PDGA Division Changes for 2023 Announced

[biscoe]

Gotta disagree, at least here in Arizona. I've played MA3 since MA4 is rare. When I started, I used to check opponent's ratings and the MA3 folks were MA3 and some should have played MA2. No matter what the PDGA does, there will always be people who play one division lower than they could/should so they have a better chance of winning.

Players literally cannot play below their appropriate rated division. That is the whole reason we use ratings for divisions to begin with.

 

[BillFleming]

Sounds like you need better TD's in Arizona to me. Get that official's card back up to date and it could be you.

I plan on updating my Certified Official status....but I'd never be a TD. I have lots of respect for TDs, but I know I could never do it - I know my limitations. I wouldn't enjoy it and the players probably wouldn't enjoy it. I learned my lesson last year when I was just a course director and was in charge of all the volunteers, the course, and the players (the TD's right-hand person). I physically did not make it to the end of the tournament....luckily, they had coverage for the last day and didn't need me.

 

[BillFleming]

Players literally cannot play below their appropriate rated division. That is the whole reason we use ratings for divisions to begin with.

A 849 rated player can play in MA4, but they can also play in MA3, MA2, and MA1. An 825 rated player might be winning everything in MA4 and should move up to MA3 (or MA2)....not based on their rating, but based on their ability. But there's no way to create/control divisions on ability.

 

[BillFleming]

Any ways....divisions will never be perfect. The PDGA does its best and we, the players, have to work with what is available. The best solution would be a high range and a low range....but then you are excluding people who want to move up a division to give themselves a challenge.

 

[The Shide]

Before the recent "Growth" of DG, MA4/Novice was never offered around these parts (West MI).
Now, it will typically have more registrants than the age protected divisions.

 

[Steve West]

A 849 rated player can play in MA4, but they can also play in MA3, MA2, and MA1. An 825 rated player might be winning everything in MA4 and should move up to MA3 (or MA2)....not based on their rating, but based on their ability. But there's no way to create/control divisions on ability.

Uh ... don't ratings measure ability?

 

[Steve West]

MA1 vs MA2 vs MA3 vs MA4

Some of the important factors:

[...]

You left out what might be the most important one:

5. Allowing all players to play on courses suited to their abilities; by choosing (or modifying) the courses to fit the skill levels within the division playing the course.

Bands that are not too wide help with this. Because throw lengths go up somewhat geometrically as ratings goes up, regularly spaced bands can get hole lengths within a certain % of throw lengths.

A player cannot get as much enjoyment out of a course where the only play is to park it from the tee or fall behind the competition. They cannot get as much enjoyment out of slogging through 6 throws just to get to the target.

 

[dmoore1998]

A 849 rated player can play in MA4, but they can also play in MA3, MA2, and MA1. An 825 rated player might be winning everything in MA4 and should move up to MA3 (or MA2)....not based on their rating, but based on their ability. But there's no way to create/control divisions on ability.

Sure there is. It just takes a different formula for calculating ratings so as to skew it more toward the top of your achieved ratings. An 825 rated player shouldn't be winning everything in MA4 if they're shooting 825 rated rounds in those wins.

If I shoot 900, 800, 900, 800, 900, 800, 900, 800, 900, 800 over 10 rated rounds, there are many ways to calculate a "rating". That person might qualify for MA4, but their "ability" might look very different from someone who consistently shoots 855, 845, 855, 845, 855, 845, etc.

The PGA basically does this in their handicap system. The handicap does more to measure your...potential...based on your better rounds than it does to just calculate a mean rating. In the example rated rounds above, the player alternating 900-800 would have a higher rating than the one going 855-845 using a system more similar to the PGA handicap system.

 

[krupicka]

A 849 rated player can play in MA4, but they can also play in MA3, MA2, and MA1. An 825 rated player might be winning everything in MA4 and should move up to MA3 (or MA2)....not based on their rating, but based on their ability. But there's no way to create/control divisions on ability.

You need to average at least 870 golf to win MA4 around here. An 825 rated player is not going to be winning everything.

(Note, 870 rated players can't play MA4, but a player will have to be playing that well for the event)

 

[GMcAtee]

I plan on updating my Certified Official status....but I'd never be a TD. I have lots of respect for TDs, but I know I could never do it - I know my limitations. I wouldn't enjoy it and the players probably wouldn't enjoy it. I learned my lesson last year when I was just a course director and was in charge of all the volunteers, the course, and the players (the TD's right-hand person). I physically did not make it to the end of the tournament....luckily, they had coverage for the last day and didn't need me.

I hear you. Tournament DG'ers are high maintenance.

 

[ejvogie]

A 849 rated player can play in MA4, but they can also play in MA3, MA2, and MA1. An 825 rated player might be winning everything in MA4 and should move up to MA3 (or MA2)....not based on their rating, but based on their ability. But there's no way to create/control divisions on ability.

There are no MA3 players in MA4 for long. Eventually their rating will catch up to their ability.

 

[davetherocketguy]

There's one way to solve this MA4 conundrum...Limit the number of times anyone can win MA4. If you win MA4 at any tier you don't get to play MA4 anymore regardless of rating. Time to move up.

 

[araytx]

Just my opinion but I feel like that if you declare yourself pro then you forfeit the right to play am.

WM:

The focus of these changes is age-protected. There might be a number of reasons, the main one being that "you were registered as a pro when you were 25, but now you're 50, and things are a bit different. Or you have a temporary injury. or a permanent injury. or you live in an area without a lot of tournaments close by and you want to be able to get in as many as you can. or. or. or.

I think I'd be concerned if we made a regulation that "turning pro" ("registering pro") is full and finite forever and ever amen.

 

[krupicka]

There's one way to solve this MA4 conundrum...Limit the number of times anyone can win MA4. If you win MA4 at any tier you don't get to play MA4 anymore regardless of rating. Time to move up.

The whole point of the rating system was to get rid of bump rules like this.

 

[araytx]

This.




MA4/FA4 has not been offered in the New England area in the past 15 years. Only in the past few years has FA3 been offered.

MY TD brain has always thought that 3 levels of Amateur were plenty.
And the "nicknames" were always off IMO
MA1 Advanced
MA2 Intermediate(definition of the word Intermediate: coming between two things in time, place, order, character, etc.)
MA3 SHOULD BE Novice.

I once thought FA4 shouldn't be a thing (since in my feeble mind a Novice is a novice regardless of gender), but I have since re-thought that idea.

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.

If a local TD is having such a problem locally (I'll call it "clustering" of ratings), then the TD can address the clustering locally simply by having ratings-based divsions in that TD's events. Use the colors or make a better system.

 

[jenb]

There's one way to solve this MA4 conundrum...Limit the number of times anyone can win MA4. If you win MA4 at any tier you don't get to play MA4 anymore regardless of rating. Time to move up.

I can see it now. It starts raining the final round and all the MA4 players DNF except Bill Fleming. Time to move up bagger!

 

[BillFleming]

I can see it now. It starts raining the final round and all the MA4 players DNF except Bill Fleming. Time to move up bagger!

I almost choked when I read that! Love it!

 

[BillFleming]

With all the back-and-forth, this conversation has been enjoyable to me. One main thing it shows about divisions/ratings is that while nothing is perfect, the PDGA is doing the best it can. And that's all I can ask for. Would I like a perfect solution that made me feel I was truly competing against people at my level and that I had a chance to win - sure. But we don't live in a perfect world and have to make do with the best available.

PDGA folks - Keep up the good work.

 

[davetherocketguy]

The whole point of the rating system was to get rid of bump rules like this.

And if you don't have bump rule like that then you get people playing "novice" for years and years...

I donno I could go either way on this topic.

 

[DavidSauls]

And if you don't have bump rule like that then you get people playing "novice" for years and years...

I donno I could go either way on this topic.

As it turns out, they can only play "novice" for 2 more months.

*

If my knees allowed me to play tournaments, I'd have the age-protected divisions to hide in. My 849 rating would continue to fall, and I'd never see the high side of 850 again.

If there's a division for people rated below 850, regardless of experience, that's where I'd belong for years and years.