As much as we'd like our ratings to be the same no matter what type of course we're playing, here are results from Worlds that shows how age and gender could impact how well you play relative to a younger/older player with the same rating. Here are the results from the mostly wide open Granite Ridge comparing hole by hole scoring averages between the top half of Open with the top half of GM on the same layout. Based on ratings, the open group should only have averaged about 3.3 shots better overall than the GMs but they averaged 6.4 shots better.
.

<table> <tr> <td>GRANITE RIDGE</td><td>Hole</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>Total </td></tr> <tr> <td>MPG top half Avg 975</td><td>Average</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.5</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.0</td><td>3.9</td><td>4.5</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.8</td><td>2.4</td><td>3.6</td><td>2.7</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.4</td><td>5.3</td><td>61.4 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Open A pool Avg 1005</td><td>Average</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.4</td><td>3.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.7</td><td>2.3</td><td>3.5</td><td>2.3</td><td>3.2</td><td>2.2</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.2</td><td>4.3</td><td>55.0 </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>Diff.</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.3</td><td>1.0</td><td>6.4 </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>.</td><td>Short</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Med</td><td>Long</td><td>Short</td><td>Long</td><td>Long</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Med</td><td>Long</td><td>3.3 </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>.</td><td>Tech</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Tech</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Tech</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Should be </td></tr> </table>


However, this second table compares the top half of Open with the top half of Women, GM and Sr GM divisions on Blueberry Hill. This course is shorter and quite a bit more technical than Granite. In this case, Open should have averaged 7 shots better and only averaged 6.3 shots better. So, depending on length and openness of a course, it's possible to tilt the competition between older and younger players of the same rating.

<table> <tr> <td>BLUEBERRY HILL</td><td>Hole</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>Total </td></tr> <tr> <td>FPO.MPG.MPS Avg 950</td><td>Average</td><td>2.7</td><td>3.1</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.1</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.8</td><td>4.5</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.9</td><td>2.7</td><td>3.9</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.0</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.5</td><td>2.9</td><td>58.7 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Open A pool Avg 1005</td><td>Average</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.3</td><td>3.1</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.2</td><td>2.6</td><td>4.2</td><td>2.3</td><td>3.3</td><td>2.4</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.5</td><td>2.7</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>52.4 </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>Diff.</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.3</td><td>6.3 </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>.</td><td>Short</td><td>Short</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Med</td><td>Short</td><td>Short</td><td>Long</td><td>Short</td><td>Long</td><td>Short</td><td>Long</td><td>Med</td><td>Med</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Med</td><td>Short</td><td>7.0 </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>.</td><td>Tech</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Tech</td><td>Open</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Open</td><td>Tech</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Should be </td></tr> </table>

Chuck, thanks for sharing this.

How bout a comparison of Open and Masters - since there is seemingly a much greater overlap in scores between those 2 divisions - and most of the discussion on age affecting play seems to focus on the differences (or lack thereof) between those 2 groups. Comparing Open to the ladies and GM's isn't very convincing.

Just haven't gotten to that yet.

Whether you find Chuck's comparison already made "convincing" or not, depends on what you need convincing about. I, too, look forward to the numbers comparing Open with Masters, and I understand that is where much of the discussion about age-based divisions centers.

However, one of my personal strong interests is in the effect of driving distances (to at least some degree age-based) on ratings and competition and in that regard, as Chuck noted - "So, depending on length and openness of a course, it's possible to tilt the competition between older and younger players of the same rating." - the comparison already made is convincing.

It's quite supportive of my current working conclusion that older players, by and large, who cannot be competitive with younger players on long, wide open courses, can be far more competitive on shorter, more technical courses. This means, of course, that the tendency to lengthen, lengthen, lengthen courses in preparation for major events reveals an age bias. (Not necessarily a bad thing.)

chuck, can you make the raw data available? we'd need the hole scores with the player's rating... dont even need the names.

to be more accurate and compare players for purposes of handicapped and/or ratings-based events we could benefit from having two number player ratings. each player could have a power component and an accuracy component to their rating.

courses would be weighted according to the importance of power and accuracy required for scoring. players could then cross-reference their power/accuracy numbers on a matrix to find their rating for any particular course.

chuck, can you make the raw data available? we'd need the hole scores with the player's rating... dont even need the names.




I'm not sure what that would accomplish more than what the averages do already since the exact same players are involved in both sets of data displayed. I can say that the Open set included players from 955 to 1039 and the MPG set included players from 951 to 1008. I'll probably place the Forecaster files in the DGCD FILES at some point for further analysis by designers.

my thoughts....

If I tell someone that I shot an 80 at Wil Mar Golf Course in Raleigh, NC, without ever seeing the course, knowing how good I am at golf, or even describing a single thing about the course, you get an understanding that I'm a pretty decent golfer.

If I tell you that I shot a 49 at Cedar Hills Disc golf course in Raleigh, NC, unless you know the course, the SSA, or I have told you about it, this will mean nothing to you. You will have no clue if I just shot the best round ever played or shot something horrible.

This is b/c golf has a standardization of par, disc golf is no where close.

The one thing I have always like about the ratings is the ability to explain how good a round is. By simply saying that 49 is 1000 at Cedar Hills, the person then understand that I had a pretty good round.

Now the problem is standardizing (sp?) the ratings. I said this to Chuck at worlds....

"Chuck I had a 1080 round on a pitch and putt earlier this year. Markus just shot a 55 on the gold course and will get a lower rating than my round. There is no way that b/c I got up and down 16 out of 17 times and got my 3 on the two shot hole that I should get a better round than Markus."

Chuck replies "well your 1080 will be one of the better rounds on courses with that SSA, as will Markus' round."

Now it sounds like the entire point of the ratings is gone too, just adding more confusion, more discussion, and more proof that the ratings system is messed up.

it would allow those of us who love spreadsheets to run calculations that we find interesting. it would be good to see what people come up with.

Ball golf doesn't have PGA competition rounds on par 54 courses. They are mostly within one shot of par 71. BG would have even more massive problems blending scores on par 54 courses (or less) than we do because their rating system is not connected to real scores. If all we did was provide ratings on courses with SSA over say 68, there would be no issues regarding the ratings spread differences between our high SSA and low SSA courses. We also would have few rated players and complaints it was an elitist system only for the top players who play those layouts.

"BG would have even more massive problems blending scores on par 54 courses (or less) than we do because their rating system is not connected to real scores." what about GRI's differential scoring method? it is possible to construct a rankings system without SSA.

Not familiar with the term GRI. Sagarin's systems compare only finish results independent of the field players are competing on. And that is the flaw in those systems where a sport has a variable field of play. When a particular course or playing field is going to be the site of the competition, how well players play on that course cannot be determined. Of course it makes little difference for basketball, soccer or football with fixed field parameters. Golf has more variance with their playing sites. We have large variety in our playing sites and our ratings system is in position to go deeper in the future when it's worth breaking out stats related to course length and course type. Not enough money in the sport to do it yet but the calculation process is in place to provide much more detail. This is already being used for course design.

http://www.golfrankindex.com/sc-asa01.htm

was that a no or an undecided on the raw data?

There will be lots of raw data loaded into the Forecaster that I will place in the FILES section of the DGCD Yahoo group.

The GRI is similar to us averaging players' round scores in relation to the SSA of each course. However, the GRI doesn't account for the average rating of the players in the event. I suspect there's a significant difference in the skill level pool at some events versus others such that a field average of 73 at one event might be on a course two shots tougher than a 73 field average on another course.

the skill level pool is a valid concern, i think. i am not sure what the spread is on the first two rounds of PGA play, but DG certainly has a very wide spread in many events. i was thinknig about using only the cash spots to determine the raw average. that approach might eliminate those issues - we'd have to run the numbers to tell . the difficulty of the course mostly drops out because the differential is based on actual play today, and thats a good thing. of course it doesnt include the players rating - it is trying to determine a rating. it might be interesting to weight the two measures into a single number, but thats prolly getting ahead of the discussion.

I'd like to see comparisons that include division to hole lengths. While length does not directly link to difficulty, I'd think that it would link directly to scoring spread between divisions.

It's shown in the tables as Short, Med, Long plus the designation of Open versus Technical (wooded) holes.

i've found that doc to be the most consistantly useful across all phases of design.

Here's the updated table with the top half of the Masters scores on Granite added. As expected, the Open did do relatively better on the open holes than the Masters and GMs and overall better on this longer wide open course than the ratings would indicate as shown in the last column

<table> <tr> <td>GRANITE RIDGE</td><td>Hole</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>Total</td><td>Should be </td></tr> <tr> <td>MPG top half Avg 975</td><td>Average</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.5</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.0</td><td>3.9</td><td>4.5</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.8</td><td>2.4</td><td>3.6</td><td>2.7</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.4</td><td>5.3</td><td>61.4</td><td>58.3 </td></tr> <tr> <td>MPM top half Avg 987</td><td>Average</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.5</td><td>2.7</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.5</td><td>4.0</td><td>2.7</td><td>3.7</td><td>4.2</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.8</td><td>2.5</td><td>3.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.3</td><td>4.8</td><td>59.4</td><td>57.0 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Open A pool Avg 1005</td><td>Average</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.4</td><td>3.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.7</td><td>2.3</td><td>3.5</td><td>2.3</td><td>3.2</td><td>2.2</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.2</td><td>4.3</td><td>55.0</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>Diff.</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.3</td><td>1.0</td><td></td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>.</td><td>Short</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Med</td><td>Long</td><td>Short</td><td>Long</td><td>Long</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Med</td><td>Long</td><td></td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>.</td><td>Tech</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Tech</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Tech</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td></td><td> </td></tr> </table>

exactly what point are trying to make with this comparison?

If you want to compare a 980 MPO to a 980 MPM, shouldn't the scores be from players all hovering around 980?

If you're trying to show that younger MPO players have more distance - is this a surprise to anybody?

Or are you making a case for balanced course design where all 980 rated players have an "equal" playing field based on varying skill sets?

Or maybe you're trying to show that there's no need to separate MPO and MPM, because all the players are within 4 strokes? - even on a long course where MPO has "an advantage"

Here's as close a comparison as possible with the top 23 Masters scores on Granite compared with 41 of the Open semifinalists excluding the 16 highest rated Open players so we could get the average ratings of both groups almost identical. As you can see, the Masters shot three throws worse than they should compared to the Open group of the same rating and the difference was primarily on longer open holes. Note that the Masters played two of the technical holes better than the Open group. Now consider how much worse it would be for the Masters if we added back the top 16 Open players to the group (another 0.8 shots for the round). Both sets of scores were taken from the last round each group played on Granite and the wind was lower than earlier in the week. <table> <tr> <td>Division</td><td>Rating</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>Total</td><td>Should be </td></tr> <tr> <td>Masters (top 23)</td><td>995</td><td>3.0</td><td>2.7</td><td>3.5</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.4</td><td>4.0</td><td>2.7</td><td>3.7</td><td>4.2</td><td>2.5</td><td>3.6</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.3</td><td>2.5</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.3</td><td>4.7</td><td>59.0</td><td>56.0 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Open (minus top 16)</td><td>997</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.5</td><td>3.4</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.7</td><td>2.3</td><td>3.6</td><td>2.3</td><td>3.2</td><td>2.2</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.2</td><td>4.3</td><td>55.8</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>Diff.</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>-0.1</td><td>-0.1</td><td>0.7</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.4</td><td></td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>.</td><td>Short</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Med</td><td>Long</td><td>Short</td><td>Long</td><td>Long</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Med</td><td>Long</td><td></td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>.</td><td>Tech</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Tech</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Tech</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td></td><td> </td></tr> </table>

The other course that we can compare these same players is the longer Gold course. I'll post that soon.

[Note: This post was regarding the table of data *not* directly above, as this one right above was posted while I was drafting this post.]

This is very rich data. It's comparing population averages, though, and doesn't say anything about individuals. I'm sure the individual scores reflect a wider range of tallies.

If I'm reading it right, the average of the Open A Pool was 4.4 strokes better than the average of the top half of the MPM, even though the ratings-predicted difference is 2 strokes. That suggests (but does not prove) that the length and openness of this particular course has a differential effect on the two populations' averaged performances.

And this holds true for individual holes. The combined difference between the population averages for the three holes defined as "short technical" was .6 strokes; the combined difference between the population averages for the four holes defined as "long open" was 3 strokes. That suggests (but does not prove) that the MPM field as a group performed much closer in skill with the Open A Pool on short technical holes than on long open holes.

To me, this kind of information moves toward a better understanding what it is we value in terms of disc golf performance, when selecting which courses to hold major events on, or when designing courses.

What is the proper balance of distance driving versus technical skills for the results of tournaments to reflect what we consider to be the best disc golf performances?

Chuck, what rounds is this data collected from? If you are using the open round on sunday, it's a somewhat invalid comparison imo. That wind that round was virtually non-existant. If you are using one of the open's earlier rounds, the comparison is pretty valid.

Ultimately, given the holes and course in question, the results don't really surprise me. On wide-open holes where the required accuracy is well within the ability of all 995 rated players, the younger guys have a slight advantage.

However, to support Craig's view, I think on long holes with real trouble off the tee, there is virtually no difference between a 995 rated master and a 995 rated open player. The best hole(s) for comparison imo would be HG 3 and 6. Both were par 5s, but I doubt there is much or any difference between similarly rated masters/open.

So, just to be clear, I don't think the difference bewtween similarly rated open/masters has to do with distance per se, only wide-open distance.

You are correct James. Here's the data for Highbridge Gold which shows the difference between long technical holes and long open holes. Compare HG8 with HG6 and the Masters made up on HG6 what they lost on HG8. HG3 is a combination of distance and technical shot and both groups shot the same. Considering Craiger is near the many wooded east coast courses, a case could be made that indeed Masters could match the younger players of the same rating, just maybe not at Brandywine or Tinicum. The other thing to consider is that players get their ratings on the courses near them. So, if a Master in Texas has been playing wide open courses and has the same rating as an Open player there, it's likely they've been shooting the same scores on the same terrain. If an East Coast Master goes to the plains with fewer trees, they will likely be at a disadvantage, not only against Open but against similarly rated Masters from the plains.

<table> <tr> <td>Division - Highbridge Gold</td><td>Rating</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>Total</td><td>Should be </td></tr> <tr> <td>Masters (top 23)</td><td>995</td><td>3.4</td><td>2.9</td><td>5.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>4.1</td><td>5.0</td><td>2.7</td><td>5.5</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.7</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.9</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.9</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.8</td><td>64.8</td><td>63.8 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Open (minus top 16)</td><td>997</td><td>3.4</td><td>2.6</td><td>5.2</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.9</td><td>5.3</td><td>2.7</td><td>5.1</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.7</td><td>3.7</td><td>4.1</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.8</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.7</td><td>63.7</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>Diff.</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.2</td><td>-0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>-0.4</td><td>-0.1</td><td>0.4</td><td>-0.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>-0.2</td><td>-0.1</td><td>-0.2</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.2</td><td></td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>.</td><td>Med</td><td>Short</td><td>Long</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Long</td><td>Short</td><td>Long</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Med</td><td>Med</td><td>Short</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Short</td><td>Med</td><td>Long</td><td></td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>.</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Tech</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td>Open</td><td></td><td> </td></tr> </table>

what if the players ratings were generated on courses that are more or less favorable for that players age? since the ratings obviously do not account for such differences, an old player might inflate his/her ratings by playing only short course. then when said old player gets on a medium length course they will perform much worse than expected, but that will not "prove" your point.

Terry has actually made that point by the way he chooses divisions. If it's a long open course, he'll enter an older division. If it's shorter and more technical courses, he'll consider entering Advanced. I think the implication of the data is when higher tier events are held that bring together players from all over, keeping the age divisions makes sense. For local events, there's no reason to believe that players of any age can't hang if their rating is in the competitive range for a younger division. That's more true for Master but for GM and older the same rating player will have a tougher time with younger competition unless the course is in the woods. Greenwell and othe top GMs might have done just fine against the 1000-1015 Open players on Woodland Greens. Master Joey Mela had the best score relative to par on any course at Worlds with his 46 on Woodland.

Master Joey Mela had the best score relative to par on any course at Worlds with his 46 on Woodland.



he also co-owns the red hawk course record at 56 (-8) with barry. the dude's good.

I've not met him, he sounds like a great player.

Just want to note that when looking at population averages, you will always likely have both something like a normal curve distribution, which can overlap between populations, as well as outliers. These kinds of statistics address populations, norms, standard deviations, etc., not necessarily individuals.

just wanted to say "thanks Chuck" for all of your data and number crunching!!
it is MUCH appreciated and very useful to players and TDs.

rock on

Thanks. We hope to do more next year with better reporting on the web and possibly allowing players with ratings down to 750 (currently 800) to be propagators to help out with better ratings for newer and lower rated players.

Something else that may help the relevance of location and type of courses they play is to look at each individuals rating then see how it deviates at worlds, and try to figure out why it did. Although this can lead to a great deal of speculation, if there is a trend in a division, or in a specific region of the US then it may have some validity.

Once many courses get coded into the database with more information on their foliage density, elevation and hazard impact, we'll be able to break out player skills in relation to those course traits.

off topic, but wondering:
i wish to run an event here in thailand at the 18 hole course on the island of koh samui (south of pattaya beach/bangkok)... do i need to have x amount of players with ratings to hold a pdga event?

No minimum required. And we can produce ratings for international events if you contact me regarding course length and foliage so we can produce an estimated SSA for you.

that's great, thought i read that an event must have at least 5 registered players above ~850 to garner ratings for the round.

The default minimum is five players with established ratings above 799. However, if you have three and they play two rounds on the same layout, that will be seen as the equivalent of six, so processing will occur.