Disc Golf Store
  #391  
Old 01-07-2013, 12:04 AM
BigSky's Avatar
BigSky BigSky is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Years Playing: 3.4
Courses Played: 1
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 6,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWoj View Post
Haha I'm sorry if that came out as arrogant. I just wanted it to come out in plain words. I believe any 980+ player is going to believe that, if he's at least focusing on the round and not hurt or anything, there's no way a sub-800 caliber player has a chance of beating him. None whatsoever. I wanted that believe made clear because I believe that at the upper level - where strokes are oh-so-precious: those 1040 caliber players are almost as far ahead of me as players as I am ahead of those sub-800 level guys.

I'll go out there and play the hottest tournament round of my life - and my 1040 is only at their average. A 775 rated player goes out and plays his/her best round of their life, and its a good chance its still a few strokes off of my typical round. That's how ridiculously good the guys at the top are in disc golf. Those last 5-6 strokes are a BITCH.
I don't believe a sub-800 guy would beat you either. It's practically impossible. I'm pretty sure I never said it was possible, but I have a lot of posts in this thread already, so who knows what I said.

You could beat a top guy though. It's been done. It may have been done with a little luck, and the top guy making some poor choices, and the 980 guy playing hot, but it's possible. Much more possible than the sub-800 guy beating you.
Reply With Quote
  #392  
Old 01-07-2013, 12:09 AM
ChrisWoj's Avatar
ChrisWoj ChrisWoj is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Years Playing: 9.6
Courses Played: 108
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigSky View Post
I don't believe a sub-800 guy would beat you either. It's practically impossible. I'm pretty sure I never said it was possible, but I have a lot of posts in this thread already, so who knows what I said.

You could beat a top guy though. It's been done. It may have been done with a little luck, and the top guy making some poor choices, and the 980 guy playing hot, but it's possible. Much more possible than the sub-800 guy beating you.
Definitely why I said almost as big a gap. It'd take a hell of a day for it to happen - but that chance is so small that its not a whole lot huger than the 800 vs 980. That compression of strokes at an elite level is just... sickening. So. close. Yet so far.
Reply With Quote
  #393  
Old 01-07-2013, 01:18 AM
DGstatistician DGstatistician is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Here?
Posts: 7
Ratings Discussion

There are two major flaws in the rating system.
1) This was so kindly pointed out by Chuck, the weighting system of rounds is off. The fact that a full calendar year in the past can create ratings lags of possibly 80+ points is troubling. A player of 1000 rated caliber who has rounds from 11 and a half months ago dragging them down has an effect on every single person in a tournament (will go into this in #2). So essentially, playing against someone who has improved their game in the last 12 months will hurt your rating, which skews ratings.
2) A lack of constant element in course ratings is also troubling. The current rating system punishes players based on competition. For instance, if myself (800 rated) and 4 others play in a tournament (950 rated) (only 1 round). In the round, I play extremely well, let's say I shoot 57, and all the 950's play well and shoot an average of 46. I just shot a round rated 840. If I play the same course the next week in near identical conditions and shoot the exact same round, (800 rated) 57 but play against 4 800 rated players, who shoot an average of 58, I just shot an 808... Wow 32 point differential for the same round.
This problem is further complicated by part 1... If for some reason those ratings were lower than they truly should be, my rating will be more drastically impacted.
Reply With Quote
  #394  
Old 01-07-2013, 02:13 AM
Lewis's Avatar
Lewis Lewis is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marietta, GA
Years Playing: 7.2
Courses Played: 16
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 4,074
Taking Three Putt's suggestion about par a little farther, why not add a significant digit to par for individual holes? In other words, instead of rounding the "tweener" holes that come out to 3.4 or 2.7 to 3 or 3, they would be listed as 3.4 and 2.7. What's wrong with that?
Reply With Quote
  #395  
Old 01-07-2013, 03:16 AM
bombmk bombmk is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis View Post
Taking Three Putt's suggestion about par a little farther, why not add a significant digit to par for individual holes? In other words, instead of rounding the "tweener" holes that come out to 3.4 or 2.7 to 3 or 3, they would be listed as 3.4 and 2.7. What's wrong with that?
The one rule that says if you show up late you get par+4 needs some tweaking then.

And it might seem a little silly to new players?

And theres the whole standard conversational element of having shot X under/over. Did you round up, down or just off on the hole pars?

I would love to see the numbers on the signs - but thats because I am a stats freak. Not so sure it would be the right thing to do though.
Reply With Quote
  #396  
Old 01-07-2013, 03:35 AM
Lewis's Avatar
Lewis Lewis is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marietta, GA
Years Playing: 7.2
Courses Played: 16
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 4,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by bombmk View Post
The one rule that says if you show up late you get par+4 needs some tweaking then.

And it might seem a little silly to new players?

And theres the whole standard conversational element of having shot X under/over. Did you round up, down or just off on the hole pars?

I would love to see the numbers on the signs - but thats because I am a stats freak. Not so sure it would be the right thing to do though.
Good points.

I don't think the idea of making putting tougher by changing the baskets would necessarily mean uprooting and replacing whole sets of baskets. Someone mentioned a way to tie a loop around the chains of an existing basket to cinch them closer, which gives me an idea. Let the manufacturers develop adapter kits that can be used to temporarily modify the diameter of the chain assembly for specific events. A kind of dg basket girdle. With the right ingenuity, I expect a fairly nondestructive adaptation could be developed and applied in a consistent, standardized way.
Reply With Quote
  #397  
Old 01-07-2013, 08:15 AM
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 25.5
Courses Played: 586
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 7,693
@DGStatistician - I'll only respond if you indicate who you are.
Reply With Quote
  #398  
Old 01-07-2013, 09:26 AM
wake911 wake911 is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Years Playing: 13.3
Courses Played: 44
Posts: 1,181
A tougher holing out item is the move forward i think. It needs to be fairer, but tougher. So if you hit it, it sticks. But tougher to hit it. The top pros now, would barely be affected by it. The good players would be more affected, and the rec players would be most affected. Just like ball golf.

Ideally the courses would change, but sadly i think that would take WAY longer to implement. Whereas something could be put in place for 2014 NT and majors to use smaller targets.

Interesting about ratings conversation. Would it possibly be better for a 6 month average if +8 rounds, or 12 months if needed to get to 8 rounds, or even the current max 24 months to get the 8 rounds? I imagine this data has already been ran and found not different enough, but in my job, we do some things based off rolling 12 month averages, and it gets pretty painful if a big change occurs. VERY slow to catch up. (i'm thinking of how much putting practice i am putting in this winter, that HAS to jump my rating up come spring)
Reply With Quote
  #399  
Old 01-07-2013, 09:59 AM
duckychucky's Avatar
duckychucky duckychucky is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Years Playing: 12.4
Courses Played: 19
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 182
What happened to just making harder greens?
Wouldn't it just be easier (and more fun)
to put baskets closer to trees and hills to make putting
tougher than to change everyones equipment?

Watching discs take curving flight paths is what
makes dg fun to watch but with "no obstacles in the
circle" putting is the most bland part of the sport.
Put some trees in the greens and we will see cool
spike hyzer putts, flick putts, overhand putts,
turbo putts, etc...making putting harder and more
interesting to watch.

What if the new generation of ball golfers started to
make putting look too easy. Do you think the PGA
would look at smaller holes or bigger balls? Of
course not, they would just make harder greens.
Reply With Quote
 

  #400  
Old 01-07-2013, 10:07 AM
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 25.5
Courses Played: 586
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 7,693
Doesn't matter. More cluttered greens might make the upshot tougher. But if the player always has a shot at the basket from within the circle (which is a design guideline), the putting constant doesn't change.

In ball golf, they have looked at hole and ball size and would change it if necessary. But there's no indication their parameters need changing.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.