Would you prefer your player ranking on a natinal level as opposed to a player rating where lot sof players have the same rating?

where would you get the ranking from ?
Player rating ?
If that is the case just do some counting as I have done .
I am a 944 advanced player who is around 360 ( tied with oh about 45 players ) out of 5514ish in advanced and compared to the pros I am 1350 ( tied with about 5 players ) some out of 2200 some
Which means I would be ranked , given the numbers above about 1700 ( give or take 50 ) out of 6900 .
Not that difficult to figure out .
Now with the difficulty of the delay of ratings updates , this becomes a little more complicated .

During the last four months we've been developing a World ranking system, initially for the top 100 players or so, that will blend ratings with finish position(s) at Pro Worlds, USDGC and European Championships and/or Open when they have them. First published version will be after the February ratings update which is the final ratings for 2005.

I'll tell you why I wouldn't prefer rankings to ratings.

They are less useful.
They are less accessible(once WCP of a course layout is known and published).
They are less accurate.

That being said, they could be a lot of fun, so I support their development.

i do like the idea of a ranking system, although i don't prefer it to replace ratings. Rankings would be good for the reason I mentioned on the ratings thread, that being that when you sort by ratings, alot of guys are mixed in that only have like 1 or 2 events played. i kind of discount them as their ratings are likely to be very inaccurate since they are based off of only a couple rounds (probably from their home course).

During the last four months we've been developing a World ranking system, initially for the top 100 players or so, that will blend ratings with finish position(s) at Pro Worlds, USDGC and European Championships and/or Open when they have them. First published version will be after the February ratings update which is the final ratings for 2005.



Su-weet! I better go practice!

Chuck,
Good to hear the pdga will be coming up with a ranking.
Will there be anyway to update it each week, like they do in college basketball?
Seeing your ranking go up or down each week will surely help to get members playing in more PDGA events.
A ranking will create much more hype on a national level and incentive to play more events. Of course it will also creat more controversy too, but we all no thats just part of disc golf :(

I had some formulas That I was working on before the player rating system was launched and would be curious to see how the rankings will be done.
I'm guessing you will be using the SSA of the courses when ranking players against each other who NEVER play against each other. Seeing as though tees and pin placements change all the time, even during an event I figured scores from each weeks events were best to use.
I used a strength of field multiplier as a barometer and related it to your score in comparison to the average or mean ( I cant remember which off the top of my head).
This seemed like the best way to move players up or down on a weekly basis.


Will there be a certain number of events played in to be eligible for the ranking?
A minnimum number of events played could also creat more incentive to travel and compete!

Will you be using all pdga events or just A tiers and NT?

It will initially be updated only when ratings are updated a few times a year until we're satisfied with the process and players are satisfied with the weighting factors involved including our International partners. The calculations will initially be done for men with ratings above 999 based on a minimum number of rounds (to be determined) and women above 899. We're looking at limiting the rating calculation to rounds at B-tiers and higher. For international players, we may have to include rounds from their C-tiers depending on the country.

Ratings will probably be worth at least 50% of the ranking and finish position in Worlds, USDGC and/or European Championship/Open will make up the rest. If you don't play in at least two of those events, you'll still be included but will be dropped down a certain number of positions.

Chuck,
I guess my first question would be is any of the funding for this coming from the pdga or will any of its hired staff be spending there time on it?
If so, I feel if we should include as many players as possible ( maybe down to ratings of 955 or even 900)
I'm sure it would help create more competition as well as increase attendance at events.
Why does this orginization have to cater to the TOP players?
It may mean as much to a 200 ranked player to watch himself climb as a top 10 guy.
I know we had 180 club memebers with bag tags last year and there was a lot of action alll the way down in the 100's.
Our bag tag helped creat moor local competition and a national ranking all the way down to 1000 players should be the goal!

It's not specifically a PDGA project, just Roger and Chuck for the time being. The ratings are more than acceptable for most players to determine ranking. Only the top ball golfers have rankings because they regularly face each other on tour in a series. Handicaps are the ranking mechanism for the majority of ball golfers just like ratings are for disc golf. However, we do have some head to head competitions among our top players including international players and these results can be used besides ratings. So, a ranking system for them starts to make some sense. But, we don't have common events played by players much below the top, especially lower rated international players, so ratings are the only thing that makes sense for now.

Like I said in my previous post,
You can use the player ratings as a strength of field multiplier and use the average or mean as the barometer as to " how well you shot that week". This is how you can compare players from week to week and adjust their ranking without having them playing against each other.
College basketball ranks their teams each week, why cant we?

Is it mostly because of slow reporting or are there other reasons??

i dont understand why you want a specific ranking. we could easily publish a table in 5 or 10 rating point bands showing the number of players in each band. that would tell you the same thing.

we could also write a very small piece of code that counts how many players are RATED higher than your rating, and give you the exact number.

in the middle areas, say from 890 to 940 there are many ties of course, so you'd be tied at that ranking.

should be interesting to see what the Rankings would be.

It's just one more thing for players to bi*ch about. 'I should be ranked higher than this guy, this guy sucks, why is he higher than me??'
Expect lots of that should this ever surface.

I think what Dave was referring to was a little more realtime than what we could pull from existing data on the site. That would require much more timely reporting from the TDs and a body to keep the stats up to date every week.

Dave -

Answer: College Basketball has 100x the resources of PDGA. How much work do you think would be involved in updating ratings week to week? Remember we're talking ratings for several thousand players , as opposed to a few hundred college b-ball teams. My guess is close to 1 more full time staff person. If you are prepared to provide us with an extra $30K for each of the next 2-3 years, then we should be able to make your wish come true.


If I had an extra 30K I'm thinking of a few better ideas for me to spend it on, but if the pdga were to raise the pro players dues to a $100.00 per year,would that help?
Are you afraid less pro players wouldnt sign up for the pdga if the dues were raised?

i dont understand why you want a specific ranking. we could easily publish a table in 5 or 10 rating point bands showing the number of players in each band. that would tell you the same thing.

we could also write a very small piece of code that counts how many players are RATED higher than your rating, and give you the exact number.



in the middle areas, say from 890 to 940 there are many ties of course, so you'd be tied at that ranking.



The reason is simple; it will create more incentive to compete, for the players who want to be ranked.
This will be specially true if it is updated weekly :cool:

I see Marshall street has developed a Ranking Sytstem for last years NT events, worlds, players cup, the innova championships and Msdgc?

In my opinion they have done a lot of hard work, but it is not perfected yet. A good place to start, but feel it should include A tiers as well.

Why do you think all other individual sports rank ther players instead of rate them?
It's to create the competition among them!!!!!
If a players is barely ranked above you and you beat him one week, you move up and he moves down.
Believe me, this will have that guy out the next week trying to climb back up in the rankings.

This is a very worth while thing for the pdga to invest time and money into.

I may start another poll on ranks VS ratigs, does anyone have a suggestion on how to word it better?

Why do you think all other individual sports rank their players instead of rate them?




They don't. What's your ball golf ranking? Is it 127,423rd or perhaps a 12 handicap? Is it 10,368th in tennis or 3.0? Is it 87,345th or 1155 in chess? Only the top players get ranked. The rest of the players have ratings of some sort.

Chuck ,'I get the point about only ranking the top pros, but maybe we should at leat rank 500 players.

Here is a copy of an email I sent Steve Dodge.

Your the math guy, maybe you can help with a formula here;

Steve,
I will call you once I go back over some of my old notes on the ranking system.
Ill try right now by memory.
The idea would be to start with an initial ranking of players or use the existing player ratings to develop a strength of field barometer for the event.
Lets say the average rating for the open field of 60 players for an event on the east coast was 960 and the average score was 68.
your ranking nationally is 45 and you shoot 68.

Now lets say there is an event on the west coast where there was also 60 players but the average player rating was 980, the avearge score 54 and you, ranked 46, shoot a 54.
I cant remember off the top of my head, but I was working on a formula where the player who matched the average score at the west coast event with the higher average player rating or stronger field would jump in front because his round is better compared to the field.
This is just an example of how it would work and not really the formula, but you should get the idea.
Of course the trick would be for ALL TD's to get the PDGA all of the results by tuesday and the pdga spit back out the new Rankings by Thursday.
Realistically it could be done each month at first.
I ama frim beliver that the PDGA should develop a staff and run the NT events,
That way they w ould have the numbers and could get the ranking updated each week eventually.

I know this seems like a pipe dream but for the money the pdga is charging per player for yearly dues and at each event, combined with the annual increase in sanctioned evenst ( which I think also went up) it seems like a hired staff memebnr to keep track of the rankings is a good way to spend some of the increased revenue.

Chuck,
How much do you get paid by the pdga for all you do?

Why do you think all other individual sports rank their players instead of rate them?




They don't. What's your ball golf ranking? Is it 127,423rd or perhaps a 12 handicap? Is it 10,368th in tennis or 3.0? Is it 87,345th or 1155 in chess? Only the top players get ranked. The rest of the players have ratings of some sort.


Excellent point/post.

When the PDGA rankings come out, they will be global, not just North America. North American players play each other much more frequently and ratings can handle that below the top level. So far, worldwide players see each other only at the USDGC, Pro Worlds, European Open/Championships and Japan Open, and the attendance could still be better at those. For the time being, it only makes sense to rank the 100 or so men with ratings above 1000 based on a minimum number of events, and women over 900. Plus, we'll include the top rated man and woman in each country with PDGA members.

I think you should do it for the age-protected divisions, too -- give we older people something to shoot for

There are quite a few players from the older divisions who will be included among men over 1000 rating and women over 900. What we can do is break them out into additional age based rank lists so the older divisions know who they are.

I may start another poll on ranks VS ratigs, does anyone have a suggestion on how to word it better?



You could maybe try allowing only "one" vote for the two choices! :o

I may start another poll on ranks VS ratigs, does anyone have a suggestion on how to word it better?

or even spell it better? :D

I thought the question was fairly worded if not well spelled. I'm glad to see that a veto-proof majority ;) prefers a rating over a ranking. It is easy enough to figure your ranking from your rating, but you cannot figure a rating from a ranking.

I thought the ranking was based on performance against other ranked players, not on ratings ?

If so, there is no easy way to convert from ratings to rankings.

I thought the ranking was based on performance against other ranked players, not on ratings ?

If so, there is no easy way to convert from ratings to rankings.


Exactly the point!
In my opinion, Ratings are for Handicapping and recreational golfers, while the rankings would be for the more serious competitors and touring players.

I have been playing disc golf in pdga events for 23 years.
I am constantly asked, Are you ranked or what is your ranking?

A good ranking system will be difficult to perfect and may take time and money to develop, but it will eventually bring about more competition, while the ratings will then become meaningless to the serious golfers!

I know Chuck and others have done a lot of hard work on getting the ratings perfected but the reality is, a ranking system is much more important for the growth of the pro divison and highest level of competitors within the Amateur divisions as well!!! :cool:

Well not really for the amatuers unless it becomes more than just a personal decision to become a Pro player.

Gduke,
For players who have careers or real jobs, striving to be a top amateur disc golfer should be something to be proud of and these amateurs players would also liked to be ranked.

For years Am players have been pressured into turning pro, where are they all now?
Sure some have came back as ams and some are even in the Masters, but very few who were forced to move up are still around.

Being a top ranked am for someone with a full time job is much more realistic that ever being a top ranked pro.

I'm not arguing your point about the desire to be ranked, the problem is the highest ranking players will be the up and coming Pros passing thru the Am ranks.

I don't think that there would have been nearly the push into the Pro ranks if ratings had been available in the past, but now the ratings lag for rapidly improving players keeps some players playing Am well after they are capable of playing 1000 rated golf consistently. It will be hard for a true Am player to compete with those players that are just passing thru.

Where does that place you (947) and i (946)? i am curious where the ratings bunchings are. if 700 out of 15,000 are higher than 970, how many are at 960 or above, 950 or above, 940 or above, 930 or above, etc.?

could we have a chart? (if there already is one please link me and pardon the request) :D

Gduke,
For players who have careers or real jobs, striving to be a top amateur disc golfer should be something to be proud of and these amateurs players would also liked to be ranked.

For years Am players have been pressured into turning pro, where are they all now?
Sure some have came back as ams and some are even in the Masters, but very few who were forced to move up are still around.

Being a top ranked am for someone with a full time job is much more realistic that ever being a top ranked pro.


This is a true statement for me,i went pro ( not forced ) alot of ribbing from other pros but not forced.I took two last cash over the course of a four year period, but my game or skills as a player never really developed to what i'd hoped for.Luckly for me my rating sucked enough to allow the PDGA to let me play ams again,now discgolf is fun and i have started to play more tourniment again.Yes i have a full time job and a family so for me a ranking really doesn't matter and i'm sure that holds true for alot of other ams,because for us it's just about having fun on a competitive level.Maybe the PDGA should think about breaking the ams and the pros into two seperate originations, and just rank the pros
my 2 cents
TFO

i did such a chart for the sept ratings. its somewhere on this board. i will run a new one for the current ratings, and in smaller bands (in sept i used 10 rating point bands) and publish it here.

you Roc! or Buzzz! in any case, thanks Pat! :D

in the meantime, here is the graph from 09-15-2005 ratings

http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/ratingdistribution.htm

Thanks Pat. Do you know how many members we had at the time of that chart who had no rating at all (yet)?

Brian had used 14,720 -- does that mean there are 6000 current members with no rating (yet)?

Marshall Street is also developing a ranking system. This will complement the current PDGA Rating system. We have actually calculated the Players of the Year for 2005.

Players had to compete against over 200 other players in A Tier events (and above) throughout the course of the year. In the future, we will be adding a minimum events criteria as well as the minimum number of players competed against.

The rankings are here:

http://www.marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/2005DG_Ranking.html

They are based on Modified Winning Percentage (MWP). What is MWP: In simple terms, it measures the quality of players that you compete against, and adjusts your winning percentage accordingly. For example, if Steve Brinster (#18) defeats Dave Feldberg (#10), his MWP gets a bigger bump than if he had beaten Mitch Sonderfan (#42). Similarly, if Steve Brinster loses to Dave Feldberg, his MWP will go down less than if he had lost to Mitch Sonderfan. How MWP is calculated. (http://www.marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/MWP.html)

This is also an international ranking system and we will be compiling rankings for every player that meets the minimum tournament / competitor criteria.

Steve,
You mentioned that players had to compete against 200 other players.
Scott is 59-1 so does that mean he only competed agianst 60 other players?
If so why is he on the list?

Looks like maybe 1200 members are playing at a pro level (955 and above) and of those 1200 maybe 100 are am.s?
Also, only 415 are at 980 or above and thus have a serious chance of winning A tiers...

The 905 rated player seems to be the average constituent...
That said, I'd still like one of our main focuses to be to increase payouts and media coverage at Major Events where the very best disc golfers are competing...

What percentage of our membership votes in PDGA elections?

... just thinking out loud... and inviting feedback.

Thanks Pat. Do you know how many members we had at the time of that chart who had no rating at all (yet)?

Brian had used 14,720 -- does that mean there are 6000 current members with no rating (yet)?

not quite. brian's 14720 includes anyone who ever had a pdga rating and was a PDGA member. so if their last rated round was in 1999 and they have not renewed since 1999, they would still be part of brians 14720.

here is the breakout based on "member-as-of-12-31" dates:

2004: 8037
2003: 9628
2002: 11032
2001: 12128
2000: 12978
1999: 13589
all: 14720

the reason this is important is that rankings should not include players who have not been official players "lately". i think its reasonable to exclude anyone who has not been an official player since 12-31-2003, which would mean a ranking based on 9628 "active" members

here is the raw data for a ratings based ranking, using players who have been official players since 2005. with this data, a 1000 rated player can confidently state that he is ranked 115th, a 955 player 1219th, and a 915 player 3485th:

<table border="1"><tr><td>Rating</td><td>Number</td><td>Rank
</td></tr><tr><td>1037</td><td>1</td><td>1
</td></tr><tr><td>1033</td><td>2</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>1032</td><td>1</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>1031</td><td>1</td><td>5
</td></tr><tr><td>1028</td><td>1</td><td>6
</td></tr><tr><td>1027</td><td>4</td><td>7
</td></tr><tr><td>1025</td><td>1</td><td>11
</td></tr><tr><td>1024</td><td>1</td><td>12
</td></tr><tr><td>1023</td><td>1</td><td>13
</td></tr><tr><td>1022</td><td>1</td><td>14
</td></tr><tr><td>1021</td><td>2</td><td>15
</td></tr><tr><td>1020</td><td>5</td><td>17
</td></tr><tr><td>1019</td><td>2</td><td>22
</td></tr><tr><td>1018</td><td>2</td><td>24
</td></tr><tr><td>1017</td><td>5</td><td>26
</td></tr><tr><td>1016</td><td>5</td><td>31
</td></tr><tr><td>1015</td><td>5</td><td>36
</td></tr><tr><td>1014</td><td>4</td><td>41
</td></tr><tr><td>1013</td><td>6</td><td>45
</td></tr><tr><td>1012</td><td>7</td><td>51
</td></tr><tr><td>1011</td><td>2</td><td>58
</td></tr><tr><td>1010</td><td>4</td><td>60
</td></tr><tr><td>1009</td><td>7</td><td>64
</td></tr><tr><td>1008</td><td>4</td><td>71
</td></tr><tr><td>1007</td><td>3</td><td>75
</td></tr><tr><td>1006</td><td>7</td><td>78
</td></tr><tr><td>1005</td><td>5</td><td>85
</td></tr><tr><td>1004</td><td>6</td><td>90
</td></tr><tr><td>1003</td><td>2</td><td>96
</td></tr><tr><td>1002</td><td>8</td><td>98
</td></tr><tr><td>1001</td><td>9</td><td>106
</td></tr><tr><td>1000</td><td>7</td><td>115
</td></tr><tr><td>999</td><td>11</td><td>122
</td></tr><tr><td>998</td><td>7</td><td>133
</td></tr><tr><td>997</td><td>11</td><td>140
</td></tr><tr><td>996</td><td>8</td><td>151
</td></tr><tr><td>995</td><td>13</td><td>159
</td></tr><tr><td>994</td><td>15</td><td>172
</td></tr><tr><td>993</td><td>9</td><td>187
</td></tr><tr><td>992</td><td>10</td><td>196
</td></tr><tr><td>991</td><td>19</td><td>206
</td></tr><tr><td>990</td><td>11</td><td>225
</td></tr><tr><td>989</td><td>17</td><td>236
</td></tr><tr><td>988</td><td>19</td><td>253
</td></tr><tr><td>987</td><td>18</td><td>272
</td></tr><tr><td>986</td><td>13</td><td>290
</td></tr><tr><td>985</td><td>18</td><td>303
</td></tr><tr><td>984</td><td>20</td><td>321
</td></tr><tr><td>983</td><td>24</td><td>341
</td></tr><tr><td>982</td><td>26</td><td>365
</td></tr><tr><td>981</td><td>21</td><td>391
</td></tr><tr><td>980</td><td>27</td><td>412
</td></tr><tr><td>979</td><td>25</td><td>439
</td></tr><tr><td>978</td><td>35</td><td>464
</td></tr><tr><td>977</td><td>20</td><td>499
</td></tr><tr><td>976</td><td>27</td><td>519
</td></tr><tr><td>975</td><td>30</td><td>546
</td></tr><tr><td>974</td><td>24</td><td>576
</td></tr><tr><td>973</td><td>30</td><td>600
</td></tr><tr><td>972</td><td>29</td><td>630
</td></tr><tr><td>971</td><td>28</td><td>659
</td></tr><tr><td>970</td><td>30</td><td>687
</td></tr><tr><td>969</td><td>31</td><td>717
</td></tr><tr><td>968</td><td>38</td><td>748
</td></tr><tr><td>967</td><td>29</td><td>786
</td></tr><tr><td>966</td><td>28</td><td>815
</td></tr><tr><td>965</td><td>27</td><td>843
</td></tr><tr><td>964</td><td>31</td><td>870
</td></tr><tr><td>963</td><td>24</td><td>901
</td></tr><tr><td>962</td><td>34</td><td>925
</td></tr><tr><td>961</td><td>40</td><td>959
</td></tr><tr><td>960</td><td>37</td><td>999
</td></tr><tr><td>959</td><td>45</td><td>1036
</td></tr><tr><td>958</td><td>45</td><td>1081
</td></tr><tr><td>957</td><td>50</td><td>1126
</td></tr><tr><td>956</td><td>43</td><td>1176
</td></tr><tr><td>955</td><td>44</td><td>1219
</td></tr><tr><td>954</td><td>45</td><td>1263
</td></tr><tr><td>953</td><td>35</td><td>1308
</td></tr><tr><td>952</td><td>60</td><td>1343
</td></tr><tr><td>951</td><td>52</td><td>1403
</td></tr><tr><td>950</td><td>45</td><td>1455
</td></tr><tr><td>949</td><td>56</td><td>1500
</td></tr><tr><td>948</td><td>58</td><td>1556
</td></tr><tr><td>947</td><td>44</td><td>1614
</td></tr><tr><td>946</td><td>51</td><td>1658
</td></tr><tr><td>945</td><td>56</td><td>1709
</td></tr><tr><td>944</td><td>65</td><td>1765
</td></tr><tr><td>943</td><td>59</td><td>1830
</td></tr><tr><td>942</td><td>60</td><td>1889
</td></tr><tr><td>941</td><td>50</td><td>1949
</td></tr><tr><td>940</td><td>49</td><td>1999
</td></tr><tr><td>939</td><td>43</td><td>2048
</td></tr><tr><td>938</td><td>55</td><td>2091
</td></tr><tr><td>937</td><td>55</td><td>2146
</td></tr><tr><td>936</td><td>57</td><td>2201
</td></tr><tr><td>935</td><td>62</td><td>2258
</td></tr><tr><td>934</td><td>66</td><td>2320
</td></tr><tr><td>933</td><td>49</td><td>2386
</td></tr><tr><td>932</td><td>68</td><td>2435
</td></tr><tr><td>931</td><td>71</td><td>2503
</td></tr><tr><td>930</td><td>59</td><td>2574
</td></tr><tr><td>929</td><td>60</td><td>2633
</td></tr><tr><td>928</td><td>60</td><td>2693
</td></tr><tr><td>927</td><td>58</td><td>2753
</td></tr><tr><td>926</td><td>55</td><td>2811
</td></tr><tr><td>925</td><td>56</td><td>2866
</td></tr><tr><td>924</td><td>61</td><td>2922
</td></tr><tr><td>923</td><td>50</td><td>2983
</td></tr><tr><td>922</td><td>66</td><td>3033
</td></tr><tr><td>921</td><td>58</td><td>3099
</td></tr><tr><td>920</td><td>65</td><td>3157
</td></tr><tr><td>919</td><td>77</td><td>3222
</td></tr><tr><td>918</td><td>58</td><td>3299
</td></tr><tr><td>917</td><td>64</td><td>3357
</td></tr><tr><td>916</td><td>64</td><td>3421
</td></tr><tr><td>915</td><td>65</td><td>3485
</td></tr><tr><td>914</td><td>62</td><td>3550
</td></tr><tr><td>913</td><td>63</td><td>3612
</td></tr><tr><td>912</td><td>59</td><td>3675
</td></tr><tr><td>911</td><td>67</td><td>3734
</td></tr><tr><td>910</td><td>62</td><td>3801
</td></tr><tr><td>909</td><td>47</td><td>3863
</td></tr><tr><td>908</td><td>71</td><td>3910
</td></tr><tr><td>907</td><td>61</td><td>3981
</td></tr><tr><td>906</td><td>58</td><td>4042
</td></tr><tr><td>905</td><td>52</td><td>4100
</td></tr><tr><td>904</td><td>76</td><td>4152
</td></tr><tr><td>903</td><td>61</td><td>4228
</td></tr><tr><td>902</td><td>50</td><td>4289
</td></tr><tr><td>901</td><td>63</td><td>4339
</td></tr><tr><td>900</td><td>53</td><td>4402
</td></tr><tr><td>899</td><td>56</td><td>4455
</td></tr><tr><td>898</td><td>62</td><td>4511
</td></tr><tr><td>897</td><td>58</td><td>4573
</td></tr><tr><td>896</td><td>48</td><td>4631
</td></tr><tr><td>895</td><td>56</td><td>4679
</td></tr><tr><td>894</td><td>54</td><td>4735
</td></tr><tr><td>893</td><td>58</td><td>4789
</td></tr><tr><td>892</td><td>55</td><td>4847
</td></tr><tr><td>891</td><td>47</td><td>4902
</td></tr><tr><td>890</td><td>49</td><td>4949
</td></tr><tr><td>889</td><td>52</td><td>4998
</td></tr><tr><td>888</td><td>65</td><td>5050
</td></tr><tr><td>887</td><td>44</td><td>5115
</td></tr><tr><td>886</td><td>44</td><td>5159
</td></tr><tr><td>885</td><td>47</td><td>5203
</td></tr><tr><td>884</td><td>40</td><td>5250
</td></tr><tr><td>883</td><td>40</td><td>5290
</td></tr><tr><td>882</td><td>45</td><td>5330
</td></tr><tr><td>881</td><td>47</td><td>5375
</td></tr><tr><td>880</td><td>35</td><td>5422
</td></tr><tr><td>879</td><td>43</td><td>5457
</td></tr><tr><td>878</td><td>43</td><td>5500
</td></tr><tr><td>877</td><td>36</td><td>5543
</td></tr><tr><td>876</td><td>35</td><td>5579
</td></tr><tr><td>875</td><td>41</td><td>5614
</td></tr><tr><td>874</td><td>42</td><td>5655
</td></tr><tr><td>873</td><td>42</td><td>5697
</td></tr><tr><td>872</td><td>37</td><td>5739
</td></tr><tr><td>871</td><td>40</td><td>5776
</td></tr><tr><td>870</td><td>34</td><td>5816
</td></tr><tr><td>869</td><td>39</td><td>5850
</td></tr><tr><td>868</td><td>50</td><td>5889
</td></tr><tr><td>867</td><td>41</td><td>5939
</td></tr><tr><td>866</td><td>33</td><td>5980
</td></tr><tr><td>865</td><td>36</td><td>6013
</td></tr><tr><td>864</td><td>26</td><td>6049
</td></tr><tr><td>863</td><td>26</td><td>6075
</td></tr><tr><td>862</td><td>48</td><td>6101
</td></tr><tr><td>861</td><td>31</td><td>6149
</td></tr><tr><td>860</td><td>30</td><td>6180
</td></tr><tr><td>859</td><td>36</td><td>6210
</td></tr><tr><td>858</td><td>37</td><td>6246
</td></tr><tr><td>857</td><td>31</td><td>6283
</td></tr><tr><td>856</td><td>34</td><td>6314
</td></tr><tr><td>855</td><td>25</td><td>6348
</td></tr><tr><td>854</td><td>30</td><td>6373
</td></tr><tr><td>853</td><td>31</td><td>6403
</td></tr><tr><td>852</td><td>36</td><td>6434
</td></tr><tr><td>851</td><td>25</td><td>6470
</td></tr><tr><td>850</td><td>21</td><td>6495
</td></tr><tr><td>849</td><td>24</td><td>6516
</td></tr><tr><td>848</td><td>32</td><td>6540
</td></tr><tr><td>847</td><td>26</td><td>6572
</td></tr><tr><td>846</td><td>21</td><td>6598
</td></tr><tr><td>845</td><td>17</td><td>6619
</td></tr><tr><td>844</td><td>23</td><td>6636
</td></tr><tr><td>843</td><td>34</td><td>6659
</td></tr><tr><td>842</td><td>21</td><td>6693
</td></tr><tr><td>841</td><td>22</td><td>6714
</td></tr><tr><td>840</td><td>26</td><td>6736
</td></tr><tr><td>839</td><td>20</td><td>6762
</td></tr><tr><td>838</td><td>21</td><td>6782
</td></tr><tr><td>837</td><td>21</td><td>6803
</td></tr><tr><td>836</td><td>17</td><td>6824
</td></tr><tr><td>835</td><td>22</td><td>6841
</td></tr><tr><td>834</td><td>18</td><td>6863
</td></tr><tr><td>833</td><td>16</td><td>6881
</td></tr><tr><td>832</td><td>17</td><td>6897
</td></tr><tr><td>831</td><td>24</td><td>6914
</td></tr><tr><td>830</td><td>11</td><td>6938
</td></tr><tr><td>829</td><td>10</td><td>6949
</td></tr><tr><td>828</td><td>14</td><td>6959
</td></tr><tr><td>827</td><td>16</td><td>6973
</td></tr><tr><td>826</td><td>14</td><td>6989
</td></tr><tr><td>825</td><td>13</td><td>7003
</td></tr><tr><td>824</td><td>13</td><td>7016
</td></tr><tr><td>823</td><td>18</td><td>7029
</td></tr><tr><td>822</td><td>9</td><td>7047
</td></tr><tr><td>821</td><td>12</td><td>7056
</td></tr><tr><td>820</td><td>19</td><td>7068
</td></tr><tr><td>819</td><td>9</td><td>7087
</td></tr><tr><td>818</td><td>18</td><td>7096
</td></tr><tr><td>817</td><td>12</td><td>7114
</td></tr><tr><td>816</td><td>9</td><td>7126
</td></tr><tr><td>815</td><td>16</td><td>7135
</td></tr><tr><td>814</td><td>17</td><td>7151
</td></tr><tr><td>813</td><td>8</td><td>7168
</td></tr><tr><td>812</td><td>11</td><td>7176
</td></tr><tr><td>811</td><td>13</td><td>7187
</td></tr><tr><td>810</td><td>15</td><td>7200
</td></tr><tr><td>809</td><td>9</td><td>7215
</td></tr><tr><td>808</td><td>16</td><td>7224
</td></tr><tr><td>807</td><td>14</td><td>7240
</td></tr><tr><td>806</td><td>11</td><td>7254
</td></tr><tr><td>805</td><td>13</td><td>7265
</td></tr><tr><td>804</td><td>10</td><td>7278
</td></tr><tr><td>803</td><td>18</td><td>7288
</td></tr><tr><td>802</td><td>15</td><td>7306
</td></tr><tr><td>801</td><td>14</td><td>7321
</td></tr><tr><td>800</td><td>12</td><td>7335
</td></tr><tr><td>799</td><td>18</td><td>7347
</td></tr><tr><td>798</td><td>15</td><td>7365
</td></tr><tr><td>797</td><td>12</td><td>7380
</td></tr><tr><td>796</td><td>9</td><td>7392
</td></tr><tr><td>795</td><td>10</td><td>7401
</td></tr><tr><td>794</td><td>12</td><td>7411
</td></tr><tr><td>793</td><td>6</td><td>7423
</td></tr><tr><td>792</td><td>9</td><td>7429
</td></tr><tr><td>791</td><td>7</td><td>7438
</td></tr><tr><td>790</td><td>6</td><td>7445
</td></tr><tr><td>789</td><td>7</td><td>7451
</td></tr><tr><td>788</td><td>9</td><td>7458
</td></tr><tr><td>787</td><td>9</td><td>7467
</td></tr><tr><td>786</td><td>12</td><td>7476
</td></tr><tr><td>785</td><td>7</td><td>7488
</td></tr><tr><td>784</td><td>11</td><td>7495
</td></tr><tr><td>783</td><td>6</td><td>7506
</td></tr><tr><td>782</td><td>8</td><td>7512
</td></tr><tr><td>781</td><td>11</td><td>7520
</td></tr><tr><td>780</td><td>11</td><td>7531
</td></tr><tr><td>779</td><td>8</td><td>7542
</td></tr><tr><td>778</td><td>7</td><td>7550
</td></tr><tr><td>777</td><td>8</td><td>7557
</td></tr><tr><td>776</td><td>10</td><td>7565
</td></tr><tr><td>775</td><td>11</td><td>7575
</td></tr><tr><td>774</td><td>4</td><td>7586
</td></tr><tr><td>773</td><td>8</td><td>7590
</td></tr><tr><td>772</td><td>6</td><td>7598
</td></tr><tr><td>771</td><td>5</td><td>7604
</td></tr><tr><td>770</td><td>2</td><td>7609
</td></tr><tr><td>769</td><td>4</td><td>7611
</td></tr><tr><td>768</td><td>5</td><td>7615
</td></tr><tr><td>767</td><td>4</td><td>7620
</td></tr><tr><td>766</td><td>7</td><td>7624
</td></tr><tr><td>765</td><td>3</td><td>7631
</td></tr><tr><td>764</td><td>8</td><td>7634
</td></tr><tr><td>763</td><td>4</td><td>7642
</td></tr><tr><td>762</td><td>10</td><td>7646
</td></tr><tr><td>761</td><td>4</td><td>7656
</td></tr><tr><td>760</td><td>7</td><td>7660
</td></tr><tr><td>759</td><td>1</td><td>7667
</td></tr><tr><td>758</td><td>1</td><td>7668
</td></tr><tr><td>757</td><td>6</td><td>7669
</td></tr><tr><td>756</td><td>3</td><td>7675
</td></tr><tr><td>755</td><td>6</td><td>7678
</td></tr><tr><td>754</td><td>9</td><td>7684
</td></tr><tr><td>753</td><td>6</td><td>7693
</td></tr><tr><td>752</td><td>8</td><td>7699
</td></tr><tr><td>751</td><td>4</td><td>7707
</td></tr><tr><td>750</td><td>6</td><td>7711
</td></tr><tr><td>749</td><td>9</td><td>7717
</td></tr><tr><td>748</td><td>8</td><td>7726
</td></tr><tr><td>747</td><td>5</td><td>7734
</td></tr><tr><td>746</td><td>1</td><td>7739
</td></tr><tr><td>745</td><td>3</td><td>7740
</td></tr><tr><td>744</td><td>3</td><td>7743
</td></tr><tr><td>743</td><td>1</td><td>7746
</td></tr><tr><td>742</td><td>5</td><td>7747
</td></tr><tr><td>741</td><td>1</td><td>7752
</td></tr><tr><td>740</td><td>6</td><td>7753
</td></tr><tr><td>739</td><td>3</td><td>7759
</td></tr><tr><td>737</td><td>3</td><td>7762
</td></tr><tr><td>736</td><td>8</td><td>7765
</td></tr><tr><td>735</td><td>4</td><td>7773
</td></tr><tr><td>734</td><td>3</td><td>7777
</td></tr><tr><td>733</td><td>3</td><td>7780
</td></tr><tr><td>732</td><td>4</td><td>7783
</td></tr><tr><td>731</td><td>5</td><td>7787
</td></tr><tr><td>730</td><td>3</td><td>7792
</td></tr><tr><td>729</td><td>1</td><td>7795
</td></tr><tr><td>728</td><td>2</td><td>7796
</td></tr><tr><td>727</td><td>6</td><td>7798
</td></tr><tr><td>726</td><td>10</td><td>7804
</td></tr><tr><td>725</td><td>3</td><td>7814
</td></tr><tr><td>724</td><td>4</td><td>7817
</td></tr><tr><td>723</td><td>5</td><td>7821
</td></tr><tr><td>722</td><td>2</td><td>7826
</td></tr><tr><td>721</td><td>5</td><td>7828
</td></tr><tr><td>720</td><td>4</td><td>7833
</td></tr><tr><td>719</td><td>3</td><td>7837
</td></tr><tr><td>718</td><td>2</td><td>7840
</td></tr><tr><td>717</td><td>2</td><td>7842
</td></tr><tr><td>716</td><td>1</td><td>7844
</td></tr><tr><td>715</td><td>1</td><td>7845
</td></tr><tr><td>714</td><td>1</td><td>7846
</td></tr><tr><td>713</td><td>3</td><td>7847
</td></tr><tr><td>712</td><td>2</td><td>7850
</td></tr><tr><td>711</td><td>3</td><td>7852
</td></tr><tr><td>710</td><td>5</td><td>7855
</td></tr><tr><td>709</td><td>3</td><td>7860
</td></tr><tr><td>708</td><td>2</td><td>7863
</td></tr><tr><td>707</td><td>2</td><td>7865
</td></tr><tr><td>706</td><td>4</td><td>7867
</td></tr><tr><td>705</td><td>3</td><td>7871
</td></tr><tr><td>704</td><td>2</td><td>7874
</td></tr><tr><td>703</td><td>2</td><td>7876
</td></tr><tr><td>702</td><td>2</td><td>7878
</td></tr><tr><td>701</td><td>1</td><td>7880
</td></tr><tr><td>700</td><td>1</td><td>7881
</td></tr><tr><td>699</td><td>4</td><td>7882
</td></tr><tr><td>698</td><td>3</td><td>7886
</td></tr><tr><td>697</td><td>2</td><td>7889
</td></tr><tr><td>696</td><td>3</td><td>7891
</td></tr><tr><td>695</td><td>1</td><td>7894
</td></tr><tr><td>692</td><td>1</td><td>7895
</td></tr><tr><td>691</td><td>4</td><td>7896
</td></tr><tr><td>690</td><td>2</td><td>7900
</td></tr><tr><td>689</td><td>3</td><td>7902
</td></tr><tr><td>688</td><td>2</td><td>7905
</td></tr><tr><td>687</td><td>2</td><td>7907
</td></tr><tr><td>686</td><td>3</td><td>7909
</td></tr><tr><td>685</td><td>1</td><td>7912
</td></tr><tr><td>683</td><td>3</td><td>7913
</td></tr><tr><td>680</td><td>4</td><td>7916
</td></tr><tr><td>678</td><td>3</td><td>7920
</td></tr><tr><td>677</td><td>5</td><td>7923
</td></tr><tr><td>676</td><td>1</td><td>7928
</td></tr><tr><td>675</td><td>1</td><td>7929
</td></tr><tr><td>673</td><td>1</td><td>7930
</td></tr><tr><td>672</td><td>1</td><td>7931
</td></tr><tr><td>671</td><td>2</td><td>7932
</td></tr><tr><td>670</td><td>2</td><td>7934
</td></tr><tr><td>669</td><td>2</td><td>7936
</td></tr><tr><td>668</td><td>2</td><td>7938
</td></tr><tr><td>667</td><td>1</td><td>7940
</td></tr><tr><td>666</td><td>2</td><td>7941
</td></tr><tr><td>665</td><td>4</td><td>7943
</td></tr><tr><td>664</td><td>1</td><td>7947
</td></tr><tr><td>663</td><td>4</td><td>7948
</td></tr><tr><td>661</td><td>1</td><td>7952
</td></tr><tr><td>659</td><td>1</td><td>7953
</td></tr><tr><td>658</td><td>1</td><td>7954
</td></tr><tr><td>656</td><td>2</td><td>7955
</td></tr><tr><td>653</td><td>2</td><td>7957
</td></tr><tr><td>652</td><td>2</td><td>7959
</td></tr><tr><td>651</td><td>1</td><td>7961
</td></tr><tr><td>650</td><td>1</td><td>7962
</td></tr><tr><td>649</td><td>2</td><td>7963
</td></tr><tr><td>647</td><td>1</td><td>7965
</td></tr><tr><td>646</td><td>1</td><td>7966
</td></tr><tr><td>645</td><td>2</td><td>7967
</td></tr><tr><td>644</td><td>2</td><td>7969
</td></tr><tr><td>642</td><td>2</td><td>7971
</td></tr><tr><td>640</td><td>1</td><td>7973
</td></tr><tr><td>637</td><td>1</td><td>7974
</td></tr><tr><td>636</td><td>3</td><td>7975
</td></tr><tr><td>635</td><td>1</td><td>7978
</td></tr><tr><td>633</td><td>2</td><td>7979
</td></tr><tr><td>631</td><td>2</td><td>7981
</td></tr><tr><td>630</td><td>2</td><td>7983
</td></tr><tr><td>629</td><td>2</td><td>7985
</td></tr><tr><td>625</td><td>1</td><td>7987
</td></tr><tr><td>624</td><td>2</td><td>7988
</td></tr><tr><td>623</td><td>1</td><td>7990
</td></tr><tr><td>617</td><td>1</td><td>7991
</td></tr><tr><td>614</td><td>2</td><td>7992
</td></tr><tr><td>612</td><td>1</td><td>7994
</td></tr><tr><td>611</td><td>1</td><td>7995
</td></tr><tr><td>609</td><td>1</td><td>7996
</td></tr><tr><td>608</td><td>1</td><td>7997
</td></tr><tr><td>606</td><td>1</td><td>7998
</td></tr><tr><td>605</td><td>1</td><td>7999
</td></tr><tr><td>602</td><td>2</td><td>8000
</td></tr><tr><td>599</td><td>1</td><td>8002
</td></tr><tr><td>594</td><td>2</td><td>8003
</td></tr><tr><td>581</td><td>1</td><td>8005
</td></tr><tr><td>578</td><td>1</td><td>8006
</td></tr><tr><td>575</td><td>1</td><td>8007
</td></tr><tr><td>564</td><td>3</td><td>8008
</td></tr><tr><td>557</td><td>1</td><td>8011
</td></tr><tr><td>552</td><td>1</td><td>8012
</td></tr><tr><td>551</td><td>2</td><td>8013
</td></tr><tr><td>549</td><td>1</td><td>8015
</td></tr><tr><td>548</td><td>2</td><td>8016
</td></tr><tr><td>541</td><td>1</td><td>8018
</td></tr><tr><td>540</td><td>2</td><td>8019
</td></tr><tr><td>533</td><td>1</td><td>8021
</td></tr><tr><td>527</td><td>1</td><td>8022
</td></tr><tr><td>515</td><td>1</td><td>8023
</td></tr><tr><td>502</td><td>1</td><td>8024
</td></tr><tr><td>501</td><td>1</td><td>8025
</td></tr><tr><td>495</td><td>1</td><td>8026
</td></tr><tr><td>479</td><td>1</td><td>8027
</td></tr><tr><td>470</td><td>1</td><td>8028
</td></tr><tr><td>463</td><td>1</td><td>8029
</td></tr><tr><td>447</td><td>1</td><td>8030
</td></tr><tr><td>446</td><td>1</td><td>8031
</td></tr><tr><td>438</td><td>1</td><td>8032
</td></tr><tr><td>411</td><td>1</td><td>8033
</td></tr><tr><td>404</td><td>1</td><td>8034
</td></tr><tr><td>400</td><td>1</td><td>8035
</td></tr><tr><td>382</td><td>1</td><td>8036
</td></tr><tr><td>332</td><td>1</td><td>8037
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

Sweet!!! Tied for 247th. :D

here it is in nice graphic form

http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/ratingdistribution.htm

and your avatar is in the top 10! :D

Steve, You mentioned that players had to compete against 200 other players. Scott is 59-1 so does that mean he only competed agianst 60 other players? If so why is he on the list?



Scott's record in A-Tiers and above was 229 - 1. (DGLO and USDGC were his only two events) I setup the criteria, ran the numbers, and Scott popped out on top. I, in good conscience, could not then change my criteria. Although in the future we will be adding a minimum # of tournaments to the ranking system.

The reason that Scott only has 60 competitions listed is because I used a simplified (and perhaps convoluted) method to create our original rankings just to see if the system is valid. It is explained at the bottom of the rankings page and I will copy it here too:


We are attempting to create an annual disc golf ranking system. In our first year of tabulation, we only included PDGA A Tier events and above, as well as the MSDGC and the Players Cup. In order to be eligible, a player must have competed in two A-Tiers or above and against over 200 competitors in these included events.

Of the players that met this criteria, the ones listed above are the top 50 players with the best Modified Winning Percentages. It should be noted that all of the players listed above had MWPs of 97% or better when calculated with all pro disc golfers.

We then put these top 50 players in head to head matches against each other over the course of the year and determined their intra-top-50 Modified Winning Percentages (MWP). The player with the best MWP is the #1 ranked player in the world.

Also, only 415 are at 980 or above and thus have a serious chance of winning A tiers...



I am (somehow) rated 981. Just claiming that I have a chance to win an A-Tier makes me happy. :D

and your avatar is in the top 10! :D



YESSS!

didn't the method for determining ratings change at various times over that time period? to me, only including the most recent year makes sense -- that's the way ratings are calculated. It's not like to win the batting title in Major League baseball you have to beat the stats for the prior two years, Otherwise a guy like Ichiro could set the figure incredibly high, retire, and then win the title over and over :eek:

long story short: i would prefer to see the chart be based on whatever ratings were generated by the last update. non-current members excluded... (with a several month grace period for winter birds that wait until warm weather to renew) :)

ymmv

I am (somehow) rated 981

Steve I believe you are rated 1040 for throwing MTA in bare feet! See you in a few months.

ok, makes sense to me. i struggled with which year to use as cutoff. i reran the numbers for players who were members in 2005 only, and updated the website. rankings are now based on 8037 players.

http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/ratingdistribution.htm

[QUOTE]
I have been playing disc golf in pdga events for 23 years.
I am constantly asked, Are you ranked or what is your ranking?

- to which you may answer: I Dave M am currently ranked 723rd out of 14720 ranked PDGA Tour players, based on my player rating of 974

ok, but a random guy who plays 1 tournament and signs up for the pdga is considered a "tour golfer" lol

I thought your player rating was solely based on tournaments played..................not your actual ability !!!! :confused:

[QUOTE]
I have been playing disc golf in pdga events for 23 years.
I am constantly asked, Are you ranked or what is your ranking?

- to which you may answer: I Dave M am currently ranked 723rd out of 14720 ranked PDGA Tour players, based on my player rating of 974

ok, but a random guy who plays 1 tournament and signs up for the pdga is considered a "tour golfer" lol


Greg Barsby,
Whats up man?

You ma :(king fun of my 974

Have you seen any of our latest stuff?

What discs are you throwing and hows your sponsor treating you?


Ready to take another shot at using our discs, beating Geoff and Johnny and the rest of the guys out west? :D

I thought your player rating was solely based on tournaments played..................not your actual ability !!!! :confused:



Can't really look at it that way because I have only played 2 PDGA events (thanks to Katrina sending me out west) but my rating is a 915 so if your looking at it based on tournaments will 2 tournaments give you 915?

I thought your player rating was solely based on tournaments played..................not your actual ability !!!! :confused:



Can't really look at it that way because I have only played 2 PDGA events (thanks to Katrina sending me out west) but my rating is a 915 so if your looking at it based on tournaments will 2 tournaments give you 915?



OK ................I dropped 3 rating points from Last month to this month and have not played any tournaments in between !!! !! :eek: How does that work ?
December 2005 rating was 991.
January 2006 rating states 988.

Where did those rounds come from ?

Your rating will change if events you played got rated or corrected since December like maybe US Masters rounds 3 & 4?

I did not know those rounds were not counted. I though all rounds were accounted for , Including bad rounds within average tournament play. :confused:

I'll have to start playing tournaments with no bad rounds. :D

Or atleast nothing lower than a 978 average ? :eek:

Thanks though for your assistance. :D

It wasn't you. Something happened with the tournament report such that rounds 3 & 4 in the US Masters didn't get rated in the December update for some reason.

Interesting....................