2018 Competition Rules Changes

[brutalbrutus]

A lot of the guys around here have already moved up to Open by the time they reach 950/960 let alone 975, unless they are planning on World's or USADGC. The reason I hear more often than not is they are tired of dealing with merch. The "merch hunters" around here are usually the 895 guys still playing rec or 930 guys still playing INT.

My area may be a bit different than most, though. Between Cincy and Dayton there 15 or so unsanctioned low entry events every year run by the clubs. So our higher end advanced players are usually already playing Open for a couple years in those so they wind up moving up in PDGA events also.

 

[brutalbrutus]

A lot of the guys around here have already moved up to Open by the time they reach 950/960 let alone 975, unless they are planning on World's or USADGC. The reason I hear more often than not is they are tired of dealing with merch. The "merch hunters" around here are usually the 895 guys still playing rec or 930 guys still playing INT.

My area may be a bit different than most, though. Between Cincy and Dayton there 15 or so unsanctioned low entry fee events every year run by the clubs. So our higher end advanced players are usually already playing Open for a couple years in those so they wind up moving up in PDGA events also.

FTFM

 

[roadtripstuff]

I'm not only referring to our area. I said overall for the sport. There are numerous A-Tiers and even larger B-Tiers with 960+ rated player's playing and staying in Advanced.

IMO cashing pros, if they are allowed to play in AM, should only have that option at AM only events. They should not have the option of moving down if an Open field is available. They shouldn't get to choose just because they think they won't win. There's no reason why they should be able to dodge higher rated players.

Again all just my opinion, which truly isn't worth much when it comes to rules and what not.

 

[Discette]

I am not sure on that. I am not the one that looked it up and did the math. I posted it as I read it. It just said that there was 11,000 and something Pros and that over 10,000 could still play AM. Those are not the exact numbers but close I can't remember them exactly at the moment. It did up being 89% though. Not sure if that includes age protected or not. I'm assuming it does because I don't think they would see a difference on the pdga site unless they looked at each player.

Using the member statistics, there are 19,051 players in Open Men and only 1,026 are rated 971 or higher. My math says 94.6% are eligible to play Am.

 

[roadtripstuff]

Using the member statistics, there are 19,051 players in Open Men and only 1,026 are rated 971 or higher. My math says 94.6% are eligible to play Am.

Oh so even worse than I thought. That's crazy. In what way did you find this info, would be interesting to see the women's side with the cutoff being 875.

 

[brutalbrutus]

IMO cashing pros, if they are allowed to play in AM, should only have that option at AM only events. They should not have the option of moving down if an Open field is available. They shouldn't get to choose just because they think they won't win. There's no reason why they should be able to dodge higher rated players.

This I agree with.

 

[JC17393]

I'm not only referring to our area. I said overall for the sport. There are numerous A-Tiers and even larger B-Tiers with 960+ rated player's playing and staying in Advanced.

IMO cashing pros, if they are allowed to play in AM, should only have that option at AM only events. They should not have the option of moving down if an Open field is available. They shouldn't get to choose just because they think they won't win. There's no reason why they should be able to dodge higher rated player's.

Most registered pros who play amateur divisions are not cashing pros, or at least not regularly cashing pros. In fact, a lot of them aren't Open players at all. They're age protected players whose skills are in decline. Players who might have been competitive pros (perhaps only at MPM or MPG levels) at one point, but have declined due to age, injury, lack of play, or any number of other reasons. They're no longer a competitive pro, but still want to play and compete on occasion. The rules allowing pros to play am are aimed at and used by players like them far more than they're aimed at the 960 rated player who wants to play both sides of the fence based on where the profit is better.

These are the players MTL was referring to in an earlier post about membership retention. Players who moved up appropriately at the time, but no longer are able to compete in a pro division. It's either let them play amateur where their skill level fits or watch them walk away all together.

 

[roadtripstuff]

Most registered pros who play amateur divisions are not cashing pros, or at least not regularly cashing pros. In fact, a lot of them aren't Open players at all. They're age protected players whose skills are in decline. Players who might have been competitive pros (perhaps only at MPM or MPG levels) at one point, but have declined due to age, injury, lack of play, or any number of other reasons. They're no longer a competitive pro, but still want to play and compete on occasion. The rules allowing pros to play am are aimed at and used by players like them far more than they're aimed at the 960 rated player who wants to play both sides of the fence based on where the profit is better.

But, there are people out there doing just that, playing both sides of the field for profit. Why would the pdga address Ams that want to play pro occasionally but not pros that want to play AM occasionally, that just doesn't add up.

So it's okay for a pro to move down to play where he/she feels that it is better competition and still get merch payout but not okay for an AM to play up where they feel they better fit in and still get paid out.

Maybe Pros playing in AM should also only be able to collect a trophy if one is available. If its only about competing occasionally then this shouldn't be an issue to those players.

 

[brutalbrutus]

But, there are people out there doing just that, playing both sides of the field for profit. Why would the pdga address Ams that want to play pro occasionally but not pros that want to play AM occasionally, that just doesn't add up.

So it's okay for a pro to move down to play where he/she feels that it is better competition and still get merch payout but not okay for an AM to play up where they feel they better fit in and still get paid out.

Maybe Pros playing in AM should also only be able to collect a trophy if one is available. If its only about competing occasionally then this shouldn't be an issue to those players.

He already attempted to justify that when I brought it up earlier in the thread...

^That's a good point. If they are gonna limit AMs to cash or nothing, then Pros should not be allowed to accept payout in AM divisions...

Pros aren't going to be turning Am if they accept prizes, though. If you want a reward of value for placing well in a pro division, it is cash, period. Take it and turn pro or decline it to stay am. It's a binary decision rather than a layered decision based on the form of compensation.

To me, if you want to argue that ams deserve merch in lieu of cash in a pro division, then pros should be able to take cash in lieu of merch in an am division.

 

[Discette]

Oh so even worse than I thought. That's crazy. In what way did you find this info, would be interesting to see the women's side with the cutoff being 875.

Go to PDGA. Hover over Membership and the drop down list includes "Player Statistics". From there you set the search. Once the search is returned - click on Rating to sort from lowest to highest rating or vice versa.

 

[_MTL_]

Using the member statistics, there are 19,051 players in Open Men and only 1,026 are rated 971 or higher. My math says 94.6% are eligible to play Am.

This is because in our sport the definition of professional is weak.

I'm a pretty good player, especially compared to the average player, but I get waxed week in and week out by 1000+ rated players.

I consider myself a semi-professional.

 

[_MTL_]

Most registered pros who play amateur divisions are not cashing pros, or at least not regularly cashing pros. In fact, a lot of them aren't Open players at all. They're age protected players whose skills are in decline. Players who might have been competitive pros (perhaps only at MPM or MPG levels) at one point, but have declined due to age, injury, lack of play, or any number of other reasons. They're no longer a competitive pro, but still want to play and compete on occasion. The rules allowing pros to play am are aimed at and used by players like them far more than they're aimed at the 960 rated player who wants to play both sides of the fence based on where the profit is better.

These are the players MTL was referring to in an earlier post about membership retention. Players who moved up appropriately at the time, but no longer are able to compete in a pro division. It's either let them play amateur where their skill level fits or watch them walk away all together.

Exactly. I've seen 930 players move up because at the time, the advanced fields were very weak. And then within a year, they realize it was a bad mistake. Sure, they got last cash at a one day C tier that they happily accepted, but this player eventually will quit playing if they were forced to play pro.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Exactly. I've seen 930 players move up because at the time, the advanced fields were very weak. And then within a year, they realize it was a bad mistake. Sure, they got last cash at a one day C tier that they happily accepted, but this player eventually will quit playing if they were forced to play pro.

This is why there shouldn't be AMs and Pros, except for Juniors... You should just be allowed to play in any division you are qualified for and get paid in cash.

I used to be a junior bowler and a men's league bowler. When I was a junior it was "trophy only". When I moved up to the men's league, we played for cash prizes at the end of the year.

 

[JC17393]

But, there are people out there doing just that, playing both sides of the field for profit. Why would the pdga address Ams that want to play pro occasionally but not pros that want to play AM occasionally, that just doesn't add up.

So it's okay for a pro to move down to play where he/she feels that it is better competition and still get merch payout but not okay for an AM to play up where they feel they better fit in and still get paid out.

Maybe Pros playing in AM should also only be able to collect a trophy if one is available. If its only about competing occasionally then this shouldn't be an issue to those players.

I'm not arguing that Pros should get paid out in Am divisions. I'm arguing that all players should be allowed to play where their skill (signified by rating) dictates they belong...pro/am status be damned.

If the PDGA implemented a rule barring pros from taking merch, I'd be fine with it (though I think the what-about-pros-in-am argument with regard to paying/not paying ams in a pro division is dumb and pointless). I think the concept of amateur payouts is an oxymoron to begin with. If one wants to be amateur, then be amateur. Don't be motivated by winning "stuff" of any kind...cash or merch. Play for the competition.

I believed that when I was an am, I still believe it now. It's why I've been running tournaments in the "True Amateur" style since long before the PDGA gave it that name. When I was an am, I played up and declined cash to remain an am. I had no choice as there was no merch option back then. It worked out fine then, there's no reason to think it won't work just fine now. Perhaps the six year period of paying ams merch in pro divisions didn't yield the results the PDGA folks hoped it would, and that's why they're going back to the old way.

 

[roadtripstuff]

Exactly. I've seen 930 players move up because at the time, the advanced fields were very weak. And then within a year, they realize it was a bad mistake. Sure, they got last cash at a one day C tier that they happily accepted, but this player eventually will quit playing if they were forced to play pro.

But does that player not have the option to not accept cash for a year and petition to go back to AM? What's the difference between a 969 player that went pro and is regrets it and a 971 player who went pro and regrets it.

You don't get to go back and play college football because you only rode the bench in the NFL and never played a game. I think people should think their decision to go pro through a little more. I do understand your point and I do understand what you said about retention and I do see that there is an issue with those people giving up competition because they can't win, but at the same time that's, unfortunately, part of professional sports.


The Ams that have declined cash should not have to worry about Random guy 970 moving down because only 4 Open players signed up for the local C-tier and are all rated higher than him.

All that said I am in the same boat as that player. I cash nearly every weekend locally, but haven't even come close at the larger events I played, but because I am 7 points over the cut off I can't move down.

 

[_MTL_]

But does that player not have the option to not accept cash for a year and petition to go back to AM? What's the difference between a 969 player that went pro and is regrets it and a 971 player who went pro and regrets it.

Sure, they can appeal, but they are rarely approved.

I actually had mine approved about 5 years back. I had a significant neck injury and had medical records and a medical opinion that stated my ability to play was impacted.

Keep in mind that appeals should only be granted in rare situations because the only thing a player is gaining is the ability to play majors and $25 less a year in membership fees.

970 is the line. There will always be a line somewhere and someone will always argue it.

 

[roadtripstuff]

Sure, they can appeal, but they are rarely approved.

I actually had mine approved about 5 years back. I had a significant neck injury and had medical records and a medical opinion that stated my ability to play was impacted.

Keep in mind that appeals should only be granted in rare situations because the only thing a player is gaining is the ability to play majors and $25 less a year in membership fees.

970 is the line. There will always be a line somewhere and someone will always argue it.

I agree that there needs to be a line and that line will always be argued, but with that I would say that the argument should end with the fact that we have determined that 94% of all male professionals fall under that line. That definitely seems skewed as far as the numbers are concerned. If the rule is really meant for retention and those who skills are degrading because of injury, age, etc then 94% seems relatively high. 94% of male pros cannot fall under the injury/age/degrading category.

I'm not at all arguing just to argue, really just trying to have a good conversation on this. My initial outrage has fallen back a bit, but I'm still not in favor of the competition rule changes at all.

 

[_MTL_]

I agree that there needs to be a line and that line will always be argued, but with that I would say that the argument should end with the fact that we have determined that 94% of all male professionals fall under that line. That definitely seems skewed as far as the numbers are concerned. If the rule is really meant for retention and those who skills are degrading because of injury, age, etc then 94% seems relatively high. 94% of male pros cannot fall under the injury/age/degrading category.

I'm not at all arguing just to argue, really just trying to have a good conversation on this. My initial outrage has fallen back a bit, but I'm still not in favor of the competition rule changes at all.

I'm not in anyway arguing - I'm trying my best to avoid conversations that get like that.

But to your first point, the issue is our definition of a professional. The fact that Ricky is classified the same as someone who made $18 at their local C tier is why we get those numbers.

 

[roadtripstuff]

I'm not in anyway arguing - I'm trying my best to avoid conversations that get like that.

But to your first point, the issue is our definition of a professional. The fact that Ricky is classified the same as someone who made $18 at their local C tier is why we get those numbers.

Sorry I didn't mean to insinuate that you were the one arguing, I was referring to myself lol. Very true about Ricky/Paul/Simon etc. Same with the women, there's Paige, Val, Cat, and maybe Sarah, and then there's everyone else.

Maybe there should, rather than a cut-off, be a minimum rating for Pros? I know that would also catch a lot of flack as well, but maybe it's at least worth thinking about. Maybe we need to limit who is considered a Pro? Again there would have to be a line and I'm sure that line would be argued to the fullest, but no other professional sport just allows anyone to be a professional. So maybe, just an example, of course, there would have to be some research done, you have to be rated 990 to be a pro-male and 890 to be a pro-female. The adjust the AM divisions accordingly?

I think long-term this could also help with the media and spectating side as well. Not being rude to anyone but people want to watch the top in the game, not me rated 880 throwing into the rough every other hole.

Again just making conversation and throwing out ideas that might benefit the sport as a whole.

 

[_MTL_]

There has been an evolution of the solutions for this issue.

It started with Pro 2. Pro 2 was a division where any amateur could compete and any pro under 955 (I think?) could play. Anyone could win merch or cash in it. It was only around a year and wasn't offered much so it was scrapped after one year.

Next came the rule we currently have allowing pros to play as ams. The old rating cap was 955. It was shifted to 970 a few years later.

I liked Pro 2, but just didn't quite think it hit the mark. I like the current rule quite a bit. But I don't agree with any ratings minimum to compete in an open division.