Not to be a downer, but I'd bet there will be several new players without ratings that shred it.
We need a division for people that have they suck at DG. LOL.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
PDGA Division Changes for 2023 Announced
- Thread starter jenb
- Start date
Not to be a downer, but I'd bet there will be several new players without ratings that shred it.
We need a division for people that have they suck at DG. LOL.
krupicka
Double Eagle Member
It sounds like what you are asking for is for more TDs to offer the Purple division. (Rating cap of 800)
jenb
* Ace Member *
If they add mixed divisions capped at 800, 750, and 700, who are you going to compete against? Do you just want to have your own division of one player, a cakewalk at every tournament?
BillFleming
* Ace Member *
so far all the players in the MA4 division have ratings. Three of us in the 600's (654, 699, and me at 655); the rest in the 700s. There is one on the waitlist with no rating.
You aren't being a downer....if I'm DFL, I'm DFL. But I'd be DFL in MA3 or MA60 anyways, so there wouldn't be any difference.....but at least being in MA4 I have a better chance.
To your point about a division for people who suck at DG....made me think. What about a MA5 division? No prizes/awards given. Just a division for people beginning and need to get their first rating? It could include people who aren't so good and need to improve their game while also getting/updating their rating? Basically, a division where you are playing just to see how good you are, to learn about tournaments (how many first/second tournament players know they can't just pick up their disc and throw it?), or to improve. Bragging rights only.
In SE Michigan, it is a rare event, that does not offer MA4. I suggest that you PM the TD and request the division, if they are not offering it. All they can say is no. It is a pretty popular division offered....here.
Around here, you unfortunately would not be competitive in MA4 either. We often see divisions of 10 or better players, usually all 800+ rated.
Although I've only played a handful of rated rounds, they have not been very good. I've had a few better rounds when I played an unsanctioned league and definitely in casual play, so I'm a bit frustrated with my performance in sanctioned play. Regardless, pretty much DFL or close enough to not matter.
I think it would be fun to play with a card full of guys like us, but I definitely don't want to impose that on a TD or an event unless it is convenient. Despite the frustrations, I really try hard to embrace the attitude that I'm there to have fun and enjoy myself.
My last sanctioned play, I think there were 8 of us in MA50 and the ratings were probably 780 to 920ish, with most being 850-900.
I'm not sure if there are enough <700 players to create divisions, most places. I don't even see a lot of <800s in tournaments, though we could speculate that there might be more if there were specific divisions for them.
Which brings me to a question: if someone wanted to create a division restricted to, say <750 rated players, would the PDGA sanction it as an X-tier? I'd hope they would.
Which brings me to a question: if someone wanted to create a division restricted to, say <750 rated players, would the PDGA sanction it as an X-tier? I'd hope they would.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
honest question- is there a point at which a player (either new or veteran) is so unskilled they do not deserve a chance to win?
The MA4 thing is sooooo regional. In Illinois the division is huge, around here it is generally offered but fairly small, in many places it is not offered at all.
The MA4 thing is sooooo regional. In Illinois the division is huge, around here it is generally offered but fairly small, in many places it is not offered at all.
I think each rating # should be their own division and you're competing against any other people with the same rating # as you. It's really not fair to expect JohnE McCray to compete against Ricky Wysocki, but I think he'd have a fighting chance in this division:
Evan Smith 101574 1022 -6 62 66 72 56 256 $1,075
32 1170.00 James Proctor 34250 1022 -3 60 64 66 69 259 $730
40 1090.00 Emerson Keith 47472 1022 -1 63 71 69 58 261 $605
50 990.00 Casey White 81739 1022 +3 66 68 68 63 265 $470
53 960.00 Brodie Smith 128378 1022 +4 65 71 67 63 266 $450
127 220.00 JohnE McCray 9852 1022 +20 61 80 78 219
Evan Smith 101574 1022 -6 62 66 72 56 256 $1,075
32 1170.00 James Proctor 34250 1022 -3 60 64 66 69 259 $730
40 1090.00 Emerson Keith 47472 1022 -1 63 71 69 58 261 $605
50 990.00 Casey White 81739 1022 +3 66 68 68 63 265 $470
53 960.00 Brodie Smith 128378 1022 +4 65 71 67 63 266 $450
127 220.00 JohnE McCray 9852 1022 +20 61 80 78 219
jenb
* Ace Member *
The unfortunate reality is that a lot of TDs and more skilled players don't offer or don't want lower divisions to be offered because lower rated players slow down tournaments. And local tournaments fill in minutes with no MA4 offered and MA3 being trophy only.
When my rating pushed me out of women's int I typically had no one to compete with in advanced, so I played trophy only MA3 as my best option. But that was not fun for me, and that was by design. I travelled instead and played supertour events to have a division where I fit in, but that also got old. I haven't played a tournament in 7 years now. Tournaments aren't for everyone.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
There are zero "required" divisions which is exactly as it should be.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
The bolded is a popular misconception imo.
This is very true. Ideally there will be more and more events which cater to a more limited slice of the "all players" pie rather than attempting to cater to players of all levels at the same time. That would lead us to a more productive place where "all tournaments aren't for everyone."
BillFleming
* Ace Member *
I'm not sure what your comment is in reference to, I never said anything about capping divisions. I responded to ToddL's post where he said:
He talks about divisions giving a person a reasonable chance and having players in the same division 98 points apart isn't really fair. But that is how things are today in some places. If there isn't a MA4 division offered, the MA4 qualified player doesn't have a reasonable chance. Myself as an example, my highest rating has been 658....playing in MA3 or MA60, the closest rated person is usually in the high 700's. So I'm usually around 100 points behind the next rated person. Is that fair to me? Do I have a chance?
I don't want my own division, and I'm pretty positive a TD could fill a MA4 division (they did in the tournament I'm currently signed up for and have a waitlist for it).....but a MA4 division is a very rare thing here in Arizona.
I know people who have said they quit playing sanctioned rounds (and dropped their membership) because they never had a chance to do well and were tired of always being last in their division.
We are trying to grow the sport, but we tell people who aren't really good at it or are trying to improve....we don't have a place for you....so come back when you've gotten a lot better and can hang out with the 800+ rated players.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
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 don't recall seeing MA4 as an option in the few sanctioned tournaments I've played or considered playing in the DFW area. But, I don't think it is a numbers issue as much as that's just what TD's in this area have chosen to do. Meaning, you could easily get 4 or 8 or more MA4 level players to sign up for an event. But, those same people will sign up for MA3 or in my case, I prefer to play MA50 if it is an option.
To that end, not winning doesn't bother me as much as not playing as well as I believe (know) I'm capable of.
went back to the PDGA article in the OP.
In the tables, I understand the term "ratings cap" listed for MA divisions--correct me if I misunderstand:
It's a rule for pros playing down
It's a suggestion for Ams to move up.
But, in the tables for MP age divisions it also says "ratings cap"--is this actually a misnomer offered for reference only? I guess if you are an MP60 with a rating of 920, the suggestion is consider playing MP40?
In the tables, I understand the term "ratings cap" listed for MA divisions--correct me if I misunderstand:
It's a rule for pros playing down
It's a suggestion for Ams to move up.
But, in the tables for MP age divisions it also says "ratings cap"--is this actually a misnomer offered for reference only? I guess if you are an MP60 with a rating of 920, the suggestion is consider playing MP40?
jenb
* Ace Member *
It's purely a pro ratings cap for playing am divisions and for being reclassified as am, not a suggestion to move up.
BillFleming
* Ace Member *
Concerning the bolded part. I've found that to be the opposite in sanctioned tournaments and leagues. In a sanctioned league I play in, it's always the Open/higher rated groups that are finishing last. I've seen pros take every second they are allowed to line up a shot and take time just to select which of their many discs they are going to throw. Most low rated players are usually pretty quick about choosing their disc, lie, and making the throw. Yes, lower rated players take more throws, but in my experience they play faster.
krupicka
Double Eagle Member
I have not looked in DFW specifically. But in a many areas where MA4 is not offered, one will find that MA3 is filled mostly with players that qualify for MA4. Where are the MA3 players? All playing MA2 which is filled with pretty much with MA3 rated players because all of the MA2 players are playing in MA1.
BillFleming
* Ace Member *
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.
