PDGA Division Changes for 2023 Announced

[Cgkdisc]

With all the back-and-forth, this conversation has been enjoyable to me. One main thing it shows about divisions/ratings is that while nothing is perfect, the PDGA is doing the best it can. And that's all I can ask for. Would I like a perfect solution that made me feel I was truly competing against people at my level and that I had a chance to win - sure. But we don't live in a perfect world and have to make do with the best available.

PDGA folks - Keep up the good work.

There's nothing stopping you from running ratings-based events or even a league exclusive to the lower rating levels: Green (850>), Purple (800>) and add currently unofficial Orange (750>) as an X-tier experiment. More women of all ages may come out (mother/daughter) along with other men in those ranges or below in this less intimidating environment, especially if you always play a short course or layout under 4000 feet for 18 holes. Note that you shouldn't have trouble getting propagators because they can have ratings down to 700.

 

[krupicka]

And if you don't have bump rule like that then you get people playing "novice" for years and years...

Yup. Feel free to look at my rating history...

But this is precisely the reason to get rid of the name Novice for MA4. Too many had misconceptions that MA4 was just for new players.

 

[jenb]

There's nothing stopping you from running ratings-based events or even a league exclusive to the lower rating levels: Green (850>), Purple (800>) and add currently unofficial Orange (750>) as an X-tier experiment. More women of all ages may come out (mother/daughter) along with other men in those ranges or below in this less intimidating environment, especially if you always play a short course or layout under 4000 feet for 18 holes. Note that you shouldn't have trouble getting propagators because they can have ratings down to 700.

Wait. There's really a purple division? I thought that was a joke. Can I run an X tier with orange (<750), pluperfect (<700), and superlocrian (<650) divisions?

 

[Steve West]

Wait. There's really a purple division? I thought that was a joke. Can I run an X tier with orange (<750), pluperfect (<700), and superlocrian (<650) divisions?

This is another area where the divisions don't match the skill levels for Course Design and Par. Divisions have yet to catch up to the extensive analysis done for Course Design and Par.

If we lined divisions up with skill levels, Purple would be <725. If Orange becomes official I would want it to be <625.

The ratings bands for lower skills can be wider because they involve more random chance (so more players could win). Also, the proper hole lengths all converge to be based on about 100-foot throws - no matter how low the ratings. As well as fewer players available per ratings point.

 

[ToddL]

Really appreciate the good conversation in this thread. Lots of good feedback.

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."

You left out what might be the most important one:

5. Allowing all players to play on courses suited to their abilities; by choosing (or modifying) the courses to fit the skill levels within the division playing the course.

Bands that are not too wide help with this. Because throw lengths go up somewhat geometrically as ratings goes up, regularly spaced bands can get hole lengths within a certain % of throw lengths.

A player cannot get as much enjoyment out of a course where the only play is to park it from the tee or fall behind the competition. They cannot get as much enjoyment out of slogging through 6 throws just to get to the target.

I think both of these are circling around a similar point. We're quickly approaching (or have already passed) the point where a single 72 person tournament open to everyone isn't a sustainable solution any more. You have 500 people in your area looking to play events, you open a 72-person event, and it's just click-race and complaining. Maybe one weekend you host masters/age-protected only. Next weekend you offer MA4/MA3 only. Another weekend you offer MA1/MPO only. It makes for more events and more TDs, but that's where the sport is already moving. You don't need to have a single event spanning 5 courses (but you could if you wanted), but we're well past the days of one 72-person event every other month. It just takes a little creativity from TDs, and maybe cross-planning across clubs/TDs. Tailor the offered divisions, tailor the layouts in use. Again it comes back to my earlier line of us providing TDs the flexibility and tools they can use to be successful.

 

[jenb]

This is another area where the divisions don't match the skill levels for Course Design and Par. Divisions have yet to catch up to the extensive analysis done for Course Design and Par.

If we lined divisions up with skill levels, Purple would be <725. If Orange becomes official I would want it to be <625.

The ratings bands for lower skills can be wider because they involve more random chance (so more players could win). Also, the proper hole lengths all converge to be based on about 100-foot throws - no matter how low the ratings. As well as fewer players available per ratings point.

I think that assumes players in that range have not yet reached their potential. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bill Fleming is an example of a guy who's been playing tournaments for ~5 years and has capped out at around 655, with little volatility in round ratings. I'm not worried about the newbs who start out throwing under 800 rated rounds. They will be playing competitively in existing divisions soon enough. But making something special for the Bill Flemingses of the world seems a worthy goal, at least if the market is there and TDs are willing to cater to it.

 

[jenb]

Plus, we already have former TDs who no longer run tournaments specifically because they don't want to be accused of discrimination (and lose professional licensure) if the eligibility rules for playing certain divisions go off the rails. An ability to offer divisions based purely on ratings, with divisions for everyone of every skill level, seems like an attractive option right now.

 

[DavidSauls]

Really appreciate the good conversation in this thread. Lots of good feedback.





I think both of these are circling around a similar point. We're quickly approaching (or have already passed) the point where a single 72 person tournament open to everyone isn't a sustainable solution any more. You have 500 people in your area looking to play events, you open a 72-person event, and it's just click-race and complaining. Maybe one weekend you host masters/age-protected only. Next weekend you offer MA4/MA3 only. Another weekend you offer MA1/MPO only. It makes for more events and more TDs, but that's where the sport is already moving. You don't need to have a single event spanning 5 courses (but you could if you wanted), but we're well past the days of one 72-person event every other month. It just takes a little creativity from TDs, and maybe cross-planning across clubs/TDs. Tailor the offered divisions, tailor the layouts in use. Again it comes back to my earlier line of us providing TDs the flexibility and tools they can use to be successful.

This is what I've been expecting and hoping for for years. We see a little bit of it -- women's tournaments, masters tournaments (though the term "masters" is obsolete, of course).

 

[Steve West]

I think that assumes players in that range have not yet reached their potential. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bill Fleming is an example of a guy who's been playing tournaments for ~5 years and has capped out at around 655, with little volatility in round ratings. ...

Even those who aren't seeing much change in their player rating will still be seeing variation in their round ratings. The standard deviation of round ratings is larger for lower ratings.

Players at that level see more missed putts and tree hits. As well as short throws, which increase the potential penalty from bad lies.

But that also means they can see rounds rated much higher than their player rating just by being lucky. Bill has 3 rounds rated above 730 in the last 60 rounds.

Even with a broader ratings band, Bill would be playing with people who throw about as far, and Bill will still have a chance at beating them by having a good day when others don't.

 

[txmxer]

As it turns out, they can only play "novice" for 2 more months.

*

If my knees allowed me to play tournaments, I'd have the age-protected divisions to hide in. My 849 rating would continue to fall, and I'd never see the high side of 850 again.

If there's a division for people rated below 850, regardless of experience, that's where I'd belong for years and years.

You, Bill and I make a card. I'm sure there's a few more around here.

 

[DavidSauls]

Yeah, but my point wasn't that I'm a bad player. Lots of people can testify to that. The point is that it's unfair to say a player shouldn't play MA4 for years and years. If that's how bad I am, I should play there.

Hopefully the ditching of the "novice" label will alleviate that sort of thinking.

Just as dropping "recreational" may reduce the insinuations that MA3 players aren't serious.

 

[autocrosscrx]

So I'm a MA4 player. Rated 808 right now. Started tourneys this year, shot some 764 to 793 rounds early and have been playing 820 something golf since. Not enough to win MA4, but enough to score some merch bucks.

We have a pretty good core of guys rated about 800-840 that enjoy playing and competing with each other. We all tend to be old enough to be in age protected divisions, but started a little late and it is probably fair to say we have some physical deficiencies compared to the people mixing it up in MA3.

MA4 isn't always offered. I'll play an MA3 tourney, but it is less fun for me. I'm 44 years old, 135 lbs, and have popped out my shoulder 14 times in my life. I'm not really getting anything from watching 6'2" tall 25 year olds crank over Destroyers and land in C1 on open 400 foot holes. And it gets old being outdriven by 75 feet every hole, having to throw faster touchier discs every shot, and so forth.

I'm confident that I'll do the work to go over 850 in '23, but I'm kind of dreading it.

The flip side is that new people sometimes complain about us playing MA4, as do the bottom feeders in MA3. Maybe this alleviates some of that.

 

[ru4por]

Yeah, but my point wasn't that I'm a bad player. Lots of people can testify to that. The point is that it's unfair to say a player shouldn't play MA4 for years and years. If that's how bad I am, I should play there.

Hopefully the ditching of the "novice" label will alleviate that sort of thinking.

Just as dropping "recreational" may reduce the insinuations that MA3 players aren't serious.

I am a big fan of "play your rating". Nothing wrong with moving up, if that is what you want, but the entire lament of "bagging" is nonsense. I don't see bagging in tournament play. If you are rated 845 and continue to rack up MA4 wins.....carry on with your bad self. I might not understand why they would not want to move up, but I will continue to defend the right to keep playing in MA4.

We have plenty of players who are simply legit MA4 players. They are either at some physical disadvantage, age deterioration, or just not that good at the game. They keep playing and rarely are even competitive. They just love the game.

 

[BillFleming]

Even those who aren't seeing much change in their player rating will still be seeing variation in their round ratings. The standard deviation of round ratings is larger for lower ratings.

Players at that level see more missed putts and tree hits. As well as short throws, which increase the potential penalty from bad lies.

But that also means they can see rounds rated much higher than their player rating just by being lucky. Bill has 3 rounds rated above 730 in the last 60 rounds.

Even with a broader ratings band, Bill would be playing with people who throw about as far, and Bill will still have a chance at beating them by having a good day when others don't.

And I've had round ratings in the low 500s.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Here's a general guideline to consider regarding your rating. Your potential rating in a round is based on how many holes you can physically reach in regulation whether that's one throw on properly set Par 3s on a course layout designed for that skill level or two throws on properly set Par 4s for that skill level. Because courses can have all kinds of shot shapes and throws with effective lengths that don't match the Bushnell lengths, it's hard to determine your potential simply by reviewing the posted hole lengths.

However, if you're fortunate to play even a Red level (MA3/MA4 range) course in competition and you only have green, purple or orange level distance, you will not be able to shoot ratings as high as when you play even shorter courses where the distances are in your range. Unfortunately, there aren't that many courses below red level played in competition, partly because these layouts usually don't exist on multi-tee 18-hole courses and the 9-hole courses that might have these shorter layouts are not used in competition.

Here's a simple example to demonstrate this distance issue. Lete's say Player A peaks at 250' driver distance and Player B peaks at 220' distance. There's a hypothetical course where all 18 holes play the equivalent of 260' (4680' effective total). Even though both players may have similar skill levels other than distance, player B will likely never beat player A on this course and their round ratings will be farther apart than if the same red level 4680' course was done this way with a wide variety of par 3s under 250' down to say 150' and all par 4s in the 325' to 410' effective range. Player B has much fairer chance to theoretically park every hole in regulation just like Player A to where skills beyond just distance determine the winner with much closer round ratings.

 

[sonny]

Thank God they are finally killing the nonsensical division names- long overdue.

I dunno biscoe... I personally feel like I was cheated a little when the division names were changed. Having a Grandmaster trophy was pretty cool. Got a pair of Advanced Grandmaster trophies that impress. I was kinda looking forward to having a Legend trophy, but I guess that won't be happening.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I dunno biscoe... I personally feel like I was cheated a little when the division names were changed. Having a Grandmaster trophy was pretty cool. Got a pair of Advanced Grandmaster trophies that impress. I was kinda looking forward to having a Legend trophy, but I guess that won't be happening.

So you went from being a Legend to being an old fart.

... at least as far as the PDGA is concerned.

I just hope my body's still functioning well enough for me to compete in the old farts division in another 13 years.

 

[DavidSauls]

I dunno biscoe... I personally feel like I was cheated a little when the division names were changed. Having a Grandmaster trophy was pretty cool. Got a pair of Advanced Grandmaster trophies that impress. I was kinda looking forward to having a Legend trophy, but I guess that won't be happening.

Ha, ha. I just to joke that I was not very advanced, nor particularly grand, and certainly not a master of anything.

Funny that I could be all of that, and a novice, at the same time.

 

[jenb]

You heard it here first. Whoever has the most fun wins.

 

[sisyphus]

..That would be my dad: played one tournament the weekend of his 80'th birthday and won in the Senior Grand Legends division. Took his medal and retired. Still basking in the glory, he and I!