Is "Recreational" misleading?

[philstine]

The tournament I referred to didn't offer a Novice division due to shortage of players. So I was put in the higher division in which I shot much lower than the required rating.

There IS no required MINIMUM rating for ANY division, only a rating cap.

So you played in the wrong division for your skill level and won because you beat a bunch of other people playing in the wrong division for their skill level, because everyone who SHOULD have been playing in the division based on their skill level were playing in the wrong division. That's not a problem with the division breaks; that's an ego problem.

 

[retleftolc]

ABCD.... Am1, Am2,... Adv, Int,... Doesn't really matter to me.

How about a different approach? Change the division ratings to accommodate better flow to the next level. This is based solely from a competitive perspective/motivation. Maybe from low to high:

Novice- <701
Rec- 701-870
Intermmediate- 871-935
Advanced- 936-999 (980 might be better, but work to 999)
Pro- 1000+

Novice becomes more of a true novice or really bad player, which is who novice players should be up against.

Rec- players are "forced" to move to a more competitive level, but with work almost all players can get to 871.

Int- the ratings bracket is much larger than before and "forces" players to get better to win, or be stuck in the purgatory of Int that I think it should be.

Adv- the ratings bracket is much larger than before, and provides those advanced players a large amount of time/skill before being required to move up.

Pro- there aren't many of these, but there shouldn't be. If you are currently 970 rated, you can play as a pro and would likely still play with 950-985 rated players at most A tiers down.


Remember, players can always play up. To me it's the bottom of the bracket that matters. I can hear a lot of moaning from those 874 players, but remember this is based on competition and not if you personally are winning. I think disc golfers are too selfish and greedy anyway. "Dude that player's pack doesn't even have a car in it! I'm not playing." How about, "Here's a disc with our tourney stamp on it. Want anything else? Finish in the top 20%!"

 

[Noill]

Still... "recreational" sounds wrong in that example...

Perhaps "Novice II" or make two Intermediates...

 

[biscoe]

There IS no required MINIMUM rating for ANY division, only a rating cap.

So you played in the wrong division for your skill level and won because you beat a bunch of other people playing in the wrong division for their skill level, because everyone who SHOULD have been playing in the division based on their skill level were playing in the wrong division. That's not a problem with the division breaks; that's an ego problem.

...or it is a problem with division breaks having been set in the first place with no regard to pre-existing player behavior and player behavior never having changed to conform to it- depends on your perspective.

 

[biscoe]

ABCD.... Am1, Am2,... Adv, Int,... Doesn't really matter to me.

How about a different approach? Change the division ratings to accommodate better flow to the next level. This is based solely from a competitive perspective/motivation. Maybe from low to high:

Novice- <701
Rec- 701-870
Intermmediate- 871-935
Advanced- 936-999 (980 might be better, but work to 999)
Pro- 1000+

Novice becomes more of a true novice or really bad player, which is who novice players should be up against.

Rec- players are "forced" to move to a more competitive level, but with work almost all players can get to 871.

Int- the ratings bracket is much larger than before and "forces" players to get better to win, or be stuck in the purgatory of Int that I think it should be.

Adv- the ratings bracket is much larger than before, and provides those advanced players a large amount of time/skill before being required to move up.

Pro- there aren't many of these, but there shouldn't be. If you are currently 970 rated, you can play as a pro and would likely still play with 950-985 rated players at most A tiers down.


Remember, players can always play up. To me it's the bottom of the bracket that matters. I can hear a lot of moaning from those 874 players, but remember this is based on competition and not if you personally are winning. I think disc golfers are too selfish and greedy anyway. "Dude that player's pack doesn't even have a car in it! I'm not playing." How about, "Here's a disc with our tourney stamp on it. Want anything else? Finish in the top 20%!"

i agree with much of this but i will never believe any player should be forced to move into a pro division regardless of their rating.

 

[retleftolc]

I think if your 18+ and are 1000 or better, it's fine to require playing in the pro division. You should still be able to sign up with PDGA as an AM and never be forced to take cash. That's why I set it very high.

 

[Streets]

hmmmmm

how about requiring PDGA membership to play PDGA events, and let rating/age sort you into what field you should play, instead of it being more of a "guideline."

 

[elmexdela]

Anything that makes the pdga more money Im down for. Goes to such a good cause.

 

[DavidSauls]

The risk in forcing people to play in a division where they're not competitive, and telling them to Get Better or Go Home, is that they might go home.

TDs, and the PDGA, want more players, not less. It's not a matter of guaranteeing everyone a win---just keeping the divisions where everyone an compete fairly well, and if the weaker players play well they can at least finish in the middle of the pack.

But TDs who want to prove a point can, by limiting divisions. Offer Open, Intermediate, & Novice; you'll have a 850-935 Intermediate division, and push all those better Advanced players to Pro. Or just Advanced and Rec, so no one can complain about those Intermediates playing their rating. Try it, see how it goes.

 

[DavidSauls]

I could be wrong, but I get the impression that everytime there are cries to change the division system, the people doing the crying are suggesting changes that would not involve themselves being forced to move.

It seems that they're either trying to get better players out of their own division, or force weaker players in so they can beat them and inflate their winnings with more entries, or perhaps just dictating that divisions they have nothing to do with shouldn't do what those players most want.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and the authors are just omitting the part about their being tired of winning too easily, or wishing someone would force them to play where they're not competitive.

 

[93EXCivic]

hmmmmm

how about requiring PDGA membership to play PDGA events, and let rating/age sort you into what field you should play, instead of it being more of a "guideline."

This seems to make the most sense to me. What is point of ratings if they aren't used to put players in divisions?

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

 

[DavidSauls]

hmmmmm

how about requiring PDGA membership to play PDGA events, and let rating/age sort you into what field you should play, instead of it being more of a "guideline."

This seems to make the most sense to me. What is point of ratings if they aren't used to put players in divisions?

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

Ratings put a cap on divisions. That's more than just a guideline.

Players have the choice of playing in the division that matches their rating, or playing in one higher. What's the harm in playing in a higher one? What's the point of forcing members to do something that's obviously unwanted by those members, and harming no one else?

 

[philstine]

Ratings put a cap on divisions. That's more than just a guideline.

Players have the choice of playing in the division that matches their rating, or playing in one higher. What's the harm in playing in a higher one? What's the point of forcing members to do something that's obviously unwanted by those members, and harming no one else?

Seems to me you already answered your question upthread:

I could be wrong, but I get the impression that everytime there are cries to change the division system, the people doing the crying are suggesting changes that would not involve themselves being forced to move.

It seems that they're either trying to get better players out of their own division, or force weaker players in so they can beat them and inflate their winnings with more entries, or perhaps just dictating that divisions they have nothing to do with shouldn't do what those players most want.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and the authors are just omitting the part about their being tired of winning too easily, or wishing someone would force them to play where they're not competitive.

People playing in a higher division than their rating requires creates a culture in which players who win a tournament or are within a few points of a rating break are not only expected to "step up," but are shamed into doing so—else why call them "bagger"—regardless of whether or not they have a snowball's chance in hell of being competitive in the higher division, which undermines the purpose of having ratings in the first place (and, more than likely, drives some players—particularly those who were bullied into stepping up, found themselves perpetually competing for DFL, and got fed up with being donators—away from sanctioned play). That's exactly where we are now, and where we've been practically from the beginning.

 

[elmexdela]

So did anyone tell anyone about this that isnt on dgcr?

Or the "par" thread?

 

[DavidSauls]

Seems to me you already answered your question upthread:



People playing in a higher division than their rating requires creates a culture in which players who win a tournament or are within a few points of a rating break are not only expected to "step up," but are shamed into doing so—else why call them "bagger"—regardless of whether or not they have a snowball's chance in hell of being competitive in the higher division, which undermines the purpose of having ratings in the first place (and, more than likely, drives some players—particularly those who were bullied into stepping up, found themselves perpetually competing for DFL, and got fed up with being donators—away from sanctioned play). That's exactly where we are now, and where we've been practically from the beginning.

I don't know about "from the beginning". I go back to the pre-rating days, when all we had was peer pressure. It wasn't pretty.

If people allow themselves to be bullied into something they don't want to do, and don't have to do, I have little sympathy. The answer's not to save them from themselves by putting a bottom limit on divisions.

Meanwhile, for others who might play up simply because they want to---for whatever reasons---I'm fine with letting them.

 

[DavidSauls]

For what it's worth, apparently you can run strict ratings-based events, where players are assigned a division based on their rating. I don't know the details......but I played in one, at the IDGC, where they should know what they're doing.

Why don't TDs do it? Why don't players clamor for it?

 

[BrotherDave]

For what it's worth, apparently you can run strict ratings-based events, where players are assigned a division based on their rating. I don't know the details......but I played in one, at the IDGC, where they should know what they're doing.

Why don't TDs do it? Why don't players clamor for it?

It's nice to have a choice from a player's perspective. I can play up a division if I want a golf lesson or if I want to avoid being on the same card as Jerkface McBlowhard.

 

[DavidSauls]

That last was exactly what I was thinking. Well, part of it.......

Or for my ego, or to play in a larger division, or to play different tees, or play with a certain person.....I did the equivalent, playing Masters instead of Grandmasters, at Charlotte Worlds because I'd waited too late and MG1 was full.

All sorts of reasons that don't involve being suckered by the "bagger" chants.

 

[scarpfish]

Just one theory, but one reason a lot of people will play up from the bottom Am division offered is that they'd rather spend an extra $5-10 competing, even with the increased chance of being a donator, than be tourney etiquette teacher to the true newbies in that bottom division.

Perhaps that's not a "grow the sport" attitude to have, but I can't blame people when they're paying $25+ for a day of competition, esspecially if there are $5 league nights available for those players to learn the ropes.

 

[Ye Olde Am]

And there's the Dunning-Kruger effect.