'Padding' your rating

[superberry]

I had this rant going on a different thread and thought I'd see what your opinions are about players that may brag about their rating, but they only play local events or familiar courses, or wide open courses. Is the rating really fair if you don't have to have well rounded game? I know the tour plays all over and courses do offer many challenges, but there still is the option to only play the courses you are familiar with, just to pad your rating.

I believe players should challenge ALL aspects of the game. Especially when we have a ranking system now which can be used to say "I am better than you". The problem is that players can CHOOSE which events they play in, thus maintaining their rating (padding) by playing familiar courses or ones that meet their skillset. I'm sure many players do it. I think that in order to truly utilize a rating, players at the top should be REQUIRED to follow all tour stops, and that the stops should be well organized such that all courses offer something different that will challenge each and every aspect of every individuals game (wooded, open, long, short, windy calm, hot cold, etc). Of course travel, time, money etc come into play, so feasibility is not high, so maybe the rating could introduce an additional handicap factor.

[jconnell]

I don't think "padding" a rating really is a concern or a bad thing at all. Having a high rating doesn't win you anything except bragging rights. For the pros, that's all ratings are..a bragging tool, so who cares if they pad their ratings or skip tournaments on courses that don't suit them because it's not harming anyone.

In fact, I would bet that if a pro skips a tournament that doesn't suit him, it isn't to spare his rating from taking a hit (one bad tournament is not going to sink one's rating anyway, especially at a pro level). It's more likely because he believes he's going to have a harder time cashing well...which is much more of a motivator, especially for a touring pro, than the health of one's rating, IMO. Ratings don't put gas in the tank and food in the stomach.

And as far as forcing players to hit all the tour stops, there's going to have to be an s-load more money involved before that'll happen, and you probably still couldn't force players to hit every event. Look at the PGA tour...they've got big money tournaments every weekend and a worldwide ranking system, yet you don't see any of them playing week-in and week-out at every event. The only guys who even try to do that are the guys struggling to hold on to their tour card, not the guys at the top of the rankings.

Ams, on the other hand, have a bit more at stake with ratings since they are used to determine which divisions they can and can't play. I don't think it's beneficial to a player to pad their rating on easy or familiar courses because it might just push them out of their appropriate division, which they might want to play if they do decide to go to a tournament on a tougher, never-seen-before course. And there's no reason to pad a rating in order to move up a division because it's not a requirement to move up. You can jump up anytime you want, regardless of rating.

To sum up, I think there is no issue with ratings "padding". If someone cares enough about their rating to skip tournaments or quit bad rounds to preserve it, who else should care? It only hurts them and makes them look foolish. No change in the system is going to fix that, nor is it needed.

--Josh

players at the top should be REQUIRED to follow all tour stops, and that the stops should be well organized such that all courses offer something different that will challenge each and every aspect of every individuals game (wooded, open, long, short, windy calm, hot cold, etc).



as we all know, the PDGA is quite a powerful organization (wink, wink), but you'll have to talk to your god to handle some of those issues.