Can we? Offer color divisions, but limit registration to 40+ ?
-
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)
Great article about AM divisions.
- Thread starter numbernine
- Start date
Can we? Offer color divisions, but limit registration to 40+ ?
The 3 divisions would be based on rating. You would be competing on skill set, age would have nothing to do with it.
"As a rec player I can hold my own in most MA50 divisions." Rec rated players rarely are in the top 3 in the 100+ adv grandmaster tournaments I've played in.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Yes, but may need X-tier status at the moment to indicate there's a special feature. Being discussed in CompCom to potentially become a regular option.
Thanks, Chuck.
I've had the impression that restricting registration---outside of restricting divisions---is a hard sell with the PDGA, which wants events to be equally available to all qualified members.
I've had the impression that restricting registration---outside of restricting divisions---is a hard sell with the PDGA, which wants events to be equally available to all qualified members.
I've discussed that before... it's a bit confusing to comprehend and needs to be explained for players to grasp. MastersRec, MastersInt, etc on the other hand is very clear, easy to understand.
Then play rec. Isn't that the beauty of the current divisioning? If winning is that important, go play your rating. If you enjoy the company of your age group, go play GM. I understand that your proposal still allows for this, but is it supportable with player populations across the country?
Even with a pretty robust Grandmaster population in this area, there are far too few to support such an idea. TD's would likely continue to only offer MA50 adv. Breaking up the age protected divisions would only result in less players to compete against. I am fine taking 5th out of 8, instead of 2nd out of 3. Heck, most of the rec SGM here play GM, just to compete against a decent field.
Maybe I am an outlier, in that I don't need to take first. I don't need divisioning changed to give me a better chance to win. If I want a win in MA50, I guess I should practice more. I play tournaments to get better, compete against myself and the course. Do I want to win? Every time I show up. But, that is on me, not the way the divisions are set up.
Last edited:
Did you realize my idea is to only have a total of 3 division for anyone age of 40 and older? MastersRec, MastersInt, MastersAdv. This is EXACTLY my point "I am fine taking 5th out of 8, instead of 2nd out of 3." That's my view as well. This idea would certainly have larger divisions.
Wow this is a dizzying thread. After reading the article and then the thread, I can't remember what anyone's point is.
In DGCR fashion, let me contribute to the chaos: I just played my first tournament and finished near the bottom of my division (open for this tournament). I played it primarily because of the course and the timing fit my schedule. My objective was to have fun and play with good players, not to win cash.
I can relate to the struggle of choosing a division. I'm now looking at other tournaments and deciding between intermediate and advanced. So far, I plan to pick between MA1 & MA2 based on which course and layout are being played by the divisions. Maybe that's not how I should do it, but so be it. There are certainly lots of players whose skill/experience levels straddle divisions, and I don't expect that ever to change.
In DGCR fashion, let me contribute to the chaos: I just played my first tournament and finished near the bottom of my division (open for this tournament). I played it primarily because of the course and the timing fit my schedule. My objective was to have fun and play with good players, not to win cash.
I can relate to the struggle of choosing a division. I'm now looking at other tournaments and deciding between intermediate and advanced. So far, I plan to pick between MA1 & MA2 based on which course and layout are being played by the divisions. Maybe that's not how I should do it, but so be it. There are certainly lots of players whose skill/experience levels straddle divisions, and I don't expect that ever to change.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Players have already made it clear that Rec and Novice are not ideal names so no reason to compound the dissatisfaction. The Color names are gender and am/pro neutral and indicate the skill level. Master indicates the age level. I suspect Adv, Int, Rec & Novice will eventually change perhaps by 2020. Now that all age level names for players 40+ have been consolidated to using "Master", perhaps consolidating all am levels to using "Advanced" would parallel the way Masters were consolidated, i.e., Advanced 1, Advanced 2, Advanced 3 and Advanced 4 and eliminate Int, Rec and Nov.
All a TD has to do is put the ratings range in parenthesis after the color, and there'll be no confusion at all.
Well, little confusion, anyway.
Well, little confusion, anyway.
I do, but your proposal essentially takes two divisions (MA40 and MA50) and breaks it down into three divisions (MR40, MI40 and MA40). I am not sure how this lends itself to larger divisions, or more pointedly, fixes anything. (Again, I don't know what is broken).
I also believe with your proposal, MA40 would be predominately 40-45 y/o, MI40 would likely be populated by the 45-50 y/o and MR40 with the above 50 crowd. Still don't think it fixes any perceived issue, just creates an extra division and provides for a new and different scheme. It does give the MA50 guys, rated 900+, a chance to play with better competition, but they can do that already by playing MA40.
I am not sure we are going to agree, but that is OK. That is what this thread is for, idea discussion. :thmbup:
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,514
The reason we need skill breakdowns on non-age protected divisions but not on age protected, beyond pro an am, is ultimately the amateur of 40 has plenty of options.
Let's take a 900 rated male amateur who is aged 30 and a 900 rated male amateur who is age 50.
The 30 year old can play:
MA2
MA1
MPO
The 50 year old can play
MA2
MA1
MA40
MA50
MPO
MP40
MP50
If you add, say a M140 and MI50 for people under 910, the second person now has NINE options of how to play. Having 7 currently is already plenty, especially when someone of the same rating, who is younger, has 3.
Let's take a 900 rated male amateur who is aged 30 and a 900 rated male amateur who is age 50.
The 30 year old can play:
MA2
MA1
MPO
The 50 year old can play
MA2
MA1
MA40
MA50
MPO
MP40
MP50
If you add, say a M140 and MI50 for people under 910, the second person now has NINE options of how to play. Having 7 currently is already plenty, especially when someone of the same rating, who is younger, has 3.
He's proposing eliminating MA50.
Around here we see MA60, too. So we would be trading 3 masters divisions for 3 masters divisions.
They would be less homogenous by age, but more homogenous by rating. But they wouldn't be any bigger, on average. Unless some of the old guys who's been playing Rec decide to move over.
Actually it takes ALL of the age protected divisions (am40, am50, am55, am60, am65, am70, etc) and condenses them down into only 3: mastersrec, mastersint, mastersadv. And imop it would help build larger divisions and put players competing against similar skill sets instead of rec rated players playing against int or adv rated players. For sure thank for your comments, much appreciated! :thmbup:
I'm all for eliminating the names Intermediate, Recreational, and Novice, but for goodness sake, eliminate Advanced too. Advanced 4? How advanced can the division be if it's the bottom of the ranks?
Keep it simple...AMATEUR 1, AMATEUR 2, AMATEUR 3, etc. It's already in the division codes.
As a practical matter, all those divisions aren't being offered, or used. Generally there are 2 or 3 in any given event, except Worlds.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
These divisions don't really function within our competition format as amateurs so using that name just perpetuates our mislabeling. That's why Advanced or something else (Player?, Golfer?) would be more generic in the long run for our adult competition divisions below pro. Only Juniors should probably be our true amateurs in the long run, and even then, perhaps just during actual school age competition below college level.
Yah, I see that. Typically ma40, ma50, ma60 is used. But since there are no ratings requirements you have huge ratings gaps. My proposal helps to clean that up while potentially having larger divisions. If there are only a few ma40 and a few ma50 all rec rated, I'm guessing they would have no problem playing mastersrec where they would have a larger division and better competition.
AAAA, AAA, AA, A ?
MA935, MA900, MA850, MA000 ? (at least those insisting on "playing up" would be doing so in clear contrast to the ratings).
Ah, just musing and quibbling, as I'm about 98% sure that any name change will be an improvement.
MA935, MA900, MA850, MA000 ? (at least those insisting on "playing up" would be doing so in clear contrast to the ratings).
Ah, just musing and quibbling, as I'm about 98% sure that any name change will be an improvement.
Similar threads
