NEFA DISCussion

Tim Carter wrote:"This is nothing personal, instead I will make sweeping generalizations about the majority of disc golfers and NEFA members.". What is in that Burgess water that makes some of you so highly superior to the rest of us?

What are you talking about? When did I say I or anyone else was superior to anyone? I'm simply saying that I think you should pay full price to play in a division or pay what you would normally pay and move up/over to Open.

Now you're making sweeping generalizations about Burgess...

Bear Dunn wrote:I've never in my posts said anything that would resemble a "me, me, me...what's in it for me" mentality.

Actually I do care about playing against the best. What, in any of my posts, has told you that I care only about "what I get"?

Which is why I said it was nothing personal towards you. You did say something about ROI though, which is a direct correlation to the "what do I get" mentality. Return on Investment is the same as what do I get in return for paying to play.

There is a huge debate every year involving the AMs and Merch and funny money payouts and the majority of AMs are all for keeping funny money, for obvious "me, me, me" reasons.

Bear Dunn wrote:and dude, not a good analogy with the plane. We're all in the same plane. We're all playing the same holes on the same course.

That's why it is a good analogy. We are all on the same plane, but different sections cost a different amounts to sit in...


I guess I shouldn't have even wrote I think it's a bad idea. Silly me to think that there could be a discussion without being called out as an elitist...

def nothing personal going on...

I said ROI, but explained how I don't care about it unless I'm forced to pony up $. I don't want to put up money "just cause." I believe that's what I said.

The Pro Open section of the plane is different how? Because you play for money?

Is that the distinguishing factor, or is it because the talent is better and so to play with the better talent you have to pay the higher cost? Is that where we've winded up?

Why can't talented golfers, if they choose, compete without the higher cost? Ah whatever, beating a dead horse...I thought I had some sound arguments and points but I guess it's lost on people.

Why can't one's qualification in Open be based upon some kind of criteria (and not just who'll put up money to gamble)?

Then if you qualify, you can play for $ and gamble, or you can play to compete for pride.

Is that a hard concept? Am I taking crazy pills?

Todd, your words, "Me me me attitude of Ams in the disc golf world" implies that all ams are selfish. You are not an am I don't think, and hence you are not a member of the category of players you disparaged. As selfishness is not generally viewed as a positive character trait, this appears to be a statement of your superiority.

My words "some of you on Burgess" were meant to indicate that certain players from Burgess espouse this feeling of superiority vis-a-vis the Am division, and is not a generalization at all.

Sean Healy wrote:Let's just all go to the course and play in one division. Whoever wins gets a high five. SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT TIME!

Believe it or not, that's just how this sport started out...and it WORKED!

WHY did it work? Because:
1. Everyone came to play purely for fun or status (if they were good enough to rise above.) And if they won frequently...well, good for them, they deserved it, and were the ones to beat!. Some TDs offered hand-made (often goofy) trophies.
2. Everyone was between the ages of about 18 and 30.
3. No (or very few) older players ever showed up, and if they did they accepted the conditions...after all it was purely for fun.
4. Women (see #3)
5. I was the only one who had a kid who came to tournaments (who began entering at age 7, and was World Jr. Champ by 15).

Then, things got complicated when:
1. Ed Headrick came along with his Big Dream of expanding the sport to create the expectation of a professional level (which, of course, necessitated big-time sponsors.) His dream is still not a reality to but a very few around the world.
2. Enough players grew old enough to start demanding age-protected divisions. That has slowly progressed one level at a time...there was STILL no SGM division offered in a NEFA tournament until 2011 (BIG thanks Titan!).
3. Women began showing up a few at a time (but STILL not in any desirable numbers!).
4. People began having kids who are starting to trickle in.
5. Money entered the picture and became the expected prize for all good players...not just true professionals. Which meant...
6. People were pressured into believing that if you were a good player you HAD to play in the Pro division...or risk public derision.

The best ways to clean up a messy situation?
1. Put more emphasis on competition based on age, sex & skill-rated levels.
2. Separate cash prizes from the above. Make them an add-on...if enough people want it.

BTW...I'm talkin' NEFA events only. If the PDGA comes to town, you play by their rules, of course.

Mike Dussault wrote:I think if we took all cash/prize incentives away from Am players then there would be no reason for people to called sandbaggers,real or imagined.
Am players get a trophy, 1st through 5th. Nothing wagered nothing gained. They are just there to compete.
Pros get cash payouts based on entry fee and size of field.



This makes good sense to me.

x3, but a sensible idea like this will undoubtedly get lost in the shuffle.

All money is kept within each division. Thats all anyone needs to know.

Why would anyone want to see how much was spent on scorecards or the receipt from Staples indicating how much was spent on the rules sheets or pencils?

who cares?

From my experience the people who question things like this are questionable themseleves. Otherwise they wouldn't have thought of it.

And from my experience the people who aren't willing to disclose everything are questionable themselves. Otherwise they wouldn't have any problem disclosing it. I can only take your post Charlie as just another jab at me; but I'm big enough to take it.



Bear,

Ah whatever, beating a dead horse...I thought I had some sound arguments and points but I guess it's lost on people.

Unfortunately, I fear you're right.



Phil,
Well put (your post). We can only hope that people learn from those (like you) who have "been there, done that".



And it's a shame (and doesn't say much for those espousing this) that some people - the same people who lambast those for playing "within the system" (and not where THEY think people should play...with equal-ability players) - are the same people who won't allow those same people to play with equal-ability players unless they pay full. It must be nice to TRY to dictate your every whim to others. To have every just your way. I / we're not saying you can't gamble, but you're saying I / we MUST do certain things.

But I'm not buying it.

Karl

Bear Dunn wrote:Why can't one's qualification in Open be based upon some kind of criteria (and not just who'll put up money to gamble)?

Then if you qualify, you can play for $ and gamble, or you can play to compete for pride.

Is that a hard concept? Am I taking crazy pills?

There is criteria, but if you don't fit the criteria, you can still play in Open, hence the term "Open".


Maybe people should run more events (please forgive me if you have) where pride only is up for grabs. "The Gamble for Pride Open" It could be free, or maybe just charge for the toilet.

Tim Carter wrote:Todd, your words, "Me me me attitude of Ams in the disc golf world" implies that all ams are selfish. You are not an am I don't think, and hence you are not a member of the category of players you disparaged. As selfishness is not generally viewed as a positive character trait, this appears to be a statement of your superiority.

My words "some of you on Burgess" were meant to indicate that certain players from Burgess espouse this feeling of superiority vis-a-vis the Am division, and is not a generalization at all.

I don't mean every single AM, but you are kidding yourself if you don't think that there is selfishness/greed in the AM world. I guess I should have covered my ass by using the word "some."

I have personally been told by a lof of different AMs, that they would move up to Pro if it wasn't for all the funny money and plastic they get. Take a look at the thread from last year about the AM and funny money debate and I'm sure you'll see what I'm saying. Hell on a lot of tourney threads there is usually someone asking what's in the players pack. I bet if you took an anonymous poll that could somehow detect if people weren't moving up due to the killing they can make staying an AM, the numbers would be shocking.

I don't see how you can possibly spin what I said into in somehow meaning that I think I'm superior to anyone. I simply think it's a bad idea. There may be a way to make everyone happy, but lowering fees to expenses only isn't the way, imo.

It could even be argued that this whole premise itself is selfish! "I want to play with Pros, but I don't want to pay the money, so lower the fees" is selfish.

And from my experience the people who aren't willing to disclose everything are questionable themselves. Otherwise they wouldn't have any problem disclosing it. I can only take your post Charlie as just another jab at me; but I'm big enough to take it.

What would you want a TD to disclose!?!?! Thats just extreme nitpicking. I have nothing to hide...I didn't even write stuff down for myself let alone a pretty little list for entitled people to be re-assured.

I take pride in my integrity. Don't start with any of that garbage please.

It wasn't a jab. Its just how i feel about people who think like that. Sorry that (in this case) you fit the description.

This thread's title is "Questions for Chuck" Its finally drifting back to its original intentions

Got it. Thanks for clarifying. I just object to throwing all pros in one category and all Ams in another regarding greed, motivations, etc. Personally I am moving up to Am 1 for this, my second year of competitive disc golf, rather than knowing I can make a killing in am 2. Several of last years am2s are. And surely some am 1s will move up to pro. As we all know, the system does not have any good way to regulate baggers, but this does not mean that everyone other than pros are playing below their division. And I know you don't think that.anyway, just the extreme statement in that post about Ams that bothered me.

I don't think we need more "us" and "them" around here. They is us, or they will be anyway and anyway we all still gotta play together for round one eh?

Maybe the PGA will start letting Joe Blow play with Tiger and Phil next tournemnt because he wants to play against the best...

If Joe Blow is good enough, why not?


Totally not worth it...

As it stands now, crumby Joe Blows CAN play with the "Tiger and Phil" of NEFA, as long as they pony up the pro fee. I'm talking about have some kind of criteria, skill based, ratings based, something, that determines who could play in the top tier or division.. And once there, again, if you want to gamble, THEN DO IT. And if not, then don't. But again, only qualified people would be there. Again, qualified based on how they play the game rather than how much money they pay or want to play for.

Sean Bednarz wrote:Maybe the PGA will start letting Joe Blow play with Tiger and Phil next tournemnt because he wants to play against the best...

How about this Joe Blow amateur named Jay Hwang, who played in the PGA Tour's Farmers Insurance Open two weeks ago. Missed the cut, but he did beat Phil by 2.

Or maybe Hideki Matsuyama and John Oda at the Sony Open last month? Both guys have the (a) next to their name, indicating they're playing only for pride and glory (and I bet a great experience) and not a share of the purse.

It's not a regular thing, but amateurs play with the PGA big boys here and there. Odds are they're in on a sponsors' exemption and not paying an entry too. But then again, the PGA isn't relying on all those guys who miss the cut to pad the purse for the guys that do, so no one really objects too much.

question

do players in the pga have an entry fee? if so..is it generally covered by sponsors?

if no what is an average fee?

also what does the fee goto if there is one? prize pool or expenses?

ty

also slight thread drift...as if that never happens 20times a topic... just in regards to the no sponsor money in DG so players create the prize pool

the most interesting thing I have ever read/watched was a show on history of golfs evolution...

golf was once in a state that DG is in...in a nutshell the introduction of "stadium golf" is what changed the game forever...it allowed for spectators to view the sport/game..in turn attracting sponsors for advertising as now there was someone to advertise to..

they have evolved it to another level nowadays..the coverage I have been watching on golf channel has been interesting and the non stop video from all around the course is awesome and keeps me entertained actually..IMO DG is way cooler to watch then ball golf...as DG evolves the courses will evolve maybe incorporating more design that includes areas for spectators,video,seating IDK....if a course was setup for that way and a premier event came with top level players who knows peeps might watch..yes I understand some events offer some ok video,spectator views..but is secondary and usually just promoted within the community rather peeps that don't play...but then again DG is different then ball golf as anyone can go do it fairly cheap close to home so why even watch..but then again its always nice to watch the right way to do things

envision basket cams...an overhead cam..a grandstand say maplehill hole 1...5 bucks to park and watch IDK

ok babbling thread drift done

Josh Connell wrote:

Sean Bednarz wrote:Maybe the PGA will start letting Joe Blow play with Tiger and Phil next tournemnt because he wants to play against the best...

How about this Joe Blow amateur named Jay Hwang, who played in the PGA Tour's Farmers Insurance Open two weeks ago. Missed the cut, but he did beat Phil by 2.

Or maybe Hideki Matsuyama and John Oda at the Sony Open last month? Both guys have the (a) next to their name, indicating they're playing only for pride and glory (and I bet a great experience) and not a share of the purse.

It's not a regular thing, but amateurs play with the PGA big boys here and there. Odds are they're in on a sponsors' exemption and not paying an entry too. But then again, the PGA isn't relying on all those guys who miss the cut to pad the purse for the guys that do, so no one really objects too much.

99.9 percent of the time these pga ams are kid's not yet old enough to turn pro. They ALL eventually do, and play for money.

You guys are talking about life long ams that never make the move to pro...

If you think the pga is giving a sponsors exemptions to a 30 year old am to play in one of these tournaments your crazy. They're reserved for kid's talented enough to hang with the big boys, bidding they're time till they're old enough to play pro

For the record, I have no issue with ams playing in the open division in a non-paying capacity. Just as long as it doesn't take a spot away from someone willing to pay the entry fee. If there's room, no issues.

That's the issue with 54. Limited amount of spots, tournament usually fills, hard to justify to other entrants that are there to play for money.

I take pride in my integrity. Don't start with any of that garbage please.

ME don't start with any of that garbage?
ME?
Who started this (the original jab and now again this one)? YOU. Not me.

question for chuck

just got my renewal pack

why does it state an age restriction for adv woman..."required division for female players born 1969-1988 with ratings >=800"

just wondering

Titan Bariloni wrote:question for chuck

just got my renewal pack

why does it state an age restriction for adv woman..."required division for female players born 1969-1988 with ratings >=800"

just wondering

Just a follow up question: Titan, why did you renew as an adv woman?

Greg Van Nest wrote:

Titan Bariloni wrote:question for chuck

just got my renewal pack

why does it state an age restriction for adv woman..."required division for female players born 1969-1988 with ratings >=800"

just wondering

Just a follow up question: Titan, why did you renew as an adv woman?

to try an clean up on all the funny money and plastic

Titan - why does it state an age restriction for adv woman..."required division for female players born 1969-1988 with ratings >=800"

It's not an age restriction for playing in the Advanced Women's division. But it's the only amateur women's division available to amateur women in that age range with a rating above 799.

An interesting situation, considering 1969 to 1988 - today - involves women aged 42 or 43 down to 23 or 24. These aren't the normal age-breaks involving whole decades (30-39, 40-49, etc).

Or did Titan get an "outdated pack"?

Karl

Karl Molitoris wrote:

I take pride in my integrity. Don't start with any of that garbage please.

ME don't start with any of that garbage?
ME?
Who started this (the original jab and now again this one)? YOU. Not me.

Maybe the orginal jab...i'll give you that. The other one was general.

It's fine Karl. I just disagree with you on so many levels.

It's cool though..i'll still see you on the course and shake your hand and have fun regardless.

It is what it is. To each is own.

Karl - Or did Titan get an "outdated pack"?

Catching up on his 2010 mail?

I hear you Charlie. See you then.

Karl

Chuck Kennedy wrote:

Karl - Or did Titan get an "outdated pack"?

Catching up on his 2010 mail?

naw..its the one they sent me for this years renewal..as I was not current last year...

so the pdga needs to catch up and send me relevant info for 2012