The junior divisions from IOS #1 did not get ratings. The pro women from IOS #2 did not get ratings. Marcos Esquivel won Intermediate at IOS #2 NOT Michael. The TD reports sent to the PDGA were correct but things got messed up in the PDGA processing. This has been reported to the PDGA and David Gentry responded to me that they would be fixed in the next few weeks. Thanks to Mike Krupika and Tyler Williams for helping to spot these errors.
I have to post this here because I can't respond to Bruce's PM because, as usual, his PM box is full.
QuoteQuoteQuote from: Jon Brakel on Yesterday at 10:12:52 AM
Thanks Mike for the heads up. I sent an e-mail to David Gentry about it.
QuoteQuote from: krupicka on Yesterday at 08:27:08 AM
Not sure what happened, but there are a handle of the smaller divisions that did not get rated at IOS#1 and IOS#2.
IOS#1- All the Junior Boys
IOS#2 - Open Women
QuoteQuote from Bruce: If a division is reported as everyone having played trophy-only, they don't get ratings. I don't know why. That is Chuck Kennedy's explanation for those pro women.
That doesn't make any sense. If that were true then Maddisen would not have gotten a rating at IOS #2.
Chuck' s actual words:
QuoteI've forwarded the correction to Roger although I checked and this is an example where Brakel's trickiness bit back by hosting an Open Women division with all Trophy Only players. The TD report does not recognize that as a division since Trophy Only makes no sense if there are no fully paid pros to call it a pro division.
It would have worked just fine if those women paid the same entry fee they did and that was considered the full price Open Women entry fee. They could all four have declined any payout to retain their Am status, the system would have seen it as a legit division and processed their ratings.
If they would stop only half-supporting trophy-only it would be a lot easier...
Pardon me, but WTF!?!?!?! We didn't do anything "tricky". We just offered the option for trophy only and that's the option the players took for that event. WTF doesn't describe it. WT F-itty F-F!!!!
thanks for the laugh, jon.
I think what he meant to say was if you were tricky and played around with it and do it like you have to do for the divisions were trophy-only is not supported, it would have been fine. :P ;D
Quote from: krupicka on June 27, 2007, 12:46:44 PM
I think what he meant to say was if you were tricky and played around with it and do it like you have to do for the divisions were trophy-only is not supported, it would have been fine. :P ;D
"Brakel's trickiness bit back" is what it says. Chuck is claiming that the Brakels were being tricky some how and it back fired.
It seems like Chuck has gotten more crotchety over the past year.
I don't know Chuck. Never met him, never exchanged messges with him. In any case, you shouldn't read tricky as inferring that there is anything underhanded. I really think he meant tricky to infer that you are creative. I also think he was inferring that the complexity of the dvisional structure was tricky for him. I didn't smell a "dis". Perhaps a gentle chide, but not anyting more insidiious. Hey, this is tricky...
I exchanged some e-mail with Chuck about the "tricky" thing. He didn't mean anything by it. Chuck knows we do tricky things. Am IV is a tricky thing. So was everything I did with that combined ratings doubles tournament this spring to fit it into a TD report. So he might have assumed with good reason that something tricky was going on with all those am women playing trophy-only pro, but I explained that usually there is a mix of pros and ams competing together there and the am women have a lot of good non-tricky reasons for playing trophy-only pro, but it had nothing to do with us other than that we offered it and they chose it.
Of course, I now have Run DMC going through my head. Thanks. :D
Quote from: Chainmeister on June 27, 2007, 01:23:37 PM
I don't know Chuck. Never met him, never exchanged messges with him. In any case, you shouldn't read tricky as inferring that there is anything underhanded. I really think he meant tricky to infer that you are creative. I also think he was inferring that the complexity of the dvisional structure was tricky for him. I didn't smell a "dis". Perhaps a gentle chide, but not anyting more insidiious. Hey, this is tricky...
[language police] Ahem. Chuck was implying. Jon was inferring.
[/language police]
;)