These are the layouts he entered but didn't assign them to the divisions yet. Right now everyone is shown playing Long 24 Long 10 both rounds. Which divisions played what layout in what round?
Long 24 Long 10
Short 24
Long 24 Short 10
Long 24 Long 10

everyone played the same layout the first round (short 24).

in the 2nd round, Open, Masters, Grandmasters and Advanced played Long 24 Long 10, while the other divisions played long 24 short 10.

Fixed. Looks like maybe some worse conditions in the morning than afternoon?

The shorter layout in R2 didn't come in much easier. Part of the issue may have been having just barely enough propagators to make a calculation for that group.

if by fixed, you mean, "botched", you are correct. i love it, the ams ratings went up in the 2nd round while the pros dropped after you "fixed" it. so if i'd have played the easier layout, and scored the same, i would have a higher-rated round even though the harder layout is at least 2 strokes harder.

no wonder this sport is a joke. and i mean that in the nicest way :cool::) :D

I had the Open & Advanced Women and Advanced Masters playing the shorter hole. Did they play the longer one?

The ratings aren't calculated in a vacuum. Those players with those ratings shot those scores on that layout. Even with a shorter layout, it's possible to set up holes that play more difficult for a lower skill level than a higher skill level relative to their ratings based on tricky OB and longer carries.

C K

08 Pot of Gold:
The open women and advanced masters played
the long 24/ long 10 the second round.
The advanced women played long 24/short 10 round two.

Thanks
steve timm

I fixed it but it doesn't look like there were enough propagators to produce ratings for those playing the shorter hole in R2. Roger and I will try to figure out ratings for that group when we officially do them in April.

hey chuck, what is the deadline for TD reports to be included in the next rating update? it used to be posted on the home page but i dont see it there anymore...

Dave is the one who posts that. I sent him your note. I'm thinking Friday, April 11 is likely the date with an outside chance that events that weekend could be processed if they get their report to Dave early Monday morning.

cool, thanks

Mr Chuck.....Can you please see why the Savannah Open doesn't show up in the results? The scores were posted right after the tournament.

Thanks :D

Unofficial results are posted meaning the TD report hasn't either been received or processed by Dave yet. So no 2008 points yet and ratings won't happen until next month, assuming the report gets to Dave in time.
www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7450&year=2008&incl udeRatings=1#Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7450&year=2008&incl udeRatings=1#Open)

Unofficial results are posted meaning the TD report hasn't either been received or processed by Dave yet. So no 2008 points yet and ratings won't happen until next month, assuming the report gets to Dave in time.
www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7450&year=2008&incl udeRatings=1#Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7450&year=2008&incl udeRatings=1#Open)



Thanks Chuck!

:D:D:Dooh, ive tried so hard not to do this, but i cant resist not asking chuck this question anymore........
Chuck, how much wood, would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck, could chuck wood?
:confused: :D:eek: :D :p

sorry, like i said i couldnt resist.

Based on our PDGA sponsor, Chuck would chug Woodchuck if he had Woodchuck to chug, wouldn't he?

Based on our PDGA sponsor, Chuck would chug Woodchuck if he had Woodchuck to chug, wouldn't he?



http://cgi.ebay.com/Woodchuck-Could-Chug...7QQcmdZViewItem (http://cgi.ebay.com/Woodchuck-Could-Chug-Beer-New-T-Shirt-M-Medium_W0QQitemZ300199306315QQihZ020QQcategoryZ156 87QQcmdZViewItem)

see this ebay item, im temped to get you this shirt...

but of course you are talking about the listing below, right?

http://www.briansbelly.com/beerbelly/woodchuckgranny.shtml

and i would be happy to procure all the woodchuck needed to find out how much chuck could chug! :D

When calculating ratings, how is double weighting rounding determined? What I mean is this. If I play a tournament next weekend, I'll have 10 rated rounds at the next update. Since 25% leaves a fraction, how many rounds would be double weighted?

We round up on the 0.5> 10/4 = 2.5 so 3 rounds will be double weighted. With 9 rounds, only 2 would be double weighted. BTW, we don't double weight until players have at least 8 rounds. So, it you only have 6 rounds so far, no double weighting.

hey chuck,

i unofficially shot my first 1000 rated round this weekend at patapsco. it was during the second round when all divs played the short tees. problem is it was exactly 1000 rated. do unofficial ratings tend to go up, down or stay the same when they go official? what factors might influence that?

i'm a little anxious because it didn't seem like it was all that great of a round (plenty of missed putts).

thanks!

If everyone played the same tees and that was the only round they were played, there's a better than 75% chance the official ratings will be the same as the unofficial. However, if unofficial and official don't match, it's more likely the official ones will go down a point or two.

It has to do with excluding a player or two that were unofficial propagators who shot more than 60 points below their rating and get excluded as props when the official ratings are done. These poor shooters boost the SSA slightly in the unofficial calcs which inflates the unofficial ratings. You can look and see if there are any players with established ratings in the field who shot more than 60 points below their rating in that round to get an idea what might happen.

thanks. just what i was looking for.

one guy shot 60pts less than his rating during the round. only a small portion (ladies and rec) of the field played the short tees the first round and that's not reflected in the unofficial ratings yet.

i'll keep my fingers crossed. 1000 would be a nice milestone.

i believe the good dr has fixed the unofficial ratings.

Looks like Rich updated the courses for R1. It isn't looking good for the 1000 round. If the Rec and Women played the same layout both rounds, their first round scores will be combined with all of the scores of the second round to do the official calcs. You can see that the shorter layout played a just a bit easier in the morning by a few points. That will likely tweak the SSA just enough so you might end up at 998 or 999. Depends on rounding during official calcs and how many are props in that group.

dang! i knew it was too good to be true.

If you're that close this early in the season, it's only a matter of time you'll break thru the 1000 barrier. There's still hope on this one even.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Situation: The hole is a standard dog-leg left. A single row of trees run the length of the fairway on the right. Just to the right of the trees is a ditch approximately 12 feet across with 2-3 feet of standing water. TD declares, due to standing water on other parts of the course, that all water is casual. A player tees off and his disc hits a tree at the dog leg (pin high) and kicks into the middle of the ditch (under water). The player retreives his disc and throws his second shot from the edge of the fairway. In essence 6 feet closer to the basket from where his drive came to rest. The group did not notice the potential infraction because normally it's declared OB and the disc is brought back IB at point of entry with a 1 throw penalty. Would the proper way to play that have been to retrieve the disc and move it back 6 feet to the right side of the ditch under rule 803.05 C2? The player took relief but he took it closer to the basket instead of farther back.

Relief should have been away from the hole not closer, assuming there was room on the right side of the ditch to play it. Player has up to 5m of free relief from the disc location in the ditch back on the line from the pin. If that's not enough relief to get footing, player can take up to another 5m back (with penalty) using the unplayable lie rule (or retee as an alternative). If I'm the TD in that situation, I would probably have just told players they get relief on the right side embankment (on line of play) on level ground regardless where they land in the ditch (TDs can specify free relief longer than 5m or even a drop zone).

The player felt it was impractical to retrieve his disc then walk back down the fairway 100' to cross the bridge and walk back 100' on the right side of the ditch and throw his second shot then walk that all in reverse again to throw his third shot. We don't normally play casual relief of water so the player did what we normally do in that situation and didn't think it through.

I think this might have been handled better by the TD. An interesting concept here would be to play it as a buncr and specify a drop zone maybe 1/2 to 2/3 of the way down the fairway just to the left side of the tree line. If the player shanked into the ditch, they would get free relief to the drop zone. Faster speed of play and pretty fair for most shanks but still most likely a distance penalty.

Hey Chuck...What is the ratings formula these days? I know anything older than a calendar year of your newest rated event drops off, but are rounds still being double rated? I tried to send you a PM, but you're not accepting them due to your popularity...

Your most recent 25% are double weighted which I just answered yesterday on this thread.

I'm not taking PMs because email is easier for me to organize and track responses plus it frees up server space for all of those thousands of PMs and responses that I'd need to save... :D

I think this might have been handled better by the TD. An interesting concept here would be to play it as a buncr and specify a drop zone maybe 1/2 to 2/3 of the way down the fairway just to the left side of the tree line. If the player shanked into the ditch, they would get free relief to the drop zone. Faster speed of play and a pretty fair for most shanks but still most likely a distance penalty.

I'm not sure the TD was thinking about the ditch when he made the rule of all water is casual. 90%+ of the time the ditch is dry. I think the TD was making the rule for all standing water on fairways and around the baskets and forgot to include or exclude the "normal" water hazards that are sometimes there. It's a good lesson to learn. Thanks Chuck.

When using the most recent 25% of rounds, do you round up or down if the number doesn't divide evenly?

Answer also posted on this thread about 14 posts above this one.

Couldn't find this easily so bear with me.

Knowing the SSA's tells us exactly what in relationship to ratings?

Is an SSA approx a 1000 rated round?

yes to your second question.

Knowing the SSA's tells us exactly what in relationship to ratings?



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

Your most recent 25% are double weighted which I just answered yesterday on this thread.

I'm not taking PMs because email is easier for me to organize and track responses plus it frees up server space for all of those thousands of PMs and responses that I'd need to save... :D



Thanks...So if I am left with only 7 rated rounds none will be double rated? I have 5 from last year and 2 from this year, the rest are being dropped off. I believe I would have from last year:
997
993
976
1015
976

And from this year:
985
994

So based on those numbers am I going up to 991?

Don't know for sure with rounding issues but should be close. Remember that we go back and get one round from longer than 12 months ago so you have at least 8 rounds for the calculation. It will be your best rated round from the event slightly more than 12 months older.

Hey, Chuck, do you know if Kelsey and my Bowling Green leaderboard cards got lost or something? Is there someone we need to communicate with about this? I sent an e-mail to the TD but got no response.

Kelsey 16007 shot +5 +5 -1 -4
Bruce 13087 shot +2 -1 -4 -4

Beating the girl 3 out of 4 is about average for me these days. She beat about 145 of the 200 intermediates.

They're up now.

Cool beans. Thanks.

If a division plays different courses for different rounds, like any of the three am men's big divisions at BG, is the normal score posting program incapable of processing that for unofficial ratings? I'm not asking to be critical of Bowling Green but to avoid doing that with our A-tier if that is what the problem is.

If efforts are made to set up the online system ahead of time like we do for Worlds, then unofficial ratings can work just fine even with pools. However, it's more extra work to go back and reorganize the scoring info and set up the online system to handle it after the event is over, especially since official ratings calcs are just around the corner.

I just played in a small tournament Deuce or Die in Athens AL and as a person who is fairly good at math the first round unofficial ratings seem off to me in a few ways. First including all 28 scores from people with ratings the average departure from their ratings is 13.4 points below their rating. Only 10 of the 28 scored above their rating and I believe 6 or 7 were about 50 pts or more below their normal rating. A couple of things that may be a part of it. First it was 24 holes and they were shortened to 200-280 ft. but with OB all around and 10-20 mph wind it still played pretty tough. So my questions are first is this normal? Second if not will these ratings be adjusted to make them more close to normal.

The average round ratings of propagators will always be the same as their average player rating. Propagators are players with ratings over 799 and based on at least eight rounds. It's possible that some of the players with ratings over 799 are not propagators in your event. You would have to click on each person and look at their Ratings Detail to determine which were props. I looked at the upload and the TD set it so all divisions played the same 24-hole layout and tees both rounds. If any divisions played different tees, then that would affect ratings.

That leads me to a few questions:

1) How are the propogators chosen? If randomly, does that penalized someone who "technically" could have shot better than their rating?

2) If you are "chosen" to be a propator often, does that hinder your ability to move up the ratings ladder?

Thanks Chuck -

Tradd

btw, the handicap league is going well. Thanks for the help there as well!

Every player whose rating is over 799 and is based on at least 8 rounds is a propagator and all prop's scores are used in the ratings calc for each round. The only exception is if a propagator shoots more than 70 points below their rating in a round, they are excluded for that round's rating calcs.

The only exception is if a propagator shoots more than 70 points below their rating in a round, they are excluded for that round's rating calcs.



Why doesn't iit exclude people who's rating is 70 points above as well?

The only exception is if a propagator shoots more than 70 points below their rating in a round, they are excluded for that round's rating calcs.



Why doesn't iit exclude people who's rating is 70 points above as well?



Because the odds are, unless that person is pencil-whipping, they are actually shooting 70 points above their rating.

Most likely, if you're more than 70 points below its because either 1. you got injured or 2. you got there late and took 2 or 3 of the dreaded par+4s... Occasionally its because you played like poop.

But if a car full of disc golfers gets pulled over by "the man" and sits on the side of the road for 20 minutes getting a ticket and they all miss the first 2 holes... should everyone else get a boost in their ratings?

The fundamental reason we only clip the bottom and not the top is that anyone can guarantee they can shoot 70 points below their rating at any time. No one, even Climo, can guarantee they will play 70 points above their rating. Playing 70 pts above and 70 pts below are not both based on the same probability like a normal bell curve because the bottom end can be manipulated either directly by missing on shots on purpose, making normally ill advised shots (ace pot runs), or indirectly via late penalties or injuries as noted.

Chuck:

I was looking for when the new ratings would come out and couldn't find it. So, when are the updated ratings coming out?

Thanks,
Penny

We "hide" it on the PDGA home page in the upper right side in red lettering... ;)

Tuesday, April 29

(You're not the only one that has had trouble finding the date. I'm hoping we can get it in bigger type once the website is revised and also listed on the Ratings info page)

Thanks Chuck :cool:

Maybe we could get a real time countdown on the ratings page. Like a "-DD:HH:MM:SS till the next ratings update" type of thing :D;)

Chuck, I've played 4 tournaments this year (2/9,3/8,3/15,4/5) and 3 of the 4 are going to be over 30 days old from the 4/15 cut-off for TD Reports. All of these have scores & unofficial ratings listed but if I pull up my PDGA name or # it doesn't show that I've played any tournaments this year. Is this because none of the TD reports have been received yet? Also who is the contact person or PDGA rep. that receives these reports? thanks

Dave Gentry receives the reports. I think Karolyn processes most of them now: tourmgr@pdga.com I really don't have any idea which events Roger and will get to do the official ratings. But if Dave gets the TD reports by next Tuesday, April 15, they will make it in the next ratings update. You only know for sure if they've made it either by seeing official results (with no ratings) posted online before the deadline. Or by asking at PDGA HQ.

Chuck, after reading through some old threads about SSA's, I'm still having a hard time understanding why we don't establish course SSA's, and derive the ratings from those numbers.
After reading your arguments about the course constantly changing, dew, wind, broken branches,.. "The problem is that you can't have the same conditions ever in an outdoor environment. If you could have a course indoors in a controlled environment with artificial trees, you could get close." That was your quote from 8/8/07.

I would argue this: Traditional golf rates their courses. They deal with every environmental factor that we do. In fact, I would say even more. Aside from the aforementioned dew (affects ball spin, more of a problem in ball golf than disc golf), wind, broken branches, they have divots, tire marks from carts, trampled down grass from spectators and other golfers, debris on the fairways, uneven rake marks in bunkers, uneven grains of sand (yes I know I am being nit-picky, but you were doing the same). Now, step on the green, where scoring is more sensitive to changes than on any other part of the course. Spike marks, pitch marks, sand blast remnants from a bunker shot, and the most influential of all, the "lumpy donut" phenomenon. Dave Pelz found that an average foursome leaves about 500 footprints on each green, most of which are around the hole itself, causing tremendous irregularities on the putting surface.

Imagine you and your buddies teeing off at 3:00 pm on a Saturday at a golf course. Aside from everything else that has changed since 8:00 AM (presumed first tee time), on every green, TENS OF THOUSANDS of irregularities have occurred close to the hole, causing unpredictable skips, bounces, and speed changes on every putt and pitch, chip, flop, punch, and approach shot. With every foursome that plays through, even the shortest of putts to save par have changed.

Traditional golf rates their courses.

The ball golf course rating process is only partly based on hard numbers. Their ratings have no direct connection to actual scores because they can't. There's no reference from which to establish those ratings. Someone made up some factors that in theory affect challenge on the course. However, they made up how many strokes an oak tree of a certain size will have based on its position on the fairway. None of these factors have ever been corroborated with actual scoring values.

Fortunately, they aren't too far off because the majority of the course rating just like DG is based on length and fixed values that relate to shots around the green. The geezers who walk around and rate golf courses spend a lot of time (and the club's money) using checklists that only impact in the neighborhood of +/- 1 stroke in the overall course rating.

Our course ratings are more precise because they are directly related to the challenge presented by the course that round. Any factor that might affect challenge that round is automtically taken into account via the accumulated set of scores by players with established ratings. The only weakness with our process is the customer service tradeoff made by the PDGA to calculate SSAs using scores from as few as 5 players. That's not ideal statistically but it's still better than the inaccurate BG base course ratings, no accounting for weather and the slope "fudge" factor they've had to introduce to make things work a little better. With most events having 40 or more rounds on the same layout, we have great accuracy in determining the actual SSA for that course layout.

With regard to having fixed baseline values for our courses, there is a way to determine a baseline SSA for every combination of tees and pins using the data available. I've been ready to provide that calculation thru the PDGA Course Directory but have been put off for several years due to lack of programming resources. Maybe with the updated website coming this year, things like this can finally be addressed.

Dear Chuck,

I have noticed that in an unofficial score report my name is with the wrong PDGA number 28382 instead of 29382. Will stuff like that get noticed by the system or should I tell someone before the deadline on Tuesday.

Thanks,
Mike

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7783#Open

Since those results ae posted as Official, you need to contact the PDGA office on Monday to get it fixed: tourmgr@pdga.com

Hey Chuck,
What is the current formula of players needed to get rounds rated?
Is the low still 875? How many players at that Min. are needed?

Thanks

5 propagators with ratings over 799.

thanks

"I've been ready to provide that calculation thru the PDGA Course Directory but have been put off for several years due to lack of programming resources. Maybe with the updated website coming this year, things like this can finally be addressed."

So is this a direction the PDGA supports? Would we see a change in the rating system?

Wouldn't change the ratings system. It would just be an automated way for players to get the estimated SSA for alternate layouts on their courses that didn't have an SSA on file.

Chuck,
Using five propagators (P1-P5) at any given disc golf tournament, what if any of these scenarios were to happen:

P1-P5 all shoot the course record at the same time.

or

P1-P5 all shoot 100 points below their rating at the same time

or

P1- a 915 rated adv player who has broken through a skill plateau and shoots consistently 50 points above their rating
P2- a wildly inconsistent 820 rated player who on any given day can shoot in a range of 100 ratings points
P3- a 970 rated player now playing consistetly 20-30 points above their rating
P4- a 1000 rated player who has a bad day and shoots 100 points below their rating.
P5- an inconsistent 860 rated player.


Although the first two scenarios are not likely to happen, they could, and the third probably happens once in a while.

The most glaring inaccuracy of the system is that those rounds which would get thrown out due to their statistical "irrelevance" to a players rating could still be used to help establish ratings for other players during an event,
i.e. -a propagator shooting a horrid round that would not count toward their own rating.

A propagator's score will not be used for determining the SSA if they shoot more than 60 pts below their rating. We do a double pass to make sure extremely poor rounds of propagators are not included. So that's tighter than the guideline for dropping a round rating from their rating.

By definition, the average round ratings of propagators will always equal their average player rating. So if all five propagators in a pool in theory shoot 50 points better than their rating, they really didn't. They all shot their rating that round. However, the course happened to be 5 shots easier that day. BTW, it's never happened. We've never had an SSA drop more than 1 shot over time on the same layout shot in normal conditions. Of course, that's not unexpected for a new course to have a learning curve and to get "broken" in.

As I've pointed out many times, the only "flaw" in the calculation process comes from catering to members by allowing rounds with only 5 props to be rated as a customer service. However, we now have ways to cross check that because we have so many courses on file and people playing other layouts to compare their computed SSA with an automated number for reference. Part of the ratings process is flagging suspicious values for our ratings team to check and possibly adjust or correct before publishing.

A propagator's score will not be used for determining the SSA if they shoot more than 60 pts below their rating. We do a double pass to make sure extremely poor rounds of propagators are not included. So that's tighter than the guideline for dropping a round rating from their rating.



I stand corrected on the amount below that a certain score can be counted. Thanks for the clarification. So theoretically all 5 props could be shooting 60 points worse than their rating. IF this was the case, would you choose 5 new props to base the ratings on, even though the original 5 fell within your acceptable range? If they were used, the course would seem to be playing much harder than it actually was, based on:

"So if all five propagators in a pool in theory shoot 50 points better than their rating, they really didn't. They all shot their rating that round. However, the course happened to be 5 shots easier that day"

I know you said it's never happened, but humor me...

The scores of every propagator that plays a layout are used to produce ratings. We don't just randomly choose five. We use everyone possible that didn't shoot more than 60 pts below their rating. The SSA for some courses might have several hundred scores producing that value. The five props minimum only comes into play for cases where maybe the Juniors, Int Women and Rec divisions played a layout different from the other divisions and there were barely five players with a rating over 799 whose rating was based on at least 8 rounds.

I was only using the number 5 for the continuity of my examples.
By the way, why establish the scale based around 1000? Why not 100?

Don't need decimal points for having one more significant digit in the ratings. And avoiding negative numbers is the reason scratch wasn't based around zero.

But one can actually get a negative rating. I'm surprised that a 1/x type function wasn't used to keep ratings greater than 0. At a certain point, each throw really should be worth a smaller loss in rating.

It's bad enough explaining why players don't get the same points per shot on courses with different SSAs. We can always shift to 2000 for scratch if we feel players need a ratings boost to avoid negative values.

Are the only rounds going in to the next update the ones that were just posted on the Points list? I am wondering because a TD from a tournament this last weekend said he got the results in and the PDGA said they would make the ratings but it isn't listed on the totals.

Don't know. I haven't gotten the files from Dave and Roger to know what events are being processed.

Don't know. I haven't gotten the files from Dave and Roger to know what events are being processed.




Ok, so what do you think the odds of me dropping a 947 round are? :DI should of just quit because instead of making a jump I am staying stale.

Don't know what your Std Dev is. Those with the best Std Dev can drop rounds about 60 below their rating but I don't think very many have tighter 2.5SDs than that.

Chuck, is there any way to tell if scores have been changed from the time the results were unofficial? I am asking this because I think a tournament had my results right when I saw them with ratings but now I feel like they have me at a 55 the 2nd round VS a 53.

Chuck... what is/was the last date for TDs to have scores in by for the update?

April 15th

Chuck, is there any way to tell if scores have been changed from the time the results were unofficial? I am asking this because I think a tournament had my results right when I saw them with ratings but now I feel like they have me at a 55 the 2nd round VS a 53.



I don't do the score corrections. Contact the PDGA office to make sure scores are correct. Dave plan to post official results by the end of today for events that will make it in the ratings update.

Any ideas why the Ams disappeared from this one? They were there when it was unofficial.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7612

PDGA HQ question. I sent it to them.

Chuck, is there any way to tell if scores have been changed from the time the results were unofficial? I am asking this because I think a tournament had my results right when I saw them with ratings but now I feel like they have me at a 55 the 2nd round VS a 53.



I don't do the score corrections. Contact the PDGA office to make sure scores are correct. Dave plan to post official results by the end of today for events that will make it in the ratings update.




So what do I just call and say that I think the score is wrong? I already got conformation from one guy that remembers tying me the 2nd round now I just need the guy who I believe I tied to see if he remembers or not.


If the unofficail ratings were still on the ufficial results it would make this a lot easier since I remember what that round was rated. :confused: :confused:

If the score is wrong when they post the official results later today, you may as well have the TD contact them because they won't change it without confirmation from the TD.

Any ideas why the Ams disappeared from this one?


I got confirmation they are fixing it. Thanks for the tip.

If the score is wrong when they post the official results later today, you may as well have the TD contact them because they won't change it without confirmation from the TD.




I guess I will try that right now.

Chuck,
Do you know if the Pro Dogwood Crosstown will be included in the next ratings update?
Thanks

All 2008 events with scores posted as "Official" will be included. BG Ams official results (not ratings) will be posted today. Results online still posted as "Unofficial" (like Pro Dogwood) or not posted at all apparently did not have their completed TD reports submitted in time for this ratings update.

Chuck,

Looks like somebody finally put the pdga #'s with the player's name for The PIO tourney (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7521#Open).

My question is: Why can't we see the ratings now?

Because the unofficial ratings are calculated with the web software which is kind of like a chalkboard for TDs with a built-in pocket calculator for ratings. The official ratings are done offline which involves the actual PDGA database along with everyone's round ratings history in a separate offline PDGA Ratings database, plus interaction with the newly rated events.

The unofficial ratings web calculator is currently not accessible once officially cleaned up scores are posted because they are not "on the chalkboard" anymore and are tied to each player's history which you can look up. It's possible the unofficial ratings could be left up in the future even when official scores are posted. However, that may be more confusing because the unofficial ratings may not have been done properly when TDs don't do the pools or course layouts, etc. and will look even worse next to correct scores.

Results online still posted as "Unofficial" (like Pro Dogwood) or not posted at all apparently did not have their completed TD reports submitted in time for this ratings update.



That's a shame...I would've liked to see those scores on this rating update. Oh well, such is life.

Do NT event TDs have to hold spots for touring card holders?

Thanks!

Not anymore.

Hey is the Vegas Event going to be 10/31-11/2 later this year for pros? Or is it going to be a 3 day all division tee time event like the GCC in Feb?

I need to book the condo.

Thanks Keith!

Im not too sure what Jeff's plans are for the Halloween Classic this year. Im not sure he has decided yet. I think it may end up being a C-Tier.

:confused:

I don't care what tier it is, I'll be there.
I just need to know for SURE which weekend to book air and condo before they are sold out.
Can you find out for me, thru Jeff or Cary and post here , or pm me please.

Thanks,
Keith

Results online still posted as "Unofficial" (like Pro Dogwood) or not posted at all apparently did not have their completed TD reports submitted in time for this ratings update.



That's a shame...I would've liked to see those scores on this rating update. Oh well, such is life.



looks like the pro xtown not being on there will hurt jerms rating to the effect of ~7pts (lower)... would've dropped some mid/low 900 rated rounds from being doubled

mine will be taking a double digit drop (not going to mention 'cough' 937 'cough' what it will be around)

Chuck writes:
"Along with the typical disc golf travel log which will include one A, one B and two C-tiers, I�ll share several behind-the-scenes activities some of your volunteers do on behalf of players. If you have any questions or comments on the Blog content, please post those on my Ask Chuck Kennedy thread."

Is one of those "C-Tiers" the Fayetteville GSSS Event #3 - a close 2 hours from Augusta straight west on I-20?

First C-tier is IDGC. Second C-tier is Ottawa, OH.

Chuck,

Do you do stock tips oh psychic one?


Kentucky might be the toughest state to play Pro GM with both World Champions Voakes and Greenwell patrolling their turf.

Well, this weekend one World Champion, Peter Shive, substituted admirably for World Champion, David Greenwell (who couldn't make it) to finish 1-2 with Voakes winning in Pro GM. Fortunately, 8 entered, they paid half and I finished 4th in last cash right in ratings order among the 8. Whew!

played with peter in colorado last year, he had a nice last round and passed a few people to place nicely. He's a FINISHER !!!

why no pro masters at that event chuck?

Haven't even heard a theory on why no Masters. Two registered then moved to Open. Maybe the Masters in the area played Disc n Dat a week earlier and were tired after Idlewild?

Hey Chuck will your rating be adjusted if you get results changed after they are posted? The TD of the event that had my 2nd round wrong contacted the PDGA but nothing changed.

Hey Chuck,

Is there a way to sort player ratings by region instead of an entire state? For instance, by county or certain miles from a zip code?

Hey Chuck will your rating be adjusted if you get results changed after they are posted? The TD of the event that had my 2nd round wrong contacted the PDGA but nothing changed.



i had the same question, my wife's scores were incorrect for a tourney that she won. her results are showing her getting 3rd of 3 instead of 1st of 3...the TD told me the PDGA would get it fixed in time for the ratings update.

Hi Chuck:

My rating is below 970 and I accepted cash at a B tier two years ago. I'm still listed as an amateur.

Since I'm still listed as an Amateur am I allowed to play AM Worlds?

Thank you!!

mc

Chuck,
Why did this tournament (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7547) get included in the ratings? It was a charity tournament with mulligans. Are tournaments with mulligans now included in ratings calcs? If so, I should have bought more than 5 mulligans.

Chuck,
Why did this tournament (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7547) get included in the ratings? It was a charity tournament with mulligans. Are tournaments with mulligans now included in ratings calcs? If so, I should have bought more than 5 mulligans.



True, shouldn't of been rated, I TD'd it, I'll call PDGA HQ and let them know

Hi Chuck ... just wondering why the MDGGC Spring Fling results didn't get included in the ratings update.
MHDGC Spring Fling unofficial results (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7413)

Hey Chuck will your rating be adjusted if you get results changed after they are posted?


We always do a corrections update about 3-4 weeks after an update. So, send the correction request to dgentry@pdga.com

Is there a way to sort player ratings by region instead of an entire state? For instance, by county or certain miles from a zip code?


There are many things that would make the website more useful but they can't do them until they get done with the whole website update and it becomes high enough priority.

Any questions that involve events that didn't make it in or correcting scores are all handled at the PDGA office. Roger and I always process all reports we get from them. So, if we don't get it, we don't know why.

Chuck,
Why did this tournament (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7547) get included in the ratings? It was a charity tournament with mulligans. Are tournaments with mulligans now included in ratings calcs? If so, I should have bought more than 5 mulligans.



Whats wrong Collin didn't like your ratings? :oOr have you become the tournament cop for all of Arkansas now? :p

I used to think you had legitimate questions or concerns, now you just come off as a constant complainer where ever you post. :p

how am i a constant complainer? show me my last complaint.

sorry dave, i will ignore mistakes that affect me and my fellow golfers.

i guess players don't want accurate ratings, just inflated ones. i mean its just a number, right? it doesn't mean anything.

Ah, I see the problem, your rounds were higher than your rating. You'd be the one "complaining" if those rounds were lower than your rating.

Those rounds, if they affect my ratings will be next to nothing as I have more than 4 tournament rounds to rate. SInce those rounds were not lower than your rating why are you complaining?

And all these fellow disc golfers you are helping, did they ask for your help?

I'm fine with letting everyone else stroke their ego and have inflated their ratings. If they are forced up to higher divisions, it's better for those of us playing in the correct division.

Not complaining, pointing out a mistake, that never should've happened.

Well thank you SOoooooo much for taking care of all of us. :p

it never should've happened in the 1st place. would you be complaining if it wasn't included?

No I wouldn't. I just get tired of you thinking you represent all of the players. By the way did you ask the TD or just come straight to Chuck about it?

The PDGA makes a lot of mistakes, are going to take the time to point out all of them or only the ones that affect the players you conviently appointed yourself to represent?

I am not representing anyone but myself. I merely asked a question, that I had a pre-conceived notion about.
I haven't recieved an answer yet, so I haven't contacted the TD yet. Once I get an answer, I know whether I need to contact the TD or not.

Seems to me that should have been where you started.

Nice that you have respect for the TD enough to ask him to check into it. Did you not think he could handle it?

Beside the point. Who better to ask about ratings than the guy paid to do ratings? If they weren't supposed to be included, then I'll contact him. If not, no need to contact him.

With that mindset you should do well once you enter the real world of business. :o

Play nice boys.....

We are only throwing plastic....

With that mindset you should do well once you enter the real world of business. :o


i guess we'll see.

Dave and Karolyn are the gatekeepers on whether an event should be included for ratings. Roger and I just process what we get form them. X-tiers are not included by default and only included if the reason it's an X-tier doesn't have to do with modifying the rules of play. However, I don't think Karolyn realized the default was not include it and it will be removed during our correction update in the next few weeks.

Hey Chuck
Do you know who is the highest rated Am? Has there ever been a 1000+ rated AM?
Thanks,

Not sure until now. I know I've seen some in the 990s just prior to Am Worlds and they went pro afterwards.

Hey Chuck
Do you know who is the highest rated Am? Has there ever been a 1000+ rated AM?
Thanks,

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=13425

Of course the Guy has 8 rounds in his rating, 4 in 2008 and 4 in 2006, so he isn't playing many PDGA events...

Chuck this is off the subject but I added this as a favorite thread... Oh how I wish I had not now, I get 10-15 emails a day letting me know people have added new post. Do you know how to unsubscribe to this thread?

I'm not sure how the Favorite Thread thing works since I haven't used it.

Thanks anyway Chuck...

Chuck this is off the subject but I added this as a favorite thread... Oh how I wish I had not now, I get 10-15 emails a day letting me know people have added new post. Do you know how to unsubscribe to this thread?



Go to the bottom of this page and next to Favorite Topic just click Toggle
OR
you can go to My Home and check the box next to the topic you do not want to still be your favorite and click Delete Checked

OR
to just not get emails
Go to
My Home
then at bottom of page
Main Configuration
then Edit the third choice
Subscribe/Unsubscribe
the second choice should be NO


Does that help?

Pretty close but it did get me where I wanted to be. I do want to get emails about other topics, so I went to:
My Home
Favorite threads (Right side of page)

and checked ask Chuck and deleted as a favorite.... hope it works....

Thanks for the help!

couple questions... when figuring the 'most recent 25% of rounds' getting double weighted...
1. If someone has 38 rounds to be calculated then 25% is 9.5... do you then use the most recent 10 or 9? (basically how is rounding done?)
2. I think I may have found a small flaw... when looking at the most recent rated rounds being doubled I would assume the last round of a tourney is more recent than the first right? I think the ratings are done so that the 1st round is seen as more recent than the 3rd which would slightly skew the ratings.
ie.
Date - Tourney - rnd# - rating
1/1 - TourneyA - rnd1 - 1005
1/1 - TourneyA - rnd2 - 965
1/1 - TourneyA - rnd3 - 990
1/1 - TourneyA - rnd4 - 925

if the double weighting dips into 1 round of this tourney then it should use the 925 or last round and I think (according to my math which may be flawed) its dipping into the 1st round. I've done the math for 4 people and if I use the most recent round (starting w/ the last rounds in a tourney) I get a # slightly diff. from their rating. If I use the 1st rounds of the tourney it matches your rating for them

(let me know if you need a little more explanation)

I'm not complaining since it appears to raise my rating ~5 pts and has lowered or raised others I've checked anywhere from 0 to 8pts!

Even though i'm ashamed of my crappy level of play as of late we can use my #s as an example if you want.

If the double weighting dips into 1 round of a tourney, the highest rated round for that tourney is used.

really?!... interesting

still interested in how many rounds get used if the 25% isn't a round # and if the overall rating gets rounded up/down and what the break point is.

it appears to round at the logical .5 goes up... below .5 goes down

also one other question... do you always use 25% or is it possible that a person has so few rounds that you just use the ones they have (like 2 or 3 rounds?) and dont double weight anything?

just looked @ the 'pro' list and picked the first person I saw @ random that is 970 (aka... can't play am anymore) and if you do his rating using the actually last 25% instead of the 25% using the highest rated in the partial tourney ... they go from 970 (currently rated) to 968 (aka... able to play am)

also climo would be 1035 still and feldberg would be 1034 if using recent 25% and not highest for that tourney for the round.

As Krupicka mentioned, highest rated rounds are doubled in an event if fewer than all rounds in it will be doubled.

We use normal rounding so 38 rounds will have 10 doubled.

Hi Chuck! Is there gonna bee any tournaments scheduled at Highbridge Hills Sports Complex this year? There wasn't anything on their website or the PDGA schedule. Thanks! Joe

Not likely. There are unresolved issues left over from Worlds that will keep that from happening, at least this year.

Not likely. There are unresolved issues left over from Worlds that will keep that from happening, at least this year.



Are you at liberty to discuss these unresolved issues? I sure hope the PDGA didn't burn any bridges with the Highbridge folks. It would be a shame if holding Worlds there left John with a bad taste in his mouth.

Hopefully the issues are innocuous and resolvable.

Chuck,

I just noticed I had a round (Big Valley 2007 R2) that is 102 points below my current rating that is still being included. I thought rounds over 100 points below your rating were dropped.

Chuck,

I just noticed I had a round (Big Valley 2007 R2) that is 102 points below my current rating that is still being included. I thought rounds over 100 points below your rating were dropped.


It has to be 100 points below your rating BEFORE rounds are doubled and dropped. Basically you take the straight-up average, and anything 100 points (or 2.5 standard deviations) below THAT is removed. If you have some particularly hot recent rounds that raise your rating it is possible to have a round over 100 points below your current rating included.

Chuck,

I have noticed that some people have BG Ams 2007 included in their new rating while others do not. Any idea as to why?

I know that for some it is included so as to reach 8 rated rounds. But what about those with 8+?

I have 8 rounds without BG Ams (and after the correction I'll have 10 rounds.)

Thanks,

Mike

All Ams.
All from TN.
The only thing I can think of is the number of rated rounds. Those with a lot have BG dropped.

A few examples:

BG 2007 included:

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/player_ratings_detail.php?PDGANum=32158&year=2008

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/player_ratings_detail.php?PDGANum=28572&year=2008

BG 2007 NOT included:
http://www.pdga.com/tournament/player_ratings_detail.php?PDGANum=25560&year=2008

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/player_ratings_detail.php?PDGANum=30007&year=2008

Rounds greater than a year from the last round played are dropped.

So it is not 12 months from the update...

No. It's rounds during the 365 days before the date of each player's most recently rated round, assuming there are at least 8 rounds in that period. For 2-day events, the date is set as the first day for all rounds in the event.

Are you at liberty to discuss these unresolved issues?


I could but won't for the moment. Too many people involved from different angles. Highbridge is apparently open and hopefully will make some money to eventually pay off what they owe.

No. It's rounds during the 365 days before the date of each player's most recently rated round, assuming there are at least 8 rounds in that period. For 2-day events, the date is set as the first day for all rounds in the event.



Good to know.
I have learned something today. Before the day starts to go downhill I should go back to bed.

Not likely. There are unresolved issues left over from Worlds that will keep that from happening, at least this year.



This is sad :confused: Bayfield county is beautiful and it is nice to bee able to jam out Madeline Island and then head to a great disc golf facility. It creates more incentive to make the trip when there are some tourney's. Does John know it's possible to go off the grid and hold unsanctioned events? Just a thought....

Mt Ashwabay near Bayfield may be getting one or two courses this summer that will be right on the ski trails. Waiting to hear how they came out on budget after a good winter.

Chuck, what is the NT web address?

Not sure they have one this year at the moment because they've been working on the updated website.

Posted by David Devine:
I was looking at the round ratings for courses like Paw Paw, Pawtapsco (Patapsco C pins) and DeLa which got me to wondering about the "dilution" factor for longer or more challenging courses where each shot becomes equal to roughly 7 rating points as opposed to 10, and whether non-linearities in the translation from score to rating are more important for these challenging courses.

Take I-5 at DeLa as an example. After your drive you may have only one tight route to the basket to save a three and many, many shots that will give you a four. Since a low round requires a large number of these high quality shots, it would seem that assuming a linear relation between score and round rating would fail at some point, and that point of non-linearity would come sooner for more technical, challenging courses.

In other words, the closer your score gets to a "magic round", the more points each shot should represent, especially for courses which require more technical shots.




The "toughness" of a shot is related to the skill level/rating of a player, not necessarily on an absolute scale. We might find making an accurate open field 150 ft shot easy but not necessarily for a beginner with a lower rating. Likewise, as you or I might be approaching that magic round of 1050 for us, the shots would be more routine for a 1030 player.

With regard to fewer points per shot on longer courses, it's just the lines on the graph getting farther apart the more shots that are made. Let's say two players are 50 pts apart meaning one will on average beat the other by 5 shots on an SSA 50 course. Now let's say they play two rounds on the same course. We would expect the one player to beat the other player by 10 shots for the two rounds combined, assuming both shoot their rating. If we now consider these two courses are like a "monster" course that's say 12,000 feet long, each throw is only worth 5 points instead of 10 points. Why? Because the players still have the same 50 pt spread in their ratings but their scores were 10 throws apart on this monster course. We take 50 points divided by 10 throws and it's 5 points.

Essentially, as courses get longer and tougher such that the SSA goes up, players who shoot only 5 throws apart on shorter courses will gradually shoot scores that are farther and farther apart. However, their ratings still have the same difference - that's fixed (in the short term). If their scores are farther apart, points per throw has to become smaller.

Now, to bring it to the real world, consider that the average length per throw decreases as the SSA increases. With par 4s and 5s, the second and third throws are usually shorter than the drive which brings down the overall average. How tough those shots are is taken care of by the SSA increasing if the par 4s and 5s are tougher on one course than the other.

So your basically saying the system blows for longer courses? I mean Coda shoots 10 strokes better than the SSA on a par 70 course and barely gets 1050. Heck Eric shot a 65 the 1st round that was rated lower than his 2nd round but I wouldn't say the 2nd round was nearly as good it just happened to be on an easier course. Anyway you have said it yourself that the ratings tighten when playing a longer course but can you give me one reason this is a good thing? I played some pretty horrible shots with more than a handful of OBs yet it is rated 980+ and Eric shoots a very good rounds for a round just to have it be a little above his rating.

Chuck,

check this tournament out

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournamen..._ratings=1#Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7525&year=2008&incl ude_ratings=1#Open)

We played one layout rounds 1 and 3 and another layout 2 and 4.

Day 1 the weather was perfect. Day 2 the winds were in the 50 MPH mark and it clearly affected the scoring.

I know that tournaments are now comparing all rounds played on the same layout, which I agree with b/c it gives you more of a rating compared to the course, but this was a little ridiculous.

My 4th round was initially rated 997 and it dropped 20 something points?

Is there not a system that kicks in when conditions drastically change?

Why does something blow because the rating range probabilities narrow as a course gets longer? It's a natural principle. Why aren't all of your rounds the same as your best round rating? Because you aren't likely to play at that high of a level over a longer time period. It's not that you can't do it, just that it's less likely. It's possible to shoot an 1100 round on a 70 SSA course. But it may take 100 years worth of rounds for that to happen. But it's possible mathematically.

Consider that thousands more rounds have been played on courses under SSA 54 compared to SSA 66+. We've seen what's possible with Skinner's 1117 on a 53+ SSA course. At the rate we're going with courses, it could take 100 or more years for the same number of rounds to be played on 66+ courses to see if someone can do it.

My 4th round was initially rated 997 and it dropped 20 something points?

Is there not a system that kicks in when conditions drastically change?



TD can indicate that round scores shouldn't be blended together by setting up a separate layout for the windy round. In addition, we're looking at automating the process by Roger determining whether SSAs are less than 1.5 between rounds on the same layout and they will be combined. If any SSA is more than 1.5 higher or lower than the others, those rounds will be calculated separately. Recognize that it doesn't make too much difference because the average rating of those rounds will be the same either way they are calculated.

It blows because a 1030 rated round on a huge course is better than a 1030 on a shorter course yet we have no way to tell between the two. If I took my best round ever (1060) and subbed that play into a par 72 course it would drop 20pts or more just because of the higher SSA.

Howdy Chucker:

Since the ratings are primarily based on rounds played at courses with SSA under 54, would you expect non-linear effects to become more important on more challenging courses that have an SSA much greater than 54?

According to the "dilution factor" that you described, 24 holes at an SSA 54 course are equivalent to 18 holes at an SSA 72 course, however the latter tests course management skills that the former does not.

I don't have any idea how to quantify this feeling I have that the more challenging courses are not treated faithfully with the current system. Since there are so few courses with SSA > 60 it is hard to see if the numbers are skewed for these top rated courses. All I know is that a 1000 rated round at Paw Paw or DeLa or USDGC feels a whole lot better than a 1000 rated round at Morley.

Howdy Chucker:

After thinking about it some more I have decided it is irrelevant. Numbers will never capture the quality of a round, just like par on the local municipal course is not equivalent to par at the US Open. But I must say that the ratings system is consistent and does a good job of capturing that part of the game that can be quantified. Triemstra, Snapper and I can usually guess to within 5 points based on how the round "felt".

Cheers, and enjoy the road trip!

It blows because a 1030 rated round on a huge course is better than a 1030 on a shorter course yet we have no way to tell between the two.


Based on what? Yours is opinion, mine is objective with actual scores converted to ratings.

Since the ratings are primarily based on rounds played at courses with SSA under 54, would you expect non-linear effects to become more important on more challenging courses that have an SSA much greater than 54?

According to the "dilution factor" that you described, 24 holes at an SSA 54 course are equivalent to 18 holes at an SSA 72 course, however the latter tests course management skills that the former does not.



The curves for ratings are slightly non-linear but consistently changing. Look at this graph. www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/ExpectedScoresAndCompression%20graph.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/ExpectedScoresAndCompression%20graph.pdf)
I think every player should print it out, laminate it and carry it with them. This graph has been essentially unchanged since 1998. However, we now have more rounds on higher SSA courses to get a sense of the differences between par 3 and real golf courses.

It's not so much that higher rated SSA courses are treated less fairly, it's that lower SSA courses are treated more liberally. You would see the same effect in ball golf if the PGA guys played a several par 54-60 golf courses in smaller scale events on their tour. There would be lots of whining because the guys playing the lower par courses would likely get "better" points and stats than Tiger and the gang who would play more of the big events with par 72.

We see this effect now with our top guys thinking they get the shaft because they play the tougher courses on tour and the local pros get "pumped up" ratings from lower SSA courses in B & C-tiers. We checked it out and no one on average plays any better or worse on higher SSA courses than lower SSA courses. The range of ratings is somewhat wider on lower SSA courses but you can shoot your average just as easily on any SSA course.

Howdy Chucker

I hope you did not misunderstand, I in no way feel like I am getting shafted by the ratings system. On the contrary, I think it works remarkably well on a wide variety of courses.

You answered my original post with the curves that you referenced. Being a scientist I can't help but wonder about "error bars" since there are so few courses with SSA > 60. How much of this is extrapolation? Also, it is especially amazing that the curves have not changed much since 1998 since there must not have been hardly any courses with SSA > 54 back then.

Cheers, and hope to cya sometime this year! DD

Here's one of the earlier graphs we produced to determine the function of length and foliage to determine SSA. http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/ssa%20graph.jpg
For a given length course, the SSA is higher or lower than the red line based on the amount of foliage. Although you don't see too many data points at the higher end, subsequent graphing has indicated that the forecast for longer courses using shorter course data has panned out as expected. We tried alternative curved functions to see if they fit better but the straight line seems to fit the best and continues to do so. If you want a quick estimate of SSA for an 18-hole course, take the listed course length, divide by 285 and add 30.

Thanks Chucker!

I would guess that the courses with lengths greater than 10,000 ft are the "Fly 18" types which are vastly different from courses with obstacles. I would bet these "driving ranges" retain the linear fitting that works so well for the SSA < 54 courses more faithfully than "real" DG courses. Impossible to tell with the current data.

Thanks again Chucker for your continuing work on the ratings! DD

Much of the challenge is getting good data on course lengths. Much of the course length info we get on the TD reports is suspect, not really measured properly or not included at all. Not sure how to really get quality info unless you've done it yourself or with designers who are participating in the study.

From MCOP: WHY in HECKS name would a pro worlds be a money drain?


Where is the money coming from to run it? Entry fees don't pay for anything. Most expenses are paid from sponsorship, merch sales, out of volunteers' pockets and the PDGA contributions of money and staff. Very few non-disc golf industry manufacturers have been significant sponsors over the years. Who knows whether Bell's would have come onboard if K-zoo was a Pro Worlds only or at least at that dollar amount.

http://www.pdga.com/schedule/event.php?TournID=7363

There are at least 5 gators over 800 in ma3, do you know why it is not showing ratings for any of them? FW3 played the same layout also so they could get ratings. Please let me know what's up.

Thanks, Keith

Why was the next rating update changed from 7/1 to 6/24? Will the Golden State NT be included in that update?

Why was the next rating update changed from 7/1 to 6/24? Will the Golden State NT be included in that update?



Yeah I'm kind of bummed because that mean that the High Plains challenge horrible temp course ratings will stick in there a little longer. :D

There are at least 5 gators over 800 in ma3, do you know why it is not showing ratings for any of them?


If you click on each of their Ratings Details, you'll see that there aren't five gators with ratings based on at least 8 rounds. If they played the same layout in any of the other rounds, then they'll get official ratings, presuming you think the weather was similar for those rounds.

The date was changed since the end of June is when we do that update. If it was June 31st instead of July 1, we might have left it there. Actually, we also wanted to get out the new ratings a little faster for our northern new members who may just be coming out of hibernation and didn't have any rounds before the last update.

There are at least 5 gators over 800 in ma3, do you know why it is not showing ratings for any of them?


If you click on each of their Ratings Details, you'll see that there aren't five gators with ratings based on at least 8 rounds. If they played the same layout in any of the other rounds, then they'll get official ratings, presuming you think the weather was similar for those rounds.



Crackel 846 - 18 rounds BEFORE event #3
Shimkus 851 - 8 rounds BEFORE event #3
Arnson 889 - 12 rounds BEFORE event #3
Quarles 866 - 8 rounds BEFORE event #3
Taylor 868 - 7 Rounds BEFORE event #3 (making 8 after 1 round and making him a counting gator)

Both rounds played same course with ZERO WIND and were virtually identical except for a 7-10 degree temp increase from the start of the event until the end...FW3 also played same course as MA3.

Where is ALL of the of the REC ratings? :eek:

Click on each player's Rating Detail and it shows the "Official" rounds a player has on file at the time of the event. That's what counts to determine props for the unofficial calcs. Quarles rating for example is based on just four rounds: www.pdga.com/tournament/player_ratings_detail.php?PDGANum=34486&year=2008 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/player_ratings_detail.php?PDGANum=34486&year=2008)

So you are saying that the listed stats aren't official? :p

I thought that nothing was posted to your stats UNTIL it was official, when did that change?

Tournament results have 3 stages in life post-event:
- Unofficial
- Official without rated rounds
- Official with rated rounds.

Once a tournament is official, it goes in a players stats, but it does not count in their ratings until the ratings update.

When will the tournaments that were just added the other day move from stage 2 to stage 3?

Thanks

Chuck:

Any idea why I am the only one not to have received rated rounds for this tournament?

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7783#Open

I contacted David and Karolyn in late April and nothing has changed.

Suggestions? Ideas?

Thanks,
Mike

When will the tournaments that were just added the other day move from stage 2 to stage 3?

Thanks



At the next rating update which is now scheduled for 6/24/08

Any idea why I am the only one not to have received rated rounds for this tournament?


The only reason I can think of is if you renewed in April. We give people a grace period of a few weeks to rate events maybe up to two weeks before you renew if you weren't current at the event. Otherwise, I don't see why you wouldn't get ratings. The PDGA office is the only place to get this fixed if it needs fixing.

Chuck,
I know you have answered this before, but I couldn't find it:
What are the minimum requirements for a round to be rated? Number of players? Minimum Rating? Number of Holes? etc.
Thanks.

At least five propagators who are players with at least 800 ratings based on at least 8 rounds on a layout of at least 13 holes. Only three props are needed if the same course layout is played twice under what the TD deems similar conditons in the AM and PM. Plus, if a layout has been played by more than enough props in another round, that same layout could be played again even with no props in another round if the weather remains the same. Their unofficial ratings won't show up online for that round but they will get official ratings when processed.

Why no ideas yet for women at B and C tiers on the women's thread? I've been patiently waiting for some suggestions.........and not playing tournies until I've got some options.......big field, no funny money, how to have both?

I did post a suggestion that meets your criteria and that's non-sanctioned cash events against players in your ratings range. I have no options to meet your conditions in sanctioned play since it doesn't appear there's support among the Comp Committee to offer the option for pros to officially take cash at 50% of merch prizes in Am divisions. However, perhaps more TDs than Bruce will provide the conversion option indirectly by buying the merch back.

I do have a longer term option that may pan out which you'll hear more about later this summer. Juliana feels it will potentially have a positive impact on Women's fields when we discussed it on my just completed trip.

highest rated day...? 5.24.08 @ the zooTown

1 David Feldberg 12626 1035<font color="red"> 44 1083 40 1093 </font>


unofficial &amp; all, but a pretty solid day...

Could be with 1088 average. Should help his overall rating since they'll likely get double weighted next update. Dave might "walk" the TD report to thr IDGC if necessry to make sure it gets there. :D

At least five propagators who are players with at least 800 ratings based on at least 8 rounds on a layout of at least 13 holes. Only three props are needed if the same course layout is played twice under what the TD deems similar conditons in the AM and PM. Plus, if a layout has been played by more than enough props in another round, that same layout could be played again even with no props in another round if the weather remains the same. Their unofficial ratings won't show up online for that round but they will get official ratings when processed.


thanks chuck

Chuck, I have a question, we will be having our yearly tourney soon. We will be using some new pin placements and switching the placements after round 2, before round 3.
Our new configuration has no SSA yet. How will this be handled by the ratings crew?

The same way all tournaments are handled. SSAs have always been produced for each round from the ratings of the propagator players and their scores. That's why changing pins or weather changes make no difference in producing ratings as long as you have enough propagators playing each layout.

Thank you Chuck for the very fast response!

The key thing to do is make sure the different layouts are indicated on the TD report so the scores aren't combined for the calculations and you get separate SSA values for each layout.

Will do Chuck.

Thanks again, and as always, please keep up the great work!

hey sorry for the re-hash- I searched around a bit but didn't see an answer...

pros who had cashed but were still rated under 970 had a chance to go back to playin ams...
was this a one time deal or is it ongoing, can I take cash as a 960 am and still play worlds? I thought not, I thought the amnesty was offered when the ratings breaks changed or can someone rated below 970 take cash one week and play adv the next...?
still seems to be alot of misinfo out there
again, sorry for the rehash

- Any pro with a rating under 970 can enter am divisions EXCEPT at Championships like Worlds.
- Any pro who wishes to return to Am status may request it by petitioning the Competition Director.
- Anyone classed as an Am on their membership card is eligible to play any Am event regardless how high their rating goes.
- Any Am may enter a pro divison, receive merch instead of cash if they finish "in the chips" and retain their Am status. They immediately become a pro if they accept cash.

Hey Chuck, Can you look at the 3rd round for Jrs in the Lilac City Open, Spokane WA. My 8 yr old son, William had a really hot 3rd round and beat all of the older kids. The older kids are rated much higher than he is, so this may be his best rated round ever. Unfortunately, it was not a rated round for the event. Is it possible to get a ballpark guess on that round rating?

Hey Chuck,


Best answer I can give is: Hey PGCarlos!

Hey Chuck, Can you look at the 3rd round for Jrs in the Lilac City Open, Spokane WA. My 8 yr old son, William had a really hot 3rd round and beat all of the older kids. The older kids are rated much higher than he is, so this may be his best rated round ever. Unfortunately, it was not a rated round for the event. Is it possible to get a ballpark guess on that round rating?

If you're talking about a 69 on the same layout as the first two rounds, then probably 780. That round will get an official rating as long as it was the same layout as R1 &amp; R2. If it was a different layout than any other round then no official rating likely.

Thanks Chuck, 780 is good for an 8 yr old. William will be stoked about that round.

chuck-

a local radio station contacted me to do an interview for tomorrow. what do you think are some important #'s or topics i should mention?

thanks,
dana

8-6-7-5-3-0-Nyeeeiiiinnnne.

Oh, and tell them that your amidextrous as well --they'll get a kick out of that!

When you coming to visit Chucktown again Dana?

a local radio station contacted me to do an interview for tomorrow. what do you think are some important #'s or topics i should mention?



15% annual growth over 20 years versus 5% drop off per year recently in ball golf.
Estimates by retailer indicate almost 1 million play at least several times each year.
Why?
3-4 times faster to play 18
More exercise per minute
Lower cost for rounds and equipment
You can play by yourself
More variety in usable terrain and shot types than golf
Easier access to competition whether leagues or events
One of few activities that has been shown to get non-athletes out to exercise
One of few outdoor activities other than walking which uses park facilities 365 days plus evenings for glow leagues and events, even in northern climates
Global course and player rating system found in few other sports (unless you count chess as a sport)
All sanctioned events on single global calendar where results and stats can be seen online by everyone
On balance, more environmentally friendly (maybe want to skip this one unless you really know the stuff)

Thanks, Chuck!

(Tradd- probably won't be until the Charleston Classic.)

- Any pro with a rating under 970 can enter am divisions EXCEPT at Championships like Worlds.
- Any pro who wishes to return to Am status may request it by petitioning the Competition Director.
- Anyone classed as an Am on their membership card is eligible to play any Am event regardless how high their rating goes.
- Any Am may enter a pro divison, receive merch instead of cash if they finish "in the chips" and retain their Am status. They immediately become a pro if they accept cash.



how often are petitions received? are they ever denied? like, say, playin pro master locally next yr 'til worlds time then shootin in the request to excuse my cash and take me back ;)... and Im guessin you don't get another one generally speaking so if you took the cash again somewhere you'd be back to square one- prob just have to admit you're addicted to it and just play pro...

since the petition thing is new I think people have the perception that a guys takin cash one week and playin am the next, when in reality its just recently granted but lifelong am staus (if you wanna keep it that way), an oath of eschewing the caysh and throwing noncommercially with your humble am brethern... or something

/came up trying to explain to an outsider-
-that Im playin 2series; 1am &amp; 1pro- but takin merch so I can play a couple more big ones am...
-that lower rated players who've taken loot somewhere can't play against much higher rated ams in those real big tournies, but they're good to go as an AM at the pretty big ones like Atiers and below as long as a rating update doesn't bump them over the 970 mark ...
-why I can't just take the cash now and pay for gas then write a letter later to play worlds...

thanks for your time chuck
sorry for blathering on........

I really don't know how often petitions are submitted and approved or rejected. That policy has been around a long time. The only twist was the special blanket amnesty going into 2007 with no questions asked to revert back to Am as a one time deal.

Hey Chuck!

Quick question about round ratings...

This past weekend I played in a tournament where I hurt my throwing hand. Rather than DNF, I played through it and had my worst rated round ever. Needless to say, the round is rated about 150 points lower than my rating.

Do you still drop abnormal rounds when caluculating one's rating?

Thanks!

Erick

Any round more than 100 pts below your rating will be dropped.

what if your say a 930 rated player, and you have a couple of 860-870 rated rounds that have contributed to your lower rating - then, you get hot for a few months and eventually work your rating up to 970 - will those past 860-870 rounds now be dropped being they are 100 pts below your rating?

The calculation is done each update with your latest set of round ratings. Your example could happen theoretically, but from a practical standpoint, we don't have players with at least 6 rounds improving that much from update to update. Those rounds are much more likely to drop off just because they eventually become more than 12 months old.

The calculation is done each update with your latest set of round ratings. Your example could happen theoretically, but from a practical standpoint, we don't have players with at least 6 rounds improving that much from update to update. Those rounds are much more likely to drop off just because they eventually become more than 12 months old.


Yep, you do. 825 rated round counted in the Aug-07 update for me. Didn't count anymore when Nov-07 came around. :) Not just theoretical ;)

Chuck, this may have already been covered, but...

When calculating a player rating, the most recent 25% are doubled.
So lets say I have 40 rounds. The most recent 10 will count twice.
Say all of my tournaments are 4 rounds each. So that means the most recent 2 tournaments will be doubled along with 2 rounds from the one before that. Do you double rounds 3 and 4 from that other tournament or do you use rounds 1 and 2?

Thanks

We use your highest rated two rounds from that event so you get the best you could have. All rounds from the same event are given the same "official" date in the database. So even though rounds are actually played on different days, the database doesn't track that.

Hey Chuck, what is my PDGA membership card for? I keep getting them in the mail and put them in my wallet, but.....??? then what?

Me too. Lets just stop making them, and put that money toward something more beneficial in the long term.

Ya know when you get something stuck in your teeth... (j/k)

Perhaps it's sacrilegious but I haven't carried mine for several years but I do carry my Official's card instead. But then most know that I'm probably a member at events. The card is your assurance that you don't pay the $10 non-member fee or making sure you get in an A-tier with a walk-up reg. I know in some areas, clubs and disc retailers provide 'disc'ounts if you show your PDGA or club membership card.

I think the cards may have collectible value at some point considering the kinds of things that people value that are 25 or more years old. And who knows? Maybe you'll become famous and signing the cards could supplement your retirement.

With the world becoming more hi-tech, I'm thinking down the road, people will have that rice sized data chip embedded on the back side of their arm. When you pass by the chip reader at check-in, they'll know you're a member if your chip got "renewed" that year.

What would the cost of production for, say, 15,000 small plastic cards be? Full-color printing front size, black and white backside. According to this site, for 10,000 it would cost 27 cents per. At this cost, there's $4,050 of membership dues for something I've never once used.

http://spectrumadvertising.com/item_info...1E-FC47021E4238 (http://spectrumadvertising.com/item_information.cfm?SupplierItemGUID=23DD08B5-85FB-41A2-891E-FC47021E4238)

Just because you don't use it doesn't mean that others don't think it's worthwhile. And I'm sure some TDs look at them if they don't have their member printout. I also think some members may have flashed it to their buddies when they have rules disputes as if the card indicates some level of authority. It may be used when dealing with Park Departments on course issues to provide the person some initial level of authority. It's like a fancy receipt. Some people save those and some don't. It's similar to the trophy discussion on the other thread. You like some and not others but getting something is still nice.

I also think some members may have flashed it to their buddies when they have rules disputes as if the card indicates some level of authority.



Utilizing the provided rulebook seems to work well in these situations.

Utilizing the provided rulebook seems to work well in these situations.


It's hard to say but more members may have their member cards on them in casual rounds than rulebooks.

well probably because i get a membership card every year, i have only gotten a rulebook once, and I had to give it to a group of rec players cause none of them had one at a tournament. but I always make sure someone on my card has one.

Maybe we need to print the member card into the back cover of the rulebook?

best idea you've ever had

I use my PDGA membership card all the time. Need some back up ID if they question your license at the bar, PDGA membership card. BAM! Works with chicks too...hey girl, can I get your number...uhhh maybe, PDGA membership card. BAM!

Do you hold your thumb over your rating so the chicks or bouncer can't see that? :D:o

NICE!

You set'm up. I'll try to knock'm down. :D

Someday I'll be able to use my PDGA card too Joe. I renewed back in January so I'm crossing my fingers for my renewal packet in June.

I used my card to break into my house once.

i used my card once to throw farther then dowd

not hard

im going to use it tonight to pop open the caps of my #9

chuck
who will win euro 2008? i have $ on spain. wise?

Hard to bet against Jesper (Sweden)
http://ec08.de/site/players.html
You must be talking about a different Euro 2008

I think you were supposed to answer with Detroit! ;)

Chuck, I am try to get a hold of Dr Rick Voakes.

Years ago ('80s) he wrote an article for the Disc Golf Journal about putting. I read that article, took it out to the course with me every time I practiced until my copy finally fell apart.

I need a copy of that article, if possible. I do not know if he reads the DISCussion board but I am hoping that you could pass on my request or at least my email address [jabrowder@yahoo.com].

My putting could use the help.

Thank you, now back to SSA and ratings.

Disc Golf Journal didn't start until the 90s. I went thru all issues and couldn't find it. I also looked at scans of the Disc Golfer, which was the PDGA publication from the 80s and early 90s, and found putting articles by Dave Dunipace, Tom Monroe and Steve Wisecup. Dr. Rick wrote a lot of articles but I couldn't find one on putting in those pubs. I can send you scans of those old articles if you wish? I sent an email to Dr. Rick asking if he had one he could recall.

Hi Chuck,

i would love a copy of the putting article scans if you make them. &lt;robj@fuse.net&gt;

thanks for your time...

Well I am quite possibly mistaken. In my memory of the article (in question)it was by Dr Rick. but it has been 15+ years (my wife tossed most of my stuff when we were married) sense I had a copy, and it was pretty ratty then.

I would be greatfull if you could email the scans, then I could credit the true author. I would review the lessons on putting any time I had a slump... and I am certainly in one now.

Thank you for your time.

I too would love any putting articles, as all of the discussed articles were written well before I began this sport. Putting is the weakest part of my game! Thanks for your time! bernie19@wowway.com

Chuck, is there any way of finging out what was the highest payout for a C-tier?
When and Where?
Thanks.

You would have to request that from the PDGA office. They compile annual stats along those lines for each tier.

Thanks Chuck!

Chuck, where can I find the breakdown of money needed to be added to a tier level? Also is there any info on how to become a NT event?

Thanks!