"amateurs", cathegories, how can we improve them?

[Smigles]

Ok so just to warn you, this entire thread comes from the amateur championships that just finished and my disliking of those sandbaggers.

So it seems to me that the system we have at the moment ( you can pick for yourself which cathegory you want to register for at the PDGA ) is great for letting people play where and who they want, but it is not realy separating players by their level. There are people who play worse rated tournaments at majors ( in the pro league ) than what the winners of AM tournaments usually play.

One effect that this has on me is that I can not take anyone serious who does not play open pro. ( well except for age protected groups and for ladies... ) But all those rec and am and whatever they wanna call themself players, i can not take them serious at all. As persons maybe, that depends on their personality, but not as discgolfers, competitors or sportsmen. That is of course my personal opinion, but I can not be the only one who thinks like that, rigth?

The problem I see with forcing people to play in certain cathegories depending on their rating is that this can lead to some real REAL sandbagging and that people probably dont like it.



My solution would be quite simple : Make 3 cathegories : casual, ambitioned and pro ( of course age and sex protected sub cathegories ). Pro are only the touring pros. those who are actually sponsored and make money with playing disc golf ( as it is in every other sport ffs. ). Ambitioned is what is called "pro" today, and all the others go into "casual".

Casual tournaments can only ask for starting fees to cover the organisation cost. No prices, no trophies, no profit for the organisers, just the absolutely minimum cost for a fun round of throwing plastic. Which is what playing in the casual division is about, having fun throwing discs. There is no mixing of casual and other events. ( And no, there will be no "casual world championship". There is only ONE world champion, and if you wanna call yourself world champ, you better beat the touring pros and the other realy good players! )

Ambitioned and Pro will hold mixed events where they battle for the cash and the glory and the titles and everything.

 

[mashnut]

You aren't the first one to bring that up. That's already allowed under the current structure. If you want to run a tournament with only specific divisions, you're welcome to do that. It all depends on what you want out of a tournament experience. Many people enjoy the chance to compete with other people at their level, and that's what the current system allows. Some folks just don't have the time to practice and improve beyond a rec or intermediate level, and the current system allows them to still have a real chance to have that competitive experience.

One of the biggest reasons the current system is in place is because that's what TDs are running. You could make the argument that it's just because that's what they've always done, but you could also argue that it's what brings in the most players and that the model you're talking about just wouldn't be popular enough to support many events. There's plenty of room to be creative even under the current PDGA guidelines, I'd love to see someone try out that kind of event on a regular basis and show that it could be viable. If all tournaments went to that model though, you'd lose a whole lot of current members who enjoy competing at the lower levels and make it even tougher to support any events.

 

[Smigles]

Many people enjoy the chance to compete with other people at their level, and that's what the current system allows.

I have to disagree, which is the main reason I made this post.

How can somebody who is, as you said, not able to put too much time into the game and therefore stays amateur "competing with somebody at their level" when some kids come along and steamroll the tournament with 1020 rated rounds on average ? And those kids can also call themself "amateur" like Joe Shmoe 850 rated ? That is not on the same level at all.

I am not talking about the tournaments and how they are held. I am talking about the PDGA cathegories that you pick when you register at the PDGA, and how they are totally arbitrary.

I also have to mention that I dont really see a way to make them less arbitrary. Yet. That's what I wanted this discussion to be about mainly, maybe somebody has more ideas than I do.

 

[mashnut]

How many examples can you come up with of ams with 1020 ratings? There are a handful of ams in the high 900s, but I'm not sure that's all that out of line in the top amateur division when there are lower divisions available for less skilled players.

Also, I'm not sure how you can disagree with that statement when every area that consistently offers novice and recreational divisions sees those quickly become the largest divisions. That says to me that there's a huge market out there for those lower ams to have a chance to compete with each other. Then we have the top am division and a pro division. No other sport forces anyone to be a professional if they don't want to do that.

 

[Brodysseus]

Age protected: Juniors and Masters (Under 18 and over 50 respectively, male and female)

Other: Amateur and Professional (Male and Female)

8 divisions. Done.
(IMO)

 

[mashnut]

Age protected: Juniors and Masters (Under 18 and over 50 respectively, male and female)

Other: Amateur and Professional (Male and Female)

8 divisions. Done.
(IMO)

Again, that's absolutely allowed under the current system. You're welcome to run tournaments limited to those divisions, TDs just haven't seen motivation to do that. As I said above, I'd love to see someone run a full series of tournaments with that model so we could have this debate with some real evidence one way or the other.

 

[Smigles]

How many examples can you come up with of ams with 1020 ratings?

I am not really following am ratings, but for example the last few am world championships that I read about were all won by players playing well over 1000 for the tournament.

Also, I'm not sure how you can disagree with that statement when every area that consistently offers novice and recreational divisions sees those quickly become the largest divisions. That says to me that there's a huge market out there for those lower ams to have a chance to compete with each other.

Not disagreeing with that, just asking how you protect those "true" amateurs from people playing rounds that are just a few shots off worldclass pros but still calling themself amateurs.

No other sport forces anyone to be a professional if they don't want to do that.

In most sports, "professsional" means somebody who does the sport as a profession. It's somewhat misleading in discgolf. But that is a whole other topic we better discuss in a separate thread ( or leave it, I am sure there are threads about that allready ^^ )


edit : i must also add that we are so few players here in switzerland that we dont even have enugh palyers to make separate cathegories for rec and int. Only the biggest tournaments even have ams. So it's normal to have everybody thrown into the same pool. Score differences between first and last can be dramatic, almost exponential

 

[mashnut]

I am not really following am ratings, but for example the last few am world championships that I read about were all won by players playing well over 1000 for the tournament.



Not disagreeing with that, just asking how you protect those "true" amateurs from people playing rounds that are just a few shots off worldclass pros but still calling themself amateurs.



In most sports, "professsional" means somebody who does the sport as a profession. It's somewhat misleading in discgolf. But that is a whole other topic we better discuss in a separate thread ( or leave it, I am sure there are threads about that allready ^^ )

Shouldn't you have to play amazing rounds to win a big event? Most of those people you see averaging 1020 for a whole am event don't have a rating anywhere near that, they just had a fantastic event. To win the top pro events, you often have to shoot 1075 golf even though no player has a rating even at 1050.

i don't think anyone who plays in advanced needs protection. Lower level players are already ratings protected, nobody has to play up to advanced unless they have a rating over 935. It's not like the rec players who come out are competing directly with those top ams, it's the other top ams who are competing. There's always going to be a bottom of every division, moving around that line or defining it differently doesn't prevent that.

I would agree that the pro/am classification is a bit silly, but I'm not sure that matters too much. I still don't think anyone should ever be forced into the "pro" division just because they are playing well.

Your edit is something I meant to bring up earlier. The Am scene in the US is much bigger than what exists in Europe, so it's a little hard to compare.

 

[digital]

I am not really following am ratings, but for example the last few am world championships that I read about were all won by players playing well over 1000 for the tournament.

I think this can be viewed in different ways.

On one hand, what you're saying is clearly true. Players winning am world champ or us am champ often play above 1000 for the tournament.

But there's more to it than that.

Those two tournaments attract lots of highly rated amateurs. Anybody playing well in those tourneys will have to average near/above 1000 to win. It takes that level of play for such high profile am tournaments.

It's been said already...but you don't see any 1000+ rated amateurs. Maybe in the 990's rarely...maybe 980's...

The point: because an am shoots 1000 rated rounds to compete/win a tournament in no way means that is his consistent level of play. That player just happened to show up and do well.

Pros consistently shoot near 1000 or above. The same ams that do so to win a single tournament...not so much. The difference in consistency is where you'll separate the two.

 

[keith johnson]

Again, that's absolutely allowed under the current system. You're welcome to run tournaments limited to those divisions, TDs just haven't seen motivation to do that. As I said above, I'd love to see someone run a full series of tournaments with that model so we could have this debate with some real evidence one way or the other.

I ran the very successful (31 of 31 sellouts) Georgia's Super Six Series (GSSS) for 5 years -2008-2012 with only Pro Open Male/ Female, Pro Masters, ADV, ADV Masters, INT and REC - A couple of times there were REC Women or INT Women Divisions added (mainly because no one wanted to compete with Courtney Peavy-McCoy).

The last year I ran them all as Invitationals to keep a certain player from playing in any of my Events as I had given him 3 chances - and they are all PDGA legal and the way I WANT TO RUN THEM!

Even though I've passed the Series along to another person - This year and every subsequent year I'm able to run Events - I'll be having only the same divisions (actually making Masters division GM as GM's have been over 1/2 of the MPM division for the last 2 years) and invitationals and they will still sell out...

Run ANY Event any way you'd like inside the rules given by the PDGA and the PDGA will sanction them.

 

[rocthecourse]

AMS throwing 1020+ rated rounds are all sandbaggers.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/99301

I count 4 in this tournament alone, and a stack of 1000+ rated rounds.

 

[LeBryson James]

Consistency.... that's what separates everything.

Those people who won the AM Champs were very consistent the entire time and it payed off. And they are what I like to call Major Ams. They play Open when they're in their area but since they haven't accepted cash they can still play majors in amateur divisions and maybe get recognition and get sponsors to move up to touring or full time pro. All these championships are for are recognitions and showcases for upcoming players. Look at past AM World Champions. They are all touring pros now. Local ams to me are usually players under 960 and play am all the time but they struggle to be consistant enough to move up. Sure they'll have 970+ rated rounds and the occasional 1000 rated. (I had a 1051 rated round but I'm still rated 939...) But look at other rounds they are usually around 940 or lower.

I'm fine with the current set up but I think there should be a standard or something about how many events you've won before you need to move up in divisions. These are my standards for anyone asks me for advise that's starting at the bottom and wanting to work themselves up. Win 1 rec, 1 int, 2 advanced, before moving to open. I won 1 int and 1 advanced but I'm playing Open this weekend. But just my opinion. I just hate people who are consistently in the top 4 in every tournament they are in unless they are at the top level.

 

[mashnut]

I'm fine with the current set up but I think there should be a standard or something about how many events you've won before you need to move up in divisions. These are my standards for anyone asks me for advise that's starting at the bottom and wanting to work themselves up. Win 1 rec, 1 int, 2 advanced, before moving to open. I won 1 int and 1 advanced but I'm playing Open this weekend. But just my opinion. I just hate people who are consistently in the top 4 in every tournament they are in unless they are at the top level.

That's such a tough thing to say when different areas have such different levels f pressure to move up. In some areas, you move up when your rating moves you up. In others, people all play up a division or two and call you a bagger if you play in the division your rating slots you into. In northern IL for example, lots of people play in the division they're eligible for, so it takes shooting above the ratings cutoff to win. You do that a couple times, and you're moved up automatically. Other places, you can win Intermediate with 910 golf because other intermediate players are playing up, I'm not sure it's fair to push that player up just because the rec players playing up into intermediate want to be competitive in that division.

 

[AndyJB]

Ive said this in other threads, but I'll give you my current situation. My rating is currently an 839. Ive been playing for years, and do have a good knowledge of the game...but I am active duty military. I have very little frwe time to devote to anything. I recently built a nine hole tone pole course on my base just so I can play. I am in Korea by the way.

As soon as I got here, people told me that I need to move up to Advanced or evwn Open necause thw depth of field isnt that great here yet. I jad been considering moving up to Intermediate anyway, but jumping two or three divisions without a sanctioned win to my name? Seems a bit extreme. If I dont move up to a division Im not yet rated for, Ill get called a sandbbagger. But if I win a Rec division with an 850 or even an 880 round (which would be a pretty typical competitive round for me) does that make me a bagger? No. Im playing my division.

So you can see all the inherent problems here. I started my tournent career juat last year after over two decades of very casual play...and I started in Colorado which has some amazing disc golfers. In Colorado, you play your rating and even then you better be on the ball to notch a win. I took 3rd in the 303 Ams Rec Division and the winner beat me by something like ten throws...and he was rated lower than I was at the time! Then I played the Kooky Noosa Tourney in Montana and, even though I took second in Rec, was accused of being a bagger because I beat the thrid place finisher by 6 or 7 throws.

It seems to me that anyone who wins a division gets called a sandbagger...which is unfair, usually untrue (a real sandbagger would never win an event, because they are trying to protect their raring so they can fi iah top three or five and still get plastic). Making three divisions iant going to change that. In the OPs post, whoever wins Casual will get called a bagger and told to move up. Whoever wins the next division will get called a bagger and told to move up to Open. It will not solve the problem. Jealousy is inherent in humans. So ia looking for someone else to blame. For the record, Ive never seen an Am, in any division, win a tourney with anything higher than a 990 round.

The only solution that will truly prevent sandbagging is to go trophy only. That takes away any motivation to bag. True bagggers are doing it for prizes. Take those away, and youll be left with players who are in it for the livw of the game.

::: Sorry for all the typos...using my cell phone for this post:::

 

[ejvogie]

Sandbagger: noun - Someone in your division who throws better than you.

 

[New013]

AMS throwing 1020+ rated rounds are all sandbaggers.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/99301

I count 4 in this tournament alone, and a stack of 1000+ rated rounds.

one of those players with a 1020+ round is still in high school and posts on this site... opcorn:

which brings up an interesting question, if a player under the age of 18 is rated above 1000 should he be forced to play open like so many suggest?

 

[rocthecourse]

AMS throwing 1020+ rated rounds are all sandbaggers.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/99301

I count 4 in this tournament alone, and a stack of 1000+ rated rounds.

Oops, there are 5 1020+ rated rounds, I missed a 1033.

 

[rocthecourse]

one of those players with a 1020+ round is still in high school and posts on this site... opcorn:

which brings up an interesting question, if a player under the age of 18 is rated above 1000 should he be forced to play open like so many suggest?

And what about those who play college sports, or plan to.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Statistically, 970 rated players will shoot one 1000+ rated round every 6 rounds. There should be one 1000+ rated round shot for every 40 rounds by players rated 935 at the bottom of Advanced. A 1000 rated round alone is no indication of a pro caliber player.

 

[New013]

I shot the equivalent of a 1000ish rated round barefoot with putters the other day.


...and i'm in no danger of being called a bagger