Rating = ? Division

[12StonesScott]

the td should put the guy in int..10 years experience?...you can't play rec!!

Oh? How much experience would you say I have? I started playing object courses I laid out myself in 1978, but only played a handful of rounds on courses with regulation targets (a few of Ted Smethers' tourneys in Arkansas in the early '80s) before moving to Atlanta in 1986 and basically going on hiatus (one round every couple of years at most) until 2006, when I moved in across from a park with a course. I've played 3 PDGA-sanctioned tournaments in my life -- one in 1986, one in 2007, and last weekend. My rating is a lowly 828, and I played 50 points below that (based on preliminary round ratings) this weekend (on some fairly long layouts, to be fair). So having turned in three sub-800-rated rounds this weekend, would you say I do or don't belong in Rec or Novice? Even though by some measures I've been playing for 30 years?

I think the point isn't so much the amount of experience but the level at which the player has played in the past. But if you're not basing the division eligibility on some "objective" factor like rating or age or playing experience, you end up with a lot of arguments and disputes. Just saying "the TD should know better", though it seems reasonable at first, isn't really viable as a way to manage things.

 

[Sea Bass]

Scott, how bout actually reading the whole post. It was pretty clear that the guy in question has been playing TOURNEYS for 10 years. That is a whole lot different than you throwing lids at poles 30 years ago. There is no defense for what he is doing.

 

[12StonesScott]

Scott, how bout actually reading the whole post. It was pretty clear that the guy in question has been playing TOURNEYS for 10 years. That is a whole lot different than you throwing lids at poles 30 years ago. There is no defense for what he is doing.

I understand the difference -- but my point was that while it's a difference we can all easily understand and appreciate, it's subjective. There still needs to be an objective guideline that can be uniformly applied. Ratings plus age and pro/am status are far from perfect, but they're at least objective. There are always going to be rapidly improving players whose ratings will lag behind their actual ability for some time, and players whose skills are declining and whose ratings are higher than their ability at the moment, but any system will have gaps and issues. In my experience, TDs have more than enough to deal with in managing an event without adjudicating subjective arguments about who belongs where.

 

[DavidSauls]

Scott, how bout actually reading the whole post. It was pretty clear that the guy in question has been playing TOURNEYS for 10 years. That is a whole lot different than you throwing lids at poles 30 years ago. There is no defense for what he is doing.

Hypothetical, as I'm not sure of the exact incident, but if a player is 68 years old, has played a hundred tournaments, but is only a 870-rated player, what should he do? Advanced Senior Grandmasters, of course, but if that division isn't offered?

So he plays in the Rec division with guys rated 850-899. Does he have advantage over them? Sure, he has experience, but they likely have distance and energy. His average round is no better than theirs.

Should he be forced to play against much better Intermediates (rated up to 935)?

Now, some Novice-rated players (under 850) play in the Rec division, because the TD doesn't offer novice. They're playing way above their head and get beat. Hardly the old guy's fault. All of them are finding a division because the TD didn't offer the one they would have chosen to play.

I'm familiar with a similar incident---maybe the one cited, maybe not, I don't know---where an 876-rated elderly gentleman shot rounds rated 937 and 909. That's 60 and 30 points over his well-established average, quite a feat. So he won, but only by 5 strokes overall. Hardly a blowout. Is that OK?

 

[80playedin10states]

Oh? How much experience would you say I have? I started playing object courses I laid out myself in 1978, but only played a handful of rounds on courses with regulation targets (a few of Ted Smethers' tourneys in Arkansas in the early '80s) before moving to Atlanta in 1986 and basically going on hiatus (one round every couple of years at most) until 2006, when I moved in across from a park with a course. I've played 3 PDGA-sanctioned tournaments in my life -- one in 1986, one in 2007, and last weekend. My rating is a lowly 828, and I played 50 points below that (based on preliminary round ratings) this weekend (on some fairly long layouts, to be fair). So having turned in three sub-800-rated rounds this weekend, would you say I do or don't belong in Rec or Novice? Even though by some measures I've been playing for 30 years?

I think the point isn't so much the amount of experience but the level at which the player has played in the past. But if you're not basing the division eligibility on some "objective" factor like rating or age or playing experience, you end up with a lot of arguments and disputes. Just saying "the TD should know better", though it seems reasonable at first, isn't really viable as a way to manage things.

guess i need to write a page long essay to make matters more clear...when i hear someone has 10 years golf experience, i make ASSumptions that he has played steady for 10 years and should at least be in int/adv....sorry

 

[80playedin10states]

Hypothetical, as I'm not sure of the exact incident, but if a player is 68 years old, has played a hundred tournaments, but is only a 870-rated player, what should he do? Advanced Senior Grandmasters, of course, but if that division isn't offered?

So he plays in the Rec division with guys rated 850-899. Does he have advantage over them? Sure, he has experience, but they likely have distance and energy. His average round is no better than theirs.

Should he be forced to play against much better Intermediates (rated up to 935)?

Now, some Novice-rated players (under 850) play in the Rec division, because the TD doesn't offer novice. They're playing way above their head and get beat. Hardly the old guy's fault. All of them are finding a division because the TD didn't offer the one they would have chosen to play.

I'm familiar with a similar incident---maybe the one cited, maybe not, I don't know---where an 876-rated elderly gentleman shot rounds rated 937 and 909. That's 60 and 30 points over his well-established average, quite a feat. So he won, but only by 5 strokes overall. Hardly a blowout. Is that OK?

i have found if 3-5 people would like to start a division not offered(novice or rec), the td will more than likely say yes, go for it..it only makes common sense to accomadate newer players or the sport goes nowhere

 

[zenbot]

At any point does the TD have the authority to bump someone up that is obviously in the wrong division?

 

[80playedin10states]

not sure on that "official ruling" but i have witnessed it...it is his show..

 

[DavidSauls]

At any point does the TD have the authority to bump someone up that is obviously in the wrong division?

If his rating matches his division, then it would be hard to say he is "obviously" in the wrong division.

If he's unrated (non-PDGA member or 1st tournament), I'd think the TD would have the latitude to do what he wants.

PDGA rules prevent "bump" rules. If a player qualifies for a division, and the division is offered, player can play in it.

If TD doesn't follow rules, there's not a lot the PDGA can or will do about it.

 

[12StonesScott]

At any point does the TD have the authority to bump someone up that is obviously in the wrong division?

If it's a non-sanctioned event, they can do whatever they like. If it's a PDGA-sanctioned event, they're obligated to follow the guidelines on division eligibility set out by the PDGA in the rules, the Competition Manual, their sanctioning agreement, and the grid of player division eligibility. If they want to do something different, they can request a waiver from the PDGA Tour Manager in advance.

Section 2.1.J of the Competition Manual explicitly prohibits "bump rules" from being enforced, and says players will be allowed to compete in any division for which they are eligible, if that division is offered by the TD:

All Bump rules are invalid and not allowed at PDGA
sanctioned events. Players shall be allowed to play in any
divisions they might be eligible for, if those divisions are
offered by the Tournament Director.

Now, there is of course nothing that prevents the TD from exercising whatever powers of persuasion they possess to influence someone to play a higher division if they believe it's appropriate. But if the player has a rating that says they are eligible for a division, and the TD refuses to let them play there, the TD runs the risk of being unable to run future sanctioned events.

The previous section, 2.1.I, also states that if TDs intend to restrict the divisions offered (i.e., not offer Novice, or any other division), they must "give adequate public notice" (whatever that means), and that in the absence of such notice they must offer any division for which there are four or more eligible players who want to play it. I assume that for most TDs, listing the divisions they intended to offer on the tournament flyer and any online notices they post about the event constitutes "adequate public notice" that they intend to restrict divisions offered to only those expressly listed.

OTOH, us poor Novice slobs need to be aware that in the absence of such notice, we have every right to ask the TD to offer that division if there are four or more of us. And in some cases, the TDs might agree even if they've previously said they'd offer only Rec, if the interest is there.

 

[maynes32]

Just out of interest ...

Traditionally, sandbagging (in other sports) is the practice of purposely depressing one's rating, when necessary, in order to remain eligible to play in a lower division that one can easily win. Is that what we are talking about here?

It sounds to me like some/most of the concern is with people (as an example) rated 840 playing in a division that allows people up to 850 to play in it. This seems silly to me, unless the above argument is applying also. The whole point of having rating cutoffs is that there is an objective measurement of who should be playing in the division. Now, if that objective system is being abused (as described above), that's one thing, but if not, there's always gotta be SOMEONE at the top of the division, right? If (for some reason other than the rules) the 840s move up, don't 839s just win easily? Do they have to move up, then, too?

I am not trying to be inflammatory by this - I really want to understand what the concern is. And maybe this is threadjacking, but we seem to have solidly strayed from the original point anyway.

BLM

 

[blang]

MA-4 will just attracts a couple of new non rated players that will beat the regular sub 800 every week by 10 strokes.

I think the best thing to do is remove the reward for baggers and have Rec and Int trophies only. I would also make last cash in Advanced 5 dollars more than first place int. If the payout were more top heavy all players that think they have a chance will play advanced or Pro and allow the people that are typically beating every week by baggers a chance to win and go hope with a trophy.

 

[12StonesScott]

MA-4 will just attracts a couple of new non rated players that will beat the regular sub 800 every week by 10 strokes.

Why ever would you think that? It's almost like you've seen it happen recently.

I think the best thing to do is remove the reward for baggers and have Rec and Int trophies only. I would also make last cash in Advanced 5 dollars more than first place int. If the payout were more top heavy all players that think they have a chance will play advanced or Pro and allow the people that are typically beating every week by baggers a chance to win and go hope with a trophy.

Sounds reasonable.

 

[bazkitcase5]

sounds like the problem here is instead of offering "Rec" for beginners and newer players and not offering Novice, the TD should have done the opposite

offer Novice for beginners and newer players (and those rated low enough), and do not offer Rec - those rated in the range that would normally allow them to play Rec would either have to play Int or something else they qualify for, if they still wanted to play...

if a player does not have a rating, then the TD has the right to place them where they think that person belongs - this usually prevents blang's scenario of non rated players beating up on the novice division, assuming of course that the TD is aware of the local non rated players skill level

 

[blang]

sounds like the problem here is instead of offering "Rec" for beginners and newer players and not offering Novice, the TD should have done the opposite

offer Novice for beginners and newer players (and those rated low enough), and do not offer Rec - those rated in the range that would normally allow them to play Rec would either have to play Int or something else they qualify for, if they still wanted to play...

if a player does not have a rating, then the TD has the right to place them where they think that person belongs - this usually prevents blang's scenario of non rated players beating up on the novice division, assuming of course that the TD is aware of the local non rated players skill level

I have thought about this as well. It does seem like the top rec players would be better suited for Rec and the bottom tier rec players are better suited for Novice.
I only see his as a problem when Int is throwing from longer Tees. Some rec players may be a 900 rated player on 5500 feet courses and 810 rated players on courses with longer holes.

 

[scarpfish]

I think the best thing to do is remove the reward for baggers and have Rec and Int trophies only.

Why stop at intermediate? Why not make all of the Am divisions in the true spirit of what amateur is supposed to be?

I would also make last cash in Advanced 5 dollars more than first place int.

If you go by the PDGA payout tables, this is very difficult to do unless there's a huge entry fee discrepancy between those divisions.

If the payout were more top heavy all players that think they have a chance will play advanced or Pro and allow the people that are typically beating every week by baggers a chance to win and go hope with a trophy.

"Top heavy" implies you pay the upper crust in a particular division more, not pay the lower cash positions in a higher division more. What you're actually advocating is a "flatter" payout.

I do agree that the best solution against sandbagging is to lessen the reward for playing down, but if lower divisions are relegated to trophy only, people might not think the rewards are worth the cost of attending the event. What I would advocate instead is capping the amount of merch that 1st place in a particular Am division gets. Say like the following.

Advanced: 4x the amount of entry fee (i.e. entry fee is $40, the most you can win is $160)
Intermediate: 3x the amount of entry fee (entry fee is $30, the most you can win is $90)
Recreational: 2.5x the amount of entry fee (entry fee is $25, the most you can win is $62.50)
Novice: Give everyone a players pack and call it good. Trophy only.

 

[DavidSauls]

Part of the rationale for fracturing the Ams into more divisions was that there would be fewer players in each division, thus the payouts for first place would be lower.

It was suggested to scale the Am payouts to be higher in the higher divisions. If you do this with the same entry fees, you'll have novices & recs protesting that they're being gouged to support the advanced players. If you also scale the entry fees also, you'll be giving incentive for players to play in the lowest division they can, for the lower entry fee. True amateur, trophy-only, would be nice but where it's been tried, most players chose to go where they could get payouts instead.

There are no simple solutions. Actually, there are plenty of simple solutions, each resulting in new problems.

*

I remain confused on the term "bagger", though. Other than the unrated, non-PDGA players playing in a division they can dominate, who's a bagger? Someone playing in a division where their rating puts them, against players of similar ability (ratings)?

And I'll admit to a bias---in my neck of the woods, the unrated player dominating his division is almost non-existent, so way down on my list of concerns.

 

[jdggna]

And I'll admit to a bias---in my neck of the woods, the unrated player dominating his division is almost non-existent, so way down on my list of concerns.

It could happen. I played in my first tourney this summer. I am not a member of the PDGA or had never done a tourney before, so I had no rating and no idea of how I would compare to any of the divisions. If I had signed up for Novice/Rec, I would have blown everybody out of the water. I signed up for Intermediate instead, and I placed 6th. I think I could have done about as well in Advanced.

Keep in mind that the unrated players might not have the intention of blowing away a division either. Maybe they're just inexperienced with tourneys and unsure of what to sign up for.

 

[12StonesScott]

It could happen. I played in my first tourney this summer. I am not a member of the PDGA or had never done a tourney before, so I had no rating and no idea of how I would compare to any of the divisions. If I had signed up for Novice/Rec, I would have blown everybody out of the water. I signed up for Intermediate instead, and I placed 6th. I think I could have done about as well in Advanced.

Keep in mind that the unrated players might not have the intention of blowing away a division either. Maybe they're just inexperienced with tourneys and unsure of what to sign up for.

Definitely saw that in the tournament blang and I played this weekend -- the first three finishers in the Rec field were players who either were not PDGA members and were not rated and were playing in tournaments for the first or second time, or (the winner) who has won the Rec or Novice division at 5 of the 13 events he's played this year, and finished 2nd or 3rd four more times. His rating is still in the Novice range right now, but went up 30 points between the March and May updates and will no doubt continue to go up based on recent performance. Three of his four rounds at Bowling Green were rated between 859-879.

He would have finished 3rd in Intermediate this weekend had he played that division. If Novice had been offered this weekend, he would have been eligible for it. But looking over the tournaments he's played recently where both Rec and Novice were offered, he's generally played Rec. Don't know the guy at all, but it sounds like he's a case of someone who's improving his game rapidly, and his rating is lagging behind his ability. He'd have placed well in Intermediate this week, but in most of the other tourneys he's played he'd have been well down in the Intermediate field. So I can't really claim that he was bagging it. After the next rating update, he'll probably be ineligible for Novice, and closing in on the upper end of the Rec range.

 

[DavidSauls]

It could happen. I played in my first tourney this summer. I am not a member of the PDGA or had never done a tourney before, so I had no rating and no idea of how I would compare to any of the divisions. If I had signed up for Novice/Rec, I would have blown everybody out of the water. I signed up for Intermediate instead, and I placed 6th. I think I could have done about as well in Advanced.

Keep in mind that the unrated players might not have the intention of blowing away a division either. Maybe they're just inexperienced with tourneys and unsure of what to sign up for.

I've no doubt it does happen---I've seen posts on the PDGA forum, from other areas of the country, where there are non-PDGA members who play and win multiple events. A first-time player can hardly be faulted for guessing the wrong division.

My experience colors my opinions, and around here, most players are PDGA members, and 80% play in higher divisions than their ratings would permit.

This is definitely an issue that varies by region.