<DG> Masters Age
Bill Burns
1999. Anyone else know anything else about it?
--
Bill "I turn 40 next summer, hee hee" Burns
Terry
be no grandfather clause of any sort I hear.
If I'm incorrect on this please, someone respond
Terry
ps. It doesn't really mean that much to me since I'm still 20.
On 4 Nov 1998, Bill Burns wrote:
> Date: 4 Nov 1998 18:26:43 GMT
> From: Bill Burns <discg...@usaREMOVETHIS.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
> Subject: <DG> Masters Age
"Life is a ball as long as you play golf with a disc"
Rodney
>correct. Effective January 1st, the masters age will be 40. There is to
>be no grandfather clause of any sort I hear.
Please name your source and his/her credentials as a
knowledgeable source.
Thanks,
rodney
KathyIg
2000. This comes straight from PDGA Headquarters in some promo material I
received dated October 22.
Tom Schlueter, Disc Golf Journal
Terry
ALSO, the most recent issue of DGJ talks about it. Again, I thought going
into effect this January but it sounds right that it is next January.
Either way, I won't be 40 for 20+ years.
But just because I'm young doesn't mean I don't know the rules,
That's the best I can give for credentials.
Terry
> It's true.
> If you need credentials read my message on this subject written about 2 months
> ago.
> -Tbran...@aol.com
> PDGA - 11795
> Ann Arbor, MI
TBranch773
CK34
change Jan. 1, 2000 but PDGA members get to vote on whether it will change
immediately to age 40 or whether the age will raise gradually 1 year every 2
years (i.e "grandfather" method).
Chuck Kennedy
Rodney
>
>>Terry writes:
>>>correct. Effective January 1st, the masters age will be 40. There is to
>>>be no grandfather clause of any sort I hear.
>>
>
>If you need credentials read my message on this subject written about 2 months
>ago.
Oh, the message where you quoted "trustworthy sources"? I would,
except that it is, uh, wrong. At least according to
Tom from DGJ, who claims as a source materials direct from
the PDGA. I guess I tend to accept that as pretty solid.
My point is not to pick on Todd. My point is that we have
been hearing about an age change for as long as some of us
can remember, and, what a surprise, nothing has changed.
Pardon my skepticism until we see something directly from
the PDGA (Tom's evidence seems to be just that).
rodney
JRHouck
In article <71s9s5$586$1...@ins8.netins.net>, rod...@worf.netins.net (Rodney)
writes:
>Oh, the message where you quoted "trustworthy sources"? I would,
>except that it is, uh, wrong.
To make things more confusing, I heard from a board member last week that they
had changed their minds again, and that they are going to let the members vote
on whether to "grandfather" or not. As I understand it, 40 is a done deal --
it's just a matter of how it will be implemented.
What's most interesting to me is that several people with whom I've discussed
this matter have said, "They're really going to change it to 40? If they're
going to do it, they should just make it 45."
John
Rodney
>To make things more confusing, I heard from a board member last week that they
>had changed their minds again, and that they are going to let the members vote
>on whether to "grandfather" or not. As I understand it, 40 is a done deal --
>it's just a matter of how it will be implemented.
I don't understand why they need to let the members vote on
it (or how it's implemented). I wish they'd just change it.
>What's most interesting to me is that several people with whom I've discussed
>this matter have said, "They're really going to change it to 40? If they're
>going to do it, they should just make it 45."
Yeah, or 50. I used to be in favor of keeping it at 35, but the
more I thought about it, the more I think it should be raised
to a true "Seniors"-type level.
rodney
Mike Belchik
Mike "I'm 34 and a half" Belchik
JRHouck wrote:
> In article <71s9s5$586$1...@ins8.netins.net>, rod...@worf.netins.net (Rodney)
> writes:
>
> >Oh, the message where you quoted "trustworthy sources"? I would,
> >except that it is, uh, wrong.
>
> To make things more confusing, I heard from a board member last week that they
> had changed their minds again, and that they are going to let the members vote
> on whether to "grandfather" or not. As I understand it, 40 is a done deal --
> it's just a matter of how it will be implemented.
>
> What's most interesting to me is that several people with whom I've discussed
> this matter have said, "They're really going to change it to 40? If they're
> going to do it, they should just make it 45."
>
> John
TBranch773
>Oh, the message where you quoted "trustworthy sources"? I would,
>except that it is, uh, wrong. At least according to
>Tom from DGJ, who claims as a source materials direct from
>the PDGA. I guess I tend to accept that as pretty solid.
Yeah... well...uh.... that's the same trustworthy source I was talking
about.... the PDGA's competition director. Not materials direct from....
conversation directly with, on a daily basis.
Rodney
>Yeah... well...uh.... that's the same trustworthy source I was talking
>about.... the PDGA's competition director. Not materials direct from....
>conversation directly with, on a daily basis.
Odd that he doesn't even know the real story. Or does he?
Let's review. So far in this thread we've heard:
Age is going to 40 on 1Jan99.
Age is going to 40 on 1Jan00.
Age is changing to 40 on 1Jan99, but it won't be effective
until 1Jan00, whatever that means.
There will be no grandfathering.
Grandfathering will be voted on by the members.
A gradual phase-in will be voted on by the members.
So are you still sticking with your super-insider information
post from 2 months ago that said 1Jan99 and no grandfathering?
I mean, come on, you talk to the competition director
on a daily basis. You must have it right, right?
Again, the point: Nobody knows until it happens. But I guess
the speculation, while stupid, is kind of fun.
rodney
Larry D. Hols
Rodney wrote:
>
> Yeah, or 50. I used to be in favor of keeping it at 35, but the
> more I thought about it, the more I think it should be raised
> to a true "Seniors"-type level.
Makes sense to me. I just think more divisions should be added once they
raise the Master's age. There are just too many folks that aren't interested
in throwing Pro with the Big Boys--for whatever reason--and they should be
included elsewhere. Open Pro for the big guns, Limited Pro for those others
interested in pro competition but not in the same league.
If playing in the former disqualifies one from the latter, then the decision
to jump divisions is not available at tourney entry for there's no going back.
Keep the big money with the Open Pro division.
Larry
Kim Theesen
> Yeah, or 50. I used to be in favor of keeping it at 35, but the
> more I thought about it, the more I think it should be raised
> to a true "Seniors"-type level.
>
> rodney
Hey! Why not move it to 25 and make a junior masters!!
(I forgot who first suggested that, sorry.)
Seriously, it'd all be a moot point if we would put the added cash into
the pro open and let the masters et al. play for their smaller entry
fees. The competitive masters/seniors would risk/play in the open (or
advanced for the ams). Until the payouts change, people will play where
the big prize/cash is...
k.t.
Rodney
> Makes sense to me. I just think more divisions should be added once they
>raise the Master's age. There are just too many folks that aren't interested
>in throwing Pro with the Big Boys--for whatever reason--and they should be
>included elsewhere.
I disagree. Open Pro Men, Open Pro Women. That's all the pro divisions
there should be. Okay, if you want to call Seniors (50+) a pro division,
that's fine. I say everybody else can just play Novice, Am, or Advanced,
depending on skill level.
I would listen to suggestions for age-based am divisions starting
at 35 or 40, but they'd have to be very low entry for very
few prizes, and even then I'm not sure they're necessary.
>Open Pro for the big guns, Limited Pro for those others
>interested in pro competition but not in the same league.
If you're going to play Pro, play Pro. Don't be a sissy. I'm
really tiring of all this Pro2, Limited Pro crap.
> Keep the big money with the Open Pro division.
I agree. All else is Am anyway. Since when to Ams in any
sport think they should get prizes?
Thanks,
rodney
Thomas F. Monroe
TBranch773
In article <71t2en$lda$1...@ins8.netins.net>, rod...@worf.netins.net (Rodney)
writes:
>Again, the point: Nobody knows until it happens. But I guess
>the speculation, while stupid, is kind of fun.
Yeah.... it seems that even the PDGA isn't really too sure about what is
happening. Last I heard the age will be 40. There will be no grandfathering.
The change will not be in yearly increments.
I don't recall whether the plan is for jan1,99 or jan1,2000. That info didn't
really stick with me since in my case it doesn't make a difference. From what
I'm reading here the PDGA hasn't decided whether it will go to a vote or that
the rule will change by mandate.
Tell ya what... I'll find out what the current situation is with the masters
age this weekend. I'll write down all the information and put take note as to
what is 'for sure' and what is still up for debate. I should be able to post
this info. by saturday evening.
Mark.H...@controlware.com
Is this action being done across the board? Will all of the other age based
divisions be moved up the same 5 year number?
Masters - 40
Grand Masters - 50
Senior Grand Master - 60
Legends - 70
Thanks,
Mark.
In article <19981105123210...@ngol02.aol.com>,
jrh...@aol.com (JRHouck) wrote:
>
> To make things more confusing, I heard from a board member last week that they
> had changed their minds again, and that they are going to let the members vote
> on whether to "grandfather" or not. As I understand it, 40 is a done deal --
> it's just a matter of how it will be implemented.
>
> What's most interesting to me is that several people with whom I've discussed
> this matter have said, "They're really going to change it to 40? If they're
> going to do it, they should just make it 45."
>
> John
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
JRHouck
In article <71srpa$ql8$1...@ins8.netins.net>, rod...@worf.netins.net (Rodney)
writes:
>I don't understand why they need to let the members vote on
>it (or how it's implemented). I wish they'd just change it.
The PDGA is a members' organization. If I recall my constitution correctly, it
says that all major decisions should be made by the membership. Besides, if
the members get to make the call, they won't complain so much. (OK, they
SHOULDN'T complain so much.) I think a vote is probably the right call.
In defense of Todd, the board seems to have gone back and forth a lot on this.
I think his source is probably reliable and accurate -- it's just that the
story keeps changing.
More than anything else, I'm just looking forward to growing old with all of
you (sniff)...
John
Rodney
>The PDGA is a members' organization. If I recall my constitution correctly, it
>says that all major decisions should be made by the membership. Besides, if
>the members get to make the call, they won't complain so much. (OK, they
>SHOULDN'T complain so much.) I think a vote is probably the right call.
I don't have my constitution handy, but I think you're right. But if
I were on the board, I'd just claim that this isn't major, so there isn't
going to be a vote. Democracy, shmemocracy.
Makes me wonder about the USVBA. Those cats change major rules about
volleyball nearly every year, and they never ask me about it.
>More than anything else, I'm just looking forward to growing old with all of
>you (sniff)...
I feel a lot of love in this group.
rodney
Bill Burns
Rodney <rod...@worf.netins.net> wrote in article
<71vaje$rii$1...@ins8.netins.net>...
> JRHouck <jrh...@aol.com> wrote:
> >The PDGA is a members' organization. If I recall my constitution
correctly, it
> >says that all major decisions should be made by the membership.
Besides, if
> >the members get to make the call, they won't complain so much. (OK,
they
> >SHOULDN'T complain so much.) I think a vote is probably the right call.
>
> I don't have my constitution handy, but I think you're right. But if
> I were on the board, I'd just claim that this isn't major, so there isn't
> going to be a vote. Democracy, shmemocracy.
>
I thought that a membership vote was called for when there was a major
change in the RULES OF PLAY. Age divisions are not in the ROP and
therefore do not have to be voted on by the membership, IIRC.
> Makes me wonder about the USVBA. Those cats change major rules about
> volleyball nearly every year, and they never ask me about it.
>
> >More than anything else, I'm just looking forward to growing old with
all of
> >you (sniff)...
>
> I feel a lot of love in this group.
>
> rodney
>
Stop it, I don't want my mascara to run...
--
Bill "ex-Czar" Burns
Robert Feather
. . .
> Since when do Ams in any sport think they should get prizes?
>
> Thanks,
> rodney
Maybe not prizes but how about a $80,000 education for
free.(scholarships . . .)
This time of year I'm reminded of one sport in particular
in which prizes are Huge for AM's. Does Ohio State or UCLA
remind you of the high stakes in an Amatuer sport how about
Turkey Day or New Years Day.
Don't forget who's buying all those disc directly or indirectly.-- AM's.
I say give up as many division as it takes to sell more product
and encourage more people to play this game so we can get more courses.
I want more courses. I'm getting bored with the 6 in Austin.
When will the new private courses be open ? Hell I'll give a buck.
I'm proud to play in the Adv Master's division.
I don't care if they Grandfather the rule or not I'm 39 now and
will go Pro Master after Am Worlds next year.
However, if they push the age limit to 45 or 50 I think we will loose
a few disc golfers at our PDGA tournaments.
Just my opinion,
Feather
Larry D. Hols
Rodney wrote:
>
> >Open Pro for the big guns, Limited Pro for those others
> >interested in pro competition but not in the same league.
>
> If you're going to play Pro, play Pro. Don't be a sissy. I'm
> really tiring of all this Pro2, Limited Pro crap.
Then be prepared for small pro turn-outs )less money to run the division) and
lots of sandbaggers in advanced. How does one purport to fix that?
> > Keep the big money with the Open Pro division.
>
> I agree. All else is Am anyway. Since when to Ams in any
> sport think they should get prizes?
That's what's been pushed on them since the dark ages. Pro incentives, once
bandied about for ams, prove difficult to leave behind.
Larry
TBranch773
In article <19981106083456...@ngol01.aol.com>, tbran...@aol.com
(TBranch773) writes:
>Tell ya what... I'll find out what the current situation is with the masters
>age this weekend. I'll write down all the information and put take note as
>to
>what is 'for sure' and what is still up for debate. I should be able to post
>this info. by saturday evening.
>
Talked to Mark today.....
It seems that the whole thing is up for vote. The ballots will go out with
1999 membership pkgs. Whatever is voted in will take effect on jan1, 2000.
On a brighter note.......
I actually had two aces in one round today.
Ace #1, 290 foot hyzer that reached 100 foot in the air and aced behind a huge
pine tree. (hole C-Blue at hudson mills).
Ace#2, 220 foot anhyzer that reached 100 foot in the air arround and through 20
tall trees. (hole 9-Blue at hudson mills).
The aces were 8 holes apart. (No mulligans of course).
Larry D. Hols
TBranch773 wrote:
>
> On a brighter note.......
>
> I actually had two aces in one round today.
> Ace #1, 290 foot hyzer that reached 100 foot in the air and aced behind a huge
> pine tree. (hole C-Blue at hudson mills).
> Ace#2, 220 foot anhyzer that reached 100 foot in the air arround and through 20
> tall trees. (hole 9-Blue at hudson mills).
Good shootin'. Congratulations!
Larry
Rodney
>> If you're going to play Pro, play Pro. Don't be a sissy. I'm
>> really tiring of all this Pro2, Limited Pro crap.
>
> Then be prepared for small pro turn-outs )less money to run the division) and
>lots of sandbaggers in advanced. How does one purport to fix that?
Same way I've been saying for years. Maximum $10 entry for all
Am divisions, deeper payout (with reasonable entry fees) in Pro
division.
rodney
Bill Burns
Rodney <rod...@worf.netins.net> wrote in article
<726q73$qhl$1...@ins8.netins.net>...
Sounds good, Rodney. If you are an amateur, your entry fee should be
small, with nice trophies going to the top finishers.
As far as the pro division, if the masters division was eliminated, and the
payout went to the top *2/3*, instead of 1/3, one might see less resistance
to move up.
ps If the reports are true, the BOD disappoints me by deciding to put the
masters age out for a vote. Somebody correct me, and I've stated this
before, but only major changes to rules of play need to be voted on. This
decision is clearly within the domain of the board to decide. That's what
we elected them to do - to make the hard decisions. Otherwise, why have
the board? Let's just poll the membership every time a decision has to be
made:
"The Championships Committee has received three acceptable bids for the
2001 WDGC - please vote for one of the following:"
*Please* correct me if I am wrong. I am not having a good day, so excuse
my bluntness. Anyone else care to comment? Buehler?
--
Bill "ex-Czar" Burns
Mike Homan (Charlotte.com)
included several changes for next year. I have typed the section about raising
the age division since there is so much interest about it and hopefully it
will clear up the misinformation about the age changes.
“Raising the Age Divisions - Masters, Grandmasters, etc: Based on continued
petitioning from the membership and on the results of the 1997/8 Membership
Survey, the Board of Directors has determined that the ages of the senior
divisions will be raised, effective January 1, 2000. This will apply to all
players and divisions, Pro and Amateur. As “raising the ages” is a complex and
political issue affecting many players, and given that this is a player’s
association, it has been decided to ask the members, as part of the upcoming
year-end election, to choose the method by which the ages will be increased.
The choices will be 5 years all at once, the so-called “cold turkey” method,
or alternatively, a raise of 1 year every 2 years = 5 years over 10 years, the
so-called “phase-in” method, under which no player would be forced to go back
down an age division. Both have their own merits. Votes will be tabulated
alongside the rest of the election ballot, with the majority decision
announced in early January 1999.”
Other changes or info provided in the package from the PDGA:
-1999 Super Tour calendar including Worlds and 2nd major tour event (U.S. Open
Disc Golf Championships in Oct. at Winthrop Univ in Rock Hill, SC)
-Tier Standards change slightly
-Revised payout tables (Am and Women divisions are recommended to have a
flatter payout).
-All TDs must be certified PDGA officials.
-$5 increase in membership dues
-A new “Bump” rule for tournaments. This reads “a 1999 current PDGA member who
registers late and is on a waiting list can bump the last registered
non-member first being give the opportunity to join or renew in order to
maintain their place in the tournament.”
-PDGA soft cards: PDGA members who join or renew at tournaments will be given
a temporary member card until a permanent one will be mailed to a member.
-Division terminology changes. “Mens” and “Womens” divisions are changed to
“open” and “Womens” divisions. It basically means an open division is open to
both men and women.
-The use of the internet will become more timely in the context of submitting
event reports and registering events.
-DQ and suspension. TDs are encouraged to uphold all the rules especially
those dealing with the use of alcohol/marijuana and inappropriate behavior
during tournaments.
-PDGA merchandise. Video from the 97 Worlds is for sale for $20.
Most of the above info was in greater detail that I summed up. My guess is
that this info will be mailed to members with their renewal packages.
Mike Homan
Mike Belchik
(snip the boring master's stuff, and on to the exciting ace stuff)
Hey, me too! I had two aces in one round (this in tournament $60/team doubles) at
the NorCal championships this weekend. The regular norcal pro's usually give out
$5 if someone in your group aces, but our group, as we started, doubled that bet to
$10 per ace, then I got two. Made a real bright spot in an otherwise lackluster
tournament for me. After I got the first one, my partner was egging me on to get
a second, so on one of the shorter holes, I switched discs, pulled out the same
disc (shark) that got the first ace, and slammed another one!
Sorry, couldn't resist telling y'all.
Mike (didn't make my partner pay me) Belchik
Par Infinity Disc Golf Club
> On a brighter note.......
>
> I actually had two aces in one round today.
> Ace #1, 290 foot hyzer that reached 100 foot in the air and aced behind a huge
> pine tree. (hole C-Blue at hudson mills).
> Ace#2, 220 foot anhyzer that reached 100 foot in the air arround and through 20
> tall trees. (hole 9-Blue at hudson mills).
>
Larry D. Hols
Mike Belchik wrote:
> Mike (didn't make my partner pay me) Belchik
Hey! He made you do that second one. He needs to cough up some dough. (Of
course, if he's buying the pizza and beer later, it's okay.)
Larry
JRHouck
In article
<A653D77D9E38F511.1DADDA31...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
"Bill Burns" <discg...@usaREMOVETHIS.net> writes:
>ps If the reports are true, the BOD disappoints me by deciding to put the
>masters age out for a vote. Somebody correct me, and I've stated this
>before, but only major changes to rules of play need to be voted on. This
>decision is clearly within the domain of the board to decide. That's what
>we elected them to do - to make the hard decisions. Otherwise, why have
>the board? Let's just poll the membership every time a decision has to be
>made:
><snip>
>*Please* correct me if I am wrong.
OK, OK, you're wrong. Article VI, section 6 of the PDGA constitution says that
"The board should determine which issues... shall be determined by the full
active membership. As a guideline, the board should consider the importance of
each item and the practicality of a full vote of the active membership....
Voting by the full active membership should be encouraged."
That last sentence says it all. The PDGA is a members' organization, and the
board has done the right thing (as dictated by the constitution) by letting the
membership vote. It is clearly an important issue, and we have proven how easy
it is to have the membership vote when they renew their dues, so it passes the
practicality test. (This all does raise the issue, however, of whether the
board can and should decide to raise the masters age without a membership
vote.)
Now we all have to decide how to vote.
John
Dr Fred C
active membership. As a guideline, the board should consider the importance of
each item and the practicality of a full vote of the active membership....
Voting by the full active membership should be encouraged."
That last sentence says it all. The PDGA is a members' organization, and the
board has done the right thing (as dictated by the constitution) by letting the
membership vote. <<
There are many ways to interpret the rules. "should be encouraged" is no
where near the same as "is required".
It is apparent from your post of the bylaws that the PDGA is NOT set up to
strictly be a democracy where members vote on every matter. Rather is it set
up to FIRST be a representative form of governance and SECONDLY be a democracy.
One might make the case it would be nice if there were a formal initiative
process.
However, the PDGA board or its members decide on the master's age issue, the
result will hardly make a ripple in the long term future of DG. Ideally, one
would do some demographic analysis and find out how PDGA policy can best serve
the demographics of its membership. Then make a considered decision and go out
a play another round of DG, leaving the rest of us alone to do the same. It
is after all, just a game...
As one who is 48, I really don't care either way. I like to play, but
playing in tournaments (Masters or otherwise) isn't the end all of DG. I am
more into designing courses and targets. As one who also runs a business, I
have enough of keeping track of things at work and at home raising two kids..
To me, keeping score and tracking my age is only really important for
accountants, the IRS and the grim reaper. What is important to me is raising
the kids, being creative and having fun.
The age of Masters? Give me a break...
Always, Fred Chittenden
DG Course Analysis http://members.aol.com/dolfwyz/analysis.htm
rh...@spameater.inetworld.net
> To me, keeping score and tracking my age is only really important for
> accountants, the IRS and the grim reaper. What is important to me is raising
> the kids, being creative and having fun.
I have to point out that the competition is a big part of what's fun to many.
Making competitive divisions makes this aspect "more fun" to more people. If
there were just one division, period, it wouldn't be as fun. Competing for
first or top-third in your division is more fun than competing for 35th. At
least for me. I do, however, have fun playing disc golf. I enjoy the heck
out of the regular, or casual, rounds, and look forward to the monthly
tourney because it is also fun. You seem to be implying that tournament
play is less fun that casual play. If you don't care about tournament
divisions, that's fine. I happen to like playing in tournaments. I think
competitive divisions are more fun, and the decisions about divisions should
be made carefully. I guess I inferred from your post that you think this
discussion is irrelevant. I happen to believe that it is very relevant.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Rhett Stroh "Fight, Win, Prevail!" |
| rhett_AT_inetworld_DOT_net |
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Barnicoat
not the means by which it is introduced. And it appears that the latter
is all we will get to vote on.
Greg
JRHouck
In article <36490329...@concentric.net>, Greg Barnicoat
<disc...@concentric.net> writes:
Last night I looked through the new Disc Golf World News -- superb job by the
art department, by the way -- and saw the results of the member survey from
last year. On page 60, it shows that 55.8% agree somewhat or completely that
the age should be raised by 5 years. Only 29.3% disagreed somewhat or
completely, while 15% were unsure.
With this in mind, I'd say that the board did get pretty clear feedback from
the players. I'm willing to retract my previous remark and let the board off
the hook.
John
Thomas F. Monroe
Course Standards or to check out the people who run tourneys.
No wonder we don't have any big sponsors.!!!!
Bill Burns
--
Bill "ex-Czar" Burns
Thomas F. Monroe <afn1...@afn.org> wrote in article
<Pine.A32.3.95.981111...@freenet2.afn.org>...
> This has been a pretty Lame Duck BOD. They refuse to take a stand on
> Course Standards or to check out the people who run tourneys.
> No wonder we don't have any big sponsors.!!!!
>
>
Tom,
How can you say that about the board of directors? Have you ever served on
the.............what?...............which
postion?...............elections?.......when?................wait a minute,
that's when I...^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
<crtl><alt><del>
<logoff>
--
Bill "truly brain dead, wiping egg off face" Burns
anita jackson
: More than anything else, I'm just looking forward to growing old with all of
: you (sniff)...
: John
I love ya, man!
aj
Albert A. Guerrero
Women or Men:
Pro- anyone who wants to win something including prizes
Am - anyone who wants to play for no gain (except trophies),
under and over 40 yrs divisions
Players packages- all or none
The board should really work on the amateur problem first
Just joining in the fun,
Speedy
--
Live life by your own rules
Dr Fred C
In article <eG_12.759$0C3.4...@news2.randori.com>,
rh...@spameater.inetworld.net writes:
>I have to point out that the competition is a big part of what's fun to many.
>Making competitive divisions makes this aspect "more fun" to more people.
Which is fine. Just set up the competition and go for it...
Always, Fred Chittenden
DG Course Analysis http://members.aol.com/dolfwyz/analysis.htm
A basket case http://members.aol.com/dolfwyz/dct_specs.htm