Cool graph and fun way to display performances.

Chuck (or anybody), do you know where I can find full results to the distance competition held at Pro Worlds 07?

Check your email.

Ratings; Early, On Time or Late?
Thanks!

Probably tomorrow.

Today or Tomorrow?

Tomorrow. It's done but Gentry has to upload it to the server.

My rating will go down like 2-3 points. I only played in one. I am playing in 3 in the next 3 weeks. 13 rounds in the next 2 months. So mine should go up next time.

Check your email.

thank you Chuck!

i just noticed the "Players Stats" link now underneath the avatar's of individual posts -- how long has that been in place? i applaud the decision, and he/she/they that triggered it.

Didn't see the link until you mentioned it. Must be pretty new. The web contractors have been working on several upgrades but mostly behind the scenes.

Is there a reason that none of the past ratings have dropped off? I thought they did after a year?

Is there a reason that none of the past ratings have dropped off? I thought they did after a year?
http://www.pdga.com/faq#278n756

This link will keep the text displayed without defaulting to the overall FAQ page: http://www.pdga.com/faq/ratings/why-didnt-my-rating-change

http://www.pdga.com/faq#278n756

Looks like at least two rounds should have dropped per the FAQ?

in the past only 12 months of ratings have been on my rating.

I only see twelve months (aka 365 days worth) of tourneys in your rating.

Most recent event date is Feb 21, 2010. Oldest event date included is Feb 28, 2009. That's 358 days.

http://www.pdga.com/player-ratings-detail?PDGANum=33398&year=2010

i was counting today

If we counted the actual date, the ratings of everyone who didn't play for a year would disappear. Each player has their own 12-month timetable for ratings based on the date of their most recently rated round. And their rating won't change as the calendar moves forward until they play another rated round.

My ratings from Feb 7th and 8th did not get dropped off???

http://www.pdga.com/player-ratings-detail?PDGANum=14036&year=2010


Should they have been dropped?

Nope. If your most recent event rated is one that usually occurs on the same weekend the year before, it will naturally be included because the (typically) Saturdays will be exactly 365 days (366 days in leap year) apart and within the 12 month range used for ratings.

I have a question Chuck, at TX States this weekend there were 9 1000+ rounds the 1st round, 8 the 2nd and only 5 in the final round which was 24 holes in 30mph wind.

The rounds varied from 1092-1002 the 1st, 1045-1008 the 2nd, and 1044-1003 the last round with an SSA of 80-81. My question is why the hot score the last round was 1044 which was a great score in howling wind and there were only 5 1000 rounds carded vs 8-9 in the 1st two rounds?

The Int. division played earlier in the morning with probably 10-15mph winds but at 30 even 7ft putts were scary and the OB was even harder to aviod. The 1st round I played like poo but the last felt better even though the rating is 8 points lower. Coda's 1044 was better than the 1045 the 2nd round and I feel that this is another case of ratings needed to be broken up into groups when using tee times.

As I pointed out before, the problem is the tee time format can be less fair in the first place. If anything, touring players should lobby against them, especially in areas where wind is likely to be a key variable for the type of course played. At least ball golf tries to average out the wind by keeping playinggroups together for two rounds and flipping the playing order betwen R1 and R2.

Ratings can also be less fair as a result. You don't break up the scores in a division and make adjustments based on wind conditions changing over the day (and you actually get paid out based on those), so why would you expect ratings to be done better than the actual scores? Roger doesn't mind taking a look at the SSA breakouts if the data is made available. But the PDGA hasn't mandated that TDs do that level of effort by sending in the tournament report with hour by hour groupings.

As far as the ratings range, 24-hole courses will produce a narrower range than 18 holes and higher SSA courses also narrow the range. The wind boosted the SSA in the final round and narrowed the range further.

As I pointed out before, the problem is the tee time format can be less fair in the first place. If anything, touring players should lobby against them, especially in areas where wind is likely to be a key variable for the type of course played. At least ball golf tries to average out the wind by keeping playinggroups together for two rounds and flipping the playing order betwen R1 and R2.

Ratings can also be less fair as a result. You don't break up the scores in a division and make adjustments based on wind conditions changing over the day (and you actually get paid out based on those), so why would you expect ratings to be done better than the actual scores? Roger doesn't mind taking a look at the SSA breakouts if the data is made available. But the PDGA hasn't mandated that TDs do that level of effort by sending in the tournament report with hour by hour groupings.

As far as the ratings range, 24-hole courses will produce a narrower range than 18 holes and higher SSA courses also narrow the range. The wind boosted the SSA in the final round and narrowed the range further.


Would it make sense then to break up ratings based on pools regardless of how close the SSA may have been between the two. The tee times ranged from 7:35 to 12;05 with the wind not breaking 10mph until 10am and at 12 it was This has happened the past 3 years and it would seem a refined ratings structure would take thiese variances into effect when instead there is a 2 stroke leeway given when the courses plau totallly different within each pool.


http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KHOU/2010/3/28/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

In my opinion there needs to be some acknoledgement given for changes like today when at 9am a 1000 rated player could hit 70-75% from 30ft and at 12-4 that went to about 25% with most being lucky to hit 70% from 12ft. When players are triple putting from within the circle on every hole vs morning rounds where not only putting but driving was easier it would seem a system which now plays a key role in determining the POY and ROY would have a way to show such differences.

400ft was crazy distance with 340ft being pretty good into the 35mph gusts with most players flipping over within 300ft.......950+ golfers when in the morning an Int player could throw that with ease!

Like I said, the problem is in the format itself potentially being unfair for competition to start with. Ratings is just another aspect that will also then be unfair as result of the format, not the calculations themselves. Roger can do the calculations but there's been no initiative for TDs to provide the data needed. We've only done it for high profile events where we know it's been an issue in the past like GCC and Memorial. And then it's only by divisions. But sometime the "unfairness" is within the division itself when the divisions are large and tee times span several hours.

Like I said, the problem is in the format itself potentially being unfair for competition to start with. Ratings is just another aspect that will also then be unfair as result of the format, not the calculations themselves. Roger can do the calculations but there's been no initiative for TDs to provide the data needed. We've only done it for high profile events where we know it's been an issue in the past like GCC and Memorial. And then it's only by divisions. But sometime the "unfairness" is within the division itself when the divisions are large and tee times span several hours.



Maybe the ratings should take that ectra step then? I can get the TD's to report the differing conditions considering I was part of the oversight committee.

I am sure they can at least put the difference in wind for each pool. The ratings can't be perfect but things like this are easily fixed and should be but it just shows that even for the best in the worlf the gamme is just a hobby with many loose ends that just seemingly come to be expected.

You're trying to fix the wrong thing. If the format were made more fair then the ratings would also be more fair. Gentry doesn't want us to do the ratings manually just for TDs who get their arm twisted to do the work. It needs to be part of the TD report for everyone who has tee times to report them properly.

I don't think there is any way to make a tournament or ratings "fair" if the weatherman isn't playing fair. Even if you have a shotgun start, some might have mostly tailwind holes during the fierce blowing and others headwind holes and others are sheltered from the wind in the thick wooded part of the course. You just play your best and know that it is fair on the average. You won't always be the person who plays during the windiest part of the day on the exposed holes with headwind drives. Over ten or 20 rounds, it evens out. If it doesn't even out over 10 or 20 rounds, God is out to get you, and there's nothing we can do about that either.

I don't think there is any way to make a tournament or ratings "fair" if the weatherman isn't playing fair. Even if you have a shotgun start, some might have mostly tailwind holes during the fierce blowing and others headwind holes and others are sheltered from the wind in the thick wooded part of the course. You just play your best and know that it is fair on the average. You won't always be the person who plays during the windiest part of the day on the exposed holes with headwind drives. Over ten or 20 rounds, it evens out. If it doesn't even out over 10 or 20 rounds, God is out to get you, and there's nothing we can do about that either.

Same golfers, who the 1st two rounds had a combined 17 1000 rated rounds (1 out of 4 scores) turn in only 5 1000+ rounds in the final....they must have played worse right?

From what I saw this wasn't true and actually my 1st round felt the worst by far considering I was 5 back of an ADV guy who had bumped up after 3 holes and after 8 I was 8 back of Dixon.

Coda's +1 (par 3's) was 5+ strokes better than all but one person in the division (another 1020 player) yet he gets a 1044 because the ratings system is so primitive it cannot even separate groups to account for basically groups playing two different courses.

In no wind I would have expected to shoot 8 strokes better and I feel that most others would have chopped off the same amount and if you looka at the rec/int ratings you can see that they all came out on the highside of their current rating.

I think the worst part is that it is known to happen yet Chuck finds a way to make the course play within 2 SSA points (in the case I don't see how it is possible) and if the rating is within 20pts then everything is fine.

It seems over the years that I can guess within 5 pts of the correct rating for a round 90% of the time and yet the system itself is continuing to be faulted by using information that would be thrown out of a high school science lab and instead of fixing the problem which wouldn't be a hard as many PDGA issues Chuck basically says that skewed ratings are just part of the game like spit-outs......

Why is a MPO worrying about ratings, anyway? If the MPO has a high rating, sponsorship? A low rating, being able to play in an am division?

Any other reason that doesn't involve whining?

Why is a MPO worrying about ratings, anyway? If the MPO has a high rating, sponsorship? A low rating, being able to play in an am division?

Any other reason that doesn't involve whining?

Ratings are now a key factor in determining the ROY and POY awards with there being 6 or so events they must rate high at throughout the year.

This is an easy answer........PLAY BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!! then you wont have to worry about how it gets rated.

Look at the SSS this weekend. Final round was windy, rainy, 2 hour thunderstorm, go back out to throw 600 foot holes on wet grass. And KC shoots 20 down, (yes the course doesnt play to par 85 but that round was HOTTTTTTTTTTTT) Then look at the early tee times (masters, women and bottom of open got most if not all of their rounds in before the rain)

You will win roy or poy if you play better all the time, not by having your rating adjusted cause the course wasnt "fair" when you played

This is an easy answer........PLAY BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!! then you wont have to worry about how it gets rated.

Look at the SSS this weekend. Final round was windy, rainy, 2 hour thunderstorm, go back out to throw 600 foot holes on wet grass. And KC shoots 20 down, (yes the course doesnt play to par 85 but that round was HOTTTTTTTTTTTT) Then look at the early tee times (masters, women and bottom of open got most if not all of their rounds in before the rain)

You will win roy or poy if you play better all the time, not by having your rating adjusted cause the course wasnt "fair" when you played

Climo shot a sick round but it was also rated as such (1083) while the hot round at the event I a referencing was 1044 with 1/2 as many 1000 rated rounds compared to the 1st and 2nd round.

What I am talking about it ratings not reflecting how good someone actually shot. I saw 20 putts missed within 15ft on just 2-3 cards and for Coda to shoot a 55 on the Wilmont and Finish at even on the final 6 was pretty stellar.

This is on the same lines as Olse's 55 at Manor which beat a 999 rated round by 9 strokes and was only rated a 1060.......we played VERY well in best score doubles and only bested his singles score by 2 strokes.

The fact there needs to be highest rated rounds based on differing SSA shows that the system is not perfect and that a sliding scale could show how great of a round someone really shot.



PS I played like poo the 1st round with my 1st 8 holes being around 930 level golf and it was rated 1011 in the end with Miles' round being 1092. The last round I played solid for 20 out of 24 holes and rated 8 points lower than the 1st ugly round.

Devan's 78-1015 was more of a 1025-1030 round with the rest of us being off by about 10-15 as well.

Man we dealt with some wind here in NC this weekend too. Richlands-Steed Park had 10-15mph sustained morning winds then 35+mph in the afternoon. A 55 in the morning was rated 951, a 55 in the afternoon was rated 1005. Most players balooned 8-12 shots, crazy. Schweb said it was the 2nd worst winds he's ever competed in.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=10097&year=2010&include_ratings=1#Open

Those rounds will likely be processed separately for ratings.

Man we dealt with some wind here in NC this weekend too. Richlands-Steed Park had 10-15mph sustained morning winds then 35+mph in the afternoon. A 55 in the morning was rated 951, a 55 in the afternoon was rated 1005. Most players balooned 8-12 shots, crazy. Schweb said it was the 2nd worst winds he's ever competed in.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=10097&year=2010&include_ratings=1#Open



Yet had the event used tee times all the rounds would have been rated in a way that would not reflect how someone played accurately.

We basically played a course that was 8 strokes harder than the Ints yet the round was rated as if everyone was playing on equal footing.

My whole beef is that there should be a simple way to include these differences in ratings. This was discussed recently in regards to the Memorial with the wind being higher in the afternoon and many feeling the ratings were skewed based on tee time. I checked the data from that day and the wind we had this weekend was 10+ mph more than at the Memorial with sustained 24-28 and plenty of gusts at 35mph on a wide open course.

The majority of Rec and Int players played above their rating while the majority of Adv/Pro players played below their rating and it isn't just a coincidence.


With all this said I personally used to be obsessed with the ratings but have, over time, realized they really mean nothing when it comes down to it as we are all hobbyists and it isn't like this is a professional sport. That reason alone isn't ewnough to keep the system from being improved to treat differing SSAs, conditions, and scoring spreads equally.

The ratings need to find a way to incorporate these into the system along with scores from the event instead of relying on just what a few players shot. I have seen too many rounds were everyone played bad but since there were 1000+ players the ratings were pulled up a bit while at the same time there are events where many players shoot outstanding but in doing so the ratings are deflated due to the fact the ratings system calculates that to mean the course was easier when in fact it may not have been and there were just some great rounds.

We basically played a course that was 8 strokes harder than the Ints yet the round was rated as if everyone was playing on equal footing.
What I can't understand is why the pros aren't complaining about the tee times format (the way we do it in DG vs BG) itself being flawed in the first place. If there's that much difference in conditions for one division over the span of their round, the round scores should be thrown out. I would think the hundreds of dollars differences in payout places would be worth doing it right, especially at an NT.

What I can't understand is why the pros aren't complaining about the tee times format (the way we do it in DG vs BG) itself being flawed in the first place. If there's that much difference in conditions for one division over the span of their round, the round scores should be thrown out. I would think the hundreds of dollars differences in payout places would be worth doing it right, especially at an NT.

Not as much change within the division but there was an undisputed difference between the 1st pool on the course and the 2nd.

I am not saying we need to rate hour by hour but breaking the day into 2-3 ratings brackets would do a lot to help fix the problem.

I would say if there's enough difference in SSAs (say 2 throws) to do the ratings separately among different groups in the SAME division, it's enough that the round results should be thrown out. Two throws is more than one unlucky spit.

I would say if there's enough difference in SSAs (say 2 throws) to do the ratings separately among different groups in the SAME division, it's enough that the round results should be thrown out. Two throws is more than one unlucky spit.

In this case 2 SSA points is 4 strokes.......

I'm saying that should be the case on general principles - 2 shot difference in SSA within a division means the scores are thrown out regardless how many throws that represents.

Why not just rate the separate pools as if they played a different course? Can you PLEASE just answer that one for me? Woudn't that solve at least part of the problem?

I personally hate seeing a round where I shot decent rated 8 points lower than a weak round the day before because it shows that there are still many problems with the system that have remained after 10 years.

Like I said, if the difference is enough to justify rating round segments within a division separately, it's enough to throw out the round. It would be worth doing the ratings on the fly at events if rounds would be thrown out as a result of too big a difference.

It will be an all or none propostion to do ratings for separate divisions at tee time events. Until the PDGA decides it's important enough to break out the numbers on the TD report, Roger and I won't have the data to do the process.

Like I said, if the difference is enough to justify rating round segments within a division separately, it's enough to throw out the round. It would be worth doing the ratings on the fly at events if rounds would be thrown out as a result of too big a difference.

It will be an all or none propostion to do ratings for separate divisions at tee time events. Until the PDGA decides it's important enough to break out the numbers on the TD report, Roger and I won't have the data to do the process.

What would happen if the TD filled out the report showing the separate pools as playing a separate layout?

That would work. My problem is with one big division playing the same course using tee times under widely changing conditions. That was the issue at the Memorial for both Advanced and MPO on a few days.

That would work. My problem is with one big division playing the same course using tee times under widely changing conditions. That was the issue at the Memorial for both Advanced and MPO on a few days.

In this case it was two separate pools so could the TD just state it was a different layout and therefore get separate ratings? If so I'm sure they would be willing to do so.

Yes. The point is that it will be done automatically when we process the ratings if it's coded that way in the TD report.

Yes. The point is that it will be done automatically when we process the ratings if it's coded that way in the TD report.

I will make sure they do that then!

Coda said himself it felt like a 1070 but I feel that a 1060 is around what it should be with such a high SSA.

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KHOU/2010/3/28/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
Matt,

I was on third card of MA2 (West course), you were second card MPO (West course), right? I played ~9a-1p and you played ~12p-4p, right?

Per the data you reference from wunderground average wind for my time span was 16.1mph and average gusts 24.7mph. The averages for your time span was 18.4mph and 29.0mph. Somewhat different, but not huge.

Chuck,

Using the old WCP spreadsheet the SSA played by 36 MA2's (first div to play course) was 80.39. The SSA played by 33 MPO's (last div to play course) was 82.00. The SSA played by both MA2 & MPO combined was 81.18.

Comparing the WCP sheet player ratings for the combined vs. split by division: MPO is 5.0 rating points "too low" (when combined) and MA2 is 5.9 rating points "too high" (when combined).

Is that level of difference worth splitting out?

All this data ignores the MPM, MPG, FPO, and FPM players who played between MA2 and MPO.

Matt,

I was on third card of MA2 (West course), you were second card MPO (West course), right? I played ~9a-1p and you played ~12p-4p, right?

Per the data you reference from wunderground average wind for my time span was 16.1mph and average gusts 24.7mph. The averages for your time span was 18.4mph and 29.0mph. Somewhat different, but not huge.

Chuck,

Using the old WCP spreadsheet the SSA played by 36 MA2's (first div to play course) was 80.39. The SSA played by 33 MPO's (last div to play course) was 82.00. The SSA played by both MA2 & MPO combined was 81.18.

Comparing the WCP sheet player ratings for the combined vs. split by division: MPO is 5.0 rating points "too low" (when combined) and MA2 is 5.9 rating points "too high" (when combined).

Is that level of difference worth splitting out?

All this data ignores the MPM, MPG, FPO, and FPM players who played between MA2 and MPO.



The SSA of Int Alone was 80.39 and the Pros was 82 which to me is enough to warrant a change. Int shooting 5 higher and MPO 5 lower means the ratings are off by about 10pts in general.

Anyway I haven't filled out a TD report but unless it is too much of a problem I personally would spilt them out.

Also those wind readings looked a little weird to me when I first found them........I know it was windy in the morning but it surely seemed to get worse even during our round which started at noon. The wind readings were not taked at the park and if they were I would actually expect slightly higher readings considering Tom Bass is a big flat field.

The SSA of Int Alone was 80.39 and the Pros was 82 which to me is enough to warrant a change. Int shooting 5 higher and MPO 5 lower means the ratings are off by about 10pts in general.

Anyway I haven't filled out a TD report but unless it is too much of a problem I personally would spilt them out.

Also those wind readings looked a little weird to me when I first found them........I know it was windy in the morning but it surely seemed to get worse even during our round which started at noon. The wind readings were not taked at the park and if they were I would actually expect slightly higher readings considering Tom Bass is a big flat field.

So are you asking for separate splits for MPO vs. everyone else on West only? Or do you want all the divisions that played the West layout split separately (MPO, FPO, MPM, MPG, FPM, and MA2)?

What's the precedent here? Does a TD need to calculate SSA for each division to determine which ones need to be split out?


Re: weather... go look at some of wunderground's Personal Weather Station data from the Pearland area (that's as close as they get to Tom Bass) and you'll see a lot of single digit wind readings for most of the day. Those stations are in suburbia but do show the data you posted originally represents higher end of the spectrum readings.

Those differences are not enough to split out. In fact 5 pts is "half-a-spit" that can throw your rating 10 points.

So are you asking for separate splits for MPO vs. everyone else on West only? Or do you want all the divisions that played the West layout split separately (MPO, FPO, MPM, MPG, FPM, and MA2)?

What's the precedent here? Does a TD need to calculate SSA for each division to determine which ones need to be split out?


Re: weather... go look at some of wunderground's Personal Weather Station data from the Pearland area (that's as close as they get to Tom Bass) and you'll see a lot of single digit wind readings for most of the day. Those stations are in suburbia but do show the data you posted originally represents higher end of the spectrum readings.

Split is between the two separate pools that played the course.........A and C pool

Those differences are not enough to split out. In fact 5 pts is "half-a-spit" that can throw your rating 10 points.

But when you generate them separately the SSA is 2 shots different.

Coda's 1044 was way better than the 1040 rounds from the 1st and 2nd round.

A two shot difference in SSA is less than 4% and within normal variances that occur between two groups playing the same course under the same conditions with no wind difference. If the wind diffrence is under 2 shots, we don't know whether the difference is truly due to wind or just normal variance so we average them together. That cuts any potential "air"or to less than 2%.

A two shot difference in SSA is less than 4% and within normal variances that occur between two groups playing the same course under the same conditions with no wind difference. If the wind diffrence is under 2 shots, we don't know whether the difference is truly due to wind or just normal variance so we average them together. That cuts any potential "air"or to less than 2%.

I'm sure the MPOs missing nearly everything outside of 20ft had something to do with keeping the SSAs close.
Like I said this happens nearly every year and results in lower ratings for the Pro players and higher ratings for the Am pool on the same course.

Math is one thing but when you have 90% of the Pro division feeling the ratings were low (not crazy low but still low) with most Int players coming out above their rating it shows more than just a common variance.

Anyway there is no way to win with Chuck unless the idea was spawned from his own mind.

What you have to understand is that those of us on the inside can and have sliced and diced all of the numbers checking for more potential flaws than have been thought of by players. It's not like we don't recognize where things could be better. It's whether the improvement is judged worth doing for the potential benefit. There are many things Roger & I have proposed or would do to improve the ratings if we could but TDs and players wouldn't neceessarily like those changes.

Math is one thing but when you have 90% of the Pro division feeling the ratings were low (not crazy low but still low) with most Int players coming out above their rating it shows more than just a common variance.


Due to rapidly improving Ams, this problem usually goes the other way. Sounds like the Memorial helped keep things in balance.

Due to rapidly improving Ams, this problem usually goes the other way. Sounds like the Memorial helped keep things in balance.

I agree and that was something Millz and I voiced concerns about back in 04-05 which led to double-weighted the most recent rounds in someone's rating so that those fat improving AMs would have more fitting ratings.

... Anyway there is no way to win with Chuck unless the idea was spawned from his own mind.
...and that was something Millz and I voiced concerns about back in 04-05 which led to double-weighted the most recent rounds in someone's rating so that those fat improving AMs would have more fitting ratings.

Way to contradict!
According to the first post, Chuck won't listen to ideas from others. According to the next post, Chuck actually listened to you and implemented changes. :confused:

Way to contradict!
According to the first post, Chuck won't listen to ideas from others. According to the next post, Chuck actually listened to you and implemented changes. :confused:

I did also point ou that this occured 5 years ago.....

It was a rare momet and I applaud Chuck for his efforts.

I did also point ou[t] that this occured 5 years ago.....

Are you saying this is the last time you had an idea worth considering?

Are you saying this is the last time you had an idea worth considering?

No just the last time a PDGA go-getter has more than considered one.

A two shot difference in SSA is less than 4% and within normal variances that occur between two groups playing the same course under the same conditions with no wind difference. If the wind diffrence is under 2 shots, we don't know whether the difference is truly due to wind or just normal variance so we average them together. That cuts any potential "air"or to less than 2%.

I think the impact is greater than this and yes, spit outs are a huge factor when you are fighting for the win. Often, one or two strokes is the difference of :D and :(.

Not withstanding any aces, on an 18 hole course everybody in the field regardless of rating is throwing two shots per hole minimum=36 strokes. It is the other throws during a round that separate the scores.

So lets say SSA is 54. After we all have thrown our mandatory 36 strokes we are talking about trying to negotiate the course in 18 extra strokes or less for a 1000+ rated round. Now when we talk about a 2 stroke variance we are really talking about more of a possible 11% "air"or factor.

If you are on the short end of that stick for the entire four round tournament and losing 12-20 rating points each round---OUCH!

There is a large difference from shooting an 980 round to a 1000 rated round. Most veterans can tell you this difference right after a round. I think this is why there is often a lot of head scratching that happens. Play in enough tournaments and scratch your head often enough and well, you know.

And really it is not that we are to get on the ratings calculations it sounds like our stats studs could use more detailed information from the field.

A comprehensive review of the ratings will show the areas in which that extra information may be useful. Heck, you guys probably already know.

As much as we always hate to throw extra burden on our TD's I think the majority of them are in the business of customer satisfaction. As ratings have been shown to be close to if not the number one benefit for being a PDGA member it won't be much of an issue to get a more accurate set of course stats, weather conditions, etc.

I look forward to working with Chuck and some on the Comp and Ratings committees to get this TD report form updated. At the same time Chuck and the gang will be reviewing the ratings process as a whole.

The fact that shot differences end up being mulitplied by a factor of 6-13 to produce ratings magnifies small differences making the numbers seem to vary more than they do. You can't drop out the 36 shots and artificially boost the variance percentage. It artificially magnifies it relative to your peers that shoot similar scores but the calculation covers many more players of much lower skill levels than just those at the top so the 4% variance is valid overall.

The problem still remains that a 2-shot variance falls within the normal variance in the ratings process that can occur when two different pools play the same course under the same conditions. The normal variance is usually less than 0.7 shots but a 2.0 variance will statistically happen often enough for the thousands of rounds we process each year. We've set that as our automatic "flag" for when something might be awry with the TD report when we process the ratings. If the variance is more than 2.0 we look closer. If less than 2.0, we combine rounds and average them to generate the same SSA for everyone in that event and they all get the same ratings for the same score on that layout.

I'm not sure we can justify a subjective comment from the TD or even a check box on the TD report regarding wind that would influence the process. If the variance is greater than 2.0, the assumption is that wind produced the difference and the round SSAs will be done separately if it's determined there wasn't some other issue like miscoding which divisions played a course.

No just the last time a PDGA go-getter has more than considered one.

"If I ran the zoo...", says little Gerald McGrew.

I saw a ratings anomoly at the No Foolin today, and i cannot figure it out, so I'm asking Chuck Kennedy. But i think the answer is, "Well, because that's what happens when you put those numbers in the ratings template."

Kelsey and I played the same courses from the same tees but in different pools, so we played our rounds at the same time but on different courses. We had the same pathetic miserable total score at the end of the day, but being higher rated and more emotionally fragile, I will take much longer to heal.

There is no reason why my morning monster short ratings should equal her afternoon monster short rounds, because the weather changed from windy to gale with rain, but one would think having shot the same total score from the same tees on the the same courses in the same variable weather, our average ratings for the day should be about the same. I averaged 885 on the day and she averaged 870.

So five questions:

1) When two pools play the same courses at the same time but in flip-flopped order from each other, and there are significant weather changes from one round to the other, is a 15 point average ratings differential for the whole day for identical total scores unusual?

2) If the TD tells you nothing about the weather and you see that the same course played four throws harder from the morning pool to the afternoon, will they get thrown together and averaged for official ratings or will they be kept separate?

3) Do you still sometimes throw out ratings for fierce weather? I'm certainly not blaming the fierce weather for my rounds. It is typical for me to die on deuce-or-die short courses and i'm not a mudder. It was a mudder's day. Mark Ellis played 30 points over his rating.

4) I forget the other two but one was a joke question. Oh, can I get a separate rating for days when my blood sugar is out of whack? That was the joke question. Turns out I only played 15 ratings points worse for the round where my blood-sugar was visibly shaky, so i'm not blaming that either.

1) It is most likely to happen when the SSAs of the two courses are 5 to 10 throws different independent of weather and the players shoot really well or poorly in opposite rounds. The one who shot hotter on the lower SSA course can end up with ratings that have a higher overall average.

2) A 4-throw difference is considered enough of a difference that the rounds will be rated separately.

3) I don't know of any rounds ever thrown out that met the minimum number of propagators.

Blast from the Past:

"Chuck Kennedy and Roger [Smith] are taking the lead in developing a player rating and course rating system based on tournament scores among a group of the better players on tour. * * * The goal of the system is to establish a base of comparison between courses, to quantify differences between courses, and rank player skill levels based on tournament scores on rated courses. * * * Standby for future details on this beginning battle in the war on sandbagging!" DGWN, No. 51, Fall 1999.

Kelsey observed this morning during the eating of the cinnamon buns that there are players with ratings who were born after ratings were invented. It occured to me that probably the majority of our current membership has always had a rating since their first sanctioned tournament as a member. Ratings really have done a great deal to eliminate the controversies and animosities associated with amateur sandbagging. If ratings are your principal legacy to the PDGA, they will be a fine legacy.

Seems to be enough intellagent folks on this thread to ask

What is the number for the largest female attended PDGA event?
And what is the number for the largest women only PDGA event?

Send request to Gentry at PDGA office. He'll be able to check the database. Biggest US Women's Championship turnout was 78 in 2006 which ties with the Texas Women's Championship in 2009. There were 98 at the Pro-Am-Jr Worlds in 2004. No USWDGC or Worlds has topped those since then.

TWC is at 92 right now which is more than me and Vinnie could imagine. No need to give Gentry a shout being that we are 3 days out. If you build it pink they will come.

I just played a junior tournament. shot my best ever and a good rating if we had got one. I am guessing there were not enough of us to calculate a rating. the tourney is here http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=10109 would you please confirm or denie this. thanks a lot.

There aren't enough for the unofficial online software to calculate ratings but I think we'll have enough to calculate them officially when we get the tournament report. A few of the players are not current but have ratings that could be used for the calculations but the online software won't use them if they aren't current. The official software will use their scores.

Chuck ...what do I need to change on the TWC results that will allow for FW2 and 3 to get ratings

There's nothing you can do to get unofficial ratings online since there aren't any players (propagators) with ratings over 799 to calculate ratings from. If we're going to get ratings for them when we do the official calcs, we'll have to do a manual process where you supply accurate course lengths in your TD report for the layouts they played. We will get ratings for them.

Hi Chuck,

Can you tell me who ( among top pros ) has the smallest standard deviation for their rounds? AND also possibly who has the largest standard deviation?

Seems like an interesting point, to know who is most consistent.

How far down in rating is a "top pro"?

There are 26 players over 1020 in the March update. Jussi Meresmaa and John E. McCray come in around 16 for the low end SD. Paul McBeth and Paul Ulibarri come in around 28 SD at the high end.

Chuck, your thoughts (rule-wise)?
A dude won the advanced ladies' division at the Eastern Massachusetts Championships (a non-PDGA event in NEFA-land) this past weekend:
WA1
1 James Magee 72 66 138
2 Rachael Hudson 75 73 148
3 Kristi Bayer 76 74 150

(S)he is apparently living life full-time as a woman, but has yet to go through "The Change".

I have some serious concerns, particularly considering the runaway margin of victory. Thoughts?

If it were a PDGA event and the person was a member, then we could check to see whether that person was listed as M or F on the PDGA rolls. If a non-member, I would ask that person for some form of ID indicating gender if it was in question. Without some verification from ID, the person would still be able to play in the appropriate, technically non-gender, PDGA skill based division from Novice up thru Open following the usual procedure TDs (hopefully) go thru asking what kinds of scores they shoot, division they play in league, etc.

I just sent the following email to the PDGA Rules Committee:
This past weekend, a gentleman who has been living his life in the gender role of a lady competed in (and won) a non-PDGA event. While he identifies as female, he possesses a US birth certificate identifying him as male & a complete set of male genitalia.

My question is: where does the PDGA stand on transgendered athletes competing in gender-protected divisions? Would the fellow above be allowed to compete in a ladies' division in PDGA play? If so, please justify. If not, where would the PDGA draw the line? A female-identifying birth certificate? Driver's license? Visual inspection? Hormonal test? Chromosomal test?

I await your reply to this potentially sticky issue. Thanx!

Though the PDGA & its staff rarely respond to valid queries in a timely and/or helpful manner, I would like to know the org's position on this matter.

I already alerted PDGA staff on this issue this morning after reading the NEFA thread. The Competition, not Rules, Committee would typically be the group to review and propose any possible policy statements for Board approval. Since the Summit meeting is next week anyway, I suspect the topic may wait to be discussed there.

Very well, then. I will expect not to receive a reply after next week's meeting then.

Renee Richards (women's tennis) from the 70's is an example how other sports have had to address this. She sued the tennis association and their 'women-born-women' policy and won. She had gone through the change and I remember it being very controversial at the time.

More at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards

I'm quite aware of that case, but am extremely curious to see where the PDGA will draw the line & its ideas on testing/enforcement in the event of a dispute.

Out of curiosity, where would you draw the line? How would you test or enforce?

Definitely a tough subject.

Though the inherent unfairness would still be there in spades, IMHO the org has not the resources to draw the line anywhere other than to require the production of a legit ID (birth certificate, maybe) with a big, fat "F" on it in the "Sex" field. A far from perfect solution, but at least easily workable & cost-free.

Perhaps if designated on a drivers license as such, then good to play as such. A quick Google search came up with the Wisconsin DOT info:

Wisconsin: DOT- DIS division allows gender change on drivers license prior to surgery if such person is enrolled in a transgender program leading to SRS. Wisconsin does link their driver record with the SSA, but this should not be a problem as long as the SSN, Name, Address, Age, etc. is all correct.


I would expect things vary from state to state.

Chuck, I don't think you are the one to change this but I thought I'd toss an idea your way as you are The Man on the subject of ratings.

On players stats, rating details. It would be nice to include the rounds that dropped on the last update With "dropped" instead of yes or no on the "included" column.

I'd also like to second what someone said about having the players city/state stay on for the tournament results.

Chuck,

Is it true that the minimum # of holes required in a round for a rating is 13?

Thanks,

Chris

On players stats, rating details. It would be nice to include the rounds that dropped on the last update With "dropped" instead of yes or no on the "included" column.
There are several things that need to be revamped and I'm hoping the priority will finally be getting near the top this year. Since the Yes/No is a simple flag, maybe making the No in Bold Red text would be easier and just as effective.

I'd also like to second what someone said about having the players city/state stay on for the tournament results.
Real estate on that page is limited and you can see the info by clicking on the player names. It's only there before the event because there's room without the scores. Maybe the 2-letter state or country ID could be left there at least.

Is it true that the minimum # of holes required in a round for a rating is 13?
Yes.

Cool. We're looking at doing a 1 day tournament with 3 rounds of 13. It'd be neat to get 3 ratings out of a 1-day event.

Chuck....say you're rated 950. Scenario 1-You have one new event in your update (none dropped) where you shot 4 940 rated rounds. Scenario 2-You shoot 3 rounds above 950 and 1 well below (not excluded) to average 940 for the event. Question-Is scenario 2 better for your rating even though the average is the same?

It will depend on how many total rounds you have in the past 12 months from that new event date. If only 2 or 3 of the new rounds get double weighted, the outcome will be slightly different in each scenario. If all get double weighted, it won't make a difference with these rare exceptions. If your standard deviation went down just enough in Scenario 1 where a round previously included is now excluded or vice versa where in Scenario 2 you now have a round included that was previously excluded because your standard deviation went up, the ratings would be slightly differerent.

Why don't rounds get dropped that are so good they
are out of your standard deviation? Not that I want my
round dropped but I have one that is way out in a good way.

Dropping rounds is only there to prevent bagging. If you rock, you rock!

Why don't rounds get dropped that are so good they
are out of your standard deviation?
Because you can produce a really bad round anytime you want. You can't produce a really good round any time you want. They're not equally random.

Totally selfish question - with the latest ratings update, Mitch and I seem to have overtaken the Lissamans in terms of ratings. (They are not current, but looking at a tourney from '08 that I happened to know they played, their ratings are listed at 1007 and 960). Mitch and I are are 1004 and 969. To the best of your knowledge, do we hold the highest rating for twins or have some upstarts come along that I don't know about?

Not sure how the PDGA would know who the twins were in the data files to check it? We'll have to see if anyone else pipes in. I think Markus and Anders still hold the brothers title.

The Solengs right now are at 2015. Kollstroms look to have them by 10. Still quite close.

Not sure how the PDGA would know who the twins were in the data files to check it? We'll have to see if anyone else pipes in. I think Markus and Anders still hold the brothers title.I don't know if you can access the data this way but twins often have the same last name and birthdate. Other than some Joneses and Smiths, that is less common among non-twins.

[QUOTE=bruce_brakel;1424565]twins often have the same last name and birthdate. QUOTE]

good one bruce!

Chuck-

I am going to be running a C-tier at my local course in a little over a month. The course is only 9 holes and we plan on expanding it to 13. During this event several groups will play 2 rounds of 13 then take a break and come back with a final round of 13. There will be another pool of players who will play during the first pools down time.

Here are my questions:
1) Is 13 holes the magic number to get a rating?
2) If I enter the results as 3 rounds of 13, will all players get 3 ratings?
3) Would it be possible for a person to play in both Pools? Adv. and Pro for example.
4) When I enter the results will it be important to specify who plays what pool at what time? The course will not change at all during the day.

1) Is 13 holes the magic number to get a rating? Yes
2) If I enter the results as 3 rounds of 13, will all players get 3 ratings? Yes
3) Would it be possible for a person to play in both Pools? Adv. and Pro for example.
Better check with Gentry at: dgentry@pdga.com . Normally that's only allowed when divisions play on different days.
4) When I enter the results will it be important to specify who plays what pool at what time? The course will not change at all during the day. Yes, you still need to do it on the report so the automated process picks up the info from the report. But what will happen is that scores from all rounds will be averaged together so everyone will get the same rating for the same score no matter what round they played.<!-- / message -->

Thanks Chuck, these are exactly the answers I was looking for.

Seems to me like the simplest thing to do on playing both pools is to simply say no.

Thanks again.


Smitty

Out of curiosity, where would you draw the line? How would you test or enforce?

Definitely a tough subject.

Cup check! or...what's the capital of Thailand?

Hey Chuck

just played a Pdga tournament this weekend and shouldn't of. I was under the weather and my first 2 rounds were pretty bad. The TD did post the scores Saturday night for the first day. I shot 40 and 60 points below my rating. I got more sick over night and withdrew the next day. I did not Finish the tourny. Will the 2 rounds I did play count in my next rating even though I didn't finish the tourny?

Thanks in advance

Yes, all completed rounds get rated even if you don't play all of them in a tourney. It's been this way since ratings started in 1999.

Chuck,

Wasn't there an excel document you could plug players scores and ratings into and try to come up with SSA's for courses, and local player ratings? I've seen somebody use something like this before, but can't find it anywhere.

Thanks for your time,

Chris

PDGA HQ has requested it not be available any more. But there are other ways to determine SSA and local round ratings by SSA formula or looking at SSAs on file for a course.

Alright thanks, I ended up finding it elsewhere.

The versions floating around out there are now obsolete due to some changes in our process but still produce reasonably decent estimates.

Alright thanks, I ended up finding it elsewhere.

Can you pm me with a link to where you found it?

Thanks in advance!

Chuck,

This is IT kind of but why doesn't the tournament
results page default to show the rounds with ratings?

I'm guessing mainly because there aren't any ratings when results are posted as official before we do the official ratings update. One of Gentry's priorities is to eventually get it so the unofficial ratings stay there when the results get posted as official. Then, having ratings there as a default will make sense. I think people still will want to see just the scores round by round and hide the ratings as an option.

Chuck,

There doesn't seem to be any round ratings for Lemon Lake All-course series #2 & #3, but these events have been done for quite some time. And now it seems event #4 isn't accurate as far as who played what courses; the ratings don't seem to match up. Any ideas on how this can be fixed?

The unofficial round ratings always disappear once the report is received by the PDGA until the official ratings are processed and posted.

I just fixed the unofficial ratings for #4. Those who don't have round ratings for morning Silver and afternoon White will get them when we do the official report.

Hey Chuck, Does there have to be a certain amount of players with ratings in a divison to get ratings for the tournament?

Just wondering because I played in a tournament about a week ago and the int and Rec players got no ratings.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=10489&year=2010&include_ratings=1#Masters

Yes. At least 5 who have ratings over 799 based on at least 8 rounds are required to play a layout for players to get unofficial ratings. We then try to calculate them officially using a manual process if less than 5.

The unofficial round ratings always disappear once the report is received by the PDGA until the official ratings are processed and posted.

I just fixed the unofficial ratings for #4. Those who don't have round ratings for morning Silver and afternoon White will get them when we do the official report.

Thanks for the quick reply and fix Chuck

When's the next rating update?

It's posted on the pdga home page: pdga.com

I am having trouble finding the SSA for the MA1 Am Worlds layouts for all of the courses. Do you happen to know? Or know how to find this information?

Here's where you look them up by entering Ohio to get the list:
http://www.pdga.com/course-ratings-by-course

However, some of the test event course data with the Worlds layouts won't be in here yet until the ratings update on June 22nd.

Ever seen a 920-rated player shoot a 1035-rated round? Then turn around and shoot an 877-rated round the next round?

Check out the Japan Open 1st day results and scroll down to Jack Lowe. I wonder how much sake Jack had at lunch.

Chap

Ever seen a 920-rated player shoot a 1035-rated round? Then turn around and shoot an 877-rated round the next round?

Check out the Japan Open 1st day results and scroll down to Jack Lowe. I wonder how much sake Jack had at lunch.

Chap

Max Crotts....we call that pulling a Max Crotts.

I saw that freefall score as well. Maybe jet lag finally caught up with him - it was the second round of the day. Hope there was no injury.

So Chap, who of last year's KC Worlds staff is going to the USDGC exemption to play this year? Am a little bit jealous, my game is starting to deteriorate (GM age), and I probably will never get to play the course as a competitor.

I doubt there was an injury. Just the inconsistency that comes from being a 920 player.

Jack and I both played in USDGC last fall on the exemptions. So if you're looking for a Worlds exemption, you'll have to talk to Mr. Cummings.

Chap

Forrest Callaway from GA a few years ago (and I just tried to find the tournament and couldn't) in a 4 round event shot a round in the 1000s, the 900s, the 800s and the 700s.

One of the craziest things in terms of inconsistency I've ever seen.

Can someone help me please locate the online version of the article we get sent every year when we renew our membership. It is a paper that describes all the different divisions and gives statistics. For example.

Recreation Division should be able to throw 250-300 feet. Make so many putts, and have a few shots

Intermediate Division so on and so on.

Does anyone know where this is at online if it is at all? Thanks!

I don't think that doc is online.

Will the Japan Open make the next ratings update?

That's the plan if we can get the report in the next 24 hours.

This is a little off the topic, but has anyone noticed that when you click on the "statistics" tab of the dropdown on the main page it's messed up and doesn't give any stats?

Chuck, I was wondering if the ratings from the Aspen Sports Treebash (June 5-6) will be included in the June rating update.
Thanks

Lets add the Sylmar summertime open from the same weekend to that previous question

If the TD's got them to HQ in Tournament Reports by the June 8th deadline - NOT just posting the scores online - which means NOTHING to the PDGA for Event reporting, so you would need to contact the TD's and ask them if they submitted completed Event reports before June 8th.

How is weather figured in to rating an event. For example...we were playing in an event yesterday. Play was normal til about 7 holes left to play and it began to pour and thunder, etc...well then shots that we'd normally throw 350' were now going 150'. Do you just base the ratings off of everyone elses score? Or is weather refigured in later on? Just wondering how all that works. Thanks Chuck!

How is weather figured in to rating an event. For example...we were playing in an event yesterday. Play was normal til about 7 holes left to play and it began to pour and thunder, etc...well then shots that we'd normally throw 350' were now going 150'. Do you just base the ratings off of everyone elses score? Or is weather refigured in later on? Just wondering how all that works. Thanks Chuck!

ratings are based on how (tough or easy) any given round plays for the rated disc golfers who participate / propagate -- so weather (like all other factors) is accounted for through that filter.

it works on the principle that on average people shoot their average (as long as you have a large enough sample size / group). if you toss a coin twice you may find statistical anomalies. if you toss a coin 1 million times you are looking pretty much at 50-50. Casinos get rich on people expecting to beat the odds. iow, on average, for every disc golfer who shoots hotter than their average, there will be a disc golfer shooting worse than their average.

The ratings don't factor in weather, or hills, or tight fairways, or anything else. Ratings just look at the current ratings of all the propagators and the scores of all the propagators, and new ratings are calculated off the averages.

Your rating is a numerical measure of how well you played compared to everyone else. If the rain hurt your score more than it did other players' scores, that will make your rating go down. If the rain had less of an effect on you than other players, you'll get a higher rating.

I attended an A teir and I have a question about the dress code for women. The TD did state that dri fits, no tube tops or mid drifts, would be premited. However, I am aware that sleevless shirts are allowed as long as they are in good repair. My question is what about tank tops?? Unfortunily this women choose not to wear any upper under garments either.

Is there anything that can be inforced/educated about this matter? It's bad enough that our sport gets enough bad veiws and I believe this is one unneeded occurrance can be rectified.


Thanks

audi

Hey Chuck,

I'm wondering if the Am2 and Adv Grandmanster women are going to be getting ratings for the Disc Girls Gone Wild last weekend. Int/Grands/Rec (B-pool) played a different layout than the rest of the field. The only difference in the R1 and R3 layouts was on 1 hole where they played to a shorter basket, about 80' shorter. In R2 the B-pool played an entirely different layout with shorter temp tees on every hole.

Looks like there were 8 rated players that played the B-pool layouts. I know there is a low-end ratings cap to qualify as a propagator, but is there any chance that can be bypassed to get these ladies ratings?


http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=9774&year=2010&include_ratings=1#Open Women

We will do what we can to generate ratings. The TDs can help by indicating what the differences were between courses either by overall length or just on individual holes and enter that in the Notes on the event report.

However, I am aware that sleevless shirts are allowed as long as they are in good repair. My question is what about tank tops?? Unfortunily this women choose not to wear any upper under garments either.
Contact Gentry at the PDGA office regarding this issue.

The ratings don't factor in weather, or hills, or tight fairways, or anything else. Ratings just look at the current ratings of all the propagators and the scores of all the propagators, and new ratings are calculated off the averages.

The ratings automatically take these factors into account via the scores that the propagators shoot. You can't break out how much the wind versus rain versus tight fairways specifically affect the scores. But all of those effects are rolled up into the socres the players shoot.

We will do what we can to generate ratings. The TDs can help by indicating what the differences were between courses either by overall length or just on individual holes and enter that in the Notes on the event report.


Thanks Chuck. What's the low-end cap for gators? 700?

800

Thanks Chuck. I appreciate the help.

Chuck,

What's the reasoning behind the minimum rating cap?

The high end cap of int women is 800, so the minimum gator cap is guaranteeing that if there is ever an exclusive int/rec women pool, they will never get ratings. That doesn't seem right.

Chuck,

Unrelated to previous question-

Say I'm supposed to start the 2nd round of a tournament on #3. All groups are 3somes. I get there and only 1 other player in my group is there. 2 minute horn goes off, then the tee off horn goes off and the 3rd player never shows.

I thought that at this point, we are supposed to wait on the tee with the other player until the next 2 groups pass, and one of us joins up with each group to make 4somes.

I can't find anything about this in the rules or the comp manual.

What is the official procedure here?

Today is Jun 22, about what time should the new ratings go live?

Forrest Callaway from GA a few years ago (and I just tried to find the tournament and couldn't) in a 4 round event shot a round in the 1000s, the 900s, the 800s and the 700s.

One of the craziest things in terms of inconsistency I've ever seen.

I've done that...not proud of it, but here it is: (11th in ADV)
http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=5729&year=2010&include_ratings=1#Advanced

I've done that...not proud of it, but here it is: (11th in ADV)
http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=5729&year=2010&include_ratings=1#Advanced

Be proud that you are about to become Charlotte's newest 1000 rated player!

Ratings today!

Chuck,

Unrelated to previous question-

Say I'm supposed to start the 2nd round of a tournament on #3. All groups are 3somes. I get there and only 1 other player in my group is there. 2 minute horn goes off, then the tee off horn goes off and the 3rd player never shows.

I thought that at this point, we are supposed to wait on the tee with the other player until the next 2 groups pass, and one of us joins up with each group to make 4somes.

I can't find anything about this in the rules or the comp manual.

What is the official procedure here?I'm not Chuck. The competition manual prohibits groups less than three. It does not provide a procedure for reorganizing groups. Waiting for the next two groups to show up might not be the best strategy if, for example, there are only 40 players in your pool and you know there are seven open holes behind you.

Another interesting question this raises is how to determine the number of holes the late player has missed if you and the other guy join different groups. Suppose you're on hole 4 and 4 tee happens to be near 8 and 13 tee. So when he does not show one of you goes to 8 and the other goes to 14. He is five minutes late so he goes to 5 and then 6 and then 7 and cannot find either of you. Sucks to be him!

The real killer with this poorly conceived rule is that if there are only two of you, and he is not teeing off first, HE IS NEVER LATE! The rule says he is not late until 30 seconds after it is his turn to throw. Since you cannot start in a twosome, it never becomes his turn to throw. :D

In our effort to coddle irresponsible players we've created a rule that really does not work in practice. We ought to just adopt the gawf rule and DQ a player who is not present at tee off.

Could a non-playing, pdga official follow along with a 2-some and by keeping score or monitoring the scorecard be a possible solution to this?

Question-

In my new update (#29274) an event is included in my rating from 2 years ago and I 999'd in that tournament because I was playing opposite handed due to a broken hand. I was under the impression that tournaments where a player 999'd would NEVER count to a player's rating.

Could Chuck or someone clear this up.

THanks

Ryan

Rounds you fail to complete are not included. Completed rounds from tournaments you fail to complete are included.

Rounds you fail to complete are not included. Completed rounds from tournaments you fail to complete are included.

They why wasnt the tournament included in my previous updates? Is it only because I have less than 8 pdga rounds?

Chuck
If the next ratings update is July 20th and I have a tourney that I played last year on july 18th-19th. Will that stay on the next update or will it get dropped?

deleted question... nvm

Question: After a tournament there's an "unofficial" rating, and then after the ratings are turned in, that "rating" changes. Sometimes it's better; sometimes it's worse? Can someone explain to me what they change and how come it just doesnt stay the same? What factors in that change? Thanks for whatever info anyone can give me!

The official rating changes for some or all of the following reasons: course info was not correct for the unofficial ratings, the unofficial rating system does not know who are valid gators, multiple rounds may have been combined, a player's pdga # might have been incorrect, the official rating system has a slightly different formula.

Could a non-playing, pdga official follow along with a 2-some and by keeping score or monitoring the scorecard be a possible solution to this?

from the competition manual...

1.6. Grouping and Sectioning

C. To promote fairness, groups shall not
be less than three players, except under
extenuating circumstances, as deemed
necessary by the director. In cases where fewer
than three players are required to play together
players, an official is required to accompany
the group and may play as long as this does not
interfere with the competing players.

from the competition manual...

1.6. Grouping and Sectioning

C. To promote fairness, groups shall not
be less than three players, except under
extenuating circumstances, as deemed
necessary by the director. In cases where fewer
than three players are required to play together
players, an official is required to accompany
the group and may play as long as this does not
interfere with the competing players.

Well there you go.

So if a TD is running a small event where there are 3-somes only it would be a good idea for him to have a non-playing official at the ready to help in this case.

If the next ratings update is July 20th and I have a tourney that I played last year on july 18th-19th. Will that stay on the next update or will it get dropped?
They will still be on there because you won't have an event in that update that was played after July 19 because the event deadline for events that can be rated will be two weeks earlier than July 20th.

Chuck,

What's the reasoning behind the minimum rating cap?

The high end cap of int women is 800, so the minimum gator cap is guaranteeing that if there is ever an exclusive int/rec women pool, they will never get ratings. That doesn't seem right.

Chuck,

Unrelated to previous question-

Say I'm supposed to start the 2nd round of a tournament on #3. All groups are 3somes. I get there and only 1 other player in my group is there. 2 minute horn goes off, then the tee off horn goes off and the 3rd player never shows.

I thought that at this point, we are supposed to wait on the tee with the other player until the next 2 groups pass, and one of us joins up with each group to make 4somes.

I can't find anything about this in the rules or the comp manual.

What is the official procedure here?

Chuck

At Warm Up For the Am Worlds #2, Grandmasters, Senior Grandmasters, and Junior <13 Boys played three shorter tees at Aumiller. The ratings are listed as playing the same tees. Only Open & Adv Masters played long tees on holes 3-6-11. This was for our 2nd Round, which we played at Aumiller.
Advanced & Jr. Women were playing at Marion for the 2nd round.
Thanks
T-Mac

T-Mac - I sent the correction notice to Gentry for the July update.

What's the reasoning behind the minimum rating cap? The high end cap of int women is 800, so the minimum gator cap is guaranteeing that if there is ever an exclusive int/rec women pool, they will never get ratings. That doesn't seem right.
It's not reasoning but math. We've tested props down to 800 for reliability (standard deviation) with the formulas but have not had enough data until recently to confirm that we can go lower. We hope to work the 750 and higher props into the system later this year and maybe get to 700 eventually.

Say I'm supposed to start the 2nd round of a tournament on #3. All groups are 3somes. I get there and only 1 other player in my group is there. 2 minute horn goes off, then the tee off horn goes off and the 3rd player never shows. I thought that at this point, we are supposed to wait on the tee with the other player until the next 2 groups pass, and one of us joins up with each group to make 4somes. I can't find anything about this in the rules or the comp manual. What is the official procedure here?
There is no official procedure but when that happens, the accepted first choice is to split up with one of you joining the group ahead and the other the group behind if those holes have groups. You can also play as a fivesome with a group close to you for a few holes until it can work out to split up if your group will slow the course down.

Chuck,

What's the reasoning behind the minimum rating cap?

The high end cap of int women is 800, so the minimum gator cap is guaranteeing that if there is ever an exclusive int/rec women pool, they will never get ratings. That doesn't seem right.The other thing Chuck neglected to mention is that at tournaments that have not had any gators in their pool, like the Intermediate/Rec pool at Women's Nationals, the PDGA ratings guys have often calculated ratings off the players who have enough rounds to be gators. If you are planning on running a tournament with a no-gator pool, you might want to talk to the PDGA office in advance to see if they can flag it for special treatment.

Chuck, it looks like at this weekend's King of the Lake tourney in CA/NV, whoever uploaded the scores neglected to do two things: 1) neglected to separate the two groups into appropriate courses. All pros (and the advanced masters) played one course, and all ams played the other course. Then we swapped. Right now, it appears as though all ratings are as though everyone played one. I know it's just preliminary, but any way to adjust that so even the unofficial results are closer? (This seems to have happened with rounds 3 and 4 on day two) 2) less importantly they put all pars 54. On the first day, the 1st round of ams and 2nd round of pros should have been a par 57. 2nd day, am round one and pro round 2 should have been par 58. That's just so I feel better with a number not around zero. :D

Please ask the TD to make the adjustments. I don't like to tweak the unofficial numbers without really knowing what the layouts are and potentially messing up what the TD is doing for uploading.

Hello Chuck,
I have a question that i figured you probably know the answer to. We have no courses around here within 50 miles or so with approved targets. I was wondering how i can run a PDGA event on one of our tone pole courses. Could i put in approved temporary targets (innova discatcher sports) for the tourney and have it sanctioned? What would the process be to run an event like this? We have a club, we have baskets, we have quite a few players that are mostly all PDGA members, we just are sick of driving hours and hours to play sanctioned events on courses we rarely ever play. I would appreciate it if you point me in the right direction on how to begin running an event around here. Thank you for your time.
-Jesse

You can run a sanctioned event on tone poles or portable baskets as long as you do it as an X-tier. Your players will still get points and ratings.

When figuring out how many rounds to double for ratings calcuations, do you always round up, always round down, round normally (up or down depending on decimal), or is deference given to whichever creates the higher rating?

Thanks for your assistance and sorry for not being more diligent in finding where this has already been posted.

Also, in the instance of casual relief where line of play relief would put a player out of bounds, why can't there be an option for relief that allows for relief behind the lie along the out of bounds line (up to 5 meters)? I only ask because I was "forced" to play from knee deep swampy mud in a casual relief area because line of play relief reached out of bounds before dry ground in that direction. I know I could have taken an unplayable lie but in the case of casual obstacles that seems a little extreme.

While I'm on a roll, can the next rules update state in bold print "only for use with OB relief" in the rule of verticality? I couldn't convince 2 certified officials of this at a tourney this past weekend even after showing them the rule in black and white in the book. They wanted to allow a player to play from a surface 10 feet or so above their disc (which was under something) because they had a difficult time taking a stance where the disc was laying. I asked a longtime area TD and a sponsored pro after the event and neither one seemed to agree with my understanding of the rule.

Thanks again for your time Chuck!

Round up

In the rule update, casual relief may include returning to the previous lie as an option with no penalty. The TD is allowed to specify extended relief or a drop zone as an option under current rules to deal with things like large casual relief areas or where relief would extend into OB like your situation.

I think the stacked playing surface options will be addressed in the upcoming rules revision, but as you point out, there's no allowance for moving vertically to a higher playing surface if your lie is already on a playing surface, even if you don't like it.

So if the Basket is elevated on top of a bench and your disc lands underneath the bench You must mark your lie where your disc is and stretch out and putt out. Correct??

Someone this weekend told me that you could mark your lie on top of the bench straight up from your disc. And putt out from there. Please tell me this not correct

You need to mark your lie on the playing surface. Generally the bench would not be considered a playing surface. Even if it was a playing surface, you cannot move your disc from one playing surface (the bench) up to a playing surface above. Stacked playing surfaces are covered in the Rules Q&A FAQ.

Chuck,
When are the 2010 HOF inductees announced?

Announced on PDGA Radio in the 6/24/10 edition:
http://www.pdga.com/pdgaradio

Thx, I'll have to get with Speedy to buy this years HOF disc.

Hey Chuck ,

I have something that has been bothering me for sometime and I was told to let it Go.

Played a PDGA Sanctioned round with this Guy , Two Minutes were called , and he was loading Bowls of Marijuana into his Pipe. Tournament Director said at the Players meeting , Absolutely no smoking pot during the round.

I Told him I was a PDGA Official and he said he was too !!!! So as I understand this , PDGA Officials should know the Rules !!!

4 Holes into this specific round
I warned him again , but he said he has a Medical Marijuana Card that Allows him to smoke pot anytime without repercussions. I looked at the other members of the group and they shook there heads NO ! He smoked 3 Bowls of Pot between the next 2 Holes. I was ******.
He was warned atleast Twice by me and the TD.

Is there such a Rule that Stipulates , If a Individual has a Medical Marijuana Card Validated , He can be allowed to Smoke Pot anytime ?

I was told to Mind my own business. WTF !!!!!

I'm a PDGA Official , playing a PDGA Sanctioned Event Round !!!! He should have been DQ'd as far as I'm concerned!!! :(

Hey Chuck ,

I have something that has been bothering me for sometime and I was told to let it Go.

Played a PDGA Sanctioned round with this Guy , Two Minutes were called , and he was loading Bowls of Marijuana into his Pipe. Tournament Director said at the Players meeting , Absolutely no smoking pot during the round.

I Told him I was a PDGA Official and he said he was too !!!! So as I understand this , PDGA Officials should know the Rules !!!

4 Holes into this specific round
I warned him again , but he said he has a Medical Marijuana Card that Allows him to smoke pot anytime without repercussions. I looked at the other members of the group and they shook there heads NO ! He smoked 3 Bowls of Pot between the next 2 Holes. I was Very Upset.
He was warned atleast Twice by me and the TD.

Is there such a Rule that Stipulates , If a Individual has a Medical Marijuana Card Validated , He can be allowed to Smoke Pot anytime ?

I was told to Mind my own business. WTF !!!!!

I'm a PDGA Official , playing a PDGA Sanctioned Event Round !!!! He should have been DQ'd as far as I'm concerned!!! :(

Marijuana cannot be used during the round regardless whether a person has a permit to legally use it in the state. It's the same with alcohol which cannot be consumed by players during the round even if they are old enough and the park allows it. These items can be consumed before, between or after rounds if they can legally do so based on age, license and/or permission granted by the venue. If a player is so disabled that they cannot do without medical marijuana for the length of a round, they are simply too disabled to play. Contact Gentry if you wish to discuss your specific situation: dgentry@pdga.com

This is what the rules say:

C.The use of illegal substances is forbidden
from the two minute warning until the
player’s scorecard is submitted. Such use
shall result in immediate disqualification.

D. Consumption of alcohol is expressly
forbidden from the two minute warning
until the player’s scorecard is submitted.
Such use shall result in immediate
disqualification at a B Tier or higher event.
(This rule is still in effect at “C Tier” events.
However, the Tournament Director may
elect to issue a warning to the offending
player instead of immediately disqualifying
them. If a player has been issued a warning,
all subsequent violations shall result in
immediate disqualification.)

In my opinion the rule is not as cut and dried as Chuck would interpret it.

Oh, yeah, I meant that bad wordplay! :D

You might want to consult the medical marijuana law of your state, which you can probably find in 5 minutes with Google, your state name and the words medical marijuana. It may be that a medical marijuana license only allows use in the holder's home or a licensed facility. You might also want to consult the local park rules. They may have a rule against the consumption of marijuana regardless of whether the person has a license.

Edit: I looked at California medical marijuana laws. If smoking is prohibited in the park, smoking medical marijuana is also prohibited. Smoking medical marijuana is also prohibited within 1000 feet of a school or recreation center.

Chuck
How about this scenario.

The course TD calls all water on the course casual.
We had serious rain and some of the depressions in
the land filled with mini ponds. They are usually not
there and that is the reason for all water being casual.

What happens when your disc goes into this casual pond
but you can't find exactly where the disc is? Is this considered
a lost disc or since the water is casual do you play the disc
where the group last saw it? People were playing this a variety
of ways from the info I gathered.

Thanks

Lies in casual water can be played and are inbounds. Think of the sprouting casual water mini ponds as if grass in selected areas all of sudden grew 18 inches over lunch break making it hard to find discs in the high grass. In theory, the group has to wander around in the casual water for the 3 minutes looking for the disc (although everyone may be soaked by then anyway?) Unless the disc can be found in the casual water, the lost disc rule applies.

Now, there's a way around this if the savvy TD identifies "no penalty" drop zones for landing in specific, probably larger casual water areas. In that case, all that is necessary is for the group to agree that a disc landed somewhere in that casual pond versus being lost on dry land. The player goes to the drop zone with no penalty and the disc does not need to be found.

Chuck... another ratings question in regards to propagators/flaws in the system. Am women played the first round of this years Charlotte Am Champs on a pretty short course. The FW1 division shot really well and most were under or right at par.
The question comes from seem to be really low ratings for what was shot on the course. The lowest score for that round only got an 875 rating. I know that they may not be official, so they could change. Any one shooting 7 down doesn't deserve an 875 rated round, regardless of what course it is (especially at an A-tier in an Advanced division). To get a 1000-rated round they would have to shoot a 15 down. I guess that would be possible, but it just seems that the ratings should be adjusted a little higher. Any insight would be appreciated.

Nothing seems out of line in looking at the course assignments. It says the Adv, & Int Women plus Rec men & Jrs played Elon in R1. The unofficial round ratings are scattered around the average of the props. The big problem I see is this round may be thrown out because the SSA is lower than our soft 41.4 limit. The SSA looks like it's less than 40 so no official ratings may be produced for this round. Statistically, when courses get too easy, the ratings calculations start to break down because one fluky throw is worth too many rating points. Horizons Park in Winston Salem has had this problem over the years with borderline acceptable SSA values near 41 http://www.pdga.com/course-ratings-by-course?RatingCourseID=69 but never below 40 SSA.

875 does seem low for shooting 7 under par. But it is a short course and I have shot -15 during a 1-disc challange, using a putter. So, it is very possible.

I'm guessing the "true par" on that layout is not 54 but it includes holes with pars we will not mention... :)

Thanks for looking at it. I know that mathematically it's probably correct, but some application of logic would lead me to think that they would be a little low, just sucks for them when they tear up a course, and the second lowest score on the round barely shot her rating...

Maybe what you are seeing here is the mathematical effect when almost every gator shoots well on a course. If some gators shoot well and some gators shoot poorly, the players who shoot well get good ratings and the players who shoot poorly don't. But if all the gators or almost all of them shoot well, the players who shoot well are only going to get average ratings.

When you have a small pool of gators, it is possible that every gator could have a very good round on a course compared to what they would normally shoot, and then the math just treats those very good rounds as being average rounds.

The odds are about 1 in 8000 of five gators all playing three or more shots better than their ratings in a round, let alone more than five, but it can happen.

I have a question for ya Chuck. This happened this weekend so i am wondering if they got it right. There was 2 added holes to make the course have 20 holes. One of the added holes shot from 14s short pad away from the normal hole, toward the long pad of 14. Then you would play the long pad on 14 to 14s basket. The player was asked to go spot on the temp hole and when he went up he must have thought they said they would spot for him and he threw from the long pad to 14s basket. Then the group told him he blew it and he came back and they all played the temp hole. Then they all teed of on 14 except him. He played the drive that he threw earlier when the had him spot. What would the rule be here. They ended up giving him two stokes for playing the holes out of order. is this the right call? Thanks for your time

I have another question also. Is there any updates to the rule book for 2010. My book is from 07 and i was wondering since i did not receive a new rulebook with my renewal. Do we have to buy a new rulebook or something? it seems like that should be included in the 50 dollars we pay to renew. Thanks
-Jesse

Two throws sounds right, the way it came out. However, he should only have gotten a practice throw penalty for the first throw, picked up his disc and played that hole over from the beginning after playing the temp hole with everyone.

I have another question also. Is there any updates to the rule book for 2010. My book is from 07 and i was wondering since i did not receive a new rulebook with my renewal. Do we have to buy a new rulebook or something? it seems like that should be included in the 50 dollars we pay to renew. Thanks

No new rulebook for 2010. However, you can get a combo book that has the rules and the Competition manual combined.

What should have been done was treat his incorrect throw as a practice throw and not use it. Simply a single stroke penalty.

Thanks for responding so quick chuck. i am glad we did the right thing.
Krupicka: We would have treated it as a practice throw but he used it as his drive so he never threw another shot hence no practice throw. We teated it as playing holes out of order which is 2 throws

What should have been done was treat his incorrect throw as a practice throw and not use it. Simply a single stroke penalty.
You are correct that that is what they should have done, but they didn't, if I understand the story, so the question is how to score it after they did what they shouldn't have done. :)

To me it seems like a one-throw penalty for the practice throw on 14, since they caught that before he took a subsequent throw. Then when they played 14, he played it from the lie of his practice throw rather than from the tee, which would be a two-throw penalty, added to the number of throws he took after starting from the wrong location. This would not be for playing the hole out of order, but for not playing the proper tee.

All of this would result in him getting penalized two more throws than the actual number of throws he took on the two holes combined, which sounds like what Chuck was saying. It's what I'm saying, regardless. :D

Why is it that AM Worlds has a DVD this year yet they still pay $50 in membership? I thought that was part of the reason Pros payed $75 due to the fact we partially finance the video (idk why it isn't AMs and Pros).

BTW I am not complaining about AM membership fees and if anything they need to be reduced I just thought it was funny that one of the main reasons ours is higher is the Worlds video and now the PDGA is making 2 separate DVDs........carry on

Chuck, there still isn't a list of all the rated rounds above 1075 or so?

That 1083 I shot in a C-tier adjusted to 1089 and I still wish there was a way to compare it to other C-tiers and I will do it myself if I can get a hold of a list of all the hot rounds......SSA means something for sure but I know 1070 rounds are more common at NTs than C-tiers and especially rounds that are almost 1090.

Thanks

SSA means something for sure but I know 1070 rounds are more common at NTs than C-tiers and especially rounds that are almost 1090.
Of course they are. More players with ratings over 1020 at NTs means more players who are likely to shoot 1070 rounds regularly. Feldberg should shoot 1070+ once every other tournament.

The 10 Best Rounds in each SSA range may not be updated until after Worlds.

Far as I know, Clash/Billy Crump took on the Am Worlds DVD as his own project, not the PDGA.

Of course they are. More players with ratings over 1020 at NTs means more players who are likely to shoot 1070 rounds regularly. Feldberg should shoot 1070+ once every other tournament.

The 10 Best Rounds in each SSA range may not be updated until after Worlds.

Far as I know, Clash/Billy Crump took on the Am Worlds DVD as his own project, not the PDGA.



So you don't have just the top 50-70 rounds ever? No SSA ranges just 1117-1070? Heck I will find out if the event was C-B-A-NT I just need something to look at.

Also it is good to hear about Billy taking it upon himself to produce the AM worlds vid....since many who participated (or not) will love to see it.

Roger usually sends me the current top 12-15 in each of the five SSA ranges then I format them for posting. Maybe we'll do a top 50 all-time in each SSA range as a yearend bonus. Remind me then.

Roger usually sends me the current top 12-15 in each of the five SSA ranges then I format them for posting. Maybe we'll do a top 50 all-time in each SSA range as a yearend bonus. Remind me then.

You know I will! Good luck and have fun at Worlds Mr. Kennedy!

If Jimmy cracks corn and no one cares why is there a song about it?

The song goes "I don't care" whoever I is...

Chuck I found your 80% sheet adjusting scores to 50 online somewhere.
Is there anything else available for generating handicaps that you are aware of ???
Trying to do a handicap night for our weekly mini.
Excel ect. ???
Thanks
D.P.

All of my recent efforts on handicaps have been tweaking the www.discgolfunited.com (http://www.discgolfunited.com) handicapping system to be the best possible. It handles potential sandbagging, fast improving players and uses the internal PDGA ratings calculations to produce handicaps. The service is free for PDGA members and only $10 (or less) per year for non-PDGA members. They can even maintain their own personal handicaps for any other rounds they play outside leagues. Directors have all the automated tools they need to run handicap leagues.

I can't seem to find the qualifications to be invited to pro worlds. And if I'm not invited (probably won't play enough events this year for 2011), how easy is it to get in from the waitlist?

There's no waitlist as such. Just sign up when the event is open to everyone usually later in May. Never a problem in Open.

I looked this up in FAQ but it didn't really answer my question. When our rating is calculated, is it just an average of all our rated rounds that are 12 months from our most recent rated round, with the most recent 25% double weighted? Thanks again.

Yep. We only go back more than 12 months if you have fewer than 8 rated rounds within the past 12 months.

The song goes "I don't care" whoever I is...So if Chuck doesn't sing the song, it is logically possible that he cares.

Chuck, what's the typical minimum acreage needed for a 9 hole course? How about 18?

I'm not Chuck, but I've always heard that an acre per hole is a standard minimum. This gives room for a fairway, rough, and transitions.

Dude sweet. Someone has 37 available and they want a course.

It's right in the Course Development section on this website:
http://www.pdga.com/documents/course-design-acreage-guide
Good luck on the project.

Hey Chuck,
I'm running a tournament next month with a 3 round format in one day. (short course) First round will be back-to-back, 36 holes, then lunch, then another round of 18. Do I have to have an "official" break in between the first 18 holes and the next 18 holes to score them as 2 seperate rounds, for a total of 3 seperate rounds? I couldn't find anything about this situation in the rules or comp. manual.

No problem. You can submit scores any appropriate way on the TD report even if it doesn't match how the players saw it. For example, you could have a 12-hole layout that was played twice in the morning, then lunch break, then 12 more for 36 total. You can break out the total scores from holes 1-6 from 7-12 during one round and add each of those sub-totals to the other 12s. You then report two 18-hole rounds played on separate layouts for ratings purposes since 12s alone can't be rated.

Thanks Chuck! Just trying to do something different!

Do you have any sway with Gentry? I've been trying for a while to get him to have someone (anyone, but I've volunteered) edit the posts to the website, but have gotten nowhere. I might be the only one, but I'm irked when there are blatant and easily correctable errors on our website that is somewhat the face of the sport on the internet.

Spelling and grammar aside, the Worlds Preview post mentioned the "insurgency" of young golfers and how all the players being together at the same Worlds complex allows them to "commiserate" - those words definitely don't mean what they're intended to mean. And it's not the first time.

I know this isn't your area, but... help!

I've noticed the issue and have occasionally made some corrections late at night. For tournament stories, many times they are created on mobile devices and it's hard to see typos. But as far as having someone review the stories as a regular task, I'll mention it to the staff.

I totally understand the mistakes happening at first writing (mobile devices or not) - it's part of writing, everyone makes mistakes. Thanks for taking the time, I appreciate it!

Hi Chuck et al.,

As was evidenced by several posts on the World's thread, there are lots of folks who think averaging -10 per round (on 18 holes) is ridiculous, even for the best players in the world.

I do not follow ball golf, but when I see that Tiger shot -6 somewhere, I think "easy course" while if he or the leader shoot -1, I think tough course. The US Open was just such an example. Pebble Beach laid out a really tough course, where the best in the world were expected to shoot about par.

Regarding the perception of the public, which I believe is tightly linked to the success of the sport of disc golf, tougher is better. Even if they play the exact same course and shoot the same exact score, reporting a 54 on a par 54 (even) is better (perception-wise) than a 54 on a par 62 (-8)--and these are the exact same scores, just changing par 4 and 5s back into 3s. No difference in course whatsoever. But the former looks like a test of skill, whereas the latter is a birdie-fest, walk in the park.

So, having said that, is there guidance from the PDGA about what constitutes a par 4 or par 5 hole?

For example: with Worlds coming to Santa Cruz, Pinto Lake has a 1200 ft monster hole. It is currently a par 5. But, while improbable, it is physically *possible* for someone to get it in three. And I would guess most top pros will be attempting birdie putts and not par saves when they play it. The first time I played it I made it in 5, and I am not very good compared to the guys playing in Worlds, nor do I throw very far.

When I see the 2010 finalists scoring birdies on 7 of 9 holes, I think the course is "easy." The public will also think this sport is easy and lacking any challenge, and therefore may relegate the fledgling sport to a kid's game, like playing hacky sack or lawn darts. And that is not good for growth.

So if there is some guidance on what is a par 3 vs. par 4, I'd love to hear it.
Thanks in advance,
Steve

The basic par guidelines are located here: http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/ParGuidelines.pdf

Because our sport has adopted similar terminology as ball golf and putting is much easier, we will continue to have high under par scores in events on well designed courses regardless whether they are pitch and putt or par 68 courses like Winthrop. A tournament course needs to have more holes where the scoring spread generates either more birdies or equal to the percentage of bogeys (and higher) to allow those who are playing well to score. Too many holes where the percentage of bogeys is higher than birdies only separates the bottom 1/3 of the field from everyone else. Those holes do not allow the top players who are playing well to separate themselves. Thus, courses with well designed holes that produce higher scores under true par, whether 54, 58, 62 or 66 should be sought out as the best for tournament competition.

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for the pdf link--I'll look it over.

In terms of course design, I understand what you are saying. The difficulty level of the holes should separate the wheat from the chaff, and bunching (either too many birdies or too many bogies) makes it difficult to separate talent in a representative way.

Since par is, in my opinion, just a scoring construct, then I think it should err on the side of being conservative. If someone designs a course with all perfect holes (regarding the spread of twos vs. fours to hole out), they could still "inflate" par by saying some are par 4, leading to rounds shot well under par.

Since par doesn't really matter (the number of strokes is really what matters), why not use a conservative number and make that par 4 a par 3, and the par 5 a par 4. And, heaven forbid, the par 3 a par 2?

Instead of the PDGA promoting the development of courses at par 60 or higher, just make them long par 54s.

Would it be weird to change par at Winthrop and make it par 54? Keep the same layout, just turn the 5s into 4s, some 4s into threes, and a couple of 3s into 2s (like 7, I think, with the fence)? Would people freak out at that? Why? Same course.

Thanks for your insight.
Steve

That would make many holes un-birdiable (disregarding an ace or similar). You can't do that. Par can't be defined as the best score anyone could reasonably get.

Hi Kevin,

Are you referring to Winthrop specifically? In 2009 the top 10% of players shot an average of 62 over four rounds. So if par was changed to 62, then Nikko won at -10. Big whoop, right? If par is 66, then it's -26.

My main point is about perception by non-disc golfers. Winning the biggest event of the sport at -10 is a lot different than -26. Having only 10% of the players shoot under par is more significant than a third of them doing that.

And I agree with you that holes need to be birdie-able. And no, par should not be the lowest possible score, but it should be a lot lower than is has been at the last couple of World events.

Cheers,
Steve

I suppose I was mainly speaking against the idea of a par two. I'd agree with you that a par of 62 wouldn't be too drastic at Winthrop.

Mostly, I think the problem goes back to what Chuck mentioned. We've carried over the ideas of ball golf. Par is considered the number of shots reasonably required to reach the putting area, and then a two-putt is assumed. Obviously, at the upper levels of our sport, it's not reasonable to expect a two-putt within 30 feet.

What happens to someone if they do not take the Rules exam before an NT?

I have tried 4 times to take it and everytime it sends me back to #2 after finishing question 10-11.


BTW the exam is horrible (or one question) when it asks about joe schmoe walking up to his disc which is 6'7 up in a tree which proceeds to fall out and thus you must make a ruling.........IT IS NEVER MENTIONED IF THE 2M RULE IS IN EFFECT!!!!!!!!

Also as no 2M is the new default I almost wanted to answer no penalty because is was never mentioned and therefore no penalty would be given either way.

This is also why I still haven't taken a CO test..........it is a JOKE!

If you adjust the par on Winthrop, or any other course using our current par settings over 60, down 4 to 6 shots lower, which holes are changed? Usually, the pars on each hole average closer to the PDGA par setting such as 3.7 for a par 4 or 4.6 for a par 4. Arbitrarily setting those pars down to 3 and 4 respectively doesn't make much sense and turns par into an even harder concept than what we have now.

Recognize that our par settings for top level NTs and Majors is based on gold level players who have ratings from 975 to 1025. The SSA on each hole helps set par (with 2 not be included). Let's say you have a good par 4 wooded hole for gold level with a 4.0 average. The Super Gold players who have ratings over 1025 are typically the winners who shoot -8 to -10 per round. They are the ones most likely to get birdies on those holes. We try to design good holes for Final 9s to test the Super Gold players. But there would be a lot of frustrated regular gold rated players if the courses they played in tournaments were always set for Super Gold let alone having those settings on the courses on a day-to-day basis when perhaps only one Super Gold player lives within 200 miles of a course.

What happens to someone if they do not take the Rules exam before an NT?

Marshals carry several printed versions of the exam to administer to players who have not passed the exam, usually during player check-in.

Marshals carry several printed versions of the exam to administer to players who have not passed the exam, usually during player check-in.

Can we take that one unlimited times too? I still think giving unlimited attempts is pretty funny.

Anyway I will probably just do it then instead of wasting my time with the online version.

Thanks

Hi Chuck,

Par is irrelevant to determining the winner. If we eliminated the concept of par at Winthrop, yet kept the same exact layout, what would that impact? The guy with the lowest stroke count wins.

Par is relevant only as a way to gauge how "hard" the hole is. It in no way alters how a hole is played. Everyone tries to get into the basket with the least throws possible.

So changing par at Winthrop would be no big deal in terms of how it alters play. Same exact course, but now you only report stroke counts.

So why change it? To improve the perception of non-disc golfers that this is a serious sport.

Cheers,
Steve

First, very few if any outside the sport in powerful media positions are even watching to possibly make the judgment that our sport is "too easy" based on par. Is Cricket too easy because teams win by 99 runs? http://www.cricinfo.com/countycricket2010/engine/current/match/435444.html

Par is necessary to tell how well players are doing who have played a different number of holes during live scoring and when players are in different pools and have played a different combination of courses so far. Note that the PDGA does not display Over/Under par in Official results, only Unofficial results during and just after events. So there's no permanent Over/Under par record to look at for historical results.

Lonhart has a valid point here. Perception is
part of life. How people outside our sport
perceive it effects our growth.

Come on Matt you should channel your energies
into something a bit more positive. Just sayin'

Hi Chuck,

I disagree with your assertion that par is necessary. The PDGA does not even keep a record of it. It's the number of throws that matters.

You are correct that no one in big media is paying attention. But there are lots of regular folks--people like my in-laws--who see a slow but steady increase in the visibility of this sport. Their current perception is that it's a "hippy sport" and isn't really a test of skill. Given that the area I live in likely has more golf course acreage per capita than anywhere else in North America, everyone knows ball golf, even if they don't play. The US Open at Pebble has never been played by 99% of the public (or even seen!), but they talked about the 2010 course as a true challenge, a test of skill, and appreciate that the best in the world struggled to get par this year.

Conversely, when Tiger waltzed through the 2000 US Open, shooting something like 24 under and winning by 15 strokes, locals said the course was "easy" and not a true test (and that Tiger was awesome in crushing the field by 15 strokes). The folks at the US Open adjusted the course dramatically in 2010.

Unfortunately for disc golf courses, it is more difficult to adjust courses, since tee pads and sleeves are poured in cement. So to improve the public's perception (not big media), why not alter "par" but keep the course the same. Doesn't change how you play. Doesn't affect ratings (or does it?). But it does make the general public think of disc golf as a challenge. And perhaps respect it instead of ridicule it.

And that change in attitude will lead to increased interest, participation, and eventually catch the attention of big media...

I think our current use of par in the biggest events of the year is doing disc golf a disservice. Some have written that ball golf par and disc golf par are different concepts. Sorry, but par--as a word--has it's roots in ball golf and all the associated baggage with it. We cannot try to redefine par for disc golf--it has too much inertia already. Instead, we should be using the concept of par and our premier events to reinforce the idea that disc golf is a true athletic test of skill and endurance.

Thanks again for discussing this!
Steve

Par would be based on what then? You can't just arbitrarily make up some reduced par to satisfy this perceived problem. Why reduce par just 4-6 shots per course? Wouldn't we get even more respect and credibility if we lowered current par by one on each hole so that our winners finished at +25 or more? I don't think so. Par 2s may be more damaging than the perceived -60 winning score and would definitely tick off our player base.

At least par as currently determined has a basis in reality and is officially meaningful for late penalties. In fact, the case could be made that our top players are just that much better than our "scratch par" players compared with top pros in ball golf versus their "scratch par" golfers. That's a marketing advantage should we ever get the chance.

I agree with Chuck on this issue

even on a true gold level course, where gold level players (1000 rated; our version of scratch golfers) are happy to shoot par, the top golfers (those rated above 1030) will still shoot way under par

consider at winthrop gold where par is 68 and with the SSA being close to that for most rounds, that makes the spread about 6 points per stroke - so even though the average gold level pro will be happy to shoot par, a 1030 rated player would be expected to 'average' 5 down - and this does not consider what this player will shoot on a good round

well when you consider that at a large tournament like the USDGC where you have pretty much every top player in attendance, then at least one of them is bound to be shooting a lot better than their average for 4 rounds, meaning each of their rounds will be much better than 5 down, which leads to them being way under par at the end of the tournament

par is still a really good score, even for some of the sports better players (borderline 1000 rated players aren't the best in the world, but are typically still some of the sports better players)

the only way to change this is to artificially adjust par just to make people feel better about our game's 'perception' or make putting harder (which even then, putting will never be as difficult in disc golf as it is in ball golf)

say a hole averaged 4.00 exactly on a par 4 gold level hole and had a good spread of 20-30% birdies, 40-50% pars, and the rest bogeys and above (enough to get the average to be exact) - that would be a pretty good hole by most definitions - but gather a group of top players together and the ones that are playing well that day will be the ones getting the birdies - so even if you have a course full of holes with great scoring spread and where your typical pro is able to get birdie, but is still happy with getting a par, the winning score from a group of pros will still be way under par

if you change the par in this example because they are shooting too good for your perception, then it only makes the scoring spread and the average look bad - players will then complain that such a hole can not be a par 3 because nobody will birdie it (without a throw in or something equally amazing) - if you make putting tougher, then at least the hole will still play just as well, except now the players have to make a good putt in addition to not messing up the rest of the hole

On one hand, larger par values are good for lower divisions where a player might decide to just be late for a whole rather than play it, but at the upper levels, lower par values are probably more appropriate. If the most of the pro field considers a hole as a must Birdie to contend, then the par value is off. This comes into play when looking at the live scoring. As an observer I want to be able to tell who is falling off and who is gaining. When I look at the scores for the USDGC and see someone with a -2 after twelve holes, and another player at -2 after 6 holes. I should be able to assume that there are roughly even. But with inflated par, if someone throws even par after 18 holes, they have most likely given a huge number of holes away that are required to win.

I think Chuck is correct that our top pros simply shoot more under par than top golf pros, but PGA golf has also been more willing to jigger the concept of par for marketing purposes.

The USGA advocates setting par at the playing level of the average amateur in the top half of the field at the premiere amateur invitational. The par values used at Pro Worlds closely tracked that definition of par if you look at scores and ratings from USADGC.

The par values at a top PGA course are just jiggered down so that golfers will say, "Oh, that course is really hard!" Dummies. It is a par 80 course from the pro tees and the top pros are shooting it nine down, but they are calling the easy par 5s "par 4" and the par 6s "par 5", and calling the whole thing par 72.

Sometimes you just have to engage in stupid jedi mind tricks like that to fool the masses. Can you imagine if someone passed a law requiring everyone to get up and start work an hour earlier in the summer? Oh, they have; they call it Daylight Savings Time. PDGA members also get a $10 discount. Yippee. Whatever.

"These aren't the pars you're looking for" [wave of hand]

Thanks for the smile!
Steve