934 or so for me I think

still got a ways to go

I am thinking 945 for me...I get some crud dropped off and some more consistent rounds put in so my SD should drop too.

Where are Dirty and Gwillim with the predictions???


I don't have enough time to look at figures and make predictions. I can only give predictions for myself and for Dvince. Here they are:

Gwillim: 974-977
Vincent: 978-981

Sorry guys, that's all I got.

Looks like V will have G by 1 point but Roger has to do another run because we found some course layouts were sent incorrectly.

Looks like V will have G by 1 point but Roger has to do another run because we found some course layouts were sent incorrectly.



GET A ROPE!!!

My prediction is 963. Not bad for an OMB.

My prediction is 963. Not bad for an OMB.

jerry, the ratings are never THAT far off :o

I am not really paying attention to this update as 6 tournaments I have played recently won't make it.

is my last digit 4? (as in 964)

Depends on what happens in the next pass.

do you mean tweaks in the 2 events (8 rounds) i've played this year that fall into this update may be in order?

Read upthread that we need to do another pass for everyone.

Pretty funny.....


jerry, the ratings are never THAT far off :o

Chuck, will the ratings for the capital of texas open be included in this next update?

I'll keep posting this until players learn the drill: All events currently posted with official results but with no ratings are those that will be in the next update. If the event is posted with unofficial ratings, it missed the update. Likewise, if you see no results online, it missed the update.

I predict 957 = finally 100% illegal

I'll keep posting this until players learn the drill: All events currently posted with official results but with no ratings are those that will be in the next update. If the event is posted with unofficial ratings, it missed the update. Likewise, if you see no results online, it missed the update.



Why waste your time Chuck? You have posted that responce probably a half a dozen times on this thread. If people do not know how to read, then they are SOL. I would stop pandering them with a responce.

Is my rating dropping much?

Yes, it is.

I'll keep posting this until players learn the drill: All events currently posted with official results but with no ratings are those that will be in the next update. If the event is posted with unofficial ratings, it missed the update. Likewise, if you see no results online, it missed the update.



Why waste your time Chuck? You have posted that responce probably a half a dozen times on this thread. If people do not know how to read, then they are SOL. I would stop pandering them with a responce.



Or Change your sig line :)

chuck, I thought that rounds over a year old were dropped if you had more than 20 rounds included without them.. Is this correct? if not, what is the criteria for dropping old rounds?

wow what a suprise on my rating . . . . do they even calculate my rating or do you guys just decide to randomly pick a 1014 or 1015 every update? For playing 30+ tournaments a year I think I have the record for most consistant playing haha

chuck, I thought that rounds over a year old were dropped if you had more than 20 rounds included without them.. Is this correct? if not, what is the criteria for dropping old rounds?



We only drop rounds more than 12 months older than the date of your personal most recently rated round. It has nothing to do with the current date. We've been doing that since ratings started.

gotcha!! ;) ;)

chuck, I thought that rounds over a year old were dropped if you had more than 20 rounds included without them.. Is this correct? if not, what is the criteria for dropping old rounds?



Chuck, I was wondering the same thing. Many California players still have the 2005 Golden State included in the ratings even though the 2006 GSC rounds are included in the details. Obviously these rounds are over a year old. I have 30 rounds included in this update, so they were not necessary.

EDIT: Now that I go back and see your response to the above question, I see this year's GSC was held on the weekend before last year, so both years are included.

chuck, I thought that rounds over a year old were dropped if you had more than 20 rounds included without them.. Is this correct? if not, what is the criteria for dropping old rounds?



Chuck, I was wondering the same thing. Many California players still have the 2005 Golden State included in the ratings even though the 2006 GSC rounds are included in the details. Obviously these rounds are over a year old. I have 30 rounds included in this update, so they were not necessary.

EDIT: Now that I go back and see your response to the above question, I see this year's GSC was held on the weekend before last year, so both years are included.



Okay, Chuck I shall join the whine patrol. I believe the Norman Pro/Am May 2005 should have been dropped. What am I missing?

chuck, I thought that rounds over a year old were dropped if you had more than 20 rounds included without them.. Is this correct? if not, what is the criteria for dropping old rounds?



We only drop rounds more than 12 months older than the date of your personal most recently rated round. It has nothing to do with the current date. We've been doing that since ratings started.



or your personal most recent rated round that was turned in by the deadline of the most recent update!! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I believe the Norman Pro/Am May 2005 should have been dropped. What am I missing?




For who? It depends on whether a person has an officially rated round more than 365 days after that event or not. Those with a rated round on June 3rd will not have that event in their rating calc anymore. Those whose most recently rated round is in April, will still have those event rounds in their rating.

Thanks Chuck, I know you have explained it before, but I believe it is a case of seeing it in action.



I believe the Norman Pro/Am May 2005 should have been dropped. What am I missing?




For who? It depends on whether a person has an officially rated round more than 365 days after that event or not. Those with a rated round on June 3rd will not have that event in their rating calc anymore. Those whose most recently rated round is in April, will still have those event rounds in their rating.

It looks like the 3rd round ratings for the Texas Women�s Championships (held April 29 & 30) are incorrect for the Rec. Women. The Rec Women played some holes from short tees, while the rest of the women played from the regular tees. Since there are no Rec Women rated higher than 800, they should probably not get a rating for that round.

Thanks...........Rick

Send any problems to Dave at PDGA HQ like I posted on the Announcement.

Well it happened. I knew it would someday.

For the first time, my rating did not go up. It stayed the same. BOO!

Well it happened. I knew it would someday.

For the first time, my rating did not go up. It stayed the same. BOO!


YAY! My dreams have finally come true. I am FINALLY as good as MTL. I can now retire in peace! I'm out of here!
WOOTAH x30

Well it happened. I knew it would someday.

For the first time, my rating did not go up. It stayed the same. BOO!



Man, and I thought I was going to drop!

NOT!!!!

nine seventy nine

That's one less person to worry about at Mid Nationals!

Did you purposefully keep me within the range of qualifying for the Mid-America? ;)

+2 pts........ :p :mad::p

The only good thing is when I play a round with other people and they ask me what my rating is they are shocked it is so low. Almost everyone here in VA has thought my rating was 960-970. I guess that is the good thing about being rated so low, at least I am an underdog at all the tournaments I go to.

Some reason the East Coast A Tiers in May are not included? Dogwood Crosstown and VA Open specifically.

Everything received by the deadline was processed. Ask the TDs of those events not included.

Almost everyone here in VA has thought my rating was 960-970.



At least some value for that MBA in terms of marketing your rating in your sig line for quite a while... :)

Ok well I predicted 997-998 but since a few events never were turned in it will be like 995. :confused:



Man I am starting to get good at this. Next update 1000+ /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Almost everyone here in VA has thought my rating was 960-970.



At least some value for that MBA in terms of marketing your rating in your sig line for quite a while... :)



Marketing and consumer psychology were one of my favorite topics to study. Strange how I ended up in construction management?

Believe me, I will spin my skills dispite what my rating says. And my sig will always say "Prowannabee" until I officially turn pro, i.e. accept cash.

Is there anyway the final round at the Pittsburg FDO could be changed to show ratings? It is still listed as a final.

Scooter - I know this is a rough estimate, but the AM first round at the PFDO was white tees at Knob Hill. A 54 was rated a 989, so I'd say your 53 last round was a 998-999.

From what I hear, in the official report the fourth round will have ratings reported, but for the unofficial they're listed as finals, because not everyone would have scores.

It will be about 1015 :DNo joke I sm usually within 5 points.

It will be about 1015 :DNo joke I sm usually within 5 points.



<table border="1"><tr><td> Player Name</td><td>rnd</td><td></td><td>Rating
</td></tr><tr><td>schack</td><td>53</td><td></td><td>1016
</td></tr><tr><td>orum </td><td>49</td><td></td><td>1052
</td></tr><tr><td>schick</td><td>51</td><td></td><td>1034
</td></tr><tr><td>moser</td><td>48</td><td></td><td>1061
</td></tr><tr><td>sprague</td><td>57</td><td></td><td>980
</td></tr><tr><td>blakely</td><td>53</td><td> 1016
</td></tr><tr><td>jernigan</td><td>54</td><td></td><td>1007
</td></tr><tr><td>hoffman </td><td>51</td><td></td><td>1034
</td></tr><tr><td>ellis</td><td>56</td><td></td><td>989
</td></tr><tr><td>madore</td><td>60</td><td></td><td>953
</td></tr><tr><td>hall</td><td>53</td><td></td><td>1016
</td></tr><tr><td>lacostro</td><td>59</td><td></td><td>962
</td></tr><tr><td>law</td><td>55</td><td></td><td>998
</td></tr><tr><td>horn</td><td>58</td><td></td><td>971
</td></tr><tr><td>wood</td><td>52</td><td></td><td>1025
</td></tr><tr><td>boro</td><td>56</td><td></td><td>989
</td></tr><tr><td>kim</td><td>56</td><td></td><td>989
</td></tr><tr><td>sonderfan</td><td>59</td><td></td><td>962
</td></tr><tr><td>speaker</td><td>59</td><td></td><td>962
</td></tr><tr><td>vesch</td><td>61</td><td></td><td>944
</td></tr><tr><td>schmidt</td><td>59</td><td></td><td>962
</td></tr><tr><td>dietzal</td><td>60</td><td></td><td>953
</td></tr><tr><td>parrish</td><td>65</td><td></td><td>907
</td></tr><tr><td>hecklethorn</td><td>62</td><td></td><td>935
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

How did the VA Open (May 29/30)and Battlefield Open (June 11/12) not make it by the proper date to be included? They were both posted the day after the event. Also, why did my rating drop? I had already been rated on the events that were included, but I dropped a point?

how were those ratings generated? i'd like to try that, instead of my random estimations. if those are right, then my fourth round will be 25 points higher than i thought.

i also noticed that a round i shot from the blue tees at knob hill on saturday was rated at 921, but the same round shot by the pros on Sunday was rated at 935. crazy ratings that depend upon whose propogating...

Newport News dropped you that point, Shane. May 25th was the cutoff for the last update, so that didn't go in until the June update.

The cutoff for this update was June 7th so Battlefield would not have made it for sure and VA Open could have made it but apparently didn't get their report in.

i also noticed that a round I shot from the blue tees at knob hill on saturday was rated at 921, but the same round shot by the pros on Sunday was rated at 935. crazy ratings that depend upon whose propogating...



You can't always trust the unofficial ratings online because you don't know if the TD got all of the layouts by division entered properly (or at all). If all divisions played exactly the same layout both days (because the course only has one tee and pin per hole), then the variance is most likely weather differences and then just statistical variance from a different pool of propagators. And even this may turn out to be less once ratings are done officially.

Serious question, not a flame�. Why am I asked to submit scoring changes when they are never in the ratings updates? Should I just stop wasting my time?

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6018&year=2006&include_ratings=1#Intermediate

Chris Caldwell�s 2nd round started with two 7�s.

I don't understand your question? What scoring changes are you being asked to make? If someone is late to start a round and takes par+4 on some early holes, the score should be reported as earned and not reduced for reporting. However, it's likely that player's score will be rejected within the ratings process to be used for calculating SSA that round and the round rating might be excluded in that person's personal rating calc. The TD does not have to do anything but report the correct score for this to happen.

You can't always trust the unofficial ratings online because you don't know if the TD got all of the layouts by division entered properly (or at all). If all divisions played exactly the same layout both days (because the course only has one tee and pin per hole), then the variance is most likely weather differences and then just statistical variance from a different pool of propagators. And even this may turn out to be less once ratings are done officially.



Chuck, the layouts seems like they're correct, because nothing is dramatically off (I'm talking about the PFDO on June 17, 18) The weather was pretty much the same both days also.

Would the Am ratings come out lower if the only propogators were Ams, and the Pros come out higher because the only props were Pros?

- 2nd round for Ams was blue tees at Knob Hill, while the 3rd round for the Pros was also blue tees at Knob Hill. Ratings are showing a 15 point difference with the Pros higher.
- 1st round for Pros was white tees at Moraine, while the 3rd round for Ams was also white tees at Moraine. Once again, ratings are showing about a 12 point difference with the Pros being higher.
- The ratings that ScottLithicum generated for the 4th round show the same score rated 25 points higher than what the Ams were rated on the same layout when we played it the first round.

Just wondering how all this junk works...

I don't understand your question? What scoring changes are you being asked to make? If someone is late to start a round and takes par+4 on some early holes, the score should be reported as earned and not reduced for reporting. However, it's likely that player's score will be rejected within the ratings process to be used for calculating SSA that round and the round rating might be excluded in that person's personal rating calc. The TD does not have to do anything but report the correct score for this to happen.



Well, if the rating is still supposed to count, then that answers my question. IMO, a round should be automatically dropped if someone misses holes. What if Ken or Barry missed 6 holes, that would be a ratings disaster as everyone would be bumped. The same type of disaster can occur for an individuals rating. You get a 840 that you did not earn and all of a sudden you can play ma2 instead of ma1.

Now the question remains. Why do you ask for notes to player�s scores in the TD report if they are not used? There appears to be no reason for me to note: Chris C took two 7�s for being late during round 2, if it is not being used to drop altered rounds�

Sometimes the scoring notes indicate that penalties or DQ were applied for misconduct types of reasons, not just sleeping late. I guess PDGA office would want to know that in the event future disciplinary actions were warranted.

Since no player will get a rating included that's more than 100 points below their rating, any player who takes +4 on the first three holes will likely have that round dropped anyway. If they are pro level (smaller std dev), even rounds with two holes of +4 will likely be dropped and not be included in the SSA calc.

- The ratings that ScottLinthicum generated for the 4th round show the same score rated 25 points higher than what the Ams were rated on the same layout when we played it the first round.




I would attribute that to a couple of things. ONe being that alot of times higher rated players playing a layout generate slightly higher ratings for all. Secondly it was the final round where you would imagine there is alot of risk being taken at the bottom and very little risk being taken at the top. So you end up with some of the top guys shooting alittle worse then normal just trying to hold on and the players that are way back taking some risks that will potentially cost them a few strokes alot of the time.You also have the final round Ace factor sometimes too, where those that are not going to cash revert to trying to get cash the only way they can and thats by hitting an ace. Running for those aces will most likely give them a worse score. In the end a majority of players play some strokes higher then they may have in anything but the finals.

PS I used a League Ratings Calculator that I got from someone awhile back...they arent dead on but should be real close.

Is the morning round the same as an afternoon round on the same course and "identical" weather conditions? Not really. Some players are fatigued, have different biorhythms, are playing with different people, and usually not recognized, is the difference in lighting all over the course from the sun's position. All of these can affect the scoring under what seems to be the same conditions.

There is an effect that used to give higher rated pools better ratings. However, a ratings adjustment factor is now in the formula that neutralizes that effect on average so that you'll see just as many "identical" rounds where the Ams get better ratings than pros and vice versa. The other aspect that comes into play is courses where, for whatever reason, they play tougher for lower rated players than expected or vice versa.

The KC Wide sent in their scores for round ratings before the deadline you extended. What keeps that tourney from being on ratings?

Considering KC Wide was after the June 7th deadline, they couldn't get in.

My mistake.

chuck, consider atwo round event with 3.5 hour rounds and 1.5 hours for lunch. pool A players will play their last hole just 1.5 hours from the player in pool B who start on that hole. but they will play it 3.25 hours after their poolmates who started on the hole.

every single one of the reasons you list for rating pools seperately will effect players in the same pool more than players in opposing pools.

Except that overall scores are what we're talking about, not individual holes. On average, the lighting will be 5 hours later, the energy level will be five hours later, the dew may be gone, the grass is even taller, on average. That's also the reason why stagger start rounds like USDGC and Memorial are very suspect in terms of fairness for those starting at 8am in the morining versus those starting at 2pm.

There's another interesting effect that cumulatively may make a difference. In the majority of shotgun rounds, the average player rating decreases as the starting hole number increases. If courses are typically "easier" on the front nine versus back nine, then lower rated players on average are starting their rounds on a tougher section of the course. Not sure what this means but I thought it was interesting to ponder in terms of some of the high versus low rating pool differences being discussed.

Pretty frustrating to Play the Gator Country Classic back in April and still not have the rounds count toward a rating. Tourney was run well but obviously paperwork is not the forte of the TD.

Here's something for the wish list -- being a Pro GM, I would like to see ratings also broken down by age also so I can see how I stack up against my peers. It seems like this was done at 1 time but no longer is. Any plans to sort by age?

Yes. It's been on the tech 'to do' list for quite a while. Just for fun, here are the top 20 MPG who have played in the either 2005 or 2006 whose rating is based on at least 4 rounds:

<table border="1"><tr><td> 1018</td><td>Wisecup</td><td>Steve Cup
</td></tr><tr><td>1011</td><td>Voakes</td><td>Rick
</td></tr><tr><td>1008</td><td>McDaniel</td><td>Stan
</td></tr><tr><td>1004</td><td>Marx</td><td>Eric
</td></tr><tr><td>1002</td><td>Greenwell</td><td>David
</td></tr><tr><td>1000</td><td>Sias</td><td>Johnny
</td></tr><tr><td>995</td><td>Pierson</td><td>Snapper
</td></tr><tr><td>992</td><td>Monroe</td><td>Tom
</td></tr><tr><td>992</td><td>Slasor</td><td>Steve
</td></tr><tr><td>992</td><td>Henry</td><td>Glenn
</td></tr><tr><td>992</td><td>Zink</td><td>Wayne
</td></tr><tr><td>991</td><td>Beers</td><td>Randy
</td></tr><tr><td>991</td><td>Wilson</td><td>Robbie
</td></tr><tr><td>990</td><td>Linton</td><td>John
</td></tr><tr><td>989</td><td>Barry</td><td>J. Michael
</td></tr><tr><td>989</td><td>Whitlock</td><td>Glen Whitler
</td></tr><tr><td>987</td><td>LeVan</td><td>David
</td></tr><tr><td>986</td><td>Wolfe</td><td>Lavone
</td></tr><tr><td>985</td><td>Salaz</td><td>Fred
</td></tr><tr><td>984</td><td>Harris</td><td>Bob
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

How about under 18? :p

These are the only PDGA pro members that will be under 18 by the end of the year:
<table border="1"><tr><td> 1010</td><td>Gurthie</td><td>Garrett
</td></tr><tr><td>995</td><td>Hall</td><td>Matt
</td></tr><tr><td>988</td><td>�str�m</td><td>Linus
</td></tr><tr><td>966</td><td>Watanabe</td><td>Tasuku
</td></tr><tr><td>964</td><td>Betea</td><td>Andrei
</td></tr><tr><td>959</td><td>Steinert-Threlkeld</td><td>Shane Shanest
</td></tr><tr><td>956</td><td>Sauls</td><td>Coral
</td></tr><tr><td>938</td><td>Arthur</td><td>Aaron
</td></tr><tr><td>901</td><td>Nagaoka</td><td>Kenta
</td></tr><tr><td>856</td><td>Yamaguchi</td><td>Mikoto
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

I know the top two!

coral is from SC and possibly cashed all four days at the points bonanza in Charlotte.

wow, Coral did cash all 4 days. He also had 3 1000+ rated rounds. I'm pretty sure you've got a FEW years on him. He's coming for ya. And me. He'll probably pass me in 1 or 2 ratings periods.

coral is an amazing talent. When he was 10 he complained that to me during a round that he didnt like the hole we were playing b/c he threw mainly sidearms and this hole set up for a backhand hyzer and he could only throw that shot 320.

I quickly reminded him he was 10.

How about the players rated under 23 from NC

I bet I'm 3rd on that list!

4th among those born in 1983 or later.

hmmm

JJ, Jack Schmalfeld and Rory Joyce - I always forget Rory is my age!

I'm #1 in MN and states touching it for those born in 1955 and earlier. :) (#4 if all MPGs in those states included which includes 1956)

How about the players rated under 23 from NC

I bet I'm 3rd on that list!



I'm 12 years older, been playing for less time and am whooping ya!

I'm #1 in MN and states touching it for those born in 1955 and earlier. :) (#4 if all MPGs in those states included which includes 1956)



i bet i'm ranked #1 for all pdga members born on aug 6th 1960 :D

even without my virginia open rounds :p

after this weekend probably not even rated #1 on my own birthday...

990 rated round followed by 3(THREE) 920 rated rounds

2 stroke lead in first place to out of cash fifth place finish... :( :(

bad elbow which never loosened up helped do me in....

2...(worlds and usdgc which are paid for)or maybe 3 more events and then i'm am for sure done...getting out of disc golf while i can still lift my arm....

time to find another job where my arm doesn't get destroyed while working :eek:

keith