Well the PDGA elections are on, and for those of you who don't know, I'm running for the PDGA Board of Directors (I'm Mike Kernan #14304 by the way).


Just thought i'd let everyone see the post I made that got me banned in April from pdga.com. It was quoting one of their hypocrites, i mean moderators, a certain jeff lagrassa.

Here's the post in its entirety:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



After playing as the California player several times in the span of a few months at this weekly doubles, I questioned the rule to the organizer and was given a terse reply, so I stopped attending.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




That post was apparently truncated. The rest of that post said:

"...and then I went back to my job as a PDGA moderator where I do the exact same thing to people, i.e. ban people for questioning the organizers of the PDGA. My name is Jeff and I'm a complete hypocrite...just watch, I'll ban Mikey immediately for pointing this out on this completely useless BBS where I act as though everyone's life and the entire fate of Western civilization depends on me keeping it completely free of any sort of objectionable material, especially anything that QUESTIONS THE RULE OF THE ORGANIZERS!!!

No wonder Mikey doesn't attend PDGA events anymore, eh Jeff? Go F yourself. And the F stands for fun. Go Fun Yourself Jeff. See if you can have some Fun instead of being the latest PDGA stooge, I mean moderator!!!

Yes, everything I say is a joke, just like everything about disc golf is a joke, but GOD forbid anyone says anything that might harm our image around here, it might just upset us all just way too much. THANK GOD ALMIGHTY ON THIS MOST HOLIEST OF DAYS THAT OUR PDGA MODERATORS ARE NOT HYPOCRITES AT ALL BUT GOOD, HONEST, HARD-WORKING STOOGES (AND I MEAN THAT IN A NICE AND LOVING WAY) THAT KEEP THIS FORUM FREE OF ANY OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL!!!

THANK YOU JEFF FOR MAKING THE PDGA FORUM THE ONLY PLACE IN THE WORLD WHERE I AND MY KIDS CAN BE FREE OF ANY DRUG REFERENCES, ANY CONFLICT, ANY DISSENTION, ANY HUMOR, ANY NEW AND CREATIVE IDEAS!!! GOD BLESS YOU JEFF!!! THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE PDGA THAT MUCH MORE LIKE THAT PLACE WHERE COMMUNISTS RULE AND NO ONE THINKS DIFFERENTLY FROM THE OFFICIAL COMMUNIST PARTY MANIFESTO!!! IT REALLY IS A PERFECT PLACE!!! YOU'RE THE BEST!



that was the entire post...think for yourselves, good PDGA voters!!!

Quote
Bluff Magee
Well the PDGA elections are on, and for those of you who don't know, I'm running for the PDGA Board of Directors (I'm Mike Kernan #14304 by the way).


Just thought i'd let everyone see the post I made that got me banned in April from pdga.com. It was quoting one of their hypocrites, i mean moderators, a certain jeff lagrassa.

Here's the post in its entirety:


Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm wondering what part about this is supposed to be inspirational. Where is the creativity you claim to be defending? I do see a lot of name calling. And plenty of character assassination. Is there more Mikey? Is there any substance behind the ranting? I've read plenty of what you've had to say over the years - and there is always more crying than creativity. Not everybody that disagrees with PDGA policies acts as you do (in fact few do). So how about instead of playing the injured martyr - you give us some substance for why you should represent the rest of us on the BOD. You know - I'm all for stirring the pot - but being an A$$ just to be one isn't much of a platform.



After playing as the California player several times in the span of a few months at this weekly doubles, I questioned the rule to the organizer and was given a terse reply, so I stopped attending.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




That post was apparently truncated. The rest of that post said:

"...and then I went back to my job as a PDGA moderator where I do the exact same thing to people, i.e. ban people for questioning the organizers of the PDGA. My name is Jeff and I'm a complete hypocrite...just watch, I'll ban Mikey immediately for pointing this out on this completely useless BBS where I act as though everyone's life and the entire fate of Western civilization depends on me keeping it completely free of any sort of objectionable material, especially anything that QUESTIONS THE RULE OF THE ORGANIZERS!!!

No wonder Mikey doesn't attend PDGA events anymore, eh Jeff? Go F yourself. And the F stands for fun. Go Fun Yourself Jeff. See if you can have some Fun instead of being the latest PDGA stooge, I mean moderator!!!

Yes, everything I say is a joke, just like everything about disc golf is a joke, but GOD forbid anyone says anything that might harm our image around here, it might just upset us all just way too much. THANK GOD ALMIGHTY ON THIS MOST HOLIEST OF DAYS THAT OUR PDGA MODERATORS ARE NOT HYPOCRITES AT ALL BUT GOOD, HONEST, HARD-WORKING STOOGES (AND I MEAN THAT IN A NICE AND LOVING WAY) THAT KEEP THIS FORUM FREE OF ANY OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL!!!

THANK YOU JEFF FOR MAKING THE PDGA FORUM THE ONLY PLACE IN THE WORLD WHERE I AND MY KIDS CAN BE FREE OF ANY DRUG REFERENCES, ANY CONFLICT, ANY DISSENTION, ANY HUMOR, ANY NEW AND CREATIVE IDEAS!!! GOD BLESS YOU JEFF!!! THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE PDGA THAT MUCH MORE LIKE THAT PLACE WHERE COMMUNISTS RULE AND NO ONE THINKS DIFFERENTLY FROM THE OFFICIAL COMMUNIST PARTY MANIFESTO!!! IT REALLY IS A PERFECT PLACE!!! YOU'RE THE BEST!



that was the entire post...think for yourselves, good PDGA voters!!!

Mike, others might not agree with me, but you are a God. 84 posts about you on a thread just about you when you can't even post yourself is amazing. Keep up the good work. Hell, you have been banned for a while and they still talk about you,,, with your own darn thread.

Terry Zeringue

Terry, did we get drunk and have sex that I forgot about? because it's usually just satisfied women that tell me I'm a god. :):):):)

Anyway, have any of y'all read that thread and seen the moderators continue their personal vendetta against me? is it any wonder i've heard at least 50 former PDGA members tell me they'd vote for me...if they were still members?

Sorry, Mike can't be a god - he plays way to slow :)

How bout it Mike - why is it you want to be on the BOD when you think they're all a bunch of schmucks? How would you go about affecting change after treating the BOD as you have? It will undoubtedly take some creativity - I haven't voted yet - so share some of your supporter's comments as to why you'd be a good BOD candidate.

you got it craiger. i'll answer your questions one at a time.

How bout it Mike - why is it you want to be on the BOD when you think they're all a bunch of schmucks?

I don't think all of them are schmucks, and, we'll have at least 3 brand-new members after this election, so it's very likely that the PDGA will turn immediately for the better once the new board sits down. I mean, could the new board do any worse?


How would you go about affecting change after treating the BOD as you have?

The same way I always do...stand up and voice my opinion, no matter how controversial. If that means telling the BOD that they're screwing up disc golf by hiking membership dues, or screwing up disc golf by banning non-members from asking simple questions at Discussion, or screwing up disc golf by allowing Carlton Howard to keep his job as chair of the Rules Committee, then I'll certainly speak up.

It will undoubtedly take some creativity - I haven't voted yet - so share some of your supporter's comments as to why you'd be a good BOD candidate.

Craiger, have you looked at my resume? Have you ever endured a year & half as President of a group of condo owners, let alone a group of condo owners trying to rebuild their homes in the midst of the third world metropolis of New Orleans after one of the worst hurricanes in recorded history? Trust me, I can work with people. I can get things done. I've helped get our homes re-built and managed to get the Association's finances in order simultaneously...and if you think the message board critics are tough you haven't seen condo owners when they voice their opinions on decisions that will affect their largest investment. I mean, 75 dollars is all that the message board critics have to lose, but i'm dealing with people with over $100 K on the line...managing the PDGA will be like a vacation in comparison.

There's Mike! Thanks for responding - I just posted on the other thread trying to get a response.
Yes I read your resume - working as a manager in the capacity you have stated is laudable, and undoubtedly difficult - but tells me little about what you believe is wrong w/the PDGA and how you'd change it.
Dues are great to talk about - are you aware why dues were raised in the first place?
What about divisions? How do you feel about the overlap in skill levels between MPO/MPM/M1O? Is it a problem or is status quo ok?
What about ratins and RB events? Any thoughts - general or specific?
Thanks in advance.
Craiger

Craig, if you'd be so kind, please post this for me over at PDGA.com. The most it would get you is a warning, and I think the voters should hear all the candidate's opinions.

Quote

Dues are great to talk about - are you aware why dues were raised in the first place?

Craig, please tell us all what the party line was on that one. As one of the 10,000 PDGA members who are not allowed to see in enough detail what our dues are spent on, I can't form an objective opinion of whether the dues hike is justified. I have a hunch that it wasn't really needed though, and I hear sooooooooooooo many people say they won't join or renew because they don't feel that the cost is worth it. Some argue that supporting the PDGA supports disc golf, but there's numerous other places to spend $75 that support disc golf much more.

Quote

What about divisions? How do you feel about the overlap in skill levels between MPO/MPM/M1O? Is it a problem or is status quo ok?

Quote


Detailed questions, detailed answers (read closely): I do not see any problem at all with the overlap in skill levels between MPO & MPM. I think the Masters age is perfect at 40 years old. If a 1000+ rated Master wants to play Masters, that is his choice and I absolutely do not see any reason to force any Master-eligible player to play Open.

Now as for the overlap in MPO & M10: I believe strongly that the PDGA should make it harder for anyone to play in the Open division on the PDGA tour (or at least on the NT or Majors). I believe that anyone wishing to play Open needs to at least pass the same test on the Rules of Play that PDGA Certified Officials must pass. To encourage sandbaggers to move up, TD's across the board probably need to stop handing out so many prizes to M10 winners. However, I do not believe that 1000+ rated M10's should be forced to play Open. If they want to stay ams, that's their choice. I'm sorry if that doesn't quite answer those questions...please follow up if it doesn't.

Quote

What about ratins and RB events? Any thoughts - general or specific?

Ratings are great...for entertainment purposes that is. I do not believe the PDGA should be using ratings to force any players to play in any certain division.

The Mid-Nationals being labeled a "PDGA Major" makes disc golf look like a joke. If elected I will attempt to eliminate the Mid-Nats "major" status immediately.

Quote
Bluff Magee

Quote

Dues are great to talk about - are you aware why dues were raised in the first place?

Craig, please tell us all what the party line was on that one. As one of the 10,000 PDGA members who are not allowed to see in enough detail what our dues are spent on, I can't form an objective opinion of whether the dues hike is justified. I have a hunch that it wasn't really needed though, and I hear sooooooooooooo many people say they won't join or renew because they don't feel that the cost is worth it. Some argue that supporting the PDGA supports disc golf, but there's numerous other places to spend $75 that support disc golf much more.

Well Mike - I'm sorry I don't have a party line to offer. I neither read, nor looked for the justification offered for the raising of our dues. I can imagine with the development of the IDGC and the relocation from Canada to Georgia, and the need to actually have full time paid staff, that there are are legitimate expenses to be dealt with. So while I might also cry foul if it appeared there were no reason at all, I'm not willing to assume that it's some big conspiracy.

Am I correct in understanding that you have tried and failed to acquire financial documents that are supposed to be available by request to any PDGA member? Or is that a misconception?

Quote

What about divisions? How do you feel about the overlap in skill levels between MPO/MPM/M1O? Is it a problem or is status quo ok?

Quote


Detailed questions, detailed answers (read closely): I do not see any problem at all with the overlap in skill levels between MPO & MPM. I think the Masters age is perfect at 40 years old. If a 1000+ rated Master wants to play Masters, that is his choice and I absolutely do not see any reason to force any Master-eligible player to play Open.

Now as for the overlap in MPO & M10: I believe strongly that the PDGA should make it harder for anyone to play in the Open division on the PDGA tour (or at least on the NT or Majors). I believe that anyone wishing to play Open needs to at least pass the same test on the Rules of Play that PDGA Certified Officials must pass. To encourage sandbaggers to move up, TD's across the board probably need to stop handing out so many prizes to M10 winners. However, I do not believe that 1000+ rated M10's should be forced to play Open. If they want to stay ams, that's their choice. I'm sorry if that doesn't quite answer those questions...please follow up if it doesn't.

On the contrary, it answers my questions directly. And I appreciate your candor - but could not disagree more. IMO - divisional organization for competitive events should be based on skill and nothing else. The whole "choice" factor inherent in the current system is a blight on competition. Be it 1000 rated MPM player,or otherwise - how you score should dictate where you play.

And while I am not a big fan of how the ratings are developed (ratings being based on who you play against instead of how you score against the course) - they are the first and only (somewhat) objective measure of skill that we've ever had. And at the very least - they provide a relative means to quantify skill groups.

Quote

What about ratins and RB events? Any thoughts - general or specific?

Ratings are great...for entertainment purposes that is. I do not believe the PDGA should be using ratings to force any players to play in any certain division.

The Mid-Nationals being labeled a "PDGA Major" makes disc golf look like a joke. If elected I will attempt to eliminate the Mid-Nats "major" status immediately.

Here's something we agree about - Mid Nats being a Major is pretty much a joke - but I feel the same way about Am Worlds. 1/2 those guys should be playing Open.

Quote
craiger

Am I correct in understanding that you have tried and failed to acquire financial documents that are supposed to be available by request to any PDGA member? Or is that a misconception?

I tried to obtain documentation beyond what the PDGA currently posts on its website, but was told by Decker that those vague documents are all that the PDGA feels they must share with a lowly proletariat member.

Craig, do you realize that I'm currently rated 947? Would it be fair if I was playing against other 947 rated players? I don't think so (I just finished a 60-hole event 6 strokes behind a couple of 1000+ rated players). Forcing players into a certain division based on a fluky rating system smacks of communism. And I'm not joking.

Not only that, if you force people to play in divisions based on a rating, you'll have some people TANK it just to lower their rating for the next event. And that's more of a "blight" than giving people a choice.

You're off your rocker...just as when you say I play slow. The only time when you & i played together was at USDGC, where you play one round a day, and the biggest purse in disc golf is on the line. Why would I rush...jumping to hasty conclusions appears easy for you, but some of us take our allotted time to think...try it some time. And remember, the group behind us never caught up to us anyway, ratings-lover.

As to your claim that 1/2 the players at Am worlds should be playing Open, you again display your ignorance. Give these people time to craft their game before they take on the likes of Climo & Rico...please.

Mikey,
Before we continue - let's agree on something. I will give you due respect in expressing your opinions by refraining from calling you names if I disagree, and you try and do the same. K?

As regards ratings - I stated plainly that I don't like the way they are formulated - so refering to me as "ratings lover" is what? An attempt to get me riled up? Please, you can do better than that. My main point about the current ratings system is..... that so far - there has not been any other effort to quantify skill level. And from that standpoint ALONE - ratings are the best and only thing we've got as a tool to determine where people should play in SANCTIONED COMPETITION.

Now - in an effort to change your mind about divisions (or at least give you a better understanding of where I'm coming from) I will appeal to your experience dealing with budgets. In doing so - you identify common factors (like known past expenditures) and evaluate them based on anticipated future expenditures. (is that fair?)

The same can be done with DG scores - and you can do it with virtually ANY/EVERY PDGA sanctioned event (or any unsanctioned event that uses similar divisional structures). By looking at past performances, scoring spreads, and what range of skill levels CURRENTLY occupy the divisions we have, we can get a pretty reasonable idea how those same players would perform in a larger group. Here's what I do and what I've found - take all men in MPM, MPO, and M1O and compare their scores - top to bottom. The top score in Open is usually between 5-10 strokes better than top Master for a 4 round event, and usually between 15-20 strokes better than top AM. However, at the bottom of the scale - the bottom Master is almost ALWAYS better than the bottom Open player, and there is usually between 50-70% of the advanced division better than the bottom open player. What this tells ME is that a significant %age of all men in these divisions are basically all shooting within the same range of scores, on the same course, at the same time. So separating them into divisions BY CHOICE instead of by RATING (or some other quantifiable method) is a competitve FARCE!
It is an artifial way to have more winners - and that's all it is.

Now - when you lump them all together what happens? The top Master gets a top 10 finish (most of the time) and gets a reward commensurate with his score compared to ALL his true peers (instead of the inflated reward he's used to getting). The top few AM's will usually cash (granted usually lower down) - and again will not be rewarded w/100's of $'s worth of booty compared to the guy in Open who usually gets nothing for shooting the exact same score. And a significant number of mid rated pros actually have a decent chance at cashing due to increased field size. The other thing that happens is that the mean rating required to cash goes down significantly, making the cut line that much more attainable for people rated in the mid 900's. I would think a guy rated 940-or 950 would be more apt to play knowing there are that many more cash spots to get - but we as a group are to busy coddling "special interest groups" to bother with just accepting there's only one guy who can be the best on any given day.

Whether you agree or not - the numbers don't lie - look at some yourself and let me know what you find! SO... while I may occasionally SIT in a rocker - I have never fallen off!! Not only that - but the conclusions I have reached in this instance are based on MANY years of observation, comparison, and calculation. So when it comes to THINKING before speaking - I would posit that you may benefit from your own advice.

As regards giving players "time to craft their game" before competing against the likes of Climo etc - how much time Mikey? I was given 2 tournaments. Not 2 months, or two years, or two chances at at AM World title, but 2 tournaments. So I don't have a lot of sympathy for the Am who can Tomahawk a disc 400' and putts like a banshee in casual rounds and sucks in tournaments. That guy isn't going to "craft his game" without exposing himself to those with skills he does not possess.

Please feel free to disagree all you like (It is America after all). If you are unable to do so and still be civil about it though - please don't bother responding at all.

Quote
Bluff Magee


I tried to obtain documentation beyond what the PDGA currently posts on its website, but was told by Decker that those vague documents are all that the PDGA feels they must share with a lowly proletariat member.

What sort of detail were you looking for that was unavailable?

Quote
Bluff Magee

Craig, do you realize that I'm currently rated 947? Would it be fair if I was playing against other 947 rated players? I don't think so (I just finished a 60-hole event 6 strokes behind a couple of 1000+ rated players). Forcing players into a certain division based on a fluky rating system smacks of communism. And I'm not joking.

Mike, I was unaware of your current rating, but looking at your ratings history, I see your rating has a high of 978, and a low of 921. So the fact that you've slipped a notch or to to hover around 950 makes me say I would have no issue with other 947 players being pitted against you.

Please explain in your mind why establishing a system of quantifying skill to determine divisional eligibility smacks of communism? Does everything that eliminates a choice become so? Doesn't eliminating one set of choices usually establish a new set of choices?

No matter, I have a feeling that we will just disagree on these points - that's fine. You can think that my thought process is flawed, ignorant or otherwise. But failing to acknowledge the shortcomings of our existing divisional structure makes you just another pdga status quo guy in my book. As such, I doubt any changes you might affect as part of the BOD would serve any interests I have. Good luck though - and thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Craiger

What sort of detail were you looking for that was unavailable?

I'd like to know down to the penny every last PDGA expenditure. Sure, that may be a @#$%& to reproduce, but that's what I want. Do you know how much Kennedy or Monroe or that Lynx guy made off the PDGA last year? Can you tell from the PDGA documents? I can't.



Please explain in your mind why establishing a system of quantifying skill to determine divisional eligibility smacks of communism? Does everything that eliminates a choice become so? Doesn't eliminating one set of choices usually establish a new set of choices?

But failing to acknowledge the shortcomings of our existing divisional structure makes you just another pdga status quo guy in my book.

Craiger

Craig, you said " IMO - divisional organization for competitive events should be based on skill and nothing else."

I took that to mean that you wouldn't give people a choice. I took that to mean that you'd only allow players to play in the division the PDGA chose for them (based on ratings which you admit are flawed!)...and that does smell like communism.

Do you not see that no matter what system, either ratings-based or the current one, you'll never be able to get this utopian fair play you speak of? That's a lot like communism too---it sounds fair on paper but in reality, it doesn't ever seem to work out well does it?

I haven't said that the current PDGA divisional system is perfect. I haven't said I won't vote to change it should I be given information that supports your position.

more to come in the next post...

It is an artifial way to have more winners - and that's all it is.

i disagree. saying that the last place master always places higher than the last place open means nothing

just because you Craig are over 40 and still have the skills to beat the best, does not mean that everyone over 40 does. don't even try to tell me that the average 45 year old can throw as far as the average 20 year old...you'll never convince me that the PDGA Masters age of 40 is not the correct age. Look, some people don't want to play with the Big Dogs...and I will never support a system that forces them to do so. I love big fields with lots of players in them, don't get me wrong---but you're simply dreaming if you think the average 950 rated player should be playing the same division as a 1000 rated player. If they want to, let 'em...don't force 'em.

was that civil enough for you? :)

Thanks Mike, perfectly civil :0

Since I've got you talking about it, lets go further.

If comparing scores from top to bottom isn't appropriate (because when I say including the bottom scores is just as valid a part of the comparison as comparing the top scores), what (in your mind) would be a more valid comparison? Because by only comparing the top scores, you basically ignore what WOULD BECOME the number of cash spots by assuming your forcing only one or two guys to "play up". My thoughts about divisions include options for different levels of competitive play. I would never purport to force someone to pay $100 entry fee. But if they are going to anyway - I have no qualms about forcing them to play in a more appropriate skill based division. Because ultimately, it isn't the PDGA determining their skill level, but their own past performances.

The way I see it - we've got a body of players all out there at the same time, playing the same course, under the same conditions, and largely all scoring within the same range. The current system says to those players - hey pick any of choices A, B, or C for what division you play in. I suggest that the overlap in scores, and inequities in rewarding those players are inadequate at BEST! Is it more unfair to make the 950 rated guy play against the Open field, or more unfair to give that 950 rated guy a new $300 pole hole while the Open guy with the same score gets nothing? Using some method to evaluate skill (instead of age as an example - because I am proof that age is not the appropriate way to separate players)as a means to separate divisions seems much more appropriate, don't you agree?

The impression you give me, is that if any form of divisional system other than total free choice is imposed, you would oppose it. If that's not true, please try evaluating ANY set of tournament scores, and tell me what you think. (More often than not - when having this discussion, people just ignore my suggestion to look at the numbers themselves - it's to much of a bother. I say NOT looking at the numbers keeps you ignorant of ACTUAL trends and overlaps inherent in the system. The result is that opinions aren't based on anything more than emotion.)

You say the average 950 rated player shouldn't have to play against 1000 rated player. If the ratings are even close to accurate -that 50 points rating differential equates to about 5 strokes per round. When you go look at ANY set of tournament scores, tell me what the average scoring differential is from top to bottom in AN EXISTING Open field. My observations put it between 10-18 strokes PER ROUND. So 5 strokes per round puts those 950 rated players right in the middle of the pack. Please look yourself, tell me what the #'s say to you!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2007 12:35PM by craiger.

Is it more unfair to make the 950 rated guy play against the Open field, or more unfair to give that 950 rated guy a new $300 pole hole while the Open guy with the same score gets nothing?

the former. look, it's not the PDGA's fault if a TD wants to give away a big prize like that. and although it disgusts me, i believe the PDGA currently allows a 950 rated pro to play advanced...ugh, my stomach just turned thinking about a pro playing advanced.

Using some method to evaluate skill (instead of age as an example - because I am proof that age is not the appropriate way to separate players)as a means to separate divisions seems much more appropriate, don't you agree?

i don't care how many times you rephrase the question, my answer is still the same.

if TD's would quit adding money to Masters and giving huge prizes to advanced, then you'd see more people playing Open.

but as a TD, i'm opposed to the PDGA telling me what i can & can't do with my payout, so i would never vote to legislate that. in more than 90% of tournaments i have ever run, i added $0 to the masters division to get more of them playing Open...but again although I do that personally, i won't force a TD to do that.

The impression you give me, is that if any form of divisional system other than total free choice is imposed, you would oppose it.

i do think the PDGA makes terrible mistakes when it forces TDs to do anything. It's the TD's who are doing all the volunteer work on their tournaments---why make it harder for the TD's? I think the PDGA needs to listen more to its TDs, not make more regulations for them. So yes, you are correct. One less vote for Mikey; one giant leap for PDGA TD's.

BTW i accept 100% your opinion of the numbers; it's just that my solution differs from yours. like you, i also want to see more players in Open, as i love big fields of Open players. but as an almost Master-age player, i know that there are some courses I can not compete with the youngsters at, and since i have a full-time job and my old body doesn't always function 100% like when I was 29, there's times when i really don't want to be forced to play Open.

Quote
Bluff Magee
Using some method to evaluate skill (instead of age as an example - because I am proof that age is not the appropriate way to separate players)as a means to separate divisions seems much more appropriate, don't you agree?

i don't care how many times you rephrase the question, my answer is still the same.

if TD's would quit adding money to Masters and giving huge prizes to advanced, then you'd see more people playing Open.

but as a TD, i'm opposed to the PDGA telling me what i can & can't do with my payout, so i would never vote to legislate that. in more than 90% of tournaments i have ever run, i added $0 to the masters division to get more of them playing Open...but again although I do that personally, i won't force a TD to do that.

There it is then isn't it - the conundrum.
The TD's need to have a certain amount of organizational freedom. While the PDGA needs to have a certain level of standards to be applied consistently for all it's sanctioned events. Where those concepts collide, balance needs to be applied that falls on the side of fairness. And this is where we apparently agree and disagree simultaneously. You say ughh at a pro playing advanced, and I say ughh at the advanced player w/the same skill level not playing pro. The only difference is the application of a standard for competitive play. You say the PDGA shouldn't impose such a standard, while I say it's just about the only thing they CAN do.

Quote

i do think the PDGA makes terrible mistakes when it forces TDs to do anything. It's the TD's who are doing all the volunteer work on their tournaments---why make it harder for the TD's? I think the PDGA needs to listen more to its TDs, not make more regulations for them. So yes, you are correct. One less vote for Mikey; one giant leap for PDGA TD's.

Why have a sanctioning body at all then? If the player organization has as its premise for being, the promotion of, and organization of standards for competitive play - how can they be detached from dictating the basic format of those events? If they are - they lose all legitimacy as a sanctioning body.

Quote

BTW i accept 100% your opinion of the numbers; it's just that my solution differs from yours. like you, i also want to see more players in Open, as i love big fields of Open players. but as an almost Master-age player, i know that there are some courses I can not compete with the youngsters at, and since i have a full-time job and my old body doesn't always function 100% like when I was 29, there's times when i really don't want to be forced to play Open.

See this sounds selfish to me. Your opinion of the system seems to be about how it will affect you personally. To me this is one of the new choices that you would get to make. Instead of who you compete against being your choice (regardless of venue), I think the more appropriate choice to have available - is WHERE you choose to play, based on your confidence, or skill level, or current health situation, etc. If the course doesn't fit your skill set due to any of those factors, don't play there!! Your scenario basically says you think you should get a free pass. You want to play the biggest events, on the hardest courses, but gee you don't get to practice as much as you used to, so you shouldn't have to compete against all the best players. (YOU in this instance is ANY player.) See I am a Masters aged player - and I know all about the body not cooperating. I've had a brace on my elbow for 3 months. So while I have empathy for the condition, I don't agree that's a reasonable dictating factor in organizing divisional play. Doing so should be done without personal considerations - which is why I try and focus on the numbers - and not the people.

I hold no ill will towards any MPM or M10 players for participating where they do. But I do rail against what I see as an absurd way to organize competition.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2007 02:58PM by craiger.

interesting position for you Mike, I seem to remember you playing advanced back in 2006.

why the change of heart?

fishman, i see you are sharpening your comedic skills!

i had a few reasons for playing advanced that one time. 1. i hadn't played two rounds in one day since hurricane katrina 2. i was nursing what turned out to be a torn tendon in my elbow and 3. i wanted to sandbag and win some of the looted merchandise from the SNAC.

i'm sure we can ask victor who looted that merch from the SNAC :)

i looked at that tournament like when Roger Clemens pitches in an AAA baseball game when he's recuperating from a rotator cuff injury.

?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2007 09:20AM by Lucky Putter.

Quote
Bluff Magee
i believe the PDGA currently allows a 950 rated pro to play advanced...ugh, my stomach just turned thinking about a pro playing advanced.

Sorry to get in on this late, I've been playing golf this weekend. Since I'm going to vote, and you're answering questions, here is a follow up. Will you work to eliminate this exemption? If you do, will you also eliminate the exemption for female pros? If you are in favor of eliminating the exemption for female pros, would you then support requiring TD's to offer a Pro Women's division even if only one player shows up? How about other divisions with few players like Pro Legends?

This would definitly influence my vote, as in my house it was considered a wise move to let the pro women play in the am men's divisions.

Josh

Will you work to eliminate this exemption?

i think i will (after i get done with more pressing issues like financial accountability)...whatever happened to the old process whereby a player who turned pro could petition to move back to advanced if he hadn't cashed in the past year? what was wrong with that? that was another of my motivations for playing advanced at the 1st Bayou Bogey...ya'll know how much I like to do ridiculous things just to show that they're ridiculous :)


If you do, will you also eliminate the exemption for female pros?

yes.

If you are in favor of eliminating the exemption for female pros, would you then support requiring TD's to offer a Pro Women's division even if only one player shows up?

are you saying TD's have not offered a Pro Women's division if less than 3 Pro Women show up? that is surprising.

i wouldn't force TD's to pay for a trophy for Pro Women if they had none pre-registered. also, i wouldn't force TD's to offer any particular division. but as a TD, i would certainly allow a one-woman division. i'm afraid there really is no easy answer on how to increase female tournament attendence...i mean, i can't be at every event to sign autographs/provide companionship :):):)


How about other divisions with few players like Pro Legends?

again, i don't believe in forcing numerous restrictions on TDs. is there some PDGA rule that says you must have 3 players to make a division? i can't imagine a TD turning players away that had less than 3 players either, but i'm guessing you've witnessed this? again, if the TD doesn't advertise that a division will be offered, the PDGA shouldn't force them to make the division, but common sense would dictate that the TD do that.