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.
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)
Just because someone is an extremely good pro doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.
Hot round of the weekend as measured by ratings was "1100" (shot a 40) by Wysocki in winning an A-Tier in Orangevale, California.
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?
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.
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.
Their loss since it's one secret weapon that's made disc golf more fun for many.I also want to add that there is no such thing as a par 2 in golf.
There is no such thing as a par 2 in golf.
It just seems impossible to get a rated round above 1070 at the IDGC.
Or in baseball. What's your point?
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.
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.
Hm. I wish chuck could shed some light on the issue. Oh wait, he already did:
. Why do you think that's an acceptable flaw?
This isn't an issue for "normal" ratings, just those at the fringe of possibilities