What is the link to submit results online? I'm the new webmaster for TADGA (Toledo Area Disc Golf Assoc.) and I enjoy getting results up ASAP, if not on the night of the event... so yeah, just curious. (I do have the TD's pass and all that info at hand, no worries...) I remembered a thread on this from last year but can't seem to find it.

AND NOW A RATINGS QUESTION...
My little brother Matt Wojciechowski (PDGA #27966) is absolutely STUCK playing Am1 right now because in the middle of the dark during a night round in a CX Tier he made none of the usual "midnight mistakes" and played as well as the top pros almost for one round! He has only three PDGA rounds under his belt...

So he's stuck in Am1 thanks to one round when he isn't an Am1 player? He's been really frustrated about this because he knows and most players around here know he doesn't have the arm for the longs, and that was one solid round, plus it costs him more out of his meager pocket money... Just a frustrating situation for him.

Is there some period of rounds you can go on (like until you have five rounds recorded) before you are actually *stuck* in a division according to PDGA rules?


-Chris.

Once his rating goes down below the 915 level, he can play Intermediate again. The only way he can get there is to play Advanced and get more rated rounds. If you look at results in many areas, half of the Advanced division has players with Intermediate ratings anyway. I would suspect that might be the case in some events in Toledo's region.

At the past two events Am1 has been composed around here of primarily 930+ rated players, this past one which I just posted (thank you so much for that link, Chuck) had 3 players out of 18 total with ratings under 915 in Am1. So yeah, a few are there. Argument taken.

He has played that one and did... well... bad so that'll "help" him drop below the 915 line at the next period with any luck.

Personally I'd be a huge advocate of needing at least four rounds counted in order to be constrained to a division, it's rough on young kids like him to toil at the bottom of a division... especially if its during peak summer season when a lot of tourneys will occur between ratings periods... Meh...

I doubt that idea will get any support at all, just something I don't particularly like. (Otherwise great job PDGA!)


-Chris.

Issue #1: They send the link and the password to the e-mail address listed on the sanctioning agreement. If you want to help the TD with on-line scoring, you need to coordinate with the TD.

Issue #2: The Flying Saucer guys in Detroit have been offereing a reduced entry fee trophy only option at some of their tournaments. He would have to check with them. The Illinois Open Series guys in Chicago have been doing the same longer, but are a lot farther away. (Although I-80 just zips right along and it has the deer warning lights that are really cool in sections that have deer.)

He has played that one and did... well... bad so that'll "help" him drop below the 915 line at the next period with any luck.


especially if its during peak summer season when a lot of tourneys will occur between ratings periods... Meh...





Its too bad he DNF'd at Parmalee, I assume his score that round would've got him down close to AM2.

And yes, that sucks bad, hopefully he gets down before the next ratings come out or he is stuck for life.

and Chris-Thanks for getting the results up quickly.

Well I'll get the results online even quicker. And note that he DID finish, hopefully it will get him down near Am2 in Feb, lol... I'm the one that didn't finish, I was put in a sour mood by some home issues and then my wrist injuries acting up on me. Haha... I couldn't handle playing in that bitter wind with a hurt wrist, just not the weather for a fun "casual" round while hurting.

We'll see how his rating comes out :P


-Chris.

Ah, my mistake. Looks like if he played 920-930 golf for Ottawa he should be in the clear for next update.

Well he missed Ottawa due to work, so its all on his Parmalee Performance. We're both hoping he'll be able to drop back down for the final two tournaments of the winter... he really wants to compete in Am2 all summer, which will be perfect for him.

He's going to be pretty amazing someday, but he's so young... the intensity of a lot of the Am1 guys is hard for him as he's still having fun with the game, and the attitudes of a ton of the Am2 guys around here is perfect for his game.

He's the type of young player that I could see playing in Worlds and USDGC someday... perfect putting form, a slight hyzer, a great jump putt that has become so accurate so fast, he can drive out to 375 with accuracy... he just doesn't know how to recover from mistakes yet, his up-shots are weak and ugly...

I just want to keep him on the right track, slowly working himself up and into the proper playing division, and Am1 isn't it yet.

But enough pimping my little brother hahaha, I guess this thread has run its course.

I still say there should be a 4 round leeway period for new PDGA members if one huge round upped a rating too high... but I doubt anybody cares what I think there :o)

Roughly 1500 PDGA members have ratings based on 1, 2 or 3 rounds. Should the PDGA hide their ratings until we have 4 rounds of info? Or, if you agree their rating should still be posted, do we need to send TDs a separate list of members who are allowed to enter whatever division they want?

However, who's to say whether a person will end up with a higher rating after 4 rounds of data rather than lower than their rating based on 2 rounds? Slightly more than half of players have a rating after 4 rounds that's higher than their rating after 2 rounds. If anything, based on stats, the Advanced/Intermediate ratings break should be dropped 10 points to 905 for members whose rating is based on less than 4 rounds.

10 tourney rounds should be the bare minimum for ratings.

It's easy to say for the PDGA member whose rating is based on the most tournament rounds in the past 12 months with 135. Between 3000-4000 PDGA members have fewer than 10 rounds in any 12 month period.

Heres a prime example of Something not quite right about this (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=27428)

I have no problem with either example. If young Woj or Pola doesn't want a rating based on just one tournament, they can go play another tournament. If they can't afford to pay $30-$50 to play advanced, they both are pretty close to tournaments that offer trophy-only reduced entry fee options.

This happened to Brett Comincioli. He shot the lights out at his first tournament and his first rating was 950. He played poorly at his next couple of tournaments and his second rating was 917. Then he could have dropped back to intermediate because the line was 925 that year. He figured he did it once, he could do it again, so he just kept playing advanced.

Two years later his rating was in the 970s.

Woj, with Parmalee he's under 900.

It's easy to say for the PDGA member whose rating is based on the most tournament rounds in the past 12 months with 135. Between 3000-4000 PDGA members have fewer than 10 rounds in any 12 month period.

If a player really wants a RATING it should be based on enuff events that truely show a person's AVG skill level. Not just by a chance that they have a couple Good or Bad Rounds.

I'm not disagreeing regarding accuracy. That's why propagators have to have at least 8 rounds. But would you tell 4000 PDGA members we won't publish their rating until they have 8 or 10 rounds? Perhaps 1500 or so would never get a rating because their rounds would expire before they ever had 10 rounds in a 24-month period let alone 12 months.

So how is this same issue being handled in the mathematics of determining World Rankings if/when such a thing comes to fruitition?

There will be a minimum number of rounds in B-tiers or higher to be included.

Out of curiosity, what exactly is the equation for total round ratings? Are rounds with more rated players weighted heavier? How does this work? Is it a straight-up average?


-Chris.

Your most recent 25% of rounds are double weighted. How many players helped generate a rating in an event isn't a factor.

Wow, thats nothing like what I guessed it would be. Interesting to know, I'll keep that in mind.

So basically if you have 12 rounds, the equation is this...

([a*2]+[b*2]+[c*2]+d+e+f+g+h+i+j+k+l)/12

(assuming for a, b, c being the most recent three of the 12)

And that'd get you your rating?

Divided by 15.

12 + (12 x .25)

Yep (including Tbender's adjustment). That will get you close. We actually keep your ratings in the file on a "per hole" basis. So, the display numbers you see have been rounded off and your math might not exactly match the internal values we use but should be within a point. In your example, if rounds c, d and e were at the same event, we would double weight whichever one of those three rounds has the highest rating.

Alright, I understand. Very much an easier equation than I had thought. For some reason I thought that they might be weighted by how many rated players were in a round... due to the fact that i figured having more rated players would increase the accuracy of that particular round's rating... or something. My mind works in convoluted ways, ignore me ;)

Thanks again!

I think there would an indirect weighting of accuracy with more propegators in an event. Chuck and his cronies have determined that 8 is the minimum number of props to get accurate ratings.

You could argue that bigger events may give more accurate results, but if that was the case, then only B-tier events and up would get rated.

If you really want to see a skewed rating. Check out my buddy. Albeit he is very good, (bottom cash level pro now) his rating is based off of ONE ROUND! He played the tourney on the day of his wedding anniversary and had to split before the second round so they could make dinner reservations 2hrs away. Not good logistical planning on his part. But until he plays a PDGA event and accepts cash, he is the 3rd highest rated Amateur in the World.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=25801

It's a minimum of 5 propagators and you need a rating based on at least 8 rounds to become one. For international events in developing areas, we generate SSAs based on course length and foliage density when there are fewer than 5 propagators as a way to kickstart development of a larger pool of rated members in an area. It's possible the course length/foliage method might even be more accurate than 5 propagators but we haven't looked into that statistically. Propagators are definitely more accurate when the weather is worse than normal.

5....8....same difference in relevance to my argument.