Check it out at: www.pdga.com/documents/2006/WorldRankings.php (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2006/WorldRankings.php)

Figured people might want to dicuss it and you can't do that on the Announcement threads.

I find it a little silly that only 999+ are considered.

I know many 1000 players who dont play much and then a guy like Adam Olsen (rated 993 and has been killing it lately in A tiers and NT's) isn't even conisdered for the list.

I know there has to be a cut off at some point, but I that's the only thing about this I don't like.

Since the calculations will continue to get slanted more toward major event results, I think some players rated below 1000 will eventually get added if they are performing well at those majors. Rather than limiting it strictly to those over 999, it might become those over 999 rating OR those who finish above a certain position at Worlds or USDGC, for example. Remember that those with a 996 regular rating may be included in the rankings if their B-tier and higher event rating is 1000 or more. Nolan Grider had the biggest differential between his current rating 1015 and his B-tier and higher rating 1026.

This is cool Chuck. I know you said future events would be included as International competitors play in more events, but how likely is that really? Why can't you also include National Tours and European Tour stops and include points for the Top Twenty spots having players best three or so count to the rankings. This would give more play to pull from other than two tournaments and player rating.
I am not taking away from the stellar players that they are, but find it curious that the Worlds Top 25 includes a few guys that only play 11 tournaments a year, only play in their comfort zone within their region, or play in age protected divisions 95% of the time. I realize that these guys have performed well at the two BIG tournaments that are counted and all guys can't tour an so on. I would just like to see more of a total player ability put up against more qualifying chances. It also seems odd to be ranking Masters with a mere penalty and placement from 1, one division event.

Another cool perk of being a member though. yeah :D

Im the worst ranked player in the world! Cool to even be on the list.

Ratings used in this WR calculation are generated from all of the NT events plus B-tiers and A-tiers so they are already getting included. Including those NT results via ratings is actually more precise than using finish rank positions. Then, in addition, the few major events actually get double counted since both the ratings a player earns in those events and their finish rank get included in the calculation.

We wanted to make sure that a player in Bulgaria that only played 8 rounds in their country or just played the USDGC and Worlds had a chance to be included in the World Rankings. In fact, if this Bulgarian played no other sanctioned events in the year except won both the USDGC and Worlds, I think most would consider this player the best in the World, albeit a little quirky.

If he were forced to play NT events to be in the rankings, it wouldn't be a fair global system. Now, let's say this Bulgarian does not play the Worlds and USDCG and only plays 8 rounds near his country, but has a 1045 rating. It still seems fair to include him in the World Rankings. However, he would get penalized for not facing the other top players at any major event and maybe be ranked 10th or so instead of 1st. Seems like a fair way to include everyone but require at least some head to head contact at some of our major events.

You can 'Thank' Climo for urging me to develop this after our talk last Worlds. He gave Jesper as an example when last year his rating was a few points higher than Ken's during one update period. Although that can happen with ratings since you're playing the course more than other people, Jesper had never beaten Ken in any head-to-head competition and it didn't seem right at our highest level for that to be the case. I don't think that will happen with the new WR process that blends ratings and some major events. But we'll see how it goes.

Hey Chuck,

Do you have this in an Excel Spreadsheet?

I would really like to see it if that is possible.

Thanks,

I could give you the Excel file used to make the PDF that's posted but there are no formulas in it. The development files are not in a clean, releaseable format with documentation. There are just scratch pages and rough data that's used by the ratings committee.

I'd be glad to answer any questions though on the calculations.

Chuck, you replied to Yeti:

"Ratings used in this WR calculation are generated from all of the NT events plus B-tiers and A-tiers so they are already getting included. Including those NT results via ratings is actually more precise than using finish rank positions. Then, in addition, the few major events actually get double counted since both the ratings a player earns in those events and their finish rank get included in the calculation. "

Why couldn't NT events get SOME extra weight over and above its value because those rounds are included in the calculation of the ratings. You are giving a result in a Major double weight, so why couldn't NT events receive a 1.5 weight? or a 1.25 weight? The actual number is debatable.

But at least this puts more value on an NT event relative to a B-tier or A-tier, but not the value of a Major.

An alternate could be some kind of factor (or weight) that would be some kind of calculation applied to overall NT event performance over a given period of time. In other words, lump all your NT event finishes together and come up with some number that then becomes weighted.

In this or any world ratings system, are players statistically penalized because they fail to attend "X" number of events or miss a major?

If the NT had 3 or 4 events in Europe and Japan, then it might make sense to include them with more weight. But for now, the NT is a US series (which already has its own points system) and doesn't deserve additional weighting. There are those who feel that playing with higher rated players generates higher ratings. So players outside the US already don't have as many player pools at events with higher average ratings to compete with.

If the intent of the World Rankings is to provide more weight for players to compete against each other, then not competing when possible at World level events either needs to be penalized or the alternative is for those players not to be included at all. We would rather include them. If Master and older players care about their World Ranking in the future, they'll have to decide whether they want to play Open at Worlds or get a few position drop if they play in their age division. Interestingly, if they play better at Worlds than their rating average, their rating could go up a few spots and offset their 5 point penalty. So playing well still counts.

Is this in response to the Marshall Street Rating system? Or is it in some way similar? Just wondering.

We had been working on the concept for a few years before Marshall Street produced theirs. Dave McCormack has been vocal on here for several years regarding rankings versus ratings. Each process was developed independently and aren't done the same way. Of course, results could end up similar since it's the same people involved playing the same events. But the emphasis and weighting is different. As I mentioned earlier, credit Climo with spurring me to move the project up in priority and get it going after last Worlds.

Im the worst ranked player in the world! Cool to even be on the list.

LOL. Yeah, be happy you're on the list, jerk!

Im the worst ranked player in the world! Cool to even be on the list.

LOL. Yeah, be happy you're on the list, jerk!



Dont Hate...Just cuz you beat me at the GSC. :p

Im the worst ranked player in the world! Cool to even be on the list.

LOL. Yeah, be happy you're on the list, jerk!



Dont Hate...Just cuz you beat me at the GSC. :p


Good call, maybe I'll make the list next year.

So I just looked at this world ranking thing and I was wondering where the "rating" part comes from. It has me rated at 1012 and I have never been rated 1012 before . . . does this come for the pdga rating or is it a special rating designed just for this ranking system?

Every North American in the ranking has a rating based on B-tiers and higher from April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006. So some events included in your current ratings will be eliminated based on dates and based on tier. No double weighting or drops.

wow C teirs actually helped my rating . . . heh

There is another way to determine rankings. And that would be based solely on won - loss records. Some caveats would need to be thrown in:

1. There would need to be a minimum number of events to qualify.
2. Won - Loss record should be only between other qualified players.
3. The wins and losses would need to be weighted based on the quality of the players you play. This weighting would lead us to a Modified Winning Percentage (MWP). Players would be ranked based on MWP.

We would include B-Tiers and above, as well as any non-PDGA events that meet our criteria. We released our beta test to our email list (they get everything first!) about a month ago. We got some feedback, made some tweaks, and we are now ready to release Version 1 of the Marshall Street Ranking System.

Feedback makes us stronger.

http://www.discgolfranking.com/

One flaw that jumps out with using the win-loss process is "What happened to Jesper Lundmark, Dean Tannock or Brad Hammock, for example?" Jesper only plays in sanctioned events between May and October and it looks like his first event this year was the recent Stockholm Open where he tied for first and lost in a playoff. There's no indication he's not one of the top 10 players in the world and yet he doesn't make the MS rankings. Brad and Dean mostly play Master but when they play Open such as USDGC, they continue to be threats. Here's where ratings shine in terms of players competing against the course to demonstrate excellence not always against seeded players.

One flaw that jumps out with using the win-loss process is "What happened to Jesper Lundmark, Dean Tannock or Brad Hammock, for example?" Jesper only plays in sanctioned events between May and October and it looks like his first event this year was the recent Stockholm Open where he tied for first and lost in a playoff. There's no indication he's not one of the top 10 players in the world and yet he doesn't make the MS rankings. Brad and Dean mostly play Master but when they play Open such as USDGC, they continue to be threats. Here's where ratings shine in terms of players competing against the course to demonstrate excellence not always against seeded players.



The comment about Brad and Dean seems to hold some water. They did not make the cut because we did not include any Masters results. Comparing a Masters score to an Open score introduces some potential problems (playing safe at the end to hold off a competitor / going for broke to try and gain on someone) that can effect relative score. Let us contemplate this and see if we can come up with a good solution. They seem to have played plenty of events to be included. And perhaps there are other Masters players that we can safely include. We just need to figure out a fair way to do it. Thanks for the comments - feedback makes us stronger!

Regarding Jesper - the only indication I see that he may not be in the top 10 is his 19th place finish at the USDGC. I guess there is also the Charlotte Open where he got 5th and lost to 3 folks who are not even in the top 25 (according to the PDGA Ranking System). We won't include him until he has got enough events under his belt to make the numbers matter. And I will agree he is probably a top 30 player, perhaps we'll see after the European Championships when he will have enough big events (as we define them) to qualify.

On a reverse jab, why isn't Ben Gaddis (who is rated 1029) included in the PDGA Rankings? His rating would seem to warrant him a fairly high ranking.

Ben doesn't have a rating based on at least 12 rounds. His is based on 7 and Malton's on 8. But Jeff has gotten more active and may pop into the top 20 in the Sept rankings if he completes a few more events or Worlds. The list also includes only current PDGA members or those who were current in the previous year. it would be hard to make the list and not be current however unless you just played a bunch of B-tiers and did well.

BTW, I haven't heard you mention this. I'm not sure what your interest is in Marshall Street, but are you satisfied that you'll comply with the PDGA Conflict of Interest guidelines upon becoming a PDGA officer? www.pdga.com/conflict_of_interest.php (http://www.pdga.com/conflict_of_interest.php)

For example, Jason has been dying to get his hands on some of the less circulated internal info. It would seem sharing that with him would be inappropriate under the Conflict doc unless the Board decided to make the info generally available. We know the old bylaws would imply everything is open but that may not be in force when you start. Of course, it's possible your master plan was to join the Board just so you could dangle your secret knowledge and torture the poor fellow. :D

Yup. I've read 'em and I'm satisfied.

chuck, are you suggesting that the last act of the current BoD will be to approve the new ByLaws??? that would mean the new BoD is coming in under new rules. would be a very strange sequence indeed..

Actually, I'm not sure what happens. I assume the new bylaws have a start date specified if approved? I didn't check. Or are they active upon the close of elections and counting of ballots?

are there plans for the PDGA world rankings to ultimately affect tournament entries as far as who may play in the event?

I'm curious due to recent discussion here in CT when the Buick Championship (formerly the Greater Hartford Open) only a few weeks back. Tiger was still up in the air regarding his attendance just shy of the deadline to decide - someone asked a Buick rep what would happen if a "bottom feeder" signed up for the tournament, filling the event, but then still before the deadline Tiger finally agreed to show up. You can't NOT allow Tiger to play - but the response was that the PGA rankings determine who is able to play in the tournament. The lower-ranked players know that if enough people above them sign up for a tournament, they will not be able to play the event since a higher-ranked player gets priority if they wish to enter the competition.

Once more of the player population gains rankings (especially if/when sub-1000 rated players are included), could rankings lead to entry preference at Majors, NT's, and other PDGA sanctioned events?

I know of no PDGA plans and it wasn't considered as one of the uses of the rankings when we developed them. In fact we didn't have any use in mind other than as a service we thought players might like and something that added another element of professionalism for disc golf.

It's certainly possible for the rankings to be creatively used by others. For example, it's my understanding that the manufacturers use the ratings as one aspect of determining whether to sponsor a player. We have also used the ratings for determining members of the A pool at Worlds and determining groups.

I can't see a wider use of the rankings than just for a handful of major events. No more than a few hundred players will likely get included in the rankings because we're limited in the number of players who face each other in the big events in the male and female Open divisions, even if the sport becomes 10 times bigger. Whereas the ratings can be done for everyone, the rankings will gradually become more and more based on events where the top players actually play each other. There's some limit to that number. What might happen is the emergence of semi-independent rankings of players within US regions and other countries that generate top players in events and who then qualify for the world level events.

Sounds awesome...I was wondering if we would ever have a world ranking system, NOW WE DO!

Nice work to whoever made it happen. :cool:

Sounds awesome...I was wondering if we would ever have a world ranking system, NOW WE DO!

Nice work to whoever made it happen. :cool:



http://www.discgolfranking.com/

What is even more awesome is that we now have two ranking systems!

Actually, I'm not sure what happens. I assume the new bylaws have a start date specified if approved? I didn't check. Or are they active upon the close of elections and counting of ballots?

That is another problem with the Bylaws. They are ambiguous as to how and when they take effect, especially as to those Board members who are elected in this election cycle. I would think that those Board members ran in an election held while the old Constitution was in effect, and therefore they got elected to two-year terms which expire in two years. But everyone elected under the new Bylaws serves for 1 year, and the term begins and expires at the time of the annual meeting, because the Bylaws failed to specify anything in this regard.

What a mess.