Ask Chuck Kennedy

[lonhart]

Hi Chuck,

When I began playing tournaments in 2001, I seem to recall there were relatively few players rated over 1000. Shooting 1000-rated rounds was for the top 10% of players, and the rest of us were down in the 960s or so.

Now the top 10% are well over 1000 rated, and regular Joe's can score an occasional 1000-rated round, or even higher.

I believe part of this is due to old courses being passed up by disc improvements, more players, and improved skills among those players.

Hypothetically, let's say you have an 18 hole course that has not changed one iota since 2000. Back then, if you shot a 52 that won the round. In 2010 you need to shoot a 44 to win the round. The 52 in 2000 was rated just around 1016. In 2010 the 44 was rated 1065. Maybe the numbers are a little off, but I hope you get the point.

My question is this: why is the round in 2010 not still around 1016? Clearly the course became "easier" over time, so shouldn't the best pro score still be just a little over 1000 rather than creeping up towards 1100?

Thanks!
Steve

[cgkdisc]

The percentage of members over 1000 is still about the same. Course SSAs for those that have been in the ground and layouts haven't changed are still stable. Yes, players have gotten better but there's no rating inflation we can find. Note that Kenny is still at about the same rating but several others have just gotten better and joined him. The cash line in NTs is still about the same in terms of what average rating a player needs to shoot.

[frogponddiver]

Chuck,
In a tournament this weekend the following scenario occurred.

Player threw his second throw and it landed partially in the creek, with one side on the far bank. The creek was not OB and the disc was not OB as it was not surrounded by water (since it was leaning on the far bank). The player placed his marker one meter from the front of the resting disc. He proceeded to hole out on the third throw.

The next player had a similar lie and correctly marked his disc one meter behind the resting disc. The first player, noticing the lie, realized he had holed out from an incorrect lie.

What is the correct score for the player holing out from the incorrect lie? There is nothing in the rule book that we can find directly dealing with this situation.

[cgkdisc]

It's a 2-throw penalty based on the Misplay rules 801.04 even though that specific misplay isn't highlighted. Essentially, if you play a hole improperly in some way and discover it after the hole is "completed" you get a 2-throw penalty added to that hole score.

[lonhart]

Hi Chuck,

I did not realize Climo has been so stable at about 1030 over the last 20 yr. That is an amazing accomplishment! And I appreciate the database managers allowing folks to see the history of a player going back that far.

What do you think will be the upper limit for a round rating over the next 5-10 yr? I assume if you plotted the frequency distribution of cumulative round ratings (yielding an S-shaped curve), you'd currently hit the asymptote at 1100 or just slightly above it. I wonder where the point of inflection would be? Has anyone done that for a subset of the data?

Thanks,
Steve

[JHBlader86]

Hey Chuck, I just played the Daviess County Open, and noticed my round score from Round 3 is the same as the winner from Advanced, and yet his round rating is higher, even though we played the exact same course and layout. So why is his round rating higher??

[cgkdisc]

Results aren't official yet.

[cgkdisc]

What do you think will be the upper limit for a round rating over the next 5-10 yr? I assume if you plotted the frequency distribution of cumulative round ratings (yielding an S-shaped curve), you'd currently hit the asymptote at 1100 or just slightly above it. I wonder where the point of inflection would be? Has anyone done that for a subset of the data?

No reason to believe the ratings will drift upward. Since the ratings process is a zero sum game, it will retain the numbers around SSA. SSA may go down a little bit on a course but the highest ratings over 1100 should occur at the same frequency in the future.

[keithjohnson]

Originally Posted by frogponddiver

Chuck,
In a tournament this weekend the following scenario occurred.

Player threw his second throw and it landed partially in the creek, with one side on the far bank. The creek was not OB and the disc was not OB as it was not surrounded by water (since it was leaning on the far bank). The player placed his marker one meter from the front of the resting disc. He proceeded to hole out on the third throw.

The next player had a similar lie and correctly marked his disc one meter behind the resting disc. The first player, noticing the lie, realized he had holed out from an incorrect lie.

What is the correct score for the player holing out from the incorrect lie? There is nothing in the rule book that we can find directly dealing with this situation.

While Chuck is correct in what he stated - he didn't actually read what you said because in your post BOTH PLAYERS played incorrectly as you said the creek was NOT OB - therefore the mark needs to be the leading edge of the disc or they could use the disc as a mini and play from there.

[ching_lizard]

I've got a question about the Shawshank tournament's scoring procedures.

We were told by the TD that the "island hole" should be scored in a new way, per some new rule called the "bunker rule." I looked all over this site for it, but couldn't find any reference to it.

Basically, if a player tees off and misses the island green, they re-tee again shooting thier second throw. This scoring procedure contradicts the rule 803.09.B - B. A player whose disc is considered
out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty
throw.

Since the rule we were instructed to play under contradicts 803.09.B this would have to be specifically approved by the PDGA in advance under 804.01.D - D. No rules may be stipulated which
confl ict with the PDGA Rules of Play,
unless approved by the Tour Manager
of the PDGA.

Was this variance from the rules granted by the PDGA before the tournament? I'm curious about that because I sought this variance for Texas States about 3-4 years ago and was denied the variance by the Competition Director. It seems unlikely that he would change his mind based on the arguments I received when I applied for it.

Larry

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by ching_lizard

I've got a question about the Shawshank tournament's scoring procedures.

We were told by the TD that the "island hole" should be scored in a new way, per some new rule called the "bunker rule." I looked all over this site for it, but couldn't find any reference to it.

Basically, if a player tees off and misses the island green, they re-tee again shooting thier second throw. This scoring procedure contradicts the rule 803.09.B - B. A player whose disc is considered
out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty
throw.

Since the rule we were instructed to play under contradicts 803.09.B this would have to be specifically approved by the PDGA in advance under 804.01.D - D. No rules may be stipulated which
confl ict with the PDGA Rules of Play,
unless approved by the Tour Manager
of the PDGA.

Was this variance from the rules granted by the PDGA before the tournament? I'm curious about that because I sought this variance for Texas States about 3-4 years ago and was denied the variance by the Competition Director. It seems unlikely that he would change his mind based on the arguments I received when I applied for it.

Larry

The bunCR rule is a creation utilized at the USDGC. I believe it should require a waiver for use, but I suppose it could be categorized as very liberal use of rule 803.05 C (the clause which allows TDs to grant greater relief than the standard 5M on the line of play). Liberal use of casual relief because it is forced when casual relief is generally at the discretion of the player.

One thing it isn't in conflict with is rule 803.09, because you're assuming that the way the island should be played is out of bounds and that's not the case. The TD sets what is and isn't OB and the area around the island isn't OB, it's a forced Casual Relief area.

[ching_lizard]

Thanks for the response Mr. Connell.

I'm not sure that I would agree with it being a casual interpretation of casual relief however...

The Rule manual says this about relief:

Relief: A change made to the player’s lie
or surrounding area, such that an obstacle
is removed from the vicinity, or when
that is impractical, the lie is relocated
away from the obstacle in accordance
with section 803.05C. Obstacles may not
be moved if any part of the obstacle is
between the lie and the hole

All 3 sentences of this definition of relief mention an obstacle. In the case of this "island hole" there isn't any obstacle, so it's hard to see how someone can take relief from something if there isn't anything there except for a two-dimensional line delineated by edge of the driveway surrounding the circle of grass.

Does anyone know if the USDGC applied for, or applies every year for this variance from the published PDGA rules?

[jconnell]

bunCR is spelled the way it is because CR is supposed to stand for casual relief. The area designated as a bunCR hazard IS considered an obstacle. It's an "imaginary" obstacle the way a roped off OB area can be viewed as an "imaginary" body of water (or road or parking lot or whatever). Like I said, it is a very liberal and loose interpretation of the casual relief rule. Enough of one that arguing that it doesn't require a waiver is a weak argument at best.

I'm positive that the USDGC is granted waivers for the bunCR rule and any other variance from the published rules that they experiment with. I'm also positive that any other tournament in which such variances are used must obtain their own waiver, as "they use it in the USDGC" isn't enough to justify its use without a waiver.

[cgkdisc]

As posted above, a bunCR is a forced casual relief area which is allowed under the Special Conditions rule 804.01:

A. Rules governing special conditions that may exist on the course shall be clearly defined and disseminated to all players prior to the start of the tournament. All special conditions shall be covered in the players' meeting. Each player is responsible for adhering to all points covered in the player's meeting.
B. The drop zone may be utilized in special conditions. The director must announce prior to the tournament how it is to be used and if a penalty throw is to be assessed. If no penalty is announced prior to the tournament, none will be assessed for use of the drop zone in special conditions.

We just named this course element a bunCR. A bunCR can be established with three types of relief: a rethrow like USDGC, a drop zone, or extended relief on line of play to back side of bunCR with no penalty applied in any of these cases other than the lie relocation.

[ching_lizard]

Many thanks for the clarification Chuck!

This is a surprising interpretation of the rules. It sure seems like it opens up a lot of stuff for similar interpretations in many different circumstances.

I've got to mull that one over for a while.

So am I correct in interpreting your response to indicate that it isn't necessary then to submit a request for a rules variance in advance?

Thank you.

Larry

[cgkdisc]

The only time a waiver is really needed is if you want to do something that appears to not be in sync with the rules. However, I suggest that those using buncrs ask for a waiver, simply because the PDGA office can track how often it's being used so it gets more specifically called out and defined as a feature in future rulebooks.

[dbld]

Hi chuck, I was talking to another am grandmaster, he was explaining to me that he plays pro gm when the field is bigger,which is the same thing I do, but when he accepted cash, because his rating was over 900 he couldn't go back to ams is this true?

[cgkdisc]

Yes. If you want to play in both Am & Pro in an age based division, you cannot accept cash unless your rating is below the limit for pros playing in am for that age division. I'm at 935 rating and play Pro GM if there's enough for a division but can currently only play in Advanced, not Adv Master unless my rating drops below 935 or 900 to play Adv GM.

[dbld]

so if i dont accept cash how high can my rating be to play am gm

[cgkdisc]

There is no ratings cap for anyone classed as an Am, only pros playing Am.

[dbld]

so as soon as i accept cash I'm no longer classed as an am

[cgkdisc]

Yes.

[treemd]

Would taking cash in the open division at a super class event effect someones ametuer status? Would they still be able to play in am majors(USADGC/Am Worlds)?

It is my understanding that you get a seperate rating for super class, so it stands to reason that you should be able to take cash in super class and still maintain Am status in normal disc golf.

[cgkdisc]

Amateurs lose their am status as soon as they accept cash in any PDGA sanctioned event including Super Class. It's no different from accepting cash in sanctioned doubles or match play events which reclassifies a player as a pro and excludes them from Am Majors.

[treemd]

Thanks Chuck

[Dana]

I can't say I'm surprised that nearly every single unnoficial rating was higher than what the actual turned out to be....does that surprise you, Chuck?

[cgkdisc]

On what event? If more than one round is played on a course, half the official ratings will be higher and half lower because of averaging. For example at the USDGC, R1 & R2 scores were averaged to produce their official ratings then the R3 SSA was used for R4 due to the cut so R4 official ratings were all higher than what was posted as unofficial during the event.

[JoelSmith]

Is there any chance we'll see SuperClass ratings updated? Our players from last year's NC SuperClassic aren't showing up as the event was held after the last rating update. I'd like to see it updated before this year's event, if possible. (Yes. There's still a SuperClass event this year.) If it's not, what's the status of SuperClass?

[cgkdisc]

I just checked with Dave and Roger to see if they got reports from recent events. I think we'll be pumping an update out soon.

[Dana]

I know that the Capitol City Challenge and Eric C. Yetter Champions unofficial ratings were both higher. Yetter dropped considerably.

I can't say that I understand why R1 and R2 ratings from USDGC dropped so much after being AVG'd together.