Are ratings worthless?

[Cgkdisc]

By this logic the first round of an event would never be rated.



mixed groups occur to some degree or another in many if not most events- the player's responsibility to the rules is unchanged.

TD's have the option to note changes in playing conditions in the TD report.

There's enough evidence one rounders are different games than 2 or more rounders. The bigger advantage for TDs in separating out ratings for one-rounders would be to gain more participation from players who think one rounders will hurt or can hurt their tournament ratings and Biscoe might like PDGA leagues a bit more?

 

[dndelli]

But again not accurate course to course which really matters. If McBeth played all his rated golf at 1132 town he might be 1070 rated. So the math simply breaks down if players do not travel and play a lot of different courses.

It's OK to admit the system is flawed.

I don't think the system is flawed, I think you're just wanting it to be something that it is not. It is a tool that has been developed to track relative performance over a period of time because not all courses are the same difficulty. Not all courses in the same "difficulty" are the same difficulty. I've played Red (Rec) courses that are harder than nearby Blue (Advanced) courses because par is relative to whoever the course designer is. In the system there is some inherent built in variance, so courses are typically "graded" on a variety of factors and not strictly the rating. And the ranges for determining difficulty of a course is usually within a set range, and these ranges often overlap.

The other thing to note, is that ratings allow for things such as weather to be taken into consideration when judging the relative performance on a given round. If someone shoots -6 on a sunny, blue sky, low wind day - they are probably not going to have a round rating as high as they would shooting a -6 on the same course on a particularly windy or rainy day.

As with any statistic the PDGA Rating system should be viewed as a guideline, which is does a great job at performing its given function. And as with any statistic it is not perfect and therefore technically possibly to be "abused", depending on your definition of abused. There of course would be little benefit to abuse the system other than personal ego inflation. With enough rounds played, the system works itself out.

While not a perfect example, quarterbacks in Football are often judged by their completion percentage, but that statistic does not factor in how many of their passes are dropped. NBA players are often judged by their free throw percentages, but people rarely look at how many free throws players attempt per game to realize the difference between an abysmal 70% free throw percentage is only about 1.2 points different for most players compared to an upper end 86% percentage. In golf Greens in Regulation can be skewed because of how they are often shaped and sometimes it's better to be off the green on the correct side then on the green on the wrong side.

 

[smoothplayer]

I don't think the system is flawed, I think you're just wanting it to be something that it is not. It is a tool that has been developed to track relative performance over a period of time because not all courses are the same difficulty. Not all courses in the same "difficulty" are the same difficulty. I've played Red (Rec) courses that are harder than nearby Blue (Advanced) courses because par is relative to whoever the course designer is. In the system there is some inherent built in variance, so courses are typically "graded" on a variety of factors and not strictly the rating. And the ranges for determining difficulty of a course is usually within a set range, and these ranges often overlap.

The other thing to note, is that ratings allow for things such as weather to be taken into consideration when judging the relative performance on a given round. If someone shoots -6 on a sunny, blue sky, low wind day - they are probably not going to have a round rating as high as they would shooting a -6 on the same course on a particularly windy or rainy day.

As with any statistic the PDGA Rating system should be viewed as a guideline, which is does a great job at performing its given function. And as with any statistic it is not perfect and therefore technically possibly to be "abused", depending on your definition of abused. There of course would be little benefit to abuse the system other than personal ego inflation. With enough rounds played, the system works itself out.

While not a perfect example, quarterbacks in Football are often judged by their completion percentage, but that statistic does not factor in how many of their passes are dropped. NBA players are often judged by their free throw percentages, but people rarely look at how many free throws players attempt per game to realize the difference between an abysmal 70% free throw percentage is only about 1.2 points different for most players compared to an upper end 86% percentage. In golf Greens in Regulation can be skewed because of how they are often shaped and sometimes it's better to be off the green on the correct side then on the green on the wrong side.

Sandbagging to stay in a lower division and win said division (prize payouts)?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Sandbagging to stay in a lower division and win said division (prize payouts)?

Cost to sandbag and drop your rating is usually greater than the potential rewards, especially when it's difficult for players to figure out how much to tank their round just enough to not have it dropped. The ratings process has been specifically tuned to reduce the ability and increase the cost to sandbag.

 

[Steve West]

Cost to sandbag and drop your rating is usually greater than the potential rewards, especially when it's difficult for players to figure out how much to tank their round just enough to not have it dropped. The ratings process has been specifically tuned to reduce the ability and increase the cost to sandbag.

Yep, the more prevalent way to win without getting better is to try to shame everyone in your division who is better than you to "play up" into another division - by calling THEM the baggers.

 

[txmxer]

Cost to sandbag and drop your rating is usually greater than the potential rewards, especially when it's difficult for players to figure out how much to tank their round just enough to not have it dropped. The ratings process has been specifically tuned to reduce the ability and increase the cost to sandbag.

come on Chuck...everyone knows that people are sandbagging all the time to win an extra $20 coupon for a disc. They plan it out over almost a years time dropping their rating so they can win MA3. It's a great honor don't ya know.

 

[Cgkdisc]

come on Chuck...everyone knows that people are sandbagging all the time to win an extra $20 coupon for a disc. They plan it out over almost a years time dropping their rating so they can win MA3. It's a great honor don't ya know.

The sandbagging loophole is not joining the PDGA to avoid getting a rating so you can enter a lower division. I tried to close that loophole when on the Competition Committee, but they didn't pull the trigger to implement one of the options.

 

[VictorB]

The sandbagging loophole is not joining the PDGA to avoid getting a rating so you can enter a lower division. I tried to close that loophole when on the Competition Committee, but they didn't pull the trigger to implement one of the options.

at least now their rewards are limited to C-tiers

 

[araytx]

McBeth destroys the course the last day, course record by 4 shots yet is "only" 1091?

Point of clarification. (minor) McBeth beat the course record by three strokes. Gannon Buhr had set it at 55 (-13) a few minutes before him.

 

[araytx]

I've been around a while…
This is not the first thread criticizing our present ratings system.
Even the system's designer acknowledges that it isn't perfect.

I'm still waiting on all these critics to propose and outline a better alternative.
(In fairness, I think Steve West proposed an alternative, but nobody except Chuck understood it.)

Yes! I was taught not to criticize others unless you can do better yourself!

 

[araytx]

But again not accurate course to course which really matters. If McBeth played all his rated golf at 1132 town he might be 1070 rated. So the math simply breaks down if players do not travel and play a lot of different courses.

It's OK to admit the system is flawed.

huh??

If ALL his rounds were at the 1132 rating he would be 1070? Is that what you just said? Really? Did you mean just playing Fountain Hills?

:wall:

 

[Cgkdisc]

Side note: Course records are only "estimates" until a large enough pool of top-rated players has posted their best score.

 

[ChrisWoj]

The sandbagging loophole is not joining the PDGA to avoid getting a rating so you can enter a lower division. I tried to close that loophole when on the Competition Committee, but they didn't pull the trigger to implement one of the options.

"Execute... order... 66."

 

[biscoe]

Side note: Course records are only "estimates" until a large enough pool of top-rated players has posted their best score.

:wall::wall:

 

[Flick Maniac]

what, what, lol

I - as any logical person ought to - see "course record" as "the lowest score posted at this course so far (in a PDGA sanctioned event)"

not as "best score you could concievably post at this course by the best players in the world on their A game and getting a little lucky while theyre at it".

 

[glassila]

I checked out most of smoothplayer's posts....I'm pretty sure he ain't the old man.

...disregard my previous post. :doh:

 

[DavidSauls]

Perhaps a protege?

 

[DavidSauls]

Side note: Course records are only "estimates" until a large enough pool of top-rated players has posted their best score.

Sorry, but best score ever qualifies. You can set criteria (tournament, sanctioned round, verified by witnesses, whatever), but the best score ever under that criteria is a record.

When we created new a new layout on our course and I won the first round on it, that was a course record. A very short-lived one, it's true, but still a record.

 

[Cgkdisc]

what, what, lol

I - as any logical person ought to - see "course record" as "the lowest score posted at this course so far (in a PDGA sanctioned event)"

not as "best score you could conceivably post at this course by the best players in the world on their A game and getting a little lucky while theyre at it".

My point about course records is commentators and viewers shouldn't be surprised or amazed when the top bombers finally come to town and set new course records by two or three shots. A new record would be predictable when many players at that level are throwing multiple rounds on a layout that had only been played in competition by local or regional players. In many elite events, the course is a one-off temp layout so the best round in the event IS the record. Even if the layout is "permanent" like Jackson, as Dixon pointed out on Facebook, the rough had been opened up for spectators (and more trees had naturally come down since the last big event) producing an easier scrambling challenge than before.

Regardless, course records are fun to post on any course layout at any level. Top bomber Alex Geisinger goes around town to eventually deuce every hole on our mostly blue and lower-level layouts, even legit par 4s for those levels, but doesn't ruin the fun for players at those lower levels who set course records in leagues or events. Private courses would do well for promotional purposes to post course records on their website for a variety of divisions, ages and skill levels so customers have a reference target for measuring their round, especially when there are multiple layouts that might be played at any time.

 

[DavidSauls]

My point about course records is commentators and viewers shouldn't be surprised or amazed when the top bombers finally come to town and set new course records by two or three shots. A new record would be predictable when many players at that level are throwing multiple rounds on a layout that had only been played in competition by local or regional players...

True, but it's a leap from saying we "shouldn't be surprised" to "it's not really a record".