Just wondering what everyone thinks about the ratings.

What do you like about them???

What do you dislike about them???

What would you change about them if you could???

What options would you like to have with your rating???

This is just kind of a brainstorm so throw out whatever ideas concerns likes or dislikes you have.

This is not an attack on the way things are being done I just figured we needed a thread to brainstorm and discuss the ratings.

They're perfect...Like Nick Kight /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

What do I think? Well......

I think that for the most part ratings are an accurate measure of the scores a person shoots during a pdga event.

I like how the same scores shot on the same course at different times get different ratings based on how similarly rated players score during that round. This effectively reduces unfair ratings based on bad weather.... high wind... and whatever else can make a course unusually more difficult than normal.

The only thing I don't like about ratings is that they don't accurately rate a player who's skills are quickly on the way up or on the way down. Double weighting the most recent rounds seems to adress this in the best way.

It is logical that people who only play familiar courses could have an elevated rating and people who play unfamiliar courses and travel a lot would have a deflated rating. There could be some room for improvement there.

I think that the pdga rating system is about as good as it can get as far as accuracy goes.

What do you like about them???



I like that ratings attempt (key word attempt) to give an average of what people shoot and that it does give the ability to compare courses with different difficulties.


What do you dislike about them???



Um - way to much to really cover, but the main things I dislike...

1. A course magically gets easier when ams play it and magically gets tougher when pros play it (and this is coming from a pro)

2. Ratings have no way to take into account that it is possible (although very unlikely) that everyone in the field can shoot very hot and everyone can shoot very bad. If the whole field shoots good, and you shoot an average round, you are penalized for this. If you shoot good and the field shoots bad, then you are rewarded for this.

3. I really hate that we are starting to use ratings to say what divisions people can and cannot play when there are obvious faults and problems with them.



What would you change about them if you could???



I would say every course has a WCP and we should stick to that. WCP variations simply b/c pros or ams are playing them is rediculous.


What options would you like to have with your rating???



Not sure what this means???

Good work CB! ;)

Perhaps instead of a fixed WCP, which wouldn't reflect weather conditions, PAST rounds on the same course can be formula fodder, and in some way which will address AMs and Pros shooting the same score having different ratings. Perhaps this' more of an abstract thought than a viable suggestion. Nevermind.

did I just hear a variable tossed in for the weather conditions? CB you need to be paying attention to these miniscule tid bits. Slo, we could use your help. PM me as the catfish requests your thought process.

What I like?? It's better than not having anything like before. The Disc Golf Journal had a unofficial ranking system that made more sense IMO.

What I dislike:
They do not take in into account, that a player could be playing to "win a tournament" rather than shoot a high rated round. ie: Leading by 3 with 3 holes to go, why go for risk/reward situations, when winning comes FIRST!! I've had 6 wins where that is exactly what I did. I've also been involved in a situation where I won a tourney, because the 2nd place finisher, admitted that he went for a uphill, challenging birdie putt (leading by 1 and had it won had he laid up, oops, roll away!!!!), but he wanted to improve his rating. Thanks Buddy!!!

Another issue: If a player plays masters, and knows he is going win before it even starts, there is a "cruise control" mentality. It's alot easier to shoot a HOT round when there is no pressure. Hence inflated rating.

Todds point about a traveling pro is punished for not only playing courses in his "comfort zone".

They do not reward playing great at a Major, A tier ect... Yeah better players will be there and it will effect them, but are telling me Worlds, USDGC, and the top rung of NT/A tiers should not be more heavily weighted??
I defintley agree with MTL that it's a bummer that we are mandating what divisions players play when there are many flaws.
Don't get me wrong, I greatly appreciate all the hard work and effort that has and will continue to go into them. Constructive critisism is the best remody. Nice thread Pimp. Keep it positive and something positive just may come out of it.
My 72 cents,
TG

1. A course magically gets easier when ams play it and magically gets tougher when pros play it (and this is coming from a pro)

2. Ratings have no way to take into account that it is possible (although very unlikely) that everyone in the field can shoot very hot and everyone can shoot very bad. If the whole field shoots good, and you shoot an average round, you are penalized for this. If you shoot good and the field shoots bad, then you are rewarded for this.

3. I really hate that we are starting to use ratings to say what divisions people can and cannot play when there are obvious faults and problems with them.



1. That is true... I understand why it happens... it isn't magic... there should be a way to fix it.

2. As you said ... unlikely but possible. Not a major problem.

3. Division placement doesn't really happen much... does it?... but I believe I've heard a lot less griping about sand bagging ams (which used to be quite a problem) ... of course we now have sand bagging pro's. lol.

2. how would you know most of the field had a hot day? It seems like comparison the what is expected it the only way, and that PRIOR ROUNDS would be the obvious benchmark.

...if most everyone throws hot, and 'you' only play 'normal'[average] I WOULD expect one's rating to drop.

Seems like there is alot of opinions on this. How would you guys like to work together on your own sys that would be designed by the people for the people? We have different tasks of the rating system being developed and I feel everyones opinion is important.

Are 'we' excluding Mr. Kennedy; what's up?

1. That is true... I understand why it happens... it isn't magic... there should be a way to fix it.

2. As you said ... unlikely but possible. Not a major problem.

3. Division placement doesn't really happen much... does it?... but I believe I've heard a lot less griping about sand bagging ams (which used to be quite a problem) ... of course we now have sand bagging pro's. lol.




1. Alot of the reason for this is becaue the AMs are always playing above their rating. Which is not hard to do when your rating usually lags about 2 months behind your actual skill level. If the ratings used more current rounds and updated on a real time basis this would eliminate alot of the deflated ratings when playing amatuer. More accurate and up to date ratings equals more accurate round ratings on the course during tournaments.

2. I really dont think there is a way to account for how anyone will play. Sure everyone could play hot or everyone could play poorly but the only way to counter act this would be to go to a concrete WCP and do ratings based on that but then you run into issues with the weather. Where concrete WCP is 54 but the good pros shoot a 58 because it was windy and rainy therefor they would end up with ratings of 960 due to the conditions which isnt an accurate description of how they played that day. I think the possiblity is so unlikely that it doesnt really matter all the much.

3. Placing people in division based on their rating would work great if the ratings were real time and actually displayed what a persons ability was at that point in time but right now the lag is about 2 months. 8 Tournaments if you play 1 every weekend and 16 if you play 2 per weekend (which is possible in MI NC and Texas :eek:) So people get to sandbag for a ton of tournaments because the ratings lag behind and dont display an accurate increase or decrease in a players ability untill long after it occured.

I have not seen Chuck express his enthusiasm towards this but yes, everyone is invited to help on some level or another. It is a accumalation of everyones efforts as we will utilize ANYONE that wants to help. Truely unique as you can see how we would grow aggresively being a networked discgolf site on so many levels.

Are 'we' excluding Mr. Kennedy; what's up?



We means ALL DISC GOLFERS. We doesnt exclude anyone. Anyone with good opinions and good information or knowledge is more then welcome to help out.

United Disc Golf is for the golfers :D And that means ALL Golfers :D

Hi Steve et al.,

I never really paid any attention to ratings until I started the transition from AM to Pro. Then I started to look at how local pros were rated and compared my level of play to theirs. I now realize the ratings, while interesting, are a long way from being really informative for AMs. As others have mentioned, the rapid improvement for many AMs is not captured well; having the ratings posted every quarter is still not frequent enough, IMO. I don't mean to disparage the volunteers doing all the work to calculate and post the ratings. Just the opposite--thanks for doing it!

But if the system is to improve, here are two suggestions:
1. TDs must get their data in to the PDGA within one week after the last hole is played;
2. Ratings are updated monthly.

It's silly when I play against a kid rated under 900, he almost beats me, then during the next update, he's rated near 950.

However, I never use ratings to estimate the skills of potential competitors. All I need to do is play with them for one round, and I can gauge their general abilities and skills with some degree of accuracy.

When all is said and done, it's not your rating that matters. Hopefully it's how much fun you had, how many cool new people you met, and how well you were able to challenge yourself (in that order!). IMO. :)

Cheers,
Steve

But if the system is to improve, here are two suggestions:
1. TDs must get their data in to the PDGA within one week after the last hole is played;
2. Ratings are updated monthly.



I completely agree with you but I think the ratings should be updated every time a new tournament comes in. That way we know at any given time what skill level each player is playing at. I also think we need to use only recent rounds instead of rounds from up to a year ago. I think the 30 most recent rounds dropping the low 3 (to account for off days) would be great. If you dont have 30 rounds in the last year (not to sound mean or anything) your rating doesnt really mean that much but we would go back as far as we had to to get 30 rounds. If you dont play 30 rated rounds a year then you prolly dont care that much about your rating anyway. Using your most 30 recent rounds and updating real time shows your skill level much better then using your last 12 months of scores because people progress and regress at alot quicker pass then 1 years time.

I'm technicaly a Frisbie golfer; am I welcome? :D

As for #2 on your previous post, here's another spin; what's everybody think: Keep that 54 'set', and when the Pros shoot 58 you DON'T adjust that>>>1,000. Rather, EVERYBODY just does/doesn't get a lower rating. If you wanted to check relative to other players, you could still do that.

I'm technicaly a Frisbie golfer; am I welcome?

As for #2 on your previous post, here's another spin; what's everybody think: Keep that 54 'set', and when the Pros shoot 58 you DON'T adjust that>>>1,000. Rather, EVERYBODY just does/doesn't get a lower rating. If you wanted to check relative to other players, you could still do that.



This is what ball golf does. Ball golf also allows you to put in your own scores as well so those freak bad weather rounds dont count for as much as they would in our sport.

The only problem I see with this is that those freak rounds would count for much longer because we dont get enough rounds input to kick those out as quickly as they do in ball golf.

Slow, will that frisbee fly through the air and do you keep score when throwing? Yes, you are welcome. Matter a fact, if you are just bored and think its something you would like to do your welcome.

I dont think everyone is clear what we are trying to do. It is ok cause you will just have to come on over and check it out when we get it up and running. We are open to ALL volunteers!

We already have a solution to that. Check your pms CB.

I think it is funny that all the wrong people complain about the ratings system. Ratings have absolutely no bearing on the pros and virtually no bearing on advanced amateurs. Mills is going to play advanced until he thinks he is ready, no matter what his rating is. Most pros are going to play pro or stay home, no matter what their rating is.

I think it is great that ratings sell PDGA memberships. A lot of new members seem to be joining in part because they want to get a rating.

I think that the 2004 rating system was adequate to separate Am 3, Am 2 and Am 1. I think the 2005 system will also be adequate for the task and somewhat better. Having a system which separates those players on an objective basis seems to sell attendance at our tournaments in a region where many TDs run intermediate and recreational as unsanctioned divisions. Some players believe that there is a serious bagging problem at those partly sanctioned events.

A monthly, weekly or real-time rating system would obvously be cooler than what we have. It might be more expensive too. The volunteers and paid employees and independent contractors who work on the ratings system are willing to do it this way for cheap.

I'm giving the PDGA two thumbs up for what they are doing with ratings. The PDGA is getting over $700 from our last tournament. It is what we are sending them that $700 for.

I am certainly a 'wrong person' but I'm not complaining; make that 4 thumbs! But it's OK to talk about possible improvements, rightright? :)

Ratings are partially based on how well you play against another person, because what your rating for a round depends on if everyone shoots similar scores or if a few people get real hot or have a really cold round. I shot a 52(par 60), and I thought it was great. I birdied all the holes I had a chance to birdie, took a double bogey due to a 2 meter violation. I figured that it would be a round rated in the 960 or 970 range, but alas...2 people(1 with a sub 900 rating) shot around a 46. My rating ends up being a 920-something.

PDGA needs to update more frequently. NOw I know it is hard to keep the TDs up to date with ratings(it only affects when you can play AM1-AM3), but there is an easy solution to this..

If your PDGA is the 4th weekend of the month, look at the ratings from the 2nd weekend of the month


It would be easier for TDs to get the score report back to PDGA if it wasn't so much to fill out(I think someone once told me it is around7 pages of stuff to fill out, and everything has to be typed?)

What I like: Overall they are accurate.

What I don't like: They cause a lot of fussin', and distract us from the fact that a ranking system is what we really want.

Everything I am hearing we are doing. You might ask how in the heck are you going to do this? Well you are just gonna have to wait and see or you can email me at grunion_2001@yahoo.com and be a part of the development.

I gotta run so I'll be back tomarow.

I'm giving the PDGA two thumbs up for what they are doing with ratings. The PDGA is getting over $700 from our last tournament. It is what we are sending them that $700 for.



Where is all that money going?

I think the ratings are fine. I think its kind of dumb that the only people complaining are complaining because they think they should be rated higher. Everyone is under the same ratings system, so what is the big deal. I dropped in the last rating. So what? I probably deserved it. No ratings system will ever be perfect, and EVERYONE IS UNDER THE SAME SYSTEM, so deal with it, and play as well as you can in tournaments. Do you people complaining think about your rating during the tournaments? I would hope not. I would hope you would think you can win in your divsion no matter who you are playing on any given day.

I did not hear Tanner complaining, only asking a simple question. I bet the next comment is "What have you done for disc golf?" I am so tired of hearing this from people that are just negative. Get over it.

We play disc golf, period. This is promoting the sport. I do not even have a rating and I am not complaining, only trying to give so if you do not want to recieve that is your decision.

United we stand with discs in hand!

I wasnt replying to Tanner specifically, just posting in general.

Oh, my apologies. I guess just apply the post indirectly to the negative posters of this thread.

I don't think any rating system is fine that lists the top Am in the WHOLE system as being 1007, even though he has only played ONE event in 2000!? There should be a 25 point penalty (at the VERY least) for every year not played or something like that.
And, I appreciate the fact that round ratings are now more reflective of the pool, but... There is NO way my -3 @ Hobson Grove in KY is a 1002 round. I don't care how windy it was, or whether or not I beat the rest of my pool, it just isn't a "world class" round.
All that being said, I don't know how difficult it is to crank the numbers, and I do realize that the ratings system is evolving. I really know this, in 2003 I watched my -14 @ Hudson Mills go from a 1002 to a 999. That was harsh.

And Bruce, you may say ratings don't really matter, but when it is a qualification standard for Majors, IT DOES MATTER!

Better watch who you're replyin' to bro!

I really know this, in 2003 I watched my -14 @ Hudson Mills go from a 1002 to a 999. That was harsh.



This is what I'm talking about. 3 measly points that have no effect on how you actually played. 3 points is like 1/3 of a stroke. I understand you probably want athousandratedround. I worry about how I played, not what it was rated.

I didn't like ratings at all when they originally came out a few years ago. I don't mind them now. Oddly enough, they do kind of give you a general idea of how well a player may play against another player. Barry doesn't always beat me by 5 strokes, but on the average, that's probably pretty close. :D I've learned that it doesn't matter what that number says. I'm either going to play like i can, or not. :p

Whats up wiggle jiggle? :D

I'm giving the PDGA two thumbs up for what they are doing with ratings. The PDGA is getting over $700 from our last tournament. It is what we are sending them that $700 for.



Where is all that money going?

PDGA - Wildwood Park, 3841 Dogwood Lane, Appling, GA 30802

What they do with it I don't care so long as my member-players get their ratings and stats.

That's alot of chedda to crunch some numbers. I thought the digital age was going to make this stuff easier.

And this is where I come in. This is what I do for a living and I can apply it to disc golf very effeciently. So effecient that you dont have to pay for things like ratings. You will see as we are the masses. ;)

Simply for the record, I said that USDGC, Worlds ect.. should count more. I am not complaning that my rating should be higher. I don't care about ratings, I care about playing up to my game and winning. My awesome 75th, 85th, 52nd, and 29th the past 4 years at USDGC speak for itself. I believe Tanner said it best, a Ranking system would be alot of fun. A rating system, if refined, would be great and benificial for TD's and amateur players alike, but for the open players, fans, and media purposes, a ranking system would be very cool. I have done numerous interviews for Twin Cities media outlits and they always ask, "so what is your wolrd ranking"?. Should I say 16th, cuz that's what my Player Rating is, or should have I been saying I placed 8th at 2004 worlds, or should I say I was ???? on the 2004 money list, or should I say I am currently ???? on the 2005 money list??? Ball golfers are often referred to how good they are by the money list. Not the best way to rank players, but in a sport like ours where there is money is VERY hard to come by, it may weigh into a future "ranking" system".
Another 72 cents
TG

W3RD! :cool:

A ratings system like in Bolf? Where the person with the lowest scoring average might not be the best rated? Tell us more. :p

General Comments...

Overall, Ratings are good. They do provide folks with a starting point of how "good" you are. Plus, they provide some of you with something to complain about. (Which is something some of you like doing, else you wouldn't be complaining. ;)) Are they the be all, end all of Disc Golf performance and to be taken as gospel? Um, no--at least not until tournaments are "send in your money and we'll payout based on ratings." (When that comes, I'm taking up competitive knitting.)

Changing to this new formula was a step in the right direction, as now you are responsible for playing like crap. After thinking about it, we should drop the 2.5SD and include all completed rounds. Let those handful of players bag a round or two, because to win in Intermediate or Recreational you have to play at or better than the upper ratings limit. It seems that the top 3-5 are those playing above the division--purely non-scientific speculation, but I know I was playing Advanced rating golf when I won in Intermediate.

Biggest complaint, the lag in ratings updates. This falls as much on the TDs as the Ratings Committee. Updates IMO, should be monthly. To aid TDs who can't/won't check the Ratings, perhaps then the suggested 2-week cushion after updates should be implemented.

Just wondering what everyone thinks about the ratings.

What do you like about them???
They are a good indicator of how you played each round.

What do you dislike about them???
Amateurs put too much emphasis on their ratings. For an up and coming amateur, their rating will constantly be 3-4 months behind their skill level.

What would you change about them if you could???
More frequent updates, dropping rounds where you played in a lower division after moving up. I hate that my poor rounds in MA2 after only playing for 2 months are affecting my rounds now when I am playing MA1. So what if I shot 820 golf a year ago, I am shooting 940 golf NOW!

What options would you like to have with your rating???
What, you mean options like CD changers and AC like in cars? I don't get the options question.

What about ratings and rankings? :p

I really know this, in 2003 I watched my -14 @ Hudson Mills go from a 1002 to a 999. That was harsh.



This is what I'm talking about. 3 measly points that have no effect on how you actually played. 3 points is like 1/3 of a stroke. I understand you probably want athousandratedround. I worry about how I played, not what it was rated.



Tanner, I think he was refering to the fact that the 1000 rated OPEN player gets his "Tour Card"....SO ratings due in fact have meaning to PRO players. If the system has flaws then it does affect us as PROS. :cool:

Its great to just pay attention to how you play, But when certain ratings seem OFF, due to the way the system is calculated, THAT LICKS
:D

(Not that this applies to me...Heck I get to play Advanced now )
:D

Simply for the record, I said that USDGC, Worlds ect.. should count more. I am not complaning that my rating should be higher. I don't care about ratings, I care about playing up to my game and winning. My awesome 75th, 85th, 52nd, and 29th the past 4 years at USDGC speak for itself. I believe Tanner said it best, a Ranking system would be alot of fun. A rating system, if refined, would be great and benificial for TD's and amateur players alike, but for the open players, fans, and media purposes, a ranking system would be very cool. I have done numerous interviews for Twin Cities media outlits and they always ask, "so what is your wolrd ranking"?. Should I say 16th, cuz that's what my Player Rating is, or should have I been saying I placed 8th at 2004 worlds, or should I say I was ???? on the 2004 money list, or should I say I am currently ???? on the 2005 money list??? Ball golfers are often referred to how good they are by the money list. Not the best way to rank players, but in a sport like ours where there is money is VERY hard to come by, it may weigh into a future "ranking" system".
Another 72 cents
TG



Id say that your "Ranking" would be 16th, since that IS where you are "Ranked" by "Rating" against your Peers.

As the ratings system improves. "Rankings" will become more reliable :D

Ratings are the best thing to have ever happen!! Without them the entire world would crumble to the ground and we would no longer exist!!!

Ratings are the best thing to have ever happen!! Without them the entire world would crumble to the ground and we would no longer exist!!!



If you didn't worry so much about ratings, you'd have hair. :D

Tanner, I think he was refering to the fact that the 1000 rated OPEN player gets his "Tour Card"....SO ratings due in fact have meaning to PRO players. If the system has flaws then it does affect us as PROS. :cool:




I understand there are certain things that can happen based on your rating. I just think most of those things don't have any bearing on me at all. I didn't have a tour card, but played open all year....I almost forgot there was such a thing,....what does a tour card do?
;)

How would you guys like to work together on your own sys that would be designed by the people for the people?



That's how the current ratings system was developed - by the people for the people: PDGA volunteers got awards for their hard work - and they touched bases with a lot of people in the process; as well as are listening carefully as the system continues to evolve.

I'm sure that if you asked to help, Chuck and the others would not mind at all getting assistance as they move toward monthly instead of quarterly ratings.

The biggest problems are not technical, they are with slow reporting of scores (understandable, TDs work very hard at lots of things) and the time it takes to pay attention to detail and clean up data.

As I mentioned elsewhere I think, in a recent looong phone call with many of our international leaders from like a dozen countries, one of the strongest wishes was to get enough 'propagators' to their tournaments so they could grow their own propagators and get legitimate ratings. They want it bad but the obstacle is not technical.

The biggest problem with the ratings is that it can take up to six months to reflect how you played in your last tournament. I played in a tournament in June, but the TD did not get the scores in to PDGA on time and it was not included in the most recent update. It might be included in the next update, but by then it won't really reflect my ability since it was so long ago.

Another big problem I have with the ratings is that it is not fair to newer players. I have improved greatly since my first tournament, but because I can only play in 5 or 6 tournaments per year, it could be quite a while before my rating actually catches up to where it should be. I think there is a way to solve this... There should be some kind of rule where anyone who has played in less than 5 tournaments (or 20 rounds) should NOT have all of their rounds counted - just the 8 most recent. This would be a much more accurate way to depict their current skill level - not the 700 rated rounds they played in their first tournament a year ago. After that person has played more than 5 tournaments, then the ratings should start accumulating (not just the last 8 rounds).. this would decrease the lag time that many newer players experience. Just an idea.

Contrary to what many may believe, the ratings system was never intended to be a system to produce realtime player ratings. Frankly, I was more interested in determining course ratings for developing design guidelines and I had to do some form of player ratings to get there. That has worked very well and most don�t even know how advanced some of the course development tools have become as a result of our ratings initiative.

The current system was and continues to be intended as a method to group players into divisions for fair competition. If the PDGA were truly providing an almost realtime Player Ratings system, I would do it a slightly different way which would include some of the items mentioned by those who think they have the answers.

Some of these processes have been incorporated in the Disc Golf United online handicapping service for leagues and personal use which is available to everyone for a small monthly fee. Every round you play whether casual, league or events can be tracked by this system. You are free to include and exclude whatever rounds you prefer. The underlying formula is the same as the PDGA ratings except the information is presented as handicaps rather than ratings.

As an additional service, even non-subscribers can freely list their local leagues at courses listed in the DGU Course Index which is licensed from the PDGA (if not ready now, it will be soon). DGU provides additional course information such as calculating a fixed course rating (SSA) for any pin/tee combination on courses that have those options.

How ratings are done depends on your purpose for doing them. I believe players should be allowed to play in a division for a whole season if they wish, regardless of how good they become. Whatever division they enter at the beginning of a league or series shouldn�t change because their rating goes up. The PDGA doesn�t fully support this. However, the compromise has been to do the ratings updates less frequently ON PURPOSE so that players aren�t moved up (and down) on a weekly basis which would occur with more realtime updates.

At this point, it�s not a technological issue to do more frequent updates like it might have been when we started in 1998. It�s both an operations and philosophical issue. More frequent updates creates a churn in player divisions that makes much more work for many more TDs and confusion about which ratings are valid. Plus players will delay preregistrations, which are finally becoming much more common.

Should players be forced to move up (or jump around) in a series where they�ve invested time, travel and money to compete for series overall awards in a division? All of our PDGA points, invites and yearend awards are based on a yearly accumulation of information. Why should regional series be different?

Several of the changes have been made to the system to provide ratings for more players and sometimes the changes also improve player rating accuracy. Still, only the Am divisions really need ratings other than for the Mid-Nationals at this point, which is still a big disappointment for Roger and I who primarily developed the system for ratings division play and less emphasis on realtime rating updates. From our standpoint, we�d be fine telling players which minimum division they can play in at the beginning of the season and not tell players their rating. You could play in that division or higher for that year. I�m not saying PDGA members would be happy with that but understand that�s the thinking around how the rating system came about.

I personally can�t understand the fascination with watching your overall rating jump around from event to event but apparently many of you do. Mark Ellis pretty much said the same thing at our first meeting in 1998 that �ratings are cool� even if they�re not used for anything in the competition system but just giving people a number. He was right, of course. But Roger, myself and others hoped they would also have a more functional purpose in our competition system since we were busting our butts as volunteers to do the calculation development and updating.

So that�s why we are where we are today. The Am/Pro lower/higher SSA issue will be resolved in the September update. In addition, we�re looking at doubling your most recent 25% of your rounds rather than just your 8 most recent. This will accelerate the ratings increase just a little more for high volume players like Mills and Scooter.

The only way I see more frequent updates happening is if we have separate sets of ratings. Your �almost realtime� rating would be strictly for your information only (and for those who want to call you a bagger). The other number would be your official tournament rating which would be a number frozen five times per year on the five dates we currently use for updates. This is the one that counts for entering events. Maybe it could work so we can meet the several missions PDGA parties would like to see ratings serve.

We could also provide rankings for the top pros so the top 100 or so could say that�s where they stand. We would provide decimal point accuracy for those players above 999 so those who are now 1014 would be listed as 1014.4 and 1014.3 and ranked accordingly. We would exclude any players whose rating was based on fewer than X number of rounds and/or rounds more than one year old.

...or, count everything, but weight the most-recent rounds, over: Time, &/or the # of rounds played. Why should a poor start NOT be reflected? IF you want to 'rub that out' by a bunch of better rounds, or a lot of time, that's either-way reflective of your current 'scoring' ability.

I like how the current PDGA system has that over-time graph. :)

...no talk of rankings, either for the PDGA, the theoretical UDGS, or the outlaw United Frisbie Golf Syndicate, but ^/v rating# could be "formula component". ;)

How accurate are the course ratings at present, and would ratings>>>realtime [in theory] produce a 'better' #? Thanks again to all involved!! :cool:

Depends on if you are using valid and accurately reported rounds from standardized events with unified rules on a worldwide level. If you can do all that, on your own, then making it real-time might make them more accurate, then again rushing the process might make it far less accurate, even a total and complete joke.

No kidding.

Chuck, when the PDGA went to having ratings determine division eligibility the need for up-to-date/instant/realtime ratings increased dramatically.

when the PDGA went to having ratings determine division eligibility the need for up-to-date/instant/realtime ratings increased dramatically



Not true. The only people who need a fast ratings update are those who don't have one yet. If you believe like many that you should be able to play in the same division for a whole series, then all that matters is what rating bracket you're in at the beginning of the series. Then, an update at the end of the year is all that's needed so you know where you are to start the next year.

Not every event is part of a series.

But the ability to pre-register and know what divisions you are eligible to play in is an important point. Faster updates would lower the lead time for Pre-registrations for players near the cutoffs.

Actually Nick I was more interested in "someone" stealing what's already there: The reported rounds/data from standardized events with unified [PDGA] rules. These reports [i]could be used in rankings. By whomever.

...I'm wondering outloud HOW accurate is the data generated outside of Kali [recognized as state-of-the-art], presently. Some reporting areas are still using the "birdie" symbol for penalties, f'rinstance. :o
And isn't a mile longer in some parts of the <font color="red"> country </font> ? :D

Yes, I'm a joker...are rankings a joke? :confused:

I like ratings and think they are a great thing for the sport.

However, for people like me who haven't played many tourneys yet, they aren't really a good indicator of what your game is like currently.

Looking back at the last tourney I shot (Manitowalk in the Park (http://pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4763&amp;year=2005&amp;incl udeRatings=1#Advanced) ) on July 17th. My 2 rounds were rated 955 and 953. I took 3rd in advanced and had many oppertunities to win it. I didn't play bad, but I didn't play nearly as good as I know I could have.

So whats my rating....901.

I have gotten so much better this summer that I am on the same skill level as top Advanced players. Last year and earlier this spring I wasn't even winning Intermediate tournaments. I guess I just need to wait for my recent tournes to get thrown into the calculation.

My point.....Ratings are very accurate for players with lots of rated rounds, but pretty unaccurate for those who are new to the whole scene.

Oh well, It'll catch up to my game eventually. I'm playin 5 more tourneys this year most likely.

Yes, I'm a joker...are rankings a joke?



You tell us.

If a group wants to base rankings on PDGA data, then it would seem a small price to pay to give credit to and work with the PDGA, right?

Mark Ellis is a genious. I didn't realize how much guys like to be ranked in their sport until just recently. I find it fascinating. It does make sense...just didn't think about until this year. I have people e-mailing me and calling me this year who don't belong to the PDGA (some of them don't even know what the PDGA is) and they are asking me how they can get a rating and what is a score of X at Y course rated at? If it isn't obvious yet, I think it will be soon that ratings will drive new membership in the PDGA. That is a testament to the hard work that Chuck and the rest of the ratings volunteers have done in just a few years.

Yes, I'm a joker...are rankings a joke?



You tell us.

If a group wants to base rankings on PDGA data, then it would seem a small price to pay to give credit to and work with the PDGA, right?


I pipe! I'm appreciative; comments are just obsevations; not critisisms. I'm also saying: Rankings have not proven-to-be a popular topic, and I would have expected more opinions, like:

Maxim: A 1,000-rated player who completes 100 rounds would be ranked higher than a 1,000 rated player competing in only 50.

or:

A 1,000-rated player who completes 100 rounds, 12 in Majors, would be ranked higher than a 1,000 rated player competing 100 rounds all in tier-B's.

...that kinda stuff. :p That's but a start...

That's a great notion. I usually come up with "DGWN magazine" and "co$t $aving$" when new players ask for a rundown of the benefits of joining the PDGA. "Generation of a player rating" is-as-good-of-a schtump as any! ;) Yeah!! :)

I'd still like to get a set of the Mini -Midnight Flyers , with my PDGA number on them !!!!http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/bangin.sml.gif
Can somebody help on this ? http://www.centxdglove.com/putterman.gif

[/QUOTE]

Contact Scott Keasey at DGA who might be able to help.

A 1,000-rated player who completes 100 rounds, 12 in Majors, would be ranked higher than a 1,000 rated player competing 100 rounds all in tier-B's.

This is backwards. A thousand rated player who plays more M tiers and A-tiers is less likely to compete in the same pool as rapidly improving recs and intermediates and therefore has an inflated rating. If your goal is to sort by skill this is backwards. If your goal is to sort by cash spent on entry fees, this is straight up.

That's a great notion. I usually come up with "DGWN magazine" and "co$t $aving$" when new players ask for a rundown of the benefits of joining the PDGA. "Generation of a player rating" is-as-good-of-a schtump as any! ;) Yeah!! :)



NOTE! This is my limited understanding of how it all works and not the official PDGA understanding:

Truth be told, it is NOT what they "get" for their membership dues. Player Ratings, Course Evaluations and 99% of the work done on PDGA.com is Volunteer. Dues pays a fraction of the day to day operating costs of association administration. This would include PDGA Tour Management, Marshals Program, PDGA meetings expenses (not all PDGA Board of Directors meetings either), STEAM, video taping and producing the Worlds DVDs, Promotional Materials(National Tour and PDGA Flyers, etc.). The single largest portion of dues likely goes to DGWN; which is not to say that that is the single largest expenditure of the PDGA, just the dues portion.

Dues gets you your Membership Card, $5 discount at most PDGA Events, DGWN Magazine, and supports the overall administrative and organizational efforts of the PDGA. 99% of what the PDGA "DOES FOR YOU" is based on "Volunteer Efforts". That would include the efforts of all the TDs and Volunteers staffing your local and regional PDGA events as well as the more Worldwide Programs staffed mainly by volunteers (the PDGA Board of Directors also happen to be all volunteer.)

Basically, becoming or, maintaining your PDGA Membership is an initial "offering" to support "ALL" of the efforts done by or on behalf of the Professional Disc Golf Association. It is a show of appreciation and support to "ALL" of the efforts done on your behalf to promote and move disc golf into the light of public awareness. To bring the joy of disc golf to people whom desperately need it. It is you joining in with all those that run tournaments, do demonstrations, promote disc golf and do the behind the scenes work.

That is why I have often said that Membership is in a way an absolute minimum sort of volunteer work. Not everyone has the time, resources or will to be a full volunteer (which is understandable); so your $40 or $50 is a way to stand up and say, "Thanks for all your hard work. Thanks for making the sacrifices so that I can enjoy organized disc golf (at whatever level that might be, even non-PDGA). I might not be able to do as much as I would like to help out, but at the very minimum here is a couple of dollars to help out. That I get DGWN, a $5 discount on entry fees to PDGAs, a player rating, my courses rated, my points calculated, rules and standards by which fair play can be conducted, a support network to plug into to learn, teach and help move our sport forward, is all icing on the cake. THANK YOU!"

That is what you "GIVE" for your membership. What you "GET" is the satisfaction of "GIVING".

Hope that helps.

Ok, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but I thought I'd throw it out there for others.

Why I think real time updates would not work. Event Series. I started 2 series this summer in MA-3. Now my shooting has improved to the point that I could be placing in MA-2, but I can't move my points in the J-Bird series to MA-2, and since J-Bird and DMDGS share the same finals, I can't move up and still be competing in both series. If they had done a ratings update between the last one and now, I'd have to move up for the finals, eliminating me from actually being able to shoot in the series. Yes, I feel like a sandbagger, but I want to finish the series.

Now having a second rating calculated and shown in parenthesis next to the real one would be nice so we can track where we should shoot in non series events.

player ratings are where its at. while i personally believe that some of the recent changes to the calcs may render them a bit less accurate, they are regardless and incredibly precise indicator of overall skill.

course ratings, on the other hand, are very close to useless. with the virtually infinite configurations many/most courses have, combines with environmental variables (weather, etc), an SSA for a course does not really mean much.

player ratings are immune to weather issues, because ratings are calcd from other players who played in the same conditions at the same time. course ratings, which are derived over time under who knows what conditions, are not the same.

course ratings are at best impressions. if presented as such they have some real value. but they should not be used for calcing any part of the player ratings.

heres an interesting bit of tid regarding the "unofficial" ratings... going into Am Worlds my 920 rating was 22nd in the division of 69 players. i finished 14th, beating something like 11 higher rated players while letting three lower rated players get in ahead of me.

sound like a recipe for improving my rating? NOPE! my average rating for the event is FOUR points lower than my current official rating!

i sure hope that changes when the "official" version comes out!

Of course the online ratings are 8 points lower than they will be officially because Theo hasn't changed the online calc yet. Does adding at least 8 to your round ratings help?

thats about what i thought it would be in the official versions, yes. it could/might go up a tad more when the pools are segregated also.

so you are saying I shot like 992 at worlds? Sweet and 998 at MId-nats :D

Any unofficial ratings you see posted in events online are probably 8 points lower than they'll be when official, that's assuming the info uploaded by the TD was accurate to start with. Separating into pools will not likely change ratings much. We're doing everything possible to tweak the formula so the course ratings come out the same in the future regardless whether it's a group of players averaging 875 or 975 producing the round ratings.

why are course ratings so sacred? it seems like this goal introduces an arbitrary constant into the equation, and that that constant may not be entirely defensible.

The fundamental precept of the ratings process is that all propagators will generate the same SSA under the same conditions. The current function, which is a linear approximation of the underlying quadratic equation, has been slightly off which has resulted in the popular sport of bashing the ratings because higher rated players generate slightly higher SSAs and resulting round ratings. We're working to tweak the function so that groups of 850 rated and 1000 rated propagators both generate the same SSA and resulting round ratings when playing on the same course.

Whether any SSA is the "correct" representation of the current layout's rating is the realm of the course pro or TD to determine. However, it's calculated on the way to generate round ratings and can be useful for course designers if they wish to use it for hole by hole analysis to improve the course.

We're working to tweak the function so that groups of 850 rated and 1000 rated propagators both generate the same SSA and resulting round ratings when playing on the same course.

does the "same course" include same weather and seasonal (foliage) conditions?

i'll readily admit i dont understand how the SSA is used in ratings calculations. particularly, i dont understand why a course should/can have an absolutely unchanging SSA over time and under all conditions. if its used to calc ratings, then the ratings are used to calc the SSA, doesnt it become circular?

I mean the 850 and 1000 rated props playing the same course at the same time. Let's say there are 90 props with a wide range of ratings from 800 to 1037 playing the same course at the same time. If the calculations are working correctly, I should be able to take any random sample of say 40 players in that group and generate the same SSA within a few tenths. I should also be able to take a specific group of 40 that average 865 and another group that average 965 and also generate the same SSA for that round. Up until now, the function has been off just slightly such that higher rated groups generated slightly higher SSAs and resulting ratings.

Now, if the same experiment is done the next day, the SSA numbers will likely be close to today's but might be offset by up to 0.5 shot based on normal variation and even more if the weather is different or it's morning versus afternoon (dew affecting rollers for example). Even though the SSA has some variation even under the same weather conditions, it's pretty stable from year to year. Pick a course like Knob Hill in Pittsburgh and look at its SSA values over the years for the same config.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php

I think ratings from 4 years ago should not count towards your current rating. Am Master rated 1007? lol

thanks chuck for that explanation. i get it now... thanks once again for your continued efforts!

So when are the new ones coming out?

The date's on the Home page in Red

LOL for some reason I thought this was the 9th month :)

living your screenname a little bit too much??? :D :D

I think the ratings are kinda messed up. I think they need to be based more on the SSA of the course. For example at this weekend in Paw Paw...................

My 1st round on the whipping post was a 66 rated at 954
and my 1st round on the woodshed was a 65 rated at 951

but.......

The pros who shot 66 on the whipping post the 1st round get a 973 rating and their 1st round on the woodshed with a 65 gets them a 967 rating.

It just seems strange to me figuring we both played the same exact courses the 1st day in the same exact beautiful conditions. Just seems wrong to me.

The online unofficial system doesn't yet have the rating calculation corrections that the official system has already. Hopefully Theo will get to that when he can.

Dude, your rating system is to complex. Your trying to mathmatically make a helicopter fly. :eek:

J/K Chuck, its all in fun.

Dude, your rating system is to complex. Your trying to mathmatically make a helicopter fly. :eek:

J/K Chuck, its all in fun.



While you haven't even done that much. /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Its just eating you up is'nt it? You consistantly antagonize me in hopes that I will give you a clue as to what we are doing. Its funny really. You just keep posting out of ignorance and I will be sitting here arms crossed laughing at your futile attempts to milk me for a clue. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Nick Kight is a homo-







































sapien.

Ahh yes, he does have a fan club don't he? :D

Hah hah hah! Right.

Um, Mike, everyone is ignorant of what you are doing because you haven't actually "done" anything yet. Anything that we can see or use at least, unless you count criticizing other peoples efforts as �doing something�, which some here clearly do.

Antagonize? You don't know what antagonize means. Wait until your whatever it is becomes public, then you will get an education in antagonize. And it won't be from me either.

It'll be gratifying to see your eyes open to how hard it is to do volunteer work and pour your heart into something only to have a few miscreants tear it up. An education you clearly are in dire need of.

I don't wish you ill will, only that you pull your head out of your...

Nick Kight is a homo-







































sapien.

Dave,

It wasn't funny the first time. Grow up dude!

Not funny to you, is funny for most.

Nanny nanny boo boo. You can point your finger at me all day but there are 3 pointing back at you.

Its not only me in this, we have volunteers to. :eek:

Thats all you will get from me.

For one that runs around the board flaunting arrogant posts and trying to prove something to everyone about how much you know, I would say that your education is in need not mine. :o

I am comfortable with myself and you trying to say that I am a miscreant only makes me feel better that I am doing the right thing. :D

I think malcontents was the word I was looking for:

Main Entry: 1mal�con�tent
Pronunciation: "mal-k&n-'tent
Function: noun
: a discontented person: a : one who bears a grudge from a sense of grievance or thwarted ambition b : one who is in active opposition to an established order or government

At this point, with nothing to show for your talk, it seems to fit you to a tee.

Like your statements, this doesn't necessarily have to be taken like a personal cut. If something good comes from it, great! Don't fault me for wanting more than your word on it though; particularly in like of you attitude towards folks you don't even know, and certainly don't understand.

I am respecting the PDGA's wishes by not promoting what I am doing on this board. Now you are antagonizing me to do so which has not been effective.

Now keep trying to show how smart you are cause I am still not seeing it. Oh wait let post some definitions for your ignoramous azzz so I can show everyone I am smart to. Puhhlease. Give it up already ya gonad. :D

hey, it took you all of two years to get your overly complex, incredibly biased, amateurishly data modelled Course Evaluation Program up and running.

and remember, you are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

so it is only appropriate that you give mike, who is obviously a mere mortal, some slack on the timing!

:eek:

I know I just had the idea and bought the domain July 19th. Now he is trying to say what??????????

Go read a book......better yet practice not driving into the trees Nick

hey, it took you all of two years to get your overly complex, incredibly biased, amateurishly data modelled Course Evaluation Program up and running.

and remember, you are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

so it is only appropriate that you give mike, who is obviously a mere mortal, some slack on the timing!

:eek:



Nice Pat. Real nice. Good one. I haven't given him any greif about getting it done more quickly, just that he have something on the table before doing all of this chest thumping and certainly to put a sock in attacking the efforts of others who actually do have something to show for their positions.

Is that so unreasonable?

Does it have anything to do with the Course Evaluation Program?
Does it have anything to do with my work as a volunteer?

No, it has only to do with having something to show for all the talk Mike is doing.

And for the record, I have never claimed to be a:
Great Volunteer
Great Organizer
Great Programmer
Great Thinker
Great Leader
Mr.Unbaised
Mr.Professional

And I never claimed it for any of the things I have done.

I do what I can and get satisfaction from those who appreciated it, but mostly I get satisfaction from getting things done.

To come on here, a volunteer yourself, and attack my volunteer work is something I can't fathom and hope never can. I am not going to return your ignorance with further ignorance so you're just going to have to continue to keep chewing on the same bile you have been for years now. Created from an internet slight I can't even remember giving you. Whatever it was I have never seen such tightly knotted panties as your.

Lighten up and live a little Pat.

ouch, musta touched "close-to-home" nerves there, huh?

nick, you lighten up, it was a jest, you silly boy. dont take this board so seriously.

Nick, I do have something on the table only under the PDGA C-e-n-s-o-r-s-h-i-p I have not been allowed to talk about it which is why you are approaching the arguement from this angle. Not only that you are now doing the name calling which means that you yourself are in over your head. If you dont want none.....dont start none sucka! :D

What a maroon! :D

Speaking of taking things to seriously...

Everyone should have a rating. The one I like best was based on a system we used in college.

In college the rating system we used was 1-100. The number was based on the distance in yards that one's looks could kill a rat. Getting the dreaded 100 was bad and usually came after a party or finals. Most people ranged in around 50 and a particularly sweet looking indiviual got the 1. Yep, you guessed it, there is no real winner in this ranking.

Nick, I do have something on the table only under the PDGA C-e-n-s-o-r-s-h-i-p I have not been allowed to talk about it which is why you are approaching the arguement from this angle.



Yeah, I know you want to �talk� about it. How about actually �doing it� first? Then let�s talk.

Nick, I'm mailing you some tissue, you seem real emotional today.

Its already going brother. Just because you cant "see" it does not mean it does not exist. Oh......thats right, this is Nicks world we are talking about. :o:D:D

You could always PM me with it's location. You've never been shy about that before have you? Or you could get your girl friend to call me again...

It's open to everyone, right?

Anyone can volunteer, right?

Here's an example of someone who's actually done something useful for leagues using the PDGA ratings process

www.sundogtournamentseries.com/standings_mpo.htm (http://www.sundogtournamentseries.com/standings_mpo.htm)

The Sundog league may be one of the most successful leagues in the country averaging over 70 attendees on Tuesday nights from April thru August in the Twin Cities. At least 6 courses are used in the rotation. A player's PDGA rating, Sundog rating, best rated round and handicap are all displayed weekly. Matt Koerner has done a great job with this website don't you think?

kighty whities (http://www.keysan.com/pictures/tgpc1702.jpg)

What are you offering? And can you prove your alligations? Did not think so. Terry and myself have spoken over this matter. You could always ask your wife to jump off my nuttz and back on yours. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D:D

BTW, this only one of several I've heard about. At one time Houston was doing something similar (and they still might be, I don't know) and Nick has done a fine job with the MADC regional ratings for events site.

Pretty cool. Straight forward and to the point. I like it. It does not prove any points that Nick is saying but yes, I like it.

Matt Koerner? From Nebraska/k-STATE engineer?

Houston does not have a roaming league, there is one up north of Houston that is working well.

I am not only targeting ratings Chuck. Although that is all you have heard about the site I am building will be more than this.

Ah, a nerve. :eek: :D

Can you deny them?

I've heard from a host of others here that they got similar calls.

I don't have to prove anything Mike.

You however, have everything to prove.

Mike, you know how to reach me. If you have anything more to say to me do it via IM or email. Otherwise I'll just assume that you are just doing more grandstanding. Like I've said, I hope your venture is a success, certainly if it is I will be right there to congratulate you on your hard work and commitment, just don't expect kudos for work not yet completed.

<font color="green"> Sorry for the drift Chuck. All yours...</font>

I am not expecting anyhting from you nor have I ever in the past. I only ask that you not insinuate out of ignorance as I have repeatedly posted. Your slanderous comments are not amusing but only to yourself and when I play back you get all huffy puffy. You really do need to step away from the keyboard as this forum effects your auora. Its not in a good way either.

I am not expecting anyhting from you nor have I ever in the past. I only ask that you not insinuate out of ignorance as I have repeatedly posted. Your slanderous comments are not amusing but only to yourself and when I play back you get all huffy puffy. You really do need to step away from the keyboard as this forum effects your auora. Its not in a good way either.



Its you that needs to step away from the keyboard you non dues paying scab :o:Dyou use what members pay for and then try to sale your use beat up pastic here :mad::D

chuck, does sundog license the ratings, or just steal them off the pdga site? :D

League players sign a detailed 2-page legal form allowing Matt to use their current ratings as posted. :D

Now this is the tone that I like to see people posting in. To funny! LOL :D

Good one chinger! :D

I am not expecting anyhting from you nor have I ever in the past. I only ask that you not insinuate out of ignorance as I have repeatedly posted. Your slanderous comments are not amusing but only to yourself and when I play back you get all huffy puffy. You really do need to step away from the keyboard as this forum effects your auora. Its not in a good way either.



Its you that needs to step away from the keyboard you non dues paying scab :o:Dyou use what members pay for and then try to sale your use beat up pastic here :mad::D


That was good!

Moving up=Higher rating. That's what i'm doing. :D:D

BTW, this only one of several I've heard about. At one time Houston was doing something similar (and they still might be, I don't know) and Nick has done a fine job with the MADC regional ratings for events site.



We use PDGA ratings, sorta. Not sure specifically how, but I think it runs along the lines of Chuck's league ratings XLS sheet.

I think that The ratings arent too accurate, they are to a certain degree, but I don't belive that wind or weather is factored in well enough. there have been rounds where an even par is the best in the open, and its given a 980 rating, when nate doss and josh anthon are at the tournament, also, it depends on the region you live in which determines how well you have to play to score 1000 rating average