Is it ethical for pros to play in their local tournaments?

[IHearChains]

Originally Posted by Putt for D'oh

Funny no matter how many threads you are told that it’s possible to be older, and good, and want to play with others the same age your still don’t believe it and think it’s about the merch.

To each his own but your assumptions about other people’s motivations are wrong.

Funny "its not about the merch" but no one is mentioning MP40 or MP50. If it's not about the merch, more oldsters would play in those.

[Putt for D'oh]

Originally Posted by IHearChains

Funny "its not about the merch" but no one is mentioning MP40 or MP50. If it's not about the merch, more oldsters would play in those.

Oh good idea then I could start to bitch that the people beating me by 10 strokes should still be playing MPO and continue the cycle.

[joshmo65]

Originally Posted by Horsman

This makes no sense. My job has taken me all over the country and I play disc golf everywhere and I have never been in an area where this has been a problem, even in the few PA events that I have played in. Im in West Virginia right now and where I am there is hardly anybody that can compete with me, but that doesnt stop anyone from trying. We all have a great time when we play together no matter what.

If you are one of those fringe pros that is complaining that better pros are taking your money then you are probably delusional in the first place. Being a fringe pro my whole career, there has never been a time where I wouldnt play an event because the competition was too good.

Its pretty simple, if you dont want to get beat then just quit.

ftfy

I'd be very curious to see a graph of all of the ratings of players. I would expect that there would a be a peak around the 930-940 range, drop down around the 960 range and then bump back up around 980 due to people being in the pro/am purgatory 960 range.

I also don't think that a 1000 rated player is a "fringe pro". In Pittsburgh, you would be the highest rated player by 14 points over our highest rated player and 31 points over our 2nd highest rated player. This means in a two round tournament you are supposed to win by 4 strokes and beat 3rd place by 8 strokes.

All that said, I am speaking more in generalities as this doesn't apply to me as I am a 970 rated pro who plays 30 tournaments a year. Luckily I have a job that can support me losing $2,000 a year in entry fees, but many people don't and that ends up depleting the field over time as people lose interest.

Not so humble brag; I did beat you in the only tournament we played together...

[Horsman]

Originally Posted by joshmo65

ftfy

I'd be very curious to see a graph of all of the ratings of players. I would expect that there would a be a peak around the 930-940 range, drop down around the 960 range and then bump back up around 980 due to people being in the pro/am purgatory 960 range.

I also don't think that a 1000 rated player is a "fringe pro". In Pittsburgh, you would be the highest rated player by 14 points over our highest rated player and 31 points over our 2nd highest rated player. This means in a two round tournament you are supposed to win by 4 strokes and beat 3rd place by 8 strokes.

All that said, I am speaking more in generalities as this doesn't apply to me as I am a 970 rated pro who plays 30 tournaments a year. Luckily I have a job that can support me losing $2,000 a year in entry fees, but many people don't and that ends up depleting the field over time as people lose interest.

Not so humble brag; I did beat you in the only tournament we played together...

So you think that there are less highly rated players because of pro/am purgatory? This as well doesnt make sense. There are not more highly rated people because not everybody is great at disc golf. Ratings directly correlate to how good you are at disc golf, not how much money someone better then you "takes away from you"

Pittsburghs 2nd highest rated player beat me this year in the 1 tournament I was able to play.

For me, I dont look to disc golf as a source of revenue. Its a sport that I love to play and that I am good at. Sometimes I win money sometimes I dont. IMO, if you enter into an event and expect to cash then you you are also expect to be able to compete. There are no hand outs here. People arent dumb, they know what they are signing up for. If this was truly about the money then we would see a huge decline in the number of PDGA memberships and the number of PDGA tournaments. But the opposite is true. There are more players and more tournaments then ever and this is the direction that needs to be taken in the hopes that the sport gets big enough to the point where real sponsorship money can be brought in at all tiers.

Also, my rating is super inflated. Its 1001 but Id say Im in the 970-980 range.

[Horsman]

Originally Posted by joshmo65

Not so humble brag; I did beat you in the only tournament we played together...

So tiny didnt even see it. Rosier?

[DavidSauls]

Originally Posted by joshmo65

ftfy

I'd be very curious to see a graph of all of the ratings of players. I would expect that there would a be a peak around the 930-940 range, drop down around the 960 range and then bump back up around 980 due to people being in the pro/am purgatory 960 range.

That would be a purgatory of their own making.

The 960s are eligible to play MA1. If they're getting heckled out by the 940s, they shouldn't---it's not that big a gap. If they're getting heckled out by the 920s or lower, intermediates who shouldn't be in MA1 in the first place, then they only have themselves to blame for succumbing.

At any rate, the only ones who might be discouraged and quit are the 960s who have plateaued at that level. Many of the 960s are still rising. I realize that people plateau; "get better" is no answer, if it were we'd all be McBeth. I suspect those who plateau in the 970s and 980s, in an area with lots of 1000+ opponents, are the ones in the toughest spot. But even they should be competitive, if not for the win very often, at least for a top-half finish.

The ongoing theme, in this thread and lots of others, is of players playing in division above their rating, then complaining that the ones in their proper division should move up. Then those latter ones because complainers. The solution is to choose to either (1) play your proper division, and ignore the baseless critics, or (2) play above your rating, and accept the others who aren't.

[mojorooks]

I see there being no true right answer as to which category to sign up. As a sport, its kind of like running. The first time I entered a 5k I got in line under my approximate 9 minute mile speed. After spending most of the race trying to run around a big wall of people, the next time I entered at the 8 minute mile. That race I felt like a heel as I was part of the wall. There really isn't a right answer as to the best way to line up. It all going to be a matter of who signs for which category when.

[mojorooks]

Originally Posted by joshmo65

Luckily I have a job that can support me losing $2,000 a year in entry fees.

This I don't understand. Looking at it as 'losing' the money sounds pretty depressing. I think of it as money spent as a privilege to play in a tournament as opposed to lost gambling or something.

[DavidSauls]

Originally Posted by mojorooks

I see there being no true right answer as to which category to sign up. As a sport, its kind of like running. The first time I entered a 5k I got in line under my approximate 9 minute mile speed. After spending most of the race trying to run around a big wall of people, the next time I entered at the 8 minute mile. That race I felt like a heel as I was part of the wall. There really isn't a right answer as to the best way to line up. It all going to be a matter of who signs for which category when.

I hope you didn't complain that it was the fault of the faster runners in the 8-minute group, who shouldn't be allowed to run there.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by DavidSauls

the 920s or lower, intermediates who shouldn't be in MA1 in the first place

In my 1999-2000 heyday, I was in the 920-930 range (this is when ratings were very new) and I could "cash" occasionally in Am-1, even finish in the top 10 on a few occasions in B-tiers with 40 or 50 players. I imagine the huge influx of players since then coupled with much better distance drivers has made it so a 960 can outdrive a 920 by a much wider margin now, and 920ish players would look foolish in Am-1? I could hang in there with my 300' controlled RHFH Banshees in those days but I doubt I could ever sniff the top half of Am-1 anymore if my 25-year-old self got in a time machine and traveled to today. Haven't played in a sanctioned event since '06.

I know that I have a hard time seeing somebody who's really good and determining where their skill level is anymore. I was in Houston on vacation last year and encountered that one guy who killed the baby rabbit recently and got all kinds of bad press for it. (He was super nice to me, by the way, and I didn't notice anything unsavory about him that day). By watching him play I assumed he was a good pro. Looked him up when I got to a computer and he was only 960 IIRC and listed as an Am. In 1998 he would've been a cashing pro with the skills I saw. Then again, he'd have had to make those drives with a Gazelle or XL at best. So I don't know. But to my eyeballs, I thought, "There's a pro."