Ask Chuck Kennedy

[the_kid]

Well Chuck is MTL right? Should the money be shifted down? If so I may have to ask the TD to give someone some cash.

[the_kid]

He's an idiot who needs to learn to read.

He's a former BoD member......

[accidentalROLLER]

That explains A LOT!

[magilla]

I played an event today where the guy declined and the tournament kept the cash.

Sounds like Texas..

[MTL21676]

Well Chuck is MTL right?

Oh come on, you know I am!

All jokes aside, I am 100% positive about this.

[seewhere]

hell yea the $$ gets passed down. The TD **** sure does not get to Pocket it.. what a crock of CRAP

[johnbiscoe]

MTL is definitely 100% correct on this one. If an am turns down the cash it is like they weren't even there- skip them and move everything down one spot.

[friZZaks]

the course was not easier....believe me.

[the_kid]

Oh come on, you know I am!

All jokes aside, I am 100% positive about this.

Yeah and I was too but said since it was a two person division he wouldn't payout the guy who took last. I was really upset about this and nearly said a lot of things I shouldn't have said but the money should not have been kept by the TD/event.

With that said the MPO division paid out $0

[brianberman]

Wow

move to NC

[the_kid]

I didn't effect me and the payout was good for a C-tier but that Pi$$ed me off and I lost a lot of respect for the guy.

[yomamafoo]

Chuck,

Do you think the ratings system will end up going "real-time" at some point in the future?

The ratings system is already a fantastic system, just wondering if you ever see the possibility of a real time ratings system...

Thanks man,

mc

The ratings system is not fantastic for us women. Matter of fact, it makes no sense at all. Why are our ratings based on men's? Shouldn't players like Des and Juliana be 1000 rated players? They should in my mind. I understand the concept of a 945 rated player is 945 no matter if they are man, woman, kid, old person, etc. But, until we play like that instead of in our own gender and age based divisions, I really think the women need to be based on other women...

[MTL21676]

I've always felt that a 915 - 925 rating for women is comparable to 1000 for the men.

[MTL21676]

Whats up with the rating update on the front page?

Everything looks the same?

[brianberman]

I agree 925 is a 1000 for women

so des is like 1030

[ck34]

The ratings system is not fantastic for us women. Matter of fact, it makes no sense at all. Why are our ratings based on men's? Shouldn't players like Des and Juliana be 1000 rated players?

Ratings are based on players who generate a course rating each round which generates round ratings for players. The round ratings are based on how well a player plays the course - man or woman. Women are fortunate that it works this way. Otherwise few would have ratings if only women were used to generate their ratings since at least 5 players with established ratings above 799 (propagators) are required to produce ratings for a round. Only a small percentage of events would have the minimum number of women propagators required.

I have talked with the top women about producing a separate par standard for women that would allow them to shoot scores "under par" like 1000+ rated men at higher tier events but they seemed to prefer remaining on the current gender neutral scale.

[hitec100]

Ratings are based on players who generate a course rating each round which generates round ratings for players. The round ratings are based on how well a player plays the course - man or woman. Women are fortunate that it works this way. Otherwise few would have ratings if only women were used to generate their ratings since at least 5 players with established ratings above 799 (propagators) are required to produce ratings for a round. Only a small percentage of events would have the minimum number of women propagators required.

I have talked with the top women about producing a separate par standard for women that would allow them to shoot scores "under par" like 1000+ rated men at higher tier events but they seemed to prefer remaining on the current gender neutral scale.

I'm not sure the very top of any group should be the only ones you should be listening to, Chuck. If we want more women in the PDGA, we might want to listen to what Katie is saying.

Maybe you could keep un-normalized women's ratings to yourself so you could still use men's ratings as propagators. But then once you've calculated the un-normalized women's ratings, normalize them so that Des (or the current top-rated woman player) is 1040 rated (basically apply the men's distribution of ratings to the women's distribution of ratings when normalizing scores).

I think the work you're doing on ratings, Chuck, is one of the drawing cards for people getting started in the sport. For those of us who don't have a chance of winning tournaments, improved ratings are the only sense of reward some of us get from attending tournaments. So why not make the ratings a more positive incentive for women? We certainly need to grow their membership in the PDGA the most.

[ck34]

We do the calculations as a service to the PDGA. If the PDGA Board or Women's committee desires to see the ratings another way for women, we're more than happy to provide that. In the mean time, women can add 75 points to their rating if they want to see where they rank in some rough equivalence to men.

[brianberman]

i was just voicing an opinion

adding 75 to their current ratings doesn't really accomplish anything. we know who the world class women currently are and when enough women play tournaments in the future then they can have their own system.

I was just pointing out that Des is like Kenny or Barry in her division

[ck34]

They also now have separate World Rankings. First thru twenty in the World for Women means the same as first thru twenty in the World for Men.

[hitec100]

We do the calculations as a service to the PDGA. If the PDGA Board or Women's committee desires to see the ratings another way for women, we're more than happy to provide that. In the mean time, women can add 75 points to their rating if they want to see where they rank in some rough equivalence to men.

I was merely wondering if there is something you can do to address Katie's point. If ratings do provide an incentive to join the PDGA, as I've said I believe (and I imagine you do, too), then wouldn't normalizing women's ratings bring even more women to the PDGA because there would no longer be the PDGA ranking them in comparison to men, but rather in comparison to each other.

Basically, right now, without meaning to be, the women's ratings are somewhat of a backhanded compliment. Yes, you're good, the ratings say, but then the ratings go on to remind women that as a group, they're still not as good as the men. Why have the ratings go out of their way to drive that point home, which is both insulting and irrelevant?

I've seen women play on the same card as us men, and many times they aren't having as much fun because they see men outthrowing them. So they drop the sport because it's not so much fun to them, when actually they might have the potential of being pretty good players.

So why have the ratings crystallize that same experience into a single number on their PDGA membership card?

I think it would be nice if the ratings could be made to reflect how good the women players are against their competitors -- that is, against other women -- and not against men. If you think there's a way to do that and not cause you too much work -- somehow I think there's more to normalizing a distribution than simply adding 75 to all scores -- and you do think your rating system attracts players to the PDGA, then I ask you to consider it. 'Cause I don't think Katie's wrong.

[krupicka]

If women's ratings are on their own scale, then you also would have issues with which men's division they can play in. If a woman's rating is 876, she can't play in the Rercreational division. If this 876 is different (ie based on women's scores only) from her brothers 876, should they really be playing in the same division? (Yes there are women's divisions, but some women enjoying playing with more than the same couple of people at every tournament) If the TDs need to account for this to determine divisions, things are going to get really confusing. Ratings need to be on one scale. At the end of the day it is still the least number of throws wins.

[ck34]

There's no normalizing involved. Your score is your score against the course rating in that round. Simply adding a number near 75 is what we would likely do if the Women's Committee and the Board asked us to do so. I don't see this as any improvement and would add to the confusion.

I believe that women are on the same scale as men in other sports where ratings of some sort are used. Golf has gender neutral handicaps. It's just that women usually play different tees. Chess has ratings. Tennis has separate but equal rating tracks with about a one point offset.

When we're talking about rankings, then men and women have their separate but equal sequences. But rankings are only used for the top players and doesn't impact the tens of thousands of weekend players.

[MTL21676]

While I'm not a big fan of the ratings, they do give us a chance that not many sports have - to compare women to men.

I know I have wondered if Michelle Wie was better than this male golfer or if Anika was better than this guy in terms of head to head, not in terms of comparision to thier own sex.

Ratings give us a chance to do this. Based on ratings, I know that so and so is better than Des, but she is better than this guy, etc.

Very cool I think, and more importantly, a unique innovation to golf as a whole.

[modg]

Looking at tourney updates. Did someone skip the yetter? Sneaky pete points are in but not the eric yetter. Soon to happen? curious. Thanx

[modg]

Answered. Thanks Chuck.

[discette]

Please keep the womens ratings on the same scale as the men. This way women can know whether they can compete in Rec, Intermediate or Advanced.

I really hope this isn't under consideration by the PDGA or the Women's Committee.

[ck34]

I know of no initiative. I'm just saying that's where those who might be interested in lobbying for a change should direct their efforts.

[AviarX]

Please keep the womens ratings on the same scale as the men. This way women can know whether they can compete in Rec, Intermediate or Advanced.

I really hope this isn't under consideration by the PDGA or the Women's Committee.

another consideration imo should be that some day a Pro Woman PDGA member woman may be in the top ten of Open rankings. think of a future, even more talented disc golf version of Michelle Wie or Annika (sp?) Sorenstam. anyone want to play Bobby Riggs by suggesting that it will never happen? [img]/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

afterall, Juliana has already once cashed at the USDGC

if women were given their own rankings -- they should get two numbers -- one for their protected division and one for overall (Open). that might be a good thing to do with age-protected divisions too. not sure what the case is for having a separate ratings for protected divisions... isn't our universal approach more useful?

[hitec100]

There's no normalizing involved. Your score is your score against the course rating in that round. Simply adding a number near 75 is what we would likely do if the Women's Committee and the Board asked us to do so. I don't see this as any improvement and would add to the confusion.

That's interesting. I thought you would also be making sure that the rating spread was the same for women as men, but if simply adding 75 accomplishes this, that sounds simple enough. Doesn't sound like there would be much work going back and forth between a women's scale and a universal scale if it's just a matter of adding or subtracting 75.

I believe that women are on the same scale as men in other sports where ratings of some sort are used.

???

Golf has gender neutral handicaps. It's just that women usually play different tees.

Well, there's your difference then. You're not making your point with this one.

Chess has ratings.

Um, that's a mental game, Chuck. Of course there wouldn't be a gender difference there.

Tennis has separate but equal rating tracks with about a one point offset.

Isn't that an analog to offsetting by 75? An offset is an offset.

When we're talking about rankings, then men and women have their separate but equal sequences. But rankings are only used for the top players and doesn't impact the tens of thousands of weekend players.

Right. My point is that women getting started might benefit from a more direct comparison with their competitors, rather than have their results look 75 points lower than they should. Imagine if this were reversed and suddenly all the guys who care about ratings suddenly had them lowered by 75 points. Some people would care.

And I do think our sport suffers from having too few women in the sport, so I'm just thinking out loud that maybe a small thing like this, which apparently would be easy to do, might be something to consider.