I don't get it. With the size of the state of Texas, why is there only one golfer with a rating over 1000? If I move to Texas tomorrow, I'd be the 9th best golfer in Texas, 5 points away from being the 2nd best. I just don't believe that. That is what makes me realize/believe that there is something wrong with player ratings.

Congrats Nolan, you must be a god in Texas.

That's a tough question to answer. Maybe our courses are too hard. :confused: I'd like to think that there is something wrong with the ratings. :D

I played in Florida and got called bagger and I'm not very good. Have an 825 rating. Been playing 10 months at the time. I thought our Advanced players would crush theirs. Floridians said Texas is known to be full of baggers.

Are your courses to hard or too easy? I seriously dont know, and with all the events versus all the courses Im curious.Ive been told that lots of ratings are juiced because of playing tons of tourneys on easy courses.Of course yuo still have to shoot good.Is there any truth to this? I also heard that for the most part Texas golf is flat without alot a trees.Ive spent alot of time in central Texas, but never golfed there, and for the most part it was flat,with only crappy trees.

What makes you so sure that there should be 1000 rated players in Texas? What marquee Texas players are there that are close to 1000 but not over? Make a case before blaming the ratings system.

There's also no 1000-rated players in Pennsylvania either, it must be the ratings system. :D

(I haven't gotten my 'payments'... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif)

I played in Florida and got called bagger and I'm not very good. Have an 825 rating. Been playing 10 months at the time. I thought our Advanced players would crush theirs. Floridians said Texas is known to be full of baggers.



I get called a bagger here in Texas, but when I go to OKC I get whooped everytime. Bagger central is not Texas :D.

I'm just saying that with a state of that size, with that many courses and players, statistically there should be some 1000's sprinkled in here and there. I "personally" believe that this is more than a statistical anomally and I want to hear what others think.
PA is a big state, but only has 29 registered courses compared to 114 for Texas. Both states have rich sports histories and I would expect higher ranked individuals, especially in the Austin area that has so many options for play.
It's not that difficult to throw a disc! So what is it, the wind, the length of holes? I don't know, just want to find out.
On a side note, my player rating was highest when I was an Am! I feel I'm a lot better now, yet my rating doesn't indicate such.

So instead of ripping me, does anyone have any answers or possible explanations to my inquiry? ...or is nolan really a god?

Texas also has more disc golfers than almost every state. But we have to full time disc golfers other than Jay and Des Reading. (transplants from Iowa)

Nolan should go on tour, he kicks all our butts here. (well, most of the time)

Now you know why those Okies always come down here to take our money.

Take who's money?

I have been told that to get my rating higher the 1st thing I should do is move out of TX. As you should know this is not an option. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

happy birthday kid. nice shooting this weekend. everyone play the same tees?

Yeah, but it wasn't nice shooting everyone else just sucked.

Now you know why those Okies always come down here to take our money.



Well said, and they did it again! Those Okie's sure can golf. In open at Cedar Hill's Big Show it went:

1 Coda Hatfield.(OK) :p
2 Eric McCabe (KS) :p
t3 Kevin McCoy (OK) :p
t3 Nolan Grider (TX) :confused:
5 JD Ramirez (TX) :confused:
6 John Maiuro (TX) :confused:
t7 Dixon Jowers (TX) :confused:
t7 Chris (TX) :confused:
t7 Giggler (TX) :confused:

Crazy Oakies or is it just weak Texans? :confused: :D:confused:

Yeah, but it wasn't nice shooting everyone else just sucked.




Dang, and here I thought i shot good :p

I though we told you you weren't allowed to talk. Yeah but you are just a SB, Super Bagger that is. :D:D

My honest opinion is that it is a combination of:

1. Given the total number of Texas golfers, Texas produces a smaller % of top notch golfers than other states. I really don't think this is that arguable. To be fair, look at national tournaments where every state is represented and look at the results. Why is this? There are threads and theories devoted to this topic, but it's still somewhat of a mystery.

2. I don't know how it is in other parts of the country, but almost all of tourneys have pros and ams combined. I don't care how hot you shoot, if there are a bunch of ams in the rating, it will end up lower than it would have in a pro only field. (I'm hoping the new rating methods will correct this phenomenon, but the residual will remain for a long time)

Since almost all of pro rated rounds in Texas are mixed rated fields, I feel it tends to lower ratings. How much, I'd guestimate about 10 points, but not enough to raise many people over the 1000 threshold.

The mix of am and pros is a bogus argument since places like MN and NC have 1000 rated players with similar divisional mixes of players in events. It looks like in many cases your Intermediate and Rec players play different layouts also so they're not propagators for the pro ratings.

It's possible the terrain has something to do with it. If there's less foliage and elevation on average in TX, the standard deviation of scores on holes won't be as wide as on wooded course with elevation like the Upper Midwest and the Mid-Atlantic areas, for example. Lower standard deviations doesn't allow the better players to overachieve relative to the field in comparison to say the top NC woodsmen who, it also appears, tend to develop better putting skills. The counter agrument to this would be Florida which may be wetter on average than Texas but has terrain and foliage density that's similar, and they've had no trouble generating players with ratings over 1000.

It may be a bogus argument since I don't have the data to illustrate my claim. You however, do.

Therefore, rather than merely claiming it is bogus, why not pose actual statistics to counter this widely held belief. For example, take the the 980+ players in your database and calculate the percentage of their rated rounds that had ams as propagators in the calculation. An even better metric might be the average % of am propagators in their rounds. With this data, you can show that MN and NC players over 980 have the same am influence in their ratings and therefore, that my claim was baseless.

I did have that as reason number 2 because I think reason number 1 is far more significant. However, reason # 2 is widely held to be true and actual data would be more persuasive than claims.

At this point, there's no benefit to analyze current info pertaining to different ratings levels and/or divisions producing different round ratings. After the process changes this year, we'll take a closer look. The emerging need for doing the analysis is the desire to use players below 800 rating as propagators since that is where our growth is coming from. Currently maybe half of the rounds played in competition by players under 850 or so can't be rated due to lack of propagators in their divisions. If we end up using a 750 player as a propagator, we're going to want solid evidence that using players at that level will also work in the mix when 1000 rated players are also in the same ratings pool for a round.

Just because an area has 114 courses doesn't automatically mean there should be 1000-rated players there.

What elite players should be 1000-rated that aren't? Make the case! Golfers such as J.D. Ramirez, Jim Davidson, Dixon Jowers, Robby Hendrick, Shannon Fosdick have got game but are they tournament winners when they go play in other areas of the country? Do they shoot 1000-rated golf when they compete in National Tour events, Pro Worlds or the USDGC? Check the PDGA tournament results, especially for the USDGC, and see for yourself.

I don't think he's arguing that we have incorrectly rated players. I think he's bringing up the question Atwood posed last year, why aren't more of TX players better (i.e. 1000 rated)?

I think it has more to do with the courses, as Chuck mentioned. Texas courses are mostly about distance (even the front side of Cameron East).

I would agree that the types of courses you play has alot to do with how good you become. Sure you going to get really good on the course you play all the time but as soon as your travel out of your element your going to get slapped around because you only know how to play one way. I think this only applies if you play Wide open courses and then go to Short tight wooded courses though. If you play on tight wooded courses all the time you will have no problem going from those to wide open course because you will already be deadly accurate.

Just my 2 cents

I think it has more to do with the courses, as Chuck mentioned. Texas courses are mostly about distance (even the front side of Cameron East).



....and what about the heat? It isn't easy playing Seventy-Two 400+ foot holes in 110 degree heat. :D

2002 Pro Worlds (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=3063)

Heat is not a big factor, at least according to these results. :)

Top 2 Texans = Landers (20) and Grider (22)

Are you saying that if other players came to Texas in July and tried to play here teh Texas guys would do better ?

From the Houston Worlds, it does look like a few of the Texas players were playing about 10-15 points above their ratings at that time. Not enough to put many of them over 1000, but it would put a lot of them pretty close.

it does look like a few of the Texas players were playing about 10-15 points above their ratings at that time.



(is that because better players form elsewhere were there boosting Texan round ratings :D)

Compared to the ratings of players that finished toghether.

It could be that the Texas players played their ratings and some of the other players played below their ratings because of the heat. Either way, the cause of a 10-15 point split over a week is very difficult to quantify.

First of all: Shannon Fosdick has game? :D

I am too lazy to look this up, but I doubt Jim played any of those last year, JD probably just played Waco and Shannon, Dixon and Robbie played a couple each. So there is not much to look at. However, for the three that attended more than one NT, Worlds, or USDGC (what I'm calling the biggies), I recalculated their stats. Disclaimer, I left out Dixon because his stats didn't support this observation. :D

----------Player Rtg---Ave biggie rtg----Ave biggie rtg drop 15 %

Shannon------986------------991---------------998

Robby--------987------------990---------------995


I can't draw any definitive conclusions from this data except that Shannon really does have game. No more side action. :p

Now that's the kind of banter I was looking for (except when the lung was getting snippy with me) :D. I wasn't trolling for an argument, just curious. I'm not blaming Chuck either. Wanted to know other possible theories. I'm certainly not gonna say that Texas golf sucks. I would say that Chuck's theory about less scoring range per hole may be the key. Those 450 foot open holes are usually 3s or 4s for most golfers, so if there are a huge amount of holes such as that, it can make for very boring ratings. (I've had 5 upper division stats classes in college, so give it to me straight!)

I'm sorry if I was snippy with you, but I'm looking for that kind of banter, too, rather than just public dismissal of the ratings system. I want to see data and statistics that prove that Texas players are getting artificially lower ratings than they should be. You don't really present any argument other than "It's not that difficult to throw a disc!" If it was that easy, we'd all be 1000-rated players.

(Of course, then all the 1000-rated players would be rated 1100!) :D

I wasn't arguing, just wondering aloud.*

*: I'm trying to remember what I said earlier, oh ya, "I publicly dismiss the ratings system". No, that's not it. I think somebody is putting words in my post! :DCome on, Lung! Give this Nittany Lion a break! :D

I interpreted:


I just don't believe that. That is what makes me realize/believe that there is something wrong with player ratings.

as a public dismissal of the ratings system; was that incorrect?

Where in PA are you from?

I think it's interesting that the Scandanavians, who have fewer courses, PDGA members and rated events than Texas, have 8 or 9 players with ratings over 1000. Of course, only their best have traveled to the U.S. to seed their ratings pool in the past few years. But they have proven their ratings are no flukes among both the men and women. I haven't been there but I'm guessing their course terrain may be more like the northern U.S. than Texas, but they can certainly throw as far as Texans and probably farther than our NC, Mid-Atlantic and Upper Midwest 1000+ players. It's difficult to isolate a factor that sticks out.

One reason you keep implying for Texas lack of 1000 players is the kinds of courses. This reasoning just rings hollow to me. I can understand the theory that a certain type of course would create certain positive abilities in players. However, your argument seems to assume that there is some general category of "Texas courses," all with common traits. IMO, this is where this argument falls apart.

In the Austin area alone, we have a tremendous variety of courses/holes. We may lack a lot of heavily wooded fairways, but to assume that the typical Texas course is wide open/bombs away/no precision is misleading.

I got to ask......
If everyone is playing at a 1000 rating at an event....Will that effect the ratings?

If the majority of propogators are playing above their ratings, the ratings will be pushed down a few points. If the majority of propogators are playing below their ratings, the ratings go up a few points.

If there is a large pool of players that are increasing in ability at the same pace, and they make up the majority of the players at all of the events they play, the ratings for the group will tend to lag.

It is unlikely that any of these situations would occur with enough regularity to effect the player ratings.

It is unlikely that any of these situations would occur with enough regularity to effect the player ratings.



That is quite a leap.

I thought so..........with that said.......If a texas player moved to a (let say less rated pool of player) he would become a 100rated player.
If that is a true statement.....then these state with 10 1000 rated players, tells you all the other players of that state are not good players.
In the land of the bad player a little better player is king.
Kinda like in the land of the blind...cyclops is king

[

In the Austin area alone, we have a tremendous variety of courses/holes. We may lack a lot of heavily wooded fairways, but to assume that the typical Texas course is wide open/bombs away/no precision is misleading.

[/QUOTE] Then there is the fact that Old Settlers Park has a hole that is over 1000 ft.!! Ya,,,drive that!! Then there is Cat Hollow which is a huge pain in the asss because it has not only woods,,,but the things that make disc golf fun,,,thorns, stickers, and cactus!!! Player ratings,,,,,does it really matter all that much? Just my 10 cents cuz the first 2 are free!! :p

Not really, in order for it to effect ratings over time, almost all of the propogators would have to consistently shoot the same as a group. Not playing better or worse than everyone else compared to their own ratings.

The 920 player would always have to stay about 2 strokes behind the 940 player. It is unlikely that everyone is going to have an equally good or bad day for any period of time. Added to that is the idea that all of the same players (or at least no one from outside the local pool of players) shows up at every event.

You will almost always have propogators from outside the area in your events. You will always have some players that are playing well, and those that are playing bad. In the end, it should be a statistical wash.

Here are two assumptions the ratings process is based upon:

1) That the distribution of skills among a smaller subset of players in an area is similar to the current national distribution of skill sets.

2) A random group of propagators will each shoot above, equal to or below their skill levels in any round such that their average performance is identical to the average of their ratings going into the round.

Item 2) becomes an issue when the PDGA is pressured to drop the minimum number of props to 5 so more rounds get rated. It's more likely that 5 props will play above or below average in a round than 10 or more props. But that's the price we pay to serve more players in the system. But this issue shouldn't impact Texas any more than other places.

Item 1) is likely an issue in some places where natural variance in the skill distribution of the current playing pool may deviate from our national norm. Let's say 5 new players from the Yukon travel to a Worlds event and become props with ratings from 8 rounds around 850. Let's say they each have the potential to get to 945. They all improve together but they are the only rated players in their local events. They won't be able to get their ratings above 850 if they all improve at the same rate.

However, it doesn't make any difference when the goal of the ratings system is to get similarly skilled players competing together. Their ratings may be off on a national scale but their ratings indicate they should be playing in the same division. So, if the Texas player ratings are correct relative to each other, the system is doing it's job. Another conclusion might be that Texas has a lower natural distribution of skill levels among existing players (but that opens a can of worms doesn't it :D).

I think a lot of it has to do with the types of holes that we have. Take hole 3 a Veterans. In a field of 20 Open players, maybe 1 will birdie and 3 or 4 will mess up the upshot and 4 but almost everyone is taking a 3 on that hole.

We have a lot of holes that everyone takes the same score on. Hence, it is hard to get a range of scores on a given course and harder to seperate ratings.

Just a theory.

Actually, hole 3 is birdied far less than 1 in 20. So i'm helping you prove your point even more so.

Commonly reffered to by out-of-staters as "Texas Sized Par 3's".

Gary, I misunderstood your point then. I interpreted the comment "If the majority of propogators are playing above their ratings, the ratings will be pushed down a few points" as descriptive of a rated round with a high % of improving propagators who often play above their rating. My point was simply that it is possible that this may occur quite frequently.

Chuck, in layman terms, what does "That the distribution of skills among a smaller subset of players in an area is similar to the current national distribution of skill sets." mean?

Based on my understanding at least, it seems like an unneccesary assumption for your system and seems at odd with your later statement that "Their ratings may be off on a national scale..." and "if the Texas player ratings are correct relative to each other, the system is doing it's job."

That is just poor design (and/or refinement after the data is compiled). Texas certainly has not cornered the market on that.

Of thread is there a Mid march update? I hope so because I want my ratings from 2005 in quickly /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

james, he means that if the whole country has 1000 players, with ten between 900-910, ten between 910-920, and so on, then a state with 100 players would have one player at 900-910, one player at 910-920 and so on.

my example may not make it easy to agree that such a distribution assumption is correct, but in fact it most likely is.

I think perhaps expectation is a better word than assumption. The expectation is that a smaller sample of players (that's not too small) will be representative of a larger group of players. In fact, that's what triggered this thread. The question was based on the expectation that Texas should have more higher rated players than it does to match the proportion of higher rated players nationally.

The fact that it doesn't does not necessarily mean that it's anything other than statistical variance. But with Texas having more than 5% of PDGA members, it's a pretty large sample to have that much difference from the national pattern. Since all potential people who could play disc golf don't play disc golf, that doesn't mean there aren't several potential 1000-rated players in Texas who haven't played competitively, developed yet or who haven't even discovered disc golf to play it yet.

Another line of thinking might be due to a clumping effect of talent. I believe it's been shown that existing players will attract others like themselves. And, that the competitive environment can make a difference. In other words, talent attracts talent, and supports talent. There are places that are breeding grounds for talent in different sports that goes above and beyond statistical expectation. Attitude, expectation, coaching and facilities can make a difference in other sports. Why not disc golf? These elements are fixable and can be changed, but it comes primarily from the players and the promoters.

the reason there's so few 1000+ rated texans is becuase the top-rated players rarely play in texas, so that they don't skew the whole ratings system in texas like they do everywhere else. whenever climo & schultz play in the same tournament, is where players get their highest ratings. you can't shoot many 1000+ rounds without them in the field.

the ratings are fine for amusement but the texans are underrated and this is just another imperfection of the ratings system which the PDGA relies way too heavily on to determine required divisions for players. yes, that is an indictment of the whole system :)

Tripe with no factual basis. There are 1000-rated players who have emerged in several places without playing in a pool of 1000 rated players, like Darrell Nodland in ND who got there before playing in the USDGC. You shoot 4 shots better than players with 965 ratings and you're there. It is not necessary to have 1000 rated players to get a 1000 rating. Each player counts the same toward propagating ratings, so substituting a 980 player with a 1010 player will have minor impact in a group of 20 propagators, especially if he shoots 2 or 3 shots better.

If it's easier, it's only because the environment among better players may spur you to play better. I don't believe Todd Branch or some of the Carolina boys had 1000 ratings before hitting the road. But they got there by learning to play better against better competition, not because of math gymnastics. Our Pete Middlecamp came from 900 to over 1000 in 18 months primarily playing in pools of sub 1000 Advanced players. Timmy Gill's rating had little to do with it. His influence, help and the incentive to beat him had much more to do with it.

Another line of thinking might be due to a clumping effect of talent. I believe it's been shown that existing players will attract others like themselves. And, that the competitive environment can make a difference. In other words, talent attracts talent, and supports talent. There are places that are breeding grounds for talent in different sports that goes above and beyond statistical expectation. Attitude, expectation, coaching and facilities can make a difference in other sports. Why not disc golf?



No disagreement here, but this also runs counter to your assumption/expectation of some even statistical distribution. Not to belabor the point, but if you believe your model and it shows clumping, why would you expect an even distribution or alternatively, if your expectation is an even distribution, why not try to tweak your model to achieve it.

tripe this :)

when did Nodland shoot his worst rated rounds? at a C-tier where the highest rated player other than him was rated 940. for Nodland to shoot his rating he'd have to beat this player by 10 strokes a round, which is pretty darn impossible on any course. you can fool those boneheads on the BOD that the ratings aren't based on WHO is in an event, but not the smart folks who know it's all about who is in the field that makes the most difference in a rating.

texas also has a fairly high number of courses per person. so the perceived dirth of 1000 rated players could be the result of so many courses bringing lots of new players into the sport. that is, texas might have a very small number of committed players - the type that become 1000 rated, and an over-abundance of semi-casual, brandnew, and/or just-beginning-to-develop players.

I think Mikey might have a point. If the majority of propogators are in the 900+ range, and the courses do not allow for a lot of scoring separation, it will be very difficult for a player to shoot 1000+ golf.

Let's look at it like this, The course record is -10, the average score for a mid level advanced player (930 rated) is about -5 and the majority of propogators are up and coming intermediate players and mid level advanced players. Even shooting the course record only puts the higher rated player around 980.

Ding Ding!! We have a winner :)

Ding Ding!! We have a winner :)



You beat me to it FuzzY!

With a course record of -10, the SSA should be around -4. If players are shooting -5 on that course, then there should be loads of 1000+ rated players. If 930 players are averaging -5, the SSA will be about -10 and that course record is weak.

it's okay chuck, you don't have to actually come up with any facts to retort my unvalidated claim. we'll just keep it our little secret about the flaws in the system. :D

Not really in Texas. There are several courses I can think of where the course record is in the neighborhood of -10, but I will shoot -5 or -6 on. Something to do with them wanting to make sure certain holes aren't birdie-able, but not making them hard threes either. A top player will hit all of the birdies, and a 920ish player will hit about half of them. They both take threes on the longer (but not too much longer) holes.

I agree with Gary. I have played TONS of courses in Texas that are exactly like he said.

Call it bad course design or whatever you wnat but the fact remains that this is likely what keeps Texas player ratings down.

I will say though that for the amount of players Texas has that even if this was not a factor I beleive that Texas would still have less 1000 plus golfers then it should, but not near what it is .

The primary flaw is your lack of understanding. The imprecision in the system is not the math of the system itself but the imprecision in the human range of performance it attempts to measure and describe. The scores themselves are precise. You shoot a 50. We call it a 50 in the system.

The less precise number is how tough the course was that round. It's the only variable. There is no absolute number, just a statistical estimate that gets better the more propagators who play that round.

I won't deny that it's possible higher rated players might generate slightly higher ratings. If Barry played 20 rounds where the average of propagators in that pool was say 850, it's possible his rating might drop 5 points compared with playing against his usual competition. But that kind of forced difference doesn't occur in the real world, especially with the mix of events and kind of player mobility we have. Even if that minor effect is not eliminated like it probably will with the revised process, a player with a stable 970 or 980 rating will not become a 1000+ rated player by all of a sudden only playing in pools where the average rating jumps from say 875 to 975. It's math, not Louisiana voodoo magic.

Not lack of knowledge.

A 50 is a 50. That is true.

If a course plays such that there are 4 birdie holes that any adv player should get, most of them will. There are 8 holes that virtually no one will birdie. and there are 6 holes that most Pro players will hit and about half of the adv players.

That puts the upper limit around -10 (top pro) and the lower limit around -5 (for a 900+ rated golfer). As a matter of fact most players from 875 to 930 all shoot -5.
The top pros are shooting from -9 to -10.
The 970 players are shooting -8 to -9
The 950 players are shooting -6 to -7

nope. i understand perfectly. if you have a course where even 890 rated players like duke can shoot five under, how in the heck can climo or schultz shoot their rating? they got to ace a couple holes to do it. that ain't realistic in the slightest.

the math isn't flawed. it's your system that absolutely does not account for the course at all. you base it on how players shoot each round vs. other players, and say that you get different rated rounds for the same score on the same course because of wind or rain. that's rubbish. you really need to compare rounds to course records & average scores on the courses. while i know that would take a lot more work, it would yield more reealistic ratings.

Scott, why do you assume other states don't have courses like these?

Chuck, come on, I'm pretty sure I understand the model (and I mostly support it and suspect it will improve), but merely stating that


The imprecision in the system is not the math of the system itself but the imprecision in the human range of performance it attempts to measure and describe.

is less than satisfying.

Every model is subject to the old "bad data in equals bad data out" effect, not to mention that all these models are questionable if people incorrectly assume they are actually measuring a real phenomenon (and I think many people view this as an absolute measure, like measuring temperature or something). Also, people have already given examples of where the model will break down (in people's confidence, at least although not mathematically) given certain course designs.

I have not played any course outside of Texas besides LA. In LA they seem the same as Texas with the exception of Acadiana PArk which is crazy short.

I make that assumption becasue of what I hear form all these other players that play out of state and from out-of-state players that play here. It's the only thing i have to go by.

Compression or slope takes care of that situation. On a course that easy, a stroke might be worth 14 or 15 ratings points. We play some easy courses for the IOS where a stroke is worth 12 or 13 ratings points.

When it comes to ratings you should just admit that you are uninformed and move on to some other topic you know nothing about.

Emoticon that!

Have you ever seen 1 stroke on the same course but diff days be worth 29 ratings points???

Bruce got to the core of it with compression. I will say that Barry and Ken have a little more challenge scoring well relative to others on low SSA courses because each putt is worth about twice as much as at Winthrop. But the compression factors have successfully handled this for years. We also recommend that A-tiers and higher should use courses with SSAs at least 49, and some prefer a higher minimum.

Take any event and you'll see that the average rating of the propagators going into the event will equal the average of their round ratings. Unfortunately, we don't label the props in the online posting so it's a little more difficult to tell. But that's built into the system. Perhaps the 10 points per throw is so ingrained that you forget that's only for courses near 50 SSA (which is a significant number). It's almost 14 points per throw for the pitch and putts you've been discussing.

It's hard for me to accept that compression solves the issue of a poorly designed course. I'll take that back, it "solves" it mathematically, but hardly "solves" the fact that people will view those as questionable ratings.

To take an extreme example. Assume Climo plays against 19 950 rated players. The course has 18 150 foot, wide-open holes. In all probability, everyone will shoot close to a 36. Climo's rating for that round will be slightly above 950. Now take the same course but match a 950 player against 19 Climos. Once again, they all shoot close to a 36, but this time, the Climo round will be rated slightly less than 1040, as will the 950 rated player. See, the mathematics is always unimpeachable, but the results may be hard to digest.

I understand that this is extreme, but no compression factor can address the seemingly illogical result.

This is a pretty interesting topic. I certainly don't have any answers but after reading the various post I do have several questions.

Has anyone done any real analysis to determine how many 1000+ rated players Texas should have based on the PDGA as a whole?

Does Texas have a higher percentage of casual or inconsistent players amongst it's upper level of golf talent?

I know I fall into this catagory. Before any jumps on me, I'm not claiming to be a "upper level Texas golfer", but casual and inconsistent does apply to me. I play 5-10 events a year, other than some occasional backyard putting I never practice, and not counting tourneys I rarely play more than one round a week. I know several Texas golfers that would fit into this catagory and still manage to play decent golf.

A quick glance (totally subjective) at Open and Master results from a few Texas events appears to indicate that individual round ratings vary quite a bit. Using the 2004 Pecan Park Open as an example; out of 8 open and 11 masters players, 3 had a variation of 115 to 157 points between their best and worst rating for 4 rounds. 9 other players had a variation of 50 to 83 points. Is this somehow unique to Texas? How much influence does this type of inconsistancy have on rating as a whole?

I'm not sure if any of this means anything, but it's a slow afternoon and I felt the urge to type.

james, exactly!!! that was my point and example a while back. the response was something like "no that doesnt happen in the real world". but altho the example may be extreme, the only thing we're arguing is how close to this extreme a aprticular event may come. if it happens at the extreme, then it happens, altho to a lesser extent, in real life.

this example is the truth behind the "urban legend" that playing with better rated players exerts an upward force on your rating (and vice versa)

About 1 in 150 have a rating over 999. Texas should probably have 4-6 based on that global distribution.

James, that course would have an SSA lower than 41.4 which is our lower calculation limit for the reasons you are putting forth in the example. I'm not even sure I'm comfortable with 41.4 but fortunately there aren't very many courses at that level being played in PDGA events. There have been a few rounds each year that have not been rated when the SSA dropped below 41.4, which is a 2.3 average per hole for a 1000-rated player

And for some reason Chuck refuses to realize that ALOT of players know EXACTLY how the ratings work, including compression etc.

Chuck we know this is your baby but let's face it, their are flaws and things like this can and WILL happen. Maybe not to the extreme in the example above but they DO happen.

The one 'flaw' I can't do anything about is that ratings made players face the fact they aren't as good as they thought they were. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

That doesnt apply to me, I knew I sucked all along....lol

Ok, similar to the courses described above, I can envision a course with 10 holes as I described and 8 poorly designed SSA 3 holes where a 1040 player will be hard pressed to pick up stroke. I can also envision 18 poorly designed SSA 3 holes where the spread between 950 golfers and 1040 golfers will be dampened. Sure, there will be more score variability than in my previous example, but ultimately, the results will "look" and "feel" wrong.

Personally, I am satisfied with the system as a whole and suspect it will be improved, but intimating that it is virtually infallible is disingenuous.

Funny. I've often pondered why Texas doesn't have many world class golfers. Since I lived 99% of my disc golf life in Texas I've got a couple of observations.

1. Cyclical. It's not Texas' time. Look back to the 80's and 90's. Texas had some of the best in the world. When Kenny was reeling off what, 11 in a row, some of the closest times he came to getting beat were by Texan's. Eric Marx, Mikey Sayre, Sam Grizaffi.
2. Endurance. For some odd reason over the last 8 years, as soon as someone became really good they quit playing.
3. The weather. I really like this one. The weather is too good. Doesn't necessarily explain CA and FL, but everyone is playing casual rounds all the time and no one is practicing. There is no winter lay off to "inspire" better/more play/practice. I think people get bored playing to much. They don't take the necessary steps to practice what they are not good at.
4. This is related to great weather. Yankee's do not have anything better to do during the crappy cold winter than putt. Imagine that. Great putters win tournaments. It takes a natural born talented player, with a desire to practice, meeting the opportunity to be great. Did I mention the putting factor?
5. The courses. I don't care if you have 4,000 courses if they aren't that great then they won't challenge that talented player enought to be GREAT enough at ALL the shots to survive outside of his/her environment. Plain and simple. Most Texas courses challenge your ability to throw long and hyzers whether low or high above the tree's. 75% of the courses in the good ole' USA you can't throw over the trees! Don't get me wrong there are some great courses but anyone whom has travelled knows that MOST TX courses do not challenge your accuracy through the woods and elevation.
6. Availabilty factor. There are so many tourney's in Texas that most inspired players are not traveling. Thus they are playing the same old courses, at the same old tourney's, with the same old players.

Someday, hopefully soon. There will once again be a group of young Texas players who want to win. Beyond their Saturday mini. They will do what it takes to win. Matt Hall is it you?

Oh yea, F Oklahoma. Ha ha Danny!

If we believe players will only do what's necessary to succeed, then the ratings of your top players at each event set the pace. Masters, Joel and Don have been near or at the top of the heap for a long period and I believe their ratings have been mostly under 1000. They were winning and not making their living at disc golf (were they?). The young guys only had to reach their level to cash and win sometimes and that didn't require a 1000 rating. In NC, you've got to really throw down 1000 rated rounds consistently if you want to cash, let alone win with several 1000 rated players there at all ages.

you're so right brakel, i don't have a clue about compression, or why when i play the USDGC with the top rated players, my ratings are 30 points higher than my usual rating. it's really a mystery.

glad you could take a moment to enlighten the unwashed masses with your usual brand of snobbery. at least if i was on the BOD the front page of pdga.com would be updated at least once a month, but you're too f-n lazy to have done anything since October. what a joke you have helped turned our beloved PDGA into. why don't you go hinder the efforts of the rules committee some more, you pompous puppet?

chuck, i could care a less about what my rating is. but when it drops to 954 and i jump into advanced you can bet that there will be plenty of whining about me taking 1st place prizes from them advanced players.

How could most of the SN Advanced guys complain if they don't have ratings to know whether it's fair or not for you to 'poach' in their division? :D

...at least if i was on the BOD...



In order for you to be on the BOD you would have had to get off YOUR fookin' lazy *** and gotten on the ballot!

[Insert your favorite bitter malcontent joke here]

i dunno, but i bet you'll see more SN events in Texas as TD's realize the value of its simplicity. No ratings to force people into certain divisions, no arguing with people about $5 non-member fees, and a BOD that neither insults people nor hires staff that smears the reputation of its TD's. oh and SN even updates its front website page more than once since October.

i dunno, but i bet you'll see more SN events in Texas as TD's realize the value of its simplicity. No ratings to force people into certain divisions, no arguing with people about $5 non-member fees, and a BOD that neither insults people nor hires staff that smears the reputation of its TD's. oh and SN even updates its front website page more than once since October.



Do ratings force anyone into any particular division?

hey Brakel, when a member of the BOD takes out a full page ad in DGWN to tout his puppets, does that send the message that "the PDGA encourages everyone & anyone to run for the BOD" ?

i think not. why run for office when the deck is totally stacked?

i'm neither bitter nor a malcontent. it's just disc golf after all; i do continue to suggest that this organization can be run much better though. it's a shame that anyone who thinks independently of the Guru's puppets on the BOD can't get into a position to help the PDGA excel. we've got one of the hottest & fastest growing sports on the planet, but the PDGA listens to no one but Guru about how to grow this great sport. anyone who dares challenge his ideas is branded a "bitter malcontent" by poser puppets like the Brakels.

y'all just keep turning away when i volunteer to help, and keep wondering why you keep getting criticism.

i don't know TB. has the wind changed direction again and the BOD reversed itself? i can't keep up with all their flip-flops.

has John Kerry been contacted about serving on the PDGA BOD? ;)

Mike,

I really don't understand where you get this whole "guru's puppets' idea from.

When I was on the board Guru stayed pretty much hands off in the decision making realm. He is by no means any sort of dictator nor does he have any more say on any issues than any other BOD member.

I mean I was there... I know... I don't think you were or are.

I can sort of understand where you get your opinions since you live in the 'anti-pdga' area of the U.S. and I see that you Sam Kinnison (I'm sure I spelled that wrong) is some sort of hero to you... maybe you are just adopting his anti-authoritarian loudmoth ways and mixing them with the regional distaste of the PDGA that you've been exposed to.... I dunno.

I have no reason to lie to you so let me just say that there are no sycophant puppet regimes in the PDGA. Nobody is out to get you ... except perhaps the enemies of your own making.

If your offers to help out have gone rejected then perhaps it's because the board fears that instead of helping you will just do something hateful and improper. These fears are justified since the only material that testifies to you character is archived here on the web site.

You want to change the PDGA for the better... start with yourself and work outward.

Just a little unemotional rhetoric from someone who knows... please don't be offended... I'm only trying to help you and everyone.

Thanks for reading.
-Todd

i don't know TB. has the wind changed direction again and the BOD reversed itself? i can't keep up with all their flip-flops.

has John Kerry been contacted about serving on the PDGA BOD? ;)



Wouldn't it be great to see mild mannered John Kerry go off on a cussing, explosive rant about ratings? It would put the whole world into perspective!

But would we ever know which side Kerry was on after several posts?

only if you bothered to read and understand the nuance. on the other side, we could get bush on the bod and then the reason would be whatever reason fit the situation on the ground today.

but really, this is for another thread. hell, its for another section of the board :)

only if you bothered to read and understand the nuance. on the other side, we could get bush on the bod and then the reason would be whatever reason fit the situation on the ground today.




Bush would have us go to war with ultimate to force the joys of disc golf upon them. Those poor heathens don't know what they're missing.

lol

hey Brakel, when a member of the BOD takes out a full page ad in DGWN to tout his puppets, does that send the message that "the PDGA encourages everyone & anyone to run for the BOD" ?

i think not. why run for office when the deck is totally stacked?

i'm neither bitter nor a malcontent. it's just disc golf after all; i do continue to suggest that this organization can be run much better though. it's a shame that anyone who thinks independently of the Guru's puppets on the BOD can't get into a position to help the PDGA excel. we've got one of the hottest & fastest growing sports on the planet, but the PDGA listens to no one but Guru about how to grow this great sport. anyone who dares challenge his ideas is branded a "bitter malcontent" by poser puppets like the Brakels.

y'all just keep turning away when i volunteer to help, and keep wondering why you keep getting criticism.



I'm sure Bruce is finding these posts as funny as I am. You don't know Bruce at all if you think he might be some body's puppet. And you don't know Brian at all if you think he is the puppet master. I think Brian does his job very well but he is not a puppet master.

But please keep posting the fiction. It is an enjoyable read!

Mike, I for one will not play a SN event BECAUSE of some of the retoric that you put out there. You claim to support the PDGA yet always seem to LOOK for things to bash them on.

Yes, the board has made some bad choices in the past. I will agree with that, at the time it seemed like the thing to do. At least these guys work there tails off to try to make things better. And no matter what you believe, I am sure they look at things from your point of view to.

Hey, I though this thread was about Texas player ratings.

I for one think it is becaue we don't have the type of players like Barry and Ken, not becuase they don't play here much.

Look at how our players do when they are playing. Barry comes to Texas and wins almost every time. Nolan is our highest rated player in the state, yet he needs to get out more. Nothing against Nolan, I like him as a person, but his golf games needs some work, he seems to have some problems under pressure. But he is still young, and when his hand heals from the ATV accident, maybe he will start crushing all of us again.

Why do you think those high rated OKIES come to Texas and take our money?

All of our Texas top rated players have good jobs and some even have families. This keeps you from playing and inproving your game. (trust me, just look at my rating)

Mr. Branch,

That's quite a lot for me to repsond to, but i'll try to explain. I'm never offended by anything anyone posts, i just pretend that i am sometimes when i think it might sway an opinion or two. I don't take anything posted personally and most people seem to be surprised that i am mild-mannered and polite in person(except after a bad putt) despite the nasty dialogue i spew here on the forum. i harbor no personal grudge against anyone.

Louisiana is not anti-PDGA. I am personally not anti-PDGA. I have served as Louisiana State Coordinator, run for the BOD, and TD'ed several PDGA tournaments, including the 2005 Mardi Gras Madness that boasted a 200+% payout ($1100 to 1st place) just 2 weeks ago. I built and ran a private free course in Louisiana that many labeled "great". I've recently had the pleasure of co-authoring an article in Feb/March's Disc Golf Magazine about the 2005 National Tour. I've sponsored several other tournaments besides my own. I've played PDGA events from Florida to Massachusetts to California.


I am only anti-hypocrite. We have several 2-faced hypocrites on our current BOD. <font color="red"> [There are 7 board members. Since 'several' means 3 or more, it is an offensive personal attack (and it's wrong) to make this kind of statement, Mike.] </font> Where do I get the idea that Guru is the Puppetmaster of our current BOD? Mostly from the fact that Guru is allowed to post whatever offensive doo-doo he wants to about anyone including TDs, while he (or the BOD, whatever the story is this week) suspends TDs that say the same kind of doo-doo about Guru. That's hypocrisy at its finest, and i can only conclude that the BOD fears the loss of Guru more than doing what is right for the sport. <font color="red">[The board believes that retaining our long-term key staff is very important to the future of the sport.] </font> The lack of the BOD actively encouraging anyone to run against them also fuels their puppet stereotype. <font color="red">[This is a completely false statement.] </font>

It is very amusing that you say, "If your offers to help out have gone rejected then perhaps it's because the board fears that instead of helping you will just do something hateful and improper. " <font color="red">[Inappropriate personal attack removed here.] </font>

I'm not the answer to all the PDGA's problems, but I have a lot to contribute. I have tons of time to kill at my dead-end desk job that I invested recently in planning what everyone thought was a great B-tier. I'll use it again to make the first supertour in Louisiana, the 14th annual Louisiana States, a huge success. That the PDGA is blind to my accomplishments because I have the guts to challenge them is a shame. That they continue to refuse my help is a waste. Especially since they can't really do all that well on their own.

<font color="red"> </font>

Brakel is probably the most stubborn and selfish BOD member we have ever had, and is an embarrassment to our organization.



Can you please offer an example of this?

Mike, I for one will not play a SN event BECAUSE of some of the retoric that you put out there. You claim to support the PDGA yet always seem to LOOK for things to bash them on.




Brian I am not a representative of the SN nor do I think the SN is better than the PDGA. It does some things better though that the PDGA should learn from. If you skip SN events because of something I say, you are a fool. There's about 1000 other SN players that will tell you that they don't have a clue about how either the SN or PDGA is run, they just come to play in a tournament. You bashing the SN would be like me bashing Texas 10, which i have never done. The PDGA could learn a HELL of a LOT from the Texas 10, but the PDGA just looks down their noses at anyone who doesn't sanction with them. Chris Himing would run circles around Guru if he was only given Guru's job, I'm certain all Texans & East Texans like myself would agree.

I could, but why waste my valuable time stating the obvious? :p :D :cool::D:o:( :confused: :) /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif ;) :p

Mr. Branch,

That's quite a lot for me to repsond to, but i'll try to explain. I'm never offended by anything anyone posts, i just pretend that i am sometimes when i think it might sway an opinion or two. I don't take anything posted personally and most people seem to be surprised that i am mild-mannered and polite in person(except after a bad putt) despite the nasty dialogue i spew here on the forum. i harbor no personal grudge against anyone.

Louisiana is not anti-PDGA. I am personally not anti-PDGA. I have served as Louisiana State Coordinator, run for the BOD, and TD'ed several PDGA tournaments, including the 2005 Mardi Gras Madness that boasted a 200+% payout ($1100 to 1st place) just 2 weeks ago. I built and ran a private free course in Louisiana that many labeled "great". I've recently had the pleasure of co-authoring an article in Feb/March's Disc Golf Magazine about the 2005 National Tour. I've sponsored several other tournaments besides my own. I've played PDGA events from Florida to Massachusetts to California.


I am only anti-hypocrite. We have several 2-faced hypocrites on our current BOD. Where do I get the idea that Guru is the Puppetmaster of our current BOD? Mostly from the fact that Guru is allowed to post whatever offensive doo-doo he wants to about anyone including TDs, while he (or the BOD, whatever the story is this week) suspends TDs that say the same kind of doo-doo about Guru. That's hypocrisy at its finest, and i can only conclude that the BOD fears the loss of Guru more than doing what is right for the sport. The lack of the BOD actively encouraging anyone to run against them also fuels their puppet stereotype.

It is very amusing that you say, "If your offers to help out have gone rejected then perhaps it's because the board fears that instead of helping you will just do something hateful and improper. " I can see why the BOD would fear that since their appointment of Brakel to the BOD seems to have done just that. Brakel is probably the most stubborn and selfish BOD member we have ever had, and is an embarrassment to our organization.

I'm not the answer to all the PDGA's problems, but I have a lot to contribute. I have tons of time to kill at my dead-end desk job that I invested recently in planning what everyone thought was a great B-tier. I'll use it again to make the first supertour in Louisiana, the 14th annual Louisiana States, a huge success. That the PDGA is blind to my accomplishments because I have the guts to challenge them is a shame. That they continue to refuse my help is a waste. Especially since they can't really do all that well on their own.



Very good reply... my respect for you has increased ten fold... if that matters to you... but it matters to me.

Of course I didn't know all the things that you have done for disc golf since I haven't been posting here very long and don't know you personally. I applaud you for your efforts and appologise that I thought less of your contributions... that misunderstanding has been rectified.

I am under the impression that your region is anti-pdga because there are many non-sanctioned events and many non-member golfers in the area. I also have met with Mr. Orum (years ago) and got the impression from him that there were issues with the PDGA in that region... I could be wrong.

Guru, or anyone (as evididenced today), on the BOD could possibly slip up and make unproffesional comments when they feel personally offended here. Now do you propose that the BOD should have taken some sort of hard stand and fired Guru? I think that would be a bit harsh. I do happen to know (and I'm sorry if this is the sort of internal matter that shouldn't be common knowledge to the membership) that the BOD reccomended a public relations and customer service course for Guru and he obliged to participate without complaint. Not the course of action that a group of yes-men and puppets would take.

I also don't think that there is much more that can be done to actively encourage people to run for positions. They practically beg for candidates every year and get close to no response. .01% run for office and 10% vote. The membership doesn't give too hoots about elections even though a fair amount of money, time, and effort goes into holding them.

I don't know Brakel all that well. I know that he and his whole family play. I know that he donates his time to work for the sport. If he has some selfish agenda for himself and disc golf then there are easier ways to accomplish it than beig a board member. I'm going to give him the bennifit of the doubt on this one. Who knows... I might change my mind later... that's the beauty of having a mind in the first place.

I sounds like you really love being a part of the DG world and that you work hard to make your piece of it a little better for you and those around you. If Bruce and Guru are so bad, which I doubt, then it will all come out in the wash and you will be proven correct. Your points and objections have been made for all to see... any more just apears hateful and takes away from any valid arguments you may have made. Until that day, wouldn't it be best to continue helping the sport as you have been and not hurt it by continually berating Bruce and Guru.

Thanks..
-tB

Being from Alabama, where the SN was born, and having met Mikey and read many of his posts here and on the SN Forum, I can assure you that while many of his comments sound offensive, his heart (as far as disc golf is concerned :D) is in the right place. They guys works on courses, promotes the sport, supports tournaments and yeah, says things some people might not want to hear. But what he really does is challenge them to improve the sport. Sometimes that takes harsh words. Once you meet him he's not that bad ;) russ3523

but it's so much fun to ridicule their follies TB. idle hands find the devil's work ya know :D

Todd, you're from Michigan, where the PDGA turns to fill empty BOD seats because they are scared they can't trust anyone else. it's obvious that by appointing Brakel they've exhausted the supply of good Michiganders, so just think of the good will towards the south the PDGA would earn by appointing someone from SN land to the BOD. it doesn't have to be me, but it would show the SN folks that the PDGA really is interested in helping out down here. All the PDGA has done lately in SN land is have Guru go on the SN forum and spout off badly against the TD of Alabama's 2004 SuperTour event. Talk about giving the wrong impression! Does that do anyone any good, to have PDGA staff rant & rave against a TD who donated over $1000 to his own tournament?

If Guru would only publically apologize for his blunders I would shut up for a while, but neither Guru nor the BOD has had the guts/courtesy/intelligence to apologize for the bad publicity Guru brought to our sport by bashing this TD. Yeah, what this TD was accused of isn't good for our sport either, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. And the MSDGC debacle is another example of the PDGA missing out on the future of our sport. I tried emailing Brakel about that disaster and all he sent back was some useless 2-sentence krap informing me how little he thought of my opinion and how he would never discuss anything with me. It's a shame that our leaders harbor such animosity.

Oh well, back to doing nothing for a while longer. Come on 3:15, i need to practice.

Sure, but there is a line to be drawn between harsh constructive critisism and name calling.

Mike, I remember the SN starting up, do you???? I know you have been around a while, were you around when they started.

At the time, the SN may have needed to be started, the PDGA was in serious trouble, if it were not for Becky Powell and John Houck, the PDGA may have gone away.

But when things at the PDGA turned around, did the SN jump back on board???? NO.

Brian, i ran one of the tournaments the first year of SN in 1998. You are probably correct about Houck & Becky saving the PDGA but i don't really know. As for the SN jumping back on the PDGA bandwagon, why should they? they have the better system. they don't have all the stupid little regulations the PDGA has. as a TD i detest wasting time checking every player's number to see if they're current or not and that is the main reason the PDGA continues to dwell in mediocrity. Why should SN or Texas 10 change what they are doing? they have been more successful than PDGA events. Texas 10 attracts double the players at most texas PDGA events, and SN events do the same. I'd bet if the PDGA dropped the stupid $5 non-member fee, you'd see more support for the PDGA. But what do I know, i'm an idiot, right PizzaSlave? ha ha ha...me too stupid to have job like you.

But what do I know, i'm an idiot, right PizzaSlave? ha ha ha...me too stupid to have job like you.



That is the type of quote that gets you in trouble Mike.

Yes, I am a slave to my bosses, I have over 6,000 of them. MY CUSTOMERS. Thing are going better right now, I finnally am averaging $1K in profit a week for the last 10 weeks, I just need to average that for a full year to get myself back out of debt. :p

The SN started much earlier than 98. It started when the PDGA was based out of Memphis.

oh i'm in so much trouble. help me please!

no, really, help me figure out what the F you R talkin' bout. the PDGA based in Memphis?

trust me, the SN series began in 1998.

You and Bruce have too much in common to not get along. Bruce just says what he thinks even if it might upset someone. I think you can relate to that. Neither Bruce nor you get personally upset over other people's comments. You both have put in a lot of time to better the sport. I know that you have the wrong impression of him. I'd bet that he has the wrong impression of you. But from the non-sense that you post it is hard to tell.

oh i'm in so much trouble. help me please!

no, really, help me figure out what the F you R talkin' bout. the PDGA based in Memphis?

trust me, the SN series began in 1998.



The Southern Nationals started because of the crap that went on when the PDGA HQ was in Memphis, it is the same reason there were no PDGA events in Oklahoma for a long time too.

I don't know exactly what went on back then, but I can tell you that there were serveral TD's who did not like the PDGA administrator and they quit running PDGA events.

most of that was before the computer age of the internet. So i don't know what was going on because I was just an Am player back then. I just know that there were no PDGA events in Oklahoma becaue of some guy named Lynn

I'm pretty sure the SN started in 1997 and I could probably get it from the horses mouth if I cared to make a phone call. I know that because Florence was one of the original SN cities. And I remember when the PDGA was based in Memphis because I played my first event there in 1986! I also know from the person who started the SN , WHY it was started. It had little to do with the PDGA except that the intent was to provide a Worlds-like championship for southern players who might not want to travel to 800 miles to play Worlds. Belive me becuase I've already talked to Jim Orum about this very topic. rWc

Is it possible to calculate the final 9 ratings for the Z-Boaz Open? I'm curious as to what E-Mac's 25 would be on the front 9 (open played 1-9 in the finals). That's about as perfect as you could play those 9 holes.

Results: http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4622#Open

Pretty typical huh....Show up only for the last round!!http://clicksmilies.com/s0105/sauer/angry-smiley-054.gif

:D

That would be a smoking rating!

Could someone please figure it out? If i knew how, i wouldn't ask. :confused: My 27 moved me from 9th to 5th....so Emac's 25 is ridiculous.

Assuming this calc even works for 9 holes-

Eric McCabe's 25 = 1066

My Hero's 27 = 1032

For anyone else you want to get a rough calc on it is right at 16 points per stroke according to my calculator. Like I said though, I have no clue how accurate this is only using 9 holes but I did put 9 holes in the calc and this is what i got :).

We limit calcs to at least 14 hole courses. In theory, you could just double the scores and use 18 holes in the calculator. However, when you consider this is stats based, it's unfair to say someone shot the same rating as someone else who played twice as many holes. To extend the sample further, I'm not sure I could say I shot 1130 after I played 3 holes with a couple 2s and an ace just by multiplying my rating for three holes by six :D

So is doing ratings for 9 holes in the ratings calculator i got from you completely innaccurate? By just looking at the scores compared to PR it seems like it is pretty darn close.

I took the 14 hole limiter off the template because some people wanted to use it for 9 hole leagues. The math still 'works' for fun. I'm just saying that there are many who can shoot over 1000 rating for 9 but not maintain that pace for 18, even if they played the same 9 twice.

Thanks for the estimates. I guess final 9's are not used towards a player's rating.

Should be a few more ratings updates before i can play advanced again. :DIt looks like marrying women, having babies, working full time, and playing against Schultz and the tour directly affects your rating.

I think a 23 or 24 would be perfect rating number on the front 9.. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, are 2 able 3 and 7 being sweet 2's.

please do not calculate my final 9 score..

LOL....but 6 or 9 are the ones most people get when they have birdies on the front. All of the other holes are bonuses....some BIG bonuses.

I could have shot a 23, but I missed a 15ft putt on 9 and got a 4 (for the first time all weekend!) on 2..

The various threads that have discussed the observation that Texas disc golfers perform less well than might be expected, have on occasion bounced around the idea that Texas golfers favor easier courses, thus failing to develop the necessary skills to move to the very top. I have usually felt that idea is a lot of hogwash but had an interesting experience that is making me reconsider.

Typically, on weekends, I play the Tom Bass courses in Houston. Based on scoring averages, these are the most difficult (certainly the longest) courses in the local area. Typically, I see 1-10 players on these courses on any given weekend.

Last Saturday I was in Tacoma Washington. I hit their big course in Steilacoom (I would consider the configuration I played as comparable with the Willmont - if not as long, certainly as rigorous - thanks for the tour Scott). Anyhow, to cut to the chase, this course was packed. There must have been 50 cars in the parking lot, with high turn over, and 100 people playing the courses.

Part of this might have been due to the weather, nice day in the spring, or to the lack of other courses in the immediate area (there are other courses but not too close) or to the total number of configurations/courses at this site (I was told between 6 and 8). Regardless, I've never seen this much activity at any Houston course (although Moffitt comes close, mainly on league nights) but certainly not at Bass.

So now I am wondering if perhaps there is some truth to the notion that Texas golfers aren't playing rigorously enough? What is the experience elsewhere in Texas? Keep in mind that I have limited exposure to courses outside of Houston. I know the courses that have reputations for being challenging but certainly don't know the volume of play.

Finally, if it is true that we are challenging ourselves less, why is that? My knowledge of statistics and basic human nature would suggest there should be no difference unless there is an outside influence, such as weather...

That's a weird example you chose. In my experience, the Seattle/Tacoma disc golf scene is loosely organized at best. Their message board is actually located on the Oregon Disc Sports site. Many of their courses feature multiple confusing layouts with dangerous crossing fairways, and are very difficult to follow. The number of highly skilled golfers in the region is surely less than in Texas. They have one big SuperTour tournament per year and a few smaller tournaments but surely far less a competitive disc golf scene than in Texas.

A welcome exception is Scott Papa and DiscDrBob in Kitsap County, which is across the Tacoma Narrows bridge and the sound west of Seattle. They installed a new course in Bremerton last year and have four more parks departments asking for courses. This is all in addition to Papa's sweet Dalaiwood course in Olalla. Also notable is Herm the Lefty's new world class Sea Tac course - it's awesome.

I'm willing to bet that you just ran into a bunch of casual recreational golfers on a nice spring day in Tacoma.

My $.02
-Jeff

Lyle,
Dan Mueller and Mike Olse recently redesigned Circle C in Austin to make it longer, tighter, and more challenging. The crowds have gotten bigger every week since the new course has been in the ground. More people are showing up to play this harder and more punishing course. Your theory of ducking the difficult courses is not what I'm seeing here.

It is what we see in Houston.

The 3 most difficult permanent courses in town are Wilmont, Powell, Mozola. Lyle mentioned the turnouts at Bass (the first two), but Mozola is the same way--with its own anomaly. "Academy 3-disc" casuals play Mozola all the time. The better players in town, play it when they can. The regular league players don't like the course and will avoid it at all costs. It can be a disc-eater (holes run along the bayou), but even last year when HPRD committed itself to keeping the park mowed and trimmed (ie, in the best shape I've seen it in 4 years of playing), only the occasional player could be seen on non-league nights--and league there draws maybe 15 people at most.

Thanks for the estimates. I guess final 9's are not used towards a player's rating.

Should be a few more ratings updates before i can play advanced again. :DIt looks like marrying women, having babies, working full time, and playing against Schultz and the tour directly affects your rating.

A minimum of 12 holes is required for a rating to made.

Tony,
When I said "theory," I was referring to the original question on the thread about the course in TX and why TX players don't have higher ratings. I wasn't doubting Lyle's observations of the Houston scene. :)

Is it possible that it's the location of the those courses that keeps players away?

thats sad, I played Buffalo Bayou (Mazola) for the first time about 2 weeks ago and it is by far one of the nicest 9 hole courses that I have ever played and by far the most challenging. The original front 9 doesnt play that hard (E) but those alternate holes killed my score.I was 2 holes away from playing the entire 18 w/o losing a disc, threw a tomahawk on alternate 6 and hit a tree and in the river. :(

From what I've seen and heard, the 2 new Cedar Hill courses are getting a lot of play in DFW. They are not the easiest courses in Dallas.

Missed that Lou. :) This seems to affect Houston more than elsewhere. The original thread dealt, IIRC, with what I see here, almost dead-on.

Challenging = "tough" = course to avoid.
It might be location, as Mozola is literally downtown and Bass is on the just-now-developing south side. But the comments I hear most often is "too long," "disc-eater," "too tough."

I do believe that a course needs to be challenging and have solid-to-heavy use to develop better players. The Vet is a prime example, the Rock is another. There are freaks like Matt Hall (whose home course is MacGregor--a not quite a really challenging course), but in the summers he plays all over the city, so his skills have developed by mixing up his courses.

To add onto Gary, from what I've seen/heard of Cedar Hill, it might also develop into a course for top players.

Yeah I like mixing things up. I think I will be a bartender when I grow up. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

With the arrival of spring Valley I fell that the playing level in H-town will improve.

That's a weird example you chose. In my experience, the Seattle/Tacoma disc golf scene is loosely organized at best. Their message board is actually located on the Oregon Disc Sports site. Many of their courses feature multiple confusing layouts with dangerous crossing fairways, and are very difficult to follow. The number of highly skilled golfers in the region is surely less than in Texas. They have one big SuperTour tournament per year and a few smaller tournaments but surely far less a competitive disc golf scene than in Texas.

A welcome exception is Scott Papa and DiscDrBob in Kitsap County, which is across the Tacoma Narrows bridge and the sound west of Seattle. They installed a new course in Bremerton last year and have four more parks departments asking for courses. This is all in addition to Papa's sweet Dalaiwood course in Olalla. Also notable is Herm the Lefty's new world class Sea Tac course - it's awesome.

I'm willing to bet that you just ran into a bunch of casual recreational golfers on a nice spring day in Tacoma.

My $.02
-Jeff



I think your observation is correct at the level that the course is fairly disorganized (I was actually confused by the crossing fairways and multiple tees playing to one basket). It may be that the spring day phenomenon was in full flight but even given that, I've never seen the foot traffic at any Houston course that I saw there on any day except for Texas States or a Texas 10 event (probably for any major in Texas).

You are correct that the example was not the best, it was simply an observation and I was hoping for some commentary... which I got. :D

On the other hand, it's good to hear there is a lot of foot traffic on difficult courses in Texas (non-Houston) confirming my notion that lack of play at difficult courses is an unlikely explanation for Texas' apparent lack.

Ok don't kill me but I feel that Houston is mainly a non-competitive place where most guys want to just hang out aka Moffit. Also a lot of the locals are pansies in H-town. :D:D

Is it possible that it's the location of the those courses that keeps players away?



I've often wondered this also, however, Bass is at the intersection of Beltway 8 and 288 and is highly accessible, Steilacoom is in the middle of nowhere, accessible only by backroads (although only 15-20 minutes from I-5. Even Macgregor (a good course but not great, with some longer holes and just adjacent to UofH) only gets used at a moderate level. I've never seen more than 20 people on the course with the exception of tournament days.

One possibility that I've considered is simply that there are so many venues in Houston that none of them gets hit hard on any given day. Yes, I could go to the difficult courses as Bass but why when X course is right donwn the street...

I'll have to agree with you 100% there Matt. Most people just seem to want to hang at Moffit and smoke out while they play a few holes.

I think the biggest problem with Mazola and Bass are locations. The other might be that we as locals aren't well organized enough. I bet these two would have a better turnout if us tournament players would make it a point to meet at one of them at like 11 on a saturday. I think that would improve all of our games. Be kind of like having a little pick up mini with nothing but bragging rights on the line every week.

That said, who's up for a round at Mazola on Saturday at 11?

Ok don't kill me but I feel that Houston is mainly a non-competitive place where most guys want to just hang out aka Moffit. Also a lot of the locals are pansies in H-town. :D:D



From the mouths of babes... :)

This is a very good idea. However, how about next Saturday? I'm playing Bass this Saturday, a business round. :D

BTW - I've never played Mazola, I like my plastic too much...

I was in H-town on Labor day weekend this year and played Bass, Moffit, and MacGregor. Weather was partly cloudy most of the weekend. I saw 2 casual golfers on course two at Bass, none on the Wilmont, 4-5 casual golfers at Moffit, and 3-4 serious golfers at MacGregor. I didn't have the opportunity to play with anyone on any of the courses. It was a shock after most courses I've played where I've had the opportunity to join up with locals. Maybe ya'll just have too many courses? We have 3 public 18 holers (two in Shelby Forest, one in Edmund Orgill), one private 18 holer (Bud Hill), and 4 public 9 holers (West Memphis, Horn Lake, Munford, Johnson Road) and with the exception of the West Memphis course and the new Horn Lake course (which I haven't played), both 9 holers, I can't imagine showing up at any course at any time and being the only one there.

Scooter, what's going on in spring valley, what is the course like and where is it located? Youstonians are lame. When I'm in town, I usually play Bass or Mazola. Noone is ever out there. Actually, I take that back. Y'all are lucky, it is nice to have vacant, well-designed courses. :p

It has a long 9 and my my dad and I are helping the guy out along with Andi on the back 18. If I have any say in it it will be 18 holes similar to the back 9 on the BEAST. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Where is it located?

In Spring only one exit away from the woodlands course. :D:D

Nevermind, I thought it was in Spring Valley, not Spring. Spring is closer to Livingston and I try to avoid that part of the state. :p

I always tried to avoid this place but one day I stopped in town to get a drink and boom I was stuck. There must be something in the water. :confused: :confused:

Is that what happened? :D

Kind of like all those dead fish in tha pond at states. :confused:

The stuff they have here is way stronger than at Bass. :D:D

This is a very good idea. However, how about next Saturday? I'm playing Bass this Saturday, a business round. :D

BTW - I've never played Mazola, I like my plastic too much...



Perception becomes reality. It's not as bad as people think. Everyone is used to being able to force shots and there it just doesn't happen.

I went two years without losing a disc there and finally had my 1st casualty. The bad thing was I lost it on #1's fairway. :confused: :confused:

Hey Matt, what do you throw on #7 (I think) from the regular tee? Do you lay up before the water or sky it.

he pulls out $5, gives it to me and lays up :D

Veteran's Park has had a solid core for years, and years. On average, we have 40-50 players on Sunday morning. With the ace pot being $1,200 and growing, and with warmer temps in the area, we are about to see 50-80 players.

Last year at Z-Boaz when the ace was nearing $3,000 the Sunday mini brought 120+ golfers every week. We ended up having to do a flex start for a MINI.

I used tolay up and run at it for the bird. I may change to the hyzer since I get discs for free now. :D:D

since I get discs for free now.



Congrats on that Kiddo

:D:D:D:p

I've only gone up to play Mazola once but I didn't really see why everyone is so afraid of the water. I will admit to losing 2 discs in 18 holes, 1 on 7 that I still can't believe I couldn't find, and the other on 9 when I griplocked an approach that hit the artwork thingy in the fairway and careened into the river.

So seriously, who would be up for starting up a roving, free, weekly mini just for competition and getting better sake?

I up for it starting this summer. :D:D

since I get discs for free now.



Congrats on that Kiddo

:D:D:D:p


Thanks man

I'm in, whenever I'm in town.

sLOW, this littllen parked that hole a few years back, with a crowd of mountain bikers watching. Hole 7 at mozola!

I'm up for it too. Slo, what is your format? Should we move this discussion to the HFDS site or possibly the Houston club site here?

lets move it! and discuss sounds really great!

sure, we can move it to the HFDS boards. As for format I don't really know, I just thought it would be a good idea for us tourmament players to try to get together on weeks when we can't make a tournament somewhere. Try to improve all of our games. I'm open to any suggestions.

ok, I can be at mozola today /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Do you want to move it slo? I am going to HFDS now and will start a thread if you haven't. What do you think about several days of suggestions on that thread and then we can weed through and formalize an outline.

I'm in. There isn't another tourney until April. When do we start?

I have started a thread on the HFDS site. Bragging rights Mini's

Quote:
"tripe this
when did Nodland shoot his worst rated rounds? at a C-tier where the highest rated player other than him was rated 940. for Nodland to shoot his rating he'd have to beat this player by 10 strokes a round, which is pretty darn impossible on any course. you can fool those boneheads on the BOD that the ratings aren't based on WHO is in an event, but not the smart folks who know it's all about who is in the field that makes the most difference in a rating. "


Joining the discussion a little late here, but I would have to mostly agree with Chuck on this one and not underpar Mikey as quoted above.

Texas has several incredible players Nolan Grider and Mike Sayre among them. However, I'm living proof that you don't have to have several 1000 rated players in order to generate a player with that type of rating. I think for the most part that the system works and it is the best way we currently have of comparing players abilities.

A couple of notes, the two worst rounds I had last year at that C-Tier was when I was ill and definitely did not play up to my potential, in fact I thought my rating for those rounds probably should have been a little lower than that. Other than that, my two worst rounds were both the first rounds of SuperTour events so that argument really doesn't hold water. If Mikey's argument were true then I wouldn't have hardly any rated rounds above 1000 at our local events - which isn't the case. In fact I would argue that sometimes it is harder to play well and maintain your focus when you know you are probably going to win by 20 or 25 strokes over a 3 or 4 round event.

I will agree to a point that when you play with a bunch of higher rated players it seems that the overall ratings may be a little bit higher, but I think this is more likely due to an increase in focus (better competition always brings out the best in high quality players). One reason my rounds at the USDGC are generally higher than my average rating is that this course plays to my strengths and has the least amount of emphasis on putting (my main weakness) of nearly any course I have ever played (but that is true of any high SSA course). So the differences in my ratings is more of a style of course vs. any inherent statistical problem with the ratings system.

Spike

darrell, you are mostly right, except for the following truth:

take 10 players, 9 of which with ratings of 1000 and 1 rated 920. let them all throw a 54. ALL ratings for the round will be 992 (excluding whatever magic the historic SSA might have)

now take 10 players - all of which are rated 920. have them all throw a 54. their ratings for that round will be 920.

please note: while this example does prove that playing with higher rated players results in higher rated rounds, all other things being equal, i am a HUGE fan of ratings and believe that evenwith a small handful of rated rounds they are remarkably accurate as an indication of overall skill.

That example doesn't prove anything. If that 920 player shoots a 54 and 9 other 920 players shoot 64, his round rating would be 1000. If the 9 other players were rated 880 and shot 68s, his rating would be 995.

It proves that on a good day a 920 rated player can keep pace with 9 1000 rated players. :)

except that it's two different rounds on two different days, chuck. in both cases ALL players shoot the same score. the only difference is that in one case the average rating was 992 (9x1000 + 1x920) and the other case it was 920 (10x920)

i'm NOT describing a round where players shoot different scores. i am attempting to describe how the phenomenon of higher ratings by playing with higher rated players can occur.

The fallacy is using two examples that are stated as if they are equally likely, when one is way more likely than the other. My two examples were chosen to be about as likely as your example where the 920 player shoots the same score/rating as nine 1000 rated players.

I would think that all of the 920 golfers shooting the same score is somewhat expected, and the 920 golfer shooting the same score as 9 1000 rated players is not likely.

Not likely, but if the 920 player shot the same score as 9 1000 rated golfers, he shot a 1000 round. :cool:

I know that if I managed to shoot the same score as 9 1000 rated golfers, I would wxpect my rating for the round to be the same as theirs.

"likely" doesnt come into play. we're talking about a theoretical round with theoretical players, and applying the basics of the rating system to the results. ie, we're testing the behaviour of the ratings system under specific conditions. that's hardly unusual.

the test case more realistic if you prefer, but the examples do explain how the observed phenomenon occurs.

a 920 player shooting the same as nine 1000 players is not outside the realm of reason, especially if you mix it up a bit and say that the 1000 players will shoot from 980 to 1020 and the lone 920 layer shoots lights out (from him) and delivers, say, a 995. similar results happen in real life.

the less likely scenario is that all ten 920 players would light it up during the same round.

i'm just trying to explain the observed phenomenon that playing with higher rated players can raise a player's rating. in real life the effect of this phenomenon is minimal. it does occur, even if it doesnt matter.

I agree it does occurr, my highest rated tournament of last year was the USDGC. Though I played well with the exception of three holes (repeatedly), I didn't think I was shooting as well as the ratings indicate.

We've discovered what appears to be the "real" reason for the phenomena you're trying to explain. There will be more on this later when we update the ratings system and explain the revised process in May. We still have data crunching to do.

I know it was just the added adrenaline. I think it has more to do with the ratio of drives to putts on high SSA courses.

We've discovered what appears to be the "real" reason for the phenomena you're trying to explain. There will be more on this later when we update the ratings system and explain the revised process in May. We still have data crunching to do.



OH NO!!!! How much lower of a rating are Y'all going to give me? :D

The question of whether playing with higher rated players makes a difference is a very interesting one that should be explored, and maybe has been. Any question like this one has a concrete answer. It's all about statistics. The fact is that sample size and distribution are part of any such analysis and a good statistician can tell us whether the sample sizes being used are sufficient to eliminate the type of problems that Sandalman is concerned about. I'm guessing that Chuck took this into account when he set up the ratings system although I don't really know. Chuck?

The kinds of errors that Pat is describing can occur within the microcosm of a low sample experiment. The plain and simple fact is that the larger the sample size, the less likely such an event will occur. When you undertake such an analysis you ask yourself the question, what is the likelihood of getting a significantly skewed measurement? Then you build a chart (or more typically use a preexisting chart). If sample size is X then the probability of getting a significant error is Y. This is more likely to be stated as, the likelihood of getting result Z is W. That is, the likelihood of getting a result where 10 920 rated players all shoot a 54 is W. The more unlikely the outcome the more that W reflects that. If Chuck is a good statistician, and my guess from what I read is that he is, he took this into account when he set up the ratings system, and therefore set his sample number high enough so that his results would always have a very good chance of reflect the true rating of a player. This is why he repeatedly comes back with comments like, "it's numbers, not magic."

In a former life as a research geneticist I did many such analyses and am comfortable with the assertion that the measurements Chuck is making are accurate within his ability to define a good sample size. So I repeat (although I'm pretty sure I already know the answer); Chuck, is your sample size sufficient to ensure an acceptabe, true result?

Really now, everytime Chuck tinkers to make the ratings system better, I drop a couple points. (I'm sure it's Chuck and not my playing like poo).

1) i am NOT concerned about this phenomena
2) i do NOT consider this phenomena to be an "error"
3) i've said many times, and believe completely, that the ratings system provides a very accurate measure of relative skill

now, a sample size of 10 is completely valid, since we now have propagator pools of as few as five.

this phenomena is NOT an error - it is an anomaly, an artifact if you will, that is inherent in the system.

the bottom line is this: if you want your rating to go up, play better!

I suspect we do not use sufficient sample sizes to meet the requirements of PhD stats professors. I'll come back to the original intent of the ratings system which is to group players into "fair" divisions. The accuracy players would like to accord individual ratings may not be there for some players but it is there for many players. The players and events really determine the numerical accuracy based on how many rounds they play regularly that get rated and the size of propagator fields playing those courses.

The ratings system is truly evolving as a PDGA customer service system rather than a precision instrument that is numerically consistent across the board. If the left brainers had their way, we'd probably need 25-30 established props in a round before it became valid from their perspective. While more and more rounds are getting to that level, customer service dictates that we find a way to rate every round possible so all members get the ratings as a benefit. We have emerging areas like Australia with one rated PDGA member and places like Wyoming or Montana with few props. How do we get them going on ratings so they get the same benefits as others?

Fortunately, we've learned how to do the calculations without using propagators to get Australia and other countries launched. We've determined that customer service is more important than the lost precision of using just 5 props in N. Dakota events. In both of these cases of new countries and low prop count, the downside of potentially more inaccurate ratings is minimized because these players are mostly playing amongst themselves so even if they're whole group is "off" 15 points, they're off from each other the same offset they would be if the numbers were more accurate. Once players from these areas travel or traveling props visit, these isolated areas move back in line if they were off in the first place. I truly believe when a future Afghani rated 925 plays an Icelander also rated 925 at the NDGC in Augusta, they'll have tight match if they play 4 rounds together.

I truly believe when a future Afghani rated 925 plays an Icelander also rated 925 at the NDGC in Augusta, they'll have tight match if they play 4 rounds together.



Is this a hint? Will they have a tight match if they play 4 rounds apart? and will their tight match end up in a 925 rating or will it be higher?

ps. If it is higher, I will form a group that protests for the removal of ratings as an entry criteria to the NDGC. All I need is a catchy protest chant and some performance artist depicting the PDGA's intolerable treatment of Afghanis and Icelanders. :p

1) i am NOT concerned about this phenomena
2) i do NOT consider this phenomena to be an "error"
3) i've said many times, and believe completely, that the ratings system provides a very accurate measure of relative skill

now, a sample size of 10 is completely valid, since we now have propagator pools of as few as five.

this phenomena is NOT an error - it is an anomaly, an artifact if you will, that is inherent in the system.

the bottom line is this: if you want your rating to go up, play better!



From Chuck's last post maybe you should be... :D

Actually, Chuck's argument is a very good one. The ratings make a good tool, maybe not perfect, but most certainly good enough.

But on the same course, a group of 920 rated players are not going to shoot the same scores as a group of 1000 rated players. 1 or 2 920 rated players could play great and shoot that score and 1 or 2 1000 rated players could play badly and shoot that score but the chances that a field of either group would swing up or down that much is pretty slim.

I think that is why there must be at least 20 (I think that is the number) of propagators. That way, there will be enough golfers that play average (or around their own rating) to keep it consistant.

Will playing with 1000 rated players raise my rating? Not directly. If the 1000 rated players beat me by 10 strokes, my rating will not improve. However, it is possible that those who are playing with great players are playing better (adapting to the environment) and therefore shooting better rounds.

It always been 10 propagators but for the next update and in the future it will only be 5 gators.

But on the same course, a group of 920 rated players are not going to shoot the same scores as a group of 1000 rated players

ok, one more person who is missing the point. this is about possibility, not probability. it is certainly possible to have a group of 920 players shoot the same score as a group of 1000 players. very unlikely, but possible.

besides the examples were not meant as predictions of actual performance. they are meant to show that the ratings model does have the potential to raise the ratings of a player who plays with higher rated players.

as i've said before, if the ONLY thing the pdga did was provide the ratings, the membership fees would still be an incredible value!

But on the same course, a group of 920 rated players are not going to shoot the same scores as a group of 1000 rated players

ok, one more person who is missing the point. this is about possibility, not probability. it is certainly possible to have a group of 920 players shoot the same score as a group of 1000 players. very unlikely, but possible.

besides the examples were not meant as predictions of actual performance. they are meant to show that the ratings model does have the potential to raise the ratings of a player who plays with higher rated players.

as i've said before, if the ONLY thing the pdga did was provide the ratings, the membership fees would still be an incredible value!



This is exactly the point I so inelegantly tried to deal with. First, the caveat; we are talking about humans not random events but nonetheless... Lets assume that our ten 920 rated players are truly in every sense of the word, perfect 920 rated players. Given this, in a tournament they will each shoot 62 on a par 54 course. A nice ten way tie. What is the probability that one player will shoot a 54? Well in our perfect world, 0 but in the real world there is a given probability that a truly 920 rated player will shoot a 54. That probability is fairly low based on my observations, but not completely unlikely. The probability for each player is not the same, again these are humans, not completely random events but for the sake of argument lets say 1/100. Now if I remember my probabilities correctly (quite possibly not) the likelihood that two of our ten will shoot 54s is the product of their probabilities, or 1/10,000. You can see the direction this is going. By the time you get to the 10th player your up to 1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (if I multiplied correctly). You have significantly greater odds of winning the lotto, more than once, than this likelihood occurring. Therefore, the possibility that you will actually see a skewing of ratings due to an affect like this one is� well just count the zeros. One might argue that while it is possible, it is unlikely enough not warrant discussion as a real event.

I will grant the opposing view that I have made an assumption. That assumption is that there is a 1/100 likelihood of a 920 rated player shooting the course SSA. Let's assume it is 1/10. In this case the probability is 1/10,000,000,000. You're still not even in winning the lotto territory here. One in 5 - 1/9,765,625... now your in lotto territory here.

Now, to really nail home the point. Let's say it happens in a tournament, we get that exceedingly rare event. Now, is this likely to have a long-term affect? Well, what's the probability it's going to happen again? Basically, Billions and Billions and Billions to 1. I feel pretty safe that any discussion of this event is purely intellectual in nature.

There is one other point. The likelihood of one or two players being significantly off is fairly high. The question is does that skew ratings. My guess is no, but I haven't thought about it at all.

while interesting, in a sort of kind of way, all of that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

lets try a REAL LIFE tourney. ZBoas Big Show. Separate Am and Pro weekends. Course layouts for rounds 1,2,3 the same across the weekends.

Average Am Rating: 913.98
Average Pro Rating: 961.79

Round 1, score of 56
Am Rating: 947
Pro Rating: 965

Round 2, score of 64
Am Rating: 909
Pro Rating: 926

Round 3, score of 62
Am Rating: 922
Pro Rating: 940


now, these are real numbers with a 100% probability of happening.

what does your ivory tower analysis have to say about this???
:D

Weather conditions!!!!!


<font size=1>Yes, that was sarcastic.</font>

and weather would have washed out anyway, because the pools were segregated.

these are my rounds from both the Waco NT and the Waco Am weekend. Please try not to laugh.

913 71 860 54 912 53 916 69 870 247
913 64 929 57 924 57 949 70 938 248

the 913 is my rating and you can see there is only 1 stroke difference on my total score.

my ratings are above average after playing the same course in the same layout. i think.

good point. i also played both of those

check this out:

Round 1, score of 58
Am Rating: 976
Pro Rating: 981

Round 2, score of 54
Am Rating: 912
Pro Rating: 955

Round 3, score of 55
Am Rating: 892
Pro Rating: 968

Round 4, score of 60
Am Rating: 951
Pro Rating: 1012

It's apparent from looking at the SSAs for the Cameron courses that there has been some confusion in the reporting and processing of the results. I'm pretty certain that there are results from one course in the other course's, list and vice versa. I also doubt that the setups indicated as the same were actually the same in some cases, unless there was a significant difference in weather from one day to the next. Even then we rarely see 4-shot SSA differences even with weather differences. Something's up here that has little to do with higher vs lower rating propagators.

for the waco events there were two primary differences. pro weekend had some winds and weather. am weekend had foliage. last year they were enough apart on the calendar the foliage really got tighter for the ams. however, the wind did wreck havoc with the pros. wierd thing is that i shot very close to the same scores both weekends. overall, i'd tend to agree that the weather may have influenced some ratings.

while interesting, in a sort of kind of way, all of that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

lets try a REAL LIFE tourney. ZBoas Big Show. Separate Am and Pro weekends. Course layouts for rounds 1,2,3 the same across the weekends.

Average Am Rating: 913.98
Average Pro Rating: 961.79

Round 1, score of 56
Am Rating: 947
Pro Rating: 965

Round 2, score of 64
Am Rating: 909
Pro Rating: 926

Round 3, score of 62
Am Rating: 922
Pro Rating: 940


now, these are real numbers with a 100% probability of happening.

what does your ivory tower analysis have to say about this???
:D



Ivory Towers have nothing to do with it. These are real world analyses and approaches that I learned in business school, that businesses use in marketing, profit analysis and investments. On the other hand, can you wait a minute while I climb back up in my tower... :D

While Chuck has essentially already addressed this let me repeat. What were the conditions? Were the courses exactly the same, not just T boxes and pins but footing, grass conditions (i.e. mowing, watering etc.) clouds, wind, tree condition and temperature? Unless you can show that the two days were identical or very close, the numbers mean nothing. In this kind of analysis, whenever I see something really out of wack I always go looking for what was different, the players are only one component and since I tend to trust math, I doubt that there is some mathematical problem here (other than the afforementioned low sample size). My guess would be that on the day the Ams played, shooting better scores was easier than on the day the pros played...

The problem is that we don't really know and need a better experiment to really tell. The best way would be to integrate pros and ams on cards playing the same holes at the same time. If we saw a difference there then I might be convinced. On the other hand:

Arrrrrrggggghhhhhh... SPLAT! Falling off an Ivory Tower hurts a whole lot more than falling off a horse. :D

I hate it when it takes me so long to post that the issue has already been resolved :o.

Were the courses exactly the same, not just T boxes and pins but footing, grass conditions (i.e. mowing, watering etc.) clouds, wind, tree condition and temperature? Unless you can show that the two days were identical or very close, the numbers mean nothing.

a flock of ducks flew over hoile 10's fairway during pro weekend, but not am weekend. also, the pro players' farts are quite a bit more rank than the ams. but they have hotter wives and girlfriends, so i guess that one's a wash.

Were the courses exactly the same, not just T boxes and pins but footing, grass conditions (i.e. mowing, watering etc.) clouds, wind, tree condition and temperature? Unless you can show that the two days were identical or very close, the numbers mean nothing.

a flock of ducks flew over hoile 10's fairway during pro weekend, but not am weekend. also, the pro players' farts are quite a bit more rank than the ams. but they have hotter wives and girlfriends, so i guess that one's a wash.



It's always the ducks... every time I go to putt there's that duck flapping its wings and trying to distract me.

It still doesn't mean there's a quack in the ratings process...

It still doesn't mean there's a quack in the ratings process...



Nor does it mean that there's not a Quack.... Oh nevermind...

Chuck, you are not still denying this phenomenon, are you? Didn't you or Rodney already address part of this issue. The explanation had something to do with the effects of dropped rounds effecting stagnant and improving players differently.

Anyways, one can argue with Tasker's and Pat's examples using the "conditions rebuttal" or simply because the sources are shadowy figures. ;) While, I'll agree that conditions are a factor, there seem to be enough examples that the rebuttal is sounding like a bureaucratic "plausible denial": on one level it washes and it could probably be used to confuse a jury, but at the end of the day, noone really buys into it.

Personally, I think your rating calculation method for each round is pretty sound. IMO, the weakness is simply that for many people the ratings used in the calculation are misleading. I wish y'all would consider or test out a system where people with fluctuating ratings are treated differently. For example, the improving am rated at 900, but who has shot 930 for the last 10 rounds should be treated differently than players with consistent ratings. He would still be rated 900, but y'all would use 930 for calculating round ratings.

Actually, the problem appears to be exactly those fast improving players whose rating hasn't caught up with their current performance level. There are many more players improving than declining, perhaps as many as 30-40 times as many. And the majority have ratings under 925. We're looking into how to handle that. Doubling everyone's most recent 8 rounds will help. However, we may consider suppressing X number of propagators from the calcs if their improvement rate is currently greater than Y. The X & Y values are unknown since we're just starting to evaluate this effect.

Coda Hatfield--49 989 51 980 50 976 46 1015 196

Kevin Mccoy----49 1007 46 1032 49 996 47 1032 191
Barry Schultz--45 1048 48 1011 48 1007 51 991 192
Nolan Grider---50 997 48 1011 47 1018 47 1032 192
Todd Branch----50 997 50 989 48 1007 48 1022 196
Daniel Stacey--47 1028 50 989 46 1029 54 961 197

this is from the Maceman Big Show at Veterans. Coda was still playing AMs at the time but easliy could have cashed in Open. We all played the same format with the same conditions.

the rest of the ams scores were way beloew average compared to the open players with similar scores. One player gets a lower rating for shooting lights out and the people shooting around par suffered because of the lights out shooter. :confused:

Those Maceman results are unofficial and haven't been processed thru the system.

Um Chuck, those are the 2004 results. The 2005 results are the unofficial ones.

One player gets a lower rating for shooting lights out and the people shooting around par suffered because of the lights out shooter.



I know what you mean. :confused:

Y'all didn't suffer because Coda shot real well. Y'all suffered either because most of your propogators were rated too low, or because most of the pro propogators were rated too high. You, in particular, suffered because of your art. :p

OK, even if those are official 2004 scores, it still had little to do with the actual scores shot but the number of under-rated propagators among the ams. Once you have a group of props with stable ratings, it won't make any difference whether you're playing in a pool of higher versus lower rated props.

rated too low. that's a good one. :p

most of your propogators were rated too low



What? Can someone be rated too low? :o

I am :D

I believe it means that the rating is lagging the players development. Or rated too low for their real skill level which is waht we were discussing in the first place.

How do you get a rating that's below your real skill level ?

How do you get a rating that's below your real skill level ?

geez gary, havent you been following along? there's 2 ways: 1) improve rapidly, and 2) play your average in events with higher rated players. try to keep up! :D

most of your propogators were rated too low



What? Can someone be rated too low? :o



I am rated too low. I should be at least around the 980 range.


Of course, then I'd actually have to be a good golfer. That little detail keeps getting in my way.

I wish I was rated too low. Then I could play int. :D:D

I was keeping up, just restating the obvious in case anyone missed it.

I wish I was rated too low. Then I could play int. :D:D



worst post ever.

Yes but at least it was a post.

Scooter, just say:


<----------------- Hey Martin. :D

I'm soooo confused :D:DSo are you playing old guys this weekend?

I've signed up for Open, how about you?

Me too Amatuer Open :D:D

when it comes down to it, the phenomon of ratings being higher when playing with pros would be null and void if ratings were based on overall course SSA's across several tournaments (par???) If we do ratings based on the course and not the field would they become more accurate?

When I first learned of ratings, I figured that they were based on the course being played, but after considering the math and variables, it makes more sense to rate based on how well other players do. I think combining them would be an even better route, but it's already complicated as is.

If you base it on the course, it seems the course will never be the same (even for the same round, if conditions change dramatically). Despite weather conditions, at different times of the year the foilage is different, and many courses have had that one ****** off guy that took out a key limb, tree, or other obstruction that makes the course play differently. It seems like there are too many variables to involve the course rather than how well a player did against other players.

The formula could easily get ridiculous, like the BCS formula. If we used that, we'll end up with a World Champion with a 972 rating.

Hey, if the formula keeps Cal out, then I'm all for it. ;)

The primary problem with using a fixed course rating is bookkeeping more than differences from weather and foliage from changing seasons. We can't event keep the Cameron courses straight in the TD reports under our current system. Imagine the TD having to check to see if the particular layout used by each division in different rounds was in the database already. Are you sure the one played is the same as what's in the file? What about new layouts not in the file? You'd have to do the calculations the way we do them now to get new layouts in the database. It really wouldn't work well operationally and I believe the net accuracy would be worse.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

"Nor pay attention to the 2004 MaceMan results, nor the 30 point difference in ratings for those texans who played the same courses but the higher rated players COINCIDENTALLY played against pros!"

Smoke and mirrors. No, that's not what the ratings are, that's just what you'll find a lot of in the room where the ratings are computed. :D pass that over here man.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

"Nor pay attention to the 2004 MaceMan results, nor the 30 point difference in ratings for those texans who played the same courses but the higher rated players COINCIDENTALLY played against pros!"

Smoke and mirrors. No, that's not what the ratings are, that's just what you'll find a lot of in the room where the ratings are computed. :D pass that over here man.



No need to pass anything, Mike's on intravenous drip.

For all the talk about why ratings aren't high enough, the Lone Star state is sure missing a golden opportunity to show they are underrated. In the whole state of Texas, there's just one person registered for the Mid-Nationals. And the other attendee is none other than John Houck who is our Marshal. Here's the perfect chance to show your stuff at all levels for new national titles. It's got to be cooler than TX this time of year. CA and NC are about the same distance away and they have at least 3 and 4 entered respectively. Even tiny Arkansas has 3 coming. Deadline is this Friday, July 1.

Simple answer, Chuck: 1400+ miles and at least $1000 to attend.

I think you have the answer right there as to why between CA and TX, the two most populated states with the largest disc golf demographics, less than 5 players are attending.

As long as HBP remains as difficult and expensive to get to for all but a few hundred local (driving distance < 500 miles) players, it's going to remain little more than a large local tournament.

I have little doubt about the quality of the event and of the facilities, but few Am players are going to go to those lengths and costs for this event.

Perhaps the "Mid-nationals" should be played somewhere in the "Mid" United States, rather than a 1st run Z Buzzz-throw from Canada.

Just some thoughts.

How about all y'alls geezers come on out and show your stuff at Ole Man Nationals instead? A ticket to LAX is usually pretty cheap, although I'd pay the extra to fly into John Wayne(SNA) myself. Old Ladies are welcome, too. (Saying "Old Bag" will just get you "oofed" with an elbow to the gut. Believe me, I know! :) )

Once again, ams are welcome too. Think about it, round up a posse, and head on out.

U.S. Masters Entry Form (http://www.usmastersdiscgolf.com/images/stories/peedee_ef/2005usmastersentry-form.pdf)

you need the latest version of the free Adobe Reader from www.adobe.com (http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html) in order to view the entry form. The Reader is free.

Agreed Robbie. No doubt the facilities are awesome and the tourney world-class, but location, location, location.

And he must forget for some folks down here, it takes all day just to get out of the state! I wouldn't want to make the drive up there to the tournament from Brownsville!! :eek:

I should be making it to mid nationals. :D

Like Robbie said it is more of a regional affair with some exceptions of course!! I was considering going myself until I put all the financials in play!! :confused: I will play next years mid-america worlds , great job TULSA!!!!! :D

Location ?

Do you mean something like World Doubles in San Saba ?

I just think we've reached saturation with too many "National Title" events. We can't make all of them, and most Ams that make one big trip a year pick Worlds as their trip.

For those who fly to majors, it's not going to be any more expensive coming to Highbridge than any place else and less expensive on a daily basis than many places for rental car, lodging and food. The format of the event is more compact with a lower fee than Worlds and requires fewer days vacation which lowers net cost. The courses are as good a group as any you'll play. The competition is more fair for most players and Texas certainly has lots of players not competitive in any Worlds Advanced division with a larger base of active Intermediate and Rec players than I believe any state. There's also the unique opportunity of being at the first one. And then there's John Houck, traveling between the two largest disc golf facilities in the World although it's almost a trifecta since I think he's coming from the NDGC.

Comparing Houck to actual players isn't valid, Chuck. We don't have our own disc companies and distribution centers. We have to actually work for a living. All he has to do is sell some discs and put trees & cacti in fairways... :)

Now that I'm finally done reading this ancient thread....


BUMP.

As of the time of this post, there are 5 times as many 1000 rated players in Texas as there were when this thread was started

...

and Jay Reading (1013) is listed as an Iowan.

I am pretty sure you can add atleast one more to that list next update if not a couple, with maybe a couple more returning.

JD should bump up but I doubt any others will. I will make the top ten though. :D

You were the first one i was referring to. I would think since the tweak to the calcs that a couple of cusp guys will bump, a couple of those being guys that were previously there i beleive. We'll soon see.

I am dropping rounds averaging like 980 and replacing them with 2o rounds averaging like 1003. I think that will move me from 988 to the mid 990's but I am not too sure. The LSS ratings will hopefully go up a few points like they usually do since they have a high concentration of lower rated players.
Hopefully Gimp will be able to sneak the PPO scores into this update like he did Conroe on the last one.

Hopefully Gimp will be able to sneak the PPO scores into this update like he did Conroe on the last one.



I hope so too. Won't affect me, I'll just be playing Adv. at States with some 950, 960, 970 & 980 rated players. Like I have a chance against that. :D

On PDGA Home pge: TD's - Tournament Reports due 3/30/06 for inclusion



No PPO. Whatever gets to Dave this week from events thru last weekend is it for this update.