Ask Chuck Kennedy

[haleigh]

Is there a reason that none of the past ratings have dropped off? I thought they did after a year?

[krupicka]

Originally Posted by haleigh

Is there a reason that none of the past ratings have dropped off? I thought they did after a year?

http://www.pdga.com/faq#278n756

[cgkdisc]

This link will keep the text displayed without defaulting to the overall FAQ page: http://www.pdga.com/faq/ratings/why-...-rating-change

[Giles]

Originally Posted by krupicka

http://www.pdga.com/faq#278n756

Looks like at least two rounds should have dropped per the FAQ?

[haleigh]

in the past only 12 months of ratings have been on my rating.

[krupicka]

I only see twelve months (aka 365 days worth) of tourneys in your rating.

[cgkdisc]

Most recent event date is Feb 21, 2010. Oldest event date included is Feb 28, 2009. That's 358 days.

http://www.pdga.com/player-ratings-d...3398&year=2010

[haleigh]

i was counting today

[cgkdisc]

If we counted the actual date, the ratings of everyone who didn't play for a year would disappear. Each player has their own 12-month timetable for ratings based on the date of their most recently rated round. And their rating won't change as the calendar moves forward until they play another rated round.

[sandalbagger]

My ratings from Feb 7th and 8th did not get dropped off???

http://www.pdga.com/player-ratings-d...4036&year=2010


Should they have been dropped?

[cgkdisc]

Nope. If your most recent event rated is one that usually occurs on the same weekend the year before, it will naturally be included because the (typically) Saturdays will be exactly 365 days (366 days in leap year) apart and within the 12 month range used for ratings.

[the_kid]

I have a question Chuck, at TX States this weekend there were 9 1000+ rounds the 1st round, 8 the 2nd and only 5 in the final round which was 24 holes in 30mph wind.

The rounds varied from 1092-1002 the 1st, 1045-1008 the 2nd, and 1044-1003 the last round with an SSA of 80-81. My question is why the hot score the last round was 1044 which was a great score in howling wind and there were only 5 1000 rounds carded vs 8-9 in the 1st two rounds?

The Int. division played earlier in the morning with probably 10-15mph winds but at 30 even 7ft putts were scary and the OB was even harder to aviod. The 1st round I played like poo but the last felt better even though the rating is 8 points lower. Coda's 1044 was better than the 1045 the 2nd round and I feel that this is another case of ratings needed to be broken up into groups when using tee times.

[cgkdisc]

As I pointed out before, the problem is the tee time format can be less fair in the first place. If anything, touring players should lobby against them, especially in areas where wind is likely to be a key variable for the type of course played. At least ball golf tries to average out the wind by keeping playinggroups together for two rounds and flipping the playing order betwen R1 and R2.

Ratings can also be less fair as a result. You don't break up the scores in a division and make adjustments based on wind conditions changing over the day (and you actually get paid out based on those), so why would you expect ratings to be done better than the actual scores? Roger doesn't mind taking a look at the SSA breakouts if the data is made available. But the PDGA hasn't mandated that TDs do that level of effort by sending in the tournament report with hour by hour groupings.

As far as the ratings range, 24-hole courses will produce a narrower range than 18 holes and higher SSA courses also narrow the range. The wind boosted the SSA in the final round and narrowed the range further.

[the_kid]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

As I pointed out before, the problem is the tee time format can be less fair in the first place. If anything, touring players should lobby against them, especially in areas where wind is likely to be a key variable for the type of course played. At least ball golf tries to average out the wind by keeping playinggroups together for two rounds and flipping the playing order betwen R1 and R2.

Ratings can also be less fair as a result. You don't break up the scores in a division and make adjustments based on wind conditions changing over the day (and you actually get paid out based on those), so why would you expect ratings to be done better than the actual scores? Roger doesn't mind taking a look at the SSA breakouts if the data is made available. But the PDGA hasn't mandated that TDs do that level of effort by sending in the tournament report with hour by hour groupings.

As far as the ratings range, 24-hole courses will produce a narrower range than 18 holes and higher SSA courses also narrow the range. The wind boosted the SSA in the final round and narrowed the range further.

Would it make sense then to break up ratings based on pools regardless of how close the SSA may have been between the two. The tee times ranged from 7:35 to 12;05 with the wind not breaking 10mph until 10am and at 12 it was This has happened the past 3 years and it would seem a refined ratings structure would take thiese variances into effect when instead there is a 2 stroke leeway given when the courses plau totallly different within each pool.


http://www.wunderground.com/history/...q_statename=NA

In my opinion there needs to be some acknoledgement given for changes like today when at 9am a 1000 rated player could hit 70-75% from 30ft and at 12-4 that went to about 25% with most being lucky to hit 70% from 12ft. When players are triple putting from within the circle on every hole vs morning rounds where not only putting but driving was easier it would seem a system which now plays a key role in determining the POY and ROY would have a way to show such differences.

400ft was crazy distance with 340ft being pretty good into the 35mph gusts with most players flipping over within 300ft.......950+ golfers when in the morning an Int player could throw that with ease!

[cgkdisc]

Like I said, the problem is in the format itself potentially being unfair for competition to start with. Ratings is just another aspect that will also then be unfair as result of the format, not the calculations themselves. Roger can do the calculations but there's been no initiative for TDs to provide the data needed. We've only done it for high profile events where we know it's been an issue in the past like GCC and Memorial. And then it's only by divisions. But sometime the "unfairness" is within the division itself when the divisions are large and tee times span several hours.

[the_kid]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Like I said, the problem is in the format itself potentially being unfair for competition to start with. Ratings is just another aspect that will also then be unfair as result of the format, not the calculations themselves. Roger can do the calculations but there's been no initiative for TDs to provide the data needed. We've only done it for high profile events where we know it's been an issue in the past like GCC and Memorial. And then it's only by divisions. But sometime the "unfairness" is within the division itself when the divisions are large and tee times span several hours.

Maybe the ratings should take that ectra step then? I can get the TD's to report the differing conditions considering I was part of the oversight committee.

I am sure they can at least put the difference in wind for each pool. The ratings can't be perfect but things like this are easily fixed and should be but it just shows that even for the best in the worlf the gamme is just a hobby with many loose ends that just seemingly come to be expected.

[cgkdisc]

You're trying to fix the wrong thing. If the format were made more fair then the ratings would also be more fair. Gentry doesn't want us to do the ratings manually just for TDs who get their arm twisted to do the work. It needs to be part of the TD report for everyone who has tee times to report them properly.

[bruce_brakel]

I don't think there is any way to make a tournament or ratings "fair" if the weatherman isn't playing fair. Even if you have a shotgun start, some might have mostly tailwind holes during the fierce blowing and others headwind holes and others are sheltered from the wind in the thick wooded part of the course. You just play your best and know that it is fair on the average. You won't always be the person who plays during the windiest part of the day on the exposed holes with headwind drives. Over ten or 20 rounds, it evens out. If it doesn't even out over 10 or 20 rounds, God is out to get you, and there's nothing we can do about that either.

[the_kid]

Originally Posted by bruce_brakel

I don't think there is any way to make a tournament or ratings "fair" if the weatherman isn't playing fair. Even if you have a shotgun start, some might have mostly tailwind holes during the fierce blowing and others headwind holes and others are sheltered from the wind in the thick wooded part of the course. You just play your best and know that it is fair on the average. You won't always be the person who plays during the windiest part of the day on the exposed holes with headwind drives. Over ten or 20 rounds, it evens out. If it doesn't even out over 10 or 20 rounds, God is out to get you, and there's nothing we can do about that either.

Same golfers, who the 1st two rounds had a combined 17 1000 rated rounds (1 out of 4 scores) turn in only 5 1000+ rounds in the final....they must have played worse right?

From what I saw this wasn't true and actually my 1st round felt the worst by far considering I was 5 back of an ADV guy who had bumped up after 3 holes and after 8 I was 8 back of Dixon.

Coda's +1 (par 3's) was 5+ strokes better than all but one person in the division (another 1020 player) yet he gets a 1044 because the ratings system is so primitive it cannot even separate groups to account for basically groups playing two different courses.

In no wind I would have expected to shoot 8 strokes better and I feel that most others would have chopped off the same amount and if you looka at the rec/int ratings you can see that they all came out on the highside of their current rating.

I think the worst part is that it is known to happen yet Chuck finds a way to make the course play within 2 SSA points (in the case I don't see how it is possible) and if the rating is within 20pts then everything is fine.

It seems over the years that I can guess within 5 pts of the correct rating for a round 90% of the time and yet the system itself is continuing to be faulted by using information that would be thrown out of a high school science lab and instead of fixing the problem which wouldn't be a hard as many PDGA issues Chuck basically says that skewed ratings are just part of the game like spit-outs......

[exczar]

Why is a MPO worrying about ratings, anyway? If the MPO has a high rating, sponsorship? A low rating, being able to play in an am division?

Any other reason that doesn't involve whining?

[the_kid]

Originally Posted by exczar

Why is a MPO worrying about ratings, anyway? If the MPO has a high rating, sponsorship? A low rating, being able to play in an am division?

Any other reason that doesn't involve whining?

Ratings are now a key factor in determining the ROY and POY awards with there being 6 or so events they must rate high at throughout the year.

[listen2bob]

This is an easy answer........PLAY BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!! then you wont have to worry about how it gets rated.

Look at the SSS this weekend. Final round was windy, rainy, 2 hour thunderstorm, go back out to throw 600 foot holes on wet grass. And KC shoots 20 down, (yes the course doesnt play to par 85 but that round was HOTTTTTTTTTTTT) Then look at the early tee times (masters, women and bottom of open got most if not all of their rounds in before the rain)

You will win roy or poy if you play better all the time, not by having your rating adjusted cause the course wasnt "fair" when you played

[the_kid]

Originally Posted by listen2bob

This is an easy answer........PLAY BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!! then you wont have to worry about how it gets rated.

Look at the SSS this weekend. Final round was windy, rainy, 2 hour thunderstorm, go back out to throw 600 foot holes on wet grass. And KC shoots 20 down, (yes the course doesnt play to par 85 but that round was HOTTTTTTTTTTTT) Then look at the early tee times (masters, women and bottom of open got most if not all of their rounds in before the rain)

You will win roy or poy if you play better all the time, not by having your rating adjusted cause the course wasnt "fair" when you played

Climo shot a sick round but it was also rated as such (1083) while the hot round at the event I a referencing was 1044 with 1/2 as many 1000 rated rounds compared to the 1st and 2nd round.

What I am talking about it ratings not reflecting how good someone actually shot. I saw 20 putts missed within 15ft on just 2-3 cards and for Coda to shoot a 55 on the Wilmont and Finish at even on the final 6 was pretty stellar.

This is on the same lines as Olse's 55 at Manor which beat a 999 rated round by 9 strokes and was only rated a 1060.......we played VERY well in best score doubles and only bested his singles score by 2 strokes.

The fact there needs to be highest rated rounds based on differing SSA shows that the system is not perfect and that a sliding scale could show how great of a round someone really shot.



PS I played like poo the 1st round with my 1st 8 holes being around 930 level golf and it was rated 1011 in the end with Miles' round being 1092. The last round I played solid for 20 out of 24 holes and rated 8 points lower than the 1st ugly round.

Devan's 78-1015 was more of a 1025-1030 round with the rest of us being off by about 10-15 as well.

[jmonny]

Man we dealt with some wind here in NC this weekend too. Richlands-Steed Park had 10-15mph sustained morning winds then 35+mph in the afternoon. A 55 in the morning was rated 951, a 55 in the afternoon was rated 1005. Most players balooned 8-12 shots, crazy. Schweb said it was the 2nd worst winds he's ever competed in.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-resul...ratings=1#Open

[cgkdisc]

Those rounds will likely be processed separately for ratings.

[the_kid]

Originally Posted by jmonny

Man we dealt with some wind here in NC this weekend too. Richlands-Steed Park had 10-15mph sustained morning winds then 35+mph in the afternoon. A 55 in the morning was rated 951, a 55 in the afternoon was rated 1005. Most players balooned 8-12 shots, crazy. Schweb said it was the 2nd worst winds he's ever competed in.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-resul...ratings=1#Open

Yet had the event used tee times all the rounds would have been rated in a way that would not reflect how someone played accurately.

We basically played a course that was 8 strokes harder than the Ints yet the round was rated as if everyone was playing on equal footing.

My whole beef is that there should be a simple way to include these differences in ratings. This was discussed recently in regards to the Memorial with the wind being higher in the afternoon and many feeling the ratings were skewed based on tee time. I checked the data from that day and the wind we had this weekend was 10+ mph more than at the Memorial with sustained 24-28 and plenty of gusts at 35mph on a wide open course.

The majority of Rec and Int players played above their rating while the majority of Adv/Pro players played below their rating and it isn't just a coincidence.


With all this said I personally used to be obsessed with the ratings but have, over time, realized they really mean nothing when it comes down to it as we are all hobbyists and it isn't like this is a professional sport. That reason alone isn't ewnough to keep the system from being improved to treat differing SSAs, conditions, and scoring spreads equally.

The ratings need to find a way to incorporate these into the system along with scores from the event instead of relying on just what a few players shot. I have seen too many rounds were everyone played bad but since there were 1000+ players the ratings were pulled up a bit while at the same time there are events where many players shoot outstanding but in doing so the ratings are deflated due to the fact the ratings system calculates that to mean the course was easier when in fact it may not have been and there were just some great rounds.

[cgkdisc]

We basically played a course that was 8 strokes harder than the Ints yet the round was rated as if everyone was playing on equal footing.

What I can't understand is why the pros aren't complaining about the tee times format (the way we do it in DG vs BG) itself being flawed in the first place. If there's that much difference in conditions for one division over the span of their round, the round scores should be thrown out. I would think the hundreds of dollars differences in payout places would be worth doing it right, especially at an NT.

[the_kid]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

What I can't understand is why the pros aren't complaining about the tee times format (the way we do it in DG vs BG) itself being flawed in the first place. If there's that much difference in conditions for one division over the span of their round, the round scores should be thrown out. I would think the hundreds of dollars differences in payout places would be worth doing it right, especially at an NT.

Not as much change within the division but there was an undisputed difference between the 1st pool on the course and the 2nd.

I am not saying we need to rate hour by hour but breaking the day into 2-3 ratings brackets would do a lot to help fix the problem.

[cgkdisc]

I would say if there's enough difference in SSAs (say 2 throws) to do the ratings separately among different groups in the SAME division, it's enough that the round results should be thrown out. Two throws is more than one unlucky spit.

[the_kid]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

I would say if there's enough difference in SSAs (say 2 throws) to do the ratings separately among different groups in the SAME division, it's enough that the round results should be thrown out. Two throws is more than one unlucky spit.

In this case 2 SSA points is 4 strokes.......