is pdga ratings crap?

[PhattD]

No matter what Chuck tells you, I can point to at least 10 instances of where ratings have been down right laughable.

Come up with a better system.
For the record I am an actuary, look it up, and I haven't seen any system in any sport for rating a player or team that is as accurate or meaningful as chuck's sytem.

 

[Cgkdisc]

iacas - Your Course A and B example doesn't happen. The SSA on the more wooded course will be much higher for the same length. Remember that the SSA is not just generated by 1000 rated players but all propagators. When done that way, it just seems to work out that the SSA number generated for one course produces the same scores for 900 and 800 rated players as another course with the same SSA.

I have no specific beef with slope, in fact we were surprised not to see it. It's just that the data doesn't support it in disc golf or the effect is so small as to disappear in the general stats variances inherent in the system. At the moment, we have no way to see if that's the case in ball golf but we at least have the means to verify it with our disc golf stats.

Regarding tricked out holes where there are water carries that lower level players can't cross, we had a significant test on the Fountain Hills and Vista del Camino courses in the Memorial several years back. We figured if there was any place we might see a slope effect, it would be there. We used the top players' scores (rating avg around 975) to produce an SSA value and also the bottom set of players (rating avg around 875).

To our surprise, the bottom group produced an SSA a few tenths of a throw higher (not statistically significant) than the top group on both courses. The only explanation we have is that the few OB penalties taken by the top players missing some of the carries balanced the fact some of the lower level players had to play around the water hazards.

Regardless of the reason, it was a significant test for the ratings system in front of the PDGA Board members at that Phoenix Summit meeting around 2002 or 2003. As an added feature, I used an early version of our DGCD Hole Forecaster system to predict in advance the scoring averages and the SSA for the two courses nailing it within a few tenths overall and +/- a few tenths on each hole. The trickiest part was estimating how many OBs would occur on each hole per 20 players.

 

[Gdragon04]

Never grow? It's only, what, doubled, tripled in size since the rating systems came out?

I'm not saying it hasn't, or won't, grow in popularity. Don't get me wrong, there are few things that I personally take more serious than this sport. Unfortunately growing in popularity and growing into a real respected sport people can make enough money at to live on are worlds apart.

 

[mashnut]

I'm mostly (kind of) trying to stay out of the disc golf side because I don't know much about how SSAs truly work (except to know that they're only assigned during tournaments and don't come into play for casual rounds), but that does indeed seem like a form of slope.

It's not slope at all, it just keeps ratings consistent over different difficulties of courses. If every stroke was worth the same number of points on any SSA course, you'd have different differentials between top and bottom players. On an easy (say SSA 45) course, even the best players can't go all that far under the SSA but worse players aren't going to score that much worse. On an SSA 65 course, it's a lot easier for the top players to go more strokes under the SSA and worse players will lose more strokes. It has nothing to do with the type of course, it has to do with the different amounts of skill it takes to make up each stroke on tougher vs. easier courses.

 

[iacas]

iacas - Your Course A and B example doesn't happen. The SSA on the more wooded course will be much higher for the same length. Remember that the SSA is not just generated by 1000 rated players but all propagators. When done that way, it just seems to work out that the SSA number generated for one course produces the same scores for 900 and 800 rated players as another course with the same SSA.

I disagree, but fully admit I'm operating in the hypothetical here. In golf, we can find examples where you can come up with entire courses that play like A or B from my example - the same course ratings, but much higher slope because as the handicap index goes up, the course plays proportionately more difficult due to trees, water, sand, forced carries, etc.

I have no specific beef with slope, in fact we were surprised not to see it. It's just that the data doesn't support it in disc golf or the effect is so small as to disappear in the general stats variances inherent in the system.

That may very well be the case. Perhaps it's there but the effect is insignificant. I could see that, as perhaps disc golf tournaments aren't played on courses as varied as golf courses because ALL golf courses tend to be rated while only a subset of disc golf courses get ratings (the ones that host PDGA tournaments).

To our surprise, the bottom group produced an SSA a few tenths of a throw higher (not statistically significant) than the top group on both courses. The only explanation we have is that the few OB penalties taken by the top players missing some of the carries balanced the fact some of the lower level players had to play around the water hazards.

Right. The purpose of slope in golf is to account for obstacles (trees, hazards, forced carries, severe greens, etc.) that result in disproportionate scoring across the range of golfers.

If - for whatever reason - disc golf doesn't see disproportionate scoring because occasionally even top pros shank a drive into the water (or whatever), then I'd agree slope might not be relevant to disc golf.

That still doesn't speak to handicapping casual rounds, but I'll look at discgolfunited.com when I have more time, as you've already mentioned that. Thanks.

I'll work on building those two courses I mentioned and we can invite a bunch of players to come play them and see how things shake out.

 

[codus1984]

this thread will definetely be discussed/has been discussed on dgr.....just sayin.....

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm not saying it hasn't, or won't, grow in popularity. Don't get me wrong, there are few things that I personally take more serious than this sport. Unfortunately growing in popularity and growing into a real respected sport people can make enough money at to live on are worlds apart.

Ah, that's not how I read your post. Sorry.

 

[dashiellx]

Come up with a better system.
For the record I am an actuary, look it up, and I haven't seen any system in any sport for rating a player or team that is as accurate or meaningful as chuck's sytem.

The current rating system may be accurate and/or meaningful but that does not preclude that a better system could be developed.

That may very well be the case. Perhaps it's there but the effect is insignificant. I could see that, as perhaps disc golf tournaments aren't played on courses as varied as golf courses because ALL golf courses tend to be rated while only a subset of disc golf courses get ratings (the ones that host PDGA tournaments).

I would think this is most relevant piece of data. Most courses are not used for tournaments so they don't get an SSA.

I'll work on building those two courses I mentioned and we can invite a bunch of players to come play them and see how things shake out.

I'll volunteer to be the bogey tester!

this thread will definetely be discussed/has been discussed on dgr.....just sayin.....

And this has to do with the price of cheese in Amsterdam how?

 

[mashnut]

That may very well be the case. Perhaps it's there but the effect is insignificant. I could see that, as perhaps disc golf tournaments aren't played on courses as varied as golf courses because ALL golf courses tend to be rated while only a subset of disc golf courses get ratings (the ones that host PDGA tournaments).

I think the opposite of the bolded section is true. Disc golf tournaments are held on courses that are wide open all the way to densely wooded, long or short, flat or hilly, and have scoring averages that range much further than those in ball golf.

 

[dashiellx]

I think the opposite of the bolded section is true. Disc golf tournaments are held on courses that are wide open all the way to densely wooded, long or short, flat or hilly, and have scoring averages that range much further than those in ball golf.

I think the point is that there are more disc golf courses that are not rated because they host no tournaments.

 

[mashnut]

That's why I only disagreed with the bolded part, disc golf courses have inherently more variation than ball golf courses even though a smaller percentage gets used in ratings/handicap calculations.

 

[_MTL_]

disc golf courses have inherently more variation than ball golf courses

Which is solely do to our lack of standardization of Par.

 

[dashiellx]

Which is solely do to our lack of standardization of Par.

Is BG Par really standardized any more than the PDGA suggestion chart?

 

[wake911]

Is BG Par really standardized any more than the PDGA suggestion chart?

Par is a trivial number mainly used for easier scoring. Yes it has ranges and recomendations as to what to call different holes, but really its ease of score tracking. It's easier to keep track of even...+1..even...-1....-2...-1...Than 4,6,8,10,14. It's easier to compare someone who is finished with someone who is still playing by using a "to par" comparison. But the winning total in disc golf isn't -44 to -43. It's 256 to 257.

 

[keltik]

Is BG Par really standardized any more than the PDGA suggestion chart?

paging iacas...

 

[iacas]

Is BG Par really standardized any more than the PDGA suggestion chart?

A little, yes. And it's adhered to more closely as well. But I think DG will adhere more after the idea of par fours and fives sinks in more. There still seems to be reluctance among a (shrinking) group to make everything a par three.

I appreciate the recent move to have more par fours and fives in disc golf. Playing 18 par threes is not as fun. Maybe that matters more to me coming from (well, still playing it) golf.

 

[_MTL_]

Of course BG par is way more standarized.

I shot an 81 a few weeks ago playing ball golf. You don't need any knowledge of the course, my abilities or anything else to know if that is good or not.

However, if I tell you I shot a 54 playing disc golf, you do need knowledge of the course or my abilities to know how that that is. 54 could be 1100 or it could be 800. Ball golf doesn't have that issue.

If there is one thing that ratings do is they allow rounds to be somewhat comapred from course to course.

 

[joshmo65]

I was told the factors for the wind and obstacles add +5/-5 within the math, also for footage of the park divided with a specific number (285) if i recall then get a SSA from there and factor +6 to +10/-6 to -10 points per stroke. all the mumbo jumbo, and the only way they can collect the information is via TD?

FYI, what you describe here is the SSE, Scratch Scoring Estimate. When calculating round ratings, SSA, Scratch Scoring Averages are used which are based off of how the propagators played on that actual day. It is solely based off of their scores and ratings and has nothing to do with any factors of the course.

 

[iacas]

There still seems to be reluctance among a (shrinking) group to make everything a par three.

I meant to say there seems to be reluctance to do anything but make par threes among a (shrinking) group in DG.

That group seems to be shrinking, though, which makes me glad.

 

[jongoff09]

Of course BG par is way more standarized.

I shot an 81 a few weeks ago playing ball golf. You don't need any knowledge of the course, my abilities or anything else to know if that is good or not.

I disagree with that. There are 5 golf courses within 20 min of where I live. On 2 of them, I would be really happy to shoot an 85; on one of the others, I expect to shoot 85, but am not too disappointed if I'm a little above that; and on the other two I break 80 when playing decently.