PhillyMatt
Broad Street Bully
Finally, a new topic!
Oh wait.
Oh wait.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Talk about sandbagging...
- Thread starter dekdo
- Start date
DiscNutt123
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 1,957
If you win in any division other than Open, you're automatically a bagger. Doesn't everyone know this!?
bnbanbury
Eagle Member
Intermediate is a ratings capped division, there is no such thing as a person who qualifies to play intermediate and is bagging by playing intermediate.
garublador
* Ace Member *
That's not really true. Sandbagging means you purposefully play poorly in some tournaments to qualify for a certain division in other tournaments. It's entirely possible to sandbag in intermediate, in fact it's the division that it makes the most sense to sandbag for.
It's impossible to sandbag in non-ratings protected divisions becasue there's nothing you can do to your rating to not qualify. You can't sandbag in advanced because there is no ratings cap to get under.
While technically true using the technical definition of sandbagging, it is an impractical endeavor to actually sandbag one's rating in order to play intermediate.
Either you are trying to maintain a rating low enough to stay in intermediate, which is really hard to do if you're consistently winning or placing well in the intermediate division. Or you are trying to lower your rating to get (back?) to intermediate level, which involves spending enough in entry fees to play enough tournament rounds poorly so as to tank your rating. And then once you do, you're back to step one...winning while still playing poorly enough to keep your rating down. Seems like a losing proposition in the long run.
In our sport, it's never a matter of true sandbagging so much as perceived sandbagging resulting from most players moving up well before their rating mandates. When all the 910-930 rated players in a given area are playing Advanced, a lone 920-rated Intermediate player is going to look like a world beater playing against all the 870-890 rated players who are filling the void in Intermediate left by the departed 910-930 guys.
bnbanbury
Eagle Member
I understand the technical definition of sandbagging, but it isn't what OP is talking about or how anyone uses the term sandbagging in this forum. It is used as OP did, to describe people who shoot better than people in higher divisions.
larrod25
Par Member
Seems kind of like the word literally not meaning 'literally':http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/acc...terally_now_also_means_figuratively_newscred/
Many DGCR forum posters (and disc golfers everywhere) use the term incorrectly to refer to anyone who wins in a lower division. Just because the term has been used this way, doesn't mean the definition has changed. In this case, the players who are being accused of 'bagging' in MA3 don't even have ratings!
Like JC said, this problem is created when players play above the division they are rated for, then still expect to compete/win. We could solve all of these arguments by requiring players to actually play their rating. IMO, if you are playing AM1-3, you should have to play in the ratings classification you fit in. If you want to 'play up', play open. The USTA (that is tennis) would never allow a 2.0 player to compete in a 4.0 division. We shouldn't either. If you have no rating, you can play Novice or Open. New players without ratings would continue to dominate the Novice division just as they do now, but the bagging arguments would go away. The choice of what division to play in would be determined by your actual performance in past events.
Kodachrome
* Ace Member *
it's tough to decide where to play.
i guess people that are in tournaments probably know where they stand even if they don't have ratings, but i truthfully had no idea where to play.
i played my first league at intermediate a week ago, won by one stroke with a +5. it wasn't my greatest round. had some major screwups; we all played like garbage and it was super windy. i had a good round yesterday at the same league in intermediate again; shot -2, beating the next closest by 4 and tying for second in advanced despite royally screwing the pooch on 2 holes. i was told that i need to move up - no big deal, i planned on it anyway, to be honest. no whining here.
i played the same course again today three times, got a +1 as my lowest score. could've shot even. so basically i'm easy top of our "intermediate" pool and probably not going to be competitive for a bit in advanced unless i have a hot round.
obviously this really is a different situation, but i feel it's a relevant point to keep in mind.
*shrug* only option is to get better, i guess. that's why i play in the first place, so i won't complain too much.
i guess people that are in tournaments probably know where they stand even if they don't have ratings, but i truthfully had no idea where to play.
i played my first league at intermediate a week ago, won by one stroke with a +5. it wasn't my greatest round. had some major screwups; we all played like garbage and it was super windy. i had a good round yesterday at the same league in intermediate again; shot -2, beating the next closest by 4 and tying for second in advanced despite royally screwing the pooch on 2 holes. i was told that i need to move up - no big deal, i planned on it anyway, to be honest. no whining here.
i played the same course again today three times, got a +1 as my lowest score. could've shot even. so basically i'm easy top of our "intermediate" pool and probably not going to be competitive for a bit in advanced unless i have a hot round.
obviously this really is a different situation, but i feel it's a relevant point to keep in mind.
*shrug* only option is to get better, i guess. that's why i play in the first place, so i won't complain too much.
Last edited:
smarkquart
* Ace Member *
There are too many possibilities and scenarios to throw out the term sandbagger after one tournament. A string of such instances is a different matter, but as the mathematicians have already pointed out, the ratings will take care of themselves or expose their intent even further.
I personally hate the term even when said in jest.
Last year I would couple a 960-980 round immediately with an 860 or so round. I was so hot and cold. But if it was a one round tournament and it was my hot day, it definitely made me look like a bagger. Remembering this trend from last year, and that at the beginning of this year I was rated 914, I signed up for numerous tournaments playing intermediate. I wanted to be competitive and not destroyed. The last time I played advanced I had my worst outing ever, especially since I tried even harder to hang with those I was throwing with. However, this year I found a new level of consistency I had been previously missing. I took first in my first tournament this year, first in the Intermediate State Amateur Championships, fourth in an out of town tournament on courses I had only played once in my life, and when I did step up for advanced once I took fifth.
On the outside it definitely looked like I was bagging.
Yet all these tournaments were in a five week span, all paid for it, and the only tournament that was easy to step up to advanced for I did. I had no idea going into that five week span of tournaments that I could maintain this sudden improved level of consistency. I wanted to play well enough to qualify for next year's Am Worlds. When I sat down and planned out my tournaments, I thought I would squeak by based upon previous experience. I obliterated my expectations, and now having done so, the next tournament I will play in I will definitely go advanced because I am not playing for store credit. I have all the discs I need.
And yet I have been slapped with the bagger term by someone who did not know my situation. I had a friend hear my name thrown out as a bagger when his group at a recent tournament were talking about their experiences at the State Amateur Championships. While it was really awesome to hear that my friend set that person straight, and that person apologized (or at least made it sound like an apology once he realized who he was talking to) once he heard my story, it still burned me to hear that I was tagged as such. I mean, I know I need to grow a thicker skin about that, but that does not mean I do not care to have that label slapped on me, especially after one tournament. And for the record, my win at the Amateur Championship was by one throw and that was determined on the last hole. The person who called me a bagger was not on my card during that tournament and would not have known how that last round played out.
So, basically, knock off the bagger term. In all my years of playing I have seen only one person who truly meets the definition we have been throwing out. Even then, he did not ruin my tournament experience and eventually he moved up.
I personally hate the term even when said in jest.
Last year I would couple a 960-980 round immediately with an 860 or so round. I was so hot and cold. But if it was a one round tournament and it was my hot day, it definitely made me look like a bagger. Remembering this trend from last year, and that at the beginning of this year I was rated 914, I signed up for numerous tournaments playing intermediate. I wanted to be competitive and not destroyed. The last time I played advanced I had my worst outing ever, especially since I tried even harder to hang with those I was throwing with. However, this year I found a new level of consistency I had been previously missing. I took first in my first tournament this year, first in the Intermediate State Amateur Championships, fourth in an out of town tournament on courses I had only played once in my life, and when I did step up for advanced once I took fifth.
On the outside it definitely looked like I was bagging.
Yet all these tournaments were in a five week span, all paid for it, and the only tournament that was easy to step up to advanced for I did. I had no idea going into that five week span of tournaments that I could maintain this sudden improved level of consistency. I wanted to play well enough to qualify for next year's Am Worlds. When I sat down and planned out my tournaments, I thought I would squeak by based upon previous experience. I obliterated my expectations, and now having done so, the next tournament I will play in I will definitely go advanced because I am not playing for store credit. I have all the discs I need.
And yet I have been slapped with the bagger term by someone who did not know my situation. I had a friend hear my name thrown out as a bagger when his group at a recent tournament were talking about their experiences at the State Amateur Championships. While it was really awesome to hear that my friend set that person straight, and that person apologized (or at least made it sound like an apology once he realized who he was talking to) once he heard my story, it still burned me to hear that I was tagged as such. I mean, I know I need to grow a thicker skin about that, but that does not mean I do not care to have that label slapped on me, especially after one tournament. And for the record, my win at the Amateur Championship was by one throw and that was determined on the last hole. The person who called me a bagger was not on my card during that tournament and would not have known how that last round played out.
So, basically, knock off the bagger term. In all my years of playing I have seen only one person who truly meets the definition we have been throwing out. Even then, he did not ruin my tournament experience and eventually he moved up.
Henline
Newbie
People typically cry bagger because they want an excuse for why they (or someone they know) lost. It's typically a very small percentage of overall players that sandbag, almost always someone jumping to conclusions who don't know the person in question.
Radwyn
Newbie
we played original longs first round, and monster shorts second round. in my opinion, just about any decent player can have a hot round on the monster shorts. -10 was definitely my best score on that course to date, and everything just happened to be working for me that day.
dealinwithit
Newbie
I played in my 1st tournament this weekend and we had a sand bagger in my Rec. division.
Apparently he jumped down to our division because he was tripping on mushrooms and didn't want to play in his usual intermediate division.
Despite his tripping handicap he won the division and got a nice stack of discs for it.
That was the only sour spot for my 1st tournament. I had fun and I didnt end up in last place.
Apparently he jumped down to our division because he was tripping on mushrooms and didn't want to play in his usual intermediate division.
Despite his tripping handicap he won the division and got a nice stack of discs for it.
That was the only sour spot for my 1st tournament. I had fun and I didnt end up in last place.
bhadella
* Ace Member *
And this is why DG fails to become a socially recognized sport
Yeah for sure, I was initially thrown off when it said you guys played longs on both courses as well.. Congrats on the win! I totally agree with you on having a hot round on monster shorts. I'd say the intermediate division seemed pretty accurate with playing monster shorts.
The rec division seemed to be sandbagged pretty hard though.
That's ridiculous, I kind of doubt he was tripping if he placed first... Probably just some bull**** excuse. This definitely takes away from the professionalism our sport needs.
DiscChucker
Eagle Member
Considering that the definition of sand bagger doesn't fit the situation we so commonly refer to when it appears someone is playing in a division well below their skill level, I propose a new term; glory whore.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
deadbody
Eagle Member
Henline
Newbie
:doh:
If they're bagging, sandbagger. If not, quit crying. No need to come up with a different term for people who whiners think are bagging when in reality they aren't, they just had a hot round or knew the course better.
garublador
* Ace Member *
I think we should just switch to a Price is Right style scoring system for ratings protected AM tournaments. Whomever gets the closest to the highest allowed rating for their division without going over wins. That way the people who suck a very specific amount will win, just like the people who misuse the term "sandbagging" want.
I'd settle for any post using the term sandbagger or its derivatives, be required to include whichever particular definition the author intends.
It would save the rest of us a lot of time in rebuttals.
Maybe even a code:
SB1 - deliberately manipulated rating to play down a division
SB2 - circumvented rules to play in a lower division than he otherwise would have been required to (non-PDGA member, etc.)
SB3 - guessed wrong at his first tournament
SB4 - didn't play up when everyone else of his skill level was playing up in the wrong division
SB5 - didn't play in the division I think he should have
SB6 - I lost to him.
SB* - Just kidding.
It would save the rest of us a lot of time in rebuttals.
Maybe even a code:
SB1 - deliberately manipulated rating to play down a division
SB2 - circumvented rules to play in a lower division than he otherwise would have been required to (non-PDGA member, etc.)
SB3 - guessed wrong at his first tournament
SB4 - didn't play up when everyone else of his skill level was playing up in the wrong division
SB5 - didn't play in the division I think he should have
SB6 - I lost to him.
SB* - Just kidding.
Look at the results from the tournament the OP is talking about and there doesn't seem to be a lot of this going on. There were only four rated players in Advanced that were eligible for intermediate. There was only one in Intermediate that was eligible for Rec, and only three in Rec that were eligible for Novice.
Yet another solution in search of a problem. If people want to risk being donators by playing against better competition, because they'd rather have a lesson than another stack of plastic, I don't see the harm in that. If anything, that is more an argument that state coordinators and local TD's should have more flexibility in setting ratings brackets for smaller events.
