Ask Chuck Kennedy

[ChrisWoj]

Chuck - I've been explaining the ratings to people in this way, as a quick and dirty explanation for those that just know they get a rating and have no real idea what they mean other than 1000 is good, 950 is decent, etc... And I'm curious as to whether or not it is even close to correct...

I tell them the following: Take a round of tournament golf, and grab all of the ratings of competitors with at least 8 rated rounds. Average those out. Lets say you get an average of 920 out of them. Now take all of their scores for that round. Lets say that over the 18 hole round they average out to 52. So for that round a 52 would be 920 rated. With 10 points per stroke that means 54 is 900, and 44 is 1000 (which would give you the SSA of the course at 44), and so on. Is this even remotely accurate? I'm sure that a lot more goes into the calculation, but this is what I came up to as a quick-and-dirty way to get some understanding into the heads of golfers I meet that have questions.


-Chris.

[cgkdisc]

That works in general primarily since most courses played in events range from 48-53 SSA where the points per throw is close to 10. But if the course is from the short tees where beginners sometimes play or the course is one of our handful of true Championship courses, then that quick estimate might be off either way from 10 points per throw.

[ChrisWoj]

Oh of course - I do explain that if asked. 21 holes I usually say 8 points. 24 holes I say 7. 27 holes I say 6. It isn't (again) exact, but its a general guideline that seems to be accurate when I glance over the results. Thanks for the confirmation Chuck. I like being able to explain the system when people badmouth it because they don't understand it.


-Chris.

[cgkdisc]

Even if everyone had perfect understanding of the ratings system, they would still find something wrong with it because ratings highlight the lack of playing excellence in almost all of us. For me, it's shooting a sub-900 round that bugs me. I must have missed something in the ratings formula for that round... So discounting the 'measuring stick' becomes a popular past-time.

[ChrisWoj]

Haha. I've learned to trust it. Whether or not I know a course I've found that I can look at the ratings and scores of all the players involved and come up with the ratings for the round to within 10-15 points. :P

[stevenpwest]

Am I the only one whose rating is a function of the course designer?

[JenniferB]

Chuck, will you please take a look at these results http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/66192 and offer whatever insights you have on why the masters age women got hit so hard on round ratings comapred to the young ladies? Is this just one of those courses that separates the girls from the women?

[cgkdisc]

Did everyone play the same layouts each round? Their website says only the Pros played the Jr tees in the second round presumably so the girls would get ratings?

I just changed the course setting so only the pros played the Jr tees in R2. That gave everyone else a nice boost in R2.

[JenniferB]

As far as I recall, it was the same for everyone, even though it was an A/B tier.

[DSproAVIAR]

Howdy Chuck,

I have a question. Take a look at the sanctioning requirements below, specifically Table 1. It is clear that a Btier must have $500 added cash. Does that cash have to go to the pro purse?

Hypothetically, could a Btier just add the $500 cash to, for instance, a CTP or the ace pool?

I can't find any specific mention of "Added cash to the pro purse", it just says "Added cash".


http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/TourStandards.pdf



I ask because at a recent Btier, there was only $360 added to pro divisions, and the TD claims that he added much more than a total of $500 to the tournament through jumbo toss, donated basket to the Am winner, etc.

Any help would be appreciated!

[cgkdisc]

Maybe it needs to be more clear but the $500 is to be added to the pro payout which does not include CTPs or Skins. Of course, sometimes you have to look closely at what the base entry fee turns out to be to determine the added cash. If the entry fee is $60 after taking away the $3 PDGA fee, there could also be a deduction for ace, lunch, series fee, greens fee, course development fund or charitable contribution. All of these are allowed to reduce the base fee for calculating how much was added to the payouts.

[ChrisWoj]

For said tournament: I paid ace pool separately, lunch was not a part of entries that was clear, there was no series, greens fees were paid separately with the park office, there was no mention of a course development nor charitable contribution coming from entry fees.

[DSproAVIAR]

Chuck,

This is the response from the TD-

"it does not say anything about $500 in added cash to the PRO purse, just $500 in added cash.

oh and by the way i spoke with the PDGA on wednesday before (said tournament) and they told me about the $500 is added to the purse, not the PRO purse. With no PRO's signed up we were not going to put $500 into 2 or 3 pros if they showed up."

11 pros ended up playing btw. What would you do about this? Submit a report to the PDGA? I don't have much faith that the PDGA will be taking any type of action about this. If someone wants to pay the PDGA B-tier fees, I'm sure they will accept the fees without complaint.

It's not like I can set up a conference call with him, me and the PDGA office to make sure that they explain it properly to him. Even if he does end up realizing that he was short on added cash, the "B-tier" is in the books. Not much to be done here. There's just no accountability.

What would you do?

[cgkdisc]

I would report it to the Tour Director. They do track issues with TDs and that will be happening more often as it relates to TDs getting to host an event or that high of a tier the following year. I would say this that if there are only 3 pros, that's less players than what the TD would be required to host a division. I could see a TD having grounds to withhold added cash in that scenario. On the other hand, if the TD has actually raised the $500 from sponsors, he would have cash in hand that sponsors would in theory expect to be going to the pros how ever many showed up.

Since cash can only be paid to pros, it's pretty clear that "added cash" means cash added to the pro purse because CTP and skins money doesn't count in payout. The only thing the guidelines don't indicate is how it's distributed among pro divisions.

[DSproAVIAR]

Chuck,

I appreciate the time that you take to answer questions here. I'm not going to report it. The real problem is that the local club is run by casual players who do not play tournaments. It's kind of funny. Tournament players see "added cash" and assume it means that the cash is going to the pros. To a non-tournament player, it's not at all clear on the Tier Standards page. I got an email from Sweeton saying that they would be fixing the language to make it more clear.

Thank you.

[cgkdisc]

Well, I'm glad your post helped produce some clarity.

[ddevine]

Howdy Chucker

Could you please explain how the ratings were done for the 27 hole courses at the Worlds? A conversion factor of three points per shot seems ridiculously low, and compresses everyone towards the middle of the distribution. If you compare the GM scores for round 4 (27 holes at DeLa) and the semi-finals (18 holes at DeLa), you will see a dramatic difference in ratings as you move away from par. Scores near even (par 3) have about the same ratings (1014 vs 1008), but things change dramatically as you move away from par due to the wildly different conversion factors (3 pts per shot vs 9 pts per shot).

This is related to an old complaint of mine, namely that the use of a single conversion factor (3-10 points per stroke) does not make sense as you move further away from average. My guess is that the linear approximation breaks down as you move away from par. Maybe a similar thing happens as you go from 18 to 27 holes.

Based on my experiences this week, there is a tremendous difference between 18 and 27 hole rounds, due primarily to the difficulty of maintaining focus over the course of a 5-6 hour round. These types of properties are difficult to capture in an equation, especially a linear one that has a fixed points per shot conversion.

Cheers, David

[cgkdisc]

The ratings are always done on a per hole basis and then expanded to the number of holes on the course. The impact of one throw on the ratings is related to the total number of holes in the same way it's done with any statistics. Think of it this way. Consider that you played two 18-hole rounds and shot 50 on each one rated at 1000 each. If you shot one better in the first round, your rating would have been 1010 for that 18-hole round. But your average for 36 holes would only have gone up 5 points to 1005. So one throw affected your 18-hole rating by 10 points but your average rating for 36 by only 5 points. The more holes, the less points per throw for the same SSA caliber course.

Your idea that a throw value should change as it moves away from average makes sense from a probablity standpoint for a specific player but which player? Your average round is 1000 rated but for me I might hit a 1000 rated round one in 30 rounds. Should I get a better rating for shooting the same score that you average regularly? No. That's why the rating points per throw for a specific SSA course with a specific number of holes is a constant. Every score is "average" for some player even those who may not exist yet (1060 average player).

[ddevine]

Howdy Chucker

I agree with your relative scaling factor per holes played, however that does not appear to be what is going on. One stroke on a 27 hole course should count 2/3 as much as one stroke on an 18 hole course, not 1/3 as much (the current ratings are based on 3 pts per stroke for 27 vs 9 pts per stroke for 18).

Up to now the ratings have been based on averages, with no use of standard deviations that would be correlated with the non-linear scaling. Given a large enough number of participants, the standard deviation of the scores for players with ratings near 1000 could be used as a measure for non-linear corrections, just like the averages are now used for the linear scaling factor. This would not work in general due to the relatively small number of 1000 rated players at most events.

Cheers, David

[cgkdisc]

If you're looking at the unofficial ratings for Worlds, look away and don't look back until you see the official ratings on August 30th.

[steveganz]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

If you're looking at the unofficial ratings for Worlds...

You can find an archived copy of each round's results with accurate unofficial ratings at http://2011pdga.com/results

[Patrick P]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Since cash can only be paid to pros, it's pretty clear that "added cash" means cash added to the pro purse because CTP and skins money doesn't count in payout. The only thing the guidelines don't indicate is how it's distributed among pro divisions.

Jeez, no it's not clear, where does it say in any single TD document that added cash is to go to the pro purse? Please reference this for me. I'll beat ya to it. The only document that defines added cash per say is the Electronic TD report.

And what does it say, under the 'Instructions' tab, ProPayout AmJrPayout:

For Am divisions, the dollar amounts and "added cash" for the payouts are based on retail merchandise values.

Furthermore, if you review the 'Am.Jr.Payout' tab, under each division it says Enter Added Cash (or deduction) here*>

This argument that the term "added cash" is explicitly coined as cash to be added to pro purse, is not supported in not one single PDGA document. I've given you two examples above where the term "added cash" is not cash only to be added to the pro purse.

My argument here is not necessarily directed at you Chuck, but the loosely defined TD documents that are written by the Flintstones. So if 98 Ams sign up in a B-tier and only 2 Pros sign up, you really think that the $500 has to go all to those two "Pros"? I implore the PDGA to provide TD instructions that clearly define added cash as you suggest.

[cgkdisc]

The relevant lines of the Tour Guidelines table goes in order:
Added Cash
Pro Payout Percentage
Amateur Payout Percentage
Estimated Amateur Attendance
Minimum Retail Value of Amateurs Players Package

Even the Flintstones understood the top two rows pertain to Pros and the following rows to Ams when it was written.

[bruce_brakel]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

The relevant lines of the Tour Guidelines table goes in order:
Added Cash
Pro Payout Percentage
Amateur Payout Percentage
Estimated Amateur Attendance
Minimum Retail Value of Amateurs Players Package

Even the Flintstones understood the top two rows pertain to Pros and the following rows to Ams when it was written.

The problem is that the Flintstones quit running tournaments and have not even renewed their memberships. There's stuff that "everybody knows" but everybody isn't here anymore. I agree with Chuck that the $500 added for a B-tier is cash for the pros, and that used to be clear in the documents. It isn't anymore and every year there is a fresh crop of more Rons running tournaments.

[Patrick P]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

The relevant lines of the Tour Guidelines table goes in order:
Added Cash
Pro Payout Percentage
Amateur Payout Percentage
Estimated Amateur Attendance
Minimum Retail Value of Amateurs Players Package

Even the Flintstones understood the top two rows pertain to Pros and the following rows to Ams when it was written.

Again, you unequivocally prove my point, thank you.

[ERicJ]

803.04.E If a large solid obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc, the player shall take his or her stance immediately behind that obstacle on the line of play. The player must comply with all the provisions of 803.04 A other than being within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc.

(1) Say I have a large solid obstacle 25cm behind my mini. Technically, I could probably take a legal stance, albeit a lousy one. But since in this situation I am prohibited from taking a legal stance 30cm behind my mini, as the rule says, can I play from behind the solid object instead?

(2) What happens in that situation if I say "I can't take a legal stance and want to play behind the solid obstacle", but another player on the card says "No, you can get your foot behind the mini, you have to play there."?

(3) When playing "immediately" behind the solid obstacle, what does "immediately" mean? Must I have the toe of my supporting point foot touching the solid obstacle, or do I get 30cm behind the solid obstacle?

[cgkdisc]

(1) & (2) If you can physically take a stance behind the mark you must do so per the rule. However, had you made this claim before marking your disc with a mini, there wouldn't have been room for you to take a stance. So make the call before marking if you might want to play from behind the object.

(3) The back edge of the solid obstacle becomes the "back edge of your mark" and you have the usual 30 cm on the LOP.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

(1) & (2) If you can physically take a stance behind the mark you must do so per the rule.

Okay, how far can you push that interpretation?

If there's 3cm between the back edge of my marker (be it mini or thrown disc) and the solid object and my cardmates say: "take a knee, put one finger on the ground between the marker and the solid obstacle for a supporting point, and make the throw"... that's what I have to do?
Or "that's what I have to do" to avoid taking an Optional Relief or Rethrow penalty stroke....

It seems like in your interpretation the 30cm number is unnecessary. The rule would be the same if written: "If a large solid obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance directly behind the marker disc [...]"

Is not the 30cm part of the rule intended to ensure that the player has a reasonable area in which to take a stance? I.e. if your marker is within 30cm of the solid object you may optionally play immediately behind the solid object.

[cgkdisc]

While a finger can technically be a stance, it's always been interpreted since I started the sport as meaning the ability to place your foot behind the mark even if it has to be sideways. The 30cm rule was never related to providing a 30cm gap behind your mark. It was the maximum diameter of the early discs and still is the max spec. Originally, players were allowed to take a stance that touched a 30cm circle behind the front edge of where your disc landed. That allowed a little more left-right leeway than currently allowed.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

While a finger can technically be a stance, it's always been interpreted since I started the sport as meaning the ability to place your foot behind the mark even if it has to be sideways.

But there's no written rule about using a foot, right?

So if I understand your interpretation of the situation it goes like this:

If there's more than 11cm (the width of my shoe) between the solid obstacle and my marker I have to play the marker lie.

If there's 10cm I can play immediately behind the solid object. But if my wife (with 8cm wide shoes) had thrown that same shot she would be required to play the marker lie, not behind the solid obstacle as I would.

To me that seems silly that this rule would apply differently to different players.

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

The 30cm rule was never related to providing a 30cm gap behind your mark.

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Originally, players were allowed to take a stance that touched a 30cm circle behind the front edge of where your disc landed.

Don't those two statements contradict themselves?