John Matlack shoots 18 under at A Tier

[heartman]

Just because someone is an extremely good pro doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

I'd say it's not so much that he doesn't know what he's talking about, but rather questioning the ratings system as is.

 

[The Last DJ]

I hit Black Jack (-21) on a single round last year. That score is based on posted par at Winton Woods so it's not very impressive... :\

 

[corin_brown]

Hot round of the weekend as measured by ratings was "1100" (shot a 40) by Wysocki in winning an A-Tier in Orangevale, California.

Just seeing this post now. I posted a new thread about RW's 1100 round today, not having read this thread. Apologies for being redundant.

I'm curious if anyone saw Rick's performance and can report anything about it.

 

[@iDiscGolf]

I hit Black Jack (-21) on a single round last year. That score is based on posted par at Winton Woods so it's not very impressive... :\

Haha. Wtf. 90ft holes and par 5 275'ers. Who is responsible for those pars? Steady

Is there any legitimate reason that shouldn't be a par 54?

 

[Stardoggy]

Haha. Wtf. 90ft holes and par 5 275'ers. Who is responsible for those pars? Steady

Is there any legitimate reason that shouldn't be a par 54?

None. Winton Woods is the epitome of pitch n putt. Still fun for glow, though, so long as you remember there's a bridge.

 

[sisyphus]

Said earlier: since we lost so may trees to the Emerald Ash Borer there at Winton last year, they might just have to rename it Winton Prairie. There are possibly 14-16 legitimate par 2 holes now. I'd say if a 970 to 1000 rated player can't shoot somewhere between a 38 and a 42 there, they're having an off day.

The week after they reopened it after the cutting was done, our league finished up there (we play from longer courses like Idlewild down to shorter courses due to daylight hours diminishing in the fall). Out of 16 guys, there were two 39's & two 40's shot that evening...and we're not much better than 860 to 940 rated players.

 

[Steve West]

Said earlier: since we lost so may trees to the Emerald Ash Borer there at Winton last year, they might just have to rename it Winton Prairie. There are possibly 14-16 legitimate par 2 holes now. I'd say if a 970 to 1000 rated player can't shoot somewhere between a 38 and a 42 there, they're having an off day.

The week after they reopened it after the cutting was done, our league finished up there (we play from longer courses like Idlewild down to shorter courses due to daylight hours diminishing in the fall). Out of 16 guys, there were two 39's & two 40's shot that evening...and we're not much better than 860 to 940 rated players.

Change that tee color from Red to Yellow (not Gold) and the pars become accurate.

 

[BrotherDave]

Yeah but was he wearing headphones? If he was I want an asterisk beside the record. :|

 

[IDGC_SUPER]

As noted, the pars on Steady Ed holes are set for Blue level. Usually Gold level par will be 5-7 throws lower. That round was probably -11-12 if pars were set for Gold level, but still a great round. There are a few "hidden" par 2s at Fountain so McBeth's record score was perhaps more like -14. That's why ratings are a better indicator of a great round than actual score relative to par since they are always in reference to a gold scratch round.

I also want to add to that argument that Matlack is a blue level player, and was only playing with 1-2 true gold level players in this round. He is rated 977 http://www.pdga.com/player/32660

It just seems impossible to get a rated round above 1070 at the IDGC.

 

[IDGC_SUPER]

There is no such thing as a par 2 in golf.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I also want to add that there is no such thing as a par 2 in golf.

Their loss since it's one secret weapon that's made disc golf more fun for many.

 

[Steve West]

There is no such thing as a par 2 in golf.

Or in baseball. What's your point?

 

[Pbmercil]

It just seems impossible to get a rated round above 1070 at the IDGC.

Isn't a rating above 1070 SUPPOSED to be extremely difficult and improbable?

 

[Yetistomp]

Or in baseball. What's your point?

Wait a second, you guys can't go comparing disc golf to golf all of the time and then dismiss it when something doesn't jive with that line of thinking.

I thought we already crossed that bridge where on a real 18 hole course above 4,500 feet Par 2 isn't a real thing "secret" or not. Are there poorly designed holes that don't provide much challenge for top players, you bet, but let's not regress into saying if you can't traverse a hole in two, your playing bogey golf.

The ratings system has issues of being geographically flawed in the areas, events where there aren't a large number of already higher rated players.

I recently experienced the same rating wonderment amongst all who played the recent event on a golf course. Designed by renown designer, John Houck, this course measured at 8,800 feet and was assigned a Par 64. I shot a -15 the first round and a -13 the second and received ratings of 1038 and 1005?!

Several us thought there may have been 2-3 holes where the Par was set at 4 and 5 instead of a couple of tougher Par 3's and a Par 4. That still didn't mean my first round -15 wasn't even to McBeth's average. :wall:

 

[bwgort]

Isn't a rating above 1070 SUPPOSED to be extremely difficult and improbable?

Yes, but when 1111 is reached by shooting -18 on a pitch and putt course, it shows that the rating system is biased against certain courses. http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2468


For example, On WR Jackson given the current ratings for the last event at the IDGC, one would need to shoot a 48 (-21) to attain the same rating as a -18 on the course listed above. AND that's why Mccoy was saying there should be a different calculation for woods courses vs. open courses because woods courses never get as high of ratings as open courses.

 

[Pbmercil]

Yes, but when 1111 is reached by shooting -18 on a pitch and putt course, it shows that the rating system is biased against certain courses. http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2468


For example, On WR Jackson given the current ratings for the last event at the IDGC, one would need to shoot a 48 (-21) to attain the same rating as a -18 on the course listed above. AND that's why Mccoy was saying there should be a different calculation for woods courses vs. open courses because woods courses never get as high of ratings as open courses.

Hm. I wish chuck could shed some light on the issue. Oh wait, he already did:

The higher the SSA goes above 52 or so, the lower the potential highest rating ever. That's because 18 below SSA (potential but not theoretical perfect round) continues to increase as a percentage of SSA as it increases. This isn't an issue for "normal" ratings, just those at the fringe of possibilities. I haven't figured out an objective way to compare the perceived quality of say a 15 under on a 66 SSA course with one on a 54 SSA course even though most observing those rounds would likely say the 15 under on the 66 SSA course was more impressive even if not as highly rated.

 

[bwgort]

Hm. I wish chuck could shed some light on the issue. Oh wait, he already did:

Yes Chuck and I both agree that the rating system has a flaw with regard to wooded and longer courses. So when you say, "Isn't a rating above 1070 SUPPOSED to be extremely difficult and improbable," the answer is "it depends on arbitrary characteristics of the course." The problem is it doesn't depend on the difficulty of the course. SSA has an inverse relationship to high ratings as chuck outlines. So someone that shoots -18 on a pitch and putt that is less than 4500 total feet will get a higher rating than someone who shoots -18 on a course that is 10000 total feet. Why do you think that's an acceptable flaw? #matlackfor1100

 

[Pbmercil]

. Why do you think that's an acceptable flaw?

Because I don't have access to the proprietary information on ratings calculations, nor the statistical background to have the first clue as to how to make any tweaks to the formulas.

 

[Pbmercil]

Also, because of this other thing Chuck said

This isn't an issue for "normal" ratings, just those at the fringe of possibilities

Its reasonable to expect outliers to screw things up. And I'm not sure its a great idea to change the whole formula just because outliers aren't measured well.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Two of the three 1100+ rated rounds on courses in the 60-66 SSA range were thrown on Maple Hill which is considered pretty wooded. The first 1100+ round was on the Darkside at what's now The Grange, almost 100% in the woods. Bradford and Buckhorn in the NC woods also have 1100+ rated rounds. The ratings formula is blind to the course and simply uses the players' scores and ratings. Barry shot a 49 in 2009 for an 1100 on Maple Hill when it had an SSA of 62.8. Anyone else who shoots a 49 on an SSA 62.8 course will get an 1100 rated round today whether it's on a more open course or in the woods.