You would be second lowest if you made the last list.

What about me??? Did I finally go up after 2 drops and a standstill???

Wild guess... 937. Can't wait for the next update when my injured rounds start getting dropped!

Here is a mad guess

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



yeah thats what I'm thinking.....

989... 21 point jump! dang, that'd be sweet.

13 1000 rated rounds (avg) will do that to ya.

Hey Chuck,

When deciding which rounds to double in the calculation, if not all the rounds for a particular tourney are to be doubled, is it not the case that the highest rated rounds for the weekend are doubled first?

From plugging my numbers into a spreadsheet, it looks like my first two rounds for the High Plains Challenge were doubled, instead of the high rounds.

Is this a change, or am I mistaken that that's how it used to work?

Thanks!
Chris

OK, now I'm confused.

I just noticed that I have a few rounds still included in my calculations from last July. I thought rounds more than 12 month old were dropped?

I think I need my morning coffee.

-Chris

You can't 100% rely on making the calcs with the posted numbers because the actual calculation is done before those rounded ratings numbers are posted. So, if your calcs are off by a point or two, then it's due to rounding in the process. Your higher round should have been used.

Rounds more than 12 months older than the date of your most recently rated round are dropped if you have at least 8 rounds.

Thanks, Chuck!

-Chris

What is the average deviation from your rating that you must meet to get a round dropped? I had a horrible round earlier this year and its almost 80 points off my rating...is it a percentage that is used or standard deviation?

Rounds will be dropped that are either 2.5 times your standard deviation below your rating or 100 pts whichever number is smaller.

There is NO WAY in hell there are 11 women better than Courtney even with her not playing for 6 months and 50 people that can beat me /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif laughable

There is a ratings bias here in southwest :mad:

I feel ya K Mack...

Courtney is probably the 5th best female player in the world behind Des Val Chickfry and Burl

She (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/player_ratings_detail.php?PDGANum=17959&year=2007) can play. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

yep, if weidle played as much golf as the rest of them she would be number 2 quickly.

siLLy (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=3153&year=2007)

I feel ya K Mack...

Courtney is probably the 5th best female player in the world behind Des Val Chickfry and Burl



Probably 5th best??????

2005 Pro Worlds 3rd
2006 Pro Worlds 2nd

and she's the 5th best? She's the 5th best today without playing for 6 months.....give her 2 practice rounds she's top 3.....2008 WATCH OUT!!!!!

I feel ya K Mack...

Courtney is probably the 5th best female player in the world behind Des Val Chickfry and Burl



Probably 5th best??????

2005 Pro Worlds 3rd
2006 Pro Worlds 2nd

and she's the 5th best? She's the 5th best today without playing for 6 months.....give her 2 practice rounds she's top 3.....2008 WATCH OUT!!!!!



yeah I was speaking of currently...she def. has the talent and game to be the best in the world.

Courtney has mildly slipped into the position that the Williams sisters did for a while. No one believed they should have been unseeded when they came back from injuries and they've showed where they should be rated by doing it on the court. Would have been great to see what both of you could have done at Highbridge.

I have won my last 3 tournies by 5, 6 and by 8 strokes but according to your ratings I played 1008 golf during that period? The Riverside Glide I shoot -48 yeah forty eight under par for 72 holes and it rates at 1001 ????? 1001 rated golf isn't EVER beating Coda by 5 strokes.

There are some better than average players here in Oklahoma and some GREAT players here and all of the OKIE player ratings are extremely low if you ask me. The Texas players also have lower than expected player ratings... I have seen a ton of different golfers across the country and the Southwest players ratings are at least 10 to 20 points below where they should be.

Chuck, Why is there a SOUTHWEST bias?????

Rounds will be dropped that are either 2.5 times your standard deviation below your rating or 100 pts whichever number is smaller.



Thanks...

Would be cool to see a Year average and maybe a 3 month average. That way we could all see our current level as well as our yearly average.

Wild guess... 937. Can't wait for the next update when my injured rounds start getting dropped!


*sigh* The Kingston Open wasn't included. :( So I'm only 930.

Also, Chuck, I have my 825 rated back blowout from Hambrick included and my rating is 930? I thought 100 points was the cutoff? No big deal, since I deserved it for forgetting my ibu, preparations are a part of the game... but still, just curious why it was included.

The reason for me bringing up a stink about this, is because the players are much better than their ratings are showing and the current ratings structure here in the Southwest is saying that they are not as good as they really are. I know for a fact there are many pro caliber players in our advanced divisions but the ratings are discriminating and they believe they are not ready for open. The silly ratings are not a good representation of the players ability here in the Southwest.

Would be cool to see a Year average and maybe a 3 month average. That way we could all see our current level as well as our yearly average.



I have been requesting this for some time...we need to have a rating that starts and ends at the 1st and last day of the year. And then in addition a lifetime rating...like basically every other sport in the world.

1) Year by year rating
2) career rating

1 + 2 = happier disc golfers

The only beef I have with ratings is they are not updated often enough.

When will we have a real-time ratings system? With all the technology available now-a-days it seems like the PDGA is in the stone age.

The reason for me bringing up a stink about this, is because the players are much better than their ratings are showing and the current ratings structure here in the Southwest is saying that they are not as good as they really are. I know for a fact there are many pro caliber players in our advanced divisions but the ratings are discriminating and they believe they are not ready for open. The silly ratings are not a good representation of the players ability here in the Southwest.


Quit introducing them to the idea that a rating tells you when you're ready. It should be a feeling. When you can play what you feel is really bad golf and still win or be top 2-3 in your division every tournament, thats when you should move up to the next level. Get them to hang onto that idea and not the idea that a number tells you when to move up.

It sounds like pot-kettle-black because I really do care about my rating, but its because I'm a numbers freak. When I make the jump to pro, it'll be for the reasons above. If my rating says I'm 950 only, but I'm top 1-3 even when I feel like I'm playing poor golf... its time to move.

The reason for me bringing up a stink about this, is because the players are much better than their ratings are showing and the current ratings structure here in the Southwest is saying that they are not as good as they really are. I know for a fact there are many pro caliber players in our advanced divisions but the ratings are discriminating and they believe they are not ready for open. The silly ratings are not a good representation of the players ability here in the Southwest.



Ever since I moved to CO I have thought the same thing...When I moved here there were barely one or two 1000 rated players but I know for a fact that there were about 5 or 6 others that should be. I saw Mitch Sonderfan move here and have his rating instantly drop, and see people that leave and go play in the Cali or the east and there ratings skyrocket. Now as proof of this since 04' when his rating was 999, Mike R has been playing more out of state and his rating is increasing, and Jeff Layland moved here from Cali and has been competing well against Mike. As a result of that both of their and our ratings are going up just playing with these guys...have we all gotten better instantaneously? No-b/c ratings are a direct result...give or take -/+20 what your competitors ratings are not their skill level. What I am saying is move to Cali or a state with a lot of 1000 rated players and your rating will skyrocket

The only beef I have with ratings is they are not updated often enough.

When will we have a real-time ratings system? With all the technology available now-a-days it seems like the PDGA is in the stone age.


I agree with Chuck on this one. Real-time is bad. In most sports you're looking at a number based on statistics. Number of hits divided by number of at bats. Number of rebounds divided by number of games. But with disc golf, it is a constant comparison to the players around you. This would throw everything into constant fluctuation and confusion.

For example you'd have players ratings for one event calculated based on ratings, but then a TD for an earlier event would turn in his stuff, would the more recent tournament change based on this new information? Would the other tournament be calculated with the newer more recent tournament included in the calculations?

This just doesn't work.

I've cashed 16 for 22 including in all 4 supertours I've played and I'm rated lower than people that have cashed 3 or 4 out of 12 - 15 events played.

And I'm rated lower than someone who has not beat me once all year....

I just don't get it.

I have been trying to convince some of these people they are ready for quite some time. It's the PDGA's rating system that is telling them where they should play even though they are better than their rating is showing. I am starting to think it might be a good idea to eliminate the player ratings=players division scale all together. It seems to be brain washing some of these players so that they feel they can't compete.

For Pro's, ratings are worthless. The only thing a Pro should be tracking is $$$ earned.

Dang Bender you are almost back to INT.

This just doesn't work.



In the future it would be great to see a real-time handicap/rating system created. Waiting months to see where your rating goes is lousy, especially for paying members who really want to know.

I do like what we have, it's better than nothing.

I've cashed 16 for 22 including in all 4 supertours I've played and I'm rated lower than people that have cashed 3 or 4 out of 12 - 15 events played.

And I'm rated lower than someone who has not beat me once all year....

I just don't get it.



Obviously, it's EOG.

What you fail to mention is while he hasn't beaten you this year, two factors are making it clear why you are lower.

Your 12 round average of late is 967.5 Doubled, that's gonna drop your average.

He DID beat you a lot in late 2006. Those still count in the ratings, which is why I vote for a more recent average, of which you'd probably be more depressed...

I have been trying to convince some of these people they are ready for quite some time. It's the PDGA's rating system that is telling them where they should play even though they are better than their rating is showing. I am starting to think it might be a good idea to eliminate the player ratings=players division scale all together. It seems to be brain washing some of these players so that they feel they can't compete.



I agree. The ratings curve is quite a bit behind the actual level a lot of players are playing at.

Dang Bender you are almost back to INT.



I kept telling people that, but would they listen? Nooooooo...

The only stated purpose of the ratings is to provide a better way than nothing (or regional bump rules) to place players more fairly in appropriate divisions, especially amateurs. There is not enough accuracy in many cases to derive anything more from the process than that although many seem to try and squeeze more meaning from the numbers than is sometimes justified.

Until players start getting paid for their ratings without playing, the precise numbers are more for fun than mathematical accuracy. Courtney is within one throw of fifth in FPO ratings. That's an insignificant difference. I've already posted before that we do the ratings as a customer service more than a precision system. Much more data would be needed to tighten up some of the variances. But maybe 20% of members might have ratings and many of their rounds couldn't be rated.

many seem to try and squeeze more meaning from the numbers than is sometimes justified



Chuck, you are so wrong. Kira is 802 and Emily is 801. That one point means EVERYTHING! :D

It probably means a lot to those at 999 versus 1000, too. But the precise meaning is provided by the players or sponsors, not by the math or the process itself.

Well if that is the case, which I believe it is, then it seems like the ratings system is mainly for bumping players from Intermediate to Advanced. Thats one of the things I have been griping about lately. Players never get bumped until after they have done alot of non-member, non-rated bagging. Even after they finally become members they still bag the Am2's because TD's don't closely watch the ratings. They could even calc a basic rating based on past performance for non-rated players, but they don't take the time....

It would be interesting to see if players from different regions averaged more or less ratings points at a big event like Worlds than their average ratings going in to see if there are regional differences. There's nothing in the process that inherently would have a regionalization effect except perhaps some international issues that got squared away once the Scandanavians and Japanese played a few more events against the U.S. players.

Let's say there's actually some pocket that is 10 points less than they "should" be. Since they are playing each other, their performance is relative to each other for most events so it becomes irrelevant in terms of whether a player thinks some players are too highly rated to play against. In other words, even if all of their ratings were boosted 10 points, it migh not change the behavior of the players in terms of their division choice from what it is now.

If top rated players in regional pockets aren't getting better ratings than they expect, even if winning, it's more likely that there's a subtle influence causing them to not plays as hard against the course versus just enough to beat the other players. That's only smart golf to play to win even though your rating might not do as well.

Another influence might have to do with how tough the courses are in an area. There's no question that each throw is worth more on short courses and lower rated players can play closer in score to the better players to flatten the round rating output. Tiger would much rather be playing tougher rather than easier courses because it's easier for his special skills to separate him from the crowd. Same thing happens in DG. Feldberg told me that he feels the difference between his rating and Climo's is that Climo rarely plays C-tiers and only a handful of B-tiers compared with Dave.

The only stated purpose of the ratings is to provide a better way than nothing (or regional bump rules) to place players more fairly in appropriate divisions, especially amateurs.



...but these are the players where the ratings are the least accurate based on the learning curve being greater than the ratings curve. :D

However, having the small lag in the system seems appropriate for beginners/amateurs. Many players are part of a regional series and it seems fair that they should get to play in the same division for at least one year. We all know that some players learn faster than others. But rather than accelerating their rating to higher levels with a more aggressive formula, the thought is to not go overboard and give them a chance to learn in the same division for at least a year even if they are better than average students.

The nonmember scenario is a little different. It's up to the TDs to place them properly or make them play Advanced or Pro. If these experienced nonmembers do join, their ratings will show quickly where they should be.

It would be interesting to see if players from different regions averaged more or less ratings points at a big event like Worlds than their average ratings going in to see if there are regional differences. There's nothing in the process that inherently would have a regionalization effect except perhaps some international issues that got squared away once the Scandanavians and Japanese played a few more events against the U.S. players.

Let's say there's actually some pocket that is 10 points less than they "should" be. Since they are playing each other, their performance is relative to each other for most events so it becomes irrelevant in terms of whether a player thinks some players are too highly rated to play against. In other words, even if all of their ratings were boosted 10 points, it migh not change the behavior of the players in terms of their division choice from what it is now.

If top rated players in regional pockets aren't getting better ratings than they expect, even if winning, it's more likely that there's a subtle influence causing them to not plays as hard against the course versus just enough to beat the other players. That's only smart golf to play to win even though your rating might not do as well.

Another influence might have to do with how tough the courses are in an area. There's no question that each throw is worth more on short courses and lower rated players can play closer in score to the better players to flatten the round rating output. Tiger would much rather be playing tougher rather than easier courses because it's easier for his special skills to separate him from the crowd. Same thing happens in DG. Feldberg told me that he feels the difference between his rating and Climo's is that Climo rarely plays C-tiers and only a handful of B-tiers compared with Dave.



To ask a question about the last paragraph, do you think alot of the top pro's rarely play C and B Tiers because they feel it is below them in a narcissistic kind of way, or because it would be unfair to the competition, or both? Please be honest with your answer.

I think it's economics. They will go where the money is if a higher tier is close enough to justify the travel cost. Guys like Climo need to know they are going to cover their costs even if they have a bad event by their standards with everything won beyond that as gravy. A motel room is going to cost about the same whether it's a C-tier or an A-tier and many locals enjoy providing free lodging for the travelers so an A-tier might even be cheaper for expenses.

So if travel costs are, say, $500, and the winnings from a 1st place C-Tier are only $200 then it's a $300 loss whereas a a 3rd place A-Tier is $800 with a $300 profit? I think I get what you're saying. I never thought of it in economic terms, but rather in players mindsets like the way you'll never seen Tiger Woods play small golf tournaments because it would be too easy for him.

I never thought of it in economic terms



In theory, that's a pro mindset. Since most of our weekend warrior pros are not making their living at the sport, their tournament choices will include much more than the money aspect. Although the potential to get even a little something back has relevance in deciding where to play.

I've cashed 16 for 22 including in all 4 supertours I've played and I'm rated lower than people that have cashed 3 or 4 out of 12 - 15 events played.

And I'm rated lower than someone who has not beat me once all year....

I just don't get it.



Obviously, it's EOG.

What you fail to mention is while he hasn't beaten you this year, two factors are making it clear why you are lower.

Your 12 round average of late is 967.5 Doubled, that's gonna drop your average.

He DID beat you a lot in late 2006. Those still count in the ratings, which is why I vote for a more recent average, of which you'd probably be more depressed...



actually, I wasn't talking EOG. I'm pretty sure he has beat me this year probably 4 or 5 times.

actually, he hasn't. tied you once.

Chuck,

Can you look at Waco (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7048&year=2007&incl ude_ratings=1#Advanced%20Women), something seems a bit odd with those ratings, as if the wrong layouts were set for each division.


Look at FW1's scores. No way a 57 is 1000 rated on Cameron (But it could be on Cameron East.)

EDIT: Weird. It looks like everyone EXCEPT MA1 was set up as playing Cameron / Cameron East / Cameron East / Cameron. MA1 is set up in reverse (East / Cam / Cam / East).

actually, he hasn't. tied you once.



wow, guess there is two people then!

Here's a comparison of Pro Worlds players first six round rating average in comparison to their Player Ratings. If players from their state played better than their ratings, the Diff number will be positive. If they played worse, then the Diff will be negative. The Count shows how many players from that state were included. The lower you go on the chart the fewer the number of players so drawing conclusions is more sketchy.

<table> <tr> <td>State</td><td>PW Rating</td><td>Rating</td><td>Diff</td><td>Count </td></tr> <tr> <td>CA</td><td>953</td><td>956</td><td>-3</td><td>46 </td></tr> <tr> <td>WI</td><td>958</td><td>958</td><td>0</td><td>39 </td></tr> <tr> <td>MN</td><td>953</td><td>952</td><td>1</td><td>26 </td></tr> <tr> <td>FL</td><td>937</td><td>942</td><td>-5</td><td>17 </td></tr> <tr> <td>MI</td><td>957</td><td>952</td><td>5</td><td>13 </td></tr> <tr> <td>OR</td><td>968</td><td>964</td><td>4</td><td>12 </td></tr> <tr> <td>IA</td><td>971</td><td>968</td><td>3</td><td>10 </td></tr> <tr> <td>TX</td><td>967</td><td>963</td><td>4</td><td>10 </td></tr> <tr> <td>IN</td><td>936</td><td>936</td><td>0</td><td>10 </td></tr> <tr> <td>OH</td><td>941</td><td>935</td><td>6</td><td>9 </td></tr> <tr> <td>CO</td><td>962</td><td>958</td><td>4</td><td>8 </td></tr> <tr> <td>KY</td><td>955</td><td>957</td><td>-2</td><td>8 </td></tr> <tr> <td>PA</td><td>937</td><td>935</td><td>2</td><td>7 </td></tr> <tr> <td>MO</td><td>979</td><td>980</td><td>-1</td><td>6 </td></tr> <tr> <td>IL</td><td>982</td><td>975</td><td>7</td><td>5 </td></tr> <tr> <td>NC</td><td>986</td><td>981</td><td>5</td><td>5 </td></tr> <tr> <td>ON</td><td>980</td><td>978</td><td>2</td><td>5 </td></tr> <tr> <td>KS</td><td>938</td><td>929</td><td>9</td><td>4 </td></tr> <tr> <td>OK</td><td>978</td><td>976</td><td>2</td><td>4 </td></tr> <tr> <td>NY</td><td>917</td><td>929</td><td>-12</td><td>4 </td></tr> <tr> <td>GA</td><td>961</td><td>961</td><td>0</td><td>3 </td></tr> <tr> <td>NJ</td><td>986</td><td>984</td><td>2</td><td>3 </td></tr> <tr> <td>CT</td><td>998</td><td>996</td><td>2</td><td>3 </td></tr> <tr> <td>AZ</td><td>981</td><td>980</td><td>1</td><td>3 </td></tr> <tr> <td>SD</td><td>970</td><td>963</td><td>7</td><td>3 </td></tr> <tr> <td>SC</td><td>923</td><td>915</td><td>8</td><td>3 </td></tr> <tr> <td>DE</td><td>933</td><td>938</td><td>-5</td><td>2 </td></tr> <tr> <td>MT</td><td>920</td><td>913</td><td>7</td><td>2 </td></tr> <tr> <td>NE</td><td>990</td><td>990</td><td>0</td><td>2 </td></tr> <tr> <td>WA</td><td>943</td><td>947</td><td>-4</td><td>2 </td></tr> <tr> <td>ND</td><td>942</td><td>941</td><td>1</td><td>2 </td></tr> </table>

Chuck: Something you never addressed...

Can you only have one round dropped? Because I'm a 930, and I have an 825 counted in my rating, which is obviously a few points over the 100 point barrier.

Or is it 100 points BEFORE the recent 25% doubling? In which case I think I may be below 925 without doubling...

Just curious there.

Rounds are thrown out before doubling based your your non-weighted average. If a round that would be doubled gets thrown out, another round does not replace it in the doubling calculation.

Gotcha. That makes perfect sense. Before taking out any rounds at all and without weighting rounds I've got a 923 average.

Man, I can't wait, I'm two updates away from being over 950 finally! Whee!

Why did this (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/player_ratings_detail.php?PDGANum=31834&amp;year=2007) person's rating drop 45 points when there were no new events included?

If someone's rating changes and they have no new events, it means that one of their earlier events had a correction where course layouts were incorrectly assigned the first time around and were finally corrected. Here's the note from the Correction Log:

Grapevine Classic (#6365) � The Advanced Masters played the same layout as the MPO / MPM / MA1 division. Please adjust SSA and effected player�s ratings accordingly.

Thank you.

I've already posted before that we do the ratings as a customer service more than a precision system.



The website implies the rating system is a benefit to membership. It seems to me it is more than just a customer service, but is a reason that many people become members.

On a side note, I'm in favor of a rating system that is based on the course, not on the other players. I know I've heard that you can't do that because the course changes each time it is played, but it is done with the Handicapping/course rating system in ball golf.

The ball golf handicapping system is quite flawed compared to what could be done but they are stuck with it with their club financial infrastructure set up to support it. Popularity doesn't mean its technical underpinnings are solid.

The course rating process is not connected with any actual data. Scores are self reported. "Expert" references are still based on amateur play in the 1970 US Amateur Championship. The slope system had to be created as a way to account for the faults in the basic course ratings process. It's kind of their fudge factor. Handicapping doesn't take into account any weather aspects of a round.

Our system has none of these flaws. Our primary flaw is that we live with using less scoring data than would be statistically advisable to provide ratings as a service to all members.

I have noticed that my rating update was not updated. Does it just take more time for some to update than others? I have several rounds that are over a year old that did not drop and I will still have more than 8 rounds if the old ones drop. It also shows that my last update was 26, June.

Cause only the cool kids got new ratings just ask your brothers. ;)

Your rating update date will not change just because time has moved on. If you have no new rounds played and rated since the last ratings update, your rating update date and rating will not change.

The ball golf handicapping system is quite flawed compared to what could be done but they are stuck with it with their club financial infrastructure set up to support it. Popularity doesn't mean its technical underpinnings are solid.

The course rating process is not connected with any actual data. Scores are self reported. "Expert" references are still based on amateur play in the 1970 US Amateur Championship. The slope system had to be created as a way to account for the faults in the basic course ratings process. It's kind of their fudge factor. Handicapping doesn't take into account any weather aspects of a round.

Our system has none of these flaws. Our primary flaw is that we live with using less scoring data than would be statistically advisable to provide ratings as a service to all members.



What about including non-PDGA sactioned rounds such as Mini's so you get enough statistically valid data.

I'd like to pursue doing something with ratings for things like leagues and maybe minis. Stay tuned. However, that still doesn't solve the regular problem of just three or four propagators playing a particular short tee layout at an event. For that matter, many events may have just 10-15 propagators when 40 or more would provide better accuracy.

Cause only the cool kids got new ratings just ask your brothers. ;)

LMAO I guess I will have to play Outlaws. I better start practicing. :D

Our primary flaw is that we live with using less scoring data than would be statistically advisable to provide ratings as a service to all members.


No, our primary flaw is attempting to shoehorn a linear statistical data treatment onto an inherently nonlinear phenomenon.

That would be a flaw if it were true. The formulas are based on quadratic equations that have a shallow curve. See diagram for example.

www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/ExpectedScoresAndCompression%20graph.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/ExpectedScoresAndCompression%20graph.pdf)

That would be a flaw if it were true. The formulas are based on quadratic equations that have a shallow curve. See diagram for example.

www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/ExpectedScoresAndCompression%20graph.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/ExpectedScoresAndCompression%20graph.pdf)



To quote the caveman on those Geico commercials, "Ahhhhh What?"

I guess I'll leave all the number crunching to chuck. He's obvisouly got a leg up in that area.

I'd rather we use the Feudal system rather than the Quadratic. Things were much simpler in those days...

The Feudal system was exponential: One king, a few hundred noblemen and thousands of peasants. :D

That would be a flaw if it were true. The formulas are based on quadratic equations that have a shallow curve. See diagram for example.

www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/ExpectedScoresAndCompression%20graph.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/ExpectedScoresAndCompression%20graph.pdf)



The flaw is much more fundamental than predicting a score for a player with x rating on a course with y rating. It is the linear treatment of each throw when calculating the round ratings that spawn the player ratings.

The points per stroke should be greater as the deviation from the mean increases, yielding a "humpback" curve of score distributions. The steepness of the curve should be equal to the points per stroke (at each point on the curve), as opposed to the number of points per stroke being constant.

Nope. That's unnecessary math that doesn't provide any better ratings because the actual performance of similar rated players provides the curve in producing the score distribution to produce the SSA and the ratings that follow. In other words, a 1080 round occurs as infrequently today in the current calculation process as it would if the rating for that same score came about from each throw having an increasing rating point value like you're proposing.

We don't know if some courses of the same SSA produce flatter or more spiked distributions depending on length or terrain, for example. However, that's not necessary under our current process because we use the actual scoring distributions on these courses to produce the ratings.

And the math would be much more complicated and harder to explain with no payoff in accuracy. The thing is, we don't have any metrics to tell us how much each throw should be worth other than the stats and distributions we have already, so we would be adding more complexity on top of the current base calculations with no more accuracy.

Besides the the loss of accuracy from using too few rounds, we lose accuracy because the smallest data unit is one throw. If there were such things as quarter or half throws in our scoring, the accuracy would be increased, especially on low SSA courses where one spitout has a bigger ratings swing than at Winthrop.

I just had a flashback to my Masters stats classes. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

To put it simply. I can usually tell what my round will be rated, regardless of how everyone else plays. In general I'm usually within 10 points on any guess at the end of a round. If something can make me say "That felt 950" and I come away between 945-955... then it is working for me. It is giving me a number to identify how well I felt I played.

Chuck. Is there any realistic way to sort of deduct points (in determining their rating) for a player playing a tourney on his/her home course? Typically you would expect locals to play better on their home course than out-of-towners with the same rating. Maybe this is a dumb idea but I personally feel like my rating (based only on two tourneys, one of which was on my home course and I won that) is scewed too high. Maybe I should just play more tourneys and wait for my rating to "settle out" based on more rounds at more locations.

The thing is, those rounds reflect your rating on the courses you play even if you don't play as well on courses outside your area. Players who only play on their home courses may have ratings higher than they would be if they also played elsewhere. But if they only hang around and play their home courses in events (like many ams do) then their rating truly shows how well they play there.

We talked about whether there should be a home course factor when we developed the original ratings calculation. However, it would be impossible to track which courses those were with many places having 10-15 courses within 25 miles of a player. Sometimes they don't even regularly play the course closest to them because maybe they work by another one half hour away and play it more. We're not even sure there really is a home course effect that can be counted on. I don't know how many times we see players "choking" once they play a tournament on their home course with scores much worse than their rec play or league rounds.

I agree that it would be nearly impossible to figure out fairly (or even logistically). In my second tourney, out of town, I felt like I played well but still only tied for 8th out of 32 (this was int. division). That's not all that bad but after the ratings came out I found that I was in fact the highest rated player in that division in that tourney by 14 points. So now I am going to play adv. this weekend (my rating is well above the 914 cut-off) in a PDGA tourney but my expectations are not high. I have a feeling that after a couple of more tourneys that my next rating will be much lower, maybe even back into the int. division. Clearly the more tourneys you have under your belt the more accurate your rating is relative to your actual skill level.
Thanks.

My home course doesn't host a PDGA tournament. Since I only play 5 or 6 PDGA tournaments a year, my home course ratings would really help my total.

Hey Chuck I saw my ratings update and I'm a bit confused why there are 2006 rounds included this update and were not included on the last 2 updates?

We go back one year from your most recently rated rounds so many players will have 2006 rounds still in their rating calculation. I have no way to check what you said about not having them in your last updates because every sanctioned singles event with medal play got rated during 2006 by the late January update. There are no new 2006 events that got included this time and none that were corrected.

For me a couple of rounds that were rated rather low and were not counted last update were counted this time brining my rating down. But I think that probably has to do with having fewer rated rounds in this last year.

Typically you would expect locals to play better on their home course than out-of-towners with the same rating.
this is a dumb idea but I personally feel like my rating (based only on two tourneys, one of which was on my home course and I won that) is scewed too high.



uh, talk about SKEWED, check out this guy, #11 in the world and he hasn't even played in 2007...same course in 05 and 06, at least avery's name is above his :cool:

1028 rating (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/player_ratings_detail.php?PDGANum=28071&amp;year=2007)

He's not included in the World Rankings though which requires a minimum of 12 rated rounds in the past 12 months in B-tiers or higher.

yah chuck, i know. He's actually a really nice, dedicated family guy who i'd like to see play on another course other than the pitch and putts in greenville/easley SC. He whooped me that weekend for sure :eek:

j park jammer? Not in? hmmm.

j park jammer? Not in? hmmm.


?

Skylands?

carmen SAndiego.

is chuck on VACAY?

Mid-Nats

ohhhhhh....

My biggest issue with the rating system is that the propagators at a tourney are basically "betting rating points." If you are a propagator and your rating will increase someone elses will go down. Do you do something to make it possible for everyone to improve or if that happens does it just raise the bar.

It would seem that this would be especially true for Int. playing in split day tourneys. If all the intermediates are improving their rating compared to pro/adv may be off by a few points.

Just a thought any comments would be interesting.

Chuck,
Interesting question on the Yetter that just happened this weekend. There were 3 rounds that everyone played (pros played one course, ams another - then swapped). The final round was *technically* a semi-final round, as there was a cut for Am1 and Am2s only. Now, since all the pros played all four rounds, shouldn't the fourth round be rated? (I know semi rounds aren't tabulated, but that's if some of the ones in the division were cut, and in this case, they weren't - just the people playing on the other course were cut)

I ask, of course, because I shot really well that round, of course. :D

Chuck, just a question about my personal ratings. I'm not particularly Stats-savvy, but I have a rudimentary understanding. I was surprised after this last ratings update to see the 896 rated round included. Give me a quick lesson (or fix it :D). Thanks.

Chuck,
Interesting question on the Yetter that just happened this weekend. There were 3 rounds that everyone played (pros played one course, ams another - then swapped). The final round was *technically* a semi-final round, as there was a cut for Am1 and Am2s only. Now, since all the pros played all four rounds, shouldn't the fourth round be rated? (I know semi rounds aren't tabulated, but that's if some of the ones in the division were cut, and in this case, they weren't - just the people playing on the other course were cut)

I ask, of course, because I shot really well that round, of course. :D



FATS....Not Chuck BUT...Its probably the way the TD entered THAT RD online....
USUALLY ALL Rds over 13 holes can be rated....

At worst it will be fixed when the "Offical" ratings are done.. :D

I Think... ;)

Hello there Chuck, I will be running my Capital Cup matchplay event again next year( 6 year) I have always done it by normal divisions and this coming year i want to make the divisions based on player rating. It will help make bigger fields for the smaller divisions and i believe will make the event run smoother. My question is what do you think would be good numbers to split the divisions at? I was hoping for 3 divisions. My thoughts were 950 and higher, 949-900, and under 900. I would allow any player to play in a division above their rating but not below. Any thoughts?

It's a great idea to do it this way. I hope others who run team and doubles events would consider using ratings breaks as a way to produce more fair competition and participation. It's hard to make a single solution for everyone so you need to look at the ratings mix of players in your area to get close to similar sized pools. The tradeoff is that the more even the division sizes become, the less fair it might be if the ratings range within a group gets too wide. It may turn out that four divisions will work better. The most players are usually in the 875-935 range in the PDGA so having a break at 900 will probably make sense however you do it. Good luck and let us know how it works.

Chuck, just a question about my personal ratings. I'm not particularly Stats-savvy, but I have a rudimentary understanding. I was surprised after this last ratings update to see the 896 rated round included. Give me a quick lesson (or fix it :D). Thanks.



Hey Chuck! Did you miss this post, or ignore it? :p

Must have missed it. Why would you expect it to be dropped when it's less than 100 points lower than your rating? If it was 846, it would have been dropped. It's possible that an 896 round would be dropped for some players at 961 if their round ratings were more tightly bunched (smaller std dev) than yours but your round ratings jump over a wide range so I suspect only rounds 100 pts below your rating will be dropped.

I feel sheepish.

I was remembering something about 2.5 SD, but was applying it incorrectly anyhow. I don't remember seeing the part about 100 points below.

Thanks for your help.

The 100-pt cap is there since some lower rated players have 2.5SD more than 100 and we felt that was an appropriate threshold overall. In particular, we felt the 100 pts would make sure that rounds where players were late by more than 2 holes would likely be dropped.

Chuck, just curious about the 100 pt drop thing.

It seems to me that something lower like 50 points would help to give a better representation of a players skill. Seems like we would want higher rating averages since so many things can lower the average more.

Basically wouldn't we want a players rating to represent there consistency at the top of there play, and not include bad rounds that just were not dropped. At least I would think for sub 950 players this would boost both hte ratings and competition value of the ratings.

Take my round ratings for example. I still have sub 800's counting, but they don't really represent my playing, sure I shot that low because of either XX or YY or whatever, and it shows the inconsistency in my playing, but if my rating was more based on my average normal or good play then I'd move up divisions faster and have a rating that showed my normal to best play.

Part of the reason I bring this idea up is that for beg and int players they don't always have the amount of rounds needed to out weigh the lower problematic ones.

Lower PDGA ratings is in the best interest of the players, not higher because it forces them up faster. In fact, we round down so that a player at 914.9 has a 914 published rating that doesn't force them up until they are ready. Likewise, players truly have to earn that milestone 1000 rating. For those under 900 ratings, the probability is one out of six rounds will be more than 50 pts below their rating. Using most of their rounds includes their inconsistent play which is part of their normal performance. If you determine your average gas mileage for the year, it will include some low mileage fill-ups when you did town driving and some great mileage fill-ups where you drove from pump to pump on the highway. Your annual MPG combines all parts of your personal driving pattern.

IIRC Rounds that are 2.5 std dev or 100 pts less than the new non-weighted average are dropped. Is there a minimum amount for this.

For example: If a player has the following four rounds (from two tournaments): 875, 876, 877, 857. Is the 857 really dropped?

I'd have to check but I think Roger set it up so that no rounds are dropped until a player has at least 8 or 10 since you don't know what "normal" is for them yet.

Chuck, has any stats been done on what the ratings average is for any division to be won?

I was looking through last weekends events and more then half the int divisions had very high 900's as round ratings for the winners of int, and even a couple of the rec divisions.

This may not seem abnormal, or may be abnormal, not sure. But if a 915 capped division (int) requires the winner to shoot 950-980 to win then no wonder we have bagging issues. Also how do we change this? If we are going to use divisions based on ratings then shouldn't the winner of those divisions not shoot 50 points over there ratings?

There is a rating chart for any course's SSA

http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/ExpectedScoresAndCompression%20graph.pdf

so just look up the history of the course you are about to play and find wwhere you land... :D

mcop, i think the reason is that the ratngs are an average, but the events are a snapshot.

lets say the average Int has a standard deviation of 25. that might be a tad low, but its prolly in the ballpark and good enuf for this example. the 875 rated Int should expect to shoot 850-900. the 915 rated Int can expect to shoot 890-940. we'd expect events ratings to run the whole range from 875 up thru 940, even tho the players ratings are in a much narrower range.

and thats just 1 standard deviation. a 915 player who has a good weekend could easily shoot 1.5-2 SDs above his rating, and end up with a 950-970 event rating.

hey chuck, is there any place to see what the par was for any given rated round?

thx

Don't know of a resource for getting the pars. Even the event scorecards many times don't show them or show them as all par 3 even with some true 4s in there. It will become more useful and something that will become more available online if we get to doing the PSTATS thing down the road.

Chuck, has any stats been done on what the ratings average is for any division to be won?




Nothing formal. There are too many permutations for the number of players and their mix of ratings to produce something that might be useful. The stats I posted on the 2008 Competition thread might be helpful. You can also just look at the division stats for events that are posted with ratings online. For example, usually the cash line for well attended A-tiers and NTs usually requires the player to shoot 1000 rated average. Unless the player is a shooting star, an established 970 player will shoot 1000 on average for four rounds less than 1 in 6 times based on the typical standard deviation for players at that level.

Taking that further, a 900 player might beat a 930 player about once every six times that the 930 player shoots their rating.

Hey Chuck how would you go about having rounds removed from your record if a TD typed in a wrong pdga #, or somebody that didnt want to pay the 5 bucks because they were to cheap. Or is this really just a waste of time? Maybe TD's should start checking ID's?

Any time results need to be corrected for some reason, contact Dave Gentry at PDGA HQ: tourmgr@pdga.com

thanks chuck

Hey Chuck, has it ever been suggested or DISCussed to include a player's Home State (or country) in the tournament results? I realize this is one more bit of data, but when looking back through past tourneys it would be nice to see 'where' ALL the competitors are/were from without having to click on each individual name. Thanks.

It shows up on the pre-reg, so it could be done.

Starting this new year, this will be my last post on the PDGA D-Board and about 20 others for an indefinite time period. I have also stopped accepting PMs. I'll be available to answer questions thru the PDGA Contact page and directly at the email address in my profile. In addition, I'll post announcements as needed such as when ratings and rankings updates are posted.

I'm still fully involved with PDGA activities in 2008 but you'll likely see most of my writing in places other than D-Boards starting with a preview of the 2008 NT series in the first issue of the Flying Disc Magazine and leading the tech standards review for baskets later this spring. Plus, we have another exciting initiative being prepared potentially for a spring rollout.


Hey Chuck, has it ever been suggested or DISCussed to include a player's Home State (or country) in the tournament results?


I think since you can click on the player names to find out where they are from, the decision was made to not clutter the rounds scores, and the even wider display that includes round ratings, with additional columns.

Hey Chuck, has it ever been suggested or DISCussed to include a player's Home State (or country) in the tournament results? I realize this is one more bit of data, but when looking back through past tourneys it would be nice to see 'where' ALL the competitors are/were from without having to click on each individual name. Thanks.



Doc,

I think it would be a nice touch, since the hometown already shows up on the pre-registration lists at PDGA.com, but disappears once the tournament starts. However, it would perhaps make the results a bit unwieldy and more cluttered online, especially for Worlds or any tourney that has more than 4 rounds. It may slow down the website as well...not sure about that.

Chap

Starting this new year, this will be my last post on the PDGA D-Board and about 20 others for an indefinite time period. I have also stopped accepting PMs. I'll be available to answer questions thru the PDGA Contact page and directly at the email address in my profile. In addition, I'll post announcements as needed such as when ratings and rankings updates are posted.

I'm still fully involved with PDGA activities in 2008 but you'll likely see most of my writing in places other than D-Boards starting with a preview of the 2008 NT series in the first issue of the Flying Disc Magazine and leading the tech standards review for baskets later this spring. Plus, we have another exciting initiative being prepared potentially for a spring rollout.


Hey Chuck, has it ever been suggested or DISCussed to include a player's Home State (or country) in the tournament results?


I think since you can click on the player names to find out where they are from, the decision was made to not clutter the rounds scores, and the even wider display that includes round ratings, with additional columns.


This is why the Browns have to suck eternally. As soon as they give their fans hope, they follow it up by somehow flaking out and causing intense depression throughout their fan nation, causing them to neglect their jobs and lives.

It's OKAY Chuck... THERE IS ALWAYS NEXT YEAR.

I used the spreadsheet titled "CalcWCPtemp200.xls to calculate local player ratings and the course rating. How can I do hole by hole breakdown?

Chuck, where are the tournament spec documents (i.e. competition manual)? That is, those documents which specify structure, equipment, etc. of a tournament. I can't seem to find them.

Posted by Chuck:


Starting this new year, this will be my last post on the PDGA D-Board and about 20 others for an indefinite time period. I have also stopped accepting PMs. I'll be available to answer questions thru the PDGA Contact page and directly at the email address in my profile. In addition, I'll post announcements as needed such as when ratings and rankings updates are posted.

IANCK. To find the competition manual: go to pdga.com and click on the tour information link under the updates box.

Hello Chuck,
Will Mr. Jim's Carrollton Open XI 9/15-16/2007 be on the next ratings update?
Thanks,

Um, don't expect an answer for awhile...

I was just looking at my ratings detail and noticed that the 2007 Lava Launch only had the two 18 hole rounds rated. I thought the PDGA could combine a 9 hole and 18 hole round to make a 27 hole rating. Is this due the TD report not combining them? Can the PDGA go back and fix this?

Its a bummer to not have that 9 in the ratings somehow. That 9 holes was BIG and MEAN. I still remember this reachable 800 foot hole where the basket was located in front of a huge cinder cone. It was fairly easy to throw a disc 200 feet past the basket and 50 vert. feet up the cinder cone. Unreal hole! Thanks!!

It's up to the TDs to do it and usually TDs do it only when the 9 holes are part of a 27-hole layout where maybe 18 were played one day and 9 the next due to scheduling. Semi and Final 9s are usually not combined with the previous 18-hole round, especially since not everyone plays the 9.

Chuck, Not sure if this is the right thread. I just pulled up the results for the Disc Golf Cruise in December, and my PDGA # is not listed. Is there and way this can get corrected before the ratings update so that my round will count? Thanks!

Jason McKinney
#17714

I'll take care of it. TD entered your number wrong.

Thanks Chuck!

Hi chuck, I was wondering why some bad rounds are not counted towards your player rating? Is there some formula for this? What if other sports did the same thing, Barry Bonds goes 0 - 4 at the plate (doesn't count towards his bating average ?)

Extremely bad rounds are not counted as one could abuse the system that way to arbitrarily keep one's rating low and in a lower division than they should be playing in. Extremely bad is considered more than 2.5 SD or 100 points below your average.

Because players can take penalties that don't have to do with how they've played, the most common being late for starting a round, we decided to drop rounds that are more than 2.5 standard deviations below a player's average or 100 pts whichever is smaller. Missing at least two holes of a round amounts to at least a 60 pt potential drop in the player's rating that has nothing to do directly with their play.

The average number of rounds dropped per player with this policy is about 1 in 50. The average PDGA member only has 15 rated rounds per year so that's about 1 drop every three years. If players "throw" rounds so they're dropped from their rating, it doesn't hurt anyone else. If a player's rating is artificially propped up by doing this, it just means there are more points available for others to earn at an event and the player may have to enter a higher division than their "true" skill level. Since no one gets paid for their rating but only how they play, no harm, no foul. The sponsors are the only ones currently who reward sponsorships with rating being one factor. They are able to look and see if any of their players are deliberately playing poorly to drop rounds and we let them know.

BTW, Barry didn't have all of those walks included in his batting average. How come? A basketball player who just made a shot but a teammate got called for a foul at the same moment doesn't get that shot included in their stats. A wide receiver makes a circus catch but a teammate gets called for holding. No stats.

I've had one round dropped, and it was one with a scoring error on the TD's submission. I tried to have it fixed, but it never got straightened out. Once I saw it was dropped from my ratings, I moved on.

They are able to look and see if any of their players are deliberately playing poorly to drop rounds and we let them know.


Kinda like Justin Jernigan shooting a 700something rated round
http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournamen...eRatings=1#Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7370&amp;year=2007&amp;incl udeRatings=1#Open)

If JJ and I were TRULY trying to drop our ratings that second round, we surely wouldn't have shot what we did b/c we made it so the round would have been thrown out.

Yep. It's up to each player's sponsor to determine whether booting too many rounds like this affects their sponsorship position. And it's my understanding they are checking these stats since they're easily available online.

so you are saying that you did not deliberately play poorly that 2nd round?

not that it matters, because the discussion is in regards to sponsored players deliberately playing poorly to drop the round from their rating.

There's a difference between playing just poorly enough so the round rating is still used to pull down your rating (potentially for bagging in a lower Am division) versus playing really poorly so the round is dropped and will NOT drop your rating so you maintain a higher rating for potential sponsorship reasons. They played poor enough so the rounds will be dropped. I'm thinking we might look at including this in the competition guidelines as a case of unsportsmanlike conduct and produce a DQ for the event if players admit to booting a round for this reason.

I think that would be a good thing to add to the competition guidelines.

Here is a quote from the ask MTL thread:



wow today...

the first round was unreal bad. I couldn't make a putt. Worst I've played on this course in years.

2nd round more of the same. I went to screw around mode to insure my round would be threw out for my rating.

Chuck, since the rounds dropped when calculating ratings went down from 15% to 2% currently; do you need to have at least 50 rated rounds to get one dropped or is their a minimum # of rounds needed to get one dropped? thanks

It's not 2% for each person but on average among all PDGA members. If your round ratings fall within a narrow enough range (+/- 2.5 std dev), you may never have any dropped during your most recent 12 month period. We made the change from 15% to 2% several years ago now, not just last year.

There's a difference between playing just poorly enough so the round rating is still used to pull down your rating (potentially for bagging in a lower Am division) versus playing really poorly so the round is dropped and will NOT drop your rating so you maintain a higher rating for potential sponsorship reasons. They played poor enough so the rounds will be dropped. I'm thinking we might look at including this in the competition guidelines as a case of unsportsmanlike conduct and produce a DQ for the event if players admit to booting a round for this reason.


I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think a simple DQ will have the intended purpose. Won't that result in dropped rounds as well? They're not looking at many points, if any, in that situation... is the threat of a DQ enough of a motivator to curb that behavior?

I'm thinking we might look at including this in the competition guidelines as a case of unsportsmanlike conduct and produce a DQ for the event if players admit to booting a round for this reason.



I've actually looked into it and I got a 100% no from the rules committee.

to summarize what chair Carlton Howard told me (this was a while ago so extreme summary) - he is alarmed by players doing it, but there is no way to enforce it and to actually prove it without the player admitting to it. Also, he felt DQ was to severe but giving strokes when people are screwing around really doesn't matter at that point, in fact, many would probably encourage it.

I would be in 100% support of this idea. The PGA has a clause that players must try all the time regardless of the situation.

Not sure. But I suspect something will be done before the start of the 2009 season. One option might be to include all rounds for Pro ratings with any DNF where the player actually started a round and stopped before finishing (without injury or emergency) would maybe count as an 800 rated round. Or perhaps even better, it might count as a round exactly 100 points below their rating without it. I kind of like the 100 pt idea because we would do this for a DNF during a round for any reason including injury and we wouldn't have to decide whether the sudden exit was justified or not. Those who really aren't injured would have to decide to fight for a round rating better than 100 pts below their rating or just DNF and take the 100 pt penalty.

This would only be for rounds a player actually started to play, not those where the player DQ'd later rounds without showing or starting them. Those wouldn't show up at all just like now. This might also be an interesting twist on dealing with behavior issues that result in actual DQs by applying the 100 pt penalty on each round started...

One option might be to include all rounds for Pro ratings with any DNF where the player actually started a round and stopped before finishing (without injury or emergency)



Yeah you can't do this b/c then it turns into a "well so and so got let off for this" and favoritism amongst some players and TDs and yad a yada

Black and White is the only way to deal with it.

I agree. It will have to be some automated process the committee agrees upon.

chuck if your rating still says nov 13 last update does that mean no new data? thanks

hey mtl, i know i am coming into this late, but is anyone actually hurt by a player dropping a round to keep his rating up?

I'm not following you

chuck if your rating still says nov 13 last update does that mean no new data? thanks


Correct. Everyone's rating is recalculated every time we do an update. However, if there are no new rounds to include, your update date will remain whatever it was the last time you did have new rounds.

duh seewhere.....get out and play! lol

I am playing just not in PDGA events that much.. :D

hey mtl, i know i am coming into this late, but is anyone actually hurt by a player dropping a round to keep his rating up?



thats a good question... and actually might it possibly help lower rated players?

Not sure if this is myth or fact but... if you play in a tourney and a couple of the highest rated players in the tourney both tank a round... couldnt that help make the ratings of lower players higher in relation?

earlier you were talking about what to do to players who quit rounds to preserve their rating. sounds like the Comp Comm and other folks have talked about it. i am asking why it is a problem... seems like no one is affected in any way, so why care, why legislate, what happens if a player drops out.

World Rankings and earning/retaining sponsorship are impacted by artificially propping up a rating let alone the unsportsmanlike atmosphere in the group that may result when a player chooses to boot a round.

It does not impact everyone else's player rating calculation because the player booting the round will not be a propagator if their round rating is more than 70 points below their rating.

unsportsmanlike atmosphere

Hi Chuck, I have a question.

How do you propose evaluating a player on his current skill/competition level, if he hasn't played or competed in a while (4yrs) or 'hardly touched his discs since he's been nowhere near a course' as in my case?

To clarify, I mean as a way of determining a current rating, considering the rating for the previously retired player (ie 975) was based on 04 and earlier...

Thanks,

Mike Gordon

Perhaps there are rated players you can play with in your area, possibly in leagues, to get an idea where you currently fit. Another option is to use the SSA information for courses in your area available here: www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php)
For courses with SSAs in the 47-53 range, it's safe to use 10 pts per throw to estimate your round rating from your scores. If SSA is 49 and you shoot 53, your estimated rating is about 960 for that round.

Hi Chuck! Hey, I'm wondering ... I know I didn't have any rounds since Nov to change my rating, but I am registered Pro Grandmasters this year. Will that change not appear until April?

Players have only been registered as Pros or Ams in the PDGA for several years now. The only time anyone online knows you're older than 39 is when you actually have results posted from entering an older division.

Thanks Chuck!

Good answer. I will do just what you said for the local NC courses that I can play in the next few weeks.

Mike

Hey Mike!

If you are the Doc Gordon fron Oregon Park, You should still be rated aroud 975! :D

Glad to here you are getting back into the sport. Always thought you were one of the better golfers I learned from watching.

Still remember my 1st out of state tournament back in 1998 to Rockledge with a bunch of you OP guys.

Later,

Mike D

Mike, your 2004 rating still determines your current division options now that you've renewed (Thanks!). You would have to play Open or Master Pro until your rating gets updated and possibly drops below 970 after the April update. Then, you could consider entering Advanced on occasion. But maybe that's what you expected anyway and are just curious about your current skill level?

Thanks again Chuck, and yes, now that I understand the system, I expect to play Masters (Thank God for that option, at least).

Mike D! I will PM you.

Mike Gordon

Hello,

Newbie question: I just started playing a few months ago. I played my first tournament in December.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournamen...=1#Recreational (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7316&amp;year=2007&amp;incl ude_ratings=1#Recreational)

Now I've just joined the PDGA. Is there a way to get the result from that tournament to count for my rating?

Thanks,
ERic

Contact the PDGA office tourmgr@pdga.com to get your new PDGA number entered into the report so it will be counted when we do our correction run in a week or so.

Hello Chuck,

In the inaugral addition of the Flying Disc magazine, by your article, "by the numbers", there is a color coded map that has Arkansas incorrectly listed at 0-9 courses when in fact it is 16 (should be over 20 by the end of 08).

Did you provide the map or was it someone else?

One of Arkansas' newer courses just won an award from the Arkansas Recreation and Parks Association for the best new facility, the course designer, Tom Pitchford Jr. will be accepting the award next week at a banquet with over 200 parks and rec professionals in attendance.

We're very proud of the growth in our state, just a few years ago there were only 3 courses.

Do you think a retraction could be printed in the next mag or should I contact Richard Givens about it?

An older map graphic was apparently inserted. We plan to have the updated map in the next issue using the same course data from the end of 2007 that was used for the 2008 printed directory. I haven't gotten my magazine yet but have heard from a few that an older version was used.

Thanks Chuck :)

Why isn't disc golf an olympic sport yet? Are we trying?

Not played in enough countries yet to qualify. It was in the World Games in 2002 and will likely return to the World Games before it ends up in the Olympics.

Not played in enough countries yet to qualify. It was in the World Games in 2002 and will likely return to the World Games before it ends up in the Olympics.



Whether or not its an official Olympic sport something will need to be done if Chicago gets the summer games in 2016. The world will be in town and hopefully a championship caliber course will be in the area by then (likely in adjacent Lake County) and a PDGA event can take place. Press releases can be sent to the myriad of world news organizations and somebody will come by to check it out. It would be real cool if the top competitors in the discus competition were invited to be spectators and to take a couple of throws for the cameras along with whoever are the top players by then. I am no longer an ultimate player (too old!) but would imagine that ultimate players would feel the same about 2016.

Chuck,

(remedial question)
At what point do rounds begin to fall off of the trailing end of a players ratings calculations? I was under the impression it was one year, but that didn't seem to be the case for me.

i.e. - I began playing tournaments in Oct. 2006, when will that tourney and early tournies in 2007 begin to drop off?

Thx in advance!

Tradd

Common misconception is that rounds will disappear as the days march by. Nope. The 12 month period is unique to each player. No round drops until you play a rated round at least 12 months after that round you would like to see disappear.

No round drops until you play a rated round at least 12 months after that round you would like to see disappear.



Since I've been playing rated rounds since Oct 2006, and I've played rated rounds up to this past weekend, then would it be fair to say that if ratings were calculated tomorrow (hypothetically), all rounds before March 1st, 2007 would be dropped?

I ask because on the Jan 29th update, I had Dec. 2006 tournaments and early Jan. 2007 tournaments still showing up on my ratings calculations, even though I'd played tournaments through January 2008.

The Jan and Feb correction only includes events from 2007 even if you played 2008 events in Jan. So the reference date for you was 12 months before the date of the last event you played in 2007.

OK, gotcha. Last event in 2007 was Dec. 3rd, SO my 12 month window would be same tournment Dec. 3rd, 2006 - Dec. 3rd, 2007.

Thanks for the clarification!
Tradd

Chuck,

Isnt there a rule that if you have cashed in an open division that you cant play as an am anymore?

The rule is that you can't play in majors. In other events, you can play wherever your rating allows.

happy birthday Chuck

Everything you need right here in terms of who can play what divisions. Pros who have cashed under 970 rating can play the appropriate rated am division except in Major Am Championships:
www.pdga.com/documents/2008/08PlayerDivisionsGrid.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2008/08PlayerDivisionsGrid.pdf)

Happy birthday Chuck. Did the stripper get there yet?

Much appreciated. :p

Much appreciated. :p



Details? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

At my age, she simply wanted me to rate her performance... :eek:

Chuck, how often will ratings updates be done this year? Any idea of approximate dates? I need to know to check how badly I am beating Hawk.

The usual five times. Late April, late June, early September, late November and the yearly wrap up at the end of January.

Is this Chuck Kennedy or Chuck34?

Are you two twins?


The usual five times. Late April, late June, early September, late November and the yearly wrap up at the end of January.

I'm now posting with Chuck34 for discussion posts and using Chuck Kennedy for more official PDGA related posts.

OK smart guy.
What is more pDGA official than the
reporting dates on those pDGA ratings?

I didn't put the exact dates. We've got them figured out I'll do that under the other posting. 'Smart guy' enough for ya? :p

Here are the target Tuesdays for posting official ratings updates for this year:
April 29
July 1
September 9
November 25
January 27, 2009

The April, September and November dates were selected to try and allow enough time to process and include the BG Ams, Worlds and Players Cup, respectively.

Thanks Mr Kennedy.

That 34 fella scares me.
:D

shouldn't it be chuck55??

Birthday is 3-4 and 34 has turned out to be a number that pops up in my life a lot. Born during term of 34th Pres, Mom and Dad were ages 3 and 4 in 1934. 34 waist. Donor number 1034. If I make it to 2034, I'll be 81 which is 3 to the 4th power :D

you really need to get away from the computer, chuck.

If I make it to 2034, I'll be 81 which is 3 to the 4th power :D



Whoaaaa!!!! :cool:

And maybe I'll be able to hang on to a 934 rating by then!

(even 834 would still be cool :cool:)

Birthday is 3-4 and 34 has turned out to be a number that pops up in my life a lot. Born during term of 34th Pres, Mom and Dad were ages 3 and 4 in 1934. 34 waist. Donor number 1034. If I make it to 2034, I'll be 81 which is 3 to the 4th power :D



Yikes....and I thought 8s were like that for me. I was born on 8-18-68 and weighed 8 lbs. 8 oz.

34 waist. I hate you. :D

Hey Chuck,
I'd send you a PM but you don't accept them. Do you have an email address I could get a hold of John up at Highbridge? I've tried calling the # listed for several days but no one has ever answered the phone. Would like to reserve the Honka House for a trip this spring. Thanks!

The Highbridge site is still active with contact info: http://www.highbridgehillssc.com/contact.html
I don't have any other emails or phone numbers.

I guess since this is an "Ask Chuck" thread and I have been out for a while, why are you now Chuck34?

Nevermind, it has already been answered.

The Highbridge site is still active with contact info: http://www.highbridgehillssc.com/contact.html
I don't have any other emails or phone numbers.



Thanks Chuck. There are a few more numbers on there than the one I was trying. Don't know how I missed those.

Birthday is 3-4 and 34 has turned out to be a number that pops up in my life a lot. Born during term of 34th Pres, Mom and Dad were ages 3 and 4 in 1934. 34 waist. Donor number 1034. If I make it to 2034, I'll be 81 which is 3 to the 4th power :D



sorry john but sias already owns the copyright on 8's.

Yikes....and I thought 8s were like that for me. I was born on 8-18-68 and weighed 8 lbs. 8 oz.

chuck-

On your "how to set up a handicap league" article you wrote in 1990, you reference a table...do you know where I can find it?
thx

tradd

Chuck, Is it illegal to kneel on a towel directly behind your mini marker? :D

Depends whether the towel was on the ground there before your disc got there. :D

Chuck, if they were able to used towels behind their minis @ the Memorial do you think someone would've been able to get a 1100 rated round?

On your "how to set up a handicap league" article you wrote in 1990, you reference a table...do you know where I can find it?



Check your email.

Chuck, if they were able to used towels behind their minis @ the Memorial do you think someone would've been able to get a 1100 rated round?


I'm thinking that maybe since the Q&amp;A disallowing them was waived, that the course played three points easier and robbed Dave of that elusive 1100 round... :eek:

Depends whether the towel was on the ground there before your disc got there. :D



Now I am guessing you are kidding Chuck. Because if it is legal to place a towel on the ground on a Tee Box to stop from slipping, why would it be illegal to put it under your knee any where else on the course?

The difference between a tee and any other place on the fairway is that everyone starts play from the tee. Once you've thrown, the idea is to play from where it lies. The player is supposed to deal with whatever challenges are presented without additional assistance such as placing a towel. That's the fundamental nature of the game. The game doesn't force anyone to make a particular shot nor use a particular stance. But it does restrict some options such as landing just one inch closer to the pin means you can't jump putt but the options for the stance you do use for putting are overall quite unrestricted.

Not being able to put down a towel on your line of play is keeping in the spirit of 'play it from where it lies.' On the other hand, what's the difference between a player in shorts putting down a cotton towel to kneel on and a player who wore corduroy jeans kneeling to putt?

Depends whether the towel was on the ground there before your disc got there. :D



Now that made me <font color="red"> CHUCK</font>le! :D

The difference between a tee and any other place on the fairway is that everyone starts play from the tee. Once you've thrown, the idea is to play from where it lies. The player is supposed to deal with whatever challenges are presented without additional assistance such as placing a towel. That's the fundamental nature of the game. The game doesn't force anyone to make a particular shot nor use a particular stance. But it does restrict some options such as landing just one inch closer to the pin means you can't jump putt but the options for the stance you do use for putting are overall quite unrestricted.

Not being able to put down a towel on your line of play is keeping in the spirit of 'play it from where it lies.' On the other hand, what's the difference between a player in shorts putting down a cotton towel to kneel on and a player who wore corduroy jeans kneeling to putt?



I understand what you are saying, but I agree more with your last statement, what's the difference between thick pants and placing a towel down? None, if you ask me. So if a player started the round with knee pads on, the player could use them any where on the course to protect their knees from rocks or whatever.?.?

So if a player was to call this on someone, what rule would they say was broken?

I think you need to read the Q&amp;A on Building a Lie to see the various rules involved. If you want to specifically refer to any words, look at the last line of that Q&amp;A which I interpret as meaning you can't use a towel behind your lie but can use one if it's under another supporting point that's not behind your lie.

That cleared up everything, not behind your lie, but can be any other supporting point. Thanks Chuck!

I think you need to read the Q&amp;A on Building a Lie to see the various rules involved. If you want to specifically refer to any words, look at the last line of that Q&amp;A which I interpret as meaning you can't use a towel behind your lie but can use one if it's under another supporting point that's not behind your lie.



Hey Chuck. Please interpret the second to the last sentence in the RC's answer to the Building a Lie question:

"One can�t �build a stance� except as allowed under 802.04 (Artificial Devices) A."

No more to say. The last sentence indicates the RC doesn't consider a towel an artificial device under 802.04A or he wouldn't have written the last statement. We'll get the answer at some point.

No more to say. The last sentence indicates the RC doesn't consider a towel an artificial device under 802.04A or he wouldn't have written the last statement. We'll get the answer at some point.



Both the rule book and the RC recognize a towel as an artificial device (802.04 A) as this item is allowed as such on the teeing surface. The rule does not exclude the towel as an artificial device once off the tee.

My question was regarding your interpretation of that particular statement where the RC clearly allows usage of Artificial Devices on the line of play behind one's mark.

Enough said on this thread. This particular topic of discussion has spread like a disease across the message board...

Chuck, What should we do about THIS? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20080310/sc_space/realdeathstarcouldstrikeearth)
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~gekko/wr_104/morph.gif

Chuck, What should we do about THIS? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20080310/sc_space/realdeathstarcouldstrikeearth)
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~gekko/wr_104/morph.gif



use the FORCE! ;)

Chuck, What should we do about THIS?


What's that line about putting your head between your legs and kissing something goodbye? In this case, you could legally put a towel where you'll lie...

Seriously though, I think one of man's highest priorities, whether you're religious or not, should be figuring out how to extend our population across the galaxy. The only true win for all of this billions of years effort to evolve both as a species and civilization is if you continue to survive. Only makes sense to get some people launched to far away places as soon as technically possible and hedge our bets. I heard they need a rating system near Orion...

Great answer. That's why i asked. At least you didnt say just throw a DevilHawk with counter spin to counteract the Death Star! :D
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~gekko/wr_104/morph.gif

Chuck, What should we do about THIS?


What's that line about putting your head between your legs and kissing something goodbye? In this case, you could legally put a towel where you'll lie...

Seriously though, I think one of man's highest priorities, whether you're religious or not, should be figuring out how to extend our population across the galaxy. The only true win for all of this billions of years effort to evolve both as a species and civilization is if you continue to survive. Only makes sense to get some people launched to far away places as soon as technically possible and hedge our bets. I heard they need a rating system near Orion...


I would like to nominate Jeff Lagrassa to go to pluto.

Chuck, What should we do about THIS?


What's that line about putting your head between your legs and kissing something goodbye? In this case, you could legally put a towel where you'll lie...

Seriously though, I think one of man's highest priorities, whether you're religious or not, should be figuring out how to extend our population across the galaxy. The only true win for all of this billions of years effort to evolve both as a species and civilization is if you continue to survive. Only makes sense to get some people launched to far away places as soon as technically possible and hedge our bets. I heard they need a rating system near Orion...



I wonder if the HIV virus had this discussion before jumping from monkeys to humans...HIV 1:"we really need to expand our concept of a host". HIV 2:"yeah, monkeys are a dead end in our evolution". HIV 1:"we need a longer lived host so that we can enjoy dormancy for perhaps decades instead of years"...

Yep. Survival of the fittest. Must have been those few cells that evolved to communicate...

Chuck... what is the lowest rated round you've ever seen/heard of? I'm not talking about someone purposely tanking a round... im talking about someone actually playing.

does it get to a point when ratings arent tracked for someone?

i think i've seen an example of this but im not sure.

Chuck... what is the lowest rated round you've ever seen/heard of?


Roger has the file to search this, but the person on the bottom of this page might be a contender for that title.
www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5508&amp;year=2008&amp;incl ude_ratings=1#Recreational%20Women (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5508&amp;year=2008&amp;incl ude_ratings=1#Recreational%20Women)

thats the reason I ask... i just played in a tourney where someone had a round rated a 74 and they have 2 tourneys they played in last summer where ratings arent even showing but if they did those rounds would be in the 100's as well... the reason I ask about if someone could be too low to be ranked is because i would think they should have a rating if they've played since last summer.

here's the tourney...
http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournamen...atings=1#Novice (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7763&amp;year=2008&amp;incl udeRatings=1#Novice)

Mathematically, it's possible to get negative round ratings and actually have a negative rating...

but does that explain why this person wouldn't have a rating and when you click 'show ratings' on the tourneys from last summer ratings appear for everyone but them. Just curious if there is a mercy rule or something where things dont get tabulated if they are too low.

btw... is 74 the lowest rated round you've ever heard of?

No "mercy" rule at this point other than the fact we drop rounds more than 100 points below your average.

I think what happened is the person wasn't current at the time or isn't currently. One of those events was a DNF. Not sure what the story is but not getting ratings is common for some of the beginner divisions if they play different layouts and there aren't enough props to produce them.

I have a question about round ratings.

If you played the exact same course layout for two rounds (2 seperate days) and shot the same both rounds your round rating should be the same for both rounds right... or am I confused?

Thanks!

Each round is calculated separately for the unofficial ratings you see during a tournament or right after when the scores are first posted. Normal variation and wind differences account for the same score having different ratings both rounds.

However, unless the TD tells us otherwise, all of the scores from rounds where divisions played the same course will be processed to produce official ratings where everyone will get the same rating for the same score. When the wind was quite different for the same layout, the TD should tell us and then we'll rate those rounds separately because the course actually did play tougher in the wind and the same score should get a better rating.

Is wind always viewed as making the course more difficult or do you look at the scores to dictate the effect?

The numbers are what they are. More wind usually means higher scores. Might not have as much effect on some wooded courses. All calculations are done from the scores and player ratings. We don't know what the weather was like unless maybe we played the event.

Chuck:

Could you look at the scores from last weekend for the two C Tiers in St. Louis. I think the scores feature two pools, but aren't listed that way. Pros played at Souix Passage on Saturday, but our scores are right along side the AMs playing JB. Also, Steve Bennett is listed instead of Geoff Bennett.

Thanks.

I put Masters and Open together for all four rounds over both days.

I put Masters and Open together for all four rounds over both days.



That would be correct! Thanks.

I put Masters and Open together for all four rounds over both days.



That would be correct! Thanks.



AM scores from JB are still listed with our SP rounds. As of right now, it reads that 1 and 2 in Advanced would have won Open.

Unless, you are telling me you have it fixed on your end and it will be correct when official. In that case, my bad.

I can't fix scores easily without the TD report. All I can do is change which groups played together. Contact the TD to correct unofficial scores.

Yo Chuck, glad to hear that you made it through another Pon Farr. Who was the lucky Vulcan who got to mate with you this seventh year?

on a not-so-serious note, our illustrious TD of the Pot of Gold screwed up the ratings by not noting that the pros played a different course in Round 2. Open, Masters, Grandmasters, and Advanced all played a different course in the second round. Anything we can do to get that corrected?

i probably wouldn't care but i believe the USDGC actually invites TD's to use player ratngs to decide who gets an invite in the event of a tie. imagine that...a ratings system rife with errors like Mr. Timm's determing who gets to play in the national championship. sounds like a conspiracy theory waiting to hatch.

you pro players from the POG, you can thank me later.