Hey hey ho ho round ratings have got to GO!

[uncle pennybags]

Something like the NCAA coaches or AP polls?

I'm not sure how that scales to Disc Golf without becoming a popularity contest.

[txmxer]

Originally Posted by uncle pennybags

Something like the NCAA coaches or AP polls?

I'm not sure how that scales to Disc Golf without becoming a popularity contest.

And those sports have spent a lot of time and effort to develop a more objective ranking system.

[ToddL]

Overall: Surprise surprise, higher rated players do not necessarily produce higher rated rounds.
MPO: Nice and stable starting at 13 competitors.
FPO: A bit of drift through the day. More data points are always better.

[DG_player]

Originally Posted by txmxer

nice. Reading your descriptions of the process and seeing it in action, it seems like a pretty well designed system.

I've seen comments about the ratings being skewed in different ways (up or down), but I like what I saw someone else say--something like 'I'm 950 rated and guys that are 1000 rated usually beat me'. To me, that means the arrow is pointed in the right direction--higher rated players have better outcomes in general over the course of a tournament and subsequently a season.

Since Paul apparently feels we need a true "ranking" system--any idea what he or anyone else is proposing as an alternative? Without detailed alternatives, I don't know what they are suggesting or how it would be "better".

You could go with a system similar to the world golf rankings. That would at least get rid of any arguments about whether scores were properly rated, since it's based solely off of tournament finishing position.

[DavidSauls]

We have a World Champion (though most competitors are from the U.S.) and a U.S. Champion (though some competitors are from outside the U.S., and a Pro Tour Champion and a National Tour Points winner. We have a highest-rated player and a highest-ranked player (based on ratings). We have an overall points champion and a top-earnings winner.

I'm not sure we need more ways to decide who's the best. Or how much recognition a new system---even a better system---will get, with the existing clutter.

[DiscFifty]

Originally Posted by ru4por

They have a financial vested interest in their opinions. They don't really stand for the good of the entire game

What does that even mean..."they (pros) don't really stand for the good of the game" ?

[DiscFifty]

Originally Posted by txmxer

nice. Reading your descriptions of the process and seeing it in action, it seems like a pretty well designed system.

maybe...maybe not... Two divisions play the same course, shoot the same scores, as long as the divisions are rated separately, the division with the avg higher rated players get the higher rated rounds.

[Steve West]

Originally Posted by DiscFifty

maybe...maybe not... Two divisions play the same course, shoot the same scores, as long as the divisions are rated separately, the division with the avg higher rated players get the higher rated rounds.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

If the higher rated bunch got the same scores, it means conditions were tougher for them. They had to play better to get those scores, so they should get higher round ratings.

Right?

[DiscFifty]

Originally Posted by Steve West

You say that like it's a bad thing.

If the higher rated bunch got the same scores, it means conditions were tougher for them. They had to play better to get those scores, so they should get higher round ratings.

Right?

If conditions were tougher for one division, of course. But that's the flaw imop, if all things being equal, the division with the higher avg rated players will have higher ratings. But I don't want to thread drift too much, this was already discussed and proved in another thread.
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forum...d.php?t=137064

[DavidSauls]

The big flaw isn't in the ratings system---it's in the application of it.

As a system to group amateur players into divisions of similar skill levels, it works fine. But that takes into account that while it's not an exact measure of any given round, when multiple rounds are averaged together the variances average out.

When it's applied to anoint a particular excellent round as one of the best, it's doing so without the benefit of that multiple-round averaging. When it's used to rank the top players, it's a bit better, but that still puts too much weight in differences of a few points.