is pdga ratings crap?

[Hegemony]

I'm checking out Hotlanta. The TD report I have shows the Intermediate playing the same layout as the Rec division but the posted ratings show the Intermediate with the Advanced.

Intermediate men definitely played the same layout as advanced. Intermediate women played the short layout with Rec men and the Juniors.

On the general discussion...

Slope seems to be the solution put in place for ball golf because handicaps are recorded in raw score and environmental differences cause raw scores to scale in a non-linear fashion. Is this the only way to do this? No.

Round ratings in disc golf are rated on a scale that isn't directly tied to score, where one stroke can be worth a varying number of points on that scale on any given round. The relationship is determined by some mathematical regression method for each round. This also accounts for the non-linear scaling of environmental differences (as well as weather.) This is also not the only way to do it.

I'd argue that both systems have limitations. The DG method can't be applied reliably when there are only a few people involved. The ball golf method seems like it would require regular tweaking of slope to keep it accurate. There are probably other factors for both as well.

I'm pretty certain that it would take some in-depth statistical analysis with a lot of data to definitively say that one system was a "better" rating system than the other. Obviously, different people are going to have some preferential bias for the functional differences between the two (ex. rating casual rounds vs. only tournament rounds) that will make them like one more than the other.

 

[GLong]

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

disc golf courses have more variation because there is a wider variety of terrain/vegetation/elevation/fairway shape etc. that all go into making a course unique. you can have an open pitch n putt par 54 where a 42 is 1000 rated and a tightly wooded/fast greens par 54 where 50 or 51 is 1000 rated. there is nothing comparable to that in BG. any course that is holding a major tournament is going to be par 70-72 and play to that.

 

[_MTL_]

any course that is holding a major tournament is going to be par 70-72 and play to that.

I hope you are not refering to DG with this comment.

 

[jeverett]

I hope you are not refering to DG with this comment.

Agreed.. a lot of the bigger (National Tour) events in the nation (still) aren't on Par 70+ courses. The Beaver State Fling, for example, uses two Par 60 courses.

 

[rickybobby]

I hope you are not refering to DG with this comment.

It would be great to have some par 70-72 courses. Playing everything as par 3 is soooooo 1984.

 

[Ricky_Rick]

I hope you are not refering to DG with this comment.

I didnt get that impression, I read it as Glong referring to ball golf with the Par 70-72 comment. Any televised golf tournament the course is almost always Par 70-72.

 

[renoob]

disc golf courses have more variation because there is a wider variety of terrain/vegetation/elevation/fairway shape etc. that all go into making a course unique. you can have an open pitch n putt par 54 where a 42 is 1000 rated and a tightly wooded/fast greens par 54 where 50 or 51 is 1000 rated. there is nothing comparable to that in BG. any course that is holding a major tournament is going to be par 70-72 and play to that.

So shouldn't par take terrain/vegetation/elevation/fairway shape into account? To me, par should be less a function of distance and more a function of what a 'par golfer' typically scores on the hole/course. There's a chicken or egg problem there, but you get the idea.

 

[gdub58]

So shouldn't par take terrain/vegetation/elevation/fairway shape into account? To me, par should be less a function of distance and more a function of what a 'par golfer' typically scores on the hole/course. There's a chicken or egg problem there, but you get the idea.

This can't be done in BG or DG at the hole level, unless you want to see "par 3.4" on a tee sign. Both in calculating SSA in DG and course rating in BG these fractions are taken into account when coming up with the overall "expected score" for the scratch golfer/1000 rated DGer. This takes into account the things you've mentioned.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe one of the other fundamental differences in coming up with these is that in DG the SSA is derived/verified from actual tournament results, while in BG it is more of a formula or "educated guess" based on other data and is never formally verified/adjusted based on tournament play or actual results...

 

[renoob]

This can't be done in BG or DG at the hole level, unless you want to see "par 3.4" on a tee sign. Both in calculating SSA in DG and course rating in BG these fractions are taken into account when coming up with the overall "expected score" for the scratch golfer/1000 rated DGer. This takes into account the things you've mentioned.

I don't think anyone wants to see decimal pars, but I can think of a lot of holes off the top of my head that are probably off by a whole number in either direction. Mostly they're par 3's that should really be par 2's, but I can think of some that should be par 4 as well.

 

[scarpfish]

The very fact that a par score is attached to a whole number in either type of golf is the first of many reasons why I think the whole concept is overrated.

 

[renoob]

That's fair, but it doesn't mean you can't make an effort to improve it.

 

[Hegemony]

I don't think anyone wants to see decimal pars, but I can think of a lot of holes off the top of my head that are probably off by a whole number in either direction. Mostly they're par 3's that should really be par 2's, but I can think of some that should be par 4 as well.

I think Par 2 teesigns have been tried in the past and met with a backlash. If you think about it though, if a 1000 rated round is the equivalent to scratch golf (i.e. par for the course,) and there are SSA's that are below 56 (and there are plenty of them,) then there are Par 2's and decimalized Pars in DG. It's just not on the tee sign. Par, course or tournament, doesn't impact the ratings.

 

[renoob]

Well I'd rather see the hole redesigned so it's a legitimate par 3.

 

[jcrab66]

who cares what par is, the lowest score wins, i use par 3 for everything just because the math is easy...

 

[scarpfish]

That's fair, but it doesn't mean you can't make an effort to improve it.

You mean like using a decimalized system like SSA in its place? Have at it.

Of course, for each tee-pin segment a hole has, you'll have a different SSA.

 

[_MTL_]

who cares what par is, the lowest score wins, i use par 3 for everything just because the math is easy...

Sure, for casual play and what not, this is perfectly logical. But for tournaments, penalities are based off par, so it has to be done right.

 

[scarpfish]

Sure, for casual play and what not, this is perfectly logical. But for tournaments, penalities are based off par, so it has to be done right.

Aside from the Par +4 rule for missing holes, what other penalties are based off par?

 

[jcrab66]

Sure, for casual play and what not, this is perfectly logical. But for tournaments, penalities are based off par, so it has to be done right.

you have a valid point since you have the par +4 penalty to consider but at the end of the round the only thing that really matters is what the total number of throws taken is, if an instance arises where a penalty needs to be assessed then of course par for the particular hole has to be taken into account....

 

[garublador]

who cares what par is

The people designing the courses...if they're doing a good job, at least. Making holes that are super easy to get one score on but very difficult to get any other score on makes for small score distributions (lots of ties, there is no lowest score to win) and boring golf.

 

[jcrab66]

The people designing the courses...if they're doing a good job, at least. Making holes that are super easy to get one score on but very difficult to get any other score on makes for small score distributions (lots of ties, there is no lowest score to win) and boring golf.

the total number of throws a person takes to finish a round is the same regardless of what the numeric value assigned to a hole is...