Paige Pierce To Discraft 2020

[Jolt]

If she continues to shoot high enough, those 903 rounds could drop into the "not counted column," capisce?

Yes i get that. . but i have never understod the ""not counted," thing. . if i play a "to good for my rating round" will that be dropped to?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Yes i get that. . but i have never understod the ""not counted," thing. . if i play a "to good for my rating round" will that be dropped to?

Your scores do not necessarily follow a normal distribution when you have direct control over how poor you score but not how well you score. Clipping scores rated below your normal distribution is a way to reduce your ability to sandbag.

 

[mizunodave]

Jolt, no you never lose a good rating score only very bad ones. For most players it is around 100 points below your rating will not count against you. You can do the math to figure it out exactly, an extremely consistent player may drop rounds 80 points lower than their rating but that's pretty rare.

 

[Jolt]

Your scores do not necessarily follow a normal distribution when you have direct control over how poor you score but not how well you score. Clipping scores rated below your normal distribution is a way to reduce your ability to sandbag.

So Paige can go on a "super attack for +1050 round" and is she fails and feels like this is just a 950 round she could take a 10 on 18 just to get that round dropped?

That kind of what happened last week. . .she went for the win on 18 and failed. . but she failed so bad that that round will be dropped

 

[Jolt]

Jolt, no you never lose a good rating score only very bad ones. For most players it is around 100 points below your rating will not count against you. You can do the math to figure it out exactly, an extremely consistent player may drop rounds 80 points lower than their rating but that's pretty rare.

Odd. . So Paiges 903 last round is 85points lower than her rating and might be dropped

She took a 7 on hole 18 . . a 6 and it might NOT have been dropped

I´m NOT saying that she did that on purpose. . but the fact that you CAN do that on purpose feels wrong to me. . every round, good or bad should count

 

[Cgkdisc]

Odd. . So Paiges 903 last round is 85points lower than her rating and might be dropped

She took a 7 on hole 18 . . a 6 and it might NOT have been dropped

I´m NOT saying that she did that on purpose. . but the fact that you CAN do that on purpose feels wrong to me. . every round, good or bad should count

From the Competition Manual 3.03 B.9: "Deliberately seeking to manipulate one's player rating through intentional misplay or withdrawal." Subject to warning, DQ and likely 888 for the round score which drops a player's rating up to 5 points for 6 months. Pro players unlikely to tank rounds that drops them out of more, if any, cash prize to preserve their rating.

 

[Jolt]

Well that rule is hard to judge. . .if you have a really bad round, but not bad enough to get dropped. . so you miss one or two putts to GET that round dropped. . how will anyone but you know?

Again. . I´m NOT saying that she did that on purpose...but that 7 on hole 18 cost her max $200 but the round will be dropped
If she get to a 1000 that will give her MANY thousands of dollars. .

 

[mizunodave]

That sort of thing does happen on the amateur level and will continue until TDs have the courage to 888 players (something I've never seen). On the pro level, I just don't believe that happens.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Well that rule is hard to judge. . .if you have a really bad round, but not bad enough to get dropped. . so you miss one or two putts to GET that round dropped. . how will anyone but you know?

Again. . I´m NOT saying that she did that on purpose...but that 7 on hole 18 cost her max $200 but the round will be dropped
If she get to a 1000 that will give her MANY thousands of dollars. .

Doesn't matter. The system is designed to prevent bagging your rating, not from finding ways to increase it because... you only get paid for your actual performance, not your rating. If you're not able to play up to a hypothetically inflated rating, you give up payout and rating points in your next events.

The more passive and effective way for pros to defend their rating and potentially save money is to simply not enter certain events and leagues where the courses may hurt their scores and rating. Some of our best players can afford to skip a few elite level events, most can't. If Paige gets a bonus from her sponsor for hitting a 1000, she's done it within the system that's been the same for every other man who's hit 1000. If the sponsor feels it was achieved in a less than "honorable" way (such as suspicious numbers of DNFs), it's between Paige and her sponsors to iron it out. It's not our business.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Odd. . So Paiges 903 last round is 85points lower than her rating and might be dropped

She took a 7 on hole 18 . . a 6 and it might NOT have been dropped

I´m NOT saying that she did that on purpose. . but the fact that you CAN do that on purpose feels wrong to me. . every round, good or bad should count

The fact that someone whose rating determines their entire division placement could possibly play a few hundred points below their rating and clean house in an easier division placement for months on the back of that single massively-awful rated round strikes me as far FAR worse.

Someone's rating being a smidge higher because they gamed a round into being dropped is far better than someone's rating being 30-40 points lower because they gamed a horrific outlier into their calculation.

 

[ryanrockmoran]

The fact that someone whose rating determines their entire division placement could possibly play a few hundred points below their rating and clean house in an easier division placement for months on the back of that single massively-awful rated round strikes me as far FAR worse.

Someone's rating being a smidge higher because they gamed a round into being dropped is far better than someone's rating being 30-40 points lower because they gamed a horrific outlier into their calculation.

That's a good point. If someone could just tank one round and then sandbag at a lower level we would definitely see it completely wrecking some tournaments.

 

[U_NICED_ME]

I don't understand why you can't buy a Fierce putter. They are very difficult to find and the few that I did were so expensive. I thought these new discs would be "female friendly" and that players augmented their income with revenue from their tour series discs. This makes no sense to me. Probably a lot of disappointed young girls out there.

Also, it appears Paul's wife is a good cook. (Just an observation since we're discussing Discraft)

 

[ru4por]

I don't understand why you can't buy a Fierce putter. They are very difficult to find and the few that I did were so expensive. I thought these new discs would be "female friendly" and that players augmented their income with revenue from their tour series discs. This makes no sense to me. Probably a lot of disappointed young girls out there.

Also, it appears Paul's wife is a good cook. (Just an observation since we're discussing Discraft)

Simple supply and demand. Discraft has been playing catch up since their COVID shutdown and I would imagine that the Fierce has been very popular. As far as a premium price point, they charge as much as they can.....why would they not? I hope you are not suggesting that the price point should be based on the gender of the purchasers.

 

[swhite]

I don't understand why you can't buy a Fierce putter. They are very difficult to find and the few that I did were so expensive. I thought these new discs would be "female friendly" and that players augmented their income with revenue from their tour series discs. This makes no sense to me. Probably a lot of disappointed young girls out there.

Also, it appears Paul's wife is a good cook. (Just an observation since we're discussing Discraft)

Haha.
If you watched the 2020 Dynamic Discs Open that took place a few weeks ago, you may have noticed that Jeremy Rusco, the host of the event, was standing in the background watching the proceedings. When I saw him, I thought, "dang, that dude looks like he is more physically fit than the players on the lead card!" And, particularly the player that you just mentioned.

 

[mizunodave]

I putt with the Fierce, got 3 identical protos (not test flight), love the plastic, flight is the same as the Deputy, very straight.

Anyway, Paige has been throwing that Crystal Fierce all over the place on coverage, doing an amazing job of making people like me want one and they are impossible to find.

Dang.

It would be cool if players or manufacturers would give us some expected time for restock, even if it was as accurate as "sometime in August". But yeah, shame to see discs that support players being out of stock most of the time.

 

[Hampstead]

I giggle inside every time I hear someone at a tournament say something like, "my rating says I'm 950, but I'm actually much better than that." Nope. Over time, and on average you're gonna shoot 950. And if you don't, the ratings will make the appropriate adjustment at next update. As I like to say, you can't trick the math. It's a formula. It has no feelings whatsoever.

I don't really disagree but I will add this. Many years ago, when I was much more active in the tournament scene, there were some courses that played to my strengths and I'd usually shoot 30-50 points above my rating. There were other courses that I didn't play well at all and would usually shoot at least 30-50 points below my rating. If I had been more selective and only played the courses that I played well instead of playing every tournament I could, my rating would have been higher. If I cared about my rating, I would have made different choices. Since I cared more about the competition and the experience, it didn't matter that much.

 

[araytx]

I don't really disagree but I will add this. Many years ago, when I was much more active in the tournament scene, there were some courses that played to my strengths and I'd usually shoot 30-50 points above my rating. There were other courses that I didn't play well at all and would usually shoot at least 30-50 points below my rating. If I had been more selective and only played the courses that I played well instead of playing every tournament I could, my rating would have been higher. If I cared about my rating, I would have made different choices. Since I cared more about the competition and the experience, it didn't matter that much.

YEEEESSSSS!!!!

Absolutely correct!!!!!

Because, you see, the courses you choose to play in tournaments IS part of what goes into your rating.

Example: You know about 5-10 courses that play into your strength. You "typically" shoot 30 points higher on these than your current number. You decide, " hmmm, I'm gonna only play these courses in tournaments for 2 years to 'increase my rating'." You start doing so, and your 935 becomes a 965 within about 6 months. And, (assuming no other differences) it stays there for the next 18 months. At that point you ARE a 965 player -- partly because you've selected to play only certain courses and you're gonna shoot around 965 on average on those courses. For as long as you continue doing the same (again assuming no other differences) you ARE 965. Period.

HOWEVER, as soon as you go back to the other scenario (when you were active) you'll shoot 935 sometimes, 965 sometimes, and 905 sometimes -- back to a 935 player. And at that point you ARE a 935 player because you choose to play on all kinds of courses. The formula is still that simple, It has no subjectivity to it, no feelings, and you can't trick the math.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Haha.
If you watched the 2020 Dynamic Discs Open that took place a few weeks ago, you may have noticed that Jeremy Rusco, the host of the event, was standing in the background watching the proceedings. When I saw him, I thought, "dang, that dude looks like he is more physically fit than the players on the lead card!" And, particularly the player that you just mentioned.

Dude Jeremy is a beast. I'd bet the guy has never spent time in his adult life out of shape, and that's building on... well... https://sites.google.com/site/gbfootbal/home/record-boards/all-time-record-leaders
lol... I don't care how bad or who Buhler is: 397 yards and 7 TD is a hell of a night. Rusco is also on another page on there as one of the school's All State qualifiers.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Was curious since I'd never thought to look up whether Rusco did any track and field... and of course dude did... 50.11 400M at the state championship in 2002.
http://www.brocawblazers.org/KSRunnersNation/2002TF/2002TFStateMeet.html

 

[swhite]

Dude Jeremy is a beast. I'd bet the guy has never spent time in his adult life out of shape, and that's building on... well... https://sites.google.com/site/gbfootbal/home/record-boards/all-time-record-leaders
lol... I don't care how bad or who Buhler is: 397 yards and 7 TD is a hell of a night. Rusco is also on another page on there as one of the school's All State qualifiers.

Well. I didn't know about these past achievements. That is impressive.
And, it doesn't appear that he has neglected his health since.
He looks like a good role model for the players on tour.