Age Restricted Divisions

[DavidSauls]

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.

This. Especially if it means spending an entire weekend with them.

We don't need age-protected amateur divisions. It would be fair enough to have just ratings-defined divisions, and I've played in some events that did just that. Sometimes I wish more would---my desire to play with peers conflicts with my desire to play in large divisions.

The fact that the old guys have the option of playing either in the age-protected, or rating-protected, divisions, but overwhelming choose the former, speaks loudly. Running tournaments means catering to the players' desires, and hoping to get as many to attend as possible. If you don't offer Masters, you wonder whether those guys will sign up for Rec or Intermediate---or just not play.

 

[DavidSauls]

....as to the issue of it being unfair, I don't believe it's unfair for me to compete with another 900-rated player, 35 years younger and throwing 150' feet further. Presumably, though his skills exceed my in certain aspects, I must have other skills that exceed his. At least close enough to be competitive.

 

[DatRedDude]

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.

Eligible this year and i am basically moving to now get beat by people my own age. 40 year olds don't have illusions of grandeur in my experience.

 

[Stardoggy]

I turned 40 this last year, and have zero interest in playing in age protected divisions. I'm just a lowly Int player, but I enjoy playing against, and beating, kids half my age. How else am I supposed to keep feeling young?

 

[PMantle]

I turned 40 this last year, and have zero interest in playing in age protected divisions. I'm just a lowly Int player, but I enjoy playing against, and beating, kids half my age. How else am I supposed to keep feeling young?

I didn't play when I was 40. Not sure what I would have done. Now that I'm almost 49, if it weren't for adv masters, I would never play tournaments.

 

[gdub58]

This. Especially if it means spending an entire weekend with them.

I don't think you have to spend the whole weekend with them - you just have to play a couple of rounds of disc golf with them .

In fact, one of the biggest drawbacks to playing in smaller age-protected divisions is that you play with the a lot of the same people every round.

The fact that the old guys have the option of playing either in the age-protected, or rating-protected, divisions, but overwhelming choose the former, speaks loudly.

I think it speaks to the flaws in the system overall.

I play in Grandmasters because it's offered and it's an opportunity to win cash - the fact I know and like the guys I play with is a bonus. If that division weren't offered and there were ratings-specific divisions I would be just as likely to play even if there was no cash to win.

 

[simpletwist]

I know some folks absolutely abhor any references to golf, but its a good example even though there are only 2 age related divisions. There are plenty of Champions Tour members that play in the "Open" PGA tour. Some make money. But its easy to see that the 40+ year olds statistically don't fare as well as their 20 something, 30 something competitors.

Starting at 54 years old and now at 62, I regularly play with youngins. And in many cases largely depending on the course this 875ish rated player can hold his own against the 900+ rated players. I must add that usually only holds true in single round events. And last year I played a team tournamant where 1 of the teammates had to be Master or older, I got spanked resoundly by the 40 somethings. And although I held my own with the 2 Senior Grandmasters these two 900+ players whupped me as well.

Age prortection only increases the potential for good competition amoung the divisions. I only wish that there were enough 60 somethings to warrant Senior Grandmaster division in the local tourneys.

 

[TimSyl]

I have played rec/int in the past and in GM...started playing at 48, 56 now. I prefer using my "experience" as a benefit while playing vs. younger players in int. Around me, the GM field is typically small and those guys seem old to me, even though they're my age.

 

[RobA]

I'm eligible for grandmasters this year and am not sure which division (s) I'll play in. It is my second year back in the game. I expect my game to improve so I plan on moving up to pro masters / grandmasters. We have a small pool of am masters / grandmasters and I want to play with different guys from the ones I play my casual rounds with.

 

[sisyphus]

I was already 50 when I took up the sport, and have played in every men's division above juniors, at one time or another. It's been nice to have options. We can play with our rating if we want a bigger pool, or play with folks our age only. I respect the divisions that are available, but wouldn't mind seeing them span a few more years in order to bring the pool size possibilities up a little. I'd say over 45, 60, and 75 years would make for interesting age ranges.

(The flip side of this has been the Senior Olympics, where they use 5 year age bands beginning at age 50. Nice to see everyone have a shot at a medal, but the divisions can become a little small. Still proud of my dad taking up the sport for a week in order to get a gold medal on his 80th birthday! )

 

[ToddL]

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

From a purely TD perspective (with no accommodations for statisticians or old guys), I'd rather there be fewer divisions. It gets pretty annoying when I'm running a tournament that has 5 MM1, 3 MG1, 3 MS1, 1 FM1, and 1 FG1. Then I have to call people, ask them if they want to move divisions, tell them they're not required to, then have to set the board with mixed cards all over the place...

Maybe move Masters to age 45-60 with Grandmasters 60+ (or 60-70, with Seniors 70+)?

 

[VictorB]

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.

You wouldn't see bigger payouts from more players pooled together. You'd see a lot less older players playing in tournaments, because no one really wants to just go throw and not have a chance to compete.

The 40+ people you're referring to were also some of the best in the world in their 20s-30s, so that's easily the exception, and not the rule.

Open is open. If you want to compete with anyone you play there. Otherwise, age and gender protected divisions are fine. 10 year gaps, starting at 40, is fine. Some federations of powerlifting and strength sports start at sub-masters which is 35-40, then masters at 40.

 

[ru4por]

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.

:thmbup::thmbup:

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 not sure anyone gets to dictate why I should play sanctioned events.

This. Especially if it means spending an entire weekend with them.

We don't need age-protected amateur divisions. It would be fair enough to have just ratings-defined divisions, and I've played in some events that did just that. Sometimes I wish more would---my desire to play with peers conflicts with my desire to play in large divisions.

I didn't play when I was 40. Not sure what I would have done. Now that I'm almost 49, if it weren't for adv masters, I would never play tournaments.

I think the above covers my take pretty well. The social dynamic of an age protected division is considerably more desirable. As a grandmaster, I get juniors put onto our card from time to time. The difference in the games can impact either player. I have played in rec, still do from time to time. Waiting on new players as they play out of the woods, fail to watch their throws, drink, smoke and struggle with the rules can be tedious. On the other hand, some rec players can struggle waiting for my short arm middle of the fairway game. They are on standby often, if having a big arm puts them 150 ft down the fairway every hole.

 

[DavidSauls]

I don't think you have to spend the whole weekend with them - you just have to play a couple of rounds of disc golf with them .

In fact, one of the biggest drawbacks to playing in smaller age-protected divisions is that you play with the a lot of the same people every round.

.

As to the first point, most events around here are 4 rounds, 2 days, so it seems like the whole weekend.

As to the latter, I agree. Hence, my conflict---I like playing with my peers, but also like playing in large divisions (at least 3 cards).

My hope, as usual, is for TDs to offer a variety of choices, with the flexibility the PDGA allows. I'd like some to offer all divisions, some to offer only ratings-based divisions, and some to offer only Masters+ divisions if there are enough old guys around. Different events with different structures, and we'll all find the ones we like best, or play them all and get a change of pace.

 

[Horsman]

The only thing that I do not like about age protected divisions is that a lot of times you see the added cash evenly spead out among them. To me that is just not right. I feel that if you want to play for more added cash then you should be playing in the hardest division for your skillset. There are too many people that play age restricted divisions because it is easy money or an easy win. We had a TD here in WI last year who evenly spread out the added cash to the pro divisions for a tournament. The TD was the only one who played in that Masters division, obviously won and then paid themself out accordingly. The TD saw an opportunity to bend the rules and to make easy money and rolled with it.

 

[ohtobediscing]

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.

Yep. Nothing worse in a tourney than having to play with cheap-drunk, arrogant, screaming, bag-hurling a-holes.

I don't think you have to spend the whole weekend with them - you just have to play a couple of rounds of disc golf with them .

In fact, one of the biggest drawbacks to playing in smaller age-protected divisions is that you play with the a lot of the same people every round.
I play in Grandmasters because it's offered and it's an opportunity to win cash - the fact I know and like the guys I play with is a bonus. If that division weren't offered and there were ratings-specific divisions I would be just as likely to play even if there was no cash to win.

So---you're saying you're a sandbagger....:|

 

[VictorB]

So---you're saying you're a sandbagger....:\

or maybe he's saying that he wouldn't have a chance to win cash in another division.

 

[ohtobediscing]

^^^You just defined sandbagging. And yet he thinks we shouldn't play in age-protected divisions. You can't chose heads AND tails, then expect everyone to believe what you say.

 

[ohtobediscing]

From a purely TD perspective (with no accommodations for statisticians or old guys), I'd rather there be fewer divisions. It gets pretty annoying when I'm running a tournament that has 5 MM1, 3 MG1, 3 MS1, 1 FM1, and 1 FG1. Then I have to call people, ask them if they want to move divisions, tell them they're not required to, then have to set the board with mixed cards all over the place...

Maybe move Masters to age 45-60 with Grandmasters 60+ (or 60-70, with Seniors 70+)?

In complete agreement with this. For example, in the Senior Games last year, I won my 55-59 yo division with only one friend I play with within 5 strokes of my score, yet there was a 62 yo who would have beaten me, who had no one within 10 strokes of his score. I'd liked to have played against him, as I tend to "draft" on better players than me. :thmbup:

 

[araytx]

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

The only thing that I do not like about age protected divisions is that a lot of times you see the added cash evenly spead out among them. To me that is just not right. I feel that if you want to play for more added cash then you should be playing in the hardest division for your skillset. There are too many people that play age restricted divisions because it is easy money or an easy win. We had a TD here in WI last year who evenly spread out the added cash to the pro divisions for a tournament. The TD was the only one who played in that Masters division, obviously won and then paid themself out accordingly. The TD saw an opportunity to bend the rules and to make easy money and rolled with it.

For me I simply want to be competitive. And some of you obviously disagree, but having your skills on the incline or decline is a factor. Your rating is not a "one spot in time" determination; it is a formulaic average (combination) of how you've performed over the past 12 months, or in some cases 24 months. A player on the incline has a much better chance (today) of shooting 50 points over his rating and a player on the decline has a much better than average chance of shooting 50 points below his rating. I took up the sport late in life, at age 46, and I do have one ratings goal. But now two months from my 55th birthday, I can see and feel that I am going to plateau very very soon. And I have to get a lot of rounds above my rating consistently and soon to achieve my goal. And the true likelihood is, if and when I hit that goal in the next year to year and a half, at that point my rating will be much higher than my skills and abilities are at that time .

That's what I'm saying about age-protected divisions. Ratings alone don't take into account potential to throw above/below the rating, skills, decision-making ability, etc. I also know that Chuck has data on the average stroke decline by age, and that's why masters was moved from age 35 to age 40 several years back, and how the age-protected divisions cut-offs were determined now.

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...

And Dave, you're liking it now, because your skills are still on the upswing because of when you took up the sport. See if you feel the same when that plateau starts approaching. It only takes one youngster to blow his rating out of the water to make you understand.