I had a discussion with Juliana about Open Women not playing the same course layouts as Open Men at Pro Worlds, Final 9s and other big events. She says that we shouldn't have the women play (typically) shorter holes than the gold level Open Men because they are women, but because the top women are blue level players. She embraces the concept that the top women are currently at the blue level defined in the PDGA course guidelines which is the same level as where the top GM Pros and top Advanced players are located. They should all be playing the same blue level course layouts and not necessarily the gold layouts on the few courses that have that level. This differentiation gives all players course layouts that are challenging for their skill level and reduces those boring holes where most in the division get the same score on a hole.

You can't just add points to every round, because not every course is that different for us. Some courses are really long and the average women's score is going to be a lot higher that the men's. Some courses are not long, but are technical, so our scores should not be that far off the men's. All I am saying is that, it needs to be taken into account that men and women are built differently, and women just can not throw (on average) as far as men, and this should be taken into account. Take my home course for example--Round Rock. Very long course. For us women, teens over is a good score, for the men, a few over is. Now, let's take another one I play--Lago Vista. A few long holes, but a lot of techniccal, but reachable holes by the women. So as far as scores, men and women are a lot closer. What I am saying, is that not all courses are the same, or even close to being the same for women as they are the men, and we need a system to reflect that. Like Paul said earlier, most other sports have different organizations for the men and the women. While I don't think that we need to go that far, we do need something to distinguish ourselves from the men, and a seperate ratings (not rankings...) system would help with that. I think what Chuck suggested earlier about maintaining a seperate women's SSA for the course layout. I think this is the most logical and easiest way to do it. There are enough women now, for that to be possible.

What happens if they play in an unrestricted division like Int or MM1. Do they get a higher rating for shooting the same score as the players they were directly competing against ?


Men and Women don't directly compete against each other.



You are wrong wrong wrong there!!

The Open portions of Pro, Advanced, and Women are open to anyone who qualifies for them based on ratings. Only protected divisions (ones based on age or if they are female or both) can deny people from playing in them.

What happens if they play in an unrestricted division like Int or MM1. Do they get a higher rating for shooting the same score as the players they were directly competing against ?


Men and Women don't directly compete against each other.



If the women opt to play in MM1 or INT, they are directly competing against others (men) in that division. If so, should their rounds be rated differently than others in that division ?

First of all, women don't play against the men unless there aren't enough women to make a division. Most women (remember we are talking about the average and not the elite few), when playing with the guys, already drop a division to be able to compete on their level. I'm a pro. If their were no other pro women at an event, I would play advanced men. That would be my skill level. Some women would rather just not play at all than play down a division, because they don't want to ruin their rating. Does that seem right to you? Does that sound like something that needs to be fixed, or something that should just be ignored?! Honestly, I don't care much about ratings because I will always play Pro no matter what my rating says. But it would be nice to see how I rate against a course from a woman's skill level rather than a man's.

First of all, women don't play against the men unless there aren't enough women to make a division. Most women (remember we are talking about the average and not the elite few), when playing with the guys, already drop a division to be able to compete on their level.



Last couple of tournaments I played in there were 3 or 4 women in my division. The appropriate women's divisions were also offered and had competitors. These women playing are not elite. They just enjoy the challenge of a larger field and watching men step it up when they are getting beat.


I'm a pro. If their were no other pro women at an event, I would play advanced men. That would be my skill level. Some women would rather just not play at all than play down a division, because they don't want to ruin their rating. Does that seem right to you?



It doesn't seem right as playing "down" a division does not ruin a rating. It has no effect on ones rating unless there is a mental aspect to it that causes one to play worse with men around. If the misconception that playing in a men's division adversely affects one's rating is out there, that needs to be corrected.

But it would be nice to see how I rate against a course from a woman's skill level rather than a man's.



You always do because that's how the ratings work. The course is the course, of course, of course (sorry about the Mr. Ed reference). The course has a single rating value called an SSA and everyone, man or woman shoots a score that is rated in reference to that SSA course rating.

course is the course, of course, of course (sorry about the Mr. Ed reference).




LMAO!!! hit the phunny bone with that,g1 :D

You can't just add points to every round, because not every course is that different for us. Some courses are really long and the average women's score is going to be a lot higher that the men's. Some courses are not long, but are technical, so our scores should not be that far off the men's. All I am saying is that, it needs to be taken into account that men and women are built differently, and women just can not throw (on average) as far as men, and this should be taken into account. Take my home course for example--Round Rock. Very long course. For us women, teens over is a good score, for the men, a few over is. Now, let's take another one I play--Lago Vista. A few long holes, but a lot of techniccal, but reachable holes by the women. So as far as scores, men and women are a lot closer. What I am saying, is that not all courses are the same, or even close to being the same for women as they are the men, and we need a system to reflect that. Like Paul said earlier, most other sports have different organizations for the men and the women. While I don't think that we need to go that far, we do need something to distinguish ourselves from the men, and a seperate ratings (not rankings...) system would help with that. I think what Chuck suggested earlier about maintaining a seperate women's SSA for the course layout. I think this is the most logical and easiest way to do it. There are enough women now, for that to be possible.



doesn't that hold equally well for any of the protected divisions and not just women per se? (for example Pro Grandmasters do not score nearly as well in general as Open players on courses with a lot of distance, but on technical courses they are much closer) it could be argued that we need a separate ratings system for every protected division not just women, (Adv. Women, Int. Women, Adv. Masters, Pro GM, Boys under 16, etc.) but since rankings would accomplish the intragroup measure sought why mess with ratings? (afterall, ratings have nothing to do with gender, age, etc. but simply are a measure of how a particular score rates for a particular course in particular conditions such as weather, etc.)

Chuck, forgive me if this has been covered before...

If one's last 8 rounds are double weighted and the last 2 of the 8 are during a 4 round tourney...are the final 2 rounds used or are all 4 double weighted?

It's the highest rated 2 rounds of the 4 round tourney. Even if your 1st and 2nd rounds were the highest, those get the double weight.

Cool, thanks. :cool:

Hey chuck, here is a valid question.
@ the Twin Oaks Open in Duncan Oklahoma last month , the open masters division was allocated the use of a cart for their rounds. Does that factor into the round ratings. The main reason I ask, is because Mitch Mac shot the best score for the weekend ,how does that effect the rest of the field?

What happens if they play in an unrestricted division like Int or MM1. Do they get a higher rating for shooting the same score as the players they were directly competing against ?


Men and Women don't directly compete against each other.



You are wrong wrong wrong there!!

The Open portions of Pro, Advanced, and Women are open to anyone who qualifies for them based on ratings. Only protected divisions (ones based on age or if they are female or both) can deny people from playing in them.

Indeed. We have had three or four women competing in Men's Rec at the Illinois Open Series. Maybe next year we will have even more women competing against the men when we offer MA4.

Unless an event is listed as an X-tier, the assumption is that the scores will be based on regular PDGA rules, whether carts are used or not, and will be rated.

It just seemed odd that players that had the advantage on a long course had higher ratings ( with the same scores ) as the open men.

If they have the same scores they should have the same ratings if the data is entered properly.

Well then there is a discrepancy for the twin oaks open.

were the rounds played at different times?

if yes then different gators were used to achieve ratings

Well then there is a discrepancy for the twin oaks open.



It looks like the MPO division played a different layout than the MPM division which played a different layout than the Am divisions.

Maybe just one tee or pin was different somewhere.

Just for fun, I put the graph together shown below (hey, I'm an engineer, math is my gig).

I highlighted in red the ratings region where I thought men and women would be most competitive -- using the highest women's amateur rating as a high-point. I also put a second graph together which shifted the women's ratings by 100 points to see how that tracked with men's ratings. Any comments?

Chuck, does this look like the data you have? (Thanks for making this available, by the way -- I got the data from you on this thread and from the PDGA ratings pages.)

http://www2.go-concepts.com/~pmyg/ratings3.jpg

I generated this graph using this Matlab M-file: ratings.m (http://www2.go-concepts.com/~pmyg/ratings.m)

One of the things the bottom graph says to me, if I have the data right, is that Des Reading would have a 1060 women's rating if women were tracked on their own ratings scale.

That seems to show that Des is an even better player among women than Ken Climo is among men! (Ken's rating is 1043.)

Here's the table of ratings I just did for the Competition Committee. For Pro Women, the offset with men is closer to 75 points and the offset for Am women is over 100. Other than a nice mathematical exercise, I'm not sure it makes any difference unless the Women's Committee is looking for a change.

<table border="1"><tr><td> .</td><td>Pro</td><td>Pro</td><td>Am</td><td>Am</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Rating</td><td>M</td><td>F</td><td>M</td><td>F</td><td>Total
</td></tr><tr><td>1020+</td><td>22</td><td></td><td></td><td>22
</td></tr><tr><td>1010+</td><td>50</td><td></td><td></td><td>50
</td></tr><tr><td>1000+</td><td>64</td><td></td><td>0</td><td></td><td>64
</td></tr><tr><td>990+</td><td>150</td><td></td><td>5</td><td></td><td>155
</td></tr><tr><td>980+</td><td>238</td><td></td><td>17</td><td></td><td>255
</td></tr><tr><td>970+</td><td>311</td><td>0</td><td>54</td><td></td><td>365
</td></tr><tr><td>960+</td><td>397</td><td>1</td><td>138</td><td></td><td>536
</td></tr><tr><td>950+</td><td>436</td><td>4</td><td>281</td><td></td><td>721
</td></tr><tr><td>940+</td><td>353</td><td>3</td><td>464</td><td></td><td>820
</td></tr><tr><td>930+</td><td>272</td><td>6</td><td>612</td><td></td><td>890
</td></tr><tr><td>920+</td><td>221</td><td>3</td><td>709</td><td></td><td>933
</td></tr><tr><td>910+</td><td>146</td><td>10</td><td>834</td><td>0</td><td>990
</td></tr><tr><td>900+</td><td>116</td><td>7</td><td>734</td><td>1</td><td>858
</td></tr><tr><td>890+</td><td>70</td><td>13</td><td>758</td><td>2</td><td>843
</td></tr><tr><td>880+</td><td>60</td><td>18</td><td>620</td><td>1</td><td>699
</td></tr><tr><td>870+</td><td>42</td><td>12</td><td>576</td><td>9</td><td>639
</td></tr><tr><td>860+</td><td>20</td><td>17</td><td>480</td><td>11</td><td>528
</td></tr><tr><td>850+</td><td>20</td><td>12</td><td>404</td><td>12</td><td>448
</td></tr><tr><td>840+</td><td>12</td><td>15</td><td>304</td><td>10</td><td>341
</td></tr><tr><td>830+</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>254</td><td>21</td><td>299
</td></tr><tr><td>820+</td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>193</td><td>32</td><td>236
</td></tr><tr><td>810+</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>155</td><td>20</td><td>181
</td></tr><tr><td>800+</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>125</td><td>42</td><td>176
</td></tr><tr><td>775+</td><td>8</td><td>16</td><td>219</td><td>91</td><td>334
</td></tr><tr><td>750+</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>118</td><td>64</td><td>190
</td></tr><tr><td>725+</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>68</td><td>69</td><td>145
</td></tr><tr><td>700+</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>41</td><td>51</td><td>94
</td></tr><tr><td>650+</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>50</td><td>64</td><td>117
</td></tr><tr><td>600+</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>14</td><td>29</td><td>45
</td></tr><tr><td>600></td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>21</td><td>46</td><td>68
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

<table border="1"><tr><td> Rating</td><td>MPM</td><td>MPG+</td><td>MM1</td><td>MG1+
</td></tr><tr><td>1020+</td><td>5</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>1010+</td><td>13</td><td>4</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>1000+</td><td>15</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>990+</td><td>41</td><td>5</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>980+</td><td>75</td><td>15</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>970+</td><td>92</td><td>17</td><td>4</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>960+</td><td>141</td><td>27</td><td>16</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>950+</td><td>152</td><td>48</td><td>42</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>940+</td><td>141</td><td>38</td><td>82</td><td>9
</td></tr><tr><td>930+</td><td>104</td><td>46</td><td>116</td><td>20
</td></tr><tr><td>920+</td><td>93</td><td>60</td><td>140</td><td>26
</td></tr><tr><td>910+</td><td>72</td><td>33</td><td>199</td><td>27
</td></tr><tr><td>900+</td><td>51</td><td>38</td><td>180</td><td>32
</td></tr><tr><td>890+</td><td>23</td><td>37</td><td>184</td><td>46
</td></tr><tr><td>880+</td><td>28</td><td>24</td><td>178</td><td>41
</td></tr><tr><td>870+</td><td>15</td><td>15</td><td>170</td><td>53
</td></tr><tr><td>860+</td><td>8</td><td>11</td><td>130</td><td>42
</td></tr><tr><td>850+</td><td>9</td><td>9</td><td>104</td><td>45
</td></tr><tr><td>840+</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>75</td><td>32
</td></tr><tr><td>830+</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>71</td><td>16
</td></tr><tr><td>820+</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>42</td><td>24
</td></tr><tr><td>810+</td><td></td><td>3</td><td>33</td><td>15
</td></tr><tr><td>800+</td><td></td><td>2</td><td>31</td><td>16
</td></tr><tr><td>775+</td><td></td><td>13</td><td>36</td><td>50
</td></tr><tr><td>750+</td><td></td><td>21</td><td>12
</td></tr><tr><td>725+</td><td></td><td>11</td><td>10
</td></tr><tr><td>700+</td><td></td><td>6</td><td>5
</td></tr><tr><td>650+</td><td></td><td></td><td>9
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Here's another interesting table. It appears that players self adjust to approximately 40-50 point ranges between MPG / MG1, and MPM / MM1 in terms of where the peak numbers are located in the distributions. The broader distributions are likely due to regional differences where pros may still be 40-50 points on average above the ams everywhere but pros (and ams) in some regions are higher than similar age pros (and ams) in other regions.

How about instead of proposing we add 75 points to their round ratings we propose that any two women may team up as a best-shot doubles team in the Open (singles) division of PDGA events? Team Des and Juliana vs. the World :eek:

Does the top chart include all age divisions of Pro Men or just those registered in Open?

The top chart is everyone of all ages.

chuck do you have info on why Outlaws at round rock does not show up on the tour page and is not in anyones ratings history? thanks

You'll have to ask Gentry that one. I only rate the events I get and usually don't know about the ones I haven't gotten.

Hey Chuck, something is wrong with my player rating and i cant figure it out. I paid for my membership at a tournament, they sent my card in the mail but none of the info from the tournament is listed under my name.

This problem is resolved by contacting the PDGA office. The TD doesn't know what new member numbers are when they join at an event, so someone at the office has to manually see and update that in the TD report when it's sent.

THANKS

Chuck,

Please tell me Final 9's don't count toward ratings. The VPO had a final nine for the cashing spots in most divisions.

No rounds less than 13 holes get officially rated.

Here's a little history I dug up with the help of Becky Zallek. This is from the January 1988 edition of the Disc Golfer which was the name of the PDGA newsletter then. This was a year before I heard of DG, two years before I joined the PDGA and a few months before the 1988 Cincinnati Worlds. Ten years later, the 1998 Worlds in Cincinnati would provide the baseline data to start the current ratings system:

Ranking Criteria in Development by Chris Barley

Our Statistics Committee has been examining ways of standardizing various levels of play by developing a criteria for ranking players and courses and establishing handicaps. We are looking for a method by which PDGA members can be categorized into 3 levels of play: open pro, advanced and amateur. Until we have more statistical input, we suggest this general criteria which we hope will be improved over time. In this way we can move cautiously forward without discriminating against any group of players.

In general, skill level is a function of natural ability combined with practice. This ranking criteria should serve only as a guide to the player to suggest which division he could play in. Typical scores are based on play on average par 54 courses

Amateur - average score 60-plus, typically a new player with consistency as a major problem. Has moments of fine play mixed with devastatingly poor performances. Doesn't play regularly.

Advanced - average score 54-60, more consistent than the amateur, usually has 1-2 seasons of experience, doesn't play enough to compete on the open pro level. We believe that the vast majority of North American players fall into the advanced category.

Open Pro - average score below 54, seasoned player who is consistent, who practices a great deal, competes regularly, travels to many tournaments, and continually strives to improve his game.

Hi Chuck,

i am trying to get a predict my December rating, but the Huntington Open (http://www.pdga.com/schedule/event.php?TournID=6168) didn't post the unofficial results based on layouts so the ratings weren't accurate. (i usually save the ratings info for my rounds before they go official and the round ratings disappear.)

Is there any way to get the preliminary round rating info? (for example if you have easy access to it -- maybe PM me my unoffcial round ratings for that event ;) ) I would try to enter the data but i can't remember which formats all the respective divisions played...

I can't get the unofficial ratings any easier than anyone else. In fact, since I don't even see the TD reports until they are processed for ratings, I don't even know which layouts were used. At least those at the event might know what layouts they played along with whatever other divisions played with them. So, you can estimate the ratings by using the downloadable Excel league ratings calculator from the Ratings docs page by pasting in the results round by round. www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/index.php (http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/index.php)

Greetings Chuck,

I am looking for a way to inflate my player rating without earning it...do you accept any type of payment to make this happen?

What is the bottom dollar value of a 4 digit player rating?

:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p

No charge. I now declare Mike Connors rating to be 1256 (base 9) :D

(That is until the update a week from now)

No charge. I now declare Mike Connors rating to be 1256 (base 9) :D

(That is until the update a week from now)



LOL!!

Just the response I was looking for :D watch out Barry!

Hi Chuck,

i am trying to get a predict my December rating, but the Huntington Open (http://www.pdga.com/schedule/event.php?TournID=6168) didn't post the unofficial results based on layouts so the ratings weren't accurate. (i usually save the ratings info for my rounds before they go official and the round ratings disappear.)

Is there any way to get the preliminary round rating info? (for example if you have easy access to it -- maybe PM me my unoffcial round ratings for that event ;) ) I would try to enter the data but i can't remember which formats all the respective divisions played...



I've tried this, it was within 5 points or so: Average everyone in your div's rating, and average everyone in your div's score. Then add or subtract 7-10 points per stroke depending on course? Longest course=7 Shortest course=10
Does that work or am I way off base?

It's easier to copy and paste the online info into the Excel spreadsheet provided for downloading to calculate ratings for each round. www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/CalcSSAtemp06plus.xls (http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/CalcSSAtemp06plus.xls)

Chuck, why when i use the this PDGA Stats Page (http://www.pdga.com/stats.php) and sort by "Pro Open (all age brackets)" and by my state (Kentucky), and by money, isn't Juliana Korver the top listing? :confused: Why does she not even show up? She won more money than Dr. Rick or her husband Shawn -- and she is of course qualified to play in Pro Open (its open to all regardless of age or gender).

I might be able to tell you how many other PDGA Pro Women lead their states for most money won, but for some reason the program doesn't see fit to include women in the Pro Open stats... :(

Due to sheer boredom at work...

Rob you are looking at roughly a 965 for the 1st round and a 981 for the 2nd round. That assumes that Open, Master, Advanced, and Adv Masters played the same layout both rounds.

thanks. i expect it will be lower (and don't want to get my hopes up) but i would be happy with that ;) i've been working a lot of overtime lately and am having trouble remembering anything right now

if you get really bored, feel free to predict my rating for the next update :grin

note: i just used your numbers and get 969. That is assuming 6 most recent rounds double weighted (and a std. deviation of 32.81 and so my 872 round at Wildcat Hollow would get dropped...)

If Pro Open was really Open instead of Pro Men, Des would make the top 10.

let's call it Pro Men then to be statistically accurate or call it what it is -- Pro Open -- and quit excluding Pro Women!

Pro Men, just to be consistent internally.

http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php

Those lists and filters were set up initially by volunteers and haven't been changed or updated that I know of. This issue is one of many on the website to be addressed when they can organize the resources.

okay thanks Chuck. It's a cool feature -- and the updates will make it even better. is it also the case that GM eligible players don't show up in Masters?

I don't even know how it all works for the groupings. In the beginning of the year, players don't end up on their state lists until they have played. I think all pros of all ages are in their gender list but I'm not sure GMs and SGMs show up on the Master list (but should). It's a mess and I don't like having to apologize for the PDGA every time players want what would seem like easy sorts and selections to achieve. This has gone on for years now and it's finally getting higher on the budget priorities. Someone not only has to volunteer to do it but someone has to oversee it because the website is so convoluted, from what I understand, that it's easy to do something here and mess up something there.

as i said before -- thanks Chuck. It looks like it will be really cool when all the updates get put in place. i do tend to associate PDGA stats with you and it didn't make sense that something you are associated with wasn't nearly perfect. thanks for reinforcing that impression by expressing your dismay with some of the loose ends ;) :D

from what I understand, that it's easy to do something here and mess up something there.



that seems true of course design and disc golf play too ...
hey, wait a minute ... -- isn't that just a cliche with universal applicability? :eek: :p :D

Chuck - Here's a ratings question that I'm sure has been answered, but I missed it (and it is a hard one to seach for):

Why do historical events have current ratings listed along side the competitors?

It would be so much more valuable and make so much more sense to list their historical rating that matches the date of the event. The data is in the database so it seems like a minor coding change.

This hasn't risen high enough in the priorities for IT folks to change the code to pull each player's historical rating value rather than their current rating. It's not necessarily a trivial process since players don't have ratings populated into each update field in the database if they didn't have an update that period. So some calculation is required to find their most recent rating prior to that event date. I agree it would be better to retain the rating the person had leading into the event so you can maybe see how players have progressed over the years.

Thanks for the explanation. You are right - it would take a little intelligence to be able grab the most recent rating before the event. But I can't imagine it would be too complicated in comparison to a lot of the searches/calculations that currently spit out data from the ratings database.

You can actually see players' progress really well in the "ratings history" part of each player's stats. That bar graph is cool. But when looking at events from years past, it is a pain to click on each player to get a real-time historical snapshot (and then have to remember it all).

As usual, thanks for all the work you and the team do to make this stuff so accessible!

Chuck,
Setup to Question: The other day some of my buddies out at the course were doing a make-shift handicapping system using their player ratings. The way they did it was a stroke for every 10 points. I seem to remember you explaining exactly how much a stroke was worth in ratings points a long time ago. So I was wondering.....
Question: On a par 54 course with an SSA of 47.48, how many ratings points would a stroke be?
Sidenote: If this has a very complicated answer involving supercomputer calculations, just say too complicated.
Thanks.

Three options: The easy way is to look up some courses on this website to find those with SSA close to the one you're planning to play. Click on the event that produced the ratings for that course and see how much each throw was worth by looking at the round ratings for people one shot apart.
http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php

Another option is to subscribe to the Disc Golf United handicapping service ($19.95/yr or $2.95/mon) which does all of the math for you and tracks your personal numbers. http://www.discgolfunited.com

Another option is to download the Excel template for calculating ratings.
http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/CalcSSAtemp06plus.xls
Enter a fake player with 1000 rating and put the actual SSA in as their score. Make sure to enter 18 for the number of holes at the top. Then, enter a second player without a rating who has a score exactly one shot higher or lower than the SSA. awitch to the tab that has the ratings on it and look what the difference is between the ratings of those two players.

Thanks Chuck. I think option 3 will work. So I guess once I put the numbers in it will answer the other question I had in mind of "is the ratings scale linear?".

For a given SSA, each shot is worth the same so that part is linear. But the number of rating points per throw does not change in a linear fashion with a one shot change in SSA.

Chuck, I have a question. Will the second round for the Open div at this (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6618&year=2006&includeRatings=1#Open) tournament be rated? Only the 4 Open players played the long tees second round.

It probably will get rated under our new approach. When there are fewer than 5 propagators on a course, if that same group (and others) play the same course in another round, we will combine the results for both rounds to do the ratings in one batch for both rounds.

Oh man that sucks.

But thanks!

Well, the good news is that if only one of those rounds ends up getting double weighted for your April rating update, at least it will be the better one. :)

I think they both will. I've only got 3 tourneys coming up before 4/10.
Is that always the case, for any tournament that only has 1 round double-weighted? That would be cool.

No. It depends on where the 25% line breaks for you at each update. If you have 20 rounds in the update, your most recent 5 will be double weighted. If your most recent events are each 2 rounds, then only one round in the event just before those two will be double weighted and we always use the best of the two.

Chuck....I just recently had a sweeet round that was unofficially 71 points below my current rating. Is there a way I can calculate if that round will be excluded or not in the next update or will I have to wait?
Thanks...#21433

Calculate the standard deviation of the ratings for the rounds you think will be included in the next update making sure to drop out rounds more than 12 months older than the date of the most recent round you think will get reported before the next update. If your standard deviation is less than 28, it's likely your round will be excluded. Remember though, it's how many points below your new rating that counts, not your current rating when determining if any round gets dropped.

Calculate the standard deviation of the ratings for the rounds you think will be included in the next update making sure to drop out rounds more than 12 months older than the date of the most recent round you think will get reported before the next update. If your standard deviation is less than 28, it's likely your round will be excluded. Remember though, it's how many points below your new rating that counts, not your current rating when determining if any round gets dropped.



THATS why I got $#@!$%^ from that round at the Great Northwest Open.... :mad:

Hi Chuck,

You posted the following quote in another thread.

"It can happen online for unofficial ratings but not in reality. ALWAYS almost exactly the same number of players will end up with ratings higher than their rating and half lower on any layout. It's not possible for it to happen any other way for official ratings. When you see oddities like you're talking about, it just means the course layouts haven't been done properly yet. There's not even a boost factor anymore which did actually produce a few more higher ratings than lower ratings during 2005. But that's gone. "

Can you explain why half the players tend to be rated (and hence play) above their rating while the other half are rated below their current rating? You used "ALWAYS" as though there was a statistical reason, and if so, I'd like to read more.

Thanks!
Steve

The SSA course rating for each round is determined by the average rating of the propagator players and their average score for the round. The round ratings are then based on that SSA from the scores. The average rating of the propagators will always be the same as the average of the round ratings except when we had a boost factor in there that shifted the calculated SSA 0.1 to 0.5 higher during 2005 and part of 2006 when it was phased out. During that time, the average of the round ratings was 1 to 5 points higher than the average rating of the propagators. Now it should be close to the same. It's not always perfect due to rounding and a slight shift in the formula to account for a really shallow curve in the equations to adjust for lower rated propagator groups versus higher rated propagator groups.

Chuck,

I have 10 rounds of golf that will be going into the new ratings when they update. 4 at the buckhorn open, 4 at the coastal plains winter open, and 2 from the loriella challenge. I know that some rounds are doubled to emphasize how well you play the most recently. I was just curious how many rounds will be doubled and maybe just a reader's digest version of how ratings are determined. Thanks.

All rounds going back 12 months from the date of your most recent event will be included. The most recent 25% (1 out of 4) will be double weighted. If any rounds are more than 2.5 standard deviations below your average will be dropped which is about 1 in 50.

so when you say the most recent 25% are doubled, is that the most recent of all the rounds that are being used for the ratings, or 25% of the new rounds that are going into the ratings since the last ratings update?

25% of the total number of rounds going back 12 months that are included in your update, not just the new ones.

so basically it's an ave of all your rounds over the past year with just a couple dropped and the latest 25% doubled?

Yes. But everyone's 12 months is different. It's all rounds in the 12 months before the date of your most recent round in the update. If your most recent round is January 15th, then we go back to January 16th of 2006. If it's March 3rd then we go back to March 4th of 2006.

great :) thanks chuck

Chuck, what would my rating be if Am Worlds 06 were excluded? I had a cast over my elbow for that tournament.

I don't know. It will drop off in the late August update as long as you play an event after July 29th this year that gets reported for that August update.

thanks :confused:

Do ratings only get updated for those players that have events reported for that update period? It is possible that the dropping of events over 1 year old could move a player into another division (up or down), so I don't see why all active (ie. paid) members wouldn't get an update.

Events more than 1 year from your most recent round are dropped, not 1 year from the update. If it was otherwise, players that didn't play for a year would no longer have a rating.

Okay, that's makes sense. Thanks.

Hi Chuck,
I just sent you a PM.
Thanks.
Aleksey.

How r the ratings gonna work for the philly open...two rounds of 24...

No problem. We rate any rounds that are more than 12 holes. We did the whole Am Worlds when we first started ratings as a "round" that was 144 holes long! That's because we didn't know who played in what pools.

wats up ive looked at my identification page and my rating says as of jan 30 not april 10

Your rating doesn't get updated if you don't have any new events rated since the last update.

How much Woodchuck would Chuck chug if Chuck would chug Woodchuck?

They appear to be a sponsor of the National Tour.

Maybe they would want to get the rights to my Augusta Chronicle cover photo for their advertising?

Hey Chuck, are Kelsey's lefthanded rounds low enough to be "No"? http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournamen...eRatings=1#Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6600&amp;year=2007&amp;incl udeRatings=1#Open)
I never understood that standard deviation stuff. About where would her under/over line fall?

Looks like it easily. She has a 789 dropped in her current ratings set.

Hi Chuck,

I enjoyed meeting you in person and playing a practice round on the lovely Jackson Memorial course last week. Is there anything in the works to merge the scores/ratings for those of us who played the short Ed course layout at the HoF last weekend? I'm scratching for every rating point I can get...

Allen

Dave is the one to ask. I think he plans to merge the results at least for ratings but we won't know until processing time in June how that gets done. We certainly had enough time to get to know the Jackson during the round... :p

Hi Chuck, why not look at player rating on a seasonal average, or lifetime average (per division) ? Sort of like what baseball does with batting averages ?

Your history is shown for each time your rating is updated with up to five values per year for active players. There are several other things I've wanted to calculate or display but the programming resources haven't been available yet.

Chuck - is there a link to information about holding a ratings based event somewhere out here? I searched for over 20 minutes and couldn't find one.

Thanks.

L

There's no such thing as a pure ratings based event this year (next year it should be easier). However, you can put one together that's real close by offering only Open, Advanced, Int, Rec, Adv Women &amp; Int Women. Since older players and women are allowed to play in those predominantly male divisions, you've got just about everyone covered by offering a fair division based on rating. The only players who might have to play above their level will be males of any age with ratings under 825. In addition, I would recommend offering Trophy Only in Open so it might encourage high rated Ams to try Open and provide a budget option for older pros with ratings over 954 who might not want to fully donate to the younger hotshots who they have to play in Open.

Is there any way to stop non current and non PDGA member players from sandbagging in sanctioned events?

Yes. The TD has control to place players in whatever division (s)he wishes. If a nonmember wants to play Intermediate, the TD can say they have to play Advanced or even Open if it's appropriate. I believe TDs get the ratings of the non-current members in their area so they know what level they are.

Yes. The TD has control to place players in whatever division (s)he wishes. If a nonmember wants to play Intermediate, the TD can say they have to play Advanced or even Open if it's appropriate. I believe TDs get the ratings of the non-current members in their area so they know what level they are.




What if the guy was rated 950 but hasn't payed dues in three years and is more like a 1000 rated player? Can you still bump him to Open?

Even if the guy was rated 650 last November and as long as he hasn't paid his dues, the TD could make him play open.

Chuck:

Is there a way to sort the membership by age from the PDGA web-site? For example, could I sort all players who are above 50, regardless of state of residence or AM/Pro status?

Thanks,

Chuck

No. You only can select members by certain criteria such as state and division and they will be ranked by that selction item such as points or money won. Adding those features you are suggesting would be great and the PDGA would like to do more but they haven't had the resources to do it yet.

Chuck,

I was just perusing the NT Program and I noticed your article on 2007 Worlds in Highbridge. Very nice. As I was looking at the map of the courses, I noticed the term "Biffy". What is that referring to?

Restroom. It's a nicer term you see on some models of port-a-johns, not a new type of disc golf hazard. :D

Hey Chuck, I'm gonna be heading up to Ashland, Wi this weekend to see some family. Do you have a suggestion to get a hold of John? And is there anyone playing Highbridge regularly? It'd be nice to have a golf partner at the course. Thanks, Joe

John is tracking his email daily so I'd suggest that. He's at: [email protected]

All four courses are open and there's regular player traffic here already even today on Monday. I've been here since Thursday and leave tomorrow and there have been at least 10-15 players each day. This weekend is supposed to be good weather, too.

Yes. The TD has control to place players in whatever division (s)he wishes. If a nonmember wants to play Intermediate, the TD can say they have to play Advanced or even Open if it's appropriate. I believe TDs get the ratings of the non-current members in their area so they know what level they are.




What if the guy was rated 950 but hasn't payed dues in three years and is more like a 1000 rated player? Can you still bump him to Open?



I think the best solution for this situation is to actually give them two options, play open or play rec, trophy only.

I think the best solution for this situation is to actually give them two options, play open or play rec, trophy only.



One more option should be given: Rejoin the PDGA and you can play where your rating says.

Chuck-

What makes a round not count towards a persons player raiting?


I played and event last weekend, and had a round were anything that could go bad did.

The unofficial raiting was 919 and my player raiting is 1014.

Is this thing going to be stuck on my raiting for a while?

Smitty

Probably not. Any round more than 2.5 standard deviations below your rating or more than 100 pts below (which ever is smaller) will drop out. Most players over a 1000 have Std Dev around 25 which means any round more than about 65 pts below your rating will be dropped.

Is there any way to stop non current and non PDGA member players from sandbagging in sanctioned events?

We track non-member ratings for the Illinois Open Series and require non-members to move up on the same basis that the PDGA requires members to move up. Also, we offer one "division" that non-members may not play, &lt;835 or Am 4.

We had eleven players in the Am 4 "division" last weekend.

Am 4 is Rec Trophy-only with a sidebet for prizes and trophies, on the TD report.

Chuck:

Whats the last weekend that can still get in the update provided the TDs are timely.

I would say that events the weekend of June 9-10 could get in if the report is sent on Monday, June 11.

Chuck -

Tim Selinske turned in the complete TD report for the Crescenta Valley Safari (CV Safari) the week following the event (event date March 24 &amp; 25). This was prior to the April 10th ratings update, but the tournament was not included. Can you tell if the event will be included this time or should the TD report be resubmitted?

Thanks

If it was submitted that long ago, then Dave lost or never got it because it shows the results online as unofficial. That means the PDGA hasn't processed it yet. Better contact Dave to get the scoop.

Chuck, would tossing a mini during a tournament round constitute a warning as a practice throw and if done again be subject to a penalty.

It's a little bit tricky but a strict reading of the Practice Throw definition in the Glossary would indicate that throwing a mini would count as a practice throw just like a regular sized disc since the definition doesn't differentiate between discs of different sizes.

Practice Throw: During a round, the projection of a *disc* of a distance greater than two meters, or of any distance toward a target, intentional or not, which does not change the player�s lie, either because it did not occur from the teeing area or the lie, or because the player had already thrown competitively from the teeing area or the lie.

In my experience, when someone throws a mini out of
frustration during a PDGA event, our card has called a
courtesy violation (warning for 1st time). It usually doesn't
happen again.
DD

It's a little bit tricky but a strict reading of the Practice Throw definition in the Glossary would indicate that throwing a mini would count as a practice throw just like a regular sized disc since the definition doesn't differentiate between discs of different sizes.



I disagree based on the fact that a mini is referred to as a "mini marker disc" throughout the rules. If the practice throw rule was meant to include minis, "mini marker discs" should have been specifically mentioned in that rule.

I think the RC included mini discs in the rule without extra language being required by simply using the word "discs." They do that in other places where a generic word covers a range of items such as the terms "artificial devices" or "obstacles" without detailing them. For example, there are discs like Aerobies that are not legal for competition. Would you allow players to play catch with those during a round since they didn't meet the official definition of a disc for play?

I don't think throwing a mini should count as a penalty stroke the first time. It is a courtesy violation.
This is from rule 801.01.B
Examples of discourteous actions are: shouting, cursing, freestyling, slapping course equipment, throwing out of turn, throwing or kicking golf bags, throwing minis,

Good catch. Looks like the RC has actually addressed it in writing. OK, so still no playing catch with Aerobies during the round.

Hi Chuck,
i noticed under the PDGA Player Statistics info (accessed through the "Membership" tab) that if i look at current info it shows points, money won and tourney's attended for the year, but then if i click the "2006" link it shows the 2007 stats instead of the 2006 info (the other years work correctly though).

evidently the 2006 and 2007 links both point to 2007 data (money won, etc.) and there is presently no way to see 2006 data. i tried it with my info and Peter Shive's and noted the same glitch...

should i direct this concern to you or to some other party?

thanks for your time and happy disc'in

Direct it to Dave Gentry.

Do these 'quick' ratings look low? Maybe AMs and Pros are still mixed in the forms? (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6380&amp;year=2007&amp;inc)

Hard to know since we never know if the TD has done the course layouts properly when we look at unofficial ratings.

Direct it to Dave Gentry.



Hi Chuck, i did as you suggested but the glitch is still there -- was using the "Contacts" link the right route?

as an example of what it's doing -- if you go to Climo's PDGA stats page (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=4297&amp;year=2006) (or any member's) and click on "2006" it yields 2007 info (points, money, etc.) ...

i promise i'm not with the IRS ;)

When I click on any player and then click on 2006, I get their 2006 event listings. Anyone else getting 2007 info when clicking on 2006 data under a player's member info?

Gentry is on vacation and will probably have a feww hundred emails to deal with next week. But it may be your problem, not the site?

i highly doubt it is just me -- that would be really weird because the 2005 and 2004 and 2007 links work fine for me while 2006 yields 2007 points and money info.
(can someone confirm what i am saying?)

try this:

if i go to your (Chuck Kennedy) PDGA stats info via the "Membership" tab at the top of the page, i get:

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=4949

and then i click on the "<u>2006</u>" link it yields 2007 points and money info even though it shows your 2006 events. (for example, under the first heading beneathe your name and location it shows:

PDGA Points Information
# Tourn. Points Prize
1 .... 30

see: http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=4949&amp;year=2006

it is just that first heading: PDGA Points Information
the second heading: Player Rating Information is fine
as is the third heading: Tournament Results

the 2005 and 2004 links are fine too on all accounts...

OK, I see it's just the point total that's off, not the event listing. That's a Dave issue. I have no admin access to the PDGA website.

yes it affects the 2006 points total, # of events, and cash won for the year.

just trying to do my part to help keep the stat ducks in a row, and you seem to be the go-to stats guy.
i did use the contacts link to inform David G. though -- thanks for the help.

Hi Chuck,

My son and I have registered for Am Worlds, however, my 15-yr-old son is registered to play in the &lt;16 Junior Girls division. While I'm sure the girls would love him and he them, I think it's best for him to be in the appropriate gender division.

I have contacted the TD and he says he can't fix this - it is a PDGA thing. I have submitted a request via the Tour Manager link on this site but have received no reply - probably because Gentry is on vacation?

Any ideas who could fix this? It's a bit embarrassing for him...

Allen Risley

I don't think Gentry's back until Monday so that's as soon as he can get to it. All registration for both Worlds goes thru Breiner's website as a service for the PDGA so we just sit back and wait for the updates. Speaking of which, I haven't seen this Friday's update yet. Of course, this is the day after Hoeniger has retired and he has done the updates for years now.

Gonna be a change his time...Probably bad for me...Great for Tank...same for BArd....

don't think I'm moving anywhere.

hey Chuck,thanks for all your help.

I know that rounds more than 2.5 SD are dropped, but do they
still drop other low rounds if you play "x" amount of events?

No. If you're consistent enough over the years relative to your rating, it's possible that you might never have a round dropped. The long range theoretical drop rate for everyone on average under the current structure is about 1 round in 50 getting dropped. The rate is a little higher for lower rated players because we automatically drop rounds more than 100 pts below your rating even if 2.5SD for that player is more than 100.

Hi Chuck,
Perhaps this has been covered (sorry, I don't have time to read through all the posts). Last weekend I participated in the Riverside Open in Sumner, WA. At this tournament, the Pros and Ams play the same courses except for one hole. The one hole plays about 3/4 to 1 stroke harder for the Pros. In the second round I carded a 62 which garnered a rating of 966. The same score in Advanced garnered a 972 rating. Some other players have suggested that the reason behind this is that the ratings computer thinks that these are two totally different courses and thus only bases ratings based on how the players in that division played the course. However, in the first and third rounds in this tournament it rated identical scores in Advanced and Pro correctly (giving the Pros a slightly better rating). Any insight as to what may have caused the round two snafu? Also, if, indeed, the ratings are only calculated based on how players play it in the same division, what stops an Advanced player from racking up a 1000 rating in his divsion without ever being measured up against the pros if every tournament he plays in is on a different course from the Pros?

any chance the raings come out early this update?
thanks

Official ratings now combine all rounds on the same layout so everyone will get the same rating for the same score. The only time we now separate them is when the TD specifies that the wind was significantly different in one round than another on the same layout. The software for the unofficial ratings online has not been modified to handle this combination calculation. That's why they are unofficial and just for estimates.

No idea if the ratings can come out early but they are on track to come out on time.

does that mean that the huge ratings gap between the pros and ams in the alamance county shootout on may 11,12 will change or is this only for future rounds?

If there's a problem with Alamance, the TD can fix it since the ratings are still unofficial. The PDGA has not even received the report yet. So that event won't be processed officially until August.

Is there any way I can get a signed letter stating "Chuck showed me how to do this." so I can go up to people at tournaments that need help and not get told I don't know what I'm doing. :)

Maybe you can get it from Gentry.

As you may have already noticed, there appears to be a problem with the ratings calculated for the Greater Des Moines Challenge in round 3 for intermediate players. The men have a rating that is clearly too high, and the women don't have a rating calculated at all.

I appreciate the boost my player rating got from this, but thought I should bring it to your attention.

I checked our correction list and it was listed as a potential issue but it must not have been corrected.

Thanks for looking into it.

In a separate issue, it appears that the rounds from the Mighty MO (4/29) are not being used in the player ratings calculation. Could you check into this also?

Chuck- It appears that when choosing the last 25% of rounds to double that the morning round is chosen over an afternoon round. For example: If all tournaments played were 2/day and a player played 12 rounds, the double weighted rounds would be from the last tournament plus the first round of the previous tournament. What's up with that?

I would think either the afternoon round should be chosen or that the 25% should be expanded to include the entire day of rounds.

It's the highest rated round that is chosen. Or, if two or three rounds out of four from an event should be doubled, the highest rated ones are doubled.

Will these two issues be addressed before the next ratings update?

What issues? There will be a correction update posted this week that should address Des Moines and a few other corrections that came up.

What issues? There will be a correction update posted this week that should address Des Moines and a few other corrections that came up.



I was referring to both the Des Moines corrections and the omission of Mighty MO (04-29-2007) ratings.

I appreciate the update.

No Mighty Mo report received yet. It can be in the August update if it's received by about Aug 15.

chuck, Am i gonna drop a 922? i sure hope so!!!!

Real good chance that will drop since your SD looks tight enough.

No Mighty Mo report received yet. It can be in the August update if it's received by about Aug 15.



That's cool. There happens to be a very good reason why these have not been reported yet. I'm sure they'll be in for the next update.

hi chuck.

I ran event that ended yesterday. for our 4th round everyone played a 9 hole round. my understanding is that they are not supposed to be rated, but after I put in the scores the 4th round generated an unofficial rating for all players.

is this wrong? or have things changed?

FYI this was the Beachwood Classic in NY



edit: I put them in as finals instead of a 4th round(even though everyone played) and it did not give ratings. is this the only way?

Only rounds over 12 holes will officially get rated. For some reason the online software doesn't have that filter or are you sure you changed the number of holes from 18 to 9? If you leave it at the default 18, it will calculate ratings based on those 9-hole scores.

If you really want to get ratings for the 9 holes, best to enter the scores on the TD report as a 27-hole round adding the R3 &amp; R4 scores together.

I would prefer not to have them rated, so for now I entered them as "finals" and will probably leave it that way

Hey Chuck thanks for all of the great information on Ratings Calculations.

My question is in the calculation of the SSA from multiple rounds. I want to calculate a Local PDGA Rating for our La Mirada Weekly &amp; Monthly Tournaments. For the Monthly tournaments we play 2 rounds, round 1 is on 1-18 and the next round on 10-27. Since this is a different course (majorly different from each other) I was thinking that I would compute the SSA individually for each round and then average the SSA's together for the overall SSA. Should I do this or just combine them together and calculate the overall SSA normally. I'm using the SSA spreadsheet I got off of the PDGA website here. I could just list the rounds in the form and let it compute the SSA.

Thanks,
Rick

Just use one spreadsheet for the one layout and another spreadsheet for the other layout. The ratings produced from each can be pasted into a bigger sheet that averages those ratings based on the number of rounds a player has played on each layout.

Thanks Chuck. That's what I was thinking. Keep these rounds separate because they represent different layouts so they would produce very different SSA's.

Rick
:cool:

Hey chuck,
After looking at the tentative ratings for the 1st 2 rounds of the hambrick I am more confused than ever.
5 players that are tied for 17th place with the exact same score have 3 different averaged ratings for the 2 rounds.
2 guys average is 999 1 is 1000.5 and the other 2 are 1009.


How could one guys ratings average for the 2 rounds be higher or even different than the other 2, if they have the same score?
Does this happen very often?
Can players wind up with the same total but one guy increase his rating over the other guy?

Hey chuck,
After looking at the tentative ratings for the 1st 2 rounds of the hambrick I am more confused than ever.
5 players that are tied for 17th place with the exact same score have 3 different averaged ratings for the 2 rounds.
2 guys average is 999 1 is 1000.5 and the other 2 are 1009.


How could one guys ratings average for the 2 rounds be higher or even different than the other 2, if they have the same score?
Does this happen very often?
Can players wind up with the same total but one guy increase his rating over the other guy?



Dave, It was because the 2nd course was longer/more holes.

If shots are worth less on a longer course than shorter course, there will be slight differences unless they both shoot the same score on the same course. It's been that way since the beginning of ratings. The only way around those slight differences would be for players to have separate ratings depending on the range of SSA a course is in. Maybe that will happen down the road for the few hundred players who have more than 50 rated rounds in a year. Unless you have that many rounds, it doesn't make sense to break up your ratings into a smaller number of round averages.

What I'm asking is how could ( or is it possible) for 2 players to shoot the same exact score for an event and have one guy come away with a higher ratings average and increase his rating over a guy he tied???

What I'm asking is how could ( or is it possible) for 2 players to shoot the same exact score for an event and have one guy come away with a higher ratings average and increase his rating over a guy he tied???



Yeah and it happens a lot.

I accidentally posted this on the other thread. Here it is:

You can't average ratings for rounds 1 &amp; 2 at the Hambrick because the 27-hole round rating will be weighted 50% more in the official calcs. If you do the proper weighted average calcs the average ratings for those players will be within a point or exact. You can't average rounds with different number of holes. We account for that in the official ratings.

so why do the higher scores in round one have higher ratings....I would be a 1040 rated player in that system :D

It's been fixed. Someone accidentally assigned the Final 9 layout of par 27 to round 1. Round 2 &amp; 3 are set properly for 27 holes.

I had an eye injury (Pine Needle scratched 3/4s an inch across it) and finished out my last 5 holes at am Worlds with the injury. Should I notify anyone that I'm bad to use as a propagator for the round? The specific round was C Pool at Dineen.

On an aside, don't screw around with eye injuries. I finished out my round, went to olive garden, then back to the hotel. A couple hours later I had to have the guys I was staying with take me to the ER.

On another Aside, the ER in Milwaukee was incredible. I was in and out in less than an hour, at 11:00PM on a friday.

Pat - What was the exact injury? Anything serious? My eye discoloration was caused by a lacerated iris. Really would have been a neat injury had my retina not been crushed.

Pat - What was the exact injury? Anything serious? My eye discoloration was caused by a lacerated iris. Really would have been a neat injury had my retina not been crushed.



A 3/4 inch scratch in the Sclera.

Chuck, what is the most tournaments played by any player in disc golf? What about the most any woman has played in a year?

Try www.frivolist.com (http://www.frivolist.com) for these kind of "world record" questions.

Chuck's kinda busy right now... :)

Oh, come on! Since 2nd places currently reward women with nothing half the time, I was hoping for some sort of reward for dedication instead.

Talking with Juliana Korver Friday at worlds, she said she played 50 events in a year (although she may have meant 50 event rounds, not sure).

Steve Slater set a new record last year for most played.
Announcement (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=PDGA%20Announcements&amp;Number=634 335&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Main=634335&amp;Search=true&amp;#Post6343 35)

Oh, come on! Since 2nd places currently reward women with nothing half the time, I was hoping for some sort of reward for dedication instead.


The other half of the time you play TADGA events and we pretty much cash ALL the women with something to go home with! Spread the word ;) Hahaha

What is the deadline to turn in results to get included in the next update? Curious because we've got Kingston Open 9/11-12 and Summer Haze 9/19.

Looks like a deadline of Tuesday, Aug 14th for the next update.

chuck, is the local ratings spreadsheet still correct? the last couple times i've used it for sanctioned events it seems like it over-rated compared to the online unofficial ratings. thx...

What I'm asking is how could ( or is it possible) for 2 players to shoot the same exact score for an event and have one guy come away with a higher ratings average and increase his rating over a guy he tied???



David,

I've seen it where player1 shot overall 2 shots WORSE for a tournament, and their rating averaged 15 points HIGHER than player2 for that same tournament, all rounds 18 holes. The system is far from perfect, but it's pretty darn good, and it's certainly the best thing we have.

Chap

Chap

I've seen it where player1 shot overall 2 shots WORSE for a tournament, and their rating averaged 15 points HIGHER than player2 for that same tournament, all rounds 18 holes.



Please cite the actual example with official ratings.

ball golf has the same issue with their scoring average rankings. its caused by going round-by-round rather than for the event as a whole. the PGA website has a nice discussion of why it happens. supposedly the alternate "differential" method removes this issue for ball golf.

I've seen it where player1 shot overall 2 shots WORSE for a tournament, and their rating averaged 15 points HIGHER than player2 for that same tournament, all rounds 18 holes.



Please cite the actual example with official ratings.



Well, the official ratings apparently smoothed it out to only a 7 point spread, but the worse score still generated the better ratings....from St. Louis Open this year. It often happens from players in different pools, although they played the same tees and same conditions. Me and Tavish on that one.

Same propagators in each pool? No. But you've consistently said that shouldn't make that much difference.

KCWO 2004: Coda Hatfield went 55-53 at Rosedale for a (round 3-4) for an 986 average rating.

Brad Hammock went 53-56 at Rosedale (same setup, same weather conditions, but round 1-2) for a 1001 average.

Coda shot one shot better for 2 rounds, but averaged 15 points worse.

I'm just saying it happens, and it's a product of having higher rated propagators in one pool than another, and it always seems that the pool with the higher-rated propagaters ends up with better ratings than the other pool for the same score. It's a product of the methodology used. It's superior to having fixed SSAs for a course setting in that it CAN take into account the actual conditions by separating the pools. It's inferior in that in CAN produce different ratings (sometimes as much as 30 points for one round, although I haven't seen that big a disparity in about 3 years..normally the max is about 15 points) even though the conditions were the same and the scores are the same.

That's why I always claim that players 15 points apart in the Am divisions at Worlds, especially from different areas, probably aren't all that different statistically...because there can be 10-15 points of flux in the round ratings. And we're only talking about a 1-1.5% difference, I think that's statistically pretty tight really. But I think we should acknowledge that it exists.

Chap

What issues? There will be a correction update posted this week that should address Des Moines and a few other corrections that came up.




I noticed that this has not been addressed. Any idea when the correction will be?

Thanks again.

I will take full responsibilty for this. I was asked to review these items as the key personnel are tied up with worlds. My schedule has been tight with unexpected family issues to boot. Please do not blame the PDGA for this, but the poor performance of a volunteer worker that was taken unawares by his family. 15 year old, male, skater dude, nuff said..... I will do my best to review all items brought up this week end and get recommendations of for updates.



What issues? There will be a correction update posted this week that should address Des Moines and a few other corrections that came up.




I noticed that this has not been addressed. Any idea when the correction will be?

Thanks again.

Hi Chuck,

I was just curious as to why we don't have a yearly rating along with a lifetime rating. It makes so much more sense to have a yearly rating in addition to the one we have now specifically with the NT tour and awards. I know personally that I would really like to track year by year rating progress with each year being exclusive to itself. In addition I do like the rating system we have now that carries your stats for multiple years (depending on how much you play). I think it would definately help the growth of the sport as well so you could see who was playing the best this year. I know a lot of people wonder why Ken is stil the highest rated player in the world when BArry did much better than him last year and multiple players are playing better than him this year. Its like the NBA, MLB, NFL, Tennis just using players lifetime rankings and stats. It doesn't make much sense. Even golf now has Fedex points and World rankings for that calendar year. Thanks

I accidentally posted this on the other thread. Here it is:

You can't average ratings for rounds 1 &amp; 2 at the Hambrick because the 27-hole round rating will be weighted 50% more in the official calcs. If you do the proper weighted average calcs the average ratings for those players will be within a point or exact. You can't average rounds with different number of holes. We account for that in the official ratings.


So tournament rounds with more holes are rated heavier than 18 hole rounds when our official ratings are calculated out with the update? 21 hole rounds are worth like 17% more? 24 hole rounds worth 33% more? If thats true, it'd explain why I keep being a few points off when I try to do my numbers.

...why we don't have a yearly rating along with a lifetime rating. It makes so much more sense to have a yearly rating in addition to the one we have now...


Ditto...kinda like baseball.

This is a really solid idea. I actually do this for myself, keep my rating from the start of the calendar year. I actually keep it in increments.

Overall current rating. (about 935)
Rating over the course of the current year. (about 948)
Rating over the course of my most recent 25% of rounds. (about 959)

It really gives me a much better feel for where I am as a player than my actual listed rating. The most recent 25% one and the current total are kind of meh because one is too fluid and the other is still influenced by long dead rounds. But the rating over the course of the current calendar year is something that I think is pretty helpful to keep.

Hi Chuck,

I was just curious as to why we don't have a yearly rating along with a lifetime rating. It makes so much sense to have a yearly rating in addition to the one we have now specifically with the NT tour and awards. I know personally that I would really like to track year by year rating progress with each year being exclusive to itself. In addition I do like the rating system we have now that carries your stats for multiple years (depending on how much you play). I think it would definately help the growth of the sport as well so you could see who was playing the best this year. I know a lot of people wonder why Ken is stil the highest rated player in the world when BArry did much better than him last year and multiple players are playing better than him this year. Its like the NBA, MLB, NFL, Tennis just using players lifetime rankings and stats. It doesn't make much sense. Even golf now has Fedex points and World rankings for that calendar year. Thanks

I'll do it for the PDGA is you don't want to...we need yearly ratings for SOOO many reasons...Chuck....Chuck....Bueller??

You have yearly ratings in your Ratings History file. Every rating update that has a date in Jan or Feb will only include rounds from the previous year. We did that so players could do what you are asking to track long term performance.

Not a rating in a history file somewhere that you need to search for...an actual yearly point system or rating. I have been asked by many outsiders this question and we need something else along with what we have. Look at a players rating and can you tell how they are doing this year?? We follow a batters average for this year...not what his lifetime average is. We look at Tiger's Fedex points for this year...not for the past three combined, etc. I like the current rating system we just need something to go along with it. I have yet to talk to a golfer that doesn't agree and I have been PM'ed and had very positive responses to it. Do you understand what I am saying??

Current ratings only take into account rounds in the last 12 months since the last round played. i.e. it is a "yearly" rating.

...'cept for the folks who don't play sanctioned events very often.

Current ratings only take into account rounds in the last 12 months since the last round played. i.e. it is a "yearly" rating.



Yes that is the case for some people...but I am talking about having a yearly average. Starting on January 07' and have a 07' rating. Just like Batting average in baseball. Especially for us here in CO or anywhere it has four full seasons; its a new year in 07' and I haven't played in a tourney for a couple months, I want to see my improvement in a rating based formula for THIS year. My rating is a 963 but that is with 90% am events. I moved up this year to open 100% and want to see my progress from year to year. Right now I have cashed in 4 of 6 events I've played in with a 2nd and a 3rd and I personally know that I am playing much better than 963 rated golf overall in 07'. Every sport in the world has a rating or system to track that season's performance independent from the previous year EXCEPT DISC GOLF

You'll have to do the math for yourself if you want to include only rounds from a current calendar year as it progresses. You'll get your overall 2007 rating in Jan 2008 that will only be all 2007 rounds.

Will round 3 of the Greater Des Moines Challenge (for Intermediate men and women) be fixed before the next ratings calculation?




I will take full responsibilty for this. I was asked to review these items as the key personnel are tied up with worlds. My schedule has been tight with unexpected family issues to boot. Please do not blame the PDGA for this, but the poor performance of a volunteer worker that was taken unawares by his family. 15 year old, male, skater dude, nuff said..... I will do my best to review all items brought up this week end and get recommendations of for updates.



What issues? There will be a correction update posted this week that should address Des Moines and a few other corrections that came up.




I noticed that this has not been addressed. Any idea when the correction will be?

Thanks again.

You'll have to do the math for yourself if you want to include only rounds from a current calendar year as it progresses. You'll get your overall 2007 rating in Jan 2008 that will only be all 2007 rounds.



I am looking at this from a fan's perspective though. When you look at any other sports yearly record or stats you can follow them through the year and watch progression, battles, slumps, highs and lows for your favorite team or player for THAT year. If I am a fan and a huge Barry Shultz fan I don't care how he did in OCt of last year...thats last season. I want to follow this year...thats the fun of being a fan and rooting for a team or player year after year. I'm not bagging the current rating system, it serves it purpose to a point but aren't we trying to progress the sport??? Don't we want more fans?? The current rating system hurts that part of progression and will never BY ITSELF give the players and fans what we are looking for in a rating system.

All of the individual ranking systems in other sports like golf, boxing and tennis use a full year or more of data. The do have cumulative stats for performance elements like driving, putting, shooting, first serving and batting averages specific to a year and I would fully support the PDGA providing stats like that. But not with ratings. It would have to be done for all members and would further dilute the number of rounds included. At least with a full year of data always included in a rating, more than half of our members have at least 15 rounds in their current rating at any time.

You still haven't adressed how we are going to adress the issue of progression and the fact that the current rating system isn't sufficient by itself for the players or fans

Ratings history shows the progression for each player already. World Rankings is done for top level players who travel and play enough to play each other unlike most members.

Chuck - You state the January rating is good enough. No, it is not. For a competitor that hasn't competed since, say, October because he plays in a northern state where winter hits early, it is including ratings from well over a year ago, from anything he might have played the year before from October to December. So that excuse is dead.

As for the fact that it isn't good enough just because you feel it is diluted, or something, because not enough people have enough rounds you need to think of it like ERA or BA in baseball. With both of those statistics you have to have set number of IP or ABs to be counted. If you look at it like that you could do it this way...

1. The rating would NOT have the latest 25% doubled, as it is a short term statistic already (personally I'm not a huge fan of that as it is, we don't see Magglio's BA for the year influenced by his play over the last month. So what if you were hurt and this is a more accurate portrayal of your skill, boo hoo, you were hurt, take a break if you're so worried, you should have anyway).

2. When the April ratings update comes up you MUST have at least 5 rated rounds to be included in the "2008 Rating" and have it on your profile. June? 10. September? August? 15. November? 17. End of year? 19 or 20. Number drops slightly because you don't have as many events after summer ends. This would keep people with only 2 rounds from having a false high yearly rating, and would give us all an accurate showing of "I did this well in 2008!"

I think that the idea is solid. Batting Average is a [censored] statistic with OBP and OPS both giving you a more accurate portrayal of an athlete's overall performance. Same goes for FG% in basketball (in favor of, say, TS% or Effic. ratings). They might not be perfect, just like our rating isn't, but they're updated frequently for each year as something that is an identifiable and easy to understand number for people to get just how well a guy did in a given year.

As an additional question: with every ratings update you get your rating added to your ratings history. Your old total ratings are kept, why not also have a page for each old rating to show the individual ratings that made up that particular ratings period? That couldn't be too hard to automate.

Understand that Roger and I do the ratings for the PDGA under a contract which is up for renewal after 2008. Any additional items would be done by PDGA IT people like Dave who I believe has higher IT priority projects. But you can certainly ask him. I believe any other version of the ratings, however well intentioned, would lead to more confusion.

I'm not saying it would be the most important thing in the world, it simply would be very nice.

As for it leading to more confusion... I don't believe it should. You could add a listing over the "2006 Rating" that says "min. 5 rated rounds" thus eliminating confusion for those that might be wondering why they don't have one, it could be done in size 1/8pt font in the upper right corner, similar to how most sports sites list a disclaimer like that.

Additionally you could consider it a smart marketing tool, as people would NEED a certain number of rated rounds to have a rating for the year. Therefore people that usually only compete in one or two events might compete in more to be a part of the "yearly leader board" or some such small contrivance that would be easy to put together.

If you want your rating to be listed up on the "top 1000" (or something contrived like that) you need to play so many rated rounds!

Tell me that that isn't a good way to convince a few people that play minimal events to throw a few more bucks into the pot? I think I'm on to something here, Chuck. Must be that University of Toledo edumacation.

Remember that the primary function for ratings from a PDGA standpoint was to determine which divisions players qualify for. Roger and I would be fine with just indicating the minimum division a player qualifies for with no ratings numbers being provided. We understand that players like seeing the numbers but that's a secondary aspect, popular of course, but secondary. Note how much time we've had to spend to answer hundereds of questions regarding small variances in personal numbers when all that's necessary for the competition system is provide your current division. Ratings have become a juggernaut for players to join the PDGA so specific numbers have gradually become important to the PDGA. So we'll see how important when additional calculations are considered to be added next time around as a member service.

No offense but its one of the main reasons that people join the PDGA. To have a rating and see where they stand against other competitors. This part that you call secondary; which you created, is a good system, but a flawed one. Statistics are one of the best ways for fans and competitors to feel close to the game and follow players pregressions. From what I've got, you are one of the only poeple that feels this is secondary at all and you are the one that created the system? Kind of odd when all the PDGA, a non-profit, should be doing is helping the progression of the sport and listening to their loyal and paying members

It's secondary from the standpoint that it's unnecessary to be as accurate for grouping players into skill levels which have statistical overlap versus a system intended to be accurate to the level we display ratings. We calculate ratings as a customer service based on as few as 5 propagators so everyone can get them, not because the process is as accurate as it could be.

For those interested in the history of the ratings evolution, Roger and I told Board member Mark Ellis around Christmas in 1998 that we were only interested in volunteering to do the ratings if they were going to be incorporated into the competition system since standards were lacking to progress from Am3 to Am2 to Am1. When the Board and competition group dragged its feet on setting rating breaks for Ams, Roger and I stopped doing them in 2001. Commissioner Pat invited us to the Winter Summit early in 2002 where Theo promised to work with us to incorporate the ratings into the Am competition scheme. This was eventually launched for 2003. We finally started getting some small compensation to do the ratings work two years ago.

If I were doing the ratings system for accuracy, I would do things that would eliminate perhaps half of the round ratings we generate today because only players with established ratings over maybe 900 would even be allowed to be props and at least 50 scores from them per course layout would be required to generate ratings at an event. That among other things would improve the accuracy of the ratings but be much less functional for a membership org with only better active players getting ratings.

Batting Average is unnecessary.
ERA is unnecessary.
Shooting % is unnecessary.
Goal totals are unnecessary.
Save % is unnecessary.
EVERY **** STATISTIC OTHER THAN HOW MANY RUNS/POINTS/STROKES YOU SCORED IN ONE SINGULAR GAME AND THE WIN LOSS RECORD THAT RESULTS IS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.
It doesn't make it any less a **** STUPID idea to consider them secondary and essentially an afterthought. You're oversimplifying the issue here and doing a very bad job of defending your side of things. And your story didn't help your side of things. I'm sorry if all caps makes it sound rude or obscene, as though I am yelling, but I was too lazy to utilize the italics bbcode and I'm sleep deprived, so bear with my rambling.

Basically all you've done is given us where its been. What we're interested in is WHERE IT SHOULD GO. We have good ideas, you seem to think they're inane because you don't think the statistic is important other than to place a person in a division, which is ridiculous. A statistic holds the value that a person places on it. The member body of the PDGA places INCREDIBLE value on the ratings, therefore it is an incredibly valuable statistic and SHOULD be exploited as such.

When you've busted your butts as volunteers, you get to make the call on what you're willing to do. When you're a contractor, you do what the client wants you to. If the PDGA wants us to add more stats, we'll be glad to add it to the contract but some things must be done on the PDGA technology side based on their priorities even if Roger and I can do our part. There are all kinds of things I've wanted to do to display ratings and graphs and sorts and filters for members for the past five years. But I can't do the online work needed and the PDGA resources haven't been there.

Agreed...obviously some things need to be done and approved before we can roll into this Chuck. We are not asking you to do this on your own, without any help. We are looking for an open-minded response to our questions and an understanding on your end that the current system needs revamping and many additions. We the people are asking for some help from the mastermind of the rating system and FROM YOU someone who should be all about this discussion. All we are getting are haphazard, sidestepping answers that completely dodge the point of this discussion. Please completely read our posts... the heart of the matter is that statistics are very important for the progression of the sport and especially to outsiders and fans (this should be the goal of the PDGA if they truly want to grow). STATISTICS ARE HOW FANS COMPARE PLAYERS TO OTHER PLAYERS AND THEMSELVES, RATINGS AND STATISTICS ARE AT THE HEART OF THE GAME THE ONLY WAY THAT WE CAN COMPARE, CONTRAST, CHEER, AND FOLLOW THE SPORT FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD. With the lack of footage and exposure for the sport stats are all we have.

Exactly, we're not asking you to do everything and do it NOW. We're asking for an open minded res... Oh what the hell I'm saying exactly what he said. Rock on.

This is becoming more of a legitimate concern. Isn't the cutoff next week? I would like to point out that this correction has not been addressed in the span of time since the last ratings update, and for that duration all those affected have been carrying erroneous ratings.





Will round 3 of the Greater Des Moines Challenge (for Intermediate men and women) be fixed before the next ratings calculation?




I will take full responsibilty for this. I was asked to review these items as the key personnel are tied up with worlds. My schedule has been tight with unexpected family issues to boot. Please do not blame the PDGA for this, but the poor performance of a volunteer worker that was taken unawares by his family. 15 year old, male, skater dude, nuff said..... I will do my best to review all items brought up this week end and get recommendations of for updates.



What issues? There will be a correction update posted this week that should address Des Moines and a few other corrections that came up.




I noticed that this has not been addressed. Any idea when the correction will be?

Thanks again.

Matter of time and money. The correction was prepared to get ready for posting in mid-July. But with Am &amp; Pro Worlds, Gentry is split between both and the correction took a back seat. There is no one on staff capable of backing up Dave for ratings support at this time. The correction will be incorporated in the next update later this month.

Chuck,

question from my son. will you have time to make Am Worlds round ratings correct before upcoming ratings update?

Both Worlds should be included in this coming update.

thanks!

No events this coming weekend will get in. Too much work to get both Worlds processed along with all of the other events.

I was curious if the Kiss the Sky event (Aspen, CO), will be included in the next ratings update? I know that the TD's report was sent in a while ago but it still isn't posted. Thanks

Events that will make it in will have Official results without ratings posted online by this weekend. If it's not there by then, it won't make it in. I think Dave still has another batch to post by this weekend so maybe it's in there. It's not in any of the batches I'm working on right now.

*crosses fingers for Kingston*

Actually I got it sent in (TD Report) on Mon. morning. Do you go by date report is received or when money is received?

If I asked this already don't slay me, I don't see it and I've been sleep deprived :)

It's not me it's Gentry that matters.

Cool, thanks Chuck!

Chuck....ever thought about adding something to Ams Player Info page that noted if they placed or not at their events. Like under the Prize column put a "P" for placed or "C" for cashed. Is that info included in the TD reports? Just curious, it would be cool to see something there since we don't get prize money listed like Pro's. Thanks

It's been done before when results were submitted to the PDGA manually. But I believe one reason the practice hasn't continued is someone didn't want to encourage "cashing" records for amateurs. The main reason though is that true valuations for Am prizes are usually slippery and I don't believe TDs are required to submit those breakouts in the TD reports. I'm thinking though that the Competition Committee may reconsider this in the next few years as the line between ams and pros continues to blur.

ratings for Msdgc? what would they have been? just curious...look at it as an act of good faith for the future...cmon chuck.

Maple Hill Elements R2 had a 56 SSA (see PW2006 Lake Olmstead R4 Masters to find scores and see ratings) and Maple Hill Airplanes R4 had a 62.8 SSA (see PW2006 Hippodrome R2 Open). That's all I know.

It's been done before when results were submitted to the PDGA manually. But I believe one reason the practice hasn't continued is someone didn't want to encourage "cashing" records for amateurs. The main reason though is that true valuations for Am prizes are usually slippery and I don't believe TDs are required to submit those breakouts in the TD reports. I'm thinking though that the Competition Committee may reconsider this in the next few years as the line between ams and pros continues to blur.



you have to in the report to the pdga,but not for stuff posted online....

i always put the payout for ams and pros in the excel spreadsheet, so it shows up when i upload the scores...it helps when you have a stong payout to the ams so they can see it's an event worth going to next time :D...

plus when pros see they could have made 850 for 1st in a 1 day c-tier :eek:, hopefully they wont want to miss the event either :D:D

will the results from last weekend's event be included in the update if they are already posted online? what is the cutoff?

Last events included were weekend of Aug 11-12 if they got their paperwork in.

when will we be live, Chucky?

Apparently there's one final Hooter's issue holding up the posting. I'm guessing Dave will be on schedule with posting it first thing tomorrow morning.

Hooters? Sounds like a concentration problem if you ask me.

An Honest and typical American request:

Just post what you have at this point..... Can't those issues can be resolved later.....We want it now....

The part I do in the process has been out of my hands since 10 days ago. I'm just the messenger at this point. The new procedure has Roger, Jerry and Dave hammering out the corrections they can find before posting. Dave does the posting when it's ready.

Just having some fun Chuck. I always get a kick out of how impatient we rating junkies can get. LOL.... Based on my last performance, I would be happy if the entire system blows up and my rating never gets updated again.....

Just having some fun Chuck. I always get a kick out of how impatient we rating junkies can get. LOL.... Based on my last performance, I would be happy if the entire system blows up and my rating never gets updated again.....



i hear that for sure!!!!! I WANT MY RATING!!!!!!! not really lol!!!

Hey it's me Dave. Open up the door man, I got the ratings done...

Dave?

It's me Dave. Open up the door man, I got the ratings done...

Dave?

Yea man, it's me Dave....

Dave's not here..... :D

Here are ratings for people who have posted here recently. Figure out who they go with: 978, 1000, 949, 909, 927, 989

978



sweet!!

only down 1 with 4 tournaments going in hurt...that's whats up :D

909.... Could that really be me?

Chuck... you're killing me... I haven't posted recently but can I be added to that list? :D

Here is a mad guess

989 = Matt
927 = Phillip
909 = Senior
949 = Ryan or Keith
1000 = Sjur
978 = MTL