Masters

[coops]

This is probably a can of worms but I wanted to open up a discussion of Masters.

My question is what is the consideration for Masters aged players to play in that division? Is it even a decision or do you just expect that you will play in Masters? (I'm speaking specifically of tournaments, not leagues.) Or does the course/courses played impact any decision making?

I was thinking specifically of the local tournaments so far this year. At the Frostbreaker there were 12 players in Open and 13 in Masters. At the Rosedale Open there were 7 players in Open and 11 in Masters.

I believe Wyco to be irrelevant. That course is made for big throwers. Though many players over 40 can play very well on that course I would consider that to be a much different scenario than SMP or Rosey which have very few 'long' holes.

So, why do you play Masters on shorter courses that are largely predicated on accuracy and putting? Would you even consider playing up on courses that don't demand 400' shots or does that even matter?

And would any of this change if the added cash weren't evenly distributed between divisions. (Say, instead, that all added cash went into the Open and Pro Women's division or even just a majority.)

[bensdadfred]

Because I can...

[jamidanger]

i play grandmasters because i've earned it. although i can still throw far, my putting especially detiorates with age. the shaky hands may not be visible, but the ratings decline are evident. also i wear adult diapers for rounds over 2 hours which answers your tournament reference. if you are ever skillful enough to make it to the masters divisions, you will notice the decision to move up to open is usually made on the day of the event and after a meeting with the others in your division so everyone is comfortable with possibly 'donating'.

as far as the added cash thing, money is good we want it! but with our fixed incomes, kids in college, etc. we appreciate lower entry fees, even though most TD's like to charge the same entry as open these days, enticing more masters/grands to revert to am status, and that is a shame.

[coops]

Maybe I should clarify why I'm curious, too.

There is a certain amount of... I hesitate to say frustration because it is shy of that but there isn't a better word... for those of us playing Open because I think that most of us want to play against the best. It is hard to say that is happening all the time when, especially on these types of courses, we don't get to play against Fred, Pete, CD, Eric, etc...

And then there is the secondary concern, the money. Let's say, hypothetically, that you are a 970s rated player that has accepted cash previously and is under 40. There is only one division you would be eligible and it can appear odd that an age protected division has more cash awarded than the 'top' division.

I also want to clarify, my goal in this post is to create and open discussion about this. I'm not upset or even miffed, just maybe confused a little and interested in trying to make these tournaments the best they can be. Well, that and I've always been a proponent of increasing masters age to 50. Most of the best players that I've grown up watching have been over 40, thrown further than I can and putted like maniacs. I've never felt that there was enough skill deterioration at 40 to justify protecting that age group, especially when in Ball Golf they only get age protected at 50.

[Loomis]

A lot of the Masters players I have talked to about why they chose to play Masters over Open usually give me one of two common responses: It's not as hard to keep up with the Masters players as it is the Open players (they usually name a big name pro as their example), which is basically saying - it's a division you can feel competitive in without pushing your body too far to do so. And the other response is not as friendly but it is equally as important and motivating: It sucks playing with 18 to 25 year olds who can be pretty annoying from time-to-time. No offense annoying younger people. This isn't true of all younger people but why take the chance?

This doesn't mean that the occasional Master's aged player won't play Open. I know I will. I know Ron Convers will too, so will CD and Guthrie and Arturo and Climo, etc. It's just that on certain occasions it's nice to have a division where the body degeneration is fairly equal across the field. Cooper, you're still pretty young and your recovery time is relatively short. You have the competitive edge. Master's players will test that edge and can usually do pretty well, but the cost is higher for a Master's player that a youthful player doesn't know yet.

And, to be fair, there are just as many annoying Master's players out there (myself included). 

[matty]

If the masters fields are bigger...then theyre just after more money same as you.

Playing disc for money is like trying to find meaning in a pauly shore movie

[Ken Franks]

And would any of this change if the added cash weren't evenly distributed between divisions. (Say, instead, that all added cash went into the Open and Pro Women's division or even just a majority.)

 ahh, all the added cash to Open, the good ole days!!!

[Loomis]

wyco results from Saturday: 11 open players in the filed and first place takes $337. 12 masters players in the field and first place takes $320. That's with added cash to the tournament. Masters paid the same entry fee as Open players - $60. So, in fact, the Open field DID get the majority of the added cash though their field was smaller. Was that fair?

[bensdadfred]

wyco results from Saturday: 11 open players in the filed and first place takes $337. 12 masters players in the field and first place takes $320. That's with added cash to the tournament. Masters paid the same entry fee as Open players - $60. So, in fact, the Open field DID get the majority of the added cash though their field was smaller. Was that fair?

No

[Jake B]

wyco results from Saturday: 11 open players in the filed and first place takes $337. 12 masters players in the field and first place takes $320. That's with added cash to the tournament. Masters paid the same entry fee as Open players - $60. So, in fact, the Open field DID get the majority of the added cash though their field was smaller. Was that fair?

Is it possible that not all of the 8+ open players that didn't show got their entry fee refunded?

[Ken Franks]

they paid 5 in Masters, 4 in Open... and YES HELLA FAIR!!!!

 Add all the cash to OPEN, Here's why...

 Masters can STEP UP and play Open, but we can't step down to Play an age protected division..

 You want to play for added money, play against the wolves...

[jamidanger]

the coolest solution i have seen to skill/cash distribution was the japan open, where all players pay the same entry fee, and age protected divisions had a 'side' pot that cost additional.

imagine this alternative at wyco, open fee $60.00, masters entry $6.00, who'll play masters for a shot at 20 bucks?

[coops]

they paid 5 in Masters, 4 in Open... and YES HELLA FAIR!!!!

 Add all the cash to OPEN, Here's why...

 Masters can STEP UP and play Open, but we can't step down to Play an age protected division..

 You want to play for added money, play against the wolves...

We need a like button on here.

[bensdadfred]

Money that goes in to one division should stay in that division. Added cash should be sought after by the TD or committee in planning stages of an event not stolen from other divisions.
I personally STEP UP to the TPads  of the course, not the division.

[jamidanger]

not to drift the thread too much, but the 'like' button goes to scott reek for sound and fair decision making, lightning fast results posting, presence on the course, organization and promotion of each event, and being non-controversial. too bad he's not over 40 years old to be eligible to comment on masters play!