Great article about AM divisions.

[DavidSauls]

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.

As long as everyone has the exact same motivations for playing tournaments.....

Or are wiling to change theirs to the "correct" ones....

 

[Rumpled]

I am 57 and recently retired. This summer was my first opportunity to enjoy tournament play. My limited experience has left me feeling that the over 50 crowd should perhaps be organizing their own separate tournaments. No disrespect intended to the younger players and TDS, but we seniors don't need to play on a course where holes have been added and lengthened. The second round becomes less about skill and more about endurance, or who suffers the least joint pain. I would think 18 and a final 9 would be a welcome format?

 

[DavidSauls]

Most of the Over-50s I know, wouldn't care for that format. They sometimes complain about being put on shorter tees.

 

[DavidSauls]

....but that said, it would be a good option for someone to offer, and see how it goes. It's available under the current rules, and some places already offer events for older players only (one was described earlier in this thread).

 

[DavidSauls]

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.

This can be done, right now. You can run a tournament with just Advanced and Recreational Divisions. You can run a tournament that's trophy-only. You can demonstrate that these are better.

Or that they're not, if players don't choose to come.

I suspect that if the PDGA were to demand what it's membership doesn't want, as some have suggested, it would increase the popularity of non-sanctioned events.

But if some enterprising TDs demonstrate that this is really what the players do want, by the success of limited divisions, trophy-only Am events becoming more popular than the current formats, it might be a different story.

 

[Rumpled]

I would'nt be surprised if mine is a minority opinion. I played 3 one day tournaments this summer, and with travel time those days were between 11 and 12 hours long. If that's the norm, I will only be playing tournaments rarely, if at all. I expect that Over-50's who compete regularly are content, and those who feel as I do abandon tournament play.

 

[bwgort]

This can be done, right now. You can run a tournament with just Advanced and Recreational Divisions. You can run a tournament that's trophy-only. You can demonstrate that these are better.

Or that they're not, if players don't choose to come.

I suspect that if the PDGA were to demand what it's membership doesn't want, as some have suggested, it would increase the popularity of non-sanctioned events.

But if some enterprising TDs demonstrate that this is really what the players do want, by the success of limited divisions, trophy-only Am events becoming more popular than the current formats, it might be a different story.

What I've done in the past is have only Intermediate and Open divisions. This is the way, using current pdga guidelines, to force people above intermediate rating to play Open.

I decided I didn't love that format because I don't like forcing people to play open. So instead, I now only run events with Open and Trophy only as the divisions. Either you play for cash or you play for a players pack/trophy. I have sold out every event I have run this way and have received a lot of compliments about the format.

 

[DavidSauls]

What I've done in the past is have only Intermediate and Open divisions. This is the way, using current pdga guidelines, to force people above intermediate rating to play Open.

I decided I didn't love that format because I don't like forcing people to play open. So instead, I now only run events with Open and Trophy only as the divisions. Either you play for cash or you play for a players pack/trophy. I have sold out every event I have run this way and have received a lot of compliments about the format.

Excellent. I wish more people would experiment with formats.

I've played in a number of sanctioned trophy-only events. I like it, myself. But these were generally on great courses, so the course might have been enough of a draw to make up for the lack of prizes. (One great thing about trophy-only is, no drawn-out awards ceremony. Sometimes, none at all. Finish, and go home.)

As disc golf has grown, in some places there are enough players to populate events in all sorts of formats---the standard ones, and the alternatives. If we get to where there are events offered in all sorts of formats, players can choose which ones best suit them. This is the route I wish for, not an edict of which is right, excluding all the rest.

 

[lyleoross]

I'm so confused. TD's have the right to offer whatever divisions they would like. They can make it open, advanced, and intermediate if they so chose. Yet they don't. It's almost like they know what the players want.

The premise of this discussion is that we should tell TDs to limit divisions and force players to play where they don't want to play cause that is going to get better results.

Sign me up!

The fall back for such arguments has always been, you go boy. Run events, run them how you want to run them with the divisions you want. It's really quite easy. Let me know how that mousetrap works out for you.

 

[ThrowBot]

Any "One Size Fits All" approach to divisions is doomed to fail.

Tourney Directors need to have options, understand those options, and be willing to use those options. Setting up divisions for an event can be done in a way that shapes the event you want to run.

Players need to respect a TD's right to offer (or NOT offer) certain divisions. If you don't like how the tourney is set up, nobody is forcing you to play. The other side of that coin: the onus is on the TD to set up divisions in a way that incentivizes the folks they want to show up for their event.

 

[Discette]

Hello! It seems that you have foundational disagreements with the ideas presented and possibly me as a person.

I have foundational disagreements with the writing, not with you. On a forum like this, I could overlook when a poster doesn't follow any basic rules of persuasive writing or debate. However, a published "journalist" for an established news site should be held to a higher standard. Especially if you want to bask in all the attention your "op-ed" article is generating.


"Ultiworld - The premier news media site dedicated to..." Since Ultiworld is a news site, that makes you a reporter (aka journalist). I get upset when reporters don't follow the basic rules of journalism or persuasive writing. I think MTL said it best:

This is just lazy reporting,....

The readers were not informed the PDGA already allows TD's to limit Am divisions which created a false problem (PDGA has too many Am divisions). Then a solution was offered to the false problem (PDGA should limit Am divisions). There cannot be a debate without a factual foundation.

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

Heavy sigh...

 

[DiscFifty]

Refining my thought process on this: Instead of having all those misc age protected divisions which are based on age (am40, am50, am55, am60, am65, etc, etc) , get rid of all those and just have 3 age protected divisions for all players aged 40 and up. But now they're playing with players who have similar ratings. I think this could result in larger divisions and also more fair divisions imop since it would eliminate the rec rated player competing against the adv rated player in the age protected divisions (unless they wanted to of course). Thoughts?

AM Masters Rec, AM Masters Int, AM Masters Adv
AM Masters Women Rec, Am Masters Women Int, Am Masters Women Adv.

 

[curmudgeonDwindle]

it came to me in a dream...

i was whistling the animals cover of that famous ben benjamin song to myself and thought, here's a great way to improve the game by streamlining the 'pro/open' divisions.

winner take all. maybe if you're feeling generous, 2nd gets their entry back (td option).

this would eliminate any 'purse payout unfair' arguments, easing the td's workload. competition would be heightened to a viciously cut-throat level everyone will enjoy - 'suckers walk!' as we used to say. the over-lordly winner of such events might appreciate the extra prize of really intense schadenfreude, because everyone will have 'ramen-eye' but he/she. it'll be tremendous improvement and a sure way to attract/retain new players and major sponsors. in fact, i'd say this is the best way to determine the eternal question about the 'best disc golfer ever'...

who is with me?
seriously, the proverbial fork is in this thread...

 

[_MTL_]

Refining my thought process on this: Instead of having all those misc age protected divisions which are based on age (am40, am50, am55, am60, am65, etc, etc) , get rid of all those and just have 3 age protected divisions for all players aged 40 and up. But now they're playing with players who have similar ratings. I think this could result in larger divisions and also more fair divisions imop since it would eliminate the rec rated player competing against the adv rated player in the age protected divisions (unless they wanted to of course). Thoughts?

AM Masters Rec, AM Masters Int, AM Masters Adv
AM Masters Women Rec, Am Masters Women Int, Am Masters Women Adv.

The reason the structure isn't like this is for two reasons...

1. The model we have currently follows other senior models in sports. The senior committee did research on this and suggested this format. There is science behind why a 5 year split after 50 is the fairest way to approach competition.

2. In general, older players would much rather play with players their own age rather than players of their same skill.

I'm ok with a ratings cap on age protected amateur divisions. But I'm a big supporter of the current age splits.

 

[_MTL_]

it came to me in a dream...

i was whistling the animals cover of that famous ben benjamin song to myself and thought, here's a great way to improve the game by streamlining the 'pro/open' divisions.

winner take all. maybe if you're feeling generous, 2nd gets their entry back (td option).

this would eliminate any 'purse payout unfair' arguments, easing the td's workload. competition would be heightened to a viciously cut-throat level everyone will enjoy - 'suckers walk!' as we used to say. the over-lordly winner of such events might appreciate the extra prize of really intense schadenfreude, because everyone will have 'ramen-eye' but he/she. it'll be tremendous improvement and a sure way to attract/retain new players and major sponsors. in fact, i'd say this is the best way to determine the eternal question about the 'best disc golfer ever'...

who is with me?
seriously, the proverbial fork is in this thread...

The top pros are very much against this. There are probably 4 people on earth that would be able to play professionally is this was the case.

 

[curmudgeonDwindle]

The top pros are very much against this. There are probably 4 people on earth that would be able to play professionally is this was the case.

read it again, my brother, and reconsider your response.
pay particular attention to the last line...seriously?

 

[lyleoross]

The top pros are very much against this. There are probably 4 people on earth that would be able to play professionally is this was the case.

Sarcasm? I never can get it.

 

[_MTL_]

I learned a long time ago sarcasm doesn't translate to text well. But not I get it.

 

[DiscFifty]

2. In general, older players would much rather play with players their own age rather than players of their same skill.

I think it's mainly from not wanting to play with very young players, teens, etc, in the rec or intermediate divisions. I seriously doubt a 50-60 year old would mind playing with a 40 year old, if they were similarly rated.

 

[DiscFifty]

I'm ok with a ratings cap on age protected amateur divisions. But I'm a big supporter of the current age splits.

I personally think over time the am50, am55, am60, am65, etc, etc, splits will have proven to be a bad idea. I think older players would appreciate the potential for larger divisions, especially when matched against similar rated players.