MTL has you by a few and neither of you can play Advanced.



well i guess that means i still could have fallen some.....

Chuck, am I > 961?

No you are 961 :D:D

Nope

That sucks.

I have a simple question about my rating:

up or down?

down

Chuck,

I signed up for my next tourney as Intermediate, will I still be able to play at that level? #26371


Thanks

I guess Im not amazed as to how impatient we all can be.........lol!

#26853, can you tell me if im int. or adv. now?

More of how can we ask with out asking game. I do not think anyone is seriously asking Chuck, Just some fun while we watched the Cowboys choke.

Chuck, is the USADGC figured in the Sept. update?

The ratings are up sweet. Thanks Guys.

Why isn't Mid-nationals in the update??????????? :confused:

Read the announcement

Ok I read about the interim update. Will ratings change with Mid nats in or will it just be up to view?

The ratings of Mid-Nats players will change depending on how they did.

Mine went up - still have never had an update where my rating went down or stayed the same - it has gone up every single time.

Ok I read about the interim update. Will ratings change with Mid nats in or will it just be up to view?


I was going to say, those were my last rated rounds and i was wondering why i didnt go up.

yeah, MTL, you are great, but I take 1 step backwards two steps forwards! Now we're both in the 960s... but I play about a round a week...

Why would the 3rd and 4th round of a tournament be included in the new ratings while the first two rounds are not?
:confused:

Why would the 3rd and 4th round of a tournament be included in the new ratings while the first two rounds are not?
:confused:



cuz you did better on rounds 1 and 2. :D

If different courses are played by some divisions in some rounds, it's possible there might not be enough propagators (players with established ratings) to generate ratings in some rounds. At least 5 propagators are required to generate ratings.

According to my average rate of improvement my rating will break 1000 on the December ratings update of 2006 :D

My new goal is to become 1000 rated before the 2006 December update :D

Chris plays Open. I hope there's enough propagators in his division....

Looks like the Shreveport Challenge. Nobody got ratings credit for round 1??

According to my average rate of improvement my rating will break 1000 on the December ratings update of 2006 :D

My new goal is to become 1000 rated before the 2006 December update :D



I'm on pace to break 1016 sometime in the next 10 years, I think I go up .00001 point every update.

WTF,

None of the rounds I played made it into the update. There were two rounds from the spring that were supposed to be in this update due to a coding problem during the last update, and they were not included. So....I get no rounds added or dropped from my rating, and my rating goes down? I thought the new formulas were supposed to make the ratings a tad higher, not lower.

Wait I know, it all a conspiracy by "The Man" to keep us little folk down! LOL /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Anyone want to make a ratings weighted wager for in my next tournament?

According to my average rate of improvement my rating will break 1000 on the December ratings update of 2006 :D

My new goal is to become 1000 rated before the 2006 December update :D



In that case, based on the same theory, I should be 1000+ by the September 2006 update! :oIts a great goal, but all I care about is golfing like I know I can.

Nice jump there BTW Steve.

Since we'll be getting the Mid-Nationals included in a week or so, we can also deal with any other corrections. We'll take a look at why R1 didn't get ratings at the Shreveport Challenge. Let us know of any other items for correction.

Where should you report a tournament that didn't get accounted for under a persons name because they had just signed up for the pdga that day and didn't have a pdga number to sign up in the tournament with?

Nice jump there BTW Steve.



Thanks. Not quite as nice as yours though :eek:

Yeah, nice jump there Boro, or should I say, leapfrog. :eek:

Dave at the PDGA office tries to get PDGA numbers for new members into reports but usually the person does not get ratings for that event if they are joining for the first time at the event itself. Everything is keyed off the PDGA number. Too many people have the same name so that can't be used for database references.

Chuck,
Who do we talk to when we dont believe rounds should have been counted in our rating?

I looked at your stats and nothing seems out of order in terms of rounds being included.

Chuck,
I was told that the rounds would not be counted for Chandler. There was a mix up and the same divisions didn't even play the same course at the same time for the 1st two rounds. Some of us played the permanent course and others played a temporary course.

Thanks for getting ratings up

The ratings for the AM's at the Brenk Hambrick Memorial Open are incorrect. AM II played short tees second round whereas the Advanced group played long tees. Also, AM II had a few short tees that the advanced did not play on rounds 1 and 3

Not only that but how come Riverside Glide (July PDGA event) results are posted under PDGA Tour Events, but not part of the ratings or even showing up as a tournament that I played. Why is that?

Read the announcement


What announcement?

Read the announcement


What announcement?



see: Announcement (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=444728&Main=444728#Post444728)

Chuck,
I played a triples event earlier this year that somehow managed to get rated? I just thought I'd bring that to your attention since you said corrections could be made....it was the 4th Annual Bud Smith Memorial Triples 15-May-2005. Thanks.
:D

We rate events with an odd number of players like singles and triples but not doubles :D

(we'll look into it)

I'll try to copy and paste your correction posts but it's better if you PM or email the Ratings@pdga.com with the correction. I'll be at the Summit meeting and Augusta for the next week and that will allow me to forward them to Roger for correction.

My rating went up 8 points to 991. Not far from 4 digits :D

The ratings of Mid-Nats players will change depending on how they did.



So I will move up a few more points maybe. :D:D

Hey Matt , great shoot'n..................I have still a long road to catch you.........

Keep tearin' it up !!!!!

Always :D

Donny Olow

My rating went up 8 points to 991. Not far from 4 digits :D



No more Masters division for you then! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Just kidding, congrats. :D

Thanks Donnie, you taught me how to play fast :D

Thanks Jeff, your Steelers look awesome. :cool:I went to the Jet game Sunday, you have a better arm than Chad :(

This is a dumb question but im going to ask it anyways. Is there any way i can let my PDGA membership expire and then start a new one to get a new rating? Maybe like, misspell my last name by one letter or something?

At this rate, Drew McDaniel will be a 1000 rated AM. And that will be at the NEXT update! Fear him!!!!!!

908 | 920 | 937 | 966 | ____

Is your rating really that important??? All it does is gauge how you play. Eventually your new rating would be the same as your old rating anyways. It's just a number. Nothing more nothing less.

Actually the rating are becoming more accurate and actually fair for once

Is your rating really that important??? All it does is gauge how you play. Eventually your new rating would be the same as your old rating anyways. It's just a number. Nothing more nothing less.



If i got a new rating it would not be the same as my old one.

Is there any way i can let my PDGA membership expire and then start a new one to get a new rating? Maybe like, misspell my last name by one letter or something?



Depends --- are you trying to get a new rating because you feel your current rating is too high, and you want to be able to play "down" a division or two? Or is your rating filled with a bunch of 700 and 800 rated rounds from when you first started playing, and you want to start anew with only 900+ rated rounds?

If it's the former instance, I'd consider that to be an unsportsman-like move, and would be against anybody who tried something like that.

If it's the later instance, I'd suggest you continue to try to play well and wait patiently for those old, bad ratings to fall by the wayside in less than a year.

Here here! Well said!!

ratings distribution (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/ratingdistribution.htm) in 10-point bands, based on Sept 15, 2005 ratings update.

woo-hoo! That means 920 is average. I'm above average! Even with the drop from the last update!

By the way Pat, you have WAY too much time on your hands to be doing this kind of stuff. You should present some of it to ESPN or someone...they might hire you as a statistician.

Hey Chuck, when the Mid-Nationals are included, will the latest 25% of the rounds for the player shift as well?

Hey Chuck, when the Mid-Nationals are included, will the latest 25% of the rounds for the player shift as well?




Yes

Except for that little side-lobe at 780, that's about as frickin' normal as you can get!

Hooda thunk it? Disc golf is normal. :)

Except for that little side-lobe at 780, that's about as frickin' normal as you can get!

Hooda thunk it? Disc golf is normal. :)



Actually, my son informs me that the term NORMAL usually applies to Gaussian distributions, i.e. the distribution is equal on both sides of the mean. :D He goes on to lecture that the ratings distribution is probably better described as Poisson and thus not necessarily normal at all.

I wonder how many would guess there are more players rated in the 870's alone than all players over 980 combined, and more players in the 850's through 880's than all the players over 950 combined. If you take out the peak of 910,920,930; you are left with 4277 players BELOW that group, and only 2219 ABOVE that group. :eek:

I wonder how many would guess there are more players rated in the 870's alone than all players over 980 combined, and more players in the 850's through 880's than all the players over 950 combined. If you take out the peak of 910,920,930; you are left with 4277 players BELOW that group, and only 2219 ABOVE that group. :eek:


I would guess it and it doesn't seem shocking at all, it's not very hard to conceive that there are many more decent 800's players than there are above average players, but I guess thats just me..... :cool:

I wanted to let all ratings doubters know how accurate they really are. My current rating is 979. I have two unposted tounaments and my ratings for those two tournaments are .......979. So I'm convinced, they are accurate and fair.

Except when half of the tournaments you've played recently aren't included in your rating because of slow TD's.

If you play at a consistent level then your rating is pretty much dead on.

If you are rapidly improving or rapidly declining, then there is no system in the world that works.

Here's a stat that would be intersting to track.

How many tournaments are attended by all in those groups during a year. the hard part would be to track where people were in different ratings categories during different ratings updates. I think the best way to do it would be divided by ratings updates. track the number of tournaments played by each decade of players (by decade I mean 910-919) during that section of the year. We can thus track who is in what rating decade, what number of tournaments each decade is playing, and from that, find out what decade is playing the most tournaments per capita. This would be an interesting stat, dont'cha think?

none of the tournaments that i played in this summer are in teh updates. labor day weekend, i understand cuz the update was shortly after that.
but i played 2 in the beginning of august (flying pig open, and peiradise open). shouldnt the results have been in before the update?

so i guess the mid-nats interim update should be within the next couple days? it was very surprising to see an event that chuck was so involved in be an event that for whatever reason isn't included on a ratings update over 2 months later.

The wizard Theo wrote is designed to automatically import standard TD reports which can handle up to 4 rounds and semis. We have to manually handle Am & Pro Worlds because they have pools and the process isn't automated. We were ready for that. We didn't realize until it was too late that even without pools the Mid-Nats with 6 rounds and special divisions had to be handled manually and needed some additional programing.

We didn't realize until it was too late that even without pools the Mid-Nats with 6 rounds and special divisions had to be handled manually and needed some additional programing.




isn't this one of the signs of the apocalypse :eek:

:D

Hey Chuck i got a question...im rated 945 now, and i played Pro and accepted cash this weekend for the first time...but my Mid-Nationals rounds havent been included yet and I will move up after them...if I am higher than (955 i think?), will i not be able to bounce back and forth?

Once you go over 954, you can't bounce side to side. Better play Advanced this weekend since we hope to post the interim update with the Mid-Nats ratings before the following weekend.

Chuck,
he said he took cash and you are telling him to play what?

Any male or female pro (person who has cashed in sanctioned play) has the option to enter Advanced if their rating is below 955. It's been in the tour guidelines starting this year and many have used the option including myself.

I think there would be more players in the low 800 bands if we offered them a division to compete in.

bruce, are you postulating that there is a significant set of players around the 800 level that do not join/play in pdga events because they know they would get shredded in Rec?

i tend to agree that those players are out there in large numbers, but is there evidence suggesting a new lower ranked division would bring them into the fold?

A. They tell me, at our tournaments, that they will probably play more tournaments when they are more competitive. Then they finish on the DFL card in rec.
B. When we started running tournaments in the Chicago area with sanctioned lower amateur divisions, the intermediate and rec players started joining the PDGA in larger numbers and getting ratings.

We may get out in front on this issue by offering an Am 4 division next year for players rated under, hmmm, 835? 825? On the TD report we could just fold them back into Rec.

We had 11 at least players at our last tournament who belong in Am 4.

Maybe if we provide for an Am 4 division, more TDs would at least offer Rec (Am 3) unlike many don't do now.

I dunno Bruce. I am one of those players, 798, who has played in a bunch of your tournaments (which by the way are always well run and lots of fun to play). I played well enough in one of them to earn some funny money but have otherwise played to avoid the bottom and mainly to move up my personal rating. I really don't know whether an uberrec devision would draw more into the fold. I figure that if I can play 750, 775, 800 or so golf I can work my way up to 825-850 eventually. Its just going to take a little time. I think just as many players would feel that they were lumped into the "special ed" division as would be excited about winning a little plastic by winning this division.

Maybe the answer is to reconfigure all divisions. It seems that the cusp between rec/int and int/adv is very slim. Perhaps rec=below 850 int=850-900 adv=900-950 would provide for a more even distribution. With 50 point swings in these divisions they would always be competitive. an 855 golfer can have a good day and beat an 899 and so on. the one thing about rec being below 875 is that I have scant chance of ever beating an 874 golfer. Every once in a blue moon I can beat an 849 golfer or at least play on the same card as that golfer in the final round.

I think the bigger issue with lower rated players is money. Given that most do not play as often, they do not want to fork over a few extra bucks to play in sanctioned tournaments. I am not one of those. I have avoided tournaments that looked like fun because the TD does not play int and rec as sanctioned events.

I have also thought that the ratings spread for divisions should be changed. Rec. <850, Int. <900, Adv. <950 is better from my perspective as well.

Am 4?? :confused:

Why not break down age groups by every 2 years also, then there can be 25 winners at any given event. :D

I personally liked the ratings groups used at the Mid-Nationals. I played in the green division, 776-825, and it was my most competitive tournament yet. I will probably be out of that division when the Mid-nationals are updated, but it still beats playing guys with 900+ ratings in intermediate. I am a 40+ year old dad with little practice or playing time (closest course is 1 1/2 hours away), but I love to compete in tournaments. I think that there are a lot of us older guys that have not been playing as long, and this would create more parity, as opposed to competing against kids (under 30). I'm not good enough for advanced masters, yet. James Powell

Maybe if we provide for an Am 4 division, more TDs would at least offer Rec (Am 3) unlike many don't do now.



This needed repeating. We have a good sized rec field out here.

Am 4?? :confused:

Why not break down age groups by every 2 years also, then there can be 25 winners at any given event. :D


Don't worry, none of the sub-800 rated golfers that would sign up for Am4 would've paid $75 to play MPO, so you won't be losing out on anything.

I have also thought that the ratings spread for divisions should be changed. Rec. <850, Int. <900, Adv. <950 is better from my perspective as well.


I really like this idea here. It would make the fields tighter. It's always interesting to go to a tourney, and watch the guy that wins the Int. division shoot so well that they would've placed in the money in Adv.

there seems to be little or no interest among players for the rec division in our area, let alone another one beneath it. i have offered it at every event i have run since it was instituted prior to this fall's hawk hollow open. (only advanced and pro there) i believe the largest number of takers at any given event has been 4 (although i would need to check to be certain).

imo the attraction of tournaments is largely to folks with a natural competitive bent and those people will rapidly make themselves competitive within the current structure. i don't see too many people staying away due to the fear of getting crushed in the rec division.

when i began playing this game competitively the mindset of many was that local events were for players just starting out in the game while pdga events are for the somewhat more serious/experienced players. (i am not saying this is right or wrong, merely that it was the case) does anyone believe this anymore? or should pdga events be all things to all people?

another question for those of you in other areas- have players begun actually playing their rated division in your area rather than wholescale playing up? around here they have not.

Rec was the largest division at our last tournament and 8 or ten players who had rec ratings or would have been competitive there played up to Intermediate. I think it is a regional thing. There are a couple of factors that contribute to our good rec turn out that might not be working in other places.

Skill sets are definately regional. And it is not good or bad to one area or another. Take for instance, there is hardly a recreational division down here in the south. Why? Because, comparatively it is easier to move up in the south then it is anywhere else. Some players have a joke saying "he/she is a SN pro but a PDGA Advanced player." While it does not intend to knock down the players of the SN, what it does point out is the different levels of competition in the area. There are fewer disc golfers in the competitive south then anywhere else. We have one course in a town of over 1 million people and the only time we wait on a tee box is during a tournament. Greater concentrations of players promote competitivness. So if you have more players in general the pro divisions would be harder to get into. I remember MTL saying that you pretty much have to be a 1000 rated player in his area because of so many good players there. Well in my area you only need to be a 950 rated player to become pro. (BTW, the kid who placed 2nd at worlds and the guy who won Masters are both SN players, so the quality of players down here is not poor, we just have fewer of them.).

If a 4th division of Amateur was offered, it probably would not be popular here in the south, the sentiment in the south is that you get only one tournament as a rec player and then you move up to intermediate. But places like the Carolinas and California where there are greater concentrations of players, that fourth Am division could be widely popular. So I agree/think that divisions should be cut like...

MA4<800 and "newbies"
MA3<850
MA2<900
MA1<950 (yes I like a cut off for advanced players too.)

Chuck, how does my rating go from a 967 to a 966 when a 975 round was the only thing added after the September ratings? :confused:

It would seem if anything my rating would go up.

Chuck, how does my rating go from a 967 to a 966 when a 975 round was the only thing added after the September ratings? :confused:

It would seem if anything my rating would go up.



You probably had some good rounds getting dropped for being older than a year old.

that would be something that would have been done in the new september ratings though. I had one tournament that was missing the 1st round so they added it on Oct 4th and the round was higher than my current rating and my rating went down.

It happened b/c you wanted your rating to go up. Forget about that silly number and it will magically grow. My rating went up in the July update when i expected it to come in lower. :)

It is going to go up!!!

Averaged 992 my last 9 rounds with 3 rounds in the 960's.
But I still don't understand how a higher rated round added to my detail lowered my rating.

Does 2+2=4 under the new rating system? :eek:

Bummer... my rating went up after Mid-Nationals was added.
I tried to keep it from happening through scoring errors, failing to hole out, etc.. but noooo!!! :( /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D

Bummer... my rating went up after Mid-Nationals was added.
I tried to keep it from happening through scoring errors, failing to hole out, etc.. but noooo!!! :( /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D



I didn't really think I would make it but I reached my goal of 985 after starting the year at 956. :D:DThanks Mid-Nats

Something has gone 'orribly wrong with the ratings from the Morley Field Spring Fling that was held on May 7th, 2005. Those ratings are WAYYYYYY too low.

What happened there Chuck?

I guarrentee you that the winner in MA1 shot better than 922 and 928.

Rapidly improving 'gators shooting above their rating depress ratings for everyone. It is just 4th grade math, or whatever grade they teach you how to calculate an average.

I'm pretty sure advanced and rec used different teepads.

That would depress ratings too, if it was not picked up in the TD report and there were gators in the rec field.

We are already working on the Morley corrections. Apparently the number of holes was 19 instead of 18 which is the current value on file for the event.

. . But places like the Carolinas and California where there are greater concentrations of players, that fourth Am division could be widely popular.



I doubt it, I have never even seen a local tournament offer rec, so an even lower division wouldnt serve any purpose. People here are competitive enough to at least play intermediate.

The teepads are the bigger issue. Number of holes shouldn't make one bit of difference to the rating calculation, right?

I don't think we need a lower division, we just need more tournaments that offer a rec division.I am pretty competitive myself, but I would rather play rec than int, if there wasn't a womens division.

Since you have never seen a local tournament offer rec, you have no idea how many rec players are not playing your local tournaments because their division is not offered.

The next time you are passing out tournament flyers to players at a course, [o.k., then, the first time you are passing out tournament flyers at a course] note how many tell you, "We don't play tournaments because we aren't good enough. We've seen you guys play. You're good." I hear that all the time. I tell the women, "You are as good as the women who play in our women's recreational division. Diana and Kelsey aren't allowed to play in that division because they are too good," which is true. Unfortunately, I usually cannot say the same for their boyfriends, so I just tell them that we have three men's amateur divisions and if they want to check it out, be sure to start in the novice, recreational or Am 3 division.

My junior girls would not have started playing tournaments if they had had to start playing in the women's intermediate division, which at the time was a new concept around here. So we offered a division for them that previously existed only in the fertile imaginations of the PDGA board, the junior girls' division, and since have had literally over a dozen different girls play tournaments who otherwise never would have played. About seven have found that they really enjoy the game and, once again, we have more junior girl players than we can take to our tournaments.

Since you have never seen a local tournament offer rec, you have no idea how many rec players are not playing your local tournaments because their division is not offered.


I'd be interested to see the ratings from these guys that think that rec is not necessary. Why should we be turning away anyone who wants to play? I would love to see more tournaments concentrating on getting more divisions out there ( Open Women, Adv. Women, Int. Women, Masters in all divisions,Juniors, etc.....)

I don't know how it is where you are, but out here most tourneys fill up all the way. But we still offer the Rec division.

I would imagine that if tourneys in NC are filling to capacity with pre-regs, there is not much of a drive to offer the Rec division.

It looks like in North Carolina the two-day one-course four-round tournament is the prevailing format and those are filling. That would explain why the tournament directors don't care to reach out to more players.

In Michigan where I live and Illinois where I help run tournaments it is more common to see one-day two-round tournaments, and when the tournament fills you add holes or split the field across Saturday and Sunday.

Plus in Michigan there are three or four tournaments every weekend. There were 17 tournaments in September and 17 listed for October. When there is that much competition for the tournament players, there is more of an incentive to expand the potential pool of tournament players by offering more divisions. "Intermediate women's grandmaster lesbians? Sure, if you got a threesome." [Can we say lesbien?]

Sure, if you got a threesome." [Can we say lesbien?]

absolutely. especially when you have a threesome involved.

ba-dum-bump

Chuck,

The Morley Field Spring Fling (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5004&year=2005&include_ratings=1#Advanced) ratings are still way off. Will they be fixed soon?

Check this out: Regions where all events fill need to have events that offer rec and beginner level events even more so than regions where not all events fill.

Why? Because you have hit the point of player saturation and need more courses. And who is going to help you get new courses installed?

New players are that's who. New players with local connections and influence. New players whom a percentage of which will actually be willing to do more than show up and play at leagues and events but who will help with events but more importantly help with creating contacts with decision makers who have the power to get new courses in.

True enough that regions with course saturation also need to cater more to rec and beginners also.

The challenges we both have all have arisen from an upside-down competitive structure that caters to the same ol' YMWTMTOTH and not to a broader more inclusive player base of true amatuer sportspersons.

I think we all suspect that if we could ever rate the 20 million or so that play disc golf worldwide that never play PDGAs that the average player would be about a 850 golfer.

Considering most PDGAs don't even offer a division (let alone a class) for such skill levels, why are we so surprised at our decent but sluggish progress in developing players, full events or new courses?

All I know is, if you offer the divisions, players will play them. We had 90 intermediate, rec and junior players on Saturday. We would not have had 42 rec men if we did not have a rec men's division.

We've turned the traditional disc golf tournament model upside down, and it works great for 86% of the players who play our events.

have a ratings question that someone asked me, and I was not sure what the answer is.

Will rounds played before a person joins the PDGA count towards their player rating? What if they become a member after the tournament but before the next ratings update?

I figured no, but wasn't too sure.

Chuck,

The Morley Field Spring Fling (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5004&year=2005&include_ratings=1#Advanced) ratings are still way off. Will they be fixed soon?


It's strange, but it looks like just about everyone shot around 50 points below their rating. I didn't think that was possible due to the math. Even if you messed it up by ignoring the different tee-pads used by different divisions, shouldn't the Rec and Int ratings be high and the long-pad divisions be low? It looks like everybody except about 5 people shot way below.

Chuck,

The Morley Field Spring Fling (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5004&year=2005&include_ratings=1#Advanced) ratings are still way off. Will they be fixed soon?


It's strange, but it looks like just about everyone shot around 50 points below their rating. I didn't think that was possible due to the math. Even if you messed it up by ignoring the different tee-pads used by different divisions, shouldn't the Rec and Int ratings be high and the long-pad divisions be low? It looks like everybody except about 5 people shot way below.



I initially submitted the correct layout info for both rounds, but someone had it changed. They have the correct info now, so hopefully it will get fixed. I should be rated 960-961, but with those horrible ratings, it dropped me a couple points.

Will rounds played before a person joins the PDGA count towards their player rating? What if they become a member after the tournament but before the next ratings update?



It all depends on whether the TD gets the player's new PDGA number on the TD report before it's submitted to the PDGA office. The office will not go back and add new member numbers to reports that have already been turned in. So, if the new member contacts the TD and gives them their new PDGA number AND the TD hasn't yet sent in the report, then rounds before or when they first joined will be rated.

Those who have a number and are non-current will get hidden ratings if the TD submits the report with their number on it. Then, when that lapsed member renews, those ratings will show up.

thanks Chuck

Chuck,

The Morley Field Spring Fling (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5004&year=2005&include_ratings=1#Advanced) ratings are still way off. Will they be fixed soon?


It's strange, but it looks like just about everyone shot around 50 points below their rating. I didn't think that was possible due to the math. Even if you messed it up by ignoring the different tee-pads used by different divisions, shouldn't the Rec and Int ratings be high and the long-pad divisions be low? It looks like everybody except about 5 people shot way below.



I initially submitted the correct layout info for both rounds, but someone had it changed. They have the correct info now, so hopefully it will get fixed. I should be rated 960-961, but with those horrible ratings, it dropped me a couple points.



Just talked with Dave Gentry, and he says the soonest it will be fixed is the December update...Which really lags since they were re-rated out of the blue, and re-rated extremely wrong to boot.

Just talked with Dave Gentry, and he says the soonest it will be fixed is the December update...Which really lags since they were re-rated out of the blue, and re-rated extremely wrong to boot.


What????

Why not for the update 2 days away? They re-rated that tourney and screwed it up on a "not even a ratings update day" day. Why can't they fix it on a non-update day, too???

Just talked with Dave Gentry, and he says the soonest it will be fixed is the December update...Which really lags since they were re-rated out of the blue, and re-rated extremely wrong to boot.


What????

Why not for the update 2 days away? They re-rated that tourney and screwed it up on a "not even a ratings update day" day. Why can't they fix it on a non-update day, too???


Feel free to voice your opinion...Not that it matters anyway. They only listen to Intermediate players who had nothing to with running the event :o

there's not an update two days away.

there's not an update two days away.


Whoops. :) I guess there is no update scheduled ever again.

This has probably been asked before, but i haven't been able to find it -- If my most recent ten rounds (from most recent to least recent) involve a 2 round tourney, a 3 round tourney, and a 4 round tourney -- which 8 rounds would be double weighted? would it be rounds 2,3, &amp; 4 from the oldest tourney or rounds 1, 2, &amp; 3?

what happened to the 9/20 date?? now it says 12/20??? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

My first 1000+ round and I still can't break 940's What is up with that. I even started playing Pro like MTL says to in another link. I knew I shouldn't have listen. Good thing I haven't cashed yet :D

AM Worlds look out

Sure Dave blame the innocent intermediate player. Like I would not have gotten crap for not reporting an inflated ranking.

Nice comment Dave Vincent, you are an *******, guess that is why you got banned from the boards for a bit. Perhaps if you were more civil you could get more accomplished here.



And with that comments you have joined both him and I in the A Hole group of the message board :D

Sure Dave blame the innocent intermediate player. Like I would not have gotten crap for not reporting an inflated ranking.



Nice try on the cover up but if you look at my post above everyone will see you for the true A hole you really are :eek: :D

Sure Dave blame the innocent intermediate player. Like I would not have gotten crap for not reporting an inflated ranking.


So what happened to the results for this tourney? We did not all play the same tee-pads, but the results as posted the last time I looked show that all divisions played the same pads.

What happened?

Without having to wade through 122 pages of posts to see if the answer is already contained in this thread...

What is the cut-off date for the PDGA to receive results in order to be included in the Dec 20 ratings update?

(and, is it now the last 25% of scores that are doubled, or is it still just the last 8?)

Without having to wade through 122 pages of posts to see if the answer is already contained in this thread...

What is the cut-off date for the PDGA to receive results in order to be included in the Dec 20 ratings update?

(and, is it now the last 25% of scores that are doubled, or is it still just the last 8?)



I think it's December 1. (No idea on the doubled part. Oh Chuck.... :) )

Nice comment Dave Vincent, you are an *******, guess that is why you got banned from the boards for a bit. Perhaps if you were more civil you could get more accomplished here.



And with that comments you have joined both him and I in the A Hole group of the message board :D



And now, for our nominees in the "Truer Words Have Never Been Spoken" category.......

Dec 1. Each player's most recent 25% of rounds will be doubled (rounded up). If only one round on a day will be doubled, it will always be your best rated one.

Dec 1. Each player's most recent 25% of rounds will be doubled (rounded up). If only one round on a day will be doubled, it will always be your best rated one.



Will that be the last 25% of your rounds in the calendar year? 12 months prior to the update? Or 25% of rounds ever played?

Not being a smart ***, just an honest question.

Each player's most recent 25% in the 12 months prior to each player's most recently rated round.

Dec 1. Each player's most recent 25% of rounds will be doubled (rounded up). If only one round on a day will be doubled, it will always be your best rated one.



Are you saying new ratings will be out on Dec 1?

TD Reports must be in by that date to be included on the update for the 20th (give or take).

Hey Chuck, I have a question. Why is it that Devan Owens and I are both listed in the <19 points when we are still <16 players???
:confused:

I believe all players are listed in every division in which they qualify within either Am or Pro divisions. I'm listed in Open, Master and GM pro lists, for example.

Yeah but we aren't listed in <16 or we would be #1 and #2 :confused: Instead 3 and 4. BTW it is because we never went to BG :D

My answer (unfortunately) is what the online display is supposed to do, not what it actually does at the moment. Further software development is needed when we can get the coding volunteers to handle it. There are a variety of sorts and displays that would be nice to have online.

So will we receive tour awards for <16?

Matt,

I never looked at the points standings before I read this thread tonight. I noticed that Nicole is kind of in the same boat as you are. She is listed in the girls <13 division (where she is a distance 2nd out of 7 girls) rather than the girls <10 division (where she would be 1st out of 4 girls). When I show Nicole the points standings tomorrow, she will probably like being listed in the <13 division with Kira Brakel.

Anyway, just thought I would mention that I noticed the same problem you did.

Rick

If there is a problem, call the PDGA office now, before they give your award to someone else. The phone number is at the top of the page. Maybe they have your birth year recorded wrong or something.

I will have a major jump if the Squirrel Fest 3 tournament in Atlanta is turned in on time.

However, it will be minisucle if they are late. But I should be able to change my signature to "Two strokes better then the PDGA says I am." If Squirrel fest is added, it may be only 1 stroke!

We will see.

Come on TD's turn in your results!

Hey Chuck ,

Is there a current formula , I could use to determine my rating ? Not sure if I did my round ratings correctly , for the recent tournaments I have played in. I'm somewhere between 981 and 984.

Thanks.

Best you can do is average the rounds you have. Several of the ratings I assume are unofficial and will just get you close.

Dec 1. Each player's most recent 25% of rounds will be doubled (rounded up). If only one round on a day will be doubled, it will always be your best rated one.




Chuck, did my rating go up 10 or more points?

Maybe by late next week you can bug me for preliminary numbers. That Dec 1 was the deadline for reports to be submitted to the PDGA office. We've just barely started assigning course layouts for the big batch of events being processed this time. All Ams below about 925 rating will probably see a slight increase in their ratings this time from what they expect due to the new adjustment factor for lower rated pools generating SSAs.

For example, if a group of pros averaging 975 plays a course, they will get the usual SSA calc done. If a group of propagators averaging 875 plays the same course, they will get 1.0 added to their SSA because typically the SSA they generate is 1 point less than the higher rated group will generate. This should eliminate the complaint that playing with pros or higher rated players generates higher ratings.

I will guess that my rating goes down 4 points to 962. I think this is the first time it will ever go down...hopefully the last as well. :D

Mine should never have dropped 2 points, if anything I should have gone up 3 points in the last update, but there was a mishap with the Morley Field ratings...They are being fixed for the next update. So hopefully with that correction and my newest rounds going in, I should be closer to my goal.

I'm hoping to finally break the 900 barrier. Realistically, I'm wagering 888-892 tops range. Up from 877 (finally forced me out of MA3). From my drunken estimations, I believe all of my rounds since the last update have been in the 900s in the ratings, but that was sort of a loose estimation.

I suspect that in this update I may finaly break the 960 mark. I outshot my last years Am Nats scores by about 30 points on average so my old ones should drop and I should have a couple 960+ round being added if the 5th Princess Open makes it in. I should have some 980 plus rounds added but the Fall Color Classic hasnt sent their TD report in yet so they wont be included. Oh well what can you do???

Will someone please figure mine out, I hate math

Will someone please figure mine out, I hate math



I checked my crystal ball, and am going to roll the dice with a:

902 by the old calc method, but it's going to be corrected by 4.4 points, leaving you with a 906. One beer too many during the rounds.

I am guessing I will be between 935 and 945 this update, but leaning more on the 940-945 side. All of my sub 915 tournaments should get dropped. Which should decrease my STDV by a lot. Plus my last two tournaments were some of the best golf I have played, so the double weighting will help me tremendously.

The only downside will be not being able to be an underdog at away tournaments. It is nice being able to shoot +950 golf with a 909 rating. Now that I have stepped it up, I have to stay up.

your STDV is calcd before dropping rounds... unless you mean they will drop cuz they are too old.

Pretty sure I'll break 980...I have 3 or 4 1000+ included in the double weighing, with nothing else below 960ish AND old rounds getting dropped....So hopefully I can keep striding towards set goals.

am guessing I will be between 935 and 945 this update, but leaning more on the 940-945 side.



Im going to guess your new rating will be between 920 and 930.

All I know is that your not going to beat me at Bowling Green OR Worlds next year and my rating should break 960 :D:D:D

Thats my hope as well. Its going to be close!

Can a Frizzak Break the 1000 barrier!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

#19410

Will someone please figure mine out,



mine also!! please!!!! :D

well I'm not to good and math but after seeing you play you may be able to play in REC after the ratings come out :o:D

well I'm not to good and math but after seeing you play you may be able to play in REC after the ratings come out :o:D



only if I told the Td my name is david mccibbon!! REC ????

Maybe by next week you can bug me for preliminary numbers.



Chuck,

Did my rating go up 8 points or more? Is the Morley issue taken care of?

Come on we already have a Phenom. :p

:D

Come on we already have a Phenom. :p



That's cool bro...If you came to Cali, you'd still be EasyMoney

All I know is that your not going to beat me at Bowling Green OR Worlds next year and my rating should break 960 :D:D:D



I was waiting for you to comment on that. :D

See you in April!

I'm somewhat new to the ratings and was wondering what are the circumstances that rounds are "dropped" for new updates? I've got like 7 or 8 rounds under 850 that I really need dropped! :( And the last 25% of rounds will be double weighted this time also? I hope that 996 I shot at TX Charity Cup Finale gets a double whamey! :D Hoping to jump to over 900 for the first time.

Click "Home" in the upper left corner. Then click "Player Ratings" in the Update box on the left. Then look for "More info" and click something that has a name like Ratings Explanation or Ratings Information. It will be intuitive when you get there.

It will be intuitive when you get there.

freakin hilarious :D!

Can anyone answer this unanswered question from another thread? --


Here's my question, if i wait till after 12/20/05 to renew, can i have the latest rating printed on my PDGA card rather than the one that is from a few months ago? :confused:

Ok wait I see that they fixed the age problem in the new points thing but I am not even listed on the jr points list. I know I am in Open now but I still aquired enough points to win <16 this year so why am I not on there? :confused:

Yeah actually my AM points were totally erased. :confused:

It looks like the AM points are gone from everyone's stats. Maybe the ratings update is close...

Yeah but I would be getting a Pin or something that I was going to put on my bag since I still can't find the one I got last year.

Chuck, is the September 2005 ratings update number the one that by default goes on all 2006 PDGA cards, or does it depend on when someone renews? For example, if I wait to renew until after December 20th, would my 2006 PDGA card show the Dec 20 rating number or the Sept. one?

The 2006 cards for renewals will show whatever your rating is for this next mid-Dec update. I'm not sure what if any rating is shown on someone's card who renews in June. Perhaps someone who did this in 2005 can look at their card and tell us what it says.

:D5 more days :D

be patient, it will get here soon enuff.

:D5 more days :D

Its like having Christmas twice in the same month!

Thanks for your reply, Bruce. I went and read all that. I noticed it said that they'd use our best 85% of our rounds. Is that still the way it is done? Wasn't there something about rounds being dropped that were like out of your normal shooting range? Maybe 100 lower? Which would be really sad but I got a couple like that. :eek:

they double count the last 25% of your rounds.

rounds that are rated less than your average minus 2.5 standard deviations are dropped. that value is unique for each player of course. a super consistent player might have an SD of about 15, so they will drop rounds that are about 40 points lower than their average. lots of players have SDs of 30-40, which means they drop rounds that are 75-100 points lower than their average

i believe rounds that are older than 1 year also get dropped(?)

i believe rounds that are older than 1 year also get dropped(?)



i believe that is true if you have 20 rounds in that past year!!

All of your rounds in the past 12 months since your most recently rated event are used except for those rated more than 2.5 standard deviations below your average (or 100 points whichever is lower). We now go back more than 12 months only if you have fewer than 8 rated rounds in your past 12 months.

So when are the new ratings going to be posted?

is it true that the last 25% are double weighted? i thought it was the last 8.

I thought it was every round added in the new update.

Everyone's most recent 25% of all rounds in their most recent 12 months will be double weighted. If the 25% date break occurs during an event, we'll use your best rated rounds in that event for doubling if only some should be. Earlier in the year, we started with the most recent 8 rounds being doubled but switched to the most recent 25% since it seemed most fair for everyone regardless how active of a player they are.

Everyone's most recent 25% of all rounds in their most recent 12 months will be double weighted. If the 25% date break occurs during an event, we'll use your best rated rounds in that event for doubling if only some should be.



Chuck that's a <font color="purple"> b</font> <font color="blue"> e</font> <font color="green"> a </font> <font color="yellow"> u</font> <font color="orange"> t </font> <font color="red"> i </font> <font color="purple"> f </font> <font color="blue"> u </font><font color="green"> l</font> decision, i must say :D

Murphy's Law must have been taking a catnap /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Thanks for your reply, Bruce. I went and read all that. I noticed it said that they'd use our best 85% of our rounds. Is that still the way it is done? Wasn't there something about rounds being dropped that were like out of your normal shooting range? Maybe 100 lower? Which would be really sad but I got a couple like that. :eek:

Sorry. I had no idea that the documents posted on PDGA.com explaining how ratings are calculated had nothing to do with how ratings are calculated! :o

If you are new around here, welcome to the PDGA. :D

are they ready yet??? :p

I would bet, NOT.
:p

They were done last night but we're waiting until Theo can get free to upload the large file while he's on the road. He has other priorities to consider with his Dad's funeral.

Did I break into the 960s???

my guess is : NO :D

Did I break into the 960s???



I think I skipped the 960's.

dang it no more adv !!! :D

Did I break into the 960s???

Dang, I may be out of them this time...

probably not, but perhaps...

Leaving the 60's behind and walking into the 80's. :D

Chuck, why is Theo the only one who can upload the ratings? I appreciate everything you guys do and I am not trying to complain, but every time ratings are supposed to be updated I see a message saying that we are waiting on Theo to upload the results and that he is on a modem or slow connection.

Thanks again for that you guys and gals do.

No ones late there not due until tomorrow :eek: :D

Theo was in the process of training of Dave Gentry as his backup when he had to leave and be at his father's side. Dave at minimum will be the backup in the future. Remember that tomorrow is still the goal for the update. So it wouldn't make any difference if we had them ready for Theo two weeks ago and still didn't post them until tomorrow.

anxiously waiting...
In the mean time...gonna play Renny gold with bard and Stan mcdaniel...

Thanks for the reply. I understand that they are not late. I was just wondering about the process.

Leaving the 60's behind and walking into the 80's. :D



Hopefully I'll be right there doing the same thing!

I bet you are rated lower than me Chris...just by a point or two :D

My rating has been updated! Thanks Theo, David, Chuck, Rodney ... ! :D

Thanks everyone for your hard work everyone.....your all winners in my book!

I thought Tournaments/Rounds that are over a year old as of the rating update date are taken off? I still have tournaments from august and september of 04

I am probably mistaken but that is what I thought I read before.

Also thanks for getting the ratings updated, even ahead of schedule!

The 12 month range is individualized, not based on the rating date. It's the 12 months prior to each person's most recently rated round. If September is your most recently rated round, there might be rounds from the prior September still in your calculation.

Everyone's most recent 25% of all rounds in their most recent 12 months will be double weighted. If the 25% date break occurs during an event, we'll use your best rated rounds in that event for doubling if only some should be.



Chuck that's a <font color="purple"> b</font> <font color="blue"> e</font> <font color="green"> a </font> <font color="yellow"> u</font> <font color="orange"> t </font> <font color="red"> i </font> <font color="purple"> f </font> <font color="blue"> u </font><font color="green"> l</font> decision, i must say :D

Murphy's Law must have been taking a catnap /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Looks like Otoole's Law trumps Murphy's Law catnaps :( (Otoole's Law is : "Murphy was an optimist") :eek:

I had 17 rounds and thought 25% -- or 4 would -- be double weighted and tjhus my sub 900 round from AM Nationals would be dropped. Not so. Looks like 25% of 17 rounds turned out to be my most recent 5 rounds... :confused: Chuck, is that right?

Thanks that explains it perfectly

Chuck, is that right?



I think only 4 should be doubled from what Roger said. If you had 18 then 5 would be doubled. However, you had an additional factor involved and that was your rating couldn't end up higher than mine... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Son of a Buh....... wtf??? Chuck are you kidding me? Beating your rating has been my life long DREAM!!!

come on drop that round and give me those extra 3 or 4 ratings points. It's almost Christmas /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

don't make me add up your numbers too :eek: :D

The streak continues.

13 updates as a PDGA member - and 13 times my rating has gone up.

We'll see if Roger is rounding up for 13, 17, 21, etc or if that was a mistake. If it's 5 for you then it's likely 5 for everyone, which I'm not sure is all bad as a policy.

haha, not only am I beating Millz (no shock there) but I'm beating MTL now too! Yes, Victoria, there is a Santa Claus.

We'll see if Roger is rounding up for 13, 17, 21, etc or if that was a mistake. If it's 5 for you then it's likely 5 for everyone, which I'm not sure is all bad as a policy.



4/17 = 23.5% and 5/17 = 29.4 %

seems to me 24% is closer to 25% than 29% :p

what gets me is that crappy round was double weighted as a most recent round in the Sept. update even though it took place in Sept, while the rounds i rated higher in a late August tourney never got double weighted at all...

i could stay [I'm a potty-mouth!] at the ratings gurus, after all that seems easier than learning not to choke and play terrible golf during the last round of a major event... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

it is also a bit surprising that not double weighting a round 60 points below my rating only would make a difference of 3 or 4 points...

what do i have to get my rating up to in order to drop that round to 2.5 std deviations?

seems to me 24% is closer to 25% than 29%



While true, the goal for the process was to emphasize more recent performance so perhaps doubling slightly more in the rounding process serves that goal. Like I said, I have to wait until Roger logs on to see what he did.

Okay, thanks Chuck. It's obviously not a big deal, i was just hoping that round would haunt me no more :D

Thanks for agreeing to look into it for me.

am guessing I will be between 935 and 945 this update, but leaning more on the 940-945 side.



Im going to guess your new rating will be between 920 and 930.

All I know is that your not going to beat me at Bowling Green OR Worlds next year and my rating should break 960 :D:D:D



HA!

I at least had the range right! I thought that I would have gone up more, but apparently my higher rated rounds in the last three tournaments kept my STDEV high. So I have a handful of rounds below 915 that I thought would had been dropped.

I guess it is better to have high rounds skew a STDEV then low rounds.

I am also happy that I had a 26 point jump and Millz had a big fat ZERO!

Now I have to change my signature. :D

I still think Ratings are CRAP!!! but thanks for the hard work

I still think Ratings are CRAP!!! but thanks for the hard work



I thought they were numbers. :confused:

I don't understand how my 2 unposted tournaments averaged over 980, yet my rating went down from 979 to 978. If they were double weighted my rating should be up not down.
I'm one of the rare PDGA members that is proud of the fact that I've raised my rating 50 points in less than 3 years. Not an easy thing to do when you're over 40.

Could you check this please.

The calculation looks correct. The calculations are all done on a per hole basis and then multiplied to get the actual ratings you see. Slight rounding differences cause the one point shifts from what you might calculate from your list of ratings. Also, perhaps some of the rounds dropped from before may have been high enough that the new rounds didn't make up for them.

you did not add the first mace event ..held weeks ago..and should count for the finals this year..

Post deleted by 17684

I'm rare too :D Mine's gone up 161 in 3 years! :eek: :)
My rating is almost high enough to play in the masters, which is good, since I've been old enough for 3 years :D

WTF??... why aren't the final years qualifying events on here///

if this is the final update..where is my win..where are the Tyler scores???

why? doesn't Z or Tyler show up???



Because these events were just held in december... The cutoff for events for the update was probably around Dec 1st so obviously its hard for events held after that date to go back in time to get the future results into the pdga... :)

Chuck,

From some of what I've read above it's obvious that the ratings calculations have changed a bit. My question is this: Are the ratings still based on a player's best 85% of rounds played? The reason I ask is I have 25 rated rounds and only one is dropped. I did read some posts above about dropping rounds that were some level of deviation below a player's average (don't quote me on the specifics). Is that system replacing the old 85% rule?

Thanks as always,

#16715

I think I've answered my own question. After looking at some other players ratings it seems that only the deviation rule is now in effect.

...dropped 4 points......should have played better at the VPO....stupid splinter! :D

you did not add the first mace event ..held weeks ago..and should count for the finals this year..

since it occurred after the cutoff for the Dec 20 update, it obviously cannot be included.

it will however be included in the final 2005 ratings, which are (usually) due out in february. (assuming maceman sent in the goods)

I thought they were numbers.

Yes crappy #'s and maybe next ratings can be based off a completely new formula /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

but it did not occur after the 20th...that event was 2 weeks 3 weeks ago and is on this website with results..

why can't they include that?

The New York States DGC - Pro Day (Oct, 2) is still listed on the Tournament Page with results but doesn't show up in anybody's ratings detail that I can see (mine especially since I wouldn't mind adding my best round ever).

The NY Pro event is shown as Unofficial online which means it likely hasn't been received at PDGA HQ yet. It was not shown in our list of events processed this time.

but it did not occur after the 20th...that event was 2 weeks 3 weeks ago and is on this website with results..

why can't they include that?



Because the results on the pdga website are Unofficial results, meaning they have not been received by the pdga yet. And the cutoff for the Dec updated was Dec 1st I think all results had to be in by.

Just saw that..thank you...

so you accept his answer (which was exactly the same as mine) but you challenge mine??? :confused: dork ! :cool:

you mentioned nothing about the ratings still being unofficial...read your own post..that was what I was missing :p

fargin lefty

chuck,

did anyone jump more than 37 points this round?

thanks

I don't look at stuff like that. However, I did get an email from someone who said they jumped 44 points. I'm going to start another thread on ratings updates so we don't have the dead pages to jump over.