Player rating is a good indicator of how a player scores on average, but I think there should be some sort of consistency rating. For example, somebody who shoots a 1040 round and a 960 round is not the same golfer as somebody who shoots two 1000 rounds. I would argue that the more consistent player is "better". Any thoughts?

You can calculate the Standard Deviation of your rounds. Those over 975 ratings typically have SD in the 25 neighborhood. Those near 800 ratings have SD in the 35-50 neighborhood. The longer someone has been playing at a certain level, their SD is likely smaller. While consistent play may keep you in the cash/prizes on a regular basis, you may never win depending on where your rating is relative to division breaks and the competition in your area.

How about a luck rating. Some players have 1100 rated luck, others 600.

:)

It would also be interesting to me to see how players shoot on different difficulty courses. Like a ratings breakdown, of sorts. I know players who are great on birdie courses and not so great on par-3 golf courses. wooded vs. non-wooded and that sort of thing. Obviously a lot of needless work, but these are the things I think about when my mind is wandering.

alright so what is the difference between a birdie course and a par 3 course to me this sounds the same

Man I suck at deuce or die. Sometimes I can play them well, but not often. I looove hard courses.

I guess I meant a course where a 3 is good on most holes,as opposed to a course where a 2 is good. Par > 3 I guess I should have said.

now that sounds better, i just wanted to make sure we were on the same page, and i cant stand duece or die courses bring on the par 70's

Here's an interesting aspect of consistency. The Open winner at Pro Worlds typically has thrown at a 1035-1040 level over at least 7 rounds to win. Climo and Schultz can shoot their rating and win. So, for anyone else to win Worlds they either have to play above their rating or do the work necessary to get their rating up to Ken and Barry's level to have a chance. The Worlds where Ken and Barry haven't won, they didn't shoot their ratings.

My three 1000 rated rounds were at: Tyler Longs, Moraine Longs, and Whipping Post (Paw Paw) See a trend here?

Death to easy courses!

(Oh, and if you're looking for consistency, Strojny, my best round last year was 1010, my worst was 843. That's consistent!!!) /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

sounds like derek needs to be throwing midranges all the time. nice and straight is hwat is needed to do well at those courses. LONG courses thru the woods.

The TBird and the Buzz are CLUTCH in the woods. Anyone who tells you otherwise... is sponsored by Gateway.