Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members

"Masters vs. Open Grudge Match" Options
bobherb
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2007 8:06:47 AM

Rank: Elite Veteran

Joined: 8/10/2004
Posts: 445
I am compromising this year.
The past 2 years I played strictly Masters.
This year I am playing Open CCS tourneys and Masters PDGA tourneys.
My player rating the past 4 years has moved from 966 to 992.
Not too bad for a 47 year old to actually improve in player rating.
The rating will likely be coming down though, due to some poor rounds this Spring.

John, you mentioned the 1 day Ky. States tourney and made a general observation - fair enough...
Next, look at the 2 day Disc n' Dat tourney and note the scores. Please let us know your observation?

BTW, at the Idlewild CCS I will be gunning for the youngsters... HA-HA.
finnhawc
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2007 8:14:14 AM

Rank: Elite Veteran

Joined: 1/16/2007
Posts: 906
Location: Wyoming
As a matter of fact I made a specific observation, but I will look at the A tier in question even though that has nothing to do with the local C tiers which is what us whiners have been talking about over and over. :angel
bobherb
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2007 8:43:47 AM

Rank: Elite Veteran

Joined: 8/10/2004
Posts: 445
So, you admit you are a whiner?

I will tell you, I shot an 82 that last Disc n' Dat round after shooting a 68 the first day.
I do notice a lack of gas in my tank on the second day of a 2-day tourney.
This is partly my own fault for just sitting too much.
Cooler temperatures are very welcome and make a difference in my performance.

When I was in my 30's and early 40's I was much more consistent.

If ratings were in place in 1992-1995, I would likely have been about a 1020 rated player. I was playing in A-tiers and cashing among (usually behind) the ranks of Climo, Moser, Valencia, etc.
If local players are dissatisfied with local tourney turnouts, they should do some more traveling to bigger tourneys and test the waters with the truly top players in the country.
I am satisfied playing within the tri-state. There are plenty of great tourneys, even a couple A-tiers.
Everyone should find their niche within the PDGA (or outsde the PDGA if they desire) and just try to enjoy the game... I enjoy it! I hope you can too.
finnhawc
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2007 9:03:35 AM

Rank: Elite Veteran

Joined: 1/16/2007
Posts: 906
Location: Wyoming
Sarcasm Bob-I haven't whined at all. I've merely made my opinions, listened to others, and responded to these honestly. Perhaps, if you listened better you would notice the points I (and others) have made about letting local competition thrive by getting to a tougher division.(Again as I've said repeatedly) Dissatisfaction is inevitable in the game of perfect: scores, shots, putts, lie, wheater. It is the struggle with imperfection that makes this game so interesting. BTW your ball golf example is a great case study- touring pros cash-local pros teach. Disc Golf will hit critical mass at some point in the near future where shear numbers will allow for more $ at local events. Who knows maybe enough to make a living playing a game...
Ben Shooner
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2007 9:10:20 AM

Rank: Veteran

Joined: 9/16/2003
Posts: 248
Quote:
Craig - 6/14/2007 4:54 AM
I would rather play a NT with 100 guys that are supposed to woop my *ss (Ratings), then win a C-tier with 5 or 6 people in my division. The bigger fields are always fun cause your scores will be competing with someone.


Bingo! This is why BG ams is such a fantastic tournament...that one 10 footer you missed, or that sweet drive that you nailed could move you up or down 15 spots in the standings. The bigger the field, the more importance of each stroke-and the more fun. Donating to the CCS Open division this year is a pittance compared to the total amount that participating in this game has cost our household in recent years...even with a few stellar performances by my lovely wife-it's hardly an income. It's not just the entry fees-it's gas, food, lodging, etc...and it really adds up if you regularly play in tournaments.

The CCS is great because it gives me the chance to play against the best in the city-hopefully learn from them-possibly compete with them-and all the while donate only about 5% of what I'd have to pay to get my arse whooped by those same guys (and others) in sanctioned play.

In the spirit of this weekend's US Grand Prix-It's better to run at the back of the field with the Minardis in F1, than it is to run away with the race in GP2.

STEVO
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2007 9:23:25 AM
Rank: Veteran

Joined: 3/10/2003
Posts: 228
"For the good of the game"....Pete and others keep using this as the reasoning for doing SOMETHING to the Masters division: Getting rid of it, funneling money away from it, forcing its best players to play in a division they may not want to....I'm not exactly sure at this point.

1. Do away with the division- Let's see, if you have a tournament that has, say, 30 Open and 20 Masters (a typical breakdown of PDGA events), what if you eliminate the Masters division? My educated guess- 6 to 8 Masters aged players would go ahead and play Open because they either are competitive enough, are trying to earn points for some other reason (USDGC qual., etc.), or simply feel that their entry fee is for the entertainment value of the tournament, and anything more is a bonus. Fair enough. My point is, 12-14 PEOPLE WOULD STAY HOME! Someone please explain to me how reducing participation at my sample tournament from 50 to 38 is "for the good of the game". Forget about me, someone please explain to the sponsors how that would be good for them and their investment! Remember, Pete and other TD's (please correct me if I'm wrong), the sponsors must realize on some level that NO ONE IS WATCHING YOU GUYS PLAY other than some of the rest of the players themselves.

2. Give most or all of the added money to the Open division- Yeah, after all, you want to incentivise the best to play against the best in what is clearly the elite division, right? So, How's that working out for you?? Those aforementioned high-rated old guys just keep picking and choosing their divisions, and they wind up playing Masters (or Grandmasters) at the sport's biggest events, don't they?. Again, How is that "for the good of the game"? The problem is, just as the added money is increasing in our sport, so too are the entry fees. These guys that are supposedly chasing the money are also considering that, if they have to pay $100-200 just to enter the tournament, then yes, they are going to want a reasonable chance to "cash". Unfortunately, the entry fees have to keep getting higher to achieve bigger purses because NO ONE IS WATCHING US PLAY other than the rest of the players themselves.

I've expressed some ideas already on previous posts (read up the thread), and I think they would more than alleviate the so-called "problem" between the divisions. As far as Bob is concerned, the disparity in entry fees between Open and Masters increased for the CCS this year and, lo and behold, Bob and other old guys are now playing Open....maybe THAT is "for the good of the game"!
2Timer
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2007 9:42:27 AM
Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 3/30/2006
Posts: 372
Location: Ameila, Oh
Don't worry guys the ratings based route will be here shortly. The PDGA is implementing this in the U.K. for 2008 to work out the kinks, then they will bring it here to the U.S.

"Over here in the UK, we're implementing strict ratings-based divisions for 2008, with protected divisions only available in Amateur, and that includes women... "

End of Discussion!

BDGA National Director
Neil Webber
matthew_blakely
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2007 9:43:53 AM
Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 2/27/2003
Posts: 464
This isn't going to happen, and it is just my opinion.

There is a big difference between advanced and open.
There is a smaller difference between masters and open.
Age does not determine skill.

There should be 2 pro divisions that have little or no restrictions to playing them.
Pro
Pro2 (semi-pro) whatever you want to call it.

Advanced players could than move up, & not be forced to play against the best just yet. They would get a little more learning and fine tuning from some pro's that are getting older and don't want to play open also. Why? I see way to many young people pratically quit this sport becuase they run out of a division to play.

Pro2 should be limited like we are talking about masters. Lower entry fees and maybe a small portion of added cash.
There will still be bagging but it could happen across the board. A young guy can do it too. I would pay 50 of the field and pay kind of flat.
Maybe put a ratings cap, but maybe not. If we don't reward as well, than maybe the really good players with higher ratings will play where they know they still have a chance and can get rewarded real well.

Pro Women would still have there division, and I think maybe condense some of the elderly players into bigger groups. Grandmasters 55 and up, Legends 67 and up,

Just an opinion that will probably never happen.
STEVO
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2007 12:49:51 PM
Rank: Veteran

Joined: 3/10/2003
Posts: 228
Ah, the ratings system, nice! Gonna compel top women to adhere to that also? Why not? To do otherwise would be sex discrimination. I mean, Rob J. pointed out that he and Des Reading have virtually the same rating, meaning (according to purists) that she can beat him 50% of the time, and likewise. So what the he11 is the difference between the two? Oh, that's right, he's a dastardly old man who has no excuse for his rating, and she's just a "defenseless woman". :smile

And Matt, you said that you believe age has no bearing on skill, so I'm sure you have a good explanation for the huge difference in average ratings between those under 40 and those over....

Another question for you, my young compadre: Since you have so generously opined (look it up) that us Pro2/Masters types deserve only "a small portion of added money", who are you going to ask to support tournament sponsors? :think

Quick quiz for those who think they are immune to the aging process: Name me one player of prominence who has reached the age of 55 and never played a "protected division". 50?
matthew_blakely
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2007 1:04:02 PM
Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 2/27/2003
Posts: 464
THere are not many if any players who have done that. The question I'll ask is why. Why aren't the really good old guys staying in open. THe incentive isn't there. Johnny Sias before this year rarely played in anything other than open. Rick voakes is the same way.
Fred Salaz & Steve Wisecup are both in better shape than me but are over 50.

Why did we go to 50 or 55. I even said in my post once you get that old I might cut you a break.

Why should bob herbert get to play in a protected division and not John finnegan, John Kuhns, Zach Nash, and others? Age? Skill says he is the better player, but he has a choice and they don't. It is not fair, and thats life.

I will do a little research to find average rating by age in are area of the players.

Sponsorship, The same people we are know, but we would be able to say look at are fields(will get bigger in my opinion. might take a little time but they would).

Women are a very small percentage like the really old guys 60 and up. I would probably leave them alone.

You might deserve a little more than a small amount, but if you do that you will have a lot of people playing down like you do in the masters division. Less risk still good reward is better than more risk more reward.


bobherb
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2007 1:32:31 PM

Rank: Elite Veteran

Joined: 8/10/2004
Posts: 445

Stevo, you are quite the writer!!! It is nice to be grouped together with another old man such as yourself.

In the PDGA and life in general, seniority has its privileges... and aches and pains as well.
Matt, just a few days ago you were telling me how bad I have been playing of late???
Was that meant to be motivational or what?

I perhaps detect a bit of envy.
Just give it time, you will get older and have a choice of divisions too - I am glad to have a choice.
Anyone who wants a choice will eventually have one - if they do not get burnt out and disgusted by seeing others have a choice and enjoying it.
I will wear my glasses Saturday to ward off the GREEN GLOW (even though I will be playing Open).

John, I hope you are right about the sport getting huge, but there are many other games' participants hoping the same for their game. Right now, we are playing mostly for each others entry fees.

 

Good luck to everyone and have a good time playing for the BIG BUCKS.

Rob J
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2007 8:10:08 PM

Rank: Elite Veteran

Joined: 3/1/2003
Posts: 461
Location: Indianapolis
Quote:
matthew_blakely - 6/15/2007 12:43 PM

This isn't going to happen, and it is just my opinion.

There is a big difference between advanced and open.
There is a smaller difference between masters and open.
Age does not determine skill.



Matt, as someone who recently moved 'up' from Advanced to Masters
i can tell you there is much less difference between the top 25% of
Advanced and the top 25% of Masters at local PDGA events than there
is between Open and Advanced. If you win Advanced you are in the top 3 of
Pro Masters back when i was playing, and while i never won a PDGA Advanced
event, i realized that i'd rather cash as a Pro Master for the same score in
Advanced that would merely get me some plastic or for the same score in
Open that would get me zilch. Compare the Masters players not in the top 1/4 --
that means the bottom 75% of Masters and you can see they are pretty much
donating if they play PDGA Open and remember too that they are getting older
(the body's muscles and bones, flexibility, and recovery time from injury actually
deteriorate with age -- believe it or not). if you argue they should play for plastic
once they get too old to keep up with you, then you must not realize how much
they don't need plastic in exchange for cash entry fees.

as long as you compare the scores of the best (bagger) Masters with Open you will
continue making a case for something that is going to push the majority of Pro Masters
out of PDGA play. If you want to make a rating level at which you *must* play Open --
(say 975 at a C tier, 985 at as B tier, and 995 at an A tier) then maybe we can agree...
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

YAFPro Theme Created by Jaben Cargman (Tiny Gecko)
Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.7 running under DotNetNuke.
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.