Interesting stats (with the preliminary ratings (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5455&year=2006&incl udeRatings=1#Open)):
-Jamie Callis shot all 3 rounds with a rating of 1000 or higher, and didn't cash.
-Des Reading shot one round rated over 1000. How many other women have done that?
-If I did the math right, you had to play 1010 golf to cash in Open (actually Joe Hague did that, and still didn't cash (sorting by average ratings doesn't exactly match sorting by scores)).
- Nez said something like 'it might be among the highest average player rating in the open field.':
Average rating of the 32 Open player: 989 (median 975)

In the Open division:
- Average rating 1st round 990 (median 975)
- Average rating 2nd round 1001 (median 983)
- Average rating 3rd round 1000 (median 982)
- Average of combined ratings (weighting round 3 as 1.5 rounds since it was 27 holes) 997 (median 983)

how accurate are the final round stats for 27 holes? it seems a stroke should be worth more than 5 or 6 ratings points, it's about that for both courses.

CK??

its a real long course, so its not surprising that a stroke is only worth 5 or 6 points. it has typically run about that range, maybe 7-8 for ams, in the past.

I always get confused about how the compression factor works.

If it's 10 points/stroke at WCP 51, and WCP (equivalent for 18 holes) was right about 54, shouldn't it be slightly more? Like 10.5-11 points/stroke? Then, since it was 27 holes, it's equivalent to 1.5 rounds, so we divide 11 by 1.5 and get 7 - 7.3. Is that even close to correct?

-----

errr, I've got compression backwards. Since it's high WCP, it's only 9 points per stroke, then dividing by 1.5 we get 6.

CK????

Interesting stats (with the preliminary ratings (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5455#Open)):
-Jamie Callis shot all 3 rounds with a rating of 1000 or higher, and didn't cash.
-Des Reading shot one round rated over 1000. How many other women have done that?
-If I did the math right, you had to play 1010 golf to cash in Open (actually Joe Hague did that, and still didn't cash (sorting by average ratings doesn't exactly match sorting by scores)).
- Nez said something like 'it might be among the highest average player rating in the open field.':
Average rating of the 32 Open player: 989 (median 975)





Check Out the Sneeky Pete and Charlotte Open last october - both events required 1000+ golf to cash.

While a woman shooting 1000+ golf is rare, it has happened. Julianna has 2 in her ratings, Burl has 3 and Des has 3, including a 1019 round.

And I believe someone said that the Charlotte Open was a tougher field - 46 open players, 22 of which were over 1000 (4 of those missed cash)

also,many other events are the same (with 1000+ to cash) - I know that DGLO was liek that as well

compression factor is related to the hole/course length. since a shorter hole is more likely to be "gotten" by a greater number of players, you need to be "more better" than everyone else to get an advantage. ie, the 900 rated player is more likely to shoot as good as the 1000 rated player on a shorter course. all other factors being equal of course. so as the hole or course gets longer, the more likely it becomes that skills differences will be reflected in the score... therefore each throw is worth less in ratings.

Brandon, it makes sense.

Think of it like this: For this example, assume a 1000 rated player always shoots 1000. Assume a 950 player always shoots 950 (they are just super consistent players). The 1000 rated player will beat a 950 player by approximately 5 strokes for eighteen holes. If they play an additional nine holes, the five stroke difference will increase to seven or eight strokes.

Since they always shoot their rating (in this example), we know that the difference between the two's ratings must be 50 rating points. We divide the 50 rating points by the eight strokes and get approximately 6 points per stroke.

Pat, I think Jim's analysis is correct, but the initial assumption was a bit off. The SSA for the willy is probably closer to 54 and something like 9 points per stroke. Then divide by 1.5 to get 6. I think that is a proper way to look at it.

Yeah, I edited my post after thinking about it for a minute. The part below the dashed line was my update, and it pretty much matches what you guys said.

hmmm, didn't realize that the more holes, the less each shot is worth. right?

I still think my 80 on east was better than my 55 on tourney.

I still think my 80 on east was better than my 55 on tourney.



Yeah, but are you ever gonna move up? :Dgoodness

I still think my 80 on east was better than my 55 on tourney.



Yeah, but are you ever gonna move up? :Dgoodness



No. But my understanding is that at least he's moving out (of state).

That sucks. :( When?

I believe B and Javy leave this weekend

how come the MM1 and Adv Women are rated differently from the Int/Rec players? they played in the same pool. but the same score in R1 is rated a bit lower for the Int/Recs, R2 is a bit better for Int/Rec and R3 is higher for the Int/Recs.

I looked at the course assignments and they weren't done for the Int/Rec divisions. I just updated them using the Pool C courses indicated for MM1. Hopefully, they played the same all 3 rounds?

yes, all pool c played together for all three rounds

Phil Arthur and Matt Hall shot a 1038 rated round, and didn't cash. Joe Hague shot a 1057 rated round and didn't cash!

Man, that's just wrong.

it wasnt the 1037 or the 1057 rounds that kept those fellers out of the money. now, if all three of their rounds would have rung up the ratings that those single rounds did, then yeah that would be tough. but it looks likethey need to work on their consistency in the meantime :eek:

it wasnt the 1037 or the 1057 rounds that kept those fellers out of the money. now, if all three of their rounds would have rung up the ratings that those single rounds did, then yeah that would be tough. but it looks likethey need to work on their consistency in the meantime :eek:



No I am actually very consistant I just shoot really bad in my 1st rounds. I do it all the time so it is just one of my bad consistancies. Look at my ratings detail. 80% of my 1st rounds were below my rating at that time. I shoot pretty good after the 1st though. :D

kinda like those guys that take bogeys on the first hole or two. only on a grander scale :D

Sumthin like that. Happened to me at worlds too. :D

well knock it off dude! you'll be going wire-to-wire if you fix it.

Hey I'm workin on it. Maybe it will be different at LOSO. :D

Our former state champion gets to events early and plays a full round before the start of the event. Try getting that first round out of the way sometime and see if that helps.

Yeah I may have to do that. I already play four rounds a day at tournaments as it is so why not make it 5? :DThanks Chuck

I rarely play an early set of holes but my unscientific study indicates I play best starting around the 10th hole to the 36th hole of an event. So, if I play 9 before starting, I'll likely fade. Or, my first 9 is my warm up before playing better. Better conditioning could probably help but I'm not that serious a player so it's never been worth the effort.

see now thats exactly the type of post that just begs you to glance over to the left side and see what the player's rating is!

It would be a lot more convenient if the rating was posted underneath a person's avatar :eek: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

see now thats exactly the type of post that just begs you to glance over to the left side and see what the player's rating is!




It would be a lot more convenient if the rating was posted underneath a person's avatar :eek: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Couldn't agree more. I wish the PDGA would make having the choice of whether you want it displayed there or not happen.