Naming of divisions

[Blobfish]

Honestly, I support nothing that constitutes adding MORE divisions, not less.

I am still a newb who plays rec but I also think there's a lot of unnecessary possibilities. I'd streamline it to:
MPO
FPO
MA
MM (Mixed Masters)
JA

Maybe because I'm just starting this thing in my 40s... but I'm not playing in tournaments to win the prizes in MA3. I'm playing them to see how I can play against others, see new venues, meet some other players who are about my level. For me, it's more about how I can play versus my rating says I should be able to play I guess, and the $40ish bucks it costs for a tournament comes with enough ancillary swag stuffs that "cashing" is not what brings me to the tournament. So a MA division (including MA1, MA2, MA3, MA4) would be fine as far as I'm concerned.

 

[ru4por]

I am still a newb who plays rec but I also think there's a lot of unnecessary possibilities. I'd streamline it to:
MPO
FPO
MA
MM (Mixed Masters)
JA

Maybe because I'm just starting this thing in my 40s... but I'm not playing in tournaments to win the prizes in MA3. I'm playing them to see how I can play against others, see new venues, meet some other players who are about my level. For me, it's more about how I can play versus my rating says I should be able to play I guess, and the $40ish bucks it costs for a tournament comes with enough ancillary swag stuffs that "cashing" is not what brings me to the tournament. So a MA division (including MA1, MA2, MA3, MA4) would be fine as far as I'm concerned.

There are endless opinions on divisioning. As a 56 y/o player, I don't really have much interest in competing against 39 y/o kids. But, I am looking to continue playing a game I love and there is not much that can interfere with my enjoyment.

I personally don't think the current PDGA model is that broken. I was not a fan of breaking down the age protected divisions into 5 year increments, but it is not a deal breaker for me.

 

[DavidSauls]

I am still a newb who plays rec but I also think there's a lot of unnecessary possibilities. I'd streamline it to:
MPO
FPO
MA
MM (Mixed Masters)
JA

Maybe because I'm just starting this thing in my 40s... but I'm not playing in tournaments to win the prizes in MA3. I'm playing them to see how I can play against others, see new venues, meet some other players who are about my level. For me, it's more about how I can play versus my rating says I should be able to play I guess, and the $40ish bucks it costs for a tournament comes with enough ancillary swag stuffs that "cashing" is not what brings me to the tournament. So a MA division (including MA1, MA2, MA3, MA4) would be fine as far as I'm concerned.

You can play MA1, regardless of your rating, if that's what you want. Perhaps others want something different; why force them to?

You can also run a tournament in exactly the format you suggest, and fill with like-minded folks......if you can find enough of them.

 

[Jay Dub]

Really?

Do you have a Zuca cart but only 9 discs, enjoy complaining and hearing complaints non-stop, list your replacement parts and most recent surgeries before every round, refuse to acknowledge any rules created after 1994, take two minutes to catch your breath after climbing 20 feet, use a 142g driver to get a max-distance throw of 220 feet, have absolutely no interest in the standings, try to stretch out rounds to kill more time, and get most of your calories from the corn starch in Ibuprofen tablets?

Be careful who you wish to play with.

He should change "play" to "throw" then his post would be accurate.
Streets is the smoothest throwing young player I have ever seen.

 

[sisyphus]

I've felt for a while that the divisions could easily be de-mystified for those wishing to play others close to their rating. The names for the divisions would be the colors only (no connotation or confusion as to what 'novice' means, etc.). And for most of us, I'd love to stop calling it 'Pro' & 'Am'. Maybe just declare if you're playing for cash or 'trophy', complete against the whole field, with prizes being determined by how you registered.

Gold Open (975 & above, with a note that players who maintain an average above 1025 are Elite!)
Blue 925-974 (suggested level for Pro Masters)
White 875-924 (suggested for Pro Grandmasters & Am Masters)
Red 825-874 (suggested for Pro Legends and Am Grandmasters)
Green Under 825 (suggested for Am Legends, Am Women, Juniors & 1st time tournament players)

Can use colors for older age restrictions, as well: Bronze (aged 40-54), Silver (55-69) & Diamond (70 & over).
Juniors and genders could also have 'protected' divisions, if desired.

 

[DavidSauls]

The PDGA took a step towards simplifying the names with MA40 (over 40), MA50, etc.

They just need to do the same with the 3 lower amateur divisions (MA<935, MA<900, MA<850).

I don't see a color system being much better. Anyone can guess that Gold is good, after that, there's no rhyme or reason to which color goes with each division.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

I've felt for a while that the divisions could easily be de-mystified for those wishing to play others close to their rating. The names for the divisions would be the colors only . . .

So, to demystify, you want to change the divisions names to something almost completely non-descriptive?

Personally, I think it's time to go to ratings based am divisions and PO, get rid of the "M" and get rid of the "F." I would not be opposed to one age-protected division for youth. There is absolutely no fairness based reason that any 900 rated player, should be protected from competing with any other 900 rated player.

If, as others have mentioned, the divisions are a demand-based, customer-is-always-right approach to luring additional people into the sport, there is no reason to stop creating new divisions until everyone gets a trophy. I also notice that those same people (actually that same person) implicitly advocates a position that insures that what is allowed as an option would never be implemented as a mandate.

My fallback position is to leave well enough alone (but get rid of the 5 year nonsense in masters divisions).

 

[DiscFifty]

You continually ignore the fact that not everyone is motivated to play tournaments to win.

Wrong, that's EXACTLY 100% EXACTLY why I push this. Make the better players who are obviously wanting the competition, to play with others that do.

 

[DiscFifty]

Honestly, I support nothing that constitutes adding MORE divisions, not less.

My suggestion would not add any more, just a rename w/ratings caps. Instead of am50,am55 there would be something like am50rec, am50adv.

 

[puttlikeablowfly]

The PDGA already has ratings-based divisions, assigned to those colors, in their tour standards:
Gold 970+
Blue <970
White <935
Red <900
Green <850
Purple <800

These same colors are also used in their PDGA Course Design Skill Level Guidelines (with exception of purple) and reference to tees (with exception of both green and purple). For those familiar with ball golf, a typical color-coding for tees has long been blue in the back (long), white in the middle, and red up front (short), so that color convention is already familiar to many people. Many ball golf courses also use those colors for fairway distance markers (blue = 200 yards to center of the green, white = 150 yards, red = 100 yards). Ball golf and disc golf aren't as consistent, however, with some of other colors used, such as gold and green, which seemed to be for some of the middle tees on ball golf courses where I've seen them used. I have heard some disc golf designers (Chuck?) suggest Black tees / skill levels for beyond gold, which would be consistent with many ball golf courses that use black as the tee marker color for playing from the tips, or furthest tees from the green.

So, I suspect a fairly significant chunk of disc golfers already have at least the basic color scheme in mind: blue is longer / higher-skilled players; red is shorter / lower-skilled players; white is in the middle.

 

[JC17393]

My suggestion would not add any more, just a rename w/ratings caps. Instead of am50,am55 there would be something like am50rec, am50adv.

If you want divisions by rating, there's no need for age divisions. A 50 year old 920 rated player is competitively the same as a 22 year old 920 rated player. There's no reason have an intermediate division for under 40s and another for 40-49, and another for 50-54, and another for 55-59, etc.

 

[Cgkdisc]

If you want divisions by rating, there's no need for age divisions. A 50 year old 920 rated player is competitively the same as a 22 year old 920 rated player. There's no reason have an intermediate division for under 40s and another for 40-49, and another for 50-54, and another for 55-59, etc.

The primary issue holding back this development has been social, mentioned before, along with lower average fitness levels to handle a second round in a day and courses with more challenging terrain/elevation.

 

[scarpfish]

I don't know why people keep insisting the five year breaks in the age protected divisions mean that TD's must make a division for every five year group. This was added to give TD's more flexibility in bracketing these divisions, not force them to provide all of them.

 

[tbonesocrul]

I don't know why people keep insisting the five year breaks in the age protected divisions mean that TD's must make a division for every five year group. This was added to give TD's more flexibility in bracketing these divisions, not force them to provide all of them.

Agreed, no event that I've looked into playing this year has used the 5 yr breaks for age protect groups. Another reason for this was to align with international standards in other sports as far as I understand.

 

[JC17393]

The primary issue holding back this development has been social, mentioned before, along with lower average fitness levels to handle a second round in a day and courses with more challenging terrain/elevation.

I'm fine with age protected divisions, and I don't really want to get rid of them. My point was more that we can divide players by rating or by age, I don't believe it needs to be by both at the same time.

As long as we have both options available, I see no need to combine them. If you want to play with your age peers, you play the age protected division. If you want to play with your skill peers, you play the ratings-based division you fit into.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I don't know why people keep insisting the five year breaks in the age protected divisions mean that TD's must make a division for every five year group. This was added to give TD's more flexibility in bracketing these divisions, not force them to provide all of them.

The extra 5 year breaks were reluctantly added by the PDGA primarily so they were aligned with the 5 year age breaks in the National Senior Games. This alignment could have happened several years earlier. But the PDGA Competition Committee knew our numbers and realized it would create even more, small age divisions. They resisted recommending this change to the Board until the Mixed and Master numerical renaming of divisions and codes was done a few years ago.

 

[ru4por]

My suggestion would not add any more, just a rename w/ratings caps. Instead of am50,am55 there would be something like am50rec, am50adv.

You OP was adding divisions in PRO. I am not a fan of this proposal, anymore than I was when they broke down age protected divisions into 5 year increments....and for the same reason. You would essentially take an eight person division, MA50, and cut it into two divisions with less players. Around here, we are lucky enough to be able to field a MA50, most of the time. Many areas are lucky to be able to pull 2-4 MA50. I guess the bottom line would be demand for such divisions. I don't think that there is interest in these parts, but I could not speak to other places.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

I don't know why people keep insisting the five year breaks in the age protected divisions mean that TD's must make a division for every five year group. This was added to give TD's more flexibility in bracketing these divisions, not force them to provide all of them.

No TD has to do it. But that doesn't mean that whiny 55-year-olds who want a trophy/plastic won't insist on it. When the 50+ division is already small and the TD caves in and splits it, it seems kind of silly. It happens in my area.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The most effective setup I've seen is offering just the MP40, MP55 and MP70 options in some Florida events. I think they do it with the Ams also, MA40, MA55 and MA70.

 

[ToddL]

The most effective setup I've seen is offering just the MP40, MP55 and MP70 options in some Florida events. I think they do it with the Ams also, MA40, MA55 and MA70.

I started doing that last year with a lot of my local events. MA40 and MA55. It really makes it nicer from an administrative standpoint. On an easy course with a max of 72 players, I get tired of having divisions of 4 people. I switched to the 15-year increment and saw a much better distribution of division sizes. I'm not sure if the players were all that happy, though. I think the MA40s were grumpy that their best player finally graduated to MA50, but with the new splits he was gonna be forced to drop back to MA40 and kick their butts again.