PDGA Division Changes for 2023 Announced

[ToddL]

So... Honest question here... Are players not allowed to move down from pro or other divisions if their skills decline? I guess I thought everything was ratings based. If not, are there 850 rated pros still out there because they can't go back to am status?

PDGA offers reclassification if you want to stop being a pro and move back to amateur class.
https://www.pdga.com/faq/pdga-tour/reclassification
The majority of our reclasses are:
- I used to be a pro, but then I stopped being good (got old, got injured, didn't play for a few years) and now I no longer fit in with the Pro class. Can I renew my membership as amateur?
- I thought I was ready for the pro field because I won a few dollars once at one of my local small tournaments. Now that I live in a bigger market, I realize I'm nowhere close to the pros.
- I got lucky in a small tournament and won cash once and didn't realize the implications.

 

[Steve West]

Under the new guidelines as an MP70 pro next year, currently with a 921 rating, I won't be able to play in any age-based master amateur divisions even with 39+ year olds now that the rating threshold has been reduced to having a rating under 920 for master aged pros to enter any master aged mixed amateur division.

...

Sounds like someone in authority was tired of losing to you in MA40.

I can just hear it: "What's Chuck's rating? Whatever it is, make the cutoff less than that!"

 

[Cgkdisc]

Sounds like someone in authority was tired of losing to you in MA40.

I can just hear it: "What's Chuck's rating? Whatever it is, make the cutoff less than that!"

I thought of that but then I'm only sometimes a conspiracy theorist. ;-)

 

[ToddL]

Sounds like someone in authority was tired of losing to you in MA40.

I can just hear it: "What's Chuck's rating? Whatever it is, make the cutoff less than that!"

I've never lost to Chuck.

 

[Steve West]

The intermediate division upper and lower ratings limits were set based on a statistical average and upper and lower statistical means of men's ratings. So the number of men rated 900-935 should be about equal to the number rated 850-800, or something like that.

Setting the breaks by number of players would result in very tight ranges of skill around 920 or so. So tight that players would frequently bounce out the top, out the bottom, or from above to below or from below to above.

We have defined skill levels in course design and par guidelines. We should use those:

MA1 Any = Blue
MA2 <925 = White
MA3 <875 = Red
MA4 <825 = Green

FA1 Any = Red
FA2 <825 = Green
FA3 <750 = Purple
FA4 <675 = Orange

It would be easy to make a case that FA4 is not needed. There are vanishingly few players (even fewer that are not age-protected), and the appropriate hole lengths for Purple vs. Orange are quite close to each other.

 

[jenb]

Setting the breaks by number of players would result in very tight ranges of skill around 920 or so. So tight that players would frequently bounce out the top, out the bottom, or from above to below or from below to above.

We have defined skill levels in course design and par guidelines. We should use those:

MA1 Any = Blue
MA2 <925 = White
MA3 <875 = Red
MA4 <825 = Green

FA1 Any = Red
FA2 <825 = Green
FA3 <750 = Purple
FA4 <675 = Orange

It would be easy to make a case that FA4 is not needed. There are vanishingly few players (even fewer that are not age-protected), and the appropriate hole lengths for Purple vs. Orange are quite close to each other.

There were an awful lot of FA4 players in the WGE. And at women only majors these divisions are also needed. It's not all about the local tournaments with <20 women playing.

 

[Steve West]

There were an awful lot of FA4 players in the WGE. And at women only majors these divisions are also needed. It's not all about the local tournaments with <20 women playing.

Yes, when the cutoff was <725. With the cutoffs I proposed, most of those could be almost as competitive in the new <750 FA3.

I don't have an exact count of how many could have played in my <675 version of FA4. (Do you happen to have them?) Some things I've seen indicate that participation drops off fast below 700. Perhaps that's not the case.

My thinking (for all M and A divisions) was less about the number of players in the division, and more about whether we could offer them both: 1) an appropriately sized course, and 2) a chance to win.

For the lowest ratings divisions, the size of the holes converges to about the same length. Also, performing relatively well is more about avoiding high scores than getting low scores - so it more probable that someone could play 75 points above their rating. Thus, wider ranges at lower ratings are appropriate.

 

[jenb]

Yes, when the cutoff was <725. With the cutoffs I proposed, most of those could be almost as competitive in the new <750 FA3.

I don't have an exact count of how many could have played in my <675 version of FA4. (Do you happen to have them?) Some things I've seen indicate that participation drops off fast below 700. Perhaps that's not the case.

My thinking (for all M and A divisions) was less about the number of players in the division, and more about whether we could offer them both: 1) an appropriately sized course, and 2) a chance to win.

For the lowest ratings divisions, the size of the holes converges to about the same length. Also, performing relatively well is more about avoiding high scores than getting low scores - so it more probable that someone could play 75 points above their rating. Thus, wider ranges at lower ratings are appropriate.

Look at the WGE results. You'll see hundreds of players rated 675 or less or getting round ratings less than 675. Heck, it turns out there's such a thing as a negative rating.

Meanwhile there are only 2 or less players per division who qualify to compete in most of the new age protected women's divisions.

 

[Steve West]

Look at the WGE results. You'll see hundreds of players rated 675 or less or getting round ratings less than 675. Heck, it turns out there's such a thing as a negative rating.

Meanwhile there are only 2 or less players per division who qualify to compete in most of the new age protected women's divisions.

Thanks. Yeah, I'll withdraw the idea.

 

[Innova63]

They can apply to PDGA to return to Am status if they haven't cashed in a year or two.

What if we haven't competed in any event for like 10 years?

 

[Cgkdisc]

What if we haven't competed in any event for like 10 years?

See post #41

 

[Innova63]

See post #41

Thanks, turns out I haven't played a PDGA event in over 16 years...

Probably 15 years since I played any event.

Really don't miss the long days or weekends...

 

[ToddL]

Thanks, turns out I haven't played a PDGA event in over 16 years...

Probably 15 years since I played any event.

Really don't miss the long days or weekends...

The unfortunate answer we give for that one is to play one event, get a new rating, then ask again.

 

[txmxer]

Thanks. Yeah, I'll withdraw the idea.

Your idea may not work across the board, but I like the idea of divisions being about 50 ratings points.

As per Chuck's statement about ratings, for a typical course that is about 10 ratings points per throw or 5 strokes. That's a range where the outcome is not a foregone conclusion.

I think the flaw in ratings based divisions would be most likely among newer players whose rating/performance is fluctuating significantly.

 

[Dcinmd]

Ratings this wide won't work. The reason for smaller rating point spreads is so that players can be competitive in the division. In a division with a 900 rating cap, an 850 rated player has a decent chance at being above the prize line and might have a chance at a win. A 801 player? very unlikely they'd have a chance at either.

Yet the current system has people playing in their first tournament up against a 849 rank MA4 who has be playing 6, 8, 10 or 20 years of experience. Or a 650 rated player with twice the range you point out for MA2.

The current configuration does not address the MA4 division properly.

 

[jenb]

Yet the current system has people playing in their first tournament up against a 849 rank MA4 who has be playing 6, 8, 10 or 20 years of experience. Or a 650 rated player with twice the range you point out for MA2.

The current configuration does not address the MA4 division properly.

Most tournaments I played didn't offer MA4 and the person who won MA3 was playing his first tournament. It's an issue both ways. I've long advocated that ratings protected divisions should be reserved for pdga members who have established ratings, with new players playing for score at a reduced entry fee. And it seems you would add an MA5 division for guys rated under 800. I don't think either of us will ever get what we want.

 

[ToddL]

MA1 vs MA2 vs MA3 vs MA4

Some of the important factors:

1 - Overall population breakdown. We have the stats on member ratings. Do we just break the divisions into 4 breaks of equal population? What if that gives us 900+ for MA1, 885-899 for MA2, 870-854 for MA3, and <869 for MA4? Should we strive to keep the ratings range the same or the population size the same?

2 - Points spread within a division. Current divisions are 35 or 50 points wide. I've seen some suggestions on the internet that ask for wider ratings spread for each division. 900+ for MA1, 800-899 for MA2, 700-799 for MA3, <699 for MA4. If you think people complaining about sandbagging is bad now, wait until you hear the 801 rated guy complaining about losing to the 898 rated guy every week. Divisions exist to give everyone a reasonable chance to have fair and meaningful competition. Sticking two players in the same division who are 98 points apart isn't really meaningful competition. Lose by 10 strokes a round, 20 strokes per day? I know someone has to win and someone has to come in last, but we at least want to give everyone a chance.

3 - Local population vs worldwide population. With 100,000 members, we could create a dozen divisions with spreads of 10-15 points and the numbers would look great. But then when you get down to a local C-tier with 50 available spots, now you've just created a bunch of divisions with 3 people each. (This can also be mitigated by TDs not offering some divisions. At the World Championships, we offer MA40/50/55/60/65; at my local C-tier, I don't offer the 5-year increments, just MA40/50/60.)

4 - Worldwide population vs local clustering. I've seen some comments on social media where people say "MA3 is the problem! All of our tournaments are overrun with MA3 and MA1 players." Other people reply "All of my tournaments are overrun with MA2 players! I have to beg people to sign up for MA1." There's no universal solution. What we can do is give TDs the freedom and options to run events as best fits their local population.

 

[txmxer]

There's no universal solution. What we can do is give TDs the freedom and options to run events as best fits their local population.

this is as close you get. Give TD's flexibility.

 

[biscoe]

this is as close you get. Give TD's flexibility.

A-freaking-men.

 

[BillFleming]

MA1 vs MA2 vs MA3 vs MA4


2 - Points spread within a division. Current divisions are 35 or 50 points wide. I've seen some suggestions on the internet that ask for wider ratings spread for each division. 900+ for MA1, 800-899 for MA2, 700-799 for MA3, <699 for MA4. If you think people complaining about sandbagging is bad now, wait until you hear the 801 rated guy complaining about losing to the 898 rated guy every week. Divisions exist to give everyone a reasonable chance to have fair and meaningful competition. Sticking two players in the same division who are 98 points apart isn't really meaningful competition. Lose by 10 strokes a round, 20 strokes per day? I know someone has to win and someone has to come in last, but we at least want to give everyone a chance.

Then why isn't MA4 a required division? I'm currently 655 rated and have played in 17 events. I suck at this sport, but I have fun. I've never broken the 660 level. Because there is rarely a MA4 division in a tournament, I have to either play MA3 or MA60. Guess what? I'm always losing by around 10 strokes a round. I am always the DFL player. I'm having fun playing, but sheesh, I'd like to have a chance for once. I'm finally scheduled for a tournament where there is a MA4 division and I look forward to seeing how I do there, even though I'm the second lowest rated person.

But with 17 tournaments, am I really a MA4? By rating/skill yes, by experience no.