what women are nominated this year, and when does the voting take place?

Who was nominated last year and who was the winner? How about 2004? Are these annals lodged deep somewhere in the PDGA website?

http://www.pdga.com/documents/PDGAAwardWinners.pdf

The last three winners have been Teresa Belenger, Mandi Snodgrass and Valerie Jenkins.

The last three winners have been Teresa Belenger, Mandi Snodgrass and Valerie Jenkins.



PDGA HQ (Brian Hoeniger) will compile the candidates based on stats from 2006. Tavish Sanders and Stacy Pauly would probably be the 2 leading candidates for the women; Kim Scott-Wood and Adam Olsen for the men. Before you bash me, I'm sure there's some folks I left out....I was just pulling those names off the top of my head.

Chap

kelly boyce (former am world champ) looks to have gotten the shaft last year-- better improved rating, more money etc.

Rookie of the year is voted on by tourning players. Kelly and Teresa are both great golfers, however many touring golfers may not have know Kelly.

so i guess it's just a popularity contest afterall?

what constitutes a tourning player? i "tour". i've played "professionally" though using that term in relation to our divisional structure and "tour" makes me giggle. i was never asked to vote and i believe a few pros that i know that tour didn't know anything about it either.

coordinators vote as well.

where's the am points winners? :)

Tavish Sanders (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=23043)
Staci Pauly (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=22797)

anyone else in the running?

what about Sarah DeMar (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=25166)? i know shes actually "on tour" right now. not sure if shes eligible for 2006 ROY though.

Rookie of the year is voted on by tourning players. Kelly and Teresa are both great golfers, however many touring golfers may not have know Kelly.

Teresa Bellinger (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=18302&year=2005)
Kelly Boyce (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=21344&year=2005)

seriously? what is ROY supposed to reward? the best rookie in the given year?

Yes, Jeff, The Rookie of the year is voted on by touring golfers and coordinators. All of these people are sent a ballot of nminated canidates to vote on.

not sure you can be considered a rookie if you played OPEN in 2003 :D

i wasnt sure if it was playing open, or actually ca$hing. thus the many questions

the only thing i would expect touring players to vote on would be sportsmanship.

My votes for ROY are Katy Schreder and Kim Keen. Katy has played lots of big tourneys. Kim started the year as am, but then moved up after she won the Memorial. Not to mention, Kim is from WI and a WI woman needs to win.

The current standard is you must have first turned pro (accepted cash) after Am Worlds 2005 to be eligible for ROY 2006. Sarah DeMar turned pro before that...2005 was her rookie year, so she's no longer eligible for ROY. Katy Schreder and Kim Keen are both eligible for ROY 2006, and most likely will be among the candidates.

Chap

My votes for ROY are Katy Schreder and Kim Keen. Katy has played lots of big tourneys. Kim started the year as am, but then moved up after she won the Memorial. Not to mention, Kim is from WI and a WI woman needs to win.



kim better start getting real cozy with the voters. it's a popularity contest in case you weren't aware. the voting and process is more wack than college football.

yet another layer in the stack of evidence that there is nothing professional about the PDGA.

btw... kelly boyce is originally from wisconsin and should have been the '06 ROY.

kelly boyce (former am world champ) looks to have gotten the shaft last year-- better improved rating, more money etc.



And no wins in one lady divisions.

The last three winners have been Teresa Belenger, Mandi Snodgrass and Valerie Jenkins.



PDGA HQ (Brian Hoeniger) will compile the candidates based on stats from 2006. Tavish Sanders and Stacy Pauly would probably be the 2 leading candidates for the women;



We're going to need to see some photos of the candidates.

My votes for ROY are Katy Schreder and Kim Keen.



And we'll need some photos of these candidates as well.

To help with my betting are any of these four women involved with BOD members? It appears that helps tip the balance.

I thought they banned you to the nomads

anymore wonderful pictures on the nomad site yet?

never mind I'll go look for myself

Let's look at the stats that the ladies who were candidates for ROY compiled after the 2004 World Championships through the entire 2005 Season. I'm not counting wins or money won in one person fields as all one of them had to do was show up, stumble around the course, finish and ca$h. Only wins and money earned against at least one other lady got tallied by me.

Bellinger: 2 wins-$310

Boyce: 3 wins-$1,510

Merce: 1 win-$550

Shooner: 1 win-$615

Vargas: 2 wins-$870

Hmmm...looks like Boyce and Vargas both had more impressive stats than Bellinger, and Boyce nearly doubled Vargas's winnings. Hmmmm...

If you are in the mood to compile stats, please include the 1 person division wins (and seconds behind current or former world champions). It is not the fault of the lone competitor (or might be due to reputation) that no one else wanted to play.

How about some other facts on the subject:

1. Cris Bellinger hadn't even filed to run for the PDGA Board until sometime after the votes for ROY and POY had been completed. If cavorting with a Board member was a strategy, then we have a bigger issue than the so called "fix" being speculated here.

2. Apparently only a small percentage of the touring players actually voted. Perhaps a better process is needed to make it easier for them to place their votes, possibly via the internet.

3. The Board discussed the selection process at the Summit meeting. I was asked to prepare some options that are used in other sports. It was determined that no formula was suitable to make these types of selections and that the current process was acceptable. However, an attempt to get more people to vote was needed.

Go ahead and give it a try to come up with a suitable formula that people can agree upon. Why not use ratings? Who finished higher in Worlds or Nationals? Total money won? All of these are relevant elements but it was felt that only voters could synthesize these elements along with intangibles (yes that includes how the person is as a person in additon to their playing attitude) to come up with the best recipient.

How about some other facts on the subject:

1. Cris Bellinger hadn't even filed to run for the PDGA Board until sometime after the votes for ROY and POY had been completed. If cavorting with a Board member was a strategy, then we have a bigger issue than the so called "fix" being speculated here.





Chuck,

Hasn't Bellinger been a Marshall for sometime thus networking his way into the good graces of the gilded elite? How about this? Boyce meets Bellinger in Wisconsin and they play for the title? Kind of like a cage match. Bellinger can keep the official title and her name can stay in the record books, but if Boyce wins Bellinger has to turn over any related bling. Boyce is a housewife at this point so how much of a threat could she be?

Let's look at the stats that the ladies who were candidates for ROY compiled after the 2004 World Championships through the entire 2005 Season. I'm not counting wins or money won in one person fields as all one of them had to do was show up, stumble around the course, finish and ca$h. Only wins and money earned against at least one other lady got tallied by me.

Bellinger: 2 wins-$310

Boyce: 3 wins-$1,510

Merce: 1 win-$550

Shooner: 1 win-$615

Vargas: 2 wins-$870

Hmmm...looks like Boyce and Vargas both had more impressive stats than Bellinger, and Boyce nearly doubled Vargas's winnings. Hmmmm...



We all know Boyce deseved the win. She did have the Best rookie season out of all the others without a doubt. Sorry Nelle. :p

I think their finish in the Pro Worlds 2005 might have been pivotal for the voters. Was it the only event they both entered since they live across the country from each other?
www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4645#Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4645#Open)

Should two rounds in a seven round tournament really decide a year long award when one player (Boyce) clearly outperformed the other (Bellinger)? With that in mind I'm sure Boyce might be willing to put up or shut up in the cage match.

I may have voted for Kelly but the point is that Bellinger's candidacy had merit and the voters decided. That's democracy and the reason for debate over merits AND intangibles. There's no conspiracy and the usual scolding for anyone who didn't vote as to how important one vote can be.

The rookie of the year award should be based of the STATS. Heck Chuck I thought that you would be the biggest supporter of this concept.

Go ahead and tell us what the formula should be. How do you weight the events? Ratings? Attitude? Money? Professionalism? What if a person doesn't play in one or more of the events you suggest? The differences of opinion about how these factors should be included and/or weighted is no different from just letting people determine these weights in how they vote. The main thing is that they vote at all.

How about taking thier rank in money and give the top $$$ winner 1 point, the 2nd 2 points, etc. Then you do the same for thier rank on the points list, ratings and wins. Then the touring pros would vote with that vote being 40% of the total score. The stats would be 60%. Lowest score wins.

They do this for our office elections at school with each candidate taking a test, giving a speech, and then a general vote. I will find out exactly how they score the voting in tomorrow. :D

Go ahead and tell us what the formula should be. How do you weight the events? Ratings? Attitude? Money? Professionalism? What if a person doesn't play in one or more of the events you suggest? The differences of opinion about how these factors should be included and/or weighted is no different from just letting people determine these weights in how they vote. The main thing is that they vote at all.



Chuck,

Anything involving a vote becomes subjective (as Paul called it a popularity contest) and being the stats machine you are I would think you'd be in favor of being as objective as possible. While I know you love the ratings for Pros it generally comes down to money and wins. I've never really heard to many pros whining after a botched effort about how it's going to effect their rating. This should be determined by wins and money won. Even accumulating points is kind of cheesy as that often comes down simply to who has the time to attend the most events and grind out tourneys. Since disc is in reality a hobby for 95% of the pros out there it's tough to set goal type standards. You have to simply judge the work submitted, and Boyce had the most real wins, and won way more money indicating she was banging girls around in bigger events. To try and justify her losing the title by her last round collapse at words is transparent and insulting.

Here's a novel idea:

Congrats to Theresa.

That's your point of view and others have theirs. The Board has determined that these awards (as are most others) will be determined by vote because any formula would still have some subjective elements just like a vote. The largest improvement will be to get more voters to actually vote.

Other similar awards in other sports are also done by voting where the voters weigh various objective factors with less objective factors. I'm not sure that this isn't the best way for these types of things despite working with numbers for many things.

any formula would still have some subjective elements just like a vote.



you're wrong, chuck. not "just like a vote". any formula that's stated ahead of time would not be subjective, unless it includes a variable for who someone on the board really likes (or anything subjective).

maybe it would be more accurate to say "any formula created by the pdga would have to have some subjective elements just like a vote or else the pdga wouldn't be able to fix it."

the pdga f-d kelly on this one and no amount of pdga flag waiving will disprove that.

any formula would still have some subjective elements just like a vote.



you're wrong, chuck. any formula that's stated ahead of time would not be subjective, unless it includes a variable for who someone on the board really likes (or anything subjective).

maybe it would be more accurate to say "any formula created by the pdga would have to have some subjective elements just like a vote or else the pdga wouldn't be able to fix it."

the pdga clearly f-d kelly on this one and no amount of pdga flag waiving will disprove that.

That's right, blame the PDGA and not the people who actually voted for the players. It's always been a vote for the many years ROY and POY have been determined by a small group of PDGA leaders (Board). And now that a broader group of people including touring players and state coordinators have been added to the process, it's somehow the fault of the PDGA.

it's typical of the pdga to hold a biased election (read popularity contest) for an award that could easily have been awarded objectively.

aren't we all the pdga, chuck? assigning blame to the pdga is easy with that in mind. but i forgot-- some people are more "pdga" than others.

keep waiving that flag...

Who got ballets?

i'm betting (and hoping i'm wrong) that it was "touring players", BODs and state coordinators that made it to worlds.

i'd love some clarification as to how the popularity contest unfolded. i'd also love to see their list of "touring players" and how thats decided.

a couple things:

1. clearly based on stats(which we know you to be fond of chuck), nobody can say kelly wasn't the best rookie.

2. teresa wasn't even on the ballot that was sent to me, as state coordinator, meaning she had to be a write in. for that many people to write her in to enable winning, someone had to be pushing for her. when i vote i choose the person with the best stats, but obviously others would rather not be bothered by the stats and would rather choose someone they know.

chuck, i am appalled that you,as the stat guy for the pdga could possibly defend this obvious oversight of the facts in order to choose someone as ROY based on popularity.

i am considering resigning as state coordinator since the PDGA seems intent on maintaining the veil of secrecy and still reeks of the good old boy syndrome. i'm glad the BOD can still manage to spread the wealth among it's friends. it won't be long however until the natives rebel. you can hide behind how you are a volunteer etc only for so long. if you volunteer to work at a bank and shuffle bags of money out the back door, that kind of ruins the effect for the ACTUAL SACRIFICE OF VOLUNTEERING. until the pdga becomes an open and fair governing body, YOU are the main problem with the stunted growth of professional disc golf in my opinion.

Touring Card holders are right here:
www.pdga.com/documents/td/2006tourinfo.php (http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/2006tourinfo.php)
plus all BOD members and State Coordinators

It's ironic that there seemed to be no problem with the old process which was limited to BOD members. And when the group of voters was expanded to reduce possibilities of favoritism, it somehow is now a worse process.

It's ironic that there seemed to be no problem with the old process which was limited to BOD members. And when the group of voters was expanded to reduce possibilities of favoritism, it somehow is now a worse process.



where were the two processes compared, chuck? both processes were flawed and the more facts that come to light make it look even worse. comparing them is irrelavant and i never have.

how about arguing the stats? because you can't.

tell me again how a formula decided upon before the season is unfairly subjective?

something is rotten in the state of denmark and your blind, unwavering allegiance is masking the smell.

ps... let's not claim "tour card holders" as "touring players". the difference is obvious.

Who got ballets?



Way to pile on after the play Sparky. No wonder she left your club.

i am considering resigning as state coordinator since the PDGA seems intent on maintaining the veil of secrecy and still reeks of the good old boy syndrome.



As the person who made you state coordinator I will allow you to resign at this time.

I'm not happy with the results considering I voted for Kelly and Feldberg based on my perception of the stats. Other people had a different perception of the stats and many did not vote. Ken was upset over a year ago that Jesper had a higher rating than him for a period of time but had never beat him in head-to-head competition. Which stat is more important when players infrequently play each other? Kelly had better overall stats but Bellinger beat her at Worlds when they faced each other.

I only wish the bags I snuck out the back door had money in them so they could help pay the rent, but they just contained trash...

Kelly had better overall stats but Bellinger beat her at Worlds when they faced each other.



i thought they tied at worlds (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5514#Open%20Women) or am i missing something? otherwise, kelly dominated stats.

just admit the process is extremely flawed, could easily be fixed and the women's '06 ROY was awarded primarily on popularity.

2005 Pro Worlds is what counted for the ROY stats so Kelly has not beaten her twice at Worlds.
www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4645#Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4645#Open) Women

2. teresa wasn't even on the ballot that was sent to me, as state coordinator, meaning she had to be a write in. for that many people to write her in to enable winning, someone had to be pushing for her. when i vote i choose the person with the best stats, but obviously others would rather not be bothered by the stats and would rather choose someone they know.



i'd love to hear someone satisfactorily explain/deny these shenanigans.

As I said several times before.

A good pr person would be beneficial than facts in such a small voting population with such a poor traditional ballot return percentage.

I'd bet that getting 20-30 of the people that you knew to vote for you would be enough win.

I'd like to see the vote tallies. Just to get an idea of how many votes were actually returned.

Let's look at the stats that the ladies who were candidates for ROY compiled after the 2004 World Championships through the entire 2005 Season. I'm not counting wins or money won in one person fields as all one of them had to do was show up, stumble around the course, finish and ca$h. Only wins and money earned against at least one other lady got tallied by me.

Bellinger: 2 wins-$310

Boyce: 3 wins-$1,510

Merce: 1 win-$550

Shooner: 1 win-$615

Vargas: 2 wins-$870

Hmmm...looks like Boyce and Vargas both had more impressive stats than Bellinger, and Boyce nearly doubled Vargas's winnings. Hmmmm...



Boyce or DV!

I'm pretty sure I voted for DV,

Looking at the stats for 2005.

From Dec 2004 - Dec 2005
Kelly Boyce - 880 - 893 - +13
Teresa Bellinger - 862 - 895 - +33

Most Improved and Highest at the end of the year are Teresa.

TB - 5 wins, 1 seconds
KB - 3 wins, 5 seconds

The only event they both played TB won.

I'm not saying TB should have won, but I can see how someone that knew neither could have chosen TB if they had been given her name as a new contender that should be considered.

I'll also say that as a state coordinator I received nothing mentioning her name as someone I should consider, so it wasn't a notice sent to all voting members.

I'll also say that as a state coordinator I received nothing mentioning her name as someone I should consider, so it wasn't a notice sent to all voting members.



This is a curious piece of information as is this from some lame thread Rich started:


Bellinger won, wife of a BOD Member. She wasn't even on the voting ballot, but apparently enough people wrote her in for her to win. A truly historic moment in our sport when the write-in wins.




So a player who the PDGA themselves didn't consider a viable candidate when creating the ballot storms from way behind due to a write-in campaing to win? That looks legit.

Why am I sensing a massive 2006 write-in campaign? You guys might as well engrave the trophy with my name now.

TB - 5 wins, 1 seconds
KB - 3 wins, 5 seconds



wins in one person divisions aren't wins. kelly explicitly avoided those situations or otherwise would have cleaned up that category.

wins in one person divisions aren't wins. kelly avoided those situations to take care of her daughter or otherwise would have cleaned up that category.



Of course, that's an intangible consideration that wouldn't come into play if the award was strictly on objective elements.

Looks to me from the vote tallies that Merce and Boyce may have split the eastern vote which is a likely explanation for the outcome.

Of course, that's an intangible consideration that wouldn't come into play if the award was strictly on objective elements.

Looks to me from the vote tallies that Merce and Boyce may have split the eastern vote which is a likely explanation for the outcome.



perhaps one's decision would have been altered if the criteria were not subjective. if the criteria were stated, one might have poached one person divisions. so that would certainly be a tangible consideration if the award were given how it should be-- based on objective criteria.

after reviewing the votes, could it be any more obvious that women's ROY is nothing more than a popularity contest? look at the stats!

the pdga is far too insular to take any of this into consideration.

end of story, BH.

End of story.



Translation: You people shut up now. Oz has spoken. No further questions will be tolerated.

End of story.



Translation: You people shut up now. Oz has spoken. No further questions will be tolerated.



exactly. that attitude is endemic of this popsicle stand.

I'll also say that as a state coordinator I received nothing mentioning her name as someone I should consider, so it wasn't a notice sent to all voting members.





Then perhaps it got filed away in your spam folder, because it was sent to you. Teresa's name was inadvertantly left off of the DGW preview in the winter issue, and her name was sent to all of the voters oin the ballot (which include touring card holders, BoD, and state, national, and provincial coordinators).


Bellinger won, wife of a BOD Member.



Cris wasn't on the BoD until at least 2 months after the votes were tabulated. That being said, the votes are all tabulated by Brian Hoeniger, who I assure you is above reproach in this matter.



Why am I sensing a massive 2006 write-in campaign? You guys might as well engrave the trophy with my name now.



You're not eligible, Hawk. From your pictures, I can tell you're not female. Also, since you cashed in April 2005, you wouldn't be eligible for ROY 2006 even if you were female, so the question of whether you're female or not is moot.

FWIW, I didn't vote for Teresa, either. I voted for Kelly as well. I also voted for Feldberg as POY in 2005, as he won the most money, and won a major that Barry didn't win. I'm not diminishing anything Barry accomplished, I just thought David had a better year. Same thing with Teresa. Teresa did beat Kelly at Worlds, and Barry beat David at Worlds. Perhaps that was what the bulk of the voters valued the most.

Unfortunately, I do not get a vote this year, or I would vote for Tavish (she beat Katy 2 of 3 times they played in the same event this year). Of course Tavish is also from Kansas City, so I'd obviously vote for the hometown girl, just as you guys are pulled for Kelly, your hometown girl.

Chap

You're not eligible, Hawk. From your pictures, I can tell you're not female. Also, since you cashed in April 2005, you wouldn't be eligible for ROY 2006 even if you were female, so the question of whether you're female or not is moot.



clean your glasses, chap. hawk is half female. and wouldn't he/she be eligible for ROY if he/she took advantage of this new PDGA sham of letting pros turn am? but that's another thread...

Why am I sensing a massive 2006 write-in campaign? You guys might as well engrave the trophy with my name now.



You're not eligible, Hawk. From your pictures, I can tell you're not female. Also, since you cashed in April 2005, you wouldn't be eligible for ROY 2006 even if you were female, so the question of whether you're female or not is moot.




Chap,

It's that kind of narrow thinking that is holding us back as an organization.

Step 1: I renew this year as an Am as discussed here. (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=601516&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=1&fpart=1)

Step 2: I enter a bunch of sanctioned tourneys here in MD as the typical lone Open female. I stumble around the course, finish and ca$h. According to discussions above these are legitimate wins. We're all certifed officials and can TD thus allow this to happen. Plus just because I'm a manly woman is not basis to preclude me from participating. Will the TD's insist on a chromosone test? That would seem unlikely.

Step 3: I unleash my massive marketing campaign here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=602474&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=1&fpart=&vc=#Post602474) and take the bling home.

Rather simple actually.

Chap,

It's that kind of narrow thinking that is holding us back as an organization.

Step 1: I renew this year as an Am as discussed here. (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=601516&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=1&fpart=1)

Step 2: I enter a bunch of sanctioned tourneys here in MD as the typical lone Open female. I stumble around the course, finish and ca$h. According to discussions above these are legitimate wins. We're all certifed officials and can TD thus allow this to happen. Plus just because I'm a manly woman is not basis to preclude me from participating. Will the TD's insist on a chromosone test? That would seem unlikely.

Step 3: I unleash my massive marketing campaign here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=602474&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=1&fpart=&vc=#Post602474) and take the bling home.

Rather simple actually.



Except that you would still not be a rookie ever again, regardless of whether you reclassified as an am or not. Once you've popped this (http://www.pbase.com/dannysmythe/image/40805163), you can't be a rookie anymore.

Chap

Chap,

You're confusing my time in adult cinema with disc. Besides if we've learned nothing else here, these rules are fluid.

We've also shown that convincing a block of just 20-30 voters would probably win you a ROY award.

Has anyone stopped to think that Teresa...(don't know her, but) just might be reading this thread...I wonder how this crap is making her feel...Not very good, I would imagine...

2005 ROY is over...She won and that is it...if you don't like it...TFB...

CONGRATULATIONS TERESA!!!!!

To all the other ladies that were in the running...CONGRATULATIONS for getting that far...

I'd rate this thread but, there isn't a zero............ :mad:

Has anyone stopped to think that Teresa...(don't know her, but) just might be reading this thread...I wonder how this crap is making her feel...Not very good, I would imagine...

2005 ROY is over...She won and that is it...if you don't like it...TFB...

CONGRATULATIONS TERESA!!!!!

To all the other ladies that were in the running...CONGRATULATIONS for getting that far...



Best post yet on this thread. Congrats to Teresa...not only on your ROY award, but also for your success with Sassy Pants and all the clincs you run over in OR. Congrats also to Kelly and all the other nominees for getting the nomination for ROY. I think just getting nominated is an honor (or at least I'd feel that way if I was honored.)

Like I said before, I want Cheesehead Kim to get nominated this year!!

i am considering resigning as state coordinator since the PDGA seems intent on maintaining the veil of secrecy and still reeks of the good old boy syndrome. i'm glad the BOD can still manage to spread the wealth among it's friends.



Would you actually resign because a vote among your peers did not turn out the way you thought it should?

Did you actually send your ballot in?

Since you are a state coordinator, doesn't that make you one of the good ol boys?

For the record, I only know one person on the BOD, and I didn't even know they were on the BOD until I looked it up
here. (http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/PDGAContacts1105.pdf)

i am considering resigning as state coordinator since the PDGA seems intent on maintaining the veil of secrecy and still reeks of the good old boy syndrome. i'm glad the BOD can still manage to spread the wealth among it's friends.



Would you actually resign because a vote among your peers did not turn out the way you thought it should?

Did you actually send your ballot in?

Since you are a state coordinator, doesn't that make you one of the good ol boys?

For the record, I only know one person on the BOD, and I didn't even know they were on the BOD until I looked it up
here. (http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/PDGAContacts1105.pdf)



That list is old, Suzette. Myself, Kirk Yoo, and Terry Calhoun were replaced by Cris Bellinger, Pat Brenner, and Steve Dodge respectively, well, sort of respectively. All BoD members are unnamed directors now...there is no Competition, Oversight, nor Communications Director.

If I had resigned the first time a vote on the BoD didn't go my way I would have resigned very early on. :)

Chap

Chap,

You're confusing my time in adult cinema with disc. Besides if we've learned nothing else here, these rules are fluid.



These specific rules have been static.

Chap

Has anyone stopped to think that Teresa...(don't know her, but) just might be reading this thread...I wonder how this crap is making her feel...Not very good, I would imagine...

2005 ROY is over...She won and that is it...if you don't like it...TFB...

CONGRATULATIONS TERESA!!!!!

To all the other ladies that were in the running...CONGRATULATIONS for getting that far...



Yes, while I didn't vote for her, it doesn't mean I'm right.

Teresa was qualfied to be on the ballot, and is well deserving of the award. She did play a tougher schedule than Kelly, and placed higher than Kelly at Worlds. No disrespect meant toward Teresa at all.

Chap

Posted on 10/19 in this thread:


Here's a novel idea:

Congrats to Theresa.



First! :)

Sorry to beat a dead horse but in events where there was at least 1 other person in the division Kelly's cashing % was 83.3% and Teresa's was 62.5%.

I am not trying to take anything away from Teresa but I have a hard time seeing how Kelly didn't win. She had the most $$$ and three times more than Teresa in only two more events, a better cashing %, and they had the same amount of wins. Teresa did have more pionts though 219 to 178.

I am going to look up some of the others as well.

Nelle cahed in 80% of her events, won $940, had two non 1 person division wins, and had 181 points.

Strictly being objective, ratings tell exactly how well a player actually played during the period. If you want a purely objective process, then who ever has the highest rating at the end of the period is one indicator. At yearend 2005:
896 Boyce
895 Bellinger
862 Vargas
853 Merce

The other indicator is whose rating improved most during 2005:
38 Merce
32 Bellinger
25 Vargas
16 Boyce

Bellinger appears to have the best net performance combining these two indicators. Money and wins, except against each other, are irrelevant because strength of field, entry fees, and added cash can't be properly accounted for. For example, a woman who played as many events as the other contenders who only cashed once in the year at Worlds in Open Women, but usually played against Open Men during the year and ended with a rating 20 points higher than the contenders should still probably win ROY if only objective criteria are counted.

[quote
Since you are a state coordinator, doesn't that make you one of the good ol boys? ][QUOTE]


that's pretty funny. trust me, i'm not part of the "in" crowd.

i'm not knocking teresa, congrats on her win.

i am knocking the system that was used which turned what should be an award given based on performance into something more like a homecoming queen vote. i realize lindsay managed to split the vote somewhat. clearly based purely on stats, lindsay wasn't the best rookie, but got a large portion of the votes. so explain to me again why the criteria wasn't made clear to the voters? have you considered that the people are complaining about the process and that it isn't an attack on teresa at all?

this is typical of the way the pdga deals with issues. secrecy and silence.even to the state coordinators. do you think the pdga has once asked my opinion on anything? the state coordinators are a ready group of disc golf movers and shakers that could be a great asset to the pdga, allowing them to harvest ideas and gauge the reactions and feelings of the membership. they could ask us to vote on issues and actually represent our states. instead it seems like the same core of people make all the decisions without any real new input. hopefully the new BOD will change this. hopefully.

and by the way, i did vote. i voted in all categories to the person i felt had the best year as a player, not the person i like the best.

Second

First of all - congrats to ALL Rookie of the Year candidates - and all rookies everywhere -- may you all continue to enjoy disc golf and improve your game !!!

Second - to Dr. Evil. Logic, man. First of all, the PDGA sends you a ballot (which you read, though not apparently very thoroughly), and use to vote. Then you write "do you think the pdga has once asked my opinion on anything?" What was the ballot, chopped liver?

Third, again to Dr. Evil. Logic, again, man. You say you voted "in all categories to the person i felt had the best year as a player" - how did you determine this ?? I presume that you reviewed their stats, perhaps weighting one thing more strongly than another, according to your evaluation of the importance of stats such as $ won, # of points won, strength of fields played against, rating, etc. I guess you didn't feel that you needed the PDGA to advise you on how to weight the various categories, since apparently you didn't seek any advice or feedback from any of your fellow voters.

i'm may not present the case well, but are you saying there is no case to be made or that it couldn't be done better or improved upon?

congrats to the winners. but some of the awards winners were definitely also well qualified. with no set criteria to judge by, it obviously turns into a "who do you know" contest.

it think most of the posters, including myself, were trying to make the point that the process is flawed, not the winners.

its amazing to see guys actually having a debate over which "female" rookie of the year is gunna win, has won, or why she did win?? its just surprising to me that that any males actually have gotten in a debate about it!! congrats.. im very pround.. no judgements, no prejudices, no making fun what so ever!!.. thank god theres actually guys out there that CARE enough to make a statement on here.. thanks! :D

you know this......

Here's a novel idea:

Congrats to Theresa.


Awesome post!

Let's look at the stats that the ladies who were candidates for ROY compiled after the 2004 World Championships through the entire 2005 Season. I'm not counting wins or money won in one person fields as all one of them had to do was show up, stumble around the course, finish and ca$h. Only wins and money earned against at least one other lady got tallied by me.

Bellinger: 2 wins-$310

Boyce: 3 wins-$1,510

Merce: 1 win-$550

Shooner: 1 win-$615

Vargas: 2 wins-$870

Hmmm...looks like Boyce and Vargas both had more impressive stats than Bellinger, and Boyce nearly doubled Vargas's winnings. Hmmmm...



We all know Boyce deseved the win. She did have the Best rookie season out of all the others without a doubt. Sorry Nelle. :p



Bellinger beat Boyce by 15 strokes at '05 Worlds

With that in mind I'm sure Boyce might be willing to put up or shut up in the cage match.



I'd still put my money on Theresa.......they can play some golf too. /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
:D

i'm betting (and hoping i'm wrong) that it was "touring players", BODs and state coordinators that made it to worlds.

i'd love some clarification as to how the popularity contest unfolded. i'd also love to see their list of "touring players" and how thats decided.



I think that "Touring Players" are the ones that have their "Touring Card" (1000+ rated)? I'm not sure but I think thats the way it works.

I recieved a ballot as a State Coordinator.
I did not attend worlds, but I assume that my vote counted (looking at total votes cast, Im sure of it)
:cool:

Let's look at the stats that the ladies who were candidates for ROY compiled after the 2004 World Championships through the entire 2005 Season. I'm not counting wins or money won in one person fields as all one of them had to do was show up, stumble around the course, finish and ca$h. Only wins and money earned against at least one other lady got tallied by me.

Bellinger: 2 wins-$310

Boyce: 3 wins-$1,510

Merce: 1 win-$550

Shooner: 1 win-$615

Vargas: 2 wins-$870

Hmmm...looks like Boyce and Vargas both had more impressive stats than Bellinger, and Boyce nearly doubled Vargas's winnings. Hmmmm...



We all know Boyce deseved the win. She did have the Best rookie season out of all the others without a doubt. Sorry Nelle. :p



Bellinger beat Boyce by 15 strokes at '05 Worlds



Ok so she played better in one event right? So I guess that ONE event proves she had a better season. The fact that Bellinger won 1/5 the amount of cash Boyce did must not mean much and she only cashed in like 65% of her events compared to Kelly at 85%. I hate to break it to you but Kelly had the better season unfortunantly there is way too much favoritism in the election process.

there is way too much favoritism in the election process.



How can there be favoritism in an election process ?

Everybody gets a ballot and a list of people they are supposed to vote for ?

Yeah but I'm pretty sure a lot of people voted for their favorite person and not the person with the best year. :confused: She won 5 times as much money for crying out loud.

BTW I was wrong Teresa cashed in 37.5% of the events she played with at least one other competitor.

BTW I was wrong Teresa cashed in 37.5% of the events she played with at least one other competitor.



Compare SIZE of the events along with STRENGTH of the field... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Yeah and if you do that then Kelly would have an even bigger advantage because Teresa didn't cash in any big events. The biggest event she cashed in had 5 women and she was the highest rated player in the division. :confused:

Ok Teresa took last place at the memorial(missed cash by 26), Missed cash by 2 at St patricks(probably her best finish 4th out of 6), Missed cash by 21 at Golden State, and missed cash by 18 at beaver state.

Kelly took and at the Virginia open $250, 3rd at the West Virginia open $175, and 1st at Patapsco picnic(only two in division).

So, it should be held against Teresa that there aren't many other Pro women in her area ?

In order to bear multiple other players, you must first have other players. Is it in here favor that Kelly had a good base of women to play against. The only valid comparison in this case is head to head competition. The skill levels of the competition is too different to be useful.

The numbers alone do not give anyone a clear victory. Other factors meed to be considered. You are conisdering other factors already by ignoring wins against no competitors. In pure numbers, a win is a win. You consider competition, now consider the likely hood that the competition will be giving you a challenge for the win.

Is there a difference between you winning in a division by yourself, or winning in a division against me and 2 other guys rated 50-100 points less than you ? No, because you are going to win 90% of the time.


The biggest event she cashed in had 5 women and she was the highest rated player in the division.


She wasn't the highest rated player at the time.

Did the ballots come from Florida? Must have if someone who was not on the ballot won. :D

Congrats to the ROY(Bellinger) and all of the ladies.

So, it should be held against Teresa that there aren't many other Pro women in her area ?

In order to bear multiple other players, you must first have other players. Is it in here favor that Kelly had a good base of women to play against. The only valid comparison in this case is head to head competition. The skill levels of the competition is too different to be useful.

The numbers alone do not give anyone a clear victory. Other factors meed to be considered. You are conisdering other factors already by ignoring wins against no competitors. In pure numbers, a win is a win. You consider competition, now consider the likely hood that the competition will be giving you a challenge for the win.

Is there a difference between you winning in a division by yourself, or winning in a division against me and 2 other guys rated 50-100 points less than you ? No, because you are going to win 90% of the time.


The biggest event she cashed in had 5 women and she was the highest rated player in the division.


She wasn't the highest rated player at the time.



Gary, if you look at their events Teresa actually had more ladies in the events then Kelly did and the fact that I am only figuring their cash % based of events that had other competitors is completly logical because it is impossible to cash when you are the only person in the division right? If anything the amount of local ladies is against Kelly and not Teresa.

The only thing I am saying about the 1 person division thing is that 3 of the 6 events she cashed at she was the only competitor. IMO that is not really an accomplishment nor anything that should be takin away from her but when it is used in calculating cash % in is retarded. Even if you did include those events she only cashed in 55% of her tournaments compared to Kelly's 85%.

I hate to break it to you but that is a butt kickin

Cash probably isn't the best way to judge the skills of women disc golfers. There are too many things involved, like how many people enter and how the added cash is distributed.

Cash is probably a fine way to judge the men's division, but not the women's IMO.

I'm soooo happy this topic take up 2 threads.... enough all ready! :mad:

How about cashing % then?

Cash probably isn't the best way to judge the skills of women disc golfers. There are too many things involved, like how many people enter and how the added cash is distributed.

Cash is probably a fine way to judge the men's division, but not the women's IMO.

I'm soooo happy this topic take up 2 threads.... enough all ready! :mad:



I played the Pittsburg FDO this year and they payout wasn't that good ($800? for 1st) and then the same weekend the High Plains Challenge payed $1000 and had fewer players and the competition was not as tough. The same thing happens all the time to guys too. We go to a b-tier where 1st gets $270 in a 20 person division and then there are b-tiers that pay $1000+ with 25 or so people. It happens and most guys know which events pay well and which don't. Now why can't the women do the same? :confused:

I played the Pittsburg FDO this year and they payout wasn't that good ($800? for 1st) and then the same weekend the High Plains Challenge payed $1000 and had fewer players and the competition was not as tough. The same thing happens all the time to guys too. We go to a b-tier where 1st gets $270 in a 20 person division and then there are b-tiers that pay $1000+ with 25 or so people. It happens and most guys know which events pay well and which don't. Now why can't the women do the same? :confused:




Because there are events where MEN can get $1000 because there are umpteen skillion guys who play. The only time that kind of cash shows up for women is at the NT events.

Now to get a chance at winning that kind of cash, I would have to travel all over the country. I don't know about you, but I've never MADE money at any event I had to travel to. Especially if it's 2/3 of the way across the country.

Like I said earlier, women make up maybe 10% of the players. To get them all together in one place to compete is highly unlikely.

I played the Pittsburg FDO this year and they payout wasn't that good ($800? for 1st) and then the same weekend the High Plains Challenge payed $1000 and had fewer players and the competition was not as tough. The same thing happens all the time to guys too. We go to a b-tier where 1st gets $270 in a 20 person division and then there are b-tiers that pay $1000+ with 25 or so people. It happens and most guys know which events pay well and which don't. Now why can't the women do the same? :confused:




Because there are events where MEN can get $1000 because there are umpteen skillion guys who play. The only time that kind of cash shows up for women is at the NT events.

Now to get a chance at winning that kind of cash, I would have to travel all over the country. I don't know about you, but I've never MADE money at any event I had to travel to. Especially if it's 2/3 of the way across the country.

Like I said earlier, women make up maybe 10% of the players. To get them all together in one place to compete is highly unlikely.

\

You act as if guys are not in the same boat. Most of the time there is a greater percentage of added cash in the Women's division which means more cash per player. Also we usually have a 40% payout but most women's divisions get at least 50% of the field payed out. I am from Tx and if you look at my stats I played pretty much all over the country this year so telling me that you would have to travel all over the country doesn't make me pity the women anymore because the same is true for us guys.

The more I think about it the more it seems that the guys receive less money then women when you compare the competition they play against. If you look at the tour stats barry has won twice as much money as Des but if your logic is right and the amount of women playing is 1/10 that of the men shouldn't he have more than that? If you include the USDGC he has 3 times as much money but that still doesn't seem right now does it? I mean if the same amount of $$$ per player went to the men as it does the women he should have 10x a much cash right? Granted I know that neither of them is making much money and we need a lot more but you would think the cash diferential would be greater.

If you want to follow that logic, then the Masters and GMs should get more added cash than the women because they usually shoot better scores.

If you want to follow that logic, then the Masters and GMs should get more added cash than the women because they usually shoot better scores.



I'm not talking about scores but field size.

Hey Cuck this is what I want to see. From the Okie open thread and posted by Pizza God.

From my calculations

Pro - $2005 added cash
Masters - $1011 added cash
Pro Women - $828 added cash
Grandmasters - $248 added cash

or by % of entry fee

163% - Pro
150% - Masters
205% - Pro Women
170% - Grandmasters

(This was based on the flyer that says entry fee was $92. With the $4 PDGA fee, that makes an $88 entry fee.)


Now that is a pretty balanced spread in added cash and all of the women were paid. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I think the Open Women and Men should end up with the same overall %payout and that percentage should be higher than for the older pro divisions. Something like 175% for Open Men and Women and 125% max for older pros.

I think the Open Women and Men should end up with the same overall %payout and that percentage should be higher than for the older pro divisions. Something like 175% for Open Men and Women and 125% max for older pros.



I agree but this was still a lot better then most events.

The thing about added cash is that there is no standard way to divvy it out. As a cash sponsor, I have a say in where it goes if I want to. If I want to give my money to the women's division that's where it goes. If I want to give it to the GM division, that's where it goes. That's just the way it is until some disc golfer wins the Power Ball and sets us all up for a while. :D

Getting back on topic....

There is no shortage of guys willing to travel around for the chance to win a slice of the big payout pie. To assume that all of the handfull of serious women disc golfers should/can show up at the same events week after week is unreasonable. That big payout pie needs to get a whole bunch bigger it make it economically reasonable for the ladies to do that. Sort of a chicken and egg thing, huh? :D

How about congratulating the ROY? Way to go Teresa Bellinger!! And congratulations to all the other nominees, you are ALL well-deserving of this honour!

Scoot_er, money isn't everything, neither is field size. Until there are wayyy more many women playing disc golf to make it statistically relevant, you simply can't compare results from the East, West, Mid-West, Canada, etc. The only fair comparison would be a head-to-head competition...

Congrats to Teresa!

How about congratulating the ROY? Way to go Teresa Bellinger!! And congratulations to all the other nominees, you are ALL well-deserving of this honour!

Scoot_er, money isn't everything, neither is field size. Until there are wayyy more many women playing disc golf to make it statistically relevant, you simply can't compare results from the East, West, Mid-West, Canada, etc. The only fair comparison would be a head-to-head competition...



I can agree with that if the cash they won was within a couple hundred bucks but Kelly won 5 TIMES as much and like Dr. evil said should 2 rounds out of the whole year decide the ROY? I know that if a guy goes to NTs all year and doesn't cash but plays better then the other nominees at worlds they still won't get nominated especially if they made 1/5 the amount of cash throughout the year.

Congrats to Teresa!

Rhett -

You may have to post that a couple more times. I have a feeling that some guys just can't quite chewing on this particular bone.

Rhett -

You may have to post that a couple more times. I have a feeling that some guys just can't quite chewing on this particular bone.



Hate to break it to you but this is not about teresa by the system. I don't care if it was Teresa or someone else who won but if it was Betty Johnson or someone else this conversation would still be happening.

I would HATE to see this happen again.

I would HATE to see this happen again.



You would hate to see the person with the most votes win ?

would hate to see the votes go by popularity rather than stats.

in other sports where voting decides ROY type awards, it's done by either a body of coaches or sportswriters who for the most part have enough respect for the tradition of the award to carry a certain degree of objectivity. that's clearly not possible in today's pdga.

I would hate to see the votes go by popularity rather than stats.



You continue to overlook that stats WERE important to the voters. All voters got to see and review the stats before voting. If you can't trust the touring players, SC and Board, where else do you turn? Consider how popular using just the computer rankings to determine the BCS teams turned out to be...

If you can't trust the touring players, SC and Board, where else do you turn?



unfortunately, there is no where else to turn. after the mistake that was made last time, it's hard to trust the process to determine anything other than a popularity contest.

comparing it to the BCS is a good analogy if you consider the differences. college football games are all over national tv for all voters to consider. disc golf is not. the computer rankings (stats based on objective criteria) for the BCS closely resembles the polls. disc golf stats do not resemble the voting results.

i'm not trying to take anything away from past winners. they won by the system that is in place. i'm simply pointing out that the ROY voting system will likely be nothing more than a popularity contest.

If you can't trust the touring players, SC and Board, where else do you turn?



unfortunately, there is no where else to turn. after the mistake that was made last time, it's hard to trust the process to determine anything other than a popularity contest.

comparing it to the BCS is a good analogy if you consider the differences. college football games are all over national tv for all voters to consider. disc golf is not. the computer rankings (stats based on objective criteria) for the BCS closely resembles the polls. disc golf stats do not resemble the voting results.

i'm not trying to take anything away from past winners. they won by the system that is in place. i'm simply pointing out that the ROY voting system will likely be nothing more than a popularity contest.




You guys keep bringing up the stats. Women on this discussion keep trying to tell you that the stats aren't the be all and end all of women's disc golf.

Money won is so easlily skewed even to the tune of 5x. That pesky day job can affect the number of events someone can play. The list goes on and on. Stop trying to make the stats that work for men's disc golf work for women. It clearly (at least to me and a few others ) doesn't work.

I got one of those ballots, I resent the blanket implication that it's "just a popularity contest" and no one actually reads the ballot and makes some sort of concerted effort to chose wisely.

by arguing that the voting wasn't based on who was the actual best rookie of the year, you are making my point for me.

No, she is making the point that in small divisions that have large participation differences regionally, stats have very little value in determining who the best player is. Head to head competition is a much better evaluator for who is better.

Now if you want to change the competition to who made the most money, or who had the most wins, or who beat the most players that were rated below them, stats would work just fine.

anita clearly pointed out earlier that running national tour events and being an all around good person for the sport should be factored in.

i say throw that out the window and determine the ROY based on DISC GOLF PERFORMANCE. could it be that one rookie has a regional advantage because there are more pro women in the area? sure. as anita mentioned, could it be because one rookie has an intrusive day job? isn't this the "professional" disc golf association? i still chuckle when i try to consider this org "professional". :D

the lesson learned here is for potential women ROY candidates to consider all of this before explicitly trying to win the award. you can dominate ratings, money won, and general common sense statistics, but you might not win because you didn't run an NT or know enough "tourning players", SCs or board members.

just change the name of the award from rookie of the year to women of the year who recently started paying the pdga more membership dues.

I believe the only valid stats would be yearend rating (Kelly by 1), rating improvement (Teresa) and head-to-head (Teresa). Teresa wins. Easy math. No controversy. Perhaps the voters saw that. Likely not. No other stats can be used/compared in any proposed "objective" system because of different pools of players and events. All you could do is argue about weighting the three factors and most would agree head-to-head is most important.

No other stats can be used/compared in any proposed "objective" system because of different pools of players and events.



i disagree. money won, events won (it'd make sense to throw out 1 person divs) and pts could all be factored. while not perfectly objective, these are better indicators of performance than just the three you listed and certainly more objective than the current popularity contest.

Valid stats are also the quality of golf played and the quality of the fields played against Kelly's win at the Virginia Open was pure quality. Perhaps she was disappointed/upset at World's when the ROY rug was pulled from under her.

Sorry, but none of those other factors are fair because all candidates can't realistically be involved whether it's men or women. Nothing but the three I mentioned involve all candidates and are objective on the same basis. Now maybe there are others but none mentioned by anyone else so far. Even the head-to-head may not happen sometimes. But I guess legit contenders should make an effort to attend either Worlds or their National event or both. In fact, I would make it a requirement if the system changes. If any change gets considered again, I can't see the Board including any more than those three factors if a purely calculated ranking is used to determine winners.

Now, if you want to include additional less objective factors like money won or winning percentage or events played, then maybe people need to be involved in judging their relative importance. Oh wait, that's how it is now...

Oh wait, that's how it is now...



keep repeating it and you'll keep fooling yourself into believing that. how is money won not objective? how is pts and quality of competition not objective? or how are all those factors any less objective than ratings?

chuck, right now ROY is nothing more than a popularity contest. you can't argue that.

Yes, I can argue that and nothing in your so called stats is valid but the three I mentioned. As Anita and others pointed out, women have a mixed bag of competition opportunities and can't make every event for a level field of comparison, especially when international players need to be considered. It's even true for the men.

Ratings is playing against the course. Absolute rating and improvement (which is important when talking about ROY maybe not POY) are fairly available to all players men and women everywhere in the world. Head-to-head should be the gold standard. Nothing more objective than that and international players are on a level playing field since they could be expected to at least make Worlds if they are contending for ROY or POY awards. Everything else like money and wins is nice but not objective AND fair. Both are needed for a factor to be considered in an automated process that doesn't involve voters weighing factors like it is now.

gimme a break, chuck. you're spinning your argument in the typical pdga flag waiving manner that you always do.

how many times do i need to remind you what the award is?
it's rookie of the YEAR. not best rookie at the previous year's worlds. not best rookie who might have won more money and pts if they didn't have a day job or lived in a different area. do you really think performance at worlds should be the heaviest factor in determining rookie of the YEAR? i know you don't.

the only way to compare a year versus a year is to take the whole thing into account. if you do that, kelly was shafted.

either change the selection process or change the name. how about "most popular rookie of the year"? or "the pdga's so-called elite's favorite rookie of the year"?

. do you really think performance at worlds should be the heaviest factor in determining rookie of the YEAR?




I do. Performance in major events is and should be the biggest factor in the award. The larger events bring out the best competition and the rookies who perform well against that should be rewarded.

I think you've made the point very clear that you don't really want an objective system but one that includes the factors you think are important. By golly, that's what we have in the current process. Players determine what factors they think are important and vote accordingly.

BTW, I'm not on the Board and had nothing to do with creation of the current system nor even voted for the winners. It's not PDGA flag waving but just deflecting your argument that there's a better way or that some objective way would have changed the outcome. Neither are necessarily true.

I believe the only valid stats would be yearend rating (Kelly by 1), rating improvement (Teresa) and head-to-head (Teresa). Teresa wins. Easy math. No controversy. Perhaps the voters saw that. Likely not.



if they were "not likely" looking at those stats, what do you think the votes were based on?

short answer: popularity

i honestly don't care much if it is changed. i'm simply calling it what it is.

if they were "not likely" looking at those stats, what do you think the votes were based on?




"Likely not" meant they were considering other factors since the candidates resumes included other things than just the three "objective" factors I listed. You underestimate and insult the sense of fairness in the voters even more than your disdain for the process. That's the shameful and unfortunate part of this dialog.

You underestimate and insult the sense of fairness in the voters even more than your disdain for the process.



mission accomplished.

I agree with MTL??? Did I just say that?

Teresa clearly toured. Others simply "regioned". Teresa probably could have made more had she stayed within her region, but she would not have played up as much as she did in 2005.

Her business, and subsequent exposure - at Flymarts and online and at the NTs and such - was probably a key to her success in name recognition. I knew her in 2004 even though she was from the other side of the country, I don't know if I would recognize Kelly Boyce, even though we are from a similar region of the country.

Congrats to Teresa, she earned it through a lot of travel and playing up a lot.

I believe the only valid stats would be yearend rating (Kelly by 1), rating improvement (Teresa) and head-to-head (Teresa). Teresa wins. Easy math. No controversy. Perhaps the voters saw that. Likely not. No other stats can be used/compared in any proposed "objective" system because of different pools of players and events. All you could do is argue about weighting the three factors and most would agree head-to-head is most important.



Well Teresa had a higher rating after the 04' worlds so in reality Kelly rating went up higher from 04' worlds to the end of 05'.

BTW Chuck don't you feel that it is harder for a 980 player to improve 30 points in a year campared to a 900 rated player doing the same? I do because the 980 guy commits a smaller amount of errors. (lets say two) and thus does not have as many areas he can improve on while the 900 guy may make 10 in a round right? So if the 900 guy only has to eliminate

I just ask because if one person started the year with a 930 rating and improved it to 970 and the other went from 960 to 995 does that mean the 1st had the most improved rating because he imroved 5 points more in the year?

I don't think so because the 930 guy may make 10 mistakes a round compared to the 960's 7(perfect is 1030 hypothetically). The 930 eliminates 4 of those mistakes on avg throughout the year and goes to 970. He eliminated 40% of his mistakes while the 960 went up 5 points less but improved on 50% of his mistakes so I feel they acually improved themselves more.

This is just like a jump from 800-900 in a year happens but 900-1000 doesn't.

mission accomplished.




I believe the term is called "sour grapes" making for a bad whine...

mission accomplished.




I believe the term is called "sour grapes" making for a bad whine...



or not kowtowing to the pdga status quo and calling something like it is. whatever your preference...

every time someone comes on here and defends the selection, they resort to the popularity factor often without even noticing it. sure it's a factor-- especially in something as hard to vote on as womens ROY. we aren't on TV, we hardly even have current coverage outside of chatter on the web and people voted for who they knew.

Congrats to Teresa!

she earned it through a lot of travel and playing up a lot.



Wow if that's all there is to it I should have traveled the world taking cash at 40% of the events I played in. :confused: :confused:

BTW Chuck don't you feel that it is harder for a 980 player to improve 30 points in a year campared to a 900 rated player doing the same? I do because the 980 guy commits a smaller amount of errors. (lets say two) and thus does not have as many areas he can improve on while the 900 guy may make 10 in a round right?



It depends more on how long a player has been playing. A talented newbie at 980 might be able to improve faster than a veteran player who has been hovering at 900 and tries to make a special effort to improve that year. All these discussions are doing is reinforcing the concept that voters are needed to process all of these variables into determining their vote rather than relying on some mechanical process no matter how objective it may be.

keep repeating it and you'll keep fooling yourself into believing that. how is money won not objective? how is pts and quality of competition not objective? or how are all those factors any less objective than ratings?

chuck, right now ROY is nothing more than a popularity contest. you can't argue that.




I can tell you how money won is not objective. It has been pointed out on this discussion over and over again that money earned is not objective because the women's fields can vary greatly from region to region, as can the amount of cash available to win.

In Southern California, our entry fees are much higher than they are in Minnesota and Iowa. There are also 26 registered Pro Women in California and only a total of 12 in Minnesota and Iowa combined. This would mean a potential ROY candidate from California could easily get more cash AND compete against more players than a ROY candidate from Iowa or Minnesota. It would not be FAIR to use your criteria in this situation.

The three following criteria are the MOST objective and FAIREST because these are OBJECTIVE factors that all players have in common no matter where they live.

Year End Rating
Most Improved Rating
Head to Head Competion

Again, Chuck hits the nail on the head with this statement:


All these discussions are doing is reinforcing the concept that voters are needed to process all of these variables into determining their vote rather than relying on some mechanical process no matter how objective it may be.



I think it is valiant of the Maryland boys to come to bat for their homegirl, but at some point it shows their true sportsmanship or should I say lack of it. They can keep saying over and over it's all about the process, but in the end it is obvious that it really is all about sour grapes.

every time someone comes on here and defends the selection, they resort to the popularity factor often without even noticing it.



How is my statement of playing larger events where she competes against the best a statement of popularity?!?!

I know Kelly. Besides accidently knocking her beer over at the Grange (which she was super nice about), I was the same team as her during the Virginia Team Invitational. If I had a vote, I would have voted for Teresa.

anita clearly pointed out earlier that running national tour events and being an all around good person for the sport should be factored in.






SAY WHAT!!??

No where did I say that running NT events and being an all around good person should be factored in!

All I'm trying to say that focusing on just the number of events won or the amount of money earned are NOT the best ways of assessing the abilities of women in disc golf.

People give you examples of how easy it is to skew the money won and time and time again you keep telling me it's a "popularity contest". Go back and read Discette scenario and tell me again how that situation can't skew the all blessed stats!

I don't know any of the candidates. Never met them. They never played in my state. However, I do believe that I can look at the bios and the subjective criteria (money and wins) AND the objective criteria (player rating) weigh them both and make an intelligent decision on who to vote for.

Congrats to Teresa!

Congrats to Teresa!

Congrats to Teresa!

Congrats to Teresa!

Congrats to Teresa!













Rhett, Put "Scooter" on restriction..... ;)

BTW Chuck don't you feel that it is harder for a 980 player to improve 30 points in a year campared to a 900 rated player doing the same? I do because the 980 guy commits a smaller amount of errors. (lets say two) and thus does not have as many areas he can improve on while the 900 guy may make 10 in a round right?



It depends more on how long a player has been playing. A talented newbie at 980 might be able to improve faster than a veteran player who has been hovering at 900 and tries to make a special effort to improve that year. All these discussions are doing is reinforcing the concept that voters are needed to process all of these variables into determining their vote rather than relying on some mechanical process no matter how objective it may be.



So what your telling me is that this is incorrect right?

The 930 eliminates 4 of those mistakes on avg throughout the year and goes to 970. He eliminated 40% of his mistakes while the 960 went up 5 points less but improved on 50% of his mistakes so the 960 acually improved themselves more.

Ok so by your reasoning because the 900 rated guy has been playing longer him improving on 40% of his skills should be given more credit then a 980 improving on 50% of his? I'm sorry but I would have to dissagree.

Also if you think ratings are the most unobjective way to pick a ROY? Well I hate to break it to you but since Teresa played with a lot of the higher rated players at her events her rounds will be rated higher when playing at the same level of play. So then the ratings improvement will depend on who they played against so therefore that is pretty objective to me. I can find a huge amount of exaples showing how the SSAs are higher when a group of high-rated players are there and lower when they are not.

What I am saying is just because a 700 rated player improves 100 points to 800 that isn't as impressive as a 1000 player going up to 1075 in a year.

she earned it through a lot of travel and playing up a lot.



Wow if that's all there is to it I should have traveled the world taking cash at 40% of the events I played in. :confused: :confused:



I am going to join as am AM this year so I can have another rookie year and just travel to big events where the touring players are, I will play to the best of my ability but even if I come in last it will be ok because I am playing tough players, I will make about $600 during the year and half of that is from events that I was the only person in the open division, I will then beat the other nominees at worlds but still miss the cash and I am pretty much on my way right?

:confused: :confused:

So, it should be held against Teresa that there aren't many other Pro women in her area ?

Is there a difference between you winning in a division by yourself, or winning in a division against me and 2 other guys rated 50-100 points less than you ? No, because you are going to win 90% of the time.



BTW how can you count getting 1st in an event you were the only person in a win? I mean she also took last.

Why was she even allowed to play in a 1 person division in the 1st place? I mean she should have played Int, ADV, or Open men right?

[/QUOTE]
Compare SIZE of the events along with STRENGTH of the field... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/QUOTE]

Ok so what do you do when comparing them if one nominee had a number of 1 person wins. I mean that isn't too much size and they are the only stregth so should it count as a win?

If so and I were a women I would attend all the events I could where I know I would be the only woman so I could have 40+ wins in a year and set a new record.

If so and I were a women I would attend all the events I could where I know I would be the only women so I could have 40+ wins in a yearand set a new record.



Oh, Boy!! Im sure that would be fun! :p

Congrats to Teresa!

Congrats to Teresa!

Congrats to Teresa!


.

Congrats to Teresa!


..

Congrats to Teresa!


...

Congrats to Teresa!


....

Congrats to Teresa!


......

Even if you are the only woman at a tournament, you should have the option of NOT being lumped in with similarly rated men. This is not a way to grow the female turnout in our sport.

My comment about playing up was meant to show that she was among those who had votes to give for the FROY. If you were one of the Pro card holding women, wouldn't you vote for someone you knew and played against? It's an election. She was most likely the candidate (balloted or not) that was more known to the voters (touring pros and state coordinators) due to her travels, business ventures and personality.

I too am glad that we all care so much about the voting for FROY.

I wonder if our turnout in 6 days will matter to us this much.

Well isn't it highly reccomended for a division to have 4 people?

Even if you are the only woman at a tournament, you should have the option of NOT being lumped in with similarly rated men. This is not a way to grow the female turnout in our sport.

My comment about playing up was meant to show that she was among those who had votes to give for the FROY. If you were one of the Pro card holding women, wouldn't you vote for someone you knew and played against? It's an election. She was most likely the candidate (balloted or not) that was more known to the voters (touring pros and state coordinators) due to her travels, business ventures and personality.

I too am glad that we all care so much about the voting for FROY.

I wonder if our turnout in 6 days will matter to us this much.



That is the point and just shows that the stats the acquired through the 05 season didn't really mean much because they were only voted for people that they knew even though they may not have such impressive stats. That sounds likea popularity contest.

Well isn't it highly reccomended for a division to have 4 people?



It's 3.

However, when I run tournaments, I do not make a standard for the women or the juniors. I want as many as these people to come out and play an event.

If 4 people show up for an advertised division, it must be offered. If 4 people can convice the TD to make a division for them, the TD CAN do it. They don't have to.

Most TD's will run 1 person divisions for women. I have moved to another division when there was only 1 women's division offered and the other ladies weren't as good as me but were pretty competative with each other.

You keep saying that person elected the current FROY was due to popularity and not the stats. How do you know this? Have you asked the voters or are you just assuming? All elections, by their very nature are "popularity contests" of sorts, aren't they? If it were strictly a determination by the stats, there is no reason for an election.

I believe that most of the people who voted were able to weigh the various criteria and make an intelligent choice. You do them a dis-service by saying that the voters were just a bunch of knee-jerk rubes who only vote for their friends and not the most deserving (in their eyes).

oh... Congrats to Teresa!

Even if you are the only woman at a tournament, you should have the option of NOT being lumped in with similarly rated men. This is not a way to grow the female turnout in our sport.

My comment about playing up was meant to show that she was among those who had votes to give for the FROY. If you were one of the Pro card holding women, wouldn't you vote for someone you knew and played against? It's an election. She was most likely the candidate (balloted or not) that was more known to the voters (touring pros and state coordinators) due to her travels, business ventures and personality.

I too am glad that we all care so much about the voting for FROY.

I wonder if our turnout in 6 days will matter to us this much.



IMO Kelly would have won had she known as many of the voters as teresa did. You also say that Teresa had an advantage because she was better known. The fact is that it shouldn't matter if you are known or not when determining who wins this award because it should be based of performance and performance alone.

The fact is that it shouldn't matter if you are known or not when determining who wins this award because it should be based of performance and performance alone.




Who says? That's your opinion and you can vote accordingly. The words Rookie of the Year don't automatically mean performance only. There are people who have won Worlds that some wouldn't want as a winner of certain Best Anything of the Year awards. All we have is the definition of a Rookie being their first pro season that starts before Am Worlds. Beyond that, we leave it to the voters to determine what's important. What we need to do is provide a little better display of information that voters might find important.

Congrats to Teresa!


......

The fact is that it shouldn't matter if you are known or not when determining who wins this award because it should be based of performance and performance alone.




Who says? That's your opinion and you can vote accordingly. The words Rookie of the Year don't automatically mean performance only. There are people who have won Worlds that some wouldn't want as a winner of certain Best Anything of the Year awards. All we have is the definition of a Rookie being their first pro season that starts before Am Worlds. Beyond that, we leave it to the voters to determine what's important. What we need to do is provide a little better display of information that voters might find important.



Then how do you come up with the nominees? I would guess they pick the rookies that have performed at a high level that year right?

The way you say that it is all up to the voter then why is there such a small number of nominees? I mean if it isn't all about stats every rookie should be nominated. Nominating a few based off well "nothing" since stats don't count is unfair to the players who didn't have great stats and there should be included since this is just a vote for who you liked best anyway.

I didn't say performance didn't count because it's important to the voters. I'm just saying that it's not ALL about performance in terms of stats. How voters judge those factors overall is up to them, not some formula.

I didn't say performance didn't count because it's important to the voters. I'm just saying that it's not ALL about performance in terms of stats. How voters judge those factors overall is up to them, not some formula.



Exactly so if the majority of the voters pick the person they know best and that person ends up winning because they had all their friends voting for them that is fair right? Seems like the person with the most "friends" has a very big advantage especially when it only takes like 30 votes to win.

So with that said it is possible that this has happened before and probable that it will happen in the future if the system stays as is.

Welcome to democracy. You'll see more of it in action soon.

Ok well its nice to know that anyone can win even someone who only cashed in one 1 person event all year making a total of $35 and having a cash percentage of 4%. I feel SOOO much better now.

Well, just look at some of the Presidents we've had. They sometimes don't cash until after they're out of office /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Well, just look at some of the Presidents we've had. They sometimes don't cash until after they're out of office /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



So the system does have flaws that make it possible for someone who has shown poor performance to win right? In fact they are just as likely to win as the person who won $10,000 , cashed in 100% of their events, and won 7 events because if you know enough people it is easy to win.

This thread has jumped the shark...

What IS that baby smokin' anyway?

Congrats to Teresa.

This thread has jumped the shark...

What IS that baby smokin' anyway?

Congrats to Teresa.



Wow what an immature thing to say about someone you don't even know and is know to be CLEAN. What are you 8?:confused:

Sorry to insult your integrity. However, the usefullness of this thread is gone IMO.

I guess the shark was jumped when you asked why there were so few nominees. Because there are so few pro women in general and rookies in particular. That has been the problem since I started playing.... years ago.

Sorry to insult your integrity. However, the usefullness of this thread is gone IMO.

I guess the shark was jumped when you asked why there were so few nominees. Because there are so few pro women in general and rookies in particular. That has been the problem since I started playing.... years ago.




Well if stats aren't the main focus then how can you pick nominess based off stats? Shouldn't everyone get to be included since we really don't know what to look for?

The stats of money and wins can't be the main focus because THOSE particular stats aren't that accurate in assessing the women who play. Are they un-important.... no. Just not the most important.

As stated over and over, stats like rating and ratings imporvement are more accurate stats because they are more objectively determined and not influenced by things such as where you live and who decided to add cash to the pot. Your rating is you playing the course and not any competitors.

Once the nominees are put forward, it is the job of the voters to vote using WHATEVER method they choose to decide who is deserving.

I think I see the shark swimming away....

Never argue with an idiot...They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience... :mad:

The stats of money and wins can't be the main focus because THOSE particular stats aren't that accurate in assessing the women who play. Are they un-important.... no. Just not the most important.

As stated over and over, stats like rating and ratings imporvement are more accurate stats because they are more objectively determined and not influenced by things such as where you live and who decided to add cash to the pot. Your rating is you playing the course and not any competitors.

Once the nominees are put forward, it is the job of the voters to vote using WHATEVER method they choose to decide who is deserving.

I think I see the shark swimming away....




You need to get your facts straight because ratings are based off who played what at an event and not the course. Also where you live does effect ratings because if you live in an area where 8 or 9 1000+ players show up for an average B-tier the ratings will end up being higher than if the highest rated player was 980.


Once again i don't see how the amount of cash won can't be a big deciding factor for the women. In other sports like golf certain events have higher purses then others just like in disc golf but I highly doubt that they argue about the cash as you do stating that some tournaments are better then others. Well teresa knew this being a TD so she attended quite a few large events which she failed to come close to cashing in. Kelly played consistant all year but couldn't make as many NTs probably due to the fact that there aren't too many in that region but still made a decent amount of cash at these mid sized events.

Teresa averaged $32.08 per event with 2 wins (>1 person div)
Kelly averaged $96.16 per event 3 wins

...As stated over and over, stats like rating and ratings imporvement are more accurate stats because they are more objectively determined and not influenced by things such as where you live and who decided to add cash to the pot. Your rating is you playing the course and not any competitors....




You need to get your facts straight because ratings are based off who played what at an event and not the course. Also where you live does effect ratings because if you live in an area where 8 or 9 1000+ players show up for an average B-tier the ratings will end up being higher than if the highest rated player was 980...




Good point, Matt. Ratings should not be the most definitive stat since they vary regionally.

Congrats to Teresa.

Matt, look at the amount of added cash in the 2 big payouts for Boyce. The added cash is a huge factor in giving her the edge. The added cash has more to do with TD of the Year than it does with Rookie of the Year. She simply did well in a few tournaments that did a good job of boosting the women's field more than a lot of other events.

CongraTTs to Teresa.

2nd... i feel partly responsible since i started this thread and all. it was REALly started for 2006 Female rookie of the year, lets get off the TTangent already.

thread tangent starter!

OK Matt -

How is it that your opinion is so correct and all the people who voted are so wrong?

You say Kelly should have won because she won more events and won more money. By that logic, Geoff Bennet should win based on the following numbers because he played more events and won more money. According to you we shouldn't factor in ratings, rating improvements or head to head meetings because money won and events played are THE MOST IMPORTANT STATISTICS. Who of the players listed below should win 2006 ROY (if held today) and why based on the stats provided below. Remember, you just posted close to 40 times on these threads that money and wins count the most!!!

I did not look up what events had head to head meetings except the majors listed. Here are the stats since Am Worlds 2005

Geoff Bennett - 2nd 2005 US Amateur Champs
34 Events - 6 Wins (No A's) $6271 Money Won - Pts 4330
06 USDGC 12
O6 Worlds 48
Rating 986-998 Change +12
No World Ranking

Adam Olsen - 1st 2005 US Amateur Champs
33 Pro Events - 5 wins(1 A-tier+) $6265 Winnings - Pts 5995
05 USDGC - 118
O6 USDGC - 77
Rating 971-1001 Change +30
World Ranking 98

Kim Scott-Wood 3rd - Am Worlds 2005
20 Events - 5 Wins (No A's) $5426 Money Won - Pts 2512
05 Pro Worlds 42
05 USDGC - 97
O6 Pro Worlds - 19
06 USDGC - 14
Rating 984-1008 Change +24
World Ranking - 54

Matt Hall - 2nd Am Worlds 2005
32 Events - 6 Wins (no A's) $3016 Money Won - Pts 3580
No Worlds, No USDGC
Rating 983-999 Change +16
No World Ranking



According to your arguments anybody who doesn't vote for Geoff this year, must be voting by popularity or by using unimportant statistics. You are not a touring card holder, state rep or BOD member. But somehow Matt Hall's opinion is the be all and end all, and as such everyone on the message board, all the tourning card holders, board members and state reps should agree with you. (Hmm, does that sound like Nick?)

OK Matt -

How is it that your opinion is so correct and all the people who voted are so wrong?

You say Kelly should have won because she won more events and won more money. By that logic, Geoff Bennet should win based on the following numbers because he played more events and won more money. According to you we shouldn't factor in ratings, rating improvements or head to head meetings because money won and events played are THE MOST IMPORTANT STATISTICS. Who of the players listed below should win 2006 ROY (if held today) and why based on the stats provided below. Remember, you just posted close to 40 times on these threads that money and wins count the most!!!

I did not look up what events had head to head meetings except the majors listed. Here are the stats since Am Worlds 2005

Geoff Bennett - 2nd 2005 US Amateur Champs
34 Events - 6 Wins (No A's) $6271 Money Won - Pts 4330
06 USDGC 12
O6 Worlds 48
Rating 986-998 Change +12
No World Ranking

Adam Olsen - 1st 2005 US Amateur Champs
33 Pro Events - 5 wins(1 A-tier+) $6265 Winnings - Pts 5995
05 USDGC - 118
O6 USDGC - 77
Rating 971-1001 Change +30
World Ranking 98

Kim Scott-Wood 3rd - Am Worlds 2005
20 Events - 5 Wins (No A's) $5426 Money Won - Pts 2512
05 Pro Worlds 42
05 USDGC - 97
O6 Pro Worlds - 19
06 USDGC - 14
Rating 984-1008 Change +24
World Ranking - 54

Matt Hall - 2nd Am Worlds 2005
32 Events - 6 Wins (no A's) $3016 Money Won - Pts 3580
No Worlds, No USDGC
Rating 983-999 Change +16
No World Ranking



According to your arguments anybody who doesn't vote for Geoff this year, must be voting by popularity or by using unimportant statistics. You are not a touring card holder, state rep or BOD member. But somehow Matt Hall's opinion is the be all and end all, and as such everyone on the message board, all the tourning card holders, board members and state reps should agree with you. (Hmm, does that sound like Nick?)



:)

I tried to warn you, Matt :p

Go git'um, Suzette.. :D

Since Matt is apparently not on the message board today, how would everyone else vote based on the stats posted above and why?

Rookie of the year isnt all about Stats or else there wouldnt be a vote!!!...........I think ROY is all about stats, sportsmanship, event attendance and last but not least how you handle yourself after events and OFF the course............and hell its also about who likes you and who doesnt because lets be honest there is NEVER a time when people vote that popularity isnt involved!!!

Congrats to Teresa and good luck to those who are up for ROY this year!!!

Top 8 rated rounds of 2006:

Teresa: 946 940 943 938 929 915 915 912
Kelly: 970 947 946 942 940 938 937 936

I would have voted for Kelly Boyce.

My vote for ROY would be for Kim Scott Wood. A top 20 in USDGC and Worlds is the reason.

I think AO not going to worlds and also not doing too well at USDGC cost him the title.

Top 8 rated rounds of 2006:

Teresa: 946 940 943 938 929 915 915 912
Kelly: 970 947 946 942 940 938 937 936




Unfortunately, it's their 2005 stats that count for the 2005 ROY awarded at 2006 Worlds... :o

Top 8 rated rounds of 2006:

Teresa: 946 940 943 938 929 915 915 912
Kelly: 970 947 946 942 940 938 937 936

I would have voted for Kelly Boyce.



I thought it was 2005 stats
Top 8 rounds
KB: 923, 927, 930, 932, 937, 938, 948, 960
TB: 929, 930, 934, 936, 937, 938, 945, 967

Unfortunately, it's their 2005 stats that count for the 2005 ROY awarded at 2006 Worlds...



My stats above would be incorrect. I included all pro rounds since Am Worlds 2005 and the player ratings from September 05 to present.

OK Matt -

How is it that your opinion is so correct and all the people who voted are so wrong?

You say Kelly should have won because she won more events and won more money. By that logic, Geoff Bennet should win based on the following numbers because he played more events and won more money. According to you we shouldn't factor in ratings, rating improvements or head to head meetings because money won and events played are THE MOST IMPORTANT STATISTICS. Who of the players listed below should win 2006 ROY (if held today) and why based on the stats provided below. Remember, you just posted close to 40 times on these threads that money and wins count the most!!!

I did not look up what events had head to head meetings except the majors listed. Here are the stats since Am Worlds 2005

Geoff Bennett - 2nd 2005 US Amateur Champs
34 Events - 6 Wins (No A's) $6271 Money Won - Pts 4330
06 USDGC 12
O6 Worlds 48
Rating 986-998 Change +12
No World Ranking

Adam Olsen - 1st 2005 US Amateur Champs
33 Pro Events - 5 wins(1 A-tier+) $6265 Winnings - Pts 5995
05 USDGC - 118
O6 USDGC - 77
Rating 971-1001 Change +30
World Ranking 98

Kim Scott-Wood 3rd - Am Worlds 2005
20 Events - 5 Wins (No A's) $5426 Money Won - Pts 2512
05 Pro Worlds 42
05 USDGC - 97
O6 Pro Worlds - 19
06 USDGC - 14
Rating 984-1008 Change +24
World Ranking - 54

Matt Hall - 2nd Am Worlds 2005
32 Events - 6 Wins (no A's) $3016 Money Won - Pts 3580
No Worlds, No USDGC
Rating 983-999 Change +16
No World Ranking



According to your arguments anybody who doesn't vote for Geoff this year, must be voting by popularity or by using unimportant statistics. You are not a touring card holder, state rep or BOD member. But somehow Matt Hall's opinion is the be all and end all, and as such everyone on the message board, all the tourning card holders, board members and state reps should agree with you. (Hmm, does that sound like Nick?)




Actually it is not just overall $$$ but money per event which would put Kim 1st in that stat. Adam does have an A-tier win but his cashing % is lower then Kim's but since kim performed well at both worlds and USDGC I would probably vote for him.

With that said I would go look at all the events they played against each other just in case.

Oh how did you get those stats? I am just wondering because they include more events than listed on the current points and money list. Are you including the time during 05' when we played Pro?

I think I will be able to vote as I should be getting a touring card when they send them out next or do you have to have one for the full 05' season?

Unfortunately, it's their 2005 stats that count for the 2005 ROY awarded at 2006 Worlds...



My stats above would be incorrect. I included all pro rounds since Am Worlds 2005 and the player ratings from September 05 to present.



well I gues I should have read every post. :D

Top 8 rated rounds of 2006:

Teresa: 946 940 943 938 929 915 915 912
Kelly: 970 947 946 942 940 938 937 936




Unfortunately, it's their 2005 stats that count for the 2005 ROY awarded at 2006 Worlds... :o



:o

Anita, some people would rather show weakness and stir the pot, rather than shoot for a higher standard. They envey success of others. I appreciate you playing with the men, in order to let those not as talented as you have the ability to compete for the gold.
It keeps them thinking positive and good about themselves. This is why we have the term bagger. One whom has a fear of playing up at a competitive level, as opposed to playing that he/she can win easily

Thanks Thumber

Congrats on the winner.

People are saying that head-to-head rounds should weigh in heavily....

well what if they never play against each other? Then you are left with rating based stats and like people have said...depending on who plays a course during a certain tourny during a certain round will determine the SSA and that affects the ratings.

somebody make a poll between
A O
K S Wood
Geoff BenneTT

Let the people vote.

Where is MILLS on that list?

I've heard him say he has it wrapped up.

My vote would be for the Canuck

Where is MILLS on that list?

I've heard him say he has it wrapped up.

My vote would be for the Canuck



Mills won't be on the ROY list for 2006, since he turned pro after 2006 Am Worlds. He's eligible for 2007 ROY, so he's got another year to prove he's got mad skills.

Chap

Where is MILLS on that list?

I've heard him say he has it wrapped up.

My vote would be for the Canuck



Ill be a rookie NEXT year!!! So ill see you in AZ when I officially start my rookie year!!!

Id have to say that KSW has it wrapped up after his finish at USDGC!!!

Too bad this is women's ROY

Here's a novel idea:

Congrats to Teresa.



Thanks! I really appreciate that :)

Believe it or not, I was estatic to win this honor and worked really hard in 2005 to play my very best in as many of the National Tour and Supertour events my wallet and time off from work allowed me to try and earn this.

I've ony gotten through a fraction of this discussion (I hate message boards), but I'd like to say Cris had no part in the decission making process (and he didn't know who won until we all did)... Even if he thought he'd have a chance to sway a decission, it's something he would just never do. Also, it's a lot harder to earn $$ and points when you spend most of your time traveling to play National Tour and other larger events, something I did on purpose because I wanted to be Rookie of the Year (shouldn't a Pro play the bigger Pro events? that was my logic at the time anyway). If I wanted to earn a lot of $$ and points, I could have played in a lot of smaller regional events with other non-touring pro women and taken their $$... of course I'd have to travel to do that too... there are just no other pro women in Oregon.

If someone's already made these points, thanks.

Here's to having fun on the course!
Cheers,
tgb

ding dong the witch is dead!

it ain't just a popularity contest anymore.

http://www.pdga.com/new-awards-process

booooooooooooo... so much for sportsmanship counting for anything.

i thought sportsmanship had it's own award? i'd like to see the formula for that!

how about a gamesmanship award?

it does have it's own award but imo it should be a component of both POY and ROY.

the gamesmanship award would be called the Kevin Stewart Cup.

The sportsmanship issue was a key factor in the Board considering whether to include any voting any more in the POY/ROY award. The fact there were already sportsmanship related awards swayed them to have the POY/ROY go pure stats. That was also the preference among the top players polled on the issue - to have these be stats driven awards. Part of the problem is that our sport isn't big enough for enough of the voters to see the candidates often enough or at all during a season to fairly make judgments on subjective items even though we still do for several other awards.

I like it. I like it a LOT.

would this have changed who won last year or the year before? i figured someone would have run the numbers when considering this change to compare to the old system.

I could def. see some advantages to this but the sportsmanship thing does definitely concern me... not so much that someone's good sportsmanship wont help them win but someone could win ROY or POY even if they are a terrible person/player and even have multiple instances of being caught cheating or something crazy like that.

One advantage would be using this system the PDGA could do updates to show who's leading (if they wanted to)... could be cool to track throughout the season.

I think maybe five years ago, the case could be made that someone with particularly poor sportsmanship might slip thru in an automated process with no voting. However, the feeling was that with a more active PDGA Disciplinary Committee and infractions being reported when they arise these days, that a person with poor sportsmanship might have difficulty compiling enough stats when under some disciplinary measure for part of the season.