Peter pleads, Ziggy launches & JR lectures on the Brits

Disc Golf Talk

Moderators: Timko, Solty, Frank Delicious, Blake_T, Fritz, Booter

Peter pleads, Ziggy launches & JR lectures on the Brits

Postby NOHalffastpull » Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:40 am

Peter Shive, former pDGA board member and past world champ, has written an article about the world championships and the older competitors.
The article was rejected by the pDGA according to exec dir Brian Graham because:
"The board of directors and I were in agreement that the editorial was not appropriate for the association magazine because it contains inaccurate information and you offer no real information or proof to back up your arguments. While much of your article may be your personal opinion and gut feeling, it does not necessarily make it true or warrant publication in the association magazine. "

Peter thinks this site (DGR) is too disc specific while DGcR is too course specific. In my opinion, regional discussion boards do not have the coverage of DGR & DGcR. I am encouraging him to post here on DGR and we will direct the nerds @ DGcR to read and comment on this site.

The irony is not lost on this pDGA member that Peter is concerned about being censored or even banned by the same discussion board that he once administered.

respectfully
steve timm
NOTeam
Last edited by NOHalffastpull on Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:56 pm, edited 4 times in total.
NOHalffastpull
Tree Magnet
User avatar
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:45 pm
Location: B o B
Favorite Disc: still searching ....

Re: Master/GM/SrGM/Legends article

Postby JR » Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:49 am

No way is DGR just about discs. This from someone that had a custom rank off-axis talk monster :-) We talk all aspects of DG. And a lot of banter interspersed. I for one would like to read the article even if it is not shown publicly. Whose views are all accurate and always right? So as one perspective among others, albeit from a very knowledgeable and experienced source, I definitely like to read the article. Even if it wasn't shown publicly to everyone.
Flat shots need running on the center line of the tee and planting each step on the center line. Anhyzer needs running from rear right to front left with the plant step hitting the ground to the left of the line you're running on. Hyzer is the mirror of that.
JR
Scandinavian Video Mafia
User avatar
 
Posts: 11493
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:07 am
Location: Finland, sea level
Favorite Disc: About to ace

Too late, it is public

Postby NOHalffastpull » Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:16 am

He already posted the article on the pDGA site.
Few will read it, even less will comment, it (his idea) will die a silent death.

steve timm
Last edited by NOHalffastpull on Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
NOHalffastpull
Tree Magnet
User avatar
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:45 pm
Location: B o B
Favorite Disc: still searching ....

Re: Master/GM/SrGM/Legends article

Postby MR. WICK » Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:46 am

He would probably get more views and appreciation online. The PDGA mag sucks anyway and only gets to my house 1/2 the times it is supposed to. Plus it could be seen by non PDGA members as well if it's posted online.
MR. WICK
Plastic Fondler
User avatar
 
Posts: 2363
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:58 am
Location: Connecticut
Favorite Disc: the one in my hand

Re: Master/GM/SrGM/Legends article

Postby veganray » Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:00 pm

Methinks the Cryptkeeper is more interested in attracting personal attention than in actually disseminating the information in his editorial. Love me, Daddy!
Ryen91 wrote:I am pretty sure I am more intelligent then you think and have allot more knowledge then your post might suggest.


Cheers & chings!
Vegan Ray
formerly #21579
veganray
Plastic Fondler
User avatar
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:29 pm
Location: the defense table
Favorite Disc: DX Gremlin

Re: Master/GM/SrGM/Legends article

Postby jnecessary » Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:26 pm

veganray wrote:Methinks the Cryptkeeper is more interested in attracting personal attention than in actually disseminating the information in his editorial. Love me, Daddy!

agreed. he could have already posted if he wanted to.
--Current bag: Yeti, Roc, Teebird, Firebird, RoadRunner, Wraith, Force, Nuke...
--My PDGA--My Trade List
grodney (IOWADG.COM) wrote:There are no righty holes, no lefty holes, no hyzer holes, no anhyzer holes. There is only skill and lack of skill.
jnecessary
2010 DGR Donator
User avatar
 
Posts: 1214
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:31 pm
Location: Iowa City
Favorite Disc: Roc

Re: Master/GM/SrGM/Legends article

Postby Yehosha » Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:47 pm

jnecessary wrote:
veganray wrote:Methinks the Cryptkeeper is more interested in attracting personal attention than in actually disseminating the information in his editorial. Love me, Daddy!

agreed. he could have already posted if he wanted to.

Exactly.

Image
Katana, Doss Surge, Z Surge SS, Avenger SS, Stalker, Buzzz, Ion
Yehosha
Fairway Surgeon
User avatar
 
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 5:11 pm
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Favorite Disc: Ion

Re: Master/GM/SrGM/Legends article

Postby Jesse B 707 » Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:11 pm

i say post it here!.....not gonna go petition on the PDGA boards for it though
http://ufosdg.org/
XXX,PD2,BOSS,KATANA,PD,ROC,VP,RATTLER,MAGNET
Jesse B 707
Rocstar
User avatar
 
Posts: 8225
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:29 am
Location: *NorCal*
Favorite Disc: ROC

Re: Master/GM/SrGM/Legends article

Postby jnecessary » Tue Aug 24, 2010 6:38 am

http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=34477

There is the editorial. Not a bad read I guess.
--Current bag: Yeti, Roc, Teebird, Firebird, RoadRunner, Wraith, Force, Nuke...
--My PDGA--My Trade List
grodney (IOWADG.COM) wrote:There are no righty holes, no lefty holes, no hyzer holes, no anhyzer holes. There is only skill and lack of skill.
jnecessary
2010 DGR Donator
User avatar
 
Posts: 1214
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:31 pm
Location: Iowa City
Favorite Disc: Roc

Re: Peter's 7/8ths drama

Postby Frank Delicious » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:14 am

For people who don't want to go to the PDGA site:

Time To Split
by Peter Shive (#7240)

In 2008 the PDGA released that year's detailed budget. Mindful of Deep Throat's advice to Woodward and Bernstein that, if they wanted to best understand what was going on they should "follow the money", I posted an extensive four-part analysis of that budget to the Discussion Board. My analysis showed that almost 90% of the discretionary budget went to support programs for Open Pros, a group that makes up about one eighth of the PDGA membership. My feeling was (and is) that, while I support a significant disparity in favor of the Open Pros, the situation had gotten out of hand. The PDGA has not released any subsequent detailed budget information, but changes in the last two years insure that the disparity has increased.

I have written often about the continuing losses of opportunity for Amateurs and older Pros. The PDGA has come to regard those members primarily as sources of spectators and revenue streams to support Open players. For example, PDGA income in 2009 was $1.36 million, $600,000 more than in 2005, but program expansion has gone almost entirely to the Open division, with little or nothing to the seven eighths of the membership that generated most of the increase.

By September 1, four of the seven PDGA Board members will be sponsored Open Pros. The Amateurs and older Pros have no effective representation, either on the Board or within the PDGA Committee structure. While I admire the Open players' initiative in packing the Board, I worry about their motivation.

I believe that the situation will deteriorate. Likely agenda items include: 1) Elimination of the Masters division; 2) Massive increases in the NT budget, plus parallel measures to make NT's even less available or friendly to older players; 3) Efforts to increase the proportion of added cash that goes to Open players in all events; 4) Measures to shunt even more PDGA cash directly to Open players; 5) Increases in budget items like publicity and marketing, that selectively support Open players and 6) New Open-only events.

We need the Masters Division. Ratings data show a real decline in ability starting at age 40. It is a large and very active division -- a key part of many events. It contains many of the most energetic contributors to our sport. It is also the first domino in the elimination of all age protection. If there is no need to protect 40-year-olds from 39-year-olds, why protect 50-year-olds from 49-year-olds, etc? And if Ken Climo's ability to cash in Open means that all MPM's should play Open, it is not much sillier to argue that Rick Voakes' ability to cash in Open means that all players in their 60's should also play Open.

The main (but seldom voiced) reason that the Masters are under attack is that the Open players want the money won by the 40-50 group. The Masters players, like the rest of us, are already heavily subsidizing the Open division. Open players have many other sources of income; they don't need to extract it from older players.

What about the other items (#2-6 in the above list)? I would actually favor many of them if only they were accompanied by increases for Amateur and Age-Protected Professional programs. But based on past history, they won't be.

How would such changes affect the membership? Most Open Pros would welcome them. But would you like them? The easiest way to judge is to ask yourself the question, "Would you rather play disc golf or watch Open Pros play disc golf?" If you would rather play, you probably won't like the future. And I'm guessing that you are a player, because there is no need to join the PDGA to become a spectator.

What to do? As recently as three years ago I wrote that it was important to preserve what I called the "PDGA Family". I believed that the available resources were sufficient to favor the Open players and at the same time support ample opportunities for Amateurs and older Pros. I worried about the duplication of effort that fragmentation would require, and the "loss of love" that separation produces.

I no longer believe that. The Open Pros want too much. It's understandable, because they have been led to believe that they can have it. But I now prefer the inefficiency to the disparity. And unfortunately, when money comes in, love goes out.

The Open Pros will have the power, come September, to take over the PDGA. That is, they could vote to require that all members be Open Pros. Ironically, this would help, because a new DGA would quickly form that would satisfy our needs. But the Open bloc on the Board won't vote for it because they depend on the subsidies from the other divisions to fund their programs.

The most efficient solution would be a split within the PDGA umbrella, with a separate Open section. The other section could be Amateur/Older Pro together. Each section would have a predetermined proportion of Board representation, and a predetermined portion of the budget, with separate oversight of the discretionary part of that budget. Will this happen? Certainly not now or soon, because without representation there is no mechanism within the PDGA by which such steps could be seriously contemplated, let alone enacted.

So what might you do, on an individual basis, if you share these concerns? Until the next election, not much. In the meantime, consider joining the Divisional Series Newsgroup. The main purpose of this Newsgroup is to identify, promote and financially support important PDGA events that offer the best opportunities for older players. To join, or for more information, contact me (shive@uwyo.edu).
Frank Delicious
The Crime Prince of Clown
User avatar
 
Posts: 12364
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Drowning in a cold river
Favorite Disc: Wraith

Re: Peter's 7/8ths drama

Postby Frank Delicious » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:15 am

and his second post:

Everyone,

The above post shows the unedited editorial, just as I originally submitted it, so it still contains all the alleged errors that disturbed the PDGA.

Randy asked me to keep it under 1000 words, and preferred closer to 900 (it's around 950). That forced me to be concise, and left no room for extended narrative even of complex themes. I can expand on some of these themes as necessary in future posts.

I will try to respond to all meaningful questions and comments from the membership. My first priority, however, will be to respond in detail to the PDGA objections, which I expect will be articulated here in the near future by Brian Graham.
Frank Delicious
The Crime Prince of Clown
User avatar
 
Posts: 12364
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Drowning in a cold river
Favorite Disc: Wraith

Re: Peter's 7/8ths drama

Postby Frank Delicious » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:17 am

Where did he get the idea that the Masters div will be eliminated? I haven't heard anything about that and it doesn't really make any sense to do that.
Frank Delicious
The Crime Prince of Clown
User avatar
 
Posts: 12364
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Drowning in a cold river
Favorite Disc: Wraith

Re: Peter's 7/8ths drama

Postby veganray » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:41 am

If Cryptkeeper's theory that the MPOs have conspired to take over the PDGA BOD with the sole intent of feathering their own financial nests is correct, the elimination of MPM would, of course, be high on the new Board's to-do list. A great percentage of that MPM cash would then convert to MPO donations, furthering the greedy, evil ends of the conspiring parties.
Last edited by veganray on Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ryen91 wrote:I am pretty sure I am more intelligent then you think and have allot more knowledge then your post might suggest.


Cheers & chings!
Vegan Ray
formerly #21579
veganray
Plastic Fondler
User avatar
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:29 pm
Location: the defense table
Favorite Disc: DX Gremlin

Re: Peter's 7/8ths drama

Postby abcd » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:45 am

What % of the membership is old pros? It's ok for that group to be subsized by the ams but not the open group? Did he source the part of 90% of disc income going to open players? No mention of the disparity in pro/am membership fees? And the BOD was controlled by the iron-fisted ams during the bulk of these travesties.
abcd
Tree Magnet
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:54 pm

Re: Peter's 7/8ths drama

Postby koffee » Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:11 am

Interesting article but it seems very shacky on some of the points it is making but not a bad read.

CHEERS - Koffee
koffee
Tree Magnet
User avatar
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:18 am
Favorite Disc: buzz

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest