Paige Pierce To Discraft 2020

[Cgkdisc]

But she's always in contention. The way I understand ratings, you could be the #1 in the world and never win an event. Just finish top 3 every time. Don't go 1st, 2nd, 47th, 88th, 108th, 1st 1st. Consistent good finished will get you there.

Please, someone, correct me if I'm mistaken.

It would be hard to have the highest rating in the World and never have won an event let alone elite event. Everyone who individually took turns beating you would have to have played above your rating that event and then not done as well in other events. You would need to be so consistent that you never played above the winners' event ratings and never played more than a few points below your rating to maintain that player rating. Mathematically possible but highly improbable for all those things to happen.

 

[jakebake91]

It would be hard to have the highest rating in the World and never have won an event let alone elite event. Everyone who individually took turns beating you would have to have played above your rating that event and then not done as well in other events. You would need to be so consistent that you never played above the winners' event ratings and never played more than a few points below your rating to maintain that player rating. Mathematically possible but highly improbable for all those things to happen.

Thanks for clarifying that! I never fully know how these rating things work. Does that, to an extent, explain Hokoms ratings?

Disclaimer.....I've done no research into anything.....

 

[Cgkdisc]

Thanks for clarifying that! I never fully know how these rating things work. Does that, to an extent, explain Hokoms ratings?

Disclaimer.....I've done no research into anything.....

All rated rounds regardless of tier and course are weighted the same. So it's possible for players to have better or worse ratings than others of a similar skill level based on the courses they choose to play (or avoid).

 

[VictorB]

Impressive but she can't play like she did this weekend if she ever going to reach 1000

Odd to see hokom so high.....

Hokom's floor is much higher than most of the field. She may not shoot 1000 rated rounds a lot, but she also doesn't just blow up - which happens to everyone else in the field far too often.

 

[araytx]

It just feels like she does not beat Cat, Tattar, Henna or Evelina that often...but Hokom is higher rated than all of them


And yes Paige needs to be aggressive to get to a 1000.. ...she sometimes play harder than she needs just to win....she plays to be the greatest

For now most of her game is at 1000 level...the one week side in her game is that she spreads her hard drives to much....and that hurt her on wooded courses

Yes I'm sure she is self reflecting now, but she just can't make 903 rounds as a 988 rated player.
She spreads her drives to much...but at the preserve that did not matter much..but in the woods you will pay for bad tee shots

Yes hokom is good, but now she's higher rated than eveliina and henna and I don't think she's ever beaten them but I might be wrong...it's just hard for me to se her as the 2nd best FPO player at the moment

You're also forgetting that your ratings is conglomerate formula based upon a full year's worth of events. You can "say" she never beats those people, but within the last year Sarah's finished first at the Swine in Thailand (beat Paige by 8), Nantucket (beat Cat by 6), GMC (beat Kristin by 5, Rebecca by 6, Paige by 10, and Cat by 20), and the Hall of Fame (beat Paige by 4, Cat by 9).

Pudding.

And as far as who you "See" as better. Well she;s rated 4 points above Henna and Eveliina, who are probably 8-10 years younger. Four-tenths of a stroke per round would allow you to use your on eye test to say who's better. But it is still awfully close regardless.

Sometimes these types of comments stem from the fact that a lot of guys don't want to see these women as just as good, if not better than, the high MA1 player.

 

[Jolt]

Hard time for Eveliina, Henna and Kristin to get good rating. .

Looks like Paige and Sarah had quite big jumps in rating. . has playing so few events made it easier to make a big jump up in rating?

 

[perklc]

You're also forgetting that your ratings is conglomerate formula based upon a full year's worth of events. You can "say" she never beats those people, but within the last year Sarah's finished first at the Swine in Thailand (beat Paige by 8), Nantucket (beat Cat by 6), GMC (beat Kristin by 5, Rebecca by 6, Paige by 10, and Cat by 20), and the Hall of Fame (beat Paige by 4, Cat by 9).

Pudding.

And as far as who you "See" as better. Well she;s rated 4 points above Henna and Eveliina, who are probably 8-10 years younger. Four-tenths of a stroke per round would allow you to use your on eye test to say who's better. But it is still awfully close regardless.

Sometimes these types of comments stem from the fact that a lot of guys don't want to see these women as just as good, if not better than, the high MA1 player.

I think this also explains Sarah's jump. With most of the first half of the season cancelled, the early tournaments that are more open and not Sarah's strength are not on her ratings which leaves the few tournaments from this year and the back off of last year's tournaments which do play to her strength.

 

[VictorB]

Hard time for Eveliina, Henna and Kristin to get good rating. .

Looks like Paige and Sarah had quite big jumps in rating. . has playing so few events made it easier to make a big jump up in rating?

More of the DGPT events have had FPO modified layouts. It helps when the women can set their own pace on a track and not have to throw the same holes as the men (and get ratings based off of that)

 

[araytx]

Hard time for Eveliina, Henna and Kristin to get good rating. .

Looks like Paige and Sarah had quite big jumps in rating. . has playing so few events made it easier to make a big jump up in rating?

They're starting back up in Europe as well. I saw Eveliina posting about one of her wins.

Turku

 

[scooby snack]

Nice to see Paige getting closer to that hallmark 1000 rating.

 

[disco40]

More of the DGPT events have had FPO modified layouts. It helps when the women can set their own pace on a track and not have to throw the same holes as the men (and get ratings based off of that)

Hope the trend continues, because it's a travesty to see crap like Vegas where most of the ladies had to throw bombs all day just to get a look at a few circle 2 runs. We're still in the dark ages in this respect.

 

[Jolt]

They're starting back up in Europe as well. I saw Eveliina posting about one of her wins.

Turku

Yes but only 4 players with +900 rating and they played the same layout as MPO. . feels like that will make a high rating harder than the tournaments th US Women play

 

[DiscFifty]

Two traits to get to 1000, Paige or anyone for that matter, needs to develop the mid-range distance of a 1000 rated player for power shot accuracy in the woods (and staying inbounds), and learn to be as successfully aggressive as 1000 rated players, all men so far. There are no female 1000 rated role models she can emulate.

Disagree. As long as her competitors keep improving their ratings, and Paige keeps on beating them, her rating will get to 1000+. If her competitors ratings stagnate, that would make it much harder for PP to get to 1000 rated. It benefits PP immensely on her quest to 1000 for players like Hokum to be 975+ rated. She needs several FPO players to bubble up around 950-980.

 

[Plankeye]

You're also forgetting that your ratings is conglomerate formula based upon a full year's worth of events. You can "say" she never beats those people, but within the last year Sarah's finished first at the Swine in Thailand (beat Paige by 8), Nantucket (beat Cat by 6), GMC (beat Kristin by 5, Rebecca by 6, Paige by 10, and Cat by 20), and the Hall of Fame (beat Paige by 4, Cat by 9).

Pudding.

And as far as who you "See" as better. Well she;s rated 4 points above Henna and Eveliina, who are probably 8-10 years younger. Four-tenths of a stroke per round would allow you to use your on eye test to say who's better. But it is still awfully close regardless.

Sometimes these types of comments stem from the fact that a lot of guys don't want to see these women as just as good, if not better than, the high MA1 player.

One more point to add...

Generally one throw is about 10 rating points on average. So each of these ladies are less than 1 or 2 throws per round away from each other.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Disagree. As long as her competitors keep improving their ratings, and Paige keeps on beating them, her rating will get to 1000+. If her competitors ratings stagnate, that would make it much harder for PP to get to 1000 rated. It benefits PP immensely on her quest to 1000 for players like Hokum to be 975+ rated. She needs several FPO players to bubble up around 950-980.

That's not how ratings work. If she doesn't average 1000 rated scores, she won't get there regardless of the ratings of the propagators, whether women or men, or both in events where they play the same layouts.

 

[Jugular]

The score for a round is rated based on what other players achieve on the same rounds. If all her competitors are rated higher and she still beats them by a dozen strokes in a round her round is rated higher so it's directly dependent on her competitors ratings. Usually comparing against any one single competitor is irrelevant but in the Women's field the division is often so small that the average is more easily impacted by how individual opponents score on a given round compared to their current rating.
Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding how the ratings are calculated but as far as I know it works on the same principles as ELO ratings for Chess and other games played for competition.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The score for a round is rated based on what other players achieve on the same rounds. If all her competitors are rated higher and she still beats them by a dozen strokes in a round her round is rated higher so it's directly dependent on her competitors ratings. Usually comparing against any one single competitor is irrelevant but in the Women's field the division is often so small that the average is more easily impacted by how individual opponents score on a given round compared to their current rating.
Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding how the ratings are calculated but as far as I know it works on the same principles as ELO ratings for Chess and other games played for competition.

ELO rates players based on their results directly against each other. DG ratings are based on how well players play the course which is rated that round based on how well propagators, men or women, play the course. It does not matter what the mix of ratings of propagators or their average. The math accounts for that to determine the SSA or 1000 rated score. It makes sense that beating higher rated players would boost your rating. But you don't need to beat higher rated players to improve your rating. You need to shoot better scores.

 

[DiscFifty]

That's not how ratings work. If she doesn't average 1000 rated scores, she won't get there regardless of the ratings of the propagators, whether women or men, or both in events where they play the same layouts.

But my point is..she will average 1000 rated rounds assuming she continues to win and her opponent's ratings continue to rise. If they stagnate, she will have to beat them by a substantial margin to get the 1000 rated round.

 

[Cgkdisc]

But my point is..she will average 1000 rated rounds assuming she continues to win and her opponent's ratings continue to rise. If they stagnate, she will have to beat them by a substantial margin to get the 1000 rated round.

No. Her opponents have little to do with her ratings. Just her scores. Opponents might influence your scores if you ease off when you're crushing them or when you have a few shot lead on the last hole and lay up a 15 foot putt adding an unnecessary stroke to your score to secure the win. Both of those scenarios could hurt your rating.

 

[Jugular]

ELO rates players based on their results directly against each other. DG ratings are based on how well players play the course which is rated that round based on how well propagators, men or women, play the course. It does not matter what the mix of ratings of propagators or their average. The math accounts for that to determine the SSA or 1000 rated score. It makes sense that beating higher rated players would boost your rating. But you don't need to beat higher rated players to improve your rating. You need to shoot better scores.

I think you need to brush up on your maths on this one. What sort of maths do you believe calculates what the SSA or 1000 rated score is? Do you think it's calculated from thin air? It's calculated based on the scores achieved by players of certain ranks. The only way this could be done with any sort of rigor is by a weighted average or similar metric (as in one that reacts in a similar way). If the men and women play from different tees the ratings should (it may not be if it's done poorly or because of weak statistical efficacy due to small numbers of competitors) be calculated based only on the competitors that played the same course.

From Paige's point of view she wants her competitors to have increased rankings and to continue to beat them as she does currently. The rating system is not internally consistent since some players play some tournaments but not others and no player plays at a perfectly consistent level. If it turns out that her opponents play better when she's not there and then poorer when she is there then that will boost her rating.