Do the following statements describe you?
1) You will be 40 years or older in 2010.
2) You would much rather play disc golf than watch someone else play.
3) When you play, you don't want to be babied, so you are OK with fierce challenges like Blue Valley and Idlewild long.
4) You do not believe that your major purpose as a PDGA member is to provide galleries and/or financial support for Open players.
5) You believe that you are entitled to support from the PDGA that is at least remotely proportional to your contributions.
6) You would occasionally travel regionally, perhaps nationally, or possibly even internationally to play in an event that offered good value to your division.
7) You wish that there were some way to identify such events well in advance.

If so, you are invited to join the Divisional Tour Newsgroup. Our goal is to identify, promote and support important events that offer good value to older touring players. Newsgroup members nominate events that they feel are good candidates for our Tour. We then solicit more detailed information about candidate events from our members and from TD's. A constantly updated spreadsheet showing selected Tour events is sent to our membership.

Some of these events will be supported with grants from the Senior Foundation Grant Program. The Foundation will award up to $10,000 to the top events in the 2010 Divisional Tour. Details and application forms will be available by Thanksgiving.

If you would like to be part of this discussion group, just send an e-mail to [email protected] There is no cost to join. I honor confidentiality, and will not share contact information with any third party. Also, I will remove your name from our mailing list anytime upon request.

2) You would much rather play disc golf than watch someone else play.
3) When you play, you don't want to be babied, so you are OK with fierce challenges like Blue Valley and Idlewild long.
4) You do not believe that your major purpose as a PDGA member is to provide galleries and/or financial support for Open players.
5) You believe that you are entitled to support from the PDGA that is at least remotely proportional to your contributions.
6) You would occasionally travel regionally, perhaps nationally, or possibly even internationally to play in an event that offered good value to your division.
7) You wish that there were some way to identify such events well in advance.

In what way does this not describe all AM players? Who is contributing this 10k? the pdga? sounds like another special interest group getting a handout to me. the pdga should not be supporting any divisons over another IMO, as a matter of fact, the huge majority of the pdga that are ams shouldn't have to subsidize pros and have much more legitimate concerns aboutsupport from the PDGA that is at least remotely proportional to your contributions

As usual Shive, you are certainly looking out for number one...

i don't believe the pdga is donating the 10k.

I'm pretty sure Shive created the Senior Foundation Grant Program independent from the PDGA which I believe had significant seed money from Peter and possibly other senior tour players. So, if he's looking out for number one, he at least has to win to get some of it back.

to Dick:

1) No Senior Grant Foundation money is coming from, or has ever come from, the PDGA. All comes from private sources.
2) Most of it comes from me. I resolved some years ago to use at least half of all the money I won to support future events.
3) I certainly try to attend the fine events that qualify for these grants, but past Foundation Grants have also gone to events I have not attended, and part of the grant has often supported other divisions than mine in events I did attend.
4) Amateurs are welcome to be part of the Divisional Tour newsgroup. Many already are.
5) I agree with you that amateurs are oversubsidizing pros. I made exactly that case (and quantified it) on this discussion board last fall.

I'm three months shy of 48, and that should put me in the Self-Interest Sweet Spot for this organization.

However, I don't believe disc golf is currently big enough to support more that two cash divisions, and those two divisions are MPO and FPO. I truly believe that all other divisions should be revenue generating divisions for tournaments, and that MPO and FPO are the only ones that should be paid in cash.

It's not a popular position, but I don't see any other way to gather the 990-1000+ rated players into one division instead of seeing them spread out in MPO/MPM/MPG at the same events like they are now.

As someone who has been competing as a PROFESSIONAL for over 20 years, I believe it's fine to seek a division that is a little less, umm shall we say, cutthroat. I see no reason that players over a certain age (especially those who have put in the time and paid their "unwritten" dues) should not have the opportunity to compete (for cash) with other players of similar instance.

I'm three months shy of 48, and that should put me in the Self-Interest Sweet Spot for this organization.

However, I don't believe disc golf is currently big enough to support more that two cash divisions, and those two divisions are MPO and FPO. I truly believe that all other divisions should be revenue generating divisions for tournaments, and that MPO and FPO are the only ones that should be paid in cash.

It's not a popular position, but I don't see any other way to gather the 990-1000+ rated players into one division instead of seeing them spread out in MPO/MPM/MPG at the same events like they are now.

rhett, maybe at the higher level tournaments, NT, A tiers this should be encouraged. try to get a 950 rated-over 40 player to go head to head with a 1000+ rated player at a lesser tournament, and you will soon not have enough players to fill the field.
rhett the day will come when age protected division will be a thing of the past and divisions based on ratings will be the rule.... someday... :)

As someone turning 50 next year, I'd echo all of the sentiments presented with exception to the one directly above.

As for added cash, if it is an 'old guys only' tournament, no problem. Otherwise, I also have a difficult time justifying taking added cash out of Open unless specified by the sponsor. I have no problem though if such a sponsor (in this case the Senior Foundation Grant Program) comes forward with that mission.

rhett, maybe at the higher level tournaments, NT, A tiers this should be encouraged. try to get a 950 rated-over 40 player to go head to head with a 1000+ rated player at a lesser tournament, and you will soon not have enough players to fill the field.
rhett the day will come when age protected division will be a thing of the past and divisions based on ratings will be the rule.... someday... :)

Martin, Rhett
Come to the UK, that's how we roll :D

try to get a 950 rated-over 40 player to go head to head with a 1000+ rated player at a lesser tournament, and you will soon not have enough players to fill the field.

Yeah, but my position is that the 950 rated player should be playing Advanced in a revenue-generating division unless they really want to step up to Open and pay the huge entry fee for a [really slight] chance at cashing. :)

I don't think we're big enough yet to have more than two cash paying divisions (MPO and FPO), but that's just my opinion.

rhett the day will come when age protected division will be a thing of the past and divisions based on ratings will be the rule.... someday... :)

i wouldn't bet the farm on it...

Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to age protection. Just age protection for cash right now when we don't have much cash to go around. Even if you don't "add cash" to the age protected divisions, you are at best hoping for a revenue-neutral chunk of players and usually settling for a slight drain on tourney finances after fees and such. I think all the protected players, whether ratings protected or age protected, should be revenue generating for the event.

Go big or contribute to the bottom line, I guess. It sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to age protection. Just age protection for cash right now when we don't have much cash to go around. Even if you don't "add cash" to the age protected divisions, you are at best hoping for a revenue-neutral chunk of players and usually settling for a slight drain on tourney finances after fees and such. I think all the protected players, whether ratings protected or age protected, should be revenue generating for the event.

Go big or contribute to the bottom line, I guess. It sounds pretty reasonable to me.

a difference of opinion then, rhett. most tournaments, pdga or otherwise typically take from the ams and give to the open. ive always opposed this behavior. the majority of players in tournaments are usually the am divisions, why should the majority support the minority? why discourage up and coming players, and other players with lesser abilities than open players? ive seen lots of "am" players leave the tournament arena for this single issue. not to say there arent 5 other players to take one players place when they quit competing, i see it becoming a vicious circle with no real end in sight.
i understand the need to promote the open division. i also understand the need to promote disc golf in general so there will be future open players, who come from the am ranks at one point or another.
i dont have a solution to this situation, your right rhett, there is not much money to go around. i just dont think the am players and all other divisions should support just the open division and not get back what they put in at equal value.

Martin, Rhett
Come to the UK, that's how we roll :D

well speaking for myself that would be a dream come true. playing in the UK that is. :)

a difference of opinion then, rhett. most tournaments, pdga or otherwise typically take from the ams and give to the open. ive always opposed this behavior. the majority of players in tournaments are usually the am divisions, why should the majority support the minority? why discourage up and coming players, and other players with lesser abilities than open players? ive seen lots of "am" players leave the tournament arena for this single issue. not to say there arent 5 other players to take one players place when they quit competing, i see it becoming a vicious circle with no real end in sight.
i understand the need to promote the open division. i also understand the need to promote disc golf in general so there will be future open players, who come from the am ranks at one point or another.
i dont have a solution to this situation, your right rhett, there is not much money to go around. i just dont think the am players and all other divisions should support just the open division and not get back what they put in at equal value.

I think it might be more of having all divisions other than Open actually pay for the services provided as opposed to expecting 100% payout. A percentage of any protected or restricted division fees going towards paying the expenses of the tournament, and any added cash going towards Open so the payback in that division is boosted. So, it's not so much taking from other divisions to pay the Pros, but having the other divisions pick up a larger percentage of the tournament overhead. They still get back what they put in, just perhaps not all in purse.

Fine line, I know.

I think it might be more of having all divisions other than Open actually pay for the services provided as opposed to expecting 100% payout. A percentage of any protected or restricted division fees going towards paying the expenses of the tournament, and any added cash going towards Open so the payback in that division is boosted. So, it's not so much taking from other divisions to pay the Pros, but having the other divisions pick up a larger percentage of the tournament overhead. They still get back what they put in, just perhaps not all in purse.

Fine line, I know.


yes a fine line. this is what i like about the current system though. leaving it up to the tournament organizers as to how monetary dispersment is handled. once youve handled the pdga obligation, how you pay out can focus on whom you try to get to your tournament. ams or pros, or specific protected divisions like Peter Shive is trying to do with his value added structure for over 40 players.
imho,
as far as the bigger tournaments are concerned a bigger push for pros is probably the best, especially with larger sponsorship input to help cover costs. which in turn should alleviate dipping into ALL divisions entry fees so EVERYONE gets 100% payout. the pro open division benefitting solely with +100% payout after all is said and done as opposed to the other divisions which only have their entry fees covered.
not so easy to do in smaller tournaments.

The thing is, with merchandise payout it's pretty easy to offer 110% retail value payout and still have money left over to pay for permits, fees, and sometimes even trophies. You can also do player pack and lunch with reasonable markup and the players come away feeling like they got good value, and that's what really matters. (Just don't charge the ams $50 for a cotton t-shirt and DX disc and no payout and try to tell them what a great deal *that* is!)

From my experience when you do it that way, the ams know they are footing the bill but are okay with it because they get good perceived value for $35-$40. If you dropped the cash age protected divisions I believe, after much grumbling, those guys would play open for the cash if they were rated over 960 and the appropriate MA1/2/3 or age protected am if not. The 950-980 range would be the tough one, but I think it would sort itself out. I really think this would make the Open division bigger and also help the tournament bottom line.

As always, just my opinion.

The thing is, with merchandise payout it's pretty easy to offer 110% retail value payout and still have money left over to pay for permits, fees, and sometimes even trophies. You can also do player pack and lunch with reasonable markup and the players come away feeling like they got good value, and that's what really matters. (Just don't charge the ams $50 for a cotton t-shirt and DX disc and no payout and try to tell them what a great deal *that* is!)

From my experience when you do it that way, the ams know they are footing the bill but are okay with it because they get good perceived value for $35-$40. If you dropped the cash age protected divisions I believe, after much grumbling, those guys would play open for the cash if they were rated over 960 and the appropriate MA1/2/3 or age protected am if not. The 950-980 range would be the tough one, but I think it would sort itself out. I really think this would make the Open division bigger and also help the tournament bottom line.

As always, just my opinion.


the 50$ shirt thing is exactly what i hate about it. most people who play am arent that stupid to put up with that kind of behavior more than once. and they dont want to donate their money to the open division either for the most part, so they quit going to those kind of tournaments.
as far as bumping up age protected divisions, and am players to compete against open players....well, take an A-tier tournament for example, pulling in pro players from the region rated 990 and up. usually 10-20 of them will be in that rating range, theres no way you will get anyone from the am division or age protected division with ratings below 960 to step up.
rhett, would you drive up to la mirada to play in, say the golden state classic, to compete against all the open players that show up for that one? i wouldnt. or even this last tourney at vegas.
i would have been on the last card in the open div. why go to tourneys if that is the most likely scenario?
its true it would work itself out if you change to that kind of system, but the fallout...... could you field a full tournament at this day and age (A and NT tiers)? thats my argument, i dont think you could.

SOMEDAY, and probably not in our lifetime, i can imagine a rating based field of players, the open division being +1000 rated players who have to QUALIFY to be eligible for the NT type of tournaments. all other tournaments being the qualifiers to get your rating up above +1000. lessers divisions, say you have a rating of 970 or less, will be merch divisions. i think this is part of the growing pains the pdga will be going through, to develop a system that is fair and equitable to mostly all competitors. and its going to take a long time from now before we're done with the system to be something everyone will like.

The Divisional Tour Newsgroup is soliciting new members this month. The major purpose of the Newsgroup is to identify, promote and support exciting PDGA events that appeal to players 40 and older. Newsgroup members nominate and select our Tour events; most of the support comes from the Senior Foundation Grant Program. Newsgroup members receive periodic e-mails with a spreadsheet listing the Tour events and key items of information about them.

The spreadsheets are typically accompanied by announcements of particular interest to older players. For example, in 2010 we gathered information about economical housing alternatives for the Indiana Worlds. In addition, we carried out an in-depth examination of the question, "Should Pro Worlds be split so that older players have their own event?"

You would probably benefit from our Newsgroup if most of the following statements describe you:

1) You will be 40 or older in 2011.
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 enjoy a challenge, and don't want to be babied.
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 you would like to try this, please send an e-mail to me ([email protected]), and I will add you to our mailing list. 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.

Meow meow Mr. Shive.

Members of the Divisional Tour Newsgroup will soon be nominating events for the 2011 Divisional Tour. We are anxious to identify PDGA events that offer good value to older touring players. Nomination is basically a member-driven process, but many TD's (who know their events best) do not belong to our newsgroup. If you are a TD with an event that might qualify for our Divisional Tour (see below discussion), please contact me ([email protected]). Divisional Tour events are eligible for financial support from the Senior Grant Foundation and other sources.

What does "good value for older touring players" mean? There are many factors involved, and not all of us would rank them in the same way. Still, based on our experience of the past few years, a consensus would be as follows:

1) Payout is a key factor, as many of us could not tour without covering some or all of our expenses. Any event that generates significant added cash and shares it equably among divisions is worth our consideration. Events that have tiered pro entry fees or associated skins games are thus unlikely candidates.
2) Events that do not offer all our divisions (Masters through Senior Grandmaster), or which cap them artificially, cannot be on our list.
3) We prefer two-day events with 27-36 holes per day.
4) We prefer shotgun starts over tee-times, especially if our divisions are always the ones starting before dawn or finishing in the dark. Besides, tee-times are most common when there is just one round per day.
5) We don't want to be babied. We would prefer to play Open formats and course configurations.
6) If the event plans "final nines", our divisions should be included if they have more than four players.
7) As housing is often our single biggest expense, camping/inexpensive lodging is a bonus.

A-Tier events are most likely to offer "good value" in the above sense. Next most likely will be B-Tier events that offer A-Tier amenities. NT's are not likely to make our list, as they usually fail criteria #'s 1, 2, 3, 4, and/or 6 of the above criteria.

5) We don't want to be babied. We would prefer to play Open formats and course configurations.


Peter, while I am a year short of Masters age and would not qualify for your Divisional Tour Newsgroup, I believe in your purpose and mission goals. However, one of your "good value for older touring players" factors above gives me pause.

Basically, I believe that that many of the Open formats and course configurations may not be appropriate for some divisions like Masters Women or Senior Grandmasters and Legends. The problems can come on holes with a) forced water carries b) carries over schul & thick rough with thorns/brambles, etc. for which disc retrieval would be extremely problematic and/or painful and c) holes with severe doglegs such that older players may have difficulty reaching the landing area at the dogleg. When their longest throw does not allow them to reach the basket on their next shot because their next throw may then be a chip shot just to reach the corner, it defeats the design of the hole and how it is optimally supposed to be played. Additionally it may result in poor scoring distributions where every player in the division takes the same score or same two scores. Whereas for the other divisions you may see a "proper" scoring distribution with roughly the same amount of birdies, pars, and bogies.

The PDGA Course Design Player Skill Level Guidelines (http://www.pdga.com/documents/design-skill-level-guidelines) found in the PDGA Course Development (http://www.pdga.com/course-development) section of the PDGA website outlines some of these guidelines and distances. Now I know some people will smirk when they see that 200 feet is listed as the maximum effective length from the tee to a corner of a dogleg or for a forced carry for white level players, but these distances are based on research data and believe it or not, many older players cannot properly execute a throw of more than 200 feet, especially when the psychological factor of water is present. Heck, I see Pros and big arms who toss 500 feet or more on open holes get psyched out on 200' water tosses.

The bigger issue here is that course designers have been trying for a long time now to fight a stigma that playing shorter tees or layouts is "babying" players. On the contrary, it is designed to give players a disc golf experience which is more closely tailored to their abilities and make for a more enjoyable experience and results in good scoring separation. A course which was composed of primarily 375 - 425 foot holes might work out ok for Open players but would be an absolutely mind-numbingly boring experience for many older players because it would be extremely rare for competitors in these division to score deuces; most would simply take scores of 3 or 4 on every hole. Shorter tees which make the holes deucable for many more Divisional Tour members clearly would be an upgrade to the playability and overall enjoyment of such a course for these golfers.

When in doubt, I look to our big brother spot of ball golf. Champions Tour golfers don't complain because they don't use the same back tees that were used in the PGA Tour event or U.S. Open which was held at that same venue. These tees would often be entirely inapparopriate for older ball golfers because they simply couldn't allow many players to reach the green on par four holes in two shots, or such approach shots wouldn't hold the green. Often times on small greens, there is simply no way that an approach shot with a 5 wood or a 3 iron can hold the green. When the hole is designed for approach shots to come in with 6, 7, or 8 irons, it would be entirely unfair for nearly the entire Champions Tour field to have to chip on from around the greenside. How many birdies would be seen on these holes? Maybe a few hole-outs and that's it, and that's not considered a very good golf hole. Again, This isn't "babying" these golfers - it's having them play the tees which allows them to best play the hole as the course designer intended for it to be played.

And the same applies in disc golf.

I'm not sure where you're getting that info from, as most of the over 40 crowd that I know who regularly play tournaments, DO consistently throw well past 200' with no hesitation. Many of the over 50 crowd gets well past 250' easily. The older crowd I've talked to during rounds (you know, while we're waiting our turn to throw) want to play the tougher set-up, unless it's insanely long or treacherous.

But to be fair, there are some in the older crowd who don't have huge distance, and they know playing shorter set-ups will increase their chances of success. They will vote for the short tees every time. If these are the players you're getting data from, then that explains your reasoning.

Jeff and Johnrock,

The Divisional Tour Newsgroup was not created for ALL older players. It is most appropriate for older players who tour or who might want to tour. Feedback from our group members indicates that they want a fierce challenge, which is why we put that item on our invitation to join, and made it a criterion for the events we choose.

Interestingly, the Divisional Tour grew out of the old Senior Tour (which was for MPS players only). Even the Senior Tour members wanted a fierce challenge. At this time the Divisional Tour Newsgroup has well over 400 members, and the majority of them are MPG and MPS.

Jeff, there are about 1000 PDGA events a year in the United States alone. I'd be happy with a Divisional Tour that had 25 challenging events. Do the numbers. We've got about a dozen tough Open-type events (NT's etc), and then add 25 tough Divisional Tour events. That still leaves over 900 events that can offer kinder, gentler experiences for the players you are worried about.

Fair enough, Peter.

But I just hope people realize that course designers and tournament directors often have some older divisions and women divisions play different configurations than Open at tournaments not to "baby them" but because the layouts may be entirely inappropriate for them. They may often result in a less than optimum competitive experience because of extremely poor scoring separations. There's nothing sillier than a course in which a great majority of holes do not offer a realistic deuce opportunity for a certain skill level and everyone of that skill level takes an "auto par" of 3. As a blue level player I often find gold level courses to be less than ideal for this reason - because unless I hit some ridiculous approach shot, I know I have no chance of scoring a birdie on many of these holes and I'm just playing to not screw up and take a bogey or worse. Sure, every course has a few holes where I know I'm just playing for par, but when it's almost the entire course, it's a different story. I may appreciate playing a casual round from the longer tees because they have nice aesthetics or a different look at the hole, but I certainly wouldn't want to compete in a tournament setting on them, even if it was against only players in my division of nearly the exact same ability as me.

Bottom line is that when I am able to play Masters in January of 2012, I'm not going to be offended if the TD has my division play the Silver / Blue tees while the Open division plays the Gold tees, because that may be what is appropriate for my division's average skill level. This stigma that TDs are "babying" older & women's divisions by playing tees other than what the Open players use is just not accurate, imo.

Jeff:

It is mainly a question of attitude, and what is meant by terms like "fierce challenge" and "babied". You want to play courses that offer many chances for a deuce. We would be bored to death if we restricted our play to such courses.

Let me put it another way. Suppose we played a tournament round at Blue Valley in Kansas City, and found that our tees had all been moved up so we had a bunch of deuce opportunities and could come in with a score around 54. We would feel that we had been cheated out of a fierce challenge, and that we had in fact been babied.

We do understand that you and others prefer a kinder and gentler experience. We just have very different ideas of what constitutes a fierce challenge, and we are hoping that there are a few events that will offer it to us. There should be more than enough events to satisfy both of us.

Let me put it another way. Suppose we played a tournament round at Blue Valley in Kansas City, and found that our tees had all been moved up so we had a bunch of deuce opportunities and could come in with a score around 54. We would feel that we had been cheated out of a fierce challenge, and that we had in fact been babied.

You're taking it to an extreme that I never implied, Peter. I didn't say make all courses pitch-n-putt, deuce or die for older and women's divisions. It's about using Blue tees or Silver tees appropriate for these divisions' throwing distances so that players have a realistic shot at birdie.

Blue Valley from Pro Worlds 2009 is fantastic example. Let's look at hole#1 (http://www.playdg.com/courses/?s=MO&c=bluevalley&h=1) to start which is an 803 ft pro par four; it's slightly downhill on the drive but slightly uphill on the approach. I am willing to bet that if one hundred Masters Women and Senior Grandmasters men played this hole, the only score of birdie 3 you would see on it is someone bombing an approach shot in from at least 100 feet out. And what are the chances of that? Wouldn't a tee approximately 100-150 feet shorter which gives competitors in these divisions a realistic shot at birdie 3 be more appropriate?

Now move on to hole#3 (http://www.playdg.com/courses/?s=MO&c=bluevalley&h=3). This hole is a pro par four of 696 ft. in length and gains perhaps 20 feet or more in elevation so it plays significantly longer in effective length. Again, one hundred Masters Women and Senior Grandmasters men play this hole, and how many birdie 3s would we see? Is a hole in which the best you can realistically hope to achieve is a score of par 4 an appropriate hole for that division? When the only goal on the hole is not screw up and take a bogey 5 or worse - is that a good hole for that division? Wouldn't a tee approximately 100-125 feet shorter which gives competitors in these divisions a realistic shot at birdie be more suitable?

Even some of the par 3 holes are not exempt - Hole#10 (http://www.playdg.com/courses/?s=MO&c=bluevalley&h=10) is a 449 ft. par 3 hole which also requires throwing over or through an initial barrier of shrubbery in front of you. How many Masters Women or Senior Grandmasters men do you know that throw over 400 feet and could get within 50 ft. to have a putt at birdie on this hole?

Move on to holes#12 (http://www.playdg.com/courses/?s=MO&c=bluevalley&h=12) and #13 (http://www.playdg.com/courses/?s=MO&c=bluevalley&h=13), both pro par four holes. The former is a 533 ft. pro par four and severely uphill so it plays to a much longer effective length. The latter is 816 ft. and slightly downhill, but I just don't envision Divisional Tour members putting for birdie 3 on either of these, do you? The next two holes are 406 ft and 404 ft par 3 holes, any birdies there? It's more of the same on #17 and #18; don't you see where I am going with this?

Now don't get me wrong, for 1000-rated Gold level players these are all perfect distances and Blue Valley is perhaps one of the top 30 courses in the world for these Gold and stronger Blue level players. (which also factors in the wonderful views and artisitic teepads on the course) But for green, red, & white level players these hole distances are just exactly the wrong length and a slightly shorter set of Blue tees or Silver tees would make this a much better competitive experience, while still giving them the fierce challenge that everyone else is experiencing. When I play Blue Valley in a casual round, I enjoy the heck out of it but I would never want to play in a tournament setting on it, even if it was against only players in my division of nearly the exact same ability as me, for all the reasons previously mentioned.

For the last time, this isn't about "babying" players, it's about giving them a competitive experience which is the same fierce challenge others experience, but more appropriately suited to their skill level.

Jeff,

We don't care what World Class par is, and we don't want the course to be jimmied so that we can shoot the same scores as the top Open players. We want to negotiate all the challenges that were built into the toughest version of the course, even if it takes us more strokes.

Take Blue Valley #1 as an example. The tee shot is the toughest part of that hole, because you need distance but you are constrained by the clump of trees on the right and the downhill forest on the left. We tremble to throw that tee shot. Move the tee up and that shot loses its pucker factor, especially because the rest of that hole is wide open. The hole would be much more boring.

Yes, playing from the long tee means we're probably looking at a five, so for us four is a birdie. Couldn't care less. For us the challenge is more important than the score.

I know you feel differently, but I'm not asking you to change your mind and think like us. Nor am I trying to take away the experience you desire in the vast majority of PDGA and other events. Please offer us the same courtesy. Don't ask us to change our minds and think like you.

Peter, I was simply trying to explain golf course design and why there are multiple tees for different skill levels - so that everyone can essentially play the same course as the designer intended it and experience the same challenge, no matter their skill level. Move the tee up 100 feet on hole#1 at Blue Valley for Masters Women and Senior Grandmasters Men and I guarantee there is still plenty of "pucker factor" and is far from boring. But you seem stuck on the machismo of playing the same tees as Open no matter what, and if you beat your cardmates at Blue Valley with an 89 to their 90 and 91, then everything is hunky dory in your mind.

At this point I will waste no more of your time, Peter. I wish you good luck and hope you and your family have a happy holiday season. Good luck with your Divisional Tour next year.

i am a 926 rated golfer who is also over 40.
i choose to play advanced masters because the course selection is usually the same as the open selection.
i could play in the advanced division as well for the same challenge, however competing with the pro leval player in the advanced division is in my mind ludicrous.
i could play the intermediate level as my rating falls there. however the course selection in intermediate leaves allot to be desired. the rating i have is do to playing the tougher layouts. if i played intermediate the term "sandbagger" may be used, and the challwnge may be boring in comparrison.
the opportunity to play challenging courses in a tourny ive paid to play i paramount to my decision to play a tourny or not.

As the season starts to heat up I would like to extend another invitation to older players to join the Divisional Tour Newsgroup. Our main purpose is to identify, promote and support exciting PDGA-sanctioned events that offer good value to older (40 and over) players who might like to tour. We distribute a regularly-updated spreadsheet showing events that meet our criteria. The inaugural event for the 2011 Divisional Tour is the Las Vegas Gentlemen's Club, which begins next week.

Our newsletter also discusses issues of general interest to the disc golf community. For example, we are currently carrying out a comparative study of vendors who offer on-line registration. The results of that study will be published about a month from now. Also, we traditionally gather and publish information about low-cost housing alternatives at Worlds.

The Divisional Tour is member-driven. Newsgroup members nominate events they would like to see on the tour, and the issues we investigate and discuss are prompted by questions and comments from our membership. At this time (after two years) we have over 400 members.

The very first post in this thread describes in more detail the sort of person who would benefit most from what we do. Please take a look at it. If you are interested just send an e-mail to me ([email protected]) and I will add your name to our mailing list. I do not share contact information with any third party, and I will remove you from the mailing list any time at your request.