Worlds Performances and Ratings

In 16 of 22 divisions at Worlds, the top rated player won.

In 2 divisions, the winner was unrated.

In 22 of 22 divisions, the winner had one of the top 4 ratings in the field (or was unrated).

Div	Place of righest rating	Rating rank of winner	Comment
MPO	1	1
MPM	1	1
MPG	1	1
MPS	1	1
MPL	1	1
FPO	5	3	Korver 2 strokes out of 2nd entering Finals
FPM	3	4	??
FPG	1	1
MA1	1	1
MM1	1	1
MG1	10	4	??
MS1	2	??	Winner was unrated
FW1	3	2	??
FM1	1	1
FG1	1	1
MJ1	3	??	Winner was unrated
MJ2	1	1
MJ3	1	1
MJ4	1	1
FJ1	1	1
FJ2	1	1
FJ3	1	1

Speaking of World's ratings, when are the round ratings at Worlds going to be fixed/updated. When they did the reshuffling of pools, it messed up the ratings each round. Just wondered if this will be fixed in the near future, or if it will take a while.

Plan on it taking a while.

You may have to wait for the official ratings, which should (I think) be included in the next update.

[ck34]

There's no benefit to fixing the current online Worlds ratings when the official update will have them by mid-September. Hopefully, Theo and his other helpers (if any) can get the complicated pool switching and multidivisional online calculations to work for future events.

[steveganz]

Fixes courtesy of Jason Haas were made onsite last week but have not been implemented due to time constraints.

[ck34]

And for those members who track online stats, Steve Ganz and Jason Haas deservedly received the 2003 Volunteers of the Year award at Worlds for all of their work to provide stats information on this site. Here, Here!

There's no benefit to fixing the current online Worlds ratings when the official update will have them by mid-September.

So says Chuck, but not necessarily the Ratings Committee, the PDGA BOD, or the Des Moines Club.

[neonnoodle]

So says Chuck, but not necessarily the Ratings Committee, the PDGA BOD, or the Des Moines Club.

Not sure about this Rodney, but isn't Chuck Kennedy considered the Chairman of said committee...?

I'm definitely with you on fixing it though... in fact, I'd like to be involved.

[ck34]

Here's one reason why the online Worlds ratings don't really need to be fixed. I manually processed several divisions to come up with these SSA values and ratings for scores. I modified Rodney's original table for the Des Moines courses and popped in these numbers. If the course was windy that day, it's possible your SSA was 1-2 throws higher than shown. For example, MPG had an SSA of 58 at Ewing on Tuesday morning and 55.5 in the Saturday Semis there. This will get you close to what I expect you'll see for your ratings when they are updated in September. Sorry, I didn't do any short tee stats but it looks like several of those rounds probably have enough players to get rated.

Long tees
Course >	WW	MT	CM	IS-AK	GV	BC-DM	EW	PK-WR
SSA	46.5	48	48.5	49.5	50	55	56	57
Score	---
40	1078	---
41	1066	1078	1082	1089	---
42	1054	1067	1071	1078	1082	---
43	1042	1056	1060	1068	1071	---
44	1030	1045	1049	1057	1061	---
45	1018	1034	1038	1047	1051	1086	---
46	1006	1022	1027	1037	1041	1077	1083	1088
47	994	1011	1016	1026	1031	1069	1075	1080
48	982	1000	1005	1016	1020	1060	1066	1072
49	970	989	995	1005	1010	1052	1058	1064
50	958	978	984	995	1000	1043	1050	1056
51	946	966	973	984	990	1034	1041	1048
52	934	955	962	974	980	1026	1033	1040
53	922	944	951	963	969	1017	1025	1032
54	910	933	940	953	959	1009	1017	1024
55	898	922	929	943	949	1000	1008	1016
56	886	910	918	932	939	991	1000	1008
57	875	899	907	922	929	983	992	1000
58	863	888	896	911	918	974	983	992
59	851	877	885	901	908	966	975	984
60	839	866	874	890	898	957	967	976
61	827	854	863	880	888	948	959	968
62	815	843	852	869	878	940	950	960
63	803	832	841	859	867	931	942	952
64	791	821	830	848	857	923	934	944
65	779	810	819	838	847	914	925	936
66	767	798	808	828	837	905	917	928
67	755	787	797	817	827	897	909	920
68	743	776	786	807	816	888	901	912
69	731	765	776	796	806	880	892	904
70	719	754	765	786	796	871	884	896
71	707	742	754	775	786	862	876	888
72	695	731	743	765	776	854	867	880
73	683	720	732	754	765	845	859	872
74	671	709	721	744	755	837	851	864
75	659	698	710	734	745	828	843	856
76	647	686	699	723	735	820	834	848
77	636	675	688	713	725	811	826	840
78	624	664	677	702	714	802	818	832
79	612	653	666	692	704	794	809	824
80	600	642	655	681	694	785	801	816
81	588	630	644	671	684	777	793	808
82	576	619	633	660	674	768	784	800
83	564	608	622	650	663	759	776	792
84	552	597	611	639	653	751	768	784
85	540	586	600	629	643	742	760	776
86	528	574	589	619	633	734	751	768
87	516	563	578	608	623	725	743	761
88	504	552	567	598	612	716	735	753
89	492	541	557	587	602	708	726	745
90	480	530	546	577	592	699	718	737
91	468	518	535	566	582	691	710	729
92	456	507	524	556	572	682	702	721
93	444	496	513	545	561	673	693	713
94	432	485	502	535	551	665	685	705
95	420	474	491	525	541	656	677	697
96	408	462	480	514	531	648	668	689
97	397	451	469	504	521	639	660	681
98	385	440	458	493	510	630	652	673
99	373	429	447	483	500	622	644	665

Thanks for the info guys....

I totally like that! One of the courses I never got to see during Worlds was Walnut Ridge. So Bruce and I went there Sunday morning for a round before we left town. I had an incredibly consistent round---every drive in the fairway, every up shot on target, etc. I shot a 60!!! According to Chuck that's a 976 rated round. YES!!!! There is a disc golfer inside me just waiting to get out and play a round!

[tpozzy]

Jason helped me fix the ratings problem while I was playing (and working) in Des Moines. But I ran out of time getting the update ready before I left, and now I'm with my family in New England, and without a reliable (or high speed) internet connection. I'm probably not going to be able to fix the round ratings until mid next week. Sorry for the delay. I spent hours working on it at the event last week.

-Theo

Theo, I imagine you are up in Maine, but if you get in the Hartford area then it'll be worth the trip to check out Wickham Park.

Nice meeting you at Worlds, and tell the BOD that the volunteer award(s) were an excellent choice!

Next week sounds good Theo... that's sooner that I thought it would be up. Thanks for all your hard work!

[bruce_brakel]

I totally like that! One of the courses I never got to see during Worlds was Walnut Ridge. So Bruce and I went there Sunday morning for a round before we left town. I had an incredibly consistent round---every drive in the fairway, every up shot on target, etc. I shot a 60!!! According to Chuck that's a 976 rated round. YES!!!! There is a disc golfer inside me just waiting to get out and play a round!

Jon's round was incredible. I don't recall him getting a single bit of tree love or making any looooong lucky putts. It was all drive, approach, make the 3, except a birdie somewhere and a handful of bogies.

Hey, Jon, did Kelsey shoot a +23 840 round? Do you still have the card?

Jon's round was incredible. I don't recall him getting a single bit of tree love or making any looooong lucky putts. It was all drive, approach, make the 3, except a birdie somewhere and a handful of bogies.

Hey, Jon, did Kelsey shoot a +23 840 round? Do you still have the card?

Do I still have the card? I'm going to frame it!!! Kelsey shot a 78, 830 rated round.

[sandalman]

i have a little modelling spreadsheet that compares actual results and ratings-predicted results. it allows you to
calculate what deviation from the ratings-prediction is required to achieve any particular level of prediction accuracy.

for example, in the table below, i decided to see how far the average player couild deviate from his predicted finish and still have the ratings be correct 50% of the time. resutls for all open and am divsions look like this:

division	players	deviation	plus/minus	num correct	pct correct
open	149	0.19	14.16	79	53.02%
masters	83	0.19	7.89	40	48.19%
grandmasters	34	0.17	2.89	17	50.00%
sr grandmasters	10	0.20	1.00	6	60.00%
legends	7	0.20	0.70	5	71.43%
open women	26	0.16	2.02	13	50.00%
masters women	9	0.23	1.04	5	55.56%
grandmasters women	4	0.01	0.02	4	100.00%
advanced	265	0.24	31.8	133	50.19%
adv masters	116	0.23	13.34	58	50.00%
adv grandmasters	41	0.15	2.99	19	46.34%
adv sr grandmasters	7	0.29	1.02	3	42.86%
adv women	35	0.18	3.15	19	54.29%
adv master women	7	0.29	1.02	6	85.71%
adv sr grandmaster women	6	0.01	0.03	3	50.00%

overall, a deviation of about 20% yields at 50% correct prediction. that means in a 100 player division, the ratings correctly predicted where 50% of the players would finish within +/- 10 places. not too shabby.

[MTL21676]

The Big Creek ratings for the ams are totally screwed up.

JJ shot 55 and it was like 970 something
Barry shot 55 and it was 1015.

Just another great example of our "awesome" ratings system

Oooh, sandalman, I like you long time.

Along those lines, here are some people that performed better than predicted (when comparing rating rank in the field to their actual finish):

Place	RatingRank	Diff	Name
46	126	80	Tanner Duncan
29	86	57	Tony Gerling
48	96	48	Justin McLuen
92	139	47	Ed Williams
77	123	46	Don Barrette

Here are some that finished lower than ratings would predict:

Place	RatingRank	Diff	Name
108	28	-80	Sonny Ashby
95	30	-65	Larry Bledsoe Jr
132	79	-53	Brian Donahue
59	7	-52	Ken Jarvis
111	64	-47	Sam Ferrans

Here are some that finished right about where ratings might predict:

Place	RatingRank	Diff	Name
1	1	0	Barry Schultz
2	2	0	Ken Climo
18	18	0	Nathan Doss
134	134	0	Billy Moody
141	141	0	Brian Threlkeld
4	3	-1	Steve Rico
5	4	-1	Cameron Todd
15	14	-1	Chris Heeren
37	38	1	Ray Johnson
43	44	1	Gregg Barsby
110	111	1	Will Cralle

[ck34]

The Big Creek ratings for the ams are totally screwed up.

JJ shot 55 and it was like 970 something
Barry shot 55 and it was 1015.

Just another great example of our "awesome" ratings system

If you read upthread, I posted a table with more appropriate SSAs for the Worlds courses. And, the online ratings are not connected to the official ratings process.

[sandalman]

JJ shot 55 and it was like 970 something
Barry shot 55 and it was 1015.

just one more example of the PDGA catering to the elite few!

ooops, wrong thread

[dixonjowers]

Are you two guys retarded? They said that the ratings were messed up and that it would be fixed sometime next week. Give them a break, or better yet, instead of reaming Theo and reading politics into it, YOU FIX THE PROBLEM.

[sandalman]

dixon, HUH? who are you talking about? are you on the right thread? we all love the ratings here and nobody is dissing the system. chill out

[boobs]

Dixon is the man, and the rating system is awesome keep up th good work guys.

[chris]

WI had the "hot round" in 7 of the 9 rounds played for Open!!

[widiscgolf]

Robert:

I saw that. I shot a 55 at Walnut and I saw the pros got a 1016 rating and I got a 996. Weird stuff. I'm sure the PDGA is taking care of it.

[ck34]

That difference would not be abnormal even if both numbers were calculated correctly. A 20 point rating difference is only 2-shots in SSA which is perfectly normal with wind versus little wind.

[MTL21676]

yeah I shot 56 which was in the 1000s in the pros - but from what I hear, we had it easy based on the conditions.

Of course we had those same conditions at Big Creek and DMACC

[Moderator005]

yeah I shot 56 which was in the 1000s in the pros - but from what I hear, we had it easy based on the conditions.

Of course we had those same conditions at Big Creek and DMACC

Ratings are total bull.

[Jake L]

What's the deal? same post three times, different threads. Why are ratings "bull"?