournament expenses and tournament income. After about seven years and 40 tournaments I'm up a $1000, if you count my time as a donation. Most of those tournaments I ran for the benefit of the Waterford Junior Girls Club or Discontinuum or Club Kensington or some combination of some of those, so I would not really expect to be up much at all. That $1000 is profit from cash sales here and there.

In the past my approach towards tournaments has been to take less of your money than the average TD and spend more of it on you than the average TD, try to break even on the tournament entry fees and expenses, and try to get ahead on cash disc sales.

It has worked well enough. What I'd like to segue towards is super low budget tournaments. $5 entry fees, $20 cash-in-cash-out sidebets, and the player pack is a coupon to buy any disc, Star, ESP, Champion, Z, whatever, for $10. To keep my printing costs down I'd just print one coupon and tape it to the merch table! :D

Our current tournament model is heavily redistributionist and everyone is fighting for a bigger slice of the profit hidden in the amateur merchastravaganza. That's what this thread is all about -- old guys fighting for their fair share, old guys trying to organize and publicize the tournaments where they don't get screwed like at that B-tier I played last winter. How about instead of fighting for a bigger slice, we just quit baking pies and play disc golf?

The Five Dollar Holler. Watch for it. :cool:

It's one thing to volunteer maybe 10 hours a year which only a small percentage of people do in any walk of life each year. It's another thing when that becomes repetitive and the hours mount up to more than 40 and many cases more than 100 per year. That's a job and something that develops expertise. Would you think it's fair that a company's vacation policy was 2 weeks of unpaid vacation versus paid? We have trouble separating those things such that those like Maceman or Himing who try to run professional events are undermined by those who think it should be donated time no matter whether you volunteer for one event a year versus make it a yearround activity.

Our current tournament model is heavily redistributionist and everyone is fighting for a bigger slice of the profit hidden in the amateur merchastravaganza. That's what this thread is all about -- old guys fighting for their fair share, old guys trying to organize and publicize the tournaments where they don't get screwed like at that B-tier I played last winter. How about instead of fighting for a bigger slice, we just quit baking pies and play disc golf?

The Five Dollar Holler. Watch for it. :cool:



so we don't bother anti-ing up more than $5 (plus any sidebets with our sidekicks) and play disc golf?(!) That sounds awesome. Then if a sponsor wants to look in and add cash for the winner, or donate free refreshments -- so be it. i think that would make events a lot more fun for everybody.

if participation became too great, we could take the 90 highest rated players? :confused:

It's one thing to volunteer maybe 10 hours a year which only a small percentage of people do in any walk of life each year. It's another thing when that becomes repetitive and the hours mount up to more than 40 and many cases more than 100 per year. That's a job and something that develops expertise. Would you think it's fair that a company's vacation policy was 2 weeks of unpaid vacation versus paid? We have trouble separating those things such that those like Maceman or Himing who try to run professional events are undermined by those who think it should be donated time no matter whether you volunteer for one event a year versus make it a yearround activity.



I probably donate in excess of 100 hours just working on the course each year - let alone the time spent preparing for running events. People that spend 10 hours preparing for an event generally do not run what most would consider "professional" events.

I'm not suggesting that unpaid volunteer promotions be mandatory - and I'm certainly not suggesting those that wish to do full on for profit promotions should not have a chance at making a profit.

But I think the vast majority of event organizers DO donate their time with ZERO financial return. That has been a reality in the DG community for as long as there have been tournaments. The smart ones at least know how to not operate at a loss and still provide good value or perceived value for their local communities.

In a perfect world, we would all have the resources and benefactors and corporate backers to pay for our equipment, to pay for our organizing efforts, for our course design services, and to sponsor our top players. well guess what - a perfect world it aint. And the reality is that the quality of our events and the return made available to ALL our players is borne on the backs of volunteers.

Our members get in a tizzy over requiring players to actually BE PDGA MEMBERS in order to participate in sanctioned events (or to pay a $5-10 fee!!) You think they are gonna shell out extra $$ or pay for services to pay a tournament staff? That would be a pretty remarkable shift in player attitudes for that to happen.

It's just one more example of the many layers of entitlement that pervades our community.

I think disc golf is stupid now but I continue to play and run events.



I just got a kick out of isolating that quote. :D