Page 5 of 5

Re: A Healthy Debate

Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 1:01 pm
by bruce
seamus wrote:The four of us play 18 holes on a new course and report our scores, each of us instantly receive a round rating. We have lunch before playing another 18 holes, our scores are identical and after reporting the scores (only) we receive a different round rating.
No you don't, you'd receive exactly the same rating. The only thing the formula cares about are your individual ratings, and the scores you shot. So if neither change, then the ratings are the same.
I'd love to see the formula that gets an accurate SSA from (3) 799 rated player propagators.
Chuck Kennedy ever visit this page?
This is easy. 3 799 rated players shoot 72, 74 & 76. Their average score is 74. At 10 points per shot, the adjustment to get SSA (a 1000 rated round) is 201/10 = near enough 20. So SSA = 74-20 = 54

Now say they go out in the afternoon and it's blowing a gale and lashing with rain. They shoot 82, 84 & 86. Using the exact same approach, SSA would be 64. But because of the compression thing in the article it would be maybe 8 points a stroke, so 201/8 = about 25 and SSA would likely be around 59.

So you see the formula does adjust for weather etc, it factors those in automatically based on the scores that are shot.

Re: A Healthy Debate

Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2015 1:50 pm
by rhatton1

Re: A Healthy Debate

Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:13 pm
by rhatton1
Good discussion here - there is a better one somewhere on DGCR where Chuck really breaks it down - CGKdisc is Chuck Kennedy - it's a bit hard to read as the quotes are out in the archived version but worth plowing through , personally if I were Chuck I would have along time ago gone with "they just are" as an answer but he has a lot more perseverance than me!

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/ar ... 75043.html

I have heard from a credible source that the PGA has recently approached the PDGA about the ratings system for it's ability to work out a reliable SSA on different courses and in different conditions (although disc golf is far more affected by wind than Ball golf)

Re: A Healthy Debate

Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2015 5:05 pm
by seamus
Cheers Bruce and Rich. I don't have a problem with the ratings when there are many consistent players in an event, the TD report can adjust for anything extreme like weather or wind. But in an event with a small pool of players/propagators in an emerging area the formula breaks down a little. I've noticed all it takes is one very good player to play poorly and one new player to shoot well above average to see this wonkyness with ratings. Maybe instead of moaning about it here I should report this to the NGB and see what happens.

Re: A Healthy Debate

Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2015 8:04 am
by bruce
A number of Chuck's observations pulled from the second thread Rich linked:
TDs have no direct impact on the ratings other than getting the reports to the PDGA as fast as possible and making sure the divisions are assigned to the course layouts correctly. They do not "judge the wind nor weather" to affect ratings. Even if they include that information, it's only advisory and doesn't impact the math.
There are anomalies in the system Seamus, as you point out, sometimes due to small numbers of propagators, sometimes because a whole field plays lights out, sometimes because good players screw up and bad ones play well. That's just stats, again as Chuck says.
But the ratings system is a statistical process and you'll sometimes see anomalies like this. The PDGA has chosen to reduce the minimum number of propagators needed below what stats professors would consider acceptable so everyone will get ratings, every round. If the PDGA required a higher minimum number of propagators, many players would either not get ratings or be forced to play longer layouts, but the ratings would be more consistent. That's the trade-off.

I'd like the ratings to be more consistent/better because I'd have a lot less 'splainin' to do. But I like that we can provide the ratings the best we can for everyone even with its wider fluctuations. No one gets paid based on their rating. They still have to throw.
So you could complain to the NGB, but I assure you they already know!

Finally, DavidSauls nailed it:
Why is everyone so butthurt over ratings that are occasionally a bit inaccurate? The same is true of any statistical measure.
Perhaps because we're using them in ways other than intended---as specific measurements of our rounds, for bragging rights or pride, etc.
Which is fine, but in these uses they should be taken with a grain of salt.
Ratings are there to give a player an overall assessment of their average performance, and to enable dividing players into divisions based on ability. They are not there to give an individual round a laser accurate measure of its performance.

Re: A Healthy Debate

Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:24 pm
by seamus
Can we agree the best indicator on performance is your current score.

Re: A Healthy Debate

Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2015 8:29 am
by bruce
seamus wrote:Can we agree the best indicator on performance is your current score.
Absolutely. There is no better measure of your round than the score, just as there is no better measure of your tournament than your placing.

Re: A Healthy Debate

Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:54 am
by seamus
Did anyone watch the Ledgestone final 9?
Great to see disc golf coverage evolve and grow but I was very disappointed with the final 9 course. The final 9 course seemed out of balance on the restrictive side and I feel it took away too much excitement. There were so many lay-ups I thought about the NBA more than anything. Would you ever see a top PGA golfer use a putter off the tee? Had McBeth been up by 4 or 5 strokes I never would have watched until the end. Hopefully its just growing pains for them and they can get the crowd under control and find a more natural course design that is still dynamic. Happy for the winner though, and hope to see more from him in the future.

Re: A Healthy Debate

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 7:04 am
by seamus
I'm a lucky guy, many years before I met Steven Dodge and learned about the top of the sport I had the privilege of learning about disc golf from his cousin, Jason Southwick. Jason had one simple passion that resonates with me, build courses and build as many as possible. Disc Golf courses create players and I mean all types of players young- old, competitive to recreational, one timers and life timers. Without courses that people can play this sport will not flourish, period.
The Bdga, Pdga and all the disc golf manufacturers do not build courses, people build courses and it starts with one person that has an idea. He taught me the most important lesson about establishing a disc golf course, say nothing until you find the person who makes the decision, then walk up to that person shake their hand and present your idea, its quick easy and to the point you'll have your answer in few seconds.
Jason has been on a 'one course a year' campaign for quite sometime, if he stopped now I would need 20 years to catch him.

Cheers Jason.

http://worcestermag.com/2015/09/10/two- ... wick/36135

Re: A Healthy Debate

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:37 am
by rhatton1
seamus wrote:Did anyone watch the Ledgestone final 9?
Great to see disc golf coverage evolve and grow but I was very disappointed with the final 9 course. The final 9 course seemed out of balance on the restrictive side and I feel it took away too much excitement. There were so many lay-ups I thought about the NBA more than anything. Would you ever see a top PGA golfer use a putter off the tee? Had McBeth been up by 4 or 5 strokes I never would have watched until the end. Hopefully its just growing pains for them and they can get the crowd under control and find a more natural course design that is still dynamic. Happy for the winner though, and hope to see more from him in the future.
totally agree and I think the director has taken a lot of this on board (hopefully).

It wasn't just the final nine, that course was riddled with design that was all risk/little reward and the wind just made it unplayable. This was offset by the other courses played which had a number of sub 200' holes which quite frankly would have had me on the birdie train. There were so many pin placements that just didn't look like they had been playtested at all.

It's just another one of the learning curves in the sports history - hopefully at some point in the future the PDGA will have enough top level courses and TD's wanting to put on majors that this sort of cobbled together course isn't necessary. I would seriously love to see a top level event held at somewhere like Selah Ranch for instance. At the moment though despite many people crying for it I don't think the PDGA has enough top level courses and Td's willing to put on events that they can mandate a certain level of hole.

Every now and again even if they did, courses would still get it wrong, look at the Golf majors in the past that have been pilloried for certain decisions - this years US Open for instance - http://www.sportingnews.com/sport/story ... olf-course

My biggest annoyance this year is that the Presidents Cup did not get a live stream. I would love to see this event become the pinnacle of the sport rather than a side show.