USDGC - I told you so

[abcd]

Are they all + molds? Any glows?

 

[Vegan Ray]

922-rated Tyler Graham in T3rd. Go Tyler!!!

 

[Trey1331]

No glows. Only 200 of each run (3 runs - 1 for Feldy, 1 for Climo, 1 for Shultz) Mostly all blue w/ red stamp (aaaaaand some randome purple ones too that I got my hands on )

 

[Mixed Bag Madness1]

Did ya get a peek at the Inncolor Star Rocs that go on sale Saturday?

 

[Vegan Ray]

880-rated John Key, 918-rated Bill Charron, and 102-year old Lavone Wolfe making charges…

 

[Trey1331]

Solty improved today! EDIT: Oh boy... here comes the turning point for the AMs to take over... and looks like Wiggins is still hanging in there. He did very impressively on the back side yesterday so we'll see if he improves any.

Mixed Bag Madness - I didn't get a chance to look at them yet. I'll ask around and see if I can't acquire a description. The Inncolors really don't do it for me, I always get one each year but usually don't get too hyped up. Now if they did an Inncolor on a C-line disc

 

[jcm566]

I really hated the idea to start with, but it seems to be working better than expected. It is surprising that only a dozen people are actually under their projections. Now comes the fun part... Can the low rated ams keep shooting that far under their projections, or will they fold from the lead card pressure.

 

[Mixed Bag Madness1]

Solty improved today! EDIT: Oh boy... here comes the turning point for the AMs to take over... and looks like Wiggins is still hanging in there. He did very impressively on the back side yesterday so we'll see if he improves any.

Mixed Bag Madness - I didn't get a chance to look at them yet. I'll ask around and see if I can't acquire a description. The Inncolors really don't do it for me, I always get one each year but usually don't get too hyped up. Now if they did an Inncolor on a C-line disc

I've never thrown an Inncolor Roc. How do they differ from a regular star or champ Rancho?

 

[Trey1331]

No differences other than the pricetag. These are like 40 or 45 usually.

 

[dwiggmd]

I really hated the idea to start with, but it seems to be working better than expected. It is surprising that only a dozen people are actually under their projections. Now comes the fun part... Can the low rated ams keep shooting that far under their projections, or will they fold from the lead card pressure.

Well looking at John Key's statistics he has played 2 rounds over the last year and those rounds give him a player rating of 940 not 880. That in turn changed his "predicted score" from 79 to 89. This gives him 10 strokes a round over and above what would already be a fair handicap for him. In other words, this 940 level golfer would only have to play 880 rated golf to beat his "projected" score.

Now one might say it is all just a coincidence. I'd say that is not very likely. He did not play a single round after qualifying for the USDGC in a 2 round tournament in March. If he had played after April, his older rounds would have dropped from the ratings calculation and his rating would be 940 or probably higher since he is a new and improving player.

Of note is that he is from Florida, but traveled to Louisana to qualify for the USDGC and to Rock Hill for the USDGC but never even played in one other sanctioned tournament, not even one near his home which would have been simple - unless of course one wanted to avoid playing in sanctioned tournaments to keep ones player rating low. I'm sure there will be excuses. There always are.

When this event was announced, some people criticized it saying that the tournament could be gamed by a player with an artificially low rating. Other said that that would never happen and that if it looked like it was possible, the promoters would do something about it. Now the way to game the system would be to establish a low player rating, qualify for the event, and then do nothing to improve ones player rating after that - since it is the highest player rating over the year prior to the event that counts.
This appears to be exactly the case of what happened here.

Now to be generous one might say it is all a coincidence ,which I find unlikely, but even if it is, this players current PDGA player rating is not a reflection of his ability but of a loophole in the ratings system that goes into effect for players who do not play very much. Either way it is not fair and just might lead to a USDGC "winner" who has prepared for the tournament by playing 6 rated rounds in his entire disc golf career and only 2 rated rounds in the last year.

USDGC winners - Climo, Schultz, Doss, Feldberg, Locastro, Schusterick and a worthy amateur who is dedicated to the sport like Mike Norris or Bill Jacobsen - ok maybe
All those heros and some guy who has only played six rounds of sanctioned disc golf in his entire life - I'd agree with Doss, its an insult.

I've got to admit that I was fooled by this turn of events. I thought the idea as described seemed fun at least. If anything, I felt they should have changed the name of the event to protect its past reputation. But otherwise I believed it was a good idea. I believed others when they said the promoters would have controls in place to prevent gaming the system. It seems like I was wrong about a lot.

 

[biscgolf]

i don't know if the guy is intentionally working the system or not (lots of people only play one or 2 events in a year and may or may not play the ones close to home) but there is definitely a gaping hole in the system that allows it to be "gamed". should he hold on to win (which will surprise me) he should be congratulated for winning within the rules set forth- not his fault they were poorly thought out. conspiracy theories are fun either way...

 

[nohr]

Well looking at John Key's statistics he has played 2 rounds over the last year and those rounds give him a player rating of 940 not 880.

I thought you had to have 3 rounds to establish a rating. The rules were set and he is within them. I would think that all the AMs (as well as pros) that qualified for USDGC put some practice in and would be playing above their current ratings.

 

[Trey1331]

Dr. Wiggins,

It will be interesting to see how he does on top card with Feldberg and spectators today. I'm still thinking that a winner will be someone who has a 950+ rating and has really put some hard work and practice in. Not just anyone can step up at Winthrop and shine with that pressure and amount of spectators.

This tournament is actually super interesting. Will it end up being a flop in that it allowed someone to game the system, or will there still be some talent laden champion who prevails?

 

[dwiggmd]

Well looking at John Key's statistics he has played 2 rounds over the last year and those rounds give him a player rating of 940 not 880.

The rules were set and he is within them.

True, but it doesn't change anything I said.

 

[dwiggmd]

i don't know if the guy is intentionally working the system or not (lots of people only play one or 2 events in a year and may or may not play the ones close to home) but there is definitely a gaping hole in the system that allows it to be "gamed". should he hold on to win (which will surprise me) he should be congratulated for winning within the rules set forth- not his fault they were poorly thought out. conspiracy theories are fun either way...

I did not say certain, I said likely. I am a scientist. I take exception to the "conspiracy theory" slur. The odds of these events occurring randomly is much less likely than them occurring with some motivation at least. I'll stand by that. Either way it does not change the major points I was trying to make.

Having said what I felt was necessary, I will not comment further. So if someone criticizes me or anything I've written here I will not respond. Its nothing personal, you just have to draw the line somewhere. Thanks everyone for their comments

 

[jcm566]

I don't know how 1 person "allegedly" working the system takes away from this event at all. I just made the observation that only 12 people are at or below their projection halfway through, and I find that interesting. Now will this guy really feel like a "champion" if he watches Feldy beat him by 25 strokes over each of the next 2 rounds? He could play smart and win with ease (I.E. never throw a shot more than 150 feet), but what's the fun in that?

 

[Vegan Ray]

I just made the observation that only 12 people are at or below their projection halfway through, and I find that interesting.

11/123 people (~8.9%) below their "projected" scores & 111/123 people (~90.2%) above their "projected" scores --> the "projected" scores are bogus. Legit projections would leave approx. 50% above & 50% below their projected scores. Interesting, indeed!

 

[Trey1331]

DGU is taking into account players ratings from courses with SSA's across the board. If you take a look at the average ratings of the players playing on a course with an SSA as high as winthrop, I bet these guys' projecteds would jump up. That explays why these guys are not doing too hot.

This is what I initially expected as to why the better players would rise to the top (those with higher Ratings) becuase they handle courses with higher SSA's better than lower rated players.

 

[biscgolf]

i don't know if the guy is intentionally working the system or not (lots of people only play one or 2 events in a year and may or may not play the ones close to home) but there is definitely a gaping hole in the system that allows it to be "gamed". should he hold on to win (which will surprise me) he should be congratulated for winning within the rules set forth- not his fault they were poorly thought out. conspiracy theories are fun either way...

I did not say certain, I said likely. I am a scientist. I take exception to the "conspiracy theory" slur. The odds of these events occurring randomly is much less likely than them occurring with some motivation at least. I'll stand by that. Either way it does not change the major points I was trying to make.

Having said what I felt was necessary, I will not comment further. So if someone criticizes me or anything I've written here I will not respond. Its nothing personal, you just have to draw the line somewhere. Thanks everyone for their comments

as a scientist you should know better than to have publicly advanced your unprovable theory to begin with...

i don't really see what offends you so much about the term "conspiracy theory", you are probably correct though- i believe "innuendo" is better suited to your original comments. i am but a humble farmer so forgive me my misuse of terms.

in all seriousness, it is unfortunate that your son is playing great golf and will not get the recognition he deserves for it due to an ill conceived system... he has been a fine young man in all my encounters with him and you are obviously quite justifiably proud of him.

 

[Mr. Wick]

It kinda sounds like Dr. Wiggy is complaining about a bagger. :wtf:
ironic