Appropriate Divisions -vs- Eternal Sandbaggers

[TreeLove]

He has every right to play AM. check the rating.:whistler:

Yeah, and I have every right to shoot and kill an unarmed 12-year old if I feel he is threatening me.

Just because you have the "right" to do something does not make it the "right" thing to do.

Please refer to: http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PlayerDivisionGridTable3.pdf

How can it be appropriate for a 950+rated player to play in the LOWEST skill division there is for 40+year olds?

How can it be appropriate for a 950+rated Am to play in division where Pros above 935 are not allowed to play? How does that make sense? Ratings are ratings, and skill is skill, regardless of division.

Why did the PDGA do away with MM2? If 950+rated players are going to be playing in MM1, then where do us 40+year olds rated in the 800s play? if you say MA2, I ask, then what's the point of age-protection?

There are only 2 age-protected divisions for 40+year old men, MM1 and MP1. Do you really feel that 950+rated men should play in the LOWER of those 2 skill divisions?

You said: "check the rating." I say: what does that matter? No one is stopping ANYONE from bagging MM1, except "pros" over 935, and even they can petition to drop down and bag MM1. You statement of "check the rating" makes no sense, when there ARE no rating limits on MM1, a serious mistake by the PDGA in my opinion, rendering the division almost useless, except for baggers to take the cash of lower-skilled players.

It's really a question of honor. Is there more honor in coasting to an easy win, or in taking your lumps? And once there is more than one bagger, they cry "Look, I didn't win by very many strokes." Well, yeah, you barely beat another bagger. You BOTH should have been in another division.

Want to continue this conversation? I do! But it's not relevant to this thread. So we can continue it elsewhere.

I am not about to let this go, until someone can convince me otherwise, or until the PDGA starts enforcing rating protection on MM1 the way they do in other Am divisions.

And when will TDs finally start holding events with ratings-based divisions? (NOT a slight on the BSF!)

[Bullseye]

Gawain,

You made some very good points, so I did split this off into its own discussing worthy thread.

I hope you don't mind.

Jeeff

[George A.]

This is the whole reason I stopped almost 4 years ago ... Not because I don't like losing .. No because I don't like bagers

[Sam]

I know this isn't about me as I am not a 950+ rated player. In the immortal words of Doug the Bum, "I don't think I should move up. Perhaps you should move down!"

[Sam]

This is the whole reason I stopped almos 4 years ago ... Not because I don't like loseing .. No because I don't like bagers

:laughing:

Right.

[Bullseye]

Yeah, and I have every right to shoot and kill an unarmed 12-year old if I feel he is threatening me.

Just because you have the "right" to do something does not make it the "right" thing to do.

Please refer to: http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PlayerDivisionGridTable3.pdf

How can it be appropriate for a 950+rated player to play in the LOWEST skill division there is for 40+year olds?

How can it be appropriate for a 950+rated Am to play in division where Pros above 935 are not allowed to play? How does that make sense? Ratings are ratings, and skill is skill, regardless of division.

Why did the PDGA do away with MM2? If 950+rated players are going to be playing in MM1, then where do us 40+year olds rated in the 800s play? if you say MA2, I ask, then what's the point of age-protection?

There are only 2 age-protected divisions for 40+year old men, MM1 and MP1. Do you really feel that 950+rated men should play in the LOWER of those 2 skill divisions?

You said: "check the rating." I say: what does that matter? No one is stopping ANYONE from bagging MM1, except "pros" over 935, and even they can petition to drop down and bag MM1. You statement of "check the rating" makes no sense, when there ARE no rating limits on MM1, a serious mistake by the PDGA in my opinion, rendering the division almost useless, except for baggers to take the cash of lower-skilled players.

It's really a question of honor. Is there more honor in coasting to an easy win, or in taking your lumps? And once there is more than one bagger, they cry "Look, I didn't win by very many strokes." Well, yeah, you barely beat another bagger. You BOTH should have been in another division.

Want to continue this conversation? I do! But it's not relevant to this thread. So we can continue it elsewhere.

I am not about to let this go, until someone can convince me otherwise, or until the PDGA starts enforcing rating protection on MM1 the way they do in other Am divisions.

And when will TDs finally start holding events with ratings-based divisions? (NOT a slight on the BSF!)

Ok, here's my 2 cents.

A lot you're saying here makes sense, but I also think you're being a wee bit stubborn as well. Age-based divisions were created to ensure players continue to have a chance to play in a where they are competitive as they get older. Well... you still have a division to play in where you can be very competitive and that is MA2. The suggested range for that division is 900-935 and while your current rating of 899 is slightly below that threshold, you and I both know you plenty capable of being competitive in that division.

As you said yourself "If 950+rated players are going to be playing in MM1, then where do us 40+year olds rated in the 800s play? if you say MA2, I ask, then what's the point of age-protection?"

My answer is: Options. They are there to give people options. In many cases that option is perfect, in other cases (like yours) that option is not quite perfect.

You also stated "There are only 2 age-protected divisions for 40+year old men, MM1 and MP1. Do you really feel that 950+rated men should play in the LOWER of those 2 skill divisions?"

First off, it has to be stated up front that no one can EVER be forced to play Pro. This is a decision people need to make for themselves, and there are any number of reasons (good and bad) why some people choose to stay amateur for life. While I don't necessarily agree with it, I do understand some people have very good reasons for not "going pro". With all of that said, that means a upper level cap in MM1 is not possible... just like it is not in MA1.

This is where, ultimately, you need to make a decision. Do you want to play in MA2 where you have no age-protection, but are still very competitive, or do you want to play MM1 where you're protected from the youngsters, but not some more skilled players your age?

A lot of people, myself included, give Sam Gibson a lot of crap for not moving up, but, in all honesty, he would be moving from a division where he often does quite well, to one where he would have play very well to be in the hunt. I know this because if I don't play my best, I lose. And I lose a LOT :biggrin2:

Obviously, he wants to do well, as do we all, so that means he would need some other bit of motivation for him to make the jump. The one thing I keep pointing out to Sam is that he NEEDS tougher competition to inspire or motivate him, because he could very well be stagnating in MM1. However, that is also his choice, and the only person who can make that change is Sam himself.

It looks to me like you want even more protection in an already protected division, and to me that means the appropriate division for you at this point in time is MA2.

As for rating-based tourneys... I also agree these could be a TON of fun. I'd love to see someone step up to the plate and run one. I'd do it myself if I didn't have enough work already.

Jeff

PS: Gawain, please don't take any part of this as slight against you because it most definitely is not. I know where you're coming from and I can relate. I just feel there are answers there for you... they just might not be exactly as you the ones you'd prefer.

PPS: This thread has also made me see the value in retaining the MA2 division. At the very least in tourneys below A-Tiers.

[cefire]

Four divisions -
1. Men that play for money
2. Men that don't play for money
3. Women that play for money
4. Women that don't play for money

Who cares if you 'won' or not? Does it matter for your enjoyment of playing in a tournament? If so, you should probably just bag in a super low division!

For nearly all of my recent tournaments, I've had one division (no payout/low entry) - focus on enjoyment of the game rather than what prizes you won by playing...

[cefire]

You could even combine divisions 2 & 4 to 'simplify' things :)

[Kenny B]

I'm curious: Is the complaint about sandbaggers more that they "steal" the money (well...prizes actually), or is it more about players being "appropriately" placed in divisions so that there is a "fair" shot to be crowned X division BSF champ (or other prestigious title).

[XandorF]

im a 961 player. and have been lower, but that doesnt stop me from playing MPO. i want to play with the best players possible, and despite my rating i know what i am capable of. my first option for the BSF is obviously MPO for me having said that; however, im in a pickle. My rating isnt high enough to sign up for open so i must wait til the 16th. i fear that the MPO will fill before i get the chance to sign up, so i put in for the lottery. I just wanna play this tourney, as i have not been able to yet. I didnt make the lotto last year. My rating allows for me to play advanced, for now. So the lottery is my backup plan. im playing in the GNO, Aloha Suishi, RCO, FSO... so far. so i would hope that my rating goes up through all of these great tournies, although if my rating raised above 970 i wouldnt be able to play (if i didnt get the MPO slot.) So i hope my rating goes up, even if i cant play the BSF. theres always next year

what was i talking about... oh yeah, sam! Sam, you play whatever div you think is best for you man. no hate. whats important is that you are there, hanging out and having fun!

[Scott]

im a 961 player. and have been lower, but that doesnt stop me from playing MPO. i want to play with the best players possible, and despite my rating i know what i am capable of. my first option for the BSF is obviously MPO for me having said that; however, im in a pickle. My rating isnt high enough to sign up for open so i must wait til the 16th. i fear that the MPO will fill before i get the chance to sign up, so i put in for the lottery. I just wanna play this tourney, as i have not been able to yet. I didnt make the lotto last year. My rating allows for me to play advanced, for now. So the lottery is my backup plan. im playing in the GNO, Aloha Suishi, RCO, FSO... so far. so i would hope that my rating goes up through all of these great tournies, although if my rating raised above 970 i wouldnt be able to play (if i didnt get the MPO slot.) So i hope my rating goes up, even if i cant play the BSF. theres always next year

what was i talking about... oh yeah, sam! Sam, you play whatever div you think is best for you man. no hate. whats important is that you are there, hanging out and having fun!

There is no upper limit for MA1. Go as high as you want. As long as you don't register as a Pro or accept cash, you're good to play in MA1. You may take some shit for it, but probably not from Sam.

[mowens404]

I think that "the right thing" is a subjective term and could mean anything. If a 40+ player is rated 945, should he play pro? He would be 50ish points below the top of the division in pro, but 50ish points ahead of you if he plays AM. Who are you to say that he "should" move up because "it's the right thing to do"?

You told me for the chick flick doubles that me and Erin should have moved up to working it because we are accomplished experienced golfers, you are a very accomplished and experienced golfer yourself Gawain, why aren't you playing pro? because your rating is low? well mine is low as well(924). As for moving up, I have moved up and have only played 1 tournament in my career in intermediate, I won and I moved up. haven't even finished better than 23rd in a tournament in adv.

I think that for a lot of people who for them it is obvious which division they should play have a hard time dealing with people who are in that bubble between playing in their division. If it were based off of ratings for the fling, you and Sam would be in the same division.
What about people who don't play well in tournaments but are killer casual golfers. Where should they be placed? I am really confident and play well casually, but almost always play horribly in tournaments. So should I just suck it up and continue to get last place in my division? or should I play with the people that are throwing similar scores to mine and have a chance?

And than we start the infinite loop again of... you should "do the right thing" right for who? me, or you?

[XandorF]

There is no upper limit for MA1. Go as high as you want. As long as you don't register as a Pro or accept cash, you're good to play in MA1. You may take some shit for it, but probably not from Sam.

As long as you don't register as a Pro or
i am registered as a pro; however, i have talked with multiple people, including Dave Feldberg (mr. prez), and i have been told that you can continue to play MA1 as long as you are not a Touring Pro. so not a touring pro and have not accepted cash... but please correct me if im wrong.

accept cash too late... ($20 at slosh lol :whistler:)
im sure i could petition to get that removed. regardless, if i dont take cash, which i definitely plan on doing, at the GNO or the Aloha i will punch myself in the face. :headbang:

[Scott]

You told me for the chick flick doubles that me and Erin should have moved up to working it because we are accomplished experienced golfers, you are a very accomplished and experienced golfer yourself Gawain, why aren't you playing pro? because your rating is low? well mine is low as well(924). As for moving up, I have moved up and have only played 1 tournament in my career in intermediate, I won and I moved up. haven't even finished better than 23rd in a tournament in adv.



Around here, there is an even lower tolerence of perceived bagging in non-pdga events.

[Flatroc]

I'm starting to see a need for an amateur master/grandmaster division.
There are a lot of fellers who don't start playing this game until they are late 40 early 50, and chances are they'll never play pro with some destined to be Am's for life. Some of us just keep getting older, fatter, slower....sigh.
I'm sure this sounds weird coming from one who doesn't support the advanced master division, but I feel advanced masters can compete in either advanced or pro master.
I think it would be great for the "grassroots" plan of the PDGA (wherever that ended up :whistler:) to honor the Am Master/MM2, again. We may possibly have an Amateur Masters in our SOWS gigs next season.
I think the baggers should form their own divisions. :biggrin2:

[mowens404]

As long as you don't register as a Pro or
i am registered as a pro; however, i have talked with multiple people, including Dave Feldberg (mr. prez), and i have been told that you can continue to play MA1 as long as you are not a Touring Pro. so not a touring pro and have not accepted cash... but please correct me if im wrong.

accept cash too late... ($20 at slosh lol :whistler:)
im sure i could petition to get that removed. regardless, if i dont take cash, which i definitely plan on doing, at the GNO or the Aloha i will punch myself in the face. :headbang:



here is the criteria to be considered a touring pro...

PDGA World Champions 2007-2011 (last 5 years) in Pro Divisions (Singles Events Only)
United States Champions 2007-2011 (last 5 years) in Pro Divisions (Singles Events Only)
2011 National Tour and SuperTour Winners in the MPO and FPO Divisions
Player Rating of 1000+ (Men) or 930+ (Women) as of 2/14/12 ratings update
2011 Tour Cash Won - Male Players $5000+, Female Players $2500+



only 89 men made this list. so by "mr prez's" logic, all but 89 people in the world could play AM.

[XandorF]

here is the criteria to be considered a touring pro...

PDGA World Champions 2007-2011 (last 5 years) in Pro Divisions (Singles Events Only)
United States Champions 2007-2011 (last 5 years) in Pro Divisions (Singles Events Only)
2011 National Tour and SuperTour Winners in the MPO and FPO Divisions
Player Rating of 1000+ (Men) or 930+ (Women) as of 2/14/12 ratings update
2011 Tour Cash Won - Male Players $5000+, Female Players $2500+



only 89 men made this list. so by "mr prez's" logic, all but 89 people in the world could play AM.

true. good math. and correct me if im wrong here mat, but you arnt correcting me, youre just calling me out? does anyone have any actual information??

and yes mat, i believe that feldberg would know... is that to much of a stretch for me just to take his word on the rulings? i think he's played a couple tourney's.

PS. THIS IS NOT A 'SLIGHT' (word of the day) AT MAT OWENS. combining mat's statistics and my hearsay version of the rule book has led me to believe that it is very easy for people to drop down divisions. i am not a touring pro, yet ;), but im just playing devils advocate anyways, cause i wouldn't play advanced unless i was unable to play a certain tourney any other way.

PPS hagerty, im pretty sure its PPS not PSS. COM'ON MAN!!

[LegoRules]

As long as you don't register as a Pro or
i am registered as a pro; however, i have talked with multiple people, including Dave Feldberg (mr. prez), and i have been told that you can continue to play MA1 as long as you are not a Touring Pro. so not a touring pro and have not accepted cash... but please correct me if im wrong.

accept cash too late... ($20 at slosh lol :whistler:)
im sure i could petition to get that removed. regardless, if i dont take cash, which i definitely plan on doing, at the GNO or the Aloha i will punch myself in the face. :headbang:

I know for women who are classified as pro, and/or have expected cash you are allowed to play in the advanced women's division if you rating is below 850 for non majors only. I do believe it is the same for pro men as long as their rating is below 970 I think.

Check out the player grid at the bottom it addresses pros playing am.

http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PlayersDivisionGrid_0.pdf

Cindy :)

[Scott]

As long as you don't register as a Pro or
i am registered as a pro; however, i have talked with multiple people, including Dave Feldberg (mr. prez), and i have been told that you can continue to play MA1 as long as you are not a Touring Pro. so not a touring pro and have not accepted cash... but please correct me if im wrong.

accept cash too late... ($20 at slosh lol :whistler:)
im sure i could petition to get that removed. regardless, if i dont take cash, which i definitely plan on doing, at the GNO or the Aloha i will punch myself in the face. :headbang:

I've never heard of tournig pro as the deciding factor - I thought it was all about whether or not the player had accepted cash. From my understanding, you are not currently eligible to play the am side of the BSF.

But I've been wrong before.

[mowens404]

he is allowed because he is under 970. the ONLY time you can be forced to play open is if your rating is over 970 AND you have accepted cash. "touring pro" is irrelevant.

Pinkal is over 1000 but not on that touring pro list...so according to "Mr. President" he can play AM all he wants.

Pinkal, thanks for being my example. :)

[Magilla]

As long as you don't register as a Pro or
i am registered as a pro; however, i have talked with multiple people, including Dave Feldberg (mr. prez), and i have been told that you can continue to play MA1 as long as you are not a Touring Pro. so not a touring pro and have not accepted cash... but please correct me if im wrong.

accept cash too late... ($20 at slosh lol :whistler:)
im sure i could petition to get that removed. regardless, if i dont take cash, which i definitely plan on doing, at the GNO or the Aloha i will punch myself in the face. :headbang:

Sheesh........Being a "Touring Pro" (or not) has NOTHING to do with the ability to play AM.

It all comes down to a players rating (The "prez" certianly should know that)

This document from pdga.com tells all..
http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PlayersDivisionGrid_0.pdf

ANY Pro player.....with a rating below 970 can play in the Advanced division of an A tier and below.

:cheers:

[Magilla]

Sheesh........Being a "Touring Pro" (or not) has NOTHING to do with the ability to play AM.

It all comes down to a players rating (The "prez" certianly should know that)

This document from pdga.com tells all..
http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PlayersDivisionGrid_0.pdf

ANY Pro player.....with a rating below 970 can play in the Advanced division of an A tier and below.

:cheers:

:slapface: Well THAT was a bit late. But I guess that more info is better than NO info.

:whistler:

[Lund]

Four divisions -
1. Men that play for money
2. Men that don't play for money
3. Women that play for money
4. Women that don't play for money

Who cares if you 'won' or not? Does it matter for your enjoyment of playing in a tournament? If so, you should probably just bag in a super low division!

For nearly all of my recent tournaments, I've had one division (no payout/low entry) - focus on enjoyment of the game rather than what prizes you won by playing...

On a loosely related note this post was the 500th one on this forum with the word bag in it!

[hyzerbomb]

With the predominant format in tourneys in the USA ams are basically playing for money with all the stacks of plastic, bags, schwag etc in the events we hold. Perhaps if we had trophy only with player packs for all contestants, we could lessen the perceived bagger problem, ( a few names come to mind )

I've never played amateur but I can relate to the feeling that baggers are just being greedy instead of growing as golfers and moving up to challenge themselves. In my case I usually have to move up to a more difficult division because there is no one nearly as old as me playing locally. This year I've played in the OPEN, MASTERS, GRANDMASTERS divisions. I'm a senior grandmaster.

[Scott]

With the predominant format in tourneys in the USA ams are basically playing for money with all the stacks of plastic, bags, schwag etc in the events we hold. Perhaps if we had trophy only with player packs for all contestants, we could lessen the perceived bagger problem, ( a few names come to mind )

I've never played amateur but I can relate to the feeling that baggers are just being greedy instead of growing as golfers and moving up to challenge themselves. In my case I usually have to move up to a more difficult division because there is no one nearly as old as me playing locally. This year I've played in the OPEN, MASTERS, GRANDMASTERS divisions. I'm a senior grandmaster.

I think many baggers play in lower divisions not for the want of more plastic, but for the need to feed the ego.

[chris7graham]

the world is coming to a end......Sam has not been saying anything in this matter since Jeff said something :shocked::slapface::whistler:

[Sam]

Just watching the top spin...

I truthfully do not care that much and am more than used to people whining at me or about me. If people do not like me beating them in a division I am qualified to play in, they should probably practice more and get better so that they can keep up. Or move down. It makes no difference to me, really.

[Jeff Hemmerling]

If people do not like me beating them in a division I am qualified to play in, they should probably practice more and get better so that they can keep up. Or move down. It makes no difference to me, really.Good advice Sam.

OK, that's it! Gawain and I are going to take the MA2 division by storm from now on...;););)

On a serious note, this thread really makes me want to run a ratings-based event.

[NWDiscer]

On a serious note, this thread really makes me want to run a ratings-based event.


just for us old farts.....:laughing:

[Ol' Bob]

Hell, even I have beaten Sam, mano a mano.

[all2common]

Good advice Sam.

OK, that's it! Gawain and I are going to take the MA2 division by storm from now on...;););)

On a serious note, this thread really makes me want to run a ratings-based event.

Excuse my ignorance; can someone outline what a ratings-based event looks like?

[Scott]

Excuse my ignorance; can someone outline what a ratings-based event looks like?

Pretty similar to a regular event, but everybody plays exactly where their rating says they should:

<900 = Rec
>900, <935 = INT
>935 = Adv

Etc....

["Over the Hill" Bob]

Just curious, but does anybody play disc golf for fun anymore?;)

Bob

[Ol' Bob]

Just curious, but does anybody play disc golf for fun anymore?;)

Bob

I don't now about down there in Orygun, but we have a county ordinance here against having fun. :jumpspin:

[Jeff Hemmerling]

Excuse my ignorance; can someone outline what a ratings-based event looks like?See this thread: http://www.nwdiscgolfnews.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1156

[TreeLove]

Can you show me where it says that 935 is the cut-off for Advanced Masters? This is totally news to me.

I don't recall ever referring to it as a cut-off. I would say it is a guideline. Basically, it suggests that the brackets are:

970
935
900
850
800
750

Here is the link: http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PlayerDivisionGridTable3.pdf

MM1 appears twice in the chart.

for Ams, it says "any" (rating)
for Pros, it says "<935"

this would suggest that the "cut-off" as it were, would be: 935.

My point to the PDGA is: if a Pro must be rated below 935 to play MM1, why should a 1,000,000-rated Am be allowed to play MM1?

Players seem to fall in two categories: those that maximize the spin of their interpretation of the non-rules to their own benefit, and those who interpret the essence of the guidelines' intent, to create divisions evenly divided ("protected") by skill level, as well as age, and gender. Believe me, if I were ever to somehow fight my to 935+, I would move right up (a promise I feel safe I will never have to keep, having never achieved it before, and certainly not getting any younger or better :headbang: ).

By leaving the line blurry, the PDGA creates the perfect divide for a debate, for which this forum would seem the perfect venue.

[TreeLove]

Gawain,

You made some very good points, so I did split this off into its own discussing worthy thread.

I hope you don't mind.

Jeeff

Not at all. I have some regrets about the post, and one of them was dirtying up the BSF thread with it, so I am actually glad it was moved, thank you. I didn't get to select the subject (I guess I should have put one in my post), but I think you did fine (though I am depressed by the use of the term "eternal").

The other was the graphic nature of my comparison, exaggerated for effect.

Yep, that's it. Sorry for those two things.

[Wes Hansen]

I thought ratings-based events look more like this....
Player A = 1000 rating
Player B = 900 rating
Course SSA = 1 strokes per 10 ratings points.
PLAY.
Player B gets 10 strokes per round on Player A.
I thought that was what it meant.

[Jeff Hemmerling]

I thought ratings-based events look more like this....
Player A = 1000 rating
Player B = 900 rating
Course SSA = 1 strokes per 10 ratings points.
PLAY.
Player B gets 10 strokes per round on Player A.
I thought that was what it meant.Thanks for sharing your delusion with us Wes. ;)

[Wes Hansen]

No, seriously. I thought Jordan's TDG model was PDGA ratings based/handicapped.

[Chuck Kennedy]

To answer the OP, the MM1, MG1, etc were created to "protect" those over 39 from younger Amateurs and from "pros." To get "protection" from those who are better amateurs regardless of age, we have the unisex, non-age based, ratings break amateur divisions MA4 thru MA1 as an option for all amateurs of any age.

Not only would MM2 and MG2 divisions be redundant, it would require the PDGA to add lower tier divisions for every age based division for "fairness" regardless if they barely have enough players in their current Advanced version.

To run a ratings based event, you can just offer Open, MA1, MA2, MA3, MA4 plus Int and even Rec Women if you have enough. Upon getting a "rubber stamp" waiver from the PDGA office, you can require Ams with ratings above 969 to enter Open and they can take any winnings as merch to retain am status. There's no option for male players with ratings below 800 to enter Int or Rec Women. However, there are few men there and they can enter MA4. Or if it's several Juniors, you could just hold their Junior division for those under 800.

[cefire]

Just curious, but does anybody play disc golf for fun anymore?;)

Bob

This!

[cefire]

Maybe we should all just get our own skill-restricted divisions of one - everyone will be a winner!

Gold stars will be awarded to all competitors to let you know that you done good at the tournament...

[Kenny B]

Just curious, but does anybody play disc golf for fun anymore?;)

Bob

Yes! I do! Especially when its a great event such as the Pretzel Bowl!

[XandorF]

Sheesh........Being a "Touring Pro" (or not) has NOTHING to do with the ability to play AM.

It all comes down to a players rating (The "prez" certianly should know that)

This document from pdga.com tells all..
http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PlayersDivisionGrid_0.pdf

ANY Pro player.....with a rating below 970 can play in the Advanced division of an A tier and below.

:cheers:

thank you, and everyone else, for taking the time to respond. as always for me, "correct me if im wrong" was my preface (not to be confused with shove it im my face...). i am merely trying to gain a better understanding of the rules. I go off of the rule book and the interpretation of the rule book as presented to me by trusted and well respected individuals. i feel like through this discussion i have done that, i have read further for myself into the touring pro's page and in the competition manual and have not personally seen anything stating specifically on touring pro restrictions.

[Matt B.]

I reject the notion that people who want to play competitive tournaments aren't having fun. I have a lot of fun playing competitively, I feel a satisfying sense of accomplishment when I play well, and I feel a desire to improve when I fall short of my goals. Overall, it's a great experience for me and a lot of fun. And that's just the competitive part. The entire experience of preparing, traveling, and practicing for a tournament along with the meeting people, seeing friends, and hanging out is also plenty of fun. And I doubt there is a single tournament player who doesn't also spend a lot more time playing casual rounds with friends for fun. So, sorry, but just because people are competitive, and have spirited discussions about competition structures in disc golf, it's hardly accurate to imply that they aren't having fun playing disc golf.

Clearly, some people struggle to enjoy competitive play. Boo friggin hoo for them.

As to the age old bagger discussion... I'm a 951 rated MPM player generally struggling in competitive fields to grab last cash. I missed last cash at 2011 BSF by three strokes. Care to guess how many extra strokes I picked up on my last two holes of the tournament? Yep, three strokes. In a smaller, less competitive field on a shorter more wooded course my chances are somewhat better, but I'm usually still hanging around at the bottom of the cash line. BUT, sometimes I'm getting a trophy too. I just have to play well, and if I play really well I might win.

Why do people refuse to move up? Should they? WHEN should they? I don't know. I do know that typically those at the top of MM1 and MA1 could usually move up and be competitive. They will struggle and have to improve and become more consistent in order to, well, improve and become more consistent in the harder division. Some people have specific goals or timelines. I harrassed Rick Reichard online for two years to move up to MPM. He wanted to play Worlds in MM1 and he became the World Champion of the World. Last month he gave one of the best MPM players in the world a run for his money at the St. Patrick's Classic, and in a couple months he will kick my ass at BSF 2012. Looks like that was a good move for him.

If we could get more people to move up, the pro divisions would be deeper and easier to cash in. You just have to move up and then get more people to move up after you. We used to get a lot of people moving up in Oregon, now the trend is more to hang around the top in a division for years or forever. Whatever floats your boat. Personally, it would not be satisfying for me and I would not be motivated to play better and I would not have nearly as much fun. Part of disc golf for me is testing myself and feeling pride in accomplishment, and part of it is fun, and part of it is both.

:kissflowers:

[cefire]

Of course, I enjoy playing competitively too! I don't need to 'win' or to get prizes to feel good about my play though - big difference.

In fact the biggest cash of my pro career in 2011 I was pretty disappointed in my play - where I finish rarely informs me of how I felt I played or how much fun I had :D

I think the sandbagger thing goes both ways though - some need to win versus other players and 'get the prize' to feel good about how they played - some play 'down' so that they don't have to spend as much money. In either case, a two division solution (1 that pays, 1 that doesn't) would likely alleviate these problems - although it probably won't help disc manufacturers any...

[Kenny B]

I'm curious: Is the complaint about sandbaggers more that they "steal" the money (well...prizes actually), or is it more about players being "appropriately" placed in divisions so that there is a "fair" shot to be crowned X division BSF champ (or other prestigious title).

I feel like re-posting my question (in an impolite rant this time) because no one really answered my first post...

My position: let people play in the division they want to (in accordance with the rules) and quit whining! What we're talking about is being AMATEURS. That means we don't play for $$$. If you are playing in tournaments as an AMATEUR to try and make $$$ you're crazy. (Unless, of course, you can get someone to sponsor you as an amateur, and then you're a genius!) If you're additionally complaining about "sand baggers" taking your money, you now have your proof as to why you're crazy!!! Amateur divisions have not been created for you to make money!!!

If you play as an amateur to have fun and find competition to push your skills (which is what I do), then you should not be disheartened by "sand baggers" in your division who make it "impossible" to be a champion. You should be grateful that they are there to push you, go practice, and then come back and whoop 'em!

[DMajor]

I used to look down on the eternal sandbaggers who always won because I thought they discouraged a lot of people from playing. I also never understood why they didn't want the challenge of competing against the best players if they were clearly better than the second tier players. At some point I started not to care. People have mentioned already that these types of players should give you incentive to get better and beat them. After all, you already know that they don't really want a challenge so if you get as good as them, they should fold like a pair of extra sheets in the closet. Then you can move up, play pro, be at the bottom of the division again, and everybody is happy!

All jokes aside, I think people should be allowed to play wherever they have fun. However, tournaments are competitive by nature so if competition makes you uncomfortable maybe you shouldn't play tournaments. Or maybe you should play enough of them to overcome your fear, play well, and feel good about competition in general.

My personal philosophy on the topic is best summed up by a non disc golfing friend who after hearing about the same topic, said something like "when you were in high school, would you have rather been the best player on the JV team or a starter on Varsity?"

Well said.

[Sausage Fingers]

damn this thread is good

:pirate:

[mine all mine]

I am a 958 rated player who has the potential to cash at any pro tournament in the country. The problem comes with being able to put it all together in a tournament so I give myself a chance. I play pro in all non PDGA tourneys, but in PDGA sanctioned A tier and some B tier events I will play advanced because I know that is where I am truly consistently competitive. I placed sixth last year at the BSF in MA1, and got beat by 12 strokes. I have accepted cash as a pro player and wouldn't change a thing about that! I am currently in the lottery for MA1 again and this time (fingers crossed that I get in) I don't plan on loosing by any margin. I feel fine about this because I had a chance to watch the PRO'S play last year and there is no way in hell that I could put that level of play together for multiple rounds at my level of practice and participation in tourneys.

I played a tourney in San Diego (2003) where I was a nobody as an AM and I came from the second card in the final round to win it all against an eternal am (still to this day). So beating a bagger is just about putting a few bits of your round together and giving it to them because they don't fear the competition because they feel they are at the top!

Either play where you are competitive, or get off the pot. move down, or up, depending on how you feel in that division. don't sit on the top with the crown or get DFL every time just because that is where your pride resides.

Was that a rant? if so, DONE...

[Toby Puttzinski]

One of my favorite disc golfers of all time was an 'eternal' bagger who wasn't afraid to admit it. The late Dave 'Madman' McAdden was an excellent disc golfer who refused to move up from Am I-- I don't remember the whole story but he had been talked into playing pro early in his dg career, and was bitter about being persuaded to donate.

Here's a few things to chew on>
If you argue that a player should move up to the next division in order to improve, couldn't you then argue that an AM player should want more players (in said division) that are better than them in order for 'they' themselves to improve.

Instead of flooding the pro field, what's wrong with flooding the Am I field and having stronger competition there?

Do highly rated (let's say 985+) pro's really want us 940-50ish rated players in the field for the extra competition, or the extra cash?

If I wanted lessons from a pro, I'd take a private one with a local pro like Chris Waugh-- more cost effective.


As a 950ish rated player that may have plateaued, I would much rather pay less for a tournament, get a t-shirt/disc, and hope to be battling it out in the end with similarly skilled players. I have played a few tournaments in the pro division, and it only took a few holes to realize that I was basically paying for lessons. I was throwing <400 ft, and everyone else in my group could throw 500ft plus-- just a bit discouraging. I play tourneys for the fun, comraderie, and the thrill of competion. For me, the fun and thrill of competion are enhanced when things are competitive down the stretch, or I feel that I have a 'chance to win' vs 'a chance to improve as a player.'

I am personally sick of hearing all of the negativity around the sandbagging issue. There's always going to be those that are on the cusp, and it should be their perogative as to what division they play in, within the rules. I've gotten a bit of flack for staying in Am I, but my rating and results show that I'm in the appropriate division IMO. I'm actually looking forward to turning 39 next year, and being able to play against the Pro Masters, where Sam should be> you SANDBAGGER!

Dan, you could also pose the question a different way: would you rather start on the JV team and get some playing time and the thrill of competition, or be on the Varsity practice squad?

[DMajor]

Dan, you could also pose the question a different way: would you rather start on the JV team and get some playing time and the thrill of competition, or be on the Varsity practice squad?

My personal feeling is I'd rather start the first quarter of a varsity game and get benched than not try. That said, I've only played a few pro tourneys vs many am tournaments, but would like to win at least one am tournament before I consistently put my money where my mouth is.

Toby, what I have ascertained about your golf game, in the few rounds I've played with you, is you're a better player than you believe yourself to be.

That said, you are probably somewhere in the bubble range so play wherever you have fun. It's not like your lapping the am field, but I'm sure you'd have a shot at cashing in pro.

[DexterHawk]

I think that this is a really interesting discussion.

I personally think that the the division between pro and am is really kind of silly.

I am a 990 rated pro and while I am pretty competitive in small local tournys I get my butt kicked pretty bad when I play in the big tournaments in my division. (I like to tell myself that this is because I have a real job and most of the guys who are better then me really center their lives around disc). That said I think that their are a lot of players in Oregon who play ADV who could and should play pro.

When I moved up the average pro field was about 10-12 guys in oregon. It was very very hard to cash because you basically had to finish on the lead card. I went from being able to play mediocre and still cash in ADV to playing well and still missing cash by a stroke or two for my first year in PRO. But then with the skills I learned watching the other pros play I improved.

I think that you should choose a division based on how serious you are about your game. If you really want to play disc seriously and you've been playing long enough to have ownership over the basic throws in the game (turning right, turning left, throwing straight, approach shots and putting) then you should play pro, regardless of your rating!

The more players in the top division the more people who get to cash. The male and female winners in pro are really the only players who can say they won the tournament (even if some bagger in advanced scored better). I never won an oregon tournament in ADV but have won several in PRO (you don't learn how to win in PRO when you play in ADV). Disc golf is the only sport I've ever played where beginning players are upset when they don't win more prizes then their entry fee.

If I was in charge Ams would get sweet players packs (I would probably let people pick the discs so that they don't just get stuck with discs that they don't like) but not payout (but I would hand out trophies for everyone who cashed). When players were ready to play for big prizes they could move up to the Pro division. That way their would be no financial reward for sand bagging.

[Scott]

If I was in charge Ams would get sweet players packs (I would probably let people pick the discs so that they don't just get stuck with discs that they don't like) but not payout (but I would hand out trophies for everyone who cashed). When players were ready to play for big prizes they could move up to the Pro division. That way their would be no financial reward for sand bagging.

I loved your entire post and was in complete agreement until I got to this paragraph. I think this viewpoint assumes that people who are sandbagging do so strictly for monetary gain. I don't think that's the case. It seems more likely that a tender ego may be the culprit.

[Sausage Fingers]

If I was in charge Ams would get sweet players packs (I would probably let people pick the discs so that they don't just get stuck with discs that they don't like) but not payout (but I would hand out trophies for everyone who cashed). When players were ready to play for big prizes they could move up to the Pro division. That way their would be no financial reward for sand bagging.

That is definitely a way to encourage people to move up, but I think that the same thing can be accomplished by limiting the size of the player pools. You know, actually offer all of the AM divisions at your event and make people play in the division for which their rating qualifies them to play. Instead of reserving 72 spots all for AM1 and have no other AM division that isn't protected by age or gender, actually offer the divisions as they are set out in the competition manual.
If your rating isn't 935+ then you do not get to play in MA1.
If your rating isn't 900-934 then you do not get to play in MA2.
If your rating isn't 850-899 then you do not get to play in MA3.
If every division was offered then the division sizes would have to be smaller. That in turn would lower the amount of swag that any one AM player will walk away with, even the vaunted MA1 winner. In fact I think that you will find that MA1 will not even be the largest AM field if you do not allow players in with ratings below 935.

:pirate:

[Jim J]

If I was in charge Ams would get sweet players packs . . . but not payout.

Problem solved!

Start with the definition of an amatuer:

"A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession."

Paying Ams in scrip is just basically paying them with psuedo-cash, which would make them psuedo-pros. Amatuer means 'lover' and amatuers should play strictly for the love of the game, not financial/scrip reward. Player's packs for all ams supports that.

[Sausage Fingers]

Problem solved!

Start with the definition of an amatuer:

"A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession."

Paying Ams in scrip is just basically paying them with psuedo-cash, which would make them psuedo-pros. Amatuer means 'lover' and amatuers should play strictly for the love of the game, not financial/scrip reward. Player's packs for all ams supports that.

And then next you will tell me that it is ok to take the entry money from the AM side of the tourney and give it all to the pros...:shooting:

There is already too much of this going on, taking all park fees and misc costs out of only the AM pool cash, etc. Cause there'e nothing better than winning a 14 player field and getting $15 more than your entry in script...wow those players packs must have been sweet! Oh yeah...right.:yawn:

So go ahead and let's see how many AMs sign up for a tourney structured in this way. Whatever will you do when your cash cow (The AM players) does not turn out for your tourney and then you'll have to take the tournament fees out of the pro side money.:shocked:

:pirate:

[Wes Hansen]

Top 3 Trophies for AM divisions, VERY modest player's packs, good food, water on the course, beer/soda at the player's party/dinner and modest, pre-determined prizes for top finshers. No scrip.

NO money from AM field to Pro. Spend the entry on player amenities (could include course improvement as well) and show the AMs a great time. NO SCRIP.

To repeat...
Start with the definition of an amatuer:

"A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession."

End sandbagging in 2012.

[Jim J]

And then next you will tell me that it is ok to take the entry money from the AM side of the tourney and give it all to the pros...:shooting:

We have a nominee for best non sequitur of the week.

[Matt B.]

I loved your entire post and was in complete agreement until I got to this paragraph. I think this viewpoint assumes that people who are sandbagging do so strictly for monetary gain. I don't think that's the case. It seems more likely that a tender ego may be the culprit.

Well, he didn't say it was their motivation, or sole motivation, he just said there would be no financial reward for doing so. But I get your point too.

[Scott]

That is definitely a way to encourage people to move up, but I think that the same thing can be accomplished by limiting the size of the player pools. You know, actually offer all of the AM divisions at your event and make people play in the division for which their rating qualifies them to play. Instead of reserving 72 spots all for AM1 and have no other AM division that isn't protected by age or gender, actually offer the divisions as they are set out in the competition manual.
If your rating isn't 935+ then you do not get to play in MA1.
If your rating isn't 900-934 then you do not get to play in MA2.
If your rating isn't 850-899 then you do not get to play in MA3.
If every division was offered then the division sizes would have to be smaller. That in turn would lower the amount of swag that any one AM player will walk away with, even the vaunted MA1 winner. In fact I think that you will find that MA1 will not even be the largest AM field if you do not allow players in with ratings below 935.

:pirate:

I like this idea.

A lot.

[mowens404]

That is definitely a way to encourage people to move up, but I think that the same thing can be accomplished by limiting the size of the player pools. You know, actually offer all of the AM divisions at your event and make people play in the division for which their rating qualifies them to play. Instead of reserving 72 spots all for AM1 and have no other AM division that isn't protected by age or gender, actually offer the divisions as they are set out in the competition manual.
If your rating isn't 935+ then you do not get to play in MA1.
If your rating isn't 900-934 then you do not get to play in MA2.
If your rating isn't 850-899 then you do not get to play in MA3.
If every division was offered then the division sizes would have to be smaller. That in turn would lower the amount of swag that any one AM player will walk away with, even the vaunted MA1 winner. In fact I think that you will find that MA1 will not even be the largest AM field if you do not allow players in with ratings below 935.

:pirate:



I do NOT like this idea. My rating is 924, I would not be OK with being forced into Intermediate. I think this is is opposite of what you want to do. If your rating is above 935 than you can't play MA2, not if you are under you can't play MA1. Why stop players from moving up? I thought the problem was players staying down.:confused:

[Bullseye]

I do NOT like this idea. My rating is 924, I would not be OK with being forced into Intermediate. I think this is is opposite of what you want to do. If your rating is above 935 than you can't play MA2, not if you are under you can't play MA1. Why stop players from moving up? I thought the problem was players staying down.:confused:

Don't you just hate these new guys getting all logical and stuff.

[bryan_luoma]

I wonder how many stock discs would be sold (~msrp) at an event that didn't offer AM payout?

Sometimes, I imagine the club/entity might also benefit from a large AM field w/ payout that conforms to the 2012 tour standards (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/2012_PDGA_Tour_Standards_v2.pdf)?

[Scott]

I do NOT like this idea. My rating is 924, I would not be OK with being forced into Intermediate. I think this is is opposite of what you want to do. If your rating is above 935 than you can't play MA2, not if you are under you can't play MA1. Why stop players from moving up? I thought the problem was players staying down.:confused:

The idea is that it would keep divisions competetive, giving everyone a fair chance.


Don't worry. From what I've heard, you won't be <935 for long anyway.

[Toby Puttzinski]

LOL at the financial gain and ego= sandbagging theories> I have only known 1 disc golfer with this mentality (out of hundreds). How about someone just enjoying to play in a certain division more? If everyone in the 950+ range moved up to pro, then the MA1 division would be intended for 935-950 rated players only? Should a player feel obligated to move up to pro because someone else thinks they should? Sorry, but I don't play tournaments to make you happy...

Why is it more fair for a 940-960 rated player to compete versus 980-1000 rated players than it is for a 910-930 rated player to compete against 940-960ish players? I'd contend that more 930 rated players cash in advanced than 960 rated players cash in pro, on average. It seems the same players are winning pro much more often than the top rated AM1 players win their division> more parity IMO.
The contention that amateurs should not play for 'prizes' is not a very sound argument IMO. Flatter payouts seem to be a good way to make things more 'fair' so that nobody continues to get rich off of Scott's buyins, or should we all just play for fun and get participation ribbons?

Also, I totally disagree with the notion that nobody has ever won a tournament unless they were in the pro division. Talk about ego.

[TreeLove]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sausage Fingers

If your rating isn't 935+ then you do not get to play in MA1.
If your rating isn't 900-934 then you do not get to play in MA2.
If your rating isn't 850-899 then you do not get to play in MA3.

-----


I do NOT like this idea. My rating is 924, I would not be OK with being forced into Intermediate. I think this is is opposite of what you want to do. If your rating is above 935 than you can't play MA2, not if you are under you can't play MA1. Why stop players from moving up? I thought the problem was players staying down.:confused:

Mowens is right. Fingers' post is mis-worded. Any player can play in any higher skill division if they wish at any time.

It should read:

A -- any rating may play -- (for cash? "Pro?")
B -- rating must be <970 -- (for scrip? trophies? player packs? "Amateur?")
C -- rating must be <935 -- (for scrip? trophies? player packs? "Amateur?")
D -- rating must be <900 -- (for scrip? trophies? player packs? "Amateur?")
E -- rating must be <850 -- (for scrip? trophies? player packs? "Amateur?")
F -- rating must be <800 -- (for scrip? trophies? player packs? "Amateur?")

The simplicity is also beautiful. 6 divisions, that's it. No need for debatable division names, either. Plus, it's 21st-century friendly: no more sexism or agism!

For example, Mowens, at 924, can play C, B, or even step up to A and play for cash!

I refer you to my signature.

[SMOKIN JOE]

I'd like to see the alphabet extended a little. 900 current members below 750. 700 below 700.

[couve discer]

I would change the mens divisions to adjust them higher. The women don't seem to have as many complainers as we do!!

Pro= any rating
Advanced= 951-980
intermediate= 921-950
recreational= 880-920
novice= 879 and below

The gap from 935 to 970 is a huge difference in consistency and mental game.
The players from 900 to 935 isn't nearly as hard of a gap to close. those players still make plenty of mistakes and they have some room for error.
Thats why I think there are always plenty of sandbaggers because the ratings make it a difficult to make the change to the higher divisions especially PRO.
Thanks,
Josh

[Jeff Hemmerling]

Nice post Treelove. That's basically a rating-based event which I support.

I refer you to my signature.You currently don't have a signature. :confused:

[Sausage Fingers]

The idea is that it would keep divisions competetive, giving everyone a fair chance.

It does more than that, it keeps the division sizes smaller so any one player doesn't win everybody else's entry fee. You want to play in MA1 then get your rating high enough to play in MA1.

And yes, I do disagree with Stern on this. No matter what you call the divisions you'll get lots of players signing up for divisions 2 and 3 higher than their rating. I too would be in favor of getting rid of the gender and age protected divisions for ratings based play.

This is purely about the AM side of the tourney. Anyone can play open for cash or you are not using the term open correctly. So Matt could play in MA2 or Open or Masters if old enough with a PDGA rating of 924.

:pirate:

[LJ Jubner]

grows a pair bagging will continue but because to many TD's are making money off the NON CASHING PLAYERS. STRICT Ratings based events are just figment in our imaginations.

[Magilla]

I do NOT like this idea. My rating is 924, I would not be OK with being forced into Intermediate. I think this is is opposite of what you want to do. If your rating is above 935 than you can't play MA2, not if you are under you can't play MA1. Why stop players from moving up? I thought the problem was players staying down.:confused:


In a "Rating Based" event...a player can ALWAYS play up.
It just protects everyone from those who ALWAYS stay down.

:cheers:

[Yardbird]

I would change the mens divisions to adjust them higher. The women don't seem to have as many complainers as we do!!

Pro= any rating
Advanced= 951-980
intermediate= 921-950
recreational= 880-920
novice= 879 and below

The gap from 935 to 970 is a huge difference in consistency and mental game.
The players from 900 to 935 isn't nearly as hard of a gap to close. those players still make plenty of mistakes and they have some room for error.
Thats why I think there are always plenty of sandbaggers because the ratings make it a difficult to make the change to the higher divisions especially PRO.
Thanks,
Josh


The recreational level should be at 850-900.

The intermediate level should be at 900-935.

The novice level is <850.

Players with a rating over 935 are advanced players with the skills to shoot solid scores. They just don't shoot the solid rounds frequently enough to compete with the open and advanced baggers, but can hold they own if thier game is on.

[Sausage Fingers]

In a "Rating Based" event...a player can ALWAYS play up.
It just protects everyone from those who ALWAYS stay down.

:cheers:

Maybe I am just talking here and nobody is listening.:pullhair: I am proposing a strict ratings based way to divide the AM divisions in a PDGA tourney. Offer all AM divisions and make players play in the division where they qualify by rating or play Open which is available to all players.

Simple. Elegant. And it will guarantee smaller AM divisions due to the natural limit on the number of players. *A tourney shouldn't just treat the AMs as one division (with the gender and age protected sub divisions).*

*Due to the insane demand, I can see why the BSF doesn't include lower AM divisions. I'd hate to see how long a group of MA4 would take to get around that monster layout...

AND CAN WE PLEASE STOP WITH THE DEROGATORY DIVISION NAMES?


:pirate:

[Jim J]

Offer all AM divisions and make players play in the division where they qualify by rating. . .

Again, it makes no sense to prevent people from playing in a higher division. Kind of a personal choice sort of thing. There are PDGA guidelines which prevent people from playing down. And sometimes women and more seasoned players prefer to play in their own division and may not want to mix it up with the boys.

AND CAN WE PLEASE STOP WITH THE DEROGATORY DIVISION NAMES?

Logic says we'd have to start using derogatory division names before we can stop.

So here are some ideas for division names that we can adopt and then stop using:



Baggers
Donors
Whiners
Tantrum tossers
Whimps
Has-beens
Never will be's


I wonder which one I should sign up for first?

[Sausage Fingers]

Logic says we'd have to start using derogatory division names before we can stop.

Have you ever been at TC signing up players that don't know what division to play in? You ask them if they want to play in Rec or Novice and even though it is the first tourney they've ever played in they will choose to play in Advanced from only THE NAME of the division...

And don't get me started on the <880 rated player with 20 rounds under his belt playing in MA1...

:pirate:

[couve discer]

Almost all of the so called baggers (970 and below)in advanced would be donating if they moved up to most of the pro fields just like the people complaining about the them. So why should they have to donate anymore than anyone else? If we made the division ratings a little higher and tighter there would be less bagging available.

[NWDiscer]

Lower the entry fee's and have no payouts, with just the Top 3 place's getting Trophy's and a cool players pack for all in the Am Div's. :shocked: :wink2:

[DexterHawk]

Another point that no one has brought up is that most players in their first few years of serious play have dramatically lower (read as 20 to 50 points low) ratings then they deserve. They are improving too fast for their rating to keep up. PS. my rating was not much higher than 950 when I went PRO and I turned out fine. 950 sounds way lower then 980 but thats only three strokes on a par 54 course... nine strokes in a normal tourny... really not that much out of an average 160 or so.

[DexterHawk]

I also think that ratings based divisions would be fun... especially if I got to play with some old guys or ladies shooting the same kind of scores that the power golfers I usually play with shoot.

two questions
1) Ladies, do you want to play with the boys or do you prefer to get a chance to play with other ladies?

2) How big a factor do you think it is for most players that stepping up to pro is the first time that most serious golfers aren't really likely to cash? Read as how big a factor is the financial part?

PS I would love to play with more ladies who are serious about their games and I would also be fine with just getting a sweet players pack and trophies even though I play open. I have a real job to make money, competing is mostly about pride and pushing myself for me.

[jevon]

Lower the entry fee's and have no payouts, with just the Top 3 place's getting Trophy's and a cool players pack for all in the Am Div's. :shocked: :wink2:

This.

[D.L.]

Lower the entry fee's and have no payouts, with just the Top 3 place's getting Trophy's and a cool players pack for all in the Am Div's. :shocked: :wink2:

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man. I also concur, sometimes con carné.

[Ol' Bob]

...and a cool players pack for all in the Am Div's.

Would there be also be an uncool players pack for other Divs?

[NWDiscer]

Would there be also be an uncool players pack for other Divs?


yep just a used brake pad,a 1/2bottle of water, and a pack of unsweetened koolaid :p

[Ol' Bob]

yep just a used brake pad,a 1/2bottle of water, and a pack of unsweetened koolaid :p

A good reason to move down! (Gotta be cool :cool:)

[Chuck Kennedy]

We have talked about limiting a double jump up in divisions unless the ratings division above yours was not offered. That would at least prevent Intermediate rated player from jumping to Open or Rec player jumping up to Advanced (unless Intermediate wasn't offered - unlikely). Just discussion, no formal proposal pending.

[LJ Jubner]

Why in the world would you even consider limiting how far UP you can play? When the problem is bagging below your skill level

[JMan]

With all the emphasis ON winning, ON bragging rights, and yes all those who still have difficulty differentiating between on course and off course self worth it's a wonder there are upper divisions at all. I don't have to run faster than the bear...just faster then YOU...ah the competitive side of disc golf. Ah competition, it garners quite the load of flotsam and jetsam.

[LegoRules]

I also think that ratings based divisions would be fun... especially if I got to play with some old guys or ladies shooting the same kind of scores that the power golfers I usually play with shoot.

two questions
1) Ladies, do you want to play with the boys or do you prefer to get a chance to play with other ladies?

2) How big a factor do you think it is for most players that stepping up to pro is the first time that most serious golfers aren't really likely to cash? Read as how big a factor is the financial part?

PS I would love to play with more ladies who are serious about their games and I would also be fine with just getting a sweet players pack and trophies even though I play open. I have a real job to make money, competing is mostly about pride and pushing myself for me.

I prefer to to compete against other women, and I think most women feel the same way. That is one of the barriers for women they are a bit intimidated by the guys. Guys are stronger, and can throw so much further even at the lower levels. Also with this system women would never have the chance to compete at he highest level. The majority of the am women would fall into the lowest division. There defiantly needs to be separate tiers for men & women.

Cindy :)

[Wes Hansen]

Why in the world would you even consider limiting how far UP you can play?

This won't be popular.....
Maybe so 840 rated women don't sign up for Pro at events like the BSF that are trying to attract the most skilled Pros?

[LJ Jubner]

This won't be popular.....
Maybe so 840 rated women don't sign up for Pro at events like the BSF that are trying to attract the most skilled Pros?

At the NT level That's true wes. The only question is what % of total events are NT's.

[emmarose]

This won't be popular.....
Maybe so 840 rated women don't sign up for Pro at events like the BSF that are trying to attract the most skilled Pros?

to an extent there is some truth to this... however, then perhaps we should stop calling women with sub 900 ratings "baggers" when they win tournaments in advanced... i feel entirely content with my decision to turn pro... but i had only played 4 pdga events at the time, had an 875 rating, and was being called a bagger from the very beginning... i had not planned on going pro until i reached 900 (and like i said, i'm content with my decision and think it was the right one) but there sure was a ton of pressure on me from my very first win (only by two strokes) and with a rating of 868... women get a lot of pressure to "move up" because there are so few of us competing and therefore what has happened on the local regional level is that you have recreational players playing intermediate, intermediate players playing advanced and advanced players playing pro...

i decided to let this push me and am determined to break 900 soon... but i am very competetive and driven and enjoy pressure... in this i am unique as a girl to some extent.

this conversation about baggers i feel does not have so much bearing on the women's divisions as the men's...



and as competitive as i am i would be very disappointed to always have to compete with intermediate or recreational men in response to andy hock's proposal. it would, in fact, straight up suck.

[bryan_luoma]

At the NT level That's true wes. The only question is what % of total events are NT's.

Not exclusive to NTs at all. Any "popular" event qualifies.

[Sausage Fingers]

Why in the world would you even consider limiting how far UP you can play? When the problem is bagging below your skill level

Let me speak it slowly for you:

IF...YOU...MAKE...THE...DIVISIONS...SMALLER...THEN ...THERE...ISN'T...71...OTHER...GOLFERS...FOR...YO U...TO...WIN...THEIR...ENTRY...MONEY...FROM!

If the division sizes are smaller then the prize pool will be smaller and the incentive to hang around in MA1 to reap the $300+ in plastic for winning isn't there.

Here's my for example:

The RCO again decided to not include any divisions lower then MA1 and of the 48 players registered for that division the breakdown is like this:

23 players have ratings that qualify them to compete in the division
9 players have ratings that qualify them to play MA2
7 players have ratings that qualify them to play MA3
9 players with no PDGA rating (4 of which are members with no rating yet)

So LESS THAN HALF of the players have ratings that qualify them to play in MA1! If you distribute the 9 players with no PDGA rating among the MA2/MA3 groups you have 3 viable divisions. [And YES I am saying that non-PDGA members do not get to play in MA1. You want to breeze into the tourney and try to bag your way to taking the prizes from a large AM field and NOT be a member of the PDGA, I am sorry, you take that crap down the road...]

You say the problem is people bagging below their skill level, I say the problem is tourneys not offering at least the 3 AM divisions MA1/MA2/MA3 AND slotting players in the division for which their rating qualifies them to play.

How can you blame the good MA1 player for the MA2 & MA3 players bloating the size of their division?

and as competitive as i am i would be very disappointed to always have to compete with intermediate or recreational men in response to andy hock's proposal. it would, in fact, straight up suck.

You would always have the choice of playing the Amateur division that your rating qualifies you to play in OR to play in FPO (or FPM/FPG/FPS/FPL if your age qualifies you)

:pirate:

[mowens404]

I think we are all taking this bagging situation a little seriously. Does the PDGA ever have talks about maybe being more clear about the divisional guidelines? example... Once your rating is over 970 you are forced to play pro, until your rating is below 970 again, cashing or not cashing would have no affect on it.

[Jason Philips]

I personally would always much rather play up a division than where I belong. It pushes me. To tell me I have to play in a lower division is BS. I think telling someone on the cusp who has placed in the top five of the division for the last few years to move up is much more fruitful for the sport. Don't hold back those that want to move forward.

At the same time I could care less where other people play (Even though it does contradict some of the above statement) I play for me, I play for my improvement, and with that comes challenges like finding ways to beat people well above my playing level.

[Lund]

I think we are all taking this bagging situation a little seriously.

Probably true, but

I do like this discussion, especially as it pertains to encouraging more top level AMs to play Pro and/or to have a system where more Ams are able to compete with similarly skilled players - and including the many solid points brought up by Jordan regarding the benefits to having more AM divisions rather than less.

We have the limited number of divisions at the RCO for at least a couple reasons. In 2011 we liked the “logisitical simplicity” that comes with fewer divisions especially consdering we were essentially rookie TDs. For the upcoming 2012 RCO we decided to have the same divisions offered because from our perspective it seemed to work well last year. This particular discussion and thread came to the forefront again right as we had all but finalized said plan for 3 amateur divisions. As we began discussing amongst the RCO team the possibility of adding AM divisions we decided 1) that since we had already laid out our plan and were a day away from beginning to take registration (at the Rosebud) that we would stick with our announced three amateur division plan but 2) would continue to discuss changes like more AM divisions over the next year further in advance of next year's event (if Justin and I continue as TDs).

Also, we have or are taking a couple small steps towards encouraging more Ams to play Pro this year or in the future. First we narrowed the gap in entry fees to $10 (whereas it was $20 last year). So far that does not seem to be having much of an effect as the AM divisions are essentially full and the Pro divisions have perhaps 40 spots left. Unlikely that this was even noticed by many folks...Second we will add very little if any cash to the AM payouts. Last year we spent what seemed like quite a bit of money from entry fees on the AM player's packs (I think this was well above average), and so we added a chunk of the added cash that we worked hard to secure to the AM divisions in order to up the scrip payout to levels that we were accustomed to seeing as players. This year the AM players packs are costing virually the same, but the scrip payout will probably be lower as we will likely put most if not all the added cash in the Pro purse (whether we are able to secure as much cash donations as last year is TBD but we are off to a good start).

Personal (non-official RCO) opinions:
In the future I am in favor of:
-having more AM divisions
-having Ams play for trophy only, no scrip*, and thus entry fees that are lower and just cover players packs, trophies and other expenses (cause we will not put AM money into the Pro purse)
-perhaps giving even more of a player's pack to Pros as well. Despite a few more outspoken pros indicating they do not need any more discs, continued discussions that I have had with local pros over the past year (unofficial poll) suggests to me that might not be the case for the majority. Also many pros last year said they would have been stoked to have gotten one of the player pack hoodies as well...

*A few talking points while we are on the subject of trophy only/no scrip for Ams:
-providing scrip is often a win-win proposition for prosepctive sponsors. For starters not only do they directly receive most of their money back but they see a direct return on their investment in the form of people showing up in their store and buying things. So scrip is a very big deal when approaching potential sponsors.

-Despite the fact that a number of people have chimed in on this thread saying they support trophy only for AMs, scrip payout, and a large payout at that, has been the norm in this region for quite some time. This has been the case for sure during my limited time of playing competitively (this is my 6th year). And so I am speculating that there would be a fair number of complaints if scrip payout was not provided at an event. Along those lines I believe it would take a number of established TDs and events that were not too concerned about building a reputation to establish the trend of “trophy only” before the masses were accustomed to that scenario. I heard a number of ams who went to the Memorial a few years back who were shocked and turned off by this...A person with limited TD experience who is trying to get a big turnout at a new event (in the increasingly packed event schedule in this area) and is not paying out in scrip sounds like a tall order to me. PDGA mandated rating based divisions would undoubtedly help but I can't say that I am ready to be the guinea pig.

[Sausage Fingers]

I personally would always much rather play up a division than where I belong. It pushes me. To tell me I have to play in a lower division is BS. I think telling someone on the cusp who has placed in the top five of the division for the last few years to move up is much more fruitful for the sport. Don't hold back those that want to move forward.

At the same time I could care less where other people play (Even though it does contradict some of the above statement) I play for me, I play for my improvement, and with that comes challenges like finding ways to beat people well above my playing level.

Then maybe you should have "challenged" yourself to get a PDGA rating that qualifies you to play in MA1...:whistler:

:pirate:

[Sausage Fingers]

Probably true, but

I do like this discussion, especially as it pertains to encouraging more top level AMs to play Pro and/or to have a system where more Ams are able to compete with similarly skilled players - and including the many solid points brought up by Jordan regarding the benefits to having more AM divisions rather than less.

We have the limited number of divisions at the RCO for at least a couple reasons. In 2011 we liked the “logisitical simplicity” that comes with fewer divisions especially consdering we were essentially rookie TDs. For the upcoming 2012 RCO we decided to have the same divisions offered because from our perspective it seemed to work well last year. This particular discussion and thread came to the forefront again right as we had all but finalized said plan for 3 amateur divisions. As we began discussing amongst the RCO team the possibility of adding AM divisions we decided 1) that since we had already laid out our plan and were a day away from beginning to take registration (at the Rosebud) that we would stick with our announced three amateur division plan but 2) would continue to discuss changes like more AM divisions over the next year further in advance of next year's event (if Justin and I continue as TDs).

Also, we have or are taking a couple small steps towards encouraging more Ams to play Pro this year. First we narrowed the gap in entry fees to $10 (whereas it was $20 last year). So far that does not seem to be having much of an effect as the AM divisions are essentially full and the Pro divisions have perhaps 40 spots left. Likely this was even noticed by many folks...Second we will add very little if any cash to the AM payouts. Last year we spent what seemed like quite a bit of money from entry fees on the AM player's packs (I think this was well above average), and so we added a chunk of the added cash that we worked hard to secure to the AM divisions in order to up the scrip payout to levels that we were accustomed to seeing as players. This year the AM players packs are costing virually the same, but the scrip payout will be lower as we will likely put most if not all the added cash in the Pro purse (whether we are able to secure as much cash donations as last year is TBD but we are off to a good start).

Personal (non-official RCO) opinions:
In the future I am in favor of:
-having more AM divisions
-having Ams play for trophy only, no scrip*, and thus entry fees that are lower and just cover players packs, trophies and other expenses (cause we will not put AM money into the Pro purse)
-perhaps giving even more of a player's pack to Pros as well. Despite a few more outspoken pros indicating they do not need any more discs, continued discussions that I have had with local pros over the past year (unofficial poll) suggests to me that might not be the case for the majority. Also many pros last year said they would have been stoked to have gotten one of the player pack hoodies as well...

*A few talking points while we are on the subject of trophy only/no scrip for Ams:
-providing scrip is often a win-win proposition for prosepctive sponsors. For starters not only do they directly receive most of their money back but they see a direct return on their investment in the form of people showing up in their store and buying things. So scrip is a very big deal when approaching potential sponsors.

-Despite the fact that a number of people have chimed in on this thread saying they support trophy only for AMs, scrip payout, and a large payout at that, has been the norm in this region for quite some time. This has been the case for sure during my limited time of playing competitively (this is my 6th year). And so I am speculating that there would be a fair number of complaints if scrip payout was not provided at an event. Along those lines I believe it would take a number of established TDs and events that were not too concerned about building a reputation to establish the trend of “trophy only” before the masses were accustomed to that scenario. A person with limited TD experience who is trying to get a big turnout at a new event (in the increasingly packed event schedule in this area) and is not paying out in scrip sounds like a tall order to me. PDGA mandated rating based divisions would undoubtedly help.

I would like to take this quick moment to say that even though I used the RCO as my example, I was in no way complaining about the way this awesome tourney is run by our awesome returning TDs! :trophy::bowing::trophy:

It was a quick and easy upcoming local tourney to get data for my argument. Nothing more. You can see this kind of thing at nearly any B-tier or lower tourney...

I sure would like to play in the RCO this year...:angel:

:pirate:

[emmarose]

You would always have the choice of playing the Amateur division that your rating qualifies you to play in OR to play in FPO (or FPM/FPG/FPS/FPL if your age qualifies you)

:pirate:

... that didn't appear to be what he was proposing...

and previously in this thread people or a person had proposed doing away with gender based divisions... pretty disrespectful to women, to be perfectly honest and to not mince words... i would have finished i think like 5th or 6th or 7th or 8th in intermediate this weekend at the Disc Go Ball... and, since i'm not mincing words, here, i am one of the best female disc golfers in the state so where would that leave the rest of the girls who are playing if they had to compete with the boys?

it's fun to play with boys, i prefer to play in mixed company, but it's not fair for women to have to compete with them... and it's also not fair for someone who has honed their skills and their competitive game to the level that i have, or that teresa embree has, or zoe andyke has and to put us in a division called intermediate... we've worked much too hard to be called "intermediate golfers"...

okay, i'm butting out of this thread because i don't think that it really pertains that much to women and also i think i'm getting a little fired up about it and i would rather not.

i know that this disc golf community is very supportive and respectful of women as pretty much a general rule, but i did have some things to say.

thanks, boys. carry on with your sandbagging or lack of sandbagging.

:p

[mowens404]

I agree Emma, it would not be fair to match women against the men. Wouldn't be as cool either to see the women scattered among the intermediate men, instead of out there as a group battling it out.


Maybe every tournament should be handicapped:biggrin2:. Than everyone can get a fair chance. :laughing:


I think we should just all learn to put up with it. People are going to do what they are going to do and as long as they are within the rules they aren't doing anything wrong. I have been getting crushed tournament after tournament by guys that are good enough to play pro, but also rated low enough to play AM, and instead of complaining about them everytime, I practice to get myself that good. Is winning against worse competition better than getting 4th or 5th against amazing competition? And that is the question everyone should ask themselves, sadly the only thing some people care about is winning.

[Jason Philips]

Then maybe you should have "challenged" yourself to get a PDGA rating that qualifies you to play in MA1...:whistler:

:pirate:


I have a long way to go and will keep working for it but that should not mean I have to play down from where I want to play. I could see the argument if I were trying to move into a pro division.

And honestly taking a dig at my play doesn't add to the conversation. How does it address bagging or appropriate divisions? How does my play constitute a problem for the division I play in? If you are on my card it is obvious I am not the only one having a bad round. I think the issue is the people who have been finishing top ten in their chosen division for over a season. By punishing people who want to play at a higher level you will find more people leaving the sport.

[Scott]

... that didn't appear to be what he was proposing...

and previously in this thread people or a person had proposed doing away with gender based divisions... pretty disrespectful to women, to be perfectly honest and to not mince words... i would have finished i think like 5th or 6th or 7th or 8th in intermediate this weekend at the Disc Go Ball... and, since i'm not mincing words, here, i am one of the best female disc golfers in the state so where would that leave the rest of the girls who are playing if they had to compete with the boys?

it's fun to play with boys, i prefer to play in mixed company, but it's not fair for women to have to compete with them... and it's also not fair for someone who has honed their skills and their competitive game to the level that i have, or that teresa embree has, or zoe andyke has and to put us in a division called intermediate... we've worked much too hard to be called "intermediate golfers"...

okay, i'm butting out of this thread because i don't think that it really pertains that much to women and also i think i'm getting a little fired up about it and i would rather not.

i know that this disc golf community is very supportive and respectful of women as pretty much a general rule, but i did have some things to say.

thanks, boys. carry on with your sandbagging or lack of sandbagging.

:p

I think the earlier proposal to do away with the ladies divisions was for RATINGS BASED divisions ONLY.

For example:

Division 1: >935
Division 2: >900, <= 935
Division 3: >850, <=900
Division 4: <850

Under this model, a player can only play in the divison that their rating says they should. Notice I didn't use the crappy PDGA lablels of Novice, Rec, etc...
And the division sizes are highly negotiable - I just used what the PDGA currently uses. A strong case could be made for more divisions of a smaller size.

As a 895 rated player, you would play in Division 3. Most of the Intermediate players that "beat" you actually would have played in Division 2 because they are rated above 900.

The idea here is that an 895 rating is an 895 rating -regardless of who shoots it (Man, woman, junior, grandmaster, etc.)

[emmarose]

scott,

i would get beat by someone who can throw farther. not by someone who is a more skilled golfer. i want to play with people who work as hard as i do with skills to match mine.

ugh. this thread makes me crazy.

emma

[Scott]

They might be able to throw farther, but that doesn't make them a better player. Hell, nearly everybody I've ever beat throws farther than I do. Can they approach? Can they putt? There is a lot more to the game than throwing far.

[Sausage Fingers]

I have a long way to go and will keep working for it but that should not mean I have to play down from where I want to play. I could see the argument if I were trying to move into a pro division.

Why do you think nobody wants to move up into Pro out of the division that you are so happy donating YOUR entry fee into? Why should they donate their funds to the top Pros when the AM division is full of players playing above their level of play and are willing to bloat the division so it has a big payout?

And honestly taking a dig at my play doesn't add to the conversation. How does it address bagging or appropriate divisions? How does my play constitute a problem for the division I play in? If you are on my card it is obvious I am not the only one having a bad round.

Have you even read all the posts in this thread? Please at least read to the end of this post where I explain this.

I think the issue is the people who have been finishing top ten in their chosen division for over a season.

The PDGA has shown ZERO desire to EVER force a player to play Pro instead of AM. I highly doubt that will ever happen since they don't even have the cajones to make the AMs play in the division for which their rating qualifies them. So we are left with "What can we do to make the plunder of the AM fields less enticing for the top rated AM players." The solution that I am advocating works towards just that: by forcing the field sizes to be smaller by offering AT LEAST MA1/MA2/MA3 in all AM tourney fields.

By punishing people who want to play at a higher level you will find more people leaving the sport.

But without this so very harsh "punishment" offering MA1/MA2/MA3 will do absolutely NOTHING to break up the sizes of the divisions, since you have already stated that you wouldn't ever sign up for a division that isn't where you want to play. If you cannot force players to play where their ratings places them, then they'll all just sign up for MA1 anyway because of the stigma of playing in "Intermediate" or god forbid a division called "Rec" or "Novice". I know that at least 16 players did so for the RCO...

This discussion is very well and good, as you can tell it is something that is near and dear to my heart. But just because I am replying to you, Jason, doesn't mean that I am calling you out. I am only using you as an example to get my point across. I have no hard feelings towards you or your game, and I applaud your desire to improve your game. I just believe that unless the AM side is fixed we will be facing these problems forever.

:pirate:

[jeverett]

They might be able to throw farther, but that doesn't make them a better player. Hell, nearly everybody I've ever beat throws farther than I do. Can they approach? Can they putt? There is a lot more to the game than throwing far.

Just to extend this logic a little, there's also a lot more to the game than your current physical ability. For example, compare a card of Pro Women with a card of MA2 Men. First, take a look at knowledge of the rules, professionalism, and demeanor. Second, take a look at where these players are in the scope of their golfing careers. A lot of these women have been playing for a long time, and are playing at near the peak of their ability. Their ratings aren't going to fluctuate a lot, either. By contrast, a lot of the men have only been playing for a couple years, and have a lot they could improve on. Their ratings are probably fluctuating a lot, too, and have a much higher upper boundary.

I understand these two groups might score similarly, but is it really fair to put them together? How much do they really have in common?

[Sausage Fingers]

The idea here is that an 895 rating is an 895 rating -regardless of who shoots it (Man, woman, junior, grandmaster, etc.)

In a perfect world this would be true and the need for gender and age based restrictions for AM divisions would go away. But as many have posted here, this isn't a perfect world and getting rid of gender protected AM divisions could spell big problems getting female players to come into the sport.

But I'd still be willing to give up my age protected division and compete with the young guns if AMs were forced to play in the correct division...

:pirate:

[Sausage Fingers]

For example, compare a card of Pro Women with a card of MA2 Men.
How much do they really have in common?

Absolutely nothing as you are trying to compare Pros to AMs. In no way is any of my ranting talking about changing the way the Pro side operates.

Any player (young gun, old timer or awesome female disc golfer) would have the opportunity to play in an AM division that their rating dictates OR the corresponding Pro division for them.

young gun - Pro
old timer - Pro Masters or older
awesome female disc golfer - Pro Women or awesomer:confused:

But what they couldn't do is all bunch up into one big division so that the one AM winner gets a massive payday.

:pirate:

[LegoRules]

I think the earlier proposal to do away with the ladies divisions was for RATINGS BASED divisions ONLY.

For example:

Division 1: >935
Division 2: >900, <= 935
Division 3: >850, <=900
Division 4: <850

Under this model, a player can only play in the divison that their rating says they should. Notice I didn't use the crappy PDGA lablels of Novice, Rec, etc...
And the division sizes are highly negotiable - I just used what the PDGA currently uses. A strong case could be made for more divisions of a smaller size.

As a 895 rated player, you would play in Division 3. Most of the Intermediate players that "beat" you actually would have played in Division 2 because they are rated above 900.

The idea here is that an 895 rating is an 895 rating -regardless of who shoots it (Man, woman, junior, grandmaster, etc.)

So almost every women golfer in Oregon with the exception of a handful would be lumped into that lower division of 850 and below including me.

I have worked really hard to get to the point in my game that I am. Right now I am an advanced women disc golfer who is on the cusp of being able to compete at the pro level in our local area at least. The men who would fall into this division of 850 and below would for the most part be new to the sport with little or no tournament experience. It would not be much fun at all for me, or any other women to have to teach guys the rules of tournament play each and every time we play.

Also most of the amateur ladies playing in our area fall below 800, and even below 700. There are a lot of people who are working really hard to encourage more women to play in sanctioned events, and this new ratings based all encompassing event would in my opinion be a huge step backwards. If there were to be these types of events I would imagine not many women would be interested in participating.

Cindy :)

[mowens404]

But what they couldn't do is all bunch up into one big division so that the one AM winner gets a massive payday.

:pirate:



You keep mentioning this humungous payout for adv. I don't think it is because of the payout that people sand-bag. It is for their ego. I would not move down to intermediate (even though according to this magical number everyone keeps stressing about would let me) if the field were 10X my division just to get the payout. Most of the people I know play for the challenge and the fun, and to win! not just for the payout, but for the reward of your hard work finally paying off.

[jeverett]

Absolutely nothing as you are trying to compare Pros to AMs. In no way is any of my ranting talking about changing the way the Pro side operates.

Any player (young gun, old timer or awesome female disc golfer) would have the opportunity to play in an AM division that their rating dictates OR the corresponding Pro division for them.

young gun - Pro
old timer - Pro Masters or older
awesome female disc golfer - Pro Women or awesomer:confused:

But what they couldn't do is all bunch up into one big division so that the one AM winner gets a massive payday.

:pirate:

Hi Sausage Fingers,

Hmm.. I think you may have missed my point.. as it's generalizable to Advanced Women and MA3 Men (as another example) too. Advanced women have typically been playing for several years, and are very familiar with tourney play, as well. MA3 Men are often pretty new to the sport, playing in their first event, with only a basic understanding of the PDGA rules. Once again, how much do they really have in common?

Realistically, the only way I can see a generic Amateur 1-4 division system working fairly is for events where all players are held to a very high standard of professionalism and conduct (e.g. a PDGA membership is required, but there could be other requirements to enforce this, too). I can see the sport eventually getting to the point where MA3 could be a viable division for 'serious' disc golfers, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Bullseye]

There are a lot of good ideas to kick around in this thread. Perhaps we should stop focusing on a bad one: Mixing the boys and girls. The easy (and apparently best) solution would be to keep them separate. However, that still doesn't kill the idea of ratings based events. Just let the women play with other women of similar ratings.

One other point I would like to make here is that we should never force someone to play "pro". I know a very good, well respected player who, for his own personal reasons, does not want to play for money. Does that mean we should deny him a place to play? No. There just needs to be a very high-level am division as well.

However, if there was a division for 970+ rated Ams how many would you get in a tourney anyway? I would argue that you'd see few enough that it no longer becomes a cash cow for someone slinging plastic won via scrip. If there are only five 970+ rated ams, then they're not really playing for much scrip anyway.

JH

[LegoRules]

There are a lot of good ideas to kick around in this thread. Perhaps we should stop focusing on a bad one: Mixing the boys and girls. The easy (and apparently best) solution would be to keep them separate. However, that still doesn't kill the idea of ratings based events. Just let the women play with other women of similar ratings.

JH

BAZINGA! :rockon:

Cindy :)

[Matt B.]

You keep mentioning this humungous payout for adv. I don't think it is because of the payout that people sand-bag. It is for their ego. .

I think it's both, obviously. For some it may be ego, for others finanical considerations, either lower entry fees or higher likelihood of winning a nice amount of scrip. For most, it's probably a combination of the two, or other reasons completely. There's no one reason why people do not want to move up.

I think this is a good discussion and it's healthy. I don't really see anyone getting called out personally here, which is when this discussion gets unproductive. I don't consider a little tweaking of a friend to be calling them out (I'm looking at you Jester).

The only way to test out the ratings based division/tournament ideas to see if it works or doesn't is for someone to run one, or more likely, several. It's not quite the same thing but I think Craig Gangloff in MD ran or runs a tournament where your entry fee is based on your rating, but you all play in one big division. The higher your rating, the more expensive the entry. Sorry, too lazy to look it up right now, and not sure it is in fact germane to this discussion exactly, but just throwing it out there as another way to approach the issue.

Ultimately, I believe people should play where they enjoy themselves the most, for whatever reason they get the enjoyment. However, as a player in a pro division generally having to play my best to cash, I am motivated to encourage people to move up so that the fields are bigger and the cash line is deeper. Is that selfish? Is it because I want to win? Because I want money? Yes, yes, and yes. And also in some cases because I truly think the people I encourgae would be competitive, would be fun to play with, and would ultimately enjoy themselves more. I generally don't harangue people to move up just to be a dick, or because I think I will automatically get their money, and I don't think others do either.

If you move up, and you get three other people to move up after you, and they get two people to move up after them, the field is bigger and the cash line is deeper. And on it goes.

The thing that annoys me about this discussion is when the whole "why don't people play to have fun" thing comes up. So ridiculous to think that people can't have fun while competing, or aren't having fun just because they want others to move up or want to fix the current division system. There's nothing wrong with wanting to perform well, or win cash or scrip, or play tournaments, or win!

And I don't think anyone has actually suggested making women play with men, it was just an idea that was put forth as another way to look at it. In fact, Andy posed it as a question: "1) Ladies, do you want to play with the boys or do you prefer to get a chance to play with other ladies?" And then he said he thought it would be fun to play with women sometimes. Not much to get upset about there.

But I do think Emma should move up to MPO and that everyone on her card should be required to wear knee high pink socks.

At all times.

[Matt B.]

One other point I would like to make here is that we should never force someone to play "pro". I know a very good, well respected player who, for his own personal reasons, does not want to play for money. Does that mean we should deny him a place to play? No. There just needs to be a very high-level am division as well.

JH

I can respect that players reason, but I feel compelled to point out that unless they give away all the scrip or prizes they win, it's kind of the same thing. You don't have to sell the plastic you won with scrip for cash money to be realizing a financial gain. We all buy disc golf gear, so a penny saved is a penny earned.

If they do give all their scrip and prizes away, please point me out to them and tell them I love Champ Glow Teebirds.

[Kenny B]

We have talked about limiting a double jump up in divisions unless the ratings division above yours was not offered. That would at least prevent Intermediate rated player from jumping to Open or Rec player jumping up to Advanced (unless Intermediate wasn't offered - unlikely). Just discussion, no formal proposal pending.

I'm also curious to know what the PDGAs thoughts are on why it would be beneficial to implement a policy such as this. Would it be to protect the player? Or protect the higher division in which they wish to play? (The second is much less likely, I think. Well... and hope.)

If it's about protecting the player, I'm thinking that there is more cause to be concerned about a player playing their first event when they have no establishsed rating. They're more likely to wind up playing in the wrong division, losing, and wishing to not return. A player with a rating is known to have played events and thus should better know what they'd be stepping into if they played "two levels" above their rating.

As I write this I had another thought...Is this more about protecting Pros from having to play with much lower skilled players? If so, I would be dissapointed. It would appear like pros have been complaining about having to play with Ams...

[emmarose]

Just to extend this logic a little, there's also a lot more to the game than your current physical ability. For example, compare a card of Pro Women with a card of MA2 Men. First, take a look at knowledge of the rules, professionalism, and demeanor. Second, take a look at where these players are in the scope of their golfing careers. A lot of these women have been playing for a long time, and are playing at near the peak of their ability. Their ratings aren't going to fluctuate a lot, either. By contrast, a lot of the men have only been playing for a couple years, and have a lot they could improve on. Their ratings are probably fluctuating a lot, too, and have a much higher upper boundary.

I understand these two groups might score similarly, but is it really fair to put them together? How much do they really have in common?

thank you,
emma

[emmarose]

There are a lot of good ideas to kick around in this thread. Perhaps we should stop focusing on a bad one: Mixing the boys and girls. The easy (and apparently best) solution would be to keep them separate. However, that still doesn't kill the idea of ratings based events. Just let the women play with other women of similar ratings.

JH

thank you.

emma

p.s. it doesn't mean i have a problem playing with boys if no other pro women sign up... it just means it shouldn't be my only option...

[emmarose]

But I do think Emma should move up to MPO and that everyone on her card should be required to wear knee high pink socks.

At all times.

i will take this into consideration... but i don't always wear pink knee socks so it doesn't seem like it would be fair to make them do it, either.

emma

[Sausage Fingers]

You keep mentioning this humungous payout for adv. I don't think it is because of the payout that people sand-bag. It is for their ego. I would not move down to intermediate (even though according to this magical number everyone keeps stressing about would let me) if the field were 10X my division just to get the payout. Most of the people I know play for the challenge and the fun, and to win! not just for the payout, but for the reward of your hard work finally paying off.

Why can't part of your hard work be playing in competition long or well enough to get your rating to where you can play in that division in the first place? You'll obviously never play in a division that is called "Intermediate" under any circumstances so my argument against the crappy divisional names keeps coming back to haunt me over and over and over...:headbang:

:pirate:

[chris7graham]

Ratings-based divisions: disc golf's inevitable future.Nice post Treelove. That's basically a rating-based event which I support.

You currently don't have a signature. :confused:

[emmarose]

Why can't part of your hard work be playing in competition long or well enough to get your rating to where you can play in that division in the first place? You'll obviously never play in a division that is called "Intermediate" under any circumstances so my argument against the crappy divisional names keeps coming back to haunt me over and over and over...:headbang:

:pirate:

but the crappy divisional names are so much easier to remember than all those silly letters and numbers that sometimes don't make any sense at all (FW1? the fuck does that mean? female women? that's stupid.)

p.s. i love you, jordan.

[Sausage Fingers]

Hi Sausage Fingers,

Hmm.. I think you may have missed my point.. as it's generalizable to Advanced Women and MA3 Men (as another example) too.
I am pretty sure I get the gist of your idea but didn't like the example very much and said as much.

Advanced women have typically been playing for several years, and are very familiar with tourney play, as well. MA3 Men are often pretty new to the sport, playing in their first event, with only a basic understanding of the PDGA rules. Once again, how much do they really have in common?
My desire to have the ratings system be perfect enough to negate the need for gender divisions is probably a pipe dream, but that doesn't mean that MA3 has to be such a wasteland of PDGA tournament etiquette. Ask yourself why is MA3 filled with newbies?

Realistically, the only way I can see a generic Amateur 1-4 division system working fairly is for events where all players are held to a very high standard of professionalism and conduct (e.g. a PDGA membership is required, but there could be other requirements to enforce this, too). I can see the sport eventually getting to the point where MA3 could be a viable division for 'serious' disc golfers, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Why is this so unachievable? Why can't all players in a PDGA tournament be required to pass the rules exam?

:pirate:

[Sausage Fingers]

but the crappy divisional names are so much easier to remember than all those silly letters and numbers that sometimes don't make any sense at all (FW1? the fuck does that mean? female women? that's stupid.)

p.s. i love you, jordan.

And this longstanding crappy naming convention (at least) has FINALLY gone by the wayside this year and we are back the basic MA1/FA1 rational naming convention. Now if only we could get rid of the Division Name completely for the AM side...

And as always, you're nothin' but great in my book emma!:rockon:

:pirate:

[Scott]

My desire to have the ratings system be perfect enough to negate the need for gender divisions is probably a pipe dream, but that doesn't mean that MA3 has to be such a wasteland of PDGA tournament etiquette. Ask yourself why is MA3 filled with newbies?

Partly because it is for lower rated players. Newer players tend to have lower ratings.

Also because of the stupid division name, Recreational.

[loki]

We have talked about limiting a double jump up in divisions unless the ratings division above yours was not offered. That would at least prevent Intermediate rated player from jumping to Open or Rec player jumping up to Advanced (unless Intermediate wasn't offered - unlikely). Just discussion, no formal proposal pending.

I have a question: How can you prevent somebody with a very low rating from playing open? Isn't the name itself a dead giveaway (open) as it is open to anybody wishing to try their luck? I am enjoying this discussion but feel it really only pertains to amateurs. Anybody no matter what their rating should be allowed to turn pro and compete as it is their decision. Now if we implemented something along the lines of Q-school like in the PGA an alternative could become a possibility.

I also feel that any player who wants to play in a division (or two) above their rating should go for it. Dropping down unreasonably so should not be allowed and to a certain degree isn't under the current regulations.

Lastly, I do like the idea of ratings based tournaments for amateurs as long as you separate the Men and Women as alluded to by Bullseye (and for the myriad of reasons stated by others in this thread), but I would still feel that anybody should be allowed to play in a higher division should they choose to.

[mowens404]

Why can't part of your hard work be playing in competition long or well enough to get your rating to where you can play in that division in the first place? You'll obviously never play in a division that is called "Intermediate" under any circumstances so my argument against the crappy divisional names keeps coming back to haunt me over and over and over...:headbang:

:pirate:



I think we all put to much emphasis on ratings. My rating is low because of terrible tournaments from my past, So I would be stuck in MA2 or intermediate or whatever you want to call it, I am almost always a few strokes ahead of the intermediate winner. so because of this "rating" I would be pushed down. How long does it take for most peoples ratings to accurately reflect how well they play? For the one year i've had my rating i've thrown anywhere from 750 rated rounds to 970+ rated rounds, so obviously it is not a very accurate reflection of my ability. That would mean that because I played bad at my first two tournaments a year ago, I would still be stuck in the lower division. "the gap between 935 and 970 is a huge difference in talent/mentallity of a golfer..." what happens when we start saying that 935-950 is too big of a difference between golfers? soon we will have a division for every rating. "MA12 898 rated golfers only.":slapface:

[jeverett]

I think we all put to much emphasis on ratings. My rating is low because of terrible tournaments from my past, So I would be stuck in MA2 or intermediate or whatever you want to call it, I am almost always a few strokes ahead of the intermediate winner. so because of this "rating" I would be pushed down. How long does it take for most peoples ratings to accurately reflect how well they play? For the one year i've had my rating i've thrown anywhere from 750 rated rounds to 970+ rated rounds, so obviously it is not a very accurate reflection of my ability. That would mean that because I played bad at my first two tournaments a year ago, I would still be stuck in the lower division. "the gap between 935 and 970 is a huge difference in talent/mentallity of a golfer..." what happens when we start saying that 935-950 is too big of a difference between golfers? soon we will have a division for every rating. "MA12 898 rated golfers only.":slapface:

The PDGA rating system really doesn't penalize you for poor performance in your past that much.. the rating system only reaches back into past years (seasons) as far as 8 rated rounds. The system includes all rounds in the current year/season, double-weights recent rounds, and only goes into past years if there are fewer than 8 rated rounds in the current season. 3-4 events in a season, and that's all that will be part of your rating.

[Darr]

This thread should be titled beating a dead horse. ;)

[TreeLove]

I think we all put to much emphasis on ratings. My rating is low because of terrible tournaments from my past, So I would be stuck in MA2 or intermediate or whatever you want to call it, I am almost always a few strokes ahead of the intermediate winner. so because of this "rating" I would be pushed down. How long does it take for most peoples ratings to accurately reflect how well they play? For the one year i've had my rating i've thrown anywhere from 750 rated rounds to 970+ rated rounds, so obviously it is not a very accurate reflection of my ability. That would mean that because I played bad at my first two tournaments a year ago, I would still be stuck in the lower division. "the gap between 935 and 970 is a huge difference in talent/mentallity of a golfer..." what happens when we start saying that 935-950 is too big of a difference between golfers? soon we will have a division for every rating. "MA12 898 rated golfers only.":slapface:

Afraid you missed it again. Allow me to repeat, again.:pirate:

I have NO ISSUE with people playing in a higher skill division!

Point B: Sounds like your rating is accurate to me. Hopefully, you are improving, which will show in the next update.

[Sam]

So... is this thread about me still? :D

[Wes Hansen]

I never realized it was. I wonder why you thought so.

[Bullseye]

I never realized it was. I wonder why you thought so.

Bagger's Guilt

[whalekillah]

To be the king, you have to beat the king (in any division) period. Having someone at the top gives me a goal. Play harder and better.

But I am fairly new to the sport and still learning...:waaah:

[Sam]

I never realized it was. I wonder why you thought so.

Well... we knew it wasn't about you. :)

[Ol' Bob]

SamBaggers abound.

[Denny]

Afraid you missed it again. Allow me to repeat, again.:pirate:

I have NO ISSUE with people playing in a higher skill division!

Point B: Sounds like your rating is accurate to me. Hopefully, you are improving, which will show in the next update.

Dude you can only control yourself you need to let it go

[Sausage Fingers]

So I would be stuck in MA2

Until your rating climbs above 935. If you are improving then it shouldn't take long. And in the meantime you can battle it out with the other golfers just below the cut and get some experience playing on a lead card. Why is this such a punishment? What is so great about MA1? Why can't MA2 be a great division to play in?

Let's take a look at another upcoming tourney the GNO. They at least offer 2 AM divisions but 58 golfers have signed up for MA1 and only 12 golfers for MA2.

By rating:

AM1 - 58 golfers
25 golfers qualify for MA1, again less than half.
18 golfers qualify for MA2
2 golfers qualify for MA3
13 golfers have no rating 4 of which are PDGA members

AM2 - 12 golfers
5 golfers with ratings 4 qualify for AM3 and 1 for AM4
7 golfers have no rating 2 of which are PDGA members

This could easily be the AM breakout for this tourney:

MA1 - 29 golfers
MA2 - 27 golfers
MA3 - 14 golfers

The MA2 division would have 12 of the 27 golfers within 10 ratings points of the top of the division. That should make a great battle for the crown.

Oh, but I forget. Playing in MA2 isn't worth the time...

:pirate:

[mowens404]

Until your rating climbs above 935. If you are improving then it shouldn't take long. And in the meantime you can battle it out with the other golfers just below the cut and get some experience playing on a lead card. Why is this such a punishment? What is so great about MA1? Why can't MA2 be a great division to play in?

Let's take a look at another upcoming tourney the GNO. They at least offer 2 AM divisions but 58 golfers have signed up for MA1 and only 12 golfers for MA2.

By rating:

AM1 - 58 golfers
25 golfers qualify for MA1, again less than half.
18 golfers qualify for MA2
2 golfers qualify for MA3
13 golfers have no rating 4 of which are PDGA members

AM2 - 12 golfers
5 golfers with ratings 4 qualify for AM3 and 1 for AM4
7 golfers have no rating 2 of which are PDGA members

This could easily be the AM breakout for this tourney:

MA1 - 29 golfers
MA2 - 27 golfers
MA3 - 14 golfers

The MA2 division would have 12 of the 27 golfers within 10 ratings points of the top of the division. That should make a great battle for the crown.

Oh, but I forget. Playing in MA2 isn't worth the time...

:pirate:




It's not that I have a problem playing MA2, its not because the name is "intermediate", it is because I feel like I don't belong there, at any point in time, any single person can play their best golf, and shoot amazing scores. My rating is 924, but i've thrown 970+ rated rounds, i've put together 3 good rounds in a tournament. My rating is improving, verrry slowly, And I also have had the pleasure of playing on the lead card a few times in MA1. And like I said earlier that you must not have noticed from that same post you quoted me from..."I am almost always a few strokes ahead of the intermediate winner." I feel that my rating is not an accurate portrayel of my ability, and I would not like the idea of not being able to play the top AM's. I know that I can beat them so why stop me from trying? :chinscratch:

[Sausage Fingers]

"I am almost always a few strokes ahead of the intermediate winner."

But that is when the MA2 winner REALLY only qualifies to play in MA3!!!! If every player who belonged in MA2 really played in MA2 then you wouldn't be finishing ahead of them unless you played well in all 3 rounds...

Do you at least get the fact that this ISN'T about you personally? But about the dysfunctional way the AM divisions are run by the PDGA.
Edit: Even if you personally decided to switch to playing MA2 (a pipe dream) it wouldn't matter unless either all of the other MA2 qualified players did likewise (and even bigger pipe dream) or the PDGA grew some cajones and used the ratings based divisional structure correctly. Of course, I guess that a TD might be able to enforce the divisional ratings if they got clearance from the PDGA. Any hope of the happening Chuck Kennedy?

What other sport can you just show up to a tourney having never played competitively and then be allowed to compete in the highest amateur division? Because you just want to do so...cause that's the way the PDGA rolls baby! And the MA1 winners are laughing all the way to the large stacks of free plastic.

:pirate:

[bryan_luoma]

It's not that I have a problem playing MA2, its not because the name is "intermediate", it is because I feel like I don't belong there, at any point in time, any single person can play their best golf, and shoot amazing scores. My rating is 924, but i've thrown 970+ rated rounds, i've put together 3 good rounds in a tournament. My rating is improving, verrry slowly, And I also have had the pleasure of playing on the lead card a few times in MA1. And like I said earlier that you must not have noticed from that same post you quoted me from..."I am almost always a few strokes ahead of the intermediate winner." I feel that my rating is not an accurate portrayel of my ability, and I would not like the idea of not being able to play the top AM's. I know that I can beat them so why stop me from trying? :chinscratch:

I'm not calling you out, just keeping it real (#).

You currently have 12 sanctioned rounds on record (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings_detail/69693/2011/48643):

< 800 2
> 800 < 900 3
> 900 < 950 4
> 950 3

slosh #1: 8th place in intermediate*
slosh #3: 5th place in intermediate*
slosh #4: tied for 11th in intermediate*
NAAC: tied for 3rd in intermediate*
Bad Monkey: tied for 21st in intermediate*

*I am not sure if MA2 played a different layout
#I have no idea about your results in non-sanctioned events


Bottom line: Play where you have fun and feel like you are challenging yourself.
I do not think anyone is persuading you to play in another division?
Have a great 2012 tournament season!
Be careful with the bold text, it tends to receive extra attention.
:cheers:

[Sausage Fingers]

#I have no idea about your results in non-sanctioned events

Non-sanctioned events are irrelevant when talking about ratings based divisional AM play. You can win a non-sanctioned tourney while playing Pro and it will have no effect on your PDGA rating...

:pirate:

[bryan_luoma]

Non-sanctioned events are irrelevant when talking about ratings based divisional AM play. You can win a non-sanctioned tourney while playing Pro and it will have no effect on your PDGA rating...

:pirate:

haha, right, understood. Wasn't related to ratings.

I was implying that I have no idea if he usually finishes ahead of the MA2 winners in non sanctioned play.

[Sausage Fingers]

haha, right, understood. Wasn't related to ratings.

I was implying that I have no idea if he usually finishes ahead of the MA2 winners in non sanctioned play.

It's all good Bryan. Your post was excellent and didn't need any mention of non-sanctioned play IMO.

Even with all this discussion about ratings based AM play I have't even addressed the areas where the ratings do not work. (i.e. the players who do not have at least 10 rated rounds in competition) But that is yet another facet of the complex dynamic of ratings based AM play.:bricks:

:pirate:

[mowens404]

But that is when the MA2 winner REALLY only qualifies to play in MA3!!!! If every player who belonged in MA2 really played in MA2 then you wouldn't be finishing ahead of them unless you played well in all 3 rounds...

Do you at least get the fact that this ISN'T about you personally? But about the dysfunctional way the AM divisions are run by the PDGA.
Edit: Even if you personally decided to switch to playing MA2 (a pipe dream) it wouldn't matter unless either all of the other MA2 qualified players did likewise (and even bigger pipe dream) or the PDGA grew some cajones and used the ratings based divisional structure correctly. Of course, I guess that a TD might be able to enforce the divisional ratings if they got clearance from the PDGA. Any hope of the happening Chuck Kennedy?

What other sport can you just show up to a tourney having never played competitively and then be allowed to compete in the highest amateur division? Because you just want to do so...cause that's the way the PDGA rolls baby! And the MA1 winners are laughing all the way to the large stacks of free plastic.

:pirate:




I understand this is not about me. Does Sam understand this is not about him either? :chinscratch: I just like to use myself as an example. And apparently not a good one.

[Sausage Fingers]

I understand this is not about me. Does Sam understand this is not about him either? :chinscratch: I just like to use myself as an example. And apparently not a good one.

You are an excellent example, and I hope that my use of you as my example doesn't tarnish our relationship outside of this topic and forum. I am actually envious of your rating...I could never get my rating to qualify for MA1 in 10 years of competition and you are right there and continuing to get better while I try my best to combat the ravages of time and a poorly led life.

And Sam is just Sam. I can always give him rafts of shit in person where it is most fun anyway.

:pirate:

[mowens404]

I'm not calling you out, just keeping it real (#).

You currently have 12 sanctioned rounds on record (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings_detail/69693/2011/48643):

< 800 2
> 800 < 900 3
> 900 < 950 4
> 950 3

slosh #1: 8th place in intermediate*
slosh #3: 5th place in intermediate*
slosh #4: tied for 11th in intermediate*
NAAC: tied for 3rd in intermediate*
Bad Monkey: tied for 21st in intermediate*

*I am not sure if MA2 played a different layout
#I have no idea about your results in non-sanctioned events


Bottom line: Play where you have fun and feel like you are challenging yourself.
I do not think anyone is persuading you to play in another division?
Have a great 2012 tournament season!
Be careful with the bold text, it tends to receive extra attention.
:cheers:

:blush:good point.


maybe I should move down and play my "rating".

I think a good solution would be if the PDGA would just make clear cut caps on each division. instead of adding new divisions etc... just enforce the guidelines they have.

[jeverett]

It's all good Bryan. Your post was excellent and didn't need any mention of non-sanctioned play IMO.

Even with all this discussion about ratings based AM play I have't even addressed the areas where the ratings do not work. (i.e. the players who do not have at least 10 rated rounds in competition) But that is yet another facet of the complex dynamic of ratings based AM play.:bricks:

:pirate:

From my memory, the guideline for accuracy of the rating system is at least 8 total rated rounds including at least four different courses. But as you mention that's definitely a hurdle to ratings-based AM play and competitive divisions.

[Jason Philips]

Jordan, you may have answered this but I am curious -

What is your opposition (Or agreement) to allowing players to play above their division but not below. So in an essence allowing the few of us here speaking up to play at a higher division but pushing those that belong in the next division up to play there and not have the option to step into a lower division.

I think that makes sense, if not ask, I'll clarify. My personal position is never to hold anyone from going forward to where they want to be but don't let them hang around in divisions they are clear more than skilled enough to be playing above.

[Sausage Fingers]

Jordan, you may have answered this but I am curious -

What is your opposition (Or agreement) to allowing players to play above their division but not below.

I am so very (AND LOUDLY) OPPOSED to letting AMs play above their rating, I can hardly contain myself.:explode:

So in an essence allowing the few of us here speaking up to play at a higher division but pushing those that belong in the next division up to play there and not have the option to step into a lower division.

You cannot force players up out of the top AM division. It just will not happen, ever. The PDGA has no desire to force people to play Pro. Period, end of discussion.

So your "I wanna play up" idea will not work, as all you will do is bloat the division size of MA1 with lower rated players who will rarely even finish above the cash line.

My personal position is never to hold anyone from going forward to where they want to be but don't let them hang around in divisions they are clear more than skilled enough to be playing above.

The problem isn't 935+ rated players in the MA2 division (if it is even offered in a tourney), that is already prohibited and (mostly) enforced. And the only players that the top AMs are "clearly more skilled than" are the players who should be playing in MA2 or even MA3.

Unfortunately, at this time, you cannot even force a brand new player who has never played in a tournament from signing up for MA1!:headbang: Let alone the whole massive group of "if I don't play up then people will say I have a small cock" MA2/MA3 players who have played in multiple tourneys and will not sign up for MA2 under ANY circumstances...:bricks:

I think I have been pretty clear with my views on this topic. When over half the golfers in MA1 do not qualify to play in the division AND you cannot make the top AM golfers turn Pro, if you do not have solid MA2/MA3 fields by forcing golfers to play in the correct divisions you will just keep keepin on and there is absolutely NO reason for any golfer to leave the warm glow of winning large fields in MA1.

It is beyond my ability to express my feelings any better than that!

:pirate:

[bryan_luoma]

Jordan, you may have answered this but I am curious -

What is your opposition (Or agreement) to allowing players to play above their division but not below. So in an essence allowing the few of us here speaking up to play at a higher division but pushing those that belong in the next division up to play there and not have the option to step into a lower division.

I think that makes sense, if not ask, I'll clarify. My personal position is never to hold anyone from going forward to where they want to be but don't let them hang around in divisions they are clear more than skilled enough to be playing above.


This is a good question.

Registration numbers are sky rocketing, especially in well known, prestigious events.

The hard working dedicated quality MA1 golfer gets edged out of events by a casual golfer who simply "wants" to play. Or by a dedicated, but newer less skilled golfer. Or by an older crusty golfer. There is a bottleneck in the MA1 field that needs attention. It has become difficult to gain entry to these events.

Open is open but the same logic applies.

There is potential for lower rated (less skilled) players taking precious spots away from the MA1 (or open) field.

Playing in an A-tier or a highly sought after prestigious event is a privilege. Some restrictions might be in order?

[Jason Philips]

Jordan, not every player who plays in a higher division is doing so because of naming conventions or due to trying to be a man. I play up because I know people in those divisions that I would like to play alongside, I also do want to learn as I compete by watching at a higher level, I do want a higher level of ettiquette, and I do want a higher level of general sportsmanship. Your adamant need for people to be stuck in pigeon holes of your determination just smells of frustration at this point of having less spots for your division by having higher numbers in another division.

I doubt at this point I'll change your mind or that you'll change mine. I am not offended by your comments and look forward to playing a round with you soon. At this point though I am stepping out of this conversation. If you need to respond or want to continue the specific conversation with me we can do it in person where we can enjoy a beer or two at the same time.

[Bullseye]

This is a good question.

Registration numbers are sky rocketing, especially in well known, prestigious events.

The hard working dedicated quality MA1 golfer gets edged out of events by a casual golfer who simply "wants" to play. Or by a dedicated, but newer less skilled golfer. Or by an older crusty golfer. There is a bottleneck in the MA1 field that needs attention. It has become difficult to gain entry to these events.

Open is open but the same logic applies.

There is potential for lower rated (less skilled) players taking precious spots away from the MA1 (or open) field.

Playing in an A-tier or a highly sought after prestigious event is a privilege. Some restrictions might be in order?

This is a path that I am hesitant to travel down, but would like to. As bad as this might sound, I think it is a bit unfair that a dedicated tourney player (5 events or more) might get edged out of an A-tier by someone who has never even played a tourney. Its my opinion that new tourney players should be cutting their teeth on C tiers, then B Tiers, not on the very highest level amateur events. I truly think it takes a few smaller events for someone to really get their tournament game together.

[Sausage Fingers]

I do want a higher level of ettiquette, and I do want a higher level of general sportsmanship.

WHY CAN'T THIS BE POSSIBLE IN MA2?!?!?!?:headbang:

Your adamant need for people to be stuck in pigeon holes of your determination just smells of frustration at this point of having less spots for your division by having higher numbers in another division.

That's a real funny one right there. Did you also miss the fact that I said we could DO AWAY WITH the age restricted divisions if we only had REAL amateur divisions that made sense?

I doubt at this point I'll change your mind or that you'll change mine.

Or the minds of any of the other MA2/MA3 golfers hellbent on donating their entry money to the MA1 field...:bricks:

Hell if you really want to "learn as I compete by watching at a higher level" then TRULY man-up and play PRO! That's where you will see some serious game on display.

And do not worry Jason, I do not take any of this personally. You are always a great guy to play a round of golf with.:rockon:

:pirate:

[Sausage Fingers]

This is a path that I am hesitant to travel down, but would like to. As bad as this might sound, I think it is a bit unfair that a dedicated tourney player (5 events or more) might get edged out of an A-tier by someone who has never even played a tourney. Its my opinion that new tourney players should be cutting their teeth on C tiers, then B Tiers, not on the very highest level amateur events. I truly think it takes a few smaller events for someone to really get their tournament game together.

I agree with this so much that I think it should also apply to playing in the MA1 division in all tourney regardless of tiers.

:pirate:

[mowens404]

I don't think that it is fair to say that someone does or doesn't qualify to play in a certain division. I would also say that I don't think it is fair that new players not be allowed to play in certain events. "The hard working dedicated quality MA1 golfer gets edged out of events by a casual golfer who simply "wants" to play. Or by a dedicated, but newer less skilled golfer" Why shouldn't a new golfer get in? is it not an open tournament for anyone to play that gets in? Why does "newer" golfer have anything to do with it? Have you earned a spot in a tournament over "andrew" (made up name) who has come along to a bunch of tournaments and loves to play but doesn't play in tournaments usually? Our sport would not grow at that point. We would be turning the newbs down in favor of the "dedicated quality MA1 golfers"

[JR Stengele]

Maybe ams should have to play a certain amount of tournaments/year or have a 935+ rating in order to play in an A- Tier.

[Bullseye]

I don't think that it is fair to say that someone does or doesn't qualify to play in a certain division. I would also say that I don't think it is fair that new players not be allowed to play in certain events. "The hard working dedicated quality MA1 golfer gets edged out of events by a casual golfer who simply "wants" to play. Or by a dedicated, but newer less skilled golfer" Why shouldn't a new golfer get in? is it not an open tournament for anyone to play that gets in? Why does "newer" golfer have anything to do with it? Have you earned a spot in a tournament over "andrew" (made up name) who has come along to a bunch of tournaments and loves to play but doesn't play in tournaments usually? Our sport would not grow at that point. We would be turning the newbs down in favor of the "dedicated quality MA1 golfers"

We wouldn't be turning them down forever, we would simply be telling them to get a little experience first.

My analogy has been this: I don't go to a garage sale, buy a bobsled and show up at the Winter Olympics expecting to run that thing down the mountain. Those people have put time in to get where they are, it's only fair that I should be expected to do the same. Bear in mind, I am ONLY taking about A-Tiers... the very highest level of amateur disc golf.

[Sausage Fingers]

We wouldn't be turning them down forever, we would simply be telling them to get a little experience first.

My analogy has been this: I don't go to a garage sale, buy a bobsled and show up at the Winter Olympics expecting to run that thing down the mountain. Those people have put time in to get where they are, it's only fair that I should be expected to do the same. Bear in mind, I am ONLY taking about A-Tiers... the very highest level of amateur disc golf.

This is my thinking exactly but I would apply this thinking to the MA1 division itself on nearly all tiers. As long as the TD offers MA2/MA3 there will always be a place for the new(er) players to play. And if the TD could actually force golfers to play in their rated division then we could actually HAVE good MA2/MA3 divisions...

:pirate:

[Matt B.]

We wouldn't be turning them down forever, we would simply be telling them to get a little experience first.

My analogy has been this: I don't go to a garage sale, buy a bobsled and show up at the Winter Olympics expecting to run that thing down the mountain. Those people have put time in to get where they are, it's only fair that I should be expected to do the same. Bear in mind, I am ONLY taking about A-Tiers... the very highest level of amateur disc golf.

This is such BS!


















Everybody knows you can't find bobsleds at garage sales. Get real Hagerty!

[Bullseye]

This is such BS!

Everybody knows you can't find bobsleds at garage sales. Get real Hagerty!

Clearly you've never been to a Canadian garage sale. :rolleyes2:

[bryan_luoma]

I don't think that it is fair to say that someone does or doesn't qualify to play in a certain division. I would also say that I don't think it is fair that new players not be allowed to play in certain events. "The hard working dedicated quality MA1 golfer gets edged out of events by a casual golfer who simply "wants" to play. Or by a dedicated, but newer less skilled golfer" Why shouldn't a new golfer get in? is it not an open tournament for anyone to play that gets in? Why does "newer" golfer have anything to do with it? Have you earned a spot in a tournament over "andrew" (made up name) who has come along to a bunch of tournaments and loves to play but doesn't play in tournaments usually? Our sport would not grow at that point. We would be turning the newbs down in favor of the "dedicated quality MA1 golfers"

It isn't the n00b versus vet argument at all.
The issue is that the demand for entry into the competition exceeds the supply.
The field sizes are limited to a finite number of players. Who gets to play?

First come first served?
Lottery?
Performance based?

Have you ever had a job interview where the single position available had multiple candidates?
Have you ever had to tryout to make a team?

I don't know exactly what it looks like or how to implement it, but performance based qualification seems like something to look into, IMO.

[AChivers]

This thread makes me feel like I dont play well enough to play in any tournament. Maybe if you dont play well you should just play casually. :bricks:

[Jeff Hemmerling]

... I think it is a bit unfair that a dedicated tourney player (5 events or more) might get edged out of an A-tier by someone who has never even played a tourney. Its my opinion that new tourney players should be cutting their teeth on C tiers, then B Tiers, not on the very highest level amateur events.Agree 100%!

Exhibit A (posted today in the BSF thread):
I just paid for the Fling
My first singles event, and it should be a GREAT timeThis pisses me off. :mad::mad::mad:
Because they took the spot of someone, many people actually, who have been playing for a long time and earned it.

[Bullseye]

This thread makes me feel like I dont play well enough to play in any tournament. Maybe if you dont play well you should just play casually. :bricks:

On the contrary, I think you are a good example of a player who would benefit from what Gawain & Jordan are talking about.

I think you're competitive in MA2 if you play well, and mid-pack if you don't. But... If TDs (like me) don't offer the MA2 division you don't get the chance to play against people at your own skill level. I think we all need that close competition to not only push us to improve, but also to prevent us from getting discouraged by having to compete with someone 75 rating points higher than we are. However, If TDs only offer MA1, then you might consider signing up in MA1 because you just want to play, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

That's one of the good things about ratings based events. You play where you play based on your rating, and all of those divisions are offered.

The one thing I am still torn about is whether people should be allowed to "play up". While I think it should be allowed, I also think it is often used to pressure other people to play up as well, and that is unfortunate.

JH

PS: Yes, I do run some events that don't offer the MA2 division. I think some events are intended for higher skill level players, and I think people would appreciate those events a lot more if they had earned their way in. As of right now the PDGA does not allow TDs to prevent amateurs from registering for events based on rating. Personally, I think they should allow it in some cases, but obviously we can't let it start getting overused.

.

[Bullseye]

Agree 100%!

Exhibit A (posted today in the BSF thread):
This pisses me off. :mad::mad::mad:
Because they took the spot of someone, many people actually, who have been playing for a long time and earned it.

Hey now. you can't begrudge him for that when there's nothing saying he can't. I was pretty damned excited for my first fling too!

It would be a different story if we had a system in place that would ease people up to that level.

[emmarose]

This is such BS


Everybody knows you can't find bobsleds at garage sales. Get real Hagerty!


stop showing off... i already said you're my favorite poster...

;)

[Wes Hansen]

If he's a first time BSFer AND he had one of those 830ish ratings... then I think he is exactly what part of the ratings based discussion is about.
On the opposite end is the 970+ AM Grand Master! At that ratings he belongs in a Pro division or in MA1. Looks as though there are baggers from all over.

[couve discer]

This thread has opened my eyes
Affer winning one ma2 tournament i moved up because i thought it was the right decision but I think I will move down to the MA2 field when it's available. I still think the gap between 935 and 970 is a huge consistency issue and most people won't ever make it even close to 970. I also have shot one 1000 rated round and rounds in the 800's but consistently my rating (918) reflects where I'm at (not my top ability) I agree that the lower rated people are just donating to the top ams and that's ok if you like doing that but I would rather those people move to there rated divisions and compete with there like rated players.
Still kind or torn because of the sandbagger comments that will be said but kind of think it's the right thing in the long run.

[TreeLove]

This thread has opened my eyes
Affer winning one ma2 tournament i moved up because i thought it was the right decision but I think I will move down to the MA2 field when it's available. I still think the gap between 935 and 970 is a huge consistency issue and most people won't ever make it even close to 970. I also have shot one 1000 rated round and rounds in the 800's but consistently my rating (918) reflects where I'm at (not my top ability) I agree that the lower rated people are just donating to the top ams and that's ok if you like doing that but I would rather those people move to there rated divisions and compete with there like rated players.
Still kind or torn because of the sandbagger comments that will be said but kind of think it's the right thing in the long run.

Way to go Sausage, you just talked someone else into moving down.

How the hell did my thread about people playing in divisions below their skill level, taking away the chance for competition from their entire fields, turn into a discussion about players playing up, and what a bad thing that supposedly is? You said it yourself, it's their own fault if they want to donate. Who cares?

For another example, I just found a nearly 950+rated player signed up for Advanced Master in an upcoming local non-sanctioned fundraiser! Why does a 948-rated player play in the lowest skilled division there is for 40+ year olds? What does that say to the newbie 800-rated 40-year old disc golfer? To me it says, "don't bother taking up my sport, I'll kick your ass and take your money." That's not the ambassadorial spirit that I associate with disc golfers in general, who typically welcome new players with support and encouragement.

[couve discer]

Maybe some of the people out there complaining about the people sandbagging should run more tournaments with the lower divisions (MA3-MA4) available and have there own divisions

[couve discer]

Just look at how even the field would be if people did play in there rated divisions. Looks like a better event to me more competitive competition.
I have only seen it in disc golf where people can choose where they want to play.

[TreeLove]

Maybe some of the people out there complaining about the people sandbagging should run more tournaments with the lower divisions (MA3-MA4) available and have there own divisions

Anyone want to help out this poster and let him/her know how many events I have run?

Here is how I offered divisions for tournaments I ran: (I never ran a PDGA event, but if I did, I would make it strictly ratings-based.)

You make 3 choices:

1: Women: want to play with women only?
2: 40+ years old? Want to play in an age-protected division?
3: What skill level? We offer 4, the top level plays for cash.

So, the gender-protected classes are:

ANY GENDER (O)
WOMEN ONLY (F)

The age-protected classes are:

no protection (Any-age)
<19 (J18)
<16 (J15)
<13 (J12)
<10 (J9)
40+ (Master)
50+ (Grand)
60+ (Senior)
70+ (Legend)

And the skill classes are:

NOV - 3
INT - 2
ADV - 1
PRO (plays for cash) - P

You select your division by selecting one class from each section.

For example, if qualified, you could play:

Women Master Nov
(using the code table below, that would be: F-M-3)

or

Any-Gender J18 Adv
(using the code table below, that would be: (O-J18-1)

or

Any-Gender Any-Age Pro (this would be Open in the truest sense)
(using the code table below, that would be: O-A-P)

Yes, 2 genders x 9 ages x 4 skills = 72 possible divisions, but I found there are typically never more than about 7 that form. Typically there will be a minimum number of requests for that division to be formed, otherwise those players must select another division for which they qualify.

I will always remember when my friend Julie who barely even plays disc golf won the Ice Bowl in a hotly contested 4-woman field of Novice Master Women! Can't do that in the PDGA....

GENDER AGE SKILL
=======================
F J9 3
O (any) J12 2
J15 1
J18 P (any)
M
G
S
L
A (any)

[couve discer]

Treelove
Sorry if I offended you or anyone else that wasn't really directed at anyone personally just in general to the disc golf community. I know you do a ton for the sport and I had the pleasure of playing with you at the calapooia tournament and you taught me to always keep everyones score to keep from mistakes and keep people honest.
Sorry for the offensive response
Josh

[Jeff Hemmerling]

Hey now. you can't begrudge him for that when there's nothing saying he can't. I was pretty damned excited for my first fling too!I read his/her post as saying that the BSF is their first PDGA event ever.
Did you get that impression? Does my rant make more sense?

The BSF should not be open to first-timers. I don't begrudge the player, just the policies. :)

[mowens404]

I read his/her post as saying that the BSF is their first PDGA event ever.
Did you get that impression? Does my rant make more sense?

The BSF should not be open to first-timers. I don't begrudge the player, just the policies. :)

Is this a thread about sandbagging and ratings based divisions, or about why new players should not get to play if you don't? How do you know this tournament won't fuel a lifetime love for the sport and we will see him out at every tournament from now forward? would that make it better? I was at the Disc-Go-Ball this weekend, and I met a fellow named Nick. He had never played in any tournament before and threw 974-949-923, he was on the lead card for MA1 the entire tournament. I think just because someone hasn't played in tournaments should have nothing to do with which tournaments they are allowed to play. As long as qualifiers aren't set up.

[bryan_luoma]

Is this a thread about sandbagging and ratings based divisions, or about why new players should not get to play if you don't? How do you know this tournament won't fuel a lifetime love for the sport and we will see him out at every tournament from now forward? would that make it better? I was at the Disc-Go-Ball this weekend, and I met a fellow named Nick. He had never played in any tournament before and threw 974-949-923, he was on the lead card for MA1 the entire tournament. I think just because someone hasn't played in tournaments should have nothing to do with which tournaments they are allowed to play. As long as qualifiers aren't set up.

Matthew,

In post #152 someone asked about players "playing up" instead of "bagging".
I believe that is what caused some minor thread drift.

I simply mentioned that the player who is "playing up" is potentially taking a spot away from a "qualified" player. MA1 is a good example.

From my perspective, it is not about how many tournaments you've played, it's about playing in the "correct" division.
Based on his results, Nick was playing in correct division at his first event in Bend.

[Sausage Fingers]

Is this a thread about sandbagging and ratings based divisions, or about why new players should not get to play if you don't?

This is a thread about nearly anything that chaps your hide in regards to the way PDGA tournaments are run and the rules surrounding what is perceived as a fair way to handle the amateur divisions.

So let 'er rip!:rockon:

:pirate:

[Kenny B]

Originally Posted by Bullseye
"... I think it is a bit unfair that a dedicated tourney player (5 events or more) might get edged out of an A-tier by someone who has never even played a tourney. Its my opinion that new tourney players should be cutting their teeth on C tiers, then B Tiers, not on the very highest level amateur events"

Agree 100%!

Exhibit A (posted today in the BSF thread):

"I just paid for the Fling
My first singles event, and it should be a GREAT time"

This pisses me off. :mad::mad::mad:
Because they took the spot of someone, many people actually, who have been playing for a long time and earned it.

I read his/her post as saying that the BSF is their first PDGA event ever.
Did you get that impression? Does my rant make more sense?

The BSF should not be open to first-timers. I don't begrudge the player, just the policies. :)

Jeff,

I have to respectfully disagree. I think it's great that first timers can get into the fling. It means the system is starting to work; it is drawing in new players. It is more likely this new player will be hooked and really love tournament play because he did make it into the BSF this year and less likely if he had been turned away. "Oh sorry, your a new guy! You can't play with us!"

Imagine the pacific northwest 10 years from now with 10 A-tier events that all sell out months in advance by lottery. Would it be horrible for someone to not have gotten into any of them? I say no! It would mean that we have a massively successful system with 100s, no 1000s of players that would continue to draw in more!

[mowens404]

Jeff,

I have to respectfully disagree. I think it's great that first timers can get into the fling. It means the system is starting to work; it is drawing in new players. It is more likely this new player will be hooked and really love tournament play because he did make it into the BSF this year and less likely if he had been turned away. "Oh sorry, your a new guy! You can't play with us!"

Imagine the pacific northwest 10 years from now with 10 A-tier events that all sell out months in advance by lottery. Would it be horrible for someone to not have gotten into any of them? I say no! It would mean that we have a massively successful system with 100s, no 1000s of players that would continue to draw in more!



:yay: I completely agree!

[Kenny B]

This is a thread about nearly anything that chaps your hide in regards to the way PDGA tournaments are run and the rules surrounding what is perceived as a fair way to handle the amateur divisions.

So let 'er rip!:rockon:

:pirate:

Okay!

I think the idea of prohibiting players to "play up" a division is absolutely ridiculous! It is explicitly opposite of what I feel disc golf is about: anyone can play.

If you want to keep "lower skilled" players from playing an event or division, I have one word for you: qualifiers.

[Sausage Fingers]

Okay!

I think the idea of prohibiting players to "play up" a division is absolutely ridiculous! It is explicitly opposite of what I feel disc golf is about: anyone can play.

If you want to keep "lower skilled" players from playing an event or division, I have one word for you: qualifiers.

I couldn't disagree more strongly, it would be an impossibility.:shooting:

What other sport will allow a first time player to just walk in off the street and compete in the top division available for amateurs?:confused:

Every single tourney in the state couldn't possibly all run qualifiers or there would 17 events each weekend...

:pirate:

[Jason Philips]

What else would you call an amatuer?

First definition I found - . A person who engages in an art,
science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession

That's pretty broad. I think it does imply that anyone of the street that considers themself an amatuer could walk in off the street and sign up for any part of the amatuer tournament. All it takes is money. I could form a team for amatuer baseball and if we paid the entry fees we could probably join nearly any tournament at any level for amatuers. It doesn't mean we'd do well but that's our money not yours to dictate how we spend. An advanced amatuer would probably be someone who has a better grasp of the sport. Doesn't mean they have to do it well. They just need to have a grasp of it.


(I know I said I was done. I couldn't resist anymore, damn you all)

[mowens404]

I couldn't disagree more strongly, it would be an impossibility.:shooting:

What other sport will allow a first time player to just walk in off the street and compete in the top division available for amateurs?:confused:

Every single tourney in the state couldn't possibly all run qualifiers or there would 17 events each weekend...

:pirate:

I didn't realize that we just let random Joe walk on and join. I thought we had online registrations for that, but I must be wrong. by registering they are showing their commitment, and interest to play. They don't just happen to drive by and notice people playing with frisbees, come ask us what's up and join on the spot. They are casual golfers that are starting to make that transition to competitive golfers.

[Kenny B]

What other sport will allow a first time player to just walk in off the street and compete in the top division available for amateurs?:confused:

Exactly! That's why disc golf is great! Except you missed something else. They could play pro too if they wanted to.

Every single tourney in the state couldn't possibly all run qualifiers or there would 17 events each weekend...

:pirate:

Also making my point. There isn't enough demand to justify qualifiers right now. (Except maybe the BSF, which is a separate discussion and a good discussion to have.) So why waste time talking about limiting what division people can play in? There isn't enough demand. You, nor anyone else, is going to host qualifying events to see what 20 people get to play MA1 and what 20 people get to play MA2 and so on, it would be a total waste of time. It's an equivalent waste to create a system on the premise that somehow 20 in MA1 and 20 in MA2 is better than 30 in MA1 and 10 in MA2.

[Kenny B]

Except you missed something else. They could play pro too if they wanted to.



Ha ha!! the best part is, you couldn't stop them. Random guys off the street don't have PDGA ratings.

[Sausage Fingers]

What else would you call an amatuer?

First definition I found - . A person who engages in an art,
science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession

That's pretty broad. I think it does imply that anyone of the street that considers themself an amatuer could walk in off the street and sign up for any part of the amatuer tournament. All it takes is money. I could form a team for amatuer baseball and if we paid the entry fees we could probably join nearly any tournament at any level for amatuers. It doesn't mean we'd do well but that's our money not yours to dictate how we spend. An advanced amatuer would probably be someone who has a better grasp of the sport. Doesn't mean they have to do it well. They just need to have a grasp of it.


(I know I said I was done. I couldn't resist anymore, damn you all)

Cut and paste all you want to make your point. It doesn't address my question.

Show me another sport where a participant with no prior experience playing in official competition can just sign up and play at the highest level of competition. With absolutely no say given to the people who are running the event!

And yes Matt we have this new fangled intertubes thingy that has replaced physically walking up and becoming a part of an event. That also does not disqualify my statement with your nitpicking bs. In fact I would say that it actually hinders the entire process instead of helping it. In the past the TD accepting signups could direct the first timer to the lowest division of competition or at least determine how much experience they have playing casually and place them in the correct division. Now, all you need is a computer and a credit card and an internet connection and you can sign up to play in MA1.

:pirate:

[Sausage Fingers]

Exactly! That's why disc golf is great! Except you missed something else. They could play pro too if they wanted to.

I have repeatedly mentioned that I am addressing only the AM side of the tourney. By definition you cannot restrict ANYONE from playing in the OPEN division, but that doesn't stop the Pros from complaining about it...

Also making my point. There isn't enough demand to justify qualifiers right now. (Except maybe the BSF, which is a separate discussion and a good discussion to have.) So why waste time talking about limiting what division people can play in? There isn't enough demand. You, nor anyone else, is going to host qualifying events to see what 20 people get to play MA1 and what 20 people get to play MA2 and so on, it would be a total waste of time. It's an equivalent waste to create a system on the premise that somehow 20 in MA1 and 20 in MA2 is better than 30 in MA1 and 10 in MA2.

No but 63 MA1 and 7 MA2 is hardly doing our sport any good except to keep providing the top MA1 players with an easy payday at the expense of the lower skilled players.

:pirate:

[Simmeltron]

So should I, a person who has also never played in a PDGA sanctioned tourney but was selected in the lottery, not be allowed to play in the Fling? Does it make a difference that prior to the Fling, I will be playing in the Downriver open (C tier) next weekend, the Lilac City Open (A/B tier), and any other tourney I can get my hands on before the premiere BSF? Or should I not be allowed to play those either?

[Sausage Fingers]

Ha ha!! the best part is, you couldn't stop them. Random guys off the street don't have PDGA ratings.

No. I am saying that only players with ratings above 935 should be allowed to play in MA1. PERIOD. You do not have a PDGA rating? Too freakin bad for you if you want to compete in the highest amateur division in our sport. MA2 or even MA3 is where you start out.

It has long been a factor in PDGA events where highly skilled individuals purposefully do not join so they can bag the AM divisions and take the entry fees from players who do belong to the PDGA. But under the current rules there is no recourse for the TDs.

:pirate:

[Jason Philips]

According to Jordan you are out, you can't play. You don't have enough experience and his division wants their slots back (Last bit added for dramatic effect).

[Sausage Fingers]

So should I, a person who has also never played in a PDGA sanctioned tourney but was selected in the lottery, not be allowed to play in the Fling? Does it make a difference that prior to the Fling, I will be playing in the Downriver open (C tier) next weekend, the Lilac City Open (A/B tier), and any other tourney I can get my hands on before the premiere BSF? Or should I not be allowed to play those either?

I am NOT talking about the BSF.

This is a general discussion where other people are also talking about the BSF.

Do you regularly jump into a thread with nearly 200 posts in it and just spout off without even reading the earlier posts? Just askin' here...:headbang:

:pirate:

[Kenny B]

So should I, a person who has also never played in a PDGA sanctioned tourney but was selected in the lottery, not be allowed to play in the Fling? Does it make a difference that prior to the Fling, I will be playing in the Downriver open (C tier) next weekend, the Lilac City Open (A/B tier), and any other tourney I can get my hands on before the premiere BSF? Or should I not be allowed to play those either?

Cheney, WA. Nice! I used to live there and throw my Ultrastar at trees before I new Spokane had actual courses! When I did find out, I had already moved away. I kinda miss that town.

[Jason Philips]

No. I am saying that only players with ratings above 935 should be allowed to play in MA1. PERIOD. You do not have a PDGA rating? Too freakin bad for you if you want to compete in the highest amateur division in our sport. MA2 or even MA3 is where you start out.

It has long been a factor in PDGA events where highly skilled individuals purposefully do not join so they can bag the AM divisions and take the entry fees from players who do belong to the PDGA. But under the current rules there is no recourse for the TDs.

:pirate:

Amatuer by definition is not high level. That is called professional.

You can have serious players but amatuer is just that an amatuer. You deciding what is advanced is like telling someone what art is and telling everyone they must abide by it.

My scores suck but does that mean I don't have a fundamental understanding of the game? Do I have physical limitations that might keep me from playing at a level that my head is already at?

Maybe all these shit players should just continue to volunteer at the tournaments you play. They should never be allowed to play if their rating doesn't qualify them.

[Sausage Fingers]

Amatuer by definition is not high level. That is called professional.

You are so right! The entire world is only white or black, on or off. There absolutely couldn't be any shades if grey...

:pirate:

[Jason Philips]

You are so right! The entire world is only white or black, on or off. There absolutely couldn't be any shades if grey...

:pirate:

Exactly no shades of gray like players who could by some definition have a bad rating but belong in a higher division. Players who have played tournaments and finally signed up for the PDGA.There are so many examples that ratings based (black and white based) tournaments are a detriment to the sport and too black and white.

[Sausage Fingers]

Exactly no shades of gray like players who could by some definition have a bad rating but belong in a higher division. Players who have played tournaments and finally signed up for the PDGA.There are so many examples that ratings based (black and white based) tournaments are a detriment to the sport and too black and white.

The amount of losers who want to donate their entry fee to the MA1 sharks has very little to do with the size of the MM1 division. Even though I have REPEATEDLY stated that I would be in favor of giving up age protected divisions if we had a system that actually worked on the amateur side of PDGA tourneys. And then maybe the lower rated AMs would stop crying about the top AM players not moving up out of the division that they do not even qualify to play in.

:pirate:

[Jason Philips]

The amount of losers who want to donate their entry fee to the MA1 sharks has very little to do with the size of the MM1 division. Even though I have REPEATEDLY stated that I would be in favor of giving up age protected divisions if we had a system that actually worked on the amateur side of PDGA tourneys. And then maybe the lower rated AMs would stop crying about the top AM players not moving up out of the division that they do not even qualify to play in.

:pirate:


What I have noticed is it isn't the lower rated AM's saying that those at the top need to move up. It is the people also at the top not winning. I am sure you see it differently but the biggest complaints are not from those people so graciously donated their money. Those tend to be the people who step up to get more competition or don't expect to finish in the top to begin with.

[Simmeltron]

I am NOT talking about the BSF.

This is a general discussion where other people are also talking about the BSF.

Do you regularly jump into a thread with nearly 200 posts in it and just spout off without even reading the earlier posts? Just askin' here...:headbang:

:pirate:
Damn captain jack sparrow take a pill. No I don't regularly do that.. but I do feel like spouting off if you're going to act like that. As you said above this is a thread about ANYTHING that chaps my hide about the way tourneys are run. Furthermore I HAVE been reading this thread for quite sometime and am enjoying it immensely. So feel free to :headbang: and :bricks: until the cows come home.

I play disc golf because I love it. Maybe I don't "deserve" to play in MA1 yet, but you know what? I feel honored to have been a lucky fool selected to play in the Fling and if that is my only option, so be it I am going to take it and say THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdFLPn30dvQ)

Cheney, WA. Nice! I used to live there and throw my Ultrastar at trees before I new Spokane had actual courses! When I did find out, I had already moved away. I kinda miss that town.

Yeah Go EAGS!! If you ever find yourself this way give me a shout! I'd love to show you all around our fun public and private courses!! :cheers:

[Kenny B]

Cut and paste all you want to make your point. It doesn't address my question.

Here's the only question I see.

What other sport will allow a first time player to just walk in off the street and compete in the top division available for amateurs?:confused:

The answer is no. Now what?

I have repeatedly mentioned that I am addressing only the AM side of the tourney. By definition you cannot restrict ANYONE from playing in the OPEN division, but that doesn't stop the Pros from complaining about it...

Now you're just being hypocritical.

No but 63 MA1 and 7 MA2 is hardly doing our sport any good except to keep providing the top MA1 players with an easy payday at the expense of the lower skilled players.

It's their choice. And a 63/7 ratio is not a reality.

It has long been a factor in PDGA events where highly skilled individuals purposefully do not join so they can bag the AM divisions and take the entry fees from players who do belong to the PDGA. But under the current rules there is no recourse for the TDs.

I would agree with that.

No. I am saying that only players with ratings above 935 should be allowed to play in MA1. PERIOD. You do not have a PDGA rating? Too freakin bad for you if you want to compete in the highest amateur division in our sport. MA2 or even MA3 is where you start out.

And you're compounding it with that.

You're saying that you're okay with a 980 rated non current player playing in AM2 and taking all their money (which would now not be their choice as opposed to MA2 players choosing to compete against higher rated players in MA1). And actually not just okay with it, you would be requiring it.

Okay, so maybe you could verify their old PDGA rating and then let them in MA1, but I've known a number of players who were 970 skilled, didn't play PDGA tournaments, and so didn't have ratings. (Oh yeah, one of them started playing and has already become a World Champion).

I still don't see where you have a valid concern for letting players "play up". What's your real issue, what are you trying to accomplish by this? Just an alternative format? Fine, I'd support that, but tournaments formatted in this way would not gain a lot of participation. Do you want the PDGA to abolish the current division format? That's not going to happen. What are you really trying to accomplish?

[Kenny B]

Yeah Go EAGS!! If you ever find yourself this way give me a shout! I'd love to show you all around our fun public and private courses!! :cheers:

I also made it into the :rockon:BSF:rockon:, so I'm sure I'll see you there.

[mowens404]

I also made it into the :rockon:BSF:rockon:, so I'm sure I'll see you there.


As did I. And I don't even qualify. :nahnah:

[Sausage Fingers]

The answer is no. Now what?
It obviously doesn't work in other sports so why should our sport be the only one riding the short bus?

Now you're just being hypocritical.
No. There is nothing wrong with talking about only the AM side of a tourney. I think that the Pro side is run correctly. But by the definition of OPEN you cannot restrict who can sign up.

It's their choice. And a 63/7 ratio is not a reality. take a gander at the GNO field sizes, this is not far off and is indicative of how the AM side of the PDGA is fucked up.

You're saying that you're okay with a 980 rated non current player playing in AM2 and taking all their money (which would now not be their choice as opposed to MA2 players choosing to compete against higher rated players in MA1). And actually not just okay with it, you would be requiring it.

Now you are just talking crazy and making crap up. The PDGA already restricts players from playing down, I just am advocating that the same line can be used to break the 63/7 ration up into 3 very competitive divisions and lesson the big payday for the guy who wins the field of 63 MA1 players where over half are not rated above 935.
And just because you are not current does not mean that the TD doesn't have access to a player's rating. I have a list of all OR/WA players who have EVER been a PDGA member and what their current rating would be. Your 980 rated player who is not current would still be placed in MA1 because of his rating.

but I've known a number of players who were 970 skilled, didn't play PDGA tournaments, and so didn't have ratings. (Oh yeah, one of them started playing and has already become a World Champion).

I defy you that there IS no 970 rated player who has never played a PDGA tourney, just by the definition of the PDGA rating system. Never played a rated round = does not have a rating. Maybe someone who is that highly skilled and just starting to play tourneys should start out in Pro...they obviously have the game to do so as a 'World Champion'.

I still don't see where you have a valid concern for letting players "play up". What's your real issue, what are you trying to accomplish by this? Just an alternative format? Fine, I'd support that, but tournaments formatted in this way would not gain a lot of participation. Do you want the PDGA to abolish the current division format? That's not going to happen. What are you really trying to accomplish?

I am trying to accomplish a way to use the system that the PDGA has set up for amateur competition that will give us more than 1 competitive amateur division. But in reality the PDGA is just more focused on the Pro side of play and getting new players into the sport so that there will be more Pros in the future. They don't really care about making the AM side of the sport more evenly divided by skill.

:pirate:

[Kenny B]

It obviously doesn't work in other sports so why should our sport be the only one riding the short bus?

Um...It does work in our sport, that's the beauty of disc golf. I say it's the other ones that are flawed.

No. There is nothing wrong with talking about only the AM side of a tourney. I think that the Pro side is run correctly. But by the definition of OPEN you cannot restrict who can sign up.

You can't just play semantics to get out of this. The fact is that the principle is the same. You're claiming that it's not okay for a <935 player to give up their entry fees to MA1 players but it is okay for them to give up their entry fees to open players. You can't have it both ways. If you want to play semantics, realize that MA1 = open for amateurs.

take a gander at the GNO field sizes, this is not far off and is indicative of how the AM side of the PDGA is fucked up.

I counted 58/12. Yes, you were in the correct range. I think most "MA2's" are still happy they signed up for MA1 even after knowing the stiff competition they're up against.


Now you are just talking crazy and making crap up. The PDGA already restricts players from playing down, I just am advocating that the same line can be used to break the 63/7 ration up into 3 very competitive divisions and lesson the big payday for the guy who wins the field of 63 MA1 players where over half are not rated above 935.
And just because you are not current does not mean that the TD doesn't have access to a player's rating. I have a list of all OR/WA players who have EVER been a PDGA member and what their current rating would be. Your 980 rated player who is not current would still be placed in MA1 because of his rating.

Wrong. I didn't make anything up, you’re the one who said it. You are okay with a 980 skilled player playing in AM2 and taking all their money. And yes, you would be requiring it. You said it yourself: "I am saying that only players with ratings above 935 should be allowed to play in MA1. PERIOD. You do not have a PDGA rating? Too freakin bad for you if you want to compete in the highest amateur division in our sport. MA2 or even MA3 is where you start out." Oh yeah, now I see. You'd put a 980 skilled player in MA3 since you can't verify their rating. Like an 18 year-old who's only PDGA ratings are from when he was 13. Since you pointed out the GNO above, I bet of the dozen no rating players in MA1, at least one is >960.

I defy you that there IS no 970 rated player who has never played a PDGA tourney, just by the definition of the PDGA rating system. Never played a rated round = does not have a rating. Maybe someone who is that highly skilled and just starting to play tourneys should start out in Pro...they obviously have the game to do so as a 'World Champion'.

More semantics, you're saying that a non PDGA playing person cannot be an ### rated player only because they don't have an "official" PDGA rating. Courses have this little thing called an SSA. Anyone can go out and play a lot of rounds to gage their playing ability and know about what there rating would be. I gauged this players ability before he played PDGA rounds. And sure enough, I was spot on.


I am trying to accomplish a way to use the system that the PDGA has set up for amateur competition that will give us more than 1 competitive amateur division. But in reality the PDGA is just more focused on the Pro side of play and getting new players into the sport so that there will be more Pros in the future. They don't really care about making the AM side of the sport more evenly divided by skill.

I see, so MA1 IS competitive (even with all those players in there that you think shouldn't be), and AM2, FW1, MM1, MG1, etc are not. Nice. You did say you want more than 1 competitive division, which means you think right now there is only one.

[Sausage Fingers]

Um...It does work in our sport, that's the beauty of disc golf. I say it's the other ones that are flawed.
bogus argument, if things were so great why does this thread even exist since everything is so beautiful as you say?

You can't just play semantics to get out of this. The fact is that the principle is the same. You're claiming that it's not okay for a <935 player to give up their entry fees to MA1 players but it is okay for them to give up their entry fees to open players. You can't have it both ways. If you want to play semantics, realize that MA1 = open for amateurs.

Pro is Pro, AM is AM. They can and should be different. I am advocating that things should change on the AM side of the tourney. So yes I can. Under your logic we should just do away with all AM divisions and play in one big happy division...because our sport is sooo great. How did the ladies like it when I suggested we do away with gender and age restrictions? Your plan should go over great!

I counted 58/12. Yes, you were in the correct range. I think most "MA2's" are still happy they signed up for MA1 even after knowing the stiff competition they're up against.
sure because they want to play in a competitive division even with no hope of cashing, and this mentality has made a wasteland of MA2/MA3/MA4. So why even offer those divisions. This dearly held bullshit belief that you only get better by playing with better players is dead wrong, or we'd all play MPO and get better fast. Sure having someone who is good watch you throw and then make suggestions about what you can do to be better works great, but how often does that happen IN A TOURNAMENT? I'd say just about never...

Wrong. I didn't make anything up, you’re the one who said it. You are okay with a 980 skilled player playing in AM2 and taking all their money. And yes, you would be requiring it. You said it yourself: "I am saying that only players with ratings above 935 should be allowed to play in MA1. PERIOD. You do not have a PDGA rating? Too freakin bad for you if you want to compete in the highest amateur division in our sport. MA2 or even MA3 is where you start out." Oh yeah, now I see. You'd put a 980 skilled player in MA3 since you can't verify their rating. Like an 18 year-old who's only PDGA ratings are from when he was 13. Since you pointed out the GNO above, I bet of the dozen no rating players in MA1, at least one is >960.
You still don't get it. You cannot have a rating without playing in PDGA rated rounds. Your fictitious 980 rated player should seriously consider playing in Pro if they are so great. Even a few rounds played in a small C-tier tourney as a Pro would give them a good solid foundation for a rating.

More semantics, you're saying that a non PDGA playing person cannot be an ### rated player only because they don't have an "official" PDGA rating. Courses have this little thing called an SSA. Anyone can go out and play a lot of rounds to gage their playing ability and know about what there rating would be. I gauged this players ability before he played PDGA rounds. And sure enough, I was spot on.
This is just pure BS. Playing by yourself or casually with your buddies is a far cry from top level PDGA competition. Add to that the fact that a course's SSA can vary widely from day to day due to weather conditions and your ballparking a rating isn't as accurate as you think. Take a course like North Bonneville. The SSA on that course can fluctuate from an easy course (SSA 47) to a hard course (SSA 62) just due to wind.

I see, so MA1 IS competitive (even with all those players in there that you think shouldn't be), and AM2, FW1, MM1, MG1, etc are not. Nice. You did say you want more than 1 competitive division, which means you think right now there is only one.
And again you ignore the basis of my argument and try to bring in bogus outside crap that doesn't pertain to the topic at hand. Why did you stop at MA2/MM1/FA1 (and yes try to use the correct division abbreviations if you please) and why not accuse me of saying that MPO and FPO aren't competitive since they aren't MA1. Shit, with your apples to oranges logic you could claim that the entire PGA stick-and-ball golf system isn't competitive because it isn't MA1 disc golf.

And MA1 is only competitive among the golfers whose ratings actually put them in that division. But the history of the sport and the peer pressure to 'play up' have conspired to make anyone who has played more than 1 tourney feel like shit if they aren't playing MA1.

Man you are one obtuse MFer Kenny B. I'd call you out as an internet troll but you aren't Parks so I'll let it slide this time. And you accuse ME of semantics....

I will admit that the ratings system isn't perfect (far from it) but it is what we have to work with. It really doesn't work with new players until they get about 10 rated rounds. There are also exceptions for young players growing up as you mentioned. It also lags behind the player's ability if they are improving rapidly.

But if we just go merrily along as we have always been doing, the sport will be the train wreck that it already is on the AM side of PDGA tourneys.

:pirate:

[mowens404]

bogus argument, if things were so great why does this thread even exist since everything is so beautiful as you say?



Pro is Pro, AM is AM. They can and should be different. I am advocating that things should change on the AM side of the tourney. So yes I can. Under your logic we should just do away with all AM divisions and play in one big happy division...because our sport is sooo great. How did the ladies like it when I suggested we do away with gender and age restrictions? Your plan should go over great!

:pirate:


this conversation can not go anywhere if you keep exaggerating everyone's points to take it to the extreme. He never said get rid of divisions, or make the ladies play with the men.

[Kenny B]

bogus argument, if things were so great why does this thread even exist since everything is so beautiful as you say?

You can't generalized my point. My statement was in the context of whether or not it's good or bad that someone off the street can come play with the best amateur division.


Pro is Pro, AM is AM. They can and should be different. I am advocating that things should change on the AM side of the tourney. So yes I can. Under your logic we should just do away with all AM divisions and play in one big happy division...because our sport is sooo great. How did the ladies like it when I suggested we do away with gender and age restrictions? Your plan should go over great!

Yes Pro and Am are different. But don't you see the conflicting positions you are holding. Why is it okay for a 900 rated player to play Pro and give their money away, but not play AM1 and give their money away?


This dearly held bullshit belief that you only get better by playing with better players is dead wrong

That is not my experience. One of the best things I ever did to improve my game was start playing MA1 at about a rating of 914.


You still don't get it. You cannot have a rating without playing in PDGA rated rounds. Your fictitious 980 rated player should seriously consider playing in Pro if they are so great. Even a few rounds played in a small C-tier tourney as a Pro would give them a good solid foundation for a rating.

I'm the one playing semantics now, I changed my wording to say 980 skilled player. I think you're the one not getting that there are players out there, who will be rated 980 after their first 2 tournaments, that currently have no rating. You would force them in to MA2, or even MA3 even if they tell you how good they are when they check in but you don't believe them because...what? they don't look like they can play?

This is just pure BS. Playing by yourself or casually with your buddies is a far cry from top level PDGA competition. Add to that the fact that a course's SSA can vary widely from day to day due to weather conditions and your ballparking a rating isn't as accurate as you think. Take a course like North Bonneville. The SSA on that course can fluctuate from an easy course (SSA 47) to a hard course (SSA 62) just due to wind.

So is MA1 now "top level PDGA competition"? I doubt that's what you mean, but solid estimates with small statistical errors can be developed based off of only SSA. I understand that SSA=1000, but your forgetting that that is the starting point to calculate all ratings for a round. And yes, I understand weather factors involved, that's why I said "a lot of rounds". I'm talking about a 980 skilled player (oh, there it is, I said it again); that's someone who plays 100 rounds in the summer, I think that's enough rounds to get a good idea of their ability.

And again you ignore the basis of my argument and try to bring in bogus outside crap that doesn't pertain to the topic at hand. Why did you stop at MA2/MM1/FA1 (and yes try to use the correct division abbreviations if you please)

Yes, I used incorrect abbreviations, my apologies to those offended.

and why not accuse me of saying that MPO and FPO aren't competitive since they aren't MA1.

Why are you now bringing Open into the conversation? I didn't say they aren't competitive and the context about competitive divisions has been for Am only.

I'll also say this again (I sort of said it before). Go throw ratings based tourneys to your hearts content, heck, I'll might just come down and play it to see what I think of playing in one. Just stop trying to ram it down the throats of everyone else.

[Wes Hansen]

New vote for chief sandbagger= Paul Wright. 973 rated playing as a MGM!
B-A-G-G-E-R!

Looks like an ego-bagger. Check out the ratio of entered tournies in his division by wins. Obscene. Won that division at BSF 3 years ago. Guess that old dog is too old to learn a new trick.

[3 Fingers]

New vote for chief sandbagger= Paul Wright. 973 rated playing as a MGM!
B-A-G-G-E-R!

Looks like an ego-bagger. Check out the ratio of entered tournies in his division by wins. Obscene. Won that division at BSF 3 years ago. Guess that old dog is too old to learn a new trick.

WOW :shocked::shocked: He must have alot of disc's. don't money sound better

[D.L.]

WOW :shocked::shocked: He must have alot of disc's. don't money sound better

Mo Money, Mo Problems.
Mo Discs, Mo Fun.
Your Call, man.

http://www.bremertonpatriot.com/news/125188418.html

http://www.bremertonpatriot.com/sports/98541319.html

Don't let playing professional be confused with being professional.
:kissflowers:

[Bullseye]

New vote for chief sandbagger= Paul Wright. 973 rated playing as a MGM!
B-A-G-G-E-R!

Looks like an ego-bagger. Check out the ratio of entered tournies in his division by wins. Obscene. Won that division at BSF 3 years ago. Guess that old dog is too old to learn a new trick.

Paul Wright is a great guy who does a lot for disc golf up in his area. Earlier in this thread I mentioned a very well-respected am player who, for his own personal reasons,does not want to play pro. Well... I was talking about him. Regardless of why he doesn't want to play Pro, that is his decision. He should still be allowed to play somewhere, correct? Well... where should he play then?

People need to understand, you cannot make people play PRO. No matter what YOU want or how much peer pressure you choose to put on people, the bottom line is you can't make them.

[Kenny B]

New vote for chief sandbagger= Paul Wright. 973 rated playing as a MGM!
B-A-G-G-E-R!

Looks like an ego-bagger. Check out the ratio of entered tournies in his division by wins. Obscene. Won that division at BSF 3 years ago. Guess that old dog is too old to learn a new trick.

Are you serius? Are you going to try and take a cheap shot at Paul? Or are you just trying to stir the pot and see how many angry responses you get?

Let's take this time to define appropriate divisions: The division for which you qualify and wish to play.

[JMan]

Yea...come on...Paul is the best...
And if you wanna talk thpokane and disc golf...well it dates back to the IFA Affiliate club The PNAA in 1975, so all you Inland Empire hukkers make sure and say hello to 'J' Man at the BSF...I'll be starting at E1.

'J'

[Matt B.]

New vote for chief sandbagger= Paul Wright. 973 rated playing as a MGM!
B-A-G-G-E-R!

Looks like an ego-bagger. Check out the ratio of entered tournies in his division by wins. Obscene. Won that division at BSF 3 years ago. Guess that old dog is too old to learn a new trick.

This is where the thread becomes unproductive and boring.

[Bullseye]

This is where the thread becomes unproductive and boring.

Naw, that happened when Sausage and Kenny started quoting every other sentence ;)

[Roller Bob]

New vote for chief sandbagger= Paul Wright. 973 rated playing as a MGM!
B-A-G-G-E-R!

Looks like an ego-bagger. Check out the ratio of entered tournies in his division by wins. Obscene. Won that division at BSF 3 years ago. Guess that old dog is too old to learn a new trick.

I haven't played in the BSF for a few years, not because I didn't make the lottery cut but because I just didn't have that weekend free. This year I decided to try and get registered and luckily I got the invite. I'm going to be playing in the Advanced Grandmasters with Paul Wright. I don't think I've ever played with Paul before. I'm looking forward to playing against him and hoping I play well enough to beat him. I know that will be a challenge. My realistic goal is to at least make the leader card with him (assuming he makes the leader card, not guaranteed since us crusty players are a crafty bunch.) With my 912 rating I know it will be a great weekend if I make either goal. We'll see. But I'm glad there's some really good crusty players out there and playing in the BSF. Regardless of some of posts on this forum, I say welcome Paul and I look forward to meeting you. Who doesn't want to play against a World Champion? And how often do you get the chance?

[Wes Hansen]

Paul Wright is a great guy who does a lot for disc golf up in his area. Earlier in this thread I mentioned a very well-respected am player who, for his own personal reasons,does not want to play pro. Well... I was talking about him. Regardless of why he doesn't want to play Pro, that is his decision. He should still be allowed to play somewhere, correct? Well... where should he play then?

People need to understand, you cannot make people play PRO. No matter what YOU want or how much peer pressure you choose to put on people, the bottom line is you can't make them.

There are at least two divisions with stiffer competition before PW would have to chose Pro. Playing "down" to the lowest possible choice seems like eternal sandbagging. I'm sure he's a wonderful guy and I didn't say otherwise. Just the biggest example of this discussion I could find.

Some of my favorite DGers are sandbaggers so it wasn't personal.

No Kenny I'm not trying to evoke more of your angry responses. You go back to fighting with SF.

I'm sure he'll enjoy this year's win as much as the rest of them.

[Matt B.]

Naw, that happened when Sausage and Kenny started quoting every other sentence ;)

Oh I skipped those posts. Looked like they had too many words in them.

[Flatroc]

I haven't played in the BSF for a few years, not because I didn't make the lottery cut but because I just didn't have that weekend free. This year I decided to try and get registered and luckily I got the invite. I'm going to be playing in the Advanced Grandmasters with Paul Wright. I don't think I've ever played with Paul before. I'm looking forward to playing against him and hoping I play well enough to beat him. I know that will be a challenge. My realistic goal is to at least make the leader card with him (assuming he makes the leader card, not guaranteed since us crusty players are a crafty bunch.) With my 912 rating I know it will be a great weekend if I make either goal. We'll see. But I'm glad there's some really good crusty players out there and playing in the BSF. Regardless of some of posts on this forum, I say welcome Paul and I look forward to meeting you. Who doesn't want to play against a World Champion? And how often do you get the chance?

Nice roller Bob!
What would be waaaaay cool, is if Wes was in your group also.

[Wes Hansen]

RB makes a good point.
And yes, if I get in, it would be waaaaaaaaaaaaay cool if I found myself on the lead card- or any card with PW on it!

[Kenny B]

No Kenny I'm not trying to evoke more of your angry responses. You go back to fighting with SF.



I'm sorry for sounding angry. I'm also sorry to you Jordan, if you feel that I was attacking you in any way. None of that was not my intent; I enjoy honest discussions, which I felt Jordan and I were having.

[Jim J]

I'm sure he's a wonderful guy and I didn't say otherwise.

Did you even read your post? If you didn't, why should we?

[Wes Hansen]

Did you even read your post? If you didn't, why should we?

Not sure what you read into it. Sandbagger? The facts speak for themselves. Old dog? Just an expression.

(I sure would like to know what reasons someone in his position has for his choice of division. It may be very valid, but I don't know what it is and I can't personally think of a valid one- unless he's an amateur in another sport that would cause him to lose his status if he played DG as a Pro. If I see him at the BSF I'll ask him and maybe have a better understanding of his position.)

Sorry for any panties that are now bunched up. Dig 'em out and the word will seem brighter.

If I get in I hope I'm on the same card as PW. And RB. And DR.

My apologies to anyone offended by opinions that differ from theirs.

[mowens404]

Not sure what you read into it. Sandbagger? The facts speak for themselves. Old dog? Just an expression.

(I sure would like to know what reasons someone in his position has for his choice of division. It may be very valid, but I don't know what it is and I can't personally think of a valid one- unless he's an amateur in another sport that would cause him to lose his status if he played DG as a Pro. If I see him at the BSF I'll ask him and maybe have a better understanding of his position.)

Sorry for any panties that are now bunched up. Dig 'em out and the word will seem brighter.

If I get in I hope I'm on the same card as PW. And RB. And DR.

My apologies to anyone offended by opinions that differ from theirs.


be a little less negative all the time and maybe the world will seem a little brighter for you to. :whistler:

[Wes Hansen]

:posting:How is having an opinion negative?:smash:
"all the time"
Get real.

ratings based events for the good of the game

[mowens404]

:posting:How is having an opinion negative?:smash:
"all the time"
Get real.

ratings based events for the good of the game


having an opinion is not negative. having a negative opinion and complaining about everything is negative. like you just said earlier...."Sorry for any panties that are now bunched up. Dig 'em out and the word will seem brighter." oh yea, your right, nothing negative or condescending about that at all. :) Have a good day. :cheers:

[Wes Hansen]

And a good day to you as well.

ps. I only complain about 36.3% of everything. I'm happy with the rest.

[Sausage Fingers]

I'm sorry for sounding angry. I'm also sorry to you Jordan, if you feel that I was attacking you in any way. None of that was not my intent; I enjoy honest discussions, which I felt Jordan and I were having.

No worries Kenny. It was great fun bantering back and forth with you. We disagree, but that's cool.

How about a less rigid form of my way: you get put in the division that your rating requires and you can petition the TD to move up one division, automatically granted if you're within a stroke of the rating. No rating golfers are still a case by case basis. You'd have to be pretty convincing to get into MA1.

I know how it is now, I know how I'd like to see it run, but I am not The Decider (or the shit would really hit the fan). In disc golf and world politics.

And if Wes is negative for complaining about 36.3% of everything then he's a piker. You can call me Negative Man!

:pirate:

[Wes Hansen]

No, you're a piker.

ps. What's a piker?

[Sausage Fingers]

No, you're a piker.

ps. What's a piker?

pik·er   [pahy-ker]
noun Informal .
1. a person who does anything in a contemptibly small or cheap way.

:pirate:

[Flingin fireman]

How a bagger thinks….
There seems to be much concern with my entry into the amateur grandmasters division of the BSF.
I made a mistake. It does not appear that I should be in that division. There is much conjecture as to the motivation so I will attempt to share my point of view. First, I am a professional firefighter, I am an amateur disc golfer. Disc golf is a passion and a blessing to me as I have made many friends through this sport. Winning prizes is not a motivator to me as I have given away more swag, discs, bags and baskets to fundraisers, newbies, tournament directors, friends and family then most people will ever win. The idea that it is an ego issue also does not ring true as anyone that really knows me knows that I get my self worth from my faith and what I can do for others more than winning a disc golf tournament.
The truth is as I am limiting my tournament play I wanted to play with people I do not see much and have developed friendships with. I thought if I signed up for MG1 I would be playing with the likes of Brad Huggins, Tom Bontempo, Robert Brown, Jeff Elliot all of whom have beaten me when I was playing regularly. It did not turn out that way and I wish I could change things. I would be happy to move to a different division if it made the disc golf community happier. I do not want to be a taker in this sport, I want to give back.
I know to some this will just make me a justifying sandbagger (the worst kind), but I would like to go to the tournament and enjoy the Beaver State Fling experience without being “that guy”.
Paul Wright 32290

[JMan]

Paul,
Many have never had the pleasure of your company, or the luck of playing on the same card. I for one am appalled at this continued debate within our community. Having had the opportunity to play with you at the Sushi some years back and getting the chance to chat again at BSF is always a pleasure. Don't let this immature banter sway your entry one bit, those of us who have had the pleasure of, and look forward to your company again, know you are one of the true assets in this sport. Not to mention that for those of us over the age of fifty, it gets frustrating to have to teach a history lesson every time you make a joke with a reference from history pre 1970. They are young Paul...some, obviously younger than others. I for one look forward to catching up at the BSF...tear it up.

'J' Man

Ps. for you young'ins, like myself, Jeff E. and more than I can list, Paul has been hukin long before the advent of small beveled plastic...we've been cutting lines in the sky before most of your moms even met your papas...what keeps us in this for so long you ask...well it is not this debate I assure you. I guarantee you need to look in the dictionary for that definition nearer "passion," than "low self esteem."

[Wes Hansen]

Old don't mean right J.
One topic has nothing to do with the other.
Age doesn't necessarily mean one has made the right decision for the good of the game.
And it's not about the person, it's about sportsmanship and fair competition.
Interesting post, but I don't see the point.
I was under the impression you didn't play many competitive events because of the BS involved and preferred recreational golf. I'd have thought someone with a 100% win/place/show record over three years in two divisions would strike you as off, but you seem to disagree with no valid reason as to why.
Educate your thinking.

Ratings based events to advance the sport!

[JMan]

Fords...Chevys Wes...true, I don't play much competitive. As to valid reasons...I don't need your validation to agree/disagree on any point/topic...however so I understand your point, you, and others, are tired of loosing in age protected groups because some folks within the same age group are better than you? OK...good luck with that windmill my friend. But hey, if ratings based events will end this dead horse debate I say the sooner the better. And we can all dress alike, throw the same discs, take the same meds...

I'll see ya on the links Wes

[Wes Hansen]

Fords...Chevys Wes...true, I don't play much competitive. As to valid reasons...I don't need your validation to agree/disagree on any point/topic...however so I understand your point, you, and others, are tired of loosing in age protected groups because some folks within the same age group are better than you? OK...good luck with that windmill my friend. But hey, if ratings based events will end this dead horse debate I say the sooner the better. And we can all dress alike, throw the same discs, take the same meds...

I'll see ya on the links Wes

Look at my record. I don't win. I don't place. I rarely show. It ain't about me friend. Getting rid of one or two SBers isn't going to move me up the ladder to a trophy, so I'm not complaining about SBing for myself alone. If it was I'd play tee-ball against 5 yr olds and tell myself how good I am. Sure, I'm tired of seeing a few folks win all the time as AMs playing in the easiest division for them. Personally I find the practice poor sportsmanship.
If your good, prove it against the best. Not against me or others who enjoy "competition" in it's truest sense.

"And we can all dress alike, throw the same discs, take the same meds..." and all get tattoos because our teacher has them. WTF?!

It isn't about a person, it's about their decisions.

I'm not a good DGer... very often. Should I go hustle newbies to raise my self-esteem?!

[JMan]

WOW Wes...lot of anger there my friend for a pastime activity. And you are right, it is about decisions...like the one made here. And the one that accuses a friend of SB...you have obviously never met him...or did he need your validation to remain a lifetime amateur? Come on Wes...this is way beneath the honorable man I met a few years back. But hey if clobbering 5 yr olds is what it will take...tear it up buddy.

[Wes Hansen]

Sorry- I don't drink much, but I did last night.

[Bullseye]

Clearly... if someone is not competitive in the division they choose to play in, it is everyone else's fault.

I'll go ahead and repeat this again, as of right now, the PDGA cannot force people to play Pro. If they change their stance, then perhaps this subject can be revisited. If you think someone is sandbagging and they're playing in the highest Amateur division available to them, then perhaps it is you who needs to move down.

There appears to be two primary camps of people who complain about this issue:

Pros who want larger pro fields, thus increasing their payouts. I've seen recent posts attempting to use peer pressure to get highly rated ams to play pro, regardless of the fact that those people would have a really tough time cashing in pro.

The other loud camp are the players who aren't quite as competitive as they would like to be in some of the age-based divisions. The only person I have seen handle this perfectly is Treelove, and he does it by playing Intermediate when he feels it is appropriate. Remember, just because you can play in the masters division or even grandmasters does not necessarily mean that is the best place for you. It is your responsibility to choose the best division for you, and you should not begrudge someone for doing the same for themselves.

I'm really bummed to see that Paul felt the need to come in here and defend himself from this, when he has not done anything wrong.

Jeff H.

PS: bear in mind, this entire post would be moot if we did offer some ratings-based tourneys.

[Matt B.]

How a bagger thinks….
There seems to be much concern with my entry into the amateur grandmasters division of the BSF.
I made a mistake. It does not appear that I should be in that division. There is much conjecture as to the motivation so I will attempt to share my point of view. First, I am a professional firefighter, I am an amateur disc golfer. Disc golf is a passion and a blessing to me as I have made many friends through this sport. Winning prizes is not a motivator to me as I have given away more swag, discs, bags and baskets to fundraisers, newbies, tournament directors, friends and family then most people will ever win. The idea that it is an ego issue also does not ring true as anyone that really knows me knows that I get my self worth from my faith and what I can do for others more than winning a disc golf tournament.
The truth is as I am limiting my tournament play I wanted to play with people I do not see much and have developed friendships with. I thought if I signed up for MG1 I would be playing with the likes of Brad Huggins, Tom Bontempo, Robert Brown, Jeff Elliot all of whom have beaten me when I was playing regularly. It did not turn out that way and I wish I could change things. I would be happy to move to a different division if it made the disc golf community happier. I do not want to be a taker in this sport, I want to give back.
I know to some this will just make me a justifying sandbagger (the worst kind), but I would like to go to the tournament and enjoy the Beaver State Fling experience without being “that guy”.
Paul Wright 32290


Paul - rest assured that Wes Hansen's attitude and behavior does not resemble or represent the vast majority of visitors and users of this forum. This discussion started out pretty good and had some interesting points made without getting personal or insulting. It's unfortunate that you were singled out by an angry person and you shouldn't take it personally - this thread was not started about you. Your reputation speaks for itself, and that is also the case for other people, obviously.

I hope you enjoy th BSF, and play wherever you will enjoy yourself the most.



editorial note: It would be great to have a "Thread Lock" feature in the forum.

[Wes Hansen]

Jeff-
1. Sorry for the PM. I was Hop Stoopid.
2. I wish I hadn't called anyone out by name, but listing player X's record instead of name just seemed silly. And, in the case in question, even more incendiary.
3. My opinion on the matter is formed both subjectively and objectively. I may long for glory I will probably never see, due to my poor DG skills, and that does guide my thoughts on this issue. But, like the Credible Hulk, I'm using facts to back up my feelings.
4. While I may have intimated that Pro is where some of the more prominent SBers in the age-protected divisions belong... there is a division for DGers with high skills to enter if they don't want to be a Pro. That division is MA1. You back up that view in your post- "someone is sandbagging and they're playing in the highest Amateur division available to them".... well- that would be MA1.
5. MOST of the fault with this problem lies firmly with the PDGA, which facilitates the perpetuation of the problem. How many different divisional structures have they tried in the last decade? Why do they not resolve this? As DG booms this issue will only become worse. Seems to me the competition structure for AMs isn't even on their radar.
6. I could name several players that "could have" easily SBed their way to fame in the "correct" age-protected divisions, but chose to play in divisions offering stiffer competition. I think a couple went on to become world champions. I admire those guys.
7. I am a world-class pain in the ass.
8. My apologies to all I offend. You be you and I'll be me.

[loki]

Jeff-oupl
8. My apologies to all I offend. You be you and I'll be me.

And the argument comes full circle.
I think begrudging people playing in divisions that they are 100% entitled to play in is a display of bad sportsmanship equal to or greater than the perceived bad sportsmanship of that of these alleged sandbaggers. In all divisions there will always be a favorite and there will always be the eternal losers. Why do both (and everyone in between) continue to enter competitions? I refer you to the above quote....You be you and I'll be me!

Personally I enter for the fun, the camaraderie, the challenge and excitement. Others enter for the prizes but in all honesty they are probably in the minority, but again I will refer you to the above quote.

I hover around the 938 mark for adv master and relish the idea of playing a 970. A 32 point difference is not that much and I often beat my fair share of 970+ golfers. I have also OFTEN been beaten by players with ratings in the low 900's. Thus is the nature of the game and more importantly the spirit of competition. I know that I am a 'middle of the pack' competitor, but I also know that on any day I could win or come dead last and that is exactly why I enter tournaments.

I am not trying to call any single person out here (Wes, I have always enjoyed my rounds with you and look forward to many more), rather the sentiment of many. When I went to worlds as a 935 rated adv am I was really pissed off to see a 998 rated player in the field. He ended up winning and then turned pro. That is what people do. (Didn't Tiger Woods win the amateur title 3 years running?) For me it was a lesson in acceptance in how sports work. Somebody always has to be the best and NO! Not everyone has a right to hold that position, you have to earn it.

[Wes Hansen]

Right you are David.

I wish there were some way to have this discussion without talking about any particular individual, but without doing so it seemed a discussion without proof. I'd take back a post or two if I could.

This isn't really about any player, it's about the system.

[Jeff Hemmerling]

editorial note: It would be great to have a "Thread Lock" feature in the forum.Why??

[Matt B.]

Why??

So that we could stifle free speech of course! :dancing:

Sometimes it seems like a thread goes so far off the rails it would be nice to lock it up to new posts. It wouldn't stop anyone from starting a new thread or continuing whatever virulent, negative assholery they have going, but it would at least keep threads from turning into negative attention spirals that serve only as breeding grounds for old grudges, name calling and conspiracy theories.

Or would it?

Probably not, and it's maybe a bad idea, and we do have rules and methods already in place to address these issues in part, so.....

[Wes Hansen]

kettle - pot. pot - kettle.

[Matt B.]

kettle - pot. pot - kettle.

/Thread Lock

[Wes Hansen]

try the "ignore" feature. I find it works great having you on ignore, though I do look sometimes as you continue to follow my posts in various threads and always take the time to be any number of names you enjoy calling me. Why not talk about the subject at hand- or don't bother chiming in to harass me.

You must not be able to help yourself. You are just one of those people who hide behind their computer and acts the ass. I'll say anything in public I've said here. Come introduce yourself sometime and call me something to my face. You haven't and I'm guessing you won't ever because you're a _____________, _________.

Plenty of people here have the same general opinion on this subject, so I know you're just trying to be a cyber bully by attacking me. Kudos to you.