Ask Chuck Kennedy

[ck34]

Chuck, is there any way I can view scores on individual holes from the Majestic (or any other tourney)?

Only the grunt work of someone like the TD entering scores from the cards gets us that info. Only USDGC so far does that relatively realtime online that I know of. I have done several big events and some small events on courses I've designed to find issues and improve the holes. A few other designers have also started doing some of that analysis.

[u4iknightmare]

I've been collecting the score cards from the Tournies and Bag Tags on our local courses here.

Got a spreadsheet that figures modes, averages, standard devs, and the coefficient of variances for each hole.

First, I do believe, that I'll have to weed the data set down to only those of which have qualified propagator status or at least those that obviously have at least ~850 skill. (Q.Props are a bit rare around here for this year at least)

What issues would these numbers alert us to?
What other, if any, calculations from this data set would aid in improving a course?

Thanks fer the time...
U4ik

[ck34]

The distributions usually need to be adjusted by rating to one of our four skill levels (1000, 950, 900, 850) to make it useful for analyzing whether a hole does a good job spreading scores for that skill level and whether the scoring average meets the intentions of the hole designer. For example, does the scoring average adjusted to 950 level from a Blue tee drop the average below 2.5 making it a too easy par 3 (stealth par 2)? I'm in the process of analyzing scores from this year's Mid-Nationals to see whether certain holes on our Gold course need to be modified or whether the alternate pin placement will be better for Gold level players at Pro Worlds next year.

We also modified our Par 3 island hole that's similar to Winthrop Gold #17 to try and eliminate the donut effect of way more scores of 2 and 4 on the hole than scores of 3. It seemed to work but now the overall average is lower than 2.5 so we may need to lengthen the tee or add some trees on the route.

Another basic review determines whether a hole might have too many of the same scores for a skill level on a hole. For example, if more than 7 out of 10 Blue level players shoot a 3 on a hole, it probably is the wrong length to spread the scores for that level. Moving the tee or pin longer or shorter about 30 feet changes the scoring average about 0.1 up or down, respectively.

Members of the Disc Golf Course Designers group have access to a hole analysis tool called the Hole Forecaster which automatically adjusts scores to the PDGA skill levels making the analysis process much easier.

[gotcha]

The distributions usually need to be adjusted by rating to one of our four skill levels (1000, 950, 900, 850) to make it useful for analyzing whether a hole does a good job spreading scores for that skill level and whether the scoring average meets the intentions of the hole designer.

Another basic review determines whether a hole might have too many of the same scores for a skill level on a hole. For example, if more than 7 out of 10 Blue level players shoot a 3 on a hole, it probably is the wrong length to spread the scores for that level. Moving the tee or pin longer or shorter about 30 feet changes the scoring average about 0.1 up or down, respectively.

We are using this type of scoring data to determine the need for changes/improvements of individual holes at Moraine State Park. A couple of examples would be the gold tee layouts on holes 9 & 11. For hole 9, the idea is to simply shorten the gold tee by 30'-50'. The same can be done on hole 11, however, J Gary Dropcho recently found a potential gold tee location approximately 30' to the right and short of the present tee. We would need to remove select trees to open the fairway, but this proposed tee location would definitely provide much more shot variation and will more than likely improve the overal scoring spread on the hole.

In addition, Chris Deitzel recently discovered a potential white tee location for the par 5 hole 6. By simply moving the tee back approximately 30'-35', there is a natural alley through the trees to the left side of the fairway. I showed it to J Gary a couple of weeks ago and he stated he had never noticed it before, either. This tee, if relocated, would probably not change the scoring spread of the hole too much, however, I think it makes for a better design as the golfer is presented with more shot variation off the box.

There's a definite advantage to using natural tees (or Fly Pads) the first year or two after the installation of a course. One can utilize all types of charts to determine par settings, but the statistical scoring data is truly invaluable when it comes to overall course improvements. Especially when designing multi-par courses for blue and gold level players.

[snap]

Hey, i hope this isn't another stupid question... Do stats for rounds get updated upon submission or not until the next ratings update? My question relates to the BC Open two weeks ago.
Thanks.

Quick question, quick answer??

[bruce_brakel]

Touring points get updated monthly

[ck34]

Sorry, I missed that one while I was gone at Mid-Nats. Ratings are updated five times per year and not inbetween just after events are done. However, you can see unofficial ratings after each event if the TD takes the effort to post scores and also makes sure the course layouts are entered properly. As Bruce posted, points are updated monthly during the peak event season and somewhat less often in winter.

[MTL21676]

However, you can see unofficial ratings after each event if the TD takes the effort to post scores and also makes sure the course layouts are entered properly.

I define effort as "something that takes longer than 10 mins to do"

The PDGA has done an AWESOME job making the TD report sheet and the online scoring system very easy to work with. Getting the scores up should be a fundamental thing now. I understand some people don't have computers or dont have online access or whatever, but I garuntee you know someone in your area that does!

Failure to do anything regarding this is just pure laziness and is UNACCEPTABLE imo.

Rant off

[esalazar]

I agree and definately believe there should be some sort of consequences when a lazy td does not fulfill there obligations..

[ck34]

While I agree there's little excuse for not posting scores, especially since the TD has to place them on the TD report spreadsheet anyway (which is used to upload scores), the online course assignment process works a little differently and is somewhat more complicated than the way the TD report process. Unfortunately, I don't see an easy way for course assignments to be uploaded or to be done online much easier than they are now. TDs not clicking the "Update" button after doing the layouts correctly is the most common problem whereas in Excel no Update button is required. So, getting unofficial ratings correct is likely to be an ongoing problem because only the TD knows what the correct layouts and division matchups are in each round.

[snap]

so as long as the info has been submitted one can expect to see tournament stats including round ratings by the end of the month... thanks.

[ck34]

so as long as the info has been submitted one can expect to see tournament stats including round ratings by the end of the month...

Not exactly. Unofficial round ratings are the responsibility of the TD not the PDGA office. They only show up if the TD posts results after the event and stay up until the TD report comes to the PDGA office. Then the official results get posted, points are awarded and the unofficial round ratings disappear until the official ratings update. There are many events where the TD does not post the results and no unofficial ratings are ever seen.

[DOOM]

Hey Chuck-

I played AM2 at the Brent Hambrick this past weekend, and I have a question about how the scores were entered.

For AM's, there were two sets of tees played on both courses. The 2nd round was the Hoover course, and we played 27 holes. The first and third rounds were both at the West temp course, and those were both 18 hole rounds.

I'm looking at the unofficial results and I see that it lists me as a 188, and 26 over par. I was actually -1 for the weekend.

So Mr. Chuck, can you tell me what's going on? The ADV players are listed correctly, but the AM2's are not... I'd assume that because there are actually 4 different courses (Hoover 1-18 and A-I, then Hoover 1-18 and A-I short, then West Course 1-18, and also West Course 1-18 short), there was an input problem somewhere along the way? Also, will changing the layouts for the AM2's affect the unofficial round ratings? Will I have to move up? (just kidding, I already am)

Thanks Chuck

[Plankeye]

What probably happened is that the person that put the scores in online didn't take in account different course layouts.

[ck34]

I'll post again that the Ratings Committee has little to do with the unofficial ratings from scores posted online by the TDs during or just after an event (except when a marshal is there to do it). We have no information about the event from which to adjust or correct anything that the TDs enter online. If there are questions on unofficial ratings, please direct them to the TDs to get them fixed.

[tbender]

I'll post again that the Ratings Committee has little to do with the unofficial ratings from scores posted online by the TDs during or just after an event (except when a marshal is there to do it). We have no information about the event from which to adjust or correct anything that the TDs enter online. If there are questions on unofficial ratings, please direct them to the TDs to get them fixed.

Maybe you should put that in your sig line. Or just add it to all of your posts.

[ck34]

Kind of like "Rater of the tossed arc (except for unofficial ratings)"

[bernie]

Hey Chuck-Went down to Columbus and shot the BHMO open for the first time. Had a great time (aside from the poison ivy) but I do have a question for you. The ams played the west course twice (18 holes-rounds one and three) and the BH course once (27 holes-round two). Will the 27 hole round be weighted differently, as it had nine more holes than rounds one and three? For example, let's use my unoffical round ratings-my round one was an 853, my round two was a 913, and my round three an 826. If you simply add and divide by three, you get an average of 860. However, if you weight it by # of holes then it works out to be an 871 for the weekend. Not great scores but good for this example, as my best was on the 'larger' course. Just curious as to how this would be handled and applied in September. Good to know for the future. Thanks! Bernie, Michigan #23932

[ChrisWoj]

Oo... oo... can I handle this Chuck? Please please?

*goes right ahead without permission*

Bernie (hey you just posted on TADGA too! Check my answer to your post over there ), the way it works is that it is weighted within the round. If you look at the spread within the round you'll see that during the 2nd (longer) round the guy that scored a stroke better than you only had a 7 point higher round. The fellow that scored out a stroke worse than you only had a 6 point worse round.

If you compare that to rounds around it the spread is a little wider for each individual stroke. With a longer round it leaves more room for a player, say, a stroke worse to make an extra mistake so there is a smaller difference between round ratings for different scores.

But in the end it is still only one round, and it is not weighed any differently when compared to other rounds you played.

(Did I do good, Chuckster? Did I? Did I?)


-Chris.
bugging chuck since 2006!

[ck34]

Correct, graass hoppa. Each round rating is considered a single data point regardless whether it has the allowable minimum of 13 holes or the typical maximum of 27 holes. The more holes in the round, the less rating point value each shot receives. So it's more likely to shoot a higher or lower round rating than your normal on courses with fewer holes than 18 than it is more holes than 18.

If we wanted more accurate ratings, we would limit official ratings to only rounds with 18 holes. But we include rounds other than 18 as a member service because so many disc golf tournament rounds have other than 18 holes, (although you rarely see that in ball golf).

[bernie]

aahh-I see the light. That make sense that a course with less holes will award/penalize each stroke greater than a course with more holes. I thought it was done afterwards. It is just like a test (my being a teacher is going to show right now) with 10 questions versus 50 questions. The 10 question test has a value of ten points per question while the 50 is only two points per question. I like understanding-thanks! Bernie

[circle_2]

Chuck, what is the average/mean rating for ALL disc golfers with a rating? What is the median...? Has this been asked before??

[gdstour]

aahh-I see the light. That make sense that a course with less holes will award/penalize each stroke greater than a course with more holes. I thought it was done afterwards. It is just like a test (my being a teacher is going to show right now) with 10 questions versus 50 questions. The 10 question test has a value of ten points per question while the 50 is only two points per question. I like understanding-thanks! Bernie

For some reason I do not find the logic in this as scores on our par 67 layout today were bunched together more than the scores for the par 54.
Doesnt this make the strokes for the par 67 worth more than the 54 seeing as though it was obviously harder to put a seperation on the field in the higher par layout?

The points per stroke cannot be dictated by one simple formula, it should be based on avergae and mean.

It seems hard for Chuck if it is not a mathmatical formula set from the beginning, There has to be variables; like how closely grouped the majority of the scores are that should determine how much the strokes are worth.
**
Is there anybody with me on this?????

[ck34]

Chuck, what is the average/mean rating for ALL disc golfers with a rating? What is the median...? Has this been asked before??

Haven't done it for awhile.

[hitec100]

It seems hard for Chuck if it is not a mathmatical formula set from the beginning, There has to be variables; like how closely grouped the majority of the scores are that should determine how much the strokes are worth.
**
Is there anybody with me on this?????

I'm with you. I also think the ratings should show that it gets progressively more difficult, the lower your score. Right now, on a par-72 disc golf course, the ratings say that it is no more difficult to get a 59 compared to getting a 60 than it is to get a 71 compared to a 72.

[ck34]

Right now, on a par-72 disc golf course, the ratings say that it is no more difficult to get a 59 compared to getting a 60 than it is to get a 71 compared to a 72.

That's because it isn't. The difficulty of shooting a score is relative to your rating. If your rating is 940 and a 75 is rated 979, that score will be harder for you to shoot than for a 1040 player to shoot a 68 rated 1028.

[gdstour]

From our event yesterday I would have to dispute this concept.
Players with lesser ratings were shooting scores closer to those with higher ratings on the par 67 layout but we put more seperation on them in the par 54 layout.
I'm not talking about the 800-925 rated players, more like 925 and above.
I guess a lot of this would depend on the style of course you are playing, but the data from the groups scores will still be available and should be used.


I hope It's more than just my opinion that players are bunched closer as the par goes up away from 54. If it is confirmed from some past event samplings would you be willing to revaulute the points per stroke formula?

I guess I'm asking if you could you compile some data from events where the average score is closer to 60 and also at or near 50. This would show me whether there is equal or less seperation in the groups scores away from the average.
It seems like each individual group of players that play an event and their respective scores that day would give the value of the strokes.

The tighter the scores are grouped the higher the value of the strokes!

Why does this seem so obvious, am i missing something?

[sandalman]

it is obvious, and has been known for a couple years. thats why the longer (in general) a course becomes, the less value each stroke is worth in ratings. on a short course that everyone can reach, the skill that results in score differncdes is preceision, not distance. thebetter players have better precision, but since all players can reach the pin, the bestter players have fewer chances to pull away (but they eventually do)

[johnbiscoe]

it's because the formulas use linear math (each stroke worth the same amount of points at a given ssa) to approximate a phenomenon which is more accurately expressed as a bell curve (the probability of shooting any given score).

[veganray]

Very well stated (especially for a cowpile-steppin' country bumpkin).