Older Players

[sisyphus]

http://www.discgolfunited.com/disc-golf-tournaments/event-detail.cfm/tourn_id/4458

I would definitely like to see more age-protected events like this.

Kind of a regional response, but Ken Harbaugh's No Kids Allowed event (near Dayton, OH) is going into its third year, and moving up to a B-tier due to increasing participation.

And of course, Bill Griffith is inaugurating a 50+ Class Reunion this summer in Kent, OH.

Just Spreading the Word!

 

[IVER]

Iowa

Come play the US Masters in Des Moines Iver, we have an Advance Legends division with 2 already signed up.

Sorry, been to Iowa....it is not a state....it is a condition!
See, I am ornery. Still I think, "if they build (offer) it they will come" applies here.

 

[IVER]

By the way, " Sisyphus", is a great handle. I contemplated, "Rosinante" as mine (Don Quoite's horse). Either is good for dealing with the PDGA.

 

[Major Tomahawk]

The PDGA doesn't run the tourneys, so no sense in contacting them. The best thing that you can do is to contact the TD of any tourney that you want to play and ask them for your desired division. My brother, Rob Lee, has been doing just that lately. There are some TDs that won't budge, while other TDs are receptive to the idea of adding older divisions. Keep sending the emails well in advance of the tourney and you may get better success. If you have friends that are having the same problems, have them send similar emails. It couldn't hurt. I'll be contacting a TD for the End of the Trail tourney which is later this summer. The tourney has never had a Sr. GM division and I'm hoping he adds one. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

[KniceZ]

I dont want some 90 years old with a -30 handicap win against pros just cause of the handicap rule.

Didn't read the post. I would not suggest handicap for PRO events or even upper (B Tier or higher) AM events. But why not try it for some local small events.

 

[IVER]

World AM Doubles

Need other old farts to write the TD for this tournament (Mt Vernon, TX in June) requesting at least Legend offered.

 

[Lazerface]

If you ask a TD "If at least 4 legends eligible players show up will you open a division for us" and they say "No" I think that is crazy.

If less then 4 show up I don't think there should be a division and would not fault the TD. I don't think you need anyone else to reach out. Just get the TDs word a division will open then try to find 3 other old farts to attend.

 

[Steve West]

I think you'd have better luck if the older players who were asking have already signed up, even if they have to sign up for younger divisions. That's the only way to prove there will actually be enough.

 

[The Shide]

FYI - you only need 3 players to form a division.

 

[DavidSauls]

FYI - you only need 3 players to form a division.

J.A Tournament Director may, by giving adequate public notice, restrict the divisions offered. Absent such notice, the Tournament Director shall offer for competition any division which has four or more players that are eligible and wishing to compete. Tournament Directors may offer divisions with less than four players at their discretion.

 

[da Crippler]

I think you'd have better luck if the older players who were asking have already signed up, even if they have to sign up for younger divisions. That's the only way to prove there will actually be enough.

No. We should be telling TDs that if they don't offer age protected divisions, we will not attend. It's no skin off their noses if they offer them or not, so there is no excuse for not offering every age group. We shouldn't have to ask. If there are not enough players for a division, give us the option of playing in a younger division, or allow us a withdrawal and refund.

 

[Steve West]

No. We should be telling TDs that if they don't offer age protected divisions, we will not attend. It's no skin off their noses if they offer them or not, so there is no excuse for not offering every age group. We shouldn't have to ask. If there are not enough players for a division, give us the option of playing in a younger division, or allow us a withdrawal and refund.

Of course you're right that they should offer all divisions. Sometimes you can find all the divisions when you actually register, but they don't list them all on the flyer.

As or me, the downside of signing up then asking for an older division is that I play with younger players. Not a bad outcome.

The downside of holding out until they acknowledge that I have the right to be treated just like everyone else by having them cater to my every special need, is that I might not play. A bad outcome.

 

[DavidSauls]

I disagree with the blanket statement that TDs should always offer all divisions, or that it's "no skin off their noses" to do so. I've seen all sorts of reasons why a TD might limit divisions. Among those that come to mind:

---We run a tournament on a tough private course with one set of tees and some long water carries. We restrict divisions because the course isn't suitable for all, and because it would be considerable skin off our noses to retrofit it with shorter tees, and alter the course maps and scorecards, to accommodate everyone.

---We used to run a single-elimination, match play tournament where it was only practical to have very large divisions. Therefore, we limited it to Pro & Advanced.

---Some events prepare customized trophies for winners of each division. It's not practical to prepare them for every possible division, in the event that enough players show up. (Though I once convinced a TD of such an event to add my division....and then won it. Sigh.)

---All things being equal, it's simpler running an event with fewer divisions. The scoreboard, payout calculations, and awards are easier to manage.

---It's also extra work taking registrations in divisions that are very unlikely to reach a minimum, so that on the morning of the event, with everything else going on, we have to hold up things to gather those isolated-division players, consult, and move them to other divisions.

---Sometimes a TD just has ideas on how he wants to structure an event, within the flexibility granted by the PDGA, and after all, he's the one doing the work.

---And probably a whole lot more that don't come to mind at the moment.

I'm generally in favor of a TD offering divisions of choice for all players. But for low-volume divisions, I think it's much better for the players to communicate among themselves, and with the TD, than to expect or demand concessions. It's a lot better if the TD has reason to believe that there will actually be sufficient number of players to warrant that division.

Sidebar story: In the early days at Stoney Hill we offered Pro Women, but not Am women. When one of the latter called and asked for a division, I hemmed and hawed and hedged and told her I wasn't sure they could play the water carries. So 5 of them came out, played the course, attested that they were fine with playing it as it was, so we added that division, and have ever since. But we still don't offer lower women's divisions, men's novice, any juniors, or ages above senior grandmasters.

The funny thing was that, at the tournament, there was a roaring headwind on one of the water carry holes. While some of the men, including myself, blew up on that hole, none of the Advanced Women did.

 

[Steve West]

I disagree with the blanket statement that TDs should always offer all divisions,

Good points. By "offer" I was just thinking it would be nice to give everyone a place to sign up, with the idea that any that didn't get 4 or more would be collapsed into other divisions.

 

[DavidSauls]

I agree that that is the best practice, in most situations.

Most TDs want I know want to be inclusive as possible (unless there are particular factors to affect the decision).

Nonetheless, I still recommend players in low-population divisions work together to find events where they can coordinate and attend in sufficient numbers, and where presumably the TD will oblige.

 

[corin_brown]

Disc golfers and their desire to be catered to. . .

Go on... opcorn:

 

[corin_brown]

The PDGA doesn't run the tourneys, so no sense in contacting them.

If someone doesn't like how a PDGA-sanctioned event is being run, it doesn't make sense to contact the organization who is sanctioning the event? Really? Please explain.

Frankly, I don't see why the PDGA doesn't require all PDGA sanctioned events to offer registration for all divisions. What's the upside of TD's and the PDGA giving the finger to so many marginalized players who want to play in a PDGA sanctioned event?

I also like the argument of some of the "suck it up" brigade that the cost of making a trophy for a division that might not go claimed is just too high - like disc golf trophies are bigger than The Stanley Cup or as if each trophy is fabricated out of spun gold by Tiffany & Co.

Based on every single trophy I've ever seen at dozens of PDGA events, as a player in an always popular division, I would have no problem with a portion of my fee going to subsidize the cost of producing the same POS trophies for a few more under-registered or non-registered divisions, just so everyone can play in their correct division. We can't be talking more much more than $5 a trophy.

But nah, let's go on nickel-and-diming ourselves to death, while pissing off a bunch of older players and younger juniors in the process. Much better plan.

 

[DavidSauls]

Frankly, I don't see why the PDGA doesn't require all PDGA sanctioned events to offer registration for all divisions. What's the upside of TD's and the PDGA giving the finger to so many marginalized players who want to play in a PDGA sanctioned event?

Would that dictate cut both ways? No Junior-only events? No Women's events? No Masters-Up events (all divisions over 40)? Pro-only? Am-only?

The PDGA makes the default that all divisions are available, giving the TD the option to require a minimum of 4 players per division. But it also gives the flexibility for TDs to experiment in all sorts of ways.

So if you'd like to try an event with no age-protected divisions---everyone plays their rating---try it. If you want to offer just Advanced & Rec, or Intermediate & Novice (bouncing those 935+ ams to Open), try it. For those left out, there are other events. Or---as always---they can be TDs and run events themselves, the way they think will work.

Heck, they can run a Legends-only tournament, if they want.

I commend the PDGA for giving us a good structure, and the flexibility to experiment within it.

P.S. If that "so many" players were really so many, TDs would be catering to them.

 

[corin_brown]

Would that dictate cut both ways? No Junior-only events? No Women's events? No Masters-Up events (all divisions over 40)? Pro-only? Am-only?

Lol Sounds like you're a big "hey, if they can have women only events why can't we have men only events?" guy.

Seriously though, you know damn well there's a big difference between making a senior grandmaster compete against people 30+ years younger than they are in a C-Tier and running a tournament just for kids. "Cut both ways" give me a break.

The PDGA makes the default that all divisions are available, giving the TD the option to require a minimum of 4 players per division. But it also gives the flexibility for TDs to experiment in all sorts of ways.

I'd consider supporting the PDGA granting flexibility to TD's who force senior citizens to compete against players decades younger than them if I thought the TD's would be doing so for any other reason than to save themselves the cost of ordering a few more of the cheapest trophies ever made - a dollar amount that I'm certain wouldn't exceed much more than the cost of a new vaping pen.

Again, I'd like to repeat that I'd be willing, as a registered player, to take on the added cost of "catering" to any senior grandmasters who wanted to play in their own division. I think I'd be able to handle the extra $1-3 hit to my bankroll.

So if you'd like to try an event with no age-protected divisions---everyone plays their rating---try it. If you want to offer just Advanced & Rec, or Intermediate & Novice (bouncing those 935+ ams to Open), try it. For those left out, there are other events. Or---as always---they can be TDs and run events themselves, the way they think will work.

Again, if I thought the TD's withheld offering registration in particular divisions for some cool reason, such as the reasons you have listed above, and not because they are just too effing cheap to order three more $5 lucite trophies, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

Heck, they can run a Legends-only tournament, if they want.

Ok. So what? Sounds like you wanna make a market forces argument here.

I commend the PDGA for giving us a good structure, and the flexibility to experiment within it.

I love the PDGA. I'd be hard pressed to find an organization that does more with a budget so small. Love their tournaments, love the ratings, love the web site. I'm happy I play in such a popular division.

P.S. If that "so many" players were really so many, TDs would be catering to them.

Oh, we're playing the "P.S." game now? Ok.

P.S. the "so many" includes all the players from all divisions who are forced to play out of their division, not just the senior grandmasters.

P.P.S And implying that market forces and the tyranny of the masses should dictate completely the running of PDGA-sanctioned events is fine if the PDGA wasn't a non-profit, which it is.

P.P.P.S. When it comes to the OP and others like him, if the TD's weren't so cheap, "TD's would be catering to them."

P.P.P.P.S. I love how registering and playing in a PDGA event, in a division outlined by the PDGA, is now called being "catered to." Thank god I'm not a senior grandmaster.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm a senior grandmaster next year.

I don't know where the $5 trophy argument comes from.