Still no word on when we will have real time ratings? The technological progession of this sport is horrible. We all know our sister sport ball golf has real time player handicaps. Even the sport of billiards has weekly handicap updates for crying out loud.

So tell me why do we still have to wait a month for a ratings update????? Seriously can someone answer this question who has been involved in the sport longer than 5 years. I don't want to hear some "know it all newby" give me some bull honky answer.

I brought this up YEARS ago and nobody gave a hoot. I am guessing now will be the same because simply put some things never change.

Can't happen. The manual process that requires checking course layout assignments and making corrections like getting missing PDGA numbers entered and adding new member numbers will prevent this from happening. It's also a good thing for TDs to have stable ratings for some time period so players aren't waiting to preregister to see if their rating drops a day later. No one's rating changes that quickly anyway. The average PDGA member only plays two rated rounds every 6 weeks which is about our update cycle now. It's not the technology but practical human issues that will keep ratings updates no faster than about once per month which is where we're headed in the next few years.

I'm going to agree with Chuck. There's too much human involvement in the ratings that simply won't allow automated ratings. I counted over 12 round ratings for a friend change from the unofficial report to the official report.

Chuck, I noticed an XC event is listed as a C-tier, and it was included in the player's ratings. Yeah, it was nice to get 2 999 rated rounds bump up my rating, but I'm too honest, it shouldn't be there. Who should I contact to get this fixed?

XC-tier events aren't automatically excluded from ratings unless the format involves things like mulligans or match play. If you think the event should not be rated due to the format, please send a note to Andrew at [email protected] Thanks for catching this.

It is possible...and to say it's not is just a lousy excuse. If a round rating changes 100 times it should not matter. As long as a system or application is put in place your player rating should change as the round ratings change. Simple as that.

I already stated it's theoretically possible. It would simply be inappropriate for several reasons so it's unlikely to be implemented.

Still no word on when we will have real time ratings? The technological progession of this sport is horrible. We all know our sister sport ball golf has real time player handicaps. Even the sport of billiards has weekly handicap updates for crying out loud.

So tell me why do we still have to wait a month for a ratings update????? Seriously can someone answer this question who has been involved in the sport longer than 5 years. I don't want to hear some "know it all newby" give me some bull honky answer.

I brought this up YEARS ago and nobody gave a hoot. I am guessing now will be the same because simply put some things never change.

Still no word on when we will have real time ratings? The technological progession of this sport is horrible. So tell me why do we still have to wait a month for a ratings update?????
Seriously can someone answer this question who has been involved in the sport longer than 5 years. I don't want to hear some "know it all newby" give me some bull honky answer.

I brought this up YEARS ago and nobody gave a hoot. I am guessing now will be the same because simply put some things never change.

I've been playing for 16 years - so I fit your criteria for being able to answer - here goes.

1) Humans are involved - TD's make errors on input of layouts played which makes the data inaccurate.
2) Currently C-tiers have 30 days to report - making anything happening before the "I'm waiting til the 30 day deadline" TD's submit their reports inaccurate if you play weekly in sanctioned Events.
3) With some states having Sat / Sun C-tiers the same weekend - how do you propose handling those?
4) In YOUR perfect world scenario, how do you handle the player who plays SAT in PRO and accepts cash, then plays SUN in ADV and wins a basket, but really shouldn't because now his rating would be over the threshold? Do you go back, treack him down, take his basket back and give it to the next guy in order? On the flip side, what if that player was rated 971 and accepted cash on SAT and now wins in ADV on SUN and tells you the TD - that his rating after SAT rounds would now be 969 making him eligible to accept the basket? Are you going to manually calculate EVERYONE who played SAT ratings on SAT night, so that they play in the right division SUN?
5) What do you do for the TD that submits his report in 72 hours (being a good TD) and the players next Event is FRI for a 3 day Event? - When do you process their stats so they are accurate?
6) Insert several other scenarios that would keep weekly ratings from being accurate (or as close to accurate as possible) if they aren't being done the way they are done currently.

Even you would have to admit, it is much better now with 6-7 week updates and less than 2 week turnarounds from the deadline for submission than it was in the past, as more and more TD's and players are realizing the benefits of turning around thier reports in a quicker fashion. But at the end of the year there are still 1 (this year 2) rating updates to cover the past years ratings that had still needed to be submitted but were not submitted before the end of the year. I do believe (and Chuck can correct me if I'm wrong) that this past year was the first that all sanctioned Events had accurate and completed reports turned in.

For Darts and Bowling leagues you are tracking less than a couple hundred at most of the SAME EXACT people all playing in the same general area, making it easy to accomplish. We did it for doubles and singles leagues in Miami and Tucson when I was running those, but it is unreasonable to expect that type of coverage for thousands of players playing all over the country and out of their local regions without a time lag for the information to be processed.

Hopefully this will pass for a "non-bull honky answer" and you'll consider reading it. :)

Here's the thing I don't get about this whole request. Who cares if it is possible or not, why is it necessary? What is the benefit of having instantaneous ratings?

Don't get me wrong, I love the concept of ratings. I love the idea that ratings can be used to put rounds in proper perspective regardless of the course played, and that ratings can be used to determine division breaks.

But I just don't understand the ever growing obsession with ratings. Seems every sanctioned tournament I play these days, everyone's worried about how their round is going to affect their rating or whether player X is going to "screw up the ratings" with his super good or super bad round. It's silly. Just play the game and let the numbers sort themselves out. Be more concerned that that last putt might be worth an extra $25 in payout rather than an extra 9 ratings points.

No one wins anything for having a high rating. It's entirely bragging rights unless we're talking about the handful (at most) of people in any given region who are hovering right around 935 or 900 for which a few points one way or the other might mean jumping up a division. And for the most part, people with ratings in those ranges probably already made the jump anyway so it's barely a concern.

If there's no functional need for instant ratings, I completely understand why the PDGA sticks with the every 5-6 week update schedule.

I think ratings have been updated and should be updated about as often as any disc golfer other than Chuck makes an intelligent, informed comment about ratings.

In so far as there are unofficial round ratings already in the site, it ought to be an easy addition to add an unofficial rating that estimates the rating after the next update.

What would be the point of doing that? Sometimes, newer players improve a LOT from one update to the next. For example, I think Des Reading's first rating went up over 100 points between one update and the next. So it might be useful to allow TDs discretion to require players to play up based on their "unofficial" rating.

But, perhaps more importantly, it would offer players the instant gratification that they crave upon posting some new rounds. That should be reason enough.

In so far as there are unofficial round ratings already in the site, it ought to be an easy addition to add an unofficial rating that estimates the rating after the next update.

But, perhaps more importantly, it would offer players the instant gratification that they crave upon posting some new rounds. That should be reason enough.

Jennifer, you obviously didn't read the reasons I gave before that makes your idea a very BAD one.

If the TD puts in BAD info, the unofficial ratings will be WRONG - that's reason enough to NOT offer instant gratification.

I could say everyone played a course the REC players only played and mess up all 72 players ratings in my Events - as long as there is a human element involved, there could NEVER be realistic instant ratings - if people can't wait 6 weeks or figure out what their rating could really be to "play up" if they "should be" playing up - I'd rather have that problem as a TD than ther other way around if some TD before my Event put in the wrong info and I use it as gospel.

Just my opinion,
Keith

Official ratings also have their errors as well. I have two 999 rated rounds included in my current rating from an XC-tier (w/ mulligans) played in Feb'11. I emailed the tour manager over a week ago and have yet to hear back. Hmm, now just wondering if it will be corrected before the next update.

That has to do with 2 things, The TD getting it wrong by not reporting it (allowing mulligans) and no players mentioning it for over 4 months. - The PDGA and Tour Manager have no idea what is the layout that players played, or format of the Events - it is up to the TD and the people that played the Event to help make sure the info is correct - And although the players nowadays are alot quicker to point stuff out to both the TD ahead of time (during unofficial ratings), telling Chuck on this site, or by contacting HQ so that their ratings aren't jacked up, if the players do none of this BEFORE the deadline, it can't be fixed until the next update.

Instant ratings won't fix that problem either and goes back to reason #1 I gave earlier in this thread that the players and TD's are humans and not machines, so it will never be perfect. :)

That has to do with 2 things, The TD getting it wrong by not reporting it (allowing mulligans) and no players mentioning it for over 4 months. - The PDGA and Tour Manager have no idea what is the layout that players played, or format of the Events - it is up to the TD and the people that played the Event to help make sure the info is correct - And although the players nowadays are alot quicker to point stuff out to both the TD ahead of time (during unofficial ratings), telling Chuck on this site, or by contacting HQ so that their ratings aren't jacked up, if the players do none of this BEFORE the deadline, it can't be fixed until the next update.

Instant ratings won't fix that problem either and goes back to reason #1 I gave earlier in this thread that the players and TD's are humans and not machines, so it will never be perfect. :) I took the necessary steps to help fix this matter. When the initial TD report was submitted, my PDGA# wasn't listed & the rankings were not correct so I notified the TD. He corrected these two matters before the May update came out. Once the May update came out, PDGA points were not listed. I notified the TD a 2nd time that PDGA points were not given, the event was listed as a C-tier, and that the ratings were listed for an XC tier. Then the June report came out, this time PDGA points were given, however the event was still listed as a C-tier and the ratings were calculated into players PDGA rating. So then I notified the TD a 3rd time, posted the issue on PDGA forum, and notified the PDGA tour manager. This is the second in five events I've played this year in which TD reports either have errors or not timely submitted to PDGA. We are at the mercy of TDs to provide accurate and timely reports to the PDGA. Until these problems are corrected, live ratings will never happen. Although these are minor issues, it just compounds the many problems we have in this "Professional" sport.

As a TD quite capable of erring on the TD reports, I appreciate the Unofficial Ratings Period in which I can identify these mistakes---or, more likely, have them pointed out to me---and repair them before they become official.

Jennifer, you obviously didn't read the reasons I gave before that makes your idea a very BAD one.

If the TD puts in BAD info, the unofficial ratings will be WRONG - that's reason enough to NOT offer instant gratification.

I could say everyone played a course the REC players only played and mess up all 72 players ratings in my Events - as long as there is a human element involved, there could NEVER be realistic instant ratings - if people can't wait 6 weeks or figure out what their rating could really be to "play up" if they "should be" playing up - I'd rather have that problem as a TD than ther other way around if some TD before my Event put in the wrong info and I use it as gospel.

Just my opinion,
Keith

I read your reasons, but you apparently missed the part where I said they would be "unofficial" ratings estimates that just preview the next update, and are provided in addition to the official ratings. I don't think that makes any less sense or do any more harm than posting the unofficial round ratings online prior to the update. It would just be a tool that does the math for us to see an estimate of our ratings following the update, instead of requiring us to do the math ourselves. And we all do the math, don't we? I know I do.

I read your reasons, but you apparently missed the part where I said they would be "unofficial" ratings estimates that just preview the next update, and are provided in addition to the official ratings. I don't think that makes any less sense or do any more harm than posting the unofficial round ratings online prior to the update. It would just be a tool that does the math for us to see an estimate of our ratings following the update, instead of requiring us to do the math ourselves. And we all do the math, don't we? I know I do.

Any way of using the ratings inbetween official updates - gives some players unfair advantages and disadvantages - because it is depending on how accurate and quickly their previous PDGA Events were entered. Unofficial round ratings are just that "unofficial" - becasue they need to have TD reports designating courses played, weather issues that may have affected scoring, etc. It is why when there are tee time rounds - if weather becomes an issue for later times - they separate the round ratings - to be as fair as possible to ALL players.

You, I, and other can guess at what our ratings are for the round and be pretty good, or EXACT as to the unofficial ratings, especially after playing certain courses and knowing what scores generate what ratings, but to use those guesses to set OFFICIAL division entry points for a player from 1 weeks Event to the next or 1 day to the next in some cities that run multiple PDGA Events on the same weekend OBVIOUSLY can't happen, so it is a moot point. There NEEDS to be a time lag to get things as accurate as possible as those 72-90-144-216 players then become "gators" for the other Events they travel to and the logistical nightmares to correct things for 3-4 weeks if something went wrong is far outweighed by waiting 6-7 weeks to get more accurate data points - which in turn helps foster more correct data points in the future, bringing the ratings to as close as possible to being as fair to anyone playing from coast to coast every week down to the player that never leaves his home state.

As long as humans are TD's - ratings can NEVER be in real time or any faster than 3-4 weeks to make the possibilty of errors as small as possible.

Keith

I have two 999 rated rounds included in my current rating from an XC-tier (w/ mulligans) played in Feb'11.
Even though we currently don't include mulligan round ratings, they are likely as good as rounds rated for a severely tweaked format like the USDGC throw and distance. Since everyone can use mulligans, it essentially just improves everyone's score in a similar way and just produces a lower SSA for that course layout.

Even though we currently don't include mulligan round ratings, they are likely as good as rounds rated for a severely tweaked format like the USDGC throw and distance. Since everyone can use mulligans, it essentially just improves everyone's score in a similar way and just produces a lower SSA for that course layout.

Not true at all Chuck, as you are assuming an equal number of mulligans per player. At the Ice Bowls around here the winners frequently buy 20 mullies per 18 hole round while others in the field buy only 5. It's all for charity so it's fun to watch/do.

Rhett is correct. Some players don't even buy mulligans while other go stir crazy on them, even using 20 mulligans on one hole to attempt for an ace. In a past event, one player used well over 50+ mulligans to beat one of the top PRO players in the world.

Rounds using mulligans should never be used to calculate ratings (period).

We've played an annual event here since the early 90s where everyone gets an optional mulligan per hole. The scores end up very close to the same order they would be without mullligans, just better. So only the SSA goes down but round ratings are about what you'd expect based on a player's rating.

We've played an annual event here since the early 90s where everyone gets an optional mulligan per hole. The scores end up very close to the same order they would be without mullligans, just better. So only the SSA goes down but round ratings are about what you'd eaxpect based on a player's rating.

Chuck, that statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the current discussion.

It's the fact that not all mulligan events are necessarily going to produce "inaccurate" round ratings and resulting player ratings.

Even if one player buys five mulligans and another buys fifty, ratings are still accurate. The player who shows up for a mulligans round and does not buy the maximum amount is like the player who shows up for a subzero round and does not buy pocket warmers or the player who shows up for the monsoon round and does not bring rain gear and extra towels. Some players shoot themselves in the foot at every tournament with their drinking and smoking, and it all counts toward ratings. Everything any player does that puts him at a competitive disadvantage is the same as not buying your mulligans at a mulligans round.

The only reason why a player would play a mulligan round and not buy the maximum number of mulligans is because it is for fun and charity, not for ratings, and he feels his entry fee and whatever else is donation enough. If the PDGA were to rate mulligan rounds, most players would buy the max or stay home, and Chuck would be right on this one.

It's the fact that not all mulligan events are necessarily going to produce "inaccurate" round ratings and resulting player ratings.

I'm fairly certain, although I could be wrong, that we were not talking about all mulligan rounds ever played in the history of the universe. Nor were we talking about all possible mulligan rounds that could ever be played under all possible circumstances and scenarios.

I'm pretty sure we were talking about a PDGA event with "buy as many mullys as you want and not everybody bought the same number".

My first post on the topic was made before the "buy mullis" was indicated as the format. Even then, as Bruce points out, the oversight would likely produce only a minor blip in the ratings before it was corrected. The overall point was that it's unlikely an X-tier format will produce a finish order much different than what would be expected based on the initial ratings of the players. The most skewed results would likely come from a handicap event where every player's net rather than raw scores were accidentally posted. No handicap events rated yet. This year's USDGC would be the first.

I'm fairly certain, although I could be wrong, that Rhett has me on "ignore." :(

I'm fairly certain, although I could be wrong, that Rhett has me on "ignore." :(

I have had Rhett on ignore for several years now. I don't have Bruce on Ignore yet, but after his recent post in this thread basically insulting any PDGA member who doesn't make an "intelligent, informed comment about ratings" and his post in the Peter Shive thread where he essentially calls voting PDGA members morons, I'm very close to it. :(

The overall point was that it's unlikely an X-tier format will produce a finish order much different than what would be expected based on the initial ratings of the players. Oh you couldn't more wrong with this statement. A 930+ rated player beat the #5 player in the world using over 55 mulligans at an unlimited mulligan XC-tier this year. Not understanding why you are making this point in the first place. Bottom line is that mulligan rounds should never have a rating, how clear can that be?

Official ratings also have their errors as well. I have two 999 rated rounds included in my current rating from an XC-tier (w/ mulligans) played in Feb'11. I emailed the tour manager over a week ago and have yet to hear back. Hmm, now just wondering if it will be corrected before the next update. Wow, my assumption was correct. It doesn't amaze me that I have notified the TD 3 times, and also the tour manager on 6/21 (as Chuck suggested), and this still isn't corrected. Oh yeah, that's right I'm dealing with the PDGA. And still haven't heard not a peep from the tour manager, a little "we're looking into this matter, thank you for your patience" would be in order at any reputable organization. So where should I aim the crack of my whip to get this fixed!?!

Oh you couldn't more wrong with this statement. A 930+ rated player beat the #5 player in the world using over 55 mulligans at an unlimited mulligan XC-tier this year. Not understanding why you are making this point in the first place. Bottom line is that mulligan rounds should never have a rating, how clear can that be?
Not wrong with the statement overall at all. We've done correlation tests several years ago just to see how mulligans affect the final standings. The finish results aren't different from a typical event with the same number of rounds. Nonetheless, I didn't say mulligan rounds should ever be included, just that it's not the worst tragedy if they slip thru before being discovered as in this case. 930 players have beaten top players before in 2-round events. It will statistically happen every so often even if rare without mulligans involved.

Here's the thing I don't get about this whole request. Who cares if it is possible or not, why is it necessary? What is the benefit of having instantaneous ratings?

Josh, forget per-day updates, I want per-throw updates. So that way, on the 18th hole when I have that death-putt, I can say "If I lay up and get the 3, I get my 1000+ rated round, so I'm laying up." C'mon, Chuck! Per-throw updates! :D

This is meant for levity. This conversation was getting heavy. Plus, I haven't talked to Josh in years. Hey Josh!

When I played more ball golf my club kept a real time handicapp for me. You people act like it's not necessary. It's this kind of pathetic attitude that will keep our sport from advancing. I have several programmers here at work who could knock this out. Would the PDGA be interested in paying my family business $120 an hour to complete this? There would most likely be a cost just for an RFP because this will be a complicated application to create. All I'm saying is why not at lease admit it would be an awesome upgrade instead of shooting it down. I guess I am in the minority here.

You apparently don't get that it's the people issues not the technical issues. Get the new PDGA app and get your round rating right after your round ends. Ball golf handicaps are bankrupt because they use self reported scores. It's easy to automate when the data doesn't matter.

Chuck you keep doing what you do you are a talented individual and I undertand you can't put all your time into this. You did an outstanding job with what we have. I am still using a blackberry will the PDGA app be compatible with a blackberry torch?

Not at the moment. It's Apple now then Droid. Beyond that I don't know what the plans are. However, since some of us hope to start using the app for scoring in events at some level in 2012, I would think that Blackberry and Windows mobile op systems would eventually be developed. The bigger issue is significantly upgrading the PDGA Course Directory to provide lengths and pars for for multiple tees and pins. That will be a major effort with maximum help needed from PDGA members.

Considering my home course (Morley Field) has approx. 3-7 positions on 19 holes, how many course layouts would be uploaded to the PDGA course directory to calculate an accurate rating? Or would an approx total footage range be used for the layout to calculate rating?

Actually, Morley would be easy as long as you knew what the total length of the course was that day. The length in the PDGA Course Directory is 4900 feet for 19 holes. That sounds either too short or maybe it's the shortest layout? Regardless, after your round has been scored, the app shows you the listed course length and allows you to enter another length if a different set of pins was used from the listed value and then does the round rating calculation. Does Snapper have the lengths of all the pin placements on file and post a net total course length that day for the combo out there?

Actually, Morley would be easy as long as you knew what the total length of the course was that day. The length in the PDGA Course Directory is 4900 feet for 19 holes. That sounds either too short or maybe it's the shortest layout? Regardless, after your round has been scored, the app shows you the listed course length and allows you to enter another length if a different set of pins was used from the listed value and then does the round rating calculation. Does Snapper have the lengths of all the pin placements on file and post a net total course length that day for the combo out there?All pin placements have lengths posted. However, total course length (changed each Monday) is not. The course length can vary from 4,567 - 6,310 ft per week and there are over 41 trillion ways to setup the course. So would the rating be based on the course length for the week?

Yep. The assumption is the foliage and hazards don't vary significantly overall regardless of the pin placements, just the length. Yes, some might be a little more protected than others. But on balance the folaige variance is usually small enough to be considered the same for purposes of this calculation.

Sooner updates are possible you just would not include unofficial reports. We had over 900 events last year breaking down to over 100 a month in the busy times of the year. There is enough work there to update more regularly. Sure people may not have a new rating every update but some will.

Seems like people are worried about the mistakes made by the TD's but maybe its the TD report that we submit to the PDGA that is the mistake. Its out dated and needs a rebirth. Perhaps it can be created in such a way that it prevents the majority of mistakes that plague the reports now. Clearly we have enough data to show what are common mistakes. This is something the Tour Manager should be looking into in my opinion.

There are mistakes in the ratings all the time due to human error. TD's make mistakes on reports and they get submitted and then caught and fixed later. Usually its the players who catches it when the official ratings come out or if the tour manager is on top of it that week and knows the event. It happens now and will continue to happen but at least if the updates are more frequent then these errors can be dealt with in a timely manner.

People expect something for their membership and if this is what they want then the PDGA should work towards providing it. People should not sit on the forum discounting what people want. Lets put it on a ballot and let the membership vote it out, if the membership speaks the PDGA should listen to what ever the majority is saying. After all the PDGA touts the ratings as a strong membership desire if they did not consider it to be a strong draw then why not provide ratings to all players member or not.

People expect something for their membership and if this is what they want then the PDGA should work towards providing it. People should not sit on the forum discounting what people want. Lets put it on a ballot and let the membership vote it out, if the membership speaks the PDGA should listen to what ever the majority is saying. After all the PDGA touts the ratings as a strong membership desire if they did not consider it to be a strong draw then why not provide ratings to all players member or not.

Playing Devil's Advocate---Should the PDGA put out a ballot with every issue that a couple of members raise on a forum?

There may be a mass desire to have quicker ratings---but I've never heard anyone mention it before, and it hasn't come up in any of the BOD candidate statements or discussions.

@ David I brought this up YEARS ago.

OK you're 1.
I remember when we only got updates 4X a year, now it's about every 5-6 weeks. So they're making progress & I applaud the effort.