Difference between a 1000 rated round and a 1000 rated player?

[Lewis]

I have a couple of thoughts that I am going to try to pack into one thread. Here's hoping it has a theme that holds it together.

What I was originally going to express is my surprise that there has never yet been a female disc golfer with a rating over ~980, although there have been a number of 1000+ rated rounds thrown by women. So I started wondering what makes the difference between the skill set and talent to throw a 1000-rated round vs. throwing enough of them and better to achieve a 1000 rating. I don't know if I csn identify it, buf I think it's something different than just consistency. If that were all, we would already have had 1000-rated women, unless consistency is a talent that favors men, and I don't think it is. I also look at the top female players, and I see people who seem to have the raw talent to achieve a 1000 rating.

So what is it? I think a woman will eventually achieve a 1000 rating, but it may be a while yet. It seems far more likely than a woman making the roster on an MLB team, but maybe not more likely than a woman being able to compete in the PGA or vs. men in pro tennis. What is that special something that gets you from 975 to 1000, when you seem to already have the basic physical athletic talent to get there?

 

[Stardoggy]

Power. Simple as that.

 

[Lewis]

Isn't power something you either can or can't generate, which means a 1000+ round is something you either can or can't do? Or is the 1000 rating dependent on a level of power to throw 1050 rounds from time to time, which crosses a power threshold that merely a 1000 round doesn't?

 

[Pbmercil]

Isn't power something you either can or can't generate, which means a 1000+ round is something you either can or can't do? Or is the 1000 rating dependent on a level of power to throw 1050 rounds from time to time, which crosses a power threshold that merely a 1000 round doesn't?

You don't need power to throw SOME courses on the tour schedule +1000 because they are not that long. Fountain hills comes to mind, which (not coincidently) holds many of the single round ratings reconds. Many of the tour courses do require a huge arm to score well.

 

[Moose33]

I've thrown a couple 1000 rounds but I'm a 940 player, basically for me it's consistency and avoiding the putting yips that holds me back.

My first 1000 was at Rollin Ridge with only a Firebird, Drone, Cro and warlock. So you don't have to have power of you can place it all the time, I can only throw a FB about 375.

 

[Stardoggy]

Isn't power something you either can or can't generate, which means a 1000+ round is something you either can or can't do? Or is the 1000 rating dependent on a level of power to throw 1050 rounds from time to time, which crosses a power threshold that merely a 1000 round doesn't?

Players with all the same mental and hand/eye coordination skills, but one has more power...that person is going to be higher rated. It's really not that hard to figure out. The opportunity to be closer to the basket results in lower scores.

 

[Pbmercil]

Concesistancy IS related to power, but it's not a perfect correlation. There are plenty of AMS in the upper 900's with all the skills to compete at the highest levels but they can't do it every round.

I think their are two other big factors 1) not nearly as much competition. 2) not enough incentive to play disc golf full time, which goes back to one. Realistically right now it's not a very good career path for an extremely talented female player to play disc golf full time. Maybe as the sport continues to gain support and popularity it will make more sense, but right now it's just not there.

 

[Rockwell]

It does seem that most of the tees the top women play on tour are designed for top male power. But consider if disc golfs most accurate woods playing female chose to only play tournament rounds on wooded courses that fit her distance capability...I could easily imagine a 1000 rated female player.

 

[mashnut]

You don't need power to throw SOME courses on the tour schedule +1000 because they are not that long. Fountain hills comes to mind, which (not coincidently) holds many of the single round ratings reconds. Many of the tour courses do require a huge arm to score well.

That's the opposite of what happens at Fountain. That course has lots of long holes with OB, so the top players who can throw 400' hyzers accurately are able to open a wider gap between themselves and the people who have to flex something out or throw distance lines to have a chance on those longer holes.

 

[Steve West]

A 1000-rated round by a less-than-1000 rated player is a result of good luck. The few tree hits and missed putts a non-1000 rated player would usually expect did NOT happen that round.

 

[EstDisc]

A 1000-rated round by a less-than-1000 rated player is a result of good luck. The few tree hits and missed putts a non-1000 rated player would usually expect did NOT happen that round.

^This

Rating is basically an AVERAGE of your rated rounds. That means that if you're rated 980, you throw some rounds that are rated 1030, and the same amount of rounds that are rated 930. You're equally likely to get either, depending on some luck, bounces and skips going either way and just your form on a particular day. OP argues that it's not about consistency, but IMO it's all about that. A 980 rated player gets a round of 930 and a round of 1030, while a 1000 rated player gets a round of 950 and a round of 1050. Both had one round below 1000 and a round above 1000, but the 1000 rated player was consistently better.

 

[bradharris]

It takes a well-rounded game to maintain a 1000 rating.

Courses come in all flavors. Some require power, others require finesse. Some may be lefty/forehand friendly, while others require the ability to hit dead straight lines.

A player capable of shooting a 1000 rated round on one style of course, may struggle a bit on others. Whereas a 1000 rated player has to have a complete skillset to handle any type of course he plays.

As to why there are no 1000 rated women, they're lacking the power that the men have to shoot high ratings on the bigger NT courses that they're playing.

 

[DiscJunkie]

I may get flamed, but I'm going to say putting first and power second.

Do you know of any female players that can putt as consistently well as the top male players?
One of the first things I notice about most female players is that they are not great putters.

As far as power, it's not just being able to drive to the basket, but the guys are reaching it with mids and putters and often the females are using drivers.

 

[DavidSauls]

^This

Rating is basically an AVERAGE of your rated rounds. That means that if you're rated 980, you throw some rounds that are rated 1030, and the same amount of rounds that are rated 930. You're equally likely to get either, depending on some luck, bounces and skips going either way and just your form on a particular day. OP argues that it's not about consistency, but IMO it's all about that. A 980 rated player gets a round of 930 and a round of 1030, while a 1000 rated player gets a round of 950 and a round of 1050. Both had one round below 1000 and a round above 1000, but the 1000 rated player was consistently better.

This. Put more simply, the difference between a 1000-rated round and a 1000-rated player isn't that the player accumulates a lot of 1000-rated rounds. He accumulates a lot of 1030+ rated rounds.

 

[bbwrenn]

It seems far more likely than a woman making the roster on an MLB team, but maybe not more likely than a woman being able to compete in the PGA or vs. men in pro tennis.

This isn't really the point of the thread, and I'm not hating on women either. But I just thought I'd point out that women will never do either of those things either, and they're no closer to doing them than playing in the MLB. Division I college players in either golf or tennis are pretty much as good as professional women in those same sports. In fact, the last time a top DI college tennis player played a female who was on tour for charity, he won, I believe.

The difference is lightyears, and the gap is insurmountable. Not that there's anything wrong with that. The women are have better form overall, and they're more graceful on the course/court. They're also closer to the average person's game. Nothing wrong with things they way they are, it's just reality.

 

[Lewis]

This isn't really the point of the thread, and I'm not hating on women either. But I just thought I'd point out that women will never do either of those things either, and they're no closer to doing them than playing in the MLB. Division I college players in either golf or tennis are pretty much as good as professional women in those same sports. In fact, the last time a top DI college tennis player played a female who was on tour for charity, he won, I believe.

The difference is lightyears, and the gap is insurmountable. Not that there's anything wrong with that. The women are have better form overall, and they're more graceful on the course/court. They're also closer to the average person's game. Nothing wrong with things they way they are, it's just reality.

Yes it's not the point of the thread, but I've always felt that there are some sports where women are closer to competing with men (average vs. average, pro vs. pro, etc.) than others. There are certainly sports where the best pro women can beat highly skilled amateur men, maybe even lower-ranked touring pros. In my opinion, tennis (Serena Williams) and golf (Annika Sorenstam) are examples of this. In athletic competition, the very best men will always be better than the very best women, but there are certain skills, and therefore certain sports, where the gap is smaller than others. So I won't disagree that the gap is insurmountable, apples-to-apples, but the difference, to me, isn't "lightyears" in all sports.

 

[rickles]

Annika Sorenstam - http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2013-05/golf-annika-sorenstam-colonial-sirak. Women can do it.

 

[rickles]

And you're right some sports are better suited to women performing better (Danica Patrick - NASCAR, INDY).

 

[rickles]

But enough derailing, consistency, putting, and power seem to be the combo of a 1000 rated player. I've tossed one or two 1000 rated rounds, and watching other 1000 rated players those three things are hands down solid for them. Where I am right now it seems unfathomable to reach, but getting better all the time is my goal. I also think that the mental part of the game, especially tourney play, is huge. I can't even begin to count the number of times i've lost focus and didn't commit to a shot fully...leading to a schite shot. Focus, but I like what the "champ" said..."I focus 60 seconds a round...just the 3-4 seconds before my shot", makes sense to me though...using so much energy and focus between shots that its that much more difficult to maintain when going to the tee (worn out).

Much of my worst scoring rounds are tourney play; the slow pace and mental breakdowns are what usually get me...well my poor/improving putting also but i'm practicing more often now that I have a basket. What i'm interested in is how some players that don't play often maintain a 1000 rated player skills? I know in part its time/experience playing but it's just baffeling how some players can do it. We have a player like that around here and it's crazy to see him rip up the course/field. Are there things that these types of players do in their "off" time that allows them to stay sharp?

 

[bbwrenn]

And I guess I just see them as the PP and Cats of those worlds. One great round /=/ competition. Anybody can have a great round or a great day, and when you have form on-point like those women do, you can play some great golf.

Tennis is also a lot more athletic than a lot of people think it is, tennis and golf aren't even in the same category. Where golf requires incredibly precise, repeatable technique, tennis is a 50/50 mix of that with sheer speed and athletic movement.

So to answer the question, I think the difference between a 1000 rated round and a 1000 rated player is arm speed, strength, and coordination to make the muscles fire in a certain way over and over. Men tend to have that in spades compared to equally athletic women, so they do better, but I would think a 1000 rating is possible for a female who could have been a professional in most other sports and has played DG her entire life. I hope to see it one day, the women are underwatched and rated, most of them enjoy the game more than the men and have a lot of fun.