This discussion came up the other night and it was pretty interesting. Sometimes someones rating seems higher than their actual skill level and sometimes another persons rating seems WAY lower than their skill. There seem to be alot of factors and for the people I was with they seem to have a problem of playing great in general and then throwing the worst rounds of their lives in sanctioned tournaments. I too can fall victim to this at times and it is only through playing ALOT of tournies that I am able to change it (at least trying to). Some of my friends play well enough to win money during the week, yet they are rated at or below 900.

I revived my disc golf career last year and started the year rated around 920, yet I was alot closer to a 960 player. Right now I am at 953 and I definitelly feel like I have nowhere to go but up.

So who shoots lights out during the week then can't throw a disc to save their life come tournament time?????

DOMEo 'ZZ' last year

There's also a home course aspect to how well someone plays. If you're only making your standard throw with the same disc on the same hole all the time, you can't learn how to throw in situations where you haven't grooved a shot. Also, in several cases, when the home course is used for an event, there are extended tees or pins that aren't used in daily play which messes up the locals from their comfortable groove.

Man, I really need to learn to speak your language...

LOL.

That is a good point Chuck, I had not considered home court advantage. I do find that sometimes it is hard to play a course 'blind.'

I would consider myself to be a prime example of shooting great during the week and poorly on the weekends. My current rating is 907(fell off because of new kid last year). But...during the week when I am playing a casual round or two, I can shoot lights out most of the time...but come tournament time...it's a no go. Man does it #$*&$! me off. And for Chuck...I do agree to a certain point.

We originally were considering including a home course adjustment factor of up to 2 throws in the ratings formula. But there's no practical way to track that by player. In areas where there are several courses, who would know whether the player might play the course closest to where they worked or nearest their home. Eighteen hole courses get played more than 9 hole courses. It was a mess to handle it and was left out.

In the mean time, it appears that although locals may shoot lights out sometimes in events, at least for one round, on balance we're not sure there's a difference overall, for the same reason this thread was started. Seems like just as many locals choke in events as those who light it up so it may be a wash if we could really determine the numbers.

In the past I have been a victim of choking local tourneys, but I WILL change that come the end of Febuary!! :D

Interesting. That would be a mess to try and incorporate home course advantage into the ratings. Good call on leaving it out.

I like that you brought up the term choke. We have a weekly putting night in my basement and we started refering to a fictitious 'clutch rating' based on a players ability to hit the game winning shots or hit both putts to prevent the game from ending or hit any putt that has more pressure on it than an average putt. We have determined that some people clearly have a higher 'clutch rating' than others.

I guess we assign ratings to a lot of things though because I currently have the highest 'MISSING PUTTS HYZER' rating than any player to ever throw a disc at a basket.

Hey Chuck,

Does "in the mean time..." mean that this is still being considered?

As the sport grows and we can afford to have statisticians at events, we'll be able to track new kinds of measurements for players' tendencies. Just like horse racing, is the player a good mudder (playing in rain), better in trees or in the open, how does (s)he handle elevation, short vs long courses. Some of those things we can do now for players who have a lot of data on file. We just need to code the courses into categories and get TDs to report weather issues by round. Then there are the details like hitting fairway percentage, putting % inside 10m, recovery saves from trees, your pressure putting idea, final round rating compared with player's rating (rises to occasion or chokes in final round).

This discussion came up the other night and it was pretty interesting. Sometimes someones rating seems higher than their actual skill level and sometimes another persons rating seems WAY lower than their skill. There seem to be alot of factors and for the people I was with they seem to have a problem of playing great in general and then throwing the worst rounds of their lives in sanctioned tournaments. I too can fall victim to this at times and it is only through playing ALOT of tournies that I am able to change it (at least trying to). Some of my friends play well enough to win money during the week, yet they are rated at or below 900.

I revived my disc golf career last year and started the year rated around 920, yet I was alot closer to a 960 player. Right now I am at 953 and I definitelly feel like I have nowhere to go but up.

So who shoots lights out during the week then can't throw a disc to save their life come tournament time?????



An intangible aspect of a lower score during tournament play I find is speed of play. In casual rounds the groups are often less than 4-somes or 5-somes, groups typically play "ready golf", there are less backups between holes, and there seems to be less set up time between shots (using mini's, moving out of line-of-sight for courtesy reasons, etc.)

I found playing at a slower pace initially hurt my scores a bit. I've since adjusted to the slower time, and I'm now looking for other reasons for my poor scores..

Does "in the meantime..." mean that this is still being considered?



We recognize that home course MIGHT have an effect but we have no effective way to measure or track it. So, it's not being pursued. From a practical standpoint, if a player has an inflated rating due to mostly playing on their home courses, it just means they might have to play in a higher division than they might if they traveled to play several other courses outside the area.

That doesn't hurt anything if they have a higher rating at home because they really do play better there and that's the only place they play. That's perfect from a ratings standpoint because the player can't be accused of bagging either at home or when they travel because their rating might be inflated relative to their skills on the road. That's good for other players when these homers do travel because they might give up some points to other players if they truly are overrated.

My point is that the incalculable home course advantage, if there is one, works to the benefit of everyone. Knocking down a player's rating due to some home course factor would not improve things.

Another good point Mr. Badour. The speed of play is certainly a factor for every one. Last summer I was trying to intentionally wait behind groups even if I was just playing by myself. This is most annoying but hey, that's what disc golf tournaments are like.

One way I found to combat that was to restretch prior to throwing after a long wait. I try to fully stretch my back arms and legs and then I do some fairly aggresive arm pumps to get used to a full follow through again.

Bee you forgot to make this a what is the best thread.

retitle: WHAT IS THE BEST PLAYER WITH THE LOWEST RATING? and soda

I've heard that Barrett White does handstands. She's got so much energy from being an Ultimate player that she just has to do something to expend energy during backups.

I know in the past players have felt a little salty about Michiganders getting so much more practice on the Tobbogan course prior to AM Nationals, but we would be stupid not to. I agree with your point though, there is no point in trying to adjust the rating based on home course.

I've heard that Barrett White does handstands. She's got so much energy from being an Ultimate player that she just has to do something to expend energy during backups.



Perhaps it gives her a 'natural high' like some other players would purse during a long break. :D

Bee you forgot to make this a what is the best thread.

retitle: WHAT IS THE BEST PLAYER WITH THE LOWEST RATING? and soda



I thought about it but I decided not to pimp morgans style...

Of course that loops around to the point regarding the ability to play new courses at or above your skill level versus just playing home courses where you can groove your shot. If players come from states where they have challenging courses with legit par 4s and 5s, they are better prepared to play Tobbogan, such as former Am Nats Champ, Pete Middlecamp from MN.

Yeah, Pete's consistancy is impressive. I think he shot +4 all 3 rounds. (That year I shot +9 then +14 before finally salvaging some dignity with a +4)

Of course that loops around to the point regarding the ability to play new courses at or above your skill level versus just playing home courses where you can groove your shot. If players come from states where they have challenging courses with legit par 4s and 5s, they are better prepared to play Tobbogan, such as former Am Nats Champ, Pete Middlecamp from MN.



I absolutely agree that there is a home course advantage, but I can't see any way around that. When the ranking system is more full of data points, I think it will reflect the difference between homey rating and world ranking. If a highly rated player (1020)+, does not have a commensurate ranking, then I would suspect hominess. Of course that player may be unable to compete in the ranking tourneys, but we'll never know if he's for real until he does.

If a highly rated player (1020)+, does not have a commensurate ranking, then I would suspect hominess. Of course that player may be unable to compete in the ranking tourneys, but we'll never know if he's for real until he does.




Exactly. That's why the new World Rankings are a better indicator for players over 1000 rating than where a player's rating places them, since a rating can be based on only one hot round. Those who are in the World Rankings have to have a rating based on at least 12 rounds in B-tiers or higher. If they don't play in at least two of the Majors, they get penalty points that will drop them 3 to 10 places below their rank based only on rating.

Of course that loops around to the point regarding the ability to play new courses at or above your skill level versus just playing home courses where you can groove your shot. If players come from states where they have challenging courses with legit par 4s and 5s, they are better prepared to play Tobbogan, such as former Am Nats Champ, Pete Middlecamp from MN.

I play all my tournaments on "away" courses. But for some of them I'm also helping to run the tournament. If you double weight the last eight, my rating for tournaments I'm not running is ten points higher than my rating for all tournaments. So I guess TDing costs a stroke a round.

I'm not sure about the TD thing. How many times have we seen Ginnelly finish top 5 or win Masters at The Memorial? I think there might be an unmeasurable 'kharma factor' that helps some TDs do well if they also play. I've definitely been accused of having some course designer magic that helps me grease some shots. Of course, during practice rounds, I let the trees know I wield a chainsaw...

I also want to point out that Ratings are more so a representation of your flaws, not ur strengths.

Implying that someone is "better" than me who is rated 30 points higher than me is not correct. Sure there are things that he does better than me and there are things I do better than him.

However, it seems that the guy 30 points better than me messes up less and has less bad rounds.

That is why you play with guys who are really talented and you are blown away by how low there ratings.

You judge a golfers talents based on when he is playing good, but you judge how good he is when is playing bad.

I also want to point out that Ratings are more so a representation of your flaws, not ur strengths.

Implying that someone is "better" than me who is rated 30 points higher than me is not correct. Sure there are things that he does better than me and there are things I do better than him.

However, it seems that the guy 30 points better than me messes up less and has less bad rounds.

That is why you play with guys who are really talented and you are blown away by how low there ratings.

You judge a golfers talents based on when he is playing good, but you judge how good he is when is playing bad.



I agree, especially with your last comments. I would probably throw myself up with the players who are better then their ratings. (one factor I have is that my last rated round was back in beginning of Sept. and because my lack of income, who knows when my next rated round will be) But the mean time, by breaking my ankle I have retaught myself better form, and learned to practice auxiliary shots such as an overhand. I.E. 6 months ago I couldn't get any accuracy with a thumber/tomohawk longer then 150ft, and the speed of the throw was pathetic. Now I am accurate with good speed up to 250-275ft!

But I definitely agree with the "better at this vs that". I am a good driver in the pro ranks (distance and accuracy) I have a good midrange (<300ft) and approach game enough to where I will have a gimmie putt thereafter. But my putting is so/so. I can make a good percentage of <10m putts, and I can putt well in clutch situations. But the thing that makes me able to compete in the pro ranks is my ability to save a "par". I have heard many times the comment "Man, Allen was struggling off the box today, but dang he was making some insane saves!".

My low rating? Well that is from bad rounds from back when I was an Am. Now, basically I am playing "kicking-bag" bad when I am shooting below 950 level, I am complacent when I am shooting around 975, and actually feel fairly good when I am shooting around 1000. A couple of times I have shot 1000+ rounds when suffering some insane OB penalties on holes where my fellow card mates were taking 2's.

I am excited for the day when we can have broken down stats such as what Chuck explained a few posts back.

I can tell you we have stats that show that older guys and any woman in the 900-970 range has different skills than young guys in the same range. If the course has average foliage overall, you won't see it in their final scores. However, I've analyzed hole-by-hole scores from PW2001 for a group of 50 women and Master guys or older that had the same average rating as a group of 50 sub-Master age guys. I identified the holes as ranging from wide open to wooded corridors. As you might expect, the youngsters shot better on the open holes and the women/Master group fared better on the wooded holes. Since the course was balanced, their overall scoring average was the same.

The difference was rarely more than 0.2 shots per hole either way. In an 18-hole round, you could probably find open courses where a young guy with a stable 925 rating might beat a 925 woman by 2-3 shots on average if they played the course at least five times. Likewise, she might beat him by the same amount on a wooded course.

Of course everyone at the same rating can have a wide range of skills. These are just averages on a relatively small sample. But it probably matches what most people would expect to be the case, on average.

Makes sense, not really that surprising, but it makes sense.

Best player / Lowest Rating?


Obv me

I've had a NUMBER of rounds with top open players who know that I'm a bottom-feeder. But I'll play a solid round and we'll tally up the scores and they'll just say "No, your score is too high. You shot better than that!" It's happened alot. It's really just a combination of not getting birdies (but making good saves on par, etc...) and getting bad luck. I don't think I'm the BEST, but I think I play better than my score shows.

(Gawler at Paw Paw two years ago literally couldn't believe my score, for instance. He shot lights out and thought I was only two or three strokes behind him. He beat me by 10)

That sort of thing happened to me a lot when I used to act like all mature and stuff and take my bogies and double bogies and missed birdie putts like a man.

Since I decided that keeping the frustration inside would give me ulcers, I have started throwing McEnroe-esque girlie hissie fits ;) every time I shoot anything over a birdie. Since that decision, people are amazed at how well I shoot compared to how the round I was having felt to them.

:)

I've had a NUMBER of rounds with top open players who know that I'm a bottom-feeder. But I'll play a solid round and we'll tally up the scores and they'll just say "No, your score is too high. You shot better than that!" It's happened alot. It's really just a combination of not getting birdies (but making good saves on par, etc...) and getting bad luck. I don't think I'm the BEST, but I think I play better than my score shows.

(Gawler at Paw Paw two years ago literally couldn't believe my score, for instance. He shot lights out and thought I was only two or three strokes behind him. He beat me by 10)



I have noticed this happening to me, as well. I consider myself a player with good enough physical skills to play better than my rating, but I lack the consistency to achieve a better rating. I've observed, when playing casually, that if you usually throw good drives in a round, people remember that. People don't seem to notice missed putts from 30-40 feet, because they are not gimmes, but they make a huge difference between scores at the end of a round.

Another observation is that people seem to forget horrendous drives unless they are occuring all the time. For example, if you are hitting 8 out of 10 fairways in an average round, but the 2 out of 10 result in double or triple bogies or just can't get off the tee, in general, people tend to remember the 8 out of 10. Because of these factors, I think there are a lot of people who think they are better than they play, but that may not be the case.

Consistency counts for more than just plain physical skills, and I feel that most ratings are probably right on when taking into account a player's physical AND mental games.

Consistency counts for more than just plain physical skills, and I feel that most ratings are probably right on when taking into account a player's physical AND mental games.



This is true once a player levels off. I feel I play pretty consistantly above my rating due to the fact that I haven't been playing for long enough to have leveled off. I feel maybe by the end of next year my rating will reflect my physical and mental game more accurately than it does now.

haha i hate when you do that bee, you walk 10 times slower than me

im assume lane got the highest clutch rating in your basement putting