bwgort
Birdie Member
What's the SSA of WR Jackson?
-
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)
John Matlack shoots 18 under at A Tier
- Thread starter Pbmercil
- Start date
What's the SSA of WR Jackson?
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
WR Jackson was recently 65.5 SSA using liberal OB rules in the gully. Feldberg has the best ever round of 52 rated 1089 on Nokia at exactly 65.5 SSA in 2013 Euro Open. McBeth has 1094 with a 52 on Winthrop at 66.9 SSA. Hard to know if that can be beat. The course has a lot to do with it regardless of woods or none. Seems like more penalty scenarios on the holes tend to spread scores but not necessarily "fairly" by skill.
The thing is, we don't have anywhere near as many rounds in the tournament database on courses with this high of an SSA with enough top rated players potentially capable of 1100 plus rounds. The odds of a 1040 player shooting an 1100 round on any course is about 1 in 200-300 rounds. The odds they happen to do it specifically on a 60+ SSA course is much lower since they don't play that many rounds on them. The more consistent the player, which is the case for top players, their chances are even lower.
The thing is, we don't have anywhere near as many rounds in the tournament database on courses with this high of an SSA with enough top rated players potentially capable of 1100 plus rounds. The odds of a 1040 player shooting an 1100 round on any course is about 1 in 200-300 rounds. The odds they happen to do it specifically on a 60+ SSA course is much lower since they don't play that many rounds on them. The more consistent the player, which is the case for top players, their chances are even lower.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,852
Ball golf is just a rich source of ideas, not an ideal we should strive toward.
Sure, OK. Let's just say "on some holes if you get a 3 you'll be falling behind the field because the majority of 1000-rated players are going to be getting a 2, so when you plan your round, figure out how to get a 2 on this hole, and if you get a birdie 2, don't count it as something that will offset a bogey elsewhere, and if you get your par 3, figure out where you can offset that with a birdie on another hole."
Nah….."Par 2" says exactly the same thing, but is more concise. I'll stick with that.
As I understand the ratings system, I think that's exactly what it means (pending the final rating when it goes official). If you hadn't been misled by a generous par, perhaps you'd think your rating was more accurate.
John designs based on drives plus two. Perhaps that gets into his pars. How many holes did you two-putt? All 18? If not, the difference is the discrepancy between "two-putt-par" and the actual, more useful, definition of par.
Or, perhaps course par is not Gold par, and is therefore too high for the Open division.
Was that Llano?
Based on the limited data of the scores from that tourney, I'd set par at 52. It just doesn't makes sense that for a field with no players over 1000, the average score was about 8 under per round.
If par had been 52, your score and rating would have been the same, but your first round would have been a less McBethy-seeming 3 under.
I consider you to be the prototypical player that par should be set for: 1000-rated. Par should be the score you expect with errorless play. Are you saying you were shocked at how low your score was on 15 holes? Did you have a whole bunch of aces, long throw-ins, and incredibly long drives? Or did you have a nice solid round with a few great holes?
Last edited:
That's a fun way to look at Par 2 for sure. In the end it's all about the total score anyway, but I have been excited that more disc golfers around the World are picking up on the better concept of Par realities besides everything a Par 3 that still is most prevalent.
I think most people like thinking of Par so that if a hole can only be rarely birdied or holed out in two shots, it is a Par 4. I'm personally for that way as well, it's all conceptual.
Yes, the event was Llano. Only Open, Pro Masters and Advanced played the long tees. It was a perfect day for golf. The course had some tricks and length in areas, but there was very very little of any OB danger on 85% of the holes. I think the whole field played well that day.
An error free perfect round for me on that course would have been a 46 with no 2's on holes 500 ft or more. An error free, perfect round for McBeth realistically could be a 44 considering no twos for holes 500 feet or more. I shot a 49, that has been been rated 1038 with a 9 point per throw value. That would mean at 9 points per throw that 1056 rated Paul McBeth would get an 1100 for that perfect round 44. That makes a ton of sense for Paul! I'm just not so sure how I feel about only getting a 1065 for my perfect round only two strokes less than McBeth's perfect round 1100?! :\
None of this means anything because Paul wasn't there to have his rating thrown in there. But if he was, and he shot a blistering perfect robotic round it looks like all of our ratings may have jumped at least twenty points or so.:clap: Most likely not true because one course isn't like another due the conceptual Par that may be applied at any given event.
Numbers make my head hurt__Happy Easter and great shooting John Matlock:hfive:
I think most people like thinking of Par so that if a hole can only be rarely birdied or holed out in two shots, it is a Par 4. I'm personally for that way as well, it's all conceptual.
Yes, the event was Llano. Only Open, Pro Masters and Advanced played the long tees. It was a perfect day for golf. The course had some tricks and length in areas, but there was very very little of any OB danger on 85% of the holes. I think the whole field played well that day.
An error free perfect round for me on that course would have been a 46 with no 2's on holes 500 ft or more. An error free, perfect round for McBeth realistically could be a 44 considering no twos for holes 500 feet or more. I shot a 49, that has been been rated 1038 with a 9 point per throw value. That would mean at 9 points per throw that 1056 rated Paul McBeth would get an 1100 for that perfect round 44. That makes a ton of sense for Paul! I'm just not so sure how I feel about only getting a 1065 for my perfect round only two strokes less than McBeth's perfect round 1100?! :\
None of this means anything because Paul wasn't there to have his rating thrown in there. But if he was, and he shot a blistering perfect robotic round it looks like all of our ratings may have jumped at least twenty points or so.:clap: Most likely not true because one course isn't like another due the conceptual Par that may be applied at any given event.
Numbers make my head hurt__Happy Easter and great shooting John Matlock:hfive:
biscoe
* Ace Member *
Actually it suggests he knows exactly how they work and may not agree with the idea that probability/improbability has nothing to do with them
Why is the ratings calculation formula proprietary information?
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Competitive reasons. Too easy to "borrow" intellectual property on the Internet these days.
That seems a little odd. I'm not sure of any other competitive sport that keeps their ratings formula secret. What exact competitive advantage is gained? Wouldn't it be a bit of a feather in the cap for DG if some other major sport looked at the rating system, determined it was good, and began using it? Not to mention you can still protect the intellectual property while making it available.
On top of that, wouldn't it be useful to have more eyes on it to spot any flaws?
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
USGA (and other big sports organizations) have the resources to stop others from using their published handicap formula and they do it regularly to protect their officially licensed clubs. A better comparison would be some of the stats companies who compile special proprietary stats which are sold to teams in different sports or sports book operations that have proprietary methods to determine their sports lines or those with methods for picking horse races.
From a practical standpoint, the value in the rating system is not in the formula itself but the fact that it ties together scoring results for members over time. The better version of the calculations comes from large group dynamic scoring in each round versus less measurable static values for layouts and can only be done during sanctioned play.
^^^In other words, its fair game to hidden manipulation by the powers that be, or the fattest wallet.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
If that were the case, the PDGA staff and I would be 1000 rated with a few 1100 rounds thrown in our history. Plus, I would be flying to Georgia on my own jet and not still living in the same apartment after 38 years.
Vonbeezy1
Banned
If that were the case, the PDGA staff and I would be 1000 rated with a few 1100 rounds thrown in our history. Plus, I would be flying to Georgia on my own jet and not still living in the same apartment after 38 years.
Let me be first to say....
OH SNAP!!!
opcorn:- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,852
All par 3 is not that bad of a method of setting par. For most courses, it will produce a par closer to an appropriate total than calling a few holes par 4. But, it doesn't tell us anything about the relative difficulty of different courses, so we can't compare performances across courses.
This method also works fairly well, since most holes actually are birdieable, without being so easy that a player would expect a birdie. But, there are a few holes where the lower score is the expected score. So this method usually produces a number for par that is a few throws too high.
Setting par according to a perfect day (for you or McBeth) would set par too low. While you CAN park a hole at the limit your range, you don't realistically EXPECT to. (That's why it is the limit of your range.) Par is a score you expect. Failing to park a 499 foot hole is not an error. Par based on really rare low scores wouldn't be very useful.
I normally avoid discussions about par with great diligence. I do, however, sincerely want to understand what people are thinking, and this discussion does involve a couple courses I know very well, so I'm going to ask a few questions.
My questions are mostly inspired by Steve's comments, but anyone can answer (of course including Steve) Steve said to Jay:
It sound to me like Steve is looking to determine course par on a players' score for the round, rather than as the sum of the pars for 18 holes.
This comment may actually express that view more clearly:
Do people endorse the concept of setting par for an entire course first, and then going back and establishing par for each individual hole, making sure that the sum corresponds to the previously chosen total?
My questions are mostly inspired by Steve's comments, but anyone can answer (of course including Steve) Steve said to Jay:
It sound to me like Steve is looking to determine course par on a players' score for the round, rather than as the sum of the pars for 18 holes.
This comment may actually express that view more clearly:
Do people endorse the concept of setting par for an entire course first, and then going back and establishing par for each individual hole, making sure that the sum corresponds to the previously chosen total?
Last edited:
If each hole's par is set with decimal values, then it makes some sense. If you're trying to fit whole-number hole pars to fit an overall course par, then each individual hole is liable to have an awkward par, relative to some others on the same course.
Par does not equal scoring potential. It's simply the number of shots to reach the green +2. I don't even quite understand where people got this idea to begin with.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,852
One of the unwritten rules of conducting an orchestra is "Never encourage the brass".
There are many paths to setting par. If all I have is total scores, that's what I can use to estimate an appropriate course total par. I'm not saying that should take precedence. The definition is based on hole scores, so a more pure method of setting par will start with hole pars. That doesn't mean we need to throw away information about total scores if we have it.
However, there are always borderline cases. When faced with an arbitrary choice between a higher or lower par for a hole or three, you can make the course total come out to be more informative to the Open field (or whatever group you are setting par for). More informative means the differences between par and score for prize winners will be minimized. Also, each birdie will be worth about as much as each bogey. Generally, for the Open field the most informative par round would be rated at least 1000, and no more than 1020.
See http://www.stevewestdiscgolf.com/Calibrating_Various_Methods_of_Setting_Par.pdf to see how a lot of the various methods of setting par can come together at a common level.
Steve Dodge and Jussi already set pars that are about at this level. I presume they decided to do so independently by following their own logic.
Any method that consistently produces pars that are rated much lower a 1000-rated round is probably not a valid method. The reason is that par is the score an expert player would expect given errorless play. Even at the expert level, mistakes are more common than miracle throws, so errorless play should be better than average (higher rated than 1000, or lower than SSA).
Using the 1000 rated player as the expert may seem arbitrary and not explicit in the definition. However, because 1000 rating was set to be about the skill level of last cash in large Open files, it works out well to use it. There are generally more players near the 1000 level than near the 1055 level, so pars rated nearer to 1000 are moreinformative.
Also, 1000 is such a round number and the threshold of 4 digits, that it's probably what people think of as "expert".
One could develop par completely independently of ratings by setting par to minimize the differences between par and score for all the prize winners in any large Open field.
(Slightly off-topic, I like the idea of stretching the definition of "expert" so we can use a 950 rated player to set par for the Blue tees, for example.)
Notice the definition also doesn't say best player in the world, or elite, or any other superlative, therefore par isn't what McBeth expects. Besides, par that low would be less useful to most Open players.
For my favorite method of taking scoring data and squeezing them through the official definition to have pars come out the other end, see http://www.stevewestdiscgolf.com/An_advanced_method_of_setting_par.pdf
Or, see http://www.stevewestdiscgolf.com/A_Statistical_Analysis_of_Par.pdf for a step-by-step case study.
In golf, yes. We are talking about disc golf now.
It comes from people who understand that there is no green, and we don't expect to always putt twice, and that's not the official definition in the rulebook.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
Not this "people". Using scores to determine pars neuters the use of par where it is most important- as a design concept.
I also agree with the idea of throws to close range plus 2 as an appropriate way of determining par, close range being 120 feet or so for expert play. While I'm at it i believe expert play to lie somewhere below 1000 rated- probably 980 or so. I base this on the belief that "par" should be accessible to an expert player of normal physical ability through errorless play.
There doesn't have to be an actual green to have "putting range". But you're right, the big difference is we don't expect to putt twice. I just don't see that as a reason to upend a term that provides useful information as is. I know if walk up to a tee and it says "par 3" I know I should be near the basket in 1 throw, etc. If you start allocating the SSA over 18 holes what particular information do these new pars provide?
Steve,
First of all, you can't have an orchestra without brass. For one thing, they'd be lost if they ever did a "Tribute to Chicago" – how would they play songs like "Questions 67 and 68" or "(I've Been) Searchin' so Long," both of which seem applicable to the par discussion?
Second, THANK YOU for those documents you prepared. They clearly took a lot of time and thought, and I find them to be extremely enlightening. I don't imagine that thousands of disc golfers will read them, but you have still done the sport a great service.
After reviewing these documents, it does seem to me that you are encouraging us, as a sport, to find a method of setting par for each hole that results in a total par that is, to use your term "most useful." As an example, in your analysis of 2015 Pro Worlds, you say:
"This chart shows the ideal total par would have been 306 or 307. Also, that there is some wiggle room around the ideal par."
On the Memorial, you say:
"The Open division would be better served by pars that total 50 or 51, because there would have been less need to guess how many under par would win or cash. 50 or 51 could have been achieved with 4 or 5 par 2s, and at most one par 4."
If I may paraphrase, you are saying, "We know what we want the total par to be, so let's find the method that best gets the individual hole scores to add up properly." Is that a fair characterization of your proposals?
Here are some simpler questions to help me understand your approach. I want to be clear to all readers that I am not advocating anything here – I'm just trying to understand Steve's position, so we can have an intelligent and respectful conversation. We can't have that if I'm not clear on what he's saying.
• You also seem, as many people do, to have a problem with cashing players consistently shooting -4 or -5 or -6 per round, and top players consistently shooting -8, -9, -10. Is that true?
• If that is true, is it because that's not what happens in ball golf, where par for the weekend might earn you some nice cash? It sounds like you're saying that when you say "The winning par would have been a more credible 23 under instead of 45 under."
• What do you think would happen (or is happening) if par per hole and expert scores per round were not closely aligned? Could it actually be beneficial to have two yardsticks to measure performance? (Again, I'm not advocating, just asking.)
One last question for now: do you believe in having separate pars for Gold, Blue, White, Red, etc. that are appropriate for that skill level? In other words, do you favor a Red par that indicates "errorless play" for people of that skill level?
Thanks, and to everyone who celebrates it, may you have a blessed Easter.
Similar threads
