New DGCR ratings - Who sucks worse than me?

[b-mart]

I'd be happy to suck worse than you, but I'm too lazy to post all of my rounds. A lot of said rounds are thrown with one driver on multiple shots though, so I can figure out which of my stacks of discs to keep and which ones I'm never going to use again... Meaning that my scores are even less stellar when I do that.

 

[knettles]

I agree with this......but........a few big buts:

There are around 60,000 holes to be updated in DGCR. That is a lot of updates!

Accuracy of the system in place is very accurate for most courses (<4%....+/- 1 throw on a normal course), and within 10% (+/- 2.5 throws) on the vast majority of courses people care about and use. 90% accurate used to be an A when I was in school.....and an A was considered really good.

If you make the changes you propose, there will still be big misunderstandings on what Lightly, Moderately and Heavily means. And we will still have scenarios that the SSE formula cannot handle well (lots of OB, lots of short doglegs, very short courses). So, how much better will it really be?

So, why change something that takes a ton of work to fix in an attempt to get things only a couple percentage points more accurate.

If you really want accurate player ratings go and play several well attended (50+ competitors) PDGA events.

That's the great thing about this site. Many of the changes on this site are made by users. I, myself, have added courses, added pictures, changed/updated hole info, etc. All they would need to do is give the option to have more descriptive hole info. Then, courses would gradually get updated over time. It wouldn't happen immediately, but it wouldn't be that much work either.

 

[sprintermatt]

1002.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

C'mon folks, don't read too much into this, it's somewhat accurate guide, but there are inherent;y limitations to it. If you're on this site a lot, then you play a lot... you already know how good you are (or aren't ). This just tells you about where you are in the ballpark. Flawed though it may be, I think it's a decent tool as is, but refining it to the point where we're entering characteristics for individual holes is probably more error frought than this tool currenty is.

Just my $0.02 worth.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Looking at the pictures of Firefighters, I am guessing SSA is probably around 46-47. SSE is 48.7 - off by around 2 throws per round (if my guess is right). Honestly, that is not too bad of an estimate - less than 5% error). The annual tournament there is no help in narrowing down the guess since they add 6 holes and modify others.

If that is the case, each throw is probably around 11-12 ratings points so a 54 would indeed between 904 (if SSA is 46 and 12 pts is used) and 923 (SSA 47 and 11 pts).



Re-reading what I wrote here, I should have been more clear and said "are courses with lots of bendy wooded fairways and/or lots of OB."

OK- threw like garbage tonight, and carded a 58 at Firefighter's... got rated a 900. It was rainy, don't know if that affects the rating. 58/18 holes = an average of 3.22 strokes/hole...

In May, I played in the Firefighter's classic (with 6 add'l temporary holes and some temp tees)... shot an 837 rated 73 (avg 3.04 strokes/hole, and an 899 rated 67 (avg 2.79 strokes /hole).

No way I shot a close to a 900 rated round tonight... that's just the way the formula works given the distances for that course and the fact that is described as moderately wooded. I wonder if we should update it to lightly wooded?

 

[BogeyNoMore]

^ It's certainly well treed, but perhaps it's actually lightly wooded with particularly well placed trees which come into play quite often... plus the description of "moderately wooded" might be old (the pix certainly are ), prior to losing some trees to storms and ash borer. It's probably the easiest 18+ hole course in the entire metro Detroit area, or at least in the conversation.

Will consult others...

 

[dmbrun2]

C'mon folks, don't read too much into this, it's somewhat accurate guide, but there are inherent;y limitations to it. If you're on this site a lot, then you play a lot... you already know how good you are (or aren't ). This just tells you about where you are in the ballpark. Flawed though it may be, I think it's a decent tool as is, but refining it to the point where we're entering characteristics for individual holes is probably more error frought than this tool currenty is.

Just my $0.02 worth.

truth

 

[timg]

^ It's certainly well treed, but perhaps it's actually lightly wooded with particularly well placed trees which come into play quite often... plus the description of "moderately wooded" might be old (the pix certainly are ), prior to losing some trees to storms and ash borer. It's probably the easiest 18+ hole course in the entire metro Detroit area, or at least in the conversation.

Will consult others...

I certainly wouldn't update it just to adjust the SSE, the descriptive angle of that field is far more important than moving the SSE around.

 

[grodney]

I am guessing SSA is probably around 46-47. SSE is 48.7 - off by around 2 throws per round (if my guess is right). Honestly, that is not too bad of an estimate - less than 5% error).

How do you come up with the "less than 5% error" part?

 

[Dave242]

Whoever hacked my account is bad at math. She should have said 10%. I think it was a she since 72% of hackers are women.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Looking at the pictures of Firefighters, I am guessing SSA is probably around 46-47. SSE is 48.7 - off by around 2 throws per round (if my guess is right). Honestly, that is not too bad of an estimate - less than 5% error).

How do you come up with the "less than 5% error" part?

(48.7-46)/48.7 = 5.5%
(48.7 - 47)/48.7 = 3.5%

I certainly wouldn't update it just to adjust the SSE, the descriptive angle of that field is far more important than moving the SSE around.

I hear you - just wanted to consult with others to see if they still think "moderatley wooded accurately describes this course.

I think the thing that makes thos course easier than the numbers/description might indicate is that there are several holes (3, 11, 12, 18) where the shot off the tee is actually pretty open, with a good 250' or so before you get to a gauntlet of trees. Much easier than the same distance where you can bounce of trees pretty much anywhere between tee and basket.

One of things that can drive scores up on this course is the significant threat of OB water, particularly on a few of the longer holes... but does the OB actually get factored into the DGCR rating?*

And should I actually be posting this on the Round Ratings thread?


* has a sneaky suspiscion that question may be answered in other thread. :doh:

 

[grodney]

(48.7-46)/48.7 = 5.5%
(48.7 - 47)/48.7 = 3.5%

And my point is, this is nonsensical. Or meaningless. Or both.

 

[Brall]

833, spot on for me.

and i enter 100% of my rounds.

 

[Jukeshoe]

741...I bet no one is lower than that.

Oh wait, a higher score is better? :wall:

Yeah, but you have fun. And your kid loves coming out and playing rounds of dg with you, so you're although you might be rated a "loser" by the PDGA, you're a "winner" in the book of life. :hfive:

 

[Grinder12000]

Well, I have my very first round in where I kept hole by hole and I'm at 667!! I wanna be a winner too!

 

[Dave242]

And my point is, this is nonsensical. Or meaningless. Or both.

Why? If an estimator is estimating there is a level of inaccuracy compared to a gold standard that can be measured. Here the "gold standard" is my estimate of an SSA by just looking at pictures and lengths.

I am sure to be off by a little, but I was agreeing with him that his rounds were almost certainly getting rated too high. That is the meaning.

The percentage accuracy I included was more of a theme people need to consider.....and I will keep on harping on it. Some people get all bent out of shape if the PDGA has 1 throw variations in SSA from round to round on the same course. I have seen that mentality carry over to DGCR's SSE. If SSE is is predicting scores/ratings with an accuracy of within 2 throws out of 50 throws per round in almost all cases.....that is within 5%. IMO, that is not meaningless nor is it nonsensical.

People (me included) get a lot of satisfaction by raising there rating 20 points.....say from 920 to 940. It seems like a 940 is a much better golfer than a 920....but in reality it is only cleaning up once missed putt (or upshot) on the front 9 and one on the back 9.

 

[davetherocketguy]

Yeah, but you have fun. And your kid loves coming out and playing rounds of dg with you, so you're although you might be rated a "loser" by the PDGA, you're a "winner" in the book of life. :hfive:

HAHA! Thanks for that. Yeah I am a pretty blessed fella to have such great kids - as annoying as they can be sometimes. Can you say 15 year old female?

My boy sure has fun on the course especially when he beats his old man on a hole or two...Won't be long and he'll be beating me like a drum on the overall score. :clap:

 

[adlacro]

I currently sit at 878.

It's funny, one round I shoot like plus ten and it's rated over 900, but one course at a different place and it's lucky to be a 700 rated round.

Maybe I should ask the question: How do they determine this? What Factors?

Or maybe should someone get me a copy of "Round Ratings for Dummies" (I will pay S & H for that!)?

Andrew

 

[bikinjack]

I currently sit at 878.

It's funny, one round I shoot like plus ten and it's rated over 900, but one course at a different place and it's lucky to be a 700 rated round.

Maybe I should ask the question: How do they determine this? What Factors?

Or maybe should someone get me a copy of "Round Ratings for Dummies" (I will pay S & H for that!)?

Andrew

You don't have to pay anything. It's all in these forums to read for free. Mostly in this thread even.

 

[DerekTonn]

909 DGCR rating, and in the 910-915 range with PDGA, so very close for me! And I've recorded every round I've played here since September 2009. All 452 of them.

I think there are significant problems with the formula used to generate ratings though. Case in point: Mound Creek County Park. That course has longs and shorts. The shorts we (local Intermediate players) always say is a "par 23-24." 9 holes, but Holes 2, 4, 5, and 9 are pretty-much deuces 75% of the time for players with around a 900 rating. The longs? A whole, WHOLE lotta mean. An entirely different course. Roughly 1,000 feet longer over 9 holes, and MAYBE 1-2 holes where a 900-rated player feels like you have a bit better than 50/50 shot at a deuce. With a couple holes where you feel fortunate to not write a 4-5 on the card.

I played three rounds on June 5 at Mound Creek:

24 off the shorts (968 DGCR rating)
27 off the longs (780 DGCR rating)
25 off the shorts (943 DGCR rating)

I can tell you, in no uncertain terms, that the 27 off the longs was easily the best round of my evening...a round that not a lot of 900-930 rated players could have shot. Yet that round, that great round, was a 780-rated round? While average to below-average rounds off the shorts garner 943-968 ratings?

Flawed. My guess is the ratings take the total scores off the course without regard for which tees were being played...which will artificially lower the ratings for rounds play off harder/longer tees. Maybe that's not the case! But go out to Mound, play the longs, then tell me a sub-800 rated player could break 35...much less shoot a 27.