Ask Chuck Kennedy

[futurecollisions]

Chuck,

The Heart of Houston Open tourney from January 2012 has the wrong number of holes entered. When the results become 'official' will that be corrected along with the round ratings?

Thanks

[cgkdisc]

I won't see the report for a while. I would check with TD to see if he got the number correct on the report.

[daomac1000]

Will the memorial ratings be included in the March 20th update?

[cgkdisc]

That's the plan. But those four 1100+ rounds were abnormally good so the Ratings Committee decided to cap them at 1090...





(just kidding)

[daomac1000]

I think those rounds should just be rated as "Out of this world stupid crazy!!"...you should add that PDGA player rating and make it an official category.

[keithjohnson]

As talented as those players are - the fact that they had zero wind all 4 days while all the other divisions had wind and in the case of the ladies FRI (30-40 MPH on video the entire round) while the lead male cards teed off with 5-10MPH had a little to do with it also.

Unlike most places where the wind is calmer in the morning and picks up throughout the day - in AZ it was exactly the opposite every day.

They still shot lights out, but Vista del Roller, plays MUCH harder when there is wind as well as the strategy at the Fountain is different also when windy compared to calm.

As much as my tincupped 4 holes at Vista to shoot a 77 (double 6, triple 7 triple 8 and Quadruple 9) my rating for that round still wasn't low enough that it will get thrown out.

Headed for INT baby!

[rhett]

Chuck, when do TD reports get processed and the results on the pdga website go from "Unofficial" to "Official"? Is there a regular schedule or is it ad hoc? Thanks.

BTW, this is not a ratings questions.

[cgkdisc]

When TD reports are received at PDGA HQ, they try to get them posted as official scores "ad hoc" within the next week or so. Then, those reports, received by the deadline two weeks before each ratings update date, are processed for official ratings.

[rhett]

It takes TD Report submittal plus fee payment before results can transition from "Unofficial Results" to "Official Results", correct?

[cgkdisc]

Yes, but I'm not absolutely sure if the fees have to have been paid before they'll post them. You'd have to contact the office about that.

[NateB]

I was reading through the rules Q & A today and wondered about this one:

Q: My disc landed in a creek that has been declared casual. May I place a rock or a broken limb behind my mark, to stand on in order to keep my feet dry?

A: If you choose not to take casual relief up to 5m back on the line of play, then you must take your stance as you would anywhere else on the course. You are not allowed to move obstacles on the course to build your lie, or for any other reason, unless they are casual obstacles. If you do not want to play the lie as is, or take casual relief, you may declare Optional Relief or an Optional Rethrow at the cost of one throw.
Applicable Rules: 803.04 Stance, Subsequent to Teeing Off; 803.01 General; 803.05 Obstacles and Relief; 803.06 Optional Rethrow

The wording is a little confusing. Sounds like the answer to the original question would be yes, since sticks and stones are casual obstacles.

[cgkdisc]

Read it closely. It says "for any other reason" related to the text you bolded. It doesn't mean you can move around sticks to other positions unless they are already in your stance.

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by NateB

I was reading through the rules Q & A today and wondered about this one:

Q: My disc landed in a creek that has been declared casual. May I place a rock or a broken limb behind my mark, to stand on in order to keep my feet dry?

A: If you choose not to take casual relief up to 5m back on the line of play, then you must take your stance as you would anywhere else on the course. You are not allowed to move obstacles on the course to build your lie, or for any other reason, unless they are casual obstacles. If you do not want to play the lie as is, or take casual relief, you may declare Optional Relief or an Optional Rethrow at the cost of one throw.
Applicable Rules: 803.04 Stance, Subsequent to Teeing Off; 803.01 General; 803.05 Obstacles and Relief; 803.06 Optional Rethrow

The wording is a little confusing. Sounds like the answer to the original question would be yes, since sticks and stones are casual obstacles.

Sticks and stones are not necessarily casual obstacles. In order for obstacles to be "casual obstacles", they have to be in your lie/stance. If they're not in your stance, they're just plain obstacles, and you're not allowed to move obstacles ever.

So you cannot take anything from outside your lie/stance in order to build a lie not because you aren't allowed to build a lie, but because you're not allowed to move the obstacles you'd be using to build the lie.

[ishkatbible]

hey chuck,

i posted event results saturday and the places were all wrong. the site was asking me to correct ties but the players "tied" weren't really tied. it was asking me about random people. after several re-uploads most of it was fixed. but the mens rec division is still all jacked up. how do i fix that?

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=12904

[cgkdisc]

Were you uploading "Place" field values or letting the program calculate or assign your finish positions? Try not uploading the finish positions and see if that works. Otherwise, you'll need to contact PDGA HQ for help.

[ishkatbible]

I tried both ways. Forgot about the "place" field untill I saw that things were screwy. So I went back entered the "places" and still had the problem. I'll try again though. Thanks

[jimimc]

I have a strange question. Do the harder courses ratings count more toward your rating? And if not, shouldn't they? We're having a big discussion here in Delaware about shooting a 51 at Lum's Pond and a 72 at Iron Hill being the same rating. The problem most people have is when the scores get off the SSA. A 60 at Iron Hill has the same rating as a 45 at Lum's, as do a 84 at Iron Hill and a 57 at Lums. The more extreme the numbers the more extreme the difference. Now I get it, but shouldn't the amount of strokes weigh heavier on your rating?

[cgkdisc]

An 18-hole rating is weighted the same on an SSA 50 course as an SSA 70 course. However, a 24-hole course with a 70 SSA will be weighted 33% more (24/18) than the 18-hole SSA 70 course. It has to do with how many 'tests" you have on the course that matters, where a "test" is one hole regardless whether it's a par 3 or par 5.

[jimimc]

I never really thought there was a flaw in the rating system until now. What your saying is, a birdie on a 300' slightly wooded par 3, is the same as a birdie on a par 5 like say hole 5 at the USDGC. The test isn't the same. If I need one good shot to get a drop in, compared to three really good shots to get the same drop in, how is that fair? I know you can't break each course down like that, but there should be some way to increase the weight of the rating on a harder course.

The real discussion came up when somebody wanted to know what a 1100 rated round would be at Iron Hill. It's 20 down. That's an impossibility. Everyone actually shoots much closer to there rating, with less super highs and super lows. I get why, but when we were talking the only thing that made sense was to have these rounds count more.

With an average of say 27 shots inside of 100' on two courses. One has a SSA of 50 and one a SSA of 72. The shots leading up to those aren't even close. You have 23 shots vs 45. That has to count for something.

[JenniferB]

I have a question about pros getting reclassified as am. I thought you could petition and be successful if your rating is low enough, but someone who got reclassified said you have to take a year off from tournaments. Is that right? Is it that you have to not cash for a year, and if so, would taking merch instead of cash for a year do it?

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by JenniferB

I have a question about pros getting reclassified as am. I thought you could petition and be successful if your rating is low enough, but someone who got reclassified said you have to take a year off from tournaments. Is that right? Is it that you have to not cash for a year, and if so, would taking merch instead of cash for a year do it?

I don't think they require anyone to take a year off from tournaments. But I do think one of the criteria for being approved for reclassification is having not cashed (or accepted cash) in a pro division in the previous 12 months or so. I think the whole idea behind reclassifying is because one can no longer be competitive in the professional division(s).

And based on that assumption, the petitioning player should already meet the ratings criteria for a pro to be allowed to play an amateur division, and probably should already be playing in that amateur division where they intend to play after the reclassification. Doing that would avoid the cash vs merch dilemma in the first place. Seems counter-productive to continue playing a pro division if one is petitioning to return to amateur status.

[bruce_brakel]

Originally Posted by jimimc

I never really thought there was a flaw in the rating system until now. What your saying is, a birdie on a 300' slightly wooded par 3, is the same as a birdie on a par 5 like say hole 5 at the USDGC. The test isn't the same. If I need one good shot to get a drop in, compared to three really good shots to get the same drop in, how is that fair? I know you can't break each course down like that, but there should be some way to increase the weight of the rating on a harder course.

I don't think that is what Chuck is saying.

I think what Chuck is saying is that a 1000 rated round at your local pitch and putt 18 hole course counts as much toward your rating as a 1000 rated round at the 18 hole USDGC course. But a 1000 rated round on your local 24 hole pitch and putt course is going to count for more than a 1000 rated round at the USDGC, even though you might have had the same score on both courses.

There is no way to compare a 2 on a 300 foot hole versus a 2 on an 1100 foot hole because ratings are not computed hole by hole.

I think you have a valid point that weighting should go by SSA rather than number of holes played. You're playing way more golf at Winthrop Gold in a single round than you are playing at a short deuce or die 18 holer. I think SSA is a better indicator of how much golf you played than is the number of holes. If the purpose of weighting a 24 holer 33% more than an 18 holer is that the former is 33% more golf, a 64 SSA is 33% more golf than a 48 SSA, regardless of the number of holes played.

I'm curious what the smartest disc golfer I know thinks about this. Krupicka, are you reading this?

[JenniferB]

Originally Posted by jconnell

I don't think they require anyone to take a year off from tournaments. But I do think one of the criteria for being approved for reclassification is having not cashed (or accepted cash) in a pro division in the previous 12 months or so. I think the whole idea behind reclassifying is because one can no longer be competitive in the professional division(s).

And based on that assumption, the petitioning player should already meet the ratings criteria for a pro to be allowed to play an amateur division, and probably should already be playing in that amateur division where they intend to play after the reclassification. Doing that would avoid the cash vs merch dilemma in the first place. Seems counter-productive to continue playing a pro division if one is petitioning to return to amateur status.

Its different for a pro woman rated 850 or higher. The ratings for playing amateur women's divisions are really set too low if you think about it.

[bruce_brakel]

From the bottom of Advanced Women (800) to the top of pro women (currently 969) you have a 169 point spread. Other than the outlier Brakel women who don't actually play in the Advanced Women's division, the top advanced women are near or under 900, for a spread of about 100 points in FA1.

From the bottom of Advanced Men (935) to the top of pro men (1043) there is a 108 point spread. The top advanced men who are playing in the division are rated around 1000 for a spread of 65 points in MA1.

I think a mathematical argument could be made for redefining the ratings breaks for women's divisions upwards about 35 points. I think it would have the effect of making the women's advanced division mostly a theoretical concept except at Worlds and well attended women's tournaments. But the women's advanced division already is a mostly theoretical concept in a lot of regions, so that should not be a problem.

[krupicka]

Bruce, I have been letting it mull over in my head and here a couple of thoughts.

Let's look at things another way. Say you are comparing a par 6 hole (I'm thinking something like Dana's dog leg at Pine Hill) with two par three holes. For fun we'll make it the same layout and just throw a basket at the turn. Should the rating on the one hole layout be weighted the same as the two hole layout? I would contend that the one hole layout is actually more forgiving in that as it is just as easy to get in trouble, there is more room to be able to recover from an errant shot. The other thing to consider is that for the two hole layout there are two throws that must be precise enough to stick in the basket. For the one hole layout, the third shot simply needs to be in the approximate landing zone. I guess where I'm going with this is that with an identical SSA, courses with more holes should be weighted more highly.

Comparing two course with the same number of holes but different SSAs, I think the logic still works in that even though there are more throws that must be executed correctly on a longer course, a shorter course is not as forgiving on the misstep. Take the extreme. A 18 hole 36 SSA course is not forgiving, one wrong toss and you cannot recover that stroke. Where a 18 hole 54 SSA course may allow for more recovery from those mistakes.

One last thought. What affect will weighting courses with different SSAs have on a player's rating? My napkin math says that it probably would be less than 5 rating points depending on number of rounds, mix of high SSA, low SSA. For a large number of players this tweaking is just noise.

btw ratings are not computed hole by hole, but they are calculated on a per hole basis in the math. This value is then converted into the 1000 point scale that so many like to argue about. This makes it easier to weight the round ratings based on number of holes.

[mfcastillo17]

Hi Chuck. For some reason, the ratings for those who played the short tees at this event http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/78066 are not showing up. Everything has been entered correctly as far as I know. Any ideas of what happened and how I can get it fixed? Thanks!

[cgkdisc]

If unofficial ratings don't show up, it's likely there weren't at least 5 propagators (players with established ratings over 799) playing those tees among those divisions. We'll still figure out a way to get official ratings though.

[mfcastillo17]

There were 6 by my count, and the ratings showed up for both the first and third rounds. Was it an oversight on my part or should I just submit the final TD report to the PDGA office?

[cgkdisc]

Do all 6 of them have ratings based on at least 8 rounds? If any of them shot more than 60 points below their rating, they aren't used as props for that round. Like I said, we'll still get official ratings calculated for that round.

[mfcastillo17]

Thanks chuck, I'll submit the report today