In 16 of 22 divisions at Worlds, the top rated player won.

In 2 divisions, the winner was unrated.

In 22 of 22 divisions, the winner had one of the top 4 ratings in the field (or was unrated).

<table border="1"><tr><td> Div</td><td>Place of righest rating</td><td>Rating rank of winner</td><td>Comment
</td></tr><tr><td>MPO</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>MPM</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>MPG</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>MPS</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>MPL</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>FPO</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>Korver 2 strokes out of 2nd entering Finals
</td></tr><tr><td>FPM</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>??
</td></tr><tr><td>FPG</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>MA1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>MM1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>MG1</td><td>10</td><td>4</td><td>??
</td></tr><tr><td>MS1</td><td>2</td><td>??</td><td>Winner was unrated
</td></tr><tr><td>FW1</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>??
</td></tr><tr><td>FM1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>FG1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>MJ1</td><td>3</td><td>??</td><td>Winner was unrated
</td></tr><tr><td>MJ2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>MJ3</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>MJ4</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>FJ1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>FJ2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>FJ3</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Speaking of World's ratings, when are the round ratings at Worlds going to be fixed/updated. When they did the reshuffling of pools, it messed up the ratings each round. Just wondered if this will be fixed in the near future, or if it will take a while.

Plan on it taking a while.

You may have to wait for the official ratings, which should (I think) be included in the next update.

There's no benefit to fixing the current online Worlds ratings when the official update will have them by mid-September. Hopefully, Theo and his other helpers (if any) can get the complicated pool switching and multidivisional online calculations to work for future events.

Fixes courtesy of Jason Haas were made onsite last week but have not been implemented due to time constraints. :(

And for those members who track online stats, Steve Ganz and Jason Haas deservedly received the 2003 Volunteers of the Year award at Worlds for all of their work to provide stats information on this site. Here, Here!

There's no benefit to fixing the current online Worlds ratings when the official update will have them by mid-September.



So says Chuck, but not necessarily the Ratings Committee, the PDGA BOD, or the Des Moines Club.

There's no benefit to fixing the current online Worlds ratings when the official update will have them by mid-September.



So says Chuck, but not necessarily the Ratings Committee, the PDGA BOD, or the Des Moines Club.



Not sure about this Rodney, but isn't Chuck Kennedy considered the Chairman of said committee...?

I'm definitely with you on fixing it though... in fact, I'd like to be involved.

Here's one reason why the online Worlds ratings don't really need to be fixed. I manually processed several divisions to come up with these SSA values and ratings for scores. I modified Rodney's original table for the Des Moines courses and popped in these numbers. If the course was windy that day, it's possible your SSA was 1-2 throws higher than shown. For example, MPG had an SSA of 58 at Ewing on Tuesday morning and 55.5 in the Saturday Semis there. This will get you close to what I expect you'll see for your ratings when they are updated in September. Sorry, I didn't do any short tee stats but it looks like several of those rounds probably have enough players to get rated.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Long tees</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Course ></td><td>WW</td><td>MT</td><td>CM</td><td>IS-AK</td><td>GV</td><td>BC-DM</td><td>EW</td><td>PK-WR
</td></tr><tr><td>SSA</td><td>46.5</td><td>48</td><td>48.5</td><td>49.5</td><td>50</td><td>55</td><td>56</td><td>57
</td></tr><tr><td>Score</td><td>---
</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>1078</td><td>---
</td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td>1066</td><td>1078</td><td>1082</td><td>1089</td><td>---
</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>1054</td><td>1067</td><td>1071</td><td>1078</td><td>1082</td><td>---
</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>1042</td><td>1056</td><td>1060</td><td>1068</td><td>1071</td><td>---
</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>1030</td><td>1045</td><td>1049</td><td>1057</td><td>1061</td><td>---
</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>1018</td><td>1034</td><td>1038</td><td>1047</td><td>1051</td><td>1086</td><td>---
</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>1006</td><td>1022</td><td>1027</td><td>1037</td><td>1041</td><td>1077</td><td>1083</td><td>1088
</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>994</td><td>1011</td><td>1016</td><td>1026</td><td>1031</td><td>1069</td><td>1075</td><td>1080
</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>982</td><td>1000</td><td>1005</td><td>1016</td><td>1020</td><td>1060</td><td>1066</td><td>1072
</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>970</td><td>989</td><td>995</td><td>1005</td><td>1010</td><td>1052</td><td>1058</td><td>1064
</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>958</td><td>978</td><td>984</td><td>995</td><td>1000</td><td>1043</td><td>1050</td><td>1056
</td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td>946</td><td>966</td><td>973</td><td>984</td><td>990</td><td>1034</td><td>1041</td><td>1048
</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>934</td><td>955</td><td>962</td><td>974</td><td>980</td><td>1026</td><td>1033</td><td>1040
</td></tr><tr><td>53</td><td>922</td><td>944</td><td>951</td><td>963</td><td>969</td><td>1017</td><td>1025</td><td>1032
</td></tr><tr><td>54</td><td>910</td><td>933</td><td>940</td><td>953</td><td>959</td><td>1009</td><td>1017</td><td>1024
</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>898</td><td>922</td><td>929</td><td>943</td><td>949</td><td>1000</td><td>1008</td><td>1016
</td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td>886</td><td>910</td><td>918</td><td>932</td><td>939</td><td>991</td><td>1000</td><td>1008
</td></tr><tr><td>57</td><td>875</td><td>899</td><td>907</td><td>922</td><td>929</td><td>983</td><td>992</td><td>1000
</td></tr><tr><td>58</td><td>863</td><td>888</td><td>896</td><td>911</td><td>918</td><td>974</td><td>983</td><td>992
</td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td>851</td><td>877</td><td>885</td><td>901</td><td>908</td><td>966</td><td>975</td><td>984
</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>839</td><td>866</td><td>874</td><td>890</td><td>898</td><td>957</td><td>967</td><td>976
</td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>827</td><td>854</td><td>863</td><td>880</td><td>888</td><td>948</td><td>959</td><td>968
</td></tr><tr><td>62</td><td>815</td><td>843</td><td>852</td><td>869</td><td>878</td><td>940</td><td>950</td><td>960
</td></tr><tr><td>63</td><td>803</td><td>832</td><td>841</td><td>859</td><td>867</td><td>931</td><td>942</td><td>952
</td></tr><tr><td>64</td><td>791</td><td>821</td><td>830</td><td>848</td><td>857</td><td>923</td><td>934</td><td>944
</td></tr><tr><td>65</td><td>779</td><td>810</td><td>819</td><td>838</td><td>847</td><td>914</td><td>925</td><td>936
</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>767</td><td>798</td><td>808</td><td>828</td><td>837</td><td>905</td><td>917</td><td>928
</td></tr><tr><td>67</td><td>755</td><td>787</td><td>797</td><td>817</td><td>827</td><td>897</td><td>909</td><td>920
</td></tr><tr><td>68</td><td>743</td><td>776</td><td>786</td><td>807</td><td>816</td><td>888</td><td>901</td><td>912
</td></tr><tr><td>69</td><td>731</td><td>765</td><td>776</td><td>796</td><td>806</td><td>880</td><td>892</td><td>904
</td></tr><tr><td>70</td><td>719</td><td>754</td><td>765</td><td>786</td><td>796</td><td>871</td><td>884</td><td>896
</td></tr><tr><td>71</td><td>707</td><td>742</td><td>754</td><td>775</td><td>786</td><td>862</td><td>876</td><td>888
</td></tr><tr><td>72</td><td>695</td><td>731</td><td>743</td><td>765</td><td>776</td><td>854</td><td>867</td><td>880
</td></tr><tr><td>73</td><td>683</td><td>720</td><td>732</td><td>754</td><td>765</td><td>845</td><td>859</td><td>872
</td></tr><tr><td>74</td><td>671</td><td>709</td><td>721</td><td>744</td><td>755</td><td>837</td><td>851</td><td>864
</td></tr><tr><td>75</td><td>659</td><td>698</td><td>710</td><td>734</td><td>745</td><td>828</td><td>843</td><td>856
</td></tr><tr><td>76</td><td>647</td><td>686</td><td>699</td><td>723</td><td>735</td><td>820</td><td>834</td><td>848
</td></tr><tr><td>77</td><td>636</td><td>675</td><td>688</td><td>713</td><td>725</td><td>811</td><td>826</td><td>840
</td></tr><tr><td>78</td><td>624</td><td>664</td><td>677</td><td>702</td><td>714</td><td>802</td><td>818</td><td>832
</td></tr><tr><td>79</td><td>612</td><td>653</td><td>666</td><td>692</td><td>704</td><td>794</td><td>809</td><td>824
</td></tr><tr><td>80</td><td>600</td><td>642</td><td>655</td><td>681</td><td>694</td><td>785</td><td>801</td><td>816
</td></tr><tr><td>81</td><td>588</td><td>630</td><td>644</td><td>671</td><td>684</td><td>777</td><td>793</td><td>808
</td></tr><tr><td>82</td><td>576</td><td>619</td><td>633</td><td>660</td><td>674</td><td>768</td><td>784</td><td>800
</td></tr><tr><td>83</td><td>564</td><td>608</td><td>622</td><td>650</td><td>663</td><td>759</td><td>776</td><td>792
</td></tr><tr><td>84</td><td>552</td><td>597</td><td>611</td><td>639</td><td>653</td><td>751</td><td>768</td><td>784
</td></tr><tr><td>85</td><td>540</td><td>586</td><td>600</td><td>629</td><td>643</td><td>742</td><td>760</td><td>776
</td></tr><tr><td>86</td><td>528</td><td>574</td><td>589</td><td>619</td><td>633</td><td>734</td><td>751</td><td>768
</td></tr><tr><td>87</td><td>516</td><td>563</td><td>578</td><td>608</td><td>623</td><td>725</td><td>743</td><td>761
</td></tr><tr><td>88</td><td>504</td><td>552</td><td>567</td><td>598</td><td>612</td><td>716</td><td>735</td><td>753
</td></tr><tr><td>89</td><td>492</td><td>541</td><td>557</td><td>587</td><td>602</td><td>708</td><td>726</td><td>745
</td></tr><tr><td>90</td><td>480</td><td>530</td><td>546</td><td>577</td><td>592</td><td>699</td><td>718</td><td>737
</td></tr><tr><td>91</td><td>468</td><td>518</td><td>535</td><td>566</td><td>582</td><td>691</td><td>710</td><td>729
</td></tr><tr><td>92</td><td>456</td><td>507</td><td>524</td><td>556</td><td>572</td><td>682</td><td>702</td><td>721
</td></tr><tr><td>93</td><td>444</td><td>496</td><td>513</td><td>545</td><td>561</td><td>673</td><td>693</td><td>713
</td></tr><tr><td>94</td><td>432</td><td>485</td><td>502</td><td>535</td><td>551</td><td>665</td><td>685</td><td>705
</td></tr><tr><td>95</td><td>420</td><td>474</td><td>491</td><td>525</td><td>541</td><td>656</td><td>677</td><td>697
</td></tr><tr><td>96</td><td>408</td><td>462</td><td>480</td><td>514</td><td>531</td><td>648</td><td>668</td><td>689
</td></tr><tr><td>97</td><td>397</td><td>451</td><td>469</td><td>504</td><td>521</td><td>639</td><td>660</td><td>681
</td></tr><tr><td>98</td><td>385</td><td>440</td><td>458</td><td>493</td><td>510</td><td>630</td><td>652</td><td>673
</td></tr><tr><td>99</td><td>373</td><td>429</td><td>447</td><td>483</td><td>500</td><td>622</td><td>644</td><td>665
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Thanks for the info guys....

I totally like that! One of the courses I never got to see during Worlds was Walnut Ridge. So Bruce and I went there Sunday morning for a round before we left town. I had an incredibly consistent round---every drive in the fairway, every up shot on target, etc. I shot a 60!!! According to Chuck that's a 976 rated round. YES!!!! There is a disc golfer inside me just waiting to get out and play a round! :D

Jason helped me fix the ratings problem while I was playing (and working) in Des Moines. But I ran out of time getting the update ready before I left, and now I'm with my family in New England, and without a reliable (or high speed) internet connection. I'm probably not going to be able to fix the round ratings until mid next week. Sorry for the delay. I spent hours working on it at the event last week.

-Theo

Theo, I imagine you are up in Maine, but if you get in the Hartford area then it'll be worth the trip to check out Wickham Park.

Nice meeting you at Worlds, and tell the BOD that the volunteer award(s) were an excellent choice! :)

Next week sounds good Theo... that's sooner that I thought it would be up. Thanks for all your hard work!

I totally like that! One of the courses I never got to see during Worlds was Walnut Ridge. So Bruce and I went there Sunday morning for a round before we left town. I had an incredibly consistent round---every drive in the fairway, every up shot on target, etc. I shot a 60!!! According to Chuck that's a 976 rated round. YES!!!! There is a disc golfer inside me just waiting to get out and play a round! :D



Jon's round was incredible. I don't recall him getting a single bit of tree love or making any looooong lucky putts. It was all drive, approach, make the 3, except a birdie somewhere and a handful of bogies.

Hey, Jon, did Kelsey shoot a +23 840 round? Do you still have the card?

I totally like that! One of the courses I never got to see during Worlds was Walnut Ridge. So Bruce and I went there Sunday morning for a round before we left town. I had an incredibly consistent round---every drive in the fairway, every up shot on target, etc. I shot a 60!!! According to Chuck that's a 976 rated round. YES!!!! There is a disc golfer inside me just waiting to get out and play a round! :D



Jon's round was incredible. I don't recall him getting a single bit of tree love or making any looooong lucky putts. It was all drive, approach, make the 3, except a birdie somewhere and a handful of bogies.

Hey, Jon, did Kelsey shoot a +23 840 round? Do you still have the card?



Do I still have the card? I'm going to frame it!!! Kelsey shot a 78, 830 rated round.

i have a little modelling spreadsheet that compares actual results and ratings-predicted results. it allows you to
calculate what deviation from the ratings-prediction is required to achieve any particular level of prediction accuracy.

for example, in the table below, i decided to see how far the average player couild deviate from his predicted finish and still have the ratings be correct 50% of the time. resutls for all open and am divsions look like this:
<table border="1"><tr><td><tr><td>division</td><td align="right">players</td><td align="right" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">deviation</td><td align="right">plus/minus</td><td align="right">num correct</td><td align="right">pct correct</td></tr><tr><td>open</td><td align="right">149</td><td align="right" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">0.19</td><td align="right">14.16</td><td align="right">79</td><td align="right">53.02%</td></tr><tr><td>masters</td><td align="right">83</td><td align="right" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">0.19</td><td align="right">7.89</td><td align="right">40</td><td align="right">48.19%</td></tr><tr><td>grandmasters</td><td align="right">34</td><td align="right" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">0.17</td><td align="right">2.89</td><td align="right">17</td><td align="right">50.00%</td></tr><tr><td>sr grandmasters</td><td align="right">10</td><td align="right" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">0.20</td><td align="right">1.00</td><td align="right">6</td><td align="right">60.00%</td></tr><tr><td>legends</td><td align="right">7</td><td align="right" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">0.20</td><td align="right">0.70</td><td align="right">5</td><td align="right">71.43%</td></tr><tr><td>open women</td><td align="right">26</td><td align="right" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">0.16</td><td align="right">2.02</td><td align="right">13</td><td align="right">50.00%</td></tr><tr><td>masters women</td><td align="right">9</td><td align="right" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">0.23</td><td align="right">1.04</td><td align="right">5</td><td align="right">55.56%</td></tr><tr><td>grandmasters women</td><td align="right">4</td><td align="right" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">0.01</td><td align="right">0.02</td><td align="right">4</td><td align="right">100.00%</td></tr><tr><td>advanced</td><td align="right">265</td><td align="right" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">0.24</td><td align="right">31.8</td><td align="right">133</td><td align="right">50.19%</td></tr><tr><td>adv masters</td><td align="right">116</td><td align="right" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">0.23</td><td align="right">13.34</td><td align="right">58</td><td align="right">50.00%</td></tr><tr><td>adv grandmasters</td><td align="right">41</td><td align="right" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">0.15</td><td align="right">2.99</td><td align="right">19</td><td align="right">46.34%</td></tr><tr><td>adv sr grandmasters</td><td align="right">7</td><td align="right" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">0.29</td><td align="right">1.02</td><td align="right">3</td><td align="right">42.86%</td></tr><tr><td>adv women</td><td align="right">35</td><td align="right" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">0.18</td><td align="right">3.15</td><td align="right">19</td><td align="right">54.29%</td></tr><tr><td>adv master women</td><td align="right">7</td><td align="right" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">0.29</td><td align="right">1.02</td><td align="right">6</td><td align="right">85.71%</td></tr><tr><td>adv sr grandmaster women</td><td align="right">6</td><td align="right" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">0.01</td><td align="right">0.03</td><td align="right">3</td><td align="right">50.00%</td></tr></tr></td></table>

overall, a deviation of about 20% yields at 50% correct prediction. that means in a 100 player division, the ratings correctly predicted where 50% of the players would finish within +/- 10 places. not too shabby.

The Big Creek ratings for the ams are totally screwed up.

JJ shot 55 and it was like 970 something
Barry shot 55 and it was 1015.

Just another great example of our "awesome" ratings system

Oooh, sandalman, I like you long time.

Along those lines, here are some people that performed better than predicted (when comparing rating rank in the field to their actual finish):
<table border="1"><tr><td> Place</td><td>RatingRank</td><td>Diff</td><td>Name
</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>126</td><td>80</td><td>Tanner Duncan
</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>86</td><td>57</td><td>Tony Gerling
</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>96</td><td>48</td><td>Justin McLuen
</td></tr><tr><td>92</td><td>139</td><td>47</td><td>Ed Williams
</td></tr><tr><td>77</td><td>123</td><td>46</td><td>Don Barrette
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Here are some that finished lower than ratings would predict:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Place</td><td>RatingRank</td><td>Diff</td><td>Name
</td></tr><tr><td>108</td><td>28</td><td>-80</td><td>Sonny Ashby
</td></tr><tr><td>95</td><td>30</td><td>-65</td><td>Larry Bledsoe Jr
</td></tr><tr><td>132</td><td>79</td><td>-53</td><td>Brian Donahue
</td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td>7</td><td>-52</td><td>Ken Jarvis
</td></tr><tr><td>111</td><td>64</td><td>-47</td><td>Sam Ferrans
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Here are some that finished right about where ratings might predict:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Place</td><td>RatingRank</td><td>Diff</td><td>Name
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>Barry Schultz
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>Ken Climo
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>18</td><td>0</td><td>Nathan Doss
</td></tr><tr><td>134</td><td>134</td><td>0</td><td>Billy Moody
</td></tr><tr><td>141</td><td>141</td><td>0</td><td>Brian Threlkeld
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>-1</td><td>Steve Rico
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>-1</td><td>Cameron Todd
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>14</td><td>-1</td><td>Chris Heeren
</td></tr><tr><td>37</td><td>38</td><td>1</td><td>Ray Johnson
</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>44</td><td>1</td><td>Gregg Barsby
</td></tr><tr><td>110</td><td>111</td><td>1</td><td>Will Cralle
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

The Big Creek ratings for the ams are totally screwed up.

JJ shot 55 and it was like 970 something
Barry shot 55 and it was 1015.

Just another great example of our "awesome" ratings system




If you read upthread, I posted a table with more appropriate SSAs for the Worlds courses. And, the online ratings are not connected to the official ratings process.

JJ shot 55 and it was like 970 something
Barry shot 55 and it was 1015.

just one more example of the PDGA catering to the elite few!

ooops, wrong thread :D

Are you two guys retarded? They said that the ratings were messed up and that it would be fixed sometime next week. Give them a break, or better yet, instead of reaming Theo and reading politics into it, YOU FIX THE PROBLEM.

dixon, HUH? who are you talking about? are you on the right thread? we all love the ratings here and nobody is dissing the system. chill out

Dixon is the man, and the rating system is awesome keep up th good work guys.

WI had the "hot round" in 7 of the 9 rounds played for Open!!

Robert:

I saw that. I shot a 55 at Walnut and I saw the pros got a 1016 rating and I got a 996. Weird stuff. I'm sure the PDGA is taking care of it.

That difference would not be abnormal even if both numbers were calculated correctly. A 20 point rating difference is only 2-shots in SSA which is perfectly normal with wind versus little wind.

yeah I shot 56 which was in the 1000s in the pros - but from what I hear, we had it easy based on the conditions.

Of course we had those same conditions at Big Creek and DMACC

yeah I shot 56 which was in the 1000s in the pros - but from what I hear, we had it easy based on the conditions.

Of course we had those same conditions at Big Creek and DMACC



Ratings are total bull.

What's the deal? same post three times, different threads. Why are ratings "bull"?

Look who I am responding to each time. The "Ratings are total bull" quote is his.

Quote him then, it'd be easier to understand.

"Ratings are total bull" -- Robert Leonard

-- disclaimer: I don't know that Robert actually said that. I'm taking Jeff's word for it.

"Ratings are total bull" -- Robert Leonard



What's funny is last weekend he said player ratings were "accurate", trying to imply he is better than me. Make up your mind Rob.

Quote him then, it'd be easier to understand.

"Ratings are total bull" -- Robert Leonard

-- disclaimer: I don't know that Robert actually said that. I'm taking Jeff's word for it.



Jim,

You can view Robert's original statment that "Ratings are total bull" by clicking here. (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Ratings & Skill-based Competition&Number=226605&Searchpage=0&Main=218247&Search=true&#Post226605)

Let it go dude. Breath deeply. Relax.

Let it go dude. Breath deeply. Relax.



You're right. I should focus more on chillin' and all types of ill *****.

Yes, you should

alright a whole thread devoted to my quote. I love it. And Eddie, I was refering that you happen to think ratings are very accurate, thus since I am rated higher than you, then you think I am better than you, although I think you are a better player than me.

and another thing - my saying ratings are total bull was more a statement of the consistency (or lack there of) of ratings. I know that course conditions change and yada yada, but I can't tell you how many times I have shot the EXACT same thing at a course (Cedar Hills in Raleigh NC comes to mind) and they have been rated totally different.

My 2 53's there in the am FDC's were estimated at 944 and 945 - a year ago, my 53 was rated 939. Those are rather consitent. Now some other 53's at that course.
Ken Climo - 2004 Crosstown - 959
Am Crosstown 2004 - 947 and 943

Well I guess Kenny doesn't shoot in the 940s. well, if he was an AM he did that day

and another thing - my saying ratings are total bull was more a statement of the consistency (or lack there of) of ratings. I know that course conditions change and yada yada, but I can't tell you how many times I have shot the EXACT same thing at a course (Cedar Hills in Raleigh NC comes to mind) and they have been rated totally different.

My 2 53's there in the am FDC's were estimated at 944 and 945 - a year ago, my 53 was rated 939. Those are rather consitent. Now some other 53's at that course.
Ken Climo - 2004 Crosstown - 959
Am Crosstown 2004 - 947 and 943

Well I guess Kenny doesn't shoot in the 940s. well, if he was an AM he did that day



Okay, now I'm starting to see what your problem is. Your assumption that the same scores will generate EXACTLY the same ratings (no matter what) is too demanding. First of all, I'm going to assume that the course was played in exactly the same layout in all conditions (even moving one polehole position can alter ratings slightly) and that the course conditions were exactly the same in all cases - no rain or no high winds. Even if all the above holds true, the variance of a score of 53 from 939 to 947 is perfectly within acceptance. That's less than one stroke. Remember that ratings are calculated from the player ratings and scores of the golfers, and just one 1000-rated golfer playing injured or hungover can affect the ratings slightly, as will one 920 golfer shooting the 1000+ rated round of his life. That you demand that ratings cannot vary even slightly is preposterous, as is your dismissal of the consistency of ratings as "total bull."

Jeff, while they are not 'total' bull, what MTL brings up is and has been a valid concern. When higher rated 'pros' play the same layout as Ams, the Ams get higher ratings for that round than they do when only lower rated Ams play the same layout. While a little variance is understandable from day to day, there shouldn't be that much.

I still don't like the idea of calculating ratings for a layout based on how it was played, and then assigning ratings to the players that you just used to calculate the rating for that round. It's the chicken/egg thing that has been brought up before.

I can see using dozens of rounds of data to calculate an SSA, and then using that SSA whenever that layout is played. If it's windy one day, and the scores are higher, then so be it. Over the course of time those numbers will average out. The obvious downside to this is when temp holes are added or baskets are shuffled around on courses that have multiple pin placements. I'll assume that is why the chicken/egg scenario was created in the first place.


And if it's true that one 'pro' with a hangover can skew then numbers (which I believe it isn't), then that would be a pretty good argument FOR what MTL is saying, not against it.

As stated elsewhere, it is generally accepted (by me anyway) that two factors contribute to the "Ams get lower ratings on the same layout than Pros" thing.

1) Pros (in general, established players) average below their rating due to the bottom 15% of rounds being dropped before the average rating is calculated. This is a pure math situation: If you throw out the bottom 15%, the average of the remaining numbers will be higher than the original average.

2) Ams (by majority, improving players) average above their rating due to their increasing level of performance, and the fact that rounds used in their rating can be from 12 (or sometimes up to 24) months ago.

When non-mixed fields play the same course layout in similar conditions, the factors combine to produce lower round ratings for the Ams, and higher round ratings for the Pros.

The important thing is that this is recognized, and your Ratings Committee is working on ways to improve the system. There have been discussions on ways to address both of the above factors. I wouldn't be surprised to see changes implemented in the coming months that would reduce the impact of these factors.

By the way, the chicken/egg thing is strange at first, but I've talked myself into liking it. Or at least being okay with it.

How do you rate how a player performed? Well, you compare his score to some measure of the course. How do you rate a course? Well, one good way is to evaluate it based on players (of known skill) who just played that course.

That's exactly what the chicken/egg thing does.

Dan, I agree that a "standard SSA over a reasonably large number of rounds" would produce good results, and they would be more settling in that they would be consistent from round to round. However, the major problem that you note is the shifting of pins/tees, the addition of temp holes, and courses being at the mercy of parks/nature from year to year.

I was not complaining about the ams - the am scores on the course are very similar. I was talking about higher rated players recieveing the same score as ams and recieving higher ratings for that round. This is not an isolated incident either.

I could go and point out many time this has happened, but we all know it does. The round Kenny shot a 53, a sub 1000 player (Carlton Howard) shot a 43, which was leading. This, in theory and if it was an amatuer event, should lower the course SSA, which is did not.

Schweb shot a 45 (rated 1044). In the am FDCs a few weeks ago, David Gray shot a 45 (rated 1030)

While ratings are consitent from am to am and from pro to pro as well as comparing am to am and pro to pro, when they are crossed is what my problem with ratings is. I feel that since I chose to play adv., my rating, while I don't care, is being penalized simply b/c I am not ready to play pro yet.

was not complaining about the ams - the am scores on the course are very similar. I was talking about higher rated players recieveing the same score as ams and recieving higher ratings for that round. This is not an isolated incident either.



Come on MTL. This is just another example of what happens when you grade on a curve.

Hey, have you gone to the Disc Golf United website and calculated your handicap based on your play on different courses? I bet if you do and you compare with a friend - you will find a much more "static" trend in the numbers.

Player Ratings are dynamic and depend on who else is playing the same course at the same time in the same layout and their ability to play at/above/below their own rating.

If you want consistency in numbers - go mess around the DGUs handicaps! :)

And if it's true that one 'pro' with a hangover can skew then numbers (which I believe it isn't), then that would be a pretty good argument FOR what MTL is saying, not against it.



Notice I said "slightly." Anyone that processes event results and calculates ratings/SSA can easily observe this effect. Adjust one player's score or rating and the effect is enough to swing ratings for everyone by a few points. This is what happens when your pool of data may only be 20 data points. Has MTL ever looked at the spreadsheets and done this work himself? My guess is no.

To expect the ratings to come out EXACTLY the same no matter what is unreasonable; no one ever promised you that. But many of us think that they are pretty darn good and to dismiss them entirely as "total bull" shows that MTL really knows nothing about how ratings work.

i do not expect them to be the same - i never said that - infact i even said in one post earlier with some of my examples that the ratings were pretty consistent - im never gonna complain about + - 10 points - its when the ratings get in the 20 point range that I have a problem with them. There is no way a course plays 2 strokes harder simply b/c a pro is playing it rather than an am

By the way, the chicken/egg thing is strange at first, but I've talked myself into liking it. Or at least being okay with it.

How do you rate how a player performed? Well, you compare his score to some measure of the course. How do you rate a course? Well, one good way is to evaluate it based on players (of known skill) who just played that course.

That's exactly what the chicken/egg thing does.

Dan, I agree that a "standard SSA over a reasonably large number of rounds" would produce good results, and they would be more settling in that they would be consistent from round to round. However, the major problem that you note is the shifting of pins/tees, the addition of temp holes, and courses being at the mercy of parks/nature from year to year.



Thanks Rodney, as usual, you are da man when it comes to this stuff (well, ok, Chuck is da man as well).

I don't discount the ratings nearly as much as some do. It's one of my favorite membership perks. I think for the most part they are pretty darn accurate, with the exceptions noted above. As with any pool of data, the larger the # of points you have, the better the numbers will be. That's why I think historical data can/could be used (when possible, which I know is not very often) to make things purtier.

I feel I have received higher ratings than I deserved at events where a bunch of guys tanked and I played pretty well compared to them. I didn't score well, necessarily, but in relation to the other players I did. To me, how I scored against the course is what should matter, but I fully understand that's much harder to quantify.

Can anyone tell me why my rounds at this year's Pro Worlds would not show up on my ratings detail? It shows that I played it but the individual rounds are not calculated into my rating? And another question: why is it that rounds right around 905 and below (my rating is 943) are not calculated in? I'm allowed to have a really good round and that is calculated in but if I have a really bad one, that is not? I haven't really put a lot of time into understanding the ratings system but that just jumps out at me as odd.

I believe the ratings will be posted again on the next ratings update.

After watching the thumping the U.S. players took in the Ryder Cup, it makes you wonder how well the ball golf ranking system works :)