Are ratings worthless?

[Cgkdisc]

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.

Yep. I was going to post I've shot the course record several times on courses I've just installed but didn't post it as such.

Course records can be something of an ego battle between a designer and top player, one trying to defend it and one trying to break it. In the 2001 Pro Worlds, Co-TD, Lee Rife, and courses designer, me, posted a $500 bounty for any player who could shoot double digits down on any of the four courses played. I knew in advance from testing that the SSAs and Pars were the same on all four courses and what the odds were for players of the ratings in the event to shoot -10. Every pro was certain the bounty would be won on this course or that course. The only player who came close was Cam Todd who sat at -8 at North Valley with two holes to go in the semis. He parred out and the bounty was saved. That was the first-time ratings, which were still in development, were used in a major way to estimate probabilities for an under/over scoring "wager".

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm more shameless. When I set a record with the first round on a new layout here, I boasted, and would have put up a brass monument had the record lasted more than 2 hours.

In our early days at Stoney Hill -- when we only had 18 holes and a single layout -- for a while we ran a bounty on a course record, on the principles of an ace pool. Pay in, if you set a new record you win the pot. We allowed people to re-set at any point so that, say, if you double-bogeyed hole 5, you could pay again starting on 6, and play from 6 back around to 5. It was for fun.

Every once in a while a visitor asks what the course record is, out of curiosity. I think I know the answer on the oldest layout, for tournament play, but we no longer hold tournaments with Open divisions, so it'll last for a while. The other main layout has evolved so much that records seem meaningless.

In keeping with this thread, we could ask whether course records are worthless. I'd say, not entirely, but they have far less value than ratings.

 

[Steve West]

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

What goes on in Chuck's mind is so expansive that those two concepts occupy almost the same proportionately miniscule space in his thoughts. You're trying to point out the difference between Manhattan and The Bronx to someone looking down from outside the solar system.

 

[biscoe]

What goes on in Chuck's mind is so expansive that those two concepts occupy almost the same proportionately miniscule space in his thoughts. You're trying to point out the difference between Manhattan and The Bronx to someone looking down from outside the solar system.

He is talking to earthlings however, we can't be expected to extrapolate our way into outer space.

 

[DavidSauls]

There's something to be said for fully exploring something by viewing it from every conceivable angle. It can provoke and stimulate discussion.

Sometimes the discussion ends up being, "Stop right there. You've carried things too far".

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

I like the PDGA rating system. It's a fairly accurate gauge of ability, and it gives me a goal to shoot for. I enjoy the idea of a big Disc Golf Math Formula In The Sky that everybody is a small part of. Thanks Chuck!

 

[smoothplayer]

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:

Yeah Fountain Hills. He had an 1108 rating there this year also.

 

[@CD-]

Generally I think anyone within 1 STDEV of rating points of the top rated player in a division has a decent chance to win a 3-4 round event. Add 0.5 more STDEV for each round less than 3.

STDEV is interesting to look at for the 1050ish rated players to see who is the most consistent over the last year. McBeth & Heimburg have the higher STDEV so they are more likely to shoot hot rounds/course records. Dickerson & Wysocki both shoot more consistent golf by STDEV which puts them in the podium positions more often (to begin final rounds at least). McMahon is closer in STDEV to Heimburg/McBeth recently.

At the touring pro level the rating system still has a high level of accuracy and weekend to weekend results can highlight players that are improving or becoming more consistent across the variety of courses on tour.

This kind of analysis still makes the PDGA ratings worthwhile at all levels of play for me. I've yet to see a better option put forward to rate players at all levels.