I figure this is posted somewhere, but I can't find it. Rodney, Chuck, what are the highest rated rounds ever recorded (top 10 would be cool). "By whom," "date," "course" details would be greatly appreciated. I just curious about the finest disc golf performances.

I've heard about the "perfect round" Climo had at 2002 Worlds. I assume it's up there. Anyone have any guesses or actually know? Describe one if you actually witnessed one. I'm just curious and bored at the moment.

I would imagine that the highest round ever recorded would be the -17 under shot by Geoff Lissaman at the Worlds at Rum Village. :eek: Dont know how that rates but it should be right up there......

It's around 1094 but we're going to have to hold off on "official" pronouncements until we decide how to handle the records. The higher the SSA, the lower the chances for shooting a record round. So, we'll need to bracket the SSA ranges for these records. It's a little lower on the priorities so I'm not sure when we'll decide the parameters. Possibly once we have the full set of data for 2003 around Feb.

A similar table has been posted on the message board previously, but I couldn't find it.

Several of these have been called into question, so this is highly unofficial.

<table border="1"><tr><td>Rating</td><td>Last</td><td>First</td><td>Date</td><td>Score</td><td>Course
</td></tr><tr><td>1094</td><td>Arthur</td><td>Phil</td><td>7/15/2000</td><td>41</td><td>Lenora Park (2000 Hotlanta)
</td></tr><tr><td>1092</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>4/26/2003</td><td>49</td><td>Pro Temp (21 Holes) (2003 Tower Ridge Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1092</td><td>Stokely</td><td>Scott</td><td>3/6/1999</td><td>40</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park
</td></tr><tr><td>1090</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>4/6/2002</td><td>41</td><td>Northside Park Long (2002 Gator Cntry Cl. Pro R2)
</td></tr><tr><td>1090</td><td>Duron</td><td>Dan</td><td>3/9/2002</td><td>39</td><td>El Dorado Long-A (2002 El Dorado Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1086</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>3/7/2003</td><td>51</td><td>Fountain Hills (2003 Memorial NT , Rnd 1)
</td></tr><tr><td>1086</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>3/9/2002</td><td>39</td><td>El Dorado Long-B (2002 El Dorado Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1086</td><td>Leonard</td><td>Larry</td><td>4/27/2002</td><td>44</td><td>Seneca Creek Red-A (2002 Seneca Soiree)
</td></tr><tr><td>1086</td><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>9/2/2000</td><td>39</td><td>Mason Cnty Park long (2000 MDGO Finals)
</td></tr><tr><td>1085</td><td>Wisecup</td><td>Steve Cup</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>38</td><td>El Dorado Mixed (2003 El Dorado Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1084</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>2/16/2002</td><td>60</td><td>Oak Grove 27 (2002 Wintertime Open Pros, Rnd 1)
</td></tr><tr><td>1084</td><td>Loya</td><td>Mike</td><td>3/17/2001</td><td>41</td><td>Orangevale (2001 St. Patricks - Pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>1082</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>3/7/2003</td><td>43</td><td>Fountain Hills (2003 Memorial NT, Rnd 3)
</td></tr><tr><td>1082</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>5/30/2003</td><td>48</td><td>Lake Holmstead Park - NT Layout (2003 DG Hall of Fame Classic)
</td></tr><tr><td>1081</td><td>Jenkins</td><td>Avery</td><td>12/15/2001</td><td>44</td><td>Fountain Hills (2001 F.H. Thrills)
</td></tr><tr><td>1081</td><td>Harris</td><td>LaRon</td><td>7/15/2000</td><td>40</td><td>Jones Park W Long (2000 Emporia)
</td></tr><tr><td>1081</td><td>Johansen</td><td>Michael</td><td>10/26/2002</td><td>44</td><td>Hornet\'s Nest Long new 5, 9, 17 (2002 DiscLanding)
</td></tr><tr><td>1080</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>3/18/2000</td><td>40</td><td>N. Water Tower (2000 Allstate Rnd2)
</td></tr><tr><td>1079</td><td>Musick</td><td>Bobby</td><td>9/28/2002</td><td>42</td><td>Lakeside Course (2002 SoCal Championships- Pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>1079</td><td>Feldberg</td><td>David</td><td>4/6/2002</td><td>42</td><td>Northside Park Long (2002 Gator Cntry Cl. Pro R2)
</td></tr><tr><td>1079</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>8/6/2002</td><td>43</td><td>Tourney Rds 5-8 (2002 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>1079</td><td>Tracy</td><td>Eric</td><td>5/26/2001</td><td>40</td><td>Wickham Park (2001 Melbourne Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>1078</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>9/28/2002</td><td>43</td><td>Backside Course (2002 SoCal Championships- Pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>1078</td><td>Schweberger</td><td>Brian</td><td>6/8/2002</td><td>46</td><td>McNaughton Park (2002 Peoria Open Pro R3)
</td></tr><tr><td>1077</td><td>Moser</td><td>Mike</td><td>6/20/1998</td><td>40</td><td>Knob Hill, 1998 Pittsburgh Flying Disc Open, SA
</td></tr><tr><td>1077</td><td>Anthon</td><td>Josh</td><td>3/16/2002</td><td>43</td><td>Orangevale (2002 St. Patricks - Pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>1077</td><td>Dropcho</td><td>J. Gary</td><td>6/26/1999</td><td>39</td><td>Grand Woods East-18 1999 Inflight
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

Thanks Chuck and Rodney. I never realized that the rounds were that high. I was expecting a bunch of 1060-70 scores.

I glanced at a few of those rounds just to see if they were believable. Out of the ones I looked at, it did seem that the rounds were at least 2-3 strokes better than the 2nd best score, and the ones I saw were against strong and large fields.

It also looks like the 1100 round is our equivalent of the old four-minute-mile barrier.

Plus weather and course conditions make this kinda subjective....

Plus weather and course conditions make this kinda subjective....




No subjectivity. All of those factors get incorporated into the SSA calculated for that round. For rounds prior to 2003, some of the round SSAs were not calculated independently. Plus, we've made some corrections in the process over the years. For 2003, players will have an "easier" time getting a higher rated round on high SSA courses once we've updated the 2003 ratings in mid-Dec.

I think Barry's 49 (-14) at tower ridge should be considered the best round ever played. Since the SSA on the course is higher than most it makes it a lot harder to shoot 1090's. -14 on that course is crazy!!

Chris, considering what we know so far, I don't disagree. I was there. Timmy's -9 was awesome on its own but Barry left him in the dust and still missed a 30-footer.

It also looks like the 1100 round is our equivalent of the old four-minute-mile barrier.





Here is what you'd need to shoot on each whole-number SSA in order to hit 1100. This is *after* a math tweak that will be implemented soon.

<table border="1"><tr><td> SSA</td><td>Score</td><td>Rating
</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>36</td><td>1106
</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>37</td><td>1102
</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>37</td><td>1110
</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>38</td><td>1105
</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>39</td><td>1101
</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>39</td><td>1107
</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>40</td><td>1102
</td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td>40</td><td>1109
</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>41</td><td>1106
</td></tr><tr><td>53</td><td>42</td><td>1104
</td></tr><tr><td>54</td><td>43</td><td>1101
</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>43</td><td>1108
</td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td>44</td><td>1105
</td></tr><tr><td>57</td><td>45</td><td>1102
</td></tr><tr><td>58</td><td>46</td><td>1100
</td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td>46</td><td>1105
</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>47</td><td>1102
</td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>47</td><td>1107
</td></tr><tr><td>62</td><td>48</td><td>1104
</td></tr><tr><td>63</td><td>49</td><td>1101
</td></tr><tr><td>64</td><td>49</td><td>1105
</td></tr><tr><td>65</td><td>50</td><td>1101
</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>50</td><td>1105
</td></tr><tr><td>67</td><td>51</td><td>1101
</td></tr><tr><td>68</td><td>51</td><td>1104
</td></tr><tr><td>69</td><td>52</td><td>1100
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Interestingly, the 1100 mark is within a stroke or two of the "perfect round" on most courses. Here are 3 examples:

<table border="1"><tr><td>Course</td><td>SSA</td><td>Par</td><td>18-Under</td><td>1100
</td></tr><tr><td>Winthrop Lakefront</td><td>47</td><td>56</td><td>1105</td><td>-18
</td></tr><tr><td>Rolling Meadow</td><td>57</td><td>63</td><td>1102</td><td>-18
</td></tr><tr><td>Renaissance Gold</td><td>69</td><td>70</td><td>1100</td><td>-18
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

These are 3 courses where par is pretty clearly defined, and "perfect round" just means a birdie every hole. In other words, not having to throw in an Ace or a Fairway Ace. And of course, the numbers are somewhat approximate and were chosen in part because they make the overall numbers look good (smiley implied).

Climo's "perfect round", if I'm not mistaken, was a 43, and rated a 1079 on an SSA 51. I wasn't there, but if it really was "perfect", then you'd have to throw in 2 non-putts (aces or fairway aces) in addition to the perfect round just to get a 1099. This tells me there must've been a few holes that were too long to get a 2 on, but short enough that they didn't really pull up the SSA all that much. (Some people would call those tweener holes or long par 3's. That's fine. Whatever. Definitions of par and existence of p*r2 holes just change whether "perfect" is -18 or something else like -16 or -20. Point is it would take two strokes better than "perfect" to shoot 1100 (actually 1099) on that course.)

Rodney, looking at your last post got me wondering. How many courses have SSA within 1-3 strokes of Par? Like Renny Gold: SSA 69 Par 70

Wow, that means 1100 round at Z-Boaz would be 44. I think the record is like 46 (ish).

Rodney, looking at your last post got me wondering. How many courses have SSA within 1-3 strokes of Par? Like Renny Gold: SSA 69 Par 70



Rob, this is a question that can't be answered without a full-on Holy War about the definition of par.

First you have to decide if you believe in p*r2 holes, and if so, how you define them.

Next you have to decide where to draw the line between par 3 and 4, and par 4 and 5.

Renny and Rolling Meadow are easy, because I'm just using the definition of Stan and Houck. Winthrop Lake is pretty easy to figure, because 16 holes are fairly obviously reachable, and the other 2 are fairly obviously not.

I was going to add Hornets and Kilby to the list above, but I got into a debate with a Charlotte golfer about whether holes 4, 12, and 15 at Kilby are short par 4 (I say so) or long par 3 (he says so).

Anyway, for courses/holes with a pretty clear par, it's a fun question. As you point out, Renny Gold is a -1 (SSA minus Par). Renny original is around -2 in the long pins (61* minus 59ish). Ozark is around par 70 SSA 70. Winthrop Gold is near +1 (SSA 69 minus par 68), but uses much artificial means to get there (rope, bales, parking lots). The fly18 courses might have an SSA within a stroke or 2 of par, but we don't have much data to go off of.

Of course, my standard disclaimer is that an SSA near "par" isn't always a good thing, as it may just mean that you have stupid holes, either because they are too tight, or because they are at a tweener distance where everybody gets the same score. For instance, 18 holes of 360-380 feet might be called a par 54, and the SSA might be right near that, especially if there are some trees or some OB.

By the way, on the other end, I know a course in Des Moines (not a Worlds course), that has 2 unreachable holes, and maybe a 3rd, thus making a par of 56 or 57. It plays to an SSA of 45. That's a -11 or -12 difference, which may be one of the biggest differences you'll find. Of course, at that point the chuckie p*r2 advocates come along and tell you that course actually has 3 or 4 p*r2 holes, thus bringing it down to a par 52 or 53.

My take on Par-2s:

If par-2s do not exist, then there are many many holes that are bad, too-easy, par-3s.

I'm fine with either definition.

Even people that don't want to recognize par 2s now know they exist. Harold does everything possible to make sure the scoring average on the easiest holes at Winthrop Gold stays above 2.5 > bales of hay (7, 17); fences (7); OB (3, 6, 7, 17); psych factor announcing your name (1).

Ideally, the Par should end up close to the SSA. If the SSA is lower than the Par set by the designer (typical), then there are likely more holes with a scoring average that ends with 0.5 to 0.9, than ends with 0.1 to 0.4. Good balance would have approximately the same number in each scoring average category which means the SSA should end up pretty close to the Par.

Thanks Rodney

So where does Geoff Lissamans -17 (37) at the Worlds sit with all of this. Was it too long ago to get in the ratings?

Surely a round of that caliber would stand up as one of the best ALL TIME :) Was the SSA too low for it to be that high of a rating :confused:

South Bend Worlds was two years before the ratings system started after Cincinnati Worlds in 1998. It's possible that the SSA for Rum Village might have been below the calculation limit of 41.4, and even that limit might be too low even now to get accurate results. When you're bumping up against a realistic limit of 36 for a best score, each shot counts much more from a ratings standpoint when the SSA gets closer than 6 shots away.

No doubt that Geoff's round will be remembered as one of the great rounds ever, considering that it was shot in Worlds. I played in Johnny's group there in the second round. And he shot a "respectable" -14 in Masters until his brother smoked him.

You know what I would like to see is the PDGA World Records Page updated this year. It looks like the most recent entries are from '99 or '00. I'm sure there have been some major record breakers in the last 3 years, especially after the year Barry had. How bout it Hosfeld?

I'm a 918 rating and I have a 1016 round to my credit this year.....I should be on the list!

you mullet!

I'm a 918 rating and I have a 1016 round to my credit this year.....I should be on the list!



Maybe you could make the list for biggest variance in one weekend since you shot 889, 866, 842, and 810 along with your 1016 that weekend. Nice 1016 though, you should be proud of yourself.

ouch his first post and he comes out and bashes me....

Yeah the points bonanza was a intresting weekend....first round of the weekend was a 960 at Reedy, then down hill from there........then sunday afternoon I just went off shooting a 48 at Kilbourne.......crazy crazy weekend...thanks for pointing out the negatives in my life

FEEL THE LOVE!!!!!!!

So who has the highest rated tournament and what is it? I see Barry shot a 1092 &amp; 1052 for an average of 1072 at the Tower Ridge Open. Has anyone ever beat that?

Those #s are impressive enough, but for those that know Tower Ridge, those #s are out of this world!!!!

Those #s are impressive enough, but for those that know Tower Ridge, those #s are out of this world!!!!



For those that understand how ratings work, the course doesn't make the numbers any more (or less) impressive.

17 year old Justin Jernigan set a course record by 3 shots this weekend at Buckhorn in the Buckhorn Open. He shot a 48. This is unreal for those of you who have not played this course.

To give you an idea, he was playing open...he had a 6 stroke lead after the round....this was the first round..

Guys like Walter Haney were shooting around 54. This course is ussually a 55.5 or so, so this round will be very high!

17 year old Justin Jernigan set a course record by 3 shots this weekend at Buckhorn in the Buckhorn Open. He shot a 48. This is unreal for those of you who have not played this course.

To give you an idea, he was playing open...he had a 6 stroke lead after the round....this was the first round..

Guys like Walter Haney were shooting around 54. This course is ussually a 55.5 or so, so this round will be very high!



You didn't indicate, but I'm pretty sure that the spectacular round of 48 that you were referring to was shot from the Blue tees.

Here's what the PDGA has for course statistics on Buckhorn:

<table border="1"><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td>Layout</td><td>Tournament</td><td>Holes</td><td>SSA
</td></tr><tr><td>Buckhorn Blue (2002 Buckhorn Open)</td><td>1st Buckhorn Open </td><td>18</td><td>58.78</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Buckhorn Blue/white mixed (2002 Buckhorn Open)</td><td>1st Buckhorn Open </td><td>18</td><td>55.91</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Buckhorn DG Course - Blue Tees (Rd 2)</td><td>2nd Buckhorn Open </td><td>18</td><td>55.13</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Buckhorn DG Course - Blue Tees</td><td>2nd Buckhorn Open </td><td>18</td><td>54.83</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Buckhorn White (2002 Buckhorn Open)</td><td>1st Buckhorn Open </td><td>18</td><td>52.97</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Buckhorn DG Course - White Tees</td><td>2nd Buckhorn Open </td><td>18</td><td>49.53 </tr></td></table>

Here's a table that shows what his round rating was for a score of 48, depending on what SSA for that layout was.

<table border="1"><tr><td> SSA</td><td>55</td><td>56</td><td>57</td><td>58
</td></tr><tr><td>Player Rating</td><td>1063</td><td>1070</td><td>1077</td><td>1083
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Interesting that he shot 4 strokes and 5 strokes worse in the third and fourth rounds, which were played from the shorter white tees!

it was all blue tees...the one w/ a WCP of 58 was in bad winds...id say its around 55

Chuck and Rodney, I've been thinking (too much) about these insane rounds and have concluded that the system breaks down at the edge or is just not suitable for measuring truly exceptional performances. I'm not being critical of the system as a whole, cause I think it works very well for the purpose that inspired it. BUT, after viewing some preliminary ratings at the Maceman events and thinking about what it would have taken for someone to shoot a 1090, I've concluded that no matter how perfect someone played (not considering aces or fairway aces), they could not have shot a 1090+ on those courses. It seems that a 1080-1100 round is only possible on certain courses. Thoughts?

It doesn't break down at the edges but the edges get lower and "less jagged" the higher the SSA. We haven't determined the ranges yet but 'best round' records probably need to be grouped into SSA ranges. Another possibility might be some sort of ratio of round rating divided by SSA.

Sorry, I see you partially addressed this earlier Chuck. I've thought about it some more and feel that it not only has to do with SSA, but with course design. The presence of a couple of holes where the awesome player realistically can't beat the "average" is what thwarts it in my mind. These are the holes that eliminate the possibility of the 1090 round. However, these holes could appear in any SSA range. In the future, when quality course design is more prevalent, this problem will probably go away.

It doesn't make any difference where those tough holes show up because the stats on the hole get rolled into determining the course SSA. There are probably some nightmare courses that could be concocted to mess with it like playing the same hole 18 times. But fortunately I've never seen that in reality.

For the sake of discussion, I am assuming that a top player that makes no mistakes shoots a perfect round and will have shot the best possible score for that course. I feel that these perfect rounds should all get similar ratings. One should not be a 1075, while another is a 1095.

Based on my understanding of this system, the player must separate themselves from the field. Right, the math requires it. For example if ten 1020 were the only players in the field and they all threw a "perfect" round (let's assume 1095) at the same time, they would only get a 1020 for their once in a lifetime performance, even though their play may have been 1095. In order to get that 1095, a player must separate themselves from the field (preferably a good one) by many strokes. That is how 1095s are earned.

The problem comes in on courses with too many holes where separation is statistically difficult. I can envision many holes where the top player is not likely to score one throw less than a field of 980 players. Throw in enough of these holes, the top player has no chance for a 1095 round even though they still may have thrown the perfect round (witness Climo's perfect round at Houston worlds which was only 1079).

The holes where the bulk of the field gets the same score are the problem. These holes reduce a players chance to get separation from the field, therefore reduce the chance to get separation from the SSA, and therefore reduce the chance at a 1095 round, even though they may still have thrown the perfect round.

In summary, throw in enough of the holes and a top player that throws a perfect round has no chance at a 1095, but the same performance on another course without the frequency of those holes would have been a 1095.

ps. I realize that this is no big deal in the grand scheme, but I find the problem of measuring truly exceptional performances interesting and the fact that the perfect round would get different ratings on different courses was bugging me.

First of all, there is technically no such thing as a "perfect round" like 300 in bowling. In theory, 18 holes-in-one would be perfect but impossible. The true measure of an exceptional round is essentially how many standard deviations it is from the SSA.

If a (terrible) course only has holes where say 90% of the players shoot the same score on each one, it will have a small standard deviation and not separate the scores very well. You are correct in saying that it will be hard for a player to shoot an exceptional round rating on this course. However, if we actually measured standard deviations, it's possible a round only 5 throws better than SSA and rated 1050 was actually more exceptional statistically than a round rated 1070 on a course with the same SSA but with each hole having a wider range of scores.

That's why until we get time to dig into the numbers and their relationships, we're not making a big deal about some of these records. It is important to remember that even on courses with holes having lower standard deviations for a particular skill level, that a player's actual round ratings won't be lower than their rating. Although they might not be able to shoot as high above their rating, they also are not likely to shoot as far below their rating either.

This just reinforces the drumbeat from course designers like Houck and myself that it's important to design holes at the proper length and challenge for each skill level so that each group has holes with a decent range of scores to allow for those playing better to separate themselves.

Very interesting.

I guess this is why I have a problem with SSA being dynamic instead of static. A players score should be against the course - not against the performance of other players on that particular day.
It would seem to me that once a certain number of rounds are recorded, in various conditions, that a course SSA/WCP could be established as permanent. Having it as a moving target makes no sense for me. Case in point - my last two rounds last year at USDGC were a 69 & 67, same course - but the 69 was rated higher than the 67 - and conditions were not significantly different, but more players shot better the last round than the 3rd - so my round rating was not as good. That's just stupid.

If SSA/WCP is meant to be a gage for people to judge their own performance - how can they do that under non-tournament conditions? Answer - they can't. Variations caused by inclement conditions, or by quality of field, can be judged against an established SSA - and explained easily. They can also be averaged in to the body of data for the course - and updated annually if necessary. I would think that would be the goal of having this information - and that annual updates based on the years events would result in ever more accurate course ratings.

Craig,

I think Chuck said as much as you suggest already somewhere, though I can't put my finger on it. The biggest challenge for going to that is that courses change all of the time. Averaging together SSAs from more than a year or 2 apart would quickly make the old SSAs outdated, so you'd be averaging with an out of date statistic.

Round Ratings and SSAs work perfectly within that one round situation. It really is not as susceptible to players all shooting hot or all shooting poorly as you portray. And even if the stars aligned and everyone shot the rounds of their lives (which is possible at the USDGC afterall) it would statistically stick out like a sore thumb.

Chuck should be along shortly to clear this up for you.

I guess this is why I have a problem with SSA being dynamic instead of static. A players score should be against the course - not against the performance of other players on that particular day.
It would seem to me that once a certain number of rounds are recorded, in various conditions, that a course SSA/WCP could be established as permanent. Having it as a moving target makes no sense for me. Case in point - my last two rounds last year at USDGC were a 69 &amp; 67, same course - but the 69 was rated higher than the 67 - and conditions were not significantly different, but more players shot better the last round than the 3rd - so my round rating was not as good. That's just stupid.

If SSA/WCP is meant to be a gage for people to judge their own performance - how can they do that under non-tournament conditions? Answer - they can't. Variations caused by inclement conditions, or by quality of field, can be judged against an established SSA - and explained easily. They can also be averaged in to the body of data for the course - and updated annually if necessary. I would think that would be the goal of having this information - and that annual updates based on the years events would result in ever more accurate course ratings.



This lack of confidence in player and course ratings is killing thier validity and acceptance, in my opinion. To doubt and question is usually healthy and embraced, but you seem to refuse to even warm to the idea and dismiss them no matter what. Craig, I don't think you realize that your high profile is very influential and may convince others not to embrace the ratings-based format for tournaments, especially in the MADC.

What are the odds that *everyone* in the tournament were to shoot either significantly better or significantly worse than their ratings, all uniformly? Almost infinitely low. Any phenomenon like this would certainly show up in the data analysis. Believe it - SSA does slightly change based on daily course conditions, NOT on a uniform swing in player performances. At the USDGC, wasn't your 69 (PR 1013) in round 3 shot during very poor course conditions? (high wind and/or rain?) As opposed to your 67 (PR 1008) in round 4 which was played in significantly better conditions.

Please give ratings a chance, Craig.

There are two separate issues here - dynamic vs static SSA and staggered start rounds. Round scores from stagger start rounds sometimes have to be handled in time blocks to properly calculate the ratings. I don't think this was done for USDGC. Some players had much windier conditions than others in R3 which raised the average SSA for that round. Some players who played in lighter winds benefitted with a slightly higher rating and those who played in the brunt of the wind probably had ratings slightly lower than if the full impact of an even higher SSA for that time period were used.

The benefits of dynamically generating an SSA for each round far outweigh the use of fixed values, at least for tournament calculations. It would be a nightmare to try and match up existing fixed values in some table with the course configurations played in an event or expect the TDs to enter the correct SSA for each layout in the TD report. It's all we can do to get the correct divisions matched up with the correct layouts for each round. Events are constantly faced with last minute changes (incomplete grass mowing at Patapsco) where a course has one or two pins different from some setup that might be in the files.

In the long run, we expect to have the existing event SSAs linked into the course directory so TDs and course pros can look over the values and use them to set "fixed" par or course rating SSA values for scorecards, websites and/or info signs at the course. I know Nick is taking on the huge task to pin down much of this data for MADC courses and we hope other areas will eventually do the same.

Someone explain to me why a DNF is used for your player rating, this seems silly to me. In regular golf the worst per hole score used for handicap calculations is a double boogie, i.e. an 8 on par 4 is recorded as a double boogie 6 for handicap purposes. Disc golf uses a quad boogie 7 for nonplayed holes? Ball Golf doesn't handicap less than full rounds of golf... either.....

Now that there are Tour cards why not move to a handicap basis instead of player ratings for the non card toting players. This would bring similariities from another sport to DG, thus making DG easier to comprehend by the rest of the world, & me..... then based on points or money award the next years tour cards.

DNFs are not supposed to be included in player ratings. Let us know if you find one included. Ball golf uses rounds with as few as 13 holes played and "fakes" the remaining 5 hole scores. We require 14 holes minimum in a round to calculate and only use the actual scores. The worst score on a hole in ball golf is a quintuple bogey 10 for a 40+ handicapper. Double bogey ESC hole score cap is only for those with less than 4 handicap.

Hole scores for late players are par+4 which is not always a 7. Players who don't finish rounds do not get par+4 on remaining holes. They get 999 indicating a DNF and those scores do not count in ratings.

I've heard and read all the discussions on par (even a "true par") vs rating and rating is far far superior. This does not mean ratings cannot be improved, but IMO, these guys are addressing whatever weaknesses exist in this system. I will reiterate my favorite argument learned from thoroughbred handicapping. If you had never seen any of these players play and had to bet your hard earned money on it, would you use these ratings or would you use a handicap? Those that choose the latter would not play the game for long.

wrong thread

If anyone has the time and inclination, what are the ten highest rated rounds for a woman, for a masters, for a grandmasters, and for a legend? Thanks, I'll hang up and hope for an answer.

what are the ten highest rated rounds for a woman, for a masters, for a grandmasters, and for a legend?



Disclaimer: These should be regarded as unofficial. For any such lists to be formalized, you would want to do lots of checking and validation. Accuracy of the lists are highly dependent on correct reporting of divisions and course layouts and scores.

NOTE: I've attempted to show age-bracket rounds both by division played, and by age at time of round regardless of division. For instance, Dr. Rick has 6 of the 10 best 50+ rounds, but none of them were while playing in the GM division. Also, for division-based rounds, I only looked at Pro divisions. It's possible there have been AmGM rounds (for instance) crack the top 10 GM Division rounds. Not likely, but possible.

Disclaimer Again: Please note that when dealing with age-based divisions, it is common practice for these divisions to play a shorter set of tees than the other divisions. If this wasn't noted when the scores were reported, the round ratings would be artificially high for that division.

Yet Another Disclaimer: For older divisions, note that if a different course layout is played, there will sometimes not be enough propogators playing that layout to generate ratings for that round. So it's quite possible there have been "better" rounds, but no way to generate ratings for those rounds.

Did I mention these are highly unoffical?

Rounds by a female rated 1000+:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Last</td><td>First</td><td>Score</td><td>Date</td><td>RoundRating</td><td>CourseTourney
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>46</td><td>6/3/2000</td><td>1036</td><td>Swope (2000 KC Wide Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>48</td><td>2/2/2002</td><td>1026</td><td>Z Boaz long (2002 Z Boaz open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>41</td><td>5/11/2002</td><td>1021</td><td>Oakland Park Back (2002 MidAmerica Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Reading</td><td>Des</td><td>51</td><td>7/4/2003</td><td>1018</td><td>Championship Layout
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>48</td><td>4/6/2002</td><td>1017</td><td>Northside Park Long (2002 Gator Cntry Cl. Pro R2)
</td></tr><tr><td>Reading</td><td>Des</td><td>52</td><td>8/6/2002</td><td>1012</td><td>Wilmont Rds 1-4 (2002 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>King</td><td>Elaine</td><td>44</td><td>6/17/2000</td><td>1010</td><td>Grand Woods East (2000 In Flight)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>63</td><td>10/21/2000</td><td>1010</td><td>Grange Long (2000 Old Dominion Pro)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>63</td><td>10/21/2000</td><td>1010</td><td>Grange Long (2000 Old Dominion Pro)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>51</td><td>8/6/2002</td><td>1010</td><td>Wilmont Rds 5-8 (2002 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>Reading</td><td>Des</td><td>49</td><td>2/8/2003</td><td>1008</td><td>Weatherford (2003 Z Boaz Rnd 1)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>47</td><td>6/10/2000</td><td>1008</td><td>Washington Park - Long (2000 Peoria Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>48</td><td>1/29/2002</td><td>1005</td><td>Jimmy Porter (2002 Big Show - Tuesday)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>53</td><td>9/30/2000</td><td>1004</td><td>Kendall Long 2000 FL supertour
</td></tr><tr><td>Herndon</td><td>Lesli</td><td>53</td><td>4/7/2001</td><td>1004</td><td>Northside Park Long (2001 Gator Classic Pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>50</td><td>6/12/1999</td><td>1004</td><td>Rosedale 1999 KCWO
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>69</td><td>10/11/2001</td><td>1003</td><td>Winthrop University - Gold (2001 USDGC)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>69</td><td>10/11/2001</td><td>1003</td><td>Winthrop University - Gold (2001 USDGC)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>50</td><td>6/8/2002</td><td>1003</td><td>Bradley (2002 Peoria Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Herndon</td><td>Lesli</td><td>51</td><td>8/6/2002</td><td>1002</td><td>Powell (2002 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>Herndon</td><td>Lesli</td><td>52</td><td>10/12/2002</td><td>1002</td><td>Riverview Championship (2002 Augusta Classic)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>72</td><td>11/3/2001</td><td>1002</td><td>Veterans Park Long Rnd 3 (2001 VPO)
</td></tr><tr><td>King</td><td>Elaine</td><td>57</td><td>5/30/2003</td><td>1000</td><td>Lake Holmstead Park - NT Layout (2003 DG Hall of Fame Classic) (Rd 3)
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Masters Division:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Last</td><td>First</td><td>Score</td><td>Date</td><td>RoundRating</td><td>CourseTourney
</td></tr><tr><td>Dropcho</td><td>J. Gary</td><td>39</td><td>6/26/1999</td><td>1077</td><td>Grand Woods East-18 1999 Inflight
</td></tr><tr><td>McClellan</td><td>Mitch</td><td>43</td><td>11/16/2002</td><td>1070</td><td>Duncan Lake Champ (2002 Duncan Lake Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Lissaman</td><td>Johnny</td><td>62</td><td>10/30/1999</td><td>1069</td><td>Sunset Park - long (1999 Vegas Halloween)
</td></tr><tr><td>Lissaman</td><td>Johnny</td><td>44</td><td>6/12/1999</td><td>1064</td><td>Rosedale 1999 KCWO
</td></tr><tr><td>Hammock</td><td>Brad</td><td>46</td><td>8/6/2002</td><td>1064</td><td>Wilmont Semis (2002 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>Greenwell</td><td>Dave</td><td>44</td><td>4/21/2001</td><td>1062</td><td>Hobson Grove Short (2001 BG Open pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>Oates</td><td>Jim</td><td>39</td><td>7/10/1999</td><td>1061</td><td>Oak Grove CA Regional - 3
</td></tr><tr><td>Dunipace</td><td>Dave</td><td>41</td><td>3/9/2002</td><td>1061</td><td>El Dorado Long-B (2002 El Dorado Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Evans</td><td>Bobby</td><td>37</td><td>6/15/2002</td><td>1061</td><td>Horizons Park (Horizons Park Classic 2002)
</td></tr><tr><td>Myers</td><td>Jim No Spin</td><td>45</td><td>8/6/2002</td><td>1059</td><td>Tourney Rds 5-8 (2002 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>Myers</td><td>Jim No Spin</td><td>45</td><td>8/6/2002</td><td>1059</td><td>Lakeside (2002 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Grand Masters Division:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Last</td><td>First</td><td>Score</td><td>Date</td><td>RoundRating</td><td>CourseTourney
</td></tr><tr><td>Monroe</td><td>Tom</td><td>44</td><td>8/10/1999</td><td>1051</td><td>Ellison Park (1999 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>Horn</td><td>Mark</td><td>43</td><td>7/14/2001</td><td>1047</td><td>Whittier Narrows (2001 Whittier Narrows Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Pierson</td><td>Snapper</td><td>51</td><td>8/24/2001</td><td>1046</td><td>US Masters 2001
</td></tr><tr><td>Jenkins</td><td>Leroy</td><td>46</td><td>7/24/1999</td><td>1046</td><td>BH Memorial course - long 18
</td></tr><tr><td>Whittington</td><td>Red</td><td>46</td><td>7/24/1999</td><td>1046</td><td>BH Memorial course - long 18
</td></tr><tr><td>Olds</td><td>Frankie D.</td><td>42</td><td>9/7/2002</td><td>1039</td><td>Waller Pines DGC - B (2002 Santa Maria Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Scribner</td><td>Marshall</td><td>45</td><td>4/6/2002</td><td>1038</td><td>Northside Park Long (2002 Gator Cntry Cl. Pro R1)
</td></tr><tr><td>Kassner</td><td>Buddy</td><td>47</td><td>7/24/1999</td><td>1036</td><td>BH Memorial course - long 18
</td></tr><tr><td>Greenwell</td><td>Dave</td><td>49</td><td>8/11/2003</td><td>1034</td><td>Little America Hotel (2003 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>Bruce</td><td>Tim</td><td>52</td><td>5/11/2002</td><td>1034</td><td>Indian Hills Long (2002 MidAmerica Open)
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Senior Grand Masters Division:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Last</td><td>First</td><td>Score</td><td>Date</td><td>RoundRating</td><td>CourseTourney
</td></tr><tr><td>Jochen</td><td>Ron</td><td>50</td><td>8/4/2001</td><td>1031</td><td>Kaposia long (2001 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>Pitchford Sr</td><td>Tom</td><td>47</td><td>9/18/1999</td><td>1008</td><td>Whittier Narrows Park
</td></tr><tr><td>Maxham</td><td>Will Wetwile</td><td>49</td><td>8/1/2000</td><td>1006</td><td>Kensington Tunnel Long PAW2000
</td></tr><tr><td>Chen</td><td>Lien-Yu</td><td>50</td><td>8/1/2000</td><td>996</td><td>Kensington Tunnel Long PAW2000
</td></tr><tr><td>Shive</td><td>Peter</td><td>54</td><td>8/6/2002</td><td>971</td><td>Lakeside (2002 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>Robbins Sr</td><td>Jerry R.</td><td>54</td><td>8/6/2002</td><td>971</td><td>Lakeside (2002 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>Ballew</td><td>Al</td><td>51</td><td>8/10/1999</td><td>969</td><td>Gennesse Valley Park (1999 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>Blake</td><td>Donn</td><td>53</td><td>8/10/1999</td><td>968</td><td>Chili Park (1999 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>Bowerman</td><td>Harry</td><td>52</td><td>11/22/2003</td><td>967</td><td>Cliff Stephens Park #5 shorter pin #16 longer pin R4 (2003 Moccasin Lake Open - Pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>Bowerman</td><td>Harry</td><td>53</td><td>4/6/2002</td><td>966</td><td>Northside Park Long (2002 Gator Cntry Cl. Pro R2)
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Legends Division:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Last</td><td>First</td><td>Score</td><td>Date</td><td>RoundRating</td><td>CourseTourney
</td></tr><tr><td>Williamson</td><td>Ralph</td><td>72</td><td>8/1/2000</td><td>918</td><td>Hudson Mills Camp-Long PAW2000
</td></tr><tr><td>Shea</td><td>Patrick</td><td>60</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>897</td><td>El Dorado Long (2003 El Dorado Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Shea</td><td>Patrick</td><td>56</td><td>7/14/2001</td><td>895</td><td>Whittier Narrows (2001 Whittier Narrows Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Williams</td><td>Ted</td><td>75</td><td>8/1/2000</td><td>892</td><td>Hudson Mills Camp-Long PAW2000
</td></tr><tr><td>Williams</td><td>Ted</td><td>63</td><td>8/3/2003</td><td>884</td><td>Golden Hills Blue (2003 Blue Ridge Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Shea</td><td>Patrick</td><td>57</td><td>7/14/2001</td><td>883</td><td>Whittier Narrows (2001 Whittier Narrows Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Williamson</td><td>Ralph</td><td>61</td><td>8/3/1998</td><td>881</td><td>Rapid Run
</td></tr><tr><td>Roddick</td><td>Jack</td><td>65</td><td>7/11/2000</td><td>878</td><td>2000 World Masters Championships
</td></tr><tr><td>Williams</td><td>Ted</td><td>65</td><td>8/11/2003</td><td>877</td><td>Little America Hotel (2003 Pro Worlds) (Rd 5)
</td></tr><tr><td>Shea</td><td>Patrick</td><td>87</td><td>2/16/2002</td><td>877</td><td>Oak Grove 27 (2002 Wintertime Open Pros, Rnd 1)
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Players age 40+:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Last</td><td>First</td><td>Score</td><td>Date</td><td>RoundRating</td><td>CourseTourney
</td></tr><tr><td>Wisecup</td><td>Steve Cup</td><td>38</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>1085</td><td>El Dorado Mixed (2003 El Dorado Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Loya</td><td>Mike</td><td>41</td><td>3/17/2001</td><td>1084</td><td>Orangevale (2001 St. Patricks - Pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>Leonard</td><td>Larry</td><td>40</td><td>8/23/2003</td><td>1083</td><td>Johnson Road Park BLR4 (2003 Oak Hollow Open - Pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>Dropcho</td><td>J. Gary</td><td>39</td><td>6/26/1999</td><td>1077</td><td>Grand Woods East-18 1999 Inflight
</td></tr><tr><td>Oates</td><td>Jim</td><td>63</td><td>6/22/2002</td><td>1064</td><td>Bijou Long (2002 Tahoe Daily Trib. Pro)
</td></tr><tr><td>Leonard</td><td>Larry</td><td>43</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>1063</td><td>Cedar Hills Champ (2003 Dogwood Crosstown) (Rd 2)
</td></tr><tr><td>Wisecup</td><td>Steve Cup</td><td>40</td><td>10/12/2002</td><td>1063</td><td>Whittier Narrows A (2002 Whittier Narrows)
</td></tr><tr><td>Greenwell</td><td>Dave</td><td>44</td><td>4/21/2001</td><td>1062</td><td>Hobson Grove Short (2001 BG Open pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>Lissaman</td><td>Geoff</td><td>54</td><td>6/29/2002</td><td>1062</td><td>Condon Championship (2002 Skycatz)
</td></tr><tr><td>Dunipace</td><td>Dave</td><td>41</td><td>3/9/2002</td><td>1061</td><td>El Dorado Long-B (2002 El Dorado Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Evans</td><td>Bobby</td><td>37</td><td>6/15/2002</td><td>1061</td><td>Horizons Park (Horizons Park Classic 2002)
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Players age 50+:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Last</td><td>First</td><td>Score</td><td>Date</td><td>RoundRating</td><td>CourseTourney
</td></tr><tr><td>Dunipace</td><td>Dave</td><td>41</td><td>3/9/2002</td><td>1061</td><td>El Dorado Long-B (2002 El Dorado Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Voakes</td><td>Rick</td><td>41</td><td>10/28/2000</td><td>1060</td><td>2000 Nats Halloween Rnd1
</td></tr><tr><td>Voakes</td><td>Rick</td><td>62</td><td>3/4/2000</td><td>1053</td><td>Fountain Hills (2000 Bob West)
</td></tr><tr><td>Monroe</td><td>Tom</td><td>44</td><td>8/10/1999</td><td>1051</td><td>Ellison Park (1999 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>Voakes</td><td>Rick</td><td>44</td><td>4/21/2001</td><td>1050</td><td>Lovers Lane new layout (2001 B. Green Pro)
</td></tr><tr><td>Voakes</td><td>Rick</td><td>48</td><td>6/19/1999</td><td>1048</td><td>Mt Airy - 1999 Roadhouse
</td></tr><tr><td>Horn</td><td>Mark</td><td>43</td><td>7/14/2001</td><td>1047</td><td>Whittier Narrows (2001 Whittier Narrows Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Pierson</td><td>Snapper</td><td>51</td><td>8/24/2001</td><td>1046</td><td>US Masters 2001
</td></tr><tr><td>Voakes</td><td>Rick</td><td>43</td><td>5/26/2001</td><td>1044</td><td>Wickham Park (2001 Melbourne Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Voakes</td><td>Rick</td><td>43</td><td>5/26/2001</td><td>1044</td><td>Wickham Park (2001 Melbourne Open)
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Players age 60+:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Last</td><td>First</td><td>Score</td><td>Date</td><td>RoundRating</td><td>CourseTourney
</td></tr><tr><td>Jochen</td><td>Ron</td><td>50</td><td>8/4/2001</td><td>1031</td><td>Kaposia long (2001 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>Maxham</td><td>Will Wetwile</td><td>49</td><td>8/1/2000</td><td>1006</td><td>Kensington Tunnel Long PAW2000
</td></tr><tr><td>Chen</td><td>Lien-Yu</td><td>50</td><td>8/1/2000</td><td>996</td><td>Kensington Tunnel Long PAW2000
</td></tr><tr><td>Shive</td><td>Peter</td><td>52</td><td>5/31/2002</td><td>995</td><td>Rosedale (2002 KC Wide Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Shive</td><td>Peter</td><td>55</td><td>10/5/2002</td><td>984</td><td>Widefield Community Park (2002 Colorado St. .Pro)
</td></tr><tr><td>Shive</td><td>Peter</td><td>50</td><td>5/31/2002</td><td>982</td><td>Prairie Center (2002 KC Wide Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Shive</td><td>Peter</td><td>74</td><td>10/17/2002</td><td>978</td><td>Winthrop Gold (2002 USDGC)
</td></tr><tr><td>Shive</td><td>Peter</td><td>75</td><td>10/17/2002</td><td>974</td><td>Winthrop Gold (2002 USDGC)
</td></tr><tr><td>Shive</td><td>Peter</td><td>75</td><td>10/17/2002</td><td>974</td><td>Winthrop Gold (2002 USDGC)
</td></tr><tr><td>May</td><td>Pete</td><td>57</td><td>12/7/2002</td><td>973</td><td>Hampton Park (2002 Charleston Classic)
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Players age 70+:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Last</td><td>First</td><td>Score</td><td>Date</td><td>RoundRating</td><td>CourseTourney
</td></tr><tr><td>Williams</td><td>Ted</td><td>60</td><td>10/12/2002</td><td>947</td><td>Cypress Grove Champ Short (2002 Orlando Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Williams</td><td>Ted</td><td>62</td><td>10/12/2002</td><td>928</td><td>Cypress Grove Champ Short (2002 Orlando Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Williamson</td><td>Ralph</td><td>72</td><td>8/1/2000</td><td>918</td><td>Hudson Mills Camp-Long PAW2000
</td></tr><tr><td>Williams</td><td>Ted</td><td>64</td><td>10/12/2002</td><td>909</td><td>Cypress Grove Champ Short (2002 Orlando Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Williams</td><td>Ted</td><td>71</td><td>6/28/2003</td><td>909</td><td>Signal Knob Blue (2003 Shenandoah Shag)
</td></tr><tr><td>Williams</td><td>Ted</td><td>59</td><td>5/24/2003</td><td>898</td><td>Crooked Creek Park Championship (2003 Crooked Creek Classic)
</td></tr><tr><td>Shea</td><td>Patrick</td><td>60</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>897</td><td>El Dorado Long (2003 El Dorado Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Shea</td><td>Patrick</td><td>56</td><td>7/14/2001</td><td>895</td><td>Whittier Narrows (2001 Whittier Narrows Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Williams</td><td>Ted</td><td>75</td><td>8/1/2000</td><td>892</td><td>Hudson Mills Camp-Long PAW2000
</td></tr><tr><td>Williams</td><td>Ted</td><td>66</td><td>10/12/2002</td><td>890</td><td>Cypress Grove Champ Short (2002 Orlando Open)
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Thanks Rodney. Looks like I have found yet another thing to be in awe of Dave Dunipace over. a round of 1061 and he is over 50. Although I am 42, I can see the sky is the limit :)

Rodney, please remove the Ron Jochen "record" round. I checked and that was one of the two 9-hole rounds the Sr GMs played at 2001 Worlds.

Jeff,

I do embrace ratings - I only wish they were more real, and more inclusive, and used in a more all encompassing way.

I guess it's just me being selfish. I gave the one example of my rounds at last years USDGC - but there are other examples as well - that just make no sense. I have a 1066 rated round from a round of 43 at Zebulon (a couple years ago) - which was a good round - but at the time, the course was a birdie fest. Compare that to a course record at the Whippin Post last year of 58 - and that's only rated 1023?

Inquities like this that fail to reward good performances for high SSA courses just make the whole ratings system less credible for me personally. I know what a good performance is for me, I know when I've been tested, and when I have played at a high caliber. I'm gonna laugh when my -13 at the Calvert Open comes in rated higher than my course record at Paw Paw.

See Chuck has it stuck in his head that taking advantage of a greater percentage of birdie opportunities takes more skill than avoiding a greater percentage of bogie opportunities. Translation - the ratings formula that records a 10 point differential per stroke is built around courses with SSA of 50.4. When more difficult courses are played, the differential per stroke drops to 7.5 points per stroke. This concept puts a premium on putting, and denigrates distance, midrange, and course management abilites (you know - the things one would normally associate with golf skills).

So because I play (generally) higher SSA courses, my rating suffers in comparison to those that play lower SSA courses. You know what - I can accept that - it just makes me care a whole lot less about whatever my rating is reported as. As long as guys all over the country are getting 1040-1070 rated rounds for getting 8 or 9 out of 12 birdie opps, and I'm shooting a course record where there are only 2-3 birdie opps and getting 1020's - what is it I'm supposed to support?

Craig,

Thanks for (finally) replying to my post from February.

I agree with you 100% about the inequities in the ratings system. A "deuce-fest" score in the low 40s on a lower SSA course should NOT give a significantly higher rating than a round with a similar number of strokes less than SSA on a high SSA course.

But as far as I know, Chuck Kennedy is well aware of these inequities and is evaluating data and formulas to adjust for this phenomenon.

(Chuck is currently competing in Pro Worlds 2004, so it may take him some time to respond to these posts.)

"1 A Barry Schultz 6840 1039 41 1090" If this stands, it is the highest rated round since the PDGA started keeping ratings at worlds correct?

Barry beat the field by 3 at worlds � WOW

Well, Barry Schultz just got a 41 in his first round at the Worlds, which is temporarily rated a 1090 right now. That's gotta rank up there!

Someone at Worlds HQ has said they are having issues with "As compared to par" and "rating" columns in their scoring spreadsheet - so stay tuned - that 1090 may be short lived.

Someone at Worlds HQ has said they are having issues with "As compared to par" and "rating" columns in their scoring spreadsheet - so stay tuned - that 1090 may be short lived.



The 1090 looks legit to me.

That's a preliminary number of course, but I wouldn't expect the official number to be much off of that.

Looks like they have a "126" in the ratings right now which could change things...

Jeff,

I do embrace ratings - I only wish they were more real, and more inclusive, and used in a more all encompassing way.

I guess it's just me being selfish. I gave the one example of my rounds at last years USDGC - but there are other examples as well - that just make no sense. I have a 1066 rated round from a round of 43 at Zebulon (a couple years ago) - which was a good round - but at the time, the course was a birdie fest. Compare that to a course record at the Whippin Post last year of 58 - and that's only rated 1023?

Inquities like this that fail to reward good performances for high SSA courses just make the whole ratings system less credible for me personally. I know what a good performance is for me, I know when I've been tested, and when I have played at a high caliber. I'm gonna laugh when my -13 at the Calvert Open comes in rated higher than my course record at Paw Paw.

See Chuck has it stuck in his head that taking advantage of a greater percentage of birdie opportunities takes more skill than avoiding a greater percentage of bogie opportunities. Translation - the ratings formula that records a 10 point differential per stroke is built around courses with SSA of 50.4. When more difficult courses are played, the differential per stroke drops to 7.5 points per stroke. This concept puts a premium on putting, and denigrates distance, midrange, and course management abilites (you know - the things one would normally associate with golf skills).

So because I play (generally) higher SSA courses, my rating suffers in comparison to those that play lower SSA courses. You know what - I can accept that - it just makes me care a whole lot less about whatever my rating is reported as. As long as guys all over the country are getting 1040-1070 rated rounds for getting 8 or 9 out of 12 birdie opps, and I'm shooting a course record where there are only 2-3 birdie opps and getting 1020's - what is it I'm supposed to support?



craig is 100% correct here. (jeff, craig, and i agree- uh oh. please note however that i do not agree with them that our competitive system should be linear from recreational through open pro.) my opinion is that the inequities of the current system are such that the entire thing may need to be reworked rather than tweaked. changing the compression factor has not cured the problem. the idea that a 41 at calvert or loriella short is a better round than worm's 51 on loriella long or craig's course record at paw paw is not just a minor glitch- it is a gross inequity. i could walk my 950 rated self out to either calvert or loriella and shoot that score on any given day from the shorts (as a matter of fact i shot a 40 on the shorts at loriella earlier this year) , the only time i shoot 51 at loriella on the longs is in my wildest dreams. (my best is 56.) i have run ratings on every competitive round ever played at loriella and the "hot round" on the shorts on a given day uniformly rates out higher than the "hot round" on the longs. intuitively i know this to be flat out incorrect.

what we now face is that this is a systemic problem- craig's rating is off due to playing more difficult courses on the norm- off he goes to a tournament and becomes a propagator, propagating bad numbers which in turn creates a bad number for joe am playing in his first event, who in turn goes to another event where he is a propagator as well, creating more bad numbers along the way.

there is a long way to go before the rating system is good for more than [*****] and giggles imo.

I see the light! The inaccurate propagator domino effect is indeed a major problem.

It looks like we had a 1095 round yesterday :eek:

It looks like we had a 1095 round yesterday :eek:



From Competition Director Dave Nesbitt: (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=PDGA Tournament Info&Number=222465&Searchpage=0&Main=164036&Search=true&#Post222465)

- Forget about the Round Ratings. There is a glitch in the on-line system with dual pools, which we hope to correct in the next few days. Until then, be patient here.

craig is 100% correct here. (jeff, craig, and i agree- uh oh. please note however that i do not agree with them that our competitive system should be linear from recreational through open pro.) my opinion is that the inequities of the current system are such that the entire thing may need to be reworked rather than tweaked. changing the compression factor has not cured the problem. the idea that a 41 at calvert or loriella short is a better round than worm's 51 on loriella long or craig's course record at paw paw is not just a minor glitch- it is a gross inequity. i could walk my 950 rated self out to either calvert or loriella and shoot that score on any given day from the shorts (as a matter of fact i shot a 40 on the shorts at loriella earlier this year) , the only time i shoot 51 at loriella on the longs is in my wildest dreams. (my best is 56.) i have run ratings on every competitive round ever played at loriella and the "hot round" on the shorts on a given day uniformly rates out higher than the "hot round" on the longs. intuitively i know this to be flat out incorrect.

what we now face is that this is a systemic problem- craig's rating is off due to playing more difficult courses on the norm- off he goes to a tournament and becomes a propagator, propagating bad numbers which in turn creates a bad number for joe am playing in his first event, who in turn goes to another event where he is a propagator as well, creating more bad numbers along the way.

there is a long way to go before the rating system is good for more than [*****] and giggles imo.



Once again, I agree with you 100% about the inequities in the ratings system. A "deuce-fest" score in the low 40s on a lower SSA course should NOT give a significantly higher rating than a round with a similar number of strokes less than SSA on a high SSA course.

But again, as far as I know, Chuck Kennedy is well aware of these inequities and is evaluating data and formulas to adjust for this phenomenon. We still have all the scores from the last several years; at any point we can adjust how ratings are calculated and go back and reprocess the data and generate new, accurate ratings.

John, Jeff, Craig,

I'm very close to understanding you here. And as you say, intuitively, what you are saying makes some sense. But I'm not quite there. Help me out.

Say you have 2 players, and one player is, on average, 5 strokes better than the other player on an average course.

When these 2 players go to a course that requires a larger number of strokes, then how much will the better player win by (on average)? Will he still win by 5 strokes, or will you expect him to win by more? Or by less?

When these 2 players go to a course that requires a smaller number of strokes, then how much will the better player win by (on average)?

------

If your answer is that he'll win by more on the longer course and less on the shorter course, then you are describing compression exactly as it is implemented.

If your answer is that he'll win by 5 strokes no matter what, then please explain your answer.

------

I really do feel what you're feeling, but I'm trying to figure out if it's fully a problem with the system, or if a problem with the design of these courses is contributing.

------

For Zebulon, Paw Paw, and Loriella (short and long), what is the best possible realistic score on each course, not including aces or fairway aces? In other words, if a hole is more than about 425 (or something) after adjusting for elevation and obstacles, then the best possible score would be a minimum of 3.

If you could provide those best possible scores, it would help me understand what we're looking at.

Perfect at Zebulon is 39

Hello Rodney:
I hate to jump into the middle of a conversation between others, and maybe this has already been said, but I thought it worth noting that I think your post should read "harder" for "longer."

I certainly agree that the primary way that most courses are made harder is by making them longer, but I believe that course ratings are based on the average number of total strokes it takes to complete the course and that length is not considered when assigning course difficulty. (It may be implied in the fact that most courses that are longer will require more strokes.)

If I'm playing on a course where many holes are 200 feet long but extremely tight, it might be possible to get a "2" on all of them, but I don't believe that the factoring of pro par (or SSA) is be determined by whether it is possible, I believe it is based on how frequently it occurs.

For example, a skilled player might average 8 birdies per round on this hypothetical course even though all the holes are ones that have been birdied by him (or her), while a less skilled player might only average 3 birdies per round even though (he or she) has birdied them all at one time or another. The difference of five strokes does not come from the same holes every time, it comes from the difference in frequency with which one player or the other makes a lower than average score. On a tight hole, a good player might hit a tree 2 out of 10 times on a 200 foot hole, while a less skilled player might hit a tree 6 out of 10 times. If both those players go to a course where most of the holes are 260-300 feet but have very wide fairways, the less skilled player may not lose by as many strokes even though the course is longer.

A couple weeks ago I played a B-Tier tournament and the difference between my score and that of those players who were more skilled than I was actually less from the long tees than the short ones.

Another reason why it might not be possible to answer your question (how much should player "x" beat player "y" by if they switch courses), is because DG requires different skills and different courses might weigh them more or less heavily. If player "x" is an average driver but a great putter, and player "y" (lower rated) is an excellent driver but a terrible putter, player ''x" may actually beat player "y" by more strokes on a shorter course (because both players will have more birdie opportunies on the shorter course.)

Hope this answers your question about some differences between ratings and compression.

Ken

Hello Rodney:
I hate to jump into the middle of a conversation between others, and maybe this has already been said, but I thought it worth noting that I think your post should read "harder" for "longer."




Thanks Ken. That was lazy of me.

I threw in "longer" just because it was easier to write than "the course requiring more strokes".

In other words, I should have typed "requiring more strokes". I purposely did not choose "harder", as SSA is not an indicator of difficulty, since difficulty is subjective, and implies a comparison to some standard. This semantic distinction has been covered in other threads.

Rodney,

Basically, the phenomenon we're trying to describe is that excellent rounds and the ratings they produce on high SSA courses are lower than the ratings produced from excellent rounds on low SSA courses.

Most golfers have a pretty good feel for their game. They *know* if they've shot a great round, a good round, a poor round, or a record-breaking one. Many people have observed that these very good rounds on high-SSA courses do not produce as high as a rating as a very good round on a low SSA course. Even though a similar number of strokes under SSA and "birdies" shot are obtained in the former, the latter always produces higher ratings.

Craig points to his course record at Paw Paw. I can point to Brian Schweberger's score of 56 on the Blue-Blue layout (SSA 64.9, an almost 9,000 foot layout) at Warwick. The best any other golfer has ever shot on that layout before or after that round is a 60. Yet that round of 56 "only" produced a rating of 1049. At that same tournament, Brian Mcree shot a 43 on the Silver-Silver layout (SSA 46.4) which generated a rating of 1040. It seems ludicrous that a drive/putt round on a short layout which was only three strokes under SSA, can produce almost as equal a rating as 9 strokes under SSA on one of the toughest layouts in the world.

That these "deuce-fest" rounds produce the highest ratings seems so counterintuitive. Even though you are scoring a lot of birdies, it's still "less golf." When golfers throw excellent rounds on high SSA/long layouts, they are displaying more golf skills, not just drive/putt golf. Why don't THOSE rounds produce the highest ratings?

Rodney,
IMHO - the best possible score on both courses at Paw Paw is in the 51-52 range. I think the record is 55(?) on the Woodshed and Craig's 58 on the Whippin' Post.

Note: The Woodshed has had many, many more rounds played on it than the Whippin' Post.

I saw that a golfer named Jason McKinney (player rating of 976) shot a 45 in round 3 of the World's, besting Barry Schultz by 10!! strokes that round and garnering a rating of 1095. Congrats Jason!!

Joe,

I noticed that as well. That is one sick round!

I saw that a golfer named Jason McKinney (player rating of 976) shot a 45 in round 3 of the World's, besting Barry Schultz by 10!! strokes that round and garnering a rating of 1095. Congrats Jason!!



You might not be comparing apples to apples there, since Jason's third round may have taken place at a different course from Barry's third round. Don't know what pool Jason was in before the Great Shuffle...

Thacker and discraftpro must have missed Dave Nesbitt's post (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=PDGA%20Tournament%20Info&Number=222465&Searchpage=0&Main=164036&Search=true%EF%BF%BDPost222465) and my re-post of it just a bit earlier in this thread.

From Competition Director Dave Nesbitt:

- Forget about the Round Ratings. There is a glitch in the on-line system with dual pools, which we hope to correct in the next few days. Until then, be patient here.

Yeah, I caught that after I had replied. There are some technical issues I am sure, but once the system is finished being tweaked I think the idea will take off.

Shane

Basically, the phenomenon we're trying to describe is that excellent rounds and the ratings they produce on high SSA courses are lower than the ratings produced from excellent rounds on low SSA courses.




Jeff, I understand all that in your last post.

I'm trying to figure out if this phenomenon is more than just a perceived one.

If it's real, I want to find a way to change it in the system.

If it's not real, I want to find a way to explain it -- to you and to me.

That's why I was asking for the Perfect Round scores on these courses. The more data I have about them, the more theories I can go over.

So I'm looking at Craig's 43 on a course where SSA is 49 and Perfect is 39. And I'm looking at his 58 on a course where SSA is 61 and Perfect is 51. And I'm seeing that Perfect at Zebulon would be 1107, and Pefect at Paw Paw would be 1076. And I'm asking myself if that makes any sense? And I'm asking myself what about the course designs could make it that way? And I'm asking myself if this is unique to these courses, or would it apply everywhere?

But while I'm doing some more thinking on this, I'd still like to know your answer to this: If I routinely beat you by 5 strokes from the short tees at our regular course, then how many strokes handicap do you want from the long tees at the same course (especially if the long tess are a couple thousand feet longer with similar obstacles as the short tees)? Would 5 still be fair? Or would you need more? Or less? (Obviously, I'm not asking about you specifically, I'm talking about in general.)

Oh by the way, the 56 by Schweb at Warwick would be a 1061 (not 1049) now that the compression formula has been tweaked. I know this doesn't fully resolve that issue for you, but it should help a little.

Jeff, John, Craig, etc, here's another thing.

In a world without compression, everything would be 10 points per stroke, regardless of which course it was.

So at Paw Paw where SSA is 61, the 58 would be a 1030.
At Zebulon where SSA is 49, the 43 would be a 1060.

At Warwick long, where SSA is 65, the 56 would be a 1090.
At Warwick short, where SSA is 46.5, the 43 would be a 1035.

At Loriella long, where SSA is 57, the 51 would be a 1060.
At Loriella short, where SSA is 47, the 41 would be a 1060.

Now you see another problem. Craig claims that the 58 is significantly better than the 43. But even without compression, the 43 is still 30 points better. So it would take *significant* reverse-compression to make his perception a reality.

For Jeff's example and Warwick, getting rid of compression seems to help. The 1090 would certainly be all-world, as Jeff describes it.

At Loriella, John claims that the 41 is relatively easy, and even his 950 rated self could do it. But without compression it's still a 1060. But the 51, which John's 950 self can't even touch, would still be a 1060. So again, I think it would take some significant reverse compression to match this perception.

Now take all this and go back to my question about number of strokes difference between players on shorter and longer courses of similar type. How can this ever all work out? Seems pretty discouraging.

Guys, I understand perception, and intuition, and knowing your game. But would *everyone* have these same perceptions? Would everyone agree that a 58 at the Whippin' Post is better than a 43 at Zebulon? As I pointed out to Craig, 5 people were within 3 strokes of the 58 in the same round. But at Zebulon, *nobody* was within 4 strokes of the 43. How do we reconcile that? Would everyone agree that a 41 on Loriella short is really that much easier than a 51 at Loriella long? I'm just asking. I've obviously never played there. And again, is there something about the design and/or nature of Loriella that makes this true there, but wouldn't be true at a different course?

I don't know, but I think that you could be onto something; with the "Flawless Play Score" idea.

If a course has an SSA of say 48 and it is physically possible to shoot a 42 (meaning that it is reasonable for a 1000+ golfer to, if playing flawlessly (minus aces) to shoot a 42), then there may be a factor between those 2 numbers that could be used to determine the exact worth of each stroke (beyond what we already use in PDGA Player Ratings). Same for a course with an SSA of 65 where FPS is say 56.

Furthermore, this factor (the difference between the average of 1000 players and the projected flawless play of a 1000+ player) could be used to help designers create courses with something like an "Actual" or "Adjusted" SSA or WCP, where to courses might have the same SSAs but the "Adjusted WCP" is quite different; as are the worth of each stroke deviating from this "Adjusted WCP". Thereby allowing super rounds on high Adjusted WCP courses to be awarded appropriate recognition via PDGA Player Ratings.

Am I getting it right Rodney? It is an intreging idea. How to determine the "Flawless Play Score" so that it can be uniformly applied would seem to be the challenge. Course Designers might be a good resource in determining this FPS.

Very interesting indeed!

Just for fun, I took the top 2500 rounds from 2003-2004, and re-calculated the Round Ratings without any compression. Below are two things:
- The new top 100 rounds, showing their old rank and rating.
- The old top 100 rounds, showing what their new rank and rating would be.

When I say "old" and "new", "old" means the current system, "new" means a system with no compression.

Does any of this data make any more sense? Any of these rounds seem to make more intuitive sense under the "new" system?

Sorted by best rounds with no compression:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Rank</td><td>RealRank</td><td>Last</td><td>First</td><td>Score</td><td>Name</td><td>Date</td><td>NewRating</td><td>RealRating</td><td>SSA18
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>19</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>58</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R3 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1136</td><td>1071</td><td>71.6
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>100</td><td>Smith</td><td>George</td><td>61</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R3 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1106</td><td>1056</td><td>71.6
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>61</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>58</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R1 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1101</td><td>1061</td><td>68.1
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>53</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>57</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R2 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1100</td><td>1062</td><td>67.0
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>195</td><td>Leyva</td><td>Craig</td><td>62</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R3 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1096</td><td>1050</td><td>71.6
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>49</td><td>Pro Temp (21 Holes) (2003 Tower Ridge Open) (Rd 2)</td><td>4/26/2003</td><td>1095</td><td>1092</td><td>51.5
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>100</td><td>Lundmark</td><td>Jesper</td><td>59</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R4 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1094</td><td>1056</td><td>68.4
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>46</td><td>Brinster</td><td>Steve</td><td>55</td><td>Patapsco Valley State Park Blue-C R1 (2003 Patapsco Picnic)</td><td>9/6/2003</td><td>1091</td><td>1063</td><td>64.1
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>117</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>59</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R1 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1091</td><td>1055</td><td>68.1
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>117</td><td>Vesala</td><td>Tommi</td><td>59</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R1 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1091</td><td>1055</td><td>68.1
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>100</td><td>Tannock</td><td>Dean</td><td>58</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R2 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1090</td><td>1056</td><td>67.0
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>100</td><td>Branch</td><td>Todd</td><td>58</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R2 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1090</td><td>1056</td><td>67.0
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>2</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>51</td><td>Fountain Hills (2003 Memorial NT , Rnd 1)</td><td>3/7/2003</td><td>1086</td><td>1086</td><td>50.4
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>4</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>43</td><td>Fountain Hills (2003 Memorial NT, Rnd 3)</td><td>3/7/2003</td><td>1086</td><td>1083</td><td>51.6
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>195</td><td>Feldberg</td><td>David</td><td>60</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R4 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1084</td><td>1050</td><td>68.4
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>195</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>60</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R4 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1084</td><td>1050</td><td>68.4
</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>195</td><td>Randolph</td><td>Mike</td><td>60</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R4 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1084</td><td>1050</td><td>68.4
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>6</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>48</td><td>Lake Holmstead Park - NT Layout (2003 DG Hall of Fame Classic) (Rd 3)</td><td>5/30/2003</td><td>1082</td><td>1079</td><td>51.4
</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>218</td><td>Leyva</td><td>Craig</td><td>60</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R1 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1081</td><td>1048</td><td>68.1
</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>218</td><td>Randolph</td><td>Mike</td><td>60</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R1 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1081</td><td>1048</td><td>68.1
</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>117</td><td>Anthon</td><td>Josh</td><td>56</td><td>Knob Hill Blue Tees to C Pins (2003 Pittsburgh Flying Disc Open)</td><td>6/14/2003</td><td>1080</td><td>1055</td><td>64.0
</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>195</td><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>59</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R2 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1080</td><td>1050</td><td>67.0
</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>19</td><td>Haney</td><td>Walter</td><td>46</td><td>Zebulon Park Champ (2003 Dogwood Crosstown) (Rd 4)</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>1077</td><td>1071</td><td>53.7
</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>13</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>45</td><td>Little America Hotel (2003 Pro Worlds)</td><td>8/11/2003</td><td>1077</td><td>1072</td><td>52.7
</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>429</td><td>Martin</td><td>Scott</td><td>64</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R3 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1076</td><td>1040</td><td>71.6
</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>429</td><td>Haney</td><td>Walter</td><td>64</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R3 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1076</td><td>1040</td><td>71.6
</td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>429</td><td>Grider</td><td>Nolan</td><td>64</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R3 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1076</td><td>1040</td><td>71.6
</td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>429</td><td>Tannock</td><td>Dean</td><td>64</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R3 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1076</td><td>1040</td><td>71.6
</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>261</td><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>60</td><td>Renaissance Park Gold R2 (2003 Disc Landing Fall Finale)</td><td>10/25/2003</td><td>1076</td><td>1046</td><td>67.6
</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>46</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>50</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park Championship R3 (2004 The Memorial)</td><td>2/27/2004</td><td>1076</td><td>1063</td><td>57.6
</td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>46</td><td>Ashby</td><td>Sonny</td><td>50</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park Championship R3 (2004 The Memorial)</td><td>2/27/2004</td><td>1076</td><td>1063</td><td>57.6
</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>11</td><td>Kallstrom</td><td>Markus</td><td>44</td><td>Discgolf Terminalen 2003 Skelleftea Open Final (2004 03 Skellefte� Open)</td><td>7/19/2003</td><td>1075</td><td>1073</td><td>51.5
</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>30</td><td>McCray Jr</td><td>John E.</td><td>72</td><td>Gran Canyon DGC Longs R1 (2004 Cross Canyon Challenge - Pros)</td><td>2/14/2004</td><td>1075</td><td>1066</td><td>55.5
</td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td>315</td><td>Arthur</td><td>Phil</td><td>61</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R4 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1074</td><td>1044</td><td>68.4
</td></tr><tr><td>35</td><td>90</td><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>53</td><td>Seneca Creek Red Tees to C (2003 Seneca Creek)</td><td>4/26/2003</td><td>1073</td><td>1057</td><td>60.3
</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>22</td><td>Feldberg</td><td>David</td><td>45</td><td>Snowbowl (2003 Pro Worlds) (Rd 6)</td><td>8/11/2003</td><td>1073</td><td>1069</td><td>52.3
</td></tr><tr><td>37</td><td>22</td><td>Randolph</td><td>Mike</td><td>45</td><td>Snowbowl (2003 Pro Worlds) (Rd 6)</td><td>8/11/2003</td><td>1073</td><td>1069</td><td>52.3
</td></tr><tr><td>38</td><td>7</td><td>Brinster</td><td>Steve</td><td>42</td><td>Peak One Frisco Basic (2003 High Country Challenge) (Rd 5)</td><td>8/1/2003</td><td>1072</td><td>1076</td><td>49.2
</td></tr><tr><td>39</td><td>13</td><td>Jenkins</td><td>Avery</td><td>43</td><td>LL Woods - Long Tees (2003 Lewisville Open) (Rd 2)</td><td>2/1/2003</td><td>1072</td><td>1072</td><td>50.2
</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>42</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>48</td><td>Renaissance Park Orig (2003 Disc Landing Fall Finale)</td><td>10/25/2003</td><td>1072</td><td>1064</td><td>55.2
</td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td>42</td><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>48</td><td>Renaissance Park Orig (2003 Disc Landing Fall Finale)</td><td>10/25/2003</td><td>1072</td><td>1064</td><td>55.2
</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>7</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>42</td><td>Water Tower Park Long-Long (2003 Sarasota Sky Pilots Open - Pros) (Rd 3)</td><td>5/24/2003</td><td>1072</td><td>1076</td><td>49.2
</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>4</td><td>Leonard</td><td>Larry</td><td>40</td><td>Johnson Road Park BLR4 (2003 Oak Hollow Open - Pros)</td><td>8/23/2003</td><td>1072</td><td>1083</td><td>47.2
</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>90</td><td>Doss</td><td>Nate</td><td>52</td><td>Swope Gold (Rnd 3 KCWO)</td><td>7/18/2003</td><td>1072</td><td>1057</td><td>59.2
</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>27</td><td>Sward</td><td>Anders</td><td>45</td><td>Westervik 2003 Westervik Open R1 (2004 03 Westervik Open)</td><td>6/28/2003</td><td>1071</td><td>1068</td><td>52.1
</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>13</td><td>Williams</td><td>Greg</td><td>43</td><td>Zebulon Regular Teepads (Rd 2 2003 Cha-Ching)</td><td>6/5/2003</td><td>1071</td><td>1072</td><td>50.1
</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>10</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>63</td><td>Oak Grove Park 18+9t Med (2003 Wintertime Pros)</td><td>2/15/2003</td><td>1071</td><td>1075</td><td>49.1
</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>33</td><td>Dorius</td><td>Micah</td><td>70</td><td>Long Course (2003 Masters Cup) (Rd 2)</td><td>5/2/2003</td><td>1071</td><td>1065</td><td>53.8
</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>359</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>61</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R1 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1071</td><td>1042</td><td>68.1
</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>359</td><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>61</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R1 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1071</td><td>1042</td><td>68.1
</td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td>359</td><td>Moser</td><td>Mike</td><td>61</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R1 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1071</td><td>1042</td><td>68.1
</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>218</td><td>Moser</td><td>Mike</td><td>57</td><td>Knob Hill Blue Tees to C Pins (2003 Pittsburgh Flying Disc Open)</td><td>6/14/2003</td><td>1070</td><td>1048</td><td>64.0
</td></tr><tr><td>53</td><td>315</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>60</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R2 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1070</td><td>1044</td><td>67.0
</td></tr><tr><td>54</td><td>315</td><td>Brinster</td><td>Steve</td><td>60</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R2 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1070</td><td>1044</td><td>67.0
</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>315</td><td>Kallstrom</td><td>Markus</td><td>60</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R2 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1070</td><td>1044</td><td>67.0
</td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td>46</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>63</td><td>Long Tees (Rd 3)</td><td>8/23/2003</td><td>1070</td><td>1063</td><td>54.2
</td></tr><tr><td>57</td><td>471</td><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>63</td><td>Renaissance Park Gold R1 (2003 Disc Landing Fall Finale)</td><td>10/25/2003</td><td>1069</td><td>1039</td><td>69.9
</td></tr><tr><td>58</td><td>11</td><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>42</td><td>Hobson (2003 BellSouth Open)</td><td>5/17/2003</td><td>1068</td><td>1073</td><td>48.8
</td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td>7</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>41</td><td>Lovers Lane (2003 BellSouth Open) (Rd 4)</td><td>5/17/2003</td><td>1068</td><td>1076</td><td>47.8
</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>161</td><td>Musick</td><td>Bobby</td><td>54</td><td>La Mirada - Long 18 Holes (2003 GSC) (Rd 2)</td><td>2/21/2003</td><td>1068</td><td>1052</td><td>60.8
</td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>22</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>43</td><td>Northside Park Long R3 (2004 Gator Country Classic 10 - Pros)</td><td>4/3/2004</td><td>1067</td><td>1069</td><td>49.7
</td></tr><tr><td>62</td><td>13</td><td>McRee</td><td>Brian</td><td>42</td><td>Cedar Hills Champ (2003 Dogwood Crosstown)</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>1067</td><td>1072</td><td>48.7
</td></tr><tr><td>63</td><td>175</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>54</td><td>La Mirada - Long 18 Holes (2003 GSC) (Rd 3)</td><td>2/21/2003</td><td>1067</td><td>1051</td><td>60.7
</td></tr><tr><td>64</td><td>175</td><td>Donaldson</td><td>Chauncey</td><td>54</td><td>La Mirada - Long 18 Holes (2003 GSC) (Rd 3)</td><td>2/21/2003</td><td>1067</td><td>1051</td><td>60.7
</td></tr><tr><td>65</td><td>46</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>46</td><td>Little America Hotel (2003 Pro Worlds)</td><td>8/11/2003</td><td>1067</td><td>1063</td><td>52.7
</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>3</td><td>Wisecup</td><td>Steve Cup</td><td>38</td><td>El Dorado Mixed (2003 El Dorado Open)</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>1066</td><td>1085</td><td>44.6
</td></tr><tr><td>67</td><td>90</td><td>Gill</td><td>Timmy</td><td>66</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park Championship R1 (2004 The Memorial)</td><td>2/27/2004</td><td>1066</td><td>1057</td><td>56.1
</td></tr><tr><td>68</td><td>90</td><td>Sinclair</td><td>Shawn</td><td>66</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park Championship R1 (2004 The Memorial)</td><td>2/27/2004</td><td>1066</td><td>1057</td><td>56.1
</td></tr><tr><td>69</td><td>90</td><td>Child</td><td>John</td><td>66</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park Championship R1 (2004 The Memorial)</td><td>2/27/2004</td><td>1066</td><td>1057</td><td>56.1
</td></tr><tr><td>70</td><td>13</td><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>42</td><td>Bradley Park Championship (2003 Greater Peoria Open)</td><td>6/7/2003</td><td>1066</td><td>1072</td><td>48.6
</td></tr><tr><td>71</td><td>674</td><td>Bledsoe Jr</td><td>Larry</td><td>65</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R3 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1066</td><td>1034</td><td>71.6
</td></tr><tr><td>72</td><td>674</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>65</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R3 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1066</td><td>1034</td><td>71.6
</td></tr><tr><td>73</td><td>674</td><td>Young</td><td>Mike</td><td>65</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R3 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1066</td><td>1034</td><td>71.6
</td></tr><tr><td>74</td><td>674</td><td>Gregory</td><td>John</td><td>65</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R3 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1066</td><td>1034</td><td>71.6
</td></tr><tr><td>75</td><td>674</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>65</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R3 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1066</td><td>1034</td><td>71.6
</td></tr><tr><td>76</td><td>674</td><td>Moser</td><td>Mike</td><td>65</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R3 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1066</td><td>1034</td><td>71.6
</td></tr><tr><td>77</td><td>674</td><td>Pursio</td><td>Timo</td><td>65</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R3 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1066</td><td>1034</td><td>71.6
</td></tr><tr><td>78</td><td>33</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>44</td><td>Kereiakes Park Long Tees R3 (2004 Bell South Open - Pros)</td><td>4/24/2004</td><td>1066</td><td>1065</td><td>50.6
</td></tr><tr><td>79</td><td>117</td><td>Feldberg</td><td>David</td><td>51</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park Championship R3 (2004 The Memorial)</td><td>2/27/2004</td><td>1066</td><td>1055</td><td>57.6
</td></tr><tr><td>80</td><td>61</td><td>Feldberg</td><td>David</td><td>62</td><td>Majestic NT/ST 24</td><td>7/12/2003</td><td>1066</td><td>1061</td><td>53.1
</td></tr><tr><td>81</td><td>46</td><td>Rico</td><td>Bamba</td><td>45</td><td>Fountain Hills (2003 Memorial NT, Rnd 3)</td><td>3/7/2003</td><td>1066</td><td>1063</td><td>51.6
</td></tr><tr><td>82</td><td>33</td><td>Tran</td><td>Tony</td><td>44</td><td>Condon Park Long B (2003 Sky Catz Open - Pro)</td><td>6/28/2003</td><td>1065</td><td>1065</td><td>50.5
</td></tr><tr><td>83</td><td>76</td><td>Jernigan</td><td>Justin</td><td>48</td><td>Buckhorn at Harris Lake County Blue Tees R1 (2004 Buckhorn Open (3rd))</td><td>2/14/2004</td><td>1065</td><td>1059</td><td>54.5
</td></tr><tr><td>84</td><td>28</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>43</td><td>Hoover West Temp Tourney (2003 Brent Hambrick Memorial Open - Pros)</td><td>6/28/2003</td><td>1065</td><td>1067</td><td>49.5
</td></tr><tr><td>85</td><td>61</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>62</td><td>Wickham Park 04 Melbourne NT R1 (2004 Melbourne Open)</td><td>3/26/2004</td><td>1065</td><td>1061</td><td>53.0
</td></tr><tr><td>86</td><td>61</td><td>Kallstrom</td><td>Markus</td><td>46</td><td>Little America Hotel (2003 Pro Worlds) (Rd 4)</td><td>8/11/2003</td><td>1064</td><td>1061</td><td>52.4
</td></tr><tr><td>87</td><td>61</td><td>Donahue</td><td>Brian</td><td>46</td><td>Little America Hotel (2003 Pro Worlds) (Rd 4)</td><td>8/11/2003</td><td>1064</td><td>1061</td><td>52.4
</td></tr><tr><td>88</td><td>506</td><td>Martin</td><td>Scott</td><td>62</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R4 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1064</td><td>1038</td><td>68.4
</td></tr><tr><td>89</td><td>506</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>62</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R4 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1064</td><td>1038</td><td>68.4
</td></tr><tr><td>90</td><td>506</td><td>Heeren</td><td>Chris</td><td>62</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R4 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1064</td><td>1038</td><td>68.4
</td></tr><tr><td>91</td><td>506</td><td>Wisecup</td><td>Steve Cup</td><td>62</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R4 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1064</td><td>1038</td><td>68.4
</td></tr><tr><td>92</td><td>506</td><td>Pursio</td><td>Timo</td><td>62</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R4 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1064</td><td>1038</td><td>68.4
</td></tr><tr><td>93</td><td>53</td><td>Musick</td><td>Bobby</td><td>45</td><td>Fountain Hills Park Pro Layout R4 (2004 Fountain Hills Thrills)</td><td>12/13/2003</td><td>1064</td><td>1062</td><td>51.4
</td></tr><tr><td>94</td><td>22</td><td>Hofmann</td><td>Michael</td><td>42</td><td>Wellspring, Cedarock Park Pro Layout R2 (2003 Sneeky Pete Classic)</td><td>9/27/2003</td><td>1063</td><td>1069</td><td>48.3
</td></tr><tr><td>95</td><td>33</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>65</td><td>Oak Grove (Hahamongna Park) Medium more OB R2 (2004 Wintertime Open (26th))</td><td>2/14/2004</td><td>1063</td><td>1065</td><td>49.7
</td></tr><tr><td>96</td><td>90</td><td>Haney</td><td>Walter</td><td>48</td><td>Zebulon Park Champ (2003 Dogwood Crosstown)</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>1063</td><td>1057</td><td>54.3
</td></tr><tr><td>97</td><td>68</td><td>Jarvis</td><td>Ken</td><td>46</td><td>Northern Arizona University (2003 Pro Worlds) (Rd 2)</td><td>8/11/2003</td><td>1063</td><td>1060</td><td>52.3
</td></tr><tr><td>98</td><td>30</td><td>Schweberger</td><td>Brian</td><td>43</td><td>Northside Park Tourn Temp Long (2003 Gator Countr) (Rd 2)</td><td>4/12/2003</td><td>1063</td><td>1066</td><td>49.3
</td></tr><tr><td>99</td><td>68</td><td>Jenkins</td><td>Avery</td><td>46</td><td>Championship Layout (Rd 2)</td><td>7/4/2003</td><td>1063</td><td>1060</td><td>52.3
</td></tr><tr><td>100</td><td>30</td><td>Musick</td><td>Bobby</td><td>43</td><td>La Mirada Regional Park Backside Course R3 (2003 SoCal Championships - Pros)</td><td>10/4/2003</td><td>1062</td><td>1066</td><td>49.2
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>



Sorted by best rounds under the current system:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Rank</td><td>RealRank</td><td>Last</td><td>First</td><td>Score</td><td>Name</td><td>Date</td><td>NewRating</td><td>RealRating</td><td>SSA18
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>49</td><td>Pro Temp (21 Holes) (2003 Tower Ridge Open) (Rd 2)</td><td>4/26/2003</td><td>1095</td><td>1092</td><td>51.5
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>2</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>51</td><td>Fountain Hills (2003 Memorial NT , Rnd 1)</td><td>3/7/2003</td><td>1086</td><td>1086</td><td>50.4
</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>3</td><td>Wisecup</td><td>Steve Cup</td><td>38</td><td>El Dorado Mixed (2003 El Dorado Open)</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>1066</td><td>1085</td><td>44.6
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>4</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>43</td><td>Fountain Hills (2003 Memorial NT, Rnd 3)</td><td>3/7/2003</td><td>1086</td><td>1083</td><td>51.6
</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>4</td><td>Leonard</td><td>Larry</td><td>40</td><td>Johnson Road Park BLR4 (2003 Oak Hollow Open - Pros)</td><td>8/23/2003</td><td>1072</td><td>1083</td><td>47.2
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>6</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>48</td><td>Lake Holmstead Park - NT Layout (2003 DG Hall of Fame Classic) (Rd 3)</td><td>5/30/2003</td><td>1082</td><td>1079</td><td>51.4
</td></tr><tr><td>38</td><td>7</td><td>Brinster</td><td>Steve</td><td>42</td><td>Peak One Frisco Basic (2003 High Country Challenge) (Rd 5)</td><td>8/1/2003</td><td>1072</td><td>1076</td><td>49.2
</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>7</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>42</td><td>Water Tower Park Long-Long (2003 Sarasota Sky Pilots Open - Pros) (Rd 3)</td><td>5/24/2003</td><td>1072</td><td>1076</td><td>49.2
</td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td>7</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>41</td><td>Lovers Lane (2003 BellSouth Open) (Rd 4)</td><td>5/17/2003</td><td>1068</td><td>1076</td><td>47.8
</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>10</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>63</td><td>Oak Grove Park 18+9t Med (2003 Wintertime Pros)</td><td>2/15/2003</td><td>1071</td><td>1075</td><td>49.1
</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>11</td><td>Kallstrom</td><td>Markus</td><td>44</td><td>Discgolf Terminalen 2003 Skelleftea Open Final (2004 03 Skellefte� Open)</td><td>7/19/2003</td><td>1075</td><td>1073</td><td>51.5
</td></tr><tr><td>58</td><td>11</td><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>42</td><td>Hobson (2003 BellSouth Open)</td><td>5/17/2003</td><td>1068</td><td>1073</td><td>48.8
</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>13</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>45</td><td>Little America Hotel (2003 Pro Worlds)</td><td>8/11/2003</td><td>1077</td><td>1072</td><td>52.7
</td></tr><tr><td>39</td><td>13</td><td>Jenkins</td><td>Avery</td><td>43</td><td>LL Woods - Long Tees (2003 Lewisville Open) (Rd 2)</td><td>2/1/2003</td><td>1072</td><td>1072</td><td>50.2
</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>13</td><td>Williams</td><td>Greg</td><td>43</td><td>Zebulon Regular Teepads (Rd 2 2003 Cha-Ching)</td><td>6/5/2003</td><td>1071</td><td>1072</td><td>50.1
</td></tr><tr><td>62</td><td>13</td><td>McRee</td><td>Brian</td><td>42</td><td>Cedar Hills Champ (2003 Dogwood Crosstown)</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>1067</td><td>1072</td><td>48.7
</td></tr><tr><td>70</td><td>13</td><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>42</td><td>Bradley Park Championship (2003 Greater Peoria Open)</td><td>6/7/2003</td><td>1066</td><td>1072</td><td>48.6
</td></tr><tr><td>156</td><td>13</td><td>Anthon</td><td>Josh</td><td>39</td><td>El Dorado Mixed (2003 El Dorado Open)</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>1056</td><td>1072</td><td>44.6
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>19</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>58</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R3 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1136</td><td>1071</td><td>71.6
</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>19</td><td>Haney</td><td>Walter</td><td>46</td><td>Zebulon Park Champ (2003 Dogwood Crosstown) (Rd 4)</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>1077</td><td>1071</td><td>53.7
</td></tr><tr><td>114</td><td>21</td><td>Peters</td><td>Marty</td><td>41</td><td>St. Julien Long (2003 Canadian Champs) (Rd 2)</td><td>8/2/2003</td><td>1060</td><td>1070</td><td>47.0
</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>22</td><td>Feldberg</td><td>David</td><td>45</td><td>Snowbowl (2003 Pro Worlds) (Rd 6)</td><td>8/11/2003</td><td>1073</td><td>1069</td><td>52.3
</td></tr><tr><td>37</td><td>22</td><td>Randolph</td><td>Mike</td><td>45</td><td>Snowbowl (2003 Pro Worlds) (Rd 6)</td><td>8/11/2003</td><td>1073</td><td>1069</td><td>52.3
</td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>22</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>43</td><td>Northside Park Long R3 (2004 Gator Country Classic 10 - Pros)</td><td>4/3/2004</td><td>1067</td><td>1069</td><td>49.7
</td></tr><tr><td>94</td><td>22</td><td>Hofmann</td><td>Michael</td><td>42</td><td>Wellspring, Cedarock Park Pro Layout R2 (2003 Sneeky Pete Classic)</td><td>9/27/2003</td><td>1063</td><td>1069</td><td>48.3
</td></tr><tr><td>158</td><td>22</td><td>Steffen</td><td>Jason</td><td>40</td><td>GP - Long Pads to Short Pins(2003 Des Moines Disc Golf Challenge)</td><td>5/24/2003</td><td>1056</td><td>1069</td><td>45.6
</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>27</td><td>Sward</td><td>Anders</td><td>45</td><td>Westervik 2003 Westervik Open R1 (2004 03 Westervik Open)</td><td>6/28/2003</td><td>1071</td><td>1068</td><td>52.1
</td></tr><tr><td>84</td><td>28</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>43</td><td>Hoover West Temp Tourney (2003 Brent Hambrick Memorial Open - Pros)</td><td>6/28/2003</td><td>1065</td><td>1067</td><td>49.5
</td></tr><tr><td>115</td><td>28</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>56</td><td>Sandy Point Disc Golf Ranch Long 24 R3 (2003 Northwoods Open - Pros)</td><td>8/30/2003</td><td>1060</td><td>1067</td><td>48.0
</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>30</td><td>McCray Jr</td><td>John E.</td><td>72</td><td>Gran Canyon DGC Longs R1 (2004 Cross Canyon Challenge - Pros)</td><td>2/14/2004</td><td>1075</td><td>1066</td><td>55.5
</td></tr><tr><td>98</td><td>30</td><td>Schweberger</td><td>Brian</td><td>43</td><td>Northside Park Tourn Temp Long (2003 Gator Countr) (Rd 2)</td><td>4/12/2003</td><td>1063</td><td>1066</td><td>49.3
</td></tr><tr><td>100</td><td>30</td><td>Musick</td><td>Bobby</td><td>43</td><td>La Mirada Regional Park Backside Course R3 (2003 SoCal Championships - Pros)</td><td>10/4/2003</td><td>1062</td><td>1066</td><td>49.2
</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>33</td><td>Dorius</td><td>Micah</td><td>70</td><td>Long Course (2003 Masters Cup) (Rd 2)</td><td>5/2/2003</td><td>1071</td><td>1065</td><td>53.8
</td></tr><tr><td>78</td><td>33</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>44</td><td>Kereiakes Park Long Tees R3 (2004 Bell South Open - Pros)</td><td>4/24/2004</td><td>1066</td><td>1065</td><td>50.6
</td></tr><tr><td>82</td><td>33</td><td>Tran</td><td>Tony</td><td>44</td><td>Condon Park Long B (2003 Sky Catz Open - Pro)</td><td>6/28/2003</td><td>1065</td><td>1065</td><td>50.5
</td></tr><tr><td>95</td><td>33</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>65</td><td>Oak Grove (Hahamongna Park) Medium more OB R2 (2004 Wintertime Open (26th))</td><td>2/14/2004</td><td>1063</td><td>1065</td><td>49.7
</td></tr><tr><td>132</td><td>33</td><td>McRee</td><td>Brian</td><td>42</td><td>East Course (2003 Standing Rocks Open) (Rd 2)</td><td>5/10/2003</td><td>1058</td><td>1065</td><td>47.8
</td></tr><tr><td>140</td><td>33</td><td>Brinster</td><td>Steve</td><td>42</td><td>Lovers Lane (2003 BellSouth Open) (Rd 4)</td><td>5/17/2003</td><td>1058</td><td>1065</td><td>47.8
</td></tr><tr><td>222</td><td>33</td><td>Anthon</td><td>Josh</td><td>40</td><td>Knob Hill White Tees to A Pins (2003 Pittsburgh Flying Disc Open)</td><td>6/14/2003</td><td>1052</td><td>1065</td><td>45.2
</td></tr><tr><td>223</td><td>33</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>40</td><td>Knob Hill White Tees to A Pins (2003 Pittsburgh Flying Disc Open)</td><td>6/14/2003</td><td>1052</td><td>1065</td><td>45.2
</td></tr><tr><td>258</td><td>33</td><td>Anthon</td><td>Josh</td><td>39</td><td>Front Course (2003 Browns-n-Bows) (Rd 2)</td><td>4/29/2003</td><td>1050</td><td>1065</td><td>44.0
</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>42</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>48</td><td>Renaissance Park Orig (2003 Disc Landing Fall Finale)</td><td>10/25/2003</td><td>1072</td><td>1064</td><td>55.2
</td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td>42</td><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>48</td><td>Renaissance Park Orig (2003 Disc Landing Fall Finale)</td><td>10/25/2003</td><td>1072</td><td>1064</td><td>55.2
</td></tr><tr><td>116</td><td>42</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>43</td><td>Water Tower Park Long-Long (2003 Sarasota Sky Pilots Open - Pros)</td><td>5/24/2003</td><td>1060</td><td>1064</td><td>49.0
</td></tr><tr><td>157</td><td>42</td><td>Schweberger</td><td>Brian</td><td>42</td><td>Lovers Lane Park Standard R4 (2004 Bell South Open - Pros)</td><td>4/24/2004</td><td>1056</td><td>1064</td><td>47.6
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>46</td><td>Brinster</td><td>Steve</td><td>55</td><td>Patapsco Valley State Park Blue-C R1 (2003 Patapsco Picnic)</td><td>9/6/2003</td><td>1091</td><td>1063</td><td>64.1
</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>46</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>50</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park Championship R3 (2004 The Memorial)</td><td>2/27/2004</td><td>1076</td><td>1063</td><td>57.6
</td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>46</td><td>Ashby</td><td>Sonny</td><td>50</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park Championship R3 (2004 The Memorial)</td><td>2/27/2004</td><td>1076</td><td>1063</td><td>57.6
</td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td>46</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>63</td><td>Long Tees (Rd 3)</td><td>8/23/2003</td><td>1070</td><td>1063</td><td>54.2
</td></tr><tr><td>65</td><td>46</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>46</td><td>Little America Hotel (2003 Pro Worlds)</td><td>8/11/2003</td><td>1067</td><td>1063</td><td>52.7
</td></tr><tr><td>81</td><td>46</td><td>Rico</td><td>Bamba</td><td>45</td><td>Fountain Hills (2003 Memorial NT, Rnd 3)</td><td>3/7/2003</td><td>1066</td><td>1063</td><td>51.6
</td></tr><tr><td>129</td><td>46</td><td>Leonard</td><td>Larry</td><td>43</td><td>Cedar Hills Champ (2003 Dogwood Crosstown) (Rd 2)</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>1059</td><td>1063</td><td>48.9
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>53</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>57</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R2 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1100</td><td>1062</td><td>67.0
</td></tr><tr><td>93</td><td>53</td><td>Musick</td><td>Bobby</td><td>45</td><td>Fountain Hills Park Pro Layout R4 (2004 Fountain Hills Thrills)</td><td>12/13/2003</td><td>1064</td><td>1062</td><td>51.4
</td></tr><tr><td>107</td><td>53</td><td>Milne</td><td>Mike</td><td>44</td><td>Northside Park Long R4 (2004 Gator Country Classic 10 - Pros)</td><td>4/3/2004</td><td>1061</td><td>1062</td><td>50.1
</td></tr><tr><td>108</td><td>53</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>44</td><td>Northside Park Long R4 (2004 Gator Country Classic 10 - Pros)</td><td>4/3/2004</td><td>1061</td><td>1062</td><td>50.1
</td></tr><tr><td>133</td><td>53</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>43</td><td>Cliff Stephens Park R2 (2003 Moccasin Lake Open - Pros)</td><td>11/22/2003</td><td>1058</td><td>1062</td><td>48.8
</td></tr><tr><td>137</td><td>53</td><td>Haney</td><td>Walter</td><td>43</td><td>Kereiakes (2003 BellSouth Open)</td><td>5/17/2003</td><td>1058</td><td>1062</td><td>48.8
</td></tr><tr><td>138</td><td>53</td><td>Schack</td><td>Al</td><td>43</td><td>Kereiakes (2003 BellSouth Open)</td><td>5/17/2003</td><td>1058</td><td>1062</td><td>48.8
</td></tr><tr><td>181</td><td>53</td><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>63</td><td>Sunset Park - Almost Championship (2003 Club)</td><td>3/1/2003</td><td>1055</td><td>1062</td><td>47.5
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>61</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>58</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R1 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1101</td><td>1061</td><td>68.1
</td></tr><tr><td>80</td><td>61</td><td>Feldberg</td><td>David</td><td>62</td><td>Majestic NT/ST 24</td><td>7/12/2003</td><td>1066</td><td>1061</td><td>53.1
</td></tr><tr><td>85</td><td>61</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>62</td><td>Wickham Park 04 Melbourne NT R1 (2004 Melbourne Open)</td><td>3/26/2004</td><td>1065</td><td>1061</td><td>53.0
</td></tr><tr><td>86</td><td>61</td><td>Kallstrom</td><td>Markus</td><td>46</td><td>Little America Hotel (2003 Pro Worlds) (Rd 4)</td><td>8/11/2003</td><td>1064</td><td>1061</td><td>52.4
</td></tr><tr><td>87</td><td>61</td><td>Donahue</td><td>Brian</td><td>46</td><td>Little America Hotel (2003 Pro Worlds) (Rd 4)</td><td>8/11/2003</td><td>1064</td><td>1061</td><td>52.4
</td></tr><tr><td>109</td><td>61</td><td>Haney</td><td>Walter</td><td>44</td><td>Zebulon Regular Teepads (Rd 2 2003 Cha-Ching)</td><td>6/5/2003</td><td>1061</td><td>1061</td><td>50.1
</td></tr><tr><td>201</td><td>61</td><td>Martin</td><td>Scott</td><td>42</td><td>GW - Regular (2003 CCR Open) (Rd 3)</td><td>4/26/2003</td><td>1053</td><td>1061</td><td>47.3
</td></tr><tr><td>97</td><td>68</td><td>Jarvis</td><td>Ken</td><td>46</td><td>Northern Arizona University (2003 Pro Worlds) (Rd 2)</td><td>8/11/2003</td><td>1063</td><td>1060</td><td>52.3
</td></tr><tr><td>99</td><td>68</td><td>Jenkins</td><td>Avery</td><td>46</td><td>Championship Layout (Rd 2)</td><td>7/4/2003</td><td>1063</td><td>1060</td><td>52.3
</td></tr><tr><td>130</td><td>68</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>44</td><td>Weatherford (2003 Z Boaz Rnd 1)</td><td>2/8/2003</td><td>1059</td><td>1060</td><td>49.9
</td></tr><tr><td>131</td><td>68</td><td>McCoy</td><td>Kevin</td><td>44</td><td>Weatherford (2003 Z Boaz Rnd 1)</td><td>2/8/2003</td><td>1059</td><td>1060</td><td>49.9
</td></tr><tr><td>169</td><td>68</td><td>Smith</td><td>Chad</td><td>43</td><td>Hobson (2003 BellSouth Open) (Rd 2)</td><td>5/17/2003</td><td>1056</td><td>1060</td><td>48.6
</td></tr><tr><td>248</td><td>68</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>62</td><td>Oak Grove (Hahamongna Park) Short R1 (2004 Wintertime Open (26th))</td><td>2/14/2004</td><td>1050</td><td>1060</td><td>46.3
</td></tr><tr><td>342</td><td>68</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>44</td><td>Cedarock Park Original Pin Placement/ProPads R3 (2003 Sneeky Pete Classic)</td><td>9/27/2003</td><td>1046</td><td>1060</td><td>44.2
</td></tr><tr><td>343</td><td>68</td><td>Haney</td><td>Walter</td><td>44</td><td>Cedarock Park Original Pin Placement/ProPads R3 (2003 Sneeky Pete Classic)</td><td>9/27/2003</td><td>1046</td><td>1060</td><td>44.2
</td></tr><tr><td>83</td><td>76</td><td>Jernigan</td><td>Justin</td><td>48</td><td>Buckhorn at Harris Lake County Blue Tees R1 (2004 Buckhorn Open (3rd))</td><td>2/14/2004</td><td>1065</td><td>1059</td><td>54.5
</td></tr><tr><td>142</td><td>76</td><td>Branch</td><td>Todd</td><td>44</td><td>Northside Park Long R3 (2004 Gator Country Classic 10 - Pros)</td><td>4/3/2004</td><td>1057</td><td>1059</td><td>49.7
</td></tr><tr><td>198</td><td>76</td><td>Anthon</td><td>Josh</td><td>43</td><td>Back Course (2003 Browns-n-Bows)</td><td>4/29/2003</td><td>1054</td><td>1059</td><td>48.4
</td></tr><tr><td>210</td><td>76</td><td>McCoy</td><td>Kevin</td><td>47</td><td>Fritz Park 10 holes x 2 (2003 MaceMan Big Show Midweek Event) (Rd 2)</td><td>2/4/2003</td><td>1052</td><td>1059</td><td>47.5
</td></tr><tr><td>211</td><td>76</td><td>Grider</td><td>Nolan</td><td>47</td><td>Fritz Park 10 holes x 2 (2003 MaceMan Big Show Midweek Event) (Rd 2)</td><td>2/4/2003</td><td>1052</td><td>1059</td><td>47.5
</td></tr><tr><td>286</td><td>76</td><td>Haney</td><td>Walter</td><td>41</td><td>Valley Springs Park #1 (2003 Tar Heel) (Rd 3)</td><td>4/12/2003</td><td>1048</td><td>1059</td><td>45.8
</td></tr><tr><td>103</td><td>82</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>47</td><td>White (2003 BellSouth Open) (Rd 2)</td><td>5/17/2003</td><td>1062</td><td>1058</td><td>53.2
</td></tr><tr><td>134</td><td>82</td><td>Dorius</td><td>Micah</td><td>67</td><td>Oak Grove Park 18+9t Long (2003 Wintertime Pros)</td><td>2/15/2003</td><td>1058</td><td>1058</td><td>50.5
</td></tr><tr><td>143</td><td>82</td><td>Wield</td><td>Aaron</td><td>59</td><td>Short Tees</td><td>8/23/2003</td><td>1057</td><td>1058</td><td>50.0
</td></tr><tr><td>163</td><td>82</td><td>Azato</td><td>Jake</td><td>44</td><td>Druid Hill Park Rd1 Wood Tees Pins- CABACABCABBCCBBBCB R1 (2003 MADC Invitational (4th))</td><td>10/25/2003</td><td>1056</td><td>1058</td><td>49.6
</td></tr><tr><td>205</td><td>82</td><td>Martin</td><td>Mark D.</td><td>43</td><td>McClure Park Long Pins R4 (2003 Oklahoma Open)</td><td>11/1/2003</td><td>1053</td><td>1058</td><td>48.3
</td></tr><tr><td>206</td><td>82</td><td>Smith</td><td>George</td><td>43</td><td>McClure Park Long Pins R4 (2003 Oklahoma Open)</td><td>11/1/2003</td><td>1053</td><td>1058</td><td>48.3
</td></tr><tr><td>243</td><td>82</td><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>42</td><td>Iroquois Park Roadys R3 (2003 Kentucky All Star Weekend)</td><td>4/19/2003</td><td>1050</td><td>1058</td><td>47.0
</td></tr><tr><td>434</td><td>82</td><td>Raley</td><td>Mike</td><td>39</td><td>Fanshawe Short (2003 Canadian Champs)</td><td>8/2/2003</td><td>1043</td><td>1058</td><td>43.3
</td></tr><tr><td>35</td><td>90</td><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>53</td><td>Seneca Creek Red Tees to C (2003 Seneca Creek)</td><td>4/26/2003</td><td>1073</td><td>1057</td><td>60.3
</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>90</td><td>Doss</td><td>Nate</td><td>52</td><td>Swope Gold (Rnd 3 KCWO)</td><td>7/18/2003</td><td>1072</td><td>1057</td><td>59.2
</td></tr><tr><td>67</td><td>90</td><td>Gill</td><td>Timmy</td><td>66</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park Championship R1 (2004 The Memorial)</td><td>2/27/2004</td><td>1066</td><td>1057</td><td>56.1
</td></tr><tr><td>68</td><td>90</td><td>Sinclair</td><td>Shawn</td><td>66</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park Championship R1 (2004 The Memorial)</td><td>2/27/2004</td><td>1066</td><td>1057</td><td>56.1
</td></tr><tr><td>69</td><td>90</td><td>Child</td><td>John</td><td>66</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park Championship R1 (2004 The Memorial)</td><td>2/27/2004</td><td>1066</td><td>1057</td><td>56.1
</td></tr><tr><td>96</td><td>90</td><td>Haney</td><td>Walter</td><td>48</td><td>Zebulon Park Champ (2003 Dogwood Crosstown)</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>1063</td><td>1057</td><td>54.3
</td></tr><tr><td>179</td><td>90</td><td>Rico</td><td>Bamba</td><td>44</td><td>Hoover West Temp Tourney (2003 Brent Hambrick Memorial Open - Pros)</td><td>6/28/2003</td><td>1055</td><td>1057</td><td>49.5
</td></tr><tr><td>314</td><td>90</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>55</td><td>Sandy Point Disc Golf Ranch Classic 24 R2 (2003 Northwoods Open - Pros)</td><td>8/30/2003</td><td>1047</td><td>1057</td><td>45.9
</td></tr><tr><td>332</td><td>90</td><td>Haney</td><td>Walter</td><td>41</td><td>Earlewood Park R3 (2004 Earlewood Classic)</td><td>3/6/2004</td><td>1046</td><td>1057</td><td>45.6
</td></tr><tr><td>408</td><td>90</td><td>Leonard</td><td>Larry</td><td>40</td><td>Wellspring Reg Tees (2003 Alamance Country ProAm)</td><td>7/12/2003</td><td>1044</td><td>1057</td><td>44.4
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>100</td><td>Smith</td><td>George</td><td>61</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R3 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1106</td><td>1056</td><td>71.6
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>100</td><td>Lundmark</td><td>Jesper</td><td>59</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R4 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1094</td><td>1056</td><td>68.4
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>100</td><td>Tannock</td><td>Dean</td><td>58</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R2 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1090</td><td>1056</td><td>67.0
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>100</td><td>Branch</td><td>Todd</td><td>58</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R2 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1090</td><td>1056</td><td>67.0
</td></tr><tr><td>128</td><td>100</td><td>Kallstrom</td><td>Markus</td><td>46</td><td>Westervik 2003 Westervik Open R3 (2004 03 Westervik Open)</td><td>6/28/2003</td><td>1059</td><td>1056</td><td>51.9
</td></tr><tr><td>135</td><td>100</td><td>Pelg</td><td>Carlo</td><td>46</td><td>Water Works Rnd 2 MPO (2003 KCWO)</td><td>7/18/2003</td><td>1058</td><td>1056</td><td>51.8
</td></tr><tr><td>139</td><td>100</td><td>McClellan</td><td>Mitch</td><td>46</td><td>Northern Arizona University (2003 Pro Worlds) (Rd 7)</td><td>8/11/2003</td><td>1058</td><td>1056</td><td>51.8
</td></tr><tr><td>145</td><td>100</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>45</td><td>Cameron Park Champ (2003 Waco Charity Pros) (Rd 3)</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>1057</td><td>1056</td><td>50.7
</td></tr><tr><td>147</td><td>100</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>45</td><td>White Park Standard R2 (2004 Bell South Open - Pros)</td><td>4/24/2004</td><td>1057</td><td>1056</td><td>50.7
</td></tr><tr><td>149</td><td>100</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>45</td><td>Orangevale Park Long (2003 St. Pats Classic Pros)</td><td>3/15/2003</td><td>1057</td><td>1056</td><td>50.7
</td></tr><tr><td>150</td><td>100</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>60</td><td>Wickham Park 04 Melbourne NT R3 (2004 Melbourne Open)</td><td>3/26/2004</td><td>1057</td><td>1056</td><td>50.7
</td></tr><tr><td>193</td><td>100</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>66</td><td>Sunset Park Championship R1 (2004 Gentleman\'s Club Challenge)</td><td>2/21/2004</td><td>1054</td><td>1056</td><td>49.4
</td></tr><tr><td>194</td><td>100</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>44</td><td>Weatherford Disc Golf Course diff layout R2 (2004 MaceMan Big Show Mid Week #1)</td><td>1/28/2004</td><td>1054</td><td>1056</td><td>49.4
</td></tr><tr><td>202</td><td>100</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>44</td><td>Cliff Stephens Park R1 (2003 Moccasin Lake Open - Pros)</td><td>11/22/2003</td><td>1053</td><td>1056</td><td>49.3
</td></tr><tr><td>288</td><td>100</td><td>Haney</td><td>Walter</td><td>42</td><td>Loriella Park White (2003 Old Dominion Showdown - Pros)</td><td>10/11/2003</td><td>1048</td><td>1056</td><td>46.8
</td></tr><tr><td>296</td><td>100</td><td>Leonard</td><td>Larry</td><td>42</td><td>Earlewood Park - Standard Layout (2003 Classic) (Rd 2)</td><td>3/1/2003</td><td>1048</td><td>1056</td><td>46.8
</td></tr><tr><td>352</td><td>100</td><td>Heeren</td><td>Chris</td><td>41</td><td>Bevier Park Medium and Long Alt R1 (2003 Bevier Blast)</td><td>9/20/2003</td><td>1046</td><td>1056</td><td>45.6
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Do we need a new definition? The way I see it, Nick's FPS is throws to reach the hole +1 to putt out. So in theory, it should be par -1 for each hole. We still have the same subjective decision making on how many throws it takes to "reach" a hole.

Hole 14 at Fountain Hills sits somewhere near 600'. It gets dueced occasionally with a long approach, and I suppose the rare lucky roller gets to within putting range. In my mind this hole is an easy par-4; I expect to score three on it, but don't do it as often as I'd like.

I guess this goes to Ruzicka's definition of par as "best score ever" + 2. FPS would be best score ever +1?

Am I getting it right Rodney? It is an intreging idea. How to determine the "Flawless Play Score" so that it can be uniformly applied would seem to be the challenge. Course Designers might be a good resource in determining this FPS.




I don't know if there's anything to get right yet. I'm just tossing around ideas. Looking for reasons.

More info in response to Jim's post in my next post.

The way I see it, Nick's FPS is throws to reach the hole +1 to putt out.



You are welcome to see it that way, but it does not correctly define my idea of FPS. I am talking more about creating a data based working model of FPS and relating it directly to our current SSA to give us a new Adjusted WCP. One that awards excellent play on course designs that have FPSs closer to their SSAs. Where creaming the SSA in a round can be shown clearly and understandably to be a more significant achievement when the FPS is closer to it�s SSA.

You are not completely off though, it will come down to defining reasonable criterion, based on the actual physical factors of a course, that can be used to determine a consistent and meaningful Flawless Play Score (FPS). But the FPS will not be independent and separate from PDGA Player Ratings, it will be more like a joining of design concepts and the defined standard of 1000 rated golfer. That is the only way I can see to make it consistent across the board at every course and event.

Am I getting it right Rodney? It is an intreging idea. How to determine the "Flawless Play Score" so that it can be uniformly applied would seem to be the challenge. Course Designers might be a good resource in determining this FPS.




I don't know if there's anything to get right yet. I'm just tossing around ideas. Looking for reasons.

More info in response to Jim's post in my next post.



In case anyone was curious, that is Rodney's way of showing agreement... ;)

Do we need a new definition? The way I see it, Nick's FPS is throws to reach the hole +1 to putt out. So in theory, it should be par -1 for each hole. We still have the same subjective decision making on how many throws it takes to "reach" a hole.

I guess this goes to Ruzicka's definition of par as "best score ever" + 2. FPS would be best score ever +1?



I think this is really just the same discussion of comparing SSA to Design Par, I was just doing it without bringing up the term Par. Yes, FPS or Perfect play, is just rule-book par plus 1 stroke. I'm just trying to concentrate on numbers and perception here, and didn't want this to drag into definitions. Because among other things, as Jim points out, there will always be subjective decisions in making those defintions.

There are many things to look at related to these things.

Renaissance Original has an SSA of about 59, but its Perfect score is somewhere around 42. That's a huge 16 stroke difference.

Whippin' Post has a similar SSA of about 61, but its Perfect score is 51 or 52. That's only 9 or 10 strokes difference.

How does this impact ratings? How does this impact the *perceived* performance of a player compared to the rating?

Is one course poorly designed, with a bunch of tweener holes, thus driving the SSA down? Or does one course simply have a bunch of holes where it is very difficult to score the Perfect score for each hole, thus driving the SSA up?

Also, Nick, my idea would *not* be to introduce some kind of other factor in the ratings process related to all of this. My hope would be to better understand what is being perceived, and either change the system for all courses, or to simply better explain what we're seeing. With the existing designs out there today, I just see it as too hard to pin down a Perfect score on each hole and thus on each course.

The way I see it, Nick's FPS is throws to reach the hole +1 to putt out.



You are welcome to see it that way, but it does not correctly define my idea of FPS. I am talking more about creating a data based working model of FPS and relating it directly to our current SSA to give us a new Adjusted WCP.



That's why I don't see this ever working (in a systematically implementable sense). Too many subjective opinions.

To me, Perfect play will always ALWAYS be a *design-based* concept, and will be purposely fuzzy and even a bit self-contradictory. For example, a 3-shot hole (think 950-footish and *not* wide open) is designed to be reached in 3 shots by your standard 1000-rated player. Therefore, to me, the Perfect score is 4 (three shots plus a putt). But if you get a bunch of 1020+ players to play that hole, there might be several 3's scored. That's okay with me: The Perfect score is 4, some great players sometimes score 3. See, fuzzy and a bit self-contradictory.

I (and others, believe it or not) will never define Perfect or Flawless Play by some numeric data-based computation.

I will now return to my numbers, as this is getting far too issue-ical for my liking.

I will now return to my numbers, as this is getting far too issue-ical for my liking.



Yeah, your last post was quite terrifying. :D

I am talking more about creating a data based working model of FPS and relating it directly to our current SSA to give us a new Adjusted WCP.



I understand how you want to apply FPS (sounds vaugely reminscent of BG's Slope factor which we've replaced with the Compression factor). I was talking about how you define it.

The first thing that jumps out from the 'new' and 'old' ratings is the 'new' ratings seem to favor the more difficult courses. Winthrop, Patpasco, Knob Hill, Gran Canyon, etc.. are very difficult courses. It seems this would make some people very happy. I happen to be in the boat with those that think 'hot' rounds on difficult courses should rate higher than 'hot' rounds on easier courses. I'm not sure why I think this, but it just seems more logical :confused:

This is all VERY interesting to me and I appreciate you taking the time to create these spreadsheets. Keep it coming :D

Jeff, John, Craig, etc, here's another thing.

In a world without compression, everything would be 10 points per stroke, regardless of which course it was.

So at Paw Paw where SSA is 61, the 58 would be a 1030.



OK maybe this is a starting off issue. Guess I need to see how either the Woodshed, or the whippin post can have an SSA of only 61. Tried to look up some stats - but all I could get was last years 18 hole scores (2002 was a 27 hole layout) - but the average Open score was 67.85 on the woodshed, with only 2 rounds of 59 being recorded out of 84 played and only 9 rounds at 61 or lower out of 84 - and the avergae on the whippin post was 67.26 with 42 rounds recorded. So......if an SSA is dynamic - and is generated each time the course is played - to reflect the difficulty of the course under those specific conditions - - how is the SSA for either of these courses realistically only 61?. SSA of 61 for EITHER of the courses at Paw Paw is just plain too low.




At Zebulon where SSA is 49, the 43 would be a 1060.

At Loriella long, where SSA is 57, the 51 would be a 1060.
At Loriella short, where SSA is 47, the 41 would be a 1060.

Now you see another problem. Craig claims that the 58 is significantly better than the 43. But even without compression, the 43 is still 30 points better. So it would take *significant* reverse-compression to make his perception a reality.



It is becoming evident to me that it is as much of an SSA issue (if not more) as it is a compression issue. Maybe I need SSA and how it's calculated explained to me again. If I recall SSA on average is 5-7 strokes higher than a courses course record, and it is the average of the top 100 rounds played on the layout. Why is it that Paw Paw's is only 3? Granted the CR at the Woodshed is 55 or 56 (so that fits part of that pattern) - but it's only been done once - and seldom is there more than 2 or 3 rounds under 60 at the same tournament - if under 60 is such a rarity - how can 61 be an average?


At Loriella, John claims that the 41 is relatively easy, and even his 950 rated self could do it. But without compression it's still a 1060. But the 51, which John's 950 self can't even touch, would still be a 1060. So again, I think it would take some significant reverse compression to match this perception.




This is another good example of where a correction to SSA may be required. I think my best on the long course at Loriella is either 56 or 57 - how can that be the average of the best 100 scores? Somethin ain't right!!


Now take all this and go back to my question about number of strokes difference between players on shorter and longer courses of similar type. How can this ever all work out? Seems pretty discouraging.



Don't get discouraged Rodney - we're here for you man!! :)



Guys, I understand perception, and intuition, and knowing your game. But would *everyone* have these same perceptions? Would everyone agree that a 58 at the Whippin' Post is better than a 43 at Zebulon? As I pointed out to Craig, 5 people were within 3 strokes of the 58 in the same round. But at Zebulon, *nobody* was within 4 strokes of the 43. How do we reconcile that? Would everyone agree that a 41 on Loriella short is really that much easier than a 51 at Loriella long? I'm just asking. I've obviously never played there. And again, is there something about the design and/or nature of Loriella that makes this true there, but wouldn't be true at a different course?



Well,
the Whippin Post is about to give us only our second set of tournament data - so I guess we'll see if a 58 stands up to the test. Shooting in the low 40's on the short course at Loriella is pretty much expected - if you're not 10 under or better - you're falling behind. Again - it seems like the SSA's are the factor - and it's tied to the FREQUENCY with which a score can be attained on a certain layout -and ties less to whether or not the frequency occurs during the same round. For courses like Loriella Short - it would seem the SSA should be lower than 49 - given the number of events that generate data.

Maybe we have identified the inherent flaw with why a course SSA is better when it is not dynamically different each time the course is played. If the same layout generated data and was compiled using good propagators, wouldn't it make sense that low scores on birdie courses (and the frequency thereof) would drive down the SSA for the course? And if that were the case - wouldn't a 41 on Loriella Short reflect more accurately how good it was in relation to a players ability and expectations to score that low? If I expect to shoot 9 or 10 under on that course (that's my 1000 rated round theoretically) and I shoot 13 - well that should be a 1030-1040 rated round - not 1060. If I expect a 55-56-57 on the long course and manage a 51 - then I would expect that to be more in a 1040/1050/1060 range. It seems pretty common sense and intuitive to me. Is the key as simple as how the SSA is generated? Seems like it might be. Seems like the high rated rounds given to players who play (yes I'll say it) EASIER courses are off because the SSA is too high. Conversely - low rated rounds on HARDER courses are due to the SSA being to low. If this is true - the whole notion of even NEEDING compression sort of gets thrown out the window.

Rodney - got a headache yet? :) We love you man!!

Jim, My understanding of compression is that it is a purely mathematical process by which the more total strokes involved in the SSA(on average of 1000 golfers) the less valuable each stroke is. What I am talking about is actually factoring what is humanly possible (according to a currently undefined number "FPS") against the (currently defined "SSA") actual average of 1000 golfers to determine if the Played At Ratings should be adjusted (in other words, to increase the value of each stroke even if the SSA is very high, which by compression factor should be less valuable).

I'm not working you, just trying to get it clear in my own mind while explaining it as best I can.

I think the possibility of this helping to more accurately gauge the value of courses with SSA's diverging from 52.5 (the 1 stroke per 10 ratings point mark) could be a valuable tool in rating skill level. Not sure, but it seems like it should be able to.

Things like the throws to pin +1 would certainly be a part of it, but more tangible data like actual number of times aced, eagled, birdied, parred, bogied and so on could provide useful "real" data to determine it's FPS too. I know from talks with Chuck that holes with greater variable scoring are seen as better because they create separation, where ones where everyone in a certain skill level all get the same score are viewed as inferior (if not downright boring). So what I am talking about in laymens terms is using the lowest variable score per hole as the FPS (Flawless Play Score). If it is significantly lower than the SSA, then it is not a stretch to say that the course has, at least, the potential to be far easier than a course where the FPS is closer to the SSA.

Lastly, that each stroke in a round on a course where the FPS is closer to the SSA is more valuable. So on a course with an SSA of 65 and a FPS of 64 a player that manages to shoot a 60 has shot a round far more impressive than a 1020. While on a course with an SSA of 58 and an FPS of 48, a 49 is less impressive.

Does this make sense? Rodney?

SSA has nothing to do with the top 100 rounds. It's a function of scores from players in a tournament and their ratings.

PDGA Course Statistics (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php) are here. There's not much on Paw Paw, but what's there (SSA 60-61) seems low, probably because of compression.

OK , so here's how the ratings documents explain how SSA is calculated;

"A PDGA Course Rating is calculated each round from the scores of at least 10 players with established Player Ratings higher than 799. The course rating for a round is called the Scratch Scoring Average (SSA). PDGA scratch players with a PPR of 1000 would be expected to average scores equal to the SSA for that course layout. Typical disc golf courses will generate SSA values around 54 from the long tees. Many newer courses are getting more challenging and sometimes have SSA values as high as 60, with even a few courses nearing 70. Once a course layout has a few SSA values from PDGA tournaments, the course pro may use this information to set official pars for each hole and the course. This is sometimes referred to as the World Class Par, or WCP."

So if I understand correctly - the SSA is generated by the average of scores by all players with ratings over 799. Is this correct? If this is the case - is it a reasonable assumption that in an all pro field - the average of all the scores will generate the SSA for the course for that round of play? Or is it that a minimum of 10 players over 799 are needed to generate an SSA - and if there are enough scratch players present - only their scores are used? If your rating makes you eligible to be a propagator - are your scores ALWAYS used that way?

If SSA is generated from all eligible propagators - then my assumptions from above seem correct - the SSA of 61 is not accurate - and so the round ratings aren't either.

RODNEY!!!!!!!! Help me out here man!

Craig, the SSA is what a scratch (1000-rated) player is expected to shoot.

It is calculated (dynamically each round) by *using* the scores of all the players (over a 799 rating) that play the same layout.

Their scores are not *averaged*, they are *used*. The math behind it all takes their scores and their rating into account, and uses each person's score as input into what a 1000-rated player would shoot.

1 of 2 things is true:
- Everybody had a great day at the Whippin Post, thus making the SSA look artificially low, OR
- A 1000-rated player will average 61 on the Whippin Post. (Players higher than 1000 will average better than 61.)


--- WARNING: Excruciating detail follows. ------

Example:
Rodney is rated 900 and shoots 56.
John is rated 950 and shoots 53.
Craig is rated 1000 and shoots 45.

Ignore compression for a minute. This post is only in answer to how SSA is calculated, and does not deal with compression.

My 56 makes the course look like an SSA 46, because I'm 100 points from 1000, and 100 / 10 points per stroke = 10 strokes. So 10 less than 56 is 46.

Simlarly, John's 53 makes the SSA look like 48.

Similarly, Craig's 45 makes the SSA look like 45.

So we take the 46, 48, and 45 and average them to be 46.3.

That's the SSA: 46.3.

The more people you have, the more "exact" the SSA becomes. The system uses all eligible scores.

If Rodney played a bunch of rounds in those conditions, his average would be 56.3.

John's would be 51.3.

Craig's would be 46.3.

Each guy's round rating, then, can be kind of reverse computed from 46.3.

Rodney gets a round rating of 903 because his score was 9.7 strokes from the SSA.

John gets a round rating of 933.

Craig gets a round rating of 1013 because he was 1.3 strokes better than 46.3.

Nick, the center of the ratings world is 50.4, not 52.5.

Now will one of you guys *please* either agree or disagree that Craig would have to give me more strokes on a longer course than on a shorter course to make our competition fair, assuming the foliage/obstacles are similar between the two courses?

If you agree, you are supporting compression as implemented.

If you disagree, please explain, as I am genuinely interested.

Gotta catch a plane to Des Moines. No message board until Tuesday.

Jim, My understanding of compression is that it is a purely mathematical process by which the more total strokes involved in the SSA(on average of 1000 golfers) the less valuable each stroke is.



We agree.


What I am talking about is actually factoring what is humanly possible (according to a currently undefined number "FPS") against the (currently defined "SSA") actual average of 1000 golfers



I'm still with you.


Things like the throws to pin +1 would certainly be a part of it, but more tangible data like actual number of times aced, eagled, birdied, parred, bogied and so on could provide useful "real" data to determine it's FPS too.



Ok, here's where I start to have an issue.

How do you define "eagle", "birdie", "par", "bogie", etc? Those are all scores relative to par, and we don't have a standard definition for par yet.

Yeah, yeah, I'm being anal. I'm still with you, I'm just arguing over the details. If we use real data to count Aces, dueces, threes, fours, fives, etc. on any given hole, then we're getting somewhere.


So what I am talking about in laymens terms is using the lowest variable score per hole as the FPS (Flawless Play Score).



What do you mean by "lowest variable"? Earlier in the thread, you defined FPS as something like "best possible score excluding aces'. Fine, if you exclude aces, that means you should also exclude 400' approaches that go in, and probably 300' approaches that go in, and maybe 200' approches, but are you allowing 150' approaches? 75' approaches? 50' putts? Where do we draw the line? By that definition, we still have some subjective criteria. Using purely statistical data, Standard Deviation, or some other stats-geek equation will probably give us what you're talking about.

I refer again to my example of Fountain Hills #14. ~600'. Fairly open, but a small grove of trees right at the landing zone for decent air shots. Nasty OB right, and some to the left if you really shank. In my mind, this is a easy par-4, FPS would be a 3, and it does get the occasional, lucky 2.

18 holes like this, would yield FPS of 54 (by my poorly-defined-definition). WCP of probably 58-60, a hack 950ish pro like me would probably be around 63. Do we agree?

Your example below really confuses me:

So on a course with an SSA of 65 and a FPS of 64 a player that manages to shoot a 60 has shot a round far more impressive than a 1020. While on a course with an SSA of 58 and an FPS of 48, a 49 is less impressive.



I agree with your conclusions, but are you saying it's possible to shoot 4 strokes better than flawless? That sounds like 4 aces (or 300' approaches that go in) per round; or is my understanding of your currently undefined FPS way off?

Ok, I really do think Nick is on to something here.

Rodney, I'm thinking we may need another factor (independant of compression) that is non-linear. Scores near SSA might be correctly adjusted currently, but scores far under SSA and/or near Nick's FPS might be worth more per stroke.

On our standard course, SSA is 50.4 (so there's no compression), and for argument's sake lets say FPS is 40.

<table border="1"><tr><td>score</td><td> rating
</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td> 1004
</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td> 1014
</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td> 1024
</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td> 1034
</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td> 1044
</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td> 1054
</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td> 1064
</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td> 1074
</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td> 1084
</td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td> 1094
</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td> 2004</tr></td></table>

right?

The compression argument is that on lower SSA courses, there are fewer available opportunities to make up strokes. This sounds like there fewer "birdies" available between SSA and FPS right?

Well isn't the same thing true as the score approaches flawless on a relatively high SSA course? In my example course above, isn't a score of 40 much more difficult than a score of 41? While a score of 49 is only marginally more difficult than a score of 50?

Think of score distribution among 1000 rated players. It's going to fall under a bell curve with the center at 50.4. The left side of the curve is going to be the course record (or FPS), and the right side of the curve will be someone who broke up with his girlfriend, or is horribly hungover. The bell curve is not linear, so the ratings produced by the scores that fall under the curve should be non-linear as well.

Jim, in all honesty, I don�t have any of this nailed down yet, I�m throwing up ideas that make sense on a certain yet to be substantiated level. But to continue:



Things like the throws to pin +1 would certainly be a part of it, but more tangible data like actual number of times aced, eagled, birdied, parred, bogied and so on could provide useful "real" data to determine it's FPS too.



Ok, here's where I start to have an issue.

How do you define "eagle", "birdie", "par", "bogie", etc? Those are all scores relative to par, and we don't have a standard definition for par yet.

Yeah, yeah, I'm being anal. I'm still with you, I'm just arguing over the details. If we use real data to count Aces, dueces, threes, fours, fives, etc. on any given hole, then we're getting somewhere.



[/QUOTE]

No, this is not just details, it is a valid question, and worth exploring.

What I would propose is this: Use the exact hole by hole SSA (yes, even with decimals) as the basis for determining the spread of aces, eagles, birdies, pars, bogies and so on. And before anyone flies off the handle about there being no par 2s, I am not proposing that the hole by hole SSA be our final version of some official PDGA Par Definition, the use of this SSA data is purely to determine a mathematical par to gauge variance from it in order to calculate an adjusted compression factor and FPS.



So what I am talking about in laymens terms is using the lowest variable score per hole as the FPS (Flawless Play Score).



What do you mean by "lowest variable"? Earlier in the thread, you defined FPS as something like "best possible score excluding aces'. Fine, if you exclude aces, that means you should also exclude 400' approaches that go in, and probably 300' approaches that go in, and maybe 200' approches, but are you allowing 150' approaches? 75' approaches? 50' putts? Where do we draw the line? By that definition, we still have some subjective criteria. Using purely statistical data, Standard Deviation, or some other stats-geek equation will probably give us what you're talking about.

I refer again to my example of Fountain Hills #14. ~600'. Fairly open, but a small grove of trees right at the landing zone for decent air shots. Nasty OB right, and some to the left if you really shank. In my mind, this is a easy par-4, FPS would be a 3, and it does get the occasional, lucky 2.

18 holes like this, would yield FPS of 54 (by my poorly-defined-definition). WCP of probably 58-60, a hack 950ish pro like me would probably be around 63. Do we agree?

Your example below really confuses me:

So on a course with an SSA of 65 and a FPS of 64 a player that manages to shoot a 60 has shot a round far more impressive than a 1020. While on a course with an SSA of 58 and an FPS of 48, a 49 is less impressive.



I agree with your conclusions, but are you saying it's possible to shoot 4 strokes better than flawless? That sounds like 4 aces (or 300' approaches that go in) per round; or is my understanding of your currently undefined FPS way off?



[/QUOTE]

This is why I would like to avoid the strokes to pin +1 idea in defining FPS or the par to be utilized in calculating this adjusted compression factor. If we instead rely on the actual scoring data of the hole by hole SSA then we won�t need to consider 400 to 150 foot fairway aces. We can decide on a reasonable percentage top and bottom of data that should be thrown out, say 10% (I�d leave this up to our resident math genius�), then use the lowest hole by hole score as the holes FPS. These too may remain in decimal form for more accuracy and to avoid confusion of course pro defined hole pars. By summing these hole FPSs we are left with the FPS number that can be used against the SSA to provide an adjustment factor for the existing compression factor.


So on a course with an SSA of 65 and a FPS of 64 a player that manages to shoot a 60 has shot a round far more impressive than a 1020. While on a course with an SSA of 58 and an FPS of 48, a 49 is less impressive.



Yes, the 60 would essentially be off the charts hot shooting. But say the player in that situation (SSA 65, FPS 64) did manage to shoot the 64, a flawless round, then they should receive far more credit than what the current compression factor provides.

While on the course with an SSA of 58 and an FPS of 48, shooting a 49, is not at or beyond FPS and there is far more possibility to shoot better than SSA (more room). It is fair easier to surpass SSA and approach FPS so the compression factor should be adjusted proportionally.

Whether or not this will work for each skill range proportionally(though I think it will), providing one scale of handicapping so to speak is not known. But that was never a main goal of PDGA Player Ratings to begin with as I recall. What it will accomplish is giving a more accurate representation of �Excellent Play� on courses that do not have an SSA of 50.4(thanks Rodney).

I�m not sure of how significant the difference in final WCPs will be with FPS factored in, it might not work at all, but in theory at least it would seem to create a statistically verifiable way of increasing the value of stellar rounds on high SSA courses (that deserve it), while perhaps lessening the value of rounds on low SSA courses where it is statistically easier to beat the SSA. This should be of value as the trend of course design (thankfully) is moving away for pitch and putt and towards a more �golf� like form, where SSAs are likely to start topping 70.

Sound good?

Isn't what you're describing Jim, what Rodney referred to as "reverse compression"?

Not saying that may not be the key - but that - and all the rest of this discussion pretty much flies in the face of the original premise that "values" birdies on easy courses more than "pars" on difficult ones. This (IMO) is not only a good thing to do - but necessary if the system is to gain consistency.

Rodney, looking at your table, I see that you have SSA adjusted for 18 holes, but not score. Without more data, it's hard to compare.

One thing I noted is that many of those scores are Barry's. It'd be interesting to ask him which rounds he thinks were subjective better. Much like Craig's assertion that his lower rated round was better than his higher rated round.

Isn't what you're describing Jim, what Rodney referred to as "reverse compression"?



I don't think so. Or if it is, I'm misunderstanding his reverse compression. And that's quite possible, since I'm sure I didn't read every post in this thread.

I agree with the concept of compression, but I'm saying there's an additional factor that as scores approach "perfect", the difficulty of scoring under SSA on that hole increases, and the ratings should reflect that.

I thought i'd just point out that Schultz just posted a 1091 in the first round of worlds

That's nice but Jason Mckinney shot a round rated 1095 at worlds this week when he got a 45 in the 3rd round and nobody else shot under 50 that round. How many aces did he get?

Jason was in A pool men's open and finished 48th.

...

<table border="1"><tr><td>score</td><td> rating
</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td> 1004
</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td> 1014
</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td> 1024
</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td> 1034
</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td> 1044
</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td> 1054
</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td> 1064
</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td> 1074
</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td> 1084
</td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td> 1094
</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td> 2004</tr></td></table>

right?

The compression argument is that on lower SSA courses, there are fewer available opportunities to make up strokes. This sounds like there fewer "birdies" available between SSA and FPS right?

Well isn't the same thing true as the score approaches flawless on a relatively high SSA course? In my example course above, isn't a score of 40 much more difficult than a score of 41? While a score of 49 is only marginally more difficult than a score of 50?

Think of score distribution among 1000 rated players. It's going to fall under a bell curve with the center at 50.4. The left side of the curve is going to be the course record (or FPS), and the right side of the curve will be someone who broke up with his girlfriend, or is horribly hungover. The bell curve is not linear, so the ratings produced by the scores that fall under the curve should be non-linear as well.



So the hitting that last perfect putt for a 40 was worth 910 points instead of 10 like all the rest :confused:

That's definitely more difficult to do ;) to throw a 2000 rated round :D

math error math error

whoop whoop whoop

genetics error genetics error

whoop whoop whoop

Why was the semifinal round at Worlds not rated? I am really curious to know what Barry's 49 at Pickard was rated. Got to be up there close to the highest round ever.

Because only some players from different divisions played the semifinal and different courses were involved, I would guess the online calculation system couldn't handle it or the scorers didn't try to handle it. We'll try to get the semifinal rounds rated for the permanent stats (especially since my 59 at Ewing that day was probably my best rated round of the event).

I'm guessing that Barry's 49 was a routine good round for Barry around 1060-1065 but not close to a record. With a 1040 rating he shoots those 1060 rounds all the time.

So what do you call Barry's Performance last week?

Chuck, there were 72 Open players playing Pickard at the same time. How does that screw up the system? I don't understand.

From my estimate a perfect round at Pickard would be -7 or -8 (depending on whether or not you consider hole 9 a birdie hole). There are 9 (or 10) possible birdies and 2 holes where 4 is the relative best possible. That is why I figured his round there would be higher.

I was much more impressed with the -5 at Pickard than his -13 at ISU.

I think that -5 was about a 1060 round, there wasn't any wind at all on the course which made it play a little easier. I was -5 going into my last hole ( hole 4, a 300' easy birdie hole ) and got stuck in a tree to take a circle 4 :( before that I had screwed up 3 other holes, so I could defintally see a -8 or -9 for a perfect round.

Chuck, there were 72 Open players playing Pickard at the same time. How does that screw up the system? I don't understand



But other pro divisions were playing other courses in the semis. It takes some effort to set the course profile for the online system to handle mulitple divisions and different courses all in one pool, especially when not everyone is playing.

Jason shot a 45 at ISU, but the ratings computer thinks he shot that score at Walnut Ridge. 45 at Walnut Ridge WOULD be a 1094 rated round at least. There needs to be some adjustments because the different order that different pools of players played. I'm sure those adjustments will be made eventually.

Chap


That's nice but Jason Mckinney shot a round rated 1095 at worlds this week when he got a 45 in the 3rd round and nobody else shot under 50 that round. How many aces did he get?

Jason was in A pool men's open and finished 48th

Jim, I think you're onto something when you say that strokes are/should be worth more as they approach FPS*. Not sure exactly what yet, but as one starts to consider such things, it sure seems the perception/reality of scores vs. ratings can certainly be impacted by course design.

I'm thinking of two courses with SSA of 57. One has an FPS of 41, while the other has an FPS of 46. If a player shoots a 49 on either one, it gets the same rating. But which one would it *feel* like they played better? On the 46 FPS, they only left 3 shots out there, whereas on the 41 FPS they left 8 out there.

But on the other hand, on the 41 FPS, the holes are probably "harder", because the SSA is so much higher than the FPS. On the 41 FPS, it is 2.3 FPS/hole and 3.2 SSA/hole. On the 46 FPS, it is 2.6 FPS/hole and 3.2 SSA/hole. In other words, on the 41 FPS, the scratch players are having a much harder time playing Flawless.

You can play similar mental games with two courses with the same FPS but different SSAs.

I think that's what I was trying to explore when I first brought up the Perfect score for each course, and how it might impact round ratings and their perceptions by players.

*FPS = Flawless Play Score -- Not sure I'm on board with this terminology, but I'll use it here to avoid Par Wars Episode VI.

Any thoughts from the Godfather of Ratings? Chuck?

Does it sound or seem to you that there might be some useful application of FPS?

Seems like we have the following:

SSA - Scratch Score Average - What a scratch (1000 Rated) golfer averages on a course.
FPS - Flawless Play Score - Top 10 percentile score based on hole by hole data.
SFD - Scratch Flawless Differential - The difference between SSA and FPS.
SFM - Scratch Score Median - The median score of scores between SSA and FPS.

Could more appropriate/accurate course and player ratings be generated using FPS, SFD and SFM?

In general, it would appear that it could.

with apologies to warren zevon...

Send 'Puters, Coders and Caffeine!

:D

This is predominantly a perception argument, but let me lay some groundwork first.

Arguably FPS at ISU is 38
Big Creek 43
Pickard 46

So Barry's round of 41 at ISU and 49 at Pickard are both 3 shots from perfect.

Aaron Wield's 49 at BC is 6 shots off (although there are more *tweener* holes on this course)

I probably won't ever do either, but I can certainly see achieving both of Barry's rounds, where as I know I can never touch the 49 at BC. Maybe it's my perception, but clearly we are a long ways from having uniform numbers.

I think this thing may be largely a design issue, but may also be a personal preference issue.

I may be crazy here, but I think it's *easier* to score well on high SSA courses. On a 2-shot hole, I can mess up my drive, throw a good upshot, and still make my putt for FPS 3. Conversely, on a 1-shot hole, if I mess up my drive, it's over.

In other words, the more shots I have, the more shots I can screw up yet still make FPS.

But at the same time, somebody might look at whatever courses I'm looking at and say "But on the course with more shots, you have to execute more shots well in order to score well." Indeed, that's almost exactly what Craig said way upthread.

It's like it's not a high-SSA/low-SSA thing; rather, more of a low-forgiveness/high-forgiveness thing.

So that's when I come back to this somehow being related to the difference between SSA and FPS on a per course basis. But I remain skeptical that any such relationship can be identified and integrated into a system (without massive amounts of work, including individual course and hole review).

I may be crazy here, but I think it's *easier* to score well on high SSA courses. On a 2-shot hole, I can mess up my drive, throw a good upshot, and still make my putt for FPS 3. Conversely, on a 1-shot hole, if I mess up my drive, it's over.

In other words, the more shots I have, the more shots I can screw up yet still make FPS.



Not exactly. Many times those 2-shot holes have demanding landing areas. And, an equally as challenging and sometimes even longer shot is needed on the second to reach the polehole. A messed-up drive usually leads to no shot at all a birdie 3, or at least a heroic one is then required. A messed up shot anywhere along the way can also lead to high numbers - a bogey five or worse, whereas on a deucefest course the worst you get is a 3 when you miss the deuce putt.

Most people are saying the same thing, that deucefest rounds are easier to put together than good scores on high SSA courses. I'm another one in that boat. I've occasionally shot rounds of 44 and 43 on those types of courses, it's just a question of getting all those duece holes together in the same round. But I'll NEVER touch those good scores on high SSA courses.

So that's when I come back to this somehow being related to the difference between SSA and FPS on a per course basis. But I remain skeptical that any such relationship can be identified and integrated into a system (without massive amounts of work, including individual course and hole review).



The Ratings Committee is already used to "massive amounts of work". If we can make ratings more accurate, then we should; I'm not ready to say that is not possible or worth the trouble.

It may well be impractical, Rodney, but why don't we try it out on a few test courses and see whether it looks promising or not?

Jeff, I know what you're saying, but I think it still comes down to *type* of deuce-fest course, or *type* of high-SSA course.

But that's just my opinion, for now. I could change my mind.

I probably won't ever do either, but I can certainly see achieving both of Barry's rounds, where as I know I can never touch the 49 at BC. Maybe it's my perception, but clearly we are a long ways from having uniform numbers.



I agree that a 49 at BC seems better than a 49 at Pickard, primarily due to the costliness of the mistakes at the two courses.

Rodney you mentioned the two things: the difference between FPS and SSA and the "unforgiving/forgiving nature" of the course. It seems to me that the forgiving nature of the course is a huge component on the likelihood of shooting one of these exceptional rounds. That is also why the 49 at BC is more impressive to me. It almost had to require what I consider ballsy shots on holes that punished mistakes severely. Pickard on the other hand, did not punish off line shots nearly as much as BC.

Awhile back, Chuck mentioned something about measuring hot rounds by their standard deviation from everyone elses. I suspect that the 49 at BC will look more impressive using that measure than the 49 at Pickard (it's hard for me to reconstruct due to the pool interminglings).

Awhile back, Chuck mentioned something about measuring hot rounds by their standard deviation from everyone elses. I suspect that the 49 at BC will look more impressive using that measure than the 49 at Pickard (it's hard for me to reconstruct due to the pool interminglings).



I don't remember that, nor do I know exactly what that calculation would look like, but here are some stats from the post-shuffle A pool:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Course</td><td>BC</td><td>IS</td><td>PK</td><td>GV</td><td>EW</td><td>PK
</td></tr><tr><td>Ave</td><td>57.4</td><td>49.4</td><td>55.7</td><td>49.1</td><td>55.5</td><td>55.4
</td></tr><tr><td>StDev</td><td>4.0</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.0</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Hot</td><td>49</td><td>42</td><td>50</td><td>43</td><td>48</td><td>49
</td></tr><tr><td>Below Ave</td><td>8.4</td><td>7.4</td><td>5.7</td><td>6.1</td><td>7.5</td><td>6.4
</td></tr><tr><td># StDev</td><td>2.1</td><td>2.6</td><td>1.9</td><td>1.9</td><td>2.3</td><td>2.0
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

The StDev here is the standard deviation of scores for that pool for that round. A 4.0 for BC shows that scores were much more varied than the 2.8 at IS.

The 49 at BC is 2.1 standard deviations away from the average for that round.

The 42 at IS is 2.6 standard deviations away from the average for that round.

The 49 at PK is 2.0 standard deviations away from the average for that round.

One might argue that the 42 at ISU is most impressive as it falls the greatest number of standard deviations from the mean. I'm not sure *I'm* ready to argue that, but it is interesting.

Someone else might argue that the 49 at BC was 8.4 below the average, and therefore more impressive.

Disclaimer: I'm not a statistician, and have no statistics schooling. But I can put formulas into Excel like no other.

(By the way, this is just a pure average of the A pool. It does not take their ratings into account one bit. Keep in mind that when SSA is calculated, everyone's scores are kind of normalized to what a 1000-rated person would shoot. For reference, the average rating of the post-shuffle A pool was 996.5.)

If I understood these numbers better, I might jokingly tell Jeff and Craig to take their ISU deuce-or-die course and shov.....CARRIER LOST

Interestingly, here's the same table if I remove the 10 guys from the pool that didn't make the Semis. This leaves 61 guys with an average rating of 1000.4.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Course</td><td>BC</td><td>IS</td><td>PK</td><td>GV</td><td>EW</td><td>PK
</td></tr><tr><td>Ave</td><td>56.5</td><td>49.2</td><td>55.1</td><td>48.4</td><td>54.8</td><td>55.4
</td></tr><tr><td>StDev</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.0</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Hot</td><td>49</td><td>42</td><td>50</td><td>43</td><td>48</td><td>49
</td></tr><tr><td>Below Ave</td><td>7.5</td><td>7.2</td><td>5.1</td><td>5.4</td><td>6.8</td><td>6.4
</td></tr><tr><td># StDev</td><td>2.3</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.1</td><td>2.0</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.0
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

So now Rico's 48 at EW is the highest number of StDev's from the average.

The BC StDev dropped from 4.0 to 3.3, making the 49 less StDev's from the average.

Of course, that Average in the table is essentially the course SSA for that round.

If I understood these numbers better, I might jokingly tell Jeff and Craig to take their ISU deuce-or-die course and shov.....CARRIER LOST



Kind of the way I feel about my rating as it stands there Rodney /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Thanks for the stats. I'm sort of at a loss on interpreting these things, but I'm assuming that standard deviation is a surrogate measure of relative (to SSA) difficulty or a measure of the trouble at a course. A high standard deviation for BC seems logical due to the trouble. The SD also tells you that this is the course that produced a lot more relative movement on the scoreboard.

I'm not sure Chuck said # of SDs was the measure of not, but I'm starting to reassess my belief: maybe Schultz' 42 at ISU is as impressive as Wield's 49 at BC.

Why no love for ISU? The more I played it, the more I appreciated the course. Many deuces, but a fair amount of trouble. It really surprises me that GV had a higher SD than ISU, since even I couldn't find trouble at GV. I assume that a hole by hole review of the GV and ISU would reveal very few holes at GV with a large SD when compared to holes at ISU.

Craig, Jeff, etc.,

Since I didn't have anything better to do on the plane to Des Moines, I contrived a new way to calculate round ratings, based on what we've been talking about. I showed Clue the napkin full of numbers that I used in lieu of Excel. He can attest, it was gross.

Anyway, the new system still uses 50.4 as the center of the universe, and it still uses a 1000-rated player as the center. It also still uses compression, so if you beat me by 5 strokes on a lower SSA course, you will still be expected to beat me by more strokes on a higher SSA course (that is similar in nature).

One big change is that each stroke is 10 points, regardless of the SSA of the course. So a 52 on a 58 SSA would be a 1060, and a 44 on a 50 SSA would be a 1060.

The other big change is that your rating is your expected score only at a 50.4 SSA course. If the SSA is higher than 50.4, your expected rating is farther from 1000. If it is lower than 50.4, your expected rating is closer to 1000. For instance, for a 950-rated golfer, we have this:
<table border="1"><tr><td> SSA</td><td>Expected Round Rating
</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>960
</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>950
</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>945
</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>937
</td></tr><tr><td>65</td><td>927
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>
(This is the new way to implement compression, and preserves the same stroke difference between rated players as the old system.)

Anyway, enough of the details. The end result is the following first test.

<table border="1"><tr><td>Current System</td><td>New System
</td></tr><tr><td>Schultz 42 at ISU (SSA ~ 49)</td><td>1073</td><td>1060
</td></tr><tr><td>Wield 49 at BC (SSA ~ 57)</td><td>1068</td><td>1067
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

So the 42 was 7 below the SSA and in the current system is a 1073.
The 49 was 8 below the SSA and in the current system is only a 1068.

In the new system, the 49 is rated higher than the 42, as you intuitively think it should be, since he beat the SSA by more strokes on a higher SSA course.

I have no idea if the new system has any validity at all, but it looks like it might give more intuitive results for this first example. More than anything else, I wanted you to know that I'm still working on this stuff, and always looking for ways to make the system match reality. If I do some more tests and this continues to look good, I'll talk it over with Roger and Chuck and let them tear it apart.

Thanks Rodney - you da man!

Nice work rodney. No matter how much it matches reality, you'll always have someone ***** about it. Just know that.

So what about Schultz's 41 first round, I think his -13 was better than his -12!

Craig Gangloff wrote:

So because I play (generally) higher SSA courses, my rating suffers in comparison to those that play lower SSA courses....[G]uys all over the country are getting 1040-1070 rated rounds for getting 8 or 9 out of 12 birdie opps, and I'm shooting a course record where there are only 2-3 birdie opps and getting 1020's ...



Allow me to retort.

Here is a list of 44 players with ratings over 1000 who, since 07/15/2003, played 10 or more rounds on courses with SSAs>=58, and 10 or more rounds with SSAs< 58.

As you can see, 29 of the 44 (66%) averaged a *higher* round rating on the courses with an SSA *over* 58.

In fact, Craig Gangloff had the 3rd highest difference, averaging 1014 on the higher SSA courses, and only 998 on the lower SSA courses.

In my opinion, this data doesn't support the thought that some players are getting (ratings) rich off of low SSA courses while others' ratings "suffer" from playing high SSA courses.

<table border="1"><tr><td> PDGA</td><td>LNAME</td><td>FNAME</td><td>SSA<58</td><td>SSA>=58</td><td>Diff
</td></tr><tr><td>4028</td><td>Tannock</td><td>Dean</td><td>996</td><td>1015</td><td>19
</td></tr><tr><td>1467</td><td>Wisecup</td><td>Steve Cup</td><td>992</td><td>1011</td><td>19
</td></tr><tr><td>4010</td><td>Gangloff</td><td>Craig</td><td>998</td><td>1014</td><td>16
</td></tr><tr><td>13061</td><td>Ashby</td><td>Sonny</td><td>986</td><td>1001</td><td>15
</td></tr><tr><td>13219</td><td>Grider</td><td>Nolan</td><td>993</td><td>1009</td><td>16
</td></tr><tr><td>7750</td><td>Gregory</td><td>John</td><td>991</td><td>1003</td><td>12
</td></tr><tr><td>5557</td><td>Moser</td><td>Mike</td><td>1002</td><td>1013</td><td>11
</td></tr><tr><td>19026</td><td>Middlecamp</td><td>Peter</td><td>990</td><td>1001</td><td>11
</td></tr><tr><td>4666</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>1010</td><td>1021</td><td>11
</td></tr><tr><td>10628</td><td>Brinster</td><td>Steve</td><td>1005</td><td>1015</td><td>10
</td></tr><tr><td>18330</td><td>Orum</td><td>Matthew</td><td>987</td><td>997</td><td>10
</td></tr><tr><td>12827</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>1015</td><td>1023</td><td>8
</td></tr><tr><td>5560</td><td>Martin</td><td>Scott</td><td>1002</td><td>1010</td><td>8
</td></tr><tr><td>10100</td><td>Vitale</td><td>Patrick</td><td>989</td><td>996</td><td>7
</td></tr><tr><td>12626</td><td>Feldberg</td><td>David</td><td>1005</td><td>1011</td><td>6
</td></tr><tr><td>6001</td><td>Haney</td><td>Walter</td><td>1012</td><td>1018</td><td>6
</td></tr><tr><td>9453</td><td>McCoy</td><td>Kevin</td><td>1003</td><td>1009</td><td>6
</td></tr><tr><td>17519</td><td>Vilmorin</td><td>Chris</td><td>991</td><td>996</td><td>5
</td></tr><tr><td>9999</td><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>1010</td><td>1015</td><td>5
</td></tr><tr><td>4297</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>1023</td><td>1028</td><td>5
</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>Lissaman</td><td>Geoff</td><td>997</td><td>1001</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>6840</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>1031</td><td>1033</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>12989</td><td>Schweberger</td><td>Brian</td><td>1005</td><td>1008</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>3832</td><td>Leonard</td><td>Larry</td><td>1005</td><td>1007</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>3407</td><td>Schack</td><td>Al</td><td>994</td><td>996</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>15911</td><td>Musick</td><td>Bobby</td><td>1012</td><td>1014</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>11795</td><td>Branch</td><td>Todd</td><td>999</td><td>1001</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>11794</td><td>Doss</td><td>Nate</td><td>1001</td><td>1003</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>9651</td><td>Burde</td><td>Ed</td><td>995</td><td>996</td><td>1
</td></tr><tr><td>7883</td><td>McRee</td><td>Brian</td><td>996</td><td>995</td><td>-1
</td></tr><tr><td>9293</td><td>Gill</td><td>Timmy</td><td>1001</td><td>1000</td><td>-1
</td></tr><tr><td>2607</td><td>Mela</td><td>Joe</td><td>996</td><td>995</td><td>-1
</td></tr><tr><td>11674</td><td>McCabe</td><td>Eric</td><td>999</td><td>997</td><td>-2
</td></tr><tr><td>10819</td><td>Sinclair</td><td>Shawn</td><td>1003</td><td>1001</td><td>-2
</td></tr><tr><td>1406</td><td>Watson</td><td>Jeff</td><td>999</td><td>996</td><td>-3
</td></tr><tr><td>7846</td><td>Raley</td><td>Mike</td><td>996</td><td>993</td><td>-3
</td></tr><tr><td>6138</td><td>Randolph</td><td>Mike</td><td>1026</td><td>1022</td><td>-4
</td></tr><tr><td>5912</td><td>Hammock</td><td>Brad</td><td>1011</td><td>1005</td><td>-6
</td></tr><tr><td>3396</td><td>Myers</td><td>Jim No Spin</td><td>996</td><td>990</td><td>-6
</td></tr><tr><td>18464</td><td>Heeren</td><td>Chris</td><td>1008</td><td>1001</td><td>-7
</td></tr><tr><td>9852</td><td>McCray</td><td>John E.</td><td>1016</td><td>1006</td><td>-10
</td></tr><tr><td>16824</td><td>Pelg</td><td>Carlo</td><td>1013</td><td>1002</td><td>-11
</td></tr><tr><td>4034</td><td>Smith</td><td>George</td><td>1003</td><td>988</td><td>-15
</td></tr><tr><td>3591</td><td>Ginnelly</td><td>Dan</td><td>1016</td><td>995</td><td>-21
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Rodney,

Thank you for the data you presented. We all appreciate your hard work and efforts.

My only comment would be that I think you drew the cutoff line in the wrong spot. Courses of SSA 52-58 are still HARD COURSES! Some pretty smoking golf is needed, even by 1000-rated players, to shoot well on these courses.

I think the comparison we are looking for is between deuce-fest courses (with SSA under 51) and those with a much higher SSA. I'm curious how that comparison would turn out.

Maybe my perspective as a crappy player skews things, but I thought it would be a helluva lot harder to score low at Ewing than Big Creek. If I remember right, Barry and Kenny shot 43 at Ewing (?). If so, that seems like a much better round than a 48 or 49 at Big Creek, if only because there seemed to be a lot more birdie opps at BC than Ewing (again, strictly my "I'm not very good" perspective).

Yes, BC punished you more if you missed the fairway, but I think the perfect round there has a lot more 2s than a perfect round at Ewing.

There are ALOT of Deuce opps at Ewing if you can throw 400 feet. I think i got 5 or 6 deuces out there and i missed a couple easy one 2 so i can see where they could shoot 11 under at Ewing. I thought that BC and WR were the hardest courses to shoot well at. BC there are some good Deuce ops but if you miss the fairway those ops can turn into 4-7 ops as well. Ewing is alot more forgiving in that you can throw a drive offline and usually still scramble for a par. BC you have to pitch out to the fairway IF you can even do that then try and scramble for a 4 if you dont throw it in the shule again. :D BC is a technical course and Ewing is more of a POWER with some technical holes. ALL off BC is technical holes

Are y'all sure about that. An -11 at Ewing?

Best score at Ewing was a 48. Best score at Big Creek was a 49.

Ewing deuce holes: 1,2,3,4,7,8,9,11,15,16.
Ewing deuce holes for big arms: 10,14.

Big Creek deuce holes: 1,2,3,5,6,9,10,13,15,17,18
Big Creek deuce holes for big arms: 4(?),7(?),8,16(?).

I'm fuzzy on BC because I don't know exactly how they played it for Worlds.

I'm also ignoring Swedes and Mutants.

Anyway, this all goes to perfect score, and how hard it is to achieve the perfect score on each hole.

Pefect score on Ewing 12 was a 3, but that's pretty darn hard. Perfect score on Ewing 6 was also a 3, but it was much easier. If Big Creek 14 played the way I think it did, it was also a perfect score of 3, but much easier than hole 12 at Ewing.

My point being this whole thing goes way beyond deuce holes and deuce fests.

Maybe my perspective as a crappy player skews things, but I thought it would be a helluva lot harder to score low at Ewing than Big Creek.



Dan, I think you're right, and I think the standard deviations above go toward showing that.

Although you may average higher at Big Creek in the long run, the high standard of deviation shows that there will be more wildly low rounds, as well as more wildly high rounds. In other words, it's easier to score low, but also easier to score high.

But that's just my opinion, also as a crappy player and very amateur statistician.

Thanks Rodney, I must have seen the Grandview scores and thought the A pool was at Ewing then. Did Brinster shoot the 48 at Ewing?

I played too many rounds in too short a time to remember them hole by hole (the yummy Boulevard Wheat might have had something to do with that), but I do remember thinking that if I could keep a Roc or Cobra straighter I would have scored much better at BC.

I agree that it's not about a deuce fest, but if you are going to shoot under on either course you need to hit most of them. Ewing had more holes that were definitely NOT deuceable IMO (ignoring Swedes and Mutants).

i was just going off what he said. I have to clue what the best scores were. I shot 5 up at BC and 2 up at Ewing and i thought those were pretty good.

I think the comparison we are looking for is between deuce-fest courses (with SSA under 51) and those with a much higher SSA. I'm curious how that comparison would turn out.



Two things for you Jeff. First the comparison for golfers with a rating over 1000 on SSA<51 courses compared to SSA>=58 courses.

After that, I show the aggregate average rating thrown for people grouped by rating level. As you can see, the overall trend is to average higher on higher SSA courses, but only by a little bit for people with ratings over 870 or so.

(Look at those people in the mid-600's and how they shoot vastly better on high SSA courses. Of course, the amount of data at that level is so limited that you can pretty much throw it out.)

<table border="1"><tr><td> PDGANO</td><td>LNAME</td><td>FNAME</td><td>SSA<51</td><td>SSA>=58</td><td>Diff
</td></tr><tr><td>13061</td><td>Ashby</td><td>Sonny</td><td>980</td><td>1001</td><td>21
</td></tr><tr><td>4666</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>1005</td><td>1021</td><td>16
</td></tr><tr><td>13219</td><td>Grider</td><td>Nolan</td><td>993</td><td>1009</td><td>16
</td></tr><tr><td>10628</td><td>Brinster</td><td>Steve</td><td>1003</td><td>1015</td><td>12
</td></tr><tr><td>12626</td><td>Feldberg</td><td>David</td><td>1000</td><td>1011</td><td>11
</td></tr><tr><td>19026</td><td>Middlecamp</td><td>Peter</td><td>991</td><td>1001</td><td>10
</td></tr><tr><td>12827</td><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>1013</td><td>1023</td><td>10
</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>Lissaman</td><td>Geoff</td><td>991</td><td>1001</td><td>10
</td></tr><tr><td>5557</td><td>Moser</td><td>Mike</td><td>1004</td><td>1013</td><td>9
</td></tr><tr><td>4028</td><td>Tannock</td><td>Dean</td><td>1006</td><td>1015</td><td>9
</td></tr><tr><td>9453</td><td>McCoy</td><td>Kevin</td><td>1002</td><td>1009</td><td>7
</td></tr><tr><td>4010</td><td>Gangloff</td><td>Craig</td><td>1009</td><td>1014</td><td>5
</td></tr><tr><td>6840</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>1029</td><td>1033</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>18330</td><td>Orum</td><td>Matthew</td><td>992</td><td>997</td><td>5
</td></tr><tr><td>17519</td><td>Vilmorin</td><td>Chris</td><td>992</td><td>996</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>9999</td><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>1011</td><td>1015</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>10100</td><td>Vitale</td><td>Patrick</td><td>992</td><td>996</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>9651</td><td>Burde</td><td>Ed</td><td>993</td><td>996</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>11795</td><td>Branch</td><td>Todd</td><td>998</td><td>1001</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>7883</td><td>McRee</td><td>Brian</td><td>992</td><td>995</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>12989</td><td>Schweberger</td><td>Brian</td><td>1005</td><td>1008</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>4297</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>1025</td><td>1028</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>11794</td><td>Doss</td><td>Nate</td><td>1001</td><td>1003</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>6001</td><td>Haney</td><td>Walter</td><td>1017</td><td>1018</td><td>1
</td></tr><tr><td>11674</td><td>McCabe</td><td>Eric</td><td>996</td><td>997</td><td>1
</td></tr><tr><td>15911</td><td>Musick</td><td>Bobby</td><td>1016</td><td>1014</td><td>-2
</td></tr><tr><td>3832</td><td>Leonard</td><td>Larry</td><td>1009</td><td>1007</td><td>-2
</td></tr><tr><td>9293</td><td>Gill</td><td>Timmy</td><td>1002</td><td>1000</td><td>-2
</td></tr><tr><td>5912</td><td>Hammock</td><td>Brad</td><td>1011</td><td>1005</td><td>-6
</td></tr><tr><td>1406</td><td>Watson</td><td>Jeff</td><td>1002</td><td>996</td><td>-6
</td></tr><tr><td>10819</td><td>Sinclair</td><td>Shawn</td><td>1008</td><td>1001</td><td>-7
</td></tr><tr><td>18464</td><td>Heeren</td><td>Chris</td><td>1013</td><td>1001</td><td>-12
</td></tr><tr><td>7846</td><td>Raley</td><td>Mike</td><td>1005</td><td>993</td><td>-12
</td></tr><tr><td>3591</td><td>Ginnelly</td><td>Dan</td><td>1010</td><td>995</td><td>-15
</td></tr><tr><td>9852</td><td>McCray</td><td>John E.</td><td>1025</td><td>1006</td><td>-19
</td></tr><tr><td>4034</td><td>Smith</td><td>George</td><td>1010</td><td>988</td><td>-22
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>



<table border="1"><tr><td> Rating Group</td><td>SSA<51</td><td>SSA>=58</td><td>Diff
</td></tr><tr><td>610</td><td>639</td><td>631</td><td>-8
</td></tr><tr><td>640</td><td>626</td><td>656</td><td>30
</td></tr><tr><td>650</td><td>644</td><td>669</td><td>25
</td></tr><tr><td>680</td><td>668</td><td>692</td><td>24
</td></tr><tr><td>690</td><td>693</td><td>684</td><td>-9
</td></tr><tr><td>700</td><td>697</td><td>698</td><td>1
</td></tr><tr><td>710</td><td>711</td><td>715</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>720</td><td>713</td><td>713</td><td>0
</td></tr><tr><td>730</td><td>737</td><td>722</td><td>-15
</td></tr><tr><td>740</td><td>733</td><td>749</td><td>16
</td></tr><tr><td>750</td><td>747</td><td>754</td><td>7
</td></tr><tr><td>760</td><td>757</td><td>767</td><td>10
</td></tr><tr><td>770</td><td>767</td><td>772</td><td>5
</td></tr><tr><td>780</td><td>777</td><td>785</td><td>8
</td></tr><tr><td>790</td><td>787</td><td>789</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>800</td><td>795</td><td>806</td><td>11
</td></tr><tr><td>810</td><td>808</td><td>811</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>820</td><td>819</td><td>820</td><td>1
</td></tr><tr><td>830</td><td>827</td><td>831</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>840</td><td>839</td><td>841</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>850</td><td>847</td><td>854</td><td>7
</td></tr><tr><td>860</td><td>857</td><td>862</td><td>5
</td></tr><tr><td>870</td><td>868</td><td>870</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>880</td><td>876</td><td>879</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>890</td><td>887</td><td>889</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>900</td><td>897</td><td>898</td><td>1
</td></tr><tr><td>910</td><td>907</td><td>908</td><td>1
</td></tr><tr><td>920</td><td>915</td><td>919</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>930</td><td>928</td><td>927</td><td>-1
</td></tr><tr><td>940</td><td>936</td><td>939</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>950</td><td>946</td><td>949</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>960</td><td>956</td><td>958</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>970</td><td>967</td><td>966</td><td>-1
</td></tr><tr><td>980</td><td>976</td><td>977</td><td>1
</td></tr><tr><td>990</td><td>986</td><td>987</td><td>1
</td></tr><tr><td>1000</td><td>995</td><td>997</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>1010</td><td>1006</td><td>1008</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>1020</td><td>1015</td><td>1017</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>1030</td><td>1027</td><td>1031</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Thanks Rodney, I must have seen the Grandview scores and thought the A pool was at Ewing then. Did Brinster shoot the 48 at Ewing?




Rico shot the 48, Brinster a 51. I should mention I'm only looking at post-shuffle A pool. Wield shot the 49 at BC. Both those scores beat the pool by 2 strokes in those rounds.

What's staggering to me is Barry shooting 41 and 42 at ISU, with *nobody* else in *any* division or pool (in 2 rounds) even shooting 43. I need to double-check that, but I think it's true.

cb, no problem, I was just getting the correct scores posted.

Rodney, I got your PM but I think it is worthy of public discussion.

I realize that a high SSA course (e.g. SSA 63) may not be really that "hard" to play, because it may be mostly just very open and very long shots with a much higher total course length, and that an SSA 55 course may be more "hard" to play, because it's a lot of reachable holes, but they're through tight woods and there's lots of OB.

In general though, my blanket statement of "hard courses" referred to those with a higher SSA versus those with a very low one. To me, higher SSA courses are infinitely harder than those with low ones, especially if you are a golfer that is not close to a 1000 rating. While I may not score any better in relation to par and SSA on a deuce-or-die course, my impression of those type of courses are that they much easier since only a drive/putt combination is required. On most of these holes, the worst score I'm likely going to get is a 3 or 4. I usually don't have to concentrate as much on these courses. Most holes consist of making a good drive to near the pin, then bang the deuce putt in.

On the higher SSA courses, there's simply more chances for fives and sixes and higher scores. Much more thinking and concentration are required. I've got to make a long drive, an accurate upshot, and usually a long putt to save three. There's simply more golf required, and that in itself is "harder" to me.

Thank you for presenting the data for low SSA courses versus high SSA courses. To me, there was very little difference between courses with 52< SSA <58 and those with SSA greater than 58. There are still world-class challenges, par 4 golf, and fewer deuce-or-die holes on courses with 52< SSA <58. The big difference in my book is between those courses and the deucefest courses with SSA lower than 51.

Can we get an update on the highest rated rounds of all time? I had a 1081 and would like to know where that is on the list.

Thanks

Can we get an update on the highest rated rounds of all time? I had a 1081 and would like to know where that is on the list.




Standard disclaimers apply.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Rank</td><td>Last</td><td>First</td><td>Score</td><td>Date</td><td>Rating</td><td>Desc
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Arthur</td><td>Phil</td><td>41</td><td>7/15/2000</td><td>1094</td><td>Lenora Park (2000 Hotlanta)
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Stokely</td><td>Scott</td><td>40</td><td>3/6/1999</td><td>1092</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>49</td><td>4/26/2003</td><td>1092</td><td>Pro Temp (21 Holes) (2003 Tower Ridge Open) (Rd 2)
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>41</td><td>4/6/2002</td><td>1090</td><td>Northside Park Long (2002 Gator Cntry Cl. Pro R2)
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Duron</td><td>Dan</td><td>39</td><td>3/9/2002</td><td>1090</td><td>El Dorado Long-A (2002 El Dorado Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>41</td><td>8/9/2004</td><td>1088</td><td>ISU Long (2004 Pro Worlds - MPOA R1)
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>39</td><td>3/9/2002</td><td>1086</td><td>El Dorado Long-B (2002 El Dorado Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Leonard</td><td>Larry</td><td>44</td><td>4/27/2002</td><td>1086</td><td>Seneca Creek Red-A (2002 Seneca Soiree)
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>39</td><td>9/2/2000</td><td>1086</td><td>Mason Cnty Park long (2000 MDGO Finals)
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>51</td><td>3/7/2003</td><td>1086</td><td>Fountain Hills (2003 Memorial NT , Rnd 1)
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Wisecup</td><td>Steve Cup</td><td>38</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>1085</td><td>El Dorado Mixed (2003 El Dorado Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Loya</td><td>Mike</td><td>41</td><td>3/17/2001</td><td>1084</td><td>Orangevale (2001 St. Patricks - Pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>60</td><td>2/16/2002</td><td>1084</td><td>Oak Grove 27 (2002 Wintertime Open Pros, Rnd 1)
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Leonard</td><td>Larry</td><td>40</td><td>8/23/2003</td><td>1083</td><td>Johnson Road Park BLR4 (2003 Oak Hollow Open - Pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>43</td><td>3/7/2003</td><td>1083</td><td>Fountain Hills (2003 Memorial NT, Rnd 3)
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Harris</td><td>LaRon</td><td>40</td><td>7/15/2000</td><td>1081</td><td>Jones Park W Long (2000 Emporia)
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Stacey</td><td>Daniel</td><td>40</td><td>6/26/2004</td><td>1081</td><td>Jones Youth Park Short R1 (2004 Glass Blown Open (2nd))
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Jenkins</td><td>Avery</td><td>44</td><td>12/15/2001</td><td>1081</td><td>Fountain Hills (2001 F.H. Thrills)
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Johansen</td><td>Michael</td><td>44</td><td>10/26/2002</td><td>1081</td><td>Hornet\'s Nest Long new 5, 9, 17 (2002 DiscLanding)
</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>40</td><td>3/18/2000</td><td>1080</td><td>N. Water Tower (2000 Allstate Rnd2)
</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Doss</td><td>Nate</td><td>37</td><td>6/12/2004</td><td>1080</td><td>Oak Springs one set tees no basket movements R4 (2004 Steady Ed Birthday Memorial (2nd))
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Rodney, how about top 10 rounds in each of these three SSA ranges: Under 50, 50-59.99 and 60+

Rodney, how about top 10 rounds in each of these three SSA ranges: Under 50, 50-59.99 and 60+



As you wish. But I'm providing this under protest, since it kind of feels like admitting that it matters.

<table border="1"><tr><td> SSA18 < 50</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Last</td><td>First</td><td>Score</td><td>Date</td><td>Rating</td><td>Desc</td><td>SSA18
</td></tr><tr><td>Stokely</td><td>Scott</td><td>40</td><td>3/6/1999</td><td>1092</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park</td><td>48.4
</td></tr><tr><td>Duron</td><td>Dan</td><td>39</td><td>3/9/2002</td><td>1090</td><td>El Dorado Long-A (2002 El Dorado Open)</td><td>46.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>41</td><td>4/6/2002</td><td>1090</td><td>Northside Park Long (2002 Gator Cntry Cl. Pro R2)</td><td>49.7
</td></tr><tr><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>41</td><td>8/9/2004</td><td>1088</td><td>ISU Long (2004 Pro Worlds - MPOA R1)</td><td>49.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>39</td><td>9/2/2000</td><td>1086</td><td>Mason Cnty Park long (2000 MDGO Finals)</td><td>46.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>39</td><td>3/9/2002</td><td>1086</td><td>El Dorado Long-B (2002 El Dorado Open)</td><td>46.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Wisecup</td><td>Steve Cup</td><td>38</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>1085</td><td>El Dorado Mixed (2003 El Dorado Open)</td><td>44.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Loya</td><td>Mike</td><td>41</td><td>3/17/2001</td><td>1084</td><td>Orangevale (2001 St. Patricks - Pros)</td><td>48.8
</td></tr><tr><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>60</td><td>2/16/2002</td><td>1084</td><td>Oak Grove 27 (2002 Wintertime Open Pros, Rnd 1)</td><td>47.3
</td></tr><tr><td>Leonard</td><td>Larry</td><td>40</td><td>8/23/2003</td><td>1083</td><td>Johnson Road Park BLR4 (2003 Oak Hollow Open - Pros)</td><td>47.2
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>SSA18 50-59.99</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Last</td><td>First</td><td>Score</td><td>Date</td><td>Rating</td><td>Desc</td><td>SSA18
</td></tr><tr><td>Arthur</td><td>Phil</td><td>41</td><td>7/15/2000</td><td>1094</td><td>Lenora Park (2000 Hotlanta)</td><td>50.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>49</td><td>4/26/2003</td><td>1092</td><td>Pro Temp (21 Holes) (2003 Tower Ridge Open) (Rd 2)</td><td>51.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Leonard</td><td>Larry</td><td>44</td><td>4/27/2002</td><td>1086</td><td>Seneca Creek Red-A (2002 Seneca Soiree)</td><td>53.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>51</td><td>3/7/2003</td><td>1086</td><td>Fountain Hills (2003 Memorial NT , Rnd 1)</td><td>50.4
</td></tr><tr><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>43</td><td>3/7/2003</td><td>1083</td><td>Fountain Hills (2003 Memorial NT, Rnd 3)</td><td>51.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Johansen</td><td>Michael</td><td>44</td><td>10/26/2002</td><td>1081</td><td>Hornet\'s Nest Long new 5, 9, 17 (2002 DiscLanding)</td><td>52.8
</td></tr><tr><td>Jenkins</td><td>Avery</td><td>44</td><td>12/15/2001</td><td>1081</td><td>Fountain Hills (2001 F.H. Thrills)</td><td>52.7
</td></tr><tr><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>48</td><td>5/30/2003</td><td>1079</td><td>Lake Holmstead Park - NT Layout (2003 DG Hall of Fame Classic) (Rd 3)</td><td>51.4
</td></tr><tr><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>43</td><td>8/6/2002</td><td>1079</td><td>Tourney Rds 5-8 (2002 Pro Worlds)</td><td>51.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Schweberger</td><td>Brian</td><td>46</td><td>6/8/2002</td><td>1078</td><td>McNaughton Park (2002 Peoria Open Pro R3)</td><td>55.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Rico</td><td>Steve</td><td>43</td><td>9/28/2002</td><td>1078</td><td>Backside Course (2002 SoCal Championships- Pros)</td><td>50.9
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>SSA18 >= 60</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Last</td><td>First</td><td>Score</td><td>Date</td><td>Rating</td><td>Desc</td><td>SSA18
</td></tr><tr><td>Schultz</td><td>Barry</td><td>58</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1071</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R3 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>71.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Brinster</td><td>Steve</td><td>55</td><td>9/6/2003</td><td>1063</td><td>Patapsco Valley State Park Blue-C R1 (2003 Patapsco Picnic)</td><td>64.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Climo</td><td>Ken</td><td>57</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1062</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R2 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>67.0
</td></tr><tr><td>Todd</td><td>Cameron</td><td>58</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1061</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R1 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>68.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Russell</td><td>Ron</td><td>53</td><td>4/26/2003</td><td>1057</td><td>Seneca Creek Red Tees to C (2003 Seneca Creek)</td><td>60.3
</td></tr><tr><td>Smith</td><td>George</td><td>61</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1056</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R3 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>71.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Hammock</td><td>Brad</td><td>56</td><td>10/17/2002</td><td>1056</td><td>Winthrop Gold (2002 USDGC)</td><td>69.0
</td></tr><tr><td>Lundmark</td><td>Jesper</td><td>59</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1056</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Regular Hole 12 R4 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>68.4
</td></tr><tr><td>Branch</td><td>Todd</td><td>58</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1056</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R2 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>67.0
</td></tr><tr><td>Tannock</td><td>Dean</td><td>58</td><td>10/16/2003</td><td>1056</td><td>Winthrop Univ. Rec. Area Alt Hole 12 R2 (2003 USDGC)</td><td>67.0
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

If you look at the results, it does matter. Look at the difference between their scores and the SSAs. They get farther apart as the SSA increases but the round rating goes down. Note: it might be helpful to include the number of holes in the course decription cell since the score and SSA18 are out of sync on the courses that had more holes.

If you look at the results, it does matter. Look at the difference between their scores and the SSAs. They get farther apart as the SSA increases but the round rating goes down.



I'm probably just dense, but I don't understand this at all.

thanks

The SSA indicates what a 1000 rated player will throw on a course and the assumption is that shooting SSA is 'good' play for this level of player. Assume there are still 18 holes regardless whether the SSA is 65 or 50. Better than 'good' play would be one shot less on each hole which is 18 under the SSA. Shooting this would probably be inhuman so we see the records having scores from 8-13 under SSA with the most under being shot on courses with higher SSAs. Presumably that's because there are more places where the extra shot can be saved.

Now, we know that each throw is worth fewer rating points the higher the SSA due to compression. However, the compression factor is needed more to reference all other players to the scratch 1000 players (similar to slope in BG), not each 1000 player to each other. So, because each throw is worth less at higher SSAs, it takes more throws under SSA for those 1000+ rated players to earn the same rating. And, even though they may have slightly more opportunities to do so, it's not enough to offset the lower rating value per throw and the effect of statistical averages pulling their score back to their norm.

And, that's why we need to group best round records by SSA range.

Coda Hatfield shot an "unoffical" 1091 rated round yesterday at the Big Show midweek event.

Results (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4862&year=2004&includeRatings=1#Open)

Let's start the arguements! :p

THATS HOT

I reviewed the info and nothing jumps out that would indicate that number will be much different when the official calcs are done. It will be calculated with the new process and it might even rise as high as 1095. However, Roger will go back and reprocess all ratings data from the beginning so other record round values will increase a little bit, too.

One thing that is wrong is Dixon Jowers was not entered with his player rating. Don't know if that would change everyone elses round ratings or not???

I'm also not sure all of the players with ratings over 799 are propagators either. So some of those players are generating the unofficial online SSA and round ratings, and they may not be part of that when the official calcs are done.

Propagators who shoot under their rating push everyone else up. It looks like most of the players who shot under their rating were propagators.

Propagators who shoot over their rating drag everyone down. It looks like a lot of the people who shot over their rating were not propagators.

So I'd think the rating should not go down when official ratings are generated off propagators only.

That round is also my "unofficial" highest rated round.

I shot 50 on the same course at the Texas 10 finals, but the raiting was lower. I imagine it was because the weather was great for the Texas 10 and it was very cold for Texas yesterday.

BTW, 40 was the course record before holes #5 and #9 were moved. Both of those were birdie holes before, I have not birdied either one after they were moved back.

I think Coda's 41 is the new course record, but then I could be wrong.

that would be wrong brian, mike kennedy shot a 38 at the lake.

When did he do that? I though that he shot 14 down before the 2 holes changed?

But that would not supprise me, Mike Kennedy is one of the best non touring Masters out there. The bag putting fool that he is.

I am with Pizza on this. Last time I was there Kennedy's 40 was still the course record.

sometime in 2004. remember his old record had a circle 3. this time he had an ace. but 38 is the course record fo sho.

What is Kennedy's ace total these days? Last time I remember he was runnign up on 250. Dude is a freak :)

I though it was more like over 400

Half of them with his bag on his side :eek:

Wow. Where does Climo's -15 at Delaveaga fall on the all time list?

That's a hot round out there. Someone shot a bogey free -17 there, but it was "casual" play. Witnessed by several other players though...

Barry's round at Tower was 1092? Wow. That has to be one of the most difficult, technical, long, and heavily wooded courses in Wisconsin even in the US. I was told it was more like a 1098 round. I could be wrong on well still an amazing rating�.

Ok, I'm going to chime in here and say that even though I'm a complete and total rookie to DG, I do know math reasonably well.

Right now, as far as I can tell, the PDGA uses a system where the courses are rated by the players, who are rated by the courses. This model is inherently flawed. Without a constant of some sort, (and even with, most times) ratings systems like this will be flawed.

Now, knowing that, what to do? Easy, first, give credit to the people who spend all the hours and days working to make it better (thanks!) because it is NOT an easy job, and it shouldn't take much reading of this thread to see that it is a relatively thankless job as well.

Second, offer up ideas, but nicely. After months of reading this board (just now got my account approved) I can see that there are a TON of great ideas floating around out there. The quickest way to kill your idea though, is to be an [inappropriate word] when you propose it.

Third, take advantage of it. Yeah, that's right. As a player, your responsibility is not only to be a great disc golfer, you must also know how the system works. A decision needs to be made about what is most important to you (money,points,rating) and then get a plan to get the most of it. If I get upset about not getting points even though I'm playing MA3 in D-tier tournaments all season, then who is to blame? Not the system. So if rating matters to you, and you know which courses you can inflate your rating on... then go for it. If you don't care about rating... then leave the rating thread to those who do.

I completely suck at this game right now, but I completely and totally expect to be rated higher and have more points than someone slightly better than I am who doesn't understand the system as well.

But what do I know... I'm just a rookie...

Right now, as far as I can tell, the PDGA uses a system where the courses are rated by the players, who are rated by the courses. This model is inherently flawed. Without a constant of some sort, (and even with, most times) ratings systems like this will be flawed.




This implies that there's an alternate "unflawed" system. Offer your alternative to enlighten us. So far no proposed system using constants (fixed course ratings, for example) has withstood review if you check several threads where it's been discussed. The current system is anchored by the "constant" of 1998 Cincinnati Worlds scores.

My biggest problem with the ratings....

Since it is based on what everyone else shoots, people are penalized if everyone plays well and ppl are rewarded if everyone plays bad.

The ratings do not take into account that its just possible for everyone to play bad or everyone to play bad

But the system does account for that. The round SSA automatically includes any statistical fluctuation due to group psychology elements, i.e. the course is playing "tougher" or "easier" than normal. Fixed course ratings completely miss this aspect along with weather factors, seasonal foliage changes, wind, etc.

Not everyone will be playing well at the same time . . . . if they do, then the course obvoiusly played easier and that's why the ratings won't be as high. If 2 or 3 people shot great rounds it's not going to affect the overall SSA unless theres only like 5 people playing . . . .I personally think the ratings are VERY accurate. After I play around I try and decide how well I think I shot and I can almost always guess to within 5 points of what the actual rating will be judging off how I played. Therefore, I think they are pretty darn accurate!

Im talking about the course playing easier or tougher due to elements.

Lets say you have a course with a WCP of 50 hosting an NT.

The conditions are just perfect. No reason that Kenny an BArry shouldnt be shooting around the 47 range.

For no reason at all other than everyone playing bad, 53 is in the lead.

The next round, the scores are more like you would expect them to be.

Explain that one.

MTL, are you assuming when everyone plays bad, it has nothing to do with the fact that maybe it was 38 degrees, 20mph winds, and raining?

I do not know if you are a super human player, I assume not because you only now just moved up to Open. But I, as a decent advanced player, am affected by these aforementioned elements. If I can shoot a -6 on the course when it is dry, calm, and sunny, and all other factors held constant, only shoot a E on the same course with cold, wind and rain. Would you argue that those rounds are differently rated? Again ALL other factors held constant.

I think that the current system which does factor in the elements does a fine job of ratings. If everyone plays bad and you play good it will show. Just as the converse, when everyone plays good and you play bad, it will definately hurt you.

again, I'm not talking about bad elements....

If you didn't see 53 in the lead sometimes, it would defy statistics. For some reason, people think that each person should fall in a narrow scoring range. If they really did, there would be no need to play. Just send in your entry fee. We'll run a scoring simulation and send out the checks. You're not always going to see a smooth curve. Stats are messy and don't always look typical even though the results are perfectly within the range of predictability.

I believe we should still drop the low 20 % even with the new ratings system because EVERYONE has days where they just play bad. From what your saying only rounds 80-120 points will be dropped. So that means the only time I will have a round dropped is when I shoot an 850 round or worse??? I dont really think that is fair because if I have a bad day im still not shooting an 850 round. I would have to have a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE round. In fact I dont think I have EVER shot an 850 round so your telling me that NONE of my rounds will EVER be dropped off untill they are over a year old??? That to me just doesnt make any scence.

If it were up to me only the past 6 months of rounds would be incorperated into your rating because that would keep the rating at a more current status. On top of that I would drop the low 20 percent and do the ratings that way.

In ball golf they do handicaps by your 20 most recent rounds. So if you only have 20 rounds in 5 years then thats what they use but if you have 100 rounds in 6 months then they use the most recent 20 so that your rating/handicap is always current and not affected by your play that you had 6 months to a year ago which is obviously no longer how you are playing (whether your playing better then 6 months ago or worse atleast your rating/handicap will display that) This is how we get all the GUYS just CLEANING up and BAGGING in Am2 because there ratings is still based off scores they shot 1 year ago and thats bringing their rating down. So In all actuality these guys are still rated around 900 but are playing at a 920-930 level which is WELL above what an Am2 should be playing at. If we used the 20 or 30 most recent rounds and only went back 6 months that would eliminate ALOT of this BAGGING because the rating would be more accurate which would force the players up into the Advanced division where they belong and can stay as long as they would like and it give the Am3 guys a chance to move up and not be afraid of these guys.

In my opinion we use way too many rounds and use rounds from way to long ago. The rating can never be accurate or current when using score shot over 6 months ago. Idealy they would only go back three months or untill they had 20-30 rounds to use in the rating. If you dont play 20-30 rouns a year then your ratings doesnt really matter that much anyway because your not competing that often but when your a guy like me or who is basically a TOURING AM or a Touring pro who has 90-100 rated rounds a year then your ratings does matter and it would be nice our ratings reflected our level of play at that point in time rather then a combination of current rounds and rounds as old as 12 months ago.

Thats just my 2 cents. I think we should only count rounds in the past 6 months AT MOST or we should just used the most recent 20-30 rounds to determine a rating, That way its alot less work to update the ratings and then they become more current and accurate to how an individual player is playing at that time.

again, thats not my question........

I personally just hate the fact the ratings are based on what everyone else shot.....

At the tournament I ran (The East Carolina University Open), I had some fun with the scores.

I put the scores in for the first round the exact same way they had been shot, just messed them up. The highest rated player there (Schweb) was given the worst round shot (71) and the lowest rated player (Dave Coughley) was given the best round shot (43).

The 71 was rated 649, the 43 was rated 1015.

However.....when schweb was given the 71, it was rated 660. When Dave was given the 43, it was rated 1006.

EXPLAIN THAT

again, I'm not talking about bad elements....



MTL,

Sorry, eating lunch....took to long to post to see your prior rebuttle.

I agree with Steve. My rating is already WAY low of my actual play especially in the last 3 months. 120 points of my current rating would reintroduce the <800 rated rounds I had when I first started playing last year. I would say use either the last 20-30 rounds OR past 6 months of play to speed up the ratings with the level where the player is at. People do not believe me that my rating is 865 until I show them my PDGA card. I think MA3 players would be VERY upset if I played against them when I am good enough to easily cash in MA1.

In one case, Schweb was excluded as a propagator because his round rating was too low compared to his rating so his round wasn't included in the SSA calculation.

However.....when schweb was given the 71, it was rated 660. When Dave was given the 43, it was rated 1006.

EXPLAIN THAT



hmm

The new system is better.

I have a buddy who is a stats major and I told him that we only drop the worst rounds and not the best rounds also....He laughed and said that made no sense (smart guy)

Why don't you guys complain after the latest rating update and system changes?

And answer this question, "Shouldn't a player be allowed to compete in the same division for a full season?"

I have a buddy who is a stats major and I told him that we only drop the worst rounds and not the best rounds also....He laughed and said that made no sense (smart guy)




You need to ask the 'smart guy' if a scientist is allowed to manipulate the data points at the bottom of the curve but not the top of the curve, if he'd feel the same way.

Regardless, my question has not been answered.

Another question.

Same scenario....perfect conditions..

WCP of 50.....9 people shoot a 42 and there are 19 players at 49 or better.

I shoot a 50.....normally would be a 1000. Why should I be penalized b/c everyone shot well. And why should the 9 ppl who shot 42 be penalized b/c they ALL shot 1080???


"I won like 10 tournaments in a row and played the best golf of my life - during that time my rating went down by 3 points"
- Larry Leonard

Now, knowing that, what to do? Easy, first, give credit to the people who spend all the hours and days working to make it better (thanks!) because it is NOT an easy job, and it shouldn't take much reading of this thread to see that it is a relatively thankless job as well.




The reason I wrote this, and not "tell them how stupid they are because there is obviously an unflawed system out there and I have it..." is because I don't have an unflawed system just lying around on my desk. If I did, I would have surely shared it in my previous post.

The reason I wrote what I did above was in no way shape or form meant to be a negative regarding the current system. "Flawed" is not neccessarily a bad word in my book. Everyone and everything is in some way flawed, just to different degrees. I think the system works well from what I've seen. I think that if people would just take it for what it is and propose (constructively) ideas to improve it, then there'd be a whole lot less strife going on. There are obvious ways to take advantage of the ratings system that have been laid out here in the thread. If the people who have a problem with it go out and just play the courses they think will net them the highest rating, the more power to them. What it comes down to ultimately on tournament day is the lowest score wins.

Regarding my comment on the "courses rated on players rated on courses" method of rating, it is flawed... and general logic says that there HAS to be a constant to judge by. Now, before anyone gets all uppity about that statement, I know as well as anyone that "logic" is about as useful in the real world as dinosaur insurance for your house. If no fixed system has ever worked before, that's fine, I'll take your word for it because not only have you been doing this WAAAAAY longer than I have, you're obviously good at it because no one else can seem to come up with a better way of doing it, and all your members (myself included) are happy enough with it to stay members and go on about disc golfing. I was just making a general statement.

Sorry if my previous post caused any ill-feelings, as that's not what I'm trying to accomplish at all. Props to everyone whos gotten the system to where it is. As I've said before, it's hard thankless work.

-Doug

P.S. Sorry for my use of an "[inappropriate word]" in that first post as well. I wasn't aware that references to donkies were inappropriate on this forum ;)

I have a buddy who is a stats major and I told him that we only drop the worst rounds and not the best rounds also....He laughed and said that made no sense (smart guy)




You need to ask the 'smart guy' if a scientist is allowed to manipulate the data points at the bottom of the curve but not the top of the curve, if he'd feel the same way.



I didnt just change those 2 rounds, I changed everyones....but every round that was put in was actually shot that day, just not by the person who actually shot it.

My biggest problem with the ratings....
Since it is based on what everyone else shoots, people are penalized if everyone plays well and ppl are rewarded if everyone plays bad.



That is correct. But, ratings are a statistical accounting for performance over time, so round-by-round anomalies will happen at times.


The ratings do not take into account that its just possible for everyone to play bad or everyone to play bad



Not sure if this is a typo on your part, but people will also all play well all at the same time. That will happen statistically at the same rate as everyone playing poorly simultaneously. So, over time, these anomalies will cancel each other out and everyone will have an accurate rating.

yeah that was a typo - should have read good instead of bad twice....

I agree that overtime it will cancel each other out.

My question is based on individual rounds (i.e. this thread is about single rounds).

Ratings still use scores from too long a period of time. I think the ratings system was fine how it was it just used rounds from too long ago. Idealy it would just use your 20 or 30 most recent rounds to calculate your rating.

Wouldnt that make life easier for Chuck and the people doing the ratings if they only had to use 30 rounds from EVERYONE to calculate their rating??? I mean they had to used 70 last time they calculated mine to get it. Why not just set it at the 30 most recent rounds. Dont drop any any calculate it that way. That would be ALOT more accurate an up to date then they way they were doing it before wouldnt it???

Chuck do you have any comments on doing it this way??? Good or bad im just trying to give suggestions to keep the players happy.

Like mentioned above, everyone playing good, or everyone playing bad will happen. It is seldom and rare, and so forth a statistical anomoly. Anomolies are a good thing, because with out statistical anomolies, I would not be alive today. :p

well if they only used the last 20 or 30 rounds, they would have to update ratings much more frequently than they do.

If it were 20, I would have 4 tournaments (16 rounds) that wouldn't even be rated, b/c I am waiting on ratings for 36 rounds.

well if they only used the last 20 or 30 rounds, they would have to update ratings much more frequently than they do.

If it were 20, I would have 4 tournaments (16 rounds) that wouldn't even be rated, b/c I am waiting on ratings for 36 rounds.




That is correct but they would be able to update more frequently because it would be easier to calculate the ratings. Plus your rounds would still be rated they just wouldnt count toward your rating. I say it should be the last 30 rounds and then they would only have to update every 2 months during the heavily played tournament months.

still haven't anyone come close to giving me a reasonable answer.....

still haven't anyone come close to giving me a reasonable answer.....




That's because you are offering extreme scenarios. The calculations would also be more accurate if scores could be thrown in decimal amounts. Players shooting 42.3, 46.7 and 50.4. In addition, players themselves have forced us to use 5 props instead of 10 as the minimum, use players with ratings under 900, and make players propagators with only 8 rounds. Every one of these compromises would make a stats professor wince. But we do it because the ratings system is as much a customer service benefit as it is a competition device. We give up some individual precision for service and for the intended purpose which is to get players into the appropiriate skill division for some period of time.

BTW. no one wanted to touch the question whether a person should have the 'right' to play in one division for a whole year.

If we used the last 30 rounds of most players, we would be going back over 2 years. The average PDGA player has only one round per month and less than 14 per year.

BTW. no one wanted to touch the question whether a person should have the 'right' to play in one division for a whole year.

If we used the last 30 rounds of most players, we would be going back over 2 years. The average PDGA player has only one round per month and less than 14 per year.




To answer your first question about being able to play in the same division for an entire year. NO they should have the RIGHT to play in a certain division all year. If you are too good for a division you should have to move up. Pure and simple.

As for the second statement. Arent you going back that far for those players ANYWAY??? If they only play 1 rated round per month and 14 rated rounds a year then their rating really doesnt matter all that much now does it???

Maybe they should have a ratings system for TOURING competitive players that plays TONS of tournaments and then another one for people who play only a couple tournaments a year. Why should the people whos ratings really matter have to suffer because MOST of the PDGA doesnt play tournaments that often???

The most recent 30 rounds would be the best way to calculate and up to date and accurate rating. Either that or you could do the last 3 months and if they dont have a rating in the last three months then they dont get updated just like I didnt get update at the last update because I didnt have any new rounds.

Ratings do not matter for the bulk of active players (including yourself) in the sense they are already playing in the highest division in their age/gender/am-pro class with no cap on the ratings. From a PDGA competition standpoint, their rating only matters so they don't play down (but they're not). From a personal standpoint, it's another thing.

Any player with more than 8 rounds is a propagator, and calculating their ratings properly is just as important whether they play 5 or 50 rounds per year. They each impact your round rating just the same.

Any player with more than 8 rounds is a propagator, and calculating their ratings properly is just as important whether they play 5 or 50 rounds per year. They each impact your round rating just the same.




With the new system wont you be going back as long as them have been playing anyway??? Dont you already go back multiple years if they dont have 20 rated rounds to figure out their rating??? I would think that the 30 most recent rounds (with the low 20% dropped) would be a BETTER way to calculate EVERYONES rating because it would be a up to date and accurate assesment of how a player is playing at that time in thier career. Doesnt the PDGA want up to date and accurate ratings for all of its players??? Then you could also say that if you dont have 30 recent rounds then the PDGA could go back as much as 6 months to determine a rating and if they dont have rounds within the last 6 months then they wouldnt get updated just like I didnt get updated last time because I had no new rounds.

Why is that so hard??? Wouldnt it actually make YOUR job EASIER Chuck???

I agree with the Pimp in that the most recent performance should weigh much more heavily. I take it that doubling the last eight rounds was a stab at this, and I hope it works, but I still don't think it will "fix" the ratings of improving players that have say 40+ rounds in their ratings.

I don't know how much work it is, but do y'all ever test alternative ratings formulas to predict tournament results, specifically for ams since that is where the problem lies, IMO. In other words, take some big am tournies, predict the outcome based on the old system, the newer system, and some alternatives. Do this for about four major am tournies and see which method performs best. I suspect y'all do this in some form or fashion as these simulations really are the ultimate test, IMO.

Finally, I don't know why y'all even have the concept of WCP or SSA for a course. I understand that it conveys some very rough measure of a course's par/difficulty/whatever, but ultimately, saying a course has an WCP of X is deceptive and misleading and confuses people on how your system works. In other words, I argue that the usefulness of stating a WCP for course is not worth the confusion it engenders.

And finally once more, as long as the pool is pros, this system is pretty **** good, but throw in 60% ams, it really breaks down, not as predictor of outcomes, but as a measure of performance.

We're not going back more than 12 months anymore unless a player has fewer than 8 rated rounds, not 20 like before. That will reduce the older round data significantly.

Whether we have an SSA or not, players will figure it out when they see what score generates a 1000 round rating.

The primary testing in the beginning was to determine how far apart the ratings breaks needed to be so a player near the bottom has a chance to cash once in a while, not necessarily win. That number came out to about 50 points.

Elements of the new system have been specifically tested. Pro numbers aren't necessarily any more accurate than Am numbers but Ams have a wider standard deviation in their scores and more of them are on a fast improvement track.

But it still makes no scence that Im going to have rounds in the 800s in my rating because they are less then 80 points from my rating which is what you said earlier. Must be 80 points or more away from rating to be dropped. Ive NEVER shot a round thats 80 points below my current rating in my LIFE. So your telling me that ALL my rounds that I shot will be included in this next update??? That makes no scence at all. People have bad days why would you include that in the ratings??? Second off I dont think that 8 rounds is enough to double to make the rating more current. I think if you used the last 30 rounds and dropped the bottom 20 percent that would be a pretty darn accurate assesment of a players level of play at that time in thier career. That means you would drop the low 6 scores from the 30 and use the best 24 recent rounds to calculate a rating. That would be up to date and accurate. Why do you have to go into all this doubling and all this other stuff. That rating system was fine how it was it just needed to use more recent rounds and get rid of older rounds quicker. Ill have to see what the new update brings but i still think that it should just be your 30 most recent rounds and then if you dont have 30 it should go back 6 months untill you find 30 or just use what you have in the last 6 months. I think 6 months is a LONG time to go back as well. I think 3 months would be better but as Chuck already stated most PDGA member would only have about 3 or 4 rounds in 3 months. If you go to 6 months atleast they would have enough rounds to be a gator.

If we did it that way and updated ever 2 months from March untill Semptember the ratings would be alot more accurate during the months that have alot of tournaments.

Pro numbers aren't necessarily any more accurate than Am numbers but Ams have a wider standard deviation in their scores and more of them are on a fast improvement track.


Maybe we have a different understanding of "accurate." In my mind, when applied to a rating, the word "accurate" means "How well will the ratings predict a future outcome." I suspect your ratings do a better job of predicting pro tournament outcomes than am tournament outcomes. If so, the pro ratings are more accurate, in my use of the word at least.

Also, can't part of the larger standard deviation in ams be explained by their average being a product of a wider range? Your first response will probably be "duh, of course it is," but if the time periods were shrunken down to the recent months, I suspect the standard deviation for ams would trend to that for pros.

As for the SSA, I still disagree. All it means is that at one moment in time, the score that equals a 1000 rating is X. If the next time, it is X + 2.2, and the next it is X - 1.3, then X is hardly some meaningful number. All it does is confuse many people into thinking that courses really do have some constant SSA. More importantly, it confuses people about how the system works. The less they understand, the less they trust it.

We're likely never going to go back to dropping any percentage of a player's rounds. That's one of the reasons that caused players to feel they got a better round rating when playing with higher rated rather than lower rated players. (In general, lower rated players have been more underrated than higher rated players)

We might consider a maximum number of rounds to be included but that won't happen in this update. But it is worth considering for our active players. If we're doubling the most recent 8 rounds, we might make the cap 32 rounds so the recent 8 would account for 40% of the rating. The downside is that tour stats are based on a 12-month calendar. When the February stats are published, the ratings of every active player have been based on their most recent 12 months of activity.

As for the SSA, I still disagree. All it means is that at one moment in time, the score that equals a 1000 rating is X. If the next time, it is X + 2.2, and the next it is X - 1.3, then X is hardly some meaningful number. All it does is confuse many people into thinking that courses really do have some constant SSA. More importantly, it confuses people about how the system works. The less they understand, the less they trust it.



This I completely agree with. I have often looked up the SSA from a course that im going to play a tournament at just to see what I would have to shoot to get a round rated 1000. I have then showed up to these said courses and shot the SSA for the course and then come to find out my round isnt rated 1000. That makes no scence to me and in turn upsets me and makes me hate SSAs and not trust the ratings system.

As for the SSA, I still disagree. All it means is that at one moment in time, the score that equals a 1000 rating is X. If the next time, it is X + 2.2, and the next it is X - 1.3, then X is hardly some meaningful number.



Au contraire. X +/-1.5 for most courses is 6% which is like sales tax- you know it's there, but it's not that significant. Average a few SSAs when the course is in 'normal' weather and you'll have a number that's much better than any artificial rating produced in the hokey ball golf method that is rarely validated by scores.

Pro propagator scores would be easier to forecast than Am propagator scores primarily due to the standard deviation differences. The new system will be slightly more accurate (predict better) for everyone, but especially Ams.

We might consider a maximum number of rounds to be included but that won't happen in this update. But it is worth considering for our active players. If we're doubling the most recent 8 rounds, we might make the cap 32 rounds so the recent 8 would account for 40% of the rating. The downside is that tour stats are based on a 12-month calendar. When the February stats are published, the ratings of every active player have been based on their most recent 12 months of activity.



I dont think that a 12 month period is a good assesment of a players skill at the time of the update. I think that if it were the last 30 rounds that that player played that would be a more accurate description of what level that player is at on the day of the update. People go threw differing levels of play threw out the season which is why I think 30 rounds or 3 months would be a great description of a players ability at the time of an update. I mean EVERYONE hates to wait 3 months to see their rating change maybe 2 or 3 points becaues it has SOOO many old rounds in it. I would rather see my rating go fluctuate every 2 months (when using 30 rounds or 3 months ) then wait 3 months and watch my rating increase by 5 points each time. I would rather have it shoot up 15 or 20 points if I played really well for 3 months and then come back down if that was just a fluke then just see it slowly rise over a LONG period of time.

I just think the ratings need to be updated more often and they need to use less data from a shorter period of time. I think the old rating system was fine it just used to much data from too long a period of time. That was the only problem I saw with the old ratings system. Ill wait to pass judgment on the new system untill I see how it works and how well it represents the players ability so untill then I can just suggest ways that I think are better.

The new system is better.

I have a buddy who is a stats major and I told him that we only drop the worst rounds and not the best rounds also....He laughed and said that made no sense (smart guy)




Math person here....

1) If you want a more accurate representation of your rating, you need to drop both high and low outliers. Or just say that you will drop the highest and lowest 5% of the rounds used in calculating your rating(for example...if you have 20 rounds that are eligable for rating, drop the highest and lowest).

All you math wizards are missing the point- we're not intentionally dropping rounds that are part of a player's "normal" distribution. We are attempting to drop rounds that are manipulated to be low and either in the bottom of or below their normal distribution. With a 2.5sd bottom cut, the odds are we will 'accidentally' drop about 1 round out of 100 that would actually be in a player's normal distribution but drop perhaps 95% of rounds that were manipulated to be low (bagger patrol).

But it still makes no scence that Im going to have rounds in the 800s in my rating because they are less then 80 points from my rating which is what you said earlier. Must be 80 points or more away from rating to be dropped. Ive NEVER shot a round thats 80 points below my current rating in my LIFE. So your telling me that ALL my rounds that I shot will be included in this next update??? That makes no scence at all. People have bad days why would you include that in the ratings??? Second off I dont think that 8 rounds is enough to double to make the rating more current. I think if you used the last 30 rounds and dropped the bottom 20 percent that would be a pretty darn accurate assesment of a players level of play at that time in thier career. That means you would drop the low 6 scores from the 30 and use the best 24 recent rounds to calculate a rating. That would be up to date and accurate. Why do you have to go into all this doubling and all this other stuff. That rating system was fine how it was it just needed to use more recent rounds and get rid of older rounds quicker. Ill have to see what the new update brings but i still think that it should just be your 30 most recent rounds and then if you dont have 30 it should go back 6 months untill you find 30 or just use what you have in the last 6 months. I think 6 months is a LONG time to go back as well. I think 3 months would be better but as Chuck already stated most PDGA member would only have about 3 or 4 rounds in 3 months. If you go to 6 months atleast they would have enough rounds to be a gator.

If we did it that way and updated ever 2 months from March untill Semptember the ratings would be alot more accurate during the months that have alot of tournaments.



LMAO, that is sooooo funny, you're worried that you're going to be rated lower because you really aren't that good?!?!? Oh no, not that, people might find out you suck and are very inconsistant!!! You NEVER shoot rounds that are more than 80 points lower than your rating because statically that is over the 2.5 standard deviation and shouldn't ever happen which is the whole point of dropping rounds that low in the first place. Everyone has bad rounds, exactly! So those should be included into the ratings also. If one person usually shoots 970's but sometimes shoots a 930, and another person usually shoots 970's but sometimes shoots an 850 because they aren't very consistant, then the first guy SHOULD be rated higher since he IS better. When you are dropping 15% of your lowest rounds and none of your highest rounds, that doesn't really make any sense. That's just penalizing the players who are more consistant and don't shoot horrible rounds.
Also, I do think the ratings should use more current rounds. For someone like me, in 1 year I have nearly 100 rated rounds going towards my rating. I could shoot like an am2 player and shoot 850 rated rounds for 5 tournaments straight and it wouldn't hurt my rating that much, they would just replace all my other dropped rounds that were around 970. I like the 40-50 round rating idea, that way my rating will only be current through the last half year for me ( however most people only play that many rounds in a year so it wouldn't really make a difference for them )

I dont think that a 12 month period is a good assesment of a players skill at the time of the update. I think that if it were the last 30 rounds that that player played that would be a more accurate description of what level that player is at on the day of the update. People go threw differing levels of play threw out the season which is why I think 30 rounds or 3 months would be a great description of a players ability at the time of an update. I mean EVERYONE hates to wait 3 months to see their rating change maybe 2 or 3 points becaues it has SOOO many old rounds in it. I would rather see my rating go fluctuate every 2 months (when using 30 rounds or 3 months ) then wait 3 months and watch my rating increase by 5 points each time. I would rather have it shoot up 15 or 20 points if I played really well for 3 months and then come back down if that was just a fluke then just see it slowly rise over a LONG period of time.

I just think the ratings need to be updated more often and they need to use less data from a shorter period of time. I think the old rating system was fine it just used to much data from too long a period of time. That was the only problem I saw with the old ratings system. Ill wait to pass judgment on the new system untill I see how it works and how well it represents the players ability so untill then I can just suggest ways that I think are better.



Ouch, I actually agree with Pimp on something, what is this world coming too?

I like the idea of only including the last 20 or so rounds because it shows a players abilities at the moment and not a year ago. Ex Including my last 20 rounds I would be 970-980 but using the old ratings system (including my recent rounds) i would only be 965ish. This is fine and all but it also gives a false image of a player's skill even if it is only 10 rating points. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
I won't complain about the new system though because I haven't looked at what the ratings will do but I will give my 2 cents.

If we dropped rated rounds, then we should also drop points earned in those rounds, right....?

We're not going back more than 12 months anymore unless a player has fewer than 8 rated rounds, not 20 like before. That will reduce the older round data significantly.



But it will make ratings very inaccurate for a large portion of the PDGA population. You stated earlier that the average player only plays 12 rounds per year. For those average folks and those who play less than that (probably more than 1/2 half the PDGA population) you will now be only rating 2-3 tournaments worth of data with the most recent tournament counting 2x the others.

There are going to be wild ratings swings for the majority of the PDGA membership and ratings will be useless to them. A good tournament will jack your rating way up for the next rating update and a bad tournament will cause your rating to plummet.

This new rating system is not good news to the majority, but does cater to the small percentage that plays one tournament a month or more. I predict a lot of frustration and confusion as a result these changes.

If we only used the last 20 rounds I would be rated around 1000 since I've been sucking it up lately. This would be fun since I would try and get it up to 1020 the next month. I would much rather see my rating jump up and down 10 points rather than have it stay the exact same rating every single date . . . boring. Although, 20 rounds isn't very many, I was thinking mabye 30-40 rounds. If they did use only 20 rounds then they would have to update every month since I play at least 15-20 rated rounds a month during the summer.

I like how the current ratings system is a 1 year snapshot of your playing ability. However you do have to be very patient waiting for the rating to change this way, but once you figure that in 12 months none the rated rounds you currently have will be used, your rating can drastically change if you just play alot better in the next 12 months.

I think the biggest improvement that could be made to the ratings system would be to have the ratings be updated weekly. This way people would get to see more changes in their rating.

If this were your red-headed step-child, you all have beat the crap out him!!!

Without ratings, I believe that every poster on this board can make a fair assessment of their ability to play. Pimp & Scooter, everyone can tell from your recent performances that you are better than your ratings, but neither of you plan on moving up until post-Worlds. What does it matter?

Now - this post was supposed to be about the best rounds ever. How about some props for Coda's -13 at Lake Lewisville, which is ~1091 rated round.

i hear that bolstead! he did that when i first started playing tournaments, i was amazed.

If this were your red-headed step-child, you all have beat the crap out him!!!

Without ratings, I believe that every poster on this board can make a fair assessment of their ability to play. Pimp & Scooter, everyone can tell from your recent performances that you are better than your ratings, but neither of you plan on moving up until post-Worlds. What does it matter?

Now - this post was supposed to be about the best rounds ever. How about some props for Coda's -13 at Lake Lewisville, which is ~1091 rated round.



It's rounds like that keep people from moving up. :D:D

Since there is all this hoopla and hubub about how important ratings are to a players ability.

I do not understand everyones reluctance to go in on a player ratings wager with me in my last few tournaments. The wager went like this.

I would round my player rating up to the nearest 10. The other person round down to the nearest 10. Because ~10 points is about 1 stroke a round for arguments sake. Being rated 865 I would be 870 and my competitor being 939 would be 930. The ratings would say that this person should beat me by 7 strokes per round. The bet was that if I beat them or if they beat me by less then 28 strokes for the tournament (the spread) then I would win. It was only $5.

No one took me up on the wager. Why? Maybe because I averaged 930 rated rounds for the greater portion of this spring except for 1 tournament.

Player ratings are a great bragging tool, but when it comes down to throwing the disc on the course and putting it in the basket, they really don't mean a thing. Just because you are rated higher then me does not mean that I cannot beat you.

Player ratings are a great bragging tool, but when it comes down to throwing the disc on the course and putting it in the basket, they really don't mean a thing. Just because you are rated higher then me does not mean that I cannot beat you.



You cant beat me and im rated higher then you :eek: ;) /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D

This "ratings lag" for quickly improving players (mainly new-ish players), is something that the new system addresses. This is because the new rating system takes a statistical snapshot of your skill level at a much more recent timeframe than the old ratings system did. Ratings for players like you will much more accurately capture your actual skill level. So, wagers like yours will not make much sense when the new system rolls out next week.

But wait 3-5 more years when your development plateau's. Then you will be thinking that the current way ratings are (have been done) will be a better metric of your real skill level. Because, if you have a really hot tournament right before the ratings, that will be weighted very heavily and your rating will go artificially high since it will not be statistically dampened by lots of other rounds. Visa Versa for an uncharacteristically bad round right before ratings.

No system that the ratings guys ever devise will make everyone happy. And I am not whining by the observation I make. Just observing. I love the whole ratings process and think that the problems this new ratings system fixes is MUCH bigger than the problems it introduces in the design trade-off department.

You cant beat me and im rated higher then you :eek: ;) /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D



I have played against you once, and I did not beat you. See you at the SN Am Championships! :eek:

Parkntwoputt- stop talking about how you playing 930 golf with a 865 rating- NO ONE CARES!

It's nice that your playing above your rating, but so are most AMs out there. I'm playing 20-30 points above mine but do I bring it up all the time? No. Why? Because until I get it close to 1000 it won't mean squat.

Yeah I play 97 points above my rating. I have been playing 1055 golf lately. :D:D

I think I struck a nerve with Luke......I might lose sleep over this. :D

Um........wait a second.....nope, I won't.

For everyone one person who says it there are 100 who think it - - go talk about your rounds to someone who cares...

South Bend Worlds was two years before the ratings system started after Cincinnati Worlds in 1998. It's possible that the SSA for Rum Village might have been below the calculation limit of 41.4, and even that limit might be too low even now to get accurate results. When you're bumping up against a realistic limit of 36 for a best score, each shot counts much more from a ratings standpoint when the SSA gets closer than 6 shots away.

No doubt that Geoff's round will be remembered as one of the great rounds ever, considering that it was shot in Worlds.



This would never be about me so. :p

But who do you think would be the first person to shoot better then -18?

There already has been -18 or better. Depends on if you are asking for a -18 on a 18 hole course or -18 on courses over 18 holes.

Alright to justify the ratings fiasco. First of all, I showed up late to the second day of the MSDGC last year, two holes late, 8 strokes. Played a poor round on top of that. Shot an 817 with the penalty. Right now I shoot consitently 935 golf, which is growing by the day. I have about 5 rounds of my last 10 that are 950s. Should my lateness drop my rating? I did the calculations and if it gets dropped my rating goes to 915, if not 905. The difference between me being able to bag it in AM2 or not. So if I wanted I could show up to an A tier, and destroy the am2 competition, without breaking a rule. Secondly I play in NEFA land which doesnt have that many pdga tourneys, I have played 8 tourneys this year, 3 have been pdga. 30 rounds is a 3 year wait for me with active playing i.e. more than 1 tourney a month. So my rating doesnt matter? I pay my fees just as much as everyone else, it matters.

So if I wanted I could show up to an A tier, and destroy the am2 competition, without breaking a rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah..... i don't think so. let me be the first to say.. your a bagger.

So if I wanted I could show up to an A tier, and destroy the am2 competition, without breaking a rule.



Bagger, where is the pride in that! My partner and I got destroyed in World Doubles in MA1, we had a bad weekend, 28th/35. But even shooting from the longer pads we would have placed 4th in MA2, probably would have won if shooting from the shorter pads. It was much more enjoyable duking it out amongst tougher competition, even though we played poorly, rather then play poorly and still finish well. A victory in MA2 that weekend would have been hollow, even though our ratings justified it.

So if I wanted I could show up to an A tier, and destroy the am2 competition, without breaking a rule. Secondly I play in NEFA land which doesnt have that many pdga tourneys, I have played 8 tourneys this year, 3 have been pdga. 30 rounds is a 3 year wait for me with active playing i.e. more than 1 tourney a month. So my rating doesnt matter? I pay my fees just as much as everyone else, it matters.



I dont think that there should be AM 2 at A Tier events but if you wanted to then you could go ahead and do it.

I dont think you understand the concept. So your saying that you dont have 30 rounds in right now??? Im pretty sure that you do. They would just drop the last 5 and add in them most recent 5 that you played (or however many new rounds you have). You wouldnt have to wait untill you had 30 rounds that werent in your rating yet. Every new round you shot would be added in and an old one would be dropped out so that you would always have 30 rounds in your rating.

first off, let me just say i know will and he would NOT bag AM2. I think he was throwing it out there as a hypothetical more than saying "if i can do it, I'm going to".

second, he definitely doesnt have 30 rounds in. It's just about impossible for anyone in New England to get 30 rounds recorded in a year, even if you play every weekend. Up here in new england it is VERY hard to find pdga events, since many TD's put more emphasis on the NEFA points series than obtaining pdga sanctioning. 30 rounds would be 15 tournaments (assuming they were all 1-day events). Will only has FIVE pdga events between all of last year and this year, and only the MSDGC was a 2-day event so he has a grand total of 12 rounds being calculated in his pdga rating. (coincidentally, i have 5 as well but i have two 2-day events in there) 888 is NOT indicitavie of his playing whatsoever.

Well then they would just use ALL of his rounds then untill her got up to 30 then the old ones would start dropping off.

Should my lateness drop my rating?



Ask yourself, should PDGA rules apply during PDGA sanctioned tournaments? Should they apply to everyone except you? You shot what was on the scorecard, and that score gets added in to your ratings (for now).
And if you are playing steady 950 golf, the word "AM2" would not even be a poop stain on your mind's undershorts.

I play with Will all the time he's NEVER going to play Am2
He's just [inappropriate word] that his rating would actually let him and that he can't take pride in his rating like he can his game
Simmer down on his back he's not a super bagger or anything

I was just finding a flaw in discpimps 30 rounds rule. Secondly I'm only staying am until after worlds this year and then I will play pro. Thirdly there are people out there who bag divisions and with the 30 round rule, a player who wanted to could do so in NEFA land for almost 3 yrs. I'm just pointing out a flaw in the 30 round system. Also about the punishment for lateness, I didnt earn that round rating based on shooting alone. I dont think it should have been counted in my rating, I was already punished in the tournament. This new system chuck is doing that by dropping ultra low rounds, and I applaud him. I just point out exceptions, they dont show my intensions.

In fact, a player being late for two holes is one of the issues we considered when determining the cut point for the new system.

I now have the highest rated round with a 1096

New records will have to be started in 2005 with the new calculations. So, all new records are in the process of being set.

Very Nice Coda! That truly is amazing! Congrats

Coda wrote:
"I now have the highest rated round with a 1096"

Chuck responded:
"New records will have to be started in 2005 with the new calculations. So, all new records are in the process of being set."

I ask:
Did something change in the calculations that impacts individual round ratings? Nothing is identified in this post announcing the changes:



The update is now posted on schedule with a few hours to spare. Here are the new elements in the calculations:

1. Your most recent 8 round ratings will be double weighted.
2. If you have fewer than 8 rounds in your most recent 12 months of rated rounds, we will go back up to 12 more months until we get 8 (used to be 20).
3. The minimum number of propagators required to calculate ratings has been dropped from 10 down to 5 since last September. (Theo will soon change the online unofficial ratings calculator from 10 down to 5.)

I now have the highest rated round with a 1096



Yes that is a new record, unless someone can find a higher rated round. (it was rated that high in the unofficial ratings too)

Barry Shults highest rated round ever was only 1088

We also tweaked the SSA formula in preparation for adding the "use all rounds" planned for the July update.

Barry has shot a 1092 round at Tower Ridge a few years ago.

How did you tweak it Chuck???

We also tweaked the SSA formula in preparation for adding the "use all rounds" planned for the July update.



If a player has rounds from up to 1 year ago included in his rating, does that mean some of those round ratings were calculated with the old SSA formula, and some were calculated with the new SSA formula?

Yes, there are old and new rounds blended for this rating. Roger left the new SSA factor in the formula since we're transitioning to the new system by July. I'm not certain but I believe we may rerun this latest update as part of the July update so that all of the 2005 data is done on the new basis. That might change a few numbers by a point or two for archival purposes.

I'll update the ratings docs for posting around mid-July once all of the pieces are together.

I now have the highest rated round with a 1096



Coda, tell us about the round. Did you mess up? Could you have shot better? Did it feel like a 1096 round?

From the updated archives at DG Resources:

<table border="1"><tr><td>Rating</td><td>Name</td><td>Date</td><td>Score</td><td>SSA</td><td>Course</td><td>Tournament
</td></tr><tr><td>1096</td><td>Hatfield, Coda</td><td>2/9/05</td><td>41</td><td>?</td><td>Z Boaz?</td><td>Big Show Mid-week 1
</td></tr><tr><td>1094</td><td>Arthur, Phil</td><td>7/15/2000</td><td>41</td><td>?</td><td>Lenora Park</td><td>Hotlanta
</td></tr><tr><td>1092</td><td>Stokely, Scott </td><td>3/6/1999</td><td>40</td><td>?</td><td>Vista Del Camino Park</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>1092</td><td>Schultz, Barry</td><td>4/26/2003</td><td>49(21 Holes)</td><td>?</td><td>Pro Temp </td><td>Tower Ridge Open
</td></tr><tr><td>1090</td><td>Duron, Dan</td><td>3/9/2002</td><td>39</td><td>?</td><td>El Dorado Long-A</td><td>El Dorado Open
</td></tr><tr><td>1090</td><td>Climo, Ken</td><td>4/6/2002</td><td>41</td><td>?</td><td>Northside Park Long</td><td>Gator Cntry Cl. Pro R2
</td></tr><tr><td>1086</td><td>Rico, Steve</td><td>3/9/2002</td><td>39</td><td>?</td><td>El Dorado Long-B</td><td>El Dorado Open
</td></tr><tr><td>1086</td><td>Russell, Ron</td><td>9/2/2000</td><td>39</td><td>?</td><td>Mason Cnty Park Long</td><td>MDGO Finals
</td></tr><tr><td>1086</td><td>Leonard, Larry</td><td>4/27/2002 </td><td>44</td><td>?</td><td>Seneca Creek Red-A</td><td>Seneca Soiree
</td></tr><tr><td>1086</td><td>Schultz, Barry</td><td>3/7/2003</td><td>51</td><td>?</td><td>Fountain Hills</td><td>Memorial NT , Rnd 1
</td></tr><tr><td>1085</td><td>Wisecup, Steve</td><td>3/29/2003</td><td>38</td><td>?</td><td>El Dorado Mixed</td><td>El Dorado Open
</td></tr><tr><td>1084</td><td>Loya, Mike</td><td>3/17/2001</td><td>41</td><td>?</td><td>Orangevale</td><td>St. Patricks - Pros
</td></tr><tr><td>1084</td><td>Rico, Steve</td><td>2/16/2002</td><td>60</td><td>?</td><td>Oak Grove (27 holes)</td><td>Wintertime Open Pros, Rnd 1
</td></tr><tr><td>1082</td><td>Schultz, Barry</td><td>3/7/2003</td><td>43</td><td>?</td><td>Fountain Hills</td><td>Memorial NT, Rnd 3
</td></tr><tr><td>1082</td><td>Todd, Cameron</td><td>5/30/2003</td><td>48</td><td>?</td><td>Lake Olmstead Park - NT Layout</td><td>DG Hall of Fame Classic
</td></tr><tr><td>1081</td><td>Harris, LaRon</td><td>7/15/2000 </td><td>40</td><td>?</td><td>Jones Park W Long</td><td>Emporia
</td></tr><tr><td>1081</td><td>Jenkins, Avery</td><td>12/15/2001</td><td>44</td><td>?</td><td>Fountain Hills</td><td>F.H. Thrills
</td></tr><tr><td>1081</td><td>Johansen, Michael</td><td>10/26/2002</td><td>44</td><td>?</td><td>Hornet\'s Nest Long</td><td>DiscLanding
</td></tr><tr><td>1080</td><td>Hammock, Brad</td><td>4/30/2005</td><td>42</td><td>?</td><td>Cedar Hills- Gold</td><td>Dogwood Crosstown
</td></tr><tr><td>1080</td><td>Climo, Ken</td><td>3/18/2000</td><td>40</td><td>?</td><td>N. Water Tower</td><td>Allstate Rnd2
</td></tr><tr><td>1079</td><td>Tracy Eric</td><td>5/26/2001</td><td>40</td><td>?</td><td>Wickham Park</td><td>Melbourne Open
</td></tr><tr><td>1079</td><td>Feldberg, David</td><td>4/6/2002</td><td>42</td><td>?</td><td>Northside Park Long</td><td>Gator Cntry Cl. Pro R2
</td></tr><tr><td>1079</td><td>Musick, Bobby</td><td>9/28/2002</td><td>42</td><td>?</td><td>Lakeside Course</td><td>SoCal Championships- Pros
</td></tr><tr><td>1079</td><td>Climo, Ken</td><td>8/6/2002</td><td>43</td><td>?</td><td>Tourney Rds 5-8</td><td>Pro Worlds
</td></tr><tr><td>1078</td><td>Rico, Steve</td><td>9/28/2002</td><td>43</td><td>?</td><td>Backside Course</td><td>SoCal Championships- Pros
</td></tr><tr><td>1078</td><td>Schweberger, Brian</td><td>6/8/2002</td><td>46</td><td>?</td><td>McNaughton Park</td><td>Peoria Open Pro R3
</td></tr><tr><td>1077</td><td>Dropcho, J. Gary</td><td>6/26/1999</td><td>39</td><td>?</td><td>Grand Woods East-18</td><td>Inflight
</td></tr><tr><td>1077</td><td>Moser, Mike</td><td>6/20/1998</td><td>40</td><td>?</td><td>Knob Hill,</td><td>Pittsburgh Flying Disc Open, SA
</td></tr><tr><td>1077</td><td>Anthon, Josh</td><td>3/16/2002</td><td>43</td><td>?</td><td>Orangevale</td><td>St. Patricks � Pros
</td></tr><tr><td>1074</td><td>Climo, Ken</td><td>2004</td><td>42</td><td>?</td><td>Cedar Hills, Raleigh NC</td><td>Dogwood Crosstown
</td></tr><tr><td>1072</td><td>McRee, Brian</td><td>2003</td><td>42</td><td>?</td><td>Cedar Hills, Raleigh NC</td><td>Dogwood Crosstown
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Dan Duron still one of the top 5; I'll never forget the grin on his face as he turned in that card...El Dorado, and SoCal, have a disproportionate representation on this list, and it's NOT do to a huge volume of PDGA-activity, at least not relative to our populations. I think it's due mainly to: Superior local talent, and a higher expectation in regards to record-keeping, but that's just a guess. :D;) :cool:

1081 Walter Haney 5/1/2005 43 Zebulon 21st Dogwood Crosstown Classic

...and he took a 5 on hole 3.

FYI

Coda's 1096 round was at Lake Lewisville, not ZBoaz. It was pretty windy that day, especially during the first round.

Speaking of Z Boaz, Barry shot a 1086 round (-10) there during the Z Boaz Open breaking the course record. I got the entire round on videotape. He was nailing some windy putts with the Bulldog.

Good times /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif