The percentage system, in my opinion, is flawed. In most cases, a birdie on a hole with a SSA of 3 is not any more difficult than a birdie on a hole with a SSA of 4. Yet the current rankings system says that it is.
The logic that "shooting a 40 on a SSA 50 is more impressive than shooting 60 on a SSA 72 because 80% is less than 83%" doesn't work because such calculations use "0" as a starting point (because 40 is 80% of the way between 0 and 50). "0" is a natural starting point for most percentages, but it might as well be an imaginary number when comparing strokes in disc golf, as shooting a zero is impossible.
That is why you get such screwy results like this tournament:
McBeth shoots a 14 down, breaking a course record on a nasty course with roughly a billion trees that has been played over and over again by the best players in the world. He has circle 2 birdie putts on literally every hole. Didn't have to scramble once for an entire round! Then, he makes five or six circle 2 putts. Yet, according to round ratings, this year's Memorial saw FOURTEEN ROUNDS better than his. At last year's Memorial, his 1062 rating was met or exceeded 21 times. This is obviously ridiculous.
A formula could be built using standard deviations as its core mechanic that would fix all of the inconsistencies.
Doesn't the Memorial have a lot more higher rated players in attendance?
I'm pretty sure that matters with the current rating system.
Not saying right or wrong, just that I believe that is a factor