EVERYONE INTO THE PEWL!

Another thing I've noticed about Sedgley Woods is that the golfers who frequent the Disc Golf course many of us call home are notorious for sand bagging. How else can you explain the fact that Heff still claims "B" player status even though he's played at least 24,700 rounds at Sedgley? He told me he spends as much time as possible in the "Bagger" Pool just so he can get under Topher's skin. More evidence of sand bagging is found in the results of local, but not Sedgley, tournaments. The list of "Sedgley Pros" who also play in the Advanced Amateur division is longer than Barry's arm. Prue, Topher, Woodsy, Rossopher, Saute, Joe THE, Russda and Heff, (et alia) top the list of locals who register in the Open division at Sedgley, but are suddenly found in Amateur divisions when playing in a tourney which isn't hosted at their home away from home. In fact, if Sedgley is hosting a PDGA event, many of the players who play in the Open division during monthly tournaments are found in the Amateur division looking to shark plastic from the unsuspecting guest amateur. The disc golf bags are full of more sand at Sedgley than anywhere else on Earth.

This situation has resulted in a phenomenon the locals and visitors refer to as "Sedgley Baggers." Depending on the type of event scheduled, the odds of the actual division matching the prescribed division are practically nil. "Sedgley Baggers" are comprised of the golfers who have Sedgley memorized so well they're disappointed if they're over par from the yellow tees, but can't throw over 300' and/or make 25-30' putts consistently and/or are basically "roller coaster" players. (Prue likes to describe his golf game as "consistently inconsistent." At least he's consis…er…honest). True "Professionals" are manly golfers who have a consistent enough game to be competitive regardless of course locale or aren't afraid to take an ego beating. Monthlies are particularly susceptible to this sand bag dilemma. While the PDGA division for a player may be Advanced Master, it is highly unlikely that the Course PhilRossopher will have remained in that division depending on which players show up. I now make it a point to avoid the Amateur divisions in non-PDGA events so I don't discourage the true amateur from playing in tournaments. I refer to this as registering in the "donor" division. This is because if I play Amateur, I am far more likely to play golf well enough to win a prize than if I play Open, but when the other golfers arrive, they get all cheesed about me playing amateur instead of donating to the Pros. When I attempt to defend myself by bringing up the notion that they are, in fact, crying - I would get redressed with the old refrain "Oh. Well, we figured you guys meant true amateurs not SEDGLEY BAGGERS!"

As noted earlier, the origins of "Sedgley Baggers" can be traced to the monthly tournaments Barry Noakes has faithfully run for the last two decades. In case you didn't know, sand bagging has been a problem in disc golf since the Eighties. Back then disc golf was virtually unheard of and there were only two divisions, Professional (compete for cash) and Amateur (compete for prizes). There wasn't a division for the "tweener" player who knew how to make a golf disc turn right while throwing over 275' (which was a long way a long time ago) but still couldn't break par. The Amateur division was for people who were recently introduced to the sport and/or the discs specially designed for golf. Growth of the sport was still the preeminent goal of most players. As the sport grew and more people started to play a quandary resulted. There was now a bunch of golfers who could shoot in the low 50's from the Yellow tees. Somewhere between one and four under par may sound like a good score to most golfers and shooting under par isn't fairly described as "amateur." But if you don't shoot in the forties from the long tees (assuming the weather conditions are favorable), you're not winning squat against the professionals in a tournament. What to do? Chase away the Ams? Handicap the Pros? Smoke some more soup?

Nearly 10-plus years ago, the PDGA introduced a new division for tournament play. It was a simple idea. One more way to confuse TD's and players by setting up a pool of players who weren't amateur or professional. It was a groovy way to bring in the tweener or "Advanced Amateur." If you didn't score well enough to compete with the pros, playing as an Advanced Amateur (but not a "true" amateur) could help you walk off the course with some pride and plastic without discouraging novices from joining the party. This tradition has exploded into one of the biggest opportunities to shark fellow golfers. Even increased sponsorship for the pros couldn't hold back the forces of the sandbag. As tournament attendance grew, the bacchanal festivities multiplied, and the hope of actually cashing in the pro divisions became a lark. The Advanced Amateur a/k/a "Sand Bag" division became the popular place to hang out in a tournament. The Advanced Am player could claim a prize without beating up on rookies or forfeiting entry fees to superior golfers. Barry is too smart to fall for this ruse during monthlies.

A pattern had developed. Sedgley golfers had obtained a reputation for never pushing their limits. Any attempt to discern the actual division of a golfer in a given event held at Sedgley would result in temporary insanity. To make matters worse, one of the more popular events held at our Woods has a variable delineation method for pooling participants. Thursday Doubles began based on the never-changing idea that a "Professional" who could shoot in the forties could pair with an advanced amateur and beat other pairs of his (or her) amateur buddies in a best disc format. As most of us have learned by now, random draw helps the skilled player and hurts the novice. This had a dramatic effect on Thursday Doubles when it first began. However, most golfers are blissfully ignorant to or in denial of the fact that Thursday Doubles started as a random draw event. Sure, when the turnout is small and comprised mostly of guys with similar caliber of play, everyone's leisurely cruising to the course. Even when Marc Kaplan started to win every week, few golfers were willing to admit that Marc was simply a better player and a change in format would be helpful. When the popularity of Thursday Doubles pushed more golfers toward the Woods, a wider variety of skill level was experienced. Eventually, the Ol' Goat began protesting that it was unfair for him to be paired with someone who was also incapable of throwing over 250'. In a vain attempt to overcome the power of alcohol, Paul kept pleading his case until the PhilRossopher finally sympathized with him and began separating golfers into pools.

Thursday Doubles has always had a hard time overcoming the sharks. There is the now infamous "Hole #1 from Yellow" rule that applied to the pooling of Doubles. A few years back, a golfer who could attempt to assert his will over the Woods by throwing a disc from the long tee of Hole #1 to the pin or beyond would be considered an "A" player. Golfers who could not reach the pin were considered "B" players. We had a desire for the golfing to start in time to enjoy some soup without another lecture from the Goat about the uneven playing field random draw causes. We had not accounted for the wrath of inconsistency in a player's game. Our resident Pool Boy, Paul Fein constantly rasped that, "There's no [freaking] way we're going to play random draw because if I get paired with another golfer who can't throw very far then we have NO chance at all of winning. But there could be 2 or 3 or a half dozen [monthly fakers] busting their drives through the tree traffic simply because they can throw over 300 feet. And they will ALWAYS have a natural advantage over those people who can't." As a result, Thursday Doubles pools were primarily based on distance from the tee. Demon Don has tried to battle against the "Yellow Hole #1" rule, because he could throw a drive 400' at Brandywine but had a 125' average driving distance at Sedgley or something. He did have limited success in persuading the participants that his team didn't have the proverbial snowball's chance just because he could throw far. To make matters more confusing, the "Yellow Tee of #1" rule evolved into the "Yellow Tee of #18" rule with the advancement of longer throwing plastic. (The notion being that IF you can pin 18 from the yellow tee - not DO you - you belong in the "A" pool.)
So, what pool do I play in for Doubles on Thursdays, anyway?

Thursday Doubles became seriously doomed to a "sand bag" effect once Phrossty introduced the pools based on distance. Doubles was already sucked into the vacuum of nebulous definitions and soup aficionados' inability to score well consistently. Once an event was split into divisions, then a whole bunch of whining and complaining about the fairness of the divisions themselves was bound to collapse the event under the weight of the geometric increase of Sedgley Whine. Since there is no real possibility for disc golfers to self-evaluate accurately; Doubles will finish with an underrated (or sand bagging) golfer winning more often than not. Herculean efforts were made to rescue Doubles from this fate, but to no avail. Some of the biggest Fiends (no, it's not a typo - see part 3 of 3) campaigned vigorously for the abolishment of the pools, but pooling golfers despite the inherent difficulties was the mandate and is still the law of the land. Even though the pools were deemed unfair especially in light of folks who deliberately underrate themselves, the golfers are usually too saturated with soup to get the clue. My attempts to exert my will over the sand bag effect by using drunken obstinacy only resulted in an exacerbation of the lengthy verbal battles between Silvio and the Goat. I did have limited success in convincing people to quit bagging and move up, but could not overcome the power of the Sedgley Bagger.

Many summers ago, I appointed myself T.D. of Thursday Doubles rounds. Having been one of the [monthly fakers] who was out of work, I was a tad overzealous to get things underway. I had heard (or made) all the arguments about how to rate players fairly. When there were just two pools and distance was the only criteria, the long-throwing but inconsistent golfers were frequently bemoaning being stuck in the "A" pool while guys like Bob Heffernan & Joe Winnick (who?) were in the "B" pool. Joe & Bob couldn't throw more than 250 feet from the tee, but were more likely than not to make a putt from 25-75 feet.

[Side Note: There's a great story about Joe Winnick (who?) and Pete Wade and the pooling process. Even before his overall game became fairly solid Pete was usually in the "A" pool and didn't like it because his distance from the tee wasn't always helping him due to some inaccurate, inconsistent throws especially inside of 25'. (Doink!) Joe on the other hand was usually in the "B" pool since he couldn't throw very far, but did have a VERY strong short game. During this particular round Joe was en fuego canning just about everything from inside of 75'. This started the whole pooling debate up again even though I vaguely recall it being a pre-doubles casual round of golf. Pete was bemoaning the use of distance as the sole criterion for doubles and Joe was amused by Pete's complaints. On hole #12 Joe's lie is at the log. He turns to Pete and says, "This one's for you, Pete."

Joe then nails the putt (albeit for par) and proceeds to celebrate with a plentitude of "Yeah! In your face Pete! In your face!"

Pete - a little tweaked by this display of skill (and gamesmanship) - contended for the rest of the round that, "See! That's exactly what I mean, man! Joe should never be allowed in the "B" pool again. He just shouldn't and that's it." I think the marked improvement in Pete's short game can be traced directly to his competitive spirit and never wanting to be bested in that manner again. That and a little work job by yours truly. Something about '9 out of 10.' You had to be there or maybe I'll write a separate article.]

So the debate raged on (and on and on and on). Which is more important in evaluating a player's pool, Distance or Accuracy? The answer, of course, is….

NEITHER!

Neither skill is any good without the other. Throwing far doesn't help you if you smack the blue tee sign or Arch Nemesis more often than not. Being fairly accurate is of little use if you're always 60-150' away from the pin after you drive. Distance is simply easier to gauge and gives a natural advantage to a golfer when s/he's on or lucky. A pair of human shotguns like Russda Bear & Pat Parrish has more chances at birdie on holes 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16 & 18 then a team of short throwers who are accurate like Paul Fein & Silvio (who?) Menna. This original argument is still one of the best criteria for pooling golfers. No, it's not THE best nor should it be the only. It is the simplest. Can you get across the gully on 13 from Yellow (not DO you, CAN you?), then stay out of the Novice/Ladies/Old Fogies Pool. Can you reach the basket from Red or Yellow on 18, then move up to the A Pool (and stop your crying about carrying a golfer who, in fact, may be more consistent than you and will have to lug your inaccurate, power-throwing, tree-abusing, fairway shoe-lacing carcass around the course). Accuracy is not as easy to measure empirically as distance is; therefore distance is easier to use.

Unfortunately, rating players merely by one lone criterion isn't exactly fair either. Moreover, as the popularity of Thursday Doubles increased so did the range of skill level. Eventually 4 pools were used. This caused some confusion about the rating and the naming of the pools. Boolean Logic (look it up - it has to do with binary decision making) was introduced to refine the pools. Players were first sorted into either A or B pool based on distance and then a more subjective rating of good versus not-so-good assignment of "plus" or "minus" within each pool was given. This meant there were A plus, A minus, B plus and B minus pools. There is (was) no such thing as the "C" pool. The A+ would be paired with B- and the A- with the B+. This was necessitated mostly by the attendance of hot pros such as Barry Noakes & Matt LaCourte. Under the original A & B system these guys were sometimes assigned strokes against them to level the field or maybe a novice or Old Goat would be given strokes in their favor. This handicapping was not popular. ("I drove for 2 ½ hours and you're giving me strokes!!??") Finally, a clue was realized. Just put the really good players with the really poor players. It worked well initially because the desired bell curve rating kept most of the golfers in the 2 pools and then only 1-3 players were kicked to the A+ and B- pools respectively. Players could volunteer for the A+ pool if there were lots of novices (or cute chicks who couldn't clear 13's gully). The problem is in the subjective nature of rating the plus or minus. Figuring out who belongs in A or B was easy enough, but who's better than whom within those pools is another matter. When more and more golfers started to get better and more and more novices began to play, the bell curve flattened and the rating system evolved into a complicated system of scoring, perception, machismo and whining.

Additionally, some skills are basically unratable. I've watched teams turn a 45 foot birdie opportunity into a bogie on hole #10 simply because neither one of the partners was willing to forgo the aggressive putt. It's not very easy to rate intelligence or course management. Better still, just how intoxicated is Bob? Sometimes he's staggering around to the point where you wouldn't let him drive his van, but he's zoned in and can't miss from inside 75' (and is parking the holes all night too). Other times he's straight as a laser but can't hit the broad side of a barn or stay on the fairway. What's the rating system for that? There has been some major screw-ups made trying to rate golfers. Not the least of which is allowing folks to campaign for their pool. One should show respect for the deceased, but Mark Schoenkopf made it a point to strategize himself as low as possible in the pools. He came to Thursdays to win - not just have a good time. Sure, he could throw over 300' AND make 25-50 foot putts, but his overall score tended to be closer to 60 than 50. He griped about this fact as much as he could to get a favorable pool to increase his chances of winning and everyone knew it. Have no fear. Rusty is carrying this torch. Worse, Evil Eman (not FreEMann) would inappropriately move up because he thought he was a much more accomplished player than he really was. This wasn't fair to his unlucky partner.
By now, if you're still reading this, you want to know the answer to the question posed in the middle of this article. So, here goes….

When there are four pools use this basic set up:
A+ = Open Pro - Golfers who usually score under par from Yellow in singles and can break 50.
A- = Advanced - Golfers who can shoot under par from Yellow, but usually shoot 54-60.
B+ = Amateurs - Golfers who can't shoot under par from Yellow, but can break 60.
B- = Novices - Golfers who can't reach 13's basket from Yellow or break 64.

Hey, what happened to the whole distance rating? Nothing. This is a basic outline. It's useful for rating experienced players who know where they belong anyway. Remember that the pool where you belong changes depending upon the attendees and their whining, e.g., Topher won't play A+ unless Prue does. Sometimes there's only three pools because the introduction of the four pool method confused people into thinking the pools were: "A" for good players, "B" for tweeners and "C" for lamos & crybabies with the "B" pool getting the plus or minus split. Occasionally, it works out that the "A" & "C" players are paired and the tweeners are put in a random draw pool. (Sure, it should be "A+" with "B-" and the tweeners random, but you can't fight City Hall).

When there are three pools use this set up:
A = Good players
B = Mediocre players and baggers (a/k/a Tweeners)
C = Novices, injured, opposite hand (except Frank Senk) and BEGGARS

When there are two pools use this set up:
A = Players who can pin 18 from Yellow or Red tee.
B = Players who can't reach 18 from Blue.

Use the golfer who can reach 18 from Blue but not from Yellow to balance the pools. Try to make it fair for everyone. That's the key. Naturally the better golfers will have the better chance of winning, but sometimes two mediocre guys get hot and JGB or King has spent his focus on the tag round or Jaegermeister. Always try to encourage a player to push the limit of his or her skills. Doubles means a decent player can be a great partner because you might get to discard the bad golf. Prue is good in doubles because when he shoots a 53 it's often because he had 7 birdies but he offset that with two three putts, hitting the sign on 18 and a triple bogey on 12. Give him a safe drive on 12 and he cards 50. Add a lay-up on 7 and 16 and he shoots 48. Miss the tee sign on 18 as well and he's grinning his way to the clubhouse at 7 under. Get the picture? Singles play isn't always the best evaluation of your pool. Push the envelope. Don't be afraid to move up. The water isn't that cold. Again, rating is subjective and sometimes you lost because you didn't play well not because you were in the wrong pool. The point of moving up is that players should win because they played good golf not because they sand bagged their way into the "C" pool.

The original four pools basic set up:

Can you reach hole #1 from yellow?
Yes. You're in one of the A pools (1 or 2).
No. You're in one of the B pools (3 or 4).
You're in the A pool. Do you often birdie 3-6 or 13-18, or par "Oh [Spit]!" corner?
Yes. You're in the A+ pool (1)
No. You're in the A- pool (2)
You're in the B pool. Can you easily birdie 13 or regularly nail 30-50 foot putts?
Yes. You're in the B+ pool (3)
No. You're in the B- pool (4)