They just announced in the chat that it will actually start in [0] minutes, but they're too busy to fix the counter. And it hasn't started quite yet..
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
DGPT: 2019 Memorial Championship
- Thread starter brutalbrutus
- Start date
They just announced in the chat that it will actually start in [0] minutes, but they're too busy to fix the counter. And it hasn't started quite yet..
chosenmatrix
Par Member
Haha, alright. Thanks for the update, I will head on over
And it's live.
2naphish
Birdie Member
i always have chat running on my second monitor but i had to leave yesterday because i was actually offended by some of the posts. being goofy and making dumb jokes is fun most times but i found some posts to be downright rude and embarrassing.
BuzzzChief
Double Eagle Member
Coverage is way better today. Like a completely different team took over.
esc1
Eagle Member
Video is really bad over here.. like slideshow bad
BuzzzChief
Double Eagle Member
It was stalling/buffering a lot for me at first, but after a few minutes it evened out. I haven't had a skip in a while.
BuiltTooLong
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2014
- Messages
- 1,710
PMcB is carded up with Nikko. He's long said that Nikko is one of his fav to play with. I think he'll shoot at least -12.
gcr_russell
* Ace Member *
The Memorial always produces weird ratings. 1100 rounds. FPO getting higher ratings for the same scores on a course layout that plays easier.
The one issue I see with that is a pro missing a run and saying "yeah that was a layup" when in reality it was a miss
Ratings have NOTHING to do with the course.
gcr_russell
* Ace Member *
Correct. I understand how it works, but it's still silly that if a rating is a baseline of how someone is performing than a player can perform better than someone else and still receive a lower rating because the propagators are different.
jeverett
Double Eagle Member
That's not really true, though? If you look at the PDGA rating system, it uses a generalized linear formula to compute a points-per-throw slope (based on rating) for the scoring spread of the field, based entirely on the determined SSA for the round. In general, this expected slope is fairly reasonable for most fields/layouts, however it's absolutely possible for this to skew the ratings. Basically, if the particular course/layout doesn't spread out the scores of the field as much as its SSA->points-per-throw slope says it should, ratings are going to be skewed lower (or higher, in the case of rounds worse than the SSA) than they 'should' be the farther your round score was from the SSA. If the particular course/layout spreads out the scores of the field more than its SSA->points-per-throw slope says it should, ratings are going to be skewed higher (or lower, in the case of rounds worse than the SSA) than they should be the farther your round score was from the SSA.
Last edited:
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Shorter does not always mean easier, especially with lots of OB potential. The women also played in colder temps with more clothing layer changes over the round.
2naphish
Birdie Member
R1 fpo footage is up.
Bottom line is the course itself is irrelevant to the math. The formulas don't know or account for the fact that MPO and FPO are playing mostly the same course except for a few tees/baskets. So judging the veracity of FPO ratings from yesterday against the MPO ratings yesterday is the same as judging the veracity of ratings for a round at Maple Hill Gold against the ratings for a round at Morley Field. Ratings aren't for comparing courses, they're for comparing players.
jeverett
Double Eagle Member
In terms of divisions and specific players, you're absolutely correct. It's also extremely difficult to use ratings alone to compare courses, true. But again, the design of a course *can* impact the accuracy (and potential for skew) of the round ratings it produces. A course or layout that spreads out or constricts the spread of scores considerably more than a course or layout of that particular SSA 'should' will affect the round ratings of anyone who's round score is significantly above or below the computed SSA. For most events and layouts, this isn't a big issue, however it certainly can be for some layouts, and the Memorial appears to have a history of this particular issue. Here's a chart I found from a number of years ago of a Memorial round exhibiting this particular issue:
It's a little hard to interpret that chart, but basically what it's showing is that the farther away from 'scratch' a player's round score was, the greater the skew to their round rating, when comparing the observed points-per-throw slope with the actual PDGA points-per-throw slope that was applied, based on the determined SSA for that round.
Edit: as a specific example from that chart, a round score of 53 for that round came out at a ~1030 rating, however the observed slope of the spread of scores for that round suggested that it should have only rated a ~1025.
Last edited:
Flick Maniac
* Ace Member *
"aaaand next up, we have a blank screen"
-Uh, eh eh
Stopped watching right there and then.
