PDGA Division Changes for 2023 Announced

[zontar]

..That would be my dad: played one tournament the weekend of his 80'th birthday and won in the Senior Grand Legends division. Took his medal and retired. Still basking in the glory, he and I!

dang my dad just died at 90 a few months ago. got him into playing at 80+ and he LOVED it. played until he was 87 with a cane. really dug going out with him.

 

[puttlikeablowfly]

More importantly, the divisions don't need nicknames. I was glad when the PDGA abandoned Masters, Grandmasters, Legends, etc. a few years back; now they've completed the change to simple, numbered tiers and age brackets indicated by actual ages. I applaud.

A few years ago, I was telling people I longed for a Rec Masters division. It just doesn't sound as cool if I now have to long for an MA40-3 (or MA3-40) division.

 

[BillFleming]

I played in the tournament this past Saturday where I was in the MA4 division. I actually felt like I had a chance the entire tournament....that's something I never felt before and I'll say, it sure felt good.

I still ended up last, but it was close. The first round, I was 4 throws (for a tie) behind the person ahead of me. The second round we tied; so I ended up 4 behind the player ahead of me. I only needed to improve by 5 throws to have taken 4th place. That was refreshing. Looking at the MA60 group where I normally play...I was 16 throws behind that group's last place person in the first round....way too big of a difference to be able to catch up on the second round.

Playing MA4 was refreshing. I just wish more Arizona tournaments would offer that division.
Do I want to 'automatically' win? No, and there's no guarantee that I will win against MA4 players.
Do I want a division where I'm guaranteed a win - no. I just want to know I have a fair chance to not be last and MA4 proved to be that division.

It's a bit frustrating to sign up for a tournament, knowing that the divisions available mean that I'm guaranteed to lose and lose by quite a bit.

 

[roblee]

A few years ago, I was telling people I longed for a Rec Masters division. It just doesn't sound as cool if I now have to long for an MA40-3 (or MA3-40) division.

Maybe someone with institutional knowledge will provide some details but the PDGA used to have Rec, Inter, & Adv for all the age protected divisions. My first win was in 2001 in the Intermediate Masters division.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Maybe someone with institutional knowledge will provide some details but the PDGA used to have Rec, Inter, & Adv for all the age protected divisions. My first win was in 2001 in the Intermediate Masters division.

That was a rogue division that I believe started in Florida before the division naming combined with ratings breaks crystallized in 2002-3 and event results were displayed on the PDGA website.

 

[Hampstead]

If we create enough divisions then eventually everyone can be a winner.

 

[Improbably]

Maybe someone with institutional knowledge will provide some details but the PDGA used to have Rec, Inter, & Adv for all the age protected divisions. My first win was in 2001 in the Intermediate Masters division.

I hope we can get back to that although I know such divisions would not roster in my area.

 

[jenb]

I've participated in a sport before that had so many mix and match categories you'd effectively have 40+ divisions for 20ish participants. But then they'd also have overall men's and women's winners.

 

[DavidSauls]

Maybe someone with institutional knowledge will provide some details but the PDGA used to have Rec, Inter, & Adv for all the age protected divisions. My first win was in 2001 in the Intermediate Masters division.

These existed for a year or two, a long time ago. There weren't enough players to populate all those divisions.

 

[Moose33]

This may be me being dense, but what are thoughts on the 5 year age breaks in age protection?

In my events I've typically done 10 years, and only had 1 complaint but I'm open minded about it as long as people sign up.

 

[ru4por]

This may be me being dense, but what are thoughts on the 5 year age breaks in age protection?

In my events I've typically done 10 years, and only had 1 complaint but I'm open minded about it as long as people sign up.

Probably a very regional thing. Generally, there are not enough players for 5 year breakdowns. Though, we have a policy of opening any division, but you need three to play the division. Risking it means potential pool issues and waitlist problems, for the player in popular, fast filling events. I have found that if someone is looking for a MA55 division, they are generally looking to avoid a 930 rated MA50 player. Breaking up into MA50 and MA55 would also dilute the point potential of the entire 10 year age group.

As a player, I don't really see any 5 year breakdowns until the tournament starts reaching into the 300+ player range.

 

[Moose33]

Probably a very regional thing. Generally, there are not enough players for 5 year breakdowns. Though, we have a policy of opening any division, but you need three to play the division. Risking it means potential pool issues and waitlist problems, for the player in popular, fast filling events. I have found that if someone is looking for a MA55 division, they are generally looking to avoid a 930 rated MA50 player. Breaking up into MA50 and MA55 would also dilute the point potential of the entire 10 year age group.

As a player, I don't really see any 5 year breakdowns until the tournament starts reaching into the 300+ player range.

That's a really good point. There are 10 dudes in our main group that are 50-65 and they usually all play MA50, three of them are 910-930 and can throw up - 950+ every now and again.

In an event with 70-100 people I just hate having a bunch of 3-5 person fields.

 

[DavidSauls]

This may be me being dense, but what are thoughts on the 5 year age breaks in age protection?

In my events I've typically done 10 years, and only had 1 complaint but I'm open minded about it as long as people sign up.

I'm not a fan of them. But I've always found larger divisions more fun.

But I did see a tournament where the TD used them to offer two age-protected divisions: MA>40 and MA>55. He used the availability of 5-years splits, and ability to restrict divisions offered, to create 15-year splits.

 

[ToddL]

I'm not a fan of them. But I've always found larger divisions more fun.

But I did see a tournament where the TD used them to offer two age-protected divisions: MA>40 and MA>55. He used the availability of 5-years splits, and ability to restrict divisions offered, to create 15-year splits.

I've gone back-and-forth in my use (and even my personal opinion) of them. Where I land right now is the PDGA gives you the options to do what's best for your event. TDs can use the divisions as they see fit.

David is probably remembering my divisional splits in the Upstate Classic for a few years. We had historically run MA40, MA50, and MA60. IIRC, we were getting 4-5 players in each division. For an experiment, I tried a couple of years of MA40 and MA55, hoping to get 8 players in each of 2 divisions instead of 5 players in each of 3 divisions. It was moderately successful. After a couple of years, though, I switched back to 40/50/60 for some other not-so-important reason. Lots of inertia from other events in the area, managing player expectations, having to explain my reasoning, etc.
I used to have a strong opinion about small divisions. I'd refuse to run divisions of 1-2 people and would force them to move. At some point I switched over to not caring. It's really no skin off my back if you want to be a division of 1. If you want it, fine. I'm probably not going to get you a trophy, though.

 

[Improbably]

I'm not a fan of them. But I've always found larger divisions more fun.

Why have you always found larger divisions more fun?

 

[roblee]

I've gone back-and-forth in my use (and even my personal opinion) of them. Where I land right now is the PDGA gives you the options to do what's best for your event. TDs can use the divisions as they see fit.....

From a player's perspective that is a fair strategy. I was Masters eligible when I started playing so I've seen lots of ways this plays out. I think it's great that as we age there are still gold rings we can reach for. Those I've competed with love the opportunity.

 

[DavidSauls]

Why have you always found larger divisions more fun?

I play with more people over the course of a tournament. Anytime the division fits on a single card, it's the same group all tournament.

Plus, there's a "lead card" to be proud to be on, a "second card" hoping to have a hot round and rise to the lead card....and, of course, a bottom card.

I played Advanced into my mid-40s, because at that time local tournaments would have big Advanced fields (30 or more), and the Masters divisions tended to be small.

(These are a bigger deal in 2-day tournaments which, when I began, most tournaments around here were.)

Also, more players in a division means that a stroke or two is more likely to make an impact on finishing position.

 

[Sheep]

Once upon a time, that was the rule.

It gave rise to a phrase, "Move up, move up, move out". Which applied to players who went pro prematurely, but were never really that good and plateaued at the bottom of the pro ranks. So they were left with a choice -- keep finishing at the bottom and never win anything....or quit. They'd quit.

The words "pro" and "am" are overblown. McBeth is a pro. The 960-rated local who occasionally plays hot enough to win his entry fee back, isn't. So for the same reason we allow amateurs who play an event above their rating to later play their correct division, we allow players who've cashed in pro to play am in subsequent events. With restrictions -- we don't allow top-rated pros to dive back into am, and we don't allow any pros to compete in Am Worlds.

This is a great post.

I've been talking about this for a bit now as well, and if we seek to improve the field and improve the pay, we have to turn this into an actual pro field, not a "whoever signs up" field.

Because you can sign up as an 860 player in a major A-Tier to play with 1050 rated players.
That should never happen.

They need to push a pro-am division like PGA has and you have to earn your tour cards by competing at a high enough level to jump into the ranks.

The number of people I've watched helping run tournaments who dont belong on the course with legit pro players is a problem with how the flow of the course works with backups and so many other issues.

I'd rather have to start at rec and earn my way up even though it would be a nightmare for a while.

Ratings are a neat system, but they are gameable. And they dont have an overall meaning worldwide.

One towns 950 player is not another towns 950 player. There is to much based on the propagators of your local area and where that person competes.

Or you can just run sanctioned leagues and seal club to get your rating up.

 

[ru4por]

This is a great post.

I've been talking about this for a bit now as well, and if we seek to improve the field and improve the pay, we have to turn this into an actual pro field, not a "whoever signs up" field.

Because you can sign up as an 860 player in a major A-Tier to play with 1050 rated players.
That should never happen.

They need to push a pro-am division like PGA has and you have to earn your tour cards by competing at a high enough level to jump into the ranks.

The number of people I've watched helping run tournaments who dont belong on the course with legit pro players is a problem with how the flow of the course works with backups and so many other issues.

I'd rather have to start at rec and earn my way up even though it would be a nightmare for a while.

Ratings are a neat system, but they are gameable. And they dont have an overall meaning worldwide.

One towns 950 player is not another towns 950 player. There is to much based on the propagators of your local area and where that person competes.

Or you can just run sanctioned leagues and seal club to get your rating up.

I just don't see disc golf in the same way. It seems there are really two definitions of professional. The first is DGPT. Irrelevant in my world and opinion. They should be the ones concerned about their path, not the local players, clubs, or TD's. It is literally a couple hundred players.

The second is the MPO/FPO fields at local tournaments. We have fairly healthy pro divisions here and they are rarely impeded by ratings or touring pros. They do have a handful of entitled, loud, poorly behaved members, that seem to limit the number of TD's willing to host them though.

If the DGPT wants a Q school, have at it. Let them decide it, organize it, run it and fund it. More work and burden incumbent upon the local volunteer base is a non starter, IMO. I see no problems with 860 players playing local MPO divisions. I have RARELY seen this. In fact, it was course choice that have prompted it, every time. Lastly, the concept of the current, rating based divisions, being "gamed", is an old wives tale, IMO. I play and help run a lot of tournaments and bagging is not really a thing. Maybe it is different in other places.

I am not saying the current system is perfect, but I AM saying, I don't think it is broken either.

 

[ILUVSMGS18]

So can someone confirm for me that the ratings caps for age protected divisions only apply for those whom are classed as Pro? I ask as there's a 921 rated MA40 eligible player local to me, but he's still classed as an Am so is he still MA40 eligible, since I really don't want to have to face him in MA1, even though I'm really an MA2 player, but the locals would freak if I played MA2 around here, especially with a pair of local MA1 wins.

I also ask this as the way it seems to be worded on the PDGA site is that MA1/FA1 have no cap.