Are the pros shooting really well in the memorial or did the ratings calculation get changed? it seems like the hot round is normally around 1060 for a tourney of the best people, but in the memorial they are shooting 1080 and 1090 for the high rounds.
ps go North Dakota

The online formula is producing numbers roughly 5 points higher than they will probably end up when done officially. But the top scores are really that good. The bigger the field size, the more likely you'll see exceptional rounds.

I was thinking the same thing, usually you do only see 1 or 2 round above 1050-60 at the larger events, if someone gets hot maybe a 1070 or even 1080. But there's 16 rounds over 1050 including 3 masters and a 1090+?, those all seem a little high ( average of 8 1050+ ratings per round) . . . 48 people shot over 1000 the 2nd round just in the open division and only 26 are rated over 1000.

is the whole field skewed on the high side or are there just more great scores? if the former, could it be layout by division data entry error?

The 8-pt upshift from 2005 is still in the online formula meaning the average of all round ratings will be 8 points higher than the average of all propagator ratings. That boost factor is phasing out this year now that all active players got the boost in 2005. There doesn't appear to be a mistake in the course layout assignments by division.

I seem to be playing better lately. Maybe 2006 is just going to be a year in which everyone plays better than they did in 2005 :D

how about a way of knowing if your rising rating is getting you anywhere relative to all golfers?

A rising rating is getting you somewhere relative to all golfers.

yes, but is it up or down? and so is a stagnant rating. depends on how many new better members are joining.

An increase in rating means you're getting better among all disc golfers. A change in ranking up or down has an unknown skill component because the primary effect is produced by the number of members expiring, joining or renewing. Your ranking can get worse when you are getting better and your ranking can get better when you're playing worse. Rankings among member subsets would work better if the PDGA went to yearround renewals so that the number of members at any point in time was increasing (hopefully) at a steady rate and not have the big swings from December thru about May under the current process.

no disagreement with the latter part. but you can get a better rating while moving further from the number one position

how about a way of knowing if your rising rating is getting you anywhere relative to all golfers?



i believe a helpful person recently solved that equation, but he was forced to undo what he did and his hands were subsequently tied... still if you wish you can go to the ratings page and then perform a time-consuming manual count based on the last ratings update... it will take a while though because you'll have to count amongst 1266 Pro Men, 107 Pro Women, a bunch of Am. Men and Many Am. Women to see where you fall.

...and it won't be any more useful than if it were done for you...

...unless your goal is to move up among all golfers,

It's awfully disappointing to shoot better rated rounds, have your rating increase and yet still drop 100 positions in the rankings. What's with that?

in your scenario 'better' doesn't mean much if it isn't better relative to the total field.

A higher rating IS better relative to the member pool and to the total pool of disc golfers because a player earning rating points means others are losing them. That's how it works. Not true about rankings.

are you considering unrated members against whom one is competing as well as rating adjustments which occur every once in a while?

Yes

Good. I still find rankings based on where one's rating places one amongst all PDGA members to be a meaningful number that interests me and motivates me as a PDGA member. I also find it meanigful to see where the rating of a great female PDGA player like Des, Juliana or Nicole Frazer (Am.) ranks them against men. I find it a testimony to how skilled these women are and not some kind of slight against men like me who they have outperformed.

Chuck, i saw a guy who tied for 5th in Intermediate at the Memorial is listed as being a 927-rated player. Is that kosher?

Read the Memorial thread for explanation

what's up with making me do a bunch of mouse click and searches rather than just putting the info in front of my nose? :D:p

(i should have just guessed someone else would already have brought it up)

It's awfully disappointing to shoot better rated rounds, have your rating increase and yet still drop 100 positions in the rankings.

why? to everyone? certainly not to me. i want the real and full story, not just the numbers that can best feed my ego.

i want the real and full story, not just the numbers that can best feed my ego.




It's not real. It's an illusion you had nothing to do with. Random actions of people renewing at a certain time. Progress of the calendar from grace period to not any more. You had nothing to do with those happenings and your change in ranking is not real, but illusory. It's not part of the story but warps your story.

It's awfully disappointing to shoot better rated rounds, have your rating increase and yet still drop 100 positions in the rankings. What's with that?



Maybe there are more disc golfers. Some good ones now joining the PDGA and getting rated. This could be a sign of growth or just baggers finally paying up. I know I have passed people since I signed up and have had much better disc golfers sign up after me.

Consider it.

Recreational is a misnomer as a division as the players are competing.

Recreational is a misnomer as a division as the players are competing.



yeah, but what do you propose? we create sibling organizations called the ADGA and RDGA to make our labels more technically accurate?

Drift:

I have always thought Recreational was a terrible name for a division and in a way kind of a slap in the face to those competing there

[Now back to your regularly scheduled programming]

The "Subtermediate" division.

CK checking out for maintenance and repairs until Tuesday afternoon. See everyone then.

Recreational is a misnomer as a division as the players are competing.



yeah, but what do you propose? we create sibling organizations called the ADGA and RDGA to make our labels more technically accurate?



Not an organization but a different mind set. Beginner but competative is much different. I know guys that don't have ratings that play and could take your cash if they so desired.

well then the recreational division is probably not the one in which they should play, right?

The "Subtermediate" division.

Am 1, Am 2 and Am 3 always worked fine in Michigan. If we run with this new rating system producing inflated ratings for the whole year, we're going to need an Am 0.

we have only had Am1 and Am2 here in Cinci since i have been playing -- and sometimes there is only Am1.

Well, given that my moribund rounds are suddenly being rated 950-970, I don't think anyone is going to need an Am 2 or Am 3 division by the end of the year. I have not gotten any better from two years ago. I can tell that just by my scores at courses that have not changed much. But suddenly I'm getting credit for all these rounds that are 30 and 40 points over my rating. That will make all the intermediates who aren't getting any better advanced players by the year's end.

My 1024 rated round (brag off) was skewed by wind in the afternoon for the other divisions. (brag on) I think it was still 1000+ worthy, but prolly more like 1005-ish than in the 1020s.

FWIW, I think a 55 on the Vista layout should be the highest rated round ever. That was just sick.

CK back in the house.

CK back in the house.



Welcome back, Chuck! How are you feeling?

Two stents inserted as expected. No lifting, bending or chainsawing for a few days. Then, back in action pretty much as before. There was 98% blockage in the right coronary artery so we caught it in time.

Glad to hear you alright Chuck, now get to work on those inflated ratings at the Memorial ;)

I'm not in charge of the online calcs, just an advisor. We've submitted the request to get the formula tweaked to match what will really happen officially in mid-April. It's not major but the official ones will be maybe 5 points lower.

Two stents inserted as expected. No lifting, bending or chainsawing for a few days. Then, back in action pretty much as before. There was 98% blockage in the right coronary artery so we caught it in time.



wow, thank goodness. may you heal as fast as the latest, greatest distance drivers speed across open fairways :D

If you take away my very first 1000+ rated round ever, I swear I will...

I will...

I will...

I will...

I will...

cry like a baby.

a 53 on Fountain with a 7 on Hole 2.

I'm not in charge of the online calcs, just an advisor. We've submitted the request to get the formula tweaked to match what will really happen officially in mid-April. It's not major but the official ones will be maybe 5 points lower.



That would #$*&$!...Even if you do take 5 points away per round, I still averaged 1000+ golf.

I predict Barry will be a 1060 rated player at the end of the season. these ratings seems to have gone haywire.

It's funny how I beat you by 2 strokes, yet you got a higher rating for the tournament :confused:

I agree with Rhett on the idea that wind helped him by adversely affecting the other players. With tee times being spead out from 8 in the morning till as late as 1:30 in the afternoon there is a lot of room for weather changes. I played my last round in some pretty heavy wind and spoke with players who played in my division two hours earlier saying that there was absolutely no wind at all. That's going to affect some serious differentiation in round scores, especially since most of the lower rated players played with no wind, and the highest rated players had very heavy wind for most of the round.

Take Celmer and I for example, we were two of the three players rated over 960, and our final round we each shot 930 rated rounds. If everyone had had to play in the conditions we had, our 6 over par rounds probably would have been rated in the 960s. And the opposite happened for our first round at Fountain, we both tee'd off early before the wind and ended up shooting 1005 rounds while the other players had more wind. But I'm sure that our 1 under par rounds would have been rated only 980ish if everyone had been playing at the same time.

I think anytime you have different tee times instead of shotguns starts, on a course with varied weather conditions, you are going to see the ratings do some pretty crazy things, SUPER high ratings, and then potentially SUPER low ratings.

I agree with Rhett on the idea that wind helped him by adversely affecting the other players. With tee times being spead out from 8 in the morning till as late as 1:30 in the afternoon there is a lot of room for weather changes. I played my last round in some pretty heavy wind and spoke with players who played in my division two hours earlier saying that there was absolutely no wind at all. That's going to affect some serious differentiation in round scores, especially since most of the lowe players played with no wind, and the highest rated players had very heavy wind for most of the round.

Take Celmer and I for example, we were two of the three players rated over 960, and our final round we each shot 930 rated rounds. If everyone had had to play in the conditions we had, our 6 over par rounds probably would have been rated in the 960s. And the opposite happened for our first round at Fountain, we both tee'd off early before the wind and ended up shooting 1005 rounds while the other players had more wind. But I'm sure that our 1 under par rounds would have been rated only 980ish if everyone had been playing at the same time.

I think anytime you have different tee times instead of shotguns starts, on a course with varied weather conditions, you are going to see the ratings do some pretty crazy things, SUPER high ratings, and then potentially SUPER low ratings.



Doesn't sound very fair.

Doesn't sound very fair.


Probably not, but I still enjoyed it. I don't know that there is a way to have tee-times and have it be fair, but I still enjoyed the tee-times. It was fun to watch my friends tee off, and also fun to sit on the last hole and watch them finish.

I'll try and remember this : "If everyone had had to play in the conditions we had, our 6 over par rounds probably would have been rated in the 960s.
And the opposite happened for our first round at Fountain, we both tee'd off early before the wind and ended up shooting 1005 rounds while the other players had more wind. But I'm sure that our 1 under par rounds would have been rated only 980ish if everyone had been playing at the same time."

That's atleast a 20 point differential.

It's funny how I beat you by 2 strokes, yet you got a higher rating for the tournament :confused:



It's kinda funny how that works out sometimes, but it's simple math. At a course with a higher SSA, each stroke is worth less rating points, and for a course with lower SSA, vice versa.
You beat him first round by 11, and got a rating 66 points higher. Each stroke was worth 6 rating points.
He beat you 2nd round by 3, and got a rating 27 points higher. Each stroke was worth 9 rating points.
The final round he beat you by 6 and got a rating 42 points higher, each stroke worth 7 rating points.
His total rating points above you on the final 2 courses, 42+27=69, while your rating points above him on the first course, 62, therefore his rating average for the tourney is better. Basically, by Tanner shooting better than Dave on the courses with lower SSA, he actually earned a better ratings average but shot 2 strokes worse for the tournament. Aren't ratings fun! :D

We've haven't decided a formal policy on courses played with tee times. However, we have discussed breaking up the ratings calculations into half day or 1/3 days and doing calculations for each separate group like there were 2 or 3 separate rounds in a day on that layout.

Chuck, when the ratings were tweaked, did higher rated players get less of a bump than lower players? For some reason that seems to me to be the way to do it :confused:

I had discussed the adjustment factor that boosts the SSA by one shot for the 875 average group of propagators versus the 975 average group of propagators. You can now see where sometimes the Am group playing the same course will get better ratings than the Pro group playing the same course.

I agree that Tee Times are hard to work with, it almost comes down to luck of the draw for the first day as in the case of the AM's at Fountains. Anyone teeing off after 11:00 am saw'll strong winds, but if they played well and then played well for the second round at Vista they got to play in the wind for round 3 on the last day. Doesn't seem fair if you are playing for strong ratings but then again if you play well in adverse conditions during your rounds, then you are a sleeper coming into a tournament

Some AM2 player shot a 1006 rated round yesterday, bagger . . . plus I just witnessed the best round of tournament golf I have ever seen by Cale, he shot a -15 which will probably be rated around 1090. He had almost a perfect drive on one of the holes too but hit a tree and didn't birdie it, :(

I saw him shoot that round too. Birdied first 8 holes Great round I've seen in tourney also.

Ya I was a little confused..the first 2 rounds at Gentlemens club were rated pretty high, I felt like I didn't shoot that great, and it turned out it was better than my rating...THANK YOU PDGA! unfortunatly my 1007 rating will go below 1000 because I played bad at St patties...oh well

I wonder if Barry's -15 at Wakanda Open will be a new record or 1100+ rated round?

He only missed 3 holes....!!!

Congrats again Barry!!

We'll just have to see when the scores are posted but I think it's going to be just another one of Barry's routine 1080+ rounds. When you're at 1035, you have to have a few rounds above 1070 to offset those "bad rounds" of a 1000 or less (like Saturday at Tower).

It could be Chuck. Glad to see you again. You still have to admit -15 was impressive yesterday don't you think?

-15 is out of this world even on an easier course. I played with Johnny Lissaman when he threw a -15 on Rum Village at the 1996 Worlds, which was unbelievable to watch. Of course his brother Geoff then shot a -17 a day or so later to set the Worlds record for lowest round.

Barry comes in unofficially at 1098 for that -15 round at Wakanda. I went in to help out the TDs and adjusted for the course layouts and divisions on different days. So the numbers should be pretty good.

I'd say a 39 has to be close to the equivilent of a 59 in Ball Golf.

A 39 at that course is ABSOLUTELY SICK!!!
I have played there and I remember a 500+ foot hole and a 450' hole back to back. Not to mention a couple of tight wooded holes around the playground.

That record will never be touched at that course. Well, maybe if Barry plays there again. :eek:

That would be Hole 5 and Hole 6. He took a par on hole 5 and dueced hole 6 with a 50 footer...

I went in to help out the TDs



So, did you have a twin at Wakanda in either the Masters or Grand Masters division? I see your name twice.

I played GM on Saturday at Wakanda with the Intermediate divisions and Master Pro on Sunday with the other pro and Advanced divisions. I planned to play GM both days but no other GM pros ended up in GM (Rentz figured I'd be no challenge. Notice the results :)). As it worked out, Duster was traveling with Masters and couldn't get to Wakanda on Saturday so I did two victory laps. Then Sunday, GM pros Rentz, Duster and I played Master and showed a few of those youngsters a thing or two.

Seems like ratings are getting out of control! Are the players just getting that much better or are the ratings inflating? I guess I could see either one but the BHMO's 2nd round there were 8 rounds over 1050 . . I remember when someone shot a 1050 it was insane, now half the field is doing it! heh

I saw Barry play once. He's good. So anyone who is keeping up with him has to be good too, seems to me :D

I saw Barry play once. He's good. So anyone who is keeping up with him has to be good too, seems to me :D



eh, I beat him in my group once. He's alright.

For players in the 1030+ rating range, it's not uncommon for them to regularly shoot rounds over 1050 and there were a few at BHMO. I looked at the average rating of the Pros and the average round ratings and they are both about the same which is the way it should be. Currently, the remaining small boost factor left over from late 2005 is still in the online formula which is boosting the ratings 2-3 points. This won't be in the official calcs in the Sept update. For BHMO, the average rating of the props is about 970 and the average round rating ranges from 972-974 for the three rounds so the numbers are normal for such a highly rated field of players.

So in other words, players are getting much better these days. :p

NTs are drawing a higher average rated player.

NTs are drawing a higher average rated player.



That is the "Problem" with the ratings.

It should not matter if the Average is higher.

The formula SHOULD pump out the same numbers NO MATTER what the average of the field is.

It makes it where "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" BAD FORMULA.

Its not fair to those who are not able to travel and play larger events. :p

For a NT event the payout for that tourn. sucked :p

NTs are drawing a higher average rated player.



That is the "Problem" with the ratings.

It should not matter if the Average is higher.

The formula SHOULD pump out the same numbers NO MATTER what the average of the field is.

It makes it where "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" BAD FORMULA.

Its not fair to those who are not able to travel and play larger events. :p



*Standing Ovation*

It all goes back to my basic question which no one, including Chuck, has ever been able to answer with anything logically other than "thats no possible"

Let's say you have a NT at a course with a SSA of 49 ( I choose that b/c when SSA is around there, it works out to almost exactly 10 points a throw)

The weather is great. For no reason at all other than coincednce, the hot round is 49, which means SSA would probably be around 53 for the round (roughly). Everyone who shot 52 or better was 1000 or better.

The next round, same conditions, same course. There are 17 scores better than 49, including 8 by players rated less than 1000.

Even though everything was the same, a 49 the first round would be rated much much higher than the second round. That to me is a problem. The way to get a really high rated round is to play good when no one else does!!

We need to get basing the formula more on the course played rather than the players playing it. Top pros get amazing round ratings and ams get screwed.

That is the "Problem" with the ratings. It should not matter if the Average is higher. The formula SHOULD pump out the same numbers NO MATTER what the average of the field is. It makes it where "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" BAD FORMULA.



If you think this thru it makes no sense. What you're saying is that a particular course should produce an average round rating of say 950 regardless of whether a pool of 850 players or 1000 rated players play an event there. If that were the case, no one with a rating greater than the fixed course value would ever play that course and Ams would flock to play those courses to pick up rating points.

The way the ratings work and the only way that makes sense is for the ratings earned by propagators in each round on average is exactly the average of the ratings of these propagators. A player can earn higher ratings based strictly on how they play. It makes little difference whether you play in a high average rated pool of players or low average rated pool of players. The small factor for lower pool rating averages introduced last year now makes the pool rating average for the event neutral in terms of ratings. At one time, playing in higher rated events might have produced ratings 5-10 points better than a lower rated pool but that effect has been removed since 2005.

the formula is fine, and no one can seriously argue that the ratings are "wrong". they do what they are intended to do - provide a relative measure of disc golf skill - extremely well.

that being said, there it may not be possible to completely eliminate one of the effects people complain about - the the same round score with different gators will yield a different rating. and that does not feel right, even though the anomoly has been reduced significantly from when ratings started.

bottom line: you can completely please everyone.

It makes little difference whether you play in a high average rated pool of players or low average rated pool of players. The small factor for lower pool rating averages introduced last year now makes the pool rating average for the event neutral in terms of ratings. At one time, playing in higher rated events might have produced ratings 5-10 points better than a lower rated pool but that effect has been removed since 2005.



Are you serious?

Virginia Open, I shot a 54 on the dark side rated 1009.
My buddy shoots a 54 (hes an am playing at the course with just ams) it was rated 999.

There still is a problem!

"Variance" means the numbers will vary. It used to be that a pro pool might get ratings ranging from -20 to +40 points better than an Am pool rated 100 points lower. Now it ranges from -30 to +30 with most values between -10 to +10. That's one throw in 50 or 2% variance. That's like the difference between 98 cents and $1.02. It's still basically a $1.

Disc Golf tournaments are competitions against other players. You are not playing against the course, you are playing against people.

I think the ratings are very accurate and provide what they are intended to provide. Your rating for a round shows how you performed in relation to everyone else you were competing with during that round. That is what we want to know, that it what it does.

Score doesn't really mean anything. If I shoot 10 under and Shultz shoots 13 under his performance was better. And that would be reflected by a roughly 30 point difference in rating. It wouldn't matter if this happened on a course with an SSA of 49 or 57. The system is very accurate and performs the intended function, which is stacking players according to skill level (when the are playing at the same time on the same course).

When you have players playing at different times and such even on the same course there are innumerable variables that can come into play that a course established SSA would be ludicrous.


OK, let the flame begin.

I totally disagree with what you said about the players and the course.

If you shoot the highest rated round in history and shoot the course record by 8 strokes, what control do you have if someone two cards ahead of you just beat the recod by 9?

All you can do is be satisfied with your play.

As far as the ratings go....I think there needs to be more consistency within a course. There's no possible way a course can play easier than it is (it can play harder though). Who cares if 10 people kill it, why should they be penalized ratings wise for a good round. Who cares if everyone sucks, why should they be rewarded with a high rating for a bad round?

When you have players playing at different times and such even on the same course there are innumerable variables that can come into play that a course established SSA would be ludicrous.




Conditions are never the same from round to round even if it seems like they are. It's like chaos theory when a butterfly batting its wings in Taiwan may produce a hurricane in the Atlantic. Every little thing may count much more than it appears.

The sun lights holes differently as the day progresses and cloud cover may continually shift making the perspective change. The leaves positions change. Items on the ground are in different positions. The wildlife is more or less active (birds chirping). The dew is gone. Players already have played a round and where they are personally in terms of attitude and energy is different. Players will be in different groups. The second round may be the last round (or not) in the event. A player already has a mental record of what they did on each hole in the first round that impacts what they do on their second round. Temperature is likely different. And we all know what losing a disc and the dynamics of cumulative tree whacks might do to the discs and some players' games.

We think of wind and rain as being the big difference factors in why one round has different scoring/ratings than another. I would contend that the subtleties of the other "smaller" factors are cumulatively just as important and we should be surprised when the SSA values come out as close as they usually do when humans are involved in producing the numbers.

It's the difference between course ratings and player ratings. We are talking about player ratings. The course means absolutely nothing in regards to player ratings. The only thing that matters is how you score in relation to the other players on said course. It seems that you are adding emotion into this, MTL. The course record means nothing in regards to a round rating. Neither does the difficulty of the course, or any other institution of thinking outside of mathematics. With round ratings, good and bad rounds are determined ONLY by your score in relation to other scores of that round, not what you think or feel was good.

If you shoot 2 under on a 'difficult' course and that is rated 989, then you turn around and shoot +5 on the same course the next round, but everyone else sucks much, much worse and u have the hot round and it is rated 1030, that is valid. You emotionally believe that you had a horrible round, but mathmatically you had a wonderful round IN RELATION to the other competitors. This tracking of numbers is what the 'player rating' is all about. Take all emotion out of the equation.

I hope this is making sense to someone.

The course means absolutely nothing in regards to player ratings.



Wow. Just wow.

A course with a low SSA has a larger number in the amount of points that represents a stroke. A course with a high SSA has a low number.

Therefore - It's really easy to shoot a high rated round when a course is around 48ish (b/c there is a larger amount of points invovled and an SSA of 48 usually means the course has many birdie opportunites). It's also really tough to shoot a high rated round on a very tough course (See Winthrop Gold and Renny Gold.)

KEnny shot that amazing 56 a few years ago at USDGC and it was 1078. Theres no way that a 56 on that course is comparable to a 42 on a course with an SSA of 48. A 56 is much much better. Ratings comapred these two rounds.

The course matters a lot.

Conditions are never the same from round to round even if it seems like they are. It's like chaos theory when a butterfly batting its wings in Taiwan may produce a hurricane in the Atlantic. Every little thing may count much more than it appears.

chuck, you know i love the ratings, but this statement destroys credibility on this particular issue.

as i noted before, the people who start on Hole X in an afternoon round experience conditions closer to what players who finished on Hole X in the first round experienced than what their own pool-mates who finish on Hole X will experience.

using differing conditions as a reason for seperating round results is ignoring this truth.

(i believe round results should be seperated. i just do not believe this particular reason has any credbiliy)

Therefore - It's really easy to shoot a high rated round when a course is around 48ish (b/c there is a larger amount of points invovled and an SSA of 48 usually means the course has many birdie opportunites). It's also really tough to shoot a high rated round on a very tough course (See Winthrop Gold and Renny Gold.)

KEnny shot that amazing 56 a few years ago at USDGC and it was 1078. Theres no way that a 56 on that course is comparable to a 42 on a course with an SSA of 48. A 56 is much much better. Ratings comapred these two rounds.

The course matters a lot.



On this I agree with you. I think that hot rounds on high SSA courses that are longer and with a higher par do not get accurate ratings (sometimes vastly lower than they should be) when compared to scores on low SSA courses that may be mostly pitch-n-putt.

I'll never understand why you still get hungup on the difference between a 999-rated round and 1009-rated round, however. That's silly.

I'll never understand why you still get hungup on the difference between a 999-rated round and 1009-rated round, however. That's silly.



Why does the system feel that just becasue an amateur plays a course it gets easier ? Why does the system feel that just because a pro plays a course it gets tougher?

using propogators from the same pool to establish the rating is going to be a whole lot more accurate than using any other measure. you cant use the course SSA, cuz that changes dramtically with the weather, foliage, etc. like chuck says, using gators to seed the system does introduce a slight variability - but only a tiny bit. certainly not enough to throw the integrity of the ratings system into question.

as i noted before, the people who start on Hole X in an afternoon round experience conditions closer to what players who finished on Hole X in the first round experienced than what their own pool-mates who finish on Hole X will experience.



That may be true for an individual hole but the ratings are based on complete rounds. If you take a snapshot of the sun's angle, temperature, dew level, and scatter of debris on the ground, that will be different five hours apart and on average for each round. The course conditions are still only part of the differences in scenarios where the course is presumed to be the same in morning and afternoon. The people factors are more different between rounds including one not mentioned above which is the flow on the course in terms of hole delays either due to missing or hitting a usual stack up on certain holes or delays for a lost disc in your group or the one in front.

I already pointed out the number one reason for differences in SSA on the same course in "similar" conditions between Ams and Pros and that's the fact that there are more Am propagators who are under-rated than Pros of all ages. That produces lower SSA values. We know it and have an adjustment factor in the formula now to account for it so that there's a 50/50 chance now that you'll get a slightly better rating in an Am pool versus a Pro pool.

Why does the system feel that just becasue an amateur plays a course it gets easier ? Why does the system feel that just because a pro plays a course it gets tougher?




the number one reason for differences in SSA on the same course in "similar" conditions between Ams and Pros and that's the fact that there are more Am propagators who are under-rated than Pros of all ages. That produces lower SSA values. We know it and have an adjustment factor in the formula now to account for it so that there's a 50/50 chance now that you'll get a slightly better rating in an Am pool versus a Pro pool.

Why does the system feel that just becasue an amateur plays a course it gets easier ? Why does the system feel that just because a pro plays a course it gets tougher?




the number one reason for differences in SSA on the same course in "similar" conditions between Ams and Pros and that's the fact that there are more Am propagators who are under-rated than Pros of all ages. That produces lower SSA values. We know it and have an adjustment factor in the formula now to account for it so that there's a 50/50 chance now that you'll get a slightly better rating in an Am pool versus a Pro pool.





I wasn;t asking for a text book answer or a reason anyone who believes this ratings system is accurate that makes them feel better, I want to know why it is fair.

Stats from courses with low SSAs shouldn't be compared with those with high SSAs. Doing course and player ratings stats are much more complicated than most sports because the game field varies so widely. In basketball, you don't compare or combine player stats from courts that have 3-point lines at different distances or games with different time lengths.

In the same way, we should try not to compare course records from low SSA and high SSA courses. As we start to compile more records, we'll probably track course records in three or four SSA ranges along the lines of either: under 50, 50-60 and over 60, or under 46, 46-54, 54-63 and over 63.

I want to know why it is fair.



It wasn't fair. We analyzed the problem and adjusted the calc. Now it's as fair as possible within human variances.

I want to know why it is fair.



It wasn't fair. We analyzed the problem and adjusted the calc. Now it's as fair as possible within human variances.



It's not fair, it's fair - ER. Big difference.

Big Difference...yes.
Not Fair = Reality
Fair = An idea sprung from the nirvana within our minds.

Here's another little secret that mathematicians don't brag about.
Any number system devised by man has it's inaccuracies.
From Roman Numerals, what a bloody joke.
To the Integer/Real/Complex/Etc... Number Sets.

Even the holy Binary system has it's issues. Yet you're reading this post.

My laser range finder is accurate within a yard in the range of 4-600 yards.
But 3 feet off, I'll still drop that deer.



Now it ranges from -30 to +30 with most values between -10 to +10. That's one throw in 50 or 2% variance



~1 stroke/round???
I'll still drop that deer. :D



It all goes back to my basic question which no one, including Chuck, has ever been able to answer with anything logically other than "thats no possible"



MTL, you've acknowledged the fact that there is variances in course difficulties and player pools. How reasonable is it to expect an accuracy of 0.49999... pts (enough that rounding doesn't affect accuracy)?

Inherient inaccuracies in number systems.
Variances in course difficulty and player pools.
Ergo...
It's NOT POSSIBLE.

My biggest issue concerning the ratings system.

If we are going to determine what players can and cannot play based on ratings, they have to be as accurate as possible (Which I still don't think it is). I'm not saying that there should be some chart saying if I shoot 49 on a course with a WCP of 50.2, it should be a 988 every time. I just feel that if I shoot a 49 with 15 1000+ rated players and its rated 988, then it should be rated 988 regardless of I'm the highest rated player or not.

Yeah ten points may not be a big deal. Add that together 10 times and then we get a big deal. This could be the difference in a pro having to play pro or and amatuer having to play advanced.

They aren't consistent and in no way speak of how you are currently playing (although I do like the way later rounds are double weighted and I do like that we aren't dropping 10% of the rounds anymore).

I think we need to go back to a system where ratings are just a novelty rather than a judegment.

I think we need to go back to a system where ratings are just a novelty rather than a judegment.



Yea, let's go back to the system where the decision to play Recreational, Intermediate, or Advanced was based on your tournament experience, whether people felt you were sandbagging, what area of the country you lived in, or your arbitrary mood that day. Yea, let's just totally throw a out a reasonably accurate way to actually MEASURE and QUANTIFY a golfer's ability and characterize them as less 875, between 875 and 915, or greater than 915.

Tough to argue with that, it does creat more national consistency.

I just think we put way to much emphasis on ratings. You don't see any type or ratings (basically a handicapping system) in golf other than on the amatuer level.

This whole thing comes down to 2 simple things. I hate ratings (although yes I am always curious to see what mine is and what a certain round might be, but in the long run, I don't care) and we need to get rid of pros playing am.

we need to get rid of pros playing am.



Of course this makes sense if we actually had pros playing am. But we actually have semi-pros playing for cash that are allowed to play with semi-pros of the same skill level who play for merch. So, no problem.

we need to get rid of pros playing am.



Of course this makes sense if we actually had pros playing am. But we actually have semi-pros playing for cash that are allowed to play with semi-pros of the same skill level who play for merch. So, no problem.



oh you mean Pro 2.

Pro 2 is unnecessary because our semi-pros who play for cash can now play with semi-pros of similar skill who play for merch.

I'm not disagreeing with that at all.

It sounds like that the "semi pro" is its own division. Pro 2 was the semi- pro division. Things like that are good for the sport (one of the reasons I'm a huge fan of Mid-Nationals)

I just think we put way to much emphasis on ratings



one of the reasons I'm a huge fan of Mid-Nationals



It's my understanding that Mid-Nationals puts a lot of emphasis on ratings. In fact, I think every division is based on ratings.

Nice to be quoted when I'm being ignored....anyway...

I like the *idea* of mid nationals. I like the Blue division is basically a semi-pro division. Now how we determine who is in Blue is what I don't agree with. There's a huge difference there and while Mid-nationals is ratings based, it is a step in the correct direction towards a semi pro division. Totally different scenarios.

Now how we determine who is in Blue is what I don't agree with.



LMAO!!

I get the feeling you don't quite get it. I assume you don't like batting averages, bowling averages, golf handicaps etc.

What do you propose we do then?

People new to the sport are usually getting better, so nothing can really account for that. I've been playing for 12 years and I'm still getting better and I believe my rating hasn't quite caught up with me yet. So how could any calculations account for that?

I've probably forgotten more about disc golf than most people know.

I understand ratings and how they are calculated and see no consistency in them whatsoever.

People are shooting 1050 rounds all over the place now. I went back and research and found that the 2003 Seneca Creek NT (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=3425&year=2006&include_ratings=1#Open) had Ron Russell shoot the hot round by 4 strokes the third round. Look at the field. That would have been rated probably 1080 today.

Also, check out Cedar Hills (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=102) in Raleigh NC. The WCP on the same layout *note not the short tees or the gold layout* is from 46 .9 - 50.9. I live five minutes from the course and I can garuntee it doesn't randomly get 4 strokes harder or easier.

In fact, most courses have crazy rating differences.

Your refrences to batting averages and handicaps have no revelance. Those are taken from basic statistical laws regarding Number of successfull tries divided by number of attemps for baseball and average number of strokes over par for golf.

Until there is consistency in course desgin a handicap system does not work. I can tell you I shot a 54 at Zebulon park in North Carolina and unless you have played that course you have no clue if that is the best round I've ever shot or the worst round. I could go down the street to a ball golf course, shoot a 72 and you could know thats a good round without ever seeing the course.

Until we get a "Standarized" par (Which I understand WCP attempts to be), ratings are useless, inaccurate, and inconsistent.

also, ratings are start to take over player's mental games. I've heard many players say they don't want to play certain courses because the ratings for that course are traditionally bad and know of people who quit during bad rounds b/c they don't want that round to get rated and screw there rating up.

What happened to going to a tournament to play a good course or learning from your bad rounds?

What happened to taking responsibility for your own thoughts and actions?

Player Ratings are a tool, nothing more. If you want to use the tool to mess with your game, oh well, who are we to take that freedom away from you...?

[QUOTE]
Until there is consistency in course desgin a handicap system does not work. I can tell you I shot a 54 at Zebulon park in North Carolina and unless you have played that course you have no clue if that is the best round I've ever shot or the worst round. I could go down the street to a ball golf course, shoot a 72 and you could know thats a good round without ever seeing the course.[QUOTE]


I agree with this. I hope that I'm still around when disc golf courses have to meet certain standards and qualifications to solve this problem.

The reality is, right now, we can't change all the courses, but we need a skill based system to keep everybody in check, plus it's cool.

As for your problem with tournaments coming up with different ratings, I have no idea. The ratings have been tweaked numerous times and maybe there's an inconsistency with the course info that was entered, I don't know. From what I've seen around here, the course ratings come out really close to each other in different tournaments with the same layout, even different years they are close.

There are some courses where the ratings come out close to each other consistently.

It is the courses with WCP's around 47 - 54 that have the problem. These courses usually have 15 - 18 duece opportunites but many of these are tough holes where a three is not a bad score even though it is a par. and you may duece it 1 out of 10. Also, these are course where there are many 400 - 500 foot holes that not many people at all will 4 without a majot screw up and there will not be many twos (i.e the hole average is l;ike 3.1). Therefore the chance of variance in scores increases dramatically b/c both of these instances have a chance where a player could be on a shoot a 44 or a 45 and the next round shoot a 52 and not play too much worse.

Then stop fighting or arguing against the ratings, which ARE a good thing and fight for standardized courses.

ratings fight against standerized courses if anything b/c it compares them all. If there was a PDGA stipulation saying your course will not recieve ratings unless it falls between a SSA of X and Y, then they would. Now as long as there are enough propergators, we rate it. We are allowing who plays to determine the rating rather than the course to determine it itself.

If there was a PDGA stipulation saying your course will not recieve ratings unless it falls between a SSA of X and Y, then they would.



I really like this idea, but I don't believe it's going to happen anytime soon.

Does Chuck see a problem with ratings and certain courses? I haven't noticed a major problem with this, but maybe there could be seperate ratings calculators for different courses.

This will be an issue for many years to come, but don't worry, disc golf courses are still evolving.

I love the rating system and I think it's very accurate. I almost always know what my round was rated to within 5 points, therefore it must be pretty darn accurate. When I feel I shot a 1020 rated round it is always rated between 1015-1025! The only thing that is wrong with the system is that we give MTL a rating. If we didn't give him a rating then there would be no bitchn about anything and everyone would be happy! :p

It seems like players who play courses with lower ssa's generally have higher ratings.

Without a doubt it is much easier to increase your rating if you are playing against players that have a higher rating than you, especially if a few of them shoot poorly!

I havent given Chuck a hard time about the ratings lately and agree its fairly accurate, but I still feel it should be done by averaging all the players ratings before the event and then averaging their scores and have nothing to do with amything else. The average score would be the average rating and then each stroke could be worth 6-10 points acording to the average score, with higher averages being worth 10 and the lower averages worth 6
Right now each stroke is worth more value from a round with a lower average. I feel it should be the other way around. Usually more players scores are bunched closer as the average round score goes up away from 54 which means its harder to put on seperation, which is why the value should be greater with the higher scores!
Of course I think all courses used for major compatition should be played on par 68-72 style courses to assure the winners have a well rounded game and not just the best putters are winning like in the past!

I have assumed a lot based on small samplings without much homework.
Can someone prove any of these theories or statements wrong?

Does Chuck see a problem with ratings and certain courses?



No courses seem to have any wider variance than any others from event to event or year to year. You look at courses like Knob Hill and it's surprising how close the numbers have been for the same layout from year to year. The Castle Hayne course is the only one that appears to have hole designs that make it difficult to score as much below the SSA as some other courses in that SSA range. It's not a flaw in the calculation process, just something we discovered along the way. There are courses at the other end of the scale where it's easier than average to score low. It's not like there's a guarantee that every course is going to respond the same way in terms of ratings.

In ball golf, the courses used for handicapping are way more alike than what we use for ratings in DG. Ball golf courss have course ratings in pretty narrow range from maybe 67-74. Our ratings system has to cope with SSA values from 41-72.

Right now each stroke is worth more value from a round with a lower average. I feel it should be the other way around.



It's not a choice we made, it's mathematical reality. Let's try an example where we have a Robot X that throws scores at 1000 rating and Robot Y that throws at 950. On a course with an SSA of 50, Robot X shoots 50 and Robot Y throws 55. If they played this course another time they would shoot the same scores of 50 and 55. Their total throws so far for 36 holes would be 100 and 110 respectively.

Now, let's say there's an unbelievably tough course that has an SSA of 100, exactly the same as playing two rounds twice on the SSA 50 course. Robot X would shoot 100 rated at 1000 and Robot Y would shoot 110 rated at 950. Note that their scores are 10 throws apart and 50 rating points different. That means that each throw is worth 5 points on a 100 SSA course rather than 10 points on the 50 SSA course.

If we now have the robots play a course like Winthrop with an SSA about 70, Robot X will shoot 70 and Robot Y will shoot 77. Remember that each robot shoots exactly their rating of 1000 and 950. So, on this course, the 7 throws difference in the score between them is worth 50 rating points. 50 divided by 7 works out to about 7 points per throw.

There's nothing magic about our ratings system that awards fewer points per throw as the SSA gets higher. That's just the way it works.

*Warning ratings compliment*

I personally like the fact that it is not 10 points a round for every course. I look at it like this. If you lose to someone on a course with an SSA of 45 by 6, he beat you on 13% of the course and you tied on the other 87%. If someone beats you on a course with an SSA of 60 by 6, he only beat you on 10% of the course.

The lower the SSA of a course the tougher it is to make up strokes and I think the ratings reflect that well. However, I would like to see some higher ratings for hot rounds on courses with SSA's over 65

However, I would like to see some higher ratings for hot rounds on courses with SSA's over 65



I'd like to see the same even with courses as "low" as SSA of 60 or more. These are still premiere, world class courses with a pro par of 62-64.

Right now each stroke is worth more value from a round with a lower average. I feel it should be the other way around.



It's not a choice we made, it's mathematical reality. Let's try an example where we have a Robot X that throws scores at 1000 rating and Robot Y that throws at 950. On a course with an SSA of 50, Robot X shoots 50 and Robot Y throws 55. If they played this course another time they would shoot the same scores of 50 and 55. Their total throws so far for 36 holes would be 100 and 110 respectively.

Now, let's say there's an unbelievably tough course that has an SSA of 100, exactly the same as playing two rounds twice on the SSA 50 course. Robot X would shoot 100 rated at 1000 and Robot Y would shoot 110 rated at 950. Note that their scores are 10 throws apart and 50 rating points different. That means that each throw is worth 5 points on a 100 SSA course rather than 10 points on the 50 SSA course.

If we now have the robots play a course like Winthrop with an SSA about 70, Robot X will shoot 70 and Robot Y will shoot 77. Remember that each robot shoots exactly their rating of 1000 and 950. So, on this course, the 7 throws difference in the score between them is worth 50 rating points. 50 divided by 7 works out to about 7 points per throw.

There's nothing magic about our ratings system that awards fewer points per throw as the SSA gets higher. That's just the way it works.


I was following you up to this example. What you're saying is that the rating for a player will be the same for these 2 situations: 1) someone throws 40 on a course whose SSA is 50, and 2) someone throws 80 on a course whose SSA is 100.

Shouldn't the latter score be a much more impressive feat, to throw that well for twice as long?

If it is more impressive, is that taken into account by weighting the round of 80 on a 100-SSA course when calculating average ratings?

For example, when averaging the ratings over several rounds, if these were the ratings:

1010 on a course of SSA 50, weight factor = 1.0
1080 on a course of SSA 100, weight factor = 2.0

average rating = 1010 * 1.0 + 1080 * 2.0 / (1.0 + 2.0)

average rating = 1056.7

Is this what is done now (or something similar)?

Edited to add: even that wouldn't weight the latter round any more if the earlier round was rated 1080 on a 50-SSA course. Then the average would just work out to be 1080, as if both rounds were of equal accomplishment. But being consistently good over a longer period of time is known to be more difficult, so it seems this should be taken into account in ratings. Is it?

Bragging rights aside, isn't it generally better to have a lower rating than a higher one? Is there a bonus for a high rating I don't know about?

Bragging rights aside, isn't it generally better to have a lower rating than a higher one? Is there a bonus for a high rating I don't know about?



opportunity for sponsership by that company of yours comes to mind

Right now each stroke is worth more value from a round with a lower average. I feel it should be the other way around.



It's not a choice we made, it's mathematical reality. Let's try an example where we have a Robot X that throws scores at 1000 rating and Robot Y that throws at 950. On a course with an SSA of 50, Robot X shoots 50 and Robot Y throws 55. If they played this course another time they would shoot the same scores of 50 and 55. Their total throws so far for 36 holes would be 100 and 110 respectively.

Now, let's say there's an unbelievably tough course that has an SSA of 100, exactly the same as playing two rounds twice on the SSA 50 course. Robot X would shoot 100 rated at 1000 and Robot Y would shoot 110 rated at 950. Note that their scores are 10 throws apart and 50 rating points different. That means that each throw is worth 5 points on a 100 SSA course rather than 10 points on the 50 SSA course.

If we now have the robots play a course like Winthrop with an SSA about 70, Robot X will shoot 70 and Robot Y will shoot 77. Remember that each robot shoots exactly their rating of 1000 and 950. So, on this course, the 7 throws difference in the score between them is worth 50 rating points. 50 divided by 7 works out to about 7 points per throw.

There's nothing magic about our ratings system that awards fewer points per throw as the SSA gets higher. That's just the way it works.


I was following you up to this example. What you're saying is that the rating for a player will be the same for these 2 situations: 1) someone throws 40 on a course whose SSA is 50, and 2) someone throws 80 on a course whose SSA is 100.

Shouldn't the latter score be a much more impressive feat, to throw that well for twice as long?

If it is more impressive, is that taken into account by weighting the round of 80 on a 100-SSA course when calculating average ratings?

For example, when averaging the ratings over several rounds, if these were the ratings:

1010 on a course of SSA 50, weight factor = 1.0
1080 on a course of SSA 100, weight factor = 2.0

average rating = 1010 * 1.0 + 1080 * 2.0 / (1.0 + 2.0)

average rating = 1056.7

Is this what is done now (or something similar)?

Edited to add: even that wouldn't weight the latter round any more if the earlier round was rated 1080 on a 50-SSA course. Then the average would just work out to be 1080, as if both rounds were of equal accomplishment. But being consistently good over a longer period of time is known to be more difficult, so it seems this should be taken into account in ratings. Is it?



So I've asked this question before and never got an answer to it. I think the next thing that they should do is work a "weighted round" into ratings. It is MUCH MORE impressive to shoot a 1050 rated round on a 27 hole course rather than a 18 hole course. You have to keep that play up for an extra 9 more holes, why shouldn't that be weighted 1.5 times as much? I believe ratings should be weighed based on 18, 24, and 27 hole rounds. In tournaments where you play an 18 hole round, then a 24 hole round, players who you end up beating over all in the tournament can end up having a higher rating average for the tournament, I don't see how you can say that is fair. Just because they shot 1 stroke better on the short course and you shot 2 strokes better on the long course . . .

Bragging rights aside, isn't it generally better to have a lower rating than a higher one? Is there a bonus for a high rating I don't know about?



opportunity for sponsership by that company of yours comes to mind



You have named the only players who might benefit from a higher rating, as far as I can tell. The rating is a factor determining sponsorship, for a few elite players, but not a bonus.

The only reason I can see for wanting my own rating to be higher, is vanity. Same goes for most players who will never be on the tour and sponsored.

If the ratings were tied to handicaps, we would have even less reason to want a higher rating, I think.

Ratings are not an indication of skill level, just at what level, on average, we have been playing the rated tournaments: At least for someone like myself, who has a broad range of rating scores. My rating is somewhere in the middle of those scores But you don't know whether I will beat 1000+ rated players, as I did in the last two tourneys, or lose to 940 rated players as I did in several tournaments prior to that.

If I had a small range of scores, my rating would then be not only indicative of my playing level, but also my skill level too.

I do agree that the ratings seem, at times, to not reflect the skill levels present on any particular round, (for whatever reason). But, over several rounds, they do seem to catch the level at which we played, (if not the reason we played that way).

The ratings don't care if we had a sprained ankle or other illness or injury that we're playing through, or were up all night on a red eye, or hadn't had a chance to practice the course, or never play well in the cold and rain. The ratings only care how we did in relation to the others that played at the same time.

So, are ratings a true measure of skill level? Not necessarily, IMO. Are the ratings a good measure of average playing level? I think so.

Good call Dave,
I like a ranking system over the ratings as it would apply to the skill level by using more head to head rounds.
I have expressed the need for a ranking over and over again. I hope we develop one soon, as it should drive the competition among the players from coast to coast.
I know there is a world ranking but it is WAY off base and players should be required to play a minimum of events( a few more than 2) 60% of the A tiers and NT's would be a good place to start

Bragging rights aside, isn't it generally better to have a lower rating than a higher one? Is there a bonus for a high rating I don't know about?



opportunity for sponsership by that company of yours comes to mind



You have named the only players who might benefit from a higher rating, as far as I can tell. The rating is a factor determining sponsorship, for a few elite players, but not a bonus.

The only reason I can see for wanting my own rating to be higher, is vanity. Same goes for most players who will never be on the tour and sponsored.

If the ratings were tied to handicaps, we would have even less reason to want a higher rating, I think.

Ratings are not an indication of skill level, just at what level, on average, we have been playing the rated tournaments: At least for someone like myself, who has a broad range of rating scores. My rating is somewhere in the middle of those scores But you don't know whether I will beat 1000+ rated players, as I did in the last two tourneys, or lose to 940 rated players as I did in several tournaments prior to that.

If I had a small range of scores, my rating would then be not only indicative of my playing level, but also my skill level too.

I do agree that the ratings seem, at times, to not reflect the skill levels present on any particular round, (for whatever reason). But, over several rounds, they do seem to catch the level at which we played, (if not the reason we played that way).

The ratings don't care if we had a sprained ankle or other illness or injury that we're playing through, or were up all night on a red eye, or hadn't had a chance to practice the course, or never play well in the cold and rain. The ratings only care how we did in relation to the others that played at the same time.

So, are ratings a true measure of skill level? Not necessarily, IMO. Are the ratings a good measure of average playing level? I think so.


You just described most statistics in most sports in existence.

Is a baseball player that goes 4/4 every third game (with 0/4 performances in the between games) better or worse than somebody that gives you two hits one night and then a hit on each of the other two nights? (how about Alex Rodriguez who bats .300 but never gets a hit in the clutch... is he a better or worse hitter than oh say Jim Thome who bats .290 but seems to perform when most needed?)

Is a basketball power forward that hits on 12 of 25 shots from the field one night, 20/23 the next, and 3/19 on the third any better than the fellow that drops in 13/20, 10/15, and 12/19?

Statistics are averages, they're not always going to be perfect, but they're good indicators of where somebody stands in general.

I think that for a player like you, a former World Champion, and someone who has been a pro for a long time and who knows experientially where his game is on a given day or tournament or time frame -- your rating may be less meaningful than to someone relatively new like myself who can watch his rating go up as he improves and becomes more experienced...

Bragging rights aside, isn't it generally better to have a lower rating than a higher one? Is there a bonus for a high rating I don't know about?

There is a not very well publicized frequent flyer mile program for high rated amateur men. That's why they are always fretting over whether they are 959 or 961.

Plus, if you walk into any bar in the United States and casually mention that you are an amateur with a rating over 960, suddenly you are surrounded with chicks. Works every time.

:D

Bruce, it's 950 if you throw lefty. ;)

Don't 1000 rated players get a bumper sticker? "Disc Golf God" Also, if your rating is low enough it can engender sympathy and in the right setting, free beer.

Rating don't mean a whole lot to me, my current rating is using rounds from 2004 and none of my rounds from 2006.

If will is a 924 rated player my rating is way over inflated

recalibrate me to around 780

beRD....Our rating progress has been almost identical since our battles in Am2. At this rate we should be 1000 rated by 2010.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5862&year=2006&includeRatings=1#Advanced
look at round 1
-Steven Hines (1245)
-Danny Levine (1238)

WOW! Impressive for adv

*cackle*

Add up Hines' round scores (39,75,68,40) = 222.
Listed final score is 262.

TD made a little data entry error for the first round of the golfers in the final 9. Urm, that'd be my guess I should say.

Odd that each golfer's round sum is off by exactly what each shot in the final 9. Hrm...

If I shot a 1176 round in advanced and found out I was down 10 strokes, I would be a little uspet.

If I shot a 1176 round in advanced and found out I was down 10 strokes, I would be a little uspet.



not to mention, shooting a 1100+ rated round generally DQs you from shooting MA-2... again.... EVER. Heck, my rating is around 913, but I've shot a 1000 rated round, and I'd feel bad shooting MA-2.

I think that for a player like you, a former World Champion, and someone who has been a pro for a long time and who knows experientially where his game is on a given day or tournament or time frame -- your rating may be less meaningful than to someone relatively new like myself who can watch his rating go up as he improves and becomes more experienced...



Late reply to this post...

Having just played a tourney where I was 'off', I realized that I knew what was off and know that the rounds will be below my rating/skill level representation. Having said that, I've also noticed that, as I've played in more tournaments and more league rounds, I know where I stand in skill and where I belong. I think you just took "Know what you throw, and throw what you know" to the next level and made it "Know how you're throwing what you know". More players should pay attention to where they feel they are and less to their rating.