Course round ratings

[flowinowen]

I hope this is the right place for this thread - but is there a place/link that shows what a 1000 rated round is for a course? If you watch CCDGs laters "Starter Pack Challenge," you'll hear Ian mention par at De La is 1000. Just curious what my local courses are rated.

 

[grodney]

An estimate of a 1000-rated round is found on the course info page here at DGCR, listed as "DGCR SSE" (Scratch Scoring Estimate).

Such as the 40.4 and 44.9 here:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=3036&mode=ci

 

[JC17393]

I hope this is the right place for this thread - but is there a place/link that shows what a 1000 rated round is for a course? If you watch CCDGs laters "Starter Pack Challenge," you'll hear Ian mention par at De La is 1000. Just curious what my local courses are rated.

You'd have to find a PDGA tournament hosted at your local course(s), look up old results, and figure it out from that.

Keep in mind that the PDGA ratings system isn't designed to rate courses, it rates players. A course's SSA (1000-rated round) is not going to be a fixed number, it can vary from round to round or event to event.

 

[DatRedDude]

you can also download the DCcoursereview app and plug in some #'s, what i have found is the app runs a little high on the ratings but will get you closer

 

[scarpfish]

Keep in mind that the PDGA ratings system isn't designed to rate courses, it rates players. A course's SSA (1000-rated round) is not going to be a fixed number, it can vary from round to round or event to event.

Also keep in mind that in many tournaments, courses are often tweaked to make the tournament layout more challenging than the one that a casual player may see on any given day. Comparing the two may be apples and oranges.

 

[Jax11]

The rating system uses a field of propagators (PDGA members with 8 or more rated rounds) during a tournament to determine the SSA (1000 rated round) for a given round. The course itself doesn't factor into the actual math equation, its simply a vehicle to produce a set of results to create an SSA for that specific field of propagators on that specific day.

So you can never get an exact SSA without a field of propagators playing a tournament round. Thus, you cannot have a round rating for a casual round. You can definitely get a pretty accurate estimate though using some of the methods others have mentioned above.

 

[DavidSauls]

All true.

Some courses don't change their layouts for tournaments, and have consistent enough round ratings over time that you can fairly say that a certain score is a 1000-rated round. One of my local courses has 2 layouts, and for either of which you can look at a given score in a casual round and say, "That would have been a 976 (or whatever) rating in a tournament" and be within 5 or 10 points. Of course, it's just an interesting benchmark, since a casual round isn't a tournament round.

The other two local courses I play often have such wildly varying tournament layouts, that tournament SSAs would be meaningless. One of them moves baskets around multiple pin placements, with significant changes in distance and difficulty, so even scores generated by casual players don't translate well from round to round.

 

[flowinowen]

Ahhh, got it. Thanks all!

 

[Toro71]

An estimate of a 1000-rated round is found on the course info page here at DGCR, listed as "DGCR SSE" (Scratch Scoring Estimate).

Such as the 40.4 and 44.9 here:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=3036&mode=ci

I'm not ratings obsessed, and I don't, like, roll my eyes at the DGCR rating system, so grain of salt, but I'll just say this about the DGCR SSE. I played a tourney at Nevin last weekend. The first round the whole field played the shorts.

Granted, we played the old 16 short, not the new hole, so it was par 64, not 63, so that will account for some difference...but @ par 63 DGCR says SSE is 62.6.

In the first round, 56 was rated 998. I was kinda bummed because I shot a 67, 3 over, which is a pretty solid tourney round for me out there, and it was only 901.

Also, the pro divs and MA1 played the longs for round 2. DGCR has SSE @ 71.7, but 72 was rated 936, 64 was rated 994.

I think there were a lot of guys in the 950 range out there that were throwing some pretty strong under par rounds, which may account for the harsh ratings "judgements?" I don't really claim to understand the maths that well.

But anyway, not to be hating on DGCR for attempting to provide some ratings. Just sayin.

 

[grodney]

Granted, we played the old 16 short, not the new hole, so it was par 64, not 63, so that will account for some difference...but @ par 63 DGCR says SSE is 62.6.

In the first round, 56 was rated 998. I was kinda bummed because I shot a 67, 3 over, which is a pretty solid tourney round for me out there, and it was only 901.

Also, the pro divs and MA1 played the longs for round 2. DGCR has SSE @ 71.7, but 72 was rated 936, 64 was rated 994.

I think there were a lot of guys in the 950 range out there that were throwing some pretty strong under par rounds, which may account for the harsh ratings "judgements?" I don't really claim to understand the maths that well.

Those are pretty way off. Huh.

You're right if a bunch of 950 guys got hot, then the ratings would be far lower than expected. (Actually if a bunch of ANYBODY got hot, the ratings will be lower.) I guess I'd be curious how the longs and shorts have rated out in previous tournies. Huey could probably tell us that.

I see Nevin is categorized as moderately hilly and heavily wooded, both of which are factored into the SSE. I think those are fair. But I know there are a few open-ish holes there.....so having the whole thing categorized as heavily wooded probably contributes to the disparity.

 

[Toro71]

Those are pretty way off. Huh.

You're right if a bunch of 950 guys got hot, then the ratings would be far lower than expected. (Actually if a bunch of ANYBODY got hot, the ratings will be lower.) I guess I'd be curious how the longs and shorts have rated out in previous tournies. Huey could probably tell us that.

I see Nevin is categorized as moderately hilly and heavily wooded, both of which are factored into the SSE. I think those are fair. But I know there are a few open-ish holes there.....so having the whole thing categorized as heavily wooded probably contributes to the disparity.

I also wondered...if maybe DGCR is skewed because of out-of-towners throwing a lot of the DGCR rounds. Nevin is for sure a course where it helps to have thrown it repeatedly vs. coming at it blind, and this tourney field was almost entirely local guys who've thrown it a lot.

 

[grodney]

I also wondered...if maybe DGCR is skewed because of out-of-towners throwing a lot of the DGCR rounds. Nevin is for sure a course where it helps to have thrown it repeatedly vs. coming at it blind, and this tourney field was almost entirely local guys who've thrown it a lot.

Nope. DGCR SSE doesn't use scores.

 

[Toro71]

Nope. DGCR SSE doesn't use scores.

Oh. Is it compiled from existing PDGA round ratings?

Edit. nevermind, I can find that answer. In before Prerubing.

 

[grodney]

Oh. Is it compiled from existing PDGA round ratings?

Edit. nevermind, I can find that answer. In before Prerubing.

Hahahahaha, you can't nevermind me. It's compiled ONLY from course data. Length for sure. I'm pretty sure elevation and foliage. I think that's all. Well, plus some math/constant assumptions on best-fit parameters representing length of throws and putts-to-complete.

It all started with Chuck's many-years-old formula for approximating SSA based only on length: SSA=(length/285)+30. Then expanded to include additional info we have (elevation and foliage). Maybe elevation isn't even factored in....I can't remember.

 

[Toro71]

Hahahahaha, you can't nevermind me. It's compiled ONLY from course data. Length for sure. I'm pretty sure elevation and foliage. I think that's all. Well, plus some math/constant assumptions on best-fit parameters representing length of throws and putts-to-complete.

It all started with Chuck's many-years-old formula for approximating SSA based only on length: SSA=(length/285)+30. Then expanded to include additional info we have (elevation and foliage). Maybe elevation isn't even factored in....I can't remember.

Ohhh, right. I remember reading that now when Tim rolled it out. Thx.