Just curious to see how many rounds the average person drops beacuse they are outside of 2.5 SD.

I have 2 rounds out of 37 dropped.

1 dropped out of 42.

i think the setting for rounds that are dropped is set so that it is unlikely any rounds will be dropped. that makes sense to me -- unless you are throwing with your non-dominant hand due to an injury or are playing with a high fever, etc. your rounds should figure in to your rating... i threw a round that felt like the worst golf i have ever played in round 3 at the USADGC and it's included... i guess i earned it /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

i still think harder courses like Idlewild or Toboggan seem to lend themselves more to hurting than helping your rating becuase there are more chances to go wrong and statisticly it seems harder to more often go right... :confused:

KY States at Idlewild (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=TournamentInfo&Number=4370 51&page)

1 of 57 dropped.

but robj, since all players face the same challenge it factors out.

i still think harder courses like Idlewild or Toboggan seem to lend themselves more to hurting than helping your rating becuase there are more chances to go wrong and statisticly it seems harder to more often go right... :confused:


If you are stuck in a deuce-or-die mentality, then it will be difficult to get a good rated round at a hard course. If you can recognize that long hard course requires you to play golf, I find it easier to get a good rated round via proper course management. Since I don't usually sink any 60 footers, I have a harder time get a good high rated round on a short course than on a really tough course like LaMa in the GSC/USM configuration.

If you are stuck in a deuce-or-die mentality, then it will be difficult to get a good rated round at a hard course. If you can recognize that long hard course requires you to play golf, I find it easier to get a good rated round via proper course management. Since I don't usually sink any 60 footers, I have a harder time get a good high rated round on a short course than on a really tough course like LaMa in the GSC/USM configuration.



I cant believe im doing this but I agree with Rhett. Long courses like the Toboggan and Idlewild and Pickard and Winthrop Gold and Renny Gold tend to expose the truely weaker golfers who get good rated rounds on short courses because all you have to do is drive and hit a putt and if you dont your not penalized all that much. When those people play a course where you have to throw 2 350+ft shots then an upshot and hit a put its exposes the fact that they prolly have NO upshot game because they have never been forced to develope one. Thats why I like playing courses like that because you have to be a TRUE golfer.

I cant believe I just agreed with Rhett. The worlds must be coming to an end :eek: :D

1 dropped of 32 but its 85 points below my rating
throw me a freakin bone hear chuck

I got that beat Will. 1 round dropped of 97 and its 106 pts below my rating. :confused:

not a single one - 112 rounds

I gots all yall beat......1 out of 130....only 88 points below my rating.

If you are stuck in a deuce-or-die mentality, then it will be difficult to get a good rated round at a hard course. If you can recognize that long hard course requires you to play golf, I find it easier to get a good rated round via proper course management. Since I don't usually sink any 60 footers, I have a harder time get a good high rated round on a short course than on a really tough course like LaMa in the GSC/USM configuration.



I cant believe im doing this but I agree with Rhett. Long courses like the Toboggan and Idlewild and Pickard and Winthrop Gold and Renny Gold tend to expose the truely weaker golfers who get good rated rounds on short courses because all you have to do is drive and hit a putt and if you dont your not penalized all that much. When those people play a course where you have to throw 2 350+ft shots then an upshot and hit a put its exposes the fact that they prolly have NO upshot game because they have never been forced to develope one. Thats why I like playing courses like that because you have to be a TRUE golfer.

I cant believe I just agreed with Rhett. The worlds must be coming to an end :eek: :D



a TRUE disc golfer should be able to do both...well.

Everyone's 2.5SD is calculated individually. There's not a fixed number. In my case, this time all rounds 59 points below my rating would have been dropped. However, I've always been pretty consistent and this time none were dropped out of 38. We capped the 2.5SD at 100 points so even real inconsistent players or beginners with few rounds won't get stuck with a round 101+ points below their average.

Example 2.5SD
Kennedy 59
Mills 81
Schultz 56
Schweb 55
Stroh 82
Butch 100 (cap)
Brenner 72
Bender 84

a TRUE disc golfer should be able to do both...well.



This is true which is why the longer courses expose the FAKE golfers who can just drive and drop in some putts :D

Woohoo, I'm almost as consistent as Mills! :)

You are just salty because you get beat by FAKE golfers all the time. :D

0 rounds dropped , my lowest round is 97 points below my rating!!! :confused:

Woohoo, I'm almost as consistent as Mills! :D

Thats not saying much :mad::D


You are just salty because you get beat by FAKE golfers all the time. :D



What are you talking about??? I smoked you at USADGC :eek:

0 rounds dropped , my lowest round is 97 points below my rating!!! :confused:



Eyeballing your round ratings, I'd bet your SD is 100.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4878#Advanced

I'm not talking about me...

0 rounds dropped , my lowest round is 97 points below my rating!!! :confused:



Eyeballing your round ratings, I'd bet your SD is 100.



THAT SUX!! :confused:

0 rounds dropped, and no change in my rating for the 2nd time /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

0 rounds dropped , my lowest round is 97 points below my rating!!! :confused:



Eyeballing your round ratings, I'd bet your SD is 100.



THAT SUX!! :confused:



So do those bottom ratings... :)

You've got 4 under 900 and the next one is 922? Talk about scattered.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4878#Advanced

I'm not talking about me...




Yeah. I dont know what to say about that. Played blind and got worked. And the FAIRWAYS there arent very FAIR. Real real tight and on top of it they put little trees in the MIDDLE of the tight fairway :mad:

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5303#Open

I bet this course had tougher fairways...sorry for the thread drift...1 dropped out of 47.

How in the he!! did my rating increase? :confused:

There's no benefit to playing shorter versus longer courses from a ratings standpoint. Shorter courses produce wider swings in both good and bad ratngs directions than longer courses. Each throw is worth 7 points difference on Winthrop Gold and 10 points on a typical metro course from the long tees and older shorter courses it could be 12 points. There is some truth that a person would be better off grooving a shorter local course to get a few better than average rounds in a tournament than grooving a permanent long course like Idlewild or Renny Gold. But the effort versus the payoff would be better on the tougher courses in the long run in terms of improving your overall game and thus your rating rather than trying to pick up a few "cheap" points on a pitch and putt now and then.

0 rounds dropped , my lowest round is 97 points below my rating!!! :confused:



Eyeballing your round ratings, I'd bet your SD is 100.



THAT SUX!! :confused:



So do those bottom ratings... :)

You've got 4 under 900 and the next one is 922? Talk about scattered.



I KNOW!!! It really sux!!! :D

Hey Chuck, were all my rounds included? It went from 32 to 36 rounds included, but I had 10 new rounds-8 from Worlds, and 2 from Waller Pines.

Hey Chuck, were all my rounds included?

Your Ratings Detail tells which ones were included in the right column.

Right. Which is why I'm asking you if some rounds were thrown out from last year, or is the ratings detail off a bit?

If you have at least 8 rounds in the last 12 months, we'll go back and include exactly 12 months worth since the date of your most recently rated round. So, every time you add new rounds, it's likely old ones drop out if they're now more than 12 months older.

One of mine was not counted.

1 out of out 93 rounds were dropped for me, 70 points below my rating :(

If you are stuck in a deuce-or-die mentality, then it will be difficult to get a good rated round at a hard course. If you can recognize that long hard course requires you to play golf, I find it easier to get a good rated round via proper course management. Since I don't usually sink any 60 footers, I have a harder time get a good high rated round on a short course than on a really tough course like LaMa in the GSC/USM configuration.



I cant believe im doing this but I agree with Rhett. Long courses like the Toboggan and Idlewild and Pickard and Winthrop Gold and Renny Gold tend to expose the truely weaker golfers who get good rated rounds on short courses because all you have to do is drive and hit a putt and if you dont your not penalized all that much. When those people play a course where you have to throw 2 350+ft shots then an upshot and hit a put its exposes the fact that they prolly have NO upshot game because they have never been forced to develope one. Thats why I like playing courses like that because you have to be a TRUE golfer.

I cant believe I just agreed with Rhett. The worlds must be coming to an end :eek: :D



Idlewild is the reason i got into disc golf -- deuce or die courses seem boring. i realize course management is at a premium and that poor decision making can make those courses play even tougher than they really are. But that isn't what i am suggesting. i have heard many point out that Idlewild (SSA around 65) seems to hurt their ratings. it just works out that it is easier to shoot below your rating on a hard course than above it. the ratings system seems to be most favorable when you play courses with relatively lower SSA's.

the math Chuck sites makes sense, but i think there is some factor at play here that's being overlooked. Justin Bunnell's 58 at Idlewild should be closer to 1100 than 1050 but i think it was only a 1058. Brad Schick thought that was crazy and i think i agree. when a harder SSA course is played there is just a higher probability of shooting well below your rating than well above it. instead of 2 great shots on each hole you need 3 or 4. that seems to skew the odds against you. idlewild is generally too long to make up for a bad shot with a great one. my two cents...

I'm consistent! 0 rounds dropped out of 53. Only 1 800s round, 7 1000 rated rounds.

when a harder SSA course is played there is just a higher probability of shooting well below your rating than well above it.



It is absolutely not true. Just because high rated players don't shoot record rounds as high doesn't mean there are more rounds below someone's rating average than above. Pull up an Idlewild event and add up the round ratings and compare it to the sum of player ratings of every player with a rating over 799.

You'll see they are very close for every event regardless if it's an easy course or tough course. It HAS to be that way because we force the average rating of the propagators to equal the average of every set of round ratings. It's fundamental to the process. If the numbers don't match, it's only because some of the players with ratings are not propagators and you can't tell who they are from the event reports.

great job Chuck! I appreciate all the time invested by all pdga staff!

Out of 45 rounds, none dropped. No round under 905--I'll take that!!! Thanx for all the stats/ratings, this is a good beginning to hopefuly a great ratings system /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif. Disc On!

when a harder SSA course is played there is just a higher probability of shooting well below your rating than well above it.



It is absolutely not true. Just because high rated players don't shoot record rounds as high doesn't mean there are more rounds below someone's rating average than above. Pull up an Idlewild event and add up the round ratings and compare it to the sum of player ratings of every player with a rating over 799.

You'll see they are very close for every event regardless if it's an easy course or tough course. It HAS to be that way because we force the average rating of the propagators to equal the average of every set of round ratings. It's fundamental to the process. If the numbers don't match, it's only because some of the players with ratings are not propagators and you can't tell who they are from the event reports.



Chuck i don't buy it. i'm a 1000 rated golfer trapped in a bad data set, and if i can't blame the course or the ratings system i'd have to blame how i played and that is definitely out of the question! :p :D

still, isn't there something to the idea that the higher the SSA, the harder it is to play a highly rated round since instead of an average of 3 strokes per hole you have an average of 4 strokes per hole? that is one more chance to mess up. you can't say it is easier to get a 2 instead of a 4 because that is more true on easier holes. isn't it like the idea that it's harder to make 40 free throws in a row than 30?

isn't it like the idea that it's harder to make 40 free throws in a row than 30?




It is less likely, just like it's less likely to shoot an 1080 round on a course that requires more throws. Using the basketball analogy, it's also more likely that you'll shoot 30 in a row or miss 30 in a row than it is you'll shoot 40 in a row or miss 40 in a row. The point is it's just as hard to do worse with a tougher challenge as it is to do exceptionally well.

and even beyond that, the most fundamental point is that every player faces the same challenge! the better ones that day get the better ratings. longer course that require more shots have lower point-per-shot values because there are more opportunities to catch up. shorter courses are tougher on the ratings because once the field gets a bird while you par, well, there arent a lot of chances to "catch up".

the single best proof is to take a decent size tournament and use the ratings to predict the outcome. you will be amazed at how accurate the ratings predict the results. in large fields where a range of 15-20% in the finishing position is acceptable, the ratings are an incredibly accurate predictor of relative skill. i have a fairly complex model for these calcs and have been seen events where you almost coulda just mailed out the checks with bothering to play.

2 but my last 3 tourneys in last 2 months aren't on so I think I should have more and my rating up about 7-10 points

I wish they could update faster i mean u wait 3 months and it does not seem to be up to date to how you are really playing at the time almost 6 months prior it seems to show how your playing

isn't it like the idea that it's harder to make 40 free throws in a row than 30?




It is less likely, just like it's less likely to shoot an 1080 round on a course that requires more throws. Using the basketball analogy, it's also more likely that you'll shoot 30 in a row or miss 30 in a row than it is you'll shoot 40 in a row or miss 40 in a row. The point is it's just as hard to do worse with a tougher challenge as it is to do exceptionally well.



OK, good point. i guess i'm just going to have to start playing better tournament rounds at these tougher courses. it would be a lot easier though if i could just blame the system for my sub-1000 career :p

I had 1 round dropped out of 12.

That round was 125 pts below my rating and not something I'd like to remember. It was truely the worst round of disc golf I have played in years. It was in the pouring rain though at one of the toughest courses in the state. :eek:

while we are talking about bad rounds, i once had a round so bad that it wasnt even rated. i dont mean it was rated then dropped... i mean it wasnt not even given a value in the first place! just a blank spot on the tourney results! my rating was in the low 920's at hte time, and this one probably was mid 700's. it still is kinda funny (and humbling) to go back and see that blank spot on the list :cool:

LMAO!!! :eek: ;) /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D

Nice

I had zero rounds dropped out of 32. My low was 954 and my high was 1020. :cool:

That's not fair! I had an 780 round while in the same range and it was counted! Good thing I had a 995 round later the same day to balance it out.

I wish they could update faster i mean u wait 3 months and it does not seem to be up to date to how you are really playing at the time almost 6 months prior it seems to show how your playing



Sounds like someone wants to volunteer to help.

[QUOTE]
I wish they could update faster i mean u wait 3 months and it does not seem to be up to date to how you are really playing at the time almost 6 months prior it seems to show how your playing



If we updated them daily/weekly/hourly would any of you guys ever be out playing??? Or would you be in front of your computer to see if you were going to be two points better than your buddy? Ratings don't win tournaments.

I would volunteer my services. I would need a better computer that didn't crash every 10 mins though. Heeren figures out most of his rated rounds right after the tourney in his head. I just do not understand why we can not be more up to date on ratings.

Chuck,
1 round dropped in 53; what's up with that? Also, where can I find the 'formula' for calculating my rating? Without this, it just doesn't make sense.

1 out of 80!!! 100 points below rating.

We've been talking about the revised calculations for 6 months online here. The current version:
- uses all of your rounds except we drop any rounds more than 2.5 standard deviations below your average (or more than 100 points, whichever is lower) which amounts to about 1 in 50 rounds getting dropped.
- your most recent 25% of your rounds sorted by date get double weighted
- We've boosted the SSA values in 2005 by about 0.8 to boost players' round ratings by about 8 points to compensate for the fact that almost all of your bottom 15% are now counted.
- We only go back more than 12 months from your most recently rated round if you have fewer than 8 rounds in the last 12 months. It used to be 20 which meant more older rounds used to be counted than with new 8 minimum.

i know a guy who has a 195 rated round...

1 round dropped 98 points below my rating

instead of people (not you jack) whining about how few rounds you have dropped ya oughta be bragging about how small your standard deviation is!

instead of people (not you jack) whining about how few rounds you have dropped ya oughta be bragging about how small your standard deviation is!

wow, either that was a total thread kill, or everyone is still trying to calculate their standard deviations! :D