I have often pondered at how exactly the ratings system worked and how could they really be accurate? how could they factor in the wind, rain, snow, Pressure? I just couldn't see how. I have had it explained a few different ways, but none were convincing. I don't see how an Amature shooting -10 in an amature field is the same as a -10 from a Pro in his respective field. Yes I realize they may play the same exact holes at basically the same time of day, but They are completely different, and in various ways. The amount of pressure is different, the competition, and even ultimately the prize. There are other factors as well that I will not list in particular to save time on this. But I propose this, I feel the ratings should be divisional. The Pro Division, Advanced Division, and Am Division. Recreational and Novice shouldn't even have a rating. The 2 divisions aforementioned were and are to provide a field for beginners and people trying to decide there division in the sport. Amature is where it begins. I feel Rating the divisions individually is the safest way for respective competitors in there diivisions to not to suffer for someone being very fortunate or finding themselves "In the Zone". I still feel that that hot rounds in the individual divisions will be rewarded more accurately regardless of the seperation. And at the same time the professionals wouldnt be hurt when they shoot a solid -6 round and some amature shoots hot -8, so it looks as if the pro played poorly, yet the field around him may or may not shoot that much better. The pressure on him was completely different, as I said before, in his Respective field.. Just a thought, but I feel it would also create a more effective handycap system as well if a Divisional Ratings System was implimented... And then there would be no more reason to try and bag. as I said.. just a thought, I would love to hear yours on it...?

Overall, the ratings would end up exactly the same on average but the accuracy for individual players would suffer because fewer players with established ratings would be producing them. How would you explain to an Open player who played with an Intermediate player in the same group in the first round why his 50 was rated 945 and the 50 shot by the Intermediate player was rated 960? What do you do with divisions who have fewer than 5 players at an event? No ratings?

Here's the fundamental flaw and that is there is very little direct competition in the sport of disc golf with the exception of match play which doesn't get rated. Everyone is playing against the course and then we compare scores at the end with players in your division, many who have played in other groups and will finish ahead or behind you without actually ever playing with you. Our game doesn't allow players to directly influence the outcome of other players in the same way that tennis or boxing are win/loss sports.

Our divisions are artificial competition structures that have no direct bearing on how well each player will shoot at an event. So there's no underlying logic for doing ratings arbitrarily by division. Everyone who plays the course provides an independent score that's as good as the score thrown by any other player with an established rating for producing the ratings for each round.

I think there's a legitimate point to CLeemo's post that arises most in micro-divisions like Pro Grandmaster. If Mark Ellis is playing Open and he's -4 for the morning round at some local c-tier and he's tied for first, he is going to be focussed on playing his very best most aggressive golf in the afternoon. If he shoots the same -4 in Pro Grandmaster, he has a five throw lead, and is going to have a different approach to the afternoon round.

In a micro division where everyone is on the same card, if second, third and fourth are struggling in the afternoon, first will often ease up a little.

The competitive situation will have an effect on some players' scores. But, I think it is mostly up to them whether they are going to play their very best for the rating, or relax and enjoy the afternoon. I have seen the situation where the leader, while widening her already huge lead, feels like she has to explain to the others that because of ratings, she really has to play her best to the very end, because she does not want to hurt her rating by relaxing and enjoying the afternoon.

"Overall, the ratings would end up exactly the same on average but the accuracy for individual players would suffer because fewer players with established ratings would be producing them. How would you explain to an Open player who played with an Intermediate player in the same group in the first round why his 50 was rated 945 and the 50 shot by the Intermediate player was rated 960? What do you do with divisions who have fewer than 5 players at an event? No ratings?"

Chuck, I dont see how that would ever apply in what i said.. are you saying there would be events with less than 5 pro's total? or 5 advanced? or Ams?... NO.
the The Pro Division would include women and the various age brackets.
if an Amature plays with a Pro the 1st Round, only the 1st round would be affected, if it even happened to work out the way you optioned. most tournies already just impliment the Divisions from the beginning of the tournament anyways. so I Disagree i dont think they would be exactly the same at all. but thank you kindly for your thoughts on the matter.

If there's no rating for rec players, what's to stop someone from sitting in rec and racking up the plastic/merch. They wouldn't be getting a rating, so they wouldn't lose the ability to play the lower divisions as they improved, and there wouldn't be any motivation to move up.

f an Amature plays with a Pro the 1st Round, only the 1st round would be affected, if it even happened to work out the way you optioned. most tournies already just impliment the Divisions from the beginning of the tournament anyways. so I Disagree i dont think they would be exactly the same at all.
Doesn't matter how you divide up the groups, the overall average of the ratings generated would end up the same. It's the way the ratings math works. The only difference is the numbers would be less accurate and more variable because fewer people would be producing the set of numbers for each subgrouping of players.

For example, let's say at a small event there were 10 Pros, 10 Advanced and 10 Ams. Let's say the Pros produced an SSA of 49, Adv SSA=51 and Ams SSA=52. Their average SSA=50.7 and that's the same 50.7 SSA that would be generated if we used all 30 players like we currently do to produce the SSA. The only difference is the Am who shoots 56 in your scenario gets about a 960 rating and the pro shooting the same 56 gets about a 930 rating. The way we do it now, both players would get about a 947 rating for that 56 which is not only more accurate but more fair.

As far as players in Rec and below not getting ratings, recognize that members believe getting ratings and having the PDGA track that history is an important membership benefit. About half of PDGA members fall into the skill range you're suggesting shouldn't get ratings. The majority of new members initially fall into that skill range and one of the key reasons many join is to get ratings so they can track their progress.

I guess I still don't totatlly get it. But still at least you give me something else to think about. Thank you for trying to help me understand. as far as the rec division bandits go
there record should be noted and tracked and bountied like my advanced career was!!!
and there should be wanted posters for baggers!!! but seriously i think its still the call of the player.. who wants recognition for being a dominant rec player? and not to be little the divison either, it serves its place. My point was that in the beginning of my career the rec division, was a few people who were trying to figure out there proper divisions... now they take up half the field in alot of current events... i dont think thats right. And actually its your point that spawns mine, they already do... they already are bagging in rec instead of am or advanced... its there scores that trip the system in my area... its not an excuse, its a fact. Thanks for your point too Bother!!! Peace.

My point was that in the beginning of my career the rec division, was a few people who were trying to figure out there proper divisions... now they take up half the field in alot of current events... i dont think thats right. And actually its your point that spawns mine, they already do... they already are bagging in rec instead of am or advanced..
You're mixing two player groups. True rec or novice players are actually beginners with true ratings in the 750-850 range even if we don't know their ratings yet. REC is now the (weak) name for a skill division just under Intermediate with ratings from 850-899. This group of regular players has always been a large percentage of tournament players, but they just weren't labeled the REC division. It was Am2 or Am3 depending on your historical perspective. Historically, several were bagging because we didn't have ratings to move them to a higher division. But now we have ratings to keep them moving up as they improve.