I'm no expert on ratings.... but I would argue that it makes sense because a course can play so much differently depending on the conditions ( wind, rain, etc). It wouldn't be fair to get the same rating for shooting the same score in perfect conditions vs 25 mph wind.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
DGPT: Discraft's Green Mountain Championship Sept. 12-15
- Thread starter brutalbrutus
- Start date
I mean - its a cute argument but it isn't going to happen that way. As I said - your skill remains a component factor in your rating. The rating isn't about your skill level, but it is influenced by it. Beyond that - no, that round would not be a 1050. If you've got an 850, 950, and 1050 all shooting a 54.... a 54 is gonna come out rated about 950. If thats all the propagators involved. If Paul leaves and the 850 and 950 both shoot a 54 - its gonna be 900. That may look wonky - but keep in mind *players with those ratings aren't going to be shooting like that in high numbers and the rating on a round is based on the field, and individual competitors don't have that kind of outsize impact*
As to why it is that way - the best answer would be: because no one has come up with anything better. Go for it!
Last edited:
Not to mention that tournaments typically don't consist of 3 people. Increase that to 50 players and the ratings system works really consistently. Some people shoot better than their average, some shoot worse than their average, some shoot near their average. Oddly enough, it turns out that on average, players play to their average ability. It doesn't really matter if one player shoots super hot or super cold - the rest of the field will smooth it out and bring the average back to normal.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,838
A rating IS a measure of how you play against the course. The measure of the course is dependent on - but not a direct function of - the scores of propagators. The round rating is therefore not a function of all the scores of the other players.
The difference from golf is that the 70.8 is determined (largely) by measuring the physical aspects of the course - it is almost entirely based on length. The analogous number for disc golf is SSA, which is determined by how all the propagators play.
Golf can use physical measurements because all the courses are so stultifyingly similar. (Plus, they know it's not very accurate and don't care.)
That would never work for disc golf where the length of a hole only explains about one-third of the average score, and where holes change over time. (Can you imagine a golf hole where one branch could fall and open up a new preferred line to the green?)
So, the score and ratings of players are used to measure the course that round: the SSA. Then, each player's rating is based on their score compared to that SSA. That would mean the formula forgets who else played the hole after coming up with the SSA.
So, it's basically a real-time way to assign that 70.8 number. If I understand it correctly, which I may not. I'm a ratings formula enthusiast, not expert.
Now, for the rest of the story.
This intermediate step of setting ratings against the course's SSA instead of against all the other player's scores is crucial. All formulas I am aware of which would directly use other player's scores would result in ratings for all players trending toward a single average rating for everyone.
Try it for a simple case. Find the best-fit line of ratings to scores, then apply that linear formula to the scores to get round ratings. Use those round rating to set new ratings, etc. Do that for just a few rounds and you stop seeing any high or low ratings.
After reading all this i still don´t get why Hokoms 63 in R2 was rated 1001 and Paiges 62 i R4 was rated the same 
But let´s make a fun exemple.
Let´s say paul shoots a super hot round at a "high rated course" . . and at hole 18 he bribes everyone else to miss a few putts to make his score way better that the rest of the filed. . would that effekt his round rating
But let´s make a fun exemple.
Let´s say paul shoots a super hot round at a "high rated course" . . and at hole 18 he bribes everyone else to miss a few putts to make his score way better that the rest of the filed. . would that effekt his round rating
After reading all this i still don´t get why Hokoms 63 in R2 was rated 1001 and Paiges 62 i R4 was rated the same
But let´s make a fun exemple.
Let´s say paul shoots a super hot round at a "high rated course" . . and at hole 18 he bribes everyone else to miss a few putts to make his score way better that the rest of the filed. . would that effekt his round rating
In that unlikely scenario, if Paul managed to convince everyone to tank their round a bit so that his score was that much more ahead of theirs, yes, that would affect his round rating.
The bottom line as far as your original question goes...THE COURSE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE RATINGS. The only importance that the course has with regard to a round rating is the fact that everyone is assumed to be playing the same course in a given round. What course it is doesn't matter at all. When it comes to unofficial ratings such as the ones from GMC (currently), you might as well pretend that they played four different courses in that event. Because that's how the calculations are done.
Flick Maniac
* Ace Member *
One difference the course gives is that of there are holes everyone takes a 2 or a 3 on, no matter if they are rated 900 or 1030, it compresses the results so to speak, whereas holes with better score separation work the opposite way.
the_lung
Eagle Member
For unofficial round ratings, yes. 100% correct.
But for the official ratings which are later calculated by the PDGA, all rounds on the exact same layout in standard conditions will get averaged together.
I made a note for the TD that for ratings purposes, Rd 3 round ratings should not be averaged with Rd 1 ratings because Rd 3 was played in 16 mph to 29mph wind gusts. The PDGA ratings crew will then look at the data and decide whether to average those two rounds together.
puttlikeablowfly
Birdie Member
I prefer the PDGA ratings method of a measuring stick rather than the slope / rating used for ball golf. Even at a local muni, your expected score on a mild, windless day with dry, thin rough is likely going to be different than on a cold, rainy day when the rough is wet and 4" long because the crews haven't been able to mow it for a few days. That's even assuming tee markers and hole locations are in the exact same spot both days, which opens up another can of worms.
For example, let's look at the Hole 16 of the Masters this year. As usual, the Sunday hole location was the famous back-left position where balls funnel down the slope. The first round's location was also on the lower part of the green ... middle left. Round 2 and 3 saw the pin up on top: back right and front/middle-right, respectively. Those positions on top of the slope are generally "tougher" .. bunkers right and a lot of golfers miss left and end up on the bottom of the green for a tough two-putt. The lower positions are generally easier but also raise the likelihood of hitting it into the water, so doubles+ are more likely. What's nice is that there was one round both before and after the cut with a lower (easier) position and one with a higher (tougher) position.
Round 1: 22 birdies, 54 pars, 8 bogeys, 3 doubles = 2.91 average
Round 2: 11 birdies, 67 pars, 9 bogeys = 2.98 average
Round 3: 9 birdies, 47 pars, 9 bogeys = 3.00 average
Round 4: 2 aces, 21 birdies, 37 pars, 3 bogeys, 2 doubles = 2.72 average
Average for the four rounds was 2.91. Now this is just one hole, and the scoring changes may be extreme compared to a normal course played by normal players, where hole locations might not make as much of a difference day-to-day. However, it would be hard to argue that hole 16 at the Masters played the same Saturday and Sunday and that the same score should be "rated" the same. I don't recall weather being a big factor at this year's Masters, other than moving up tee times on Sunday to beat the expected storms.
Sure, some people care about how their score at particular course compares to par, or their typical score, or their personal best, etc. In a tournament setting, however, it's really more about how you play compared to your peers on those same days ... how easy or tough the course happens to be isn't all that important.
For example, let's look at the Hole 16 of the Masters this year. As usual, the Sunday hole location was the famous back-left position where balls funnel down the slope. The first round's location was also on the lower part of the green ... middle left. Round 2 and 3 saw the pin up on top: back right and front/middle-right, respectively. Those positions on top of the slope are generally "tougher" .. bunkers right and a lot of golfers miss left and end up on the bottom of the green for a tough two-putt. The lower positions are generally easier but also raise the likelihood of hitting it into the water, so doubles+ are more likely. What's nice is that there was one round both before and after the cut with a lower (easier) position and one with a higher (tougher) position.
Round 1: 22 birdies, 54 pars, 8 bogeys, 3 doubles = 2.91 average
Round 2: 11 birdies, 67 pars, 9 bogeys = 2.98 average
Round 3: 9 birdies, 47 pars, 9 bogeys = 3.00 average
Round 4: 2 aces, 21 birdies, 37 pars, 3 bogeys, 2 doubles = 2.72 average
Average for the four rounds was 2.91. Now this is just one hole, and the scoring changes may be extreme compared to a normal course played by normal players, where hole locations might not make as much of a difference day-to-day. However, it would be hard to argue that hole 16 at the Masters played the same Saturday and Sunday and that the same score should be "rated" the same. I don't recall weather being a big factor at this year's Masters, other than moving up tee times on Sunday to beat the expected storms.
Sure, some people care about how their score at particular course compares to par, or their typical score, or their personal best, etc. In a tournament setting, however, it's really more about how you play compared to your peers on those same days ... how easy or tough the course happens to be isn't all that important.
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
Similar threads
