I think someone should start a thread on why Mr. Haney's round is not on that list, already; aren't I paying dues, and isn't it somebody's job to keep up on that, and wasn't this over 3 whole weeks ago? :D

I now have the highest rated round with a 1096



I'm guessing you were still throwing Discraft at the time?

Ummmm...... Yeah . MuK

There are tons of rounds missing in there.

1076 by John E. McCray
1076 by David Feldberg
1088 & 1086 by Barry

Just click on some top players and sort by rating.

Blending any 2005 rounds with rounds before 2005 is invalid. It's unclear whether Coda's 1096 is any better than Phil's 1094 since the calculations were done differently. Time to start a new set of top 10 rounds.

Wow, all this time and I didn't know you could sort ratings under players names . . . . DoH!

chris step back, close your eyes and say..... " I guess i'm wrong"
did you pass out?
did it hurt?
good.
get use to it..


tt ******

chris step back, close your eyes and say..... " I guess i'm wrong"
did you pass out?
did it hurt?
good.
get use to it..



What am I wrong about now?

Word from Virginia via Eddie OG, the highest round ever has been shot today in Virginia.

Brian Skinner shot a 41 on the dark side at the Grange.

46 was a 1060 something....so we are talking about over 1100.

Just to put this in perspective,

46 was the course record, Skinner beats that by 5.

41 was the hot round in doubles on Saturday....and Skinner does it himself....with a bogey.

Brian Skinner, round 3. Check it out. (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4707&year=2005&includeRatings=1#Open)

Rusty Hooker
Step back and shut the fu@k up!!!

1115!!! That's off the hook! I can always say I was there (even if I was on the Sunny Side at the time). :D

well, that sounds like a decent round

if mittenz (or whatever he's calling himself around here these days ;)) reads this he could tell about the round... he was playing with the dude when he shot it. Apparently there were two missed ~25 to ~30 footers in there as well :eek:

Long round short, he parked almost every deuce hole out there. He got bonus deuces on #10 and #16 (which is almost impossible to get to, just for the amount of stuff you need to get through), and missed putts from about 25 and 40 (the 25 footer was for a 3 on a par 4.) It was amazing to watch this round happen, considering the old record was 46 (and I shot a 47 last year and thought I was tearing it up...) It's a course where if you split your fairway perfectly, you can get your deuce. He just managed to do that 14 times, which is insane. Great fun to watch him shoot it! He thought at the end he was at 10 or so, we told him 13 he almost fell over in disbelief. There's one plus to not knowing where you're at, wont get all nervous shooting the best round ever!

if your tearing the course a new one...you know your taring the course a new one......Unless you have no finger gloves on.

Chuck, is there any way that you could make another link to each individual player on which is their highest rated rounds in their carrer? Highest and Lowest. I'm thinking that the ratings are kept in a spreadsheet format, if it is it wouldn't be that dificult to do this. I think it would be pretty cool to see the best and worst rounds people have had.

I am not ashamed of my best, but I am not looking forward to seeing my worst

I think it would be pretty cool to see the best and worst rounds people have had.




That's an awesome idea! I've had some great ones and some rank ones! :D

I think it would be pretty cool to see the best and worst rounds people have had.



MTL

Highest Round - 49 - Earlewood Classic 2004, Earlewood 19 Hole Layout Rd. 1 - 1023

Lowest Round - 66 - Am Crosstown 2003, Cedar Hills, Round 4 - 808

MTL,

Where did you get the older stats?

My recent rating detail shows highest at 1030 and lowest at 923.......but i know i've had lower than that in years past.

MTL,

Where did you get the older stats?

My recent rating history shows highest at 1030 and lowest at 923.......but i know i've had lower than that in years past.



I just know what my worst round was, and went back and looked it up under the individual tournament

Chuck, is there any way that you could make another link to each individual player on which is their highest rated rounds in their carrer?



There are lots of cool stats we could do if our web guys had time to do it. It has't gotten high enough on their priorities yet. I've wanted a field in the database to retain a person's best rated round for about 3 years and do state rankings and who are the fast trackers but Roger and I don't do web work.

yes, i beat MtL on both fronts:

lowest: One Moe Tournament 12-Dec-2004, 64 - 793
highest: Bull City Showdown 22-23-Nov-2003, 42 - 1041


IJAR's is impressive:

lowest: Big Valley Challenge 28-29-May-2005, 108 - 208
highest: South Carolina DGCs 02-03-Oct-2004, 42 - 1032 (not 100% this is his highest)

Thanks Chuck. If it ever happens, everyone will enjoy seeing they're highest rated round and reminisce how great they were that day, and then they can look in the other column and reminisce what a chump they were on that other dreadful day. :D

My lowest since turning pro is last year, shot an 892, 893 in different events. I shot in the vicinity of an 860 in an unsanctioned event...
My highest is 1053 I think.
My best swing from one round to the next, in a single day, is 892-1015, sunday morning to sunday afternoon. I am the master of the 100+pt swing, in either direction...consistency at it's finest.
My 1053 came immediately after a 953, again, sunday morning to sunday afternoon. Maybe I shouldn't party so hard Saturday night...

Highest: 1073
Lowest: 914

High = 1081
Low = 900

Ok, I'll bite...

High: 1025
Low: 853

Highest = 1006
Lowerst = 817 :eek: :mad::(

1018 to 923

High: 973
Low: 788

Two weeks ago. 788 was my thrid round. 973 was the fouth.

the 973 was from the longs.

High: 1022
Low: 889

1001
862

1020 and 832(age 12)

1096 :eek:
916 /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

This isn't mine..... but my son Chris (who is 15) shot the following as his first two rounds at Zebulon at this year's Crosstown tournament...... and this was the same course played each round.

Round 1: Score - 79 with a rating of 731
Round 2: Score - 57 with a rating of 946

His first round was the worst round in the 23 person intermediate field...... while his 57 in the second round was the second best round shot by the intermediate field. Nothing like consistency :D

1002
895

Best 977
Worst 749 (4 yrs ago)

Most consistent tournament
887-890-890

Now for the hard ones.
Biggest drop in consecutive rounds in a tournament.
I have 2 where I dropped over 90 points.
949->852 = 97 pts
976->883 = 93 pts

best 743

worst 521

While you can have fun posting worst rounds here, it makes little sense to save that info as a field for PDGA stats. Some players will start as juniors and others as adults so worst rounds might actually have been good rounds at the time.

best - 982
worst- 841

biggest spread in consecutive rounds: 975 - 842 !!ouch :D

1002
894 (one week before the 1002)

BTW the 894 was my first round, the second round of that tournament gave me a 996, by second highest rated round ever)

How about most points over and under your current rating at the time? That would show your best and worst rounds for your skill level.

1032
865

I noticed where that low round occured :D

How about most points over and under your current rating at the time? That would show your best and worst rounds for your skill level.



I thought about that but it won't mean anything because we drop rounds below a certain number of points below your current rating.

best - 982
worst- 841

biggest spread in consecutive rounds: 975 - 842 !!ouch :D



I have a 785 followed by a 992 in the same 2 round tournament. Till April that 992 was my highest and 785 is my lowest.

At VA Open this year, 3rd round 813 to drop from lead card to 3rd card, 4th round 938 to rise back to 5th.

I guess my lowest, 892 (threw 872 but as Advanced) was 102 pts below my rating. My 1053 was 61 above my rating. Skinners round is 101 above his average and he's a 1014! Or something close to that, I'm too lazy to look itup.

After researching all of the rated events that i've played since 2001, i've found some interesting information.

Highest = 1049 (2002 MaceMan BigShow Lewisville Open)
Lowest = 906 (2002 Tx 10 Final at Lewisville)

I find it humorous that my highest, and lowest rated rounds EVER have come from the SAME COURSE!!!!!!

Sheesh! :confused: :D

I don't have a rating yet (I'm eagerly awaiting Julys update, I'll have approx. 13 rounds in my first rating!) but I'll take a stab at what I think they might be:

High: 870-880
Low: 620-630 <=== edited... I lowered it because I forgot about my +15 at Keriakes in Bowling Green... stupid!

I really only started playing seriously about two months ago... so I've got nowhere to go but up.

*Deleted*

highest so far- 971 Red Rock Show (2005)

lowest- 779 Red Rock Show (2004)

1024 Sneeky Pete (2004) Wellspring Longs

145 BVC (2005) Regs

Proud to talk about my new highest rated round, a 981 - 12 down (20 holes) at the DEP Cup final round, which gave me my best finish, 4th, so far in AM1. Unofficially 52 points over my current rating.

983- Big valley from the longs 2006

Hey..... I'm MonTTy!

1061 for me, a course record, on my birthday, and I aced earlier in the day.

It was a good day.

no your monny

1021 at Reedy

put me out in front leading to my first win

I think my low is 822 in my first tourney

1012 - Almost a national champion

917 - Worst counted round, I was drunk

861 - Worst sanctioned round, missed the first hole

1057 for me. Dogwood Crosstown NT, -9 at Zebulon and missed a 20 footer for -10 on the last hole. Kozak and Messiah worked me. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

1026 - played the pro day the day before on the same course layout and shot 9 strokes worse both rounds. Exacted my revenge on the course.

890 - Worst rated round. At the cracked plastic classic, which I have constistently put up my worst rated rounds at.

Mine was earlier this year.
1099
At Fun N' Sun/NE Coachman Classic. May6 to 7
My lowest rating ever is 820 in 2003 my first ever tournament.
Chandler Tornado in April.

I shot 16 under par.

Mine was earlier this year.
1099
At Fun N' Sun/NE Coachman Classic. May6 to 7
My lowest rating ever is 820 in 2003 my first ever tournament.
Chandler Tornado in April.



SO is that the 2nd best round ever played?

My vote for the best round ever played might be Climo's at Pro Worlds with a 1092 rating on a course with a 63 SSA. The handful of rounds rated higher than that were on courses with SSA less than 54. The 1099 was the second highest rated purely on numbers.

No way. As Amazing of a round as Climo's 51 was at Hippodrome, Skinners 41 is much much better.

I could see someone shooting a 51 at hippodrome as there were many birdie opportunites out there and really only 2 holes where you could totally blow up on.

The 41 at The Darkside is ungodly. I can't imagine anyone shooting within 4 strokes of it ever again.

Actually, I've said this many times, the best round I've ever heard of is Larry Leonard shooting a 34 in practice in Horizons in Winstom Salem NC. I know that the course is easy and has a crazy low SSA, however, I don't see anyone ever (including doubles) shooting that kind of score again.

Anyone have the odds of 16 birdies and 2 aces in the same round? They have to be astronomical.

Climo shot a 50 and of course this discussion points up the problem of comparing course challenges across a wide spectrum of SSA values. You don't hear ball golfers talking about any record rounds on their par 3 courses like our Darkside however. The Darkside is set up for someone to eventually do what Skinner did. I'm not sure the same could be said about Hippodrome which is much more open and 9 shots tougher for a 1000-rated player. If someone matches or beats a 1092 on Winthrop with an SSA near 70, he would pass Kenny for best round even if not by rating. Schultz had the chance in round 2 but 13 & 17 got him.

I'm not trying to take anything away from Kenny's amazing round ( I shot 62 and played good that round, when I heard he shot a 50 my jaw dropped).

However, Chad Smith of Alabama shot a 53 and there was also some 55's on the course.

No one, in all the years that the Darkside has been there, has shot better than 46 except Skinner at 41. Justin Jernigan (1016) and Chris Lee (998) have the doubles record, and it is at 41.

If you are going to compare rounds, I don't even think that the50 is Kenny's best or even 2nd best. His 56 at the USDGC in 2004 where no one was within 6 of him and his perfect round in the Houston worlds go ahead of the 50 at Hippo in my opinion.

...-9 at Zebulon ...



Was your score a 45 or a 48? I hope you're not using "everything is par 3". Zeb is a Blue level course and Blue CR Par is 57 (par 4s on 3, 9, 16). Since there are no consistent and universal standards for par I really don't know what you mean by "-9" at Zebulon.

He shot a 45

Climo shot a 50 and of course this discussion points up the problem of comparing course challenges across a wide spectrum of SSA values. You don't hear ball golfers talking about any record rounds on their par 3 courses like our Darkside however. The Darkside is set up for someone to eventually do what Skinner did. I'm not sure the same could be said about Hippodrome which is much more open and 9 shots tougher for a 1000-rated player. If someone matches or beats a 1092 on Winthrop with an SSA near 70, he would pass Kenny for best round even if not by rating. Schultz had the chance in round 2 but 13 & 17 got him.



Chuck,

I'm missing something here. Why is a 1090 rated round on a high SSA course better than a 1090 on a lower SSA course? Why aren't they equally good rounds? Is is because of compression?

If a baseball player bats .400 during a 7-game stretch versus another batting .400 in a 10-game stretch, which is the better accomplishment?

The tricky part we're talking about here is whether a player batting .407 over 7 games is better than one batting .400 over 10 games?

See now I'm confused.

I felt due to the varriance of difficulty in courses around the world that the ratings could give you a way to say what you shot on a course and someone who has never played it can understand what you shot.

Like compare it to golf. If I told you I shot a 72, you don't have to have played the course or heard a thing about it to understand what kind of golfer I am. The same can be said for if I said I shot a 100.

In Disc Golf, I could tell you I shot a 54 and you would have no clue whether that is one the best rounds in the history of the sport or one of the worse unless you know something about the course. At least our rating system allows to be able to make comparisons from course to course. Not even the par system does that in disc golf.

Until we get more standardization in course design, like golf has, the ratings system is the best thing we have.

You can perhaps understand my challenge and frustration trying to be as fair as possible when our unit of measurement - one round - has a much less consistent meaning than in ball golf. Rarely is one tournament round in ball golf other than 18 holes. For competition, their courses might vary from a rating of 69-76, just 7 strokes.

For disc golf, we're expecting our ratings system to handle rounds from 13 to 27 holes with 18-hole equivalent course SSA ratings ranging from 42 to 73. We blend a person's round ratings together to produce an average but the individual components may not always be very standard.

That's the complaint of top players who are concerned that they play higher SSA courses on average and have fewer opportunities to crush an easier course to pick up record round ratings. The criticism is valid in terms of record rounds. However, courses at all levels will produce valid round ratings on average relative to a player's skill level if they play enough of them. Higher SSA courses just produce a narrower range of ratings than lower SSA courses.

Ihave two 1000 rated rounds so i guess u can say ive never shot over a 1000rated round 55at unc and a 50 at redhawk course at am worlds

A 1000 rated round is still a 1000 rated round for that course SSA. It's just that the higher the course SSA, the "better" a particular round rating is. Maybe we should represent round ratings like this with the SSA included: 1007/49 or 945/55.

A 1000 rated round is still a 1000 rated round for that course SSA. It's just that the higher the course SSA, the "better" a particular round rating is. Maybe we should represent round ratings like this with the SSA included: 1007/49 or 945/55.



I think that is a valid premise, and sheds light on the quality of round and the difficulty of the course!

A 1000 rated round is still a 1000 rated round for that course SSA. It's just that the higher the course SSA, the "better" a particular round rating is. Maybe we should represent round ratings like this with the SSA included: 1007/49 or 945/55.



I think that is a valid premise, and sheds light on the quality of round and the difficulty of the course!



that said --

high rated round for me: 1013/70 ... or :confused: ... 1015/64 (2006)

^ both those rounds were 18 holes ^

i also had a 1010/65 rated round but that was at Banklick longs (24 holes)

lowest ever: 835/61 (2003, first tournament )

- - - -

Chuck -- would the 24 vs. 18 holes factor in at all? it seems like it would be easier to shoot a higher round with 24 holes given a similar SSA(?)

hmmm...

ok....my top rated rounds...

1061 / 41
1036 / 45
1033 / 49

bagger :D

1021/57

Mine was 1020 / 45

Chuck -- would the 24 vs. 18 holes factor in at all? it seems like it would be easier to shoot a higher round with 24 holes given a similar SSA(?)



It would actually be easier to shoot a higher rated round on an 18-hole versus 24-hole course with the same 18-hole equivalent SSA. In other words, if the 18-hole SSA is 54 and the 24 hole SSA is 72, it will be easier on the 18-hole layout.

If they both have the same SSA of say 54, then the 24 holes might end up being about the same challenge as the 18 tougher holes.

so what's better then -- a 1015 round on an 18 hole SSA 70
or a 1010 on a 24 hole SSA 65 :confused:

The 1015, because the 1010 is really on a course that's an SSA of around 50 for an 18-hole equivalent (unless you already adjusted it to 18 holes). Either way, the 1015 is better.

okay, do the 'event statistics' on the results pages adjust for 18 hole equivalency :confused:

No. The SSAs posted are the actuals for the number of holes played that round.

Thanks Chuck. Go Tigers!

It's just that the higher the course SSA, the "better" a particular round rating is.



I wonder if there could be an adjustment factor so that rounds on courses with different SSAs can be compared? For example, a 1000 rated round is more difficult to do on a course with an SSA of 60 than a course with an SSA of 50. I thought of using 54 as a benchmark and calculating a factor to adjust the SSA.

Rating adjustment factor- The actual rating is multiplied by a factor that compensates for the fact that the same rating is more difficult on a course with a higher SSA than it is on a course with a lower SSA. Since SSAs vary so greatly this adjustment allows rounds on different courses to be compared. The factor uses 54 as a standard and the actual rating is multiplied by the SSA/54. Therefore courses with SSAs above 54 will have higher adjusted ratings and courses with SSA below 54 will have lower adjusted ratings.

Here's what I came up with:

Disclaimer: This list is not a complete record of all rounds with high ratings. It only includes the rounds that I know about.

Male Pro Open

Sorted by Actual Round Rating
<table border="1"><tr><td> Rating</td><td>Name</td><td>Score</td><td>SSA</td><td>Adjusted Rating</td><td>Date</td><td>Course</td><td>Tournament
</td></tr><tr><td>1101</td><td>Skinner, Brian</td><td>41</td><td>51.42</td><td>1048 </td><td>5/30/2005</td><td>The Grange: Dark side</td><td>Virginia Open, R3
</td></tr><tr><td>1099</td><td>Bubis, Alexis</td><td>38</td><td>48.09</td><td>979 </td><td>5/6/2006</td><td>NE Coachman, FL </td><td>Fun-N-Sun, R1
</td></tr><tr><td>1096</td><td>Hatfield, Coda</td><td>41</td><td>50.68</td><td>1029 </td><td>2/9/2005</td><td>Lake Lewisville</td><td>Big Show Mid-week 1, R2
</td></tr><tr><td>1092</td><td>Schultz, Barry</td><td>45</td><td>55.41</td><td>1121 </td><td>4/8/2006</td><td>Ephram White</td><td>Bowling Green Open, R2
</td></tr><tr><td>1091</td><td>Climo, Ken</td><td>50</td><td>62.59</td><td>1265 </td><td>8/9/2006</td><td>Hippodrome, SC</td><td>Pro Worlds 06- R2, A
</td></tr><tr><td>1086</td><td>Schultz, Barry</td><td>44</td><td>53.22</td><td>1070 </td><td>2/19/2005</td><td>Z Boaz Park</td><td>Z Boaz Open, R1
</td></tr><tr><td>1080</td><td>Hammock, Brad</td><td>42</td><td>49.84</td><td>997 </td><td>4/30/2005</td><td>Cedar Hills- Gold</td><td>Dogwood Crosstown, R2
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Sorted by Adjusted Round Rating
<table border="1"><tr><td> Adjusted Rating</td><td>Name</td><td>Actual Rating</td><td>Score</td><td>SSA</td><td>Date</td><td>Course</td><td>Tournament
</td></tr><tr><td>1265 </td><td>Climo, Ken</td><td>1091</td><td>50</td><td>62.59</td><td>8/9/2006</td><td>Hippodrome, SC</td><td>Pro Worlds 06- R2, A
</td></tr><tr><td>1121 </td><td>Schultz, Barry</td><td>1092</td><td>45</td><td>55.41</td><td>4/8/2006</td><td>Ephram White</td><td>Bowling Green Open, R2
</td></tr><tr><td>1070 </td><td>Schultz, Barry</td><td>1086</td><td>44</td><td>53.22</td><td>2/19/2005</td><td>Z Boaz Park</td><td>Z Boaz Open, R1
</td></tr><tr><td>1048 </td><td>Skinner, Brian</td><td>1101</td><td>41</td><td>51.42</td><td>5/30/2005</td><td>The Grange: Dark side</td><td>Virginia Open, R3
</td></tr><tr><td>1029 </td><td>Hatfield, Coda</td><td>1096</td><td>41</td><td>50.68</td><td>2/9/2005</td><td>Lake Lewisville</td><td>Big Show Mid-week 1, R2
</td></tr><tr><td>997 </td><td>Hammock, Brad</td><td>1080</td><td>42</td><td>49.84</td><td>4/30/2005</td><td>Cedar Hills- Gold</td><td>Dogwood Crosstown, R2
</td></tr><tr><td>979 </td><td>Bubis, Alexis</td><td>1099</td><td>38</td><td>48.09</td><td>5/6/2006</td><td>NE Coachman, FL </td><td>Fun-N-Sun, R1
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

I do agree that it is easier to get higher ratings on certain styles of courses....but saying that Kenny shot a 1265 round shooting -15 and then Boobs shooting -16 and rating it 979 just doesn't make sense.

I totally understand the theory behind it, but like I said, I thought the ratings made it possible to compare scores across the board to each other. Sounds like now we are just doing the opposite.

I would consider this percentage basis a little better where the player's score is divided into the SSA. However again, if a player shoots the same percentage on a higher SSA course, that would be better. It's the same problem with say shooting percentage in basketball. With high school games at 32 minutes, college at 40 and NBA at 48, a .428 shooting percentage is better in the NBA than in high school and for more factors than just the amount of game time. I just don't know of a fair way to compare.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Pct.</td><td>Score</td><td>SSA</td><td>Adj Rating</td><td>Actual Rating</td><td>Name</td><td>Date</td><td>Course</td><td>Tournament
</td></tr><tr><td>79.0%</td><td>38</td><td>48.09</td><td>979</td><td>1099</td><td>Bubis, Alexis</td><td>5/6/2006</td><td>NE Coachman, FL</td><td>Fun-N-Sun, R1
</td></tr><tr><td>79.7%</td><td>41</td><td>51.42</td><td>1063</td><td>1117</td><td>Skinner, Brian</td><td>5/30/2005</td><td>The Grange: Dark side</td><td>Virginia Open, R3
</td></tr><tr><td>79.9%</td><td>50</td><td>62.59</td><td>1265</td><td>1091</td><td>Climo, Ken</td><td>8/9/2006</td><td>Hippodrome, SC</td><td>Pro Worlds 06- R2, A
</td></tr><tr><td>80.9%</td><td>41</td><td>50.68</td><td>1029</td><td>1096</td><td>Hatfield, Coda</td><td>2/9/2005</td><td>Lake Lewisville</td><td>Big Show Mid-week 1, R2
</td></tr><tr><td>81.2%</td><td>45</td><td>55.41</td><td>1121</td><td>1092</td><td>Schultz, Barry</td><td>4/8/2006</td><td>Ephram White</td><td>Bowling Green Open, R2
</td></tr><tr><td>82.7%</td><td>44</td><td>53.22</td><td>1070</td><td>1086</td><td>Schultz, Barry</td><td>2/19/2005</td><td>Z Boaz Park</td><td>Z Boaz Open, R1
</td></tr><tr><td>84.3%</td><td>42</td><td>49.84</td><td>997</td><td>1080</td><td>Hammock, Brad</td><td>4/30/2005</td><td>Cedar Hills- Gold</td><td>Dogwood Crosstown, R2
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

...-9 at Zebulon ...



Was your score a 45 or a 48? I hope you're not using "everything is par 3". Zeb is a Blue level course and Blue CR Par is 57 (par 4s on 3, 9, 16). Since there are no consistent and universal standards for par I really don't know what you mean by "-9" at Zebulon.



Every pro golfer knows what you mean when you say -9. Nobody uses course par when telling scores.

I don't think Barry said he shot +4 at Winthrop however. I suspect he called it -10.

Obviously Winthrop is a different kind of course. If it was at Renny they would still say '4 up'. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I do agree that it is easier to get higher ratings on certain styles of courses....but saying that Kenny shot a 1265 round shooting -15 and then Boobs shooting -16 and rating it 979 just doesn't make sense.

I totally understand the theory behind it, but like I said, I thought the ratings made it possible to compare scores across the board to each other. Sounds like now we are just doing the opposite.



I knew that someone would make that point. I don't think those adjusted ratings should be considered the same as the actual round ratings. They are NOT round ratings and SHOULD NOT be thought of as such. The only use for those numbers would be to compare rounds on different courses.

Might be better to call it a Rating Index or Performance Index instead of Adjusted Rating.

I think I've figured out a way to make comparisons of performance on different SSA courses but it will take some extra work with the database to determine the parameters. What we would do is determine the standard deviation (SD) of scores for pools of players averaging 1000 rating at different points along the SSA spectrum from 42 to 73. Then, the score that's the highest multiple of SDs from the SSA would be the best of all time. Since the SD will likely be proportionally higher the lower the SSA, it will make it harder to get a better ratio than for a great score on a higher SSA course.

For example, if the SD for SSA 51 is 3, then Skinner's round would rate at (51.42-41) / 3 = 3.47SD. For Ken, if the SD for SSA 63 is 3.6, then his 50 would rate (62.59-50) / 3.6 = 3.50SD. So, Ken's round would be slightly less probable (better) than Skinner's if these happened to be the standard deviations.

...-9 at Zebulon ...



Was your score a 45 or a 48? I hope you're not using "everything is par 3". Zeb is a Blue level course and Blue CR Par is 57 (par 4s on 3, 9, 16). Since there are no consistent and universal standards for par I really don't know what you mean by "-9" at Zebulon.



Every pro golfer knows what you mean when you say -9. Nobody uses course par when telling scores.



My point is that I think it would benefit disc golf to abandon the "everything is par 3" mentality. That's just not true anymore, and as we add par 4s and 5s it is an advancement to the sport.

At Zebulon holes 3 and 9 are definitely not par 3s for Blue level players or even for Gold level players. (Hole 16 may be debatable for some people.)

According to your explanation it's actually more cumbersome and less meaningful to say "-9" at Zeb. One would have to follow this thought process:
1) That -9 must be on the everything is par 3 mentality, so start at 54
2) 54-9 = 45 so I guess he means that he shot a 45.
To make it simpler why not just say "I shot a 45" in the first place, and skip the mental gymnastics?

Of course, the ideal would be to have a consistent, universal standard for par. Then when someone said they shot -9 at Zebulon you could know that they shot a 48. That day is too far off to even imagine, though.

Might be better to call it a Rating Index or Performance Index instead of Adjusted Rating.

I think I've figured out a way to make comparisons of performance on different SSA courses ...



Sounds really cool! Who knew that disc golf could get so complex?

Hole 16 at Zeb is def. a par 4. It is an easy par 4 however.

I find it amazing that players call 120 - 150 foot holes par 3's then turn around and play a hole like number 16 at Zeb. where more than likely your second shot will be 120 - 150 feet and they call that a par 3.

Hole 16 at Zeb is def. a par 4. It is an easy par 4 however.



I agree. It's an easy Blue CR Par 4. Effective playing length is 501 ft. and the estimated Blue scoring average is 3.6

To make it simpler why not just say "I shot a 45" in the first place, and skip the mental gymnastics?



You are the only one with the mental gymnastics going on. Everyone else knew what I meant.


Of course, the ideal would be to have a consistent, universal standard for par.



Right now we have a standard. Its 54. Suck it up.

I'd like to see someone try to argue that par at Idlewild is 54 :eek: That would make a 1000 rated round at the 2006 DiscnDat A tier (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5500&amp;year=2006&amp;incl ude_ratings=1#Open) a +16 :eek:
(SSA was 70.42 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_tournament.php?TournID=5500))

Eddie,

Anyway, congratulations on your 1057 rated round of 45 (-12). That's quite a feat.

Might be better to call it a Rating Index or Performance Index instead of Adjusted Rating.

I think I've figured out a way to make comparisons of performance on different SSA courses but it will take some extra work with the database to determine the parameters. What we would do is determine the standard deviation (SD) of scores for pools of players averaging 1000 rating at different points along the SSA spectrum from 42 to 73. Then, the score that's the highest multiple of SDs from the SSA would be the best of all time. Since the SD will likely be proportionally higher the lower the SSA, it will make it harder to get a better ratio than for a great score on a higher SSA course.

For example, if the SD for SSA 51 is 3, then Skinner's round would rate at (51.42-41) / 3 = 3.47SD. For Ken, if the SD for SSA 63 is 3.6, then his 50 would rate (62.59-50) / 3.6 = 3.50SD. So, Ken's round would be slightly less probable (better) than Skinner's if these happened to be the standard deviations.



SD Comparrison of rounds by players rated over 1000 seems like a **** good baseline for comparing highly rated rounds. Are you planning on comparing players who are established as 1000 rated, or players whose rounds are rated at over 1000? I believe the former is better as anyone can shoot a thousand rated round (I've finally gotten one), but not just anyone can shoot 1000 rated rounds consistantly.

If we do it, we will use the scores of players who average 1000 and played a course with an SSA of say 54. Let's say that we have 3000 scores in the database for the past few years for players whose ratings range from 975 to 1040 who played any courses with SSAs of 53.5-54.49. We then calculate the SD for an SSA value of 54. Then we do the same for SSA 55, 56, 57, etc. Hopefully, it's a smooth function where the SD increases slightly as the SSA increases. Then we have a solid baseline for anyone to calculate the performance of any score on any 18-hole course with a known SSA from 42-73. It's kind of cool but Roger is the one who has to do the database work so hopefully I can persuade him to give it a shot.

Obviously Winthrop is a different kind of course. If it was at Renny they would still say '4 up'. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Gotta disagree with you on that. For the majority of courses, you're right. But for courses like Renny Gold, at par 70 (SSA 68-69), I've never heard ANYONE say '4 up', they say "12 down" or "58"! (And that's only been said by 2 people I know of- Stan McDaniel and MJ- both cassual rounds) When a 60 was shot during a tourny- they never said "I shot 6 over". When you play Renny- do you tell people you shot "18 over" or "2 over"?

I shot 3 over and was really stoked

thats 73 not 57

Obviously Winthrop is a different kind of course. If it was at Renny they would still say '4 up'. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Gotta disagree with you on that. For the majority of courses, you're right. But for courses like Renny Gold, at par 70 (SSA 68-69), I've never heard ANYONE say '4 up', they say "12 down" or "58"! (And that's only been said by 2 people I know of- Stan McDaniel and MJ- both cassual rounds) When a 60 was shot during a tourny- they never said "I shot 6 over". When you play Renny- do you tell people you shot "18 over" or "2 over"?



Did I say "Renny gold" or Renny? Check the quote.


I highlighted the worth reading part of yours because thats the point I was trying to make.

You did say Renny. Sorry. I, like many, think of the Gold course when referring to Renny. But the point is the same. Most courses are still par 54, with some maybe par 56-58. So most players still think in terms of par 3 and it's easy to keep score when doing so. But now that more and more courses are more than par 3, people are starting to deal with the actual course par. It's not a bad thing. I think when the par is 60 or higher, most people say their score. Just my experience. So, when you play Renny GOLD, how do you tell people how you did?

So, when you play Renny GOLD, how do you tell people how you did?



I just tell them it's the highest rated 80 I've ever shot.

That's funny!.....And true!

So, when you play Renny GOLD, how do you tell people how you did?



I just tell them it's the highest rated 80 I've ever shot.



have you never played Idlewild (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_tournament.php?TournID=5500)?

I haven't played Idlewild, but I do want to. Renny Gold has an SSA of 70. My home course, Tyler State Park, also has an SSA of around 69.5 when the first 18 holes are all in the C-positions. I love courses with real pars.

i wonder where Justin Bunnell's 1054 rated round (course record 58) at Idlewild Longs (SSA = 66-70) would rank in terms of highest rated rounds after adjustment?
2005 Disc n Dat Bluegrass Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5011&amp;year=2006&amp;incl ude_ratings=1)

Considering Climo's rating is 1043, it's not that special. He and Barry throw those all the time even on high SSA courses. Look at their round ratings list.

i was more interested in the adjustment factor at a high SSA course for that kind of round. What is the course record at Winthrop and what is it rated?

It seems like Idlewild rates about 2 to 4 strokes lower in terms of SSA when lower-rated players show up (like at the 2006 KY States vs. the 2006 Masters at Idlewild). In actuality i'd say the KY States should have had a higher SSA given the added creek OB markings and walls... (it was a smaller field size with lower-rated players ...) do you think the KY States course stats will be adjusted up when results are made official?

2006 KY States at Idlewild (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6161&year=2006&includeRatings=1#Open)
vs.
Masters at Idlewild (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_tournament.php?TournID=5617)

It seems like Idlewild rates about 2 to 4 strokes lower in terms of SSA when lower-rated players show up



You seem surprised by this...

If you look at most courses that have am only and pro only events, you find on a consistent basis that the pros SSA will be higher than the AM SSA.

However, in Chuck's defense, it is much better now and I actually saw a tournament where am ratings were higher on the same layout than the pro layouts.

i realize it is true with am.s vs. pros because of the steeper am learning curve, but it also seems to hold true when high rated Pros show up at an event vs. when not-so-high rated pros show up (especially with small sample sizes). Plus, i thought Rodney and Chuck had sort of implemented an adjustment to help correct the am/pro discrepancy...

when Idlewild had an A tier the SSA was 70.42 thanks to a lot of higher rated players like Tannock, Sias, Bunnell, Blakely etc. showing up...

in a later C tier event when most of the Pros were less than 1000 the SSA ended up about 66 i know conditions play a factor but here the couse should have played a little harder not easier...

if we could get Climo and Schultz and Feldberg, Doss, etc. to show up at Idlewild we'd get to see once and for all :D

Unofficial and official ratings have lately been almost exact. If anything, the official ratings will be a point or two lower when official this next update.

ok. thanks for the answer

Idlewild is hard but if you had the top pros all come play, there would be a 58 every round. Chucks right, Barry and Ken shoot those types of rounds all the time :p I could see a possible 54 out there if you gave them enough tries.

Idlewild is hard but if you had the top pros all come play, there would be a 58 every round. Chucks right, Barry and Ken shoot those types of rounds all the time I could see a possible 54 out there if you gave them enough tries.



i'm all for that happening Chris :D

upthread the point was made that it is more difficult to shoot very high rated rounds on courses with high SSA's, and there was some talk of an "adjustment factor" that could be added to say a 1054 round at Idlewild to reveal the equivalent difficulty at a course with an SSA of say 50 (or 20 strokes lower), so i was wondering how a 58 at Idlewild longs would rate if adjusted.

if i read him right, Chuck made the point that shooting a high rated round at a high SSA course vs. a low rated course is more difficult similar to the way it is more difficult to shoot 50% in the NBA vs. in college or high school...

Here's a rough pass at the SD concept I proposed earlier. I took the results from USDGC, Warwick, Memorial, Golden State and Hambrick only on layouts that were 18 holes. Some other NTs had 18 hole layouts but had multiple groupings. So I couldn't tell immediately who played what, so I didn't use them.

I sorted the Open players so that the group of players whose round ratings I used was exactly 1000. I calculated the Standard Deviation (SD) of the round ratings and matched it up with the SSA for that layout. I ran a linear regression to get the best fit line and produced the smoothed SD numbers shown in the ADJ column of the table below. The actual SD is in the middle column.

<table border="1"><tr><td> SSA</td><td>SD</td><td>ADJ
</td></tr><tr><td>50.1</td><td>43.5</td><td>37.6
</td></tr><tr><td>53.7</td><td>29.8</td><td>36.2
</td></tr><tr><td>53.8</td><td>34.2</td><td>36.2
</td></tr><tr><td>55.7</td><td>34.3</td><td>35.5
</td></tr><tr><td>56.1</td><td>45.3</td><td>35.4
</td></tr><tr><td>61.5</td><td>25.6</td><td>33.4
</td></tr><tr><td>61.6</td><td>31.4</td><td>33.3
</td></tr><tr><td>61.6</td><td>35.2</td><td>33.3
</td></tr><tr><td>63.9</td><td>32.6</td><td>32.5
</td></tr><tr><td>64.4</td><td>25.9</td><td>32.3
</td></tr><tr><td>67.8</td><td>34.8</td><td>31.0
</td></tr><tr><td>70.2</td><td>31.5</td><td>30.1
</td></tr><tr><td>71.0</td><td>30.2</td><td>29.8
</td></tr><tr><td>72.0</td><td>28.8</td><td>29.5
</td></tr><tr><td>72.2</td><td>32.7</td><td>29.4
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

The formula is ADJ SD = 56.1 - (0.37 x SSA). The correlation coefficient is only -.49 It's not great so more data is certainly needed.

However, let's see what this would mean if the numbers are close. Let's take courses that are SSA 50.1 and 70.2 from the table and a player shoots a 1075 round on each. The SD index for the 50.1 would be 75 / 37.6 = 2.0 and for the 70.2 course 75 / 30.1 = 2.5 So the player shooting 1075 on the higher SSA course beat the SD by 2.5 versus only 2.0 on the 50. 1 SSA course. Another way to look at it would be that the player on the 50.1 course would need to shoot 2.5 x 37.6 = 94 (+1000) a 1094 to match a 1075 on the higher SSA course.

Here's the original table we were discussing under this SD Index formula:

<table border="1"><tr><td> SD Index</td><td>Adj SD</td><td>Rating</td><td>Name</td><td>Score</td><td>SSA</td><td>Date</td><td>Course</td><td>Tournament
</td></tr><tr><td>3.15580</td><td>37.07</td><td>1117</td><td>Skinner, Brian</td><td>41</td><td>51.42</td><td>5/30/2005</td><td>The Grange: Dark side</td><td>Virginia Open, R3
</td></tr><tr><td>2.76246</td><td>32.94</td><td>1091</td><td>Climo, Ken</td><td>50</td><td>62.59</td><td>8/9/2006</td><td>Hippodrome, SC</td><td>Pro Worlds 06- R2, A
</td></tr><tr><td>2.58440</td><td>38.31</td><td>1099</td><td>Bubis, Alexis</td><td>38</td><td>48.09</td><td>5/6/2006</td><td>NE Coachman, FL</td><td>Fun-N-Sun, R1
</td></tr><tr><td>2.58439</td><td>35.60</td><td>1092</td><td>Schultz, Barry</td><td>45</td><td>55.41</td><td>4/8/2006</td><td>Ephram White</td><td>Bowling Green Open, R2
</td></tr><tr><td>2.57039</td><td>37.35</td><td>1096</td><td>Hatfield, Coda</td><td>41</td><td>50.68</td><td>2/9/2005</td><td>Lake Lewisville</td><td>Big Show Mid-week 1, R2
</td></tr><tr><td>2.36208</td><td>36.41</td><td>1086</td><td>Schultz, Barry</td><td>44</td><td>53.22</td><td>2/19/2005</td><td>Z Boaz Park</td><td>Z Boaz Open, R1
</td></tr><tr><td>2.12431</td><td>37.66</td><td>1080</td><td>Hammock, Brad</td><td>42</td><td>49.84</td><td>4/30/2005</td><td>Cedar Hills- Gold</td><td>Dogwood Crosstown, R2
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Boobs squeaks past Barry going out to the fifth decimal place. Considering the "accuracy" of the process, they would tie for 3rd best round. So, even though Climo's course was quite a bit tougher, Skinner shot a lesser probable round than Climo and tops this list. But you can see how Climo passes three other guys with slightly higher rated rounds due to the higher SSA course.

could we get an updated list of the highest rounds ever?

Barry has a 1099 in there and a 1092 now.

Here's the current list of the top 20 rated rounds since ratings started in 1998. The SD Index is the new calculation that may turn out to be a way to compare round performance among courses with different SSAs. Barry Schultz leads with 6 rounds in the top 20.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Round Rating</td><td>Round Rank</td><td>SDI Rank</td><td>SD Index</td><td>Player Rating</td><td>Last</td><td>First</td><td>Adj SD</td><td>SSA 18</td><td>Date</td><td>Course Name
</td></tr><tr><td>1117</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>3.23</td><td>1010</td><td>Skinner</td><td>Brian</td><td>36.22</td><td>53.74</td><td>5/29/2005</td><td>The Grange R3 Pros-Dark (2005 Virginia Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1099</td><td>2t</td><td>3t</td><td>2.58</td><td>1038</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>38.41</td><td>47.82</td><td>5/7/2006</td><td>Wakanda Park Standard 18 R1 (2006 Wakanda Park Open - Sun)
</td></tr><tr><td>1099</td><td>2t</td><td>6</td><td>2.54</td><td>1013</td><td>Bubis</td><td>Aleksey</td><td>38.98</td><td>46.27</td><td>5/6/2006</td><td>North East Coachman Park Long Tees R1 (2006 Fun N\' Sun Pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>1096</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>2.57</td><td>1019</td><td>Hatfield</td><td>Coda</td><td>37.35</td><td>50.68</td><td>2/9/2005</td><td>Lewisville Lake Park Regular R2 (2005 Big Show MidWeek #1)
</td></tr><tr><td>1094</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>2.51</td><td>1015</td><td>Arthur</td><td>Phil</td><td>37.43</td><td>50.47</td><td>7/15/2000</td><td>Lenora Park (2000 Hotlanta)
</td></tr><tr><td>1092</td><td>6t</td><td>3t</td><td>2.58</td><td>1038</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>35.60</td><td>55.41</td><td>4/8/2006</td><td>White Park 2006 Bowling Green Open R2 (2006 Bowling Green Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1092</td><td>6t</td><td>8</td><td>2.48</td><td>1038</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>37.06</td><td>51.47</td><td>4/26/2003</td><td>Pro Temp (21 Holes) (2003 Tower Ridge Open) (Rd 2)
</td></tr><tr><td>1092</td><td>6t</td><td>10</td><td>2.41</td><td>992</td><td>Stokely</td><td>Scott</td><td>38.18</td><td>48.43</td><td>3/6/1999</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park
</td></tr><tr><td>1091</td><td>9</td><td>2</td><td>2.76</td><td>1043</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>32.94</td><td>62.60</td><td>8/9/2006</td><td>Hippodrome (2006 Pro Worlds Pool A Rnd 2)
</td></tr><tr><td>1090</td><td>10t</td><td>11t</td><td>2.39</td><td>1029</td><td>McCray Jr.</td><td>John E.</td><td>37.67</td><td>49.80</td><td>4/1/2006</td><td>Northside Park Long Tees / Long Pins R3 (2006 Gator Country Classic - Pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>1090</td><td>10t</td><td>11t</td><td>2.39</td><td>1043</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>37.70</td><td>49.72</td><td>4/6/2002</td><td>Northside Park Long (2002 Gator Cntry Cl. Pro R2)
</td></tr><tr><td>1090</td><td>10t</td><td>13</td><td>2.35</td><td>1021</td><td>Ginnelly</td><td>Dan</td><td>38.28</td><td>48.15</td><td>4/22/2006</td><td>Conocido Park Layout B R3 (2006 Conocido Conquest)
</td></tr><tr><td>1090</td><td>10t</td><td>15</td><td>2.32</td><td>995</td><td>Duron</td><td>Dan</td><td>38.86</td><td>46.59</td><td>3/9/2002</td><td>El Dorado Long-A (2002 El Dorado Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1090</td><td>10t</td><td>17t</td><td>2.29</td><td>1024</td><td>Hammock</td><td>Brad</td><td>39.38</td><td>45.20</td><td>12/10/2005</td><td>Tupelo Bay Tourney R2 (2005 Tupelo Bay Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1090</td><td>10t</td><td>17t</td><td>2.29</td><td>1036</td><td>Feldberg</td><td>David</td><td>39.38</td><td>45.20</td><td>12/10/2005</td><td>Tupelo Bay Tourney R2 (2005 Tupelo Bay Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1089</td><td>16t</td><td>9</td><td>2.46</td><td>1038</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>36.24</td><td>53.68</td><td>3/3/2006</td><td>Fountain Hills Park Round #2 (MPO, FPO, MPM, MPG) R2 (2006 The Memorial - pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>1089</td><td>16t</td><td>17t</td><td>2.29</td><td>1015</td><td>Leiviska</td><td>Cale</td><td>38.88</td><td>46.54</td><td>3/19/2006</td><td>Lustig Park Lustig standard but hole 12 short R2 (2006 Wisconsin Tour WarmUp Revisited)
</td></tr><tr><td>1088</td><td>18</td><td>14</td><td>2.33</td><td>1038</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>37.79</td><td>49.48</td><td>8/9/2004</td><td>ISU Long (2004 Pro Worlds - MPOA R1)
</td></tr><tr><td>1086</td><td>19t</td><td>16</td><td>2.30</td><td>1038</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>37.46</td><td>50.37</td><td>3/7/2003</td><td>Fountain Hills (2003 Memorial NT , Rnd 1)
</td></tr><tr><td>1086</td><td>19t</td><td>20</td><td>2.20</td><td>1032</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>39.05</td><td>46.07</td><td>3/9/2002</td><td>El Dorado Long-B (2002 El Dorado Open)
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

awesome - thanks Chuck!

Barry makes the list 6 times . . . . not too bad, he must be good

In all fairness, we didn't have ratings for more than half of Ken's reign. Hoeniger has indicated he would like to dig into the archives after he "retires" next year and generate ratings going back from 1998 which we can do. The primary issue is that tournament reports aren't available in Excel then, so much data entry will be required. I'm guessing that only big events will be entered meaning data may be limited. I expect Ken and others like Geoff Lissaman, who had the 37 in 1996 Worlds, will show up in the highest rated rounds list once we get more history.

any chance we could get a similar updated list of the highest ever rated PDGA-rounds shot by a woman?

any chance we could get a similar updated list of the highest ever rated PDGA-rounds shot by a woman?



Would that be on the "real" scale, or would we add 75 points to each of the women's rounds? :o/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

as i pointed out earlier, if we add 75 points to adjust rounds shot by women -- Barry needs to give his first 2001 USDGC (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=2734&year=2006&include_ratings=1#Open)
championship ring to Juliana. I suspect a lot of titles, money, and trophies would then have to be exchanged.

Maybe we should just review and appreciate the list first before we bother entertaining ideas of artificially inflating round ratings for women ;)

I've asked Roger for the list. I'm curious if the women have 20 rounds over 1000 yet. It's probably close.

since there are so fewer women playing then men, it might also be interesting to see the ratio of men's 1000-rated-rounds to total-rounds men have played vs. the number of women's 1000-rated-rounds out of total-rounds women have played.

Here are the Women's top 24 rated rounds. Nine women have shot a total of 45 rounds rated 1000+ since 1998 with Korver and Reading having 27 (60%) of them. When I used the proposed SD Index, the round rankings didn't change although it sorted out which rounds were "better" at a particular rating.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Round Rating</td><td>Round Rank</td><td>SDI Rank</td><td>SD Index</td><td>Player Rating</td><td>Last</td><td>First</td><td>Adj SD</td><td>SSA 18</td><td>Date</td><td>Course Name
</td></tr><tr><td>1036</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.953</td><td>956</td><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>37.79</td><td>49.50</td><td>6/3/2000</td><td>Swope (2000 KC Wide Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1026</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0.696</td><td>956</td><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>37.37</td><td>50.63</td><td>2/2/2002</td><td>Z Boaz long (2002 Z Boaz open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1021</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0.548</td><td>956</td><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>38.31</td><td>48.09</td><td>5/11/2002</td><td>Oakland Park Back (2002 MidAmerica Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1019</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>0.538</td><td>967</td><td>Reading</td><td>Des</td><td>35.29</td><td>56.24</td><td>4/30/2005</td><td>Buckhorn at Harris Lake County long tees R2 (2005 Dogwood Crosstown NT)
</td></tr><tr><td>1018</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>0.493</td><td>967</td><td>Reading</td><td>Des</td><td>36.52</td><td>52.91</td><td>7/4/2003</td><td>Championship Layout
</td></tr><tr><td>1017</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>0.451</td><td>956</td><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>37.70</td><td>49.72</td><td>4/6/2002</td><td>Northside Park Long (2002 Gator Cntry Cl. Pro R2)
</td></tr><tr><td>1014</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>0.386</td><td>951</td><td>King</td><td>Elaine</td><td>36.30</td><td>53.51</td><td>8/6/2005</td><td>Arboretum-Spiker Park 27 HOLES LONG TEES R3 (2005 Hall of Chains Classic)
</td></tr><tr><td>1014</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>0.373</td><td>967</td><td>Reading</td><td>Des</td><td>37.54</td><td>50.17</td><td>7/1/2006</td><td>Ox Bow County Park 24 Holes R1 (2006 Michiana Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1014</td><td>7</td><td>9</td><td>0.370</td><td>948</td><td>Jenkins</td><td>Valarie</td><td>37.83</td><td>49.38</td><td>5/21/2005</td><td>Great Blue Heron 24 tourney layout R2 (2005 Firelands Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1012</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>0.352</td><td>967</td><td>Reading</td><td>Des</td><td>34.08</td><td>59.51</td><td>5/19/2006</td><td>Milo McIver State Park R4 (2006 Beaver State Fling Pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>1012</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>0.330</td><td>967</td><td>Reading</td><td>Des</td><td>36.35</td><td>53.37</td><td>8/6/2002</td><td>Wilmont Rds 1-4 (2002 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>1010</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>0.273</td><td>956</td><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>36.60</td><td>52.70</td><td>10/21/2000</td><td>Grange Long (2000 Old Dominion Pro)
</td></tr><tr><td>1010</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>0.273</td><td>956</td><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>36.60</td><td>52.70</td><td>10/21/2000</td><td>Grange Long (2000 Old Dominion Pro)
</td></tr><tr><td>1010</td><td>12</td><td>14</td><td>0.272</td><td>954</td><td>Berlogar</td><td>Carrie Burl</td><td>36.83</td><td>52.08</td><td>1/28/2006</td><td>Lester Lorch Coyote Course R2 (2006 Big Show at Cedar Hill)
</td></tr><tr><td>1010</td><td>12</td><td>15</td><td>0.271</td><td>956</td><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>36.83</td><td>52.07</td><td>8/6/2002</td><td>Wilmont Rds 5-8 (2002 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>1010</td><td>12</td><td>16</td><td>0.263</td><td>967</td><td>Reading</td><td>Des</td><td>37.99</td><td>48.95</td><td>8/28/2004</td><td>Pyramids Silvers / Shorts R1 (2004 Marshall Street Championship)
</td></tr><tr><td>1010</td><td>12</td><td>17</td><td>0.253</td><td>951</td><td>King</td><td>Elaine</td><td>39.51</td><td>44.85</td><td>6/17/2000</td><td>Grand Woods East (2000 In Flight)
</td></tr><tr><td>1009</td><td>18</td><td>18</td><td>0.243</td><td>967</td><td>Reading</td><td>Des</td><td>36.99</td><td>51.66</td><td>7/15/2006</td><td>Hoover Dam, Brent Hambrick Me R1 (2006 Brent Hambrick Memorial NT)
</td></tr><tr><td>1008</td><td>19</td><td>19</td><td>0.236</td><td>956</td><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>33.86</td><td>60.10</td><td>6/11/2005</td><td>Wyandotte County Park R1 (2005 Kansas City Wide Open NT)
</td></tr><tr><td>1008</td><td>19</td><td>20</td><td>0.212</td><td>967</td><td>Reading</td><td>Des</td><td>37.66</td><td>49.85</td><td>2/8/2003</td><td>Weatherford (2003 Z Boaz Rnd 1)
</td></tr><tr><td>1008</td><td>19</td><td>21</td><td>0.210</td><td>954</td><td>Berlogar</td><td>Carrie Burl</td><td>38.06</td><td>48.76</td><td>6/19/2004</td><td>Condon Park Mixed Meduim/Long R3 (2004 Motherlode - Pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>1008</td><td>19</td><td>22</td><td>0.208</td><td>900</td><td>Renner</td><td>Deb</td><td>38.43</td><td>47.77</td><td>5/8/2004</td><td>North East Coachman Park Long R4 (2004 Coachman Classic)
</td></tr><tr><td>1008</td><td>19</td><td>22</td><td>0.208</td><td>956</td><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>38.43</td><td>47.76</td><td>6/10/2000</td><td>Washington Park - Long (2000 Peoria Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1008</td><td>19</td><td>24</td><td>0.207</td><td>946</td><td>Tschiggfrie</td><td>Angela</td><td>38.62</td><td>47.25</td><td>7/1/2006</td><td>Rum Village Park 24 Holes R3 (2006 Michiana Open)
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Sachiko Sato from Japan has 1048 round from 2004 but we're trying to verify the validity since she's currently an 872 player.

That 1012 R4 at the Beaver State Fling by Des was awesome to watch, I only was fortunate to catch the last few holes but those following said she was throwing the perfect line on every hole.

At the BSF, we divide up the two courses East and West between MPO on one side and then FPO/MPM/MPG/MPS on the other. During the last round Des was only beat by one person and that was Brad Hammock who shot a 56 rated 1028 while Des finished at 58 1012, on the East side course.

Almost every course in the 49 - 56 range in SSA's. These are the type of courses that offer lots of birdie opportunities but little score seperation.

any chance we could get a similar updated list of the highest ever rated PDGA-rounds shot by a woman?



Would that be on the "real" scale, or would we add 75 points to each of the women's rounds? :o/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


What are you smirking about, the fact that almost no women play this sport? So as a result, the ratings are dominated by men's results?

Do you realize that if more women played the sport than men, by the reverse ratio of what we have now, that 1000-rated play would mean something different now? Would that have made the ratings scale "wrong" or "unreal" in your mind, simply by changing the percentages of men and women in the sport?

Maybe someone can tell me another thing -- if more women do join the sport in the future, increasing the percentage of women in the total pool, will the 1000-rating change gradually to show the new mix?

since there are so fewer women playing then men, it might also be interesting to see the ratio of men's 1000-rated-rounds to total-rounds men have played vs. the number of women's 1000-rated-rounds out of total-rounds women have played.


I think you're going to be disappointed in the results. There are approximately 14 times more men than women in the sport. There are about 140 men who on average have rounds above 1000 (at least, their ratings are 1000 or higher). If all things were on par, there should be 10 women who on average do the same. There are 0.

It gets worse. There are 830 men who on average have rounds rated above 970. If rating scales were on par, then there should be about 60 women with the same ratings above 970. There are 0.

You are not going to find a simple ratio of 1/14 of the number of 1000-rated rounds by women vs. men, not using the single ratings system we have now -- the only "real" rating system, according to some. Irrelevant and unfair to have just one, I say.

Thinking... What's another statistic that's tabulated for both genders, but is irrelevant when applied to the opposite sex? How about life expectancies? Women live, what, 5 years longer than men? So the total population lives on average 2.5 years longer than men. Does that mean life insurance companies are looking at the life expectancy of the total population, or of just men, when they figure out my policy? Guess what, they're looking at just the men's average life expectancy. Because that's the only life expectancy that's relevant to them -- the average life expectancy of the total population is irrelevant.

If you doubt this, this is what they use:Life Expectancy Table (http://www.insurance.wa.gov/consumers/life/lifex_table.asp)

Life expectancy doesn't a have an "SSA," disc golf courses do. Even though we generate SSA for a layout each round, we only do it to primarily account for weather factors and for the fact that many layouts might not have an SSA on file. However, we wouldn't necessarily have to do it that way.

SSA = 30 + (length / foliage factor) which is not gender based. It really is a fixed value for the course just like a strike in bowling or a bullseye in archery. Bowling has averages that are calculated the same way for both genders.

Life expectancy doesn't a have an "SSA," disc golf courses do. Even though we generate SSA for a layout each round, we only do it to primarily account for weather factors and for the fact that many layouts might not have an SSA on file. However, we wouldn't necessarily have to do it that way.

SSA = 30 + (length / foliage factor) which is not gender based. It really is a fixed value for the course just like a strike in bowling or a bullseye in archery. Bowling has averages that are calculated the same way for both genders.



(italics and emphasis added)

i think ^ that ^ is the best way to put it -- ratings are like averages in Bowling. we don't add 75 points to the scores of women bowlers.

Paul while i completely agree with your goal of getting more women playing disc golf -- i don't think devising a mathematical way to artificially improve their ratings relative to men is the answer. Have many women you talk to say a higher rating would get them to play or keep playing?

i think the real key is whether our game is fun and challenging (double yes) and whether we support all women who play including the ones who are struggling newbies in the group just ahead of us on the course ;)

What are you smirking about, the fact that almost no women play this sport? So as a result, the ratings are dominated by men's results?




Actually, I figured 99% of people who read it would know that I was joking, making light of the heated in-depth discussion recently about a women's rating scale. The "smirk" was for the benefit of the other 1%...

Here are the Women's top 24 rated rounds. Nine women have shot a total of 45 rounds rated 1000+ since 1998 with Korver and Reading having 27 (60%) of them.



Chuck,

Would you please upload these spreadsheets for the Men's and Women's top rated rounds to the DG Links Club Yahoo Group?

A 1000 rated round is still a 1000 rated round for that course SSA. It's just that the higher the course SSA, the "better" a particular round rating is. Maybe we should represent round ratings like this with the SSA included: 1007/49 or 945/55.



So I have three 1000 rated rounds, so far (all between 1000 and 1010) My scores were 65, 65, and 67. So is what you're saying that the longer-tougher courses suit my game, and that we need to abandon par-3 golf? YES!!! I like the way you think, Chuck.

I won't have access to the files for at least a week. I have no trouble copying and pasting info in tables online into Excel and retaining formatting. Go into Paste Special and try some of those options if it's not working the way you want it.

Mandi Hofmann shot a preliminary rated 1005 round this weekend at the Fall Disc Golf Classic (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6238&year=2006&includeRatings=1#Open) in North Carolina.

: ) :

Here's the current list of the top 20 rated rounds since ratings started in 1998. The SD Index is the new calculation that may turn out to be a way to compare round performance among courses with different SSAs. Barry Schultz leads with 6 rounds in the top 20.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Round Rating</td><td>Round Rank</td><td>SDI Rank</td><td>SD Index</td><td>Player Rating</td><td>Last</td><td>First</td><td>Adj SD</td><td>SSA 18</td><td>Date</td><td>Course Name
</td></tr><tr><td>1117</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>3.23</td><td>1010</td><td>Skinner</td><td>Brian</td><td>36.22</td><td>53.74</td><td>5/29/2005</td><td>The Grange R3 Pros-Dark (2005 Virginia Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1099</td><td>2t</td><td>3t</td><td>2.58</td><td>1038</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>38.41</td><td>47.82</td><td>5/7/2006</td><td>Wakanda Park Standard 18 R1 (2006 Wakanda Park Open - Sun)
</td></tr><tr><td>1099</td><td>2t</td><td>6</td><td>2.54</td><td>1013</td><td>Bubis</td><td>Aleksey</td><td>38.98</td><td>46.27</td><td>5/6/2006</td><td>North East Coachman Park Long Tees R1 (2006 Fun N\' Sun Pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>1096</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>2.57</td><td>1019</td><td>Hatfield</td><td>Coda</td><td>37.35</td><td>50.68</td><td>2/9/2005</td><td>Lewisville Lake Park Regular R2 (2005 Big Show MidWeek #1)
</td></tr><tr><td>1094</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>2.51</td><td>1015</td><td>Arthur</td><td>Phil</td><td>37.43</td><td>50.47</td><td>7/15/2000</td><td>Lenora Park (2000 Hotlanta)
</td></tr><tr><td>1092</td><td>6t</td><td>3t</td><td>2.58</td><td>1038</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>35.60</td><td>55.41</td><td>4/8/2006</td><td>White Park 2006 Bowling Green Open R2 (2006 Bowling Green Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1092</td><td>6t</td><td>8</td><td>2.48</td><td>1038</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>37.06</td><td>51.47</td><td>4/26/2003</td><td>Pro Temp (21 Holes) (2003 Tower Ridge Open) (Rd 2)
</td></tr><tr><td>1092</td><td>6t</td><td>10</td><td>2.41</td><td>992</td><td>Stokely</td><td>Scott</td><td>38.18</td><td>48.43</td><td>3/6/1999</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park
</td></tr><tr><td>1091</td><td>9</td><td>2</td><td>2.76</td><td>1043</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>32.94</td><td>62.60</td><td>8/9/2006</td><td>Hippodrome (2006 Pro Worlds Pool A Rnd 2)
</td></tr><tr><td>1090</td><td>10t</td><td>11t</td><td>2.39</td><td>1029</td><td>McCray Jr.</td><td>John E.</td><td>37.67</td><td>49.80</td><td>4/1/2006</td><td>Northside Park Long Tees / Long Pins R3 (2006 Gator Country Classic - Pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>1090</td><td>10t</td><td>11t</td><td>2.39</td><td>1043</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>37.70</td><td>49.72</td><td>4/6/2002</td><td>Northside Park Long (2002 Gator Cntry Cl. Pro R2)
</td></tr><tr><td>1090</td><td>10t</td><td>13</td><td>2.35</td><td>1021</td><td>Ginnelly</td><td>Dan</td><td>38.28</td><td>48.15</td><td>4/22/2006</td><td>Conocido Park Layout B R3 (2006 Conocido Conquest)
</td></tr><tr><td>1090</td><td>10t</td><td>15</td><td>2.32</td><td>995</td><td>Duron</td><td>Dan</td><td>38.86</td><td>46.59</td><td>3/9/2002</td><td>El Dorado Long-A (2002 El Dorado Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1090</td><td>10t</td><td>17t</td><td>2.29</td><td>1024</td><td>Hammock</td><td>Brad</td><td>39.38</td><td>45.20</td><td>12/10/2005</td><td>Tupelo Bay Tourney R2 (2005 Tupelo Bay Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1090</td><td>10t</td><td>17t</td><td>2.29</td><td>1036</td><td>Feldberg</td><td>David</td><td>39.38</td><td>45.20</td><td>12/10/2005</td><td>Tupelo Bay Tourney R2 (2005 Tupelo Bay Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1089</td><td>16t</td><td>9</td><td>2.46</td><td>1038</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>36.24</td><td>53.68</td><td>3/3/2006</td><td>Fountain Hills Park Round #2 (MPO, FPO, MPM, MPG) R2 (2006 The Memorial - pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>1089</td><td>16t</td><td>17t</td><td>2.29</td><td>1015</td><td>Leiviska</td><td>Cale</td><td>38.88</td><td>46.54</td><td>3/19/2006</td><td>Lustig Park Lustig standard but hole 12 short R2 (2006 Wisconsin Tour WarmUp Revisited)
</td></tr><tr><td>1088</td><td>18</td><td>14</td><td>2.33</td><td>1038</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>37.79</td><td>49.48</td><td>8/9/2004</td><td>ISU Long (2004 Pro Worlds - MPOA R1)
</td></tr><tr><td>1086</td><td>19t</td><td>16</td><td>2.30</td><td>1038</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>37.46</td><td>50.37</td><td>3/7/2003</td><td>Fountain Hills (2003 Memorial NT , Rnd 1)
</td></tr><tr><td>1086</td><td>19t</td><td>20</td><td>2.20</td><td>1032</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>39.05</td><td>46.07</td><td>3/9/2002</td><td>El Dorado Long-B (2002 El Dorado Open)
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>



Chuck,

When you get a chance would you please add a column for the score? and then repost these tables for both men and women? I'd appreciate it.

I didn't get scores from Roger. I think you'll have to look them up if you want them.

What are you smirking about, the fact that almost no women play this sport? So as a result, the ratings are ted by men's results?




Actually, I figured 99% of people who read it would know that I was joking, making light of the heated in-depth discussion recently about a women's rating scale. The "smirk" was for the benefit of the other 1%...



/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Would that be on the "real" scale, or would we add 75 points to each of the women's rounds? :o/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

What are you smirking about, the fact that almost no women play this sport? So as a result, the ratings are dominated by men's results?




Actually, I figured 99% of people who read it would know that I was joking, making light of the heated in-depth discussion recently about a women's rating scale. The "smirk" was for the benefit of the other 1%...


Well, of course you were joking. That was the point of my comment, to ask what you thought was so funny about what other sports do by actually having separate sports associations. I doubt you think the PGA is the only "real" golf association, and the LPGA the phony one. (Or do you?) So why would a men's rating system be the only "real" one, and a women's rating system be the phony one?

Life expectancy doesn't a have an "SSA," disc golf courses do. Even though we generate SSA for a layout each round, we only do it to primarily account for weather factors and for the fact that many layouts might not have an SSA on file. However, we wouldn't necessarily have to do it that way.

SSA = 30 + (length / foliage factor) which is not gender based. It really is a fixed value for the course just like a strike in bowling or a bullseye in archery. Bowling has averages that are calculated the same way for both genders.



(italics and emphasis added)

i think ^ that ^ is the best way to put it -- ratings are like averages in Bowling. we don't add 75 points to the scores of women bowlers.


No, and we don't add ratings offsets in darts, either.

Give me a break, I'm talking about something where statistically there is an observable difference between the genders. A big one. Using the current ratings system, there are 860 men at the top of the ladder, and then the top woman player shows up. About 400 men more before the second top woman shows up in the ratings. My low rating is good enough to be in the women's top 20, for crying out loud.

And I was not the one who suggested just adding 75 or 100 to the men's rating to get the women's rating. People keep on beating me over the head with that, but that was Chuck, and I challenged him at the time how it could be that simple, that women are exactly 75 points different from men, from the top of play to the bottom, from here until eternity.

Turns out it's not that simple. I came up with a graph that shows it isn't. And Chuck says now the offset value changes from the top of the scale to the bottom, growing from 75 to over 100.

Hey, I bet it's not even perfectly linear either. I bet from one ratings calculation to the next, the twists and slopes change, even if just by a little bit, creating a new "offset graph".

You know why that should be? First, because we aren't robots -- every time the ratings are recalculated, the statistics for each group will nudge here and there within each group. And second, because the 2 sets of statistics won't nudge in the same direction in exactly the same way, but they will shift slightly back and forth with relation to each other.

Our group ratings are not in permanent lock-step with each other, so there's no reason to force the offset to be in permanent lock-step, either. That's what I meant earlier by "normalizing" the women's data, rather than creating a simple offset. Chuck opposed normalizing and proposed the constant offset instead to simplify things, and he says if he's asked to come up with a new scale, maybe that's all he'll do for now. But don't hit me over the head with it as if it's my idea to keep 2 ratings systems constantly offset from each other, because it's not.

Actually, I figured 99% of people who read it would know that I was joking, making light of the heated in-depth discussion recently about a women's rating scale. The "smirk" was for the benefit of the other 1%...


Well, of course you were joking. That was the point of my comment, to ask what you thought was so funny about what other sports do by actually having separate sports associations. I doubt you think the PGA is the only "real" golf association, and the LPGA the phony one. (Or do you?) So why would a men's rating system be the only "real" one, and a women's rating system be the phony one?

[/QUOTE]

The current ratings system (notice I didn't call it the "men's" system) is the "real" one because it's what exists. Yeah, I guess I am calling the "women's" rating system "the phony one" because it doesn't exist!

I really don't want to argue about this, because there's nothing to argue about. You can keep baiting me (and many others) with stupid questions that make me sound like some kind of ignorant womanizing wife beater because I called the women's scale (there isn't one!) "phony," when at the start of this "conversation" I did no such thing. Just get over it. Not everyone is opposed to you, and those who are don't necessarily want to be converted by your faulty logic and your jumps to conclusions.

[QUOTE]
Life expectancy doesn't a have an "SSA," disc golf courses do. Even though we generate SSA for a layout each round, we only do it to primarily account for weather factors and for the fact that many layouts might not have an SSA on file. However, we wouldn't necessarily have to do it that way.

SSA = 30 + (length / foliage factor) which is not gender based. It really is a fixed value for the course just like a strike in bowling or a bullseye in archery. Bowling has averages that are calculated the same way for both genders.



(italics and emphasis added)

i think ^ that ^ is the best way to put it -- ratings are like averages in Bowling. we don't add 75 points to the scores of women bowlers.


No, and we don't add ratings offsets in darts, either.

Give me a break, I'm talking about something where statistically there is an observable difference between the genders. A big one. Using the current ratings system, there are 860 men at the top of the ladder, and then the top woman player shows up. About 400 men more before the second top woman shows up in the ratings. My low rating is good enough to be in the women's top 20, for crying out loud.

And I was not the one who suggested just adding 75 or 100 to the men's rating to get the women's rating. People keep on beating me over the head with that, but that was Chuck, and I challenged him at the time how it could be that simple, that women are exactly 75 points different from men, from the top of play to the bottom, from here until eternity.

Turns out it's 27s my idea to keep 2 ratings systems con

Life expectancy doesn't a have an "SSA," disc golf courses do. Even though we generate SSA for a layout each round, we only do it to primarily account for weather factors and for the fact that many layouts might not have an SSA on file. However, we wouldn't necessarily have to do it that way.

SSA = 30 + (length / foliage factor) which is not gender based. It really is a fixed value for the course just like a strike in bowling or a bullseye in archery. Bowling has averages that are calculated the same way for both genders.



(italics and emphasis added)

i think ^ that ^ is the best way to put it -- ratings are like averages in Bowling. we don't add 75 points to the scores of women bowlers.


No, and we don't add ratings offsets in darts, either.

Give me a break, I'm talking about something where statistically there is an observable difference between the genders. A big one. Using the current ratings system, there are 860 men at the top of the ladder, and then the top woman player shows up. About 400 men more before the second top woman shows up in the ratings. My low rating is good enough to be in the women's top 20, for crying out loud.

And I was not the one who suggested just adding 75 or 100 to the men's rating to get the women's rating. People keep on beating me over the head with that, but that was Chuck, and I challenged him at the time how it could be that simple, that women are exactly 75 points different from men, from the top of play to the bottom, from here until eternity.

Turns out it's n7s my idea to keep 2 ratings systems constantly offset from each other, because it's not.



IMO if there were as many women as there are men there would be some over 1000. You saying that women shoot EXACTLY 75 points less then men is obsurd. You say women only lack in distance which I can see because women's scores are much closer to men's on shorter courses. If you put the pro women on a long course that requires placement on par 4s and 5s they will shoot scores comparable to the men. Des and Angela have been shooting a round over 1000 at almost every event and a few are 1010+. There are WAY less FPO players then MPO so the likelyhood of having a highly rated player is also way less.

One system for everyone. I don't see why we need another system for women but if we really do then I guess the Jrs, GMs, and so on need them too.

thank you

IMO if there were as many women as there are men there would be some over 1000.


Chuck's math proves that will never happen. You can ask Chuck about this if you want -- he should say the same thing.

You saying that women shoot EXACTLY 75 points less then men is obsurd.


I've never said this. I've said the exact opposite. Read my post again. It's not that simple. In fact, my exact quote in the post you cited was: "I was NOT (emphasis added) the one who suggested just adding 75 or 100 to the men's rating to get the women's rating... I challenged [Chuck] at the time how it could be that simple... Turns out it's not that simple. I came up with a graph that shows it isn't. And Chuck says now the offset value changes from the top of the scale to the bottom, growing from 75 to over 100. Hey, I bet it's not even perfectly linear either..."

You say women only lack in distance which I can see because women's scores are much closer to men's on shorter courses. If you put the pro women on a long course that requires placement on par 4s and 5s they will shoot scores comparable to the men. Des and Angela have been shooting a round over 1000 at almost every event and a few are 1010+.


Des's rating is 967. So she can't be shooting over 1000 for more than half of her rounds, because then she'd be rated over 1000. And she's the top woman player, so no woman is shooting over 1000 for more than half of their rounds. (In fact, currently, no woman is shooting over 967 for more than half of their rounds.)

There are WAY less FPO players then MPO so the likelyhood of having a highly rated player is also way less.


There are 14 times less women than men actively rated in the PDGA. There are 860 men rated higher than 967. 860 / 14 = 61. So by your logic, there should be 61 women above 967, and yet there are ZERO. The math simply shows that 10 times as many women will be 10 times zero. You can't expect a woman player to be rated above 1000, no matter how many ever play, if the current scale is never re-balanced to include them. And if re-balancing does happen, so that women are rated 1000, then men will routinely be rated above 1100, so the problem will just shift upward. (Or we'll have to compress what a rating point means to keep men from being rated above 1100 if women are rated above 1000.)

One system for everyone. I don't see why we need another system for women but if we really do then I guess the Jrs, GMs, and so on need them too.


Your opinion is noted, but you need to deal in facts that support your opinion, too. The facts contradict much of what you said above. Does that change your opinion?

You can keep baiting me (and many others) with stupid questions that make me sound like some kind of ignorant womanizing wife beater because I called the women's scale (there isn't one!) "phony," when at the start of this "conversation" I did no such thing.


Sorry, I haven't been trying to bait you. I just don't like to be made fun of when it appears to me that a simple misunderstanding is fueling the responses. I'm trying to be clear, not emphatic -- but I'm coming across emphatic.

Writing is hard.

So, you don't believe a separate women's rating system, if it existed, would be a phony rating system. I can accept that -- I don't believe it would be, either. I think it can be even fairer than the one we have. It's a good system for most players, but I think it can be even better for 1/15 of those who play the sport, that's all. (Maybe on the way toward making that 1/15 more like 1/2!)

Des's rating is 967. So she can't be shooting over 1000 for more than half of her rounds, because then she'd be rated over 1000. And she's the top woman player, so no woman is shooting over 1000 for more than half of their rounds. (In fact, currently, no woman is shooting over 967 for more than half of their rounds.)



Wow sis you just say that? who said that to be rated 1000 more than half your rounda had to be over 1000? How about shooting 990, 980, 1050, 1030, 985, and 995. That averages to 1005 and only 1/3 of the rounds are over 1000.


You can't expect a woman player to be rated above 1000, no matter how many ever play, if the current scale is never re-balanced to include them.



Wow that is also a very bold statement that I feel shows a lack confidence in the Female players in our sport and can also be considered sexist. Basically what you are saying is that there will never be a 1000 rated women's player due to the sole fact that she is female. We need one system not multiple ones. I mean what would you do when des or another woman decides to play with the men? Would they still be a 1000+ rated player and how could you be able to enter them into the ratings?

That statement actually reminds me of a Presidential election simulator where you are an independent candidate and the best you can do is make the vote go to the House. This is solely based off the assumption that since there has never been an independent president that there never will be. That is just WRONG.

Wow that is also a very bold statement that I feel shows a lack confidence in the Female players in our sport and can also be considered sexist.


No, it shows a good understanding of statistics. What you are saying is that all 622 women who are rated right now are somehow playing disc golf wrong by anywhere from 75 to 125 rating points, and someday, when women play better, they'll be rated like men are. I'm saying that women aren't playing disc golf wrong, they're playing great and deserve a ratings scale that shows that. Comparing women's ratings to men's ratings develops the attitude that you just put in your post. It's an irrelevant comparison that makes one come to false conclusions, like women need to improve.

Below is a graph that shows if the same number of women and men were playing in our sport, what the respective ratings would be. These are Chuck's numbers, and I think he and others have done a lot of good work to get them.

You can see below that Des is playing great right now. She is playing 160 points above the peak in the graph, whereas Ken Climo plays only 130 points above the peak. If the peaks were put together, Des would be rated 1067. You can't expect Des to play any better than 1067. If you see 967, though, you think she hasn't reached her full potential, that she's fallen short. I think that's unfair to her accomplishment. Men and women are simply different, or else we wouldn't have the PGA and the LPGA, and other different men and women's sports associations. This is not a sexist attitude.

http://www2.go-concepts.com/~pmyg/ratings3a.jpg

Now there is always a caveat -- you cannot use statistics to determine an individual's performance -- only a group's performance. I had a post a while back where I kept saying we're talking about "as a group", "as a group". Martina Navratilova never cared what statistics said, she just blazed her own trail. That's what individuals do. But groups of people are very well predicted by statistics, and if there were 6000 women playing disc golf, a sample of 622 (more than 10%) would still be very representative and would correlate very well statistically with what 6000 women would do. 10% is a lot, lot better than what polls do. So you can trust these statistics. They are not bound to change by very much even if 100 times as many men and women play disc golf, and they show that 2 ratings systems would work out just fine. Personally, I'd rather have 2 ratings systems than 2 totally different sports associations, like regular golf has.

Comparing women's ratings to men's ratings develops the attitude that you just put in your post. It's an irrelevant comparison that makes one come to false conclusions, like women need to improve.


And saying this, I come back again to my first thoughts on the other thread, when I posted after a woman named Katie asked for a more fair rating system (and she got criticized for making the request).

When I first posted, I wondered if this is partly why we have so few women in the sport, that the PDGA more or less caters to men and implicitly makes many women feel like their play is not high enough caliber to be worth the bother. I felt then and still feel that by catering to women more we can increase that percentage of women from the 6.7% of all players to perhaps break 10%? How about 20%? I think one step toward that would be to develop a ratings system for women, that gives credit where credit is due.

Des is a 1067 player in her own right, for crying out loud. There should be a dozen discs out there with her name on them.

I'm saying that women aren't playing disc golf wrong, they're playing great and deserve a ratings scale that shows that.



our present ratings system does not show anything but how a given score, or a given cumulative combination of scores, relates to WCP. it is you who are comparing men and women. (and it hasn't gone unnoticed that you continue to ignore GrandMasters, Masters, Juniors and every protected division except one.)

if you really want to cite comparison charts based on gender, you might do well to also have them delineate the average year(s) of experience each gender has on average. also, if your idea prevails, wouldn't it be more accurate to propose adding a larger artificial rating inflation factor for am. women than for pro women?

in the end, the ratings are a numerical value that has nothing to do with comparing women and men (or junios and gm's).

do you really think the best incentive we can give to women to join and stay with our sport is to glamorize their rating :confused:

our present ratings system does not show anything but how a given score, or a given cumulative combination of scores, relates to WCP.


WCP. World Class Play. Set at 1000. Which says essentially that almost all women do not play "world-class" disc golf.

Women have world-class play, too. Our present ratings system just doesn't accommodate that.


it is you who are comparing men and women. (and it hasn't gone unnoticed that you continue to ignore GrandMasters, Masters, Juniors and every protected division except one.)


That's because I've already dealt with that, and you keep bringing it up as if I haven't. Those "divisions" are already essentially ratings based. Ratings are what form them. People who get to a certain age, with a certain range of ratings, can elect to play in those divisions. Therefore, comparing ratings are relevant to making those divisions possible.

Men and women "divisions" are supposed to be gender based, not ratings based. The ratings that men and women divisions have are irrelevant to forming the divisions. Comparing ratings is therefore irrelevant -- and I happen to think, for women, also unfair.

do you really think the best incentive we can give to women to join and stay with our sport is to glamorize their rating :confused:


I think catering to women more in our sport would be a good thing. I think one of many, many things could be to have a separate women's rating system. I never said it was the best thing, just an idea. I think the current rating system is unfair to them, and I think it wouldn't be too bad an idea not to be unfair to women, if we want more women to join.

our present ratings system does not show anything but how a given score, or a given cumulative combination of scores, relates to WCP.


WCP. World Class Play. Set at 1000. Which says essentially that almost all women do not play "world-class" disc golf.

<font color="blue"> WCP = World Class Par and it is set at 1000 which says essentially that almost all PDGA members do not play world class disc golf (that's what makes it world class) </font>

Women have world-class play, too. Our present ratings system just doesn't accommodate that.

<font color="blue"> women play at a level higher than WCP as our present ratings system shows. the highest rated round by a woman was a round by Juliana that was higher than 1030. several women have rounds above 1000 -- Des, Juliana, Elaine, Angela, etc. so women can and do play at that level. so do some GM's. </font>


it is you who are comparing men and women. (and it hasn't gone unnoticed that you continue to ignore GrandMasters, Masters, Juniors and every protected division except one.)


That's because I've already dealt with that, and you keep bringing it up as if I haven't. Those "divisions" are already essentially ratings based. Ratings are what form them. People who get to a certain age, with a certain range of ratings, can elect to play in those divisions. Therefore, comparing ratings are relevant to making those divisions possible.

Men and women "divisions" are supposed to be gender based, not ratings based. The ratings that men and women divisions have are irrelevant to forming the divisions. Comparing ratings is therefore irrelevant -- and I happen to think, for women, also unfair.

<font color="blue"> age protected divisions are no more ratings based than gender protected divisions. our ratings system takes NO notice of whether you are male, female, old or young </font>


do you really think the best incentive we can give to women to join and stay with our sport is to glamorize their rating :confused:


I think catering to women more in our sport would be a good thing. I think one of many, many things could be to have a separate women's rating system. I never said it was the best thing, just an idea. I think the current rating system is unfair to them, and I think it wouldn't be too bad an idea not to be unfair to women, if we want more women to join.



<font color="blue"> the current rating system is a numerical number not a value judgement that can be accused of being unfair. women are capable of playing 1000 rated golf. they don't need an artificial inflation factor to trick them into feeling better. Des plays at a level above that of most male members of the PDGA. Juliana cashed at the one-division USDGC. yes these are two exceptional disc golf players.

a 1000 rating has nothing to do with age or gender. if you want to acknowledge the number of ratings points Des exceeds the average female PDGA member vs. the number of ratings points Climo or Schultz exceeds the average male PDGA disc golfer -- have at it. but i think the way to get more women involved is to expose them to our sport and not complain when less skilled players are on the course in front of you. i could be wrong but i would guess women in general are less motivated by rank and rating than men. when you talk to women disc golfers how many of them really embrace your idea of an artificial ratings inflation as a way to facilitate increased female participation in disc golf? </font>

There are 14 times less women than men actively rated in the PDGA. There are 860 men rated higher than 967. 860 / 14 = 61. So by your logic, there should be 61 women above 967, and yet there are ZERO. The math simply shows that 10 times as many women will be 10 times zero. You can't expect a woman player to be rated above 1000, no matter how many ever play, if the current scale is never re-balanced to include them. And if re-balancing does happen, so that women are rated 1000, then men will routinely be rated above 1100, so the problem will just shift upward. (Or we'll have to compress what a rating point means to keep men from being rated above 1100 if women are rated above 1000.)




To debunk this point, if ratings were randomly plucked out of a hat, this would probably be true. The problem here is, each data point is interacting with each data point. In such a system, you have to understand the interaction of the data points. If the women's fields increased by a factor of 14, perhaps the added competition would draw in a larger group of women, which increases the chances of one of them being able to go to the next level. Not every person has the physical ability to get their game to that level.

World Class Par is an obsolete term that's been abandoned for several years. Scratch Scoring Average is the term for what 1000-rated players regardless of gender will average on a course. Likewise, someone who shoots the course SSA gets a 1000 rating for that round.

I was thinking about this from the perspective of the qualifications for becoming a policeman or fireman. We know that as a group, men are stronger and faster than women. However, I believe that men and women are now graded on the same scale for both professions. And for policemen, I presume shooting skill is part of it. I'm pretty sure they don't have separate scales for women vs men. In fact, women would likely be offended, let alone considering the job discrimination aspects.

There are 14 times less women than men actively rated in the PDGA. There are 860 men rated higher than 967. 860 / 14 = 61. So by your logic, there should be 61 women above 967, and yet there are ZERO. The math simply shows that 10 times as many women will be 10 times zero. You can't expect a woman player to be rated above 1000, no matter how many ever play, if the current scale is never re-balanced to include them. And if re-balancing does happen, so that women are rated 1000, then men will routinely be rated above 1100, so the problem will just shift upward. (Or we'll have to compress what a rating point means to keep men from being rated above 1100 if women are rated above 1000.)




To debunk this point, if ratings were randomly plucked out of a hat, this would probably be true. The problem here is, each data point is interacting with each data point. In such a system, you have to understand the interaction of the data points. If the women's fields increased by a factor of 14, perhaps the added competition would draw in a larger group of women, which increases the chances of one of them being able to go to the next level. Not every person has the physical ability to get their game to that level.


Don't you think that 622 women already provide enough competition already (to determine the stats, I mean)? When we were a much smaller group ten years ago, wasn't Ken Climo still the man to beat? We've gotten much bigger and still it's Ken Climo at the top. Has the increased competition for men changed our stats much? (That would be a question for Chuck, I guess.)

World Class Par is an obsolete term that's been abandoned for several years. Scratch Scoring Average is the term for what 1000-rated players regardless of gender will average on a course. Likewise, someone who shoots the course SSA gets a 1000 rating for that round.

I was thinking about this from the perspective of the qualifications for becoming a policeman or fireman. We know that as a group, men are stronger and faster than women. However, I believe that men and women are now graded on the same scale for both professions. And for policemen, I presume shooting skill is part of it. I'm pretty sure they don't have separate scales for women vs men. In fact, women would likely be offended, let alone considering the job discrimination aspects.


With policemen, firemen, soldiers, there are lives at stake. The standards that are set are based on safety and protecting lives, not about competition among the sexes to be a fireman or police officer. Different goal. Different stakes (in most legal sports, at least -- NASCAR being an exception I can think of -- stakes can be pretty high there).

I still haven't heard a response as to why people think regular golf has an LPGA. Do you think the existence of the LPGA offends women who play golf?

women play at a level higher than WCP as our present ratings system shows. the highest rated round by a woman was a round by Juliana that was higher than 1030. several women have rounds above 1000 -- Des, Juliana, Elaine, Angela, etc. so women can and do play at that level. so do some GM's.


Don't be disingenuous here, Rob. You know I'm talking about player ratings, and you're talking about round ratings. A round rating is a single data point in a larger set of data points that factor into a player's ratings, and single data points can swing pretty wide. No one, including me, is arguing that isolated round ratings should determine what division a person should play in or suggest anything about a new ratings system.

age protected divisions are no more ratings based than gender protected divisions. our ratings system takes NO notice of whether you are male, female, old or young


If people's skill levels didn't change as they got older, there wouldn't be these other divisions you're speaking of. When you start playing, you're an amateur. Your skill level or rating increases, and you play advanced. It increases further, and you play pro. It decreases before you get to a Masters age, and you petition to be an amateur again. You get to a Masters age, and if you're still competitive in Open, you continue to play Open. You only start playing Masters if your skill level or rating indicates you would be more competitive there. And so forth. Moving between these divisions is all done for ratings (skill-level) reasons, but your options on which divisions you move to are opened up by your age.

With men and women divisions, I think no matter your rating, you don't see a lot of the same moving back and forth. I haven't seen a lot of men with ratings of 800 playing in the women's division for ratings reasons. So that's why I said for assignment to those divisions, ratings are irrelevant. And a separate rating system would not hurt anything, as a result -- and may help (at least, in my opinion, it would be more fair).

Why don't you ask the women what they think?

the current rating system is a numerical number not a value judgement that can be accused of being unfair. women are capable of playing 1000 rated golf. they don't need an artificial inflation factor to trick them into feeling better.


This is really what it comes down to, isn't it? I see a new ratings system as being more fair to women, and you and others see it as some sort of artificial trick that risks offending more women than it would attract.

I wish I knew how to address this, because I think every poster in this thread has the right intentions, we just disagree on this basic point. I thought the stats would sway, but it doesn't even look like the stats sway Chuck, who came up with them. It was a woman who first asked for this, and I backed her up because I agreed with her, but then Discette disagreed...

Not going to figure it out tonight.

Why don't you ask the women what they think?


It was a woman who first proposed this... see above.

Why don't you ask the women what they think?


It was a woman who first proposed this... see above.



Yes a "woman" but has asked if more than one lady had been asked how they felt about a new system. Everyone's opinion has merit and should be listened to but if the majority of our female players don't want a new system then i really dount that there will be one.

The LPGA and PGA don't do ratings or handicaps other than rankings among players on their tours that is not directly linked to scores on the courses. The USGA does that and the calculation basis is the same for both men and women. Women's handicaps are close to men's because they usually play shorter layouts. However, if they would play the same tees as the guys, their handicaps get adjusted upwards and would be on the same basis for those tees.

women play at a level higher than WCP as our present ratings system shows. the highest rated round by a woman was a round by Juliana that was higher than 1030. several women have rounds above 1000 -- Des, Juliana, Elaine, Angela, etc. so women can and do play at that level. so do some GM's.


Don't be disingenuous here, Rob. You know I'm talking about player ratings, and you're talking about round ratings. A round rating is a single data point in a larger set of data points that factor into a player's ratings, and single data points can swing pretty wide. No one, including me, is arguing that isolated round ratings should determine what division a person should play in or suggest anything about a new ratings system.

<font color="blue"> disingenuous? :confused: player ratings are a function of round ratings. eligibility to compete in the women's Pro division has one requirement: your gender must be female. refer back to the post of yours i was responding to -- were you referring to rankings and mistakenly said ratings instead? </font>



age protected divisions are no more ratings based than gender protected divisions. our ratings system takes NO notice of whether you are male, female, old or young


If people's skill levels didn't change as they got older, there wouldn't be these other divisions you're speaking of. When you start playing, you're an amateur. Your skill level or rating increases, and you play advanced. It increases further, and you play pro. It decreases before you get to a Masters age, and you petition to be an amateur again. You get to a Masters age, and if you're still competitive in Open, you continue to play Open. You only start playing Masters if your skill level or rating indicates you would be more competitive there. And so forth. Moving between these divisions is all done for ratings (skill-level) reasons, but your options on which divisions you move to are opened up by your age.

With men and women divisions, I think no matter your rating, you don't see a lot of the same moving back and forth. I haven't seen a lot of men with ratings of 800 playing in the women's division for ratings reasons. So that's why I said for assignment to those divisions, ratings are irrelevant. And a separate rating system would not hurt anything, as a result -- and may help (at least, in my opinion, it would be more fair).


<font color="blue"> i still don't see why you want to take a generic numerical measure like rating and then artificially inflate it unless your idea is that it will somehow glamorize things. a rating is what it is and adding 75 points or 75,000 points to it really doesn't change anything.

also, there are many players like myself who start playing disc golf when they reach masters age. My progression was: Intermediate, Advanced Masters, Advanced, Pro Masters. if i keep improving i may start playing Open. a big if, but not outside the realm of possibility...

the divisions are there to facilitate greater participation. If there were only the Open division, less women, old guys, and newbies would be PDGA members. Women have their own division and having separate division rankings (Open, Pro Women, Pro Masters, etc.) makes sense. Adding a number to a person's rating because they are 'just a girl' does not. And i think you are dead wrong if you are assuming no woman will ever attain a SSA (1000) player rating. It will happen.

. </font>

Why don't you ask the women what they think?


It was a woman who first proposed this... see above.



Yes a "woman" but has asked if more than one lady had been asked how they felt about a new system. Everyone's opinion has merit and should be listened to but if the majority of our female players don't want a new system then i really dount that there will be one.


A majority of what group? What we have now in the PDGA are the women who currently accept the conditions as they are set in the PDGA. They aren't as likely to be as upset with the lack of focus on women in the PDGA as those women who decided NOT to become members.

One hopes that the number of women who decided not to become members in the PDGA is much larger than the number of women who have become members -- otherwise, we will never have more than a 14-to-1 ratio of men-to-women in the sport. That would be a shame.

I suspect if we could survey both women who are current PDGA members and women who play disc golf but aren't current PDGA members, we might find out something interesting. I have no idea how we could conduct such a survey -- given that this discussion board is open only to members, I don't see how the survey could be conducted here. (Maybe a couple years ago, but not now...)

I wonder if anyone has ever considered running a free tournament, open to any woman who wants to play, somewhere in the country. The only cost would be to ask women what they wanted from the PDGA. Such a survey might yield interesting results.

The only "fair" way to have a system for women only would be to use the women as their own propagators but then many women would have some rounds not rated due to the fact that not enough showed up to get an accurate rating. I'm sorry but there is no magic number you can tack on to a lady's rating to make their ratings equal to a guy's. Des is a 967 golfer period! If you think adding 75 points is correct then you are too narrowminded due to the fact that some courses allow the ladies' scores to be closer to the men's and others make them finish more strokes behind the men.

The only "fair" way to have a system for women only would be to use the women as their own propagators...


Right. That's what I support, too.

...but then many women would have some rounds not rated due to the fact that not enough showed up to get an accurate rating.


Right. That's when Chuck proposed simply adding 75, which I have troubles with, too.

I'm sorry but there is no magic number you can tack on to a lady's rating to make their ratings equal to a guy's.


Right. I posted a graph which shows that normalizing a women's rating is not nearly that simple. Chuck now also says that the difference is variable, not a constant value. The variable difference should also change every time the ratings are recalculated, because of course men's and women's ratings are not in lock-step with each other. So we agree, simply adding 75 is wrong.

Des is a 967 golfer period!


This is also wrong. Des is not a man, and what other men have scored on courses has nothing to do with Des's skill as a disc golf player. Des is a preeminent player, the best woman disc golfer in the world. Nothing men do on the course should take away from that. She is not competing against Ken Climo or Barry Schultz for titles, nor should she. Neither should her rating be affected by their play.

You said it yourself above -- the only fair rating system would be for women's ratings to be propagated from women's scores. When we have enough women in the sport for that to happen, I believe that is what we should do. Until then, I'm looking for a rating system that acknowledges what women do on the course using the data we already have. Chuck has the data; I bet he's been thinking about it, even if he doesn't agree that it should be done right now.

If you think adding 75 points is correct then you are too narrowminded due to the fact that some courses allow the ladies' scores to be closer to the men's and others make them finish more strokes behind the men.


Well, I don't think adding 75 points is correct. I've never thought it was correct. I've never said it was correct. I've only re-stated what Chuck has said he would do if he were asked to come up with women's ratings. This may be his way of killing the idea, because simply adding 75 points is abhorrent -- or it may be that he doesn't see the benefit of the extra work needed to normalize women's ratings with men's ratings and is waiting until the time we have enough women propagators to provide for a truly independent women's rating system. My concern with that is that we may never have enough women propagators if we never do anything to encourage women to join this organization. I truly think that ratings, as they are calculated and presented now, encourage men to join, and discourage women from joining. And with ratings being listed by the PDGA as one of the top items for drawing more players into the sport, I think it makes sense to start there and generate a women's rating system if we want to draw more women into the sport.

So to be clear -- and redundant, because I've said this countless times now -- I don't like what Chuck said he would do. I don't like the offset of 75. I posted a graph showing this is not correct. Go back and search my past posts if you like. What I want is something better than that, something that can be calculated from the results we currently have.

If you want to disagree with me, fine, but at least disagree with what I said, not with what you've decided I said.

Des IS a 967 rated golfer compared to everyone else who is a PDGA member(men and women). This is true not matter what you say. Also I never said "the only fair rating system would be for women's ratings to be propagated from women's scores" I said the only fair way to have a women's only system. I believe our current is fair enough.

I personally think Des, Angela and Valerie are all 1000 rated women golfers.

why did you leave out Juliana? :confused:

who are the 1000 rated Masters? Grandmasters? Juniors? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

i guess Dr. Rick should be adjusted to 1090 :D

I would put Juliana in there also and 1000 rated masters are just sandbagging Open players.

I would put Juliana in there also and 1000 rated masters are just sandbagging Open players.



what about Juniors under 15? how about GrandMasters like Dr. Rick? Legends?

if you want to say anyone rated 1000 or better has to play Open -- that's fine with me. in support of that, being rated a 1000 has nothing to do with gender or age. a 970 rated golfer is a 970 rated golfer regardless of age, gender, or favorite flavor of ice cream. that's the beauty of ratings. Rankings on the other hand can be gender and/or age-based, and/or can simply be Open.

i think this talk of "adjustments" misses ^that^ larger point (!)

ps: thanks for acknowledging JK -- she does have the highest rated round ever shot by a woman, and she has to be considered one of the favorites (amongst the others you mentioned) to win the 2007 Pro Women's World Champion title.

Des IS a 967 rated golfer compared to everyone else who is a PDGA member(men and women). This is true not matter what you say. Also I never said "the only fair rating system would be for women's ratings to be propagated from women's scores" I said the only fair way to have a women's only system. I believe our current is fair enough.


Our current rating system works well for 14/15 of the PDGA, I think, which is pretty good, sure.

For 1/15 of the PDGA, our current rating system provides good rankings -- it sorts out which woman is first-best, second-best, third-best...

Wow, maybe that's it. Maybe if the rating system were maintained, but what was published on our membership cards was a ranking, in addition to a rating (or instead of)! So Des would have a 967 rating, but would also be 1/194 in ranking at the beginning of the year. What players rankings would be at the beginning of each year would acquire some more significance from that, having it printed on your membership card, and provide the right context for the rating. What do you think?

A rating of 900 might be 1720/2585 among Pro Men, or 183/6219 among Am Men, or 51/194 among Pro Women, or 1/472 among Am Women. I really like this idea -- it maintains a universal rating system that you all like but adds the context I think is lacking -- what do you all think?

Edited to add: hey, Rob, just saw your post, see mine below.

a 970 rated golfer is a 970 rated golfer regardless of age, gender, or favorite flavor of ice cream. that's the beauty of ratings. Rankings on the other hand can be gender and/or age-based, and/or can simply be Open.


Just read this -- what do you think of putting rankings on the membership cards, as well, then?

a 970 rated golfer is a 970 rated golfer regardless of age, gender, or favorite flavor of ice cream. that's the beauty of ratings. Rankings on the other hand can be gender and/or age-based, and/or can simply be Open.


Just read this -- what do you think of putting rankings on the membership cards, as well, then?



well, if i am 1974 out of 1986 players in the most-protected division for which i qualify i would be against it. but if i am in the top ten it sounds like a great idea. maybe the top 25 could get something like that...

the beauty of ratings is that they don't explicitly reveal the comparative valuation of where you rank. after all, two-thirds of the membership is not in the top third and therefore might not want their ranking on their PDGA card. personally i wouldn't be against a ranking on the card if most members like the idea.

Adjusting for women is just flat out silly.

The main reason (as Matt pointed out) that the top women has such crazy different ratings is b/c some courses allow women to keep up with men - most of the courses have an SSA around par and provide 12 - 14 birdie opportunites.

Obviously, the types of courses a women will have trouble keeping up with men is longer courses b/c they can't throw as far as most men.

Well if you are going to give them a boost b/c they can't throw as far then you to give this guy over here, who can only throw 300 a boost too. And that guy, who throws 320, he needs a higher player rating too.

You know, I'm not very strong off the tee with drivers in the woods. So when I play a course that has me throwing lots of drivers in the woods, go ahead and add some points to my rounds.

you're preaching to the choir as far as i am concerned :D

i wasn't into disc golf yet in 2001 -- did Juliana cashing at the 2001 [one division] USDGC create as big a sensation back then as it would today, or was the USDGC course less well-known and therefore there was less appreciation of what Juliana accomplished there that year?

I personally think Des, Angela and Valerie are all 1000 rated women golfers.

So are Burl and Courtney

I personally think Des, Angela and Valerie are all 1000 rated women golfers.

So are Burl and Courtney



<table border="1"><tr><td> PDGA Pro Women - Player Ratings
</td></tr><tr><td>1 thru 10 (of 194 current members) |
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Des Reading ......... 966
</td></tr><tr><td>Juliana Korver ....... 956
</td></tr><tr><td>Angela Tschiggfrie ..954
</td></tr><tr><td>Carrie Burl Berlogar 951
</td></tr><tr><td>Valarie Jenkins ...... 950
</td></tr><tr><td>Elaine King ........... 947
</td></tr><tr><td>Courtney Peavy ..... 944
</td></tr><tr><td>Anni Kreml ............ 940
</td></tr><tr><td>Birgitta Lagerholm . 938
</td></tr><tr><td>Jennifer Ketz ......... 936
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

I personally think Des, Angela and Valerie are all 1000 rated women golfers.

So are Burl and Courtney



<table border="1"><tr><td> PDGA Pro Women - Player Ratings
</td></tr><tr><td>1 thru 10 (of 194 current members) |
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Des Reading ......... 966
</td></tr><tr><td>Juliana Korver ....... 956
</td></tr><tr><td>Angela Tschiggfrie ..954
</td></tr><tr><td>Carrie Burl Berlogar 951
</td></tr><tr><td>Valarie Jenkins ...... 950
</td></tr><tr><td>Elaine King ........... 947
</td></tr><tr><td>Courtney Peavy ..... 944
</td></tr><tr><td>Anni Kreml ............ 940
</td></tr><tr><td>Birgitta Lagerholm . 938
</td></tr><tr><td>Jennifer Ketz ......... 936
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>


You just posted the first ten reasons why the ratings for women aren't working. They just don't give women their due, and they make a meaningless comparison with men's ratings. You mean to tell me that women considering joining the PDGA see that the 10th rated woman is rated 936, when so many men are above that, and somehow that doesn't discourage women from joining? Are we trying to tell women by these ratings that, sure, they're good women players, but then stomp on that and remind them that men have the higher ratings? Why do that? So men are different physically, so what?

Yes, men throw farther than women. As a group, women are simply at a physical disadvantage to men when playing many sports, including disc golf. That's why comparing women's results to men's results is unfair. That's why men's scores on courses should really have nothing to do with how women should be rated on those same courses. That's why in regular golf, there's the LPGA.

If you want to rail against this simple fact, then go out and picket the LPGA and every other women's sports organization and ask them to shut down, too, and see how far that gets you. In the meantime, this is a problem, whether you like it or not. We've created a situation in disc golf where we're only encouraging a small fraction of women to join, so that only 1/15 of the organization is now women. You want to pertuate that by changing nothing at all, even a small a change as a separate rating scale, or adding rankings to cards, then we will always have just 1/15 of the organization as women.

Well if you are going to give them a boost b/c they can't throw as far then you to give this guy over here, who can only throw 300 a boost too. And that guy, who throws 320, he needs a higher player rating too.

You know, I'm not very strong off the tee with drivers in the woods. So when I play a course that has me throwing lots of drivers in the woods, go ahead and add some points to my rounds.


Do you know anything about statistics, Robert? I'm talking about a group of women whose ratings are, as a group, different in every way from the ratings of a similar group of men. The Pro Women ratings are way off the Pro Men's ratings. The top Am Women ratings are way off the top Am Men's ratings. The average women's ratings are way off the average men's ratings. These are statistically two different groups of people, and the ratings show this.

You have just mentioned three individuals who would benefit from adjusting their ratings. I don't give a flying disc about anybody's individual ratings -- statistics are about groups of people. When an entire group of people is obviously being subjected to a rating system which penalizes them simply for being in the group that they're in -- okay, they're women and they're physically different from men and so their range of play is going to be different, too -- then suggesting that a different rating scale for women isn't silly. It's just good sportsmanship. It's why other sports organizations have split to become men's and women's organizations. It's not silly that they did that.

It's also good customer relations. If you want more women to join the organization, how about we don't slap them with a punitive rating, punitive because it compares them with a group of people that aren't even their competitors out on the course. In fact, just about the only time women are competing against men is when there just isn't enough women to have their own division, so that just puts one unfairness on top of another. Even when women are playing at the same skill level as men, the unfairness comes in because women who are very good among their group and are very serious about disc golf are being put in a division of men who are not very good and not as serious about disc golf, and that's just not professional to those women. We need to grow the sport for women, and setting things up so that women are treated as equals to the sport, rather than as sub-numbers in a "universal" rating system, might do something to improve things. That's all I'm saying.

well, if i am 1974 out of 1986 players in the most-protected division for which i qualify i would be against it. but if i am in the top ten it sounds like a great idea. maybe the top 25 could get something like that...


I find this interesting, Rob -- you recognize that low rankings might be discouraging to you and others, but low ratings you don't see as discouraging to women at all. You've got blinders on, my friend.

I really dont know much about statistics.....all I know is that a rating is not, as you said, "a comparison of how you do against the men"

Ratings are a comparison of how you do against the field in a particular round.

Now I don't agree with most round ratings and a lot of stuff.....but one simple way of doing it is the best way.

You just posted the first ten reasons why the ratings for women aren't working. They just don't give women their due, and they make a meaningless comparison with men's ratings. You mean to tell me that women considering joining the PDGA see that the 10th rated woman is rated 936, when so many men are above that, and somehow that doesn't discourage women from joining? Are we trying to tell women by these ratings that, sure, they're good women players, but then stomp on that and remind them that men have the higher ratings? Why do that? So men are different physically, so what?

Yes, men throw farther than women. As a group, women are simply at a physical disadvantage to men when playing many sports, including disc golf. That's why comparing women's results to men's results is unfair. That's why men's scores on courses should really have nothing to do with how women should be rated on those same courses. That's why in regular golf, there's the LPGA.

If you want to rail against this simple fact, then go out and picket the LPGA and every other women's sports organization and ask them to shut down, too, and see how far that gets you. In the meantime, this is a problem, whether you like it or not. We've created a situation in disc golf where we're only encouraging a small fraction of women to join, so that only 1/15 of the organization is now women. You want to pertuate that by changing nothing at all, even a small a change as a separate rating scale, or adding rankings to cards, then we will always have just 1/15 of the organization as women.



When disc golf becomes big enough that an LPDGA is formed, women who don't wish to compete against men will have the option of playing in their own organization like lady ball golfers do today.

as for your concern that our ratings system tells Pro Women that many of our men are better -- i am fairly confident the ladies already are aware of that and don't feel a need to sweep it under the rug or artificially inflate their own ratings vis-a-vis men. as has been said before, unless you think women need special assistance :eek: -- to be consistent with your stance we would need to adjust for juniors and elders too. when distance competitions take place we don't artificially inflate how far women (or masters or juniors) throw.

i guess the main thing to consider is that most people don't join because they feel they compare favorably to the best men in our sport. if that was the calculus, we would need to inflate the rating of everyone rated below 990 or they'd see little reason to join. people join because they love disc golf and wish to explore playing it in sanctioned competitions and have fun in doing so.

if we did not have many divisions to accomodate a wide range of skill levels, then i think we'd be in danger of turning away those who can't compete in Open. our 15 to 1 male to female ratio is higher than i'd like to see it, but i don't think our ratings system is the issue. do you have any figures regarding the ratio of PGA members vs. LPGA members?

well, if i am 1974 out of 1986 players in the most-protected division for which i qualify i would be against it. but if i am in the top ten it sounds like a great idea. maybe the top 25 could get something like that...


I find this interesting, Rob -- you recognize that low rankings might be discouraging to you and others, but low ratings you don't see as discouraging to women at all. You've got blinders on, my friend.



let he who is without blinders on cast the first stone ;)

Paul, your rating is a number revealing the disc golf skill level you played at in sanctioned PDGA tournaments for a given year. it is a measure or where your results fell in relation to the statistical calculation of World Class Par / Scratch Score Average for the particular rounds that you played. Your ranking on the other hand is where you rank amongst other PDGA members and can be based on Open (no protections) or protected class (Amateur, Pro, Male, Female, Junior, Master, etc.)

you seem to be concerned that publishing the rating of female members may disincline them to renew? i don't know if your concern is warranted. Most of us fall short of where we hope our rating will be at the end of the year -- regardless of how far above or below 1000 we end up. as for new members -- they probabl;y don't even realize they will eventually get a rating published on their PDGA cards until they have renewed and see their rating on their second card. (your first year and PDGA card begins without any rating whatsoever).

do you think that we would be better off only putting the rating on the card of women members if it is above a certain level (like 875)? :confused:

Matt Orum busts out a 1095 in Gainsville - 40 is just amazing out there

Matt Orum busts out a 1095 in Gainsville - 40 is just amazing out there


MATTY O.!!!!!!!!!!!! WAIT FOR THE TOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Val Jenkins shot a 993 rated round. Awesome!

My quick calculation had Orum averaging 1060 for the tourney. I was wondering what the highest average rating is for a tournament greater than two rounds. 1060 has to be in the running, I think.

look at Earlewood Classic from the first weekend of this month. McRee tore it up!!!!

Darn, ratings are down, but they are way up there. I think he was -41 for the tournament. Beat second place by 20!!!!

My quick calculation had Orum averaging 1060 for the tourney. I was wondering what the highest average rating is for a tournament greater than two rounds. 1060 has to be in the running, I think.



Barry averaged 1062.75 during his USDGC win last year. I'm sure there is a higher average somewhere. He also averaged 1068 at his 2006 Memorial win.

Kristen Weidle rated 929 shoots a 1002 rated round for her last round of the Dogwood Crosstown to win by 28 strokes! This round tied or beat 30 of the 38 open players and 12 of the 13 Masters players. Oh yeah four of these were 1000+ rated including some guy named Feldberg. Just for kicks she shot a 999 rated round the day before at a completely different course; the very difficult blue tees at "Buckhorn". thats gett'n-it done.

she also shot a 1000+ round at the loriella challenge last month which beat all but 4 of the men in open (30+). that 929 rating has some rounds where she was coming off an injury. if weidle can keep from getting hurt she is going to be a force at highbridge this summer.

A rating of 900 might be 1720/2585 among Pro Men, or 183/6219 among Am Men, or 51/194 among Pro Women, or 1/472 among Am Women.


I just noticed that our current member numbers have dropped significantly since I last posted this on 12/31/06.

2585 Pro Men current members dropped to 1772.
194 Pro Women current members dropped to 123.
6219 Am Men current members dropped to 4240.
472 Am Women current members dropped to 324.

This is a 32%-36% drop in current membership, from December to April. What's going on here? Is there a thread somewhere discussing this already?

It's not a drop but the time lag in renewals that happens every year. Many states are still thawing out and thousands of 2006 members haven't even played an event yet. I understand current membership in 2007 is about 10% above last year for the same time so things are on track for a banner year.

It's not a drop but the time lag in renewals that happens every year. Many states are still thawing out and thousands of 2006 members haven't even played an event yet. I understand current membership in 2007 is about 10% above last year for the same time so things are on track for a banner year.


Does look promising, after all.

Current members:

April, 07: 8690
April, 06: 7896
April, 05: 6591
April, 04: 5705
April, 03: 5524
April, 02:
April, 01: 4519

Here's the way I think we need to track best rated rounds. Roger and I have divided SSAs into five ranges: Under 48, 48-53.9, 54-59.9, 60-65.9 and 66+. These roughly 6-shot ranges are similar to ball golf in the sense that their calculated course ratings for PGA courses are roughly in a 6-shot range even though most courses are listed as par 70-72.

It looks like a course near 54 SSA will be the most likely to yield a round over 1100. That's because selected courses in that range have mostly reachable par 3s but not easy and few par 4s like the wooded course Skinner got the 1117 on. The lower the SSA the harder it is to get an exceptional round because players are butting up against a score of 36 min.

The farther you get away from 54, the more par 4s and 5s. If you shoot -18 on a legit par 54 of all 3s, you lopped off 1/3 of the total "par" in the round. On 18 par 4s, shooting -18 "only" takes off 1/4 of the total par for the round.

Once you see the highest rounds organized this way, you can now see how exceptional Kenny's 50 at the Hippodrome was relative to the next four contenders in the 60-65.9 category.

Courses with SSA under 48<table border="1"><tr><th colspan=1> Last </th><th> First </th><th> Rating </th><th> Adj SSA </th><th> Date </th><th> Adj Score </th><th> Course Name </th></tr>
<tr><td> Schultz </td><td> Barry </td><td> 1099 </td><td> 47.8 </td><td> 5/7/2006 </td><td> 39 </td><td> Wakanda Park Standard 18 R1 (2006 Wakanda Park Open - Sun) </th></tr>
<tr><td> Bubis </td><td> Aleksey </td><td> 1099 </td><td> 46.3 </td><td> 5/6/2006 </td><td> 38 </td><td> North East Coachman Park Long Tees R1 (2006 Fun N' Sun Pros) </td></tr>
<tr><td> Duron </td><td> Dan </td><td> 1090 </td><td> 46.6 </td><td> 3/9/2002 </td><td> 39 </td><td> El Dorado Long-A (2002 El Dorado Open) </td></tr>
<tr><td> Feldberg </td><td> David </td><td> 1090 </td><td> 45.2 </td><td> 12/10/2005 </td><td> 38 </td><td> Tupelo Bay Tourney R2 (2005 Tupelo Bay Open) </td></tr>
<tr><td> Leiviska </td><td> Cale </td><td> 1089 </td><td> 46.5 </td><td> 3/19/2006 </td><td> 39 </td><td> Lustig Park Lustig standard but hole 12 short R2 (2006 Wisconsin Tour WarmUp Revisited) </td></tr>
</table>

Courses with SSA 48-53.9<table border="2"><tr><th colspan=1> Last </th><th> First </th><th> Rating </th><th> Adj SSA </th><th> Date </th><th> Adj Score </th><th> Course Name </th></tr>
<tr><td> Skinner </td><td> Brian </td><td> 1117 </td><td> 53.7 </td><td> 5/29/2005 </td><td> 41 </td><td> The Grange R3 Pros-Dark (2005 Virginia Open) </td></tr>
<tr><td> Hatfield </td><td> Coda </td><td> 1096 </td><td> 50.7 </td><td> 2/9/2005 </td><td> 41 </td><td> Lewisville Lake Park Regular R2 (2005 Big Show MidWeek #1) </td></tr>
<tr><td> Arthur </td><td> Phil </td><td> 1094 </td><td> 50.5 </td><td> 7/15/2000 </td><td> 41 </td><td> Lenora Park (2000 Hotlanta) </td></tr>
<tr><td> Schultz </td><td> Barry </td><td> 1092 </td><td> 51.5 </td><td> 4/26/2003 </td><td> 49 </td><td> Pro Temp (21 Holes) (2003 Tower Ridge Open) (Rd 2) </td></tr>
<tr><td> Stokely </td><td> Scott </td><td> 1092 </td><td> 48.4 </td><td> 3/6/1999 </td><td> 40 </td><td> Vista Del Camino Park </td></tr>
</table>

Courses with SSA 54-59.9
<table border="2"><tr><th colspan=1> Last </th><th> First </th><th> Rating </th><th> Adj SSA </th><th> Date </th><th> Adj Score </th><th> Course Name </th></tr>
<tr><td> Schultz </td><td> Barry </td><td> 1092 </td><td> 55.4 </td><td> 4/8/2006 </td><td> 45 </td><td> White Park 2006 Bowling Green Open R2 (2006 Bowling Green Open) </td></tr>
<tr><td> Grider </td><td> Nolan </td><td> 1081 </td><td> 56.5 </td><td> 2/4/2006 </td><td> 47 </td><td> Z Boaz Park Long to Long R2 (2006 Z Boaz Open) </td></tr>
<tr><td> Jernigan </td><td> Justin </td><td> 1081 </td><td> 55.1 </td><td> 4/29/2006 </td><td> 46 </td><td> reserved for ratings committee </td></tr>
<tr><td> Gurthie </td><td> Garrett </td><td> 1079 </td><td> 58.4 </td><td> 3/4/2006 </td><td> 49 </td><td> Tradewinds Park long pad long pin R1 (2006 Sizzler) </td></tr>
<tr><td> Schweberger </td><td> Brian </td><td> 1078 </td><td> 55.2 </td><td> 6/8/2002 </td><td> 46 </td><td> McNaughton Park (2002 Peoria Open Pro R3) </td></tr>
</table>

Courses with SSA 60-65.9
<table border="2"><tr><th colspan=1> Last </th><th> First </th><th> Rating </th><th> Adj SSA </th><th> Date </th><th> Adj Score </th><th> Course Name </th></tr>
<tr><td> Climo </td><td> Ken </td><td> 1091 </td><td> 62.6 </td><td> 8/9/2006 </td><td> 50 </td><td> Hippodrome (2006 Pro Worlds Pool A Rnd 2) </td></tr>
<tr><td> Lundmark </td><td> Jesper </td><td> 1071 </td><td> 62.8 </td><td> 5/14/2005 </td><td> 53 </td><td> Yggdrasil FrisbeeGolf Arena OO2005, rounds 1-3 R2 (2005 Oslo Open Norway) </td></tr>
<tr><td> Dorius </td><td> Micah </td><td> 1071 </td><td> 61.6 </td><td> 5/5/2006 </td><td> 52 </td><td> La Mirada Regional Park CHAMPIONSHIP LAYOUT R2 (2006 Golden State Classic) </td></tr>
<tr><td> Lundmark </td><td> Jesper </td><td> 1071 </td><td> 60.1 </td><td> 7/1/2006 </td><td> 51 </td><td> Talin Huippu Tali OPEN 2006 R2 (2006 ET 6 - Tali Open Finland) </td></tr>
<tr><td> Schweberger </td><td> Brian </td><td> 1070 </td><td> 62.6 </td><td> 12/10/2005 </td><td> 53 </td><td> Tupelo Bay Championship R3 (2005 Tupelo Bay Open) </td></tr>
</table>

Courses with SSA 66+
<table border="2"><tr><th colspan=1> Last </th><th> First </th><th> Rating </th><th> Adj SSA </th><th> Date </th><th> Adj Score </th><th> Course Name </th></tr>
<tr><td> Climo </td><td> Ken </td><td> 1078 </td><td> 69.9 </td><td> 10/14/2004 </td><td> 56 </td><td> Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area 2004 USDGC R1 (2004 United States Disc Golf Championship) </td></tr>
<tr><td> Climo </td><td> Ken </td><td> 1078 </td><td> 67.8 </td><td> 3/3/2006 </td><td> 55 </td><td> Vista Del Camino Park Round #1 (MPO, FPO, MPM, MPG) R1 (2006 The Memorial - pros) </td></tr>
<tr><td> Schultz </td><td> Barry </td><td> 1076 </td><td> 71.4 </td><td> 10/11/2006 </td><td> 57 </td><td> Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area 2006 USDGC Layout R2 (2006 United States Disc Golf Championships) </td></tr>
<tr><td> Anthon </th><th> Josh </td><td> 1072 </td><td> 69.7 </td><td> 10/11/2006 </td><td> 57 </td><td> Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area 2006 USDGC Layout R1 (2006 United States Disc Golf Championships) </td></tr>
<tr><td> K�llstr�m </td><td> Markus </td><td> 1072 </td><td> 67.9 </td><td> 10/12/2005 </td><td> 56 </td><td> Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area 2005 USDGC Final (2005 USDGC) </td></tr>
</table>

Courses with SSA 48-53.9

not to take away from stokely's score but back in 1999 vista's ssa was probably at best around 44-45....no ob sidewalks and no lengthened course holes....a definate birdie fest...scott could reach every hole with a magnet....longest hole was around 320 ft, with 12 holes around 250-275 ft long, and a few around 200...

still he had to make the shots so props for that!!!

but just wanted to correct the possible gigo for his score

keith

The SSA was calculated that round at Vista similar to all SSAs since then. In fact, when we changed the calcs from dropping 15% to dropping 2% of lowest rated rounds, we went back and recalculated from the beginning in 1998 to make sure our records were all on the same basis. So, Vista's SSA value for Stokely should be as good as any for more current rounds.

Chuck,

What does "Adj Score" mean? Is that the real score or were they adjusted for some reason? If so, why? I'm just trying to understand this.

Lowe

SSA is adjusted to an 18-hole equivalent if necessary. In the lists above, all rounds happened to be 18 holes except for Barry's at Tower Ridge on a 21-hole layout. So, that SSA was adjusted downward by 18/21 for the number you see.

We exclude any rounds with less than 18 holes. It's no problem including rounds with more than 18 holes and adjusting the SSA to an 18-hole basis because it's even more difficult to have a record round on course with more than 18 holes.

Wow that is also a very bold statement that I feel shows a lack confidence in the Female players in our sport and can also be considered sexist.


No, it shows a good understanding of statistics. What you are saying is that all 622 women who are rated right now are somehow playing disc golf wrong by anywhere from 75 to 125 rating points, and someday, when women play better, they'll be rated like men are. I'm saying that women aren't playing disc golf wrong, they're playing great and deserve a ratings scale that shows that.



I just read this post with the graph for the first time. That graph tells it all. What an excellent point! I hope that the whole post and the graph are being saved by someone as a cornerstone of the argument why women should have their own rating scale.

Roger is working to get me the highest rated rounds for women on the different SSA course groupings just like the men's charts above.

are there long tees or something i don't know about at lenora? ...or was it super windy when phil shot that round? i would think that world class there would be 44 or so. it's pretty much wide open and top flight players can reach 'em all with rocs.

every time i sit down and stop and actually think about skinner's round at the grange it amazes me. no one has ever shot within 4 strokes of it on that course even in casual rounds. that probably includes a 500 rounds plus by thousand rated players. :eek:

thanks for the charts chuck!! :)

You have to look at it like this (and this is what I think about when thinking of what round will be rated).

If someone kills it and shoots just a really hot round, you can safely asume 1060 - 1080.

At Lenora, 41 is killing it.

You also can't asume that Barry Shcultz would average a 40 there, which is another way to help with SSA.

Jernigan, Justin - reserved for ratings committee




Tarheel tournament - UNC outdoor adventures course - 20 holes.

Just a SICK round. With the OB layed it out the way it was that year, there were only 17 birdies on the course. And JJ shot 14. Just a sick sick round.

One question - why did you have this instead of basically what I typed?

...but that's my point- i don't think 41 at lenora is "killing it", i think there would be a 41 shot virtually every time a field of top pros played it in decent conditions.

I've never seen Lenora. Is it possible that the current version is different/easier than when this round was shot? The score is not in dispute. However, considering it was shot in 2000, it's possible that the SSA is inflated due to not many propagators. The other possibility is that the winds were high that day compared to the normal layout which could have boosted the SSA by 3-4 shots more than normal.

...but that's my point- i don't think 41 at lenora is "killing it", i think there would be a 41 shot virtually every time a field of top pros played it in decent conditions.



So do you honestly think Barry would average 40 there?

I've never seen Lenora. Is it possible that the current version is different/easier than when this round was shot?



As far as I know, the only change is one hole went from a easy - medium duece to a crush for duece, but easy 3.

The SSA was calculated that round at Vista similar to all SSAs since then. In fact, when we changed the calcs from dropping 15% to dropping 2% of lowest rated rounds, we went back and recalculated from the beginning in 1998 to make sure our records were all on the same basis. So, Vista's SSA value for Stokely should be as good as any for more current rounds.



i still will go that with alot fewer higher rated players playing the courses back then that the #'s are still off at least a couple of strokes...look at any event at vista(2-3 pdga every year there)around that time frame and you'll see lots of az players shooting low 40's consistently...
that course was NEVER in it's original configuration anywhere near an ssa of 49(even with hail and wind)....
which is what led ginnelly to make the changes year by year to toughen the course up....

just my opinion...but i know that course pretty well :D

keith

Here are the most impressive rounds, using the data posted above for the highest rounds in each SSA group:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pccx8GZHxdekN7NCOx698Nw



This has the ratings normalized to a common base. Lots of people complain that great rounds on high SSA courses don�t get enough credit. I think this table might match the intuitive feel for how �Impressive� a round is.

shot a 1080 Saturday - where does that rank all time, approximently?

i'm sure these will be adjusted, but CRIKEY
this surely has to be a record for 4 rounds in 1 event...

norman oklahoma may 26,27, 2007
coda hatfield
(41)1086, (41)1075, (45)1033, (41)1080

what the hell was he doing the third round - 1033 sucks

Sunday morning after Saturday night.

Sunday morning after Saturday night.



What he's only 20 right? All those cokes and pepsis shouldn't have affected him. :D

He missed a hole?

:)

41
41
41+4
41

Too much caffeine in soda will keep you awake. Have to learn to pace yourself as a pro... :D

Sunday morning after Saturday night.



What he's only 20 right? All those cokes and pepsis shouldn't have affected him. :D



I actually don't think I've ever seen Coda drink soda. He does always have a silver can in hand though and sometimes a bottle.

Josh Anthon just shot a 1082 rated 1st round in the Gold pan open in orangevale.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournamen...eRatings=1#Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7209&amp;year=2007&amp;incl udeRatings=1#Open)

Is this one of the highest rated rounds.

Nope. For courses in that SSA range, you need 1092 to break into the top 5. Great round though.

Looks like KCs last two rounds will join his current top two rated rounds for courses with SSA of 66+. We'll update the best rated rounds chart at the November ratings update once the numbers are official.

Hey Chuck I`ve often wondered how the inaugural Players Cup rated out.With it coming up soon it just brought it back to mind.Was any ratings work done on this non-sanctioned major?Just out of curiosity.......Ron

Denny Ritner might have the scoring info for that since he analyzed each hole. Since it wasn't PDGA, I never saw any scores.

Players have been bugging me that it seems unfair that the higher the SSA, the harder it is to shoot a really high rated round. In fact, an 1100 may be out of reach for courses with SSAs over 60. I came up with a different way to rank top rounds that I think might be a better way to compare great rounds on courses with a wide range of SSAs. It's pretty simple. Take the course SSA for that round and subtract the player's score. Essentially, it's how far under the SSA the player shot.

Using this method, I ranked our best ever rounds from the five SSA zones we've been tracking in descending order based on how far a player shot below SSA. That column is labeled "Diff" in the table below. I think players who witnessed these rounds might feel this list better represents the feeling the got for how good ar round is compared to the rating that round received. Schweb's round data is unofficial but I iincluded it since his round is what triggered my effort to develop a better way to look at our best rounds.
<table> <tr> <td>Rank</td><td>Last</td><td>First</td><td>Rating</td><td>SSA Zone</td><td>Adj SSA</td><td>Adj Score</td><td>Diff</td><td>Date</td><td>Course Name </td></tr> <tr> <td>1</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>1076</td><td>A</td><td>71.4</td><td>57</td><td>14.4</td><td>10/11/2006</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area 2006 USDGC Layout R2 </td></tr> <tr> <td>2</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>1078</td><td>A</td><td>69.9</td><td>56</td><td>13.9</td><td>10/14/2004</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area 2004 USDGC R1 </td></tr> <tr> <td>3</td><td>Schweberger</td><td>Brian</td><td>1075</td><td>A</td><td>70.4</td><td>57</td><td>13.4</td><td>5/11/2008</td><td>Rennaisance Gold 2008 R3 </td></tr> <tr> <td>4</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>1078</td><td>A</td><td>67.8</td><td>55</td><td>12.8</td><td>3/3/2006</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park Round #1 </td></tr> <tr> <td>4</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>1075</td><td>A</td><td>68.8</td><td>56</td><td>12.8</td><td>10/7/2007</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area 2007 USDGC R3 </td></tr> <tr> <td>6</td><td>Skinner</td><td>Brian</td><td>1117</td><td>D</td><td>53.7</td><td>41</td><td>12.7</td><td>5/29/2005</td><td>The Grange R3 Pros-Dark (2005 Virginia Open) </td></tr> <tr> <td>6</td><td>Anthon</td><td>Josh</td><td>1072</td><td>A</td><td>69.7</td><td>57</td><td>12.7</td><td>10/11/2006</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area 2006 USDGC Layout R1 </td></tr> <tr> <td>8</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>1091</td><td>B</td><td>62.6</td><td>50</td><td>12.6</td><td>8/9/2006</td><td>Hippodrome (2006 Pro Worlds Pool A Rnd 2) </td></tr> <tr> <td>9</td><td>K�llstr�m</td><td>Markus</td><td>1072</td><td>A</td><td>67.9</td><td>56</td><td>11.9</td><td>10/12/2005</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area 2005 USDGC Final </td></tr> <tr> <td>10</td><td>Feldberg</td><td>David</td><td>1098</td><td>C</td><td>57.8</td><td>46</td><td>11.8</td><td>3/8/2008</td><td>Memorial 2008 R3 </td></tr> <tr> <td>11</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>1092</td><td>C</td><td>55.4</td><td>45</td><td>10.4</td><td>4/8/2006</td><td>White Park 2006 Bowling Green Open R2 </td></tr> <tr> <td>12</td><td>Lundmark</td><td>Jesper</td><td>1071</td><td>B</td><td>62.8</td><td>53</td><td>9.8</td><td>5/14/2005</td><td>Yggdrasil FrisbeeGolf Arena OO2005, rounds 1-3 R2 </td></tr> <tr> <td>13</td><td>Hatfield</td><td>Coda</td><td>1096</td><td>D</td><td>50.7</td><td>41</td><td>9.7</td><td>2/9/2005</td><td>Lewisville Lake Park Regular R2 </td></tr> <tr> <td>14</td><td>Schweberger</td><td>Brian</td><td>1070</td><td>B</td><td>62.6</td><td>53</td><td>9.6</td><td>12/10/2005</td><td>Tupelo Bay Championship R3 (2005 Tupelo Bay Open) </td></tr> <tr> <td>14</td><td>Dorius</td><td>Micah</td><td>1071</td><td>B</td><td>61.6</td><td>52</td><td>9.6</td><td>5/5/2006</td><td>La Mirada Regional Park CHAMPIONSHIP LAYOUT R2 </td></tr> <tr> <td>16</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>1092</td><td>D</td><td>51.5</td><td>42</td><td>9.5</td><td>4/26/2003</td><td>Pro Temp (21 Holes) (2003 Tower Ridge Open) (Rd 2) </td></tr> <tr> <td>16</td><td>Arthur</td><td>Phil</td><td>1094</td><td>D</td><td>50.5</td><td>41</td><td>9.5</td><td>7/15/2000</td><td>Lenora Park (2000 Hotlanta) </td></tr> <tr> <td>16</td><td>Grider</td><td>Nolan</td><td>1081</td><td>C</td><td>56.5</td><td>47</td><td>9.5</td><td>2/4/2006</td><td>Z Boaz Park Long to Long R2 (2006 Z Boaz Open) </td></tr> <tr> <td>19</td><td>Gurthie</td><td>Garrett</td><td>1079</td><td>C</td><td>58.4</td><td>49</td><td>9.4</td><td>3/4/2006</td><td>Tradewinds Park long pad long pin R1 (2006 Sizzler) </td></tr> <tr> <td>20</td><td>Schweberger</td><td>Brian</td><td>1078</td><td>C</td><td>55.2</td><td>46</td><td>9.2</td><td>6/8/2002</td><td>McNaughton Park (2002 Peoria Open Pro R3) </td></tr> <tr> <td>21</td><td>Lundmark</td><td>Jesper</td><td>1071</td><td>B</td><td>60.1</td><td>51</td><td>9.1</td><td>7/1/2006</td><td>Talin Huippu Tali OPEN 2006 R2 </td></tr> <tr> <td>21</td><td>Jernigan</td><td>Justin</td><td>1081</td><td>C</td><td>55.1</td><td>46</td><td>9.1</td><td>4/29/2006</td><td>reserved for ratings committee </td></tr> <tr> <td>23</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>1099</td><td>E</td><td>47.8</td><td>39</td><td>8.8</td><td>5/7/2006</td><td>Wakanda Park Standard 18 R1 </td></tr> <tr> <td>24</td><td>Stokely</td><td>Scott</td><td>1092</td><td>D</td><td>48.4</td><td>40</td><td>8.4</td><td>3/6/1999</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park </td></tr> <tr> <td>25</td><td>Bubis</td><td>Aleksey</td><td>1099</td><td>E</td><td>46.3</td><td>38</td><td>8.3</td><td>5/6/2006</td><td>North East Coachman Park Long Tees R1 </td></tr> <tr> <td>26</td><td>Duron</td><td>Dan</td><td>1090</td><td>E</td><td>46.6</td><td>39</td><td>7.6</td><td>3/9/2002</td><td>El Dorado Long-A (2002 El Dorado Open) </td></tr> <tr> <td>27</td><td>Leiviska</td><td>Cale</td><td>1089</td><td>E</td><td>46.5</td><td>39</td><td>7.5</td><td>3/19/2006</td><td>Lustig Park Lustig standard but hole 12 short R2 </td></tr> <tr> <td>28</td><td>Feldberg</td><td>David</td><td>1090</td><td>E</td><td>45.2</td><td>38</td><td>7.2</td><td>12/10/2005</td><td>Tupelo Bay Tourney R2 (2005 Tupelo Bay Open) </td></tr> </table>

Thanks Chuck

thats cool to see the comparison and makes sense since Schweb's round seemed very comparable to Climo's @ USDGC last year... but that doesnt change their rating... to me this just proves even more that these rounds should've been rated higher and with the move towards more and more courses being in this higher SSA range maybe the #s might have to change? or skinners record is 'safe'

Chuck,

Can you calculate the scores that would be rated close to 1117 on the various courses that fall into the SSA-A zone? I'm curious to see how low people would have to shoot on extremely tough layouts.

I'm going to do some graphing of that type of thing using this new calc process. But that will have to wait until I get home next week. In the mean time, all you need to do is look at the event results to see how many points each throw is worth. Schweb would have to shoot 52 on that course to reach 1100. That's likely a ridiculously impossible score. That's the apples to oranges of highest rated rounds on high SSA versus low SSA courses.

If we had been like ball golf with our ratings system based around par 72 when we started, high rounds of 1080 would seem awesome. When someone then introduced courses with SSAs below 60 and players were shooting ratings in the 1090s, you would see all of the outcry that the lower SSA courses were cheapening the ratings. Well, ball golf doesn't have to deal with the amazing 30 shot range of SSA values our system has to deal with. Theirs is only about 6 shots range for top level competition. Eliminate all of the courses for top pros that are under 66 SSA and there would be no controversy around highest rated rounds because they would all hover around the same numbers for easy comparison.