Great article about AM divisions.

[Future_Primitive]

It's used pretty consistently in this area. YMMV

Seconded, being in the same general area. I have seen my fair share of tournies in these parts having AM3 and AM4 being the largest fields. Sort of depends on the course on turn out but definitely not uncommon. AM4 is almost always offered.

 

[dreadlock86]

Integrity of Competition
> In my opinion, giving people the choice of a division is (somewhat) like giving them a choice if they want to win or lose. I could play open and donate, or I can play Advanced and have a chance at 'cashing'. If people are always placed in a division of their 'equals' the competition improves.
* Again, we're assuming a competitive model for sanctioned events.

how is this addressed other than limiting a player's ability to play up a division? in the specific case of MA1 and AM1, how do you address it without forcing players into Open?

or are you suggesting both those solutions?

 

[_MTL_]

All of this is strictly in your opinion. All of his article is strictly in his opinion. All I'm saying is don't try to pull rank, as it were, on somebody who was able to get a discussion going.

The PDGA does some good things, and some really dumb things. Just like any group, it's not perfect. We should be encouraging thoughtful discussion about our member driven governing body.

There's a clear difference between this and a facebook live show we all know...don't treat one like the other. That would be "unfair" on your part.

Point is here
































You are here.


missing it completely.

 

[Golden Tuna]

Thanks. Most of that is convenience to the TD....but most of that, the TD can do now.

Trophy Only and limiting divisions are options the PDGA offers.

I'd like to see TDs offer them more often. I'm less enthusiastic about the PDGA mandating them.

*

The idea that winning a small division isn't as meaningful as winning a big division, should be viewed in the light that, given the choice, many people choose the smaller division. Something about it is meaningful to them. It may be more than just winning. Others, to whom it's not, can usually choose a larger division to compete in...

...which isn't to say those aren't very good points of why TDs should consider not running "events for everyone", as someone cleverly described them, but instead use the flexibility to run more targeted events.

Just to clarify, I was not talking about 'trophy only' divisions. I am fine with trophy + vouchers for AMs. The point (I was making) about trophies is that you need to know what divisions will fill up, so trophies can be ordered accurately...

If I (the TD) narrow the available divisions I'm the 'bad guy' (regardless of the catalyst for the decision). If the PDGA 'mandates' the divisions, then I am just operating within the confines of our governing body.

The result is the same (fewer divisions), but the publicity the two different scenarios would receive is quite a bit different.

We live in a world (in my opinion) where people look for reasons to complain. Or, more accurately, people wish to exercise their right to free speech more than ever. I blame social media for people assigning a false sense of importance to their personal gripes... That's a whole other conversation...

In my opinion, paying members should expect their governing body to:
> Provide templates for a successful event (TD report, payout tables, etc.)
> Provide a competition committee
> Vote/Decide on rules changes
> Operate for the greater good
> Provide disciplinary action for rules infractions
> Determine player groupings
> Provide standards for events to exist with their label
> Create policies for the governing of the game
> Manage online resources
> Etc.

The PDGA does some of this, maybe all of it and I just don't like 'how' they do it.

 

[Dcinmd]

Seconded, being in the same general area. I have seen my fair share of tournies in these parts having AM3 and AM4 being the largest fields. Sort of depends on the course on turn out but definitely not uncommon. AM4 is almost always offered.

MA4 is never used in this area and some events do not used MA3.

It must be a Mid-Atlantic thing.

 

[Golden Tuna]

how is this addressed other than limiting a player's ability to play up a division? in the specific case of MA1 and AM1, how do you address it without forcing players into Open?

or are you suggesting both those solutions?

I'm not entirely sure I understand your question. It sounds like you're asking how I'd propose to divide the divisions, which I covered in here:

PRO: 970+ rated players (maybe the # designating 'Pro' should go up to 990 or 1000)
Competitive AM: 925-975
Amateur: 900-925
Recreational: <900
* All divisions will be offered in Men's & Women's divisions
* Only Open divisions will be age-protected, everyone else plays their rating
* Age protected groups 45-55, 55-65, 65+

The idea being, when you sign up for an event, you provide your name, player rating, and sex. You're then entered into the appropriate division based on that information.

My opinion on having "too many" divisions is rooted in the flexibility people have to choose the division they in which they compete.

Why do we have a choice in what division we compete in? Other sports, such as tennis, use USTA Ratings that are similar to our ratings to determine what division a player should play within. The USTA even has self-rating guidelines. Perhaps tennis is just a little more sophisticated than disc golf in the governance of the sport, but I suggest we work towards the USTA's model...

 

[JC17393]

Just to clarify, I was not talking about 'trophy only' divisions. I am fine with trophy + vouchers for AMs. The point (I was making) about trophies is that you need to know what divisions will fill up, so trophies can be ordered accurately...

If I (the TD) narrow the available divisions I'm the 'bad guy' (regardless of the catalyst for the decision). If the PDGA 'mandates' the divisions, then I am just operating within the confines of our governing body.

There's always the option of limiting trophies to divisions of a certain size, achieved by a certain date (to further encourage pre-registration). Offer all the divisions, order trophies only for the ones that have enough players to justify it at the time of ordering. If there's a rush of late registrants to MA3 and you don't have a trophy, or enough trophies for that division...oh well.

I guess I don't understand the trophies argument. The vast majority of tournaments around here don't do trophies at all. And most of those that do give trophies to first place in each division and that's it. I really only do trophies beyond first place at my more low-key tourneys (doubles mostly), and in those cases the trophies are laminated sheets of paper with custom tourney artwork, the date, and place (1st through 3rd)...cheap and easy and if I have extras, I'm only out a few cents.

But I get that other places do things differently. That's why I like the system that exists now. I can run my tournaments my way, others can run theirs their way, and it all works under the PDGA umbrella. I'd hate to see things mandated by the PDGA to fit the needs/wants of one area, especially if that screws up the good thing I've got going here.

 

[DavidSauls]

If I (the TD) narrow the available divisions I'm the 'bad guy' (regardless of the catalyst for the decision). If the PDGA 'mandates' the divisions, then I am just operating within the confines of our governing body.

The result is the same (fewer divisions), but the publicity the two different scenarios would receive is quite a bit different.

Around here, TDs limit divisions, in all sorts of ways, all the time, and survive.

If limiting divisions is going to be unpopular with players, I consider that as evidence that the player-run organization should not mandate it.

 

[DavidSauls]

In my opinion, paying members should expect their governing body to:
> Provide templates for a successful event (TD report, payout tables, etc.)
> Provide a competition committee
> Vote/Decide on rules changes
> Operate for the greater good
> Provide disciplinary action for rules infractions
> Determine player groupings
> Provide standards for events to exist with their label
> Create policies for the governing of the game
> Manage online resources
> Etc.

The PDGA does some of this, maybe all of it and I just don't like 'how' they do it.

There is, admittedly, a gray line between the PDGA setting standards, and being rigid. As a player, you want to know what to expect in an event; it's one of the advantages sanctioned events have over non-sanctioned ones.

But there's an advantage to flexibility, too. In my opinion, this is one the PDGA got right: set up a division structure, and allow TDs to offer all, or part, of it, as long as they give advance notice of any limitations.

Not entirely right---the names are stupid, the division thresholds may be debatable---but generally, right.

 

[JTacoma03]

Point is here
































You are here.


missing it completely.

I've been making a singular, consistent point. Not sure how it would be possible for me to miss my own point? Still would rather just see you engage in the discussion than try to fight the people making the points. JMHO though.

 

[scarpfish]

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.

Again, I don't know how many times this has to be mentioned, but just because the PDGA makes 5 year age breaks legally recognized doesn't mean that a TD has to use all of them. If anything, five year breaks give the TD more ability to limit divisions and flexibility to decide where the breaks go than ten year breaks do.

 

[DiscFifty]

If anything, five year breaks give the TD more ability to limit divisions and flexibility to decide where the breaks go than ten year breaks do.

meh...this is a skill game based on personal ratings not personal age. I've grown tired of thinking of someone's age rather than rating, determining a division.

 

[JC17393]

Again, I don't know how many times this has to be mentioned, but just because the PDGA makes 5 year age breaks legally recognized doesn't mean that a TD has to use all of them. If anything, five year breaks give the TD more ability to limit divisions and flexibility to decide where the breaks go than ten year breaks do.

I'm hoping at the end of the year, the PDGA can compile and publish data on how often those new age divisions were used. I expect that they've gone unused except for large events (majors, maybe select A-tiers) and specialty events (Masters-only events). If it turns out the divisions only appear in, say, 2% of all the PDGA tournaments all year, is that a failure? Even if that is exactly what was expected when they were added?

 

[JC17393]

meh...this is a skill game based on personal ratings not personal age. I've grown tired of thinking of someone's age rather than rating, determining a division.

So you'd be in favor of ditching the age divisions all together? Do it all by rating? I expect that is a more likely outcome (the format exists in the color division format...Gold, Blue, White, etc) than creating a separate set of ratings-based divisions just for players over a certain age (40, 45, 50, whatever the cut-off).

 

[DavidSauls]

meh...this is a skill game based on personal ratings not personal age. I've grown tired of thinking of someone's age rather than rating, determining a division.

The actual players haven't grown tired of it.

 

[_MTL_]

I've been making a singular, consistent point. Not sure how it would be possible for me to miss my own point? Still would rather just see you engage in the discussion than try to fight the people making the points. JMHO though.

I've consistently made my point throughout the thread, long before your comments were added.

My point as a whole has been that this article was written with very lazy research and it's extremely misleading as not mentioning most of things he states are currently possible.

 

[DiscFifty]

So you'd be in favor of ditching the age divisions all together?

No! I'm just not a fan of the 40, 55, 60, 65, 70, etc splits. It's insane to think a rec rated player competing against an advanced rated player in the 50+ age protected divisions. That's why I think 3 divisions TOTAL (not 3 for each age group) for the 40 and over crowd would work just fine and group them by ratings: MastersREC, MastersINT, MastersADV. All those divisions narrowed down to just 3. Sure they could optionally just play regular rec, int, adv, but I just don't see the need for all those age protected divisions. With only 3 divisions sorted by rating, you would end up with larger divisions and more evenly spread competition. A 80-100 point ratings spread is very real in age protected divisions, this would eliminate that. I've played over 100 pdga tournaments, I've had this discussion with quite a few players and most if not all are in favor of it. The "like to play with players our own age" argument is from mainly not wanting to play with rec rated younger players imop.

 

[DavidSauls]

At one time, the PDGA did offer ratings splits for age-protected divisions.

Admittedly, all the age-protected divisions weren't combined, but you had the Advanced > 40, Intermediate > 40, Rec > 40, Advanced > 50, Intermediate > 50, etc.

I think it only lasted one year as even the 40+, the largest of the age-protected divisions, didn't make much use of it. The conclusion was that you can choose to play age-protected or ratings-protected, already.

As I said earlier, the idea would work okay....but probably be less desired than the current options.

 

[ru4por]

No! I'm just not a fan of the 40, 55, 60, 65, 70, etc splits. It's insane to think a rec rated player competing against an advanced rated player in the 50+ age protected divisions. That's why I think 3 divisions TOTAL (not 3 for each age group) for the 40 and over crowd would work just fine and group them by ratings: MastersREC, MastersINT, MastersADV. All those divisions narrowed down to just 3. Sure they could optionally just play regular rec, int, adv, but I just don't see the need for all those age protected divisions. With only 3 divisions sorted by rating, you would end up with larger divisions and more evenly spread competition. A 80-100 point ratings spread is very real in age protected divisions, this would eliminate that. I've played over 100 pdga tournaments, I've had this discussion with quite a few players and most if not all are in favor of it. The "like to play with players our own age" argument is from mainly not wanting to play with rec rated younger players imop.

I don't agree. From a pure competitive standpoint, at 55 y/o, I am no more likely to compete with most 40 y/o players, than I am as a rec player in 50+ advanced. IMO, less likely. As a rec player I can hold my own in most MA50 divisions.

I have zero interest in playing AM3, though forced to do so, for points, at the beginning of the season. I enjoy playing with guys my age.

But, I am on record here as stating, I don't think the divisioning is broken.

 

[Cgkdisc]

TDs can offer just 4 divisions limited to master age men & women, ams and pros, playing together in the appropriate Blue, White, Red and Green (maybe Purple) divisions. The pros earn cash and ams get merch if they end up in the prizes.