McBeth vs. Climo

[Spiky]

It's the exact same thing as this thread, in a different sport. Do you not know what I'm talking about?

Mine was just an add-on to Karl's post, anyway.

 

[araytx]

That's exactly the point. I see the ratings as a measure of how well the player shoots. Long-term, a player with a 10 point rating advantage over another player will win more events, that's math. Especially, if you take it as Steve and others have presented ratings, that it is this universal number that encompasses all players and goes back to the beginning. If that assesment is correct, then we have to accept that the rating between those two players means something. I don't know that I buy that, but I'm not covering reality, only the reality that exists if we accept that ratings are universal and always cross-compatible.

The Feldberg case is interesting. David hit 1046 once. For a couple month period. He had a three-year stretch where he consistently was over 1040. I'm guessing that's when he won worlds and displaced Ken, but I've not looked. Paul has been over 1040 for the past six years, and often enough over 1050. If we take the meat of those two periods, and put them head to head, you've got some damn good golf, equivalent to the Ricky Paul competition. If you take the meat of that three year period, David is beating Ken at any period during Ken's career, if ratings match up, one to one.

You can't factor in how these players would match up, i.e. how the head to head match up would go, in terms of mental toughness. I grant that, but neither David or Ken had Ricky breathing down their necks. I think a good argument can be made that Paul had more pressure, but I've not gone player to player to see who pressured them, so I wouldn't bet on that.

As many have pointed out, it changes due to the fact that Paul gets to make this a career, David was closer to that status than Ken. How would those player's ratings have changed if they were here today? That goes back to my original question. What happens if you move players around in time?

But, the flat out assessment of who's better, based on ratings, well, Paul wins, he beats Feldberg and Climo, based on length of being at the top, and overall ratings. BTW - If you simply move Ricky into Feldberg's prime or Climo's prime, the world is a very different place. Neither looks nearly as dominant. Climo was lucky, he became dominant before the sport "took off." He couldn't do what he did back then, today. IMO, no one could.

Easy to say, my friend, and actually very true if (AND ONLY IF) all is equal. But it wasn't/isn't. And a fact in just about any sport -- this is a fun conversation, but comparisons across different eras is not by any means as "scientific" as you implied. For instance, Paul is not just doing this as his full time job, he also has a full time athletic training routine, sponsors paying for his travel and entries, speed 12-13-14 overstable drivers, etc. etc. Yet Ken C found a way to throw between 480-500 ft with an Eagle as his fastest, most overstable driver. Pressure? In Champ's day if you didn't win you couldn't keep touring. Livelihood is much more pressure than a player who's close to or just as good as you. A person CAN'T with any accuracy say Ken would have still maxed at a 1042-1044 rating in today's game -- you truly do not know that. You can't say he wouldn't have stayed in that range for 6 years; heck, having seen Kenny play I believe (with my own eyes) that Champ might have been 1050+ for 10 years. But similarly, no one can say that either with any accuracy.

GOAT or "best ever" discussions are an exercise in both opinion and value system at best. To me (and not just in disc golf) I consider the best ever in any sport to be he/she who showed the greatest level of dominance at his game over time. For me it's Babe Ruth, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Roger Federer, Serena Williams, Jack Nicklaus, etc. Football is harder because offensive players and defensive players are different; as are QBs. But if I were picking it'd be offensive player- J. Rice, defense - L. Taylor, QB - Elway.

All that being said. There us no doubt that Ken Climo had the longest sustained period of dominance in our sport -- in rating, in winning big events, and in winning overall -- combined. And as I often point out, Kenny shot the then-record 1117-rated round when he was 42 years old!!! Not during his magical run in the 90s. Pressure?? That's getting a par 3 on the first hole, and then making 23 birdie twos in a row. Twenty-three!!! [More effective if I spell it out.] I wasn't there, but having talked to people who were, they said Champ was making putts from everywhere -- 40-50-& 60-footers. He wasnt parking all the holes with his 42-year-old body. Paul hasn't even had the chance yet to shoot 1100 in his 30s yet much less his 40s. I'm not saying Paul might not one day be the best ever; I'm just saying he isn't yet. If he were as you and others might believe, then you'd have to agree that if he retired or had a career-ending injury tomorrow, you'd still consider him the GOAT.


And finally, ratings weren't even a part of disc golf until 1998; Champ had 8 World Titles by then and was already in his 30s. We LITERALLY don't know what his rating was while he was dominating from 1990-1997.

Lyle?

 

[2naphish]

Would McBeth be as dominate, if he had a real day job all this time in order to support playing disc golf?

of course not. he would be busy dragging his tail around like everyone else.

dreams fulfilled are for those willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish them. the lucky few are not burdened with the constant drag of reality bearing down on them.

that and a whole lot of natural talent.

 

[araytx]

.

I said, Lyle??????

 

[BlueMonk]

It should. There's an unbroken chain of ratings compared to ratings to ratings, etc.

Unless there is some sort of built-in bias to deflate or inflate the value of ratings over time (in terms of the skill it takes to get a particular rating).

Which there very well could be. However, it would seem that even a small bias would obviously manifest itself over 24 years. At an accelerated rate as the "generations" of ratings recalculations (average time between events) are getting shorter. Yet, so far, I haven't seen evidence for that.

So, best guess is that they are directly comparable.

If you haven't checked this yet, last week's episode of the Ultiworld Podcast features Aaron Howard and he addresses the rating inflation question. I can't remember exactly where in the podcast it comes up. Spoiler alert: He says yes, there is rating inflation.

https://discgolf.ultiworld.com/2019/04/24/upshot-gbo-preview-aaron-howard/

 

[Steve West]

If you haven't checked this yet, last week's episode of the Ultiworld Podcast features Aaron Howard and he addresses the rating inflation question. I can't remember exactly where in the podcast it comes up. Spoiler alert: He says yes, there is rating inflation.

https://discgolf.ultiworld.com/2019/04/24/upshot-gbo-preview-aaron-howard/

Thanks for the link, it was an interesting discussion. But it didn't address what we're talking about here.

He mentions the words, but he doesn't define what he means by it, nor provide any evidence for it. Most of what he is talking about is that it takes higher round ratings to win because more good players are showing up.

What he means by "ratings inflation" could just be that there are more good players these days, so the average rating at a big tournament is higher.

The definition which would be relevant to this discussion would that today's 1000-rated players are not as good as 1000-rated players were in the past. I still see no evidence for that.

Maybe we should hold a 2004 Worlds re-do on the same courses and test for ratings inflation.

 

[BlueMonk]

The definition which would be relevant to this discussion would that today's 1000-rated players are not as good as 1000-rated players were in the past. I still see no evidence for that.

I've seen Ultiworld articles by him that mention the use of ELO ratings, something I'm familiar with as a chess player. In chess, there is definitely ratings inflation and it's well-understood why it occurs, although I don't recall the specifics anymore.

 

[sidewinder22]

Ratings calculation drops rounds below standard deviation, but does not drop rounds above it. That is a recipe for inflation.

 

[biscoe]

Ratings calculation drops rounds below standard deviation, but does not drop rounds above it. That is a recipe for inflation.

And players whose ratings have not stabilized yet are generally rated below their actual play. That is a recipe for deflation. I wonder to what degree the two cancel one another out.

 

[Steve West]

Ratings calculation drops rounds below standard deviation, but does not drop rounds above it. That is a recipe for inflation.

Only if the distribution of round ratings is symmetrical at the extremes. Which it isn't.

So, a one-sided drop criteria could be chosen which is inflation-neutral. I don't know that this happened.

 

[sidewinder22]

And players whose ratings have not stabilized yet are generally rated below their actual play. That is a recipe for deflation. I wonder to what degree the two cancel one another out.

What's considered stabilized? What about the older players in decline? What about players ratings being different on different types of courses?

 

[biscoe]

What's considered stabilized? What about the older players in decline? What about players ratings being different on different types of courses?

All considerations as well. My contention is that players improve more rapidly than they decline (barring injury) and that there are more improving players than declining ones. Player ratings differing from course to course is obviously a thing but i don't know that it is germane to this particular question.

 

[sidewinder22]

Player ratings differing from course to course is obviously a thing but i don't know that it is germane to this particular question.

The courses and discs and baskets have significantly changed since Climo's prime.

 

[takman]

Climo has been in the PDGA Hall of Fame for 24 years. McBeth can go visit it.

 

[Ryan C]

Climo has been in the PDGA Hall of Fame for 24 years. McBeth can go visit it.

I mean, its absurd to think that McBeth wont be in the Hall of Fame. He arguably already deserves it. Like him or not, he is helping to explode the popularity and improve the image of our sport. And I can almost guarantee he has another World Championship or two left in him.

 

[takman]

I mean, its absurd to think that McBeth wont be in the Hall of Fame. He arguably already deserves it. Like him or not, he is helping to explode the popularity and improve the image of our sport. And I can almost guarantee he has another World Championship or two left in him.

I wasn't arguing that Paul won't be in the HOF, just pointing out one of the accomplishments Ken has earned that Paul has not (yet). Ken also has twice as many career wins and 11 Player of the Year awards to 3 for Paul. Just sayin.

 

[nrihan]

Ken also has twice as many career wins and 11 Player of the Year awards to 3 for Paul. Just sayin.

I got back and watch old Worlds vids and his competition is a joke minus one or two people. A lot harder to win Player of the Year these days, I would think. Wins would also be harder to come across when golfing against other 1030+ rated golfers. How many different 1030 rated golfers did Climo ever have to beat?

Climo is the greatest ever, PM is the best ever.

 

[Ryan C]

I got back and watch old Worlds vids and his competition is a joke minus one or two people. A lot harder to win Player of the Year these days, I would think. Wins would also be harder to come across when golfing against other 1030+ rated golfers. How many different 1030 rated golfers did Climo ever have to beat?

Climo is the greatest ever, PM is the best ever.

I agree. I recently watched the 2001 USDGC on youtube and the lead card is Barry, Ken, and people with about 325' max power.

 

[Chaz58]

I got back and watch old Worlds vids and his competition is a joke minus one or two people. A lot harder to win Player of the Year these days, I would think. Wins would also be harder to come across when golfing against other 1030+ rated golfers. How many different 1030 rated golfers did Climo ever have to beat?

Climo is the greatest ever, PM is the best ever.

The competition today is much tougher than it was 15 to 20 years ago. I look back and see guys like Barry Schultz and maybe a Feldman (is he old enough to have gone that far back?) as Climo's toughest competition on a semi-regularly basis. Over time some of the courses have gotten a bit harder to play as well, especially the wooded courses as those trees continue to grow and new ones get bigger.

 

[shakatak]

GOAT or "best ever" discussions are an exercise in both opinion and value system at best......But if I were picking it'd be offensive player- J. Rice, defense - L. Taylor, QB - Elway.

Elway? Seriously?