Great article about AM divisions.

[ejvogie]

First, I will admit to only reading the first 30ish posts...

Re: trophies

Who says you have to get one for every division? Just as long as you advertise which divisions are getting trophies, and go by a minimum 3 players per division, what's the big deal? Limiting divisions seems like a solution in search of a problem.

 

[curmudgeonDwindle]

A tangentially related question: Can anyone think of some reasons why the PGA was formed as a separate entity from the USGA and the R&A ?(a semi-rhetorical question demanding readers draw their own conclusions)

I'm a big fan of individual choice and individual solutions to specific situations. I've observed and played with enough people to know that each person always has their own good reasons for participation, no matter the level. Many do not appreciate being 'funneled up the ladder of improvement and success' to satisfy another's aims/agenda - even if that aim is the 'growth and improvement' of the sport...

But then again, the only purpose of power is to use it...forgive the vagueness, it's been a long, hot, humid day...

 

[DanJon]

The article is loaded with assumptions and lacks any facts, data or experience to back up the recommendations.

Several TD's have explained that currently successful events around the country would have LESS players if they were forced to follow your divisional suggestions. Plus, TD's are already welcome to limit divisions for "simplicity" or to yield "bigger divisions".

Did you do any research on the PDGA history of divisional offerings? Did you interview anyone on the PDGA Competition Committee about the current divisional offerings? The PDGA used years of data and trial and error to determine the current ratings breaks? What data did you use to determine your "ideal" rating breaks?



Please provide links to the "around 10" PDGA events that you TD'd. I found two:

https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/31691

https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/34024

Funny how he won his division in both of those.

Now he has an idea to simplify AM Divisions.

Seems like a new way to say what people who win in Int and Adv have been saying for years (more lower rated people should be forced to play in my division).

On top of that, he's questioning and acting like a contemporary with people who have much more experience and knowledge on the subject.

It's been an entertaining thread.

 

[F.Luke]

As a player who has been in the open division since 2002 (I'm now eligible for open masters, or whatever bs the pdga has cooked up) this conversation is laughable. The PDGA caters to the "I wanna be a winner" to make money.




I haven't renewed my PDGA membership in a LONG time. I don't plan to any time soon.

 

[scarpfish]

You know the great thing about message board idealism? It's free. Tournament fees...not so much.

Which one do you think most TD's are going to weigh heavier? I suppose that's how we got the division structure that we did.

 

[dreadlock86]

I have TDed events (around 10) and helped many new players get into tournament play. I frequently have to explain to players the differences between divisions and help them decide where to compete.

yeah, that's called being a TD. (but thanks for doing it!)

The general hope of the article is that simplicity could yield better fields and competition in Amateur play.

I simply don't see the need for so many divisions for amateurs. Instead, make larger fields build the competition instead of personalizing for small groups to crown a winner of an arcane Am division.

Simpy put - simplifying the divisions breakdown would take the guessing (and gaming) out of Amateurs selecting a division. Make larger groups instead of subdividing players.

I think a very large portion of players competing today (myself included) would have a better and more robust, healthy tournament experience with larger pools.

you've made no argument at all for the assertions that there are problems with field sizes, or that larger field sizes make for better competition (in fact, the opposite seems more likely), or that significant numbers of players have inferior tournament experiences because of the number of divisions available.

the bolded quote is pretty much the entirety of your argument. and why should we care what an Open player thinks about Am divisions? yours is not the mentality of an Am competitor.


i think the comments below are on point

As to the article itself, I'm not sure it spells out the problem very well, or much of a problem:

"For myself and others, the PDGA guidelines fail to adequately define who can and should play in a given division and often leaves some divisions full of competitors and others nearly, if not completely, empty. Playing against a mere handful (or fewer) competitors over the course of a season removes the competitive aspect of tournament play. As an athlete, I've always been drawn to large, competitive, efficiently-run events in a variety of sports. Realigning and simplifying the amateur divisions would greatly improve the tournament experience for players and tournament directors and yield larger fields."

I think the PDGA guidelines define divisions, and where people can play, very well. The divisions have ratings caps or minimum ages that are pretty clear.

The problem of divisions being nearly or completely empty isn't solved by eliminating them (by making fewer divisions), thus making them permanently empty.

It's also dubious that the larger divisions would "improve the tournament experience for players", since the players we're talking about usually choose those small divisions, even when they have a choice, under the current guidelines, to move into a larger division.

The article is loaded with assumptions and lacks any facts, data or experience to back up the recommendations.

Several TD's have explained that currently successful events around the country would have LESS players if they were forced to follow your divisional suggestions. Plus, TD's are already welcome to limit divisions for "simplicity" or to yield "bigger divisions".

Did you do any research on the PDGA history of divisional offerings? Did you interview anyone on the PDGA Competition Committee about the current divisional offerings? The PDGA used years of data and trial and error to determine the current ratings breaks? What data did you use to determine your "ideal" rating breaks?

is the goal of an opinion piece not to persuade your audience to accept your view? then justify the assumptions inherent in the perceived problem. the prevailing response in this thread seems to be "what problem?" that the system is not understood by some newbies to tournament play does not mean that the system is incomprehensible.

i do commend you on your civility in this thread despite the negative feedback. i'm sure the majority of responses are aimed at the ideas and not you personally.

 

[TAFL]

That being said, we're opening up registration next week for a tournament where we're only offering MA40 and MA55 divisions for the masters players. I'm sure the 52-year old guys will be a bit miffed that they're gonna have to compete against the 42-year olds, but we'll see how it works out. The experiment might fail or it might be a success.

Miffed? No. I'd pass on it, though.

 

[DiscFifty]

The bigger problem in terms of number of divisions is in Master age and older. And there are some who want Intermediate divisions within each of them.

Get rid of all the age protected divisions and just make 3 for the 40+ crowd, all with current pdga ratings guidelines: am-mature-rec, am-mature-int, am-mature-adv. We would have larger divisions all playing with a similar skill set. Too logical probably.

 

[biscoe]

Get rid of all the age protected divisions and just make 3 for the 40+ crowd, all with current pdga ratings guidelines: am-mature-rec, am-mature-int, am-mature-adv. We would have larger divisions all playing with a similar skill set. Too logical probably.

that would be either the same number or one more age protected field than we already offer around here at most events. the guys in their late 50's and 60's would all quit.

 

[DiscFifty]

that would be either the same number or one more age protected field than we already offer around here at most events. the guys in their late 50's and 60's would all quit.

It would eliminate all age protected and narrow it down to only 3, with ratings more inline with each other as well. Why would the 50 and 60 peeps quit?

 

[biscoe]

It would eliminate all age protected and narrow it down to only 3, with ratings more inline with each other as well. Why would the 50 and 60 peeps quit?

In my experience the age protected players prefer playing with folks their own age to playing with folks of the same general rating.

 

[DiscFifty]

In my experience the age protected players prefer playing with folks their own age to playing with folks of the same general rating.

I'm 55+ and in my experience (over 100 tournaments) we don't mind the 40+, we just don't want to play with the much younger crowd. I doubt you would lose that many, if any, to this scenario. Especially when they realize the similar skill sets.

 

[paulw]

For however long there have been disc golf message boards, disc golfers love posting about this topic.

That's all . . . it's just interesting how much interest there always has been.

 

[TimSyl]

I'm 55+ and in my experience (over 100 tournaments) we don't mind the 40+, we just don't want to play with the much younger crowd. I doubt you would lose that many, if any, to this scenario. Especially when they realize the similar skill sets.

I'm 55+ and prefer playing with younger players, which is why I choose MA2 or MA3 most times in tourneys.

 

[DavidSauls]

i do commend you on your civility in this thread despite the negative feedback. i'm sure the majority of responses are aimed at the ideas and not you personally.

Yes, on both counts.

 

[DavidSauls]

A tangentially related question: Can anyone think of some reasons why the PGA was formed as a separate entity from the USGA and the R&A ?(a semi-rhetorical question demanding readers draw their own conclusions)

I'm a big fan of individual choice and individual solutions to specific situations. I've observed and played with enough people to know that each person always has their own good reasons for participation, no matter the level. Many do not appreciate being 'funneled up the ladder of improvement and success' to satisfy another's aims/agenda - even if that aim is the 'growth and improvement' of the sport...

But then again, the only purpose of power is to use it...forgive the vagueness, it's been a long, hot, humid day...

Yep. Too many of us fall into the trap of thinking our own experience is universal.

 

[_MTL_]

The article mentions that people should be forced to play open.

Bottom line - no sport forces you to play pro or has limits on amateur skill.

If the consensus number 1 pick in the NBA Draft decides to play college ball for four years, do we say "um you are too good. NBA or nothing pal." Ironically, we won't even let that person play in the top professional league until they reach a certain age!

I don't understand why people think our sport should be different.

 

[DavidSauls]

The article mentions that people should be forced to play open.

Bottom line - no sport forces you to play pro or has limits on amateur skill.

If the consensus number 1 pick in the NBA Draft decides to play college ball for four years, do we say "um you are too good. NBA or nothing pal." Ironically, we won't even let that person play in the top professional league until they reach a certain age!

I don't understand why people think our sport should be different.

I agree. Completely.

But I think this derives, in part, from the fact that our pros aren't really "pros"---except for a few they're not earning a living, and many or most are not even making a profit---but are seen as merely the top level of the sport. Some people see the step from Advanced to Pro as just another step on the competition ladder, with the somewhat arbitrary change in entry fees and payout.

Of course, it also derives in part from current pros wanting more people to compete against.....or take money from. And amateurs who aren't the best, but want to be, not by being better, but by clearing out those who are.

 

[VictorB]

Individual sports have always lent themselves to having too many divisions.

Weightlifting and powerlifting are notorious for this - doubly so because there are so many different federations with slightly different rules that offer a huge number of divisions (mainly age protected, not really open/amateur)

In my opinion, age protected divisions are fine - but there are too many of them, regardless of how the player rating perceives decline of skill. That wouldn't be a problem if older players couldn't play in the non age protected divisions. Having age protected + pro/am is plenty enough already, and if they don't like that they can play MA3 or MA2, since they will still be able to group with people of similar overall skill.

For AM divisions though, I'd like to see only 2: Advanced and Recreational. Either you're a serious player or you're a recreational player. Having 4 divisions for amateurs is waaaaaay too many. I know there's this feel good reasoning that everyone deserves to compete for a win, but why? Compete and do your best, no matter your division. I think making Am divisions trophy only will put a stop to people wanting to only play for the win and maximizing their funny money that they can get from winning or placing high.

 

[_MTL_]

I agree. Completely.

But I think this derives, in part, from the fact that our pros aren't really "pros"---except for a few they're not earning a living, and many or most are not even making a profit---but are seen as merely the top level of the sport. Some people see the step from Advanced to Pro as just another step on the competition ladder, with the somewhat arbitrary change in entry fees and payout.

Of course, it also derives in part from current pros wanting more people to compete against.....or take money from. And amateurs who aren't the best, but want to be, not by being better, but by clearing out those who are.

I get that totally.

The argument is that your local C tier's open players aren't actual pros and the top advanced players should play pro because, as you said, its the next step in the ladder.

But, lets use a baseball analogy to describe why this is flawed.

Aaron Judge isn't playing Single A ball. He can't just call up the Yankees and be like "yeah, I'm gonna play single A this weekend. I just need a break from the big leagues."

However, there is nothing to stop Paul McBeth and any touring professional to show up at your local C tier. We know it's not going to happen, but you see what I'm getting at.