Part of your answer is here:
http://www.pdga.com/documents/2008/08TourStandards.pdf

here (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2008/08TourStandards.pdf)

as to becoming a NT, that is a different kettle of fish- contact gentry if interested.

Thank you both.
I will contact David Gentry soon.

Tour guidelines are all links on this page for 2008:
www.pdga.com/documents/td/2008tourinfo.php (http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/2008tourinfo.php)
Contact Dave Gentry and just let him know you would like to be considered. Essentially, A-tier performance is reviewed each year to find potential candidates for NTs that haven't done it yet.

At this instant I am staring at my 2004 card which I use as a bookmark. According to the player rating on it I have improved on average by one point per year since Dec 15, 2003. At this rate I should catch Kenny in about 2048, when I am 88. (assumes a linear fit...sorry chuck, could not resist! :cool:)

But you'll be playing in the Myths division and he'll still be playing Open... :D

I heard that Kenny might play the US Masters this year? I can't grow old fast enough! I am in Guadalajara teaching for another week. Brought a putter, Roc, and a T-Bird and spend a couple of afternoons each week throwing on a field with trees. I forgot how much fun it was to invent goofy shots and just throw for the joy of throwing! Needless to say my discs are getting beat up, but still hyzering at 5000 ft elevation. Are you going to the Worlds? DD

I'll be helping as needed on the PDGA team with activities like video, photography and/or marshaling.

I heard that Kenny might play the US Masters this year?


Didn't see whether he was in the Master side pool in Japan. Do they have an "open" sidepool at US Masters? :)

Kenny won the Master's side bet in Japan.

Surprise, surprise...

I heard that Kenny might play the US Masters this year?


Didn't see whether he was in the Master side pool in Japan. Do they have an "open" sidepool at US Masters? :)



Do they have an under-40 sidebet yet in Japan? Or do 35-year olds still have fewer oppotunities to win than 41-year olds there? :)

Chap

Chuck,
originally you had said that the pro crosstown would not be included in this update. It showed on our players page later that day or the next. Is it safe to say it will be included in this update?

Amazingly it showed up right away, perhaps as a result of the posts on here? :D We knew we were going to get the Japan Open and Am Nats included so we slipped the Crosstown in with those at the last minute. Looks like we'll probably see the new ratings posted before Noon (EDT) on Monday.

is there a standard of throws for each rating point? 800 verses a 850 as an example

No. It depends on the course. For most courses in the 50 SSA area which is common, it's about 10 points per throw. For long and especially wooded courses, it may be only 7 points per throw. For really short courses and from the short tees, it could be 12 or 13 points per throw.

No. It depends on the course. For most courses in the 50 SSA area which is common, it's about 10 points per throw. For long and especially wooded courses, it may be only 7 points per throw. For really short courses and from the short tees, it could be 12 or 13 points per throw.



Thanks for your time

Chuck,

I thought I saw somewhere that rounds rated 50 points or more under your rating were not used in the calculation. Is this true or not.

Thanks
tl

Propagators who shoot more than 60 points below their rating in a specific round are not used to determine the SSA for that round. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

That's what it was.

Thanks.

I thought I would find this in the Competition Manual but, I did not. I have an event coming up next week. It is a series event. For 1 player the first event in the series was his first PDGA event. His score is more than 20 than the division would allow so, according to the CM he has to play the higher division. However, I thought that I had heard that until you have a certain number of rounds in for your rating there was another option. Of course that could just be a rumor...

Any help is appreciated. :)

If a player's rating is based on fewer than 4 rounds, the Tour Director will consider a waiver if asked. [email protected]

The tour director can also waive it for the series if there is a series rule that allows people to stay in their initial division all year.

Yeah, when I sanctioned the events we were not planning on having an series so I did not check the nice little box in the sanctioning agreement AND 2.2.B.4 does say that the player must be within 20 points of the division breaks.

Mark, you don't need an answer. There's no rational reason why you'd want to allow a player to bag down by more than 20 points. You're aiming the gun at your own foot there. Take your finger off the trigger.

chuck, do u happen to know when the next world rankings would be updated? thx.

I can't do it until Roger sends me the ratings file to process. Hopefully by this weekend.

Chuck...I haven't been able to login to the MB on my home cpu for over a week. I made sure the password was correct but it just flashes white then stays at "login". My work cpu works fine. What might be the problem? Perhaps I should ask Terry this but I couldn't find a recent post of his to respond to...thanks

Mark, you don't need an answer. There's no rational reason why you'd want to allow a player to bag down by more than 20 points. You're aiming the gun at your own foot there. Take your finger off the trigger.



You are right Bruce, I don't WANT that. However, I do want all the information on the subject so that I can explain it to the player. However, he decided to play the higher division on his own this time anyway. :)

Chuck...I haven't been able to login to the MB on my home cpu for over a week.


I don't do anything to run this MB, just post a lot. I barely remember my login if I have to do it on another computer while traveling. Contact a moderator for help.

Chuck...I haven't been able to login to the MB on my home cpu for over a week. I made sure the password was correct but it just flashes white then stays at "login". My work cpu works fine. What might be the problem?



Delete all of your cookies for pdga.com in your browser. Then try to login.

Question: A player is signed up for the Peoria Open this weekend in the Recreational division. However, on Tuesday he just got his first rating ever, and it is 911. This is above the limit for Rec, but I was thinking I read somewhere there is a grace period (1 week maybe) before he has to move up because he was already previously registered in the recreational division. Is there such a thing? Or do I need to inform the player that he must move up to intermediate?

Thanks in advance.
Dustin Fee

Players have a 2-week grace period, essentially 2 weekends, following the new ratings posting before they have to move up IF they had preregistered in a lower division than their new rating AND the difference is less than 20 points above the break. Sounds like he would be OK in Rec if he wishes to remain there. Since he has a new rating, I would think he'd be OK switching to Intermediate but he's not forced to do so.

Okay, I will let him know. Thank you for the quick response.

http://www.best-horror-movies.com/images/childs-play-chucky-sneering.jpg ,

Players like

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=12947

who has been inactive for quite some time, what rounds will be dropped after playing this weekend and lets say no more rounds until the next update?

Depends how many rounds he plays before the next update. If he plays at least 8 then all of those rounds will drop. If he plays less than 8 then we'll use what we need of the old ones to get 8 and use the highest rated of those that fall in the same event.

I'm beginning to understand now. He will gain four 15 hole rounds this weekend, and most likely will play our home course 1 day C-tier in July. He'll probably end up with 6 PDGA rounds before the next update.

Actually, we go back no more than 24 months no matter what. So only rounds in 2006 less than 24 months from his most recent round that gets in the next update would be used if needed to make 8.

I was wondering when the Parklane Drive results would become official. The event director told me he turned in the Final TD report a long time ago. This was only my second tournament, so I was hoping to have it included in my rating.
Thanks

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournamen...eRatings=1#Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7959&year=2008&incl udeRatings=1#Open)

Notice that I'm also in that same tournament and would like to see it processed. Just because the tournament report has been submitted, it doesn't mean everything was completed (such as being received by the June 19th deadline and/or all payments received). But Gentry doesn't indicate why the process wasn't yet completed when he prints the list of events that weren't processed. The fact that the results are still shown as unofficial would indicate the complete reporting process is still not completed. The TD needs to find out what isn't complete and make sure it gets processed in the next update.

so its okay 2 pro masters who've each won over $400 this year can play am1 in a Btier event... I thought takin cash meant an appeal for amnesty was needed, regardless of their ratings...
/topic of the year!

edit: thanks for the quick response ck34, I get it now I swear...

Petitioning to revert to Am is the policy for pros who want to play Am in future Championships. If your rating is under the specified level for pros sliding over to am (see page 5: www.pdga.com/documents/2008/08TourStandards.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2008/08TourStandards.pdf) ), then there's no problem.

chuck, i have played a few open tournaments but never cashed. my question is, if i do play more open tourneys and i do cash, is there any way i can take plastic instead and still be able to play am worlds next year????

If you are currently listed as a PDGA Pro member, I would suggest immediately submitting your request to revert to Am status now indicating you have yet to cash. You can then continue to play Open the rest of the year and accept merch instead of cash if you end up cashing. Then, renew as an amateur in 2009 and you're good to go at Am Worlds. Submit your request to Dave Gentry at the PDGA office: [email protected]

i am actually a 933 rated registered am player, but i play pro more than half the time, mostly to enjoy the view lol , but i plan on playing am worlds in kansas in '09 and i want to be sure i can accept merch and still be classified as an am even though i cashed in an open tourney!

Yes, you can stay classified as an Am as long as you take merch intead of cash when entering pro and cashing.

any chance of world rankings this week?

Just waiting for the PDGA office to get time to post them. Here you go for starters.
<table> <tr> <td>World Rank</td><td>Prev Rank</td><td>Rating*</td><td>First</td><td>Last </td></tr> <tr> <td>1</td><td>1</td><td>965</td><td>Des</td><td>Reading </td></tr> <tr> <td>2</td><td>2</td><td>960</td><td>Valarie</td><td>Jenkins </td></tr> <tr> <td>3</td><td>3</td><td>958</td><td>Elaine</td><td>King </td></tr> <tr> <td>4</td><td>4</td><td>952</td><td>Carrie Burl</td><td>Berlogar </td></tr> <tr> <td>5</td><td>5</td><td>958</td><td>Angela</td><td>Tschiggfrie </td></tr> <tr> <td>6</td><td>6</td><td>955</td><td>Birgitta</td><td>Lagerholm </td></tr> <tr> <td>7</td><td>8</td><td>938</td><td>Nicole</td><td>Frazer </td></tr> <tr> <td>8</td><td>7</td><td>938</td><td>Kathryn</td><td>Manley </td></tr> <tr> <td>9</td><td>9</td><td>926</td><td>Sarah</td><td>Stanhope </td></tr> <tr> <td>10</td><td>10</td><td>938</td><td>Barrett</td><td>White </td></tr> </table>
<table> <tr> <td>World Rank</td><td>Prev Rank</td><td>Rating*</td><td>First</td><td>Last </td></tr> <tr> <td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1037</td><td>David</td><td>Feldberg </td></tr> <tr> <td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1036</td><td>Ken</td><td>Climo </td></tr> <tr> <td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1030</td><td>Nathan</td><td>Doss </td></tr> <tr> <td>4</td><td>5</td><td>1028</td><td>Josh</td><td>Anthon </td></tr> <tr> <td>5</td><td>4</td><td>1032</td><td>Steven</td><td>Rico </td></tr> <tr> <td>6</td><td>9</td><td>1027</td><td>Eric</td><td>McCabe </td></tr> <tr> <td>7</td><td>6</td><td>1026</td><td>Avery</td><td>Jenkins </td></tr> <tr> <td>8</td><td>8</td><td>1030</td><td>Barry</td><td>Schultz </td></tr> <tr> <td>9</td><td>12</td><td>1023</td><td>Cale</td><td>Leiviska </td></tr> <tr> <td>10</td><td>17</td><td>1025</td><td>Markus</td><td>K�llstr�m </td></tr> </table>

my rating is 1003 and it says on the world rankings it is 1000. does it matter at all?

Thats because the world rankings only uses B Tiers and above to calculate your rating.

Read my June 2008 post in the Announcements about the difference in how the ratings are calculated for World Rankings.

Chuck- i am deep into the pre tourney freak out and something occurred to me. Why I'm I having a rec division to entice new players than whacking them with the non-pdga fee????? It seems to me that it would make sense to not charge the PDGA fee for rec players. We don't offer them rated rounds- correct? What are we doing for them? Personally I feel that the rec divisions are for absolute newbees that we are trying to trick into our addiction. Just wondering.

Every division can get ratings as long as there are enough propagators (5) in their division plus the other divisions that play the same tees. Non-members would get to see their ratings for those rounds when you post the results after the tournament. In addition, it's not too hard for them to figure out what their official rating for each round would be by looking at the rating of other members who shot the same score.

Chuck- i am deep into the pre tourney freak out and something occurred to me. Why I'm I having a rec division to entice new players than whacking them with the non-pdga fee????? It seems to me that it would make sense to not charge the PDGA fee for rec players. We don't offer them rated rounds- correct? What are we doing for them? Personally I feel that the rec divisions are for absolute newbees that we are trying to trick into our addiction. Just wondering.

There isn't an Ask Bruce thread, so I'll just chime in here. :D If you think you could attract more players in a particular division by not sanctioning, don't offer that division in your sanctioned tournament and run a simultaneous unsanctioned tournament for that division.

Having said that, the IOSeries has had excellent attendance by offering the lower divisions as sanctioned divisions. Back when Gary Lewis was running a good tournament every month but not sanctioning Am 2 and Am 3, Am 2s and Am 3s who used to play his tournaments were flocking to our tournaments because we were sanctioning the divisions.

For whatever reason, sanctioning sells tournaments. Sanctioning sells tournaments even with the $10 non-member fee. I thought this $10 non-member fee was going to be a disaster for us and the PDGA since 1/6th of our players were non-members. It has not worked out that way for us or the PDGA.

Things might be different where ever you are. I did not check where you are.

Nice Bruce- great idea. And thanks Chuck. I started a chicks only league recently has have an influx of brand spanking new players. I mean they have only thrown a disc 30 times each. I hate to see them not play because of lack of expereince and than lack of duckets. I'll keep that in mind for next year.

Great idea Bruce.
Since there is no Ask Scott thread:

You can run a "Competition Endowment Program" event. If you run it under a charity status, you may not charge the $10 non-member fee. If you would like to charge it you can but it must be donated to your charity. Your charity must be a 501(c)(3) non-profit. But here are the details.

http://www.pdga.com/documents/2008/CompetitionEndowmentProgramDetails.pdf

Charity Events:
� $25 Sanctioning Fee
� $50 Certificate of Insurance (if needed)
*** All requests for insurance must be received a minimum of 30 days before the event! ***
� $10 non-current member fee is waived or may be charged by the TD and donated to the
event charity
� $2 PDGA player fee is donated to the event charity and must be matched by the event
� Event charity must be a 501(c)(3) entity
� Proof of donation must be submitted to the PDGA within 30 days of the event�s completion.

I wonder what my round this weekend would have been rated with the NT effect? Tell me Chuck.

No "NT effect" known.

The one where you can shoot OK and still have a high rated round or shoot good and have a real high round.

NTs have the reverse effect. Since their course SSAs are typically higher than average and their average rating is higher than average, they are less, not more likely to shoot a higher round than their rating. Best chance statistically for any player to shoot an abnormally high round is on a lower SSA course in the 46-52 range and have the average rating of the props be around 950ish.

Chuck,

Regarding The Fahrenheit Fling (http://www.pdga.com/schedule/event.php?TournID=7900), on the official TD report the par for the second round was established at 66 vs. 63 for the first round. Does the unofficial 2nd round ratings reflect that here?

Chuck,

How do you upload a Doubles format for the PDGA registration and results online reporting? I didn't see any info about that in the .pdf manual.

Regarding The Fahrenheit Fling, on the official TD report the par for the second round was established at 66 vs. 63 for the first round. Does the unofficial 2nd round ratings reflect that here?



The par for each course only impacts the "To Par" value and has no impact on ratings. Getting the correct number of holes for the round is important however and it was set at 21 for both rounds.

Ah, i keep forgetting that par is irrelevant when it comes to ratings. ;)

How do you upload a Doubles format for the PDGA registration and results online reporting? I didn't see any info about that in the .pdf manual.



There is no ideal way yet. For online reporting, what some do is put the last names of each team in the first name and last name boxes on one line and enter the PDGA number of one of the team members. For reg updates, that same method could work but I haven't tried that.

So Chuck, correct me if I'm wrong, but basically all the rated players have an average rating before the round and, after ratings are calculated, the average of the round ratings equal the average rating before the round, correct?

The average rating of the propagators will come close to their average round ratings in each round if that average is 975. It will be slightly higher or lower if the average rating of the props is higher or lower.

There is no ideal way yet. For online reporting, what some do is put the last names of each team in the first name and last name boxes on one line and enter the PDGA number of one of the team members. For reg updates, that same method could work but I haven't tried that.



HERE (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7752) it looks like they were able to merge cells in Excel, but that doesn't seem to be working for me.

So what happens if, in a tournament, every player shoots above their rating? Half the field will have higher ratings and half will have lower ratings?
Do you see what I'm getting at or is it too vague?

It's a fundamental statistics principle of the ratings system that on average, all propagators shoot their rating regardless whether they do or not. There's no independent way to assess whether everyone shot somewhat better or somewhat worse on average. That's why the more propagators the better from a stats standpoint. When we use as few as 5 props, the stats profs roll their eyes because that's realistically not enough props for reliability. However, the PDGA has deemed getting ratings a member benefit so we do what we do so most if not all players get ratings in an event even if only a small number play a layout.

Personally, I'm surprised at how well it seems to work for smaller numbers. We try to crosscheck against prior SSAs for course layouts if we have them when we get results that look out of line. The other thing that holds up well is the consistency of SSA values produced on the same layout both from different pools and from year to year on courses where we have that stability.

For example, let's say a layout normally has an SSA of say 52, then one year or round it's 54. While it's possible the whole field on average had a poorer than average day, we assume that the reason is due to much windier weather. We have no independent way to truly determine why the SSA is 2 shots higher although higher wind than normal is easy to see. We just accept that for whatever reason, the course played tougher that day. But the field, on average, shot no better or worse than their average.

HERE it looks like they were able to merge cells in Excel, but that doesn't seem to be working for me.



I believe the difference is those are Official results which Dave handles with the PDGA database. That's separate from the processes we have to use for pre-registration and uploading.

Thanks.

Just wondering why rounds are not counted in your rating?

Roughly 1 in 50 of your rounds will get dropped if it's too far below "normal" for you which is defined as more than 2.5 std deviations below your average or 100 points, whichever is smaller.

Roughly 1 in 50 of your rounds will get dropped if it's too far below "normal" for you which is defined as more than 2.5 std deviations below your average or 100 points, whichever is smaller.



Thanks for the responce

Hey Chuck
What's the highest ever rated round?

Brian Skinner at 1117. Look for my post later today that will show the 10 best rounds by men and women in each of the five different SSA ranges we track.

Brian Skinner at 1117. Look for my post later today that will show the 10 best rounds by men and women in each of the five different SSA ranges we track.



Might want to check the wording on the MEN'S chart. :eek:
:D

Thanks. Should have paid more attention to my "cut &amp; paste" after doing the women's table. :o

I'm always available to help where I can. ;)

Chuck what are the top 10 ratings from 21 hole courses?

We don't track them separately. All records are based on rounds with at least 18 holes or adjusted to an 18-hole equivalent. You can see Barry has a 21-hole round in the records and there are 24 and 27 hole rounds on the women's chart.

any recommendations for the election of BOD? are there any candidates that are particularly pro-ratings?

Don't really know one way or the other regarding the candidates' stances on ratings. I don't know of any who have come out opposed to them. My general perception is that most feel ratings are a good benefit. Those who have been BOD members before probably have more understanding how important they have been as a means to develop alliances with other countries and help build their membership. But that prior experience is just a piece of the puzzle whether a person might be a good BOD member.

Regarding ratings events, I'd say both Board and Staff over the years have been closer to neutral than pro. But I think it's fair to say that position is common regarding any initiative until proven to be popular. The PDGA, TDs and other movers and shakers throw ideas out there and try them out. Then the org reacts based on the perceived enthusiasm, support and popularity expressed by members.

I have a similar stance on voting for BOD members. I'm pretty neutral at this point regarding anyone who hasn't been a BOD member. Having beeen able to watch the BOD interactions more closely than most over the years, there are some you thought might be good that were disappointing. Then others really shined that you might not have expected and every shade in between. If I vote for those who are current or former members, then I've seen them to be a positive force. Since my ability to be effective working with the PDGA is partially tied to the BOD, it's best if I keep any endorsements or concerns to myself since we'll have to try and do the best job we can for members regardless who gets elected.

We don't track them separately. All records are based on rounds with at least 18 holes or adjusted to an 18-hole equivalent. You can see Barry has a 21-hole round in the records and there are 24 and 27 hole rounds on the women's chart.



Yeah so there is only one out of that whole list? I am just wondering where my 1056 stuck up with the next highest rated player being 978. :D

Yeah so there is only one out of that whole list?


Shouldn't be surprising. The more holes played, the tougher it is to have a really high rated round.

Yeah so there is only one out of that whole list?


Shouldn't be surprising. The more holes played, the tougher it is to have a really high rated round.




Exactly, that is why I am wondering what the highest rated 21 hole rounds were.

maybe this is a stupid question, but I will ask anyway

2.5 standard deviations - is this basically saying you take the standard deviation of your rounds and multiply it by 2.5?

also, when is it calculated? as in, if I've played 20 total rounds, now comes the new update where I have played 10 new rounds, but dropped 5 off - does the standard deviation now use all 25 of my rounds, then drops the ones that qualify? and if say one does get dropped, is the standard deviation then re calculated for 24 rounds or left alone based on what the original 25 were?

basically I guess what I'm asking is if the standard deviation determines that x round will be dropped, is that x round included in the calculation of said standard deviation? both before and after?

We have just changed the process to exclude your worst rated round from the initial SD calculation on the rounds being considered for your next update. Either that worst one will make it or be cut based on that and it's possible but less likely another one will get cut unless you had more than one round more than 100 pts below the average of your other rounds. After the drop or no drop is done, then the double weighting is done.

Will the 2nd round from the Raleigh Disc golf Championships be counted towards ratings? SSA was 43.5

Yes. We have even been counting the one or two from Horizons that drop below our defined minimum of 41.4 SSA. No rounds with SSAs below that would ever be considered for records. But as you've seen, someone would have to shoot a 35 to get in the 1090s with an SSA of 41.4.

so standard deviation is calculated only on the rounds going into the next update, and then subtracted from your current rating - then the rounds left over are put in, with the double weighting, and your new rating is then calculated based on that?

plus different scenarios like: if your a 1000 rated player with a 2.5 std dev of 60, then your recent bad round of 935 will be dropped in the next update, but you also have a round of 945 thats been in there for a while, so if you improve your rating to 1005, will that 945 then be dropped? which will bump your rating up that much more

not only do I like understanding the process, but I was also wondering because if a bad round that would be dropped is part of the standard deviation calculation, then your standard deviation will become smaller after that particular round is removed

Hey Chuck, looks like you need to update the Highest rated rounds ever after the Health Sports Raleigh Disc Golf Championship.

WOW!

I was also wondering because if a bad round that would be dropped is part of the standard deviation calculation, then your standard deviation will become smaller after that particular round is removed


It used to be but we've changed that for the next update. We've decided to exclude your lowest rated round from the SD calc so it doesn't artificially increase the SD and retain rounds that really shouldn't be included. A few more rounds may be dropped but it will still hover around 1 out of 50 for all members (2%).

Hey Chuck, looks like you need to update the Highest rated rounds ever after the Health Sports Raleigh Disc Golf Championship.


Maybe my posting the Best Rounds chart Saturday provided additional good karma for the guys who shot new records? There are a few other rounds with unofficial ratings that should join the list (Schick, Lundmark) when we update it in September. The Worlds courses have SSAs in the sweet spot where more top 10 rounds could be thrown. Roger and I have decided to update this Best Rounds list after every ratings update now.

Great idea, I was amazed to learn that a Florida boy WAS tied for the highest rated round ever!

Climo is tops in the highest two SSA categories and Bubis is tied for top in the lowest SSA category. Skinner from NC has the highest rated round ever now followed by fellow NC'r Schweb. But comparing record ratings becomes apples to oranges the farther apart course SSAs are.

It looks like Avery may slide into the #2 spot on the second-highest SSA category with his second round at Vibram. Hot, hot golf.

Both Avery and Schweb moved into second on Saturday in their respective SSA ranges.

skinner is NOT from NC

hey i have a question for you chuck!!!!

whats the record the most recorded 1000+ rated rounds in a row?

i saw ken's 50 in a row and david f's 44 in a row currently but what is the record or can you even find that number???

Hey Chuck...

3 1090 45.2 Brad Hammock Tupelo Bay Tourney R2 (2005 Tupelo Bay Open) 38 2 18
3 1090 45.2 David Feldberg Tupelo Bay Tourney R2 (2005 Tupelo Bay Open) 38 2 18

these rounds were on a 9 hole loop that was played twice. I do not see how these got such a high rating. All of the holes were wide open, with no trees near baskets, on a manicured golf course, and almost every hole required nothing more than a putter or mid range.

Seems these are abnormally high ratings for such a simple, unobstructed course. The only thing I can guess that would make the rounds high rated is that others did not capitalize on the birdies available. I played with Brad that round, and it was about the most unphenomenal "great" round I've ever witnessed. Could the ratings have been somehow mixed in with the executive course rounds?

Each green was somewhat near a golf green that was OB. I think that might account for the higher scores by others. Good round, just seems a lot of better rounds have been played than these.

I just looked at the TD report and it says the 9-hole Tourney layout was used twice in that round. The scores look right since they are about double the same layout played once for 9 holes on Sunday. There were some pretty high scores on that double route by some good players so a 38 looks real hot in comparison even though it might not have looked exceptional watching it.
http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournamen..._ratings=1#Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4977&amp;year=2008&amp;incl ude_ratings=1#Open)

whats the record the most recorded 1000+ rated rounds in a row?


I don't have the data organized in a way to check something like that.

Do you have access to the data in such a way as to figure out the average number of rounds per year by a male member versus a female member?

I don't have it but it's something I could ask Roger for.

Should be pretty easy to come up with averages using the "events" column in the tour stats table.

Hey Chuck, what do the "B" "S" and "C" categories in your survey results mean?

b was something like "basic"
s was for "sanctioned"
c was for "championship"

reflects the idea that there could be different standards for different applications.

Chuck,

When was the last time you were with a woman?

Hey Chuck, what do the "B" "S" and "C" categories in your survey results mean?


Basic, Standard, Championship

Hawk, more recent than you apparently think. But maybe you don't know how the ladies like guys learning to ballroom dance.

hi chuck i was just wondering if you could answer this. I recently played in a pdga tourney and my worst round was rated a 864. I knew it was bad but didnt think it was that bad. I checked the pro scores and a few of the pros shot the same layout and the same score as me and thier round was rated a 909. Can you tell me why this may be? :confused: Thanx

If the ratings are that far apart, then the TD likely didn't enter the proper course layouts. That difference should not be there once the official ratings are calculated for the Sept update.

Chuck,

I always knew you were light on your feet. Typically ratings seem to run 7 to 10 points per stroke difference. Under what circumstances could the spread be 12-13 points?

Hey Chuck,

I recently played the Riverside Glide in Tulsa. They aren't showing in my tourney history, or anyones for that matter. Does this mean they won't be included in the next update?

Under what circumstances could the spread be 12-13 points?


It's a continuum from 13 or so points per throw down around SSA 43. It continues to drop and passes thru the pivot point at SSA 50.4 where it's exactly 10 pts/throw and progresses down to less than 7 pts per throw at around 70 SSA.

I recently played the Riverside Glide in Tulsa. They aren't showing in my tourney history, or anyones for that matter. Does this mean they won't be included in the next update?


If you look under the title of the event on the page where you can see the scores it says "Unofficial results." That means the TD hasn't sent the report to the PDGA yet. But they do have 30 days to do it. If we get the report in another few weeks, it will get processed for your ratings in the Sept update.

Thanks /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Hey Chuck you mind putting your two cents in on this one?

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.ph...;gonew=1#UNREAD (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=860862&amp;an=0&amp;page=0&amp;gonew =1#UNREAD)

Hey Chuck,

What is the major limitation for doing more frequent player rating updates? Is it the older database and mining code used by the PDGA or is it the time commitment?

With more and more TD's looking at rating based tournaments it seems it would behoove the players to have more frequent ratings issued by the PDGA!

The limit is partly self imposed, not limited by technology issues. The average PDGA member only plays a little more than one rated round per month, less than 4 every three months. The volume isn't there to justify the effort to do them more frequently. Even though we have more members every year, most have relatively stable skill levels and ratings. Updating more frequently just adds statistical churn to the numbers without indicating true changes. As such, more churn just makes it more difficult for TDs who would be faced with players waiting longer to preregister or not doing it at all when they wait for say a bi-weekly or live update. Then TDs would be changing players' divisions more frquently and dealing with getting the extra entry fee or doing rebates when entry fees are different between divisions.

Another Achilles' heel of ratings is still the TDs being accurate with submitting the proper course layouts matched with divisions, especially when doing the unofficial online ratings. Doing the work to validate proper layouts is still a manual step that will always require human oversight. Not catching errors with live weekly updates would just compound inaccuracies in ratings for everyone else affected and propagate them thru the system.

It's sort of like the stock market - savvy investors don't pay attention to daily or even monthly fluctuations to buy or sell stock but look at longer term trends qurterly or yearly to decide to buy or sell a stock. I think many feel a player should be able to remain in the same division for one year to compete for a regional series title before being forced to move up. On balance, people who improve from their first rating based on at least 6 rounds just don't improve faster than one division a year anyway.

Chuck,

Regarding the length/285+ 30 equation you have mentioned for approximating course SSAs. Is the change in foliage factor about 12-16 points up or down per factor? i.e. for a woodsy course, length/271(or so) + 30 would be about right?

Another Achilles' heel of ratings is still the TDs being accurate with submitting the proper course layouts matched with divisions, especially when doing the unofficial online ratings. Doing the work to validate proper layouts is still a manual step that will always require human oversight. Not catching errors with live weekly updates would just compound inaccuracies in ratings for everyone else affected and propagate them thru the system.



So just to paraphrase, it would take more time to make sure it was done correctly to issue say a monthly update.

Waiting for a quarterly update seems to me like more work at rating times to perform the manual verification of course layouts. If the events happened monthly it seems there would be more of a process smoothing effect that would reduce the number of problems with updates due to human error. Regardless of whether or not someone plays mroe than one tournament a month those rounds contribute to there overall performance, which is a collection of past performances. I believe with a rating update more frequent players will not be waiting for the winter time to have their ratings catch up to them. But I also understand the time commitment factor and appreciate the work that those involved contribute! I just see it as a benefit to memebers to have more regular updates.

I think there should be a cut-off rating in advances divisions. The winner has an 986 rating, some of the TOURING pros have that rating and some of the other top pros have that rating. The cutoff should be 935 for advanced, above that and you should be required to play pro. WHy isnt this so right now? So many higher rated ams are already pro open, but when it comes to the big tourneys, they drop down to MA1 to place higgher. Give everyone a fair chance and change the rating system

No one has found a sport that forces ams to turn pro no matter how good they get and the PDGA has chosen not to do that. However, the lines between pro and am have now been blurred as much as possible with PDGA options such as allowing ams to play pro and cash by receiving merch, or playing trophy only at a reduced fee, and pros may play am under 970 rating and receive merch. In addition, TDs may do rating events that DO force those with the same ratings above 969 to play together and yet you don't see too many TDs offering those events.

I was talking with some people about this at Worlds and the only other steps that we see could be taken are to change the names: am &amp; pro. We could call our pros 'super ams' like they mostly are and eliminate pros completely except for maybe those over 1024. Then placing a hard 970 break wouldn't be a problem since it would just be another amateur break. We could also call everyone 'pros' but only allow the division over 970 to be paid in cash and the those below to get merch prizes.

Perhaps the best option might be to not even call players ams or pros, just members and non-members who qualify to play in various cash and non-cash prize divisions based on their gender, age and rating level. We could then have ratings breaks where we wanted and just have divisional names without being trapped in the traditional expectations of what am and pro mean.

Chuck, Do the semi finals and finals get ratings during the world championships?

Semis will get official ratings but the online software doesn't do the unofficial ratings for events. No ratings for 9-hole Finals.

Chuck, on another thread you said,


All rounds played on the same course will be averaged together for the whole week to produce the official ratings. So everyone who shot the same score should end up with the same rating. We decided that the wind/weather was close enough to the same each day to do that.



Will we have to wait until September 9 for that? Right now the ratings say my 63 at Timber Ridge was 922 but Brent Koontz's 63 at Timber Ridge was 994.

Yes. The online software can't track the scores once the pools are shuffled. It assumes all scores in a column are from the same course but once the shuffle occurs, they could be from 2 to 4 different courses making the ratings calculations incorrect. SSA for Timber Ridge should come out around 62 for a 1000 rated round.

Nevermind, it took me 2 hours, but I found the answer to my question on a previous page.

I've gathered that in order for a round to get a rating, you must have at least 18 holes, and at least 5 propogators in the same divison with 8 rated rounds. Is this correct? This would be why final 9 rounds usually have no ratings?

You must have at least 13 holes and 5 propagators in all divisions playing a layout to get official ratings. The online software doesn't do unofficial ratings no matter how many holes in a semi round. Propagators are those with ratings over 799 based on at least 8 rated rounds.

5 gators in all divisions combined? Or 5 gators in each division playing?

Playing the course at the same time regardless of division. If the same course is played twice with only 3 gators under essentially the same conditions, that counts as 6 gators and official ratings will be produced for both rounds. However, the online unofficial ratings software isn't programmed to handle that and you won't see any ratings until they are done officially.

I've played 3 tournaments, or something like 10 rounds. Most of which are higher than my current rating. I've also been trying to accrue MA1 points. So anyway, I patiently wait for my June tournament to become official. Still nothing. Wait for my July tournaments. Nothing. So I make calls. Every one of them has no intention of turning in their TD reports before the August 22nd deadline, with the exception of one, who stated he would try and get it turned in tomorrow if possible.

So here's what I'm looking at.......nothing. Right? Without those TD reports I don't get my rated rounds or points. I may have to wait until January?

OK, so maybe my question is this, and I'm sure it's been asked before, Is there nothing we can do if a TD just doesn't want to turn in a TD report? I've gone through the steps I thought I should. I waited the 30 days (with the exception of the late July tournament), I made the calls, is there something I'm missing?

What is the deal John, is Disctribution paying bonuses to their players with ratings increases or high point totals? :D(I hate having to use these things)It does allow you to play intermediate longer though doesn't it?

I haven't been playing intermediate since March. But yeah, I'm proud of how I've been playing lately and am anxious to see how it stacks up. Also, I'd like to see how close I am to my goal of 1000 AM1 points by the end of the year.

Well it looks like the prescription of player pressure may have an effect this time. I've now got word that 2 out of 3 are trying to turn the report in today. woohoo.

UPDATE: Had some more success. According to all 3 TD's, after receiving my calls and messages, they all seem to be turning the reports in TODAY. Hopefully they make the update.

Instead of waiting, you could figure out the points yourself. (Just an idea, until they do become official)

John if your only missing the 3 tournments your total points will be 888.

Ok cool. I guess there is no difference between MA2 and MA1 points? Looks like they're combined for "Amateur" points. I looked it up, it's 7.5 points for everyone I beat in AM1 right? Is that how you came up with that # topdog?

Yes
If you play the NorCal Championships you should have plenty of points. There will be a big tournout and you will get 10 points for everyone you beat.

Chuck do you know if the Points Bonanza's in Charlotte NC were submitted in time for this update?

I don't know because I haven't gotten the final batch of reports from Dave yet that were submitted by the Friday deadline. You would have to contact the TD or PDGA office to find out.

*crosses fingers* I've got like 5 1000 rated rounds not listed as official yet. lol. Could be the difference between a 975+ rating and still being in the 960s. :P

Chuck, something is seriously wrong with the tournament results of the Fire Bowl II. The tournament was played July 19. You'll notice that everyone show 100+ over par. I dont know if this is the TD's fault for not putting things in properly or because the old SSA's are based off the 18 hole course and this was played on a new 26 hole course. Do you know how this could have happened?

What you see is all from the TD. See if it looks beter now.

Much better. Thanks!

Do you know if the ratings for the Sunrise Showdown in Wrightwood, CA will be in for the update? It was on Aug 2-3

Hey Chuck,

Looks like our ratings from the Georgia State Championships (http://pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7540&amp;year=2008&amp;incl udeRatings=1#Open) are off.

I'm not sure if they are going in on the next ratings update but they are all off.

The Pros played long tees and the Ams played short tees.
The 1st 2 rounds were 18 holes and the last round was 24 holes.

I noticed that the Adv Masters winners last round (62) was 1002 but they played the short tees so that tipped me off that they were entered all as the same tees.

I know it's close to the next ratings so I wanted to give ya a heads up.

Do you know if the ratings for the Sunrise Showdown in Wrightwood, CA will be in for the update? It was on Aug 2-3



Won't know until I get the file from PDGA HQ maybe Thurs. Always ask there first since they get the reports. I don't get them until several days after the deadline.

Looks like our ratings from the Georgia State Championships are off.



That event was after the Aug 22nd deadline so it won't make this update.

See if you like what it looks like now. ;)

AWESOME they have been corrected...THANKS!!!

Alright Chuck, Here is a ?

Before I went to Japan I played IDGC courses with 150 plastic....trying to get those discs to fly through some of those holes were nearly impossible....am I stuck with those two rounds or are there any stipulations about experimental rounds with the 150's.

The one 947 round misses the 60 point cut by 2 points and of course it would be cut if it wasn't for those 2 rounds with the 150's

Another question....if the 3 tournaments I played in are still not Official at this time is it safe to say they will not be included in the update? I assume yes because they're still not official after the deadline but I'd like to hear your thoughts Chuck. Thanks.

What would lead you to think you could get 150 practice on the wooded courses at the IDGC to prep for the Japan Open on a pretty wide open ball golf course???

Those rounds will count if the ratings aren't too low since many players including myself use 150s on those courses as their regular discs. Now if you use the new Super Class discs coming up next year, then you'll have a separate rating for rounds with those.

Another question....if the 3 tournaments I played in are still not Official at this time is it safe to say they will not be included in the update? I assume yes because they're still not official after the deadline but I'd like to hear your thoughts Chuck. Thanks.


I won't know until Thursday or so. PDGA office knows now because they are still prepping the reports that met the deadline last Friday. The big time factor for Gentry this update is prepping all of the pool info for PAW2008 to properly get them into the ratings process.

What would lead you to think you could get 150 practice on the wooded courses at the IDGC to prep for the Japan Open on a pretty wide open ball golf course???





Yeah it didn't work out very well at either IDGC or Japan.

If I could scrap all those 150 rounds I would be about 5 pts higher

But the experience in Japan was all worth it :D

Now if you use the new Super Class discs coming up next year, then you'll have a separate rating for rounds with those.



What is a Super Class disc?

Too much to go into here. A full explanation will be in issue #4 of the magazine and more complete info posted on PDGA.com following the upcoming Summit meeting. Super Class is a new sub-category of golf discs that will be available for Super Class sanctioned play in 2009 and will provide a separate Super Class rating for members.

Come on Chuck! Spill the beans on the Super Class Discs....if we have to wait for issue #4 it may be next February.

no doubt!!! don't be a tease!

yeah! don't be a disc-teaser!!

Are these discs going to be different or are they going to put current discs into the "Super class"?

They are existing legal discs but they'll be allowed to be much heavier up to 200g than most of them have been made up to now and even new ones created for the category will be legal for regular play.

i think disc companies have found a way to make more money and figured a way for the pdga to facilitate it :confused:

Actually, manufacturers did not have the idea and are skeptical about it.

They are existing legal discs but they'll be allowed to be much heavier up to 200g than most of them have been made up to now and even new ones created for the category will be legal for regular play.



Sounds confusing how there will be two classes....what are the benifits?

i agree- what's the point?

im guessing that after this occurs testing disc for weight will be more of an issue than ever..
someone whipes the weight from a 200 gram excalaber then uses it in a non superclass tournie?
what would stop this?

Actually, manufacturers did not have the idea and are skeptical about it.


As they should be. We already have a problem with overweight discs being clandestinely used in PDGA play with no mechanism to detect them or enforce the rule. Luckily, they are typically &lt;3g overweight. Now, there will be discs 20-25g overweight floating around, also with no mechanism for enforcement in the "non-super class". A mess it will be.

You can speculate all you want but until the full explanation comes out, this is a poor place to communicate it.

chuck you kinda opened pandoras box when you opened the superclass discussion..why would we not speculate..or better yet why would you not be more forthcoming ;) :D

No disc will be allowed to be any heavier than it is allowed to be now, just to kill any speculation that there will be 200g T-Birds floating around. All of the Super Class discs will be over 24 cm diameter and legal to 200g using the current specs of 8.3g per cm. It's just that most of them have never been made that heavy before.

aw so there bringing back the barracuda :p :cool:

It's a three page document describing the initiative and too long to post here plus it includes tables that are hard to read in this D-Board. If I could post it elsewhere on PDGA.com I would. It's no secret. But with the new website coming soon, only the minimum is being posted unless necessary.

chuck you kinda opened pandoras box when you opened the superclass discussion..why would we not speculate..or better yet why would you not be more forthcoming ;) :D



There is no need to shoot the messenger, but I'm just not understanding why and what's the point? Is there that many people out anxious to be playing with Gophers, Zepher's, and Jaguars


ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo BARACUDA :D

Now that I have read through the document, this is what I have been hearing through the grapevine about the Vintage Tour.

It probably won't be for me but I could see some appeal from some of the old timers. In my opinion it can bring back events to the original courses that were installed in the early 80's

Super Class sounds like they are better discs, I wish they would call them V-Class for Vintage

If you had trouble with 150 class, I can certainly understand you might not be able to throw SC... :p

so... if these will be discs legal for pdga play at current specs what's the change? are all discs below a certain weight excluded? will there only be certain molds allowed for s.c.?
(i agree with kevin, v-class would be better)

It's a three page document describing the initiative and too long to post here plus it includes tables that are hard to read in this D-Board. If I could post it elsewhere on PDGA.com I would. It's no secret. But with the new website coming soon, only the minimum is being posted unless necessary.



We've been waiting how long for a new website?
Send it me and I'll host the document for now so that we can have a link here.

Chuck, would it be OK to post the info? I can host it if needed also.

Not sure if you want it out there or not.

It's just a PDGA protocol thing. Waiting a few weeks isn't going to impact any of you and it really should be a more official post from the PDGA. Kevin and others have the preliminary proposal docs because they are on the Competition Committee or were part of the group that did the development of the concept. Like I said, it's not secret but better that the full plan be provided in one place at one time.

We already have the rumor stuff going on here. That's fine because there's no need for secrecy on possible PDGA developments in most cases. Look at the frenzy that occurs when Innova has a new disc in the works. There are several other cool things planned for next year also but again these haven't all been flushed out for timing, guidelines or whatever that may be involved.

...sounds like time to interrogate mccoy... :D

We're running the first Super Class test event here in Minnesota on Sept 6th. I can plug anyone into our MFA Yahoo group that would like to see the preliminary information now. Just email me and I'll invite you into the largest active DG Yahoo group in the world at 500 members now.
ck34 at aol.com

what the heck is the Super Class??? never heard of it before.


Too much to go into here. A full explanation will be in issue #4 of the magazine and more complete info posted on PDGA.com following the upcoming Summit meeting. Super Class is a new sub-category of golf discs that will be available for Super Class sanctioned play in 2009 and will provide a separate Super Class rating for members.



why cant more info be posted before the Summit? if its a BoD thing, why isnt the current board more in the know? is it waiting for approval at the Summit?

You saw it at the Spring Summit when the prelim title was V-Class. It's not so much approval as having all of the plans organized for the Board to review what the group has done since the previous Summit as we move forward.

You saw it at the Spring Summit when the prelim title was V-Class. It's not so much approval as having all of the plans organized for the Board to review what the group has done since the previous Summit as we move forward.




So it already was V-class but the higher ups changed it to "super-class"? What a bunch of goobers.

From the looks of it, Super Class limits discs to a subclass. It could be better named. Maybe "Lids".

If we had standardized rules for vintage disc golf, it would still be vintage disc golf. Like 150, glow and orange-only, people really aren't looking for opportunities to stock and learn another bag full of discs, except when compelled by free tickets to Japan or winter daylight limitations or free beer.

I would love to play V-golf but what discs would be included?

No one posting here is the core target market for Super Class other than TDs looking to expand their player base. But then Bruce is one of the few who offers MA4.

I would love to play V-golf but what discs would be included?


All discs you see on the PDGA Approved table that are 24.1cm or larger except for the Jaguar and Condor with too sharp an edge.

ok, i remember the VClass discussion, thanks.

i guess we could just as easily offer single mold tourneys, or restricted mold tourneys, using the same concept.

what makes it worth the ORG's effort? i don't really see the demand.

me neither. i'm just saying we could :) i dont see anything wrong with it either. Chuck came up with the idea, i believe. there isnt much, if any, org work required, so what the heck... if it grows interest in the sport, or some aspect of the sport, or some niche of the sport, i say what the heck, let it rip.

Sounds like that would mean Disc Protected Divisions! Awesome!

How many total world champions will there be then? Why limit it there.

Next divisional restructuring could include, thumber protected divisions, The Scooby-Doo'ers, and my personal favorite Chicken Wingers!

I can see it now...........Max Crotts - 2010 Chicken Wing World Champion (plastic bag and all)! Schwebby would surely be the frontrunner for the Thumber Division. :D

Swimming and track are no strangers to spreading around the World titles when you see all of the race lengths that players can win gold medals for. Swimming is the only discipline where you could realistically win eight gold medals. Track needs to add the 50m dash along with race walking and pairs sack hop medals for 100m, 200m and definitely relays. The mixed pairs sack hop relay 4x50 would require the depth of 8 great sack hoppers (yes, I went there... :eek:)

Reminds me of the Catholic School Olympics where I grew up in NYC! :D

I can see it now...........Max Crotts - 2010 Chicken Wing World Champion (plastic bag and all)! Schwebby would surely be the frontrunner for the Thumber Division. :D



the plastic bag is going under some reconstruction, needs some reenforcement and a better drink holder, look for it in '09

: ) :

Swimming and track are no strangers to spreading around the World titles when you see all of the race lengths that players can win gold medals for. Swimming is the only discipline where you could realistically win eight gold medals. Track needs to add the 50m dash along with race walking and pairs sack hop medals for 100m, 200m and definitely relays. The mixed pairs sack hop relay 4x50 would require the depth of 8 great sack hoppers (yes, I went there... :eek:)


50M Dash is a track event. Held at Indoor Meets, where the 100M would have to include a curve.

No one posting here is the core target market for Super Class other than TDs looking to expand their player base. But then Bruce is one of the few who offers MA4.



OK, so what sort of outreach is in the plan for getting the target audience (the ultimate crossovers) out to the golf course?
This idea would have more teeth if there were a structure in place for what sorts of competitions could be sanctioned on what types of courses. If all the pitch and putts with really low SSA were only allowed to sanction events using a class of disc that was more appropriate to the challenge presented by the course - you might get TD's to try it more readily. If you leave it all up to choice - well I think it's been proven what you get.

If you leave it all up to choice - well I think it's been proven what you get.



a free market where the customer decides for himself whether or not a given event or format provides value for their individual wants/needs?

If you leave it all up to choice - well I think it's been proven what you get.



a free market where the customer decides for himself whether or not a given event or format provides value for their individual wants/needs?



I was thinking more along the lines of the herd mentality - people generally do what everyone around them is doing - with only minor variations. How many team events, matchplay, 150 class, vintage class events are out there being sanctioned? All together would you say it is a double digit percentage of all events being offered? I'd say not even 1%.

All I'm saying is that if you want to promote alternative formats and expect people to offer them as sanctioned - it's already been proven that just "offering" it as an alternative shouldn't be expected to get much response.
Build the alternative formats into a structure of total # of events available for sanctioning - and it might be a different story. But of course that would mean imposing standards and limits on people and we all know how that flies in this organization.

Bring Back Pro-2! :D

I will have to give Chuck some MAJOR PROPS!

He gets alot of grief from disc golfers around the country from every angle and Chuck rarely gets upset. He takes all the criticism awesome and I wish I could handle it as well as Chuck does.

When you're so lonely sitting behind this computer, all alone day after day, any attention is good attention... :p

Swimming and track are no strangers to spreading around the World titles when you see all of the race lengths that players can win gold medals for. Swimming is the only discipline where you could realistically win eight gold medals. Track needs to add the 50m dash along with race walking and pairs sack hop medals for 100m, 200m and definitely relays. The mixed pairs sack hop relay 4x50 would require the depth of 8 great sack hoppers (yes, I went there... :eek:)


50M Dash is a track event. Held at Indoor Meets, where the 100M would have to include a curve.



To be accurate the 50M Dash is not an indoor event. Sprinters usually race 60M or occasionally 55M, but never 50M. Sorry, if this is a thread drift, but I find it funny when people try to correct other people when they themselves are incorrect. :)

We had the 55 during indoor season in college.

Hey Chuck,
I noticed that the results for the Glass Nickel Pizza Company Mad City Open are finalized. The 3rd round however is listed as 'finals' instead of 3rd round. Will it still get rated or does it need to be changed? I know a lot of the time final rounds do not get rated but they are usually less than 18 holes.

It should get rated since, unlike the unofficial online process, the official ratings process only pays attention to whether the round had at least 13 holes played.

Thanks!

do you get more points for the hgiher division? or do you get more points for the better you do regardless of division? i guess what i am saying is that you can finish 29 out of 60 and get 129 pts in rec, and finish 55 of 62 and get 60 pts in advanced. thanks for the help

Swimming and track are no strangers to spreading around the World titles when you see all of the race lengths that players can win gold medals for. Swimming is the only discipline where you could realistically win eight gold medals. Track needs to add the 50m dash along with race walking and pairs sack hop medals for 100m, 200m and definitely relays. The mixed pairs sack hop relay 4x50 would require the depth of 8 great sack hoppers (yes, I went there... :eek:)


50M Dash is a track event. Held at Indoor Meets, where the 100M would have to include a curve.



To be accurate the 50M Dash is not an indoor event. Sprinters usually race 60M or occasionally 55M, but never 50M. Sorry, if this is a thread drift, but I find it funny when people try to correct other people when they themselves are incorrect. :)


Typo. 55M is what is run. 60M is incredibly rare. So to "correctly correct" me you'd have to reverse that statement, the 60M is the "occasionally" and the 55M is the "usually." Sorry if this is thread drift, but I find it funny when people try to correct other people when they themselves are incorrect. :)

We had the 55m indoors in college. I've only seen the 60m once and it was at a huge meet at the U of Cincinnati.

This such a stupid topic to argue over, but I will add another post to this useless thread drift. Wikipedia has 60M as the more common and 55M as the less common. Other than that I don't have much to go on. I haven't run indoors in 10 years and I rarely ran anything shorter than the 1500.

And if you trust Wikipedia, I have a bridge for sale. ;)

Going back to my original post, I indicated that track could add a 50m race to their Olympics competition. No mention was ever made of indoor competition until the thread hijackers jumped in :D

This such a stupid topic to argue over, but I will add another post to this useless thread drift. Wikipedia has 60M as the more common and 55M as the less common. Other than that I don't have much to go on. I haven't run indoors in 10 years and I rarely ran anything shorter than the 1500.


True, I should concede I don't have personal experience to go on. 10,000M runners don't tend to run indoor meets ;)

We're running the first Super Class test event here in Minnesota on Sept 6th.



hey everyone... i've got an idea for a new tournament format called 'wicked super cool class' format and i'll tell everyone about it in a document i'll make public next year... but in the meantime i'm running a tournament next weekend using this new format that you dont know much about yet... wanna play?!

:confused:

i like polish's comment about divisional divisions! on that note i guess i'll be trying for the 2018 advanced masters super class thumber division with last names starting between R-Z world champion ... can't wait!!!! :D

You're just jealous 'cause you don't yet know what the cool kids are doing in Minnesota. :eek:

you got me! ;)

seriously though... to run an event but not have the rules/standards fully known before hand seems odd

Everyone here knows what's going on thru our 500-member MFA online Yahoo group, so does the Course Designers group and the PDGA Competition group. Since it's a test event, that seems like it's enough for now until the details are worked out and submitted for official approval at the Summit.

I will have to give Chuck some MAJOR PROPS!

He gets alot of grief from disc golfers around the country from every angle and Chuck rarely gets upset. He takes all the criticism awesome and I wish I could handle it as well as Chuck does.


I agree, its good to see someone go against the grain, take the heat for thinking outside the box and maintain composure. There is a real knee jerk reaction that comes from the disc golf community to say no first, then think about it later and change their mids if they can benefit.
I guess thats what you get from a group with a large number of non-conformists/anti-establishments types.

Just think if he and others working so hard to better the PDGA were doing it full time and maybe even getting paid :)

Chuck, I'm sure it's been asked, but how do I calculate round ratings and SSA of the course if I know the round scores and player ratings of a group of a half dozen guys what played on a given day for league?

No current way available for distribution. You can estimate SSA from the formula 30+(length/285) for average foliage. Members of the DGCD have access to a spreadsheet that calculates SSA from scores and ratings but doesn't directly produce ratings for players although they can then be estimated.

Is there a way I could get such a spreadsheet from you? I'm just intersted in calculating some average numbers for Winter Park. On any given night, we have about a half dozen PDGA players throwing rounds. I'd like to be able to utilize their current ratings and round scores to come up with SSA and soem makeshift ratings that we'll utilize for a handicapping system specific to the park.

Like I said, I'm just interested in some numbers. I'd probably tally up all round scores over a longer time period, rather than true per round ratings. I'd also like to get round ratings, SSA, level of difficulty, scoring distributions, etc for the various layouts and pin placements we are soon to have.

Email me at [email protected]

Ask one of the DGCD members near you for access to the spreadsheet such as Tom Jenkins, Pat Blake or Randy Schukar, or you are welcome to join the DGCD group.

chuck how come there is no ratings for the 2008 flying solo open? it says official ? thanks

when the results go from being unofficial (posted by the td) to being official (posted by the org) the unofficial ratings go away until the next ratings update when the official ratings will come up. happens all the time.

ok thanks

do you get more points for the hgiher division? or do you get more points for the better you do regardless of division? i guess what i am saying is that you can finish 29 out of 60 and get 129 pts in rec, and finish 55 of 62 and get 60 pts in advanced. or does it all just depend on how many people are in a certain division. the more people, the more point available? thanks

you get a set amount of points for each person you beat. depending on whether the tournament is major, a-tier, b-tier, c-tier, d-tier, the amount of points you get per person you beat is different.

you also get more points per player beaten as the division gets higher. points info here (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2008/08PlayerDivisionsGrid.pdf)

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournamen...eRatings=1#Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=8168&amp;year=2008&amp;incl udeRatings=1#Open) - 2nd in open. Ziggy's ##### is wrong. Just noticed it while browsing. Probably worth fixing. :P 29879 is his digits.

Chuck,

Is there any way to check who the youngest male winner of an open PDGA sanctioned tournament is? (Seems more appropriate for a PM, but can't do that with you)

tia

Dave Wiggins

Steve Rico...but I think that DAve just beat that by a year.

Those stats aren't tracked directly. Someone would have to just search the files manually. Only stats back to 2001 are available on computer.

Sounds like a lot of work so it is understandable that there is no answer. Of course the answer has meaning to me, but I'd argue that "youngest" type statistics are important across the sports world. We have all heard them many, many times.

PS - thanks Sjur! I think you are right, but thought I'd ask to be sure.

I've always thought that the PDGA lacking a records book is unfortunate in that such records definitely stimulate interest in the sport, raise the level of competition, and make the sport seem well-established.

I'm sure a volunteer who would offer to camp out at the IDGC and wade through the old files to compile stats might be appreciated. Several years ago volunteers entered the tournament results into the online system so we could have them back to and including part of 2001.

I agree too Doc, I'd like to see an updated records page.

This is from Hosfelds page, not updated since about '01 though. Ferrans was 16 when he was Open champ, theres something he can shoot for.

http://www.frivolist.com/index_6.htm

Thats true...I have a record, and hope it gets recorded at some point. Most PDGA tournament aces in a calender year.

I'm sure a volunteer who would offer to camp out at the IDGC and wade through the old files to compile stats might be appreciated



Lacking those resources goes to the "well-established" point I was alluding to.

But where there is a will, there is a way. Of course parking themselves at the IDGC is impractical for most people who have to work for a living. I believe that the effort could be mustered and volunteers found if the PDGA was willing to forward the records to the "volunteers" who would be working the project. That's where the "If there is a will..." part comes in.

That's just the kind of thing I'm talking about. How many?

5

you sure hysell didn't have more than that in a year??

4 slippery and 1 black ace

Hysel's were all in monthlies.

at blue ridge one year saw hyzell ace in warm ups (hole 2), and after listening to people tell him he wasted it, ace the same hole during the tourney.

and i think one ace was backhand and the other sidearm...

sam ferrans won open worlds at age 16, wonder when his first open win was.

I'm sure a volunteer who would offer to camp out at the IDGC and wade through the old files to compile stats might be appreciated. Several years ago volunteers entered the tournament results into the online system so we could have them back to and including part of 2001.


Room and board.

:)