Ask Chuck Kennedy

[hitec100]

You concede that the top women on average will be 40-70 points below the top men on average.

The difference is that you see it as unfair that their comparative rating is less than a player that will beat them in heads up play.

Actually, I see it as unfair that their competitive rating includes those who aren't their competitors. Women aren't competing with men, they're competing with each other. Even in the last USDGC, we looked and saw where the first women was on the list and said to ourselves, well, she won among the women. We just know that's what is fair to say.

I see it as unfair to give them a rating equal to or above a player that will beat them in heads up play.

Yes, that would be true, if you accept that heads-up play between men and women is fair. I don't.

What happens if they play in an unrestricted division like Int or MM1. Do they get a higher rating for shooting the same score as the players they were directly competing against ?

What I'm saying is that mathematically as well as physically, women are playing a different course than men.

How do you account for the fact that women shoot on average 75 rating points less than men? The math says that for women, the course is 75 points harder. If men showed up at a course one day, and on the next scored 75 points lower, we would say it was a different course that day -- windy, rainy, overgrown trees.

It's the same for women. They shoot 75 points lower because for them, the course is different than it is for men, on the same day, and with the same weather. It's different for them. Truly. That's why I say it is unfair to rate them as if that's not true.

So comparing women's ratings to men's ratings, to me, is irrelevant -- according to Chuck, the math would say the woman would be rated about 75 points higher with respect to her rating system than a man would be with respect to his rating system. Which I think would be fair, because that day she played a course whose conditions for her were 75 points harder than they were for the man.

[AviarX]

What I'm saying is that mathematically as well as physically, women are playing a different course than men.

How do you account for the fact that women shoot on average 75 rating points less than men? The math says that for women, the course is 75 points harder.

The top Pro Women shoot about 100 ratings points higher than you do as a man. so by your logic, they are playing a different course than you when you and they play the same layout at a PDGA event?

[gnduke]

They also shoot about the same as MPG and MM1 at many events.
Does that mean that we are playing different courses too ?

I'm trying to think of a sport that has ratings as opposed to rankings that are based on a different scale for men and women and I can't. Do you have some examples of another sport that is doing this ? Not as justification, I'm just curious how it works for them, and how they do it.

[hitec100]

What I'm saying is that mathematically as well as physically, women are playing a different course than men.

How do you account for the fact that women shoot on average 75 rating points less than men? The math says that for women, the course is 75 points harder.

The top Pro Women shoot about 100 ratings points higher than you do as a man. so by your logic, they are playing a different course than you when you and they play the same layout at a PDGA event?

You and others keep on wanting to make this personal, when I am talking about the group. As a group, women shoot 75 rating points lower than men do as a group. As a group, they are playing a different course than men are playing. This is how statistics work. You speak about the results of a group. So, as a group, women play a different course than men. That's what the statistics say. For them, the course is 75 rating points harder, as a group, than it is for men.

As a group, as a group, as a group.

Statistics are about groups of people. Individuals are not bound by statistics. But in a sport you can make rules for that sport that work for groups of people, to be fair to the individuals in that group. That's why there are men and women sports, separate from each other, because that's what's fair to men and women in that group.

Are we clear now?

Edited to add:

My rating is a measurement of my skill with respect to other men players on the course. I'm not that good a player. I started about 2 years ago, and now that I'm 39, I'm realizing that I've got a work ahead of me to crack 900. But I've got hope.

Now here's something to think about. I'm an amateur, not a pro. There are 5823 amateur men, and my rating is so far down the group, I don't have time to click that far. Maybe I'm 4000th?

An amateur woman with my rating would be in the top 20 out of 438 women amateurs.

Tell me again you think it's fair for women and men to be on the same scale when my rating qualifies me to be in the top 20 of women amateurs.

[hitec100]

They also shoot about the same as MPG and MM1 at many events.
Does that mean that we are playing different courses too ?

That's why I'm not convinced that the offset is a constant 75 throughout the group of women, from top to bottom. I would think as you get closer to the intermediate level, the offset between women and men would be less, but that's just a guess, given I have no statistics to back that up.

As far as people getting older, and the course getting harder for them, I think that is why the PGA has the senior circuit, because that is more fair to them. We don't have the population for that, but one day, if disc golf gets big enough so that there are senior-only events, we may to want to track the senior circuit differently from the pro circuit.

I'm trying to think of a sport that has ratings as opposed to rankings that are based on a different scale for men and women and I can't. Do you have some examples of another sport that is doing this ? Not as justification, I'm just curious how it works for them, and how they do it.

I'm trying to think of an example where men and women are in the same professional organization! That's how separate their ratings and rankings are. Obviously, the rest of the sports world actually sees the differences well enough that they not only see it necessary to rank them separately, but to organize them separately.

In golf, it's the men's PGA and the women's LPGA. These are different groups, with their own tournaments, rules, and statistics. I'm hardly proposing that. I'm just thinking a separate rating system would at least address what other sports have managed (in a much more drastic fashion) by having separate sports associations.

The only "sport" I can think of that rates women and men on the same scale is chess -- but that's because women and men are intellectual equals. So I don't see that as an analog to this situation. Women and men are not physical equals, and yet we're being rated on the same scale in a physical sport. That's my concern and one I think we can easily address, if we decide to.

[AviarX]

The top Pro Women shoot about 100 ratings points higher than you do as a man. so by your logic, they are playing a different course than you when you and they play the same layout at a PDGA event?

You and others keep on wanting to make this personal, when I am talking about the group.

[/QUOTE]

i am not at all trying to make this personal, just trying to understand why you feel women need a special ratings system but you aren't simultaneously arguing for a separate ratings system for Intermediate, Advanced, Masters, GrandMasters, etc.? the beauty of our present approach is that players who qualify for protected divisions can quickly ascertain where they stack up against a more Open field. Masters players like Dean Tannock, Brad Hammock, GrandMasters like Rick Voakes, Pro Women like Des, Juliana, Burl, and Angela can see how they statistically stack up against non-protected divisions. (just picking a few names out of my hat that come to mind)

If your assertion that female players on average play 75 ratings points below males holds water (and i suspect that it may) -- then it seems to me that might be an informal "adjustment factor" you might want to popularize, but making it some official formal way of rating women seems too complex and unnecessary. Another drawback is that the minimum number of propagators would be less often met and women players would more often have to go without having some competitive PDGA rounds rated. And, if you want to insist this is a good idea, then you logically have to similarly argue for a special ratings for Advanced Masters, Junior Boys, Junior Girls (you can't expect them to keep up with the big girlz (as a group)...

Ranking (rather than rating)Women separately (and doing likewise with Pro Masters, Advanced Masters, etc.) does seem like a great idea to me.

i'm not saying you're wrong, just pointing out that i don't think our ratings system is broken and your 'fix' seems to me to cause more problems than it solves.

An amateur woman with my rating would be in the top 20 out of 438 women amateurs.

Tell me again you think it's fair for women and men to be on the same scale when my rating qualifies me to be in the top 20 of women amateurs.

first you aren't a female so you can't qualify for that gender-protected division so where you would fit in it is moot. (where a woman fits in an Open division does matter becasue women do qualify to play in it and there are examples -- like when Juliana cashed at the one division USDGC -- where women not only compete in Open but where they beat a majority of the field.)

second, it seems to me that you are mixing apples and oranges when you mix ratings with rankings...

[hitec100]

If your assertion that female players on average play 75 ratings points below males holds water (and i suspect that it may) --

This was Chuck's assertion, so I'm accepting it as fact, too.

-- then it seems to me that might be an informal "adjustment factor" you might want to popularize

Well, this is what I've been saying. Chuck even posted a way to do this above.

, but making it some official formal way of rating women seems too complex and unnecessary.
Another drawback is that the minimum number of propagators would be less often met and women players would more often have to go without having some competitive PDGA rounds rated.

I haven't been asking for anything so complex. I've just been asking for a normalization of the rating system for women, which would use the data already available.

And, if you want to insist this is a good idea, then you logically have to similarly argue for a special ratings for Advanced Masters, Junior Boys, Junior Girls (you can't expect them to keep up with the big girlz (as a group)...

I've already answered this a few posts ago. I said you can always take a good idea too far and make it a bad idea. Every good idea can be taken to extremes and become awful. You know how you solve this, right, and keep it a good idea? You don't take the idea to extremes.

So I'm just talking about 2 groups of ratings. One for men, one for women. I just don't see the point of a universal ratings system which has the top women's player behind 860 men in the ratings, and the second-best women's player behind 1200 men in the ratings, and so forth. I understand the need for collecting data in a universal manner. I understand doing so solves the propagator problem with so few people in the sport right now. But just because the data is collected universally doesn't mean it has to be presented universally. It can be statistically normalized so that men and women are rated in their respective groups in an equivalent, fair fashion. Chuck apparently has a simple way of doing that, if people ask for it.

Ranking (rather than rating)Women in separately (and doing likewise with Pro Masters, Advanced Masters, etc.) does seem like a great idea to me.

I agree. I hope Chuck and others keep doing this, too.

i'm not saying you're wrong, just pointing out that i don't think our ratings system is broken and your 'fix' seems to me to cause more problems than it solves.

Most of what you disagreed with above, I'm not for, so I think the problems you're worried about wouldn't happen. Chuck also seems to have a simple, straightforward approach in mind if this new rating system is ever requested.

first you aren't a female so you can't qualify for that gender-protected division so where you would fit in it is moot.

Exactly my point again. My rating and a woman's rating, on the same scale, invites a comparison that is completely irrelevant.

(where a woman fits in an Open division does matter becasue women do qualify to play in it and there are examples -- like when Juliana cashed at the one division USDGC -- where women not only compete in Open but where they beat a majority of the field.)

Des came in 136th out of 151 finishers, and Carrie came in 144th. No idea how you can possibly say the top women are beating a majority of the USDGC Open field. In this case, you're saying something incorrect and using that as a basis to argue that a separate rating system is really not needed. (Again, I point to the top pro woman being rated below 860 men on the same scale, and the second-best woman rated below 1200 men on the same scale. That's all I really need to see to understand that the comparison between men's ratings and women's ratings is flawed and a fairer ratings scale for the women is needed, which gives credit where credit is due.)

second, it seems to me that you are mixing apples and oranges when you mix ratings with rankings...

Ratings are used directly to determine rankings, so I don't get your point here.

[AviarX]

Most of what you disagreed with above, I'm not for, so I think the problems you're worried about wouldn't happen. Chuck also seems to have a simple, straightforward approach in mind if this new rating system is ever requested.

if you are for a separate rating system for women then that is the pivotal disagreement. if your not, we have no disagreement. rankings may be based on rating but sometimes other factors are considered too such as head to head competition and the level or tier of events entered.

adding 75 points to every female PDGA player's rating would in no way affect ranking, but it would unnecessarily complicate our ratings system to outsiders and would not have any mathematical purpose. as an informal way of gauging general gender equivalencies, i guess adding 75 points is meaningful though.

Exactly my point again. My rating and a woman's rating, on the same scale, invites a comparison that is completely irrelevant.

actually it yields a very mathematically relevant comparison of the skill level in tournament play of any two PDGA members -- regardless of age, gender, etc. That's what makes the ratings system accurate -- it doesn't discriminate.

Des came in 136th out of 151 finishers, and Carrie came in 144th. No idea how you can possibly say the top women are beating a majority of the USDGC Open field. In this case, you're saying something incorrect and using that as a basis to argue that a separate rating system is really not needed. (Again, I point to the top pro woman being rated below 860 men on the same scale, and the second-best woman rated below 1200 men on the same scale. That's all I really need to see to understand that the comparison between men's ratings and women's ratings is flawed and a fairer ratings scale for the women is needed, which gives credit where credit is due.)

you are looking at the 2006 USDGC (btw, you left out Angela) and i was citing the year Juliana cashed at the USDGC. what i said was that Pro Women do enter and cash (which almost always entails beating a majority of the field) in Open events. i wasn't saying it happens regularly -- my point was that Pro Women can and do sometimes outperform Pro Men. Judging by the chart below it may have been 2001 when Juliana cashed at the USDGC (i didn't join the PDGA until 2003, so i am not sure when exactly it was)

as for your suggestion that the ratings are flawed or unfair when it comes to rating women -- i fail to see how a mathematical measure can be unfair. and while i am sure you mean well, i can't figure out whether it is chivalrous, chauvinistic, or both to suggest women players need some sort of helping hand in terms of the rating their play on the disc golf course generates.

Ratings are used directly to determine rankings, so I don't get your point here.

Ratings are a matehematical measure of how a person's play on the course rates, regardless of gender, age, color, etc. Rankings tell where one falls in a particular division -- the most general being Open.

here is an unofficial list of some 1000+ rated rounds shot by women that Rodney posted a long time ago (definitely not up-to-date)

[/QUOTE]

Did I mention these are highly unoffical?

Rounds by a female rated 1000+:

i just looked it up and it was at the 2001 USDGC where Juliana cashed (see here)

if you add 75 points to each of her rounds i guess she trounced the whole field and Barry should give his ring to Juliana

[discette]

FYI - So far this year:

Burl has 2 1000+ rated rounds,Des has 4 and Angela has 1.
Burl and Angela should will each have at least more 1000 rated round the next time the ratings are updated.


More women will come to this sport when they see how much fun it is to play disc golf.

More women will come to the sport when more players bring their sisters, daughters, moms and female friends out to experience disc golf.

More women will come to disc golf and hopefully stay in the sport when they can find leagues and tournaments with other women players and with promoters that are encouraging.


It is very nice of you (Paul) to be so concerned and enthusiastic about bringing and keeping more women in disc golf. I simply don't agree that making a separate rating system for women will accomplish this. I hope you plan to keep up your efforts and that you are successful in bringing and keeping more women in disc golf in your area.

[gnduke]

Just two points.

1) If the women are in a separate ratings system, (not based on how they play as compared to the men) very few rounds will ever be rated because they seldom have enough players to rate rounds. An extension of this is that every round that does get rated has so few propogators that the individual performance of the propogators will have a dramatic impact on the ratings.

2) If the women just have a 75 point offset, they are still being rated as compared to how the men play the course, just being given about 7 strokes per round because they are women.

[ck34]

I had a discussion with Juliana about Open Women not playing the same course layouts as Open Men at Pro Worlds, Final 9s and other big events. She says that we shouldn't have the women play (typically) shorter holes than the gold level Open Men because they are women, but because the top women are blue level players. She embraces the concept that the top women are currently at the blue level defined in the PDGA course guidelines which is the same level as where the top GM Pros and top Advanced players are located. They should all be playing the same blue level course layouts and not necessarily the gold layouts on the few courses that have that level. This differentiation gives all players course layouts that are challenging for their skill level and reduces those boring holes where most in the division get the same score on a hole.

[yomamafoo]

You can't just add points to every round, because not every course is that different for us. Some courses are really long and the average women's score is going to be a lot higher that the men's. Some courses are not long, but are technical, so our scores should not be that far off the men's. All I am saying is that, it needs to be taken into account that men and women are built differently, and women just can not throw (on average) as far as men, and this should be taken into account. Take my home course for example--Round Rock. Very long course. For us women, teens over is a good score, for the men, a few over is. Now, let's take another one I play--Lago Vista. A few long holes, but a lot of techniccal, but reachable holes by the women. So as far as scores, men and women are a lot closer. What I am saying, is that not all courses are the same, or even close to being the same for women as they are the men, and we need a system to reflect that. Like Paul said earlier, most other sports have different organizations for the men and the women. While I don't think that we need to go that far, we do need something to distinguish ourselves from the men, and a seperate ratings (not rankings...) system would help with that. I think what Chuck suggested earlier about maintaining a seperate women's SSA for the course layout. I think this is the most logical and easiest way to do it. There are enough women now, for that to be possible.

[MTL21676]

Men and Women don't directly compete against each other.

You are wrong wrong wrong there!!

The Open portions of Pro, Advanced, and Women are open to anyone who qualifies for them based on ratings. Only protected divisions (ones based on age or if they are female or both) can deny people from playing in them.

[gnduke]

Men and Women don't directly compete against each other.

If the women opt to play in MM1 or INT, they are directly competing against others (men) in that division. If so, should their rounds be rated differently than others in that division ?

[yomamafoo]

First of all, women don't play against the men unless there aren't enough women to make a division. Most women (remember we are talking about the average and not the elite few), when playing with the guys, already drop a division to be able to compete on their level. I'm a pro. If their were no other pro women at an event, I would play advanced men. That would be my skill level. Some women would rather just not play at all than play down a division, because they don't want to ruin their rating. Does that seem right to you? Does that sound like something that needs to be fixed, or something that should just be ignored?! Honestly, I don't care much about ratings because I will always play Pro no matter what my rating says. But it would be nice to see how I rate against a course from a woman's skill level rather than a man's.

[krupicka]

First of all, women don't play against the men unless there aren't enough women to make a division. Most women (remember we are talking about the average and not the elite few), when playing with the guys, already drop a division to be able to compete on their level.

Last couple of tournaments I played in there were 3 or 4 women in my division. The appropriate women's divisions were also offered and had competitors. These women playing are not elite. They just enjoy the challenge of a larger field and watching men step it up when they are getting beat.

I'm a pro. If their were no other pro women at an event, I would play advanced men. That would be my skill level. Some women would rather just not play at all than play down a division, because they don't want to ruin their rating. Does that seem right to you?

It doesn't seem right as playing "down" a division does not ruin a rating. It has no effect on ones rating unless there is a mental aspect to it that causes one to play worse with men around. If the misconception that playing in a men's division adversely affects one's rating is out there, that needs to be corrected.

[ck34]

But it would be nice to see how I rate against a course from a woman's skill level rather than a man's.

You always do because that's how the ratings work. The course is the course, of course, of course (sorry about the Mr. Ed reference). The course has a single rating value called an SSA and everyone, man or woman shoots a score that is rated in reference to that SSA course rating.

[disctance00]

course is the course, of course, of course (sorry about the Mr. Ed reference).

LMAO!!! hit the phunny bone with that,g1

[AviarX]

You can't just add points to every round, because not every course is that different for us. Some courses are really long and the average women's score is going to be a lot higher that the men's. Some courses are not long, but are technical, so our scores should not be that far off the men's. All I am saying is that, it needs to be taken into account that men and women are built differently, and women just can not throw (on average) as far as men, and this should be taken into account. Take my home course for example--Round Rock. Very long course. For us women, teens over is a good score, for the men, a few over is. Now, let's take another one I play--Lago Vista. A few long holes, but a lot of techniccal, but reachable holes by the women. So as far as scores, men and women are a lot closer. What I am saying, is that not all courses are the same, or even close to being the same for women as they are the men, and we need a system to reflect that. Like Paul said earlier, most other sports have different organizations for the men and the women. While I don't think that we need to go that far, we do need something to distinguish ourselves from the men, and a seperate ratings (not rankings...) system would help with that. I think what Chuck suggested earlier about maintaining a seperate women's SSA for the course layout. I think this is the most logical and easiest way to do it. There are enough women now, for that to be possible.

doesn't that hold equally well for any of the protected divisions and not just women per se? (for example Pro Grandmasters do not score nearly as well in general as Open players on courses with a lot of distance, but on technical courses they are much closer) it could be argued that we need a separate ratings system for every protected division not just women, (Adv. Women, Int. Women, Adv. Masters, Pro GM, Boys under 16, etc.) but since rankings would accomplish the intragroup measure sought why mess with ratings? (afterall, ratings have nothing to do with gender, age, etc. but simply are a measure of how a particular score rates for a particular course in particular conditions such as weather, etc.)

[circle_2]

Chuck, forgive me if this has been covered before...

If one's last 8 rounds are double weighted and the last 2 of the 8 are during a 4 round tourney...are the final 2 rounds used or are all 4 double weighted?

[the_beastmaster]

It's the highest rated 2 rounds of the 4 round tourney. Even if your 1st and 2nd rounds were the highest, those get the double weight.

[circle_2]

Cool, thanks.

Hey chuck, here is a valid question.
@ the Twin Oaks Open in Duncan Oklahoma last month , the open masters division was allocated the use of a cart for their rounds. Does that factor into the round ratings. The main reason I ask, is because Mitch Mac shot the best score for the weekend ,how does that effect the rest of the field?

[bruce_brakel]

You are wrong wrong wrong there!!

The Open portions of Pro, Advanced, and Women are open to anyone who qualifies for them based on ratings. Only protected divisions (ones based on age or if they are female or both) can deny people from playing in them.

Indeed. We have had three or four women competing in Men's Rec at the Illinois Open Series. Maybe next year we will have even more women competing against the men when we offer MA4.

[ck34]

Unless an event is listed as an X-tier, the assumption is that the scores will be based on regular PDGA rules, whether carts are used or not, and will be rated.

It just seemed odd that players that had the advantage on a long course had higher ratings ( with the same scores ) as the open men.

[ck34]

If they have the same scores they should have the same ratings if the data is entered properly.

Well then there is a discrepancy for the twin oaks open.

[brianberman]

were the rounds played at different times?

if yes then different gators were used to achieve ratings

[gnduke]

Well then there is a discrepancy for the twin oaks open.

It looks like the MPO division played a different layout than the MPM division which played a different layout than the Am divisions.

Maybe just one tee or pin was different somewhere.