Great article about AM divisions.

[Putt for D'oh]

The amount of divisions and reducing them is way over discussed and is a non-issue..

The longer this thread goes and the more varied the ideas are the more I think this statement should have ended the thread.

System isn't perfect but most of the proposed changes in this thread don't seem like an improvement just a change for change sake.

 

[DavidSauls]

Yah, I see that. Typically ma40, ma50, ma60 is used. But since there are no ratings requirements you have huge ratings gaps. My proposal helps to clean that up while potentially having larger divisions. If there are only a few ma40 and a few ma50 all rec rated, I'm guessing they would have no problem playing mastersrec where they would have a larger division and better competition.

Maybe. I'm not sure enough would move over to make the masters divisions significantly bigger.

From the amateur geezers I know and play with, I think the appeal of the age brackets would be greater than the ratings brackets. Just speculation, of course, as lots of this is.

If I win (or do well) in MA50, I walk away thinking I was the best player (50 years old or more) that day. If I win (or do well) in MA40Int, I was only the best of the older players who was bad enough to be in that division. It's not as satisfying, even if the spread of competition was closer.

One distinction between ratings groupings for younger players, and older players, is that most of those younger players are rising. They can see Rec or Int as stepping stones to higher competition. For us older guys, most of us have ratings that are falling, so being good in a ratings-capped division isn't quite the same.

It's not that I don't think your idea has merit. It would work. I just don't think the players would be as happy with it, as the current system.

But maybe somebody can offer it, as Chuck proposed, and see.

 

[DiscFifty]

If I win (or do well) in MA50, I walk away thinking I was the best player (50 years old or more) that day. If I win (or do well) in MA40Int, I was only the best of the older players who was bad enough to be in that division. It's not as satisfying, even if the spread of competition was closer.

Thank you for the comments btw! That's why it wouldn't have an "age" like 40 attached, it would just be called "masters" + rec, int, adv. I'm only 5 years into the sport as a 55 year old, but I've learned this game is truly ageless due to player ratings. I just think it simply does not make sense where you have rec, int, adv divisions but in the age protected divisions there is no min/max rating cap. It goes both ways, it's not fun to win against less capable players, and it certainly isn't right for a guy with an advanced rating to swoop in and beat a bunch of rec players. Again..the only divisions you can do this in the age protected divisions. Congrats...you're an old fart.. feel free to bag all you want, you're earned it. meh...

I looked at the recent world ams divisions.. 108 players in MA50, highest rated player was 952, lowest rated player was 817. sorry...even if "the social experience" is all that and a bag of chips, that just doesn't seem right....at all.

 

[JC17393]

These divisions don't really function within our competition format as amateurs so using that name just perpetuates our mislabeling. That's why Advanced or something else (Player?, Golfer?) would be more generic in the long run for our adult competition divisions below pro. Only Juniors should probably be our true amateurs in the long run, and even then, perhaps just during actual school age competition below college level.

Are we changing the definition of amateur along with these division name changes? MA1...Mixed Amateur 1. Seems like the name's already there. No need making it any more complicated or confusing.

Are you saying that adults can't be amateurs?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Are we changing the definition of amateur along with these division name changes? MA1...Mixed Amateur 1. Seems like the name's already there. No need making it any more complicated or confusing.

Are you saying that adults can't be amateurs?

I'm saying our "amateur" adult competition and award format is more of a carnival game with prizes for skillful execution than truly traditional amateur level like high schools on down. College level sports have also been more carnival like with scholarships as their "player pack" and earning higher draft status based on skill, with stipends coming soon to sweeten the player pack.

 

[JC17393]

I'm saying our "amateur" adult competition and award format is more of a carnival game with prizes for skillful execution than truly traditional amateur level like high schools on down. College level sports have also been more carnival like with scholarships as their "player pack" and earning higher draft status based on skill, with stipends coming soon to sweeten the player pack.

Okay, just so it's clear, you're expressing your opinion, not anything actually under official consideration. Because the way you framed it before, saying that you suspect a change is coming by 2020, it sounded like something official might be in the works.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm saying our "amateur" adult competition and award format is more of a carnival game with prizes for skillful execution than truly traditional amateur level like high schools on down. College level sports have also been more carnival like with scholarships as their "player pack" and earning higher draft status based on skill, with stipends coming soon to sweeten the player pack.

And there's nothing wrong with that. I just think it's the underlying appeal of our sport and PDGA competition. It just seems to make more sense to better represent the nature of our competition system for adults seeking competitive recreation, with the potential to win prizes, who have no desire to make it a career but simply an enjoyable lifetime sport.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Okay, just so it's clear, you're expressing your opinion, not anything actually under official consideration. Because the way you framed it before, saying that you suspect a change is coming by 2020, it sounded like something official might be in the works.

The Master color division concept has been discussed and has a chance to become a sanctioned option by 2020. Getting "amateur" out of the adult divisions is just an observation but no proposal bouncing around within PDGA circles to my knowledge.

 

[jksdg]

Less divisions is better, but for play to be fair the ratings window really can't be any more than 50 from top to bottom.

A 895 rated player with a standard deviaton of 27 can't win a tournament with a bunch of 930s (unless the division has very few players).

Looking at PDGA data from 2016 (out of 33,873)
1,050 rated under 700
2,154 700-779
3,786 780-829
8,602 830-879
11,769 880-929
5,814 930-979
698 980+

If you tried to be fair you'd need at least 8 divisions. That would be silly because tons of divisions would have less than 4 people.

The optimal solution is to let the local players and local TDs to determine divisions and who plays in them. It will be different area by area.

Leave things alone. As long as you continue to hear people whisper or yell "bagger" at every award ceremony it will all take care of itself.

 

[Lewis]

AAAA, AAA, AA, A ?

MA935, MA900, MA850, MA000 ? (at least those insisting on "playing up" would be doing so in clear contrast to the ratings).

Ah, just musing and quibbling, as I'm about 98% sure that any name change will be an improvement.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Using the rating number that literally defines the division, instead of 1, 2, 3, or "Rec", "Int", "Adv", to name the amateur divisions seems like the obvious and intuitive solution to me.

 

[_MTL_]

If we are at the point of only discussing what names of divisions should be, then yeah....

 

[brutalbrutus]

Let me preface by saying that this does not include age protected divisions and players. I haven't gotten to play in those yet, so I don't really feel I am qualified to talk about them. This is more about the 20-40age ranged players that I mostly play with at events in rec and int.

From my experience, while being a good benchmark, the current ratings breaks are slightly off. If it were up to me, I would get rid of the novice division altogether. The "rec" division or what ever you want to call it would be players sub 870, INT sub 915 and ADV above that. IME, that 870-915 group seem to have a pretty similar skill set. Some may be longer off the tee and others might have better short games but that range would be really competitive, from top to bottom, on a given day. Also, I feel like 915-960ish players are also in that kind of range.

I don't think there really needs to be four AM divisions. The "rec" division should be a low entry fee/minimal payout division to get people used to the rules and etiquettes of tourney play. I feel that once someone gets to that 870ish level they are starting to get more focused on their games. If you want to call that competitive Am or AdvanceII, whatever. I feel its the same with that 915-925 range. You have to put in a little more work(or have a natural talent) to get above that point.

But I don't think players should be required to play in the division they are rated for. They should be allowed to play up if they prefer to, or because their friends play in that division or if its a regional thing to play above your rating, or whatever the reason.

 

[Discette]

I think the criticism of the piece has largely been misdirected toward the author. It's the editors of Ultiworld who could have stepped in to advise the (somewhat) inexperienced author, and encouraged including a paragraph or three to round out the piece to include the primary criticisms above (e.g. PDGA history, existing solutions, etc.).

I would like to apologize to Tyler because Teemkey is 100% correct. The responsibility for the quality of the published writing belongs to the editors of Ultiworld, not Tyler.

Tyler did a great job starting a discussion. From his discussion, many folks learned that the PDGA already allows tournament directors a great deal of flexibility when running events. Players and potential TD's learned events DON'T have to offer all the Am divisions. We all learned MA4 doesn't exist in North Carolina yet it is a thriving division in Illinois.

Tyler is welcome to lead by example and try his divisional ideas at his next PDGA events. Then Tyler can let us know how well it works. It could be a perfect solution for events in his area.

Thank you for the discussion Tyler.

 

[ThrowBot]

AAAA, AAA, AA, A ?

I really like this, with "A" being the highest division and "AA" the next highest, on down the line.

A = Amateur
(Self explanatory.)

AA = Amateur's Amateur
(Man, I can call that guy out for being a total Am, even though I'M an Am!)
Secret bonus: you can drink during rounds in this division.

AAA = Amateur's Amateur's Amateur
(Seems like an Am, even to an Am's Am.)
Secret bonus: you get a deal on roadside assistance insurance.

...And on down the line!

 

[Jah Plastifari]

I'm curious if any of the proponents of combining age based divisions has considered what Am Worlds would look like with such a change. You cannot have a World Championship in a division with an upper rating limit. There would be real sandbagging going on by many players who are close to the cut off in order to qualify for the lower division. It's the reason that there is no Intermediate World Champion. Lumping all Ams over 40 into a division means that anyone who has started to see any decline in their game due to age would have almost zero chance of ever becoming a World Champion. I can't imagine a player who has never dreamed of having a putt to win a World Championship. Taking that dream away from chronologically challenged Ams, especially those who have started playing later in life, would be a terrible thing.

On a personal note, I love having 8 possible divisions to choose from when signing up for a tourney. I always look for the division that I believe would challenge me the most that I still have a chance of doing well in. In the last two seasons I have played Advanced mostly, Am 40+ once, Pro 40+ once, and Open twice (last cash both times ). I have yet to play Am or Pro 50+ or 55+, the fields aren't challenging enough.

 

[DavidSauls]

Very good point. Though I suppose you could have the ratings based 40+ divisions, then have age-based divisions at Worlds. That would be a little odd, too.

 

[DavidSauls]

Perhaps one day disc golf will grow to the point of having very focused tournaments---one for 50+ here, one for novices there, pro-only tournaments, amateur-only (advanced) tournaments, etc. In that world, unless the PDGA mandated that players only compete at one type of tournament during the year, some players would have a choice of which events to attend. Particularly when there are multiple tournaments, focused on different groups of players, happening at the same time in the same area.

I wonder if, in that rosy future, people will complain that nobody should run a tournament for 60 year olds, or for players below a certain skill level, or that some of the events shouldn't be allowed because they're attracting and siphoning off players who could be coming to the others.

In some ways, our current tournaments can be viewed, not as a tournament divided into divisions, but a collection of simultaneous little tournaments, all separate competitions.

 

[PMantle]

Has anyone said too many people get paid yet? Because, too many people get paid.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Has anyone said too many people get paid yet? Because, too many people get paid.

Perhaps different people need to get paid? We won't be able to sustain big events, am or pro, unless the promoters and hosts eventually make something beyond a big 'Thanks' for their efforts.

 

[PMantle]

Perhaps different people need to get paid? We won't be able to sustain big events, am or pro, unless the promoters and hosts eventually make something beyond a big 'Thanks' for their efforts.

Even if they do get paid, too many people will have been paid.