Seniors typically grow weaker as they age.... their floor should be removed or at least adjusted to reflect this very basic fact imo.
That is age discrimination which is even more unfair.
Rating floors are retarded in general. So are events from x rating to y rating that are played for money, there I've said it.
wut?
NM is national master and the requirements are set by the individual countries. Rating floors are to prevent deflation of rating points, which is the natural trend in closed rating system with a growing and improving membership.
I think instead of subrtacting 200 cause some players can easily drop below that in real stretgh aat least make the rating floor by subtracting 500 instead or 450 for a little more accuracy.
Yes, the floor was established in an attempt to fight sandbagging. It also creates other problems though. Lets say a guy who has floored his rating at 2200 but is no longer playing chess at that level decides to just throw/sell games to his opponents in order to make some cash ? His rating cant go lower if he's on his floor and he is frustrated after a few years on his floor but playing at a sub 2000 level ? Seniors typically grow weaker as they age.... their floor should be removed or at least adjusted to reflect this very basic fact imo.
Throwing games or agreeing to a draw before a game starts (and the latter is common) can result in losing your USCF membership. I don't think that is a real problem of a floor because it takes the premise that the player is already going to break the rules.
As regard to seniors though, you are definitely right. I'm not sure why your friend was rejected, but I would assume it is because he still plays at an experts strength or better, which usually would not be enough to drop a 2200 floor.
For chessmaster102, I've never seen a player legitametly drop 500 points in strength over time. The higher up you become, it gets harder and harder to actually lose those points. Plus, a 500 point cushion would be crazy; I could drop down to 1700 and would auto-win any Class B tournament... The 200 point cushion is mostly for class purposes, and because it is actually pretty hard to really lose that many points.
Seniors typically grow weaker as they age.... their floor should be removed or at least adjusted to reflect this very basic fact imo.
That is age discrimination which is even more unfair.
Rating floors are retarded in general. So are events from x rating to y rating that are played for money, there I've said it.
First let me say that I am opposed to rating floors, period. Second I cant help but wonder why players from outside the US/uscf should concern themselves with said floors since it has nothing to do with them anyway.
Sandbaggers typically lose 100 or more points in a very short period and should be easy to detect/catch. Sandbagging isnt near the problem in Europe as in the US because they dont have such huge prizes for " class players" in Europe in the first place. Having huge prizes for class players only encourages the sandbaggers ...
Seniors typically grow weaker as they age.... their floor should be removed or at least adjusted to reflect this very basic fact imo.
That is age discrimination which is even more unfair.
Rating floors are retarded in general. So are events from x rating to y rating that are played for money, there I've said it.
First let me say that I am opposed to rating floors, period. Second I cant help but wonder why players from outside the US/uscf should concern themselves with said floors since it has nothing to do with them anyway.
Sandbaggers typically lose 100 or more points in a very short period and should be easy to detect/catch. Sandbagging isnt near the problem in Europe as in the US because they dont have such huge prizes for " class players" in Europe in the first place. Having huge prizes for class players only encourages the sandbaggers ...
It also encourages the participation of class players which increases the purses at all levels - potentially. If a class C player is willing to pay a $200 entry fee for a weekend tournament and help cover overhead, shouldn't they have a shot at a decent prize? Master level players usually have their entry fee waived anyway.
Yes, the floor was established in an attempt to fight sandbagging. It also creates other problems though. Lets say a guy who has floored his rating at 2200 but is no longer playing chess at that level decides to just throw/sell games to his opponents in order to make some cash ? His rating cant go lower if he's on his floor and he is frustrated after a few years on his floor but playing at a sub 2000 level ? Seniors typically grow weaker as they age.... their floor should be removed or at least adjusted to reflect this very basic fact imo.
So much for the theory that chess helps keep you brain from going to hell as you age. NOT!
I think floors are a good idea. At least I can say that I'm so good, they'll never let me play below 100. 
I bombed in the swimsuit competition (or else I would've been a FM).
The same with talent (if there were any such thing).
I think the answer is in the first 2 pages of this thread.
Just for some clarity there were two methods to achieve a life master ranking in the USCF. Life master basically gives a rating floor of 2200.
1) the most respected (IMO) is playing 300 rated tournament games while maintaining a 2200+ rating. This is currently the only method of gaining a Life Master title in the USCF
2) for a short time (I believe in the early 2000's) there was a method of obtaining master norms by achieving a 2200 performance rating in 3 seperate tournaments with at least 5 rounds. The problem with this of course is that rampant abuse led to multiple 2100 players obtaining rating floors by creating tournaments with 5 1900 players and obtaining perfect scores.
TonyH,
The 2nd method you mentioned has been reworked, and now it is quite unforgiving and difficult to obtain the FIVE(!) needed norms (for example, now it would be impossible to score a Life Master norm with 5-0 against 1900s).
The Original Life Master is the USCF's gold standard of consistency over quite a period of time.
However, the new Life Master title is nothing to sneeze at! I even know a couple of players who have earned the Original Life Master (300 games) title WITHOUT earning the new Life Master title! But nearly all of the masters I know do earn the new Life Master title first.
To me as an aspiring master this is instructive: instead of thinking about making my next five norms (which I imagine as some kind of hell), I should be more concerned with reaching and maintaining a stable master level.
2071 USCF now. Gosh, those last 129 points seem like a big mountain. But a few people I know told me that making 2300 was easier than making 2100 or 2200. Go figure.
I actually like that though -- playing a GM is on my bucket list! That's is all I recommend -- play in the opens, and enjoy the challenge!
You know what they say, "If you've gotta ask......."
Regarding rating floors for seniors, Viktor Korchnoi, at the age of 81, has shown that seniors can still compete. His current FIDE rating is 2549 and his highest rating was 2695, as I understand.
http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=1300016
2071 USCF now. Gosh, those last 129 points seem like a big mountain. But a few people I know told me that making 2300 was easier than making 2100 or 2200. Go figure.
For me 1600 to 1700 was the toughest (took me nearly 2 years).
Andy, how did you clear that hurdle of 1600-1700?
Still, as compensation I was a 1700 for only about 3 weeks...suddenly I was just seeing things a lot better (and farther). And so I became an A player just like that.
Yes, the floor was established in an attempt to fight sandbagging. It also creates other problems though. Lets say a guy who has floored his rating at 2200 but is no longer playing chess at that level decides to just throw/sell games to his opponents in order to make some cash ? His rating cant go lower if he's on his floor and he is frustrated after a few years on his floor but playing at a sub 2000 level ? Seniors typically grow weaker as they age.... their floor should be removed or at least adjusted to reflect this very basic fact imo.