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)
How to Choose a Senior-Friendly Pro Event
- Thread starter shive
- Start date
I'm assuming they would, for the appropriate skill level.
The answer is likely that the shorter courses provide better scoring separation and a more competitive environment, but that's not really what matters to a lot of people hung up on not playing the longest layout available.
shive
Par Member
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.
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.
I endorse you efforts to provide information on tournaments that meet certain standards. I'm not keen on the "senior-friendly" or "senior-unfriendly" phrasing---I'd find it a bit insulting if I were a TD offering tiered entries---but I can't offer a better phrase, either.
To be clear, we're polling members of our course group page about their preference for all entry fees, not just senior pros. I'd trust that, if we polled senior pros about their preference in entry fees, they could answer for themselves without having to study this debate. I thought I'd mention the poll we're doing, to point that that others TDs could poll their own players, or senior pros, if they so desired.
shive
Par Member
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.
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.
grodney
* Ace Member *
Why would anybody add cash to a protected division? That's foolishness.
jjpitt29
Birdie Member
I'm excited to play masters this year! Will be my first time. What I'm excited about is being competitive in some of the larger tournaments or at least thinking I can be. Over the last few years I've stopped playing in the big tournaments because I don't really have a chance to cash unless I played out of my mind. With that said I love to play tournaments for the competition and to play with friends.
I appreciate what Peter is doing and I think it's a good idea. I personally like the lower entry fee's and I think that overall the entry fees are way way too high. I would be strongly for lowering entry fees in half and reducing the payout to top 20-25% in most cases.
The argument/discussion that is going on here I think misses the point. What has happened to create such turnover within tournament playing disc golf scene. What is making people quit? What is making people stop wanting to play tournaments etc? (aside from everyday life stuff)
I appreciate what Peter is doing and I think it's a good idea. I personally like the lower entry fee's and I think that overall the entry fees are way way too high. I would be strongly for lowering entry fees in half and reducing the payout to top 20-25% in most cases.
The argument/discussion that is going on here I think misses the point. What has happened to create such turnover within tournament playing disc golf scene. What is making people quit? What is making people stop wanting to play tournaments etc? (aside from everyday life stuff)
OK, now I'm confused....or ignorant.
I've seen added cash handled in one of two ways
(1) All to Open
(2) On a per capita basis (sometimes with a bit extra to FPO).
(3) Required added cash (for tier) on a per capita basis, and extra added cash to open.
I haven't seen it rationed based on entry fees, though I'll take your word for it that it's done that way in places.
But I'd think that in most cases, the effects of a lower entry fee are (1) it costs less to play and (2) the payouts are less, just because less money is going in into the prize pot. It is based on this, that I assume players can figure out the effects of tiered entry fees for themselves.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
The added cash rationing by entry fee total$ per division is more fair than per capita when the entry fee per entrant is lower in divisions below Open. It keeps the added cash at the same percentage above entry fee for all pros. If the entry fees are the same in all pro divisions, the numbers work out the same so it doesn't matter.
BgWvDave
Double Eagle Member
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.
Last edited:
My event will be more senior friendly this year.
I have ALWAYS divided added cash equally among ALL pros, regardless of divisions. I can't understand doing it any other way unless a sponsor requested it.
However, I use the tiered entry fee that is common in my area. I charge the open folks MORE to build the open purse, not to make smaller purses for the age protected folks. It seems like the old guys here want to play more events to earn points for our local series, not earn more money. But, I can't speak for all areas.
I would like to see some sort of survey of the over 40 PDGA pros. Ask them to rank in order of importance the items.
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.
Peter, what are your thoughts on which payout table should be used for age protected pro divisions? This could also be an added criteria for Senior events.
Here are some ideas how to find out.
As a Senior which do you value most in an event? Rank from 1 being most important to 10 being least important.
More added cash
Higher Payout to higher finishers
Flatter payout to more finishers
Reduced entry fees for age protected divisions
Equal entry fees to Open division.
Same course configuration as Open division.
Easier course configuration than Open division.
Etc.
I have ALWAYS divided added cash equally among ALL pros, regardless of divisions. I can't understand doing it any other way unless a sponsor requested it.
However, I use the tiered entry fee that is common in my area. I charge the open folks MORE to build the open purse, not to make smaller purses for the age protected folks. It seems like the old guys here want to play more events to earn points for our local series, not earn more money. But, I can't speak for all areas.
I would like to see some sort of survey of the over 40 PDGA pros. Ask them to rank in order of importance the items.
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.
Peter, what are your thoughts on which payout table should be used for age protected pro divisions? This could also be an added criteria for Senior events.
Here are some ideas how to find out.
As a Senior which do you value most in an event? Rank from 1 being most important to 10 being least important.
More added cash
Higher Payout to higher finishers
Flatter payout to more finishers
Reduced entry fees for age protected divisions
Equal entry fees to Open division.
Same course configuration as Open division.
Easier course configuration than Open division.
Etc.
And that's your prerogative as a TD. But clearly not everyone agrees with that line of thinking, and fortunately they don't have to.
I think the PDGA's wording is vague enough that it's difficult to tease out any intention vis a vis added cash to select pro divisions or all pro divisions.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
The only specific rules I'm aware of are that Open and Open Women get at least a triple share of added cash per person in NTs versus the other pro divisions, and in Pro Worlds, the added cash, typically fixed at 25%, is allocated equally across all pro divisions.
jjpitt29
Birdie Member
Paying out 50% is just ridiculous. (Not you Discette, the guidelines) The only reason people feel they need to (or the PDGA started to say so) is because entry fees started to get so high.
Lower the entry fee and reduce payout to 25% and you will end up with more happy people IMO. Plus it will actually feel good to cash and not just be top half.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
The Payout table instructions for pros indicates 45% is normal and that the 50% table be used only when there is a significant percentage of added cash to the purse (or TD wants to pay out more players). Not uncommon to pay out 50% in women's divisions to encourage more participation.
Last edited:
shive
Par Member
to Discette:
Very thoughtful post. I too would like to see the results of a 40+ poll such as the one you describe.
You asked me which payout table I personally would prefer, 40% or 50%. One of the premises of my newsgroup is that we would like to be treated as much as possible like all other divisions. On that basis, if you are using 40% for Open, I'd prefer that.
However, this is such a small preference that it is hardly worth expressing. You have a lot of experience, and you have obviously put some thought into the matter. I would never think to even question a TD on a 10% difference on how far down she pays. I'd be happy either way.
Very thoughtful post. I too would like to see the results of a 40+ poll such as the one you describe.
You asked me which payout table I personally would prefer, 40% or 50%. One of the premises of my newsgroup is that we would like to be treated as much as possible like all other divisions. On that basis, if you are using 40% for Open, I'd prefer that.
However, this is such a small preference that it is hardly worth expressing. You have a lot of experience, and you have obviously put some thought into the matter. I would never think to even question a TD on a 10% difference on how far down she pays. I'd be happy either way.
shive
Par Member
To grodney:
You asked a simple question. Why would anybody add cash to a protected division? Here's the simple answer. For the same reason they would add cash to an Open division. To attract more players from that division.
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.
You asked a simple question. Why would anybody add cash to a protected division? Here's the simple answer. For the same reason they would add cash to an Open division. To attract more players from that division.
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.
grodney
* Ace Member *
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.
jjpitt29
Birdie Member
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?
To make that analogy apt, you have to assume that the Senior PGA tour is taking away sponsor money from the PGA Tour in order to pay its players a larger purse. Which isn't the case at all. They have their own pool of sponsor money given specifically to them (and not to the regular tour).
If Senior PDGA players want events that put equal focus on them and where they get a "fair" or proportional share of the sponsor funds, their best bet is events that don't feature the Open division (male or female). Just like the Senior PGA tour has.
This is yet another "problem" that eventually goes away as the sport grows out of its need to host multiple mini-tournaments on the same venue (we commonly call them divisions).
