This x1000
-
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)
Naming of divisions
- Thread starter Smigles
- Start date
This x1000
Rig...really? smh.. I would suggest taking a sample of the age protected players with lower ratings (that play in alot of tournaments per year) and see how they feel. As I said before, after playing in 100+ tournaments this was a recurring theme. "Why don't the better players have their own division?" The guys that win will still always win, that won't change. But it will provide a better experience for the lower rated guys who will now possibly enjoy the experience of being on lead / chase cards, once in a while. I just don't see how anyone can say this would not provide a better experience for those players. Oh well, I do appreciate the dialog.
If you think 2 guys both 50 years old, one rated 800, the other rated 940 competing in the same division is fair all around (for amateurs) , well we agree to disagree.
We do.
The guy rated 800 aspires to be the world champion, the best in the world, of......what?
puttlikeablowfly
Birdie Member
Sign me up ... *checks PDGA site and sees current rating is above 850 for the first time ever* ... dangit!
I guess I'm a nobody *insert joke here*
Seriously, this came up in the "old farts" thread, but I wouldn't be opposed to having an opportunity to play in something like Rec Masters. I understand the drawbacks, and I'm not going to send angry letters to the PDGA asking for it. I'm Masters eligible with a noodle arm (and as shown above, a rating near the Novice/Rec cutline) and mainly play in tournaments for fun and social interaction. I almost always play Rec rather than MA40, but not because I don't want to play with my fellow middle agers, or even care so much about trying to "cash". Around here, most tournaments are played on courses with multiple tees, and most use the long tees for MA40 (and MA50) for half or all of the rounds. The distances from the long tees are such that even if I have a pretty good tee shot (for me), I'd rarely have a reasonable birdie chance. I'd still have lots of 60-120' NAGS (Not A Golf Shot, for those unfamiliar with Houck's lingo) left. I'm not expecting that I should be able to birdie every hole, but if my opportunities are rare even with a good shot, it's just not as much fun. From the short tees, I at least have that chance on many more holes.
Sometimes I'm still tempted to play MA40 just to mix it up and play with different people. The TD of the popular local tourney series also knows that I'm always up for playing on a mixed card in round 1 when the numbers require it. Put me with juniors, ladies, MA60, whoever. Great! I get to meet more people playing a game that we all enjoy. I obviously don't mind playing in MA3. Sure, I can see why some people may not enjoy playing with players that might not know all the rules or disc golf etiquette perfectly, or take it all that seriously, although there are certainly people in MA1 that still don't know or care about all of the rules. However, I also enjoy seeing people play in their first ever tournament, who may be newer to the game, and were a little anxious about signing up. They're probably worried about the reactions from people like some who have responded in this thread. Yeah, there are jerks everywhere, in every division, and they can be dealt with appropriately ... they're not just restricted to MA3. It's a game, folks. Let's have some fun.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Run a ratings event limited to players over age 39 where ams/pros, men/women all play in their ratings color bracket or higher. Would need to be X-tier status where pros who cashed in any color divisions would actually receive cash prizes and ams get merch credit. Pro entrants wouldn't get player packs if provided to Ams except for free items. Entry fee the same for everyone. If any cash added, it's spread evenly among all divisions based on proportion of division size.
This format supports the social preference among older players to not compete with younger players and the social preference of women of any age to not play in groups with young men/boys. It's my experience that women over age 39 do not outright reject playing with men over 39 if that's what they need to do for fair competition. In fact, many seem to enjoy the challenge. Note that this format finesses the transgender issue for players over age 39 because your gender does not matter.
This format supports the social preference among older players to not compete with younger players and the social preference of women of any age to not play in groups with young men/boys. It's my experience that women over age 39 do not outright reject playing with men over 39 if that's what they need to do for fair competition. In fact, many seem to enjoy the challenge. Note that this format finesses the transgender issue for players over age 39 because your gender does not matter.
Can you put an age limit on players, outside of offering only age-protected divisions?
Will the PDGA sanction that?
Will the PDGA sanction that?
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
X-tier permission.
Around here, the 40+ pro guys are usually 890-915. The 50+ guys are veterans and are 940-970. The 50+ guys usually move down to the 40+ division, even if both divisions have a full field.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Pretty much anything goes to easily get X-tier approval. It's whether the format would produce ratings is usually the question. My proposed format is normal medal play under PDGA rules so no problem producing ratings. Ams are not getting paid cash and pros are. The only restriction is age and we have Master and older player Majors already.
The 800 guy is having a blast hanging out with guys his own age, playing a sport he loves. He knows he is never going to be the best in the world or beat the higher rated guys. Now, all of a sudden...tell him he has a chance to be the best in a group of similar rated players, that are STILL in his same age group, he's not only having fun, but he's thinking, maybe for the 1st time in his career he has a chance to place much higher. This gives the player a new found excitement, I don't see how you don't think this a good thing for ams to experience.
Now the old dude rated 900-940+, sure those guys are in it to win it and truly aspire to be the best locally, regionally, in the world, etc. With the proposal I am making, nothing will change for that player...at all.
Not in a world championship. That's not a championship of anything, just a win among peers. Note that the 800 rated younger guy doesn't get that chance, either---there's no world championship for him. He can play AmWorlds in a division where he has no chance of winning, but have fun and try to beat as many people as he can.
Should disc golf grow thirtyfold so that there are tournaments for specific divisions---an Intermediate tournament, an MP50 tournament, and so on---that are filling, so enough players, the PDGA can revisit splitting divisions for regular tournaments.
I'll sidenote that I have firsthand experience. I'm 60; no tournaments this year so I've never played older than the MA50 division. My rating has crashed, currently 854 but that's only bolstered by some old rounds; I'm playing about 830 golf these days. So you're talking about people like me.
As demonstrated earlier, this was tried about a decade ago, in both regular tournaments and some "championships", and wasn't popular. I don't see it working any better today. At some point, people like me have to face the fact: I can play among people I can beat, or I can play with my age group, but I'm not entitled to demand both.
Should disc golf grow thirtyfold so that there are tournaments for specific divisions---an Intermediate tournament, an MP50 tournament, and so on---that are filling, so enough players, the PDGA can revisit splitting divisions for regular tournaments.
I'll sidenote that I have firsthand experience. I'm 60; no tournaments this year so I've never played older than the MA50 division. My rating has crashed, currently 854 but that's only bolstered by some old rounds; I'm playing about 830 golf these days. So you're talking about people like me.
As demonstrated earlier, this was tried about a decade ago, in both regular tournaments and some "championships", and wasn't popular. I don't see it working any better today. At some point, people like me have to face the fact: I can play among people I can beat, or I can play with my age group, but I'm not entitled to demand both.
Why not, all of the other divisions are based on ratings. But my main interest is not worlds, I will concede to that.
With all due respect, I'm not talking about players who only play a few tournaments a year. My first hand experience with the am grandmaster division (over 100 tournaments) has lead me to this conclusion based on player feedback. The only time I ever hear anything remotely negative about this proposal is once in a while someone says "nah, I don't want the field to be smaller and affect payouts."
But..the conversation has run it's course, thank you for your feedback, I appreciate it.
And I will concede that outside of Worlds, it's just an issue of having enough players. I was originally quoted from a comment I made specifically about worlds.
Perhaps some of the mega tournaments (Bowling Green, etc.) have fields large enough that the age-protected divisions could be further subdivided by rating, providing the opportunity you seek and enough players in each subdivision to be worthwhile. As might some of the Masters-only events.
(P.S. I used to play a lot more tournaments; I've played at least 50 in age-protected divisions, myself. It's just the last 2 or 3 years I haven't, which is why I have old rounds still in my ratings).
I'm just wondering when the definitions of "competition" and "tournament" got watered down to mean "everybody gets to play with who they want, and only compete against people they deem fair to compete against"
The thing is - I don't begrudge anybody choosing their preferred card for a casual round, or a tag round with bets, or hell even a PDGA League (since divisions are mostly pointless there anyway). However the participation trophy mentality around disc golf TOURNAMENTS is really silly. Ams expect to get more than they paid in, people are unhappy if they're not the favorite to win a 4-person division, etc.
Rather than constantly trying to re-define a word that people understand globally, maybe some golfers should ask themselves if tournament competition is really for them? There's so many more avenues to compete at the level of seriousness that you desire, maybe a PDGA sanctioned event isn't the right place if you need so many accommodations...
The thing is - I don't begrudge anybody choosing their preferred card for a casual round, or a tag round with bets, or hell even a PDGA League (since divisions are mostly pointless there anyway). However the participation trophy mentality around disc golf TOURNAMENTS is really silly. Ams expect to get more than they paid in, people are unhappy if they're not the favorite to win a 4-person division, etc.
Rather than constantly trying to re-define a word that people understand globally, maybe some golfers should ask themselves if tournament competition is really for them? There's so many more avenues to compete at the level of seriousness that you desire, maybe a PDGA sanctioned event isn't the right place if you need so many accommodations...
`cjc
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 569
Absolutely. Your post sums up my frustration with disc golf tournaments and the PDGA in generally.
My suggestion: Men, Women, Am Men, Am women.
Plus the age restricted masters at 50 years old.
But,
Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk
Putt for D'oh
Double Eagle Member
#70 this year with the play-in games.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Winning NCAA March Madness is not really much better than the NIT because #1 in College B-Ball is like winning MA1 versus the NBA title. And winning the NIT is more like MA2. Should we ignore winners of Division 2 and 3 B-ball titles? Is winning a High School State championship like winning MA3 or MA4 in an A-tier?
While winning something called the World Title in any sport should probably be reserved for only the top open pro level, and really have competitors from around the world, not primarily the U.S., there's certainly a place for other kinds of championships that bring together the best in some category however you slice it whether by age, gender, country, Pro/Am (suspect), league level and even ratings.
Winning a competition for the Red level title, and repeating, is more of an accomplishment than most of the other slices because everyone in that competition is verified to be at your skill level that year, presuming no one below red level is allowed to enter that division. And if limited to age 40+, there are likely few if any phenoms quickly rocketing up the skill ladder on their way to white, blue and beyond. And fully agree there's no need to call it a World title, just a Championship moniker of some sort.
