luma
Newbie
Edit: sorry for the long post but see the underlined…:
Now, I have just read 5 out of the 12 pages of this Thread, I am not a regular forum user and I will probably not read this thread again, so I like to write everything at once that comes to mind BUT, I like maths and ratings, so I will say something here.
I agree that when you're looking at a specific tournament, the system might have a flaw. I mean I am frustrated myself, that the only local tourney in my area has cost me my 1000+ average. Maybe even twice depending on the official ratings at the next update. But on the other hand, I've had some tournaments that I played, where I thought ok, I might get a 1000 average and in fact had a 1020 then. Ratings even vary a lot inside Europe when you look at different countries. I don't even want to know how much difference there is between Europe and the US.
With all the statistics talk in here though: if you have like 40 rated rounds a year, then there is a great chance that your average rating will be your average level of play. You will have tournaments that were rated worse than they should've been and some that were higher than supposed to. You will have courses that favor beginners (like my home tournament. If a 920 rated guy can shoot a 50 (-6) easily, how much better can I do than 41?) and courses that favor big arms (like having holes where you have to throw 450' or you have to go through, around and under obstacles, so 450' throwers have a much easier course than 300' throwers)**. You will have your own bad rounds, rounds where you get rollaways and rounds where you make every putt. All of this will be statistically distributed. Of course if you only play 8 rounds or so it will not be as accurate as when you play 40+. So, even though it might not be exactly how you play, it will give a pretty good indication of it (maybe +/- 5 points?).
**This is why I don't have a problem with +/- 40 points difference of a rated round between pools. Think about it. You will certainly know a course where it makes a huge difference between being good and bad. You will also know that little beginner's course that won't reward a good player because even a beginner will shoot par. Imagine a course where an 850 rated guy can shoot a level par round consistently. Imagine it's just Par 3s so no Eagles except for aces. Now, how much more under than 18 can a guy like mcbeth or wysocki go? ->
So for another example let's look at a course where the top pros have to lay up just like 850 rated players who can shoot a 60 on that course. Let's say it's an easy course, but on 5 holes you have to lay up (so no stroke less for the pros there than for an 850 guy) and on 4 holes there are so many trees that there is luck involved and sometimes the 850 guy even gets one on McBeth. Then you only have 9 holes where the top guys will be able to make up a stroke. So let's say that you have only 850 guys playing with a round average of 60. Then a 1000 will be around a 47 maybe. If you have McBeths playing, they take a stroke from the 850 guys on every hole where they can (meaning NOT on the layup and wooded luck holes) plus additionally 5 due to better putting, better recovery shots or whatever. So they will average a 46. If you only had McBeths playing then, the 1000 round would be a 50 which is 3 strokes different from the 850 guys. (I'm not good at making up examples, but you know what I'm saying..I hope). This works the other way as well. On a course like the memorial, where McBeth can throw at everything with a hyzer, he can get 18 looks at a birdie. An 850 guy (who won't play there but I'm just trying to make up the example) won't have any birdie look and will even struggle to put his second shot close on some of the holes. So McBeth has an 18 throw advantage just from the amount of birdie looks he gets. Now comes the putting where he takes 5 more throws from the 850 guy and there you go. McBeth is 23 shots lower than the 850 guy in average. If a 1000 equals a 50 so one throw difference is 10 rating points, then there are 230 rating points between McBeth and the 850 guy on that course in the average score.
The other thing that I saw popping up here was that IN=OUT. At first I didn't agree with this at all, because if everyone plays well, my rating will be worse than if everyone played bad. True, BUT again, this won't have a huge impact on your rating over a lot of rounds. First of all the chance of everyone playing well for their standards is pretty slim. It might be bigger for tournaments in newer DG countries where you only have 10 propagators, but when you have 50 guys it won't make a difference. And again you have 10 tourneys that you play in, and in some you will play better or worse, or the other guys will have bad days, make a 15 on an island hole or whatever.
And the biggest props that I have to give to the rating system is that it's ultimately useable. Whatever the weather is, whatever the temporary tees, basket positions, islands and whatever are, it doesn't matter to the rating system. Imagine you would always have to play the standard course that is rated. Like not even an additional hole because the standard basket position is surrounded by a construction site. No way that would be a good idea.
We have been trying to get a system that incorporates at least bad weather or difficult pin positions in German ball golf now for years. And the result is just like when everyone plays bad, you will get one to three strokes added to your handicap. I mean, I really prefer the discgolf system to be honest…
So, I hope you haven't fallen asleep, aren't thinking "learn English before writing an English book in a forum" or whatever…. Plus I hope everything I wrote makes sense. Sometimes I know what I was trying to say, but if I read it a couple days later even I can't follow my thoughts that I had.... :doh::clap:
Now, I have just read 5 out of the 12 pages of this Thread, I am not a regular forum user and I will probably not read this thread again, so I like to write everything at once that comes to mind BUT, I like maths and ratings, so I will say something here.
I agree that when you're looking at a specific tournament, the system might have a flaw. I mean I am frustrated myself, that the only local tourney in my area has cost me my 1000+ average. Maybe even twice depending on the official ratings at the next update. But on the other hand, I've had some tournaments that I played, where I thought ok, I might get a 1000 average and in fact had a 1020 then. Ratings even vary a lot inside Europe when you look at different countries. I don't even want to know how much difference there is between Europe and the US.
With all the statistics talk in here though: if you have like 40 rated rounds a year, then there is a great chance that your average rating will be your average level of play. You will have tournaments that were rated worse than they should've been and some that were higher than supposed to. You will have courses that favor beginners (like my home tournament. If a 920 rated guy can shoot a 50 (-6) easily, how much better can I do than 41?) and courses that favor big arms (like having holes where you have to throw 450' or you have to go through, around and under obstacles, so 450' throwers have a much easier course than 300' throwers)**. You will have your own bad rounds, rounds where you get rollaways and rounds where you make every putt. All of this will be statistically distributed. Of course if you only play 8 rounds or so it will not be as accurate as when you play 40+. So, even though it might not be exactly how you play, it will give a pretty good indication of it (maybe +/- 5 points?).
**This is why I don't have a problem with +/- 40 points difference of a rated round between pools. Think about it. You will certainly know a course where it makes a huge difference between being good and bad. You will also know that little beginner's course that won't reward a good player because even a beginner will shoot par. Imagine a course where an 850 rated guy can shoot a level par round consistently. Imagine it's just Par 3s so no Eagles except for aces. Now, how much more under than 18 can a guy like mcbeth or wysocki go? ->
So for another example let's look at a course where the top pros have to lay up just like 850 rated players who can shoot a 60 on that course. Let's say it's an easy course, but on 5 holes you have to lay up (so no stroke less for the pros there than for an 850 guy) and on 4 holes there are so many trees that there is luck involved and sometimes the 850 guy even gets one on McBeth. Then you only have 9 holes where the top guys will be able to make up a stroke. So let's say that you have only 850 guys playing with a round average of 60. Then a 1000 will be around a 47 maybe. If you have McBeths playing, they take a stroke from the 850 guys on every hole where they can (meaning NOT on the layup and wooded luck holes) plus additionally 5 due to better putting, better recovery shots or whatever. So they will average a 46. If you only had McBeths playing then, the 1000 round would be a 50 which is 3 strokes different from the 850 guys. (I'm not good at making up examples, but you know what I'm saying..I hope). This works the other way as well. On a course like the memorial, where McBeth can throw at everything with a hyzer, he can get 18 looks at a birdie. An 850 guy (who won't play there but I'm just trying to make up the example) won't have any birdie look and will even struggle to put his second shot close on some of the holes. So McBeth has an 18 throw advantage just from the amount of birdie looks he gets. Now comes the putting where he takes 5 more throws from the 850 guy and there you go. McBeth is 23 shots lower than the 850 guy in average. If a 1000 equals a 50 so one throw difference is 10 rating points, then there are 230 rating points between McBeth and the 850 guy on that course in the average score.
The other thing that I saw popping up here was that IN=OUT. At first I didn't agree with this at all, because if everyone plays well, my rating will be worse than if everyone played bad. True, BUT again, this won't have a huge impact on your rating over a lot of rounds. First of all the chance of everyone playing well for their standards is pretty slim. It might be bigger for tournaments in newer DG countries where you only have 10 propagators, but when you have 50 guys it won't make a difference. And again you have 10 tourneys that you play in, and in some you will play better or worse, or the other guys will have bad days, make a 15 on an island hole or whatever.
And the biggest props that I have to give to the rating system is that it's ultimately useable. Whatever the weather is, whatever the temporary tees, basket positions, islands and whatever are, it doesn't matter to the rating system. Imagine you would always have to play the standard course that is rated. Like not even an additional hole because the standard basket position is surrounded by a construction site. No way that would be a good idea.
We have been trying to get a system that incorporates at least bad weather or difficult pin positions in German ball golf now for years. And the result is just like when everyone plays bad, you will get one to three strokes added to your handicap. I mean, I really prefer the discgolf system to be honest…
So, I hope you haven't fallen asleep, aren't thinking "learn English before writing an English book in a forum" or whatever…. Plus I hope everything I wrote makes sense. Sometimes I know what I was trying to say, but if I read it a couple days later even I can't follow my thoughts that I had.... :doh::clap: