Age Restricted Divisions

[mfcastillo17]

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+)?

^^^ This, 100%. As a TD it becomes a logistical nightmare sometimes with all the divisions. Also increases the cost to the tournament having to get trophies for 10+ divisions.

 

[PMantle]

I don't even know what a rating is, and it's not something people in our area even talk about. Can't see that ever working here.

 

[JC17393]

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.

Hear hear. Haven't seen TD abuse like you describe, but have certainly seen my share of players deciding their division based on where the easier money is...including playing a division of one (around here, our regional series requires all points divisions to be run even with one player).

To me, if you want to play with your age-peers rather than your skill-peers, so be it. As one Grandmasters player once said to me when I asked why he went for GM as soon as he turned 50, "I've lived long enough, I've earned the right to play in that division". No arguments here.

However, I don't think that choice should also carry the privilege of playing for added cash or even a "fair share" of added cash. The price you pay for the protection from the young guns is losing the chance at the big(ger) money. If you want a crack at the money, you know what to do.

 

[sisyphus]

^^^ This, 100%. As a TD it becomes a logistical nightmare sometimes with all the divisions. Also increases the cost to the tournament having to get trophies for 10+ divisions.

As a player and not a TD, it's been one of the 'hazards' of playing in such small divisions. I felt sorry for our TD a couple of times when I 'earned' a trophy that wasn't avalilable: once for a division that grew to four after he'd ordered the trophies (I was the only pre-registration for Adv GM, and I understood there might not be a group...I'm sure he felt bad about not having spent the money, but how was he to know we'd actually have four show up?). The other time was a tie for a series title in Adv masters, but that was also cool - I felt the 40-50 year old deserved the nice dyed disc, so it was OK there weren't two available.

It would be more likely a TD could plan on a realistic group to sign up with bigger age ranges. :thmbup:

 

[mfcastillo17]

As a player and not a TD, it's been one of the 'hazards' of playing in such small divisions. I felt sorry for our TD a couple of times when I 'earned' a trophy that wasn't avalilable: once for a division that grew to four after he'd ordered the trophies (I was the only pre-registration for Adv GM, and I understood there might not be a group...I'm sure he felt bad about not having spent the money, but how was he to know we'd actually have four show up?). The other time was a tie for a series title in Adv masters, but that was also cool - I felt the 40-50 year old deserved the nice dyed disc, so it was OK there weren't two available.

It would be more likely a TD could plan on a realistic group to sign up with bigger age ranges. :thmbup:

If all players had the same positive attitude like you do, it would be easier! Players like yourself make TD's life easier, although unfortunately there are many who are not.

 

[Nova P]

As a TD it becomes a logistical nightmare sometimes with all the divisions. Also increases the cost to the tournament having to get trophies for 10+ divisions.

A TD who I know solved this problem by not issuing trophies for divisions that have fewer than three players.

 

[gdub58]

^^^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.

Obviously I disagree. I can either play open Grandmasters and win cash or play Advanced and win discs. I choose cash - how is that sandbagging?

I'm not saying I'd win first place place in Advanced, but I randomly looked at three of the seven tournaments I played in last year - in the first I placed 1st out of 7 in GM/would have been 5th of 16 in Advanced, in the second I was 4th of 11 in GM/would have been 3rd of 33 in Advanced, and in the third I was 1st out of 4 in GM and would have been 1st out of 15 in Advanced. I guess I'm not a very good sandbagger.

Also, I was trying to point out that if there were fewer divisions overall and no age-protected Pro divisions it would actually be detrimental to me, so as not to make my preferences seem self-serving.

Some people just miss the point... oh well.

 

[Horsman]

Also, I was trying to point out that if there were fewer divisions overall and no age-protected Pro divisions it would actually be detrimental to me, so as not to make my preferences seem self-serving.

Some people just miss the point... oh well.

Age protected doesnt bother me, I would just like to se less added cash if any given to an age protected division. To me its just an incentive for some people to not have to chance loosing in a division that they are more than capable of competing in just because cash or a W is more important that competing to your highest ability.

 

[Mr. Butlertron]

Better ideas than age protected divisions within Ams:

- Left handed division. That's just as much for the right handed players as for the lefties. Lefties are like lepers.
- Fan boy division. All discs must be from a specific company.
- Bald division. No longer shall meek hairlined be bound by the ponytailed chains of oppression.
- Minimalist division. Only one disc allowed
- Dog division. Players that bring their dogs receive their own division. Bandanas are mandatory
- Slow play division. 10 players per card insures that those who take forever to hole out can play in peace

 

[tdschrock1]

I have not run PDGA events, but I have run unsanctioned tournaments and 5K runs. The TD is given enough flexibility (from my understanding) to only offer certain divisions. If they choose to do this, wouldn't this help significantly with the logistics?

I think often times events actually suffer when the directors attempt to be too flexible and helpful instead of deciding and communicating logistics decisions (emphasis on communicating- nothing worse than not knowing what is going on).

 

[tdschrock1]

- Minimalist division. Only one disc allowed

I'd play it.

 

[ToddL]

^^^ This, 100%. As a TD it becomes a logistical nightmare sometimes with all the divisions. Also increases the cost to the tournament having to get trophies for 10+ divisions.

A standard tournament might have: MPO, MPM, FPO, MA1, MM1, MG1, FA1, MA2, and MA3. With a 72 player field, that's an average of 8 players per division. Realistically, your MPO, MA1, and MA2 fields are going to take 45 players, so the other 6 divisions will have maybe 30 people for 5 players per division. Not only is it a completely nightmare for TDs, I think it cheapens the competition and the thrill of winning. You end up playing with the same people every round for 4 rounds, and the guy who finishes in 3rd place doesn't get a payout because he finished in last place. It's just a crappy situation all the way around.

 

[ToddL]

I have not run PDGA events, but I have run unsanctioned tournaments and 5K runs. The TD is given enough flexibility (from my understanding) to only offer certain divisions. If they choose to do this, wouldn't this help significantly with the logistics?

I think often times events actually suffer when the directors attempt to be too flexible and helpful instead of deciding and communicating logistics decisions (emphasis on communicating- nothing worse than not knowing what is going on).

The TD does have that flexibility, but it's a balancing act between being accommodating to your players and being set in your ways. At a recent tournament I helped run, we originally set up the divisions to include only MPO, MA1, MM1, MA2, and MA3 (it was a doubles tournament, so imagine a field of only 36 players). We had one team sign up for MM1, and then another team that really really wanted to be MG1. Fine, we opened up MG but warned them that they might be the only team and would have to move. Well, another team signed up MG, and at the tournament, there were 2 MGs and 1 MM. The MGs didn't want to move, so the MMs had to move to MA1 and we ended up without a MM1 field. Then the MG1 teams were stuck playing together for 4 rounds, and the winners won by 60 strokes. I can't really imagine that it was really all that fun for anyone.

We got talked out our original setup because we were trying to be nice and ended up with a worse situation for everyone. (And if you watch the latest DiscGolfGuy video, you'll hear Barry Schultz saying the reason he likes Chuck Connelly as TD is because he listens to the players and their suggestions and doesn't think he knows everything. Well, sometimes you work with what the players ask for and it ends up backfiring. Hate it when that happens.)

 

[mfcastillo17]

A standard tournament might have: MPO, MPM, FPO, MA1, MM1, MG1, FA1, MA2, and MA3. With a 72 player field, that's an average of 8 players per division. Realistically, your MPO, MA1, and MA2 fields are going to take 45 players, so the other 6 divisions will have maybe 30 people for 5 players per division. Not only is it a completely nightmare for TDs, I think it cheapens the competition and the thrill of winning. You end up playing with the same people every round for 4 rounds, and the guy who finishes in 3rd place doesn't get a payout because he finished in last place. It's just a crappy situation all the way around.

Bingo!

This event is a rarity for us where it "only" has 8 divisions
http://www.pdga.com/tour/event/24482

As opposed to this one..'
http://www.pdga.com/tour/event/24482

yes its a bigger field but still that's a crapload of divisions.

 

[tdschrock1]

The TD does have that flexibility, but it's a balancing act between being accommodating to your players and being set in your ways.

We got talked out our original setup because we were trying to be nice and ended up with a worse situation for everyone.

Well, sometimes you work with what the players ask for and it ends up backfiring. Hate it when that happens.)

Bingo!

This event is a rarity for us where it "only" has 8 divisions

yes its a bigger field but still that's a crapload of divisions.

I think we are pretty much saying the same thing - ideally there are fewer, decent sized divisions and that often the TD is convinced to allow more smaller divisions.

TDs do a great job to keep things organized, but exercising their ability to allow or cut divisions is in their hands.

 

[VictorB]

^^^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.

Is it that bad if you have guys like Climo, Schultz, etc 'sandbagging' to masters at an event they could play open in? They are trying to win the most cash also.

http://www.pdga.com/player/4297

If its ok for them it should be ok for anyone. That's what the age protected divisions are for after all. Being able to be more competitive and not play against people you likely can't beat.

 

[markmcc]

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 sums up my thoughts completely. I started DG when I was in my 50's and am an 850 ish rated player. So I'm not out to dominate in tournament play. But I enjoy playing with mature, even-tempered folks who understand the rules and tournament play. I've seen enough poor behavior among the "youngsters" to know that I'd rather not be part of their scene.

 

[ru4por]

A standard tournament might have: MPO, MPM, FPO, MA1, MM1, MG1, FA1, MA2, and MA3. With a 72 player field, that's an average of 8 players per division. Realistically, your MPO, MA1, and MA2 fields are going to take 45 players, so the other 6 divisions will have maybe 30 people for 5 players per division. Not only is it a completely nightmare for TDs, I think it cheapens the competition and the thrill of winning. You end up playing with the same people every round for 4 rounds, and the guy who finishes in 3rd place doesn't get a payout because he finished in last place. It's just a crappy situation all the way around.

With the challenge for the TD set aside. I am not sure it up to anyone to decide what competition means to any player, or what defines the "thrill" of winning. Many GM's I know, enjoy playing their rounds with the same guys and most are not concerned with "payouts". They mostly have jobs and boxes of plastic. My point is to each his own, and age protected divisioning ensure that.

 

[thrembo]

Being a GM, I like the age protected divisions, I just think that there are to many of them. Cut them down a little.

 

[scarpfish]

If senior GM and Legends divisions are available and either the TD doesn't offer them or no one signs up for them, are they still a problem because they exist?

Seems a lot of this griping about too many divisions is much ado about nothing.