Chuck,

Do you think the ratings system will end up going "real-time" at some point in the future?

The ratings system is already a fantastic system, just wondering if you ever see the possibility of a real time ratings system...

Thanks man,

mc

Short answer is 'No.' I think you'll see improvements to the online unofficial ratings based on improvements for TDs to post results and improved "correctness" in terms of course layouts being entered properly. We are also working on a way to keep the unofficial round ratings up there until the official ones get processed so there's not a "dark" period inbetween.

Since TDs are allowed up to 30 days to get reports in and still some do not meet that deadline, this is the real time lag in the system we can't improve. If we process events any faster, the rating sequence of events will get more out of order than it already is. By spacing out the updates, there's time for Dave to get most of the reports for events hosted during a certain time period processed at the same time.

The process requires manual checking of properly filled out reports. There's no easy way to get around proper assigning of course layouts to each division who played them. We can sometimes guess but we really have to mostly rely on the TD to get that right. That's the Achilles heel of the process and the one most likely to generate wrong values.

We catch a lot of the mistakes before events are processed with our semi-automated process. If we automated the process further, more bad results would go out and we'd just have to go back and correct them after they were posted more than we do now.

One cool thing that a volunteer might write is a "What If" program either for the web or for someone to download that allows players to load in their new unofficial values and have it estimate their rating. Disc Golf United already has realtime updating of your handicap where you can enter your results as you get them. That's the closest you can get to seeing your rating or handicap after every round at the moment.

would the calculation behind such a tool be simply to calc the SD, determine if any rounds should be dropped, determine which rounds get doubled, then do the calc with proper inclusions and weightings? anything i am missing?

triple post removed

double post removed

Chuck, have you ever considered dropping late penalties and wrong score penalties from total scores for rounds only for the purpose of calculating round ratings (not to calculate total score relative to other competitors at an event)? Or have you considered dropping those penalties when calculating course SSA's? just curious.

I think this would be an option available after a person brings up their current Ratings Detail. They would click the 'What If' button and their current round ratings and dates would be listed. They could then enter as many round ratings and dates as they wanted. No events even need to be listed or the round order within a day.

The logic for the calc would first eliminate rounds 12 months older than last date entered unless there were fewer than 8. Then the number of rounds to be doubled would be determined and which ones. If only one of two on a date was to be doubled, choose the higher rated one. Then, the SD is calculated to see if any rounds are knocked out. (This is the way Roger does it now but I think the SD knock out should be done first before the doubling.)

Then calc the average. The primary thing that's slightly different is that the round ratings have already been rounded. The other item is that the number of props may increase with people renewing since the time an event posted unofficial ratings and when the official ones are done. This happens all of the time early in the year.

Chuck, have you ever considered dropping late penalties and wrong score penalties from total scores for rounds only for the purpose of calculating round ratings



Yes we have. The question we had was whether this might be a typical behavior for the player or not. If so, then it should be part of their rating because they might be prone to this error every so often. We weren't smart enough to divine one time situations versus a pattern so we've left it in there, let alone the hassle of TDs having to flag scores on TD reports. Remember that players who shoot more than 60 points below their rating are excluded from the SSA calc. So if someone is late by two holes, there's a good chance that score may not be used for the SSA even if it isn't low enough to get excluded from that player's rating average.

Remember that players who shoot more than 60 points below their rating are excluded from the SSA calc. So if someone is late by two holes, there's a good chance that score may not be used for the SSA even if it isn't low enough to get excluded from that player's rating average.



i thought a round had to be 2.5 STD below the rating for the rounds used in determining the rating for it to be dropped? If i have a round 60 points or more less than my rating is it automatically dropped? :confused:

also is it 60 points less than the rating at the time the round was shot or 60 points less than the rating the round shot figures into?

You're missing the sequence here. The SSA for each round is temporarily calculated based on the scores and ratings of propagators. If a propagator shoots a round with an unofficial rating more than 60 points below their rating, then they are excluded from producing the SSA calculation, but not from getting a rating for that round.

Once the SSA is calculated from propagators with acceptable round ratings, everyone who played that layout will get a round rating from that SSA regardless whether they are a propagator or not, or a member or not.

Chuck, I know it's been brought up before, but...I would love to see the averages for a tourney on our player information page. I know its a pretty quick calculation to do ourselves, but it would be so much easier if there were just a TA (Tourney Average) column. I really like knowing those averages, they are a much more accurate indicator than finishing places. (Just because I place "well" at one tourney doesn't mean I will at the next, sometimes I don't notice all the high rated players and wonder..."Now why did I tank so badly...I didn't feel like I was tanking.")

thanks for clarifying that you were talking about course SSA calculations. why doesn't the figure of 60 points slide higher for lower rated players and lower for higher rated players?

I'm not sure what averages you are referring to? Something like the average round ratings for the person taking last cash? The average score or SSA for the course layout?

The major problem is that linking this back to the player pages with unofficial results doesn't make sense when scores are first posted because TDs aren't held to any quality posting standards beyond getting the scores correct. In fact, we'd rather they spend their time getting the TD report done and sent in rather than do a complex course layout online for an event like the BG Ams for example.

Once the event is processed with official ratings, the SSAs for each round are posted with the Course Stats link on the tournament results page. We're working on getting those linked back to the Course Directory but I'm not sure what the status is on that.

why doesn't the figure of 60 points slide higher for lower rated players and lower for higher rated players?




It could but we don't retain each person's SD in the database. So, you would really be churning the server to process the SDs for each person for each event with minimal benefit versus a fixed figure to do the unofficial calculations. Likewise, doing the official calculations would require an SD recalculation for everyone as each event was processed which would dramatically increase the processing time. If we did anything along these lines, we might consider a sliding scale which would use a larger cutoff point the lower the prop average rating for a rating pool.

okay, i think i waded in a little too deep. thanks for the answer but i am going to head back to the kiddie pool before i start sinking /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif i am thinking it's safe to say it would be a little more accurate that way but that the drawbacks of doing it that way make it impractical...

This thread went somewhat adrift from your question, Mike. I'm not sure realtime is realistically in the future. However, I can see adding more regular updates than 5 per year, possibly in 2007.

In fact, we'd rather they spend their time getting the TD report done and sent in rather than do a complex course layout online for an event like the BG Ams for example.




If the correct round ratings are not going to be used for BG Am's then all the ratings for this event should be thrown out.

The ratings are all for one course for each round. It basically shows that every player played the exact same course for all four rounds. Impossible since there were 8 courses used.

Sure this is confusing, but they got it right for the BG Open. If they cannot get it right for the BG Am's throw them out. I don't care if my round rating was high or low, but if it is not correct then it is not the truth about how I played.

Quality is better then quantity in this point.

BG Ams is being done properly for the official ratings. But it's more complicated to do the unofficial ratings properly with the online software than it is to do the TD report correctly.

Kris,

Have you done this before? You can define the courses for the "on-line" scoring and it will calculate differently for each Pool on each course, but it is cumbersome and occasionally odd things will occur. For instance, I have seen a proper setup for the on-line scoring and one pool did not get a rating for one round. The on-line scoring is nice, but it is only an estimate. I have a scoring spreadsheet that is being used by many TD's and it also calculates an estimated round rating, but once again, if it is not setup properly, the estimates can be off by quite a bit.

As long as the TD report is correct the rounds will be calculated correctly.




If the correct round ratings are not going to be used for BG Am's then all the ratings for this event should be thrown out.

The ratings are all for one course for each round. It basically shows that every player played the exact same course for all four rounds. Impossible since there were 8 courses used.

Sure this is confusing, but they got it right for the BG Open. If they cannot get it right for the BG Am's throw them out. I don't care if my round rating was high or low, but if it is not correct then it is not the truth about how I played.

Quality is better then quantity in this point.

This thread went somewhat adrift from your question, Mike. I'm not sure realtime is realistically in the future. However, I can see adding more regular updates than 5 per year, possibly in 2007.



This thread is providing some good ratings talk, thanks Chuck! I now understand how real time ratings would tough to achieve.

ok boyz'n'girlz, herre is something. it is basic, no frills, but pretty darn accurate.

ratings calculator (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/ratings_predictor.xls)

its an excel spreadsheet... just replace my data with your own and boom, out comes your anticipated rating.

ideas = welcome

Very cool!

wow Pat, that is awesome and user-friendly. you are a pretty cool guy for someone who likes the 2 meter rule and throws Discraft :eek: :D:p

i'll use it to see if my predictions using old math were correct... thanks again

Calculator looks good. Two tweaks needed are: (1) The 2.5SD is capped at 100 maximum. (2) you need to use the ROUNDUP function because 14 will be doubled with 53 rounds, not 13.

BG Ams is being done properly for the official ratings. But it's more complicated to do the unofficial ratings properly with the online software than it is to do the TD report correctly.



ah.....what a mess..... Chuck needs a vacation. :D

"I see" said the blind man as he walks into the bar.

i made the two changes chuck mentioned and posted a new sheet to the same link.

i have a question Pat. the rating i get for the next update was lower based on your calculator's std. deviation figure than i expected (4 pts). does it calculate the std deviation of the rounds before the recent 25% are double weighted or after? i believe the proper way to do it would be to get the std. deviation with no double weightings first, and then double weight the rounds and calculate the rating. Chuck?

Roger does standard deviation calc based on non-doubled rounds but does the rejection after rounds have been doubled. So, it's unlikely but possible that a double weigthed round will get dropped.

good. Pat could you please tweak your calculator so that the std deviation is calculated before doubling any rounds and then the rating will be calculated after doubling the rounds ...? i want those 4 extra points that will result from dropping one of my two sub-900 rounds ;)

SD is already calcd before doubling. SD is a derivative of the round ratings, not the doubled ratings.

there are any number of reasons the spreadsheet will differ from the actual rating. witness the changes that occur whenever round ratings go from unofficial to official. this ia an indicator only. that being said, i have been using the same algorithms for three years now and i only failed to correctly calculate my official rating one time, and i think that was due to some sort of correction they applied to help fix the high-vs-low rated pools problem.

SD is already calcd before doubling. SD is a derivative of the round ratings, not the doubled ratings.



so if i have 21 rated rounds, 5 are double weighted, and rather than calculate the std deviation for 26 rounds, the calculator first calculates the std deviation from the 21 rated rounds and then goes back, doubles the ratings of the most recent 5 rounds & then tallies the ratings of those 26 rounds, divides by the # of rounds (26) and then subtracts any rounds that were rated 2.5* the std deviation for the 21 rounds and recalculates the ratings minus any of those rounds that there are? :confused:

how do i make the formulas that are in place show up on your excel spreadsheet?

almost.

u have 21 rated rounds;
calculate the average of 21 rated rounds;
calculate the SD from the 21 rated rounds;
calculate your range - multiply SD by 2.5 (use 100 if result > 100);
subract the range from the average to get your lower boundary;
remove any rounds rated below your average;
divide 21 by 4 ( = 5);
weight the last 5 rounds double;
your rating is the average of the rounds with doubling

thanks for showing your math. i thought i subtract the range from the rating i get after using the doubled rounds in the calculation to arrive at my rating and then drop any rounds out below that number. i think i like my way better :D do you think we could convince Rodney and Chuck to change it? :eek:

I thought that if an event has 3+ rounds, your best round gets doubled also? Not sure how you'd incorporate this into the spreadsheet though...

Not that it's any good to me anyway. Chuck, is there a particular reason that no European events get provisional ratings? Some of us are stats geeks too you know :D

The ROUNDUP function takes care of calculating the correct number of doubled rounds. D=ROUNDUP(R/4,0) determine how many rounds (D) to double weight where R is your total number of rated rounds. One round will get rouble weighted if R=1 thru 4, 2 will get double weighted if R=5 thru 8, etc.

Bruce, the International events will produce unofficial ratings just like US events. It's up to the TDs to post them.

pat, i re-looked at my calculation and i think it was the same method as yours. the only thing is it looks to me like your calculator does not drop out the round i have that is lower than 2.5 times my std deviation... do i need to do that manually? (i want those 3 extra points :D)

the spreadsheet should apply a weighting of 0 to any dropped rounds. if you send me your rounds and ratings i will run it here and see if i can figure anything out.

Ok, i sent you an email Pat. my only question now is when taking my 5 (n=21) most recent rounds to double-weight them, does it know to pick the best round from rounds 5 thru 8 or does it take the 5th round regardless?

i am down to trying to salvage one point and at least get (unofficially) to 964... :p

If N=21, then 6 are doubled...

If N=21, then 6 are doubled...



Tht's funny -- the additional round that then gets doubled was a 964 and thus will drop my calculated ratings update from
a 964.1154 to 964.1111 :eek: :p by my unoffical calculations my round of 883 missed being dropped by 3 points :(
surprisingly, if that 883 round had dropped, my rating would have been slated to only go up an additional 3 points ...

the spreadsheet does not know how to choose which round to double if not all rounds from an event are to be doubled. it simply doubles the last N rounds. if you want to double a particular round, just change the 1 to a 2. dont forget to change a 2 to a 1 somewhere, or you will be doubling too many rounds.

Would it work if players are just instructed to always put their best rounds on each date of an event first?

yes, that would be one way of making it work automatically.

Chuck, if there's a cut at a tournament after three rounds, and you play in the final round (full 18 holes, not a final 9), does that round count like any other round and you get a rating? or does that count as finals and no rating is given? Thanks.

Chuck, is the Psycho-Fish Bayou Bogey going to make the update? The event was a month ago but the ratings are still up on the tour page? I Played really well here and i hope they make it.

Chuck, if there's a cut at a tournament after three rounds, and you play in the final round (full 18 holes, not a final 9), does that round count like any other round and you get a rating?



Any round counts as long as it's at least 13 holes and there are at least 5 propagators. Usually 18-hole cut rounds meet both of those criteria unless it's a rare final 18 with only 4 players.

ok chuck...
a hypothecical one for you since my virginia open ratings did NOT make the update which was before the augusta classic(which DID make the update)

if the virginia open rated rounds of 996-902(yes i said 902),986,and 978 were before the augusta open rounds...what would my theoretical rating be??

thanks in advance....
keith

assuming you have time of course :D

Chuck, if there's a cut at a tournament after three rounds, and you play in the final round (full 18 holes, not a final 9), does that round count like any other round and you get a rating?



Any round counts as long as it's at least 13 holes and there are at least 5 propagators. Usually 18-hole cut rounds meet both of those criteria unless it's a rare final 18 with only 4 players.



Thanks Chuck. The preliminary ratings for the PFDO have the fourth round listed as "Finals" and there aren't ratings available, so I was wondering how it would work out when it's actually official.

(Also, for some reason they have me listed as a DNF, and that had better get fixed before they turn in the TD report.)

The order the events get unofficially posted online doesn't matter. The dates for the rounds will be placed in order for the doubling for all events officially processed during an update period.

Chuck, is the Psycho-Fish Bayou Bogey going to make the update? The event was a month ago but the ratings are still up on the tour page? I Played really well here and i hope they make it.



You should know better by now. Any event still posted with unofficial results online missed the ratings update. All events that currently have official results posted with no ratings are ones in the next update. 165 events or so this time.

I guess they got the results but not al the $$$ to the PDGA. Well there goes a 1023 rated event.
:confused:

Chuck,

The oldest tournament in my ratings is from June 18th of last year. I have more than 8 rounds and my last played tournament was this past weekend, a year from that date. However, that tourney won't be in the ratings because of the June 7th deadline.

Will my tournament from June 2005 still be included in this next rating update? Basically, is the year cutoff a year from your last played tourney, or your last rated tourney?

It's 365 days back from the date of your most recently rated round. If your total number of rounds in that period is fewer than 8, then we go back farther to get 8 or whatever you have in 24 months if still less than 8.

It's 365 days back from the date of your most recently rated round. If your total number of rounds in that period is fewer than 8, then we go back farther to get 8 or whatever you have in 24 months if still less than 8.



But since my most recently rated rounds were from May 29th, 2006, that round from last June will still be included until the September update. Is that correct? Thanks, Chuck.

Yes

&*%*$*$*%*[email protected]#*#$%*%^* !

looks like CAPITOL OF TEXAS and WATERLOO choked on getting the results in on time :mad:

The order the events get unofficially posted online doesn't matter. The dates for the rounds will be placed in order for the doubling for all events officially processed during an update period.



ok part 2:
i knew how it works ,hence my question about theorectical rating....as the augusta classic is making THIS update and the virginia open is NOT making this update...
i was just asking IF they both had made it what my theorectial rating would be...
that's why i listed them in round order for doubling purposes :eek:

again if you have time please :D

thanks,keith

Plug your ratings into the personal ratings calculator that Sandalman posted on the Ask CK thread. You can try a variety of "what ifs" with that.

www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=556248&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=2&fpart=2&vc=1 (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=556248&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=2&fpart=2&vc=1)

Keith,

The reason the Augusta Classic results got posted and submitted so fast is because the tournament director was PDGA Tour Manager, Dave Gentry. Dave completed and submitted the official results (to himself :cool:) the very next day.

Good to see you again and I look forward to meeting future World Champion and sponsor of hole 6 at Lake Olmstead, Lorelei Johnson, in Augusta next month.

Regards,
Brian Graham

Chuck,
Before the KC Wide Open I had a 938 player rating.
My average for the 5 rounds at the KCWO was 938.8.
Is there a chance my rating will jump to 939 now?
Am I in the running for some sort of prize- booby, or otherwise? :D

KCWO won't be in this update and we round down, let alone those are unofficial ratings. Sounds like you're consistent though...

I guess they got the results but not al the $$$ to the PDGA. Well there goes a 1023 rated event.
:confused:



Welcome to the Southern Nationals. :(

KCWO won't be in this update and we round down, let alone those are unofficial ratings. Sounds like you're consistent though...



3 out of my 5 rounds were 30+ points over my rating, and my "avg" was something close to 30 points over.

Do I get a prize for the PDGA's most inconsistent golfer?

Plug your ratings into the personal ratings calculator that Sandalman posted on the Ask CK thread. You can try a variety of "what ifs" with that.

www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=556248&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=2&fpart=2&vc=1 (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=556248&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=2&fpart=2&vc=1)



thanks...i was just curious if i would be dropping to am eligilble....i think you should automatically be am eliglible if you have 100 point swings in every event you play (which i pretty much do :( )

i wish the 100 point swings were 995 to 1095...

maybe with the new outlook they will be....
:D:D

KCWO won't be in this update and we round down, let alone those are unofficial ratings. Sounds like you're consistent though...



3 out of my 5 rounds were 30+ points over my rating, and my "avg" was something close to 30 points over.

Do I get a prize for the PDGA's most inconsistent golfer?



I think I'm way ahead of you there. I can shoot 980 average golf one weekend and 900 average golf the next. Fortunately, I shot 900 rated golf this weekend with DGLO next...

Plug your ratings into the personal ratings calculator that Sandalman posted on the Ask CK thread. You can try a variety of "what ifs" with that.

www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=556248&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=2&fpart=2&vc=1 (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=556248&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=2&fpart=2&vc=1)



also, the other problem with that thought about sandal's thingy is that i don't have the round ratings from augusta since they are already processed....which was the REAL reason i asked YOU in the first place....

i'll just wait until next week i guess,get the ratings from augusta off my stats and then plug things in...

thanks again for all your hard work chuck and i'll see you in august!

keith

If unofficial results and ratings are gone from the site, they aren't saved anywhere for me or anyone else to find them. The good news is that retaining unofficial ratings online until the official ones are calculated is on the list of technical enhancements for our website staff & volunteers. I've never checked to see if those online website archive sites might have a snapshot of our PDGA site from a few weeks or months ago to bring up the unofficial ratings. Another option is to look at other SSA values online for that course and estimate your ratings from that ( www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php) )

hey chuck i dont know who to direct this too but i didnt realize that i had traveled to Berlin to play in a tournament there as well as playing i the Points Bonanza's in Charlotte at the same time. Well to get to the point they have my Pdga # in as the person who won the Berlin Open, who just happens to have the same name as me, i just need that fixed please
mj 23000

congrats!!!lol :D

....who just happens to have the same name as me, i just need that fixed please
mj 23000



No...this other MJ is 23000 and you are not him. :o:p :D

you're right Dave i am 20300

twentythree hundred, twenty threehundred, twentythreehundred.....its all good. Just felt like busting your chops since I have your BagTag. :D

i didnt realize the #1 tag was officially mine

Im not sure if im supposed to ask Chuck about this but oh well...

I placed well enough in the Michiana tournament last weekend to receive a USADGC invitation. I played pro last year before i got hurt and cashed and accepted (a very small amount), and i was told that I cannot play in Majors as an AM if ive already accepted cash, no matter what. Someone told me this weekend at the tournament that if it has been a year, then I can play majors (USADGC, Am Worlds) again. I dont plan on going, so can i give the invitation to someone else?

Im not sure if im supposed to ask Chuck about this but oh well...

I placed well enough in the Michiana tournament last weekend to receive a USADGC invitation. I played pro last year before i got hurt and cashed and accepted (a very small amount), and i was told that I cannot play in Majors as an AM if ive already accepted cash, no matter what. Someone told me this weekend at the tournament that if it has been a year, then I can play majors (USADGC, Am Worlds) again. I dont plan on going, so can i give the invitation to someone else?

Yea you shouldn't have been allowed to play in the Roctober Double's and the Homie Memorial because you accepted cash in OPEN in the 21st Waterloo Open before those 2 ADVANCED tournament's.... At least that's what I have heard.

Who told you that? I played Open in the Waterloo and cashed (like $50 or something) and my rating was still under 955. So I played Homie's in AM1 after i cashed but was still under 955.

That's just what I have heard thru the grapevine. But I remember reading somewhere that, if you play open and cash, you have to wait 1 year and in that year you can't accept cash and your rating has to be below a 955 to play AM again after that year is up.

Are there or is there specific regulations on Basket heights or some standardization of them at A tier and NT tournaments ?

Are there or is there specific regulations on Basket heights or some standardization of them at A tier and NT tournaments ?




Not really. The standard applies to the manufacture but not necessarily the installation of the baskets. Based on the current tech standards, the TD could remove the chain assembly and the basket would still be PDGA legal. I doubt a TD would pull that move though.

I placed well enough in the Michiana tournament last weekend to receive a USADGC invitation. I played pro last year before i got hurt and cashed and accepted (a very small amount), and i was told that I cannot play in Majors as an AM if ive already accepted cash, no matter what. Someone told me this weekend at the tournament that if it has been a year, then I can play majors (USADGC, Am Worlds) again. I dont plan on going, so can i give the invitation to someone else?



Contact Dave Gentry at PDGA office.

Are there or is there specific regulations on Basket heights or some standardization of them at A tier and NT tournaments ?



I believe that all NT's have to have the same type of basket on every hole at a course. If there are multiple courses being played, then the courses can have different baskets as a long as they are consistent within each course.

I wonder if Pendleton King will swap all of the baskets before Worlds. I played there this weekend and it had an assortment of Mach 2s and Mach 5 with number plate on top? Not sure which model. Does it matter if they are different baskets from the same manufacturer? What about proto-Discatchers (top hat) and regular Discatchers? Renny has both.

Matt,

All of the baskets at Pendleton King Park are DGA Mach-3. Seventeen of the baskets are the original ones installed in 1989 and the new one on hole 2 was recently installed to replace a broken basket. They will not be changed out before Worlds.

Pat Farrell, of DISConcepts, will be back in town this week to finish backfilling around the new concrete tee pads at Lake Olmstead.

BG

Hey, i hope this isn't another stupid question... Do stats for rounds get updated upon submission or not until the next ratings update? My question relates to the BC Open two weeks ago.
Thanks.

Are there or is there specific regulations on Basket heights or some standardization of them at A tier and NT tournaments ?



I believe that all NT's have to have the same type of basket on every hole at a course. If there are multiple courses being played, then the courses can have different baskets as a long as they are consistent within each course.



That's what I thought. Thanks.

That's just what I have heard thru the grapevine. But I remember reading somewhere that, if you play open and cash, you have to wait 1 year and in that year you can't accept cash and your rating has to be below a 955 to play AM again after that year is up.


I know I read something similar, but I can't find it on the PDGA site. I don't remember it saying anything about a year after accepting cash, it just said that if you are a pro and under 955 you can play am in all events except majors. If you look at the Divisions table (http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/06PlayerDivisionsGridFinal.pdf) you can see on the bottom right that pros are eligible to play am as long as their rating (and/or age depending on division) allows them to.

But I remember reading somewhere that, if you play open and cash, you have to wait 1 year and in that year you can't accept cash


I just reread this....does this make sense?

But I remember reading somewhere that, if you play open and cash, you have to wait 1 year and in that year you can't accept cash


I just reread this....does this make sense?


no

Chuck, is there any way I can view scores on individual holes from the Majestic (or any other tourney)?
Thanks.

Chuck, is there any way I can view scores on individual holes from the Majestic (or any other tourney)?



Only the grunt work of someone like the TD entering scores from the cards gets us that info. Only USDGC so far does that relatively realtime online that I know of. I have done several big events and some small events on courses I've designed to find issues and improve the holes. A few other designers have also started doing some of that analysis.

I've been collecting the score cards from the Tournies and Bag Tags on our local courses here.

Got a spreadsheet that figures modes, averages, standard devs, and the coefficient of variances for each hole.

First, I do believe, that I'll have to weed the data set down to only those of which have qualified propagator status or at least those that obviously have at least ~850 skill. (Q.Props are a bit rare around here for this year at least)

What issues would these numbers alert us to?
What other, if any, calculations from this data set would aid in improving a course?

Thanks fer the time...
U4ik

The distributions usually need to be adjusted by rating to one of our four skill levels (1000, 950, 900, 850) to make it useful for analyzing whether a hole does a good job spreading scores for that skill level and whether the scoring average meets the intentions of the hole designer. For example, does the scoring average adjusted to 950 level from a Blue tee drop the average below 2.5 making it a too easy par 3 (stealth par 2)? I'm in the process of analyzing scores from this year's Mid-Nationals to see whether certain holes on our Gold course need to be modified or whether the alternate pin placement will be better for Gold level players at Pro Worlds next year.

We also modified our Par 3 island hole that's similar to Winthrop Gold #17 to try and eliminate the donut effect of way more scores of 2 and 4 on the hole than scores of 3. It seemed to work but now the overall average is lower than 2.5 so we may need to lengthen the tee or add some trees on the route.

Another basic review determines whether a hole might have too many of the same scores for a skill level on a hole. For example, if more than 7 out of 10 Blue level players shoot a 3 on a hole, it probably is the wrong length to spread the scores for that level. Moving the tee or pin longer or shorter about 30 feet changes the scoring average about 0.1 up or down, respectively.

Members of the Disc Golf Course Designers group have access to a hole analysis tool called the Hole Forecaster which automatically adjusts scores to the PDGA skill levels making the analysis process much easier.

The distributions usually need to be adjusted by rating to one of our four skill levels (1000, 950, 900, 850) to make it useful for analyzing whether a hole does a good job spreading scores for that skill level and whether the scoring average meets the intentions of the hole designer.




Another basic review determines whether a hole might have too many of the same scores for a skill level on a hole. For example, if more than 7 out of 10 Blue level players shoot a 3 on a hole, it probably is the wrong length to spread the scores for that level. Moving the tee or pin longer or shorter about 30 feet changes the scoring average about 0.1 up or down, respectively.



We are using this type of scoring data to determine the need for changes/improvements of individual holes at Moraine State Park. A couple of examples would be the gold tee layouts on holes 9 & 11. For hole 9, the idea is to simply shorten the gold tee by 30'-50'. The same can be done on hole 11, however, J Gary Dropcho recently found a potential gold tee location approximately 30' to the right and short of the present tee. We would need to remove select trees to open the fairway, but this proposed tee location would definitely provide much more shot variation and will more than likely improve the overal scoring spread on the hole.

In addition, Chris Deitzel recently discovered a potential white tee location for the par 5 hole 6. By simply moving the tee back approximately 30'-35', there is a natural alley through the trees to the left side of the fairway. I showed it to J Gary a couple of weeks ago and he stated he had never noticed it before, either. This tee, if relocated, would probably not change the scoring spread of the hole too much, however, I think it makes for a better design as the golfer is presented with more shot variation off the box.

There's a definite advantage to using natural tees (or Fly Pads) the first year or two after the installation of a course. One can utilize all types of charts to determine par settings, but the statistical scoring data is truly invaluable when it comes to overall course improvements. Especially when designing multi-par courses for blue and gold level players.

Hey, i hope this isn't another stupid question... Do stats for rounds get updated upon submission or not until the next ratings update? My question relates to the BC Open two weeks ago.
Thanks.



Quick question, quick answer?? :confused:

Touring points get updated monthly

Sorry, I missed that one while I was gone at Mid-Nats. Ratings are updated five times per year and not inbetween just after events are done. However, you can see unofficial ratings after each event if the TD takes the effort to post scores and also makes sure the course layouts are entered properly. As Bruce posted, points are updated monthly during the peak event season and somewhat less often in winter.

However, you can see unofficial ratings after each event if the TD takes the effort to post scores and also makes sure the course layouts are entered properly.



I define effort as "something that takes longer than 10 mins to do"

The PDGA has done an AWESOME job making the TD report sheet and the online scoring system very easy to work with. Getting the scores up should be a fundamental thing now. I understand some people don't have computers or dont have online access or whatever, but I garuntee you know someone in your area that does!

Failure to do anything regarding this is just pure laziness and is UNACCEPTABLE imo.

Rant off

I agree and definately believe there should be some sort of consequences when a lazy td does not fulfill there obligations..

While I agree there's little excuse for not posting scores, especially since the TD has to place them on the TD report spreadsheet anyway (which is used to upload scores), the online course assignment process works a little differently and is somewhat more complicated than the way the TD report process. Unfortunately, I don't see an easy way for course assignments to be uploaded or to be done online much easier than they are now. TDs not clicking the "Update" button after doing the layouts correctly is the most common problem whereas in Excel no Update button is required. So, getting unofficial ratings correct is likely to be an ongoing problem because only the TD knows what the correct layouts and division matchups are in each round.

so as long as the info has been submitted one can expect to see tournament stats including round ratings by the end of the month... thanks.

so as long as the info has been submitted one can expect to see tournament stats including round ratings by the end of the month...



Not exactly. Unofficial round ratings are the responsibility of the TD not the PDGA office. They only show up if the TD posts results after the event and stay up until the TD report comes to the PDGA office. Then the official results get posted, points are awarded and the unofficial round ratings disappear until the official ratings update. There are many events where the TD does not post the results and no unofficial ratings are ever seen.

Hey Chuck-

I played AM2 at the Brent Hambrick this past weekend, and I have a question about how the scores were entered.

For AM's, there were two sets of tees played on both courses. The 2nd round was the Hoover course, and we played 27 holes. The first and third rounds were both at the West temp course, and those were both 18 hole rounds.

I'm looking at the unofficial results and I see that it lists me as a 188, and 26 over par. I was actually -1 for the weekend.

So Mr. Chuck, can you tell me what's going on? The ADV players are listed correctly, but the AM2's are not... I'd assume that because there are actually 4 different courses (Hoover 1-18 and A-I, then Hoover 1-18 and A-I short, then West Course 1-18, and also West Course 1-18 short), there was an input problem somewhere along the way? Also, will changing the layouts for the AM2's affect the unofficial round ratings? Will I have to move up? (just kidding, I already am)

Thanks Chuck

What probably happened is that the person that put the scores in online didn't take in account different course layouts.

I'll post again that the Ratings Committee has little to do with the unofficial ratings from scores posted online by the TDs during or just after an event (except when a marshal is there to do it). We have no information about the event from which to adjust or correct anything that the TDs enter online. If there are questions on unofficial ratings, please direct them to the TDs to get them fixed.

I'll post again that the Ratings Committee has little to do with the unofficial ratings from scores posted online by the TDs during or just after an event (except when a marshal is there to do it). We have no information about the event from which to adjust or correct anything that the TDs enter online. If there are questions on unofficial ratings, please direct them to the TDs to get them fixed.



Maybe you should put that in your sig line. Or just add it to all of your posts.

Kind of like "Rater of the tossed arc (except for unofficial ratings)"

Hey Chuck-Went down to Columbus and shot the BHMO open for the first time. Had a great time (aside from the poison ivy) but I do have a question for you. The ams played the west course twice (18 holes-rounds one and three) and the BH course once (27 holes-round two). Will the 27 hole round be weighted differently, as it had nine more holes than rounds one and three? For example, let's use my unoffical round ratings-my round one was an 853, my round two was a 913, and my round three an 826. If you simply add and divide by three, you get an average of 860. However, if you weight it by # of holes then it works out to be an 871 for the weekend. Not great scores but good for this example, as my best was on the 'larger' course. Just curious as to how this would be handled and applied in September. Good to know for the future. Thanks! Bernie, Michigan #23932

Oo... oo... can I handle this Chuck? Please please?

*goes right ahead without permission*

Bernie (hey you just posted on TADGA too! Check my answer to your post over there ;)), the way it works is that it is weighted within the round. If you look at the spread within the round you'll see that during the 2nd (longer) round the guy that scored a stroke better than you only had a 7 point higher round. The fellow that scored out a stroke worse than you only had a 6 point worse round.

If you compare that to rounds around it the spread is a little wider for each individual stroke. With a longer round it leaves more room for a player, say, a stroke worse to make an extra mistake so there is a smaller difference between round ratings for different scores.

But in the end it is still only one round, and it is not weighed any differently when compared to other rounds you played.

(Did I do good, Chuckster? Did I? Did I?)


-Chris.
bugging chuck since 2006!

Correct, graass hoppa. Each round rating is considered a single data point regardless whether it has the allowable minimum of 13 holes or the typical maximum of 27 holes. The more holes in the round, the less rating point value each shot receives. So it's more likely to shoot a higher or lower round rating than your normal on courses with fewer holes than 18 than it is more holes than 18.

If we wanted more accurate ratings, we would limit official ratings to only rounds with 18 holes. But we include rounds other than 18 as a member service because so many disc golf tournament rounds have other than 18 holes, (although you rarely see that in ball golf).

aahh-I see the light. That make sense that a course with less holes will award/penalize each stroke greater than a course with more holes. I thought it was done afterwards. It is just like a test (my being a teacher is going to show right now) with 10 questions versus 50 questions. The 10 question test has a value of ten points per question while the 50 is only two points per question. I like understanding-thanks! Bernie

Chuck, what is the average/mean rating for ALL disc golfers with a rating? What is the median...? Has this been asked before??

aahh-I see the light. That make sense that a course with less holes will award/penalize each stroke greater than a course with more holes. I thought it was done afterwards. It is just like a test (my being a teacher is going to show right now) with 10 questions versus 50 questions. The 10 question test has a value of ten points per question while the 50 is only two points per question. I like understanding-thanks! Bernie



For some reason I do not find the logic in this as scores on our par 67 layout today were bunched together more than the scores for the par 54.
Doesnt this make the strokes for the par 67 worth more than the 54 seeing as though it was obviously harder to put a seperation on the field in the higher par layout?

The points per stroke cannot be dictated by one simple formula, it should be based on avergae and mean.

It seems hard for Chuck if it is not a mathmatical formula set from the beginning, There has to be variables; like how closely grouped the majority of the scores are that should determine how much the strokes are worth.
**
Is there anybody with me on this?????

Chuck, what is the average/mean rating for ALL disc golfers with a rating? What is the median...? Has this been asked before??



Haven't done it for awhile.

It seems hard for Chuck if it is not a mathmatical formula set from the beginning, There has to be variables; like how closely grouped the majority of the scores are that should determine how much the strokes are worth.
**
Is there anybody with me on this?????


I'm with you. I also think the ratings should show that it gets progressively more difficult, the lower your score. Right now, on a par-72 disc golf course, the ratings say that it is no more difficult to get a 59 compared to getting a 60 than it is to get a 71 compared to a 72.

Right now, on a par-72 disc golf course, the ratings say that it is no more difficult to get a 59 compared to getting a 60 than it is to get a 71 compared to a 72.



That's because it isn't. The difficulty of shooting a score is relative to your rating. If your rating is 940 and a 75 is rated 979, that score will be harder for you to shoot than for a 1040 player to shoot a 68 rated 1028.

From our event yesterday I would have to dispute this concept.
Players with lesser ratings were shooting scores closer to those with higher ratings on the par 67 layout but we put more seperation on them in the par 54 layout.
I'm not talking about the 800-925 rated players, more like 925 and above.
I guess a lot of this would depend on the style of course you are playing, but the data from the groups scores will still be available and should be used.


I hope It's more than just my opinion that players are bunched closer as the par goes up away from 54. If it is confirmed from some past event samplings would you be willing to revaulute the points per stroke formula?

I guess I'm asking if you could you compile some data from events where the average score is closer to 60 and also at or near 50. This would show me whether there is equal or less seperation in the groups scores away from the average.
It seems like each individual group of players that play an event and their respective scores that day would give the value of the strokes.

The tighter the scores are grouped the higher the value of the strokes!

Why does this seem so obvious, am i missing something?

it is obvious, and has been known for a couple years. thats why the longer (in general) a course becomes, the less value each stroke is worth in ratings. on a short course that everyone can reach, the skill that results in score differncdes is preceision, not distance. thebetter players have better precision, but since all players can reach the pin, the bestter players have fewer chances to pull away (but they eventually do)

it's because the formulas use linear math (each stroke worth the same amount of points at a given ssa) to approximate a phenomenon which is more accurately expressed as a bell curve (the probability of shooting any given score).

Very well stated (especially for a cowpile-steppin' country bumpkin).

Why do we have the World Championships and not have it set up for official world records(longest drive)?

Where do we find events that qualify for world distance records?

Right now, on a par-72 disc golf course, the ratings say that it is no more difficult to get a 59 compared to getting a 60 than it is to get a 71 compared to a 72.



That's because it isn't. The difficulty of shooting a score is relative to your rating. If your rating is 940 and a 75 is rated 979, that score will be harder for you to shoot than for a 1040 player to shoot a 68 rated 1028.


Chuck, are you saying that although it feels like it is progressively more difficult to score one throw lower, the closer you get to the record for a course, you feel that the math you've come up with proves otherwise?

If you think about it chuck that cannot be right. Let's say you score 100 one round and I scored a 101. You beat me by about 1%. If you scored 50 and I scored 51 you beat me by 2% right?

The given SSa calculated by the propagators doesnt seem as good as averaging the player rating and averaging the scores.

Is there any use to how grouped the scores are?
If there are more players clsoer to the average shouldnt the points be worth more?

I might be mistaken, but the average of the propagator player ratings and the average scores are needed to calculate the SSA.

I think averaging all players with a 955 and up rating, not just the top 10, would be better.

Chuck:

I have a question regarding my unofficial rating calculated from the spreadsheet I downloaded from this thread. In the last update, I had a round dropped from the calculation as it was below the 2.5 SD boundary. However, by dropping the rounds that are more than 12 months old, and recalculating the 2.5 SD, this round unfortunately squeaks back in by 5 points. Does the official ratings formula take this into account? I feel like I'm being penalized slightly here.

Thanks!!!

It's not a penalty if it reflects the historical skill level you played at during the past 12 months. In a sense, the first time it was suppressed, it was like, "We're not sure this is truly representative of Craig's skill level so we'll hold it out." Now, it's like, "Well Craig slipped up a little in the most recent period and maybe the round truly does indicate his most recent 12 months performance so it should be included." The good news is that the round will eventually disappear because it can't hang around in your rating more than 12 months.

Any word on if the EDGE results for the AM Worlds was ever released anywhere? I noticed your name by the releases of the Putting and Mini contest, but couldn't find any EDGE results for the AMs
thanks

I just posted them in the Announcements. Just overlooked it and you're the first to ask.

Hi Chuck,

Where will the Am Worlds take place next year?

Thanks,
Felipe

Milwaukee, I believe.

The schedule is Milwaukee, WI for Am Worlds from July 23-28, then Pro World Doubles in Highbridge, WI, July 30-31 and Pro Worlds in Highbridge, WI from Aug 1-5. Highbridge is about 5 hours north of Milwaukee.

I wonder how many people will play both events. I don't think to many masters. :D:eek:

If I haven't cashed by then I will be play both. I live 15 to 20 minutes from Dretzka and High Bridge is a sweet complex!!

I wonder how many people will play both events. I don't think to many masters. :D:eek:


What's that supposed to mean? Physically or because by the time you get to masters age you're probably married with a family and if you're gone for 2 weeks you won't be (married)? :eek: ;)

The schedule is Milwaukee, WI for Am Worlds from July 23-28, then Pro World Doubles in Highbridge, WI, July 30-31 and Pro Worlds in Highbridge, WI from Aug 1-5. Highbridge is about 5 hours north of Milwaukee.

What does it take to get into Pro World Doubles, Chuck?

If the requirements aren't too strict (and especially if I'm working up there again) I may try to get in to play with my brother as my partner just for the fun of it, that'd rock.


(plus we'll both be hitting the 950 range in ratings by then, hopefully!)

The schedule is Milwaukee, WI for Am Worlds from July 23-28, then Pro World Doubles in Highbridge, WI, July 30-31 and Pro Worlds in Highbridge, WI from Aug 1-5. Highbridge is about 5 hours north of Milwaukee.

Well after I win AM Worlds I will have to stick around and try my luck at Pro Worlds. :D:cool::confused:

Not sure what the plan will be for getting into World Doubles. For some period of time, say until June 1, I expect it might be limited to those registering for Worlds singles. But I think some slots will be kept available for Worlds singles volunteers such as the TD (should he get a good partner and be able to take the time) :D

Probably not the bestest forum for it, but this is ASK CHUCK... So...

If I could get the University of Toledo to allow the building of a top-notch 18 hole course on the Scott Park campus, what're the odds I could have you advising for free, seeing as how it IS your alma-mater ;) ?

Assuming I can do it when I'm in town which is always a few times per year, I would guess that could be arranged. I didn't know the terrain at Scott Park had the potential for a world class course?

Chuck,

Do you know the answer to this? (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=588106&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=1&fpart=1)

Thanks.

It's no different from many events that are on two days where the same player can play each day. See IOS series in IL and several Wisconsin tour events for examples. The TD only pays one sanctioning fee and submits a report for each day. Players entering both days get ratings for both divisions they enter. Have TD contact Gentry for procedure if any questions.

Thanks Chuck.

Assuming I can do it when I'm in town which is always a few times per year, I would guess that could be arranged. I didn't know the terrain at Scott Park had the potential for a world class course?


Specifically didn't use the term "World CLass" ;) Top Notch was my term... If you make the best you possibly can of what you have, I think you can always make something worth playing. And with the amount of land that doesn't have much, if any, use... the pond, the wooded area, along with a field that has enough scattered trees... you could make something better than anything in the Toledo area by FAR.

Chuck,
It says my rating has been updated, but the tourney that got added has no ratings, therefore, my rating didn't change. Is something wrong or will this get worked out later? Also, are my ratings that are a year old supposed to get dropped?

The file may still be loading. It's been very slow. Check it tomorrow and see if all of the info is there.

OK, thanks, real quick.....will my ratings from hell on the border be dropped from last year? It was sept. 17th & 18th, 2005.

It's not possible to be dropped because you won't have an event more than 12 months after it yet.

Ah, gotcha, thanks. Well its good to know they'll be dropped on the next update.

A member in the club has 8 officially rated rounds now.

However, 1 of them were dropped due to stdev reasons.

Is he considered a qualified prop?
oh, he does meet the 800 min requirement.

Chuck....I was looking up the rating of a friend of mine, Christian Coursey #18893, and it does not include the April 1-2, 2006 Azalea Tournament, which he won Am1. I know the report is in because it's listed for everyone else. He just re-renewed after a long hiatus so that may have something to do with it. Can you check on this or tell me who to ask? I think it's is only event that's missing....Thanks

You normally don't get ratings in events you play more than a grace period of a week or so before you renew or join. That's one incentive to renew or join earlier in the year. Sometimes a player will get ratings in an event a month or more before they renew if their PDGA number was on that TD report and we had to do some other correction on it.

You normally don't get ratings in events you play more than a grace period of a week or so before you renew or join. That's one incentive to renew or join earlier in the year. Sometimes a player will get ratings in an event a month or more before they renew if their PDGA number was on that TD report and we had to do some other correction on it.



That seems a bit unfair because that event prompted him to renew again and support the PDGA, and so he could see his first win under his name. I'll ask the TD to make a special effort to contact the right person and have his rounds included.

You normally don't get ratings in events you play more than a grace period of a week or so before you renew or join. That's one incentive to renew or join earlier in the year. Sometimes a player will get ratings in an event a month or more before they renew if their PDGA number was on that TD report and we had to do some other correction on it.



When we asked about memberships for our A-tier this past weekend, we were told otherwise. We talked to Dave Gentry and Lorrie Gibson about how after Sept. 1st, a membership extends through the end of the following year. That is only for new members or those who are lapsed for more than 5 years. They also told us that anyone who registered to be current, but hadn't been lapsed for over 5 years, would get all the past copies of DGW and would have all of their events from the year (for which they paid a $5 fee) included in their points and ratings. I think he should have had that win included...

Thanks bigs, I agree

Chuck, is it still true that the best round from a 3-round event is counted twice? Thanks.

Chuck, How you doing?, just thought I would join the club and ask questions.
I started late at the Oak Hollow, and shot a first round 103 pts below my rating. Should that have been factored in?
Thanks for all you and the team do
Rocky 23322

Hey Chuck,

I noticed on The Wild Hair tournament, June 24-25, that round 3 round ratings were not calculated. It was going to get a VERY low SSA (less than 40 I would guess) as it was basically an Ace race kind of course (nothing over 250ft).

So my question is, is there a point where compression gets so spread out that the ratings produced would be inaccurate?

Hi Chuck,

The event I run at the KOA on June 5-6 seems to have ratings that are lower than they should be.

These scores reflect a 19 HOLE course.
Do the ratings have a way of calculating for that?

I would figure that they do BUT I wanted to check....

Thanks :D

A recent tournament initially posted an incorrect score for one player - a 54 instead of a 57. There were about 46 rated players, and the player in question was one of the highest rated there (int and below). When his score was corrected (to 57), the estimated round ratings went *down* about 3 pts for each player.

Seems like they should have gone up, since it sort of 'proved' that the course played harder if a stronger player played it worse. I'm puzzled.

You are correct that adjusting someone to a higher score would lead to higher ratings but I'm not convinced that other adjustments might not have also been made such as correcting someone's PDGA number so the number of propagators changed. We know the software is sound and would not produce an anomaly for just one event. When someone shoots more than 60 points worse than their rating, they drop out of the SSA calculation which will then drop the ratings. It's possible someone was borderline, and after the score correction, it pushed them out of being a prop.

...When someone shoots more than 60 points worse than their rating, they drop out of the SSA calculation which will then drop the ratings. It's possible someone was borderline, and after the score correction, it pushed them out of being a prop.



Ah. I went back to the results, and it looks like that's exactly what happened. Thanks Chuck.

Now if you could just fix the scenarios where a lower-rated pool of players generates lower ratings than a higher-rated pool with identical scores on the same course and conditions but at different times...

when can we have more than 116 World ranked players? I want to see where I stand globally. Other than in my shoes.

Hi Chuck,

if a round for a PDGA Doubles event is played Combined Score so that a team basicly plays singles and then adds their scores -- will those rounds be rated?

If it's a doubles event, we don't even look at what the format was. It's just not rated.

Currently only a handful of high rated players travel to majors in other countries. Those events are what will make the World Rankings more meaningful in the long run. Once more top rated players can afford to travel outside the U.S. and international travelers come here, then there might be more meaning and value in going lower than 1000 rating for calculating rankings. In fact, since many below 40th don't play both Worlds or USDGC, I would be in favor of reducing rather than expanding the the number included in rankings. Below 50th or so, a person's rating is still the best indicator of where they rank.

I like to see rankings by division too (I'm trying to justify my existence in disc golf with statistics).

That's in the works. It will be rankings by division and by state, based only on ratings though, in addition to points and money.

It's not a huge deal I'm sure - but my pay for the SF Safari was $145 not $125.

All event corrections go to Dave Gentry, not the ratings group: [email protected]

Hey Chuck, if an Amatuer declines cash in a tournament is the cash supposed to go to the next guy?

yes.

If you pay 8 ppl and 1st gets 800, 2nd 700, 3rd 600, so on and a guy in 5th declines, the payout would be as followed....

1. 800
2. 700
3. 600
4. 500
5. Decline
6. 400
7. 300
8. 200
9. 100

Chuck,

The ratings do seem a little high as of late. I was looking at the scores from the USDGC and saw some 1070's left and right. Now, in my opinion, the course the last two years is a stroke of two easier than it was in 2004.

Kenny's round of 56 was 6 better than 2nd place and was rated 1079. Would the rating for that round been similar or closer to 1090 like I am thinking it would be?

I played an event today where the guy declined and the tournament kept the cash. :confused:

When you have that many high rated players, of course you're going to have rounds of 1070. That's normal for players of that level. A player at 1030 only has 2 out of 3 rounds within 25-30 points of their rating. One out of 3 rounds is outside that range - sometimes higher, sometimes lower. Barry or Ken could have a round more than 1065 roughly 1 out of 8-9 rounds.

When those players go back home to play B tiers and they don't have to perform their best to win, wouldn't that potentially drive up ratings across the board?

That's making an assumption about players not caring about how well they play and their rating enough to play their best. Even if it were true and a player played 20 points below their rating "on purpose", that's only 20 points contributed to the pool toward maybe 40 players, some of whom may be spurred to play better than "normal" when these top players come into town. So, the player who plays their average game wouldn't necessarily have any "free" bonus points to pad their round rating and, in fact, might have fewer than normal available.

When a tournament misses the deadline for getting in their results to be included in the ratings update, what ratings are used to calculate the round ratings for that tournament: the ratings at the time of the tournament or the updated ratings 6-9 months later when things are finally turned in?

It gets my goat when TDs run an absolutely great tournament and then don't finish the job.

When you have that many high rated players, of course you're going to have rounds of 1070. That's normal for players of that level. A player at 1030 only has 2 out of 3 rounds within 25-30 points of their rating. One out of 3 rounds is outside that range - sometimes higher, sometimes lower. Barry or Ken could have a round more than 1065 roughly 1 out of 8-9 rounds.



I totally understand that concept. A round of 1070 for Kenny or BArry is only 30 points above average - thats like me shooting 1010, it happens.

My question was looking back at that 2004 round. Is there a way you can plug in the numbers and see what it would have been rated today?

Of course I know its not going to be accurate b/c the player ratings now are different then they were back then, but I've got a feeling it would be like 1090 - 1100 now.

I played an event today where the guy declined and the tournament kept the cash. :confused:



He's an idiot who needs to learn to read.

Well Chuck is MTL right? Should the money be shifted down? If so I may have to ask the TD to give someone some cash.

I played an event today where the guy declined and the tournament kept the cash. :confused:



He's an idiot who needs to learn to read.



He's a former BoD member......

That explains A LOT!

I played an event today where the guy declined and the tournament kept the cash. :confused:



Sounds like Texas.. :o
:D

Well Chuck is MTL right?



Oh come on, you know I am!

All jokes aside, I am 100% positive about this.

hell yea the $$ gets passed down. The TD **** sure does not get to Pocket it.. what a crock of CRAP

MTL is definitely 100% correct on this one. If an am turns down the cash it is like they weren't even there- skip them and move everything down one spot.

the course was not easier....believe me.

Well Chuck is MTL right?



Oh come on, you know I am!

All jokes aside, I am 100% positive about this.



Yeah and I was too but said since it was a two person division he wouldn't payout the guy who took last. I was really upset about this and nearly said a lot of things I shouldn't have said but the money should not have been kept by the TD/event.

With that said the MPO division paid out $0

Wow

move to NC

I didn't effect me and the payout was good for a C-tier but that Pi$$ed me off and I lost a lot of respect for the guy.

Chuck,

Do you think the ratings system will end up going "real-time" at some point in the future?

The ratings system is already a fantastic system, just wondering if you ever see the possibility of a real time ratings system...

Thanks man,

mc



The ratings system is not fantastic for us women. Matter of fact, it makes no sense at all. Why are our ratings based on men's? Shouldn't players like Des and Juliana be 1000 rated players? They should in my mind. I understand the concept of a 945 rated player is 945 no matter if they are man, woman, kid, old person, etc. But, until we play like that instead of in our own gender and age based divisions, I really think the women need to be based on other women...

I've always felt that a 915 - 925 rating for women is comparable to 1000 for the men.

Whats up with the rating update on the front page?

Everything looks the same?

I agree 925 is a 1000 for women

so des is like 1030

The ratings system is not fantastic for us women. Matter of fact, it makes no sense at all. Why are our ratings based on men's? Shouldn't players like Des and Juliana be 1000 rated players?



Ratings are based on players who generate a course rating each round which generates round ratings for players. The round ratings are based on how well a player plays the course - man or woman. Women are fortunate that it works this way. Otherwise few would have ratings if only women were used to generate their ratings since at least 5 players with established ratings above 799 (propagators) are required to produce ratings for a round. Only a small percentage of events would have the minimum number of women propagators required.

I have talked with the top women about producing a separate par standard for women that would allow them to shoot scores "under par" like 1000+ rated men at higher tier events but they seemed to prefer remaining on the current gender neutral scale.

Ratings are based on players who generate a course rating each round which generates round ratings for players. The round ratings are based on how well a player plays the course - man or woman. Women are fortunate that it works this way. Otherwise few would have ratings if only women were used to generate their ratings since at least 5 players with established ratings above 799 (propagators) are required to produce ratings for a round. Only a small percentage of events would have the minimum number of women propagators required.

I have talked with the top women about producing a separate par standard for women that would allow them to shoot scores "under par" like 1000+ rated men at higher tier events but they seemed to prefer remaining on the current gender neutral scale.


I'm not sure the very top of any group should be the only ones you should be listening to, Chuck. If we want more women in the PDGA, we might want to listen to what Katie is saying.

Maybe you could keep un-normalized women's ratings to yourself so you could still use men's ratings as propagators. But then once you've calculated the un-normalized women's ratings, normalize them so that Des (or the current top-rated woman player) is 1040 rated (basically apply the men's distribution of ratings to the women's distribution of ratings when normalizing scores).

I think the work you're doing on ratings, Chuck, is one of the drawing cards for people getting started in the sport. For those of us who don't have a chance of winning tournaments, improved ratings are the only sense of reward some of us get from attending tournaments. So why not make the ratings a more positive incentive for women? We certainly need to grow their membership in the PDGA the most.

We do the calculations as a service to the PDGA. If the PDGA Board or Women's committee desires to see the ratings another way for women, we're more than happy to provide that. In the mean time, women can add 75 points to their rating if they want to see where they rank in some rough equivalence to men.

i was just voicing an opinion

adding 75 to their current ratings doesn't really accomplish anything. we know who the world class women currently are and when enough women play tournaments in the future then they can have their own system.

I was just pointing out that Des is like Kenny or Barry in her division

They also now have separate World Rankings. First thru twenty in the World for Women means the same as first thru twenty in the World for Men.

We do the calculations as a service to the PDGA. If the PDGA Board or Women's committee desires to see the ratings another way for women, we're more than happy to provide that. In the mean time, women can add 75 points to their rating if they want to see where they rank in some rough equivalence to men.


I was merely wondering if there is something you can do to address Katie's point. If ratings do provide an incentive to join the PDGA, as I've said I believe (and I imagine you do, too), then wouldn't normalizing women's ratings bring even more women to the PDGA because there would no longer be the PDGA ranking them in comparison to men, but rather in comparison to each other.

Basically, right now, without meaning to be, the women's ratings are somewhat of a backhanded compliment. Yes, you're good, the ratings say, but then the ratings go on to remind women that as a group, they're still not as good as the men. Why have the ratings go out of their way to drive that point home, which is both insulting and irrelevant?

I've seen women play on the same card as us men, and many times they aren't having as much fun because they see men outthrowing them. So they drop the sport because it's not so much fun to them, when actually they might have the potential of being pretty good players.

So why have the ratings crystallize that same experience into a single number on their PDGA membership card?

I think it would be nice if the ratings could be made to reflect how good the women players are against their competitors -- that is, against other women -- and not against men. If you think there's a way to do that and not cause you too much work -- somehow I think there's more to normalizing a distribution than simply adding 75 to all scores -- and you do think your rating system attracts players to the PDGA, then I ask you to consider it. 'Cause I don't think Katie's wrong.

If women's ratings are on their own scale, then you also would have issues with which men's division they can play in. If a woman's rating is 876, she can't play in the Rercreational division. If this 876 is different (ie based on women's scores only) from her brothers 876, should they really be playing in the same division? (Yes there are women's divisions, but some women enjoying playing with more than the same couple of people at every tournament) If the TDs need to account for this to determine divisions, things are going to get really confusing. Ratings need to be on one scale. At the end of the day it is still the least number of throws wins.

There's no normalizing involved. Your score is your score against the course rating in that round. Simply adding a number near 75 is what we would likely do if the Women's Committee and the Board asked us to do so. I don't see this as any improvement and would add to the confusion.

I believe that women are on the same scale as men in other sports where ratings of some sort are used. Golf has gender neutral handicaps. It's just that women usually play different tees. Chess has ratings. Tennis has separate but equal rating tracks with about a one point offset.

When we're talking about rankings, then men and women have their separate but equal sequences. But rankings are only used for the top players and doesn't impact the tens of thousands of weekend players.

While I'm not a big fan of the ratings, they do give us a chance that not many sports have - to compare women to men.

I know I have wondered if Michelle Wie was better than this male golfer or if Anika was better than this guy in terms of head to head, not in terms of comparision to thier own sex.

Ratings give us a chance to do this. Based on ratings, I know that so and so is better than Des, but she is better than this guy, etc.

Very cool I think, and more importantly, a unique innovation to golf as a whole.

Looking at tourney updates. Did someone skip the yetter? Sneaky pete points are in but not the eric yetter. Soon to happen? curious. Thanx

Answered. Thanks Chuck.

Please keep the womens ratings on the same scale as the men. This way women can know whether they can compete in Rec, Intermediate or Advanced.

I really hope this isn't under consideration by the PDGA or the Women's Committee.

I know of no initiative. I'm just saying that's where those who might be interested in lobbying for a change should direct their efforts.

Please keep the womens ratings on the same scale as the men. This way women can know whether they can compete in Rec, Intermediate or Advanced.

I really hope this isn't under consideration by the PDGA or the Women's Committee.



another consideration imo should be that some day a Pro Woman PDGA member woman may be in the top ten of Open rankings. think of a future, even more talented disc golf version of Michelle Wie or Annika (sp?) Sorenstam. anyone want to play Bobby Riggs by suggesting that it will never happen? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

afterall, Juliana has already once cashed at the USDGC ;)

if women were given their own rankings -- they should get two numbers -- one for their protected division and one for overall (Open). that might be a good thing to do with age-protected divisions too. not sure what the case is for having a separate ratings for protected divisions... isn't our universal approach more useful?

There's no normalizing involved. Your score is your score against the course rating in that round. Simply adding a number near 75 is what we would likely do if the Women's Committee and the Board asked us to do so. I don't see this as any improvement and would add to the confusion.


That's interesting. I thought you would also be making sure that the rating spread was the same for women as men, but if simply adding 75 accomplishes this, that sounds simple enough. Doesn't sound like there would be much work going back and forth between a women's scale and a universal scale if it's just a matter of adding or subtracting 75.

I believe that women are on the same scale as men in other sports where ratings of some sort are used.


???

Golf has gender neutral handicaps. It's just that women usually play different tees.


Well, there's your difference then. You're not making your point with this one.

Chess has ratings.


Um, that's a mental game, Chuck. Of course there wouldn't be a gender difference there.

Tennis has separate but equal rating tracks with about a one point offset.


Isn't that an analog to offsetting by 75? An offset is an offset.

When we're talking about rankings, then men and women have their separate but equal sequences. But rankings are only used for the top players and doesn't impact the tens of thousands of weekend players.


Right. My point is that women getting started might benefit from a more direct comparison with their competitors, rather than have their results look 75 points lower than they should. Imagine if this were reversed and suddenly all the guys who care about ratings suddenly had them lowered by 75 points. Some people would care.

And I do think our sport suffers from having too few women in the sport, so I'm just thinking out loud that maybe a small thing like this, which apparently would be easy to do, might be something to consider.

Please keep the womens ratings on the same scale as the men. This way women can know whether they can compete in Rec, Intermediate or Advanced.

I really hope this isn't under consideration by the PDGA or the Women's Committee.


Suzette, didn't mean to worry you, if you think this is a wrong idea. But if Chuck is right and all he has to do is add 75 points to create a women's scale, then there should be no problem figuring out Women's Rec, Intermediate and Advanced levels on that new scale. I'm not sure why you think figuring that out would be an issue.

Do you think there would be any benefit to a separate women's rating system which would put the women's top player ratings on par (so to speak) with men's top player ratings? Maybe it's just psychology, increasing the ratings by 75, but I'm also thinking it's just simply a more true representation of the skill level of a woman player to that of her group. I'd like to hear more about why you disagree.

... isn't our universal approach more useful?


I don't know, it might be. I'm just having a hard time understanding how an offset scale would be such a problem, as simple as Chuck just made it out to be.

I mean, if there was a PE class which gave out grades, and the men got As, Bs, and Cs all the time, while the women got Bs, Cs and Ds, I think people would argue that wasn't fair. They would argue that women's grades should be normalized or offset so that they, too, received As, Bs, and Cs, alongside the men. Am I thinking of this wrong?

They could "normalize" it by having a Women's par. That concept is what I've gotten lukewarm or objections to from some of the women I've asked if they would like it. I primarily asked them in relation to how par could be represented for Majors like Worlds so that the top Women could shoot under par and have red numbers posted rather than "over par" numbers which is typical.

Do you think there would be any benefit to a separate women's rating system which would put the women's top player ratings on par (so to speak) with men's top player ratings? Maybe it's just psychology, increasing the ratings by 75, but I'm also thinking it's just simply a more true representation of the skill level of a woman player to that of her group. I'd like to hear more about why you disagree.



The ratings already do show me how I rate/rank against other women players. Plus they show me how I rate against ALL other players, young or old, male or female. One of the purposes of ratings is to make universal comparisons of players and the courses they play. Creating a separate ratings system for women is patronizing. Some women like that, I personally don't. Chuck has said the top women don't feel the need for this either. Click on the links below and it is easy to compare women to women and it doesn't require a "special" system.

Am Women Ratings (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php?offset=0&division=F1O&order=rat ing)

Pro Women Ratings (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php?offset=0&division=FPO&order=rat ing)

If a women feels slighted that her rating is so much lower than a man's, I don't know what to say. A female that thinks she can compete with the big boys is usually in for a lot of heartache. I learned that at about age 13 when the boys finally grew up enough to eclipse my abilities. I learned even if you are the fastest or strongest female, most average guys will be faster and stronger than you.

If a women feels slighted that her rating is so much lower than a man's, I don't know what to say. A female that thinks she can compete with the big boys is usually in for a lot of heartache. I learned that at about age 13 when the boys finally grew up enough to eclipse my abilities. I learned even if you are the fastest or strongest female, most average guys will be faster and stronger than you.



Exactly my point. You go to a course where every hole is 400+, of course our scores are higher. We can't throw as far as the guys. That's why we need a separate ratings system to reflect that. Let's take Des for example. You put her on a course where the majority of the holes are reachable by everyone, then yes, she will be right there with the guys. Put her on a course with long holes, and her score will be higher than the guys, but lower than the girls. Because she is a 1000 rated player in women's terms, but not the guys. I just wish we had a system that reflected that.

Des will be right there with the guys at her rating (around 960) regardless whether the course is long or short. That's why they are gender neutral ratings.

When we're talking about rankings, then men and women have their separate but equal sequences. But rankings are only used for the top players and doesn't impact the tens of thousands of weekend players.


1. I might not be a "top player", but I am still a member and have as much voice and rights as the "top players"!!!
2. Most "weekend players" aren't pdga members.
3. Since when did the rankings become just for the top ranked and not all members?!

World Rankings are based on players competing in Worlds, USDGC, European Open, Japan Open and Women Nationals. Most PDGA members don't play in these events. So, ratings work just fine if you or others want to know you're 1705th, 4506th or 9527th in the World. Roger and I currently do these rankings as volunteers so it's not a PDGA benefit you pay for anyway.

Des will be right there with the guys at her rating (around 960) regardless whether the course is long or short. That's why they are gender neutral ratings.


Chuck, I don't think you really mean you've designed the rating system for just the best player(s). Let's talk about the entire group of women players and about a rating system that might bring more of them into the PDGA by rating them all accordingly.

I guess my question really is, if a separate rating system for women was maintained, do you think that would actually increase the number of women joining the PDGA? My concern is we're discouraging some women from joining because by having a universal rating system, they're seeing all these men's names at the top of the scale, and hardly any women's names -- and above 1000, no women's names. If taking that irrelevant comparison away brings more women to the sport, because then they see as a sports body that we value their contribution and participation equivalently, then I think a separate rating system should be considered.

So that's the question I'm asking. I think the ratings system that you have developed in general has been a valuable draw to the sport. So do you, does anyone, think a separate women's rating system could bring more women to the sport? And if the answer is "maybe", shouldn't we should consider it?

Here's a chart to estimate your World Ranking if your rating is under 1000. It shows how many players haver ratings equal to and higher than the number shown in the first column.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Rating</td><td>Total
</td></tr><tr><td>1020+</td><td>22
</td></tr><tr><td>1010+</td><td>72
</td></tr><tr><td>1000+</td><td>136
</td></tr><tr><td>990+</td><td>291
</td></tr><tr><td>980+</td><td>546
</td></tr><tr><td>970+</td><td>911
</td></tr><tr><td>960+</td><td>1447
</td></tr><tr><td>950+</td><td>2168
</td></tr><tr><td>940+</td><td>2988
</td></tr><tr><td>930+</td><td>3878
</td></tr><tr><td>920+</td><td>4811
</td></tr><tr><td>910+</td><td>5801
</td></tr><tr><td>900+</td><td>6659
</td></tr><tr><td>890+</td><td>7502
</td></tr><tr><td>880+</td><td>8201
</td></tr><tr><td>870+</td><td>8840
</td></tr><tr><td>860+</td><td>9368
</td></tr><tr><td>850+</td><td>9816
</td></tr><tr><td>840+</td><td>10157
</td></tr><tr><td>830+</td><td>10456
</td></tr><tr><td>820+</td><td>10692
</td></tr><tr><td>810+</td><td>10873
</td></tr><tr><td>800+</td><td>11049
</td></tr><tr><td>775+</td><td>11383
</td></tr><tr><td>750+</td><td>11573
</td></tr><tr><td>725+</td><td>11718
</td></tr><tr><td>700+</td><td>11812
</td></tr><tr><td>650+</td><td>11929
</td></tr><tr><td>600+</td><td>11974
</td></tr><tr><td>600></td><td>68
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

For example, if your rating is 929, there are 3878 players with ratings higher than yours making you tied for 3879th with everyone else at 929. It you're at 924, you'll have to guess that maybe half of the players in the 920s (4811-3878=933) are higher than you so your ranking is roughly 4344th (3878+466).

...Roger and I currently do these rankings as volunteers so it's not a PDGA benefit you pay for anyway.


I'm sorry, but if you took everything away that PDGA volunteers did and told me I was only paying for the other stuff, I wouldn't pay for the other stuff! You should get some compensation.

Chuck, I don't think you really mean you've designed the rating system for just the best player(s).



The ratings are gender, age, skill neutral and simply based on the course rating for that round. They are for everyone and we hope to determine whether it's possible to use propagators under 800 to make it easier for those under that rating to get round ratings even more than they do. Women are listed on the ratings page under separate categories for Pro and Am so new women can see where they are relative only to women.

You should get some compensation.




We did start to get some compensation for doing the ratings starting last year. But the World Rankings is a new thing we provide as a bonus so far.

Chuck, I don't think you really mean you've designed the rating system for just the best player(s).



The ratings are gender, age, skill neutral and simply based on the course rating for that round. They are for everyone and we hope to determine whether it's possible to use propagators under 800 to make it easier for those under that rating to get round ratings even more than they do. Women are listed on the ratings page under separate categories for Pro and Am so new women can see where they are relative only to women.


Yeah, how we all play against each other on a course that's rated by what a guy would score on it... :confused:

No, it's how you played a course based on everyone that played that course.

Personally I would be insulted if scores were "normailized" so that the best advanced masters were shooting 1000 golf just so we would feel better about our ratings.

1000 golf is 1000 golf, I can't do it. I can't even keep up with Des and I know it because her rating is above mine and based on the same scale. If she was a 1000 rated player on the "women's scale" I could still delude myself by saying "she's rated higher, but their scale is easier than ours".

It just seems condescending and dismissive. We're sorry that you don't have any 1000 rated players, and since no woman could ever reach that level we'll just make a few honorary 1000 golfers.

No, it's how you played a course based on everyone that played that course.

Personally I would be insulted if scores were "normailized" so that the best advanced masters were shooting 1000 golf just so we would feel better about our ratings.

1000 golf is 1000 golf, I can't do it. I can't even keep up with Des and I know it because her rating is above mine and based on the same scale. If she was a 1000 rated player on the "women's scale" I could still delude myself by saying "she's rated higher, but their scale is easier than ours".

It just seems condescending and dismissive. We're sorry that you don't have any 1000 rated players, and since no woman could ever reach that level we'll just make a few honorary 1000 golfers.



Well said Mr. Duke. I agree 100%.

At the Women's Nationals, all of the ratings were generated by women for women and they still come out to the same ratings as they get when they play with guys. It's the difficulty of the course, not the men or women playing them that determines your skill level by rating.

What's the basis of determining the difficulty of the course?

No, it's how you played a course based on everyone that played that course.

Personally I would be insulted if scores were "normailized" so that the best advanced masters were shooting 1000 golf just so we would feel better about our ratings.

1000 golf is 1000 golf, I can't do it. I can't even keep up with Des and I know it because her rating is above mine and based on the same scale. If she was a 1000 rated player on the "women's scale" I could still delude myself by saying "she's rated higher, but their scale is easier than ours".

It just seems condescending and dismissive. We're sorry that you don't have any 1000 rated players, and since no woman could ever reach that level we'll just make a few honorary 1000 golfers.



now that Gary has given the ^ quintessential ^ answer to that question ... i have a question Chuck:

has the PDGA ever discussed changing the figure listed as Prize money won for Pros by subtracting entry fees out of the winnings? for example it shows that i have won money when my inner accountant tells me i have not ;)

What's the basis of determining the difficulty of the course?


How many throws someone makes to complete it. The course doesn't care if you are a man or a woman.

has the PDGA ever discussed changing the figure listed as Prize money won for Pros by subtracting entry fees out of the winnings? for example it shows that i have won money when my inner accountant tells me i have not



It's not only your inner accountant that knows this but hopefully the accountant who does your taxes :)

Since some players have their entry fees paid, I'm not sure there's any benefit to subtracting entry fees. In addition, doing it the way it's done at least boosts the numbers for whatever marketing purposes that serves.

Lets "ASK Chuck Kennedy" Random questions.
Chuck:

Whats your fav color?
Whats your fav day of the week?
Do you like Noddle salad?

Random Answers: Beauty, 955, Thoughtful

Personally I would be insulted if scores were "normailized" so that the best advanced masters were shooting 1000 golf just so we would feel better about our ratings.


That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying there are women who are shooting 1000 golf, expending the same amount of effort and skill in the game as a man throwing 1000 golf, but their results against men's results are only allowing them to be rated 925. I think that's not fair, and I think it also possibly makes some women take less interest in the sport if they know they will never conquer Everest, they will never be 1000 rated, because it's only men who are king of the mountain.

And since there are so few women in the sport, I'm also wondering if a separate rating system would draw more in. In fact, that's my chief concern. No one can refute that we have too few women in the sport. Why is that? Is one of the reasons that we seem to cater to men too often? Is an example of that the rating system, which offers the 1000 rating to men only? Do some women see that and implicitly understand, oh, yes, another sign this is mostly a man's sport.

Now I understand that some women might initially be offended at a separate rating system. I'm seeing that in Discette's posts. So it makes me wonder if a separate rating system would do more harm than good. But I just go back to the idea that if you gave men As, Bs, and Cs in a Phys Ed class for weightlifting, say, and gave women who put in the same effort but whose results were less so they only received Bs, Cs, and Ds, then wouldn't you consider a woman's grade scale and shift everything up a letter grade for them? Why would it be different here? Why wouldn't that be more fair? I haven't heard an answer to this point yet.

A separate rating system would not be condescending, no more than Blue Par and White Par are condescending, no more than amateur tee pads are condescending. As Chuck says, in regular golf, women have women's tee pads -- that's not considered condescending, either.

So can we take a look at this from a less personal point of view and try to think of a group response? Objectively, does anyone think women as a group, who are currently playing, would on average be just as happy, or even happier, with a separate rating system? Certainly you can find individual women who are both for and against, but I'm asking if this would be seen more positively by the group. And would a new group, women who are new to the sport (my reason for even debating this), possibly like a separate rating system even better?

No one can really say yes to these questions, but if the answer is "maybe", then I think a separate rating system should at least be considered and debated by the board. (How to get this brought up, I have no clue, even given Chuck's earlier post. Who's the contact for the women's committee? How do you get the board to bring up something for consideration?)

If the answer, however, is "no" to both of my questions, then it makes me wonder if everyone also thinks we should just do away with amateur tee pads, and do away with everything below Gold par, and for that matter, make everyone play Open and get rid of Intermediate and Recreational divisions... Are Gold par and Open play the only true standards, and everything else considered to be necessary evils?

Paul, you're not hearing Gary's point. If you suggest there are women playing 1000 rated golf but the present ratings system isn't geared toward them and only gives them a 925, why doesn't the exact same argument apply to Advanced Masters and any other age or gender protected division?

the fact is that the highest rated women's rounds kick butt and are WELL over 1000. have you ever looked at the list that was once posted somewhere here of the highest rated rounds on record by women?

also, do you really suggest no woman will ever be rated 1000? i don't think that's a safe assumption. :p

I see what you are saying, and agree to a point.

I don't think there should be a separate rating system for women or old men. I think having one system that is consistent for all players at the same time allows more accurate comparisons among other players and amongst a smaller group.

The additional problem of a separate system with such small numbers is that a couple of rapidly improving players could easily skew the ratings in a given area as compared to the rest of the world. The larger the number of players involved in rating any event, the more accurate the number will be.

And I would be insulted if I was in a group that was considered to be so far off the scale that a new scale was needed.

Paul, you're not hearing Gary's point. If you suggest there are women playing 1000 rated golf but the present ratings system isn't geared toward them and only gives them a 925, why doesn't the exact same argument apply to Advanced Masters and any other age or gender protected division?


I see what you're saying. But I see a problem with attracting women to the sport -- I don't think we're having a similar problem with attracting Masters players -- and I'm just wondering aloud if a women's rating system would show that we are not interested in showing them up, but that rather, showing what they can do, too. Women as a group have a different challenge from men when they play -- put another way, you could even say they're playing a different course than men are. So, to me, it doesn't seem necessary or even relevant to rate women with men when they play a physical sport like disc golf.

Your point is that same argument could apply to any distinct group. My initial reaction is that you can take any good idea too far and make it a bad idea. I think 10 or 12 different rating scales would be taking things too far, too -- I'm just talking about 2. And I think we have precedent for having separate men's and women's rules, separate men's and women's ratings, in many sports, which are there to account for our physical differences. We're different. So I don't feel that a separate women's rating would dictate that we need to come up with separate ratings for every age-protected group, as well.


the fact is that the highest rated women's rounds kick butt and are WELL over 1000. have you ever looked at the list that was once posted somewhere here of the highest rated rounds on record by women?


I've never seen the list, but I'm talking about average player ratings, not isolated round ratings. And I'm really not gearing this proposal for the topmost players' sake. By shifting their average ratings up 75, yes, you affect them, but by separating the ratings, you could inspire newer women players to focus on the top of their own rating ladder and try to climb to the top of it. If you start out with the sport and are presented with a ratings ladder that you know you could never reach the top of, no matter how hard you try, then I think that's discouraging -- and unnecessarily so, because the comparison with men's ratings is inherently unfair, in my opinion.

also, do you really suggest no woman will ever be rated 1000? i don't think that's a safe assumption. :p


Never say never. I was basically responding to Gary, I think, when he said the same thing, and taking that assumption to further my point.

But I think it's safe to assume if and when a woman has an average rating of 1000, the highest men's rating will still be about 40-70 points higher, just like now. I don't foresee a day when the highest women's rating is higher than the highest men's rating, and I think just saying that out loud makes me realize even more how unfair it is to compare men's ratings with women's ratings in a single scale.

But I think it's safe to assume if and when a woman has an average rating of 1000, the highest men's rating will still be about 40-70 points higher, just like now. I don't foresee a day when the highest women's rating is higher than the highest men's rating, and I think just saying that out loud makes me realize even more how unfair it is to compare men's ratings with women's ratings in a single scale.



I think this is the point of both arguments.

You concede that the top women on average will be 40-70 points below the top men on average.

The difference is that you see it as unfair that their comparative rating is less than a player that will beat them in heads up play. I see it as unfair to give them a rating equal to or above a player that will beat them in heads up play.

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

I see what you are saying, and agree to a point.

I don't think there should be a separate rating system for women or old men.


I don't think there should be a separate rating system for old men either.

I think having one system that is consistent for all players at the same time allows more accurate comparisons among other players and amongst a smaller group.


You can compare results accurately, but I'm not sure what the point would be. The results would always show that women as a group don't throw as far as men.

The additional problem of a separate system with such small numbers is that a couple of rapidly improving players could easily skew the ratings in a given area as compared to the rest of the world. The larger the number of players involved in rating any event, the more accurate the number will be.


Apparently, Chuck says separating the scales (or aligning the scales, actually) would be as easy as adding 75 all the time. Not sure if I totally understand that -- I don't think men and women are always a constant value apart, all the way through the group, but that's what he says. That would take care of your concern here, if you agree with him.

And I would be insulted if I was in a group that was considered to be so far off the scale that a new scale was needed.


I wouldn't expect that if newcomers were told the scale wasn't the scale, after all. If new women players thought the scale was actually only the men's scale, I would expect them to think whatever happened on the men's scale was irrelevant to their performance, and I think they would be right.

I do think that this change might be difficult for a number of existing women players, though, because they could take offense at the change and assume the reason is what you stated. It would have to be clear that the reason is not because they are off the scale, but that they shouldn't have been on a men's scale to begin with, that it is inherently unfair to them. (Not sure the PDGA communicates with its members well enough to make that clear, though, so maybe this is the biggest hurdle!)

From an operations standpoint, if a separate ratings track were created with a simple offset like 75 points, women would still need to get ratings generated based on men's round scores most of the time. So, we would need to keep track of gender and adjust the formulas to post round ratings. First subtract 75 from each woman and TDs would need to now enter gender on the scoring forms. Then calculate the "real" (mens) round SSA, produce men's ratings and add 75 back to produce the women's ratings for online display. Or do we maintain a separate women's SSA for the course layout?

Not only would a score of 55 be posted with a different rating for men and women, if we did see a different rating for a 55 from other players you would need to do some quick math to know whether the difference was due to the offset on the same course or for a different layout.

In addition, I believe women would still want the option to enter men's divisions. So TDs would have to do some quick math to track which divisions were legal. Of course, they have to do this already with pros playing am so that's not too much of an added load.

You concede that the top women on average will be 40-70 points below the top men on average.

The difference is that you see it as unfair that their comparative rating is less than a player that will beat them in heads up play.


Actually, I see it as unfair that their competitive rating includes those who aren't their competitors. Women aren't competing with men, they're competing with each other. Even in the last USDGC, we looked and saw where the first women was on the list and said to ourselves, well, she won among the women. We just know that's what is fair to say.

I see it as unfair to give them a rating equal to or above a player that will beat them in heads up play.


Yes, that would be true, if you accept that heads-up play between men and women is fair. I don't.

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


What I'm saying is that mathematically as well as physically, women are playing a different course than men.

How do you account for the fact that women shoot on average 75 rating points less than men? The math says that for women, the course is 75 points harder. If men showed up at a course one day, and on the next scored 75 points lower, we would say it was a different course that day -- windy, rainy, overgrown trees.

It's the same for women. They shoot 75 points lower because for them, the course is different than it is for men, on the same day, and with the same weather. It's different for them. Truly. That's why I say it is unfair to rate them as if that's not true.

So comparing women's ratings to men's ratings, to me, is irrelevant -- according to Chuck, the math would say the woman would be rated about 75 points higher with respect to her rating system than a man would be with respect to his rating system. Which I think would be fair, because that day she played a course whose conditions for her were 75 points harder than they were for the man.

What I'm saying is that mathematically as well as physically, women are playing a different course than men.

How do you account for the fact that women shoot on average 75 rating points less than men? The math says that for women, the course is 75 points harder.



The top Pro Women shoot about 100 ratings points higher than you do as a man. so by your logic, they are playing a different course than you when you and they play the same layout at a PDGA event? :confused:

They also shoot about the same as MPG and MM1 at many events.
Does that mean that we are playing different courses too ?

I'm trying to think of a sport that has ratings as opposed to rankings that are based on a different scale for men and women and I can't. Do you have some examples of another sport that is doing this ? Not as justification, I'm just curious how it works for them, and how they do it.

What I'm saying is that mathematically as well as physically, women are playing a different course than men.

How do you account for the fact that women shoot on average 75 rating points less than men? The math says that for women, the course is 75 points harder.




The top Pro Women shoot about 100 ratings points higher than you do as a man. so by your logic, they are playing a different course than you when you and they play the same layout at a PDGA event? :confused:


You and others keep on wanting to make this personal, when I am talking about the group. As a group, women shoot 75 rating points lower than men do as a group. As a group, they are playing a different course than men are playing. This is how statistics work. You speak about the results of a group. So, as a group, women play a different course than men. That's what the statistics say. For them, the course is 75 rating points harder, as a group, than it is for men.

As a group, as a group, as a group.

Statistics are about groups of people. Individuals are not bound by statistics. But in a sport you can make rules for that sport that work for groups of people, to be fair to the individuals in that group. That's why there are men and women sports, separate from each other, because that's what's fair to men and women in that group.

Are we clear now?

Edited to add:

My rating is a measurement of my skill with respect to other men players on the course. I'm not that good a player. I started about 2 years ago, and now that I'm 39, I'm realizing that I've got a work ahead of me to crack 900. But I've got hope.

Now here's something to think about. I'm an amateur, not a pro. There are 5823 amateur men, and my rating is so far down the group, I don't have time to click that far. Maybe I'm 4000th?

An amateur woman with my rating would be in the top 20 out of 438 women amateurs.

Tell me again you think it's fair for women and men to be on the same scale when my rating qualifies me to be in the top 20 of women amateurs.

They also shoot about the same as MPG and MM1 at many events.
Does that mean that we are playing different courses too ?


That's why I'm not convinced that the offset is a constant 75 throughout the group of women, from top to bottom. I would think as you get closer to the intermediate level, the offset between women and men would be less, but that's just a guess, given I have no statistics to back that up.

As far as people getting older, and the course getting harder for them, I think that is why the PGA has the senior circuit, because that is more fair to them. We don't have the population for that, but one day, if disc golf gets big enough so that there are senior-only events, we may to want to track the senior circuit differently from the pro circuit.

I'm trying to think of a sport that has ratings as opposed to rankings that are based on a different scale for men and women and I can't. Do you have some examples of another sport that is doing this ? Not as justification, I'm just curious how it works for them, and how they do it.


I'm trying to think of an example where men and women are in the same professional organization! That's how separate their ratings and rankings are. Obviously, the rest of the sports world actually sees the differences well enough that they not only see it necessary to rank them separately, but to organize them separately.

In golf, it's the men's PGA and the women's LPGA. These are different groups, with their own tournaments, rules, and statistics. I'm hardly proposing that. I'm just thinking a separate rating system would at least address what other sports have managed (in a much more drastic fashion) by having separate sports associations.

The only "sport" I can think of that rates women and men on the same scale is chess -- but that's because women and men are intellectual equals. So I don't see that as an analog to this situation. Women and men are not physical equals, and yet we're being rated on the same scale in a physical sport. That's my concern and one I think we can easily address, if we decide to.

The top Pro Women shoot about 100 ratings points higher than you do as a man. so by your logic, they are playing a different course than you when you and they play the same layout at a PDGA event? :confused:


You and others keep on wanting to make this personal, when I am talking about the group.

[/QUOTE]

<font color="blue"> i am not at all trying to make this personal, just trying to understand why you feel women need a special ratings system but you aren't simultaneously arguing for a separate ratings system for Intermediate, Advanced, Masters, GrandMasters, etc.? the beauty of our present approach is that players who qualify for protected divisions can quickly ascertain where they stack up against a more Open field. Masters players like Dean Tannock, Brad Hammock, GrandMasters like Rick Voakes, Pro Women like Des, Juliana, Burl, and Angela can see how they statistically stack up against non-protected divisions. (just picking a few names out of my hat that come to mind)

If your assertion that female players on average play 75 ratings points below males holds water (and i suspect that it may) -- then it seems to me that might be an informal "adjustment factor" you might want to popularize, but making it some official formal way of rating women seems too complex and unnecessary. Another drawback is that the minimum number of propagators would be less often met and women players would more often have to go without having some competitive PDGA rounds rated. And, if you want to insist this is a good idea, then you logically have to similarly argue for a special ratings for Advanced Masters, Junior Boys, Junior Girls (you can't expect them to keep up with the big girlz (as a group)...

Ranking (rather than rating)Women separately (and doing likewise with Pro Masters, Advanced Masters, etc.) does seem like a great idea to me.

i'm not saying you're wrong, just pointing out that i don't think our ratings system is broken and your 'fix' seems to me to cause more problems than it solves. </font>


An amateur woman with my rating would be in the top 20 out of 438 women amateurs.

Tell me again you think it's fair for women and men to be on the same scale when my rating qualifies me to be in the top 20 of women amateurs.



<font color="blue"> first you aren't a female so you can't qualify for that gender-protected division so where you would fit in it is moot. (where a woman fits in an Open division does matter becasue women do qualify to play in it and there are examples -- like when Juliana cashed at the one division USDGC -- where women not only compete in Open but where they beat a majority of the field.)

second, it seems to me that you are mixing apples and oranges when you mix ratings with rankings... </font>

If your assertion that female players on average play 75 ratings points below males holds water (and i suspect that it may) --


This was Chuck's assertion, so I'm accepting it as fact, too.
-- then it seems to me that might be an informal "adjustment factor" you might want to popularize


Well, this is what I've been saying. Chuck even posted a way to do this above.

, but making it some official formal way of rating women seems too complex and unnecessary.
Another drawback is that the minimum number of propagators would be less often met and women players would more often have to go without having some competitive PDGA rounds rated.


I haven't been asking for anything so complex. I've just been asking for a normalization of the rating system for women, which would use the data already available.

And, if you want to insist this is a good idea, then you logically have to similarly argue for a special ratings for Advanced Masters, Junior Boys, Junior Girls (you can't expect them to keep up with the big girlz (as a group)...


I've already answered this a few posts ago. I said you can always take a good idea too far and make it a bad idea. Every good idea can be taken to extremes and become awful. You know how you solve this, right, and keep it a good idea? You don't take the idea to extremes.

So I'm just talking about 2 groups of ratings. One for men, one for women. I just don't see the point of a universal ratings system which has the top women's player behind 860 men in the ratings, and the second-best women's player behind 1200 men in the ratings, and so forth. I understand the need for collecting data in a universal manner. I understand doing so solves the propagator problem with so few people in the sport right now. But just because the data is collected universally doesn't mean it has to be presented universally. It can be statistically normalized so that men and women are rated in their respective groups in an equivalent, fair fashion. Chuck apparently has a simple way of doing that, if people ask for it.

Ranking (rather than rating)Women in separately (and doing likewise with Pro Masters, Advanced Masters, etc.) does seem like a great idea to me.


I agree. I hope Chuck and others keep doing this, too.

i'm not saying you're wrong, just pointing out that i don't think our ratings system is broken and your 'fix' seems to me to cause more problems than it solves. </font>


Most of what you disagreed with above, I'm not for, so I think the problems you're worried about wouldn't happen. Chuck also seems to have a simple, straightforward approach in mind if this new rating system is ever requested.


An amateur woman with my rating would be in the top 20 out of 438 women amateurs.

Tell me again you think it's fair for women and men to be on the same scale when my rating qualifies me to be in the top 20 of women amateurs.



first you aren't a female so you can't qualify for that gender-protected division so where you would fit in it is moot.


Exactly my point again. My rating and a woman's rating, on the same scale, invites a comparison that is completely irrelevant.

(where a woman fits in an Open division does matter becasue women do qualify to play in it and there are examples -- like when Juliana cashed at the one division USDGC -- where women not only compete in Open but where they beat a majority of the field.)


Des came in 136th out of 151 finishers, and Carrie came in 144th. No idea how you can possibly say the top women are beating a majority of the USDGC Open field. In this case, you're saying something incorrect and using that as a basis to argue that a separate rating system is really not needed. (Again, I point to the top pro woman being rated below 860 men on the same scale, and the second-best woman rated below 1200 men on the same scale. That's all I really need to see to understand that the comparison between men's ratings and women's ratings is flawed and a fairer ratings scale for the women is needed, which gives credit where credit is due.)

second, it seems to me that you are mixing apples and oranges when you mix ratings with rankings...


Ratings are used directly to determine rankings, so I don't get your point here.

i'm not saying you're wrong, just pointing out that i don't think our ratings system is broken and your 'fix' seems to me to cause more problems than it solves.



Most of what you disagreed with above, I'm not for, so I think the problems you're worried about wouldn't happen. Chuck also seems to have a simple, straightforward approach in mind if this new rating system is ever requested.



<font color="blue"> if you are for a separate rating system for women then that is the pivotal disagreement. if your not, we have no disagreement. rankings may be based on rating but sometimes other factors are considered too such as head to head competition and the level or tier of events entered.

adding 75 points to every female PDGA player's rating would in no way affect ranking, but it would unnecessarily complicate our ratings system to outsiders and would not have any mathematical purpose. as an informal way of gauging general gender equivalencies, i guess adding 75 points is meaningful though. </font>





An amateur woman with my rating would be in the top 20 out of 438 women amateurs.

Tell me again you think it's fair for women and men to be on the same scale when my rating qualifies me to be in the top 20 of women amateurs.



first you aren't a female so you can't qualify for that gender-protected division so where you would fit in it is moot.



Exactly my point again. My rating and a woman's rating, on the same scale, invites a comparison that is completely irrelevant.



<font color="blue"> actually it yields a very mathematically relevant comparison of the skill level in tournament play of any two PDGA members -- regardless of age, gender, etc. That's what makes the ratings system accurate -- it doesn't discriminate. </font>



(where a woman fits in an Open division does matter because women do qualify to play in it and there are examples -- like when Juliana cashed at the one division USDGC -- where women not only compete in Open but where they beat a majority of the field.)



Des came in 136th out of 151 finishers, and Carrie came in 144th. No idea how you can possibly say the top women are beating a majority of the USDGC Open field. In this case, you're saying something incorrect and using that as a basis to argue that a separate rating system is really not needed. (Again, I point to the top pro woman being rated below 860 men on the same scale, and the second-best woman rated below 1200 men on the same scale. That's all I really need to see to understand that the comparison between men's ratings and women's ratings is flawed and a fairer ratings scale for the women is needed, which gives credit where credit is due.)



<font color="blue"> you are looking at the 2006 USDGC (btw, you left out Angela) and i was citing the year Juliana cashed at the USDGC. what i said was that Pro Women do enter and cash (which almost always entails beating a majority of the field) in Open events. i wasn't saying it happens regularly -- my point was that Pro Women can and do sometimes outperform Pro Men. Judging by the chart below it may have been 2001 when Juliana cashed at the USDGC (i didn't join the PDGA until 2003, so i am not sure when exactly it was)

as for your suggestion that the ratings are flawed or unfair when it comes to rating women -- i fail to see how a mathematical measure can be unfair. and while i am sure you mean well, i can't figure out whether it is chivalrous, chauvinistic, or both to suggest women players need some sort of helping hand in terms of the rating their play on the disc golf course generates. :confused: </font>



second, it seems to me that you are mixing apples and oranges when you mix ratings with rankings...


Ratings are used directly to determine rankings, so I don't get your point here.



<font color="blue"> Ratings are a matehematical measure of how a person's play on the course rates, regardless of gender, age, color, etc. Rankings tell where one falls in a particular division -- the most general being Open.

here is an unofficial list of some 1000+ rated rounds shot by women that Rodney posted a long time ago (definitely not up-to-date) </font>

[/QUOTE]


Did I mention these are highly unoffical?

Rounds by a female rated 1000+:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Last</td><td>First</td><td>Score</td><td>Date</td><td>RoundRating</td><td>CourseTourney
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>46</td><td>6/3/2000</td><td>1036</td><td>Swope (2000 KC Wide Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>48</td><td>2/2/2002</td><td>1026</td><td>Z Boaz long (2002 Z Boaz open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>41</td><td>5/11/2002</td><td>1021</td><td>Oakland Park Back (2002 MidAmerica Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Reading</td><td>Des</td><td>51</td><td>7/4/2003</td><td>1018</td><td>Championship Layout
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>48</td><td>4/6/2002</td><td>1017</td><td>Northside Park Long (2002 Gator Cntry Cl. Pro R2)
</td></tr><tr><td>Reading</td><td>Des</td><td>52</td><td>8/6/2002</td><td>1012</td><td>Wilmont Rds 1-4 (2002 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>King</td><td>Elaine</td><td>44</td><td>6/17/2000</td><td>1010</td><td>Grand Woods East (2000 In Flight)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>63</td><td>10/21/2000</td><td>1010</td><td>Grange Long (2000 Old Dominion Pro)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>63</td><td>10/21/2000</td><td>1010</td><td>Grange Long (2000 Old Dominion Pro)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>51</td><td>8/6/2002</td><td>1010</td><td>Wilmont Rds 5-8 (2002 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>Reading</td><td>Des</td><td>49</td><td>2/8/2003</td><td>1008</td><td>Weatherford (2003 Z Boaz Rnd 1)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>47</td><td>6/10/2000</td><td>1008</td><td>Washington Park - Long (2000 Peoria Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>48</td><td>1/29/2002</td><td>1005</td><td>Jimmy Porter (2002 Big Show - Tuesday)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>53</td><td>9/30/2000</td><td>1004</td><td>Kendall Long 2000 FL supertour
</td></tr><tr><td>Herndon</td><td>Lesli</td><td>53</td><td>4/7/2001</td><td>1004</td><td>Northside Park Long (2001 Gator Classic Pros)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>50</td><td>6/12/1999</td><td>1004</td><td>Rosedale 1999 KCWO
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>69</td><td>10/11/2001</td><td>1003</td><td>Winthrop University - Gold (2001 USDGC)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>69</td><td>10/11/2001</td><td>1003</td><td>Winthrop University - Gold (2001 USDGC)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>50</td><td>6/8/2002</td><td>1003</td><td>Bradley (2002 Peoria Open)
</td></tr><tr><td>Herndon</td><td>Lesli</td><td>51</td><td>8/6/2002</td><td>1002</td><td>Powell (2002 Pro Worlds)
</td></tr><tr><td>Herndon</td><td>Lesli</td><td>52</td><td>10/12/2002</td><td>1002</td><td>Riverview Championship (2002 Augusta Classic)
</td></tr><tr><td>Korver</td><td>Juliana</td><td>72</td><td>11/3/2001</td><td>1002</td><td>Veterans Park Long Rnd 3 (2001 VPO)
</td></tr><tr><td>King</td><td>Elaine</td><td>57</td><td>5/30/2003</td><td>1000</td><td>Lake Holmstead Park - NT Layout (2003 DG Hall of Fame Classic) (Rd 3)
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>



<font color="blue"> i just looked it up and it was at the 2001 USDGC where Juliana cashed (see here) (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=2734&amp;year=2006&amp;incl ude_ratings=1#Open)

if you add 75 points to each of her rounds i guess she trounced the whole field and Barry should give his ring to Juliana ;) </font>

FYI - So far this year:

Burl has 2 1000+ rated rounds,Des has 4 and Angela has 1.
Burl and Angela should will each have at least more 1000 rated round the next time the ratings are updated.


More women will come to this sport when they see how much fun it is to play disc golf.

More women will come to the sport when more players bring their sisters, daughters, moms and female friends out to experience disc golf.

More women will come to disc golf and hopefully stay in the sport when they can find leagues and tournaments with other women players and with promoters that are encouraging.


It is very nice of you (Paul) to be so concerned and enthusiastic about bringing and keeping more women in disc golf. I simply don't agree that making a separate rating system for women will accomplish this. I hope you plan to keep up your efforts and that you are successful in bringing and keeping more women in disc golf in your area.

Just two points.

1) If the women are in a separate ratings system, (not based on how they play as compared to the men) very few rounds will ever be rated because they seldom have enough players to rate rounds. An extension of this is that every round that does get rated has so few propogators that the individual performance of the propogators will have a dramatic impact on the ratings.

2) If the women just have a 75 point offset, they are still being rated as compared to how the men play the course, just being given about 7 strokes per round because they are women.