Great article about AM divisions.

[JTacoma03]

*Edited for length*

2 important questions...

1. Fun vs Competition

2. How should competitors be divided?

Phenomenal breakdown of what a healthy, thriving tournament scene looks like. :clap::clap:


I think you hit the nail on the head in terms of why people are having such reactions to this article. I'm in the "competition" camp for the reasons you've outlined - there should be other options than sanctioned PDGA tournaments for competition. That also touches on how I disagree with Tyler...but that's another post entirely.

The blueprint of a good local scene includes competitions of differing intensity levels. Not all of those should be sanctioned PDGA events.

 

[ru4por]

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.

I think, the thing is, all "better systems" will be subjected to the exact same criticism. No divisioning is going to make everyone happy, including the current one. All ideas I have read hear, while thought out and well intentioned, don't really fix anything. They are not better, just different. I think this is just how the interwebz work.

 

[DavidSauls]

Phenomenal breakdown of what a healthy, thriving tournament scene looks like. :clap::clap:


I think you hit the nail on the head in terms of why people are having such reactions to this article. I'm in the "competition" camp for the reasons you've outlined - there should be other options than sanctioned PDGA tournaments for competition. That also touches on how I disagree with Tyler...but that's another post entirely.

The blueprint of a good local scene includes competitions of differing intensity levels. Not all of those should be sanctioned PDGA events.

Certainly. Though I believe this thread is about the PDGA division structure, and not all of those other (good) things.

 

[Three Putt]

The blueprint of a good local scene includes competitions of differing intensity levels. Not all of those should be sanctioned PDGA events.

Most of the old, established scenes I've been to have a handle on this. Disc golf has expanded a lot recently, though. There are a lot of "new scenes" with not a lot of history out there. In a lot of those cases the competitive PDGA "one event fits all" event IS the blueprint. It's fortunate that the manufacturers have Ace Race-type events offered, because those are picking up a lot of the "fun" event slack.

When is Innova going to have a "fun" inventory dump event? They could do a "throw an old disc" event and run Panthers and Hammers, stuff like that. Somebody get Innova on the phone!

Anyway, I digress...as usual. At some point (at least around here) the PDGA "one event fits all" tournament really took hold as the "what disc golfers do" format, but the "one event fits all' tournament came from a different time. Back in the day we HAD to run "one event fits all' events. There wasn't enough of us. You couldn't afford to say "this event isn't for you" to anybody, we needed the bodies. In a lot of areas, that isn't the case anymore. There are enough players now that you don't have to try to make one event for everybody. That's actually pretty recent, and it hasn't happened everywhere. We are in a transitional period.

The 101 different divisions is a function of the "one event fits all" tournament. You have to have a division for everybody if the event is for everybody. Some places are ready to move away from that, others are not.

I get where the article comes from. People are confused about the structure and where they should play. If you are new and don't remember the days when you struggled to get 50 people to sign up for a B-tier with added cash, you don't carry the context of why there are all these divisions in the first place.

The added tidbit is that back in the day, the Open players hated the divisions. We were close enough in time to the all-Professional PDGA days that people remembered when there was no such thing as playing amateur disc golf. They thought we should all be playing Open and our entry fees going toward the Open payout. So even back then the multiple divisions were not universally popular. They served a purpose, though. I'm not sure disc golf would have grown as much as it has without them. Some places like where I currently live probably still need them. We have a long way to go before we can afford to turn players away.

 

[disctildeath]

I'm for condensing and simplifying the divisions, though no one should be forced to play Open or even Advanced. My ideal would be ten divisions: boys AM (12 and under), girls AM (12 and under), mens AM (14-54), womens AM (14-54), mens seniors AM (55+), womens seniors AM (55+), mens advanced AM, womens advanced AM. For the Amateurs, trophies/ prizes for payout, remove having a percentage of entry fee for payouts for at least the C tiers so smaller clubs/td's could sanction easier, maybe even go to a standard of only the first place getting anything in payout for AM divisions, and the advanced divisions would have better prizes/trophies and the option for cash for CTP's or skill contests payed for by the difference between their entry fee and the 6 age restricted AM divisions. Advanced AM's would be rising stars who still want to qualify for big major/NT AM events, local course Pro's, and pro's who step back for whatever reason. Pro would just be mens and womens open, with cash payouts to the top 25% of the division, I feel like one person per ideal card of four cashing is appropriate.

 

[roblee]

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?

Senior Olympics is one entity (consisting of many sports) that offers 5-year age brackets.

 

[dreadlock86]

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

that's fair. i just felt that since the article is about changing the divisional structure, it's the author's responsibility to show me that there is a reason for changing it to begin with... or why am i reading the article? i didn't get that at all. it would make more sense to me if this were a sequel to a previous article "PDGA divisions: are players satisfied?"

but here we are talking about it so i guess it worked, if that was the only goal

 

[Golden Tuna]

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.

I'll share my perspective. I'm sure there are others, but this is how I see it...

Planning
> If we stick to trophy/merch for AM payouts, it would be nice to know ahead of time which divisions to order prizes for. Around here, I believe we generally payout the top 1/3rd in each division.
...Ok, so pre-registration will address part of the issue, but not all of it.

Payout
> Assuming we plan ahead of time to order trophies for all divisions, but half of those divisions aren't populated with players, the trophy expense becomes a line item on the (financial) TD report and detracts from the total purse used to payout everyone (AMs & PROs).

Diluted Competition
> As others have stated, winning a division of 4 people is not as meaningful as winning a division of 10, or 20, or more.
*Keep in mind that the PDGA model is to foster competition.

Integrity of Competition
> In my opinion, giving people the choice of a division is (somewhat) like giving them a choice if they want to win or lose. I could play open and donate, or I can play Advanced and have a chance at 'cashing'. If people are always placed in a division of their 'equals' the competition improves.
* Again, we're assuming a competitive model for sanctioned events.

User Experience
> As a TD it is far easier to organize a few large divisions rather than a larger number of smaller divisions. By reducing the number of divisions, the TD has less administrative work and can focus more on user satisfaction at the event.

Whining
> This is the #1 reason I can't run events anymore; I just don't have the patience for people complaining in this arena. If you've attended, or run an event, you've heard people whining for one reason or another. If divisions are larger, I believe there is more of an understanding or expectation that decisions are made for the greater good, which people are generally ok with. If you have a handful of smaller divisions (5-10 people in each) then I've experienced people within those divisions wanting different treatment (starting hole, picking their card, etc.). I think most TDs try and accommodate the players to increase user experience, but this is a slippery slope. If you comply, other divisions want special treatment. If you do not, you're a 'jerk TD'.

Some of this is out of convenience for the TD, but I think all of it is a positive movement for the sport. Until we transition from volunteer organizations to paid entities, we need to consider the local club, volunteers, etc. on equal ground with the tournament participants when determining how to organize these events.

Though I don't entirely agree with the original article, I do think this is a positive conversation!:hfive:

 

[DavidSauls]

Thanks. Most of that is convenience to the TD....but most of that, the TD can do now.

Trophy Only and limiting divisions are options the PDGA offers.

I'd like to see TDs offer them more often. I'm less enthusiastic about the PDGA mandating them.

*

The idea that winning a small division isn't as meaningful as winning a big division, should be viewed in the light that, given the choice, many people choose the smaller division. Something about it is meaningful to them. It may be more than just winning. Others, to whom it's not, can usually choose a larger division to compete in.

 

[DavidSauls]

.....which isn't to say those aren't very good points of why TDs should consider not running "events for everyone", as someone cleverly described them, but instead use the flexibility to run more targeted events.

 

[_MTL_]

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.

Yes, he has the right to make an opinion. But an editorial, if done fairly, should include other points.

For example a simple sentence that said "TD's are already permitted to do this, but should it be a requirement?" would have completely changed very just criticism of the article.

Leaving this out makes it either appear as the author intentionally left it out because it wouldn't have made his argument so revolutionary, so to speak, or that he truly didn't research the situation before forming an opinion.

 

[DavidSauls]

Certainly, offering alternative ideas and spurring discussion is a good thing.

My issue with the article is that, in declaring something a problem, you ought to explain why it's a problem, and for whom it;s a problem, and what damage is done by it that the solution would remedy.

It looked to me that it started with the assumption that too many divisions is a problem, stated that fewer, larger divisions would mean "better competition", which is pretty vague, and went right into the proposed solution.

While overlooking the fact that much of the solution is already available now, if TDs and players want to avail themselves of it.

 

[DanJon]

Suzette, it's called editorial, practically every media outlet on Earth has op-ed columns.

Yes, and for those op-ed pieces to be taken seriously, they usually need to be written by an expert in the field.

Otherwise it's just another letter to the editor complaining about traffic or the latest city council decision.

 

[Lewis]

Yes, and for those op-ed pieces to be taken seriously, they usually need to be written by an expert in the field.

Otherwise it's just another letter to the editor complaining about traffic or the latest city council decision.

Even if it was unpersuasive "fake news" or just a solution looking for a problem, I at least appreciated the author's ability to write clear sentences with decent spelling and grammar. The fact that it stirred up conversation here might just be evidence that there really is a problem worth working on. :thmbup:

 

[bayouace]

I'm 72. Usually only me and maybe one more in a tournament group. I want to play with older guys in a tournament. I suggest two categories: Over 40 and Under 40, with divisions based on pdga rating.

 

[1978]

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. In my neck of the woods, we regularly get good turnout for our our MA4 (Novice) division.

I have never seen the Novice division in use that I can remember.

 

[JTacoma03]

Yes, he has the right to make an opinion. But an editorial, if done fairly, should include other points.

For example a simple sentence that said "TD's are already permitted to do this, but should it be a requirement?" would have completely changed very just criticism of the article.

Leaving this out makes it either appear as the author intentionally left it out because it wouldn't have made his argument so revolutionary, so to speak, or that he truly didn't research the situation before forming an opinion.

All of this is strictly in your opinion. All of his article is strictly in his opinion. All I'm saying is don't try to pull rank, as it were, on somebody who was able to get a discussion going.

The PDGA does some good things, and some really dumb things. Just like any group, it's not perfect. We should be encouraging thoughtful discussion about our member driven governing body.

There's a clear difference between this and a facebook live show we all know...don't treat one like the other. That would be "unfair" on your part.

 

[ejvogie]

I have never seen the Novice division in use that I can remember.

It's used pretty consistently in this area. YMMV

 

[1978]

This is mind blowing to me.

 

[teemkey]

All of this is strictly in your opinion. All of his article is strictly in his opinion. All I'm saying is don't try to pull rank, as it were, on somebody who was able to get a discussion going.
...

I think the criticism of the piece has largely been misdirected toward the author. It's the editors of Ultiworld who could have stepped in to advise the (somewhat) inexperienced author, and encouraged including a paragraph or three to round out the piece to include the primary criticisms above (e.g. PDGA history, existing solutions, etc.).