Ledgestone Analysis: Why do people not play proper divisions based player rating?

[BlazedOrangeHat]

let's take a look at last year's ledgestone insurance open. here are some quick facts:

- 217 total players in open
- 134 players rated 970 or higher
- 083 players rated 969 or lower

- 110 players cashed
- 010 players rated 969 or lower cashed
- 100 players rated 970 or higher cashed

- 74% of players rated 970 or higher cashed
- 12% of players rated 969 or lower cashed

here are the ten players at 969 or lower that cashed:

969 - $380
968 - $085
964 - $280
963 - $341
963 - $304
962 - $320
962 - $280
956 - $304
953 - $085
951 - $301


mean rating of players rated 969 or lower that cashed: 961.1
median rating of players rated 969 or lower that cashed: 962.5
mode rating of players rated 969 or lower that cashed is a tie between 963 and 962.

it should also be of note that the last person to cash played an average of 977 rated golf through four rounds.

 

[DiscLoser1]

I'm confused...what does it matter if someone plays in a division higher than their rating? The PDGA guidelines, are guidelines, not requirements, and are only in place to prevent sandbagging, not trying to get better. The only people it might affect is a 1020 rated player with a 940 rated player on their card.

Ratings and divisions are very region specific, based on the quantity and quality of players. In my area, anyone over 850 is pretty much shamed into Intermediate, and anyone over 900 is pretty much 'bagging' if their not in Advanced. If a 920 player plays and wins in Advanced in my region, and then goes to Bowling Green or Ledgestone or anywhere, they're going to find the 920 rated player from Charlotte is probably going to be significantly better. The rating is only as good as the propagators.

All that being said, I would hope most people who play above their rating are aware they are doing so, and are only striving to be a better player.

 

[BlazedOrangeHat]

it should also be of note that the last person to cash played an average of 977 rated golf through four rounds.

statistically, in order to cash if you were rated 969 or lower in last year's ledgestone open you would have needed to have averaged about 15 points higher than your rating through four rounds and have a minimum player rating of 962.

(sorry for all the posts... wish i could go back and edit it in, but i can't edit after 5 minutes.)

 

[puck'n'disc5]

I'm a 922 rated player who signed up for MA1. I probably would have a good shot at a top 15-20 finish in MA2, but, I'd rather challenge myself against a tougher field.

Also, I haven't exactly played a ton of PDGA rounds so my rating fluctuates quite a bit. I was wondering what would happen if I would have signed up in MA2 with a 922 rating but, have some good PDGA tournament rounds and all of sudden, my rating jumps up to say a 940 come tournament time. Then what would happen? I do plan on playing in more PDGA events this year than my previous years, so that is certainly a possibility.

 

[Cgkdisc]

They'll be doing division adjustments based on rating changes when it gets closer to the event (or should be ).

 

[puck'n'disc5]

Ahh I see! Thanks for the quick response.. I cannot wait for Augest to get here. I've never played in Peoria before, so I'm probably going to make a trip up that way sometime before August and check out the courses. Peoria's only about 2 and a half hour long drive from StL.

 

[Vonbeezy1]

statistically, in order to cash if you were rated 969 or lower in last year's ledgestone open you would have needed to have averaged about 15 points higher than your rating through four rounds and have a minimum player rating of 962.

(sorry for all the posts... wish i could go back and edit it in, but i can't edit after 5 minutes.)

I'm not even sure why you would make this thread? What exactly about it irritates you? How does it effect you at all?

 

[Horsman]

I'm not even sure why you would make this thread? What exactly about it irritates you? How does it effect you at all?

was he not able to get into a division he wanted to because of it?

 

[puttlikeablowfly]

For this tournament, and others, people play up because of the course selection.

I would consider playing up in this tournament, but the course selection isn't all that much different in the four divisions that would make any sense for me (MM1, MA2, MA3, MA4). MM1 and MA3/4 actually play the same three courses, and MA2 gets Wildlife Prairie instead of Sunset Hills. If Meggido (Westwood) was in one of those three pools, that would be a stronger draw for me, but it's not enough for me to want to play MA1 or MPM.

In general, I'd be willing to play up if there was at least a decent amount of players in that division that I could potentially compete with, or at least not get obliterated by. I play more for the experience and courses, but playing in a division where everyone was rated 100 points or more higher than me would not be all that much fun.

 

[puttlikeablowfly]

In bigger events, sometimes the courses may differ for divisions (Bowling Green),

When I was considering signing up for BG Ams, I would have almost certainly played up to MA2 or MM1 due to the courses. The collection of MA3 courses did not look like my cup of tea at all, and I would have much rather played above my rating to get to play courses that I would seem to enjoy more.

 

[birdman101]

Course selection is a big thing, especially for those traveling. What if you were traveling with 3 people who were all in one division or pool and you were the odd man out wouldnt it make sense to move into their division if possible in order to simplify the travel arrangements?

 

[scarpfish]

i wonder why more people don't sign up for the division that they are suggested to play based on their rating? is it simple ignorance to the suggested player rating for each division? is it an inflated ego thinking they are better than they are? was it a mistake when signing up and accidentally clicking the wrong division? maybe something else?

This isn't the most analytical answer, but its the one I'll go with. Because they can.

And I don't think the people who are in their ratings appropriate division will mind their company.

 

[DavidSauls]

Course selection is a big thing, especially for those traveling. What if you were traveling with 3 people who were all in one division or pool and you were the odd man out wouldnt it make sense to move into their division if possible in order to simplify the travel arrangements?

I've been in this position before. Sometimes not traveling, but just wanting to get in the same division with others.

And done the course-selection thing, where I chose a division to play the courses I most wanted to.

And even considered playing Pro at Throw Down the Mountain, just to get an extra day of play in.

*

The answer, for our O.P. is that there is no one answer.

 

[BlazedOrangeHat]

I'm not even sure why you would make this thread? What exactly about it irritates you? How does it effect you at all?

it doesn't effect me in anyway; i live 2,000 miles away and have zero intentions of playing. this breakdown has zero emotional backbone... it's a neutral analysis of player ratings and PDGA guidelines based off curiosity of how those two components interacted with each other so far in the ledgestone tournament registration.

i'm not irritated, not sure why you think i am. i simply had been looking at the player classification page and then ended up at the ledgestone tournament page about 10 seconds later it i was shocked at how many players were registered for divisions that didn't fit their level of play based on the guidelines of the PDGA. then i decided to look at the numbers, come up with the results, and ask the community why people end up in divisions other than the ones that fit their rating.

so far, responses have indicated:
- they want to play different courses
- they want to carpool
- think they will have a different rating by the time the tournament comes
- etc.

 

[ejvogie]

statistically, in order to cash if you were rated 969 or lower in last year's ledgestone open you would have needed to have averaged about 15 points higher than your rating through four rounds and have a minimum player rating of 962.

(sorry for all the posts... wish i could go back and edit it in, but i can't edit after 5 minutes.)

That's only 1 1/2 throws better than your average, per round. It's not like they played out of their mind or anything...

 

[Rondpitt]

Great job OP. Love the analysis.
As already mentioned this happens in several areas of the country. It does here in the Nashville area.

I call it the "watering down" of the divisions. Except for the occasional player who is improving faster that their rating -- it makes no sense to me for an amateur to "play up".

Here is my version of WHY. The notion that one could surround themselves with better players and thereby "get better" is wrong on two fronts. First, if the division is as watered down as the Ledgestone --- then you are NOT playing with better players. You are playing with mostly folks that belong in the division below. Duh. And secondly, after the first round you will be on the card with folk just like you. Ain't that a kick?

It's a shame really. If more ams would play in a division closer to their current skill then the battle for every place in the division would have real meaning. Not just the handful at the top.

Ron

 

[Steve West]

I've done a little bit of looking into the myth that playing with better players makes you play better.

While that may be true in the long run (as you pick up tips and course knowledge), the evidence indicates the opposite for one round. That is, the best players on a card tend to do a little better than their average, and the worst players on the card tend to do a little worse.

 

[JedV]

Great job OP. Love the analysis.
As already mentioned this happens in several areas of the country. It does here in the Nashville area.

I call it the "watering down" of the divisions. Except for the occasional player who is improving faster that their rating -- it makes no sense to me for an amateur to "play up".

Here is my version of WHY. The notion that one could surround themselves with better players and thereby "get better" is wrong on two fronts. First, if the division is as watered down as the Ledgestone --- then you are NOT playing with better players. You are playing with mostly folks that belong in the division below. Duh. And secondly, after the first round you will be on the card with folk just like you. Ain't that a kick?

It's a shame really. If more ams would play in a division closer to their current skill then the battle for every place in the division would have real meaning. Not just the handful at the top.

Ron

Well put. I've experienced the same phenomenon in my area too. It's quite lame. And after a few years of participating in tournaments, I've got to say that this is a contributing factor in me scaling back. Playing up is part of a really lame bro culture. Intermediate is so uncool, so 75% of our fields play up (mostly because in the past, Pro and Advanced played from long tees and everyone else played from the shorts).

Been there done that long enough. It's got to be a pretty special event to get me back out there. Our regular club scene does it better, for cheaper IMO.

 

[SonicGuy]

It's a shame really. If more ams would play in a division closer to their current skill then the battle for every place in the division would have real meaning. Not just the handful at the top.

Ron

Sorry, but the "battle" for any place in an AM division is meaningless. If you win in AM you really won 73rd place in the tournament.

 

[teemkey]

Sorry, but the "battle" for any place in an AM division is meaningless. If you win in AM you really won 73rd place in the tournament.

Not to the players in that division.