Age Restricted Divisions

[Captain Bad]

In the era of Player Ratings, where a 900-rated golfer is a 900-rated golfer regardless of age, do we need age-restricted divisions, particularly on the Am side?

For Pros I can see the need. Masters (and older) who wish to play for cash may not want to compete with the younger Pros who populate the Open divisions. But, with ratings-based division on the Am side, I don't get why additional separation by age is necessary. Is it to simply let people play with others their own age? If so, that sounds like a decision based on sentiment not competitive play.

(I'm just curious and would like to hear others' thoughts on this. I'm not suggesting anything is wrong or has to be changed. Please don't scorn my generation or yell at me for stepping on your lawn.)

 

[brutalbrutus]

Is it fairplay to ask a 50yr old guy clinging on to a 935 rating to play advanced with 18yr olds who can throw 450ft?

 

[Captain Bad]

What does age have to do with that though? Couldn't you ask the same of the 25-year old clinging to a 935 rating? They're both Adv rated because of their golf performance not because of their age.

 

[brutalbrutus]

A 25 yrold is probably not clinging to a 935 but on his way up...

 

[araytx]

Is it fairplay to ask a 50yr old guy clinging on to a 935 rating to play advanced with 18yr olds who can throw 450ft?

AND is it fair (in Am divisions) for late teen and early 20-year olds without jobs to have to play against those without jobs? Working all week versus not can really affect weekend warriors.

Personally I think age-restricted divisions are a good idea (and I don't think it's about competitive reasons). In simple terms, having your athletic skills on the decline or incline is a factor for having age-restricted divisions. We do it at the junior level as well for similar, albeit reverse order, reasons. Besides older players may still play in a non-age-restricted divisions (e.g., MA1) if they desire. I see it as an opportunity for choices. Think about this. MS1's (senior grandmasters) and ML1's (Legends) would be required to play with similarly rated players 40 and 50 years younger under your scenario. Not for competitive reasons, it's just a good idea to keep age-restricted divisions. I know because I do often play in higher divisions ... but I wouldn't want to have to play only with Ams with my rating all the time -- because I would be playing pretty much solely with 20-somethings I have little in common with outside of DG

 

[Captain Bad]

AND is it fair (in Am divisions) for late teen and early 20-year olds without jobs to have to play against those without jobs? Working all week versus not can really affect weekend warriors.

I think that's perfectly fair assuming they are rated into the same division. What your life is like off the course, before the two-minute warning, has no bearing on your standing as a competitor once the tournament begins. You get no concessions for being a hard-working family man, and he gets no punishment for being an unemployed kid with lots of time on his hands...aside from the scorn of us working folk. Damn kids!

Moreover, that still doesn't necessarily have anything to do with age. Say you have two teenagers - one who plays everyday, and the other who's just in it for a tournament here and there. They have the same rating. Maybe the weekend warrior has more natural talent and athletic ability and can get by with less practice. Certainly you'd argue it's fair they should play in the same division?

Personally I think age-restricted divisions are a good idea (and I don't think it's about competitive reasons). In simple terms, having your athletic skills on the decline or incline is a factor for having age-restricted divisions. We do it at the junior level as well for similar, albeit reverse order, reasons. Besides older players may still play in a non-age-restricted divisions (e.g., MA1) if they desire. I see it as an opportunity for choices. Think about this. MS1's (senior grandmasters) and ML1's (Legends) would be required to play with similarly rated players 40 and 50 years younger under your scenario. Not for competitive reasons, it's just a good idea to keep age-restricted divisions. I know because I do often play in higher divisions ... but I wouldn't want to have to play only with Ams with my rating all the time -- because I would be playing pretty much solely with 20-somethings I have little in common with outside of DG

I agree an argument can be made that age limits your ratings potential over time and that ones athletic decline/incline has an effect on your skills, but we don't base divisions on ratings potential or how different your skills will be in the future. We base divisions on a snapshot of one's skill - represented by a rating - at a particular moment in time. That rating is what it is regardless of age, so I see no reason to separate two players whom the PDGA considers equal simply because one might have more or less potential than the other.

 

[brutalbrutus]

I just clicked on your profile and noticed that we actually know each other, lol. See you at Monroe for the battle of Ohio!...

 

[Cgkdisc]

What we know is the course being played is more relevant than age in predicting who will do better among men and women of widely varying age with the same rating. As you might expect, a more open course will slightly favor the younger males. A more wooded and/or technical the course will favor the women and older players. The difference can be as high as two throws per 9 holes. Thus, better course balance provides a more fair battle among those with about the same rating.

 

[harr0140]

There is a clear difference between a 930 rated 40 year old and a 930 rated 18 year old. One is likely on the incline and one on the decline. Someone could sit in Intermediate for decades as they improve, level out, and then start to decline Why not give people a place to compete with others of the same physical ability and those who are dealing with the same physical issues of rebounding after one round, dealing with a long tournament setup, etc.

 

[scarpfish]

Some of you need to realize that many of the people who are eligible for age restricted divisions choose to be in them so they play around people of the same age, and don't have to be around the 20 somethings and their 20 something behavior. Who is the better player is really irrelevant in that decision. I didn't really understand it either until I became Masters eligible.

 

[teemkey]

I agree an argument can be made that age limits your ratings potential over time and that ones athletic decline/incline has an effect on your skills, but we don't base divisions on ratings potential or how different your skills will be in the future.

A rating is a weighted average. Particularly in AM divisions, the scoring deviation is a major factor. If you check out a few tournament results, you'll see the top finishers in non-age protected AM divisions play above their rating (sometimes *way* above their rating). Deviation is a better indicator of the potential of a player on any given round.

Once the learning curve reaches its asymptote and our rating levels out, we older players don't have the upside potential of a younger player for a magic round or two (we do have the downside however, sigh). I also play MA2 if MS1 or MG1 isn't available, and, as araytx points out, the social dynamics are very different in the age-protected division -- a little more laid back, more common interests/history.

On a side note, I wonder if the PDGA has any data on rating standard deviation by age -- or, more to the point, the probability of players scoring above their rating by 30/40/50/more points per round (and per tournament) by age group (oldest division qualified for).

 

[Captain Bad]

There is a clear difference between a 930 rated 40 year old and a 930 rated 18 year old. One is likely on the incline and one on the decline. Someone could sit in Intermediate for decades as they improve, level out, and then start to decline Why not give people a place to compete with others of the same physical ability and those who are dealing with the same physical issues of rebounding after one round, dealing with a long tournament setup, etc.

OK, after having read this and thinking about araytx's post some more, I think I'm beginning to understand and I'm coming around to your viewpoint. Obviously as you age, your skills diminish, you become more likely to shoot under your rating, and your rating consequently falls off. Rather than condemn an aging person to work themselves backwards through the Am ranks making them less and less competitive over time, we set up age protection so that everyone remains competitive as they "equally" decline.

Makes sense.

I still think it's fair to say though that two players of the same rating, regardless of age, should score similarly at a given event if all else is equal. That would include the course balance that Chuck was talking about. I think the flaw in my reasoning was that I got hung up on that; and while it may be true, it is only applicable for that one, isolated event and doesn't take into account trends like you guys are saying it should.

Gotcha.

OK, so next questions: Are there too many age-protected divisions? And is 40 too young to start age-protection?

 

[scarpfish]

OK, so next questions: Are there too many age-protected divisions?

Considering only Masters and Grandmasters are used in most events...no.

And is 40 too young to start age-protection?

Again, no. I believe some ratings science went into choosing that age as it seems to be around the point where skills began to decline.

 

[gdub58]

There is a clear difference between a 930 rated 40 year old and a 930 rated 18 year old. One is likely on the incline and one on the decline. Someone could sit in Intermediate for decades as they improve, level out, and then start to decline Why not give people a place to compete with others of the same physical ability and those who are dealing with the same physical issues of rebounding after one round, dealing with a long tournament setup, etc.

IMO this is flawed logic. If today you and I are both rated 930 we should play in the same division. It's not like we are committing to a division for the entire year - if 6 months from now you are rated 950 and I'm rated 910, at that point we should play in different divisions.

I'd be fine with eliminating age-protected pro divisions as well (and I cashed in every tournament I played in last year as a grandmaster) and instead have Open and beyond that only narrow ratings-based divisions. I wouldn't mind competing with a group of similarly-rated players (regardless of age, employment status, or whatever) - winning in those circumstances would be more of a challenge and as a result more satisfying than playing with the same group of 50+ guys, some of whom have ratings 50 or more points lower than mine.

Don't get me wrong - all of the grandmasters in this area are great guys and I thoroughly enjoy playing with them. That said, I've consistently lobbied for fewer divisions and a different approach to tournaments where you have to earn the right to play in a higher division by getting your rating higher.

This feels to me like another form of entitlement - if you don't want to play in the same division for a long time, get better (or I suppose get worse). If you can't handle long courses, don't play those tournaments (or just play them and have fun). Perhaps we should have a division that is player-pack only for people who don't think they can play to their rating, fall apart after one round, or whatever other issue people seem to have. It's a competition for God's sake - if you want something more relaxed play weeklies or non-sanctioned events...

/rant

 

[harr0140]

To me it seems like too many people focus on winning stuff and trophies and lose the focus on camraderie and good natured competition. I personally do not need to win $100 in FM and a trophy to dictate what is a good tourney . . I'd rather win take home a small prize and trophy for my efforts and enjoy the competition. Too many people feel like they deserve more than that for winning when if you really think about it all . . . if you want to play to win . . . play open and compete with the best. Otherwise . . . just enjoy the friendly competition. /rant

 

[harr0140]

Some of you need to realize that many of the people who are eligible for age restricted divisions choose to be in them so they play around people of the same age, and don't have to be around the 20 somethings and their 20 something behavior. Who is the better player is really irrelevant in that decision. I didn't really understand it either until I became Masters eligible.

Another big factor . . . no offense I don't feel like I want to compete with up and coming 18 year olds anymore. I have proven to be as good as most of you but I'd rather compete with others of the same age group, with the same maturity level, and the same understanding of the rules and tournament play.

My skill level and PDGA rating has remained in the 900-915 range for the last 6 years in my 7 year career . . . but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy competition with likeminded folks.

 

[DiscFifty]

I've always thought PDGA events should force players to play in specific divisions based on their ratings, pro or am, that just makes sense. I'm guessing allowing non members to play opened up a can of worms and made that pretty much impossible. As a Grandmaster, I love playing with guys my own age, but I have to admit I enjoy winning against (and losing to) younger players much more. lol...

 

[RobA]

In the era of Player Ratings, where a 900-rated golfer is a 900-rated golfer regardless of age, do we need age-restricted divisions, particularly on the Am side?

For Pros I can see the need. Masters (and older) who wish to play for cash may not want to compete with the younger Pros who populate the Open divisions. But, with ratings-based division on the Am side, I don't get why additional separation by age is necessary. Is it to simply let people play with others their own age? If so, that sounds like a decision based on sentiment not competitive play.

(I'm just curious and would like to hear others' thoughts on this. I'm not suggesting anything is wrong or has to be changed. Please don't scorn my generation or yell at me for stepping on your lawn.)

You answered your own question.

 

[disctildeath]

I'd definitely get behind fewer divisions, would have a open seniors division for men and women, 55 and older the rest play regular open, would be more interesting to get a bigger division of those players pooled together, would make it easier to get them some coverage and some better payouts. Most of the younger masters qualified players right now are still quite capable of competing (Climo, Brown, etc) in open so that would be a better standard.

 

[gdub58]

I realize that some people mostly want to play for the camaraderie, and I think there are opportunities for that in non-sanctioned tournaments and other events. For others, it is more about the competition and testing yourself under those circumstances that is really motivating.

I play the vast majority of my rounds with "like-minded folks", and the two people I play with the most are 30 years younger than I am. We play by the rules and have a great time trying to outplay each other. I am surprised with some of the generalizations here - while there are certainly a number of young players I would rather not play with due to the way they act, there are older ones I avoid as well. Age also does not always equate to a better understanding or respect for the rules - I've played in tournaments with a few masters and grandmasters who have tried to pull all sorts of schemes.