2017 Amateur & Junior World Championships - Invitation Criteria

[filobedo]

Super simple solution= no points for divisions not held at worlds.

I somewhat agree, no points for intermediate or recreational except for Juniors and Women who have no other choice but to play those divisions.

 

[teemkey]

Huh?? I think you're off topic, or missing this point. He was proposing not counting your total number of points (combined) for a Worlds invite. The current rule is ALL Am points in any division count toward your home (base) division total for a Worlds invite. We already earn points in the division you signed up for so that IS the current rule already, but since Worlds doesn't have some divisions (MA2, MA3 among others), the PDGA counts ALL points toward your home division invite.

My response was that to propose that as the rule would severely disadvantage Am women, particularly age-protected women, because they often HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE but to play in men's divisions. To then say their earned points won't count towards a Worlds invite would be wholly unfair -- and probably a bit discriminatory.

I somewhat agree, no points for intermediate or recreational except for Juniors and Women who have no other choice but to play those divisions.

Other than 2014 Worlds I've only played one tournament that had a MS1 division fill. And I haven't seen a Legends division even offered within (roughly) 1000 miles of where I live, and never below an A-Tier. It's worse for older women -- except that once a year the Women's Global Event offers FG1 & FS1 (and Junior divisions).

MS3/MS4/FS3/FS4 and Junior divisions are all rarely offered in the Pacific NW.

So the real issue is how players in rarely (or never) offered divisions get sufficient points to qualify for an Am Worlds invite. Consider that playing outside your division most likely means finishing in the nether regions, garnering very few points per tournament.

So I think points in other gender or age-protected divisions should be (at least) doubled when the player's gender/age protected division isn't offered.

 

[dontBLAMEtheDISC]

I somewhat agree, no points for intermediate or recreational except for Juniors and Women who have no other choice but to play those divisions.

I think no points is going a little far I think something like the top 30-40% in other divisions should get points towards worlds.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk

 

[1978]

I think no points is going a little far I think something like the top 30-40% in other divisions should get points towards worlds.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk

The system is already in place.You already get less points for playing in lower tier divisions. In an A tier MA1 10 pts, MA2 8pts, MA3 6pts. So if you want to play those lower divisions it is already a handicap to do so. So basically you lose 25% each division you step down...which is just like giving the top 30% in a division points and everyone else none.

Points Breakdown

 

[dontBLAMEtheDISC]

THis kind of talk reminds me of "bagger" conversations. all players over 970 should be pro. All players over 960 should be pro, all players over 950 should be pro. Who determines the level.

The system is already in place.You already get less points for playing in lower tier divisions. In an A tier MA1 10 pts, MA2 8pts, MA3 6pts. So if you want to play those lower divisions it is already a handicap to do so.

Points Breakdown

I didn't say it was a good option just a compromise instead of the no point option

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk

 

[biscoe]

THis kind of talk reminds me of "bagger" conversations. all players over 970 should be pro. All players over 960 should be pro, all players over 950 should be pro. Who determines the level.

The system is already in place.You already get less points for playing in lower tier divisions. In an A tier MA1 10 pts, MA2 8pts, MA3 6pts. So if you want to play those lower divisions it is already a handicap to do so.

Points Breakdown

Assume players are evenly distributed (20 per division) over MA1, MA2, and MA3 and playing on the same course setups. All theory here but I'm sure I can find some real events where the breakdown is roughly accurate.

Shooting 100 for the day is good for first in MA3 (120 points), 8th in MA2 (104 points), and 15th in MA1 (60 points)- how is playing in the lower division a handicap in earning points? For it to be an actual handicap in earning points the factors would need to be pushed way up. There is probably a point where it evens out- maybe 1 point for MA3, 2 for MA2, 4 for MA1 or something along those lines.

Awarding points across all divisions based on your ratings for your rounds in the event would be better. You could still do it even with divisions not playing the same course setups as well.

 

[biscoe]

Other than 2014 Worlds I've only played one tournament that had a MS1 division fill. And I haven't seen a Legends division even offered within (roughly) 1000 miles of where I live, and never below an A-Tier. It's worse for older women -- except that once a year the Women's Global Event offers FG1 & FS1 (and Junior divisions).

MS3/MS4/FS3/FS4 and Junior divisions are all rarely offered in the Pacific NW.

So the real issue is how players in rarely (or never) offered divisions get sufficient points to qualify for an Am Worlds invite. Consider that playing outside your division most likely means finishing in the nether regions, garnering very few points per tournament.

So I think points in other gender or age-protected divisions should be (at least) doubled when the player's gender/age protected division isn't offered.

Simple enough as well- complete one event, fit the age criteria, and you get invited just like with several other divisions and non-North American players.

 

[smarkquart]

Simple enough as well- complete one event, fit the age criteria, and you get invited just like with several other divisions and non-North American players.

A lot of these protected divisions have difficulty filling, at least immediately where you are going to have people fuss about timing and internet issues. If someone is willing to register for an event, willing to pay triple digits, and willing to travel, why should they be excluded? I thought these people are the ones this tournament is supposed to be catering toward, especially after the mess this year of not caring if people with high point totals got excluded.

Completing just one event shows that they are not just someone walking off the street. Maybe make it two events as the requirement; that definitely shows some kind of commitment regardless of where he or she finished.

 

[1978]

Assume players are evenly distributed (20 per division) over MA1, MA2, and MA3 and playing on the same course setups. All theory here but I'm sure I can find some real events where the breakdown is roughly accurate.

Shooting 100 for the day is good for first in MA3 (120 points), 8th in MA2 (104 points), and 15th in MA1 (60 points)- how is playing in the lower division a handicap in earning points? For it to be an actual handicap in earning points the factors would need to be pushed way up. There is probably a point where it evens out- maybe 1 point for MA3, 2 for MA2, 4 for MA1 or something along those lines.

Awarding points across all divisions based on your ratings for your rounds in the event would be better. You could still do it even with divisions not playing the same course setups as well.

Its a handicap because the points are handicapped. If there are 20 players in each division and it is an A tier. The three winners will get Advanced (200 pts) Intermediate(160 pts) Rec (120 pts). If the intermediate PLAYED advanced and would have been 4th he would have received 160 pts if he finished 8th 120. He gets rewarded for playing up a division and handicapped for playing in intermediate. Handicapped because he gets less points for everyone that he beats in int vs adv. What's confusing?

Sometimes it works out in peoples favor, like BG this year with over 200 Recs. the winner there got a ton of pts because there werent as many in Advanced, but it doesnt always work out like that especially in smaller events. this also is a rare situation. Most large events dont have rec divisions like that. But I can see how it could be unfair if someone paid the lower rec fee and racked up a ton of those handicapped points and qualified for Am Worlds.

 

[1978]

A lot of these protected divisions have difficulty filling, at least immediately where you are going to have people fuss about timing and internet issues. If someone is willing to register for an event, willing to pay triple digits, and willing to travel, why should they be excluded? I thought these people are the ones this tournament is supposed to be catering toward, especially after the mess this year of not caring if people with high point totals got excluded.

Completing just one event shows that they are not just someone walking off the street. Maybe make it two events as the requirement; that definitely shows some kind of commitment regardless of where he or she finished.

Ill just speak for my situation. For reasons that dont matter here, I have no plans to accept cash. I only play Am Majors and large events. I play open in everything else, turning down the cash. The amount of butt hurt I would see playing advanced in a local event just to get to the tournament # criteria. But what ever it is so be it.

 

[biscoe]

Its a handicap because the points are handicapped. If there are 20 players in each division and it is an A tier. The three winners will get Advanced (200 pts) Intermediate(160 pts) Rec (120 pts). If the intermediate PLAYED advanced and would have been 4th he would have received 160 pts if he finished 8th 120. He gets rewarded for playing up a division and handicapped for playing in intermediate. Handicapped because he gets less points for everyone that he beats in int vs adv. What's confusing?

I am not confused. The winners in the divisions as you cite obviously do not play the same quality of golf. What I am pointing out is that under the current system you can easily play the same level of golf in intermediate and advanced and wind up with more points for playing softer competition. Obviously this differs from event to event but I would wager that on the whole with the current points factors lower divisions are actually over-rewarded vis a vis level of play.

 

[JC17393]

I am not confused. The winners in the divisions as you cite obviously do not play the same quality of golf. What I am pointing out is that under the current system you can easily play the same level of golf in intermediate and advanced and wind up with more points for playing softer competition. Obviously this differs from event to event but I would wager that on the whole with the current points factors lower divisions are actually over-rewarded vis a vis level of play.

I think there are two reasonable ways to solve this issue.

1) Reduce the points factors for lower divisions so there is a greater gap between divisions, particularly when it comes to MA1 vs MA2/MA3/MA4. That might require re-adjusting the whole table and having to re-evaluate the qualification thresholds again, but there's absolutely no reason why this can't be done in time for the 2017 points season and the 2018 Worlds invitations (with both announced before the end of 2016 of course).

2) For MA1, give priority to players who earned the minimum points needed just while playing in MA1. If you want to play MA1 at Worlds, the easiest path is earn your points playing in MA1. Players who earn 1500+ points (or whatever the threshold becomes) via MA2/MA3/MA4/MM1/etc would be part of the second wave of invitations after the first wave had ample time to register (say 4-6 weeks). If it fills in the first wave, oh well. If it doesn't, then you can back-fill the division with MA2/MA3 folks.

 

[teemkey]

Simple enough as well- complete one event, fit the age criteria, and you get invited just like with several other divisions and non-North American players.

I think you forgot to check the new points requirements.

MA1 - 1,500 Points FA1 - 90 Points
MM1 - 750 Points FM1 - 50 Points
MG1 - 500 Points FG1 - 40 Points
MS1 - 100 Points FS1 - 10 Points
ML1 - 20 Points

MJ1 - 200 Points FJ1 - 10 Points
MJ2 - 100 Points FJ2 - 10 Points
MJ3 - 10 Points FJ3 - 6 Points
MJ4 - 2 Points

 

[ISUME]

I am not confused. The winners in the divisions as you cite obviously do not play the same quality of golf. What I am pointing out is that under the current system you can easily play the same level of golf in intermediate and advanced and wind up with more points for playing softer competition. Obviously this differs from event to event but I would wager that on the whole with the current points factors lower divisions are actually over-rewarded vis a vis level of play.

This is the issue I'm currently facing. I would like to start playing advanced, but now I need to get 1500 pts. I looked at my past few tournaments and if I shot the same score in advanced I would have gotten less points in each event.

 

[biscoe]

I think you forgot to check the new points requirements.

I think you failed to read the entire press release.

2 Other Junior Divisions: All 2016 current male juniors eligible for the MJ5 or MJ6 division in 2017 who completed any PDGA Tournament (not league) in an Amateur division during the 2016 PDGA tour year.
All 2016 current female juniors eligible for the FJ4, FJ5, or FJ6 division in 2017 who completed any PDGA Tournament (not league) in an Amateur division during the 2016 PDGA tour year.
3 Female Amateur Legends: All 2016 current female Amateur members eligible for the FL1 division in 2017 who completed any PDGA sanctioned tournament (not league) in an Amateur division during the 2016 PDGA tour year.

 

[scarpfish]

I would be perfectly fine with MA2 players getting 1/2 the points of an MA1 for beating an opponent at any tier. Giving MA3 half of an MA2, and not giving MA4 any at all. The near unanimity of these players aren't going to Worlds anyway.

This would put a big dent in the number of folks walking away with buku points for finishing 66th against a field of 200+. That being said, I don't think the organizers at the GBO or BG Ams would like this suggestion.

 

[ru4por]

Christ this just irritates me. Outside of the endless debate on what World's should constitute, what the requirements should be and who should dictate who should play, the crux is the timing. This points increase simply forces me back to playing non age protected divisions. They only practical way for me to get enough points is now is to fly out of state to a huge tournament, or look for local tier B/C to play AM3 in. Which there are few left on the calendar outside of my planned vacation times. What the hell is the PDGA thinking? Again, delayed tournament starts while players shuffle from division to division to maximize their point potential at the last minute. I truly enjoy playing Adv GM and put in a couple tournament starts in AM3 to gather my 250 pts, just to afford myself the enjoyment of playing with the old farts for the rest of the season. Sadly, here there is only a handful of GM each tournament. I don't care what the PDGA does with points, or their vision of World's. Just make a dang decision and implement it at the appropriate time. Of course, I could cancel my two week Alaskan vacation to play a couple local tournaments, so.....really, why am I whining?

 

[teemkey]

I think you failed to read the entire press release.

2 Other Junior Divisions: All 2016 current male juniors eligible for the MJ5 or MJ6 division in 2017 who completed any PDGA Tournament (not league) in an Amateur division during the 2016 PDGA tour year.
All 2016 current female juniors eligible for the FJ4, FJ5, or FJ6 division in 2017 who completed any PDGA Tournament (not league) in an Amateur division during the 2016 PDGA tour year.
3 Female Amateur Legends: All 2016 current female Amateur members eligible for the FL1 division in 2017 who completed any PDGA sanctioned tournament (not league) in an Amateur division during the 2016 PDGA tour year.

And my post (#42) specifically referred to MS1, Legends, and MS3/MS4/FS3/FS4 (should have been MJ3/MJ4/FJ3/FJ4) -- typo).

So FS1 and FJ4 get invitations by playing one sanctioned tournament as you state. OK, fine, I was wrong about two of the eight divisions I called out.

So what are your thoughts about players in the other six age protected divisions that very rarely are offered and yet must meet the newly raised/established points requirements?

 

[biscoe]

If they complete an event let them in same as the other tiny divisions.

 

[biscoe]

I don't care what the PDGA does with points, or their vision of World's. Just make a dang decision and implement it at the appropriate time.

truth.