Great article about AM divisions.

[DavidSauls]

The idea of one senior division (40+), broken into skill levels, would work okay.

In practical terms, it would be about the same---we usually see 40+, 50+, and sometimes 60+ divisions now, so we'd just be re-arranging those people into 3 other divisions. And, just as now, sometimes finding one or more of them underpopulated.

It's true enough that most players, looking to avoid the "kids", would find it satisfactory. But perhaps not as satisfying.

When you win a ratings-protected division, even the general ones, you still know you there's a bit of an asterisk attached. Less so when you're the best of the old men, beating all the other 50+s. I might be old and broken down, but I was a good as any of the other old broken down guys today. It might be something you have to be there to appreciate.

But also a small thing; the tighter competition, if it was 40+ separated by skill level, would be good, too. Sometimes there's a fairly wide gap in skill levels in an older division.

 

[DavidSauls]

I personally think over time the am50, am55, am60, am65, etc, etc, splits will have proven to be a bad idea. I think older players would appreciate the potential for larger divisions, especially when matched against similar rated players.

Yes, if local tournaments start offering them that way. So far, I'm only seeing it at Worlds, where fields are pretty large anyway.

I think it's a bit silly; slicing the divisions too finely.

But it has allowed flexibilty to do what was posted earlier: an upcoming tournament with two divisions: 40+, and 55+.

 

[teemkey]

Lets agree that there is a big difference in the two extremes you mentioned. In reality, players in a division should have a realisitc possibility of placing (in the top 40%).

OK ... IF we also agree that by enlarging the ratings disparity in a division, the possibility of the lowest rating players placing is decreased.

 

[DiscFifty]

But it has allowed flexibilty to do what was posted earlier: an upcoming tournament with two divisions: 40+, and 55+.

The age gap isn't as important as the ratings/skill gap imop. But physically there is a HUGE difference in muscle, fiber, development between a 40 year old and a 54 year old. The potential for a high rated 40 year old is much higher than a high rated 54 year old. I know I would never compete in that 40+ division, but I would certainly compete in a division of 40 years old and up if we all had similar ratings.

 

[_MTL_]

I personally think over time the am50, am55, am60, am65, etc, etc, splits will have proven to be a bad idea. I think older players would appreciate the potential for larger divisions, especially when matched against similar rated players.

Science and other sports disagree. That doesn't mean that they are right, I'm just pointing out the change was well researched and thought out. Not just some dude sitting around going "man you know what would be cool?"

 

[DavidSauls]

The age gap isn't as important as the ratings/skill gap imop. But physically there is a HUGE difference in muscle, fiber, development between a 40 year old and a 54 year old. The potential for a high rated 40 year old is much higher than a high rated 54 year old. I know I would never compete in that 40+ division, but I would certainly compete in a division of 40 years old and up if we all had similar ratings.

From a purely competitive viewpoint, I agree completely.

The tournament I cited (40+, 55+) falls in the category of the TD trying something different, which players make like.....or not. We'll see.

 

[DiscFifty]

Science and other sports disagree. That doesn't mean that they are right, I'm just pointing out the change was well researched and thought out. Not just some dude sitting around going "man you know what would be cool?"

yah, I get that....but I wish the new age divisions would have been announced with a caveat, that there has to be at least 6 or more in each division otherwise the TD has to consolidate the players. I think most would prefer a larger division instead of having 3-5 players in am50, and other 3-5 in am55, etc.

 

[Lazerface]

This can be done, right now. You can run a tournament with just Advanced and Recreational Divisions. You can run a tournament that's trophy-only. You can demonstrate that these are better.

Or that they're not, if players don't choose to come.

I suspect that if the PDGA were to demand what it's membership doesn't want, as some have suggested, it would increase the popularity of non-sanctioned events.

But if some enterprising TDs demonstrate that this is really what the players do want, by the success of limited divisions, trophy-only Am events becoming more popular than the current formats, it might be a different story.

This is interesting. I had no idea it was that flexible.

 

[bwgort]

Science and other sports disagree. That doesn't mean that they are right, I'm just pointing out the change was well researched and thought out. Not just some dude sitting around going "man you know what would be cool?"

Interesting. What other sports divide competition by 5 years? Are those sports similar to disc golf? Is there an article with the "research" somewhere that the PDGA has written?

 

[DavidSauls]

This is interesting. I had no idea it was that flexible.

You can offer any divisions, or limit any divisions, as long as you give advance notice.

So any combinations you can imagine, you can try.

You could do Open & Intermediate, and push all those 936+ amateurs to open.

Or offer only MA60 in the age categories, just for us really old guys, and make the 40s & 50s play with the youngsters.

The PDGA doesn't require that 30 divisions be offered; only makes them available. With the footnote that if the TD doesn't limit them, and there are enough players, they are all available. Admittedly, many TDs take this route.

As for trophy only, the only requirement is that the prizes plus players packs match the entry fees (roughly). So you can give out the entire entry in players packs, plus a trophy.

 

[Dcinmd]

Interesting. What other sports divide competition by 5 years? Are those sports similar to disc golf? Is there an article with the "research" somewhere that the PDGA has written?

My best guess is that is falls inline with the current rules of the Senior Olympics .

http://nsga.com/images/pdf/2019-nsga-rulebook-5.2.18.pdf

 

[_MTL_]

Interesting. What other sports divide competition by 5 years? Are those sports similar to disc golf? Is there an article with the "research" somewhere that the PDGA has written?

National Senior Games follow this model.

https://www.pdga.com/new-age-based-competition-divisions-starting-2018

 

[ru4por]

Outside of the recent split of age protected divisions into 5 year increments (makes gathering points difficult, if made use of), I honestly don't see the current divisioning as broken.

 

[_MTL_]

Outside of the recent split of age protected divisions into 5 year increments (makes gathering points difficult, if made use of), I honestly don't see the current divisioning as broken.

Amateur golf events place in divisions AFTER the first round. And then you can be reclassified after the second round if you play well enough.

Theres a lot of things we don't do great in disc golf - divisional structure is not one of them.

 

[TAFL]

For AM divisions though, I'd like to see only 2: Advanced and Recreational. Either you're a serious player or you're a recreational player. Having 4 divisions for amateurs is waaaaaay too many.

To add a bit of perspective here:

In the Way Back, there were only two am divisions: Novice and Advanced. That such is no longer the case should provide sufficient evidence that the players wanted more than that simple breakdown.

Now, if the PDGA wanted to push a particular approach to involvement and act as if everybody playing is a wannabe pro and the am divisions are solely intended to be lower rungs on a ladder leading to play as a pro (and that's a criticism I levelled at the organization years ago, as somebody not interested in playing pro), then sure, reverting to that would be a way to do it.

That would, however, alienate all of the folks who don't have interest in that. I reckon the changes in divisional structure over the years indicates that many, if not most, disagree with the approach. There are those who do, of course, and view each smaller division as just an additional rung. I reckon there's a majority of am players who don't (witness all the ams who don't bother with tournaments, at all) and simply want to enjoy events for reasons other than pro-style competetion.

 

[JTacoma03]

Did you do any research on the PDGA history of divisional offerings? Did you interview anyone on the PDGA Competition Committee about the current divisional offerings? The PDGA used years of data and trial and error to determine the current ratings breaks? What data did you use to determine your "ideal" rating breaks?

Suzette, it's called editorial, practically every media outlet on Earth has op-ed columns. He presented an idea for debate based on his paradigm, he's not writing an academic paper.

Instead of attacking him because he's not been around as long as you have, maybe you should be asking yourself "why is my experience vastly different than his? Did I feel similarly or not when I was newer to the game?"

PDGA competition committee is not a shining beacon of good decisions lately anyway, as evidenced by the collection of half-baked policies enacted over the last 12-18 months.

Important quote below:

is the goal of an opinion piece not to persuade your audience to accept your view?

Not always. Sometimes it's just to provoke thought and/or thoughtful debate. I think this article accomplishes that goal.

I definitely have my thoughts, which disagree with probably 50-60% of what Tyler wrote, but it prompted me to consider his points and re-consider mine. All of this is positive in my view.



Overall (not @Dreadlock) I'm eye-rolling at some of the dismissive attitude by powers-that-be. Tyler wrote something to start a discussion, and everyone is borderline telling him "shut up newbie". If he's going live on facebook with some asinine argument and trying to galvanize mob mentality against the PDGA, then sure drop the hammer, but he's been respectful and engaged in the discussion.

Some of these responses are amateur, and yes I know what that's like because I'm guilty of it too in the past.

 

[Golden Tuna]

There is a lot of good information in this thread... If I hear both sides, it seems there are two points that should probably be addressed.

1. Fun vs Competition
This seems like the age-old question in disc golf. I hear there are people that want the sport to be 'grassroots' fun and people that want to take it to the next level in terms of competition.
Does anyone have any data to illustrate which group had grown more over the last decade?

> What about people that want a fun competition?

I think there is an onus is on local clubs to provide disc golfers with a variety of options:

> Fun Events: These are local events that can be 1-2 rounds and have loose divisions (AM/Pro). The event is $20/person and people participate with the expectation of an emphasis on fun.

> Fundraisers: These are membership drives, fundraisers for tee signs or tee pads, and expected to be fun since there is NO payout.

>Sanctioned Events: These are PDGA events that come with a higher price tag and competition level. People that join the PDGA and attend such an event should expect a higher level of play to win.

In this scenario, 2/3rds of the local events are more focused fun than competition. So, I don't see any issue with imposing higher expectations of the sanctioned events and agree that standardization across sanctioned events could be a good thing.

2. How should competitors be divided?
In (my) ideal system, pre-registration should (for sanctioned events) be required 48 hours before the event begins, cards are assembled based on current rating, and the field is flighted after the first round. In my experience as a TD, there are (almost) always logical breaks in scores that will determine where the divisions should be split.

TDs would also have to price all divisions within the same group evenly. Meaning, all AM divisions are the same price and all Pro divisions are the same price, not that the AM divisions are the same price as the Pro divisions...


> What about small events that don't require that level of sophistication? Still works...
> What about larger events that have hundreds of people? Still works, scorekeepers just need to ensure prompt posting of round results.
> What about events that play multiple courses? Still works, but again, requires pre-planning to ensure the right people are grouped together.

In my experience, there are really four main groups

PRO: 970+ rated players (maybe the # designating 'Pro' should go up to 990 or 1000)
Competitive AM: 925-975
Amateur: 900-925
Recreational: <900
* All divisions will be offered in Men's & Women's divisions
* Only Open divisions will be age-protected, everyone else plays their rating
* Age protected groups 45-55, 55-65, 65+

I'm sure there are improvements to this system, but nothing that I see as a huge hurdle relative to the existing division debacle...

 

[warobert]

....but that said, it would be a good option for someone to offer, and see how it goes. It's available under the current rules, and some places already offer events for older players only (one was described earlier in this thread).

We're trying moves like this with the B tier I assist this year. Age protected non pro divisions are playing Saturday only. Am1 and pros are playing 4 rounds. We've previously tried both days for age protected divisions but only one round per day and reception was meh to slightly positive.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm still at a loss to understand what some people see as wrong with the current system, what damage it being done by it, who is being hurt by it, or why the alternatives proposed fix these problems.

Other than the vague "better competition."

Or why, in face of the players freely choosing these divisions, they should not be allowed to, or why they would be better off if not allowed to.

 

[teemkey]

I'm still at a loss to understand what some people see as wrong with the current system, what damage it being done by it, who is being hurt by it, or why the alternatives proposed fix these problems.

Other than the vague "better competition."

Or why, in face of the players freely choosing these divisions, they should not be allowed to, or why they would be better off if not allowed to.

The only reasons I see are (1) bigger divisions, bigger prizes, and (2) TDs want the PDGA to be responsible for offering fewer divisions.