2011 USDGC Format To Change To Handcap + Stroke Scoring

[harr0140]

Agree. Ams grow the sport. Am tournaments fund the clubs that purchase the equipment and build the courses. This does more than any pro winning an event.

That being said. The amount of work that Innova does to prep the course is mind boggling. They only have like 30 employees in Rock Hill and most of them are out for a month straight setting up, running, and tearing down the course, working 12-16 hr days. They provide that labor, loss in facility efficiency, and then even provide cash to the event as a sponsor. Anyone who questions Innovas support for the USDGC is ignorant in my opinion. No event currently has as much effort put into the set up and tear down. They have all the right in the world to say they can't handle it every year or that they would like to reward the actual growth sector (Ams) with a USDGC.

I still dont like the format, but thats just my opinion.

This seems like the most logical understanding of the situation and I agree 100%. Everyone has a right to complain (freedom of speech), but in the end it is the people doing the work that have the right to change it. I like that they are giving the ams and lesser known pros a chance to get into a nationwide tournament, but in the end I think it will end up being like the recent golf tour started that is handicapped. I just don't think people will care much about it because it is handicapped and it isnt truly the best players it is the sandbaggers and the quickly improving players of all levels. WOuld I want to play in it . . .sure, but I know there are people who would be cheating the system whether intentionally or not who have a more likely shot at winning the event.

 

[1978]

God! why can't the system they are attempting to work the kinks out of and still have a year to perfect be perfect now?

Exactly, why anounce an event and qualifiers and not have it pre-tested? I agree with you, it is crazy to think that people will qualify in the beginning of the year under one set of rules and potentially other players will qualify later as "kinks" are worked out.

Good point Frank.

 

[Frank Delicious]

I was talking about the handicapping system which you guys are speculating on.

Also how else are you gonna "pre-test" it without doing it?

 

[Cgkdisc]

I think the handicap format is fine but I agree the qualification process may need some tweaking after seeing what happens this coming year. I could see randomly drawing 10 players from those who finish in the top 3-5 in certain divisions at a qualifier being just as fair as the way it looks like will be used for 2011. Not sure there's a perfect way to determine qualifiers for a handicap championship but simply different trade-offs among different options for doing it.

 

[Frank Delicious]

What I am saying is that there are a lot of things to bitch at the PDGA for but them putting on a USDGC that gives more people the chance to qualify and play in is really not one of them. The handicapping system seems fair and I really don't care if some 920 rated player should actually be rated 940 when he gets to the USDGC b/c that course is a beast and the two strokes or whatever he will be comped can easily be lost with one throw on any hole on the course.

 

[1978]

I was talking about the handicapping system which you guys are speculating on.

Also how else are you gonna "pre-test" it without doing it?

How about finding a regional DG area and set up 3 B and C tournaments that qualify you for a season ending event. Say - Philadelphia area. Run 3 C-Tiers, Select 10 qualifiers from each and have them play a season ending Philly Open event. All sponsored by Innova. You will expand DG in that area with the 4 new tournaments, be able to test that your handicapping system is working and see how a finals would pan out. THEN you apply it to something as prestigious as an off year USDGC. I mean Charlotte has 4-5 C-Tiers, 2 A Tiers, and a B-Tier this year. The USDGC could easily have tested on those 7 events and sponsored a year end event to make sure Handicapping actually works. Then apply it to a major tournament in 2012 and the USDGC in 2013.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The PDGA has little control over the USDGC and had little influence regarding the USDGC format change. I believe the PDGA may have preferred the USDGC continue what it was doing because now the pressure is on the PDGA to come up with a replacement event as Tour Finale in the odd years. Harold and Brian talk regularly to coordinate things between the PDGA and Innova where appropriate. But the only primary influence the PDGA has related to the USDGC is whether to sanction the event and supply support help such as marshals and help for scoring. The USDGC does more for the PDGA and its pro members by hosting a high profile, big money event which has doubled as the National Tour finale until 2011.

 

[Frank Delicious]

Was the handicapped USDGC even being planned early enough to be able to do a year long test like that? That sounds like a pretty good idea but it depends on how early this was all planned.

 

[Cgkdisc]

They have been testing handicapping for years with the DGU service and also as a side event at the USDGC.

 

[Frank Delicious]

Sorry I typed that post up all wrong, I was talking about the qualifying schedule test thing in 1978's post

 

[1978]

They have been testing handicapping for years with the DGU service and also as a side event at the USDGC.

very few people at the USDGC are going to improve quickly year over year. If you were in the lower tier of rated players you were probably a NT TD or a state rep. You can't qualify that way with out years of DG experience. This is a very safe environment for handicapping as the players year over year are consistent as are their ratings. Looking at the handicap sheet last year I was amazed at the number of repeat USDGC qualifiers. There are only a select few that are willing to pay $200 for DG.
I don't think the lessons learned here can be applied nation wide at A-Tier pro/am events.

 

[Cgkdisc]

My point is the handicapping process itself doesn't need any testing. The best way to select players for this handicapped championship might need some tweaking.

 

[Frank Delicious]

My point is the handicapping process itself doesn't need any testing. The best way to select players for this handicapped championship might need some tweaking.

This is a post I agree with.

 

[1978]

My point is the handicapping process itself doesn't need any testing. The best way to select players for this handicapped championship might need some tweaking.

agree.

 

[ERicJ]

Where is the actual handicapping system documented?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Proprietary but based on the same process as PDGA round ratings. It has calculations built-in to deal with sandbagging which is one reason the details aren't disclosed. The system produces a projected score which is the target a player would be expected to shoot on a specific course SSA. Players are ranked based on how many shots they beat (or exceed) their projected score in that round (automatically calculated in advance) making it easy for the TD to tally results.

 

[ERicJ]

Proprietary but based on the same process as PDGA round ratings. It has calculations built-in to deal with sandbagging which is one reason the details aren't disclosed. The system produces a projected score which is the target a player would be expected to shoot on a specific course SSA. Players are ranked based on how many shots they beat (or exceed) their projected score in that round (automatically calculated in advance) making it easy for the TD to tally results.

Are the projected scores disclosed to the players?

How are the projected scores calculated in advance if they're based on SSA of the course which shouldn't be known until after the round has been played?

 

[mashnut]

Are the projected scores disclosed to the players?

How are the projected scores calculated in advance if they're based on SSA of the course which shouldn't be known until after the round has been played?

Both good questions. It would be a totally different competition if you knew what you and your competitors needed to score ahead of time (more like a traditional competition where you always know where you stand in relation to the people you're playing with).

 

[Cgkdisc]

Projected scores are given to the players. I believe those were displayed for the USDGC players this year in the Fantasy league contest. It's not that mysterious. For a 50 SSA course, a 900 rated player would have a projected score of 59 if they give you 90% of your true handicap of 10.

SSA just has to be close (+/-2), not exact because evey player is affected by the same amount. DGU has the database of PDGA course SSAs which has been distilled so they can calculate SSAs for maybe 1000 courses. But Winthrop is all that matters for the 2011 USDGC. Handicaps aren't involved in qualifying. It's strictly how much you exceed your current rating on average over the 4 rounds of a qualifier event.

 

[Rip Van]

Proprietary but based on the same process as PDGA round ratings. It has calculations built-in to deal with sandbagging which is one reason the details aren't disclosed. The system produces a projected score which is the target a player would be expected to shoot on a specific course SSA.

To put things in perspective, the BCS uses a much more understandable formula.