Flashback Friday - Ratings 10 Years Ago

[grodney]

I checked on the tournament activity and membership status for the first 35 on the list. The rest are left as an exercise for the reader.

Last.......	First.......	Jul-03	Now	Active?
Climo......	Ken.........	1040	1030	Active
Schultz....	Barry.......	1035	1033	Active
Rico.......	Steve.......	1034	1032	Active
Russell....	Ron.........	1029	1010	Last tourney 2007.
Todd.......	Cameron.....	1024	1021	Active
Musick.....	Bobby.......	1023	1019	1 in 2013, 4 in 2012.
Tracy......	Eric........	1021	--	
Schweberger	Brian.......	1021	1019	Active
Haney......	Walter......	1020	--	
Dorius.....	Micah.......	1020	1026	3 in 2013, 7 in 2012.
Leonard....	Larry.......	1019	--	
Hammock....	Brad........	1019	--	
McCray.....	John E......	1018	1038	Active
Anthon.....	Joshua......	1018	1026	4 in 2013, 4 in 2012.
Martin.....	Scott.......	1017	1013	Last tourney 2011.
Moser......	Mike........	1017	1015	Active
Lundmark...	Jesper......	1017	1027	1 in 2013, 4 in 2012.
Feldberg...	David.......	1017	1039	Active
Jarvis.....	Ken.........	1017	--	
Lissaman...	Geoff.......	1016	--	
Nodland....	Darrell.....	1016	1015	2 in 2013, 2 in 2012.
Randolph...	Mike........	1015	--	
Brinster...	Steve.......	1015	1029	Active
Pursio.....	Timo........	1015	1020	3 in 2013, 1 in 2012.
McRee......	Brian.......	1015	996	Active
Gill.......	Timmy.......	1014	--	
McDaniel...	Stan........	1013	987	5 in 2013, 1 in 2012.
Greenwell..	David.......	1013	984	1 in 2013, 2 in 2012.
Wisecup....	Steve.......	1013	984	2 in 2013, 2 in 2012.
Collicott..	Mark........	1012	1003	4 in 2013, 4 in 2012.
Sinclair...	Shawn.......	1012	1003	Last tourney 2009.
Wield......	Aaron.......	1011	988	3 in 2013, 2007 before that.
Stokely....	Scott.......	1011	--	
McCoy......	Kevin.......	1011	1006	Active
Hampton....	Harold......	1011	956	3 in 2013, 3 in 2012.

 

[hophead]

It feels like it was so much harder then than now to be over 1000. where can I see a list of players under 1000?

could not disagree more.

There is reason now you see 1100 rated rounds and you didn't in the past. First off, there was a boost to ratings a few years ago.

Secondly, technology makes courses easier.

Ummm....you mean agree. You're describing exactly what he's saying. Higher rated rounds and more 1000+ rated players now than there were back then.

 

[chrishysell]

10 years ago I was rated 980 as opposed to 982 currently. I really sucked but was winning more open events back then. Everyone got better except for me. I thought your rating was supposed to fall when you get older.

 

[grodney]

I thought your rating was supposed to fall when you get older.

Well, MTL claims there was a ratings bump a few years ago, so blame him.

 

[DavidSauls]

Slight drift, but while newer disc technology makes courses easier, wouldn't it make high ratings harder? I mean, to the degree that it has any effect at all?

A course's SSA from 10 years ago has no effect on the ratings earned in a tournament this year, which is based on how the players score in comparison to each other. In the meantime, might not the new technology help weak players more than strong ones, compressing the ratings?

 

[ScottyLove]

could not disagree more.

There is reason now you see 1100 rated rounds and you didn't in the past. First off, there was a boost to ratings a few years ago.

Secondly, technology makes courses easier.

I think you misread his point... he is saying it WAS HARDER BACK THEN... and I think you are agreeing... not disagreeing.

 

[grodney]

David, your question brings up something that's always bugged me about ratings. I've kind-of tried to ask Chuck before, but I'm not sure I ever got it properly asked/answered. I don't even know if I can word it such that you can understand my question. Let me try.

Does a certain rating, say 1000, indicate:
- An absolute level of skill achieved in disc golf?
or
- A relative level of skill compared to the tournament-playing population?
or
- Something else?

If it's the first, then a 1000-rated player would average the same on a given course 10 years ago that he does today. Assuming the course didn't change, which is impossible.

If it's the second, then it's more like letter grades on a curve. If a 1000-rated player marked the top 5-percentile 10 years ago, a 1000-rated player is also the top 5-percentile today. The actual (measurable??) skill of a 1000-rated player might be much higher or lower than 10 years ago. Therefore, a 1000-rated player may average better or worse on the same course as a 1000-rated player 10 years ago.

KnowwhatImean?

 

[grodney]

So my thought is, it doesn't really make sense that it's the first, based on how it's computed.

But if it's the second, then shouldn't it be on some scale, like 0-1000, instead of a free-flowing scale with theoretically no limit on either end? And also if it's the second, then comparing individual round ratings is COMPLETELY meaningless (as if it prettymuch weren't already) -- and comparing historical player ratings to current player ratings is also meaningless.

 

[hophead]

I think you misread his point... he is saying it WAS HARDER BACK THEN... and I think you are agreeing... not disagreeing.

Yeah I stated this a few posts back. I believe mtl just read his post incorrectly but they're essentially agreeing. I think there are many factors regarding higher ratings now than ~10 years ago. First off their are way more players playing a lot more golf. We are getting more skilled and athletic players coming into the sport. Throw in a lot of disc technology and more competition equates to a young sport evolving. It's not that the top level guys back then can't compete with the current group of young stars but there are so many more of them. Although there are a few guys playing at a higher level there are probably 10-15 that could win any given tournament with a stacked field.

 

[DavidSauls]

Grodney, that's an excellent question.

I'm assuming it's somewhere in between....that it's basically #2, but with the great weight of all prior rated rounds pulling it very close to being #1. But that's just a guess.

 

[sprintermatt]

932 then. 997 now.

 

[sprintermatt]

Remember 1000rated.com?? I think it was called that. It listed the 1000 rated rounds each week. It was such accomplishment to reach it. Now its time for 1100rated.com...

websites, that's so 2007...

more like @1100Rated on Twitter. Oh, snap, that's a twitter handle!!!