Since I'm the anti - ratings person here I have to say this.

56 on the new gold course only 1079 - YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME!!!!

When the best players in the world get together and someone shoots not one not two but 5 strokes hotter than anyone else, 1079 doesn't describe it.

Rodney posted the highest rated rounds for courses over SSA 60 on this page: http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=120718&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=15&vc=1

Last year Barry shot 58 officially rated 1071 in windy round 3 when the course rated 71.6 SSA which is about 1.5 higher than round 1 this year when Kenny shot 56 unofficially rated 1079. I'm not sure why anyone should be upset about the rating for this awesome round? When it's officially rated, it will likely be the highest rated round ever for courses with SSAs over 60.

You can't compare highest round ratings from high SSA courses with low SSA courses. 8 down on a typical SSA 50 course is rated about the same as 14 down (56) on an SSA 70 course.

You can't compare highest round ratings from high SSA courses with low SSA courses.



which is one of my three main complaints about ratings!

which is one of my three main complaints about ratings!




Why should it matter? You can't compare best rounds in ball golf even though their courses are closer in ratings, because their ratings are not valid.

Some food for thought: Should rounds such as the USDGC rounds be able to COUNT for a player's official rating? People that did not qualify to play in this event don't get the opportunity to play this course for a rated round. Just a thought, I honestly don't get that worked up one way or another about player ratings but it's something that came to mind.

Er, just what would be the argument for exclusion? :confused:
If it's that: One plays/scores better against the best, well, didn't everybody have to earn their way there?

...and isn't there always the chance their rating could DROP, depending on their play there?

If there's a reason not to include USDGC rounds, it would be because all players did not play the course at the same time. Fortunately, as the scores got posted throughout the day, it looked like the SSA didn't change too much so the playing conditions must have been relatively similar from the begining of each day to the end of each day this year.

[head-scratching sound] Hmmmmmmm, isn't that going to happen at any 'non-shotgun start' round? That happened @ Golden State here in May, and should again this Nov. @ U.S. Masters. That seems a triffle; ratings rock! Ratings rock!! Ratings rock!!! [there, I canceled out Mt. Leonard's 'vote']. :D

You can't compare highest round ratings from high SSA courses with low SSA courses.



which is one of my three main complaints about ratings!



Robert,

I don't even understand your first complaint. What is it? That "in your opinion" or that you "think" a 56 at Rock Hill should be have a round rating other than 1079?

Chuck has explained why it has that rating, can you explain (more than based on a feeling) why it should be a higher round rating?

What are your other "complaints"?

Nick

You can't compare highest round ratings from high SSA courses with low SSA courses. 8 down on a typical SSA 50 course is rated about the same as 14 down (56) on an SSA 70 course.



...but you can base an entire competitive system on the assumption that these numbers are accurate across the board????

for what range of course ssa CAN the results be accurately compared?

The results are accurate across the range of SSAs. But it's 'unfair' to compare best performances. Consider you're a 1000 rated player and you shoot lights out with a -8 rated 1080 on an SSA 50 course. Now you shoot the course a second time. Even if you were Barry or Ken, you probably wouldn't expect to shoot -8 back-to-back, and you're 'just' a 1000 rated player. So, maybe you only shoot -5 the next round for a 1050 rating which is still uncommon and 5 shots better than average for you. The average rating of both rounds is 1065. Playing two rounds on an SSA 50 course like this example is similar from a ratings standpoint to shooting one round on an SSA 70 course. Shooting a 1065 on an SSA 70 course is about as probable as shooting 1080 on an SSA 50 course. The only difference from playing two 50s and one 70 is one extra set of 30 shots around the green which is a fixed value (statistically).

That's why Kenny's 1079 is extraordinary on an SSA 70 course. It's as if he shot two 1079 rounds back-to-back on an SSA 50 course to do it.

You can't compare highest round ratings from high SSA courses with low SSA courses. 8 down on a typical SSA 50 course is rated about the same as 14 down (56) on an SSA 70 course.



...but you can base an entire competitive system on the assumption that these numbers are accurate across the board????

for what range of course ssa CAN the results be accurately compared?



John,

He didn't say that they were "inaccurate" he said that you "can't compare" a specific aspect of them; meaning the throws to ratings points differential.

Were you trying to be purposefully misleading?

These numbers ARE accurate across the board and by an infinite factor over the old "MOVE UP" method of defining divisional skill breaks (particularly on a worldwide level).

Nick

That's why Kenny's 1079 is extraordinary on an SSA 70 course. It's as if he shot two 1079 rounds back-to-back on an SSA 50 course to do it.



I think that's exactly the problem some people have with the system.

Say we have two players:
Craig - Shoots 1050, 1050, 1000, 1000 on a 70 SSA course.
Brian - Shoots 1050, 1050, 1050, 1050, 1000, 1000 on a 50 SSA course.

Craig's end rating is 1025.
Brian's end rating is 1033.

But Craig has shot 2 "extraordinary" rounds, which, by your own words, are as if he shot 4 rounds of 1050 on a 50 SSA course. But he only gets "credit" for the 2 rounds he actually shot.

By another example, who is the better player here:
Craig - 1070, 1070, 1070, 1070, 1070, 1070 on a 70 SSA course
Brian - 1070, 1070, 1070, 1070, 1070, 1070 on a 50 SSA course
Dan - 1070, 1070, 1070, 1070, 1070, 1070 on a 44 SSA course

Do all those performances merit having the same end player rating?

By another example, who is the better player here:
Craig - 1070, 1070, 1070, 1070, 1070, 1070 on a 70 SSA course
Brian - 1070, 1070, 1070, 1070, 1070, 1070 on a 50 SSA course
Dan - 1070, 1070, 1070, 1070, 1070, 1070 on a 44 SSA course

Do all those performances merit having the same end player rating?



Sure, they should be rated equally. At first, I was going to say that the players just happen to have different skills. One better at short courses and one at longer courses. But after further thought, I realize that the SSA tells me much less about a course than actual firsthand knowledge of the course would. In other words, a higher SSA of 70 does not necessarily make a course "harder", it just takes more strokes on average to complete. So after making a short answer long, the answer to the question "who is the better golfer" is "I don't know." :D

In other words, a higher SSA of 70 does not necessarily make a course "harder", it just takes more strokes on average to complete.



Which is exactly what I've been saying for, ohhhh, years.

But Chuck is coming in and saying it's not "fair" to compare hot rounds across different SSAs, which I've never, and still don't, understand. Despite his best efforts to help me see it.

And to further that, he's now saying that Ken's 1079 round on a 70 SSA is extraordinary because it's "as if" he shot 2 1079 rounds on an SSA 50 course.

Who's a better runner, the 1500m or the 10,000m gold medalist? They both ran the 5000m at the Olympics this year to find out and it was almost a dead heat (1500m won). The 1070 average on the SSA 70 course is more impressive statistically than on SSA 44 or 50 because the player maintained that performance level over more shots. However, in other sports, those with endurance aren't necessarily competitive in sprints and vice versa. If the SSA 70 course is fairly open and the SSA 50 course is more wooded, the SSA 70 specialist might not fare as well on the SSA 50 course even though his stats might indicate he's 'better.'

Until we're doing parimutuel betting on players (which could happen), these kind of skill differences on courses that are: long vs short, wooded vs open, elevated vs flat, don't need to be captured in a person's stats. We're also not paying players based on their rating but their actual performance against others on the same course at the same event.

Wagering folks might have figured Nodland would be good in the wind playing in N. Dakota with its 'five' trees. Mike Jo wouldn't necessarily have figured to be good in the wind being from the woods in NC. However, those who knew he was playing hot and could throw aviars and rocs instead of drivers in heavy wind for more control, might have predicted his high finish. These are all factors beyond their ratings that might have come into play if you were predicting finishes where wagering was involved.

Rodney, I think you showed with your worlds odds that the ratings predicted pretty well whether folks would make the semis and finals and potentially win, even though those ratings were generated on a wide array of courses and locations.

Chuck, I read this statement as kind of loaded.


If the SSA 70 course is fairly open and the SSA 50 course is more wooded, the SSA 70 specialist might not fare as well on the SSA 50 course even though his stats might indicate he's 'better.'




It all makes sense until you call one better than the other. However, the rest of your post is spot on. All those factors (and more) are the types of things an astute handicapper would need to know.

Parimutuel betting on disc golf. That would be awesome. Rodney could make the morning line and everyone could watch the odds move around and then rush to place their bets prior to the two minute warning. I don't recall the odds Rodney had on Lagerholm, but in the states at least, she would have lit up the tote board.

It all makes sense until you call one better than the other.



(That's why 'better' had quotes around it). Statistically, it's more difficult to shoot a series of 1070 rounds on an SSA 70 course than an SSA 50. Whether that means you're better because you can is only determined if you beat the player in direct competition who shot 1070s on an SSA 50 course.

Are 'Vegas lines' designed to predict scores...or...to ensure more equitable/'equalable' betting on both sides? Or both?! The house can't take too big of a hit...either way!?

Statistically, it's more difficult to shoot a series of 1070 rounds on an SSA 70 course than an SSA 50.



Okay.


Whether that means you're better because you can is only determined if you beat the player in direct competition who shot 1070s on an SSA 50 course.



This is difficult to grasp.

If you consistently have performances that are "statistically more difficult" (your words) to accomplish than another player, one might think that your rating should be higher than the other player.

Craig: 1070, 1070, 1070 on an SSA 70
Brian: 1070, 1070, 1070 on an SSA 50

Craig's overall performance is statistically more difficult to achieve than Brian's.

But their resultant player ratings are the same?

Seems like you should be arguing that a 1070 on a 70 SSA course is statistically equivalently difficult as a 1070 on a 50 SSA course.

In other words, Ken's 1079 shouldn't be higher because a 56 on a 70 SSA course is *exactly* as statistically difficult as a 42 on a 50 SSA course.

This is indeed difficult to grasp.

Vegas lines are set/adjusted to get equal action, but parimutuel gambling is different than Vegas odds gambling. Basically, everyone's bets are combined in a pool and the relative odds/payoffs are set by the relative amount bet on each entrant at the time the pools close (factoring in the takeout of the entity that runs the pools.) Parimutuel gambling is much cleaner IMO.

I always wanted to know about that...thanks, JM!

I don't recall the odds Rodney had on Lagerholm



She was 3:1 to win. Not much of a longshot. Probably much less of a longshot than most people would have guessed before the tournament.

Des was 3:2, Juliana 2:1.

James, I tried a message board Pari-Mutual game several Worlds's ago (using shareware Pari-Mutual software), but there wasn't enough action to make it interesting at all.

The results are accurate across the range of SSAs. But it's 'unfair' to compare best performances. Consider you're a 1000 rated player and you shoot lights out with a -8 rated 1080 on an SSA 50 course. Now you shoot the course a second time. Even if you were Barry or Ken, you probably wouldn't expect to shoot -8 back-to-back, and you're 'just' a 1000 rated player. So, maybe you only shoot -5 the next round for a 1050 rating which is still uncommon and 5 shots better than average for you. The average rating of both rounds is 1065. Playing two rounds on an SSA 50 course like this example is similar from a ratings standpoint to shooting one round on an SSA 70 course. Shooting a 1065 on an SSA 70 course is about as probable as shooting 1080 on an SSA 50 course. The only difference from playing two 50s and one 70 is one extra set of 30 shots around the green which is a fixed value (statistically).

That's why Kenny's 1079 is extraordinary on an SSA 70 course. It's as if he shot two 1079 rounds back-to-back on an SSA 50 course to do it.



And he could have shot a few better! Don't forget he had a basket hit ace run roll off behind those fence things, forcing him to take a 3 where most everyone took 2s.

Wagering folks might have figured Nodland would be good in the wind playing in N. Dakota with its 'five' trees.



I'm going to object to this one Chuck. We planted a couple more trees last year so 'seven' is more accurate. ;) When you have seven trees everyone counts!

I do think that the comparison between SSA and the relation to the short game is important. Putting skill effects scoring less on a long course compared to a shorter course.

David Gentry
PDGA Tour Manager

So what your saying is that each stroke was only worth about 5.6 ratings points the day Kenny shot 12 under???

She was 3:1 to win. Not much of a longshot. Probably much less of a longshot than most people would have guessed before the tournament.

Des was 3:2, Juliana 2:1.




Yes, it just shows how ignorant I was of her skills and the ability of the foreign players in general. IMO, it also shows that the ratings system is a pretty useful tool when it can compare people in different continents with relative accuracy.

Regarding the 1079 and whether it should be higher (not however related to the SSA issue). I have no feel for this particular round, but I have had similar feelings to MTL regarding other rounds. My conclusion is probably a copout, but I've come to accept it: all these measuring systems tend to break down at the edge. It's inevitable.

To help illustrate this point, I'll use my favorite horse racing comparisons. The figure makers in horse racing have more lattitude than y'all do in that they tweak their figures so that the figures will make sense based on their own impressions. Historically, these figure makers always argue about the exact figure some historic performance should earn. They haven't figured out how to measure these truly exceptional performances, and I suspect y'all won't either.

Putting skill effects scoring less on a long course compared to a shorter course.




Statistically, it's the same amount of shots but it's a smaller percentage of total throws.

Let's try the SSA 70/50 issue another way. What if you had a carnival game where you had a choice to either make 4 shots out of 5 to win or 8 out of 10? Your cost is $1. You know from practice your odds are 50% of making 4 out of 5. The payout is $2.25 if you choose the 4 of 5 option and win. The payout is $3 if you choose the 8 of 10 option and win. Which option do you choose?

I would say most who think about it will do the 4 of 5 because it's more likely. In both cases, the minimum 'rating' that has to be thrown is 80%. But the carnie is willing to post a $3 prize for the 8 of 10 because his odds of not paying out would be even better over the long haul.

Similar logic is why a 1079 on an SSA 70 course is statistically 'better' (less likely) than 1079 on an SSA 50 course.

We planted a couple more trees last year so 'seven' is more accurate.



Man, now we're going to have to raise the ND course SSAs by 0.0001!

At first, I thought, "yea, that's pretty convincing", but after further reflection, I'm not sure that that your carnie example is an apples to apples illustration. The fact that a stroke for an SSA 70 is worth less ratings points than an SSA 44 stroke is the problem with your argument. In other words, y'all have already admitted that 4 of 5 does not equal 8 of 10 in your system and have concluded that "4 out of 5" is equivalent to "X out of 10."

Does this make sense?

Don't confuse the value per throw with an absolute rating. They are both 80%, just like 1079 is the same rating on courses with two different SSAs.

The rating points per throw can maybe be explained by this example. Player X has a rating 50 points higher than Player Y. X would be expected to beat Y by 5 throws on an SSA 50 course. Playing an SSA 50 course twice is similar to playing an SSA 70 course once (subtracting the second set of putts/'shots around the green'). Player X would be expected to beat player Y by 10 throws if they both played the SSA 50 course twice and likewise played an SSA 70 course once. So, if X beats Y by 10 throws on the SSA 70 course and their ratings are still the same 50 points apart, each throw on the SSA 70 course has to be worth only 5 rating points not 10 points like on the SSA 50 course.

I understand the compression issue and one of its implications is that "a mistake on a SSA 70 course costs you fewer ratings points than a mistake does on a SSA 50 course." This is one aspect of your description above.

In other words, a 1079 on a SSA 70 will have more mistakes, but those mistakes will be balanced by a proportional number of good shots. Therefore, it is a push: a 1079 on a SSA 70 is equal to a 1079 on a SSA 50 . It's a bedrock principle/assumption of a parallel rating system. It is what leads to compression.

I obviously cannot completely express my logic well, but maybe that is because I am trying to prove it while it is merely a given truth/assumption that the system is constructed upon. Anyway, I am beginning to understand Rodney's confusion with your assertion. It's heresy. :D

Since I'm the anti - ratings person here I have to say this.

56 on the new gold course only 1079 - YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME!!!!

When the best players in the world get together and someone shoots not one not two but 5 strokes hotter than anyone else, 1079 doesn't describe it.



"Ratings are total bull" -- Robert Leonard

you know you really have never added anything to this board by posting that in like every thread I post in

I'm not sure 'mistake' is the best word. The SSA 70 course has more opportunities to save a throw and thus more of these have to be snagged to achieve the same performance as on an SSA 50 course. Part of the 'problem' is that our smallest data unit is 1 throw no matter whether you're playing an SSA 45 or SSA 70 course.

A 'better' situation would occur if you could score in half or even quarter throws. That would allow finer resolution of skill levels. How many times have you wanted to score 2.5 when that good putt mysteriously slipped thru the chains and out? I know it's nonsense but if there were such a thing as half throws, the bell shaped distribution curve for low SSA courses could look more like the smoother looking distribution curve we currently have with full throws for SSA 70 courses. And, the best rated rounds ever on each would come close to the same numbers. As it is now, the full throw steps create more 'jagged' edges on the tips of the distribution curve for low SSA courses.

Mathematically, high and low SSA courses could each have the same 'best round ever'. But it's more likely the low SSA course will have that freak round because only one more freak shot puts the round rating in the stratosphere. Whereas it takes two freak shots on a high SSA course beyond an already awesome round to get the same rating.

Well, I think I figured it out somewhere in the middle of REM last night.

The 1079 for Ken is a representation of the level of play that he demonstrated for the duration of the round.

The 1079 is *not* a rating of the performance itself.

Seems like the term "Round Rating" is a bit unfortunate, and its common usage and understanding (by the general public) is incorrect.

It still doesn't resolve for me exactly how various performances should count toward a player's overall rating, but at least I've made the above distinction in my own mind.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction between "level of play" and "performance."

It seems y'all built a rating system around the principles that "the period of performance we will rate is one round" and "rating is independent of SSA."

Now, IMO, Chuck seems to be questioning if those core principles are the best way to measure performance. If they are not, then it seems logical to start over at the beginning by changing those core assumptions and follow a new path rather than massaging numbers created by a system you no longer believe in.

I for one don't see the need for changes based on this issue as your core assumptions seem reasonable. Simply accept the fact that a 1079 for a long round (SSA 70) is equal to a 1079 for a short round (SSA 50).

I'm not questioning anything about the system. But trying to explain what happens over a wide range of course parameters helps me, Rodney and, I hope, others understand it better. Ball golf has it 'easy' in comparison. They don't (and can't) use dynamic data to set course ratings, and their range of lengths, ratings and slopes fall into a relatively narrow range of values in comparison to our sport.

In disc golf, we can rate courses from 13 holes to 36 holes (not just 18) with a length range factor of at least 3 times from say 3500 - 13,000 feet. And, we do it dynamically with event scores to keep numbers as valid as possible by incorporating weather factors in each round. I would think it should be heartening for members that it seems to work well even with these challenges. Sometimes the results seem strange. In some cases, we've tweaked the factors when we had enough information such as high SSA course compression (thanks to Gangloff's prodding). Other times, the strangeness was explainable once it was thought thru.

So what you are saying is that its easier to shoot a high rated round on a SSA 70 course then it is on an SSA 50 course becuase the throws mean less so when you SHANK one shot its not as bad as shanking one shot on an SSA 50 course where the shank is worth 10 points instead of 5???

If this is true then i understand because to shoot a 1079 rated round on an SSA 50 course you cant have ANY mistakes but if its a SSA 70 then there is more room for error.

Is that what we are supposed to understand. That a SSA 70 is TWICE as hard as an SSA 50??? But its harder to shoot the higher round on the 50 rather then the 70???

This is kind of off subject but why do we use scores from the entire year to do ratings. Why dont we use the 20 or 30 most recent rounds to get an accurate look at what a players rating is at the time. I just dont think the ratings are accurate when you are counting rounds that you shot 12 months ago or even 6 months ago for that matter. I understand this would prolly cause ratings to rise and fall more rapidly but it would also be a better description of how a player is playing at that time. Which in essence would eliminate alot of the sandbagging that goes on if the ratings were updated maybe once every 2 months and only using the 20-30 most recent rounds. Even if they got updated the same as they do now it would still give a better representation or a players ability AT THAT TIME.

Sorry for the thread drift but all this ratings talk got me to thinking.

cd, I am maintaining that shooting a 1079 is the same: just as difficult or just as impressive, regardless of the course SSA. The reason I maintain it is simply because we have a rating system constructed on that very assumption. If the ratings folks don't believe that, I maintain that they need to redo their system.

Chuck, I understand that looking at the data in many ways may be illuminating and I also admire the ease at which this rating system can measure a wide array of phenomenon. I have said that the system could/and will be improved over time, but I'm an admirer of its power and elegance.

Once again (and I am sure you will disagree), I think your suspicion that 1079 rounds on SSA 70 courses are better than 1079 rounds on SSA 50 is "questioning the system." In fact, I feel it is questioning the very heart of the system. However, I am not concluding that your suspicion is wrong or unfounded.

This might have gotten lost in my other posts, but I agree with James.

cd, I am maintaining that shooting a 1079 is the same: just as difficult or just as impressive, regardless of the course SSA. The reason I maintain it is simply because we have a rating system constructed on that very assumption.



I think that a big part of the discussions here that seems to have been skipped is the emotional factor - how you feel about a rating for a particular round. All the arguments here are basically logical and mathematical/formulatic. Being "impressive" based on a number or a feeling can be very different things.

I'm sure everyone has their own example of a round where your feelings/perceptions did not match the ratings awarded. Mine happened at Rumbletown - Pro-only event. It was my first week back after major shoulder surgery and a 3.5 month layoff. I practiced WAYS too much on Friday and had major lactic acid soreness for the weekend. On top of that I had punctured my index finger right at the release point with a staple Saturday morning. It was at a course where lots of holes are 350-425 that are outside my birdie range, but Pro's birdie them regularly. On top of that, it was very windy and I have very little practice at that being from the wooded courses in NC. And I played the first round blind.

Anyhow, I played what felt was 850 golf - lots of shanks, bad approaches, and missed putts. I know what mid 900 golf feels like (I'm 949) and this was not that! But, when ratings finally came out I had 945, 940 & 933 rated rounds (but still played on the DFL card the last round :o).

My question is, how do you justify your feelings versus a rating that is supposed to define reality??

This goes way back to what Nick asked me about why I started this thread.

I would have to say that since I was down there I was shocked that the round was only 1079, so yes it was more of a feeling rather than stats.

I saw many many rounds and talked with many many players (I did all the interviews for the DVD that will be coming out) and everyone one of them said it was an amazing round and a few even said it was the best round in the history of the game.

Kenny himself told me "IT was one of the best rounds I've ever shot" and he even said "I'm going to be anxious to see what the rating for the round was"

So I guess my main complaint with the ratings system is it is nearly impossiable to shoot the best round of all time on a course like this, when it in fact is probably the hardest style of course.

I'm rated 937, and I am almost always in the cash in advanced. I myself, have 3 rounds rated over 1000 in my career. All three of these, came on courses with lots of 2 opportunites (Kilbourne Long - 48, Wellspring Long - 46, Wellspring Short - 43). I played winthrop gold monday morning, played decently, missed some putts, and I shot 80, which was rated around 950, about the level I've been play at.

Heres my point - anyone can go off and shoot 1000 something on birdie courses, but hardly anyone can do it on a course like winthrop. I understand the whole part of a stroke not being worth as much on a longer course, b/c its true and makes logical sense ( I would rather be down 3 on someone on a course like winthrop than a short birdie course anyday of the week). BUt why do we penalize a player with our current ratings system?

I think that an amazing round like Kenny shot should be rewarded, not penalized (don;t get me wrong 1079 is awesome, better than I'll ever dream of shooting).

I know this really hasn't been laid out smoothly, its just a bunch of random thoughts - don't attack it b/c of this, just read it and try to see where I'm coming from.

And yes Jeff, ratings are total bull :D

I try not to finish a round and say oh that was prolly a 920 rated round. I go out and when im done i say well hey that was CRAPPY for me or that was GREAT for me and then see what the ratings say is CRAPPY or GOOD for me.

I have also heard your ratings are higher when you play against the higher rated pros. I dont know how or why this could be i have just heard that.

I'm not disagreeing that a 1079 on SSA 70 vs SSA 50 courses should be different ratings or somehow handled differently. However, I suspect that 1079 on the higher SSA course is slightly less probable. And I agree we don't want to get probabilities included in the individual ratings process.

A far as feelings, I think MTL indicated that the 56 SEEMED like it should be rated better than 1079 so sometimes the math and the feelings are out of sync. When someone separates from the pack by 5, it feels like it should be rated better than when you win by 1. But the combined impact of everyone else's scores can end up with the same SSA in either case so the round rating ends up the same.

I try not to finish a round and say oh that was prolly a 920 rated round. I go out and when im done i say well hey that was CRAPPY for me or that was GREAT for me and then see what the ratings say is CRAPPY or GOOD for me.



Then should I feel crappy about all my prior and future 945 rated rounds since I felt crappy about my 945 rated Rumletown round?

Most times I shoot 945 I feel average (disapointed) because it is average for me. I am disappointed because I want to shoot well above average, but I am not depressed since I did not stink up the joint.

No you shouldnt but since you had taken 3.5 months off and the wind was bad and all of the other stuff you said was going on at the time maybe you felt like it was TERRIBLE when it really wasnt that bad at all???

So I guess my main complaint with the ratings system is it is nearly impossiable to shoot the best round of all time on a course like this, when it in fact is probably the hardest style of course.



And now we're starting to mix design and ratings, which is something we went around with a couple months ago.

Fact is, though 56 is awesome, there are still 6 birdies out there that he didn't get.

Contrast Michael Jo's Hornet's Nest round where he got all the reasonably possible shots except 2. His round rating was probably right around 1100.

If Ken gets 4 of the 6 he left out there (thus leaving 2 out there), he would've been right at, surprise, 1100.

As I said before, some would argue that getting a 3 on a 2-shot hole is easier than getting a 2 on a 1-shot hole, because you have a little more margin for error. It's all in your perception.

I tell you what Rodney, I agree with everything you said.

Kenny did infact miss 6 holes, and he should have got 2 more. He missed a 30 footer on 5 and his drive on 7 hit the basket and rolled out behind the bamboo wall - so theres two strokes that he did infact leave out there.

I am one of those people who believes a 3 on a tougher hole (whether considered a par 4 or a tough par 3) is ALWAYS easier that a 2 on a "birdie hole". That is why I said I would much rather be down 3 on a longer course than a birdie course.

I just can't see anyone shooting anything close to 52 at Winthrop Gold where as I could see someone shooting 41 at the nest again

You know, if you look at the top 40 scorers in Round 1, there were 2 birdies that were nearly impossible (#12 = 2% birds, #14 = 0% birds). That makes the realistic minimum score 52 (-16).

But other than those 2 holes, only 3 more holes were under 25% birdies (#15 = 19% birds, #5 = 21% birds, #6 = 24% birds).

I'm not saying 52 is easy, but the top players have a pretty reasonable shot at birdie on nearly every hole. Obviously, the trick, as with any course, is stringing them all together in the same round.

Point is, the 1079 was hot (top 25 ever). A couple more strokes, and he's right at the very top of the best Round Ratings ever (probably top 5). A couple more than that, which pushes the envelope of possible, and he'd be in the 1100 stratosphere.

well I personally think that number 12 should be a par 6 and number 14 should be a par 4 for those very reasons

Also, you have to realize that he missed a putt and got screwed on hole 7. He also layed up on the clowns mouth this year, basically making it very hard for him to three

Point is, the 1079 was hot (top 25 ever).



And that 1079 is still "unofficial" correct? Whatever that means! :confused:

It's interesting when you get near the max of what's possible in relation to a player's rating. I think Rodney calculated the standard deviation for rounds among players near 1000 as about 25 points. If the distribution is a normal curve, 19 out of 20 of all rounds would be between +/- 50 points of their rating on any course. With Barry at 1039, in theory he should be shooting a 1089 round every 20 rounds or so to maintain his rating if that normal curve holds true.

I suspect that since Barry, Ken and a few others are bumping up against what's possible, their distributions might be somewhat more flattened at the top than the bottom of their average (I haven't looked yet). A normal curve would also mean that 49 of 50 rounds would fall between +/- 75 points. Unless the distribution curve really isn't normal, these guys have a shot at that mythical 1100 barrier in the next few years.

Ack, MTL, you'll have to go to the par thread and hack that out with them.

E_OG, unofficial just means it hasn't gone through the full ratings process yet.

In the full process, as has been fully described elsewhere, some scores are dropped before calculating the official SSA, and thus round ratings. For the unofficial numbers, everything is included.

A normal curve would also mean that 49 of 50 rounds would fall between +/- 75 points. Unless the distribution curve really isn't normal, these guys have a shot at that mythical 1100 barrier in the next few years.



Or that mythical (for them) 965 low-end barrier.

The 1079 is unofficial until the numbers are crunched in the ratings database. Only players whose rating is based on at least 8 rounds can generate ratings. Also, players who shoot more than 50 points below their rating are also not included in the process for that round. I suspect the official number will be at least 1075.