Don't know for sure yet but I expect it will be in there. It should have been in the last update. I won't see the event files until the PDGA office sends them to Roger and me next Friday.

Chuck - PLEASE make sure that the round 6 PRO GM scores from Worlds are NOT included in ratings due to the circumstances of that round not making them accurate.

Thanks in advance,
Keith

It's nice to see the PDGA elves working on the weekend! :D

Keith - Not sure yet but we may only do ratings for the GMs who finished their round 6 on Friday night if we can identify which cards and players finished.

How would that make sense? More groups didn't finish than did. Some of the groups who finished knew players had walked off without playing a hole after being sent out. Those groups where furious and the round was effected by it. So what your saying is if your group was having a bad round you would have be better off quitting. This is exactly why this whole round should have been thrown out or replayed. This one round completely changed the entire outlook of the worlds for many of the players involved.

We'll look at all the numbers but the only group that initially makes sense to rate is those who finished on Friday night since their rounds were all under the same conditions. In a way, this round is like a tee time round where some groups finished at different times under different conditions.

Chuck I have a question about the unofficial ratings for a tournament i just played.
http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/85425
I have no issue with it, but I thought there needed to be 5 propagators for the ratings to be calculated. The women, Grand Masters and Ams, played the same layout, but I can only count 4 propagators. What am I missing?

The minimum propagator count to calculate and display unofficial ratings was moved down to 3 from 5 after the Women's Global event.

Hey Chuck, I did not know who to send this to, so maybe you could forward it?

Thing 1: In my stats it is showing that I played the Rocky Mountain Womens Disc Golf Challenge. I did not play that. If you click on the link to that in my stats, it links to a tournament I DID play, but has it misnamed as the Rocky Mountain Womens Disc Golf Challenge. I don't know what tournament that is the stats for. Maybe Mount Pleasant? I was distraught over the death of a friend and did not play well at Mount Pleasant, so I'm guessing that is the JBird Mount Pleasant Open tournament.

Thing 2: If you click on Membership, Player Statistics and the search for Amateur Grandmasters, sorting by points, my name does not appear. Maybe because I played the Rocky Mountain Women's tournament I've been disqualified from Men's Amateur Grandmasters? :D I don't know what is going on there, but with 4,000 points, I should be somewhere near the top.

bruce if you did play the rocky mountain womens challenge, your definitely taking sandbagging to a whole new level :)

Hey Chuck, I did not know who to send this to, so maybe you could forward it?

Thing 1: In my stats it is showing that I played the Rocky Mountain Womens Disc Golf Challenge. I'm guessing that is the JBird Mount Pleasant Open tournament.

Bruce, I just looked at your stats and I don't see the Rocky Mountain Womens Disc Golf Challenge. I do see the JBird Mount Pleasant Open though.

Thing 2: If you click on Membership, Player Statistics and the search for Amateur Grandmasters, sorting by points, my name does not appear.

Hmmm. I see you right up there at the top of the list.

Chuck, who do I contact for the following?
There's a tournament where the unofficial results were fine - I tied for last and split the last-place money. But the official results have the other guy winning all the money and me none. I mean, it's not a huge deal, but it is definitely weird.

edit: this question may be redacted, as I realized that even though the results are official, they aren't a part of the ratings update, and it's possible it could change before then. However, in the event it doesn't, you could always answer anyway.

Contact Andrew at asweeton at pdga.com whenever there are errors or oversights in official results.

During a sanctioned round if a player plays poorly enough relative to their player rating such that the round's rating will be dropped from their personal rating... is that player's score still used to calculate the SSA, i.e. everyone elses' ratings?

Any propagator who shoots more than 60 points below their rating is not used to determine the SSA.

Does that mean playing poorly is essentially the same as dnf?

Not being used as a propagator with a weaker round rating is not the same as tanking or DNFing.

I noticed that this event was not included in the last update. Will it be in the Aug 14th update?

Event date: May 12th 1012
Battle of the Big Dawgs II sponsored by Dynamic Discs

Thanks you for the help... I have asked the TD but have not received a response.

You can tell if an event will be in the next update if you look at the event on PDGA and it says "Official Results" (and there are no ratings shown). If it still says "Unofficial Results" or you see no scores at all, then the PDGA has not received the report from the TD yet.

It has been showing "Unofficial Results" since May. I have contacted the TD 3-4 times asking him to please finish the official report or anything that he needed to do.

The PDGA office continues to try and contact the TDs to get their reports sent once they are late like this one.

Either the TD report is not in, or the TD hasn't paid the PDGA. Both will hold up the results. Only the TD and the PDGA office know what the hold up is.

At a recent tournament, the men played the longs first round and shorts the second. Am women played the shorts both rounds, so we don't have ratings for the first round due to lack of propagators. Is there no way to generate round ratings for the first round based on the second round results?

Official ratings should be generated using both rounds.

Chuck, can you double (triple?) check the round 2 & 3 ratings for MM1 at AM Worlds?

Worlds ratings were not checked as thoroughly as we would have liked in order to get the ratings posted so let us know where we should take a look.

Worlds ratings were not checked as thoroughly as we would have liked in order to get the ratings posted so let us know where we should take a look.
Round 2 & 3 for MM1 ;)

So far MM1 R2 & R3 are the only Worlds ratings issues we've heard from anyone.

MJ did get the 1113 rated round and Catrina Allen shot the highest rated woman's round ever at 1058 with both being thrown at Bradford.

Hello Chuck,
I am trying to understand how the player ratings are calculated. Could you please try to help me understand how my player rating went down 6 points? When I do the math I get it should have went up 2 points.
Thanks a bunch.

My PDGA# is 51934.

Your Wild Flower ratings in May got double weighted for the July update (most recent 25%) but your best three Daytona rounds were double weighted in today's update (and not Wild Flower). Wild Flower ratings were higher than Daytona so your July rating was a little higher due to better weighting.

For MA1 at Worlds were all the rounds at a given course across days combined for ratings, or were there exceptions?

Chuck, can you double (triple?) check the round 2 & 3 ratings for MM1 at AM Worlds?
Worlds ratings were not checked as thoroughly as we would have liked in order to get the ratings posted so let us know where we should take a look.Round 2 & 3 for MM1 ;)So far MM1 R2 & R3 are the only Worlds ratings issues we've heard from anyone.

All divisions with Pools were documented through their shuffles throughout the week with separate Pool 1 & Pool 2 columns to track their original pools. If MA1 and MG1 in that same spreadsheet are checking out okay, then MM1 should be as well too because the entire column of pool information was copied over.

All rounds at Worlds were combined on the same layout even across multiple divisions. We looked at each round SSA individually. They were all within normal expected variances on each course, even the rain delayed rounds, so they were combined.

All divisions with Pools were documented through their shuffles throughout the week with separate Pool 1 & Pool 2 columns to track their original pools. If MA1 and MG1 in that same spreadsheet are checking out okay, then MM1 should be as well too because the entire column of pool information was copied over.
It's clear the MM1 R2 & R3 numbers got flipped but that doesn't mean the pool report from Worlds scoring was necessarily incorrect.

All divisions with Pools were documented through their shuffles throughout the week with separate Pool 1 & Pool 2 columns to track their original pools. If MA1 and MG1 in that same spreadsheet are checking out okay, then MM1 should be as well too because the entire column of pool information was copied over.
Look at the posted results for MM1 Round 2 & 3. There seem to be waaaay too many 970+ rounds followed by 700ish rounds and visa-versa.

And talking to one of the guys who played MM1 he says there's no way he shot a 980 round or a 740 round.

Hello Chuck,

I'm confused about my rating at this update. I follow the ratings system pretty well and understand the dynamics of how it works...at this update I dropped rounds rated at 947 avg and added rounds rated at 957 avg, yet my rating dropped 4 pts. PDGA #33126...any feedback on this? Is there something I'm missing?

It's likely the rounds that were double weighted changed compared with the last update.

It's likely the rounds that were double weighted changed compared with the last update.

I don't follow that as far as double weighted rds changing. I added my AM Nats rounds to my rating, avged at official 957 rated and dropped approx 6 other rounds from my rating, rated at 947 avg. So my double weighted rounds are the AM Nats rounds which would mathematically make my rating go up (was 948), not down (now 944). It is what it is, but obviously the math doesn't make sense and I'm always trying to get a better grasp on the ratings system.

Hello Chuck,

I'm confused about my rating at this update. I follow the ratings system pretty well and understand the dynamics of how it works...at this update I dropped rounds rated at 947 avg and added rounds rated at 957 avg, yet my rating dropped 4 pts. PDGA #33126...any feedback on this? Is there something I'm missing?Rounds with more or less than 18 holes are weighted proportionately. So a 24 hole round that is bad is worth 1.333 rounds of badness. Maybe this changes the averages. Maybe not. Ratings are always like a box of chocolates for me.

Chuck, any progress on changing the website to show womens' rounds in Roman numerals?

http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1468382&postcount=101

http://www.pdga.com/player_stats/30778/2012

MCMXLI!

Wow, I barely got ahead of her this update.

I don't follow that as far as double weighted rds changing. I added my AM Nats rounds to my rating, avged at official 957 rated and dropped approx 6 other rounds from my rating, rated at 947 avg. So my double weighted rounds are the AM Nats rounds which would mathematically make my rating go up (was 948), not down (now 944). It is what it is, but obviously the math doesn't make sense and I'm always trying to get a better grasp on the ratings system.

The three rounds you added from Am Nats averaged 10 points lower than three of the rounds you had double weighted in the last update with that 1031 which wasn't double weighted this time.

Your Wild Flower ratings in May got double weighted for the July update (most recent 25%) but your best three Daytona rounds were double weighted in today's update (and not Wild Flower). Wild Flower ratings were higher than Daytona so your July rating was a little higher due to better weighting.

Thanks Chuck. Makes sense now.

Yes after five months, an event I played back in Feb is finally official. Now the process starts again to inform the TD/PDGA that this mulligan X-tier event has round ratings. Maybe I'll just let someone else figure it out this time and keep my round rating. It's getting old following up with TD/PDGA event after event with these common type errors.

Just noticed a ratings issue with an old tourney. It's from 2010 and no longer affects ratings so not really an issue. Does anyone want to know when old issues are spotted? Can't believe I did not notice this when it happened. In the 2010 (sept 4-5) Charlie Vettiner Open the Advanced Masters pool is grouped with the Rec/other pool, we actually played in the pool with Open/Advanced. No big deal now just an FYI. Noticed it a few minutes ago by accident while looking for something else.

Thanks, I'll pass it along so Roger can correct it for historical purposes.

we were told that playing in the womens global event as men we would get rated rounds for helping to provide propagators for them.we paid a small fee to enter with no prizes but did expect our "rated" rounds to count towards our rating.if the process was changed by the pdga after the event was over should i expect my $ to be returned?who should be returning it ?the td who only passed on what the pdga told him or the pdga?

Don't know anything about it. Contact asweeton at pdga.com to get it resolved.

it shows our results here in Oklahoma city for the WGE are unofficial.i looked through the contact info on the website and cant find asweeton just the commities are listed not who the people behind the commity but i did find a quote...

You get points based on the tier and finish position in your local event. No additional points for your standing in the global consolidation event.
__________________
^^^^ this is a quote from you chuck


id be happy to contact whoever i need to but i couldnt find it

it shows our results here in Oklahoma city for the WGE are unofficial.i looked through the contact info on the website and cant find asweeton just the commities are listed not who the people behind the commity but i did find a quote...

You get points based on the tier and finish position in your local event. No additional points for your standing in the global consolidation event.
__________________
^^^^ this is a quote from you chuck


id be happy to contact whoever i need to but i couldnt find it

If the results show as unofficial, it likely means the TD has not yet submitted the official tournament report to the PDGA. They uploaded the results online, obviously, but that's not enough. If the PDGA doesn't have the report, they can't process the event and calculate the ratings.

I'm facing the same thing with the WGE I attended...results still haven't been officially submitted and therefore no one has gotten ratings or points out of the event.

Oh, and asweeton is Andrew Sweeton, PDGA Tour Manager. Chuck was giving you his email address: asweeton @ pdga . com (without the spaces).

Who won the 2012 FPO NT title? The Vibram Open has both Cat and Val tied at 388 points. With Cat winning the Vibram Open, that should make her the winner. Yet Innova is announcing Val won.

Not sure who won. I'm not involved with the NT point system. Looks like we need to wait for the announcement on the PDGA front page. I'm not sure Andrew was back from Vibram to make the official point tally and write the story.

Not sure who won. I'm not involved with the NT point system. Looks like we need to wait for the announcement on the PDGA front page. I'm not sure Andrew was back from Vibram to make the official point tally and write the story.

Who won the 2012 FPO NT title? The Vibram Open has both Cat and Val tied at 388 points. With Cat winning the Vibram Open, that should make her the winner. Yet Innova is announcing Val won.

http://www.pdga.com/nt-series-winners?

Who won the 2012 FPO NT title? The Vibram Open has both Cat and Val tied at 388 points. With Cat winning the Vibram Open, that should make her the winner. Yet Innova is announcing Val won.


Val was actually awarded the NT Champion trophy by PDGA Tour Manager Andrew Sweeten at the awards ceremony following the Vibram Open on Sunday.

Here is a link to a photo showing Val accepting the award:



https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/s720x720/217988_294173937356665_994799784_n.jpg


The PDGA announced on Tuesday that Catrina was the winner after PDGA clarification of the NT tie breaker procedures. INNOVA has posted the updated results.

Who won the 2012 FPO NT title? The Vibram Open has both Cat and Val tied at 388 points. With Cat winning the Vibram Open, that should make her the winner. Yet Innova is announcing Val won.

Points were miscalculated on site at the Vibram Open Sunday afternoon. There was actually a tie for first between Val and Cat. Catrina Allen is your 2012 National Tour Champion by virtue of the first tie-breaker: head-to-head competition at the Vibram Open. http://www.pdga.com/nt-series-winners

Final Standings: http://www.pdga.com/national-tour/2012

When will the next ratings update be?

Never,ind just saw it on the front page. Sept 18

How come a player is not added to the registration list automatically when signing up for an event on PGDA?

How come a player is not added to the registration list automatically when signing up for an event on PGDA?

Because the registration lists are manual entry only. And I believe pdgastore.com and pdga.com are on separate servers which makes synching the two processes a bit difficult.

Because the registration lists are manual entry only. And I believe pdgastore.com and pdga.com are on separate servers which makes synching the two processes a bit difficult. Something like that. ;)

pdgasignup.com is managed by a third-party and is not directly integrated with pdga.com. The current system periodically notifies the tournament director via email when there are new registrations and it is up to the tournament director to upload the current registration list to pdga.com.

One of our major projects in 2013 will be developing our own tightly integrated tournament registration service. When players register for an event using this new service they will immediately see their names on the registration list.

Something like that. ;)

pdgasignup.com is managed by a third-party and is not directly integrated with pdga.com. The current system periodically notifies the tournament director via email when there are new registrations and it is up to the tournament director to upload the current registration list to pdga.com.

One of our major projects in 2013 will be developing our own tightly integrated tournament registration service. When players register for an event using this new service they will immediately see their names on the registration list. Ok thank you, that makes sense and looking forward to the change. One of the events I played last year used a 3rd party registration that would show players registered immediately. It was helpful because the event filled up in less than 2 hours. This year the event is using pdga and I wanted to make sure I made it into the event. Crossing fingers!

Can players receive round ratings for X-tier events?

Yes. It depends on the format. For example, charity events where only the payout is the reason for the X-tier, then no problem getting ratings. However, X-tiers where maybe mulligans are involved are not supposed to be rated.

Glad I searched in this forum. Some guys were question the legitmacy of the Superhero I throw and it was nice to find out that not only is it approved but it is not required to have a stamp of approval on the disc.

Thanks for such an informative thread Chuck!

Wow, I barely got ahead of her this update.
Don't get caught standing still. http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/88595
:D
OR, save yourself; it's too late for me.
:(

Chuck,

How many points do you need to get an invite to the AM Worlds in Emporia this year in the Advanced Division? Last year I was only a few points short of an invite, and it was full before I could get in. I dont want to make the same mistake this year. Please Advise. Thanks.

I'm not involved in the points calculations or setting the minimums for invites. That's Andrew's job at PDGA HQ. I'm not sure he can advise what the numbers will be since it depends on the number of events and points generated each year. It was the top 25% point earners in each state but I haven't checked if that's still the standard.

Thanks for the quick reply. I emailed him earlier, so Im sure he respond soon.

Has there been a discussion about keeping events unofficial until an upcoming rating update? For the longest time the issues I see with unofficial/official results of an event prior to a rating update are this:
1) Unofficial results show a projected round rating. ok cool!
2) Official results show that the TD has submitted the TD report, paid PDGA fees, and the PDGA has processed the report. ok cool!
3) Official results prior to a rating update do not show ratings. Not cool!

I think we can all agree that we want to see projected/actual ratings for an event irregardless if it's official or not official. We all like to see if the TD or PDGA has done their job so that the event will be included for an upcoming rating update.

So, is there any changes or plans in the works to get our icecream and cake too?

This has already been solved:
Unofficial ratings stay present until the Tournament is official and ratings delivered.
Add /official to the end of the URL and you will get the pending official page. This will show that has been processed. Ratings won't be there until the update.

See this thread:
http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=36444

Has there been a discussion about keeping events unofficial until an upcoming rating update? For the longest time the issues I see with unofficial/official results of an event prior to a rating update are this:
1) Unofficial results show a projected round rating. ok cool!
2) Official results show that the TD has submitted the TD report, paid PDGA fees, and the PDGA has processed the report. ok cool!
3) Official results prior to a rating update do not show ratings. Not cool!

I think we can all agree that we want to see projected/actual ratings for an event irregardless if it's official or not official. We all like to see if the TD or PDGA has done their job so that the event will be included for an upcoming rating update.

So, is there any changes or plans in the works to get our icecream and cake too?

Are you saying they should find a way to keep the unofficial ratings up until the official ratings are done, regardless of whether the tournament has been officially processed?

If so, they already did that. Ganz set that up a few weeks ago.

Are you saying they should find a way to keep the unofficial ratings up until the official ratings are done, regardless of whether the tournament has been officially processed?

If so, they already did that. Ganz set that up a few weeks ago.Perfect, I recall there was some discussion to this. I'll enjoy my cake and ice cream now!

Tried it out and it works. I know it's probably asking for another serving of cake, but is it possible to get ratings to show up for official results before the rating update? :-)

Chuck, SSAs for the two rounds at the event below are less than a half a stroke apart. Any thoughts as to why the two rounds weren't combined?

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/96986/Open

If they weren't combined it was likely the TD report indicated they were two separate layouts. I'm on the road and can't check the TD report to see until Friday.

Any reason why ratings weren't calculated for Sept 1-2 tournaments? Report was sent on Sunday the 2nd or Monday the 3rd I believe.

How did my rating change from yesterday? After the rating update it was 959, today it's 958. I checked all the round ratings when it was updated and nothing has changed. I calculated my rating at 959.2 which matched the rating update. So why the change? I know it's only 1 point, no big deal, but just want to know how it could change.

There was an unplanned correction run posted overnight so maybe 30 players might have a ratings chnge by a few points.

I believe all events properly filled out and received by Tues Sep 4th got processed.

There was an unplanned correction run posted overnight so maybe 30 players might have a ratings chnge by a few points.

I believe all events properly filled out and received by Tues Sep 4th got processed. I know that Sweeney and team were correcting the Sun Valley Open Pool 2 issue (now fixed). I didn't see any changes in any of my round ratings. Is it possible that my rating was updated, and any changes to round ratings has not been updated either to the event page or player's 'rating detail' page?

(Sorry not trying make a big deal out of 1pt, just trying to understand the process and the rating change). Thanks.

It's likely your per hole rating slightly changed on those rated rounds and when they were expanded, the decimal change just flipped you to one point different when rounded.

The event below used mulligans. How can it be included in player ratings?
http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/79212/Open

It shouldn't have gotten rated. I'll get it added to the corrections for the next update. Thanks for the tip.

In a recent event the results have the players in the proper order, but the number for the places is wrong and out of order: http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/96990

What causes this and how can it be fixed?

In a recent event the results have the players in the proper order, but the number for the places is wrong and out of order: http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/96990

What causes this and how can it be fixed?

Nice catch. Fixed.

Currently, places are only recalculated when uploading results for the entire field. In this case, the final round scores were entered individually for each player so the places from the end of the previous round were still showing.

I've got a longer term fix for this is on my to-do list.

Nice catch. Fixed.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/88595

The Junior Girls < 19 division is wrong. Those are probably Junior Boys < 19 xcept the one girl. You'd have to talk to Schwass.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/88595

The Junior Girls < 19 division is wrong. Those are probably Junior Boys < 19 xcept the one girl. You'd have to talk to Schwass.

Different problem, but thanks. I'll pass it along to Big Dog.

Different problem, but thanks. I'll pass it along to Big Dog.Thanks. I can never remember who does what, but all of you do a better job of it recently! :)

Sorry, I've been looking for two days, can someone explain, or point me in the right direction of a form...that explains the "tier" system? Please...can't find this anywhere...

First two links on this page: http://www.pdga.com/td/event-planning-management

First two links on this page: http://www.pdga.com/td/event-planning-management

That was so much easier...now I feel kinda dumb.
Thanks so much!

Chuck, are the round ratings for the performance flight of the USDGC going to be based on the calculated ratings from just that flight or from the ratings of both flights? Any idea when we might see the performance flight unofficial ratings?

That was so much easier...now I feel kinda dumb.
Thanks so much!
I actually just reorganized the entire Tournament Director selection last week in an effort to make it easier to find things. That's a brand new page.

Chuck, are the round ratings for the performance flight of the USDGC going to be based on the calculated ratings from just that flight or from the ratings of both flights? Any idea when we might see the performance flight unofficial ratings?
There won't be any unofficial ratings posted for the Performance Flight on their PDGA scores page. However, their current unoffical ratings are exactly the same as whatever their actual score was unofficially rated in the Open Flight during the same round.

All USDGC players will get official ratings in the Oct 23rd update with the SSA course ratings determined from only the Open Flight player ratings and scores.

Why are the ratings only going to be determined from the Open Flight player ratings and scores? I know in the past you have argued that ratings with tee times typically should be segmented somewhat based on time of day.

We determined from last year that the performance format is a different enough game from standard disc golf that those scores were incompatible with regular scores for determining the SSA. Especially with the T&D format last year, many more players/propagators are prone to "tin cupping" which will artificially inflate the "true" SSA, partly due to the format and partly having much less at stake than the Open players who can still cash even after a slip up.

Once you have the data, I'd love to know how different the SSA is between the two flights.

It may not be calculated officially. The only preliminary info I saw was after 16 or so Performance players R1 scores were posted on PDGA before they were removed and it showed around 71 SSA, maybe 5 shots above the Open flight. I know with T&D last year, the unofficial SSA was maybe 8-9 higher than the Open Flight in 2010.

Ratings updates for 2012 events:
Mar 20, May 15, July 3, Aug 14, Sep 18, Oct 16, Nov 20, Dec 18, Jan 22

was there supposed to be an update 2 days ago?

was there supposed to be an update 2 days ago?

From the front page of the site: Next PDGA Player Ratings Update (http://www.pdga.com/announcements/october-ratings-update)

The next PDGA Player Ratings Update is scheduled for Tuesday, October 23rd. The deadline for TD Report submissions is Tuesday, October 9th.

The note has been up for at least a couple weeks.

The original Oct 16th date was pushed back to the 23rd about 4 months ago when Andrew realized it was too close to the USDGC so they could process all of the late arriving TD reports and get them into the ratings calculation cycle.

From the front page of the site: Next PDGA Player Ratings Update (http://www.pdga.com/announcements/october-ratings-update)



The note has been up for at least a couple weeks.

Thanks, i have the message board bookmarked so i never even see the front page, my bad

It looks like the new ratings are out (my page shows tomorrow's date), but I don't see the USDGC ratings. Do you know what happened here?

Looks like that's getting sorted out now for how to get those USDGC ratings posted properly. I slipped up making sure everyone was onboard with how that would be handled.

I recently noticed that there are some suggested minimum ratings listed for pro divisions in the tour standards document. For example, >900 for FPO. Does that mean that TDs have discretion to refuse to let women rated under 900 play FPO? If so, how would that square with the requirement that TDs refuse no entry to PDGA members if the pool is not full? For example, at a pro only event, a woman age <40 and rated under 900 could be refused entry if the minimum rating is enforced.

The minimum ratings shown are guidelines only so players have an idea what minimum level rating might be needed to be a contender in that division. The only place the guidelines are mandatory is in the "Pros Playing Am" section where pros must have ratings below the numbers shown to enter that amateur division.

Chuck, regarding the differences between league ratings and tournament ratings. I know at least by me, the number of players with well-established ratings playing leagues is a lot less than in tournaments. Wouldn't this partially account for the differences, i.e. rapidly improving players depressing ratings?

It could have a small effect. If you only have five props and all of them are underrated by 10 points, then you would have an SSA and a set of round ratings that are low by 1 throw. That's pretty much worst case scenario eve in leagues. If those underrated props are blended with other players with more established ratings, the effect will be less detectable.

I'm trying to do some early prep for the 2013 Pro Worlds at Lemon Lake and I'd like to try to figure out what courses were played for each round during 2010 Worlds so that I can see what a 1000-rated round looks like on each course. In the old days, I'd just go to the tournament results page here on the PDGA website and then click on the "course statistics" link at the top of the results to find the SSA for each course, but that link is gone now. So...

What's the best way to find this info - for the 2010 Pro Worlds and for other courses and events in the future?

Thanks for your help!

Right now, it looks like the only course to be played by Open that should be about the same will be the Gold course. Look for the Open rounds where the 1000 rated round is near 63. That was the Gold course. That's the only help I can provide for the moment. Past history is not always good for evaluating Pro Worlds courses in advance because they are almost always tweaked for flow and timing. For example, the longest layout may not be used.

So the perf flight scores were not used to determine USDGC ratings? I figured they were and that may have been a reason why the ratings dropped so much when they went official.

No performance flight scores used, just open flight. Performance flight ratings still haven't been posted yet and they will be the same for the same score as in Open.

Chuck,

I know it's a well-beat horse, but what is with such a discrepancy in league ratings vs tournament ratings?

Saturday, 11/3 - PDGA Sanctioned League
http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/99095/2044098670

Saturday, 10/27 (second round) - Oklahoma Open A-Tier
http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/78988

Weather nearly the same, if not colder during our league round. The lowest round in the league was a 50 for a 1028 unofficial rating. Whereas the same score a week earlier was a 1049. Like a 59 listed as a 969 in the OO, while the same score during league round was rated 943. That is a major swing.

It's hard to pull pros, who have to shoot incredible, just to rate above 1,000. And, in my opinion, it is not a good standard to say that if some AM shoots a 46 at our course (tying Dave Feldburgs round), that they shouldn't receive the same near 1100 rating as he did that day with common conditions.

This is a common problem with the leagues, and I know you all are aware and are trying to remedy the "problem". It should be pretty cut and dry though, given that there was an A-tier just a week prior, and same weather conditions, the ratings for the scores should be identical. What's the reasoning as to why this wouldn't be the case. Or do we really believe that some 50's are better than others, as long as someone isn't playing in that tournament the same day?

Appreciate your insight and response Chuck.

It's not so much a problem with the ratings system but player expectations that a course will/should have the same rating for the same score at all times regardless of when it's played, even if the weather is the same. The reality is the ratings process automatically takes into account the overall playing conditions in effect at the time the round is played. It's not just the base rating of the course only. If the round ratings come in 1-2 shots/10-20 points lower for the same score in league versus a weekend event, the reality is the course actually played 2 shots easier in league. The players' scoring average indicates that.

I'm not sure why this should surprise anyone. In fact, wouldn't it be surprising and even a bit suspicious if a score of 44 on an SSA 50 course would get rated the same in rec play (following PDGA rules), league play and tournament play? I think players innately understand that it's a bit tougher to make that putt the higher the stakes. We haven't seen these differences until now because the PDGA doesn't officially rate rec rounds and league rounds just started this year.

I think a lot of people were concerned that the league program was going to inflate ratings and players were rubbing their hands together thinking they were going to score better ratings at leagues. The fact that anyone would think that would indicate that they felt it was "easier" to shoot a better score. Well, we're finding out it IS easier in some leagues (maybe 1/3 so far). But the ratings process nets out the difference so that all players entering don't gain, don't lose, but always receive on average the same amount of ratings points regardless whether it's a league or tournament.

The average round ratings awarded on a league day is the same as in weekend event with the same players. It's just that everyone might play 1-2 throws worse on average on the weekend. Remember that this difference, if it exists at all in your league, only amounts to a few percentage points variance in the SSA and ratings.

The only players who might get hurt from a ratings standpoint in leagues are players visiting the league who don't normally play that course and are less familiar with the 'grooved' routes the locals know. Otherwise, if everyone is playing 1-2 throws better, it only makes sense that a 53 in league might be the same performance/rating as a 55 in the weekend tournament.

Chuck, I think the underlying problem is this; in historical records the PDGA is saying that a "course lowest score" is not equal to "course best rated round".

If I went out on Sunday, the day after Blackhawk is played, and shot a 45 (one better than the best score out there), I'd be considered to have had a worse round than the day before. If the same group would play Blackhawk the next day in the OO, on the same course, and everyone would have shot a 46 (never going to happen), then the rating would be a 1000, right?

Again, it's purely opinion, but it's the score that matters. If players want to play in 50 MPH wind or in "less competition", then that's on them, not the significance of what they can achieve. You can't make an "easier" 46 out there [given conditions are the same], it just doesn't happen. It defies logic.

You guys are doing a great job adjusting to the schematics of the league rounds, and I do appreciate that. It's just the painfully, glaringly, obvious problem in our location; rounds of the same conditions and scores rate less in leagues then one-day tournaments.

Appreciate the feedback Chuck, figured I'd put my .02 in there as well. Constructive criticism never hurts. Have a great week.

Hey Chuck,


How did the second round of this event drop 20pts? The first round dropped a little as well....and had the 3rd been posted I'm sure it would have also dropped.

Anyway it was a pretty good round that went from 1050+ to 1035.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/96918

According to TD report, you played a different course in R2. Not sure why R3 doesn't have ratings. Checking into that.

Update: Turns out TD didn't supply the R3 scores for the Oct update. We just got them and it will be in the Nov update. Since it was the same course as R1, it's possible the R1 ratings may change.

When a player gets a rating that is too high due to obvious error that has been acknowledged by the TD, but hasn't been corrected yet online, and won't be until the next update, can a TD allow that player to play in a lower division?

For example, take a look at the am womens ratings at these tournaments. You have rec and int women throwing nearly 1000 rated rounds, and at least one of them got stuck with an advanced rating by mistake, while another missed that fate by 1 point.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/93007
http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/95138

One of these tournaments somehow didn't get corrected in the last update, although the TD says it should have been, and assures us it will be corrected in the next one. What recourse do these players have if another update goes through without a correction?

TDs agree to require players to play where their ratings allow. But TDs can pretty much do whatever they want and say sorry later, so long as they are quick to pay their fees and send in results.

Fortunately the error is only making about a 5 point ratings difference for one of them and a 10 point difference for the other.

The Tour Director can waive the requirements for an appropriate reason such as the wrong round ratings pulling someone's round rating too high.

Chuck, one more quick question...

Where/who do I submit previous sanctioned rounds that I played in this year for my rating (I just renewed)? Appreciate it!

If your PDGA number was on those earlier events, you have been getting ratings you just can't see until your renewal goes thru. If your PDGA number was not on some events, then email asweeton at pdga.com and he'll add your PDGA number to them and you'll see the ratings in the December update.

According to TD report, you played a different course in R2. Not sure why R3 doesn't have ratings. Checking into that.

Update: Turns out TD didn't supply the R3 scores for the Oct update. We just got them and it will be in the Nov update. Since it was the same course as R1, it's possible the R1 ratings may change.



I understand that the second round was on a different course just not why they dropped so much compared to the unofficial rating that seemed to be right. One shot off the course record and only rated 1035 seems a little low......especially when there were 4 1000 rated golfers in the field.

Rater of the Tossed Arc, do you think we'll be able to use LEDs taped to discs to play sanctioned rounds at night?

Why "Yes" it looks like we just got a waiver from the PDGA office to allow this. Check out the new story on the PDGA Home page: Glowin' in the Winter (http://www.pdga.com/glowin-in-the-winter)

Why "Yes" it looks like we just got a waiver from the PDGA office to allow this. Check out the new story on the PDGA Home page: Glowin' in the Winter (http://www.pdga.com/glowin-in-the-winter)

Question: Can only PDGA Approved glow discs be used for sanctioned play in the dusk and dark?

Answer: The PDGA office has approved a blanket waiver so any PDGA Approved disc may be used with glow stick or LED light attached, preferably to the underside of transparent discs, after civil twilight (http://www.sunrisesunset.com/predefined.asp) in your time zone. In addition, LED lights taped to PDGA Approved discs can be used during daylight specifically when there is sufficient snow cover on the course and the LED might make the disc easier to locate. Non-PDGA Approved discs such as those with built-in LED lights cannot be used at any time during sanctioned play.
+1 for getting this blanket waiver... but -1 for going with "civil twilight" (a time that almost no one will know) instead of something simple, like "sunset".

Civil twilight officially starts at sunset but sounds a little more official from a rules standpoint - realizing that few if any will look up sunset or civil twilight. But at least there's an official time for sticklers to reference.

Civil twilight officially starts at sunset but sounds a little more official from a rules standpoint - realizing that few if any will look up sunset or civil twilight. But at least there's an official time for sticklers to reference.
Sunset is one specific time. Civil twilight is a duration of time and the quotation above says "after civil twilight". That requires players to know when "the geometric center of the sun reaches 6� below the horizon" which is the end of civil twilight. This is completely unnecessary complexity for the sake of sounding a little more official...?!

Please ask the rules makers to come to their senses and go with "Sunset", a time which is both common and visually observable if necessary.

Not unreasonable to use 'sunset' if it ever becomes a formal rule. But for now it's just a waiver indicating it's okay to tape on the lights once it's getting dark out.

The thing is thing is sunset times are listed in the newspaper. Civil twilight times are not. Since the blanket waiver is after civil twilight, one needs to actually know when civil twilight ends. Depending on where you live and time of year this is 25-35 minutes after sunset.

Saying 30 minutes after sunset would have been much simpler.

It's been changed to sunset. No biggie. There was no expectation that a TD would look up a specific time in the field but simply judge when it was dark enough that using LEDs was okay. Agree that looking up the sunset time would be easier when scheduling the start time for your event flyer. The actual timing might be different on wooded versus open courses in the same area or if there are hills to the west.

It's been changed to sunset.
Nice. :)

It's been changed to sunset. No biggie. There was no expectation that a TD would look up a specific time in the field but simply judge when it was dark enough that using LEDs was okay. Agree that looking up the sunset time would be easier when scheduling the start time for your event flyer. The actual timing might be different on wooded versus open courses in the same area or if there are hills to the west.

That's what I love about Chuck - Sometimes he he forces himself to forget he's a scientist and to remember who his audience is. :)

These days I have to post things for the nitpickers to grab onto to get any posts on this D-Board. ;)

These days I have to post things for the nitpickers to grab onto to get any posts on this D-Board. ;)Have you considered getting all of the measurements in the rules changed from meters and centimeters to angstroms? That might generate message board activity. :p And it would be more accurate!

Well, it would be a very small change. Perhaps we just leave angstroms to the Swedes...

Hey Chuck, can you please check on the Gwinnett County Open (Nov 10-11). I submitted the report on the 13th, but it doesn't appear on anyone's ratings detail page.

Thanks.

I'm not the one who receives reports. Contact the PDGA office to find out why it didn't make it in this time. mborelli at pdga.com

Cool. Thanks.

Hey Chuck, two things...

#1 When does a sanctioned league get their "official" standings? I submitted my final report, finalized it, and sent in the money [2012 TDSA Fall League], but unsure when everything will be set in stone.

#2 There are now two players that are rated over 1,000 playing in advanced. Since all other AM divisions are protected, why can't the same stance be give for ADV players? Something along the lines of 985+ you're a pro.

Sanctioned leagues get processed like any other event. If the final league report is in by the deadline for the next ratings update, it should be processed.

As long as we call our players who play for merch "Ams" and our players who play for cash "Pros," I don't see any capping of the Advanced division rating. No other sport forces ams to turn pro, at least that we've found. Can you think of any?

#2 There are now two players that are rated over 1,000 playing in advanced. Since all other AM divisions are protected, why can't the same stance be give for ADV players? Something along the lines of 985+ you're a pro.
One of those two 1000 rated ams has a rating based on exactly one tournament. Hard to say he's definitely a "pro" based on one perhaps lucky (as in everything went in for him that day) tournament.

The other guy...no idea what his motivation for staying am is considering he's been winning tournaments for years, but hey, it's his prerogative. Like Chuck says, there's no sport that forces players to turn pro. Some of the greatest ball golfers in history were ams for life. Bobby Jones won all four PGA majors in one year once, and never turned pro (he did cash in for $60K by betting on himself to pull off the feat, though). Tiger Woods won three straight US amateur titles, and three straight junior titles before that, before turning pro.

Disc golf seems to be the only sport around in which sustained success on the amateur level is viewed as some sort of evil.

Sanctioned leagues get processed like any other event. If the final league report is in by the deadline for the next ratings update, it should be processed.

As long as we call our players who play for merch "Ams" and our players who play for cash "Pros," I don't see any capping of the Advanced division rating. No other sport forces ams to turn pro, at least that we've found. Can you think of any?

Thanks for clearing up the league question.

As far as the second, you are right, there isn't any that forces you up. However, my opinion, there is to much incentive not to move up in disc golf. If you change the mindset of "what can I get if I win" to "what an awesome experience and competition" (for these types of players), this could greatly enhance the AM structure IMHO. In a three-fold strategy;

#1 Lower AM fees, nothing above $30
#2 Give all AMs players packs of slightly increased retail value over entry fee
#3 Trophy only, zero payout

To add to your response, what other sport gives no incentive for their amateur players to move up? Look at how softball leagues around the country are played, probably hundreds of thousands of individuals paying $100+ a season and they don't play for payout, merchandise etc, they play for a trophy. For that $100+ you get a nice uniform (equal to a players pack), and sometimes you can find a league where the stadiums are superb (B and A tier courses).

Let the AM experience be one to build upon, to get that taste for blood when it comes to competition. And for the "casual" player, who never wants to go pro but just compete, give them a nice "something" to go home with regardless of place.

Look at the PGA, one of the most prestigious events, the US Amateur, what does the winner get? A trophy and an invite to the Masters.

Appreciate your time Chuck, thanks for responding.

Part of the reason amateurs in other sports don't get much payout but sometimes get donated items in player packs is the fees mostly go toward paying site rental and admin/officials. We have been fortunate that we've been able to run our events with very little "official" support required so most of the entry fees can be paid back.

With Ams being 80% of the PDGA and a member organization, it would be suicide to force a "no payout" am structure to perhaps make the 20% pros happier. It would fail miserably since TDs want people to play their events and they would simply not sanction. Bye-bye PDGA. Selective events like the Memorial have gotten away with having most of the entry fee go into hefty player packs with no payout. But players are still getting what they see is a good enough value for their entry fee.

Curious, How Many Pdga Leagues Were There Last Year Compared To The Prior year?

There weren't any leagues in 2011, just 2012 starting in March. I think the final number might come close to 175.

There weren't an leagues in 2011, just 2012 starting in March. I think the final number might come close to 175.

Precisely, Leagues WeRe $10 A Week Per Player Back Then. McCoy Initiated The New Structure. Value Is TheDemand. Forgive The Caps, Phone Is Weird That Way.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?

Very simple; prior to Kevin making the radical change of PDGA league fees, SOMEONE thought it was a good idea to charge each individual $10 a round, per week, to do the same task. According to your reply, 0 leagues and 0 people outside the PDGA thought that was a good idea.

Lower the price to $1, give half of that to the local club....boom, 175+ new PDGA leagues formed (three in my little city alone last year). Why? People saw the value, amongst other things.

Parallel that to today's AM structure. You want to build the AM base right? Organize the AM divisions in such a way that their value exceeds their expectations. That's where my softball analogy comes into play; you pay $100+ for a softball league, and compete for a trophy, and you will always have fun because of the competition, the atmosphere, and all of that is only done for bragging rights and a trophy [unless you are a "pro"].

Move that mentality of to disc golf. Standardize the AM fees. Make it $30 (just putting a number out there), $5 of that goes directly into your local club (like the leagues do). They get a "$40" players pack, and everyone gets the same value. The winner, or top 3, get a trophy. Heck you could even throw in a paid entry into another sanctioned tournament for the winner. I would be really surprised if AMs left in droves, or at all. AMs want VALUE when they go to big events; why do you think the mentality of a lot of these players are "I want to go play here because the players pack is HUGE"? You can still give them that, and more, with just a little restructuring. The left over funds can be used for PDGA payments, or whatever.

Secondly, why not follow the golf's initiative and give players more value for the PDGA membership? In Virginia, there is a club called the VSGA; I'll let you look at that if you want, it's a fantastic service/product. The long story short is this, why not team up with vendors that want to support the PDGA and see if some of them will give additional discounts for active PDGA members? I'm not saying to have collusion, or be a business partner, more like be AAA and reap the benefits. Doesn't have to be a disc golf company at all, places like Papa Johns or Jiffy Lube.

Increased value = better reception = happier AM base = growth. Whether this methodology is correct is purely speculation, I'll be the first to admit that. But I have a hard time accepting that nothing has to change to get things to improve. The PDGA leagues is a fine example: 0 one year, to 175+ the next year. THAT'S growth.

Remember that the PDGA does not employ TDs. TDs do what they do because it works for them. PDGA policies have been shaped by popular practices, not necessarily because it was the "right" thing to do whatever some may feel. The PDGA tournament structure provides a lot of flexibility for TDs and your suggestion would be covered. But it's up to the TDs to try it and see if it works for them.

Send your suggestions for acquiring vendor discounts to Sara Nicholson snicholson@pdga.com She's involved in looking for those arrangements.


Very simple; prior to Kevin making the radical change of PDGA league fees, SOMEONE thought it was a good idea to charge each individual $10 a round, per week, to do the same task. According to your reply, 0 leagues and 0 people outside the PDGA thought that was a good idea.

Lower the price to $1, give half of that to the local club....boom, 175+ new PDGA leagues formed (three in my little city alone last year). Why? People saw the value, amongst other things.

There wasn't a change in league fees. They started with $1 and the 50/50 split. There was no league program of any kind before 2012. So I'm not sure what you mean by the $10 a round per week number?

Remember that the PDGA does not employ TDs. TDs do what they do because it works for them. PDGA policies have been shaped by popular practices, not necessarily because it was the "right" thing to do whatever some may feel. The PDGA tournament structure provides a lot of flexibility for TDs and your suggestion would be covered. But it's up to the TDs to try it and see if it works for them.

Send your suggestions for acquiring vendor discounts to Sara Nicholson snicholson@pdga.com She's involved in looking for those arrangements.




There wasn't a change in league fees. They started with $1 and the 50/50 split. There was no league program of any kind before 2012. So I'm not sure what you mean by the $10 a round per week number?

That's very intriguing that you say that...is the PDGA not associated with the DGA? They were the one's that provided that service; the enormous fees were the reason I skipped over them in 2011 for our league.

That's very intriguing that you say that...is the PDGA not associated with the DGA? They were the one's that provided that service; the enormous fees were the reason I skipped over them in 2011 for our league.

I assume you mean DGU (http://www.discgolfunited.com), and no, they have absolutely no affiliation with the PDGA.

I assume you mean DGU (http://www.discgolfunited.com), and no, they have absolutely no affiliation with the PDGA.

Ah, there it is. Yes, that is what I meant.

Apologies for my confusion. I stand corrected.

Last I heard, it was only $10/year for DGU membership. I'm surprised they would charge a $10 fee per round per player but could see $10 per week as a league fee.

Question about ratings:

I thought that your player rating was calculated only using rounds from the past 12 months. Why do I still have 4 rated rounds from 2011 in my Ratings Detail? It's not from lack of rounds; I have 62 rounds in my rating.

Thanks,
Clifford Smith
PDGA # 40512

Question about ratings:

I thought that your player rating was calculated only using rounds from the past 12 months. Why do I still have 4 rated rounds from 2011 in my Ratings Detail? It's not from lack of rounds; I have 62 rounds in my rating.

Thanks,
Clifford Smith
PDGA # 40512

Ratings go back 12 months from your most recently rated tournament. For you, that's the UAB ASCE Inaugural Disc Golf Tournament (http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/97663) on October 20, 2012. That means everything from October 20, 2011 through October 20, 2012 is counted.

That makes sense. My most recent rated is actually in November, but the list is out of order (not sure why that is). I also played a tournament at the beginning of December, but it didn't show up in this ratings update because the td didn't send it in time (lame).

You can click on the header at the top of each column in your Ratings Detail and sort by that column.

Is there a schedule for the 2013 ratings updates (and deadlines for TDs) published yet?

Yes. It's always updated in the When Are Ratings Updated FAQ (http://www.pdga.com/faq/ratings-0). Deadlines are typically 2 weeks in advance of the publication date.

I participated in a tournament, The Melbourne Open 23-Feb to 24-Feb-2013.
For some reason my PDGA # is not linked to my name, I have contacted the TD to no avail.
How can I get this changed?
Paul Sheppard PDGA# 51462

Contact the PDGA office.

I participated in a tournament, The Melbourne Open 23-Feb to 24-Feb-2013.
For some reason my PDGA # is not linked to my name, I have contacted the TD to no avail.
How can I get this changed?
Paul Sheppard PDGA# 51462
The PDGA likely doesn't even have the event report from the TD yet since the scores online show as "unofficial." So the PDGA may not have anything to add your number to yet. The TD can still add your number or you may have to wait until the PDGA gets the report and let them know to add your number.

Chuck - last week I participated in the Motherlode Open and the results went straight from not there to official with no ratings. Will we not get ratings until the next update? Thanks.

It just means your official ratings are being processed in the update to be posted by April 23rd.

Hello Chuck,

I played the Big Island Open 2013 in January and the results just showed up a day or so ago and there aren't any round ratings listed. Do you have any feedback for this?

Hello Chuck,

I played the Big Island Open 2013 in January and the results just showed up a day or so ago and there aren't any round ratings listed. Do you have any feedback for this?

Not Chuck, obviously, but I'd guess that the results were only recently submitted, and that the ratings will show up on April 23 at the next ratings update.

The Big Island report was received at PDGA HQ before the April 9th deadline to be included in this upcoming ratings update to be posted by April 23rd.

Hi, Chuck. I'm curious how high winds, for example, affect SSA. I'm sure it's hard to know for sure, but if you have analyzed SSA variations, then, taking the lower end as representative of more ideal conditions, maybe you have an idea regarding how many points the SSA can rise as a result of more adverse conditions. I'm curious, for example, about the observed high end for a lower end 50 SSA course vs that for a lower end 68 SSA course. Maybe it would be possible to estimate a number of additional throws one should expect from difficult conditions on a typical course (50 SSA at 10 points per throw) vs a championship course (68 SSA at 6 points per throw)?

Hi, Chuck. I'm curious how high winds, for example, affect SSA. I'm sure it's hard to know for sure, but if you have analyzed SSA variations, then, taking the lower end as representative of more ideal conditions, maybe you have an idea regarding how many points the SSA can rise as a result of more adverse conditions. I'm curious, for example, about the observed high end for a lower end 50 SSA course vs that for a lower end 68 SSA course. Maybe it would be possible to estimate a number of additional throws one should expect from difficult conditions on a typical course (50 SSA at 10 points per throw) vs a championship course (68 SSA at 6 points per throw)?
That seems like a question where the answer needs to be qualified by the field. If you have a field of 990+ rated players I'd expect a small effect from wind, as those experienced & talented players know how to handle it. However if you had a field of 800-850 rated players I would guess that high winds have a significant effect on the resulting scores and thus SSA.

We don't have the capability to analyze wind impact in detail, just overall impact on SSA. While Eric indicates the impact might be less for higher rated players, we have no indication it's proportionally any different than any other impacts on SSA (length, OB, etc.) We've seen heavy wind increase SSA up to 6 throws. But wind direction at the same speed might have different impacts depending on direction.

For example, a 10mph wind from the south might actually produce a lower SSA than no wind at all because wind from the south happened to help on more of the holes than it hindered due to which holes were in the open versus more protected in the woods. As a side note, that's a good reason to keep wind direction in mind for course design and try to balance your hole directions so the course ideally doesn't necessarily play tougher based on wind direction. I've also seen courses where they deliberately lined up their tougher holes to face the prevailing winds from the west which also meant playing into the sun in the late afternoon.

We've seen heavy wind increase SSA up to 6 throws.

Is that on an average course or a championship course?

Doesn't seem to matter. It's more about how many of the holes are in the open and sometimes the direction of the wind. Again, this hasn't been analyzed in detail at this point. It's mostly anecdotal. We do have some data but haven't analyzed it in detail yet since normally that info isn't reported unless requested.

Is there any recourse if players rated above 935 register for a tournament in the Intermediate division, and are allowed to play in said division?

What should be done to avoid this scenario?

Thanks in advance!

Are round ratings"unofficial results" pretty accurate? As in the Jacksonville Open 4/6-7...... I thought it would be sent in time for this update, but I assume it was not?

Is there any recourse if players rated above 935 register for a tournament in the Intermediate division, and are allowed to play in said division?

What should be done to avoid this scenario?

Thanks in advance!
No recourse in terms of tournament payouts. But the players can be reported to determine if disciplinary action is warranted. Are you sure said players were not provided a waiver to play in the lower division for some reason?

Are round ratings"unofficial results" pretty accurate? As in the Jacksonville Open 4/6-7...... I thought it would be sent in time for this update, but I assume it was not?
It's potluck depending on the TDs track record for posting results with proper course layouts. If done properly the unofficial results can be pretty close and sometimes right on. But they could also be way off in some rounds if course assignments weren't done or not done properly.

No recourse in terms of tournament payouts. But the players can be reported to determine if disciplinary action is warranted. Are you sure said players were not provided a waiver to play in the lower division for some reason?
I don't know if a waiver has been provided. I did notice that one player's rating reached 939 as a result of the most recent update, so I believe he's still eligible, correct?

The other player's rating is 940 as of August 2012.

These questions are in regard to a tournament taking place this weekend.

I thought this already happened? If their ratings were over 934 in the March update, they do not qualify for Intermediate this weekend. If their ratings just went over 934 in this update, then they have a 2-week grace period to still play Intermediate IF they had pre-registered for the event prior to the update being posted yesterday.

I thought this already happened? If their ratings were over 934 in the March update, they do not qualify for Intermediate this weekend. If their ratings just went over 934 in this update, then they have a 2-week grace period to still play Intermediate IF they had pre-registered for the event prior to the update being posted yesterday.
That's what I thought. Thanks!

One of the problems with hiding ratings of players until they renew is that they might not know their rating if they signup for a tournament and renew their PDGA membership at the same time.

One of the problems with hiding ratings of players until they renew is that they might not know their rating if they signup for a tournament and renew their PDGA membership at the same time.

Yes, but the PDGA tournament admin page gives a TD the ability to look up a non-current player's rating.

Yes I know the TD has this info (or can get it).

If it is the player's responsibility to sign up for the correct division, it is difficult for a player to do that if he renews his PDGA membership right before the event. It is one of the unintended consequences of hiding ratings of players who have not yet renewed for the year.

I thought this already happened? If their ratings were over 934 in the March update, they do not qualify for Intermediate this weekend. If their ratings just went over 934 in this update, then they have a 2-week grace period to still play Intermediate IF they had pre-registered for the event prior to the update being posted yesterday.

IIRC, the TD doesn't have to let them play int even if they pre-regged before the update, and the update is less than 2 weeks from the tournament. The TD would just have the discretion to allow it. But if the two conditions aren't met (within 2 weeks and previously pre-regged) then the TD does not have the discretion. Is that right?

Still, the Tour Manager could approve it ahead of time.

And if it is part of a points series, then there is another set of exceptions that could apply. Is the event part of a points series?

Hi Chuck - shouldn't BG Ams be included in the rating update? Based on the PDGA tour standards, things would be egregiously late for even a C tier.

Contact Tour Manager, Andrew, to get the scoop. Not sure why it wasn't provided for processing yet. asweeton@pdga.com

Chuck, does changing the course layout par in the PDGA admin for a round affect the ratings once changed?

No. The listed course par does not matter related to the ratings calculations. The number of holes does matter if not the default 18.

OK, I'll take my crazy pills now - I could swear I witnessed such a change in the past when correcting the layouts online. Thanks

I guess my reason for asking - how does the online rating system (strictly from the PDGA upload/admin standpoint) take into account that perhaps one round was from short tees and another from longs? ...or if a TD went nuts and decided to make all the tee pads 300 ft further back than normal? OR if a TD made a typo and entered a 95 for course par where it should have been 59? (making it appear everyone shot 40+ strokes under par). I understand the 'everyone is playing the same course' reasoning to an extent...but still trying to wrap my head around why these seemingly important factors appear to be left out of the equation when it should directly affect SSA for 18 holes on a reported course par (sorry if this has been answered previously, haven't been able to read all 86 pages in this thread just yet).

Is there a pdf, etc I can read which lays everything out in laymen's terms for ratings calcs and the reasoning behind each? I'm a little embarrassed to admit I'm a certified official and not making complete sense of this system, but I would like to understand it fully.

Each course layout is rated separately using the ratings and scores of the propagators (players with rating over 799 whose rating is based on at least 8 rounds) who played them. The course par on each of those layouts does not matter unless it will be used for live online scoring. But it does matter that the TD indicate which divisions played which layouts in which rounds so the unofficial ratings are calculated properly. The TD sets up the different course layouts during the upload process and then assigns divisions to them each round using the pulldown menus.

I understand the upload and layout process, but it almost sounds like you just said the layout IS taken into account - if so, how can that be while ignoring the layout's par and reasons it may be higher or lower than usual? Thanks for putting up with the ignorant questions.

The layout is taken into account but all that matters is the number of holes, plus the ratings and scores of the players who played it to produce the round rating calculations. That's the beauty of the process. You give me the scores and ratings of say 20 propagators who just played a round on an 18-hole course and we produce round ratings regardless if it was a par 54 heavily wooded, 4500' course with no wind or a pretty open, par 63 8000' course with 30mph winds.

All that said (and understood), I'm about 99% sure that changing the par on a selected layout in the PDGA admin does adjust the ratings. If not I'll admit I'm crazy (or something has changed), but some other TDs I have spoken with claim the same behavior. I don't have any active tourney to experiment with, but just trying to determine if a straight jacket necessary or not :)

The only thing changing the par will do is change the over/under value on the live scoring page. It has nothing to do with the ratings calculations. Perhaps those who have said it matters are confusing the unofficial and official ratings processes which can produce a difference in values.

OK. To clarify - I'm speaking strictly on the online results immediately after making changes in the admin side.

If you have uploaded scores and set the course layouts, then all you do is change the par from value to value, the ratings should not change. If they do then it's a programming failure we haven't seen before to my knowledge and it should be reported to Steve Ganz.

I have an active event. I verified that changing par does not change the unofficial round ratings.

I have an active event. I verified that changing par does not change the unofficial round ratings.

Thank you for testing and verifying I have an overactive imagination....now where did I put those crazy pills? :eek:

Please provide me with guidelines concerning the 30 second rule on throwing. I know I'm a deliberate player so I bump the end of the clock as or before I throw. My question is, don't I have 2 minutes to walk up and check things out before I throw? I heard this on a video but have been unable to locate in the rules. Also, is there a search tool on the rule book on line?

Thanks for your help.
#33599

Short answer Steve, no. The rule is here: http://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/804-the-throw/80401-excessive-time

You have to get there promptly, and you have 30 seconds from when you get there.

It used to be 30s from when you marked it, so you could in theory stand there looking around indefinitely before you marked, but that loophole was removed in the last update

Short answer Steve, no. The rule is here: http://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/804-the-throw/80401-excessive-time

You have to get there promptly, and you have 30 seconds from when you get there.

It used to be 30s from when you marked it, so you could in theory stand there looking around indefinitely before you marked, but that loophole was removed in the last update

Watching DG Planet, Crazy quoted that 2 minuets go up and check statement.

I'm going to really see just what I'm taking. Because I'm DG challenged it takes me a while to make a stance, in the bush, check my line and pull the trigger.

In cases where it's not obvious where players' discs have landed and they are widely separated, you might have extra time to think until all players locate their disc and the group determines who is out for the next shot. But there has never been a 2-minute allowance to check out your shot. You used to have just 2 minutes to find a lost disc which is now 3 minutes.

Chuck, do you know if the Am Nationals report got in for this ratings update?

It wasn't in the update posted Monday. I assume it will be in the July 2nd update since the PDGA was there at the event.

So you are an above average PDGA rated player, let's say between 900-930.
You're playing a local PDGA League and you're off your game, shooting much worse than your norm. You pack it up after 12 holes and go home.

Let's say to qualify for league payout you only need to have minimum 7 out of 10 rounds to qualify. You miss one round for work, family reasons and then DNF two rounds cause you were playing bad.

Is it fair to have your 7 complete rounds be worth the same as the best 7 rounds of an intermediate player who never DNF'd and took his/her lowest 7 rounds?

Is league a place where you should be subject to the penalties that can come with multiple "888" rounds?

Since our league is only 1 round per week, if you leave after starting play what should be the difference between leaving for say injury or personal emergency (and calling me during the round) or just leaving and not notifying TD.

Seems like if you stop playing for injury or emergency and let me know then a 999 is applicable. If I have to ask folks on your card why you didn't finish and they have no clue, saying you just left or if you do not total your card or initial the final score on purpose then it's 888.

I know a bit silly that I have to deal with this, but if you are concerned about the round affecting your PDGA rating the dont play in the sanctioned league.


What would you do if you were league TD?

Ratings are not really the issue here but sportsmanship. An 888 prevents a specific round from being rated but the player gets their rating penalized anyway. That's the PDGA part of this. However, as League TD you set the rules regarding who can qualify for overall league awards such as your 7 best out of 10. There's nothing stopping you from having a rule where having one 888 during league prevents you from qualifying for overall league awards. Or an alternative might be where for each 888 you add maybe 7 throws to their 7-round total which would increase their overall average by 1 throw.

Thanks Chuck.
As I did not anticipate this, I think for our next league we will have that you can't drop DNF rounds. Seems like if a guy has say 9 rounds and two are DNF then when he drops 2 it might be an advantage if a guy who played 9 also just keeps his highest 7, no?

I hesitate to give the 888, for our guys with DNF's who just quit, but I think next league I will spell it out so it makes people think twice before quitting.

I calculate the series points for our regional league. One of the problems I continue to see with PDGA is having events listed as official with more than one winner listed in a division. This is not the first time I have brought this up to PDGA. What steps has PDGA taken to insure it's "professional" events are recorded professionally?

I have a simply suggestion. Tournaments should NOT be listed as official unless they are officially correct.

Event below has two 1st place winners in MA1. If PDGA has changed it's rules recently to allow two first place winners in a division, then I guess I missed that memo.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/101051

Junior girl rules!

In the Waterford Junior Girls' League it was always the rule that ties were never broken and both players finished in the higher place.

Any idea why the deadline for TD reports is now 3 weeks before the ratings update rather than 2? This only increases the lag for ratings (my main concern is for new members who would like to get an initial rating in a timely manner).

It also means that our league rounds from April don't show up until August. :-(

The 3 weeks was due to the Tour Manager's travel schedule the past and upcoming official updates. Note that a bonus update was thrown in there to partly compensate for the extra week.

Chuck, are the round 5 ratings correct for MM1 @ Worlds? MM1 played long tees, and ratings (for the same score) are lower than when MG1 played ECC from the short tees. :confused:

MG1 short tee SSA = 55.0
MM1 long tee SSA = 54.4
MA1 long tee SSA = 55.9
MJ1 long tee SSA = 57.0

Doesn't seem right.

Usually at this point in the process the ratings are not calculated pool by pool and course by course so they don't mean anything.

Normal variance for the long tee values which as usual will be averaged together for the official ratings so everyone gets the same rating for the same score on CC Blue. Plus, it looks like the severe heat on Tuesday raised the SSAs up to 2 shots compared with the "cooler" days following.

Who do I contact to get my ratings corrected? I played in the Norman Pro/Am this year and it doesn't even show up in my round details. Jason Davis #36157

Looks like the TD entered the PDGA number of a different Jason Davis. I'll pass this correction along to the PDGA office.

Is there any efforts to shorten the time between TD report submissions and ratings updates? Still kind of miffed that league rounds from April won't show up in ratings for players until the mid-August update.

Two weeks is the normal time but it's been 3 the past two updates due to Andrew's travel schedule. No way to really shorten the timing and get the checks and crosschecks handled over a weekend. Publishing is done on Tuesday so ratings changes occur early enough in the week for players and TDs to adjust before the weekend. There was some discussion about splitting up league reports but not any recently.

Nice shooting today Chuck.

Chuck, can you confirm that what's showing on the results is correct for Jones East @ Am Worlds?

I see the long config with SSA=54.8 and the short config with SSA=55.1. I.e., the short config played harder than the long :confused:

Yes, that's the case. The short tee on 12 apparently played tougher than the long tee for the divisions playing them. Presumably more OBs since they thought they could cross the water.

So I understand in order for PDGA to process an event to become official, the TD needs to provide the TD report and pay the collected PDGA fees. If the TD submits the TD report but doesn't pay the PDGA fees, then the event seems to just sit around as being unofficial. So, in many ways the players are basically held 'hostage' by the TD.

If all communication has failed with the TD, then what is PDGA's course of action as to releasing official results (so long as the TD report has been received)?

Not sure since I don't handle this end of the process. Contact asweeton@pdga.com to see what their current procedure is.

I'd love to be able to get a dashboard look at events in my state and be able to tell which events have TD reports turned in and which have paid their fees. This way when players come ask me why their rating didn't get updated, I can say such and such TD hasn't paid the PDGA yet.

Good idea that should be added to the IT priorities list if it isn't already there. Not sure it matters whether the fees are paid or not, just that a report isn't ready for processing for some reason.

Not sure if it is still the case, but I thought at one point that the tourney wouldn't go official until it was paid.

That's probably true. But all I'm saying is from a player's standpoint, it doesn't matter why an event hasn't been processed, just that the TD hasn't sent in the report and/or the fees yet to complete their obligation.

A tournament will show up as Official even if the TD has not paid the fees.

A few players have asked me why Round Ratings for our league which played the same setup last nite as two weeks previously (Bowers Red Tees, par54 - B position 5360') stroke value varied by 5pts�
Round 5 a stroke was worth 12 points and last nite same course a stroke was worth 7 points.
Could it be that overall we had more participants that were higher rated propagators? (2 new college kids last night that are 920 + players ) and that could have made a stroke worth less?

Round 1 and Round 3 were played same setup Bowers Red Tees A par 55 5410) and a stroke was worth 11.5 Round 1 and 11.0 in Round 3, although Round 3 had overall lesser rated players playing. Both of the earlier weeks has lesser rated players playing overall. Does the par difference affect the value of a stroke?

Weather was not a factor in any of these aforementioned rounds

If better players play and lower scores are recorded then is a stroke most often worth less?

Does it hurt ratings when some of our better local players are not current?

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/105870/287439371

Thanks!
Curious....

The number of rating points per throw varies based on the SSA of the round. At an SSA of 50 it's about 10 per throw. At an SSA of 47 it's around 11 per throw. So the number of points per throw will vary as the SSA varies within the typical 2-shot range for the same course in the same conditions. However, this is true for unofficial ratings only. Once the official ratings are processed, those values will be averaged together so everyone gets the same rating for the same score on the same layout.

Thanks Chuck!

A few players have asked me why Round Ratings for our league which played the same setup last nite as two weeks previously (Bowers Red Tees, par54 - B position 5360') stroke value varied by 5pts�
Round 5 a stroke was worth 12 points and last nite same course a stroke was worth 7 points.
Could it be that overall we had more participants that were higher rated propagators? (2 new college kids last night that are 920 + players ) and that could have made a stroke worth less?

Round 1 and Round 3 were played same setup Bowers Red Tees A par 55 5410) and a stroke was worth 11.5 Round 1 and 11.0 in Round 3, although Round 3 had overall lesser rated players playing. Both of the earlier weeks has lesser rated players playing overall. Does the par difference affect the value of a stroke?

Weather was not a factor in any of these aforementioned rounds

If better players play and lower scores are recorded then is a stroke most often worth less?

Does it hurt ratings when some of our better local players are not current?

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/105870/287439371

Thanks!
Curious....
Chris, in what week do you see 7pts/stroke? That's a huge difference in course "difficulty".

To me it looks like:
W1 SSA=47.7, 11.4 pt/s
W2 SSA=51.6, 9.72 pt/s
W3 SSA=48.3, 11.1 pt/s
W4 SSA=51.0, 9.88 pt/s
W5 SSA=46.5, 11.95 pt/s
W6 SSA=51.1, 9.85 pt/s
W7 SSA=46.1, 12.15 pt/s

Chuck, are the 99999 & 99998 PDGA numbers used in that league going to be a problem when the PDGA eventually gets around to handing out those numbers?

Fake PDGA numbers are not needed nor supposed to be used in the league template. Fake IDs for leagues are supposed to start with letters. Yes, these fake numbers would be a problem if the players who actually owned those PDGA numbers had propagator ratings.

chuck, can you confirm that the next ratings update is 17sept, and that TD report due date is 27aug?

The next ratings update is Oct 1 with the TD deadline Sep 10th. The Ratings FAQ "When are ratings updated" was revised right after Pro Worlds to show those new dates. I believe the Oct 1 ratings will be the basis for the Performance Flight calculations in the USDGC.

Fake PDGA numbers are not needed nor supposed to be used in the league template. Fake IDs for leagues are supposed to start with letters. Yes, these fake numbers would be a problem if the players who actually owned those PDGA numbers had propagator ratings.

I made a special note on my TD report
L1, L2, L3 etc would not upload. I kept getting an error of that it wasn't a acceptable value. My first league L1 etc worked fine.

I'll send a follow up email to get them corrected

Thanks

Chris, in what week do you see 7pts/stroke? That's a huge difference in course "difficulty".

To me it looks like:
W1 SSA=47.7, 11.4 pt/s
W2 SSA=51.6, 9.72 pt/s
W3 SSA=48.3, 11.1 pt/s
W4 SSA=51.0, 9.88 pt/s
W5 SSA=46.5, 11.95 pt/s
W6 SSA=51.1, 9.85 pt/s
W7 SSA=46.1, 12.15 pt/s

Chuck, are the 99999 & 99998 PDGA numbers used in that league going to be a problem when the PDGA eventually gets around to handing out those numbers?

The difference was between the our spring and summer leagues. Since the first league went official (spring). There seemed to be a big difference. Ratings changed by anywhere from 5-10 points.

I made a special note on my TD report
L1, L2, L3 etc would not upload. I kept getting an error of that it wasn't a acceptable value. My first league L1 etc worked fine.

I'll send a follow up email to get them corrected

Thanks


You should leave the PDGA # field blank instead when uploading through the tournament admin page.

Any word on if the next update will be done early for the USDGC? They seemed to have thought they would get it today.

Any word on if the next update will be done early for the USDGC? They seemed to have thought they would get it today.

The update has been scheduled for October 1 all along. Why would they expect it any earlier than promised?

The first draft of the update was completed yesterday. Big Dog may soon be providing (or has already) the USDGC updated ratings for their registrants so they can do their performance calculations.

I know they posted on their Facebook page they were hoping to have them by Friday.

Chuck, when calculating official ratings for an event, what rating is used for propagators, the rating at the time of the event or the rating at the time of the official ratings being calculated?

I ask because - with the very long duration from when the last ratings update came out until the one on Oct 1 - it's safe to say that by mid-September those ratings weren't exactly accurate. So if I played in a tourney in mid-September (which did NOT make the cutoff for the Oct 1 update) it used out-of-date player ratings to propagate. So when it comes time for the Oct 22 ratings, will you calculate the ratings based on the September ratings (which I consider out of date) or on what their ratings became after the Oct. 1 correction?

I suppose I could wait 8 days to find out, but that's EIGHT DAYS.

We use the ratings each propagator had at the time of the event, not what their current rating might be. So if an event report from May finally comes in now, we use the April ratings of those props for that event.

hi chuck,
http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/108174 , played this afternoon, seems to display an error.

#8595 has a rating of well over 799, and has played minimum 8 rounds; currently 923 rating with exactly 8 rounds recorded for inclusion in current rating.
to my knowledge, this player should then be tagged as 'propagator', but currently isn't.

--- added:
just checked, 7 of his 8 considered rounds are "counted", due to one round's rating being below round ratings threshold.
the current rules don't actually make any mention of the rounds played also need to be "counted" as well.

A propagator is a player whose rating is based on at least 8 rounds. His rating is only based on 7 rounds since one is not counted.

Thanks for the confirmation.
This line in the ratings FAQ might want to be changed then: "A propagator is a current member whose rating is over 799 and is based on at least 8 rounds" to reflect that, difference.
As is proven by this player, there's a obviously a difference between 8 played and 8 counted rounds, and the FAQ leaves room for different interpretations.

Several FAQs need to be updated so I'll add that to the list to help clarify it.

I am surprised to see several tournament results listed as official, included in ratings, yet have no payouts listed. Not just recent ones either.

Should I be surprised?

For example...

http://www.pdga.com/player_stats/45817/2013

Andrew is looking into it but he said several TDs have not been submitting payouts and have to be reiminded.

I played in the Viper Classic (http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/101070) and the TD mixed up the 2nd round scores with another player. I alerted him to the mixup and the change showed on the website. After the ratings, the original mistake is now showing again. I had the 64 the 2nd round and the other had the 67. Who can I contact to change this?

Contact Andrew at PDGA HQ: asweeton at pdga.com

Not exactly ratings-related, but I don't see a thread for it. What is the criteria used to establish invites for Worlds in 2014? I've heard contrasting things - 500 point minimum, top 20% in your states in points, etc...

I RESCIND - I poked around and found it. http://www.pdga.com/world-championships/2014-pdga-disc-golf-world-championships