What is sandbagging? Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by DexterHawk View Post
    I honestly think that sandbagging is really only people holding themselves back... If you are capable of playing competitively in a higher division and you choose to play in a lower one you are only costing yourself the opportunity to learn from more skilled and experienced players. Let's face it, sandbagging is about winning... there is no question that you learn more and improve more by playing with stronger players... so if improvement is your goal you should try to move up as fast as possible... but if your goal is winning, well then, it time to grab some sand!
    In total agreement, sorry Sausage, but I remember the first time I played with ams again after stepping up. Completely threw my game off. Most of the time I spent explaining rules and etiquette to the newbs. I realize this isn't always the case, but playing up I learned some great physical techniques as well as mental processes that have been invaluable to me.

    Are you implying that once you hit master, you no longer learn anything from playing with those who are more skilled?
    Great googly moogly!

    Comment


    • #47
      Hey, since we are talking about sandbagging, I was looking through the AM division that has signed up for the memorial and wow, was I suprised to see who's name has signed up for Ams, Sean Philips who is rated 975 playing AMS? I hope that is a mistake lol.. since Pro is recomended 970+
      Sean?? Any comments? *Am just having fun with this*

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by snap7times View Post
        Hey, since we are talking about sandbagging, I was looking through the AM division that has signed up for the memorial and wow, was I suprised to see who's name has signed up for Ams, Sean Philips who is rated 975 playing AMS? I hope that is a mistake lol.. since Pro is recomended 970+
        Sean?? Any comments? *Am just having fun with this*
        Have you seen Sean play lately? His best shot at last cash is if he shoots lights out in the Rec division. As with snap, I'm just having some fun here. No really! Honest! Yep, just kiddin'.

        Bob

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by snap7times View Post
          Hey, since we are talking about sandbagging, I was looking through the AM division that has signed up for the memorial and wow, was I suprised to see who's name has signed up for Ams, Sean Philips who is rated 975 playing AMS? I hope that is a mistake lol.. since Pro is recomended 970+
          Sean?? Any comments? *Am just having fun with this*
          I believe Sean realized, in his travels last year, that IF he wants to compete NATIONALLY that he needs to stay right where he is in ADVANCED at the LARGE events, such as Memorial.

          Note that last years winner at Worlds in AM1 was in the 990's.......

          Though I dont know, Im sure he will be playing OPEN locally (maybe not BSF) to keep his skill level on the rise.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by snap7times View Post
            just an idea I have thought of from time to time, which I am sure is not the first time anyone has mentioned this. Maybe with the PDGA rating guideline, add another guideline that those who are 10-15 points or less from the next level have a choice to either stay in their PDGA given right divison or play up. The ones who are more than 10-15 points from the next division cannot play up. There are many pros and cons with this. It would prevent 890 rated players from playing in AM1 or even pros, which I know some pros or AM1's are sick of sometimes, but it still gives them the option of playing AM2 or AM3. Just a quick thought.
            The PDGA will NEVER put a rule in place that limits a persons chioce to play UP.
            WHY would a rule similar to what you stated be a good thing??

            As stated before by many others......By playing up a player LEARNS the finer aspects of the game by seeing how better players manage their game.

            FORCING players to stagnate their game would not be good.....

            Comment


            • #51
              Was just thinking out loud. Well I wonder what the pros think about it? If the first round of a tournament, a 1020 rated player gets an 880 rated player in thieir group. Sure it's better for the 880 guy but does it have the slightest impact on the 1020 guy? Am curious about that.

              Comment


              • #52
                I stand corrected!

                Originally posted by thread killer View Post
                In total agreement, sorry Sausage, but I remember the first time I played with ams again after stepping up. Completely threw my game off. Most of the time I spent explaining rules and etiquette to the newbs. I realize this isn't always the case, but playing up I learned some great physical techniques as well as mental processes that have been invaluable to me.

                Are you implying that once you hit master, you no longer learn anything from playing with those who are more skilled?

                Over the past week, I've been discussing this issue with more and more people and have completely changed my mind! I never saw what was wrong with the divisions since that was how the tournament set up was when I started playing. Now I'm understanding that point is more how arbitrary the divisions are. I get that that's why we have the PDGA ratings system. But as players, we are inconsistent from day to day and depending on weather conditions. Separate divisions for men and women, that makes sense, the boundaries are clear. 18 years and under is clear. Pro (playing for cash) VS am (playing for fun prizes) is clear. What really is the clear difference between AM and Int if you've never played a tournament before, but are not new to the sport? Why not have one division, one trophy? In a tournament format, it's a competitive sport & we want to know who the best REALLY is! If you want to win, step up your game, don't down drop down a division.
                Great googly moogly!

                Comment


                • #53
                  Ratings-Based Divisions = no need to segregate by age, gender, race, etc. A fair contest against an equal competitor - who could ask for anything better?
                  Ratings-based divisions: disc golf's inevitable future.
                  Disc Golf Calendar: www.NWDiscGolf.info, or click CALENDAR at top of page
                  Submit Event to Calendar: treelove@nwdiscgolf.info
                  Team Disc Golf: http://www.teamdiscgolf.com
                  Bitchin' URL: http://www.nwdiscgolf.com

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    i love this topic... so i understand sean wanting to stay in adv at larger tournaments to see if how much he can kill the competition by, since his closest rated player is 974 and 968 while he is 981, i'm all for sean handing out toilet paper *I think that is a Deaf joke relating to kicking serious azz*.
                    But my question this time is, what is the point of view for those rec, int players who are one point away from being forced up, thoughts on this, i know quite a few that are like 899 or 934? I'm bored and i decided i would play with fire on this...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      The PDGA will NEVER put a rule in place that limits a persons chioce to play UP. WHY would a rule similar to what you stated be a good thing??
                      There have been informal discussions about preventing a player with rating from completely hopping over a division. A Rec level player with a rating in the 850-899 range could play up in Intermediate but couldn't enter Advanced until their rating got to at least 900. The only exception would be if both Rec and Intermediate divisions weren't offered at the event. Not happening in the near future but just a discussion item that gets presented to the Competition Committee every so often.

                      Another informal discussion item is to set a minimum rating requirement to enter each pro division at Worlds. For Open, it might be something like 900 so it wouldn't be too restrictive. But it would prevent a newbie without a rating or with two rounds averaging 835 from playing in the top division at Worlds. Could be a few years off, maybe never, but raising the bar for standards needs to gradually happen as the sport grows.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        One problem I could see with an obligatory minimum to play in a division would be in the case of a player that has a rating that doesn't accurately reflect his level of play. For example, it could be someone with very few rated rounds, or someone who's rating is a few years old, and who hasn't maintained current PDGA membership.

                        Just a thought, but I do see the line of thinking with regard to restricting players whose ratings are significantly lower from playing the upper divisions.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Great thread and replies. I always find this topic interesting. I agree with Gawain ... it's great to have a battle with a comparable player. Here's my 2 cents, and I'll compare my experiences with tennis/sandbagging.

                          I worked at a tennis club and helped the pros (unofficially) rate players, as I was the court director (basically, setting up players with similar ratings play singles/doubles). I would tell players that the goal was to (1) play 60% of the time with players your own rating; (2) 20% with players better than you and (3) 20% with players below your level (in tennis, a half to a point below or above your ranking, not too much up or down). That way, it would allow people to get a chance to play with better players, and allow less experienced/talented players to play with you to help better their games.

                          As far as bagging does, I can beat this dead horse further. If a player wins 10 tourneys in a row in a particular division, it's pretty clear that the player should highly consider moving up. Some players might/will resent that player for staying in that division and continuing to beat up on the players that are trying to compete and possibly win, but can't. Could these "borderline" players (say, adv. am to pro borderliners) switch up where they play ... play pro one tourney and adv. the next. If they are very good adv. amateurs, I am assuming they will likely not cash in the pros ... if they do, they can take script to save their amateur status. No one appreciates a serial bagger (could I trademark that?), but it's certainly acceptable for a person that is new to the game (or improving dramatically and quickly) to win a few tourneys and spank the competition ... as long as they don't linger too long (not considering the quest for a world championship, which I can appreciate).

                          Nate, I'd really like to consider (when you're up in Seattle) playing a round or two with advise/lessons (for pay, of course, and mileage reimbursement).

                          I'm not necessarily loyal to the ODSA, but it was my first (), but it's been down for over a week. Welcome me back.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by smobro View Post
                            I am not sure I understand what this term means. I assume it refers to a person who chooses to play in a division that they are on average too skilled to play in.
                            For example: If I am an 873 PDGA rated player and that rating method is the most widely accepted rating method in the sport, then I would be sandbagging if I played any event in the MA4 division which is for 850 rated players and under according to the current PDGA rules.
                            Isn't that correct?
                            THIS IS SANDBAGGING!!!!
                            Proud member #20 of STUMPTOWN Disc Golf and the PDGA #30488
                            Damn The Weak Side!!!!!!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              I would like to know how you can figure out your rating if you only play in a couple of PDGA events and you are not a member. I don't mind playing up because I just enjoy playing the sport win or lose I learn more every time I play a round. Lets say that I shoot 2 rounds at Pier how can I translate my scores to a rating.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Scotty B View Post
                                I would like to know how you can figure out your rating if you only play in a couple of PDGA events and you are not a member. I don't mind playing up because I just enjoy playing the sport win or lose I learn more every time I play a round. Lets say that I shoot 2 rounds at Pier how can I translate my scores to a rating.
                                Go on the PDGA website for the tourneys that you played. Look for a current member that shot the same score that you did and use that rating for that round. Add up all of your round ratings for PDGA tourney play and divide by the number of rounds and you'll get an average of those rounds. That is your rating.
                                Hath this whole world been mired in madness?
                                Remain ye men of faculty complete,
                                Of full arithmetic and prudence fair,
                                Attending to our noble bond and contract?
                                Or does here stand the last remaining man
                                To give a fig for rules and order yet,
                                No noble savage, but a stave unbroken
                                Who loves the law and bids it no misdeed.
                                Iíll not be bent to lawlessness. Mark it nought, if we be men of honour.

                                Comment

                                Announcement Announcement Module
                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.
                                Working...
                                X