I have noticed that when a course with a high SSA is played it seems to become mathematicly easier to hurt your rating than help it, and when you play an easy course you have a better opportunity to shoot a very high rated round. Take a course like Idlewild (especially the longs). 18 holes, approximately 9000 feet, many tight wooded fairways requiring precision and offering a lot of chances to lose strokes. Justin Bunnell recently shot a 58 (course record that tied the doubles course record) and many very skilled golfers expected it to be about a 1100 rated round. Instead it was a 1058 (i think).

My question is this -- on a pro par 4 course isn't it much more difficult to shoot a perfect round and much easier to shoot a very bad round than on a pro par 3 course (given that there are so many more possible slip-ups when it takes about 18 more shots per round to hole out)? Would the ratings system be more accurate if there was some sort of sliding tweak that kicked in based on the SSA of a given course or round? Or, is there a problem in my premise(s) about this issue?

My question is this -- on a pro par 4 course isn't it much more difficult to shoot a perfect round and much easier to shoot a very bad round than on a pro par 3 course (given that there are so many more possible slip-ups when it takes about 18 more shots per round to hole out)?



You would think longer courses would get higher ratings but it doesnt work this way. On the longer par 4 holes, its eaiser to make up strokes and save pars whereas on the par 3's you have to be perfect every hole. If you have a bad drive on a par 4, you can make up for it on your 2nd shot.

Not on a WCP par 4 hole. If you make a bad first shot you've increased your chance of a bogey. While it's true you could make it back up with a superb shot, that doesn't seem different than making an extra long putt to save a 2 on a par 3. A hole that requires 4 1000 rated shots to par is much harder to play at an 1100 rating than a hole that requires 3 such shots. There are 18 more chances to miss WCP per round...

I am wondering if Rodney could look at the statistics for the highest SSA courses and see if there aren't less 1050 + rated rounds shot on them than a course with an SSA below 52. Also if there are more rounds at high SSA courses where players shoot far below their rating...?

It doesnt matter. Even if you hit a long putt on a par 3... you still got 2 chances at it with the par 4. Either get it with a nice upshot or you can still throw a not-so-good upshot and hit a long putt. Its the same thing but with more chances to make up strokes.

But with each extra shot there is also greater opportunity to get into trouble on a pro par 72 course. To shoot a 1000 rated round might not be more difficult at a course with a higher SSA, but to shoot an 1100 round surely is. Consider the degree of difficulty in shooting a 'perfect' round at a 'deuce or die' course verses the odds of shooting a 'perfect' round at a challenging pro par 4 course.

Yeah, I heard his round was REALLY good...1100 good...its too bad he got snubbed on the ratings.

Robj, you aren't getting what I'm saying. A hole can only be so hard. We've all made 6's and 7's on holes that are par 3. On par 4's you dont hear about getting 7's and 8's (without going ob)that often because there is so much opportunity to save strokes. Each shot, assuming you make forward progress will give you another chance to make up a stroke. There was a tournament at Renny last month with many tough par 4's and 5's on the gold course we played. The most I ever made on a hole was an 8 on a par 5 with an ob stroke. I only threw 7 times. It's only a double bogey comparatively if I hadn't gone ob. Its going to be eaiser to shoot a 'perfect' round at a pro par 4 course than a 'deuce or die' course. You CAN NOT mess up on a short course. How many 36s (-18) do you hear of?

Eddie is exactly right.

Let's say you have a player who can throw 400 and is almost automatic getting up and down from 200 and in - a hole is 400 feet - he misses his line and gets a 3.

Now lets say the next hole is 600 - he throws the same 400 drive, and misses his line. b/c he can throw 200 and in very well,. he still gets up and down simply b/c his second shot was good - he still gets the same score as he did on the previous hole, with basically the same tee shot.

Also, to get a par on a hole, it really only requires one good shot - a birdie requires 2.

Examples for par - great drive, missed putt - 3
bad drive, great approach - 3
bad drive, bad approach, great putt - 3

b/c it basically only takes one good shot for a par and 2 good shots for a birdie, it is harder on a par 3 to get these. On a par 4 or par 5, the margain of error is increased b/c you have more chances of throwing 1 or 2 good shots.

Just like MTL said. Which would you rather play, a hard par 3 or a hard par 5??

Play Idlewild and get back to me on this. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

My point is that on a true SSA par 4 or 5 hole you have added hoops to get through on each hole to shoot a perfect round. On an SSA 54, 18-hole course -- you have 36 'perfect' strokes to shoot a round rated WAY over 1000. On an SSA 72 course you have 54 'perfect' strokes to do so. Whether it is yellow rope OB or tight, long wooded fairways and difficult doglegs, on an SSA par 4 or 5 is not as easy to recover from a poor drive as you suggest. If you try there is a greater chance of disadvantageous risk in order to attempt to gain a reward.

That said, to shoot a 1000 rated round your idea of chances to recover may hold true. But to get near an 1100 rated round, it gets harder on a high SSA. Think just of how much less each stroke translates to into points as you go up and down in SSA. (Hence my idea for a sliding tweak).

Chuck, aren't i onto something? :confused:

just another example of the rating system being goofy.

Basically the only way you are going to shoot a super hot round (1080 +) is on a course with a lot 2 opportunities, bot SSA is around 50, or in an NT

I guess what Rob is saying is that Idlewild is not just about throwing far it's about throwing accurately the fairways are normally tight and twisting, which punishes bad shoots and makes it harder to make a great shoot to save par not easier to save it like you guys are trying to say.

Example hole 6 at Idlewild is a par 4 first shot has to be a 200ft slight hyzer down a 25ft fairway. Then you have to throw a 150ft straight shot down a 20 ft fairway, then a 250ft anhyzer down a 15ft fairway, and if all goes well a putt in side of 30ft on a sloped green. If any of these shots gets away from you you're looking at adding a stroke to your score since you just laid out to the fairway if you could make it out of the woods with out going to the other side.

My point is that on a true SSA par 4 or 5 hole you have added hoops to get through on each hole to shoot a perfect round. On an SSA 54, 18-hole course -- you have 36 'perfect' strokes to shoot a round rated WAY over 1000. On an SSA 72 course you have 54 'perfect' strokes to do so. Whether it is yellow rope OB or tight, long wooded fairways and difficult doglegs, on an SSA par 4 or 5 is not as easy to recover from a poor drive as you suggest. If you try there is a greater chance of disadvantageous risk in order to attempt to gain a reward.



You make a good and valid point here. When difficulty is determined only by distance (as it is on relatively open courses), Eddie and MTL's points hold true. BUT...when difficulty is induced by the inclusion of nasty rough, terrain with significant roll-away potential, OB located where there is no hope of advancing to the basket (double penalty), and the effects you list.....then there is increased reward for perfect throws and increased penalty for errant throws.

As an example, I double (or triple) bogey the par 5's at Renny Gold MUCH more often than I double bogey the par 3's. Like you said, there is more opportunity to screw up a par 5 AND screw up the recovery effort than there is on a par 3.

Actually I used Idlewild as a good example but what I am saying is that courses with higher SSA's are much more difficult to shoot 'perfect' rounds on because there are many more chances (variables) to go wrong. Shooting a 'perfect' round on a course with an SSA of 68 is probably exponentially more difficult than shooting a perfect round (1100 rating) on a course with an SSA of 46.

Pro par 4 disc golf is a much different game than pro par 3 disc golf and I hope it's the direction we're going. The challenge is far greater and therefore it demands much greater skill to master.

BUT...when difficulty is induced by the inclusion of nasty rough, terrain with significant roll-away potential, OB located where there is no hope of advancing to the basket (double penalty), and the effects you list.....then there is increased reward for perfect throws and increased penalty for errant throws.



The same thing holds true for hard par 3's. It all goes back to what I said. You have more than one chance to make a good shot on these holes which increases your chance in birding the hole. You have a bad drive on a hard par 3 then you are looking at bogey in the face. Bad drive on a par, you have another chance to make a good shot and still birdie the hole. Even if you cant birdie it, you can pitch out into the fairway and still make a par. If you pitch out on a par three you're going to have to throw you're upshot in to par it. This makes it, in theory, eaiser to shoot hotter rounds. The ratings system says otherwise and I think its wrong.

I do agree it is harder to shoot high rated rounds on courses with WCP around 60. I believe this is not because it is harder to shoot better, its just a qwerk in the ratings system. Ron's 60 at Renny gold should have been rated way higher.

BTW, I was never talking about long open holes. Dave should know as well as anyone I rarely ever play long open holes. I'm thinking in terms of Buckhorn longs and Renny.

Is the cup half full or half empty? To the optimist it is half full. To the pessimist it is half empty.
To me, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be. 

Thanks for the clarification Eddie. I think it is a half full/empty thing. The higher the par, the more opportunity for good throws and the more opportunity for bad ones. The more punishment for players who are off on their timing on a given day and more reward for those who are dialed in. On a course with lots of really hard holes the penalty/reward will balance out over the course of the round for two players that are playing at equal levels.

There is also the half empty/full thing with the sliding points suggestion you and RobJ have brought up. It�s true that the closer one is to perfection, the harder it is to shave strokes off ones score. I would assume that this would mean that more ratings points should be awarded per stroke as one approaches theoretical perfection. That is the half full side.

But, on the half empty side is the missed 20� putt. With a sliding scale the Pro player is shooting a perfect round misses one 20� putt. He gets penalized, say 15 ratings points for this. In the same event, an 800 rated player also misses 20� putt while on the way to an 820 rated round. He gets penalized 5 ratings points. How is that fair to the Pro?

I do agree it is harder to shoot high rated rounds on courses with WCP around 60. I believe this is not because it is harder to shoot better, its just a qwerk in the ratings system. Ron's 60 at Renny gold should have been rated way higher.



I went back and took a look at Ron's round of 60 at Renny Gold at the 2003 Fall Finale. It was only rated 1046. I agree � that sounds awefully low. Had he shot that in the morning (or during most other rounds played there) he would have gotten a 1055-1065 rating.

My take on this issue is that it is a statistical anomaly. There was a very small field that year (only 24!) playing the course. This makes it a much higher chance of everyone shooting at or above their rating. This drives down the SSA. In a bigger field there is usually a bigger spread of scores as to who is shooting above their rating and who is shooting below their rating.

Like someone pointed out earlier today somewhere (Sandalman maybe?): there is room for statistical anomalies with course SSA�s being generated by the level of play rather than the actual course, and then individuals� ratings being derived from that SSA. If the whole field was made up of 10 scratch players and they go out and all shoot poorly at Kilborne say a 60, that 60 would be rated at a 1000 rated round. But, if a group of ten 900 rated players went out and shot well at the same set up at Kilborne, say a 60, that round would be rated at 930. Clearly, the ratings formulas absolutely rely on a statistical spread (normal distribution, the law of averages) for them to have real relevance.

I have a new Idea that will give a more consistant ratings system. Double weight all the new rounds coming into your update instead of your last 8 rounds. This way if you play 15 rounds in between updates they will all be double weighted instead of 7 being left out. If it stays like it is now people will have 1 good tournament and then stop playing until the next update so that it will be double weighted. If you use all the new rounds as double weighted you will get a better idea of how players are progressing. Let's say you play 12 rounds and your 1st four are great and the nedxt four are just as good. Why would you want to risk not having these double weighted by playing in another event? :confused: :confused:

I agree with that. My rounds at DGLO will never be double waited because I will play more then 8 rounds before they get included in my rating. I agree that ALL new rounds should be doubled. But in all actuality ratings dont even matter. Move up when your ready to move up. I cant wait till the season is over and I can start playing with the big dogs :D

If it stays like it is now people will have 1 good tournament and then stop playing until the next update so that it will be double weighted. If you use all the new rounds as double weighted you will get a better I dea of how players are progressing. Let's say you play 12 rounds and your 1st four are great and the nedxt four are just as good. Why would you want to risk not having these double weighted by playing in another event? :confused: :confused:



I would agree with this course of action if there was some sort of big prize based on your ratings. But there's not - there is only personal ego tied up in that sort of thinking. (BTW, did you spell "I dea" like that on purpose? :D) And to think that someone might stop playing so they do not take a chance at hurting their ratings.....??? :confused: :confused: :eek: :confused:

If it stays like it is now people will have 1 good tournament and then stop playing until the next update so that it will be double weighted. If you use all the new rounds as double weighted you will get a better I dea of how players are progressing. Let's say you play 12 rounds and your 1st four are great and the nedxt four are just as good. Why would you want to risk not having these double weighted by playing in another event? :confused: :confused:



I would agree with this course of action if there was some sort of big prize based on your ratings. But there's not - there is only personal ego tied up in that sort of thinking. (BTW, did you spell "I dea" like that on purpose? :D) And to think that someone might stop playing so they do not take a chance at hurting their ratings.....??? :confused: :confused: :eek: :confused:



Actually I do :o

We'll first look and see what happens with double weighting 8 rounds. My inclination is that a better way might be to double weight your most recent 25% of your rounds but no less than maybe 6. This is close to Matt's suggestion. If you have 24 rounds in the last 12 months, your most recent 25% would be 6. If you're one of the more active players and have 48 in the past 12 months, your most recent 12 would be double weighted.

Welcome back to the board Chuck! Hope Matt didn't talk you to death last week. :)

How is next week's date looking for the update? :)

Matt was polite and didn't bother me at all while I was checking and posting scores. He was fine continuing to talk even when no one was listening :D

I'm just getting caught up with the team on how processing is going. Our new volunteer from last time, John Kretzchmar, is carrying the ball for this update and has been knocking'em out. Looks just fine for timing so far. I'll try to update some of the docs by the time of the new ratings posting.

Matt was polite and didn't bother me at all while I was checking and posting scores. He was fine continuing to talk even when no one was listening :D

I'm just getting caught up with the team on how processing is going. Our new volunteer from last time, John Kretzchmar, is carrying the ball for this update and has been knocking'em out. Looks just fine for timing so far. I'll try to update some of the docs by the time of the new ratings posting.



That's real funny :D:D

Matt was polite and didn't bother me at all while I was checking and posting scores. He was fine continuing to talk even when no one was listening :D

I'm just getting caught up with the team on how processing is going. Our new volunteer from last time, John Kretzchmar, is carrying the ball for this update and has been knocking'em out. Looks just fine for timing so far. I'll try to update some of the docs by the time of the new ratings posting.



That's real funny :D:D



But its true!! :o:D:D:D

Chuck, I know you're probably a little bit busy :) but if you get a chance read my initial posts in this thread and see whether you don't think the ratings system breaks down a little when very good rounds are shot on courses with very high SSA's... ?

There's no break down in the system for higher SSA courses. The formulas are all continuous. It's less likely to shoot a higher rated and lower rated round on a high SSA course because the law of averages catches up with the players preventing them from being able to sustain either an extremely high level of play or low level of play over more shots than they play on a course that requires fewer shots to complete.

There's no break down in the system for higher SSA courses. The formulas are all continuous. It's less likely to shoot a higher rated and lower rated round on a high SSA course because the law of averages catches up with the players preventing them from being able to sustain either an extremely high level of play or low level of play over more shots than they play on a course that requires fewer shots to complete.



So, you are saying the distribution curve narrows as the SSA increases, but the center of the distribution remains in the same place? That makes sense, but does that hold up in the actual results if you compare results for high and low SSA (18-hole) courses?

It all hangs together just fine but it irritates the top players who can't shoot 1080 rounds on high SSA courses. That's why we plan to track record rounds in different SSA ranges from <50, 50-59.9 and 60+ so it's more fair for comparisons.

That will be interesting. Did you ever consider adding (positive and negative) points to ratings when the SSA increases in order to make low SSA and high SSA scores more comparable?

If you adjust the spread so it's equivalent, it means that players with ratings under 1000 play proportionally worse the higher the SSA and players with ratings over 1000 play proportionally better. In other words, your rating would vary based on the SSA. On a 50 SSA course your rating is say 900, at 55 it's 890, at 60 it's 880, etc. That's much more complicated than it is now where your rating is the same regardless of the SSA.