*

I have always thought a certain percentage of you worst and best rounds should be thrown out.

And then add the calculation process in the trash.

Join us to give you what the PDGA has not. It is in the works and the resources are prevelant.

I think its ironic that the people who have amassed a good rating under the old system will have their rating locked in longer now that they changed the formula. It's like they want to minimize 1000 rated players, and promote bagging in the lower divisions. I guess the new formula makes sense...If you smoke crack.

I think its ironic that the people who have amassed a good rating under the old system will have their rating locked in longer now that they changed to formula. It's like they want to minimize 1000 rated players, and promote bagging in the lower divisions. I guess the new formula makes sense...If you smoke crack.



Light it up and pass the rocks!

You would think, that the PDGA would want MORE professionals, not fewer. And I am the only player I know, rated as low as I am who can throw as far/good or make as many putts as I can. But I do know a S-load of players rated 940-950 who throw as far/good and putt as well as me. I see a problem..... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Not enough options on the poll.

I like the new ratings system just fine...better than the last iteration, in fact.

But I still would prefer a dynamic, real-time, player rating. The PDGA has already done considerable amount of work in developing the "math" and accumulating data.

Seems like the only thing lacking is to scrap the current (and cumbersome) process used. There really isn't a reason that this entire process couldn't be automated.

What percentage of the currently submitted results, once run through the manual 'verification process' need to be altered? And what causes the error? Are they typically due to the method of reporting used by the TD?

I could see where a single person was responsible for monitoring the 'live' player rating database. If there are corrections that need to be made, they can also be done in 'real' time.

Also, a well-designed user interface for the TDs to enter their tournament data would reduce the amount of errors to begin with.

I commend the Ratings Committee and the PDGA for the work already done in establishing a ratings system. It's a **** fine one, actually. I'm just wondering if the membership wouldn't prefer a dynamic rating instead (eventually).

And I am the only player I know, rated as low as I am who can throw as far/good or make as many putts as I can.



Ah, you do not know young (15) Ian Hovey (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=24943) (909 rated).

He can throw a disc out there 450' fairly consistently and is starting to win some Adv and a few Pro (albeit, unsanctioned) events...against some pretty good competition.

I am the only player I know, rated as low as I am who can throw as far/good or make as many putts as I can. But I do know a S-load of players rated 940-950 who throw as far/good and putt as well as me. I see a problem..... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Throwing far and making putts does not have anything to do with your rating. Shooting a low score at a sanctioned tournament does. There is a big difference.

Not enough options on the poll.

I like the new ratings system just fine...better than the last iteration, in fact.

But I still would prefer a dynamic, real-time, player rating. The PDGA has already done considerable amount of work in developing the "math" and accumulating data.

Seems like the only thing lacking is to scrap the current (and cumbersome) process used. There really isn't a reason that this entire process couldn't be automated.

What percentage of the currently submitted results, once run through the manual 'verification process' need to be altered? And what causes the error? Are they typically due to the method of reporting used by the TD?

I could see where a single person was responsible for monitoring the 'live' player rating database. If there are corrections that need to be made, they can also be done in 'real' time.

Also, a well-designed user interface for the TDs to enter their tournament data would reduce the amount of errors to begin with.

I commend the Ratings Committee and the PDGA for the work already done in establishing a ratings system. It's a **** fine one, actually. I'm just wondering if the membership wouldn't prefer a dynamic rating instead (eventually).



This is what I plan to give to the DG community. Its on the way people!

I am the only player I know, rated as low as I am who can throw as far/good or make as many putts as I can. But I do know a S-load of players rated 940-950 who throw as far/good and putt as well as me. I see a problem..... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Throwing far and making putts does not have anything to do with your rating. Shooting a low score at a sanctioned tournament does. There is a big difference.



I had said, I did not know anyone else, how am I going to know a 15 year old kid from Texas.

Of course if throwing far and making putts had any direct linear relationship to player rating there would be a lot of +1000 rated players in the world. Obviously you have to play well at sanctioned tournaments, not many in my area so I deal with what I have. I know I am better than 910, that is all that matters.

But being able to throw up to 425ft accurately (inside 30ft) and making with confidence 30ft putts, helps when you are playing those tournaments, and then the rating goes up.

Some people take things WAY too literally.

The problems with real time updating is, if they're used to limit fields at events(as they are now), the ratings would need to be available at the event. I'd prefer to see it as an automated process that gets updated every 2 weeks or something like that. This allows TDs to have the numbers at events without having to have a laptop with wireless/cell phone internet access just to be able to tell a player they can, in fact, shoot in MA-3.

The other option is to set a date at which your ratings are counted towards an event. Like if there were an event on Saturday 23 July 2005, your rating as of Monday 18 July 2005 is what determines your eligibility for that event.

I can't tell a difference between any of the ratings systems, no matter what they do my rating never goes up OR down. It's getting pretty boring, I've moved up 1 point in the last 6 updates. ( pretty exciting to see every time the new ratings come out!!! :p )

Where are the vote options? I get none, and when I tried to click "submit vote" it [of course] said I didn't vote for anything!

I can't tell a difference between any of the ratings systems, no matter what they do my rating never goes up OR down. It's getting pretty boring, I've moved up 1 point in the last 6 updates. ( pretty exciting to see every time the new ratings come out!!! :p )



At least you don't have a decent tournament and you still drop. I just can't wait until i get rid of those Jr worlds rounds where 970 golf was rated 940 :o:o

I think it should be the most recent 20 rounds no older than 1 year from the date. This would show a more current rating for most touring players.