Great article about AM divisions.

[DavidSauls]

So, what's the proper number? And why?

(Sometimes, when I'm feeling cynical, I think that of course too many people have been paid, because no one should have been, except TDs and staff. Let players earn a percentage of the gate and media rights payments.

Then I relax and think, hey, it's just gambling pools.)

 

[DiscFifty]

I'm curious if any of the proponents of combining age based divisions has considered what Am Worlds would look like with such a change. You cannot have a World Championship in a division with an upper rating limit. There would be real sandbagging going on by many players who are close to the cut off in order to qualify for the lower division. It's the reason that there is no Intermediate World Champion. Lumping all Ams over 40 into a division means that anyone who has started to see any decline in their game due to age would have almost zero chance of ever becoming a World Champion. I can't imagine a player who has never dreamed of having a putt to win a World Championship. Taking that dream away from chronologically challenged Ams, especially those who have started playing later in life, would be a terrible thing.

100% Disagree. "Lumping all Ams over 40 into a division" My proposal would lump ALL players 40 and older into 3 divisions total. MastersREC, MastersINT, MastersADV. That would eliminate the craziness of having 817 rated players playing against 952 rated players as we saw this year. You would still have 3 probably very large divisions but everyone would play against a similar skill set. And the MastersADV division of course would not have a ratings cap so the truly best at the sport would compete with....the best at the sport.

 

[PMantle]

So, what's the proper number? And why?

(Sometimes, when I'm feeling cynical, I think that of course too many people have been paid, because no one should have been, except TDs and staff. Let players earn a percentage of the gate and media rights payments.

Then I relax and think, hey, it's just gambling pools.)

The number that allows a tournament to pay for itself.

 

[Samnsc]

I've been reading this thread and considering all the debate about age based groupings, ratings based groupings and such. Do I like playing with my age group (60+)? Yeah. Do I mind playing Rec.? Usually not. My goal going in to most tournaments is simple: Play better than my current rating (nothing to brag about) AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, beat the 3-4 other guys I play against regularly in my Sunday Doubles group. Anything beyond that is gravy.

 

[Jah Plastifari]

100% Disagree. "Lumping all Ams over 40 into a division" My proposal would lump ALL players 40 and older into 3 divisions total. MastersREC, MastersINT, MastersADV. That would eliminate the craziness of having 817 rated players playing against 952 rated players as we saw this year. You would still have 3 probably very large divisions but everyone would play against a similar skill set. And the MastersADV division of course would not have a ratings cap so the truly best at the sport would compete with....the best at the sport.

So regardless of rating you would have the best 70 year old Ams competing against the best 40 year old Ams at Worlds and you do not see a problem with that? Keep in mind that you cannot offer an Int or Rec division at Worlds without introducing true sandbagging into the sport. We may have a few people now that play under their ability to remain rated in Int or Rec, but if you try to offer these divisions at Worlds that number would jump exponentially.

I don't think you understood that my post was only directed at how your Masters Rec, Int, and Adv divisions would not be feasible at Worlds. I have no issue with playing against people that are a similar rating regardless of age. I turn 55 next month and enjoy healthy competition against the youngsters in Advanced far more than clubbing baby seals in the MA50+ or MA55+ divisions.

 

[DavidSauls]

It's unpleasantly ironic that I signed up for MA50 in a C-tier last night, my first tournament in 2018, only to discover that they're using the 5-year splits.

Now, to be fair, it's a big C-tier, with 140 spots. So as of last night there were 7 MA50s, 9 MA55s, and 7 MA60s (where I'm also eligible), perhaps more to come as registration fills. But a larger MA50 division would have been nice.

 

[JC17393]

Has anyone said too many people get paid yet? Because, too many people get paid.

I understand the implication you're making, but I'm not sure I agree with it.

Locally we have an unsanctioned "tour" that has been growing in popularity since it started 3 years ago. The one thing the tour kinda lacks despite the growth...regular MPO attendance. PDGAs in the area regularly see MPO fields ranging from 15-25+ depending on event capacity. The tour gets 6-8. PDGA events pay 40-45%. The tour pays 25%. I don't think it's a coincidence. Same pool of potential players, no real schedule conflicts to blame.

It's why I don't play it, and I doubt I'm alone. I'm not keen about playing well, finishing 3rd out of eight and getting nothing. Not that I think I should be getting a lot, but in a PDGA, I'd at least get my money back for that. The guy who runs the tour thinks his MPO division will grow as the players in the am divisions move up, so he's not that concerned about drawing in the existing pros now. I have my doubts. If the existing pros are opting out, why would the up and coming ams feel any different about moving up?

Seems to me, the ones who advocate for paying fewer spots want it primarily so the winners go home with more. I think the way to get there is increasing the overall purse through added cash, not paying out a smaller percentage.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm not certain that was what PM was implying. But.....

I recall years back, a poll of pros asking whether payouts should be steeper or flatter. They went with flatter, recognizing that in the long run, enticing more people to pay entry fees would be more lucrative than keeping bigger shares of less money.

Which applies to the Am divisions, too, with the added consideration that if more of the am prizes go to the top players, they have even less incentive to move up.

 

[PMantle]

Seems to me, the ones who advocate for paying fewer spots want it primarily so the winners go home with more. I think the way to get there is increasing the overall purse through added cash, not paying out a smaller percentage.

I would be surprised if anyone felt this(go home with more) way.


Having to add cash is one of the main reasons I think too many people get paid. Seems like a massive PITA for TDs. Plus, I think I failed to get paid one time in all the tournaments I've played. That just shouldn't be.

 

[gradus]

100% Disagree. "Lumping all Ams over 40 into a division" My proposal would lump ALL players 40 and older into 3 divisions total. MastersREC, MastersINT, MastersADV. That would eliminate the craziness of having 817 rated players playing against 952 rated players as we saw this year. You would still have 3 probably very large divisions but everyone would play against a similar skill set. And the MastersADV division of course would not have a ratings cap so the truly best at the sport would compete with....the best at the sport.

Sorry if this has been said (I skipped several pages). One problem with this approach is the natural progression is from higher to lower rated divisions. You're making players downgrade themselves as they get older. Many older players don't mind moving "up" to the next age bracket, but would not be happy to move down to MastersREC. ...not saying this outweighs the other arguments, but is another consideration.

 

[Dcinmd]

It's unpleasantly ironic that I signed up for MA50 in a C-tier last night, my first tournament in 2018, only to discover that they're using the 5-year splits.

Now, to be fair, it's a big C-tier, with 140 spots. So as of last night there were 7 MA50s, 9 MA55s, and 7 MA60s (where I'm also eligible), perhaps more to come as registration fills. But a larger MA50 division would have been nice.

I signed up for a C-tier on Sunday, zero age protected divisions in Amateur just ma1,ma2 and ma3 and MP40 and MP50 in pro.

It's almost like the TD have options and are currently using them or something.

 

[DiscFifty]

So regardless of rating you would have the best 70 year old Ams competing against the best 40 year old Ams at Worlds and you do not see a problem with that?

Disc golf ratings are not age limited. In your case both of them would have ratings 935 or higher, so they would both be in the MastersAdv division. But in reality.. all of the 70+ dudes playing in AM worlds would be lumped into MastersREC in my suggestion since the highest rated AM70 player was 873. But...let's take a detailed actual data look at my suggestion which is to promote better competitive divisions for the age 40+ players.

Currently @ this years AM Worlds divisions: (Just the men divisions for comparison..)

RG = Ratings gap. APR = Average player rating.

AM70 - 8 players. (low 738, high 873) RG=135 APR=820
AM60 - 69 players. (low 746, high 938) RG=192 APR=868
AM50 - 108 players (low 817, high 952) RG=135 APR=891
AM40 - 108 players (low 808, high 973) RG=165 APR=884

Based on the above data, it's clear each division has a substantial gap in ratings and an average player rating clearly well below the highest rated players giving the higher rated players a substantial advantage overall.

My proposal of lumping all 293 players into 3 divisions would results as follows:

MastersRec: 147 players (low 738, high 899) RG=161
MastersInt: 106 players (low 900, high 934) RG-34
MastersAdv: 40 players (low 935, high 973) RG=38

Based on this new data, the ratings gap is still large for the rec division which tells us there is quite alot of lower rated players playing this tournament and could very well open up the need for a 4th division in larger tournaments such as AM Worlds.

MastersNov: 35 (low 738, high 847) RG=109
MastersRec: 112 (low 851, high 898) RG=47
MastersInt: 106 players (low 900, high 934) RG=34
MastersAdv: 40 players (low 935, high 973) RG=38

But even with the added MastersNov division there is still a high ratings gap which again indicates the relatively high number of lower rated players. But now the other 3 divisions have a much more acceptable ratings gap which should indicate better competition.

The MastersInt division ends up with the most players and would probably result in the best overall competition since the ratings gap is the lowest.

The MastersAdv division ends up the smallest, but also has a very competitive ratings gap. I just don't believe any of those high rated players feel good about beating rec rated players or even int rated players when it comes to a "Worlds" title.

For the inevitable question such as: "What if a MastersInt players beats the best MastersAdv player?" You wouldn't need a final 9 in each division. For the final round only the top 10 (or 20, etc) players with the lowest total scores (regardless of division) would play against each other for the chance to be crowned the MastersChampion.

So you end up with 4 (or 5) trophies given out:
MastersNov
MastersRec
MastersInt
MastersAdv
Masters Champion

I appreciate anyone who takes the time to comment with your honest, thought provoking comments. Thx!

 

[JC17393]

I would be surprised if anyone felt this(go home with more) way.


Having to add cash is one of the main reasons I think too many people get paid. Seems like a massive PITA for TDs. Plus, I think I failed to get paid one time in all the tournaments I've played. That just shouldn't be.

I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing anymore. The only result of paying fewer spots is the people who win get more, added cash or not. The purse is X. X/4 is greater than X/6. Basic math.

 

[_MTL_]

I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing anymore. The only result of paying fewer spots is the people who win get more, added cash or not. The purse is X. X/4 is greater than X/6. Basic math.

Side note - this is the exact reason why people get mad when they point out that a payout for first at a local B tier can be higher than 12th in the worlds.

 

[PMantle]

I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing anymore. The only result of paying fewer spots is the people who win get more, added cash or not. The purse is X. X/4 is greater than X/6. Basic math.

Yeah, we are not talking about the same thing.

 

[DavidSauls]

I appreciate anyone who takes the time to comment with your honest, thought provoking comments. Thx!

So you're proposing that we also have MastersInt, MastersRec, etc. at Worlds?

If so, as others pointed out, this would be a strong encouragement for, say, 902-rated Masters to tank an event or two, and get them down to where they can win a World Championship. A ratings-based World Title is a little....distasteful.

As a smaller issue, what date would the ratings be effective? The end of the year in which invites were earned? The day invites went out, or registration was done? By Worlds time, you're going to have players playing for a title in a division their rating no longer matches.

(If you're not proposing this for Worlds, then....I think that was the objection. It's easy to understand for C-tiers.)

 

[DiscFifty]

So you're proposing that we also have MastersInt, MastersRec, etc. at Worlds?

If so, as others pointed out, this would be a strong encouragement for, say, 902-rated Masters to tank an event or two, and get them down to where they can win a World Championship. A ratings-based World Title is a little....distasteful.

As a smaller issue, what date would the ratings be effective? The end of the year in which invites were earned? The day invites went out, or registration was done? By Worlds time, you're going to have players playing for a title in a division their rating no longer matches.

(If you're not proposing this for Worlds, then....I think that was the objection. It's easy to understand for C-tiers.)

Just an attempt to see the irony in having no ratings restrictions in age protected divisions. I used the Worlds data as an example. And yes my proposal would eliminate all of the age protected divisions and replace them with only 3 ratings based divisions. Again...850 and 950 in the same division? meh....

"If so, as others pointed out, this would be a strong encouragement for, say, 902-rated Masters to tank an event or two, and get them down to where they can win a World Championship. A ratings-based World Title is a little....distasteful."

Well...in my proposal they would win their division...but they would also have to prove themselves in the final round where the best overall scores would compete for the title of true Masters Champion. Plus you could certainly have better incentives for the higher rated divisions to possibly limit the thought of ratings manipulation. But still..that just over 900 rated player dumbing down to rec (850-899) seems easier to swallow than forcing the 820-850 rated players to compete against the 940+ players resulting in a much larger ratings gap.

 

[DavidSauls]

. But still..that just over 900 rated player dumbing down to rec (850-899) seems easier to swallow than forcing the 820-850 rated players to compete against the 940+ players resulting in a much larger ratings gap.

We have different tastes.

I'd rather try to be the best over 60, or face the fact that I'm not; than be the best over 40 who's rated under 900.

In the latter, I have a better chance for something I want less.

There's an argument for it in local events, but I'm not sure there's a good one for it at Worlds.

 

[ThrowBot]

So regardless of rating you would have the best 70 year old Ams competing against the best 40 year old Ams at Worlds and you do not see a problem with that? Keep in mind that you cannot offer an Int or Rec division at Worlds without introducing true sandbagging into the sport. We may have a few people now that play under their ability to remain rated in Int or Rec, but if you try to offer these divisions at Worlds that number would jump exponentially.

You can't offer any level of amateur Worlds without it being a complete sandbagathon.

Even in the current manifestation, the Am Worlds title is basically equivalent to crowning the most dedicated sandbagger. The Reigning World Champion AM1 player averaged better than 1000-rated rounds at Am Worlds this year. With performances like that, a fellow could really be hackin' it in MPO in almost any event. I guess I don't understand the motivation to pursue an Am title like that...even the most "prestigious" Am title. The very idea of a "prestigious" Am title seems like an oxymoron to me.

I am unqualified to discuss the higher age divisions, but the idea that any scheme of am-level divisions will prevent sandbagging is hilarious to me.

(Not trying to hack on Mr. Clint Calvin personally. Just an example of the greater point being made. I'm sure he's a great player. I'm sure he would whoop me up and down any course. I'm also sure he could be doing OK in MPO in most events.)

(And just to out myself: I've accepted cash in MPO in the past, but more recently I've been playing AM1 when I do sanctioned tournaments. Yes, I'm a sandbagger. I don't have as much time to practice as I used to, and I enjoy the level of competition better in AM1 than in MPO. It's more fun for me; that's what I want out of a tournament. I'm not looking to impress anyone with my ability to occasionally succeed in a non-open division.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that Am Worlds tournament is great fun and everything. It's certainly quite the production, and the people that help set up & run Am Worlds are absolutely working their tails off to help a lot of people enjoy a fun event.

But that's all it is: fun. From a competitive standpoint, it's a joke. Not to say that there isn't fierce competition. Rather I'm saying that if you are in contention at Am Worlds, then you have most certainly been underperforming/undercompeteing for at least a year prior.

tl;dr
If you really think you can restructure Am divisions to prevent sandbagging...good luck. Lulz.

 

[Lazerface]

It's unpleasantly ironic that I signed up for MA50 in a C-tier last night, my first tournament in 2018, only to discover that they're using the 5-year splits.

Now, to be fair, it's a big C-tier, with 140 spots. So as of last night there were 7 MA50s, 9 MA55s, and 7 MA60s (where I'm also eligible), perhaps more to come as registration fills. But a larger MA50 division would have been nice.

Given how much this makes me cringe - If I were a TD and only had MA40 and MA60 on my pre-reg list, but was approached by players wanting me to form a 45/50/55 - do I have to do it? Let's say there is at least 3 players from each age bracket.

Honestly, as a TD I would want to combine all 3 of the above divisions into one. I would put in ear plugs when the crying began.