player averages to designated tournament class

[streeter]

If you were at the club championships on sunday, you may have heard the announcement that we are going to start a player average system that will designate what class you are not aloud to play lower than. You can play is high as you like but can not play lower. This is to get rid of the sandbagger claims. I think everyone is tired of hearing it so we are going to fix it. This average will be based upon your last 10 rounds of golf in club events. It will begin after your first two rounds. The classes and designations will be as follows, 11 over or worse rec division, 3 over to 10 over intermediate, 2 over to 4 under advanced, and of course 5 under and better pro. Let us know what you think of this we may adjust some things if you make a valid point.

[REDARMY]

fantastic idea.

no novice specs?

[gflap]

Also should depend on course difficulty, especially with length of holes with my noodle armed drives. I'll just stay rec for life.

[HITMAN]

We should only have one cash division. Old guys going after the easy money is worse than guys not moving up quickly enough.

[jeffthrow6892]

We should only have one cash division. Old guys going after the easy money is worse than guys not moving up quickly enough.

Damn Morgan.......couldn't DISAGREE with you more on this, now! You just wait until YOU get to be an old guy, & you won't feel the same on this topic, I assure you of that!! What's wrong with letting the "old guys" play for their slice of the pie, & you youngsters playing for yours.........


And.....this is sort of weird thread.....who the hell is behind this, does the RCF club themselves have anything to do with it??? Who is this "we"?? I was at the club champs ALL weekend, didn't hear ANYTHING about this whatsoever........

[clane]

Keeping one pro division could solve the problem. The other option would be to have Open, and then masters open, but once you play masters you are playing masters so you can't switch back and forth depending on who shows up to play open. This might keep everyone happiest.

[Milos3]

I think it's a great idea. The more ways to engage players of all skill levels and get them out to the tourneys, the better

[rondisc]

Keeping one pro division could solve the problem. The other option would be to have Open, and then masters open, but once you play masters you are playing masters so you can't switch back and forth depending on who shows up to play open. This might keep everyone happiest.

Clane,
1 division will solve the problem. Charge $50 for the open and if you want other divisions you play for plastic. Me for 1 cannot play with the big boys anymore, and do not want to pretend I can Yes I saw the scores from Sat. Saw the top guy not play well, what what are the odds of this happening with any consistancy.... The young bucks are the ones of the future not the Masters. Make the masters there own division. Charge them XX also... The recs/ints/am1s are the biggest baggers, the guys that cannot hide do not bag. IE... I have to play pro if I play any club event.
Very good conversation.

Peace out

[mkane]

The concept of a ratings system is a great idea; the exponential growth of the club has made a bag tag more of an acknowledgement to the player’s commitment to help grow the sport of disc golf in our community. The “sandbag effect” in my opinion, is affecting tournament results. My main concern is the skewed results where lower divisions are scoring as good as or better than the higher divisions. The net result is tournament attendance has waned, formats altered, and the payouts reflect this trend. The ratings system may be something that we can use to help members get a fair chance when they come to a tournament and play against players of the same caliber.

[mkane]

So the question is how can we come up with something simple that works?
On the Pro side, the PDGA has a ratings system, and that system does reflect the same concept discussed here except not everyone is in the PDGA.
For the RCF, we have intangibles such as; course layout changes, turnout and home field advantage. I think each event, course, and results have their own identity, and should be the source of the ratings. Here is a suggestion, we just had the CC’S, there were over 100 players who played all 3 rounds. Lets look at each round individually, use some simple averaging and see how things land for the (round 1 JB) (round 2 the temp course) for the players. Rate the players and make divisions from the results of those two rounds. Then, prior to showing scores of the (round 3 Sioux), put the players in the divisions the math says they should be in. Then post the results by divisions and see what it looks like. Let's compare.

Divisions names for now 1,2,3,4,5,6 and to make it simple no age or sex divisions yet.

I want to thank Shawn Streeter for volunteering to help me on this endeavor to make future RCF events competitive, fun, fair and well attended.