is pdga ratings crap?

[DiscNutt123]

Yep, as laughable as the scores that produced them...

YES.

 

[gdub58]

As Chuck stated, the biggest issue with ball golf handicapping is the self-reporting aspect. Overall, it is of limited utility outside of the occasional "net" score tournaments, for helping players determine how many strokes to give each other in casual matches and for flighting in club tournaments. It's rarely used by casual players, because of the cost and the absence of any benefit for most of them.

We are lucky to have the system we have in disc golf, and it's always funny to me when people complain about it and claim that it's flawed or unfair. It's math, for God's sake - your rating reflects how you play in sanctioned tournaments - full stop. If you choke in tournaments and the number doesn't reflect your "real" skill, get over it or play better.

 

[juju]

and it's always funny to me when people complain about it and claim that it's flawed or unfair. It's math, for God's sake - your rating reflects how you play in sanctioned tournaments - full stop.

Flaws in the ratings system:

-Time Lag
-Inflation
-Higher rated field = Higher ratings for everyone
-Too much reliance on TD reports

I could go on, but those four are the most apparent to most people.

 

[DavidSauls]

Excepting his title for this thread, I think some here are too hard on the O.P. People can enjoy the ratings, and even care that it reflects the status of their game, without it being an obsession. Nothing wrong with wondering when an old, bad tournament will drop so the rating better reflects his recent, improved play.

My complaint about the ratings is their accuracy. They've pretty accurately chronicled my decline, and I'd have preferred to keep that to myself.

 

[Three Putt]

My favorite conversation about ratings:

900ish rated player: Damn these ratings are crap. Every time I get my rating up to where it should be, I have one bad round and it drops back down.

950ish rated player: Stop throwing bad rounds. :|

 

[rickybobby]

Never grow? It's only, what, doubled, tripled in size since the rating systems came out?

Having a ratings system has not made the sport more credible in the public eye.

 

[DavidSauls]

Having a ratings system has not made the sport more credible in the public eye.

I don't think that was its intended purpose.

The burden of proof is on the notion that, absent the ratings system or with some other system, it would be more credible in the public eye.

At any rate, I was responding to "It won't grow...."

 

[walker139]

I used to be in your shoes but I pretty much stopped caring what my rating is this year. The system is so varied and inexact, this sport will never grow or be taken seriously until something better can happen to make it more exact. I have more fun playing local leagues and fundraiser tournaments than nerve-racking State Championships and A-tier events anyway.

The sport of disc golf has increased 30%+ on average, every year since it's official acknowledgement.

 

[iacas]

Chuck,

First, the ball golf handicap system uses self reported scores which negates any validity right there versus only using tournament scores in the DG system.

There's a peer review system in golf, and golfers by and large report their scores honestly. I imagine disc golfers would do similarly. If anything, golfers will report lower scores than they shot and get a bit of a vanity handicap, which hurts them when they bet against someone or play in a tournament.

By their estimates, about 45-50% of players report only good scores to get low handicaps for bragging rights because they never play handicap events.

Some players don't post their high scores. They get a vanity handicap. It hurts them when they play in tournaments or against their buddies. 45-50% is quite a bit overstated.

About 45-50% report mostly poor scores to get a high handicap because they play in handicap events.

That number is likely outside of an order of magnitude of being correct.

I also communicated with the Pope of Slope, Dean Knuth, creator of the slope factor in their formula. ... He indicated that the last scoring data used to "validate" the ball golf system was the US Amateur in 1970.

Well, he did more than just come up with the slope portion... And the second part is either not true at all or relies upon using an incredibly narrow, bizarre definition of the word "validate." FWIW golf didn't even use the current rating/slope system until 1990.

The course ratings in ball golf are static values that are literally made up with no validation against actual scores because they have no way to do it.

That's not true at all. I've been in meetings and helped crunch the data for those things, and again, I've rated courses and the formulas for rating take into account all sorts of factors - length, elevation, trees, green speed and undulation, mounding, stance issues, water, prevailing wind, and even psychological factors.

The PDGA system seems to be based almost solely on length and what an established player shoots that day. It seems to me to be like a very simplified version of the UK way of doing things, where they establish a daily Standard Scratch Score (in all play, not just tournaments). But, even Australia and others are moving to the USGA system, as it's been proven to work quite well, empirically.

The slope system is essentially a fudge factor to theoretically make the numbers work better. There's no adjustment for weather factors in the system.

There is no adjustment for weather (the UK does this - I played a course on a day when the SSS was 81, shot 75, I'm not a +6 - it has flaws as well), you're right about that, but calling slope a "fudge factor" is misguided at best. It's simply a way of accounting for the amount a more difficult course will play as your handicap index rises. It accounts for the fact that a bogey golfer will shoot higher on a 72.0/142 course than one that's 72.0/110 while the scratch golfer will shoot about the same. It accounts for the variety of skill by factoring in more than course length.

Let's take a 300 foot hole in disc golf on two courses. On one course it's wide open, and on the other there's a 30-foot-wide hole at 200 feet.

On the wide open hole the pro will probably average 2.3 while the intermediate or rec player might average 4.

On the narrow hole with the window, the pro is still going to average 2.35 because they're unaffected by the window 99% of the time, while the average guy is averaging much more than a 4.

That's what slope does for you, and so far as I can tell, disc golf has no real method for accounting for this variety of skill. It seems to base everything - and again, ONLY in tournament play - on something like the SSS from the UK.

Handicapping is a sucker bet in ball golf because when you only use your best 10 of the last 20 rounds, if your handicap was done properly, you can only beat your handicap 1 in 4 rounds.

Yes, as I said, it's a measure of potential. It's not an average, and that's perfectly inline with their stated goals.

You seem to think it's a bad thing that you won't beat your handicap half the time or something - I see that as a good thing. It doesn't make it less accurate. It simply shifts it slightly towards the better scores - and it does it for everyone.

That's why they usually flight players in handicap events into handicap ranges rather than one big pool. If you're going to do that, might as well use ratings ranges and let people play straight up against those in the same range like we do in competitive disc golf.

They do that so they can play from different tees, play against the people of a similar skill level, and so on.

Additionally, the lower levels typically play gross score, and the higher levels play handicap. Why? Because it's a helluva lot easier for a 27 handicapper to shoot four below his handicapper than for a 1 handicapper to do so.

Flighting is fair. DG has flighting too - you limit people to playing in Intermediate or Rec or whatever the groupings are. And yet even so we see threads weekly about people sandbagging in disc golf, and how to force players to play the right section, etc. I run a golf forum - we don't see those topics anywhere near as often as they pop up here.

Wasn't some large disc golf event won by some guy who isn't even a top-rated pro because they handicapped the players and gave them "projected scores," resulting in some 800-rated guy winning because he was able to beat his handicap more than some of the top-rated guys and the touring pros?

That's why flighting works and is fairest to all. The guys in the 21-25 flight aren't "club champions" if they win their flight because they wouldn't have beat the gross score of the guy(s) in the lower flight(s).

The ball golf system seems decent despite these flaws for a couple reasons. Effective course length plus the fixed factor of 40.4 for shots around the green are such overwhelming elements impacting course ratings that all of the mumbo jumbo of the clipboard raters doesn't impact the rating that much, perhaps +/- 1 shot or so out of 70 or so.

If you're talking about golf just there, it's not accurate at all. The "clipboard" ratings have a significant effect. We've got courses 500 yards shorter rated two strokes higher and 15 slope higher. A wide open course with minimal rough will see significant differences in both rating and slope than a tight course with ponds, streams, trees, faster, more undulating greens, thick rough, etc.

Suffice to say, I disagree with you that golf has a lousy ratings system with deep and inherent flaws. You seem to have a good bit of bad information and while I'll easily admit golf's handicapping is not perfect, it's been working quite well and seems to be well ahead of anything else I've seen (short of bowling averages, but that's pretty easy to figure out - but then again, even those don't account for different lane conditions ).

Disc golf does not even seem to have any method for handicapping a match between myself and my brother-in-law, or my kid and I playing from different tees. It might work for tournaments, but that's an after-the-fact proposition - it doesn't do squat to help players in everyday situations wanting to play against their buddies. They'd better be awfully close in handicap or they have to invent their own handicapping system to have a match that the poorer player has a chance of winning now and then.

Disc golf has a long way to go to figure out an actual handicapping system. I'm new to it and don't understand all of it, but it seems to me that disc golf might want to figure out a way of standardizing the concept of par.

 

[iacas]

Sorry, that was more long-winded than intended.

I respect all the work you've done Chuck, but I disagree that the handicapping method in golf is anywhere near as bad as you seem to believe it to be, and I think the disc golf method has some fairly significant holes in it right now.

But maybe disc golfers don't care about rating their casual rounds or handicapping themselves in casual rounds. Could be my golf background biasing me towards thinking that's a bigger issue than it may be.

 

[jcrab66]

i think the rating system sucks because my rating is a good 10-12 shots less than what i shoot in non tourney settings...oh wait, maybe its me that sucks :wall:

 

[Cgkdisc]

ww.discgolfunited.com for handicapped play using the same ratings process as PDGA ratings. Ball golf might see an opportunty for improvement if we get the chance to show them how to do it using dynamic versus static calculations. Meanwhile they're doing just fine with players believing in the system. And that's what matters really, is players believing in the system enough to play by those parameters. If it's working just keep it going.

BTW, we believe slope will not be needed if the calculations were done dynamically. We've discovered there's no slope in disc golf. In other words, the average bogey disc golfer (and any player rating for that matter) has been shown to average the same score on a 55 SSA course regardless if it's open, moderate or heavily wooded or has long water carries. The reason slope is needed in ball golf is likely inaccuracies in setting the course rating in the first place. Get that corrected and we believe slope would disappear.

 

[keltik]

wow did iacas just steal chuck's lunch and give him a swirly?

 

[papparoc]

I think the ratings system works great with the exception that the European players seem to be rated a little on the high side. You do need several rated rounds to it to be accurate.

 

[diskey river]

Flaws in the ratings system:

-Higher rated field = Higher ratings for everyone
-Too much reliance on TD reports

imo, these are the only two real problems.

I played two tournaments on the same course, one in April, one in October 2011. -9 was a 1002 in April, but a 982 in October.

In the exact same conditions on a course whose layout doesn't change, how can that be possible? Shouldn't the rounds be rated the same no matter the rating of the golfer that shoots it? Was it the difference in TD reports?

 

[Cgkdisc]

It's never "the same conditions" even on the same day.

 

[keltik]

It's never "the same conditions" even on the same day.

really?

 

[grodney]

We've discovered there's no slope in disc golf. In other words, the average bogey disc golfer (and any player rating for that matter) has been shown to average the same score on a 55 SSA course regardless if it's open, moderate or heavily wooded or has long water carries.

To probably put it more accurately, you haven't (yet?) discovered that there is a slope.

From the data I saw while on the Ratings Committee (YEARS ago), I believe the non-bold portion is false. I tried to show it, as Chuck knows, but I was unable to isolate the slope-dependent data from other variables. (At the time, rapidly improving players were not factored in any way. The double-weighting of recent rounds was partially a result of my research.)

 

[iacas]

Ball golf might see an opportunty for improvement if we get the chance to show them how to do it using dynamic versus static calculations.

I think you'd have to demonstrate that your system is better. I don't think that it is.

BTW, we believe slope will not be needed if the calculations were done dynamically.

But again, you can't determine that rating except in tournaments. I can't go out and get a rating playing a round with a friend at Deer Lakes some random Tuesday. So you can't get a rating at all.

In golf, you get a rating any time you play (if you keep a handicap).

We've discovered there's no slope in disc golf. In other words, the average bogey disc golfer (and any player rating for that matter) has been shown to average the same score on a 55 SSA course regardless if it's open, moderate or heavily wooded or has long water carries.

Do you have proof of this? Have you validated this? What about the example I provided - a wide open hole versus a narrow hole? Or a hole with water that the pro easily avoids but which the amateur finds - if they're playing strictly by the rules - the majority of the time?

Carried out to an admittedly illogical extreme, if pros average 2.5 on a series of wide open par threes they'll score 45, and they'll likely score a 47 or so on the same length course with gaps they can easily hit but which are beyond the bounds of being consistently hit by the disc golfer in my example from above. He'll average 58 on the wide open course but could average 78 on the narrow course.

The gaps are no problem for a pro, but pose significant problems for the "poor" disc golfer.

Can you clarify what you mean by "discovered"? Did you "discover" this or simply guide it in that direction because you've never had slope?

The reason slope is needed in ball golf is likely inaccuracies in setting the course rating in the first place. Get that corrected and we believe slope would disappear.

Chuck, with all due respect, that's simply untrue. Golf - like disc golf - plays differently for different levels of handicap. A 180-yard carry over a ravine is not a factor for a scratch golfer, but becomes a significant factor to a bogey golfer. A narrow chute of trees on a 370-yard hole is virtually irrelevant to the scratch golfer but will be hit by the 27-handicapper far more frequently. Remove all the trees on the same 370-yard hole and the scratch golfer's score essentially won't change while the 27-handicapper will do significantly better.

Update: grodney, can you elaborate on what your research showed?

--------

As for the OP - I think there's nothing wrong with enjoying your ratings and working hard to drive it up. I understand how disappointing it can be to have one weird score dragging it down. Perhaps you can just take pride in knowing that you're trending upwards, that every time you average more than your current average it will go up, and make your peace with it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Yes, Rodney was the pioneer checking for slope in the early years of the rating system. We thought it might exist since ball golf seemed to think it was needed. Since that time, we've shown that players with established rating at all levels average their rating regardless of the course SSA ranging all the way from 41.4 to just over 70. This range is much wider than the range of course ratings in ball golf. Our much wider range of scoring data has allowed us to really see whether a slope adjustment is needed and why ball golf might not really need one if they did ratings dynamically like DG.