The rules and competition manual both talk about grouping and sectioning for the first round of a tourney.

1.6. Grouping and Sectioning
A. Professional and Amateur players should not be grouped
together, and players competing in different divisions
should be segregated from each other during play as
much as practicable.
B. All players within a division for the first round should be
grouped via two methods:
(1) Random grouping; players within a division may be
randomly grouped for the first round and grouped by
cumulative score for each round there after.
(2) Player Rating grouping; players within a division may
use player rating to set first round groups. Highest
rated player starting on the lowest number hole, the
second highest rated player starting on the following
hole, etc. This process would continue until all
starting holes have been filled.


I can only assume this is because it would be considered a competitive advantage to play with only highly rated players. Therefore wouldn't it stand to reason that players in a group with ratings of 1036, 1039, 1030, and 1030 have a competitive advantage over players in a group with players rated 997,1032, 897, and 1030?

Or am I misunderstanding this rule? Can anyone enlighten me please?

I can only assume this is because it would be considered a competitive advantage to play with only highly rated players. Therefore wouldn't it stand to reason that players in a group with ratings of 1036, 1039, 1030, and 1030 have a competitive advantage over players in a group with players rated 997,1032, 897, and 1030?



Yes. As a whole, the first group would have an advantage because everyone is of the same caliber and play would closely resemble an average round for the group. In the second group, the lower rated player would likely throw the higher rated players off their games, since he would obviously be taking more shots, slowing the rate of play, and providing little competition to the top guys.


Or am I misunderstanding this rule? Can anyone enlighten me please?



I think you understand perfectly. The rule is constructed so that whichever option the TD chooses, there are no groupings which have an obvious advantage over any other. It is possible to have a scenario where all the top players are randomly selected to be on the first card together, however, this is not a very likely scenario with a true random sampling setup.

Hmmmm....maybe it is more likely than you think.

Have you seen the first round groupings at the Memorial NT?

804.06 Grouping and Sectioning

B. All players within a division should be randomly grouped for the first round and grouped by cumulative score for each round thereafter.

Seems that some liberties are being taken at the Memorial to create some sort of "dream pairing" for the last group of the first day.

Edit: As per the 2009 Memorial website:

See the NT Player's Handbook for rules above and beyond the PDGA rules of play



I don't know what that's all about...

It looks pretty random until you get to the last group in Open. Then it starts to look made-for-TV if TV had only one camera crew and was going to follow one group and wanted four top-ten players in that group.

Have you asked the TD what's up with that? Because it it will make a big difference in your round not at the Memorial.

In my experience, MoneyMike's surmisings are not borne out by reality. You don't get to be 1000+ rated if you start the first round looking for other people to blame for why you are going to suck today. There are plenty of 939 rated players who are going to freak if they have to play round one in an odd foursome that includes Spaz Mike and an Am Master woman, but 1000+ rated pros are out there playing the course, and they don't need another 1000+ rated pro in their group to figure out that 2s are always good.

Oh Bruce, if you wanted my honest opinion, I'd have provided it! =)

I think the player that benefits the most is the lowest ranked played, since he gets to play with the top caliber guys and see what it's like to be that good!

No offense to any 939 rated players out there. I'm 939.

And yet Climo has always played in a group with ratings that averaged less than his for all those years and didn't seem to suffer in wins or rating. Although there's popular mythology that playing with better players helps you play better, it's not borne out by the facts at least for pros. We've tested it with pro stats at some big events with several rounds like Worlds and there's no difference in how well people play based on the average rating of the others in the group.

My guess would be that the average "whining quotient" for the others in your group has much more bearing on how well you play. So if anyone who has whining tendencies feels they're playing below their level, that may be a worse group to play in. There are players like this at all levels so it's pretty random when you get that situation in your group.

This was brought up last year as well when they put four champions together: Doss (Worlds) Climo (US, Euro) Feldberg (Player's Cup) and Schwartz (Am Worlds.) Dream pairings (http://discussion.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=748919&page=35&fpart=29& vc=1)

The Am champ isn't signed up this year so it looks like they chose the top 4 from the 2008 NT Points Series.

But isn't it against the rules?

No. It is not against the rules. The rule says "should be," not "shall be." "Shall" is mandatory, generally. "May" is permissive. "Should" can imply an obligation or duty but often it implies no more than an obligation of propriety or or expediency. See, generally, Black's Law Dictionary.

More importantly, if it is a rule, what is the penalty for breaking it? If we stroke the non-player TD, he'll come in first with a score of 1.

If there is an obligation implied by the use of the word "should", it is an obligation that the TD owes to the PDGA, and not to any player in particular.

The meaning of these "shoulds" was actually discussed by the PDGA Board and I think also by the Rules Committee during the last major rewrite of the rules. Several "shoulds" were changed to "shalls." Several other "shoulds" were intentially left shouldy.

Using that logic it must be ok to talk and be distracting while other players are trying to throw without getting a courtesy violation.

B. Players should take care not to produce any distracting
noises or any potential visual distractions for other players who are
throwing. Examples of discourteous actions are: shouting, cursing,
freestyling, slapping course equipment, throwing out of turn, throwing
or kicking golf bags, throwing minis, and advancing on the fairway
beyond the away player. Shouting at an appropriate time to warn someone
in danger of being struck by a disc is not a violation of courtesy.

No. It just means that the player "could" be called for a courtesy violation but other players aren't "required" to call it.

Special groupings for NT and higher events must be approved by the PDGA according to the NT contract the hosts sign. So, if the terms are being followed, the Memorial got approval for that special final group just as they did last year.

I think the player that benefits the most is the lowest ranked played, since he gets to play with the top caliber guys and see what it's like to be that good!



I've sometimes found the opposite to be the case. I played Pro for the first time in the West Virginia Open in 2007. The first round, I was on a card with Mike Moser (~1030 at the time), Jay Reading (1010), and Jim Conrad (990+). I was still rated 934 at the time, based on my 2003 data, but the one tourney I played in 2007 I'd shot ~970 golf...

I found that, knowing the ratings of the folks I was playing with, that I was using them as my benchmark for how I was playing. Moser was shooting lights out, hitting the course record with a 1048-rated 56 on The Woodshed. I was losing to him, but knew I was ahead of Jim and Yeti when the first round wrapped up, making me think I was playing some pretty ace golf. I figured as long as I was beating those two guys, I was golden.

Then we got back to the tourney central and it turns out that Yeti and Conrad were playing pretty poor golf... they shot 968 and 961-rated rounds... so my 975 was okay, but not nearly as good as I was expecting it to be, based on the guys on my card.

So I think it can actually hurt the lower ranked players, if the better folks aren't playing at their level. The lower-ranked players often have less experience and aren't as able to gauge how they are doing vs. the course.

I think with more experience, it really does become you vs. the course -- not you vs. the other players on the card.

The only challenge can become guaging the wind on days with crazy weather. A good player is a predictable wind-dummy; a weaker player doesn't necessarily execute as consistently, so it is harder to tell if the results of the throw are player error or wind effect. The better player with lower players will usually have the box on most holes, which means they don't have that wind dummy ever to help their decision making -- but I think that's really the main drawback for experienced players.

I do believe that when at least 1 person on a card is playing well, it will "push" the others on the card to either also play well, or get left in the dust

however, with that being said, if you are playing bad, you have nobody to blame but yourself!