Hampstead
* Ace Member *
-childish giggle-
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)
This discussion has been done before and on actual pro tour level courses (which Albert Oakland isn't) on the same setup, the results are quite different.
I don't feel like repeating myself or what others have posted. It's all in the PP thread.
And yet I don't see anyone claiming you're not a 1000 rated player unless you're touring.
I'm not sure it's quite that cut and dry...For instance...
If you had a 968 rated player who exclusively played MPO tour events and a 968 rated player who exclusively played FPO tour events, they might not be equal head to head because the FPO player earned that rating on shorter layouts...
But i could be wrong and will defer to Chucky when he posts tomorrow.
That's a good find of some good data.
If we look at similar data for the Mid-America Open, it looks to me like the FPO field was broadly lower rated for with identical scores compared to the MPO field, and I believe that was the exact same layout, with the same pars, unless I am remembering incorrectly .
Disc golf ratings aren't as clear as Ball golf ratings. In ball golf, your rating (handicap) is based on par (not on weather, not on the 'field'). Shoot par and you are a scratch golfer. BUT, men play in the PGA from the back tees and women play in the LPGA from different tees. Par might be the same on a hole, but for the women, the hole is shorter since they don't play from the back tees. A scratch male golfer and a scratch woman golfer are not the same. If both play the same course from the same tees, the male has the advantage. ((Ball golf also uses Slope ratings....but this is the rating of the course, not the player. Handicaps are adjusted based on the player's rating and the course's Slope rating)).
For examples: check out Annika Sorenstam, Michelle Wie, Babe Didrikson Zaharias....they all competed in the PGA against men and I don't believe they ever made the cut even though they were the top female golfers of their time.
So...disc golf ratings are similar...but use more data (tee pads, distances, par, weather, players). FPO has an 'advantage' over MPO as they frequently play from shorter tee pads and shorter holes. True, it's not every hole, but enough to make a difference. And for some holes where both MPO/FPO play from the same tee pad and the same length, sometimes the par is different. I don't believe a MPO 1000 and FPO 1000 are equivalent 'head-to-head' (same exact course: tee pads, length, par) because they are rated on different course set-ups.
Disc golf ratings aren't as clear as Ball golf ratings. In ball golf, your rating (handicap) is based on par (not on weather, not on the 'field'). Shoot par and you are a scratch golfer. BUT, men play in the PGA from the back tees and women play in the LPGA from different tees. Par might be the same on a hole, but for the women, the hole is shorter since they don't play from the back tees. A scratch male golfer and a scratch woman golfer are not the same. If both play the same course from the same tees, the male has the advantage. ((Ball golf also uses Slope ratings....but this is the rating of the course, not the player. Handicaps are adjusted based on the player's rating and the course's Slope rating)).
For examples: check out Annika Sorenstam, Michelle Wie, Babe Didrikson Zaharias....they all competed in the PGA against men and I don't believe they ever made the cut even though they were the top female golfers of their time.
So...disc golf ratings are similar...but use more data (tee pads, distances, par, weather, players). FPO has an 'advantage' over MPO as they frequently play from shorter tee pads and shorter holes. True, it's not every hole, but enough to make a difference. And for some holes where both MPO/FPO play from the same tee pad and the same length, sometimes the par is different. I don't believe a MPO 1000 and FPO 1000 are equivalent 'head-to-head' (same exact course: tee pads, length, par) because they are rated on different course set-ups.
Disc golf ratings aren't as clear as Ball golf ratings. In ball golf, your rating (handicap) is based on par (not on weather, not on the 'field'). Shoot par and you are a scratch golfer.
Here are the results of a study I did on MPO versus FPO/GM+ rating equivalency from 2001 Pro Worlds scoring on the Oakwood course. That Oakwood layout was evenly split between shorter, tight wooded holes and longer, mostly open holes. All players played the same tees. One data pool included MPO players who averaged 950 rating. The other data pool included FPO and some GM 50+ players who averaged 950.
Both groups averaged the same score on the course so the 950-rating average indicated similar skill level. However, when broken out by hole type, on the 9 wooded holes, the FPO/GM group average 2 throws better than the MPO. On the 9 longer, mostly open holes, the MPO averaged 2 throws better than the FPO/GM group. One perhaps unsurprising conclusion might be that players in these two pools at the same rating have developed different skill sets to perform at the same level, i.e., MPO throws farther and FPO/GM+ throw more accurately and/or putt a bit better.
So, players of the same rating playing an open and long course likely favors MPO players but playing a shorter, wooded course likely favors FPO and older players, that is if these groups are competing against each other. This is normally not the case, although they are typically playing either the same course or different layouts, still with the same terrain. Granted, it's only one old study, but I'm not aware of any others done since then where performance between similarly rated pools of these two groups on different terrain was compared.
...
I would love to see some more in depth analysis of this now.
...