Ask Chuck Kennedy

[cgkdisc]

Hey Chuck, what do the "B" "S" and "C" categories in your survey results mean?

Basic, Standard, Championship

Hawk, more recent than you apparently think. But maybe you don't know how the ladies like guys learning to ballroom dance.

[born2lose]

hi chuck i was just wondering if you could answer this. I recently played in a pdga tourney and my worst round was rated a 864. I knew it was bad but didnt think it was that bad. I checked the pro scores and a few of the pros shot the same layout and the same score as me and thier round was rated a 909. Can you tell me why this may be? Thanx

[cgkdisc]

If the ratings are that far apart, then the TD likely didn't enter the proper course layouts. That difference should not be there once the official ratings are calculated for the Sept update.

[hawkgammon]

Chuck,

I always knew you were light on your feet. Typically ratings seem to run 7 to 10 points per stroke difference. Under what circumstances could the spread be 12-13 points?

[Pennekamp]

Hey Chuck,

I recently played the Riverside Glide in Tulsa. They aren't showing in my tourney history, or anyones for that matter. Does this mean they won't be included in the next update?

[cgkdisc]

Under what circumstances could the spread be 12-13 points?

It's a continuum from 13 or so points per throw down around SSA 43. It continues to drop and passes thru the pivot point at SSA 50.4 where it's exactly 10 pts/throw and progresses down to less than 7 pts per throw at around 70 SSA.

[cgkdisc]

I recently played the Riverside Glide in Tulsa. They aren't showing in my tourney history, or anyones for that matter. Does this mean they won't be included in the next update?

If you look under the title of the event on the page where you can see the scores it says "Unofficial results." That means the TD hasn't sent the report to the PDGA yet. But they do have 30 days to do it. If we get the report in another few weeks, it will get processed for your ratings in the Sept update.

[Pennekamp]

Thanks [img]/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[OSTERTIP]

Hey Chuck you mind putting your two cents in on this one?

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.ph...;gonew=1#UNREAD

[Flash_25296]

Hey Chuck,

What is the major limitation for doing more frequent player rating updates? Is it the older database and mining code used by the PDGA or is it the time commitment?

With more and more TD's looking at rating based tournaments it seems it would behoove the players to have more frequent ratings issued by the PDGA!

[ck34]

The limit is partly self imposed, not limited by technology issues. The average PDGA member only plays a little more than one rated round per month, less than 4 every three months. The volume isn't there to justify the effort to do them more frequently. Even though we have more members every year, most have relatively stable skill levels and ratings. Updating more frequently just adds statistical churn to the numbers without indicating true changes. As such, more churn just makes it more difficult for TDs who would be faced with players waiting longer to preregister or not doing it at all when they wait for say a bi-weekly or live update. Then TDs would be changing players' divisions more frquently and dealing with getting the extra entry fee or doing rebates when entry fees are different between divisions.

Another Achilles' heel of ratings is still the TDs being accurate with submitting the proper course layouts matched with divisions, especially when doing the unofficial online ratings. Doing the work to validate proper layouts is still a manual step that will always require human oversight. Not catching errors with live weekly updates would just compound inaccuracies in ratings for everyone else affected and propagate them thru the system.

It's sort of like the stock market - savvy investors don't pay attention to daily or even monthly fluctuations to buy or sell stock but look at longer term trends qurterly or yearly to decide to buy or sell a stock. I think many feel a player should be able to remain in the same division for one year to compete for a regional series title before being forced to move up. On balance, people who improve from their first rating based on at least 6 rounds just don't improve faster than one division a year anyway.

[ArtVandelay]

Chuck,

Regarding the length/285+ 30 equation you have mentioned for approximating course SSAs. Is the change in foliage factor about 12-16 points up or down per factor? i.e. for a woodsy course, length/271(or so) + 30 would be about right?

[Flash_25296]

Another Achilles' heel of ratings is still the TDs being accurate with submitting the proper course layouts matched with divisions, especially when doing the unofficial online ratings. Doing the work to validate proper layouts is still a manual step that will always require human oversight. Not catching errors with live weekly updates would just compound inaccuracies in ratings for everyone else affected and propagate them thru the system.

So just to paraphrase, it would take more time to make sure it was done correctly to issue say a monthly update.

Waiting for a quarterly update seems to me like more work at rating times to perform the manual verification of course layouts. If the events happened monthly it seems there would be more of a process smoothing effect that would reduce the number of problems with updates due to human error. Regardless of whether or not someone plays mroe than one tournament a month those rounds contribute to there overall performance, which is a collection of past performances. I believe with a rating update more frequent players will not be waiting for the winter time to have their ratings catch up to them. But I also understand the time commitment factor and appreciate the work that those involved contribute! I just see it as a benefit to memebers to have more regular updates.

[maikyle]

I think there should be a cut-off rating in advances divisions. The winner has an 986 rating, some of the TOURING pros have that rating and some of the other top pros have that rating. The cutoff should be 935 for advanced, above that and you should be required to play pro. WHy isnt this so right now? So many higher rated ams are already pro open, but when it comes to the big tourneys, they drop down to MA1 to place higgher. Give everyone a fair chance and change the rating system

[cgkdisc]

No one has found a sport that forces ams to turn pro no matter how good they get and the PDGA has chosen not to do that. However, the lines between pro and am have now been blurred as much as possible with PDGA options such as allowing ams to play pro and cash by receiving merch, or playing trophy only at a reduced fee, and pros may play am under 970 rating and receive merch. In addition, TDs may do rating events that DO force those with the same ratings above 969 to play together and yet you don't see too many TDs offering those events.

I was talking with some people about this at Worlds and the only other steps that we see could be taken are to change the names: am & pro. We could call our pros 'super ams' like they mostly are and eliminate pros completely except for maybe those over 1024. Then placing a hard 970 break wouldn't be a problem since it would just be another amateur break. We could also call everyone 'pros' but only allow the division over 970 to be paid in cash and the those below to get merch prizes.

Perhaps the best option might be to not even call players ams or pros, just members and non-members who qualify to play in various cash and non-cash prize divisions based on their gender, age and rating level. We could then have ratings breaks where we wanted and just have divisional names without being trapped in the traditional expectations of what am and pro mean.

[scottreek]

Chuck, Do the semi finals and finals get ratings during the world championships?

[cgkdisc]

Semis will get official ratings but the online software doesn't do the unofficial ratings for events. No ratings for 9-hole Finals.

[bruce_brakel]

Chuck, on another thread you said,

All rounds played on the same course will be averaged together for the whole week to produce the official ratings. So everyone who shot the same score should end up with the same rating. We decided that the wind/weather was close enough to the same each day to do that.

Will we have to wait until September 9 for that? Right now the ratings say my 63 at Timber Ridge was 922 but Brent Koontz's 63 at Timber Ridge was 994.

[cgkdisc]

Yes. The online software can't track the scores once the pools are shuffled. It assumes all scores in a column are from the same course but once the shuffle occurs, they could be from 2 to 4 different courses making the ratings calculations incorrect. SSA for Timber Ridge should come out around 62 for a 1000 rated round.

[JohnLambert]

Nevermind, it took me 2 hours, but I found the answer to my question on a previous page.

I've gathered that in order for a round to get a rating, you must have at least 18 holes, and at least 5 propogators in the same divison with 8 rated rounds. Is this correct? This would be why final 9 rounds usually have no ratings?

[cgkdisc]

You must have at least 13 holes and 5 propagators in all divisions playing a layout to get official ratings. The online software doesn't do unofficial ratings no matter how many holes in a semi round. Propagators are those with ratings over 799 based on at least 8 rated rounds.

[JohnLambert]

5 gators in all divisions combined? Or 5 gators in each division playing?

[cgkdisc]

Playing the course at the same time regardless of division. If the same course is played twice with only 3 gators under essentially the same conditions, that counts as 6 gators and official ratings will be produced for both rounds. However, the online unofficial ratings software isn't programmed to handle that and you won't see any ratings until they are done officially.

[JohnLambert]

I've played 3 tournaments, or something like 10 rounds. Most of which are higher than my current rating. I've also been trying to accrue MA1 points. So anyway, I patiently wait for my June tournament to become official. Still nothing. Wait for my July tournaments. Nothing. So I make calls. Every one of them has no intention of turning in their TD reports before the August 22nd deadline, with the exception of one, who stated he would try and get it turned in tomorrow if possible.

So here's what I'm looking at.......nothing. Right? Without those TD reports I don't get my rated rounds or points. I may have to wait until January?

OK, so maybe my question is this, and I'm sure it's been asked before, Is there nothing we can do if a TD just doesn't want to turn in a TD report? I've gone through the steps I thought I should. I waited the 30 days (with the exception of the late July tournament), I made the calls, is there something I'm missing?

[pnkgtr]

What is the deal John, is Disctribution paying bonuses to their players with ratings increases or high point totals? (I hate having to use these things)It does allow you to play intermediate longer though doesn't it?

[JohnLambert]

I haven't been playing intermediate since March. But yeah, I'm proud of how I've been playing lately and am anxious to see how it stacks up. Also, I'd like to see how close I am to my goal of 1000 AM1 points by the end of the year.

[JohnLambert]

Well it looks like the prescription of player pressure may have an effect this time. I've now got word that 2 out of 3 are trying to turn the report in today. woohoo.

UPDATE: Had some more success. According to all 3 TD's, after receiving my calls and messages, they all seem to be turning the reports in TODAY. Hopefully they make the update.

[Dana]

Instead of waiting, you could figure out the points yourself. (Just an idea, until they do become official)

[topdog]

John if your only missing the 3 tournments your total points will be 888.

[JohnLambert]

Ok cool. I guess there is no difference between MA2 and MA1 points? Looks like they're combined for "Amateur" points. I looked it up, it's 7.5 points for everyone I beat in AM1 right? Is that how you came up with that # topdog?