The 25th Annual Memorial Championship

[mj20300]

Originally Posted by New013

Yea there's inflation every year at the same course. How many rounds have ever been rated over 1100 and how many of those came on this course at this tourney.

[TOURNEYPLAYER]

Originally Posted by New013

Yea there's inflation every year at the same course. How many rounds have ever been rated over 1100 and how many of those came on this course at this tourney.

This is exactly what I thought. How many 1100s last year not at this tourney.

[mj20300]

2 maybe 3

[The Hammer]

My round feels about 30 points high. TBH

[Cgkdisc]

These courses and event just happen to produce the widest deviation in scores and ratings. But the average ratings cannot inflate. The average ratings produced each round always equal the average of the propagator's ratings. That's how ratings work. It's a net zero inflation since ratings started. If a course produces high rated rounds, it also produces lower rated ones at the same time. Some courses like Castle Hayne are at the other end of scoring range with one of the smallest ranges. Even there, the average of the ratings produced always equals the average rating of the propagator pool.

The question as a sport is should we allow courses to be played in competition that produce either too wide or too narrow of a scoring distribution? It's a course design question, not a ratings problem. The ratings distribution just defines what the course produces. But at either end of the scale, the course produces the same average ratings and doesn't add or subtract points from the overall PDGA ratings pool no matter who plays.

[TOURNEYPLAYER]

Originally Posted by mj20300

2 maybe 3

So half of all 1100s in 2012 happened in one tournament.

[TOURNEYPLAYER]

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

These courses and event just happen to produce the widest deviation in scores and ratings. But the average ratings cannot inflate. The average ratings produced each round always equal the average of the propagator's ratings. That's how ratings work. It's a net zero inflation since ratings started. If a course produces high rated rounds, it also produces lower rated ones at the same time. Some courses like Castle Hayne are at the other end of scoring range. Even there, the average ratings produced always equals the average rating of the propagator pool.

The question as a sport is should we allow courses to be played in competition that produce either too wide or too narrow of a scoring distribution? It's a course design question, not a ratings problem. The ratings distribution just defines what the course produces. But at either end of the scale, the course produces the same average ratings and doesn't add or subtract points from the overall PDGA ratings pool.

So. It does cause higher ratings. Just not inflated overall. The top will be higher, and low be lower to even if out.

[Cgkdisc]

Yes. As I said, those running the sport at some point might want to discuss whether having this range of scoring at either end of the spectrum is good or bad. It's similar to the issue of links courses versus American style in ball golf. The UK links courses produce both a wider range of round scores and skill ratings for Americans than what they are used to.

[New013]

So basically course is to hard for lesser skilled players and to easy for pros.

[Cgkdisc]

Yes. Plus don't discount the impact of snowbirds coming out of hibernation not shooting as well and boosting the SSA. But they have been coming en masse for years so you wouldn't see their effect from one year to the next if they are regularly boosting the SSA by a throw or two. If you look at the holes online, they don't look that tough. I think most players over 950 could birdie most of those holes at some time over several rounds. It just doesn't seem as impressive when we see guys get in a groove and birdie all of those holes in one round. But that kind of consistency is what gets the high ratings, not the individual hole challenges.