How to Choose a Senior-Friendly Pro Event

[DavidSauls]

It was a joke. I'm 56 years old myself, except my knees, which are about 94.

I don't advocate single-division, and there's absolutely no danger of PDGA adopting it. I suspect that age-protected divisions are the fastest-growing part of the organization, not to mention a disproportionate share of the TDs who sanction with the PDGA.

I was stretching the very correct observation that, if we want to be treated the same as Open, we can play Open. It is, after all, "open". So an Open-only event would, by definition, give all of us the benefits you seek.

Hey, I have no problem with any group of players getting together, deciding which events suit them best, and sharing that information. Be that a group who seeks out low-entry events, or trophy-only Am events, or Junior-friendly, or female-friendly, or whatever, by whatever definitions they agree upon.

Nor do I have any problem with the PDGA's stance on the issues you outline, which is mostly to leave them to the TDs. And no problem with TDs deciding that, say, the lion's share of reward will go to the best players. Or a showcase final-9 for the best players, with a coerced gallery, is the trick (though they'll probably do this without my attendance).

 

[shive]

To Chuck:

You say that the default expectation in lower-tier events is that the added cash would be distributed on a per-capita basis. Not so.

Look at the tour standards. The PDGA recommends tiered entry fees even in the smaller events, and its payout tables are based on total division entry fees, not total division enrollments. Hence my suggestion #1, that the simplest negative test is just to look for tiered entry fees.

Most TD's follow these recommendations automatically. Many of them (I'd guess about 25%) do not realize the negative implications for older players, and are surprised when I point it out.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Peter, I said proportionately, not per player, is the PDGA default allocation method for added cash, i.e., allocated per entry fee dollars collected per division. At least the added cash comes back on a relative risk versus reward basis where lower entry fees for older divisions is lower risk.

What about the concept that lower entry fees for older divisions increases participation? It's not whether the older players can afford even higher entry fees than Open but whether they wish to put that money at risk when the spread in skill levels/ratings is typically higher. Many times you'll see Advanced Masters, GMs or Sr GMs willing to play up with the pros because only a few older players showed up or no one in their division. The lower entry fees relative to Open makes it more comfortable for those Ams to enjoy playing with the older pros more for camaraderie than economic return.

So I would reconsider your groups hard stance on lower entry fees for older pro divisions as being specifically an anti-senior policy.

 

[Jay Dub]

When I saw "How to Choose a Senior-Friendly Pro Event" the money payout for that division was not even on my list of concerns. Yet it seems that's all it is about.

I do not support this (I renewed my PDGA this year and will play a few tournaments) and am looking for which tournaments are "user friendly" for older players. I couldn't care less about the money payout.

I'll be sending an email asking to be removed from the email list I signed up for.

#4129

 

[Steve West]

What is the deal with Seniors caring about the presence or absence of cash payouts? Why is it so important that there be a "Pro" senior division?

 

[ru4por]

When I saw "How to Choose a Senior-Friendly Pro Event" the money payout for that division was not even on my list of concerns. Yet it seems that's all it is about.

I do not support this (I renewed my PDGA this year and will play a few tournaments) and am looking for which tournaments are "user friendly" for older players. I couldn't care less about the money payout.

I'll be sending an email asking to be removed from the email list I signed up for.

#4129

Yeah, this kinda my point as well. Players play tournaments for different motivation and reasons. I think it would be fairly common theme to see older players less motivated by payout.

 

[shive]

to Chuck, ru4por and Steve West:

Sorry, Chuck. I misinterpreted your comment. When you said "proportional", you didn't specify "to what", and I wrongly assumed "to the number of players".

One of the explicit premises of our newsgroup is that "when we play, we would like to be treated as well as any other division". So we look for events that do that. Financial considerations are an obvious concern, since a major difference between us and the amateurs is that we play for money.

Another consideration is that we often give cash awards to support purses of events on our Tour, and recommend that others also support those events. That support goes to all divisions (including Open) on a per capita basis. We do this because it would be hypocritical of us to say "We believe that all divisions should be treated the same", and then support only the older divisions. But by the same token, we could not support an event that gave a higher per capita share of our grant to Open players.

Chuck argues that I do "over-40's" a disservice because they would like to limit their risk by paying lower entry fees. Some might. And, he could have added, some of them (even though they play as pros) don't care about the money. Poster #25 on this thread is a good example.

The key question is, "How many 40+ pros don't care about the money, or would prefer to limit their risk?" You would think that the PDGA would like to know the answer to that question, as they consider going to an "Open-only" Worlds (see Fall Summit 2014 minutes), relegating older pros to an event having a "family reunion" sort of format and (presumably) less added cash.

So I have a suggestion. Let's have the 40+ pros vote on the question, and Chuck and I can reprise our roles from a similar MPS election in 2001. Chuck can write the case for a kinder, gentler format with less risk and plenty of free time for picnics, visiting museums etc., and I'll write the case for a fiercer, more challenging event with a format as much as possible "Open-like". My guess is that the vote would turn out to be much like it did in 2001.

 

[Jay Dub]

Poster #25? lol

 

[DavidSauls]

It's not every day that you have people clamoring for higher entry fees.

And while I understand the sentiment for distributing added cash on a per capita basis, I'm still not quite sure why we add cash to any divisions.

 

[ru4por]

to Chuck, ru4por and Steve West:

Sorry, Chuck. I misinterpreted your comment. When you said "proportional", you didn't specify "to what", and I wrongly assumed "to the number of players".

One of the explicit premises of our newsgroup is that "when we play, we would like to be treated as well as any other division". So we look for events that do that. Financial considerations are an obvious concern, since a major difference between us and the amateurs is that we play for money.

Another consideration is that we often give cash awards to support purses of events on our Tour, and recommend that others also support those events. That support goes to all divisions (including Open) on a per capita basis. We do this because it would be hypocritical of us to say "We believe that all divisions should be treated the same", and then support only the older divisions. But by the same token, we could not support an event that gave a higher per capita share of our grant to Open players.

Chuck argues that I do "over-40's" a disservice because they would like to limit their risk by paying lower entry fees. Some might. And, he could have added, some of them (even though they play as pros) don't care about the money. Poster #25 on this thread is a good example.

The key question is, "How many 40+ pros don't care about the money, or would prefer to limit their risk?" You would think that the PDGA would like to know the answer to that question, as they consider going to an "Open-only" Worlds (see Fall Summit 2014 minutes), relegating older pros to an event having a "family reunion" sort of format and (presumably) less added cash.

So I have a suggestion. Let's have the 40+ pros vote on the question, and Chuck and I can reprise our roles from a similar MPS election in 2001. Chuck can write the case for a kinder, gentler format with less risk and plenty of free time for picnics, visiting museums etc., and I'll write the case for a fiercer, more challenging event with a format as much as possible "Open-like". My guess is that the vote would turn out to be much like it did in 2001.

Well, I am not sure I am into the written proposal thing. But, Pete you have been pretty upfront with stating you ambitions are focused on pro's, not necessarily the am population. I just don't think your ideas fit in with my particular wants. I think the characterization, of a more casual take on tournament play, above is a bit of an over generalization and could be misunderstood an belittling those who don't agree with your take. My guess is there are players on both sides of the issue. For the record, I am voting kinder and gentler, without mandatory picnics and museums on the itinerary.

 

[The Happy Gilmore]

What is the deal with Seniors caring about the presence or absence of cash payouts? Why is it so important that there be a "Pro" senior division?

:clap:

 

[Cgkdisc]

Peter, the 2001 question was about Worlds, not senior events in general. And as you have seen, the pro Sr GMs at least have been playing the same format as the GMs at Worlds. Of course, they don't always play the same combination of courses as the Open players.

Many older pros around here do side bets within their division and sometimes outside it even if the entry fees are the same as Open. I've sometimes made more than some of the players cashing in Open due to side bets. One of the fun ones recently was the player who took the least OBs on a special temp USDGC style layout. That's why lower entry fees isn't an issue because you can boost your potential payout more than double first place if you wish to up the side bet ante. Plus, only those into better payout for playing well will get into the side bets.

 

[shive]

to ru4por:

You are listed, at least at present, as an amateur. I would expect that every amateur would vote for a kinder, gentler format, with less risk and no concern about winning money, as those attributes characterize amateur play. I have no desire to challenge that preference -- it seems totally appropriate.

The vote I am proposing would be for 40+ pros. Chuck says that they also want the kinder, gentler experience. I would expect that they would prefer something different altogether.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The Master Pros get pretty much the same setup as Open at Worlds if you go back for the past 8-10 years and maybe farther. Other than sometimes a special, longer Final 9 for Open only, the Masters have not been babied in their course selection. The Open Women on the other hand have usually played a more appropriate and less demanding course mix than Open and rightly so. The top 6 Open Women still fall short on score behind the top 6 Pro Sr GMs so they usually play a similar but maybe one or two tougher layouts in their course mix at Worlds which is also similar to the GMs.

 

[shive]

Chuck:

The vote I propose could be for Worlds, or it could be for general 40+ pro play. I'd prefer a vote on the general question, but am easy either way. You claimed that I am following an "anti-senior policy", because 40+ players really want a more amateur-like and less risky format. I claim that you are wrong, and that they would really prefer a more challenging and higher-stakes experience. It is a key question, as the PDGA considers the future of Pro Worlds, because it starts at the top and trickles down from there. The only way to settle it is to put the question to the affected members -- the 40+ pros.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm not saying lower entry fees are pro or anti senior by nature, but usually pro participation overall for the typical smaller divisions. Whether lower entry fees will increase or reduce potential payouts for the winners is situational and cannot be determined since multiple, usually local, factors are in play: How many older players in the area who might play tournaments, will older Ams prefer to play with pros (vs win uncontested or play with younger ams), how close are they in rating, who will do side bets of what type and for how much.

The vote or more likely poll you are proposing would be interesting. But the people who need to be persuaded are the TDs. I trust that they will employ the entry fee policies that they find successful by their metrics and experience independent of the poll/vote. I don't see the poll/vote resulting in the PDGA tying their hands in this area any more than they do now with the tier guidelines.

 

[DavidSauls]

Agree with Chuck. Outside of Worlds, if you want higher entry fees for local and regional events, contact your local TDs and ask for them. Or, TD yourself. And I'm speaking not just to Peter, but anyone who feels this way.

As TDs, we want people to come to our tournaments. We try to guess, in each division, how well higher fees will draw the better players (for the resulting payouts), and how well lower fees will draw the unlikely-to-cash players. Of course, if the lower fees draw enough of the latter, the former do pretty well.

Around here, typically the entry is the same for all pro divisions, so it's a non-issue.

 

[DavidSauls]

Interestingly enough, my brother (and co-TD) just posted on our course facebook page, asking everyone who is a member what kind of entries they want to see. Which makes me think that a lot of local events could ask that question of their senior pros, if they wished.

 

[DavidSauls]

As a senior Am, I've been unhappy with the weaker layouts we've been assigned, or courses at Worlds. I understand the feeling of being slighted, and wanting a challenging format.

But, to play devil's advocate, is it really non-senior-friendly for senior Pros to play a layout more suited to their skill level? If MPG are, on average, about 5 strokes worse than MPO---and that's just a wild guess from me---shouldn't they play courses or tees that are about 5 strokes easier? Wouldn't that be an Open-like experience?

 

[teemkey]

As a senior Am, I've been unhappy with the weaker layouts we've been assigned, or courses at Worlds. I understand the feeling of being slighted, and wanting a challenging format.

But, to play devil's advocate, is it really non-senior-friendly for senior Pros to play a layout more suited to their skill level? If MPG are, on average, about 5 strokes worse than MPO---and that's just a wild guess from me---shouldn't they play courses or tees that are about 5 strokes easier? Wouldn't that be an Open-like experience?

From a tournament perspective, I would think the real question is whether the shorter courses provide sufficient scoring separation.