2017 Amateur & Junior World Championships - Invitation Criteria

[brutalbrutus]

http://www.pdga.com/files/2017_amateur_jr_worlds_-_invitation_to_register_criteria.pdf


United States Top Amateur Points earners of the 2016 PDGA Tour year. Minimum Amateur Points Required are:
MA1 - 1,500 Points FA1 - 90 Points MM1 - 750 Points FM1 - 50 Points MG1 - 500 Points FG1 - 40 Points MS1 - 100 Points FS1 - 10 Points ML1 - 20 Points
MJ1 - 200 Points FJ1 - 10 Points MJ2 - 100 Points FJ2 - 10 Points MJ3 - 10 Points FJ3 - 6 Points MJ4 - 2 Points
2 Other Junior Divisions: All 2016 current male juniors eligible for the MJ5 or MJ6 division in 2017 who completed any PDGA Tournament (not league) in an Amateur division during the 2016 PDGA tour year.
All 2016 current female juniors eligible for the FJ4, FJ5, or FJ6 division in 2017 who completed any PDGA Tournament (not league) in an Amateur division during the 2016 PDGA tour year.
3 Female Amateur Legends: All 2016 current female Amateur members eligible for the FL1 division in 2017 who completed any PDGA sanctioned tournament (not league) in an Amateur division during the 2016 PDGA tour year.
4 Additional US State Invites: Any US State that did not have at least 10% of it's resident amateur 2016 Tour participants qualify through criteria 1-3 above, will have additional invites provided to the top overall points earners in order to reach 10%.
5 International: All 2016 current International Amateur members (country other than USA or Canada) who completed a PDGA sanctioned tournament (not league) in either an Amateur or Professional divison during the 2016 tour year.
6 Canadian: All 2016 current Canadian Amateur members who completed three (3) PDGA sanctioned tournaments (not leagues) in either an Amateur or Professional division during the 2016 tour year

 

[JC17393]

To their credit, this has to be as early as they've ever published qualifying criteria for an upcoming Worlds, at least when announcing a change to it compared to past years.

On the other hand, this is twice in recent years that they've announced a significant increase in the points needed to qualify for Worlds IN THE MIDDLE of the season in which those points are to be earned. Total horse**** on their part.

I have to imagine there are players, with an eye toward qualifying, who now are scrambling to find more tournaments to play before the end of the year because what they've got planned now might not be enough to earn them enough points. Players that might have played a more couple tournaments earlier in the year (or played a different division at some tourneys) had they known sooner how many points they might need. Not everyone had the luxury of playing a big event like Bowling Green and get all the points they need in one go.

Maybe some day they'll be proactive enough to figure this stuff out and let everyone know how many points they're going to need before they earn their first points of the season.

 

[BionicRib]

So move to canada if you want to play worlds?

 

[biscoe]

Deja vu all over again. Why can't they set the standards and leave it alone for the year??? That must be too fair.

International standards are completely ridiculous too. Pay for membership and be ambulatory and you too can compete for a World Championship! I can understand this to some slight degree (well-not really) for the divisions which didn't previously exist but for all international players across the board?????

 

[scarpfish]

Yet another reason to get rid of the points thresholds entirely. If you want to go to Worlds, just play as many events as you can, when registration opens you and all other interested parties put down a $50 deposit.

There will be 'x' number of spots available in your division. The 'x' number of people with the most points get dibs on them, and have a set amount if time to pay the balance of their entry fee. People who don't have enough points can drop out and have their deposit refunded, or choose to remain on the waiting list.

 

[biscoe]

I'd rather see it be ratings combined with participation. Everyone over rating "x" who played more than "y" events gets an invite. Then tier registration by rating. Offer some reduced standard for internationals but have it be somewhere above simply "alive".

 

[araytx]

Yet another reason to get rid of the points thresholds entirely. If you want to go to Worlds, just play as many events as you can, when registration opens you and all other interested parties put down a $50 deposit.

There will be 'x' number of spots available in your division. The 'x' number of people with the most points get dibs on them, and have a set amount if time to pay the balance of their entry fee. People who don't have enough points can drop out and have their deposit refunded, or choose to remain on the waiting list.

I'd rather see it be ratings combined with participation. Everyone over rating "x" who played more than "y" events gets an invite. Then tier registration by rating. Offer some reduced standard for internationals but have it be somewhere above simply "alive".

Been through this before...
Points cannot be a fair way...those with access to the big events will crush it and have a huge advantage. Being from near northeast Kansas or south central Kentucky becomes a huge advantage -- and living in the boonies a huge disadvantage -- and international players might never get in, despite the fact that those from Europe and Asia are putting a lot more money in than anyone else. Plus it'll encourage everyone eligible, except the best MA1 players, to register for MA2 or MA3 to maximize their point accumulation.

Ratings will encourage people to set up and play local leagues on their home course and count every good round as part of e league and throw out the bad ones. Participation favors those like us in Dallas Fort Worth, who have at least one sanctioned PDGA event every weekend.

Why would the majority of Am players want options that favor certain people???? That would be Orwell's 1984.

 

[ScottyLove]

Doesn't say 2016 AmWorlds points (earned next week) don't count. I keep hearing folks say that you don't count points earned at AmWorlds but I'm saying they count. It would have to be in black and white.

 

[araytx]

Doesn't say 2016 AmWorlds points (earned next week) don't count. I keep hearing folks say that you don't count points earned at AmWorlds but I'm saying they count. It would have to be in black and white.

Yes it does. All points earned in 2016 as an Am count toward your total in your age home division.

See -- "...The process for a player's primary invite uses ALL of their 2016 earned Amateur points, regardless of the amateur division earned in, to meet the requirement for the player's 2017 age bracket division....

Nothing ambiguous about "all".

 

[scarpfish]

Points cannot be a fair way...those with access to the big events will crush it and have a huge advantage. Being from near northeast Kansas or south central Kentucky becomes a huge advantage -- and living in the boonies a huge disadvantage -- and international players might never get in, despite the fact that those from Europe and Asia are putting a lot more money in than anyone else.

Dealing with super tournaments (including the previous years, Am Worlds) needs to be dealt with as well. I would suggest either a special points scale for these events, or a cut off of points from a single event that can be applied.

 

[JamesM]

Personally I think since the announcement was so late in the year, an interim amount should be applied..possibly half, so Grandmasters for example would only need 250 to qualify. Then 500 2017 points to qualify for 2018 Worlds...

Not sure I agree with 500 though. The winner of this years Bowling Green Ams for Grandmasters didn't get enough points to qualify for Worlds using the new standard.

 

[ejvogie]

Personally I think since the announcement was so late in the year, an interim amount should be applied..possibly half, so Grandmasters for example would only need 250 to qualify. Then 500 2017 points to qualify for 2018 Worlds...

Not sure I agree with 500 though. The winner of this years Bowling Green Ams for Grandmasters didn't get enough points to qualify for Worlds using the new standard.

Are you advocating that winning 1 large tournament should garner enough points for a World's invite?

 

[JamesM]

Some tournaments, for the Winner, could hold a spot in registration for Worlds, same as the last year's winner has a spot held for them.

4 Regionals - 5 spots taken from the pool (Previous champion, 4 regional winners)

I would have no issue with that. A slot for Worlds wouldn't be points based in that scenario, but instead performance based.

 

[JC17393]

Personally I think since the announcement was so late in the year, an interim amount should be applied..possibly half, so Grandmasters for example would only need 250 to qualify. Then 500 2017 points to qualify for 2018 Worlds...

Not sure I agree with 500 though. The winner of this years Bowling Green Ams for Grandmasters didn't get enough points to qualify for Worlds using the new standard.

I think that's part of the idea in raising the qualifying minimums. The whole point of the points system as a qualification for Worlds is to encourage more attendance at multiple PDGA events.

By my count, 240 players earned enough points just at the 2015 BG Ams to qualify for the 2016 Worlds, and that's just the players that played in the four divisions with minimum points thresholds (MA1, MM1, MG1, FA1). That doesn't include the other 122 players in MA2 & MA3 that earned enough points for MA1 invitation, or the 20 women in FA2 & FA3 that earned the minimum for FA1, or the 3 in Senior Grandmasters who earned enough for an MG1 invitation. A total of 385 players qualified at one event, or two-thirds of the total capacity for Worlds. BG is a great event with a long tradition, but should it have that much influence compared to other events?

 

[brutalbrutus]

I think that's part of the idea in raising the qualifying minimums. The whole point of the points system as a qualification for Worlds is to encourage more attendance at multiple PDGA events.

By my count, 240 players earned enough points just at the 2015 BG Ams to qualify for the 2016 Worlds, and that's just the players that played in the four divisions with minimum points thresholds (MA1, MM1, MG1, FA1). That doesn't include the other 122 players in MA2 & MA3 that earned enough points for MA1 invitation, or the 20 women in FA2 & FA3 that earned the minimum for FA1, or the 3 in Senior Grandmasters who earned enough for an MG1 invitation. A total of 385 players qualified at one event, or two-thirds of the total capacity for Worlds. BG is a great event with a long tradition, but should it have that much influence compared to other events?

This year it was probably worse. I remember posting awhile back that the guys tied for 91st in Rec got 900+ points.

 

[lyleoross]

I think that's part of the idea in raising the qualifying minimums. The whole point of the points system as a qualification for Worlds is to encourage more attendance at multiple PDGA events.

By my count, 240 players earned enough points just at the 2015 BG Ams to qualify for the 2016 Worlds, and that's just the players that played in the four divisions with minimum points thresholds (MA1, MM1, MG1, FA1). That doesn't include the other 122 players in MA2 & MA3 that earned enough points for MA1 invitation, or the 20 women in FA2 & FA3 that earned the minimum for FA1, or the 3 in Senior Grandmasters who earned enough for an MG1 invitation. A total of 385 players qualified at one event, or two-thirds of the total capacity for Worlds. BG is a great event with a long tradition, but should it have that much influence compared to other events?

Now there ya go being logical and all numbery. All to often the arguments around these things seem to be, "I didn't get what I want," as opposed to how do you manage a situation, where not everyone is going to get what they want, as fairly as possible.

 

[DanJon]

So boiling Am World's down, it basically is whoever has the most money and free time?

I.E. whoever can afford to make it to the most tournaments, but not actually place that well at them?

 

[lyleoross]

So boiling Am World's down, it basically is whoever has the most money and free time?

I.E. whoever can afford to make it to the most tournaments, but not actually place that well at them?

I'm not sure why this comes up so often. The PDGA has been clear about Ams from the start. It isn't a merit based competition. That's what the Pro tour is. If it isn't merit based what criteria do you use to cut down the number of participants that want to go? Support of the PDGA and it's events seems a good one to me. It is certainly what any for profit company would do. Any sport or activity is always going to be based on who has the money and free time. That is sort of the underlying principal of capitalism. I don't claim to be a huge advocate of capitalism as the end all be all of problem solving, but we are talking about a recreational sport here.


Also, for the most part, if you can afford to travel to Ams, I suspect you can afford to play enough events to qualify. I know some local players with low resources are going to be excluded, but I suspect it's a minor part of the issues people have with the changes going on.

 

[ScottyLove]

So boiling Am World's down, it basically is whoever has the most money and free time?

I.E. whoever can afford to make it to the most tournaments, but not actually place that well at them?

No... you CANNOT play a ton of tournaments and come in last for 2 points each time and qualify. You have to both play a lot of tournaments and do well in them. I played in 36 tournaments last year... won 11 and finished in top 4 27 times. So I got a quite a few points (2nd in points race... argh!), but if I hadn't played well, I wouldn't have even been close.

Problem is I'm taking a break this year so I can make another run next year. To win a points obelisk, you have to play in the key events in and AmWorlds is one of those. Changing the qualifying requirements for a major tournament mid-year absolutely is an impact... especially for MG1 going from 75 to 500!! MA1 doubled, MM1 tripled, but MG1 is more that 6X previous years points.

For those that didn't get into AmWorlds, this is a huge blow.

 

[Karl]

I'm not sure why this comes up so often. The PDGA has been clear about Ams from the start. It isn't a merit based competition.

It comes up because it goes against every kind of competition I know of to call an event a "World Championship" and not have the best of that classification (if they choose to) be there.