Inclusiveness

[seamus]

The ill affect of non-inclusive behavior on a grand scale.

https://www.dgpt.com/news/tour-champion ... sanctioned
Do you think the DGPT is acting accordingly?

[bruce]

Or the effect of over inclusiveness? For years I've seen people complain that the PDGA over focused on the top few % at the detriment of the amateur masses, now the Pro end of the market is complaining the opposite!

[robbnot]

The basis of the scoring was:[/b]
1 point for every player you beat
1 bonus point for every player you beat that had a better pdga rating than you
However if you beat someone who had no PDGA rating, no bonus points awarded

On that scoring system everyone at my local course would get 2 points for beating me, and i would only get 1 point for everyone I beat, (only 1 other pdga member, in our regular local players)
It doesn't really bother me as I ain't that great but over a ten round league, I'd get slaughtered on the points,
I'm not saying it doesn't work, just stating the obvious,

[Cooper]

The basis of the scoring was:[/b]
1 point for every player you beat
1 bonus point for every player you beat that had a better pdga rating than you
However if you beat someone who had no PDGA rating, no bonus points awarded

On that scoring system everyone at my local course would get 2 points for beating me, and i would only get 1 point for everyone I beat, (only 1 other pdga member, in our regular local players)
It doesn't really bother me as I ain't that great but over a ten round league, I'd get slaughtered on the points,
I'm not saying it doesn't work, just stating the obvious,

Yep thats the point, it keeps the open players on their toes, however the scoring still reflects that if the open players are top / beat everyone else, they still get more points and stay at the top of the league points table. When i first thought of this, i did not expect it to work, but it does.

It seems really unfair, but actually its not and rewards people for beating incredible players - gives an advantage to lesser players but rightfully so. They should be awarded for doing better than normal even if that means beating an open player.

The ill affect of non-inclusive behavior on a grand scale.

https://www.dgpt.com/news/tour-champion ... sanctioned
Do you think the DGPT is acting accordingly?

Erm no! Look at their demands - i mean wow!

We would like to see the following actions taken:

Bylaws written stating that disciplinary action taken on an MPO or FPO player at a DGPT event will be left to the DGPT Disciplinary Process.
The Board of Directors issue a directive telling PDGA HQ to treat the DGPT and DGWT as equals in the scheduling process of MPO & FPO level events.
The DGPT and DGWT be invited to each Summit to present updates on progress and potential scheduling conflicts.

I seriously thing the DGPT is trying to play equals to the PDGA which is wrong, i agree the PDGA needs to change and be a little more flexible however these seem to me as unreasonable!

Bylaws written stating that disciplinary action taken on an MPO or FPO player at a DGPT event will be left to the DGPT Disciplinary Process.

- If the PDGA do it for one, the PDGA should do it for all.
- If anything, the PDGA should respectfully consult with the Director and both come to an agreement of disciplinary action (IMO)

The Board of Directors issue a directive telling PDGA HQ to treat the DGPT and DGWT as equals in the scheduling process of MPO & FPO level events.

- This is neglecting all divisions other than open players, (IMO) the DGPT is understandably wanting a more predominant position but it almost appears like they are trying to force themselves into a position as the only Pro Tour that anyone should care about. This is a step back rather than progress for the sport.

The DGPT and DGWT be invited to each Summit to present updates on progress and potential scheduling conflicts

- If they want to go down this street they should invite all pro tours to the summit from each country and if the representatives cannot afford to travel to the summit then a way of connecting in real time should be required.

Again (IMO) these demands are arrogant and typical of people wanting power within the infancy of a sport. (IMO) these actions are not the right way of growing a sport, these are very selfish demands.

[seamus]

Christian I really appreciate the fact that you think something is fundamentally wrong AND your not afraid to voice an opinion about it. I wish there were more folks like you around.

Let me give you a little background on the DGPT before I try and wrap this back into the subject title of inclusiveness. The Director of the DGPT painstakingly researched what the top Pro's wanted before he put pen to paper and created the DGPT. Therefore if the top echelon of players, the small percentage of folks earning a living on our sport, recognized an important issue or set back it is reflected in the DGPT. For example it was important for the top players to have a Tour that flowed from one coast of the US to the other. By doing this 'simple' task it was estimated to save touring professionals $20,000+ annually in petrol.
So in essence what just happened was the Pdga for reasons yet disclosed has decided the DGPT and DGWT are not governing their tours and are just a series of events within the Pdga like the Quaich Tour or MODS, which is pretty insulting especially after stating the opposite a year ago. The Bradley Williams ruling is just the catalyst that sparked this controversy, the Dgpt has also suspended Bradley pending further investigation.
This is a very exciting time for our sport, all told the Pdga, Dgpt and Dgwt are all not only well supported but heading confidently in slightly different directions they feel is in the best interest of our sport. We will ultimately decide which NGB/Tour is on the best path to success for the top Pro's by signing up, tuning in, playing and/or buying merchandise.
In the end if the Pdga decides not to act or be inclusive of these new Tours then the only outcome will be a greater divide, which I feel is an outcome that has a local reflection.

Or the effect of over inclusiveness? For years I've seen people complain that the PDGA over focused on the top few % at the detriment of the amateur masses, now the Pro end of the market is complaining the opposite!

In defense of the Pdga it is not called the Adga.

[Cooper]

Fair comments Seamus

I have to admit that this provokes a question... "Do we follow the PDGA or consider something that works better at home?

- Do the PDGA provide anything to the BDGA that we in the UK cannot do without?
- Is it worth considering setting up a scheme / rating system etc that works better for us, the tour, competitions in the UK on a more efficient scale?
- Is it possible and is there appetite?
- Would 'doing our own thing' impact the Disc Golf sport in the UK or would it help improve it?

This could feed quite well into the inclusive decisions the BDGA make surrounding all competitions that happen locally.

[seamus]

"Do we follow the PDGA

Yes.

[Jester]

In defense of the Pdga it is not called the Adga.

I recall at a European event about 15 years ago Paul Francz talking about the need for an International Disc Golf Association, as there was back then it felt like the various European country associations weren't really on the PDGA radar and they were only really concerned with the USA. Whether or not that was true, with PDGA Europe was it certainly feels like the governing body wishes to support players here.

[rhatton1]

In defense of the Pdga it is not called the Adga.

No, it's called the professional disc golf association, not the professional disc golfers association. Its worded well to be a coverall organisation for ALL disc golf, not just for a few players who want to make a living playing it.