Do ratings scores get dropped over time or do we just get to drop our crappiest 15%? ie only past 3 years is included in ratings?
thx
GR

Read the appropriate ratings doc: http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/index.php

All properly reported PDGA events for the past 12 months will be included in the calculations. If
you have less than 20 rounds of data, the program will go back up to 12 more months until it finds
20 total rounds, or it will use as many as you have even if less than 20. The program uses your best
85% rated rounds which is 17 out of 20. If you do not complete a round (DNF), it is not included in
your round count.

Is this what im looking for? I still dont understand. Will I drop my rounds from a few years ago at any point because there is a limit to the number of years back that ratings are calculated from?

clear as mud:

Max of 2 years, or 20 rounds, or 1 year depending on the whim of Theo's computer program. And it throws out the bottom 15% of those... sometimes. Unless you weren't PDGA current during that period then it might or might not have those rounds in.

I still dont get it,

If you have at least 20 tournament rounds in the 12 months prior to your most recent event, that's all we use and drop your lowest 15% of those. We don't go back and use any older events. If you don't have at least 20 rounds within 12 months of your most recent event, we go back up to 24 months before that, but no farther back. So, any current member who has played at least one rated event during 2004, will not have any rounds in their rating older than 2002 and players with at least 20 rounds during 2003 and 2004 will have no rounds earlier than 2003 in their rating.

Chuck, do you know if the Flying Pig (Cincinnati) tournament results from late August is filed and will be included in the upcoming ratings update?

I'm not the one to ask. PDGA HQ gets those reports. If the results are posted online and it says the results are 'Official' with or without ratings, then they have it for sure. However, if it says 'Unofficial' (like it does for this one), you can only find out by asking the TD or PDGA HQ whether the report has been submitted.

Most people have stated they really enjoy having their rounds tracked and rated. And although I think they are cool as well, after this year's season talking to many from coast to coast I would have to pin some of our declining tournament numbers to ratings as well. In Open Pro anyway, the missing local pro player looks at all of the 990+ guys coming into town and decides against putting their hard earned ($80-$125) against those odds. What many people would like to see out of the ratings is a more dramatic reflection of current play. When you have 80+ rated rounds, you can tank or shine for weeks at a time and those rounds still get absorbed into the overall data. It is like a freshman GPA, easy to manipulate the first year, but by the time you are a jr/sr your GPA is pretty much set. What this does is show overall consistancy both GPA and Ratings. Most players are more concerned with if they are getting better or worse. Could we make it so that Quarterly updates reflect quarterly progress? Put a cap on rounds that can be used and make it more of a last 6 tournaments=24 rounds. Obviously, for some you still have to go back in time to get the correct number of rounds to quantify.
I see a couple of things from this:
-Even more interest in ratings
-More PDGA participation, (to see the chart move)

We're loking at some more front loaded options but the reality is that the average number of rated rounds in a year for PDGA members is about 12 which is maybe 5 events. What we may have to do is use a more frontloaded rating process for more "active" players (to be defined) and retain what we're doing for the majority. One thing that we're looking at for all players is to not go back more than 12 months unless a player has fewer than 8 rounds in their last 12 months (versus 20 currently). That will significantly reduce the number of older rounds in the rating for many and still retain them as propagators.

In Open Pro anyway, the missing local pro player looks at all of the 990+ guys coming into town and decides against putting their hard earned ($80-$125) against those odds.



I agree with you on this.


What many people would like to see out of the ratings is a more dramatic reflection of current play. When you have 80+ rated rounds, you can tank or shine for weeks at a time and those rounds still get absorbed into the overall data.



I have not done any analysis on this and it probably deserves some good analysis.

That said, I am doubtful that the vast majority of the players that you are concerned about who have the 990+ ratings are inconsistent enough on a month-to-month basis (let alone a rating-to-rating basis) to vary by more than around 10 ratings points per ratings period in your proposed calculation method. I am hazarding a guess that your proposal would not fix the observed attendance problem.

What about Post Ratings, I think they are like fine wine, and can only geTT beTTer with age.

Chuck, who should i ask about an event (Cool Weather Classic in October) that has no info on it on this site or if anything has been received on it? The TD says he submitted the results immediately and that he is also wondering where the results are.

I also was wondering what happened with the Cool Weather Classic...