Hampstead
* Ace Member *
-childish giggle-
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
FPO/MPO Ratings questions
- Thread starter glassila
- Start date
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Here are the results of a study I did on MPO versus FPO/GM+ rating equivalency from 2001 Pro Worlds scoring on the Oakwood course. That Oakwood layout was evenly split between shorter, tight wooded holes and longer, mostly open holes. All players played the same tees. One data pool included MPO players who averaged 950 rating. The other data pool included FPO and some GM 50+ players who averaged 950.
Both groups averaged the same score on the course so the 950-rating average indicated similar skill level. However, when broken out by hole type, on the 9 wooded holes, the FPO/GM group average 2 throws better than the MPO. On the 9 longer, mostly open holes, the MPO averaged 2 throws better than the FPO/GM group. One perhaps unsurprising conclusion might be that players in these two pools at the same rating have developed different skill sets to perform at the same level, i.e., MPO throws farther and FPO/GM+ throw more accurately and/or putt a bit better.
So, players of the same rating playing an open and long course likely favors MPO players but playing a shorter, wooded course likely favors FPO and older players, that is if these groups are competing against each other. This is normally not the case, although they are typically playing either the same course or different layouts, still with the same terrain. Granted, it's only one old study, but I'm not aware of any others done since then where performance between similarly rated pools of these two groups on different terrain was compared.
Both groups averaged the same score on the course so the 950-rating average indicated similar skill level. However, when broken out by hole type, on the 9 wooded holes, the FPO/GM group average 2 throws better than the MPO. On the 9 longer, mostly open holes, the MPO averaged 2 throws better than the FPO/GM group. One perhaps unsurprising conclusion might be that players in these two pools at the same rating have developed different skill sets to perform at the same level, i.e., MPO throws farther and FPO/GM+ throw more accurately and/or putt a bit better.
So, players of the same rating playing an open and long course likely favors MPO players but playing a shorter, wooded course likely favors FPO and older players, that is if these groups are competing against each other. This is normally not the case, although they are typically playing either the same course or different layouts, still with the same terrain. Granted, it's only one old study, but I'm not aware of any others done since then where performance between similarly rated pools of these two groups on different terrain was compared.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,840
Just for fun, I looked at the expected scores by player rating for FPO vs MPO at the Mid-America Open.
For the range of ratings where MPO and FPO overlap, FPO had higher scores for their player rating. Based on these results, a 950-rated FPO player has the same expected score as a 933-rated MPO player, while an 862-rated FPO would have about the same expected score as an 862-rated MPO.
But, that could just be a fluke from one tournament. A real examination would do this for every hole which both FPO and MPO played across all tournaments. Since ratings are a very important part of the value of a PDGA membership, there should be an audit team doing this.
No matter the system, it takes smart people getting paid to do hard work to keep it working as it should.
For the range of ratings where MPO and FPO overlap, FPO had higher scores for their player rating. Based on these results, a 950-rated FPO player has the same expected score as a 933-rated MPO player, while an 862-rated FPO would have about the same expected score as an 862-rated MPO.
But, that could just be a fluke from one tournament. A real examination would do this for every hole which both FPO and MPO played across all tournaments. Since ratings are a very important part of the value of a PDGA membership, there should be an audit team doing this.
No matter the system, it takes smart people getting paid to do hard work to keep it working as it should.
Attachments
Well yeah, most of the discussion has been specifically around Paige and how she plays on elite level courses designed for people who throw 450-600' on average, which she's on the lower end of.
She's designed her game around being a long thrower and when that effect is minimized she may have a ratings drop off. Also, when people play courses that aren't designed for them/well suited for their game, they tend to play worse, y'know like men who throw 350-400' on elite level courses or bomber players playing pitch & putt C-tiers.
The majority of players chasing 1000 rating will not be playing courses designed for the top elite players on the regular, yeah you'll see some mid-to-high 900s players in all DGPT events, but only a fraction of those are attending many of them and they only represent a small portion of disc golfers in that range. And yet I don't see anyone claiming you're not a 1000 rated player unless you're touring.
If you look at the Vintage Open, a course which aspires to be an Elite Series event but doesn't quite reach it, challenging players like Ricky Wysocki, you'll see that the women were on average ~17 rating points lower than the men who shot the same score as them and got lower ratings overall for the same scores as the men because they played better relative to their rating.
If anything that would be an indicator that perhaps the FPO field is undervalued in terms of ratings, but I'm not jumping to any conclusions because, y'know, a limited sample size can lead you astray.
IN my initial response I said similar conditions. Throw out every thought/example where the conditions aren't similar, if you're replying to my initial thoght.
BillFleming
* Ace Member *
Disc golf ratings aren't as clear as Ball golf ratings. In ball golf, your rating (handicap) is based on par (not on weather, not on the 'field'). Shoot par and you are a scratch golfer. BUT, men play in the PGA from the back tees and women play in the LPGA from different tees. Par might be the same on a hole, but for the women, the hole is shorter since they don't play from the back tees. A scratch male golfer and a scratch woman golfer are not the same. If both play the same course from the same tees, the male has the advantage. ((Ball golf also uses Slope ratings....but this is the rating of the course, not the player. Handicaps are adjusted based on the player's rating and the course's Slope rating)).
For examples: check out Annika Sorenstam, Michelle Wie, Babe Didrikson Zaharias....they all competed in the PGA against men and I don't believe they ever made the cut even though they were the top female golfers of their time.
So...disc golf ratings are similar...but use more data (tee pads, distances, par, weather, players). FPO has an 'advantage' over MPO as they frequently play from shorter tee pads and shorter holes. True, it's not every hole, but enough to make a difference. And for some holes where both MPO/FPO play from the same tee pad and the same length, sometimes the par is different. I don't believe a MPO 1000 and FPO 1000 are equivalent 'head-to-head' (same exact course: tee pads, length, par) because they are rated on different course set-ups.
For examples: check out Annika Sorenstam, Michelle Wie, Babe Didrikson Zaharias....they all competed in the PGA against men and I don't believe they ever made the cut even though they were the top female golfers of their time.
So...disc golf ratings are similar...but use more data (tee pads, distances, par, weather, players). FPO has an 'advantage' over MPO as they frequently play from shorter tee pads and shorter holes. True, it's not every hole, but enough to make a difference. And for some holes where both MPO/FPO play from the same tee pad and the same length, sometimes the par is different. I don't believe a MPO 1000 and FPO 1000 are equivalent 'head-to-head' (same exact course: tee pads, length, par) because they are rated on different course set-ups.
You are drastically underselling the importance of slope rating and completely ignoring course rating and how they impact score differential (and thus, impact a golfer's handicap). A 0 GHIN handicap golfer is a scratch golfer, regardless of gender. Michelle Wie (roughly a scratch golfer) missing the cut on the PGA Tour against a field where nearly every man is BETTER than scratch, does not prove that a scratch male golfer is better than a scratch female golfer.
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
She only missed the cut by one shot iirc... and she was only 14
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
More clear is not more accurate. Handicaps are not based on par but your handicap in relation to the specific scratch course index (not based on par) and slope. Here's an analogy that might help. Think of propagators as DG course rating thermometers. They "measure" the course rating during a round in the same way thermometers measure temperature during a round if each player carried one.
People have no issue adding up the temperature readings taken during the round, dividing by the number of readings and thinking that's a legit average along with recording the hi/lo values for the round. But many people struggle with the idea that using propagator ratings and scores (the only data used, no par, length, weather, terrain) is an appropriate real-time way to determine a course rating for the round.
For example, if at day-end, you hadn't gone outside and someone asked you what the temperature range was today, would you Google and recite the historical average temp range for May 14th (like a fixed ball golf course index) or provide the actual temp range recorded that day (like the dynamic DG propagator generated course index)?
No question that thermometers have a tighter performance standard deviation than human propagators. However, the more propagators playing, the more precise their performance average becomes to produce a legit course index for that round. There appears to be no other way than using a pool of "predictable performance range players" to produce real-time course ratings.
ETA: Cgkdisc said some of this first.
Your ball golf handicap is not based on the level par for the course. It's based on the course rating and slope. Those are somewhat related to par, but mostly are determined by experts reviewing the course characteristics to determine what the "ideal" scratch golfer would shoot, and what the "ideal" 18 handicap golfer would shoot. The scratch golfer ideal score is the rating for tee and course, the slope is determined by determining the ratio between the scratch score and the bogey score.
Different sets of tees will have different ratings, despite the par remaining the same, and this makes perfect sense, otherwise playing from different tees would artificially raise or lower your handicap.
Those ideal golfers are expected to have specific qualities. I'm not sure what they are now, but the expected driving carry distances for scratch golfers used to be 250 yds, and 200 yards for bogey golfers, IIRC. Thus if you need to carry it 210 off the tee to clear some trouble, the ideal bogey golfer will be expected to score far worse on that hole than a scratch golfer
IIRC, men's and women's course/tee ratings usually are different, as the "ideal" male and female golfer are different. The "ideal" male golfer is expected to hit the ball farther than the "ideal" female golfer.
Ball golf handicaps are calculated completely differently than DG ratings, and aren't really comparable, IMO, despite the apparent similarities. Ball golf requires that you officially record any round in which you keep score. "Casual" play is the primary determinant of most ball golfers handicaps. DG only has official tournament play determining ratings.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,180
Do you think this holds up 20 years on? With the development of the FPO game in the last 5 years, I suspect not. One big difference with the open holes between then and now will be the miles and miles of ropes often now in play.
This will mean less aggressive play can now be rewarded on the open holes more than in the past. Length without accuracy these days will add arbitrary strokes where in 2001 there would have been a lot more opportunities to birdie and recover par on the poor drives. The majority of that 2001 FPO field would not have had the distance on many holes to get the birdie. Some of the players in the FPO field were the equivalent of MA4 level players of today.
I would love to see some more in depth analysis of this now.
Sidenote, was that Ed Headricks last Worlds/Tournament?
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,840
Send me a reminder after the season is over. When the weather gets cold.
