From a tournament perspective, I would think the real question is whether the shorter courses provide sufficient scoring separation.
I'm assuming they would, for the appropriate skill level.
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)
From a tournament perspective, I would think the real question is whether the shorter courses provide sufficient scoring separation.
From a tournament perspective, I would think the real question is whether the shorter courses provide sufficient scoring separation.
To Chuck and David Sauls:
We have overlap. I totally agree with you that the TD's should be the court of last resort, and that TD's should not be constrained by the PDGA any more than they already are.
Which brings us back to the first post in this thread, which is simply a list of tournament variables that are determined by TD's and that are of potential interest to older pros. "Inquire within", as they say.
David, you might ask your 40+ pros to read through this thread before they vote, so that they are aware of the arguments on both sides.
2) Even if the entry fees are the same, does the TD allocate added cash to all pro divisions on a "per capita" basis? If not, the event is not senior-friendly.
To David Sauls:
The "tiered entry fee" question is often very confusing to people. About a quarter of the TD's I have talked to about it did not realize the implications for the 40+ pros paying a lower entry fee – that those players would be allocated a similarly lower share (or none) of the added cash. I'd expect that the players would be even more likely to misunderstand than the TD's.
Of course, full understanding would only matter if you tied the added cash proportion to the entry fee, and you had a separate vote for 40+ ams and 40+ pros. If you allocate zero added cash to 40+ pros regardless of their entry fee, then it wouldn't make much difference to lump all the 40+'s together in the vote regardless of their membership category.
Thank god 99% of the TD's in NC do not subscribe to your ethos.Why would anybody add cash to a protected division? That's foolishness.
Thank god 99% of the TD's in NC do not subscribe to your ethos.
In my opinion the PDGA states added cash to the "Pro" purse, is a requirement. it states nothing about the "Open" purse. As far as I am concerned as long as the winner of Open makes more money than anyone else in the event then I could care less if the money is spread around or not. I have always, and will continue to add money to every "Pro" division I have in my tournaments.
I use the 50% pay tables for the age protected divisions and 40% pay tables for the Open divisions. I thought more of the old guys would want to get paid something, while the pros should have to fight harder to get last cash.
Of course that begs the question: Why would anybody want to attract 40+ pros to their tournament? The answer is that we don't know. Maybe they don't. We are only trying to figure out the ones that do.
And of course that begs the question: Why would any age-protected player want (or expect) a tournament to add cash to their division?
They're already being supplied a competitive atmosphere, plus whatever other amenities the tourney is providing, plus a conduit to the PDGA for ratings/points/etc (for sanctioned events). Knowing, of course, that in many cases the best players in that age group aren't playing in the age-protected division anyway, thus rendering the competition (and prizes) even more meaningless. So for a player to want (or expect) added cash seems greedy and ridiculous. To me.
But hey, to each his own.
They still have a masters (senior) golf tour that attracts lots of sponsors and money etc. Maybe we aren't there yet, but I'm sure lots of people would still come to watch battles between Climo, Schultz, etc on the masters final 9.
What's the point of added cash to an event?
Draw more people? Would events fill even without added cash?
Attract sponsors? Attract spectators?