#211  
Old 09-16-2020, 02:39 PM
DiscFifty DiscFifty is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Years Playing: 9.6
Courses Played: 19
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 4,273
Niced 1,581 Times in 883 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
will increase ratings at the top to either make it look like ratings have inflated or our best players are playing better than Climo depending on your point of view.
In my observations it's the players at the top getting the benefit the most. Especially as the avg player rating increases.

But I'd like to echo what was said earlier, thank you for taking the time to chime in with your replies. It has to be a challenge to design a ratings system that is fair today as it was 20+ years ago. My biggest concern is the fact that the ratings system has no cap. Is that correct? After viewing tournament data with much fewer high rated pros in the climo era, I'm starting to question Paul's peak rating potentially being 30+ points higher than Climo's peak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monocacy View Post
Oh, let's just let this sleeping dog lie. Please?
nah..I was never on board with the "impossible" thing either, "highly improbable" ? Yes. lol..
Sponsored Links

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 09-16-2020, 03:24 PM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is online now
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 31.6
Courses Played: 710
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 12,850
Niced 2,556 Times in 1,082 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscFifty View Post
My biggest concern is the fact that the ratings system has no cap. Is that correct? After viewing tournament data with much fewer high rated pros in the climo era, I'm starting to question Paul's peak rating potentially being 30+ points higher than Climo's peak.
Every course layout has a practical ratings cap in terms of how far below par the design allows that has no relation to how many highly rated players are in the field. Since the courses Paul plays in competition are longer on average than Climo's era, several more courses have more room to realistically shoot farther below true 1000-rated par (not the par set by TDs) including eagles. In addition, the phantom strokes embedded in excessive OB layouts inflates the true 1000 rated par making it easier to card penalty free scores farther under that par without actually shooting a lower score than when there's no tournament OB on that same layout.

Climo may have maxed out what rating was possible during his era with the shorter courses and limited OB compared to today. What we don't know is how much untapped potential he had to go higher if he were able to play the courses today with this equipment. I think we can project that Paul has the skills to match Climo if he played in that era. And we now know he has demonstrated the ability to go higher on these longer and sometimes OB laden courses. Climo never had the chance when he was peaking to see how well he could match Paul.

Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 09-16-2020, 11:51 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 14.3
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,627
Niced 613 Times in 365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscFifty View Post
nah..I was never on board with the "impossible" thing either, "highly improbable" ? Yes. lol..
I understand that's your opinion. But how well do you understand the mathematics and probability? Please allow me to clarify my statement about your "hypothetical" scenario:
It is not possible (intended) for a set or "better" players (set being of large enough number to draw valid and internally reliable conclusions from) to play worse than a set of "worse" players on the same legit course/same day/same format/same layout (legit meaning one for which no attempted manipulations of the ratings system have occurred with said course, and one of sufficient length and number of holes to be valid & reliable) for the entire round.
That's not possible.

If the "better players" somehow played worse than the "worse players," well they wouldn't really have been the better players in the first place -- by definition. If they are better, then they are. Which means they play better. One-offs can happen. But with sufficient numbers to draw valid and reliable conclusions, they can't. Impossible. Again, yes, you can plug those numbers into the computer with the formula and it will spit out a result. I'm just saying that said result has no validity and/or reliability to it, and therefore cannot callow any legitimate conclusions to be drawn from it.

You guys disagree, I get it. But no one had ever refuted that better players playing "worse" than worse players doesn't mean they were really worse players in the first place. The only examples I can think of involve manipulations (like Jugular talked about upthread), all of which rendered the experiment one which valid and reliable conclusions could not be drawn.
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 09-17-2020, 12:31 AM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is online now
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 31.6
Courses Played: 710
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 12,850
Niced 2,556 Times in 1,082 Posts
Default

Right now, there are 1000s of monkeys tapping away at old typewriters trying to prove that with enough time and effort, they could produce the exact script of a Shakespearean play, or any play for that matter.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 09-17-2020, 06:46 AM
jakebake91 jakebake91 is online now
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: West Central Wisconsin
Years Playing: 4.4
Courses Played: 7
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,797
Niced 1,312 Times in 651 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
Right now, there are 1000s of monkeys tapping away at old typewriters trying to prove that with enough time and effort, they could produce the exact script of a Shakespearean play, or any play for that matter.
Is it not impossible that, given an infinite amount of time, an infinite number of monkeys could really do that? Im sure we COULD calculate those odds.....

However, it's impossible. Why? Because there is a finite number of monkeys available for this exercise.



I love that old adage. Just want to pile on to the discussion here, adding absolutely nothing to it in the process. I love when we sink to petty arguments on semantics. Are we really splitting hairs here over .000000001% odds? I mean, I know life is boring right now for many of us, but jeez.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 09-17-2020, 09:44 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 46.4
Courses Played: 426
Posts: 5,455
Niced 2,223 Times in 1,067 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
...(set being of large enough number to draw valid and internally reliable conclusions from) to play worse than a set of "worse" players on the same legit course/same day/same format/same layout ...
You might be surprised at how many players that would actually take - and how different their ratings would have to be - to get very small chances of it happening.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 09-17-2020, 09:50 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 46.4
Courses Played: 426
Posts: 5,455
Niced 2,223 Times in 1,067 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakebake91 View Post
Is it not impossible that, given an infinite amount of time, an infinite number of monkeys could really do that? Im sure we COULD calculate those odds.....

However, it's impossible. Why? Because there is a finite number of monkeys available for this exercise.



I love that old adage. Just want to pile on to the discussion here, adding absolutely nothing to it in the process. I love when we sink to petty arguments on semantics. Are we really splitting hairs here over .000000001% odds? I mean, I know life is boring right now for many of us, but jeez.
From Wikipedia Infinite Monkey Theorem

Quote:
In 2002[12], lecturers and students from the University of Plymouth MediaLab Arts course used a 2,000 grant from the Arts Council to study the literary output of real monkeys. They left a computer keyboard in the enclosure of six Celebes crested macaques in Paignton Zoo in Devon, England for a month, with a radio link to broadcast the results on a website.[13]

Not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five total pages largely consisting of the letter 'S',[12] the lead male began striking the keyboard with a stone, and other monkeys followed by soiling it. Mike Phillips, director of the university's Institute of Digital Arts and Technology (i-DAT), said that the artist-funded project was primarily performance art, and they had learned "an awful lot" from it. He concluded that monkeys "are not random generators. They're more complex than that. ... They were quite interested in the screen, and they saw that when they typed a letter, something happened. There was a level of intention there."[13][14]

The full text created by the monkeys is available to read "here" (PDF).[12]
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 09-17-2020, 10:00 AM
jakebake91 jakebake91 is online now
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: West Central Wisconsin
Years Playing: 4.4
Courses Played: 7
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,797
Niced 1,312 Times in 651 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
From Wikipedia Infinite Monkey Theorem
But. That's a finite number of monkeys and a finite amount of time.



Just playing along with the theme of the thread.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 09-17-2020, 10:43 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 46.4
Courses Played: 426
Posts: 5,455
Niced 2,223 Times in 1,067 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakebake91 View Post
But. That's a finite number of monkeys and a finite amount of time.



Just playing along with the theme of the thread.
Infinity is cheating. Just as you can prove any incorrect math conjecture by including a step which divides by zero, when you invoke infinity you are operating outside the bounds of logic.
Reply With Quote
 

  #220  
Old 09-17-2020, 10:49 AM
jakebake91 jakebake91 is online now
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: West Central Wisconsin
Years Playing: 4.4
Courses Played: 7
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,797
Niced 1,312 Times in 651 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Infinity is cheating. Just as you can prove any incorrect math conjecture by including a step which divides by zero, when you invoke infinity you are operating outside the bounds of logic.
Agreed. But isn't the number still calculable?
Maybe it's not an infinite number of monkeys. Maybe that number is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 monkeys given 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years?

Isn't that the thing we are arguing about here? Things being "mathematically possible"?

My point in all this is ......the original argument taking place, in my opinion, is just silly.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hey all! Joxiam Newbie Intros and Q&A 1 06-04-2017 03:46 PM
HEY HEY >>> JK Aviar: pre #'s, orange/yellow/color pablo.diablo The Marketplace 13 04-30-2013 10:06 AM
Hey! Help me help you QuinnAA199 The Marketplace 1 03-09-2013 08:39 AM
HEY, HEY,HEY!!!! JustSayin' The Marketplace 0 11-10-2010 12:01 AM
HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY - cool your jets. JTacoma03 The Marketplace 20 08-26-2010 10:35 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.