OK...Heres one that came up this weekend......

After 16 yrs, I added up my score wrong and took a 2 stroke penalty for it. :o :eek:

What really SUX is that an already BAD round is now even WORSE.......by a ratings stand point....

WHY should a "mental" error be penalized in the ratings when it doesnt show how I actually played?? :confused:

Thoughts?? :D

Because disc golf is a mental game as well as a physical game.

It adds too much complexity to the ratings process to try to track and adjust for penalties related to the process. And what Krupicka said. Turning in a correct card and a timely card is part of the game. It is an easy part of the game. If you want to practice that part of the game, most TDs will take a little help with checking scorecards! :D

Oh, and the 2 points you got for that will subtract about one point from your rating when they are averaged in. Not much to worry about.

Why should the ratings penalty for missing a five foot putt be the same as the ratings penalty for missing a 60 foot putt? Think about that.

Dont get me wrong...Im not complaining OR asking for change.

Its just a point that came up to me for the 1st time in my playing.....

In 16yrs of play Ive NEVER mis-scored my card.....until now :p When I saw the rating of that round it was kind of a shock..(Lowest ever for me I think)
Helping a TD score isnt going to help me in this case... :p
Ive TD'd over 50 PDGA events in my time, thank you... :D

Im the BONE HEAD here......Really dumb thing is that I did my entire groups card...AND thankfully MINE was the only one that was wrong
:D

Helping a TD score isnt going to help me in this case... :p




Then maybe a refresher in math . . . after 99 comes 100 :)

After 16 yrs, I added up my score wrong and took a 2 stroke penalty for it.



"If were the TD", writes O.J., "I wouldn't have waited 16 years to award a two stroke penalty."

Its just a point that came up to me for the 1st time in my playing.....



Consider that you're now 16 years older... :eek: Your rating can slowly slip for more reasons than loss of physical abilities.

The reason we have the 2.5SD or 100 pt rule for dropping rounds has partly to do with the par+4 rule for being late. You miss one hole, your round will likely end up in the ratings, you miss two holes it's about 50-50 that round will be dropped. Missing more than 2 holes and it's likely the round will be gone.

Its just a point that came up to me for the 1st time in my playing.....



Consider that you're now 16 years older... :eek: Your rating can slowly slip for more reasons than loss of physical abilities.

The reason we have the 2.5SD or 100 pt rule for dropping rounds has partly to do with the par+4 rule for being late. You miss one hole, your round will likely end up in the ratings, you miss two holes it's about 50-50 that round will be dropped. Missing more than 2 holes and it's likely the round will be gone.



OR just walk off the course with 2 holes to play and get NO rounds counted because of the DNF??
Just as 1 member of our group did while we were playing our 17th hole..

The miss score was a pure mental error.......I counted 2 over for the 9 and wrote 28 for some stupid reason... :p

To me ratings dont count all that much....they have NO use in the pro ranks....unless seeding a Match Play event or something. ;)
:D

To me ratings dont count all that much....they have NO use in the pro ranks....



Tell that to the players trying to get or retain their sponsorship level.

The mental error of a 2-shot scrong penalty might have cost a player a win in the old NorCal bump system and delayed their getting bumped. With the ratings system, the 2-shot penalty likely will not lower a hot player's rating so they move into a higher division.

To me ratings dont count all that much....they have NO use in the pro ranks....



Tell that to the players trying to get or retain their sponsorship level.

<font color="red"> Oh POO!! ANY player trying to get or retain a sponsor will do that by results NOT ratings </font>

The mental error of a 2-shot scrong penalty might have cost a player a win in the old NorCal bump system and delayed their getting bumped. With the ratings system, the 2-shot penalty likely will not lower a hot player's rating so they move into a higher division.

<font color="red">NOT!! The "Old NorCal Bump System" was an 80/20 formula.....Not winning could still put a player in the top 20%, 80% of the time. It worked on CONSISTANT play, which seperates MOST Ams from Pros </font>

It's some sponsors that require a rating minimum so players have to reach that point to be considered. I get emails regularly wondering if they made it past 999 in the next update.

The 2-shot penalty could drop the player to beyond top 20%. Same thing. Ratings are independent of field strength in events which was unfair for some players with a top 20% bump system.

I'll take "Stupid Mistakes" for $400 Alex.....

I'll take "Stupid Mistakes" for $400 Alex.....



<font color="red">Answer : PDGA Ratings
Question : What is a "Flawed System"?, Alex..</font>

But we already knew that one.......
:D

Considering people are flawed I'm not sure I see the problem. It's as good as the people who populate the ratings system, some who misadd on occasion...

Considering people are flawed I'm not sure I see the problem. It's as good as the people who populate the ratings system, some who misadd on occasion...



My mis-scoring is not the FLAW in the system...That would be ALL on me........

But if you insist....take just about ANY player...seperate ALL rounds into 2 catagories...A tier &amp; above...B tier &amp; below.....

Whats the difference? :p
:eek:

Typically more players in a division and overall in higher tiers so better data for calculations.

Typically more players in a division and overall in higher tiers so better data for calculations.



<font color="red"> WOW! Thats the closest youve EVER come to admitting it's FLAWED </font>
:D

The formula SHOULD produce the SAME results REGARDLESS of the size of event OR Rating of players entered.
If it doesnt...ITS FLAWED.

Im NOT opposed to the ratings system...I just would like to see it fixed... :)

There is no "less flawed" system. We have the best possible balancing of the normal variances in humans and environmental course factors with PDGA customer service, and it's easily superior to the outdated and not improvable (due to tradition, economics) ball golf system.

We have the best possible balancing of the normal variances in humans and environmental course factors with PDGA customer service



Now THAT'S hubris!

...it's easily superior to the outdated and not improvable (due to tradition, economics) ball golf system.



Wow. Your ego is out of control.

I don't understand how this is "the best system"? The ratings are based on ratings of players and an SSA. The SSA is determined by the ratings of the players and the player ratings are determined by the SSA. It seems as there is no standard to compare ratings to, except the first person who was ever rated (who ever that was).

It's the best it can be for the moment and continues to get better as we discover ways to improve it. It's not like we created it in 1998 and said it's the greatest then stopped there. It's better due to much player feedback and analysis over the years. It's not the Chuck and Roger system but the PDGA system. If we did it purely the way we originally wanted to based on the way stats should be done, it's likely no players under 900 would have ratings. So the evolutionary compromises for customer service have helped make it the best system to meet the needs of the PDGA and members as a group effort. It continues to improve as the needs emerge driven by member requests such as better reporting.

Folks on the USGA handicap committee and the inventor of the slope system have both told me our system is what they would like to do but can't for a variety of reasons. They've tried and discovered their handicaps are so far off they can't rely on the calcs due to self reported scores. Course owners make money off of running the existing handicap system so they don't want to disrupt that financial model. So, they're the ones telling me it's better, not me. Roger and I are planning to approach them and show them how they can do it.

It seems as there is no standard to compare ratings to, except the first person who was ever rated (who ever that was).



You are correct. Determining who a 1000 rated player would be in the very beginning was one of the first decisions. In consultation with others in the PDGA like Stork, Ellis and Hoeniger, we decided that a World Class player would be someone who cashed at Worlds in Open. At the time, last cash was about 50th place. So, we decided to average the best 100 scores on each course by 100 different players and that would be called its course rating or SSA (called World Class Par - WCP initially). Player Ratings for all Worlds attendees were then produced from that initial set of four course SSAs at Cincy Worlds in 1998.

The intial four courses averaged 51.4 SSA. That was then set as the SSA where each throw would be worth 10 points. As the SSA went up or down from there, the number of rating points per throw would go down or up respectively.

It was irrelevant in some respects where we established the intial benchmark because everyone's rating today would still be the same in reference to all other players on some other scale. However, considering that PGA pros have handicaps in the +3 to +5 range, we were pretty close in matching that with our current top players having essentially +2 to +4 handicaps. If we wanted more 1000 rated players, we could adjust the ratings benchmarks to do that.

It's the best it can be for the moment and continues to get better as we discover ways to improve it. It's not like we created it in 1998 and said it's the greatest then stopped there. It's better due to much player feedback and analysis over the years. It's not the Chuck and Roger system but the PDGA system. If we did it purely the way we originally wanted to based on the way stats should be done, it's likely no players under 900 would have ratings. So the evolutionary compromises for customer service have helped make it the best system to meet the needs of the PDGA and members as a group effort. It continues to improve as the needs emerge driven by member requests such as better reporting.

Folks on the USGA handicap committee and the inventor of the slope system have both told me our system is what they would like to do but can't for a variety of reasons. They've tried and discovered their handicaps are so far off they can't rely on the calcs due to self reported scores. Course owners make money off of running the existing handicap system so they don't want to disrupt that financial model. So, they're the ones telling me it's better, not me. Roger and I are planning to approach them and show them how they can do it.



Again, it's only because PDGA's tournament data is better than the self-reported scores of the USGA handicap system. IF PDGA allowed players to self-report their casual and league night rounds into the system, the data would get just as bad, just as fast, and so would the ratings.

Chap

So what is not corect about what I said? GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. That's why our two big improvements since 1998 are much better reporting tools for TDs and online posting of unofficial results so we can shakedown problems before we do the official ratings.

TWe have the best possible balancing of the normal variances in humans and environmental course factors with PDGA customer service


|
|
|
|

It's the best it can be for the moment and continues to get better as we discover ways to improve it



Nice backpedaling!

No backpedaling. Best is best at the time just like course records.

"best possible" ---&gt; "best it can be for the moment"

That, my double-speaking co-member, is backpedaling.

It's the best possible at the moment which is all that any "best" can be. No back pedal.

"Best it can be at the moment" implies that at another moment, it can be better.
"Best possible" implies best it can be at any moment.
Therefore, backpedal.
QED, o fatuous one.

But it is the best possible under the conditions as they exist now since it's unknown what conditions might change to undermine it. So when you say 'best possible' there's no expectation it is the best possible under all circumstances which of course would be unknown. There's also no reference for an alternative to compare against so it becomes best by default, oh wordsmith, you.

Chuck - Ignore him. He's found that he has lost the argument, so he's going to just repeat semantics until you forget your sanity and start beating your monitor with a keyboard.

He's found that he has lost the argument



That may be the funniest post in MB history! :p

There is no "less flawed" system. We have the best possible balancing of the normal variances in humans and environmental course factors with PDGA customer service, and it's easily superior to the outdated and not improvable (due to tradition, economics) ball golf system.


That may be the saddest post in MB history! :confused:

Thread drift alert... From the the system is broke thread....


The interesting thing about Non-sanctioned events, is that they follow the system created by sanctioned events. Even more interesting to me is the level of bagger control in that environment. I play in a handicapped series and have for the past 5 years. Those handicaps ensure that no bagging occurs. And it is cut, stacked and dry.... No exceptions. If your handicap drops you move up. No bagging. You can try, but the handicap calc method makes it very difficult to achieve.

Handicaps have to be established and proven before you can cash. But in the end the division structure and rules are based on PDGA structure. We (the PDGA) set the standards for disc golf...

I wanted to post a copy of my post here because I agree with Chuck. The PDGA system is something I think we should appreciate more because it is working.

word!

I apologize for interrupting this argument, but I wish address the original comment.

The two stroke penalty is minor in comparison to being disqualified for cheating.

I think that the 2 stroke penalty is harsh enough of a penalty to prevent people from trying to cheat, and light enough of a penalty to reprimand those who make scoring errors. The penalty is also in place so that TD's do not have to make the judgment call on whether the error was accidental or intentional.

Before you attach my face to a voodoo doll and set it on fire, I do understand that what you did was just a mathematical error. I have received the same two stroke penalty for the same infraction. In my case I had added an extra stroke to my score.

If there is no penalty for incorrectly scored cards, it would not only increase the work load of the TD, it would also open the door for opportunists.

It takes TD's long enough already to score mostly correct scorecards, imagine how long it would take if people added and turned them in without bothering to double check them.

One mistake in 16 years isn't bad, and I am pretty sure that you will be extra careful in your arithmetic in the future.

Since my scoring error, I don't play a round without my abacus

The two stroke penalty is minor in comparison to being disqualified for cheating.
<font color="red">I totally agree...In BallGolf it would be an AUTOMATIC DQ....But then it wouldn't count against my rating... :eek: which was the basis of my original post.. :D </font>


One mistake in 16 years isn't bad, and I am pretty sure that you will be extra careful in your arithmetic in the future.
<font color="red"> :DYou got that right.....I was so distracted by the lame putting exibition that I had just put on.....I let it slip by some how.. :o
:D </font>

LOL... Mike, I am surprised at you... :eek:

.Especially considering how many times you gave out the same ratings punishment to players at the many events you have run....

Better bring a calulator from now on...

BTW, nice finish at the Lava Launch, no mistakes there, eh.... :D

I apologize for interrupting this argument, but I wish address the original comment.

The two stroke penalty is minor in comparison to being disqualified for cheating.

I think that the 2 stroke penalty is harsh enough of a penalty to prevent people from trying to cheat, and light enough of a penalty to reprimand those who make scoring errors. The penalty is also in place so that TD's do not have to make the judgment call on whether the error was accidental or intentional.

Before you attach my face to a voodoo doll and set it on fire, I do understand that what you did was just a mathematical error. I have received the same two stroke penalty for the same infraction. In my case I had added an extra stroke to my score.

If there is no penalty for incorrectly scored cards, it would not only increase the work load of the TD, it would also open the door for opportunists.

It takes TD's long enough already to score mostly correct scorecards, imagine how long it would take if people added and turned them in without bothering to double check them.

One mistake in 16 years isn't bad, and I am pretty sure that you will be extra careful in your arithmetic in the future.

Since my scoring error, I don't play a round without my abacus



In ball golf its DQ. 2 strokes is a slap on the hand. It happened to me once, fortunately in a non-sanctioned tournament. I inadvertantly scored myself one stroke too high! The penalty made me only one stroke higher than that. Its like getting your car towed. It should happen only one time in your life. It happens once and you make sure it never happens again. My only sympathy is for somebody who gets stroked because somebody else screwed up turning in the card. Check your score. Check everybody else's score. Move on.