Great article about AM divisions.

[Dcinmd]

That's awesome! Is there a reason that, eventually, the split could just be one weekend of open, one weekend of Competitive Ams and one weekend of Casual Ams?

It already is without changing anything. And due to the flexibility of the current rules players can play on multiple days or any of the days based on their personal schedule. Or when one of the days fills they can sign up for an opening on another day if they so choose. And are not pigeon hole into a specific dates or a specific group. The ""Casual Ams"" typically fills in less than 24 hours.

https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/34744

https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/34745

https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/34746

 

[teemkey]

...
I simply don't see the need for so many divisions for amateurs. Instead, make larger fields build the competition instead of personalizing for small groups to crown a winner of an arcane Am division.
...

I think PDGA divisions encourage participation because players can actually compete for a win vs. competing not to DFL. At a typical 2-round C-tier where the SSA works out to 10 rating points per throw, a ratings protected division covering 50 points (e.g. MA3 850-900) makes for a 10 throw difference in expected performance. That's a reasonable difference that the even the lowest rated player might hope to overcome with a great day.

While I'm sure there are many reasons why players choose to play a tournament, I don't understand why someone would pay for a two incredibly slow rounds without at least a chance to cash (script).

 

[JC17393]

TD's can remove divisions currently, but as it stands some players may see their division missing and mistakenly assume the event isn't for them. The idea presented is a re-imagining of the current Amateur side of the PDGA.

And the harm in that is, what, exactly? Not every event needs to be for every player every time. If a player typically plays MA2 and sees a tournament that isn't offering MA2 and fails to recognize he can play the offered MA1 division instead is only limiting themselves. Frankly, I'm not sure that player would be more satisfied if, in your re-imagined structure, his division is "offered" but is no longer one he can be reasonably competitive in because you've lumped what was MA2 in with the old MA1 division in the name of simplicity.

But what if that first tournament, the one without MA2, is complemented by another tournament the same weekend, perhaps in the same town or area or even the same course (one Sat, one Sun), that offers MA2 but not MA1? Doesn't that accomplish everything you want without having to re-structure the whole system?

Tournament X that holds FPO, MA1, FA1, MA3, and FA3 on Saturday, and MPO, MA2, FA2, MA4, FA4 on Sunday seem to me to be a better solution than Tournament Y holding Open, Competitive Am, and Casual Am (male and female of each) over two days. Capacity for more players overall and still allowing for significantly sized divisions across the board.

 

[Discette]

Hey all, I'm the author of this article. ...


...The general hope of the article is that simplicity could yield better (do you mean bigger?) fields and competition in Amateur play. ...

The article is loaded with assumptions and lacks any facts, data or experience to back up the recommendations.

Several TD's have explained that currently successful events around the country would have LESS players if they were forced to follow your divisional suggestions. Plus, TD's are already welcome to limit divisions for "simplicity" or to yield "bigger divisions".

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?

I have TDed events (around 10) and helped many new players get into tournament play....

Please provide links to the "around 10" PDGA events that you TD'd. I found two:

https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/31691

https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/34024

 

[krupicka]

And those are great example of MA1 consisting of MA2 players, MA2 consisting of MA3 players, MA3 consisting of MA4 players...

 

[tdschrock1]

As I said in an earlier post, I've been around long enough to have played when there were, for all practical purposes, only 2 amateur divisions, with large groups. Even older players remember when there was only 1.....or none.

I liked the large groups.

But it wasn't necessarily better, as evidenced by the fact that players aren't being divided into small groups, they're being offered and dividing themselves.

Interesting. I would say that the current system encourages players to divide themselves. I'd like a system that operates much closer to the 'old' way. I think a very large portion of players competing today (myself included) would have a better and more robust, healthy tournament experience with larger pools.

 

[tdschrock1]

I think PDGA divisions encourage participation because players can actually compete for a win vs. competing not to DFL.

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%).

 

[DavidSauls]

Interesting. I would say that the current system encourages players to divide themselves. I'd like a system that operates much closer to the 'old' way. I think a very large portion of players competing today (myself included) would have a better and more robust, healthy tournament experience with larger pools.

They just don't know what they want?

 

[tdschrock1]

The article is loaded with assumptions and lacks any facts, data or experience to back up the recommendations.

Several TD's have explained that currently successful events around the country would have LESS players if they were forced to follow your divisional suggestions. Plus, TD's are already welcome to limit divisions for "simplicity" or to yield "bigger divisions".

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?



Please provide links to the "around 10" PDGA events that you TD'd. I found two:

https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/31691

https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/34024

Hello! It seems that you have foundational disagreements with the ideas presented and possibly me as a person.

I respect the history and experience of those that have been in the sport for longer than I've been alive and appreciate the amount of work that has gone into events. This article is not a slap in the face to anyone, it is simply a different outlook on the amateur disc golf divisions. It is not a scientifically backed, data driven piece, instead its simply an opinion/editorial.

The items linked in the article itself come straight from the PDGA. My writing is imperfect - I was only attempting to share an idea. The numbers (if implemented) would and should be considered closely by the PDGA who has much easier access to the troves of data that should be considered.

On the other side of things, feel free to disagree - I'll continue to raise questions and express my opinions! Thanks for looking into this topic - I think its well worth the conversation.

HERE is a link to the events that I have run. Many of them are unsanctioned. I have assisted with others at more locations as well, but that is a mostly complete list.

 

[JC17393]

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%).

Right. And how does expanding the ratings range of a division increase that possibility? You're proposing a 75 point ratings range for your Competitive Am division. Do you have data that suggests a player at the lower end of that range has a "realistic possibility of placing in the top 40%", assuming a big enough field with a reasonably even distribution of skill (ratings) within it?

As has been posted already, the PDGA has lots of data that has guided their decisions on the range of ratings for each division and keeping them competitive. Curious if you have something to counter it?

 

[tdschrock1]

As has been posted already, the PDGA has lots of data that has guided their decisions on the range of ratings for each division and keeping them competitive. Curious if you have something to counter it?

I don't know if there is good data on either side of this argument. Can you show anything from the PDGA that shows that current divisions are set up in a statistically sound way?

This is an opinion/editorial piece, not a data-driven research article. I have stressed - the numbers used for the divisional breaks should be researched closely before something like this would be implemented.

 

[_MTL_]

The author didn't even mention that TD's can limit divisions and that rating's based divisions are currently offered. They can also do a true am event with no payout.

The PDGA does the right thing - give TD's options. If the TD chooses to offer all divisions or payouts or do division based, that's their decision. That isn't the PDGA's fault and nor should they demand one way or another.

One blanket solution doesn't work across the board. Ultimately it's up to the TD to pick how they want to do their event, publish it. And then it's up to the players to choose which events they choose to support.

This is just lazy reporting, I hate to say.

 

[Karl]

I don't believe rating are "as pure" a way to go regarding divisional split-outs as age-group divisions because with ratings one "can't in all cases really improve their chances" by improving! In fact, they may severely go down (if you bridge a cusp in divisions). A 934 kicks butt (in theory) in INT but improve 1 point and face getting trounced in ADV. And this can happen a whole lot of times (vacillation city...) in a half / full decade. At least with age-groups, you're only the "young buck" every 5 or 10 years and if you 'get better' you (in theory) will benefit. ALWAYS playing with players of "similar abilities" is akin to poker where every once in a while you're dealt pocket aces...and have a pretty good chance of winning the hand. But next time it's someone else. Repeat. Once more. Again. IMO that really isn't 'competition', it's coin flipping. At least with age groups, you get better you WILL reap the benefits.

 

[JC17393]

I don't know if there is good data on either side of this argument. Can you show anything from the PDGA that shows that current divisions are set up in a statistically sound way?

*I* don't have anything to show, but I'm certain that the PDGA does. The current divisional structure, in particular the ratings breaks associated with it, was not pulled out of thin air nor chosen without a lot of thought and discussion. Chuck, being the man behind the ratings, is probably the best person to provide the process and data involved.

This is an opinion/editorial piece, not a data-driven research article. I have stressed - the numbers used for the divisional breaks should be researched closely before something like this would be implemented.

I understand that it's an opinion piece. But it is an opinion piece suggesting making significant changes to an established structure. I don't think such changes can or should be made unless there's a solid reason to do so that goes beyond someone opining "I think this would be better". In other words, demonstrate how the current system is broken and demonstrate how this new system would be an improvement. It's the only way to make progress.

An opinion piece is a good starting off point for the discussion, but where is it going to go if it only remains a matter of opinion?

 

[tdschrock1]

An opinion piece is a good starting off point for the discussion, but where is it going to go if it only remains a matter of opinion?

Fair question. This conversation is happening now on this forum, Reddit, Facebook and on the article itself. Some are standing firm in the idea that the current system is fine as-is. Others have expressed their interest in a simplified system (or have looked at pros/cons associated with it).

This article is somewhat lengthy for an opinion piece. If it were a proposal to the PDGA, It would require much of the data-driven observations and numerical models with outcomes, as was as a lengthy discussion and plans to deal with possible issues. As it stands, the article's title simply raises a question: should we reconsider the structure of current PDGA Am divisions? I say yes.

 

[_MTL_]

You want to eliminate bagging, this isn't the solution.

The solution is a $10 entry fee for ams, you get a DX disc and then have fun.

 

[JC17393]

You want to eliminate bagging, this isn't the solution.

The solution is a $10 entry fee for ams, you get a DX disc and then have fun.

No the solution is to first define "bagging" in an objective, concrete way, then find a solution if one is necessary. This article creates a subjective and vague definition of "bagging", one that unsurprisingly isn't solved by the current divisional structure, and attempts a fix. It's the epitome of a false narrative.

Irrespective of that, the problem with the article's fix to "bagging" is that a system that relies on ratings to define divisions is incompatible with one that has bump rules based on win totals. This is primarily because it assumes all wins are equal and they are not. One could very easily accumulate three wins in a year (the criteria for a forced bump) without ever having their rating reach the point where it fits into the range definition of the next division up. That's true whether we're talking about the current ratings breaks or the ones proposed in the article. Eventually, the result is going to be a whole bunch of players forced out of the division their rating suggests is their ideal one. And when you have players forced to play in a division where they can't compete, they're not going to continue competing for long.

 

[tdschrock1]

You want to eliminate bagging, this isn't the solution.

No the solution is to first define "bagging" in an objective, concrete way, then find a solution if one is necessary. This article creates a subjective and vague definition of "bagging", one that unsurprisingly isn't solved by the current divisional structure, and attempts a fix. It's the epitome of a false narrative.

The article is not about bagging.

The PDGA offers quite a few Amatuer divisions. The article breaks looks at combining and simplifying those divisions.

I do agree that the number (and nature) of wins could be adjusted to be a bit more fair, or even possibly omitted.

 

[Lewis]

As for the article, for most amateur players, 876 to 950 is waaaay too big of a gap. ... A victory for an 876 player against a 950 rated player is very, very unlikely over 2 rounds, and a near impossibility over 4. (paging Chuck K. for the actual statistics...)

This is true, but we'll need Chuck to show us the numbers before it's "proven."

Also, and I keep saying it in my day to day conversations, so pardon me if I sound practiced, I think it is bad for the sport to encourage paying out 15 guys in a field of 35 disc golfers...

I agree completely. I'm probably in the tiny minority saying this, but I'd happily forego "player's packs" and "merchandise payout" in favor of a singe trophy or a prize for the top two or three finishers in amateur divisions, and everyone else wins by having fun at the event and enjoying the atmosphere.

At a typical 2-round C-tier where the SSA works out to 10 rating points per throw, a ratings protected division covering 50 points (e.g. MA3 850-900) makes for a 10 throw difference in expected performance. That's a reasonable difference that the even the lowest rated player might hope to overcome with a great day.

Until someone with actual statistics shares them, I'm going to have to share bbwrenn's gut feeling instead of yours. I'm under the impression that the standard deviation of a player's round from his rating is something like 3 or 4 strokes, and is even smaller at higher ratings. For a player rated 900 to place highly in a division with players rated up to 950 would require the 900 player to be on his A+ game all day, while all of the 950-rated players are on their F games all day, all of the the 940 players are on their D games all day, all of the the 930 players are on their C games all day, all of the the 920 players are on their B- game all day, etc, all at the same time. Remember it's not that Mr. 900 has to beat Mr. 950 over 36 holes, which he might pull off once in 50 events, but he has to beat a couple dozen players in the same way, many of whom are rated well outside his 1-in-10 chance to beat.

I know I'm speculating as much as we all are here until somebody with the dg version of sabermetrics shows up to enlighten us, but I also have the impression from my own experience a major difference between the 900-rated player and the 950-rated player is driving distance. That makes the 900-rated player's attempt something like trying to break the sound barrier in a P-51 Mustang.

 

[krupicka]

We have found that to win one of the Am divisions around here for a two round event, you need to average 20-30 rating points per round over the cap to do it.