Hi Chuck,

I noticed that there was a mistake made in the calculation of my most recent player rating. My dad, who is also named John, played in the Advanced Grand Masters division at the Illinois State Championships this year. His rounds were used to calcuate my player rating; thus, my rating is lower than it should be. I only bring this to your attention so that it will not negatively affect any rounds that have not yet been calculated .

Notify PDGA HQ and I'll contact Roger Smith.

I also found a mistake on the ChaChing and Zing Results.

The Mike Norris that played AM and finished second, isn't a PDGA member. His rounds are accredited to another Mike Norris(plays advanced) that plays in our area.

my name is chris edwards. i noticed that my ratings droppd after my latest tournament was entered which happened to be my best tournament. my rating should have moved up a point (if your rounding) but instead they moved down 6 points. i dont know if there is a mistake or maybe i am supposed to subtract 6 from my overall ratings for some reason.
does anybody know who i should contact to see if i am just stupid or if PDGA made a mistake?
thanks
Chris

All you need to do is look at your Rating Detail under your name to see what rounds are included for your rating. That 777 round at the Safari dragged you down.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Tournament Date Round Score Rating Included
</td></tr><tr><td>Full Sail Bay Series - San Francisco 13-Nov-2004 1 54 914 Yes
</td></tr><tr><td>Full Sail Bay Series - San Francisco 13-Nov-2004 2 51 945 Yes
</td></tr><tr><td>San Francisco Safari 21-Aug to 22-Aug-2004 1 54 910 Yes
</td></tr><tr><td>San Francisco Safari 21-Aug to 22-Aug-2004 2 60 863 Yes
</td></tr><tr><td>San Francisco Safari 21-Aug to 22-Aug-2004 3 57 907 Yes
</td></tr><tr><td>San Francisco Safari 21-Aug to 22-Aug-2004 4 67 777 Yes
</td></tr><tr><td>Masters Cup 07-May to 09-May-2004 1 90 915 Yes
</td></tr><tr><td>Masters Cup 07-May to 09-May-2004 2 85 918 Yes
</td></tr><tr><td>Masters Cup 07-May to 09-May-2004 3 93 854 Yes
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Chuck, why was his 777 round even included in his rating calculation? 777 is more than 100 pts below his current rating, I thought any round that was more than 40pts higher or lower than your current rating was automaticly thrown out am I wrong?

They have never discussed throwing out scores higher than your rating. I thought there was a limit on bad rounds, but don't know what it is.

The practice of throwing out rounds below a certain level (separate from the up to 15% thrown out once you have at least 11), was a one time test that is not a standard practice... yet. However, the mid-May update in 2005 will initiate several new processes for handling ratings for 2005 events and beyond. One of those will be an automatic drop of abnormally low rounds. It won't be a fixed number of points and we may not publish specifically how that number is determined to minimize 'tampering.' We're still testing the changes so no announcements will be made yet.

In my opinion, I am one of the biggest supporters of the ratings system. I'm well aware of how they are calculated and that is an absolute travesty for that guy's 777 round to be included in his rating. Chuck or another member of the ratings committee should rectify his rating immediately, imo.

How is it a travesty? He earned that 777, didn't he? A travesty would be if it was a calculation mistake that gave him that 777. Besides, as Chuck posted above, all the guy has to do is get one more tournament (11 or more included rounds) included in his rating and that 777 goes away via the bottom 15% drop. That's the great thing about ratings being a dynamic thing...it will change at the next update if you add rounds to it.

I'm a huge proponent of ratings and their use in gauging skill-level, but I'm rather surprised at the number of people who live and die by their rating and when the next update comes. If your rating drops a bit...big deal. It's not as if a rating drop is going to ruin you. You can still continue to play golf even if your rating drops...you can even keep playing in the same division you were in.

Relax folks. Your rating is intended to describe your game, not define it.

--Josh

From the PDGA Player and Course Ratings Q&A sheet: (http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/PRWCPbro.PDF)


The system uses 85% of a player's best rounds relative to the course SSAs from PDGA events that have been entered into the system.



When a golfer has less than 20 rated rounds, it is important to use as much data as possible to generate an accurate rating. However, considering that the golfer's prior rating was 896 and his other rated rounds go as high as 945, it seems obvious that the 777 round is a clear outlier and should not be included in the ratings determination. I am confident that whoever did the rating for this fellow may have missed that this data point was a clear outlier, and should give this a second thought.

Sorry Jeff, I disagree.

The system as it is now is set up to filter out the overwhelmingly bad rounds. There's no overwhelming reason to rush to drop the round now, as it will take care of it by itself when the gentleman plays a couple more tournaments. There is simply no need to exclude the round now if it will be done automatically at a later date.

In the meantime, his 890 rating isn't going to hold him back. If it does, then that's not the system, that's the player.

--Josh

I agree with you that in the grand scheme of things, it's mostly irrelevant. He would probably still play in the same skill division if that round were not included as he would now with it included. And, as you pointed out, it will "take care of itself" after the next ratings update if the gentlemen plays more PDGA tournys in that time.

But what if the difference straddled the Recreational/Intermediate line of 875? What if the difference straddled the Intermediate/Advanced line of 915? It would be a much bigger deal then, I think you can agree on that. It's the principle of the thing.

I also notice that the golfer in question is a relatively new PDGA member. I would hate to see this (something that could be easily fixed) leaving a sour taste in the mouth of a new member.

Whatever, it's out of our hands now. Hopefully the golfer has followed BDH's instructions on how to e-mail the PDGA office about the issue, and they'll decide on it.

The PDGA office corrects wrong scoring info but not ratings to be included/excluded based on the current filtering process. The 777 is 'legit' to include under current policies but would likely be excluded under the revised processes starting with the mid-May update. The standard deviation of ratings for a player at his level is 35-40. Three std devs would probably still include that round, so it's barely within his 'normal' range.

Chuck,

with the advent of ratings, i've kept a log of my rounds and my rating at the time the round was played. i've noticed an interesting phenomenon: only 35 of 86 (40.7%)rounds are >= my rating (at the time of the round), while 51 (59.3) < currating. (similarly, 10 of 27 (37%) tournanmetns >= currating, 17 (63%) < currating).

obviously, i play below my rating far often than above! i'm wondering is this a common phenomenon, ie to-be-expected, for some statistical reason? also, what conclusions might be drawn? so far, i can say is that i suck more often than i excel (relative to me, of course) which makes me sad. on the other hand, could i draw the conclusion that my "bad" play is not as bad and my "good" play is good, which makes me happy? i s'pose a few more rounds below rating would be expected, since the worst ones are not part of the rating itself.

thanks for any input your statistical prowess might provide.

Your results are what most players with established ratings should see. Remember that your rating posted 5 times per year is slightly inflated because we drop up to 15% of your worst rounds. That's been a concern for Rodney for a while and it will be addressed with a modified process in 2005 that comes close to using all of your rounds. The details are still being tested but will be published probably around the beginning of March after we do a final shakedown on the mid-Feb ratings. The modified process will be officially used for the mid-May update.

Come on Chuck, give us some snippets of the "modified process" or better yet, what do y'all perceive as areas that can or should be improved?

We have a hard enough time explaining the options within our ratings group so we're not going public with nitty gritty. Some quick notes would be: fewer rounds dropped, more weight on recent rounds and not going back historically for as many rounds. One thing we have agreed upon is that the number of propagators required to get a round rated will be dropped from 10 down to 5 so more rounds can be rated in the small divisions and in locations with fewer PDGA members. On the future burner is studying the results of changes in 2005 to see if we can lower the rating required to be a propagator below 800 in 2006 since that's where our potentially largest growth can come from.

We're also doing a special calculation to launch ratings in some new countries where there aren't even 5 international affiliate PDGA members yet. The ratings are steadily progressing globally.

guys guys guys
im not trying to de-thrown the system or anything. my only beef is that going by the rules of the system the math just doesnt add up. if you get my rating for every round of every tournament i have played and average it. it isnt 890. its 896. so im sorry if i started a fued but i just dont want to get cheated out of 6 measly rating points... because they mater so much... sigh
thanks anyway
chris

never mind...technical difficulties...im dyslexic... :D

Chris,

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the PDGA may have slightly more pressing issues than determining if your player rating should be one point higher or six points lower. Maybe if you play in more events your problem will take care of itself.

Thanks for the info Chuck. I hope the focus on recency will help bring the am ratings more in line with the pros. I suspect it will. However, I'm curious as to the effect of dropping fewer rounds. Everyone's rating will drop some, but I assume lower rated players would drop more than higher rated players. If so, this would tend to further perpetuate the am/pro disparity.

The ratings drop by including more rounds will be offset with an adjustment in the formulas. The average rating of all props will still be the same as it is now but I don't wish to get into the process yet.

what if i ask you the same question another way chuck....THEN would you answer it???

come on already please,please,please please....tell me, tell me, tell me......are we there yet,are we there yet???huh? huh?


jesus christ....leave him alone....he said it will be told soon....have some godddamnn patience!!!

I really was just curious as to what he thought needed to be improved and I honestly feel that is an acceptable question to a PDGA representative. Besides, he answered some of my questions so apparently you are bothered more by the question than he was.

At any rate, it never hurts for an organization to prepare its members for change. To smooth the way so to speak rather than springing it on them all at once. Everyone benefits, in so many different ways.

jesus christ ....leave him alone....he said it will be told soon....have some godddamnn patience!!!

geez, dont let Terry see that! :D

I really was just curious as to what he thought needed to be improved and I honestly feel that is an acceptable question to a PDGA representative. Besides, he answered some of my questions so apparently you are bothered more by the question than he was.

At any rate, it never hurts for an organization to prepare its members for change. To smooth the way so to speak rather than springing it on them all at once. Everyone benefits, in so many different ways.



james i'm NOT MAD at you at all...it is that for the past week 40 different ways of the same question were asked AFTER chuck said he wasn't going into it.......chuck is WAY too nice to tell everyone to f off and listen to what he said,whereas after a while of the same schit...i have no problem saying it.....
you just happened to be the last poster which is wrong place, wrong time issue and NOT anything personal as i love all my texas friends!

keith

Are we there yet ? :cool:

More weight to the most recent rounds...
less dropped rounds....

<------------shaking head




thems bad words and never a time for that to happen!!
In the public eye, it should be expected to have things repeated. And emotions can not be a part of it. Chuck is a great guy and I am sure he can pick his own battles.
No one deserves to get blasted ( not even James) I may be blowing this out of portion cause this could all be in fun.
BUT!

The good lord had NOTHING to do with it.
Try to have a great day.

Nicely put V-man! ;)

yeah no doubt , well said V.