Quote:
Ratings are based on players who generate a course rating each round which generates round ratings for players. The round ratings are based on how well a player plays the course - man or woman. Women are fortunate that it works this way. Otherwise few would have ratings if only women were used to generate their ratings since at least 5 players with established ratings above 799 (propagators) are required to produce ratings for a round. Only a small percentage of events would have the minimum number of women propagators required.
I have talked with the top women about producing a separate par standard for women that would allow them to shoot scores "under par" like 1000+ rated men at higher tier events but they seemed to prefer remaining on the current gender neutral scale.
|
I'm not sure the very top of any group should be the only ones you should be listening to, Chuck. If we want more women in the PDGA, we might want to listen to what Katie is saying.
Maybe you could keep un-normalized women's ratings to yourself so you could still use men's ratings as propagators. But then once you've calculated the un-normalized women's ratings, normalize them so that Des (or the current top-rated woman player) is 1040 rated (basically apply the men's distribution of ratings to the women's distribution of ratings when normalizing scores).
I think the work you're doing on ratings, Chuck, is one of the drawing cards for people getting started in the sport. For those of us who don't have a chance of winning tournaments, improved ratings are the only sense of reward some of us get from attending tournaments. So why not make the ratings a more positive incentive for women? We certainly need to grow their membership in the PDGA the most.